From pdh@u.washington.edu Wed Dec 16 00:23:55 1998 Received: from jason03.u.washington.edu (root@jason03.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.10]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id AAA29666 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:23:54 -0800 Received: from saul10.u.washington.edu (pdh@saul10.u.washington.edu [140.142.13.73]) by jason03.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id AAA40644 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:23:54 -0800 Received: from localhost (pdh@localhost) by saul10.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP id AAA19686 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:23:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:23:53 -0800 (PST) From: Department of Zoology To: indknow@u.washington.edu Subject: Results of GBF11 (Buenos Aires, 6-8 Nov 1998) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:11:52 -0500 From: Stas Burgiel To: BIODIV-CONV List-Server Subject: Results of GBF11 (Buenos Aires, 6-8 Nov 1998) GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM - 11 STATEMENT TO UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES 11 NOVEMBER 1998 BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA FERNANDO ARDURA IUCN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR ARGENTINA I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF IUCN-The World Conservation Union as coordinator of the IUCN National Committee of Argentina. It is an honor to have with us in this session the presence of our President, Minister of Environment of Ecuador, Yolanda Kakabadse, and three councillors: Juan Mayr, Minister of Environment of Colombia, Akiko Domoto, Parliamentarian in the Japanese Diet, and our Head of Delegation, Alicia Barcena, Chief Advisor to UNDP. It is my pleasure to address you today to report on the Global Biodiversity Forum. The Global Biodiversity Forum, or GBF, provides an independent and strategic arena for all stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, the private sector, local and indigenous communities to discuss and debate important ecological, economic, and social issues relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Over this last weekend, a number of institutions, including UNEP, the World Resources Institute, African Centre for Technology Studies, Climate Action Network-Latin America, UNITAR, the Biodiversity Action Network, the Indigenous People's Biodiversity Network, and IUCN hosted the eleventh session of the Global Biodiversity Forum. This was the second session devoted to exploring the linkages between the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the first one being held last year in Kyoto at the time of the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol. As is recognised in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on climate Change, Parties are called upon to address the problem of climate change in a manner which ensures that ecosystems and societies are not threatened. Further, Article 4.l(d) of the Convention commits Parties to promoting the sustainable management, conservation, and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases. It is these same sinks and reservoirs, such as forests and oceans that serve as a harbour for much of the world's biodiversity. In this session of the GBF, 150 participants from 40 countries addressed four critical issues of concern to the biodiversity community with respect to the climate change agenda: National Strategies, Sustainable Use, Finance, and Forests. The participants took note of the growing number of multilateral environmental agreements - the UNFCCC, the convention on biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar convention, and the World Heritage Convention to name just a few. It was observed that this proliferation of agreements has lead to a more and more fragmented international environmental regime. The planning and implementing capacity of many countries has become stressed. It was recommended that the international environmental regime be viewed I more holistic manner, and that on the national level countries should endeavour to do more to coordinate and build synergy in their efforts to implement these agreements, including exploring measures, such as watershed conservation which simultaneously mitigate climate change and prevent the loss of biodiversity. It was also stressed that the increasing number of agreements has created the risk that efforts to implement one agreement may contradict the objectives of another, such as replacing native forested ecosystems with plantations in order to sequester carbon. The workshop on Sustainable Use presented evidence that recent extreme events, such as the floods in Bangladesh and ch8ina and coral bleaching in the Indian ocean and Caribbean, have led to a lost of biodiversity, and may be a signal of climate change. It was pointed out that resource-poor communities and communities heavily dependent on natural resources face tough choices in adapting to a climate changed world. We need to enhance the role of local communities, especially in promoting the active participation of groups such as indigenous communities and women. The full participation of all stakeholders in the design of strategies and actions is the key to successfully adapting to climate change. The role of finance and economic incentives in promoting the co-ordination of climate change and biodiversity issues was also discussed. It was recognised that the Global Environment Facility has an important and clearly defined role to play in financing the implementation of the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity. It was also noted that the GEF may be in a unique position to further the debate on how to implement the two conventions in a mutually supportive manner. The private sector has indicated a willingness to participate in the implementation of the goals of the UNFCCC and the CBD, but clear rules of the game are needed to provide sufficient encouragement for broad private sector involvement. In the discussion