REPORT TO ASIA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PACT (AIPP)

Transcription

1 REPORT TO ASIA INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PACT (AIPP) On the Convention on Biological Diversity s Tenth Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-10) 7-11 February Bangkok, Thailand On opening day, SBSTTA-10 paused for a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of the December 26 th 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the tremendous pain and suffering caused in the region. Photo: ENB 1 March 2005 Prepared by Debra Harry 2 (dharry@ipcb.org) 1 All photos by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are available on the web at 2 Debra Harry is Northern Paiute from Pyramid Lake, Nevada (USA). She serves as the Director of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, a U.S.-based non-profit organization created to assist Indigenous peoples in the protection of their genetic resources, Indigenous knowledge, and cultural and human rights from the negative effects of biotechnology. She is very appreciative of the partial financial support from AIPP as well as the excellent support work of Lourdes Amos, both of which made her participation in SBSTTA-10 and ABS-3 possible. Contributions were made to this report by Le`a Kanehe and Lourdes Amos, particularly in relation to the section on the Island Biodiversity Programme of Work and the corresponding recommendations for future work in the Working Groups on Article 8(j) and Protected Areas and the upcoming AHTEG on Marine & Coastal Biodiversity. 1

2 I. General Comments Scope of Report: This report will cover Indigenous participation in the SBSTTA10, and in particular, the Agenda Item 4 on New Thematic Area: Island Biodiversity and Item 6.2(c) regarding the Advice on the Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on the Genetic use Restriction Technologies. Both of these issues were taken up under Working Group 1. It also includes some of the interventions made by other Indigenous participants in the other working groups. Participation by Indigenous Peoples: A small group of Indigenous peoples attended the SBSTTA including Earl Stevenson (Anishinaabe, Canada), Cresencio Resendiz-Hernandez (on behalf of the Canadian Indigenous Biodiversity Network), Joji Carino (Ibaloi, Igorot of Philippines), Le`a Kanehe (Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii), Debra Harry (Northern Paiute in USA), and Lourdes Amos (Kankana-ey, Igorot of Philippines). Unfortunately, there was no consensus reached about whether the Indigenous participants could make interventions on behalf of the IIFB. Although on several occasions, most of the participants did make interventions on behalf of the IIFB or in participation with the IIFB. II. Opening Plenary Statement of the IIFB During the opening plenary of SBSTTA-10, Lourdes Amos of AIPP, read the following statement on behalf of the IIFB. Madame Chair, I am honored to speak and would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, the AHTEG and the Liaison Group in behalf of the IIFB for providing a platform for further discussions. In following the earlier discussions, we would like to request the SBSTTA-10 to advise the Parties to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the implementation of the PoW, specifically by including the ILCs in the Suggested Partners (2nd last column). We suggest that the implementation should also be in consideration of Article 8(j) relevant provisions to the Prior Informed Consent of indigenous and local communities as stated in the Akwè Kon Guidelines. We express our support to the Liaison Group¹s recommendation to add in the priority action: Protection of linguistic diversity of indigenous and local communities related to biodiversity-related traditional knowledge. Adding on to the earlier statement from our distinguished delegate from Spain that island ecosystems are biodiversity-rich and fragile, we would like to reiterate our reminder to Parties that indigenous/traditional knowledge are very much supportive to sustainable use of biodiversity. With 2

3 this we urge the Parties to support sui generis systems of protecting indigenous/traditional systems of technologies and intellectual property. We also note that poverty alleviation is an important aspect of 2010 provisional framework of goals and targets in the Strategic Plan (Decision VII/30). We support the Liaison Groups¹s recommendation of including a paragraph in the preambular statement making a link to the Millenium Development Goals however we would like to see a specific target developed on livelihood and poverty alleviation in the Programme of Work. Lastly, with regards to the recognizing ³indigenous and local communities² where the concern of most countries who have no indigenous peoples, as in the case of our friend from Seychelles, there are local communities whose rights should be taken in and recognized. Thank you and we will be submitting text recommendations during the deliberation of the specific agenda items. We look forward to having a fruitful discussion and participation. III. Item 4. New Thematic Area: Island Biodiversity Programme of Work General Background At COP VII, the Parties adopted the multi-year programme of work up to 2010 in decision VII/31. Island biodiversity was identified as the new thematic area to be developed under the Convention and as the item for in-depth consideration at the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to be held in Brazil in the first half of In paragraph 8 of decision VII/31, the COP requested the Executive Secretary to develop a preparatory process for the work of SBSTTA on island biodiversity that should include, inter alia, electronic forums, a meeting of an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) in mid-2004, and a liaison group to be held immediately after the International Meeting for the Review of the Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA), which will take place in January The preparatory work prior to SBSTTA-10 included: 1) Launching the Island Biodiversity Electronic Forum (IBEF), at the beginning of March 2004 and deactivated it at the end of April Through the electronic forum, the Secretariat gathered information on the status and trends of, and threats to, island biodiversity and on the main issues to be addressed in the programme of work on island biodiversity; 2) With the support of the Government of Spain, convening a meeting of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Island Biodiversity in the Canary Islands in December The primary mandate of the AHTEG was the development of proposals for a programme of work on island biodiversity incorporating priority actions to enhance the conservation of island biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and the fair and 3