on forests, the participants recognised that the destruction and conversion of forests and other natural ecosystems world-wide is a significant contributor to the loss of biodiversity and also a part of the problem of climate change. Forest-based measures intended to mitigate climate change could provide significant biodiversity and socio-economic benefits. However, this outcome is not assured. Done incorrectly, the forest-based measures to address climate change through the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, could result in negative impacts on forests and other natural ecosystems, communities and the climate system. It is essential that the implementation of the mechanisms of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol produce benefits to biodiversity conservation. Finally, the participants to the 11th session of the GBF stressed the need for further efforts to raise the profile of biodiversity concerns within the climate change agenda. In particular, participants recommended that protecting the ecological integrity of nature and sustaining the societies which are supported by it is vital to addressing the climate change issue. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, is one of the world's oldest international conservation organisations. It was established in 1948, and last week we celebrated our 50th anniversary in our birthplace, Fontainebleau, France. As a conservation organisation, IUCN is unique in that it is a union of other organisations. It brings together 74 governments, including many in this room, 105 government agencies and more than 700 non-governmental organisations, drawn from 138 countries. Altogether the members of IUCN make up a global network of 900 institutions and some 8,000 scientists and experts in six commissions from 139 countries. Our mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature, and ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. Our work has indicated that addressing the problem of climate change is directly related to this mission. Progress since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit has been good but slow. The global climate is still very much threatened and we continue to see a net loss in quality of life and environmental degradation in many parts of the world. Pollution and unsustainable management practices already threaten the life support systems upon which humanity depends. Climate change is an important additional stress. In the face of climate change, the loss of species and ecosystems will likely accelerate. Many species will be made more vulnerable to extinction, and important ecosystems, such as wetlands and coral reefs, could be eliminated in some places. Communities that are currently struggling to improve their livelihoods will be made even more vulnerable by climate change. Measures to protect the species, ecosystems and the goods and services they provide to society may be rendered ineffective by climate change. Future generations will judge us on our timidity in the global struggles to combat climate change, to avoid biodiversity loss, and to halt desertification. Without a much stronger commitment to solving these global problems, we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren an irretrievably impoverished world. Such a fate can be avoided, but it requires a strong international commitment and concerned action. Madam President, Honourable delegates, we look forward to working with Conference of the parties in the coming years and appreciate the opportunity to make this statement. Thank you. <<>> Sustainable Use and Climate Change Global Biodiversity Forum-11, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6-8 November 1998 The workshop on sustainable use and climate change was presented with clear examples of current impacts of climatic change on specific ecosystems, regions and communities. Evidence was shown that recent extreme events, such as the floods in Bangladesh, have lead to a loss of biodiversity, and may be a signal of climate change. Next, examples of adaptation initiatives and projects with both climate and biodiversity objectives were presented. Current difficulties There still are gaps in the data available, in particular in developing countries. In other cases through, knowledge and awareness is insufficiently translated into policies and action. Certain actions need to be taken now and resources need to be allocated for those. There is a real risk of international conflicts over natural resources, such as water, environmental refugees, and food insecurity. Resource-poor communities and communities heavily dependent on natural resources face tough choices in adapting to a climate changed world. Compensation for countries heavily impacted by climatic change was called for by several participants. Also, there is a need for the further development of alternative energy sources. What do we need? 1. Research needs to be firmly embedded in a policy development process. Successful examples were presented of integrated research as part of the awareness raising process in community-driven adaptation projects. 2. The role of financial and legal instruments in facilitating adaptation needs to be further explored. The compartmentalization of government policy and legal frameworks was seen to inhibit effective action. The integration of issues by the development of a common framework with a clear objective is considered imperative. 3. We need to enhance the role of local communities, especially promoting active participation by groups such as indigenous communities and women. In general, full participation of all stakeholders in both design and execution of projects is key to their success. Strategies devised to cope with climatic change need to be carefully crafted to fit local conditions. Successful strategies, while available to some, may not work for others. The equitable sharing of benefits with local communities is essential. 4. Still, more dialogues and workshops with the aim to educate the public, provide training, and disseminate information are required. 5. Despite the complexity and risks involved, the group shared the opinion that putting economic value on biodiversity goods and services was necessary in order for that value to be recognized by policy makers. 6. Governments can recognize multiple values in their national communications and reports to the Climate and biodiversity conventions and by cross-referencing biodiversity and climate initiatives in national Action Plans. Possible solutions A call for a change in attitude and the creative development of plans was made. In particular, legal instruments are needed that coordinate policies designed to build an environmentally and socially sustainable future. Projects with multiple objectives as in the case of climate mitigation/biodiversity conversation projects face challenges beyond those of single sector projects. However, such projects present us with win-win situations that need to be embraced. Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Finance Global Biodiversity Forum 11, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6-8 November 1998 Summary Recommendations: The meeting was attended by 22 experts, representing multilateral organisations, NGOs, private sector utilities, financial services, academic and research institutions. Discussions covered three general areas: * Energy Sector and Conservation Linkages * The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Issues and Problems * Potential Private Sector Impact on Biodiversity and Climate Change Initiatives 1. Energy and Conservation Linkages: Discussion centered on refining the linkage between climate change and biodiversity in regards to institutional, financial, economic and legal issues. It was agreed that the most critical linkages to ensure coordination and synergy between the biodiversity and climate change agendas were the provision of appropriate legal frameworks, institutional capacity, and economic incentives. Moreover, the adequacy of the Kyoto Protocol's current emission reduction targets was debated. Specifically, doubts were raised about the ability of the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms to generate sufficient funds to ensure government compliance and technology transfer. Two alternative modalities were presented to meet these concerns: * An international currency transactions tax of .25% might be levied in order to generate capital of approximately $100-200 billion per year, which could be accessed by developing country economies. The funds generated would be used for projects measured against an energy efficiency standard, renewable energy projects, and stimulation of markets. It was suggested that initial research indicated an openness on the part of some members of the financial markets sector to such a move. Mechanisms for disbursement were left open for further discussion. * A second suggestion was that consideration be given to equitable participation by developing countries by the allocation of entitlements within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. These entitlements would be available to all countries according to current per-capita carbon utilization, with the clear objective of convergence and the switch from carbon based to environmentally friendly non-carbon based energy sectors. The potential for existing institutional structures to facilitate linkages between climate change and biodiversity in policy development and financing was presented. It was recognized that the Global Environment Facility (GEF), as the interim financial mechanism for both the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), had a comparative advantage in furthering the policy debate on this topic by helping to identify: (1) effective governance mechanisms; (2) benefits from current projects: and (3) lessons for future financing. 2. CDM Issues: Several presentations addressed the CDM, the instrument for developed and developing country cooperation under the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol. Many talks illustrated the weakness of the CDM with respect to equity, technology transfers and biodiversity conservation, with particular relevance to developing countries. The potential for certain developing countries to be marginalised in the CDM, and hence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, was pointed out. In general, it was felt that the CDM could be used by developed countries as a way of avoiding the responsibility of cutting emissions at home. It was suggested that the two modalities presented above may represent ways of dealing with this problem. 3. Implications for the Private Sector: First, the private sector's role in implementing the Kyoto Protocol was recognized. Presentations by the private sector demonstrated their willingness to participate in flexible mechanisms if given the opportunity for early action. However, it was suggested that the current incentive system was inadequate to provide sufficient encouragement for broad private sector participation, and that those that do take early action could be penalized for doing so. Second, it was accepted that risk mitigation measures (e.g. insurance) might provide a way of increasing financial flows, generate equity and provide a mechanism for linking inter-sector policy implementation and compliance. The use of risk management tools could help implement the objectives of the CBD and UNFCCC, and national sustainable development plans. Critical areas that risk management strategies could address included political and institutional risk, project performance risk and trading risk. Forests in the Climate Change Agenda Global Biodiversity Forum-11, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6-8 November 1998 The participants in this workshop agreed that forest-based measures intended to mitigate climate change could provide significant biodiversity and socioeconomic co-benefits. However, this outcome is not assured. Done incorrectly, forest-based measures under the Kyoto Protocol could result in negative impacts on forest ecosystems, communities and the climate system. Participants