4 equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources from islands (see annex to decision VII/31); 3) Convening a liaison group during the International Meeting for the Review of the Barbados Programme of Action in January 2005 in Mauritius, in order to gather further comments and suggestions on the proposed programme of work; and 4) Convening a small liaison group in Bangkok on 4-5 of February immediately before SBSTTA-10. Indigenous peoples (not including those on government delegations) were not involved in any of the three meetings outlined above in the Canary Islands, Mauritius, nor Bangkok. Maurizio Farhan Ferrari representing the Forest Peoples Program (FPP), an NGO based in the UK was able to attend the AHTEG in December Maurizio was able to include a few items to address Indigenous peoples rights in certain areas, but overall, the lack of Indigenous participation revealed itself in the text of the documents developed for SBSTTA-10, especially in those items that were developed in the Working Group that Maurizio was not participating in at the AHTEG. SBSTTA-10 had four documents to consider, including (a) A note by the Executive Secretary containing the elements for a programme of work on island biodiversity drawn on the report of the AHTEG (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/4); (b) The report of the AHTEG on island biodiversity, containing a proposed programme of work on island biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/1); (c) A note by the Executive Secretary on the outcome of the liaison group meeting held during the International Meeting for the Review of the Barbados Programme of Action in January 2005 in Mauritius (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/2); and (d) the report on the outcome of a liaison group meeting on the proposed PoW held in Bangkok on 5 February 2005 (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/26). The SBSTTA decided to split into two working groups, with Working Group 1 chaired by Ms. Theresa Mundita Lim (Philippines) tasked with discussing several agenda items, including Island Biodiversity. Although the Chair took general comments on Island Biodiversity on February 8 th, the majority of the in-depth work took place in a Contact Group chaired by Mr. Horst Korn (Germany). The Contact Group discussed timeframe, global targets and priority actions for the programme of work (PoW) on island biodiversity. 3 FPP s work aims to promote recognition and respect for the rights of peoples who live in the forests and who depend on them for their livelihoods. 4

5 Chairman Horst Korn (Germany) led the Contact Group on Island Biodiversity Programme of Work. Photo: ENB. Contact Group on Island Biodiversity The Contact Group met several times for many long hours during the week. Indigenous participants Lourdes Amos (AIPP), Le`a Kanehe (IPCB), and Debra Harry (IPCB) worked with NGO participant Maurizio Ferrari (FPP) to try to make substantive textual amendments throughout the PoW. Unfortunately, our most critical recommendations were not accepted by the Contact Group and therefore, were not included in the final document produced by SBSTTA- 10. The full text of our recommendations on Goals 1-5, as submitted to the Secretariat, are included as Annex I to this report. The Contact Group decided to use the agreed global targets contained in decision VII/30 of the COP to provide the basic structure for the PoW. It then undertook to develop island-specific priority actions for the Parties. Island states struggled to educate states not familiar with island biodiversity about how to make the priority actions more specific to the unique circumstances islands. Although the AHTEG and liaison groups in Mauritius and Bangkok made recommendations for supporting actions for the Parties and Secretariat, suggested partners for the work, and linkages with COP decisions and processes within and outside the CBD, the Contact Group did not elaborate on these items other than to invite Parties and others to propose alternative or new recommendations. Presumably, these items will be further elaborated at COP VIII and Indigenous peoples should review and prepare comments for use at COP. Indigenous participants were particularly concerned with existing recommendations related to Target 14 (By 2010, all transfers of genetic resources are in line with the CBD, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and other applicable agreements), which is based on Global Target 10.1, and Target 15 (By 2010, protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and the rights of indigenous and local communities over their traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, including their rights to benefit-sharing), which is based on Global Target We proposed the following text changes to the priority actions for these Targets, which were also supported by FPP. Target 14 - Priority Action (new) 5