discussed both general and specific approaches to address negative impacts and discussed the potential of forest measures in both industrialized and developing countries to link climate and biodiversity solutions. The following points do not reflect a consensus of participants. Rather, they are intended to capture the diverse perspectives of the presenters and discussants. General * Forests are an important part of the problem and potentially an important part of the solution to both biodiversity loss and climate change. * Forest-based measures to mitigate climate change should complement fossil-fuel based measures to reduce emissions. * There is a need to improve greenhouse gas inventory methods to measure changes in all forest carbon stocks and land use change dynamics. * Forest-based measures to reduce emissions can promote increases in technical capacity to monitor and understand forest ecosystems. * The IPCC special report on land-use change and forestry should assess the biodiversity consequences of forest-based options for mitigating climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. Forests, Biodiversity and the Kyoto Protocol * Decisions taken by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties regarding the role of land use change and forestry should take both climate and biodiversity issues into account. * Decisions regarding land use change and forestry and their implementation should explicitly incorporate traditional knowledge, perspectives, and rights of indigenous peoples who live in forest regions. * Parties to the Convention should develop clear guidelines to avoid adverse impacts of forest-based measures on biodiversity and the climate system. * In particular, there is a need to avoid measures that replace natural forests with plantations, even if doing so produces a net reduction in GHG emissions. Clean Development Mechanism * The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has the potential to facilitate forest-based projects that contribute to climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. * The CDM also has the potential to create incentives for land-use change that undermine achievement of these objectives, including the replacement of natural forests with plantations. * Some current forest carbon offset projects can serve as important models ito improve methods and build capacity to contribute to biodiversity and climate change solutions. * Plantations as carbon offset projects should be designed to, at minimum, avoid negative impacts to biodiversity and support sustainable development. * If a market for forest-based CDM projects develops, specific policies and incentives may be necessary to motivate projects that provide biodiversity and socio-economic co-benefits. Coordinating National Strategies and Action Plans under the UNFCCC, CBD, and UNCCD Global Biodiversity Forum 11, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6-8 November 1998 The participants of this workshop took note of growing number of multilateral environmental agreements, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention, and the World Heritage Convention - to name just a few. It was observed that this proliferation of agreements has lead to a more and more fragmented international environmental regime. As a result of this fragmentation, the planning and implementing capacity of many countries has become stressed. Additional resources are needed to assist countries in meeting their formal commitments under these conventions. Additional resources are also needed to build and reinforce existing capacity at the national level to reconcile these global environmental goals with national development priorities. It is necessary to view the international environmental regime in a holistic manner. Otherwise, there is a risk that efforts to implement one agreement may contradict the objectives of another. At the national level, countries should endeavor to do more to coordinate and integrate efforts to implement the various National Strategies and Action Plans under the Rio Conventions. Inter alia, it was recommended that the implementation of all three of the Rio Conventions (and all other relevant conventions) would be greatly enhanced if the responsibility for implementation and compliance resides within the same institution of government. It should also be ensured that this institution has strong links of communication to the rest of government and society. The participants of this workshop also recommended that the Conference of the Parties of each of the 3 Rio Conventions endeavor to streamline and coordinate the agreements. As part of this process, a concerted effort should be undertaken to raise the importance of the international environmental regime within the international system and to bring it to an equal footing with other international regimes, such as the World Trade Organization. The workshop participants stressed the need to identify areas of common concern that can be pursued in the action plans under the 3 Rio Conventions. For instance, local actions to counter the adverse effects of climatic, variability and micro-climate instability is one example where climate, desertification, and biodiversity goals can be reached, for example, by promoting restoration and/or conservation of forested watersheds. Further, the workshop participants invited the Conference of the Parties of each of the Rio Conventions, the Convention Secretariats, and other stakeholders to promote guidelines and financial resources to develop and carry out projects and action plans that implement these agreements in a mutually supportive manner. In addition, it should be recognized that all 3 Rio Conventions have individual importance, and it is therefore, equally necessary to maintain mechanisms that address the specific dynamics of each convention. Finally, as a means to promote synergy among the Conventions, effective communication mechanisms should be established between the different groups and stakeholders working with the 3 Rio Conventions at the national and local level. .