6 Establish mechanisms to recognize the ownership and control of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, innovations and practices from lands and waters traditionally occupied and used by indigenous and local communities of islands Target 15 - Priority Action (new) Develop and implement policy and legislation to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous and local communities over their traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices Indigenous participants in the Contact Group faced very hostile conditions, particularly in relation to these interventions relating to access and benefit-sharing of island biodiversity, including: a comment by the Chair classifying Indigenous issues as problematic; threats by Cuba to block consensus on the entire PoW if Indigenous rights were included; assertions by Jamaica that because they do not have Indigenous peoples, they do not support inclusion of reference to the rights of Indigenous peoples in the PoW; and an intervention by the United States to strike the Indigenous proposal to include reference to customary law because they do not know what it is. The US succeeded in changing the text to only refer to customary practices. Cuban government delegate who threatened to hold up the entire PoW in response to several recommendations by Indigenous and NGO participants to include reference to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Photo: ENB. Given the lack of participation in the three preparatory meetings and the lack of will by SBSTTA-10 to incorporate Indigenous peoples concerns into the PoW, the IIFB recommended that SBSTTA request the Working Group on Article 8(j) to review the PoW. This would give Indigenous peoples a greater opportunity to participate in the development of the PoW. Furthermore, it would undoubtedly bring greater attention to the link between Indigenous knowledge and knowledge holders in the conservation and sustainable use of island biodiversity. Working Group 1 6

7 On February 10 th, once the Contact Group completed its task to prepare draft text on the PoW, the Working Group 1 received that document and further discussed its contents. The representative of Germany who chaired the Contact Group explained that the group agreed to use the global targets contained in decision VII/30 to provide the basic structure for the proposed PoW. Unlike other existing programmes of work, the Island biodiversity PoW is to serve two purposes: 1) a PoW for all islands and 2) serve as a manual to enable small island developing states (SIDS) to fulfill their obligations under the Convention more easily. On February 10 th, during the Working Group 1 discussion on Goal 4 relating to access and benefit sharing, Canada proposed to remove reference to the rights of Indigenous peoples over their traditional knowledge stating that they cannot accept any requirements to establish legal rights. Canada attempted to remove the Contact Group s recommendation to develop and implement legislation for the respect and protection of Indigenous and local communities rights and alternatively, proposed to minimally develop and implement mechanisms to share equitably with Indigenous and local communities the benefits arising from the use of their knowledge. The United States also intervened in an attempt to delete the word recognition from the Contact Group recommendation that all aspects of the programme of work [should] [must] be read and implemented with the full recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous and local communities. Indigenous participants intervened to state that recognition must be retained and suggest the Working Group to utilize the text adopted by COP in the preambular section of decision VII/19 on access and benefit sharing, which states that the international regime on access and benefit sharing should recognise and shall respect the rights of indigenous and local communities. In response to the US, Spain on behalf of the EU intervened to say that they are only willing to accept textual recommendations by state parties to the CBD. Spain on behalf of the EU discredited US proposal to remove reference to the full recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Photo: ENB On February 11 th, during the review of the final document on the PoW, Canada launched yet another attack on language that mentioned the rights of Indigenous peoples. The proposed change concerned paragraph 18 of section B of the document that stated: It is important to note that cultural diversity, the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities of many small islands are unique and need special consideration and integration in this programme of work. 7

8 Canada changed this to read,. traditional knowledge and practices have special significance for indigenous and local communities. The paragraph went on to read All aspects of the programme of work [should][must] be read and implemented with the full recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous and local communities and their full and effective participation, in accordance with national law and relevant international obligations. Canada proposed that brackets be put around the words recognition and which was supported by Jamaica. Spain, Palau, and the European Union disagreed with the insertion of brackets because the text was previously approved text. Canada proposed to trade the use of the word should in exchange of removal of brackets, and the change was made. The Canadian action contradicts an existing COP decision VII/30 (Global Target 9.1 and 9.2) that binds member states to meet a target goal that states, By 2010, to protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and the rights of indigenous and local communities over their traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices, including their rights to benefit sharing. Indigenous participants, Lourdes Amos (left) (AIPP) and Le`a Kanehe (right) (IPCB) confer during SBSTTA discussions on Island Biodiversity. Photo: ENB. Indigenous peoples organizations in attendance were outraged by yet another attempt by Canada to deny their rights. The IPCB made a media release on this issue, in which Debra Harry, the organization s director recalled that: Canada pulled a similar tactic at the COP discussion on access and benefit sharing in Kuala Lumpur last year. ʻThey refused our proposal that parties shall recognize and respect the rights of Indigenous peoples in the elaboration of an international regime on access and benefit sharing. Despite broad support from the other delegations, Canada blocked consensus.ʻ In the end, the COP approved watered-down language that ʻthe international regime should recognize and shall respect the rights of indigenous and local communities.ʻ Closing SBSTTA Plenary Statement 8

9 On February 11, during the closing statements to the plenary of SBSTTA-10, Lourdes Amos on behalf of AIPP and IPCB requested to speak, however, that request was never accepted. Nevertheless, the statement was submitted in writing to the Secretariat and is reproduced below This intervention is made on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialsim and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact in participation with the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. Islands across the world are home to many Indigenous peoples, therefore, we are highly interested and concerned about the programme of work on island biodiversity because it is this biodiversity that has supported our unique and diverse cultures for millenia. In particular, Indigenous peoples are highly concerned about the development of gene banks, inventories of biological diversity, and documentation of Indigenous knowledge of indigenous peoples associated with genetic resources held in such gene banks and inventories. We are concerned by the significance placed on these devices because of their susceptibility to misappropriation for commercial purposes and the lack of control by Indigenous peoples over the materials and information held in gene banks, inventories, and registries. We would also like to highlight our deep concern about Goal 4 relating to access and benefit sharing. In particular, we are alarmed by the Canadian proposal made yesterday to ignore the goals and targets set by COP Decision VII/30 and thereby attempt to remove the priority action 15.2 relating to respecting and protecting indigenous and local communities rights over our traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices. The right to benefit sharing arising from the use of our traditional knowledge, as Canada proposes, is only one right that we have and we must say, it is not a priority right for many Indigenous peoples. In fact, we are much more concerned about protecting our rights to protect our traditional knowledge from misappropriation, including the right to free prior and informed consent, the right to grant or refuse access to such knowledge, and our rights to have our customary laws recognized and respected. The parties should remember that these are all recognized in the COP Decision VII/16 H regarding sui generis protection of traditional knowledge being developed by the Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions. Due to lack of resources and a general lack of awareness on the development of the programme of work on island biodiversity, there were no Indigenous peoples or organizations present at: the AHTEG in the Canary Islands in December 2004 nor the review of the Barbados Plan of Action in Mauritius in January 2005 nor the Liaison Group here in Bangkok a few days ago. 9

10 Noting this lack of full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the development of the programme of work on island biodiversity, we make have requested additional text: Recognizing the need for the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities and the primary role of the Ad-Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions within the CBD in regards to indigenous and local communities, request: (1) the Working Group on Article 8(j) to review the programme of work on island biodiversity and make recommendations to COP8 regarding the full respect for the rights of indigenous and local communities related to island biodiversity consistent with national law and international obligations, including linkages with the Working Group s existing work to develop sui generis protections of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and to review the elaboration of an international regime on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing arising from the utilization of such resources; and (2) the Secretariat to request and compile comments from indigenous and local communities from islands on the programme of work on island biodiversity for the purpose of increasing their opportunity to fully and effectively participate in the development of the programme of work Additionally, we have requested under para 6 that the COP: Requests the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to review the programme of work on island biodiversity and make comments to enhance the programme of work as it relates to the full recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous and local communities on islands We look forward to the opportunity for greater participation of Indigenous peoples in this programme of work. The final SBSTTA document on island-biodiversity is contained in UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/L.14. Recommendations for critical future work on GURTs are contained in section VI below. III. Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) Item 6.2(c) regarding the Advice on the Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on the Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. General Background Pursuant to decision VI/5, paragraph 21, COP VI established the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on the Genetic use Restriction Technologies to evaluate the Potential Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on Smallholder Farmers, Indigenous and 10

11 Local Communities and Farmersʻ Rights (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF6, UNEP/CBD/WG8J/3/INF/2). The AHTEG met from February 2003 in Montreal and made its report available to SBSTTA-9. But SBSTTA-9 deferred review of the AHTEG report. COP VII, in decision VII/3, requested SBSTTA to consider the report with a view to providing advice to COP VIII also taking into account decision VII/16 on Article 8(j) and related provisions. The Executive Secretary prepared UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/15 in consultation with the SBSTTA Bureau for review by SBSTTA-10. Opening Statements of SBSTTA-10 The SBSTTA Chair took contributions to UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/15 from the floor with a view to transmitting information to the COP, including advice concerning the relevance of the issue to Article 8(j). Cresencio Resendiz-Hernandez, on behalf of the IIFB, delivered the following statement on February 8, 2005: Recognizing the complexity that GURTS represents to indigenous and local communities, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity recommends that the Secretariat prepare GURTS documentation in plain-language and forward to National Focal points for them to make it available to indigenous and local communities to facilitate their participation. Working Group 1 On February 8 th, the Working Group 1 Chair decided to convene a Friends of the Chair group, comprising representatives of Canada, the European Community, Peru, the Philippines and the United Republic of Tanzania, in order to draft a text reflecting the views expressed for transmission to COP VIII. On February 9 th, Debra Harry on behalf of the IPCB read the following statement in response to the Friends of the Chair first draft text: Thank you. I make this intervention on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, a member of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB). As you are aware, Paragraph 21 of decision VI/5 established the Ad Hoc Technical Experts Group on the Potential Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies on Smallholder Farmers, Indigenous and Local Communities and Farmers Rights. I served on the AHTEG along with four other Indigenous experts, and a diverse group including representatives from industry and States who have a commercial interest in GURTs technologies. I understand some States have criticized the report for being unscientific. It must be clear that the mandate of the AHTEG was not to develop a scientific assessment on GURTs, but to assess the potential impacts of GURTs technologies on Indigenous peoples, small holder farmers, and local communities. In that regard, the AHTEG fulfilled its mandate and its recommendations highlight the need for more substantive review of the potential negative impacts of GURTs on Indigenous peoples. The potential negative affects of GURTS technologies far outweigh the positive impacts thus requiring the ongoing implementation of the 11

12 precautionary principle to insure the rights, safety, and food security of Indigenous and local communities are not threatened. The AHTEG in its report, and in accordance with its mandate, looks at the positive and negative impacts of GURTs on Indigenous and local communities. The report clearly indicates the negative impacts far outweigh the positive. The AHTEG highlights potential impacts on Indigenous peoples and smallholder farmers including impacts related to geneflow and environmental containment, diminishment of biodiversity, Indigenous and local knowledge, practices and innovations, unintentional use of GURTs-food grain as seed, dependency, intentional misuse of GURTs, among others. These are broad issues that require further review. GURTs are not a biosafety issue, therefore, the GURTs review should not be passed on to the Cartegena Protocol. Accordingly, the IPCB strongly supports the Expert Group s Recommendation (b), In view of the current lack of data, recommend that Parties and other Governments consider the development of regulatory frameworks not to approve GURTs for field-testing and commercial use. We also support Recommendation (a) to Reaffirm paragraph 23 of its decision V/5, in light of the continued lack of data on the potential negative impacts on indigenous and local communities and Farmers Rights and in line with the precautionary approach; 4/ To do otherwise would constitute a serious breach of responsibility on the part of the CBD in its responsibility to Indigenous peoples and civil society. SBSTTA must consider the AHTEG report, and implement a critical review of ALL of the potential impacts of GURTS technology, including social, economic, cultural, and environmental. The SBSTTA must insure the potential negative impacts of GURTs on Indigenous peoples and local communities, are fully evaluated. They must insure the parallel review outcomes of the Working Group on 8(j) are completed and taken into consideration. The SBSTTA must ban any field testing or commercial or any other release of GURTS. If consideration of the AHTEG report is delayed it means that Terminator technology will be commercialized and will likely show up in farmers fields before CBD takes action. Indigenous peoples depend on farm saved seeds for their livelihoods and GURTs threatens this basic right. The IPCB notes Decision VII/16 D. regarding Article 8(j) in relation to GURTs, which urges the Ad-Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and related provisions to consider the AHTEG report and the outcomes of SBSTTA10. That Decision also requests the Executive Secretary to solicit and compile comments from Indigenous peoples for consideration by the Working Group. The Decision 4/ Precautionary approach: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradations. (Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 12

13 also calls on Parties and Governments, in collaboration with relevant organizations to urgently create and develop, in accordance with identified needs and priorities, capacity-building programmes including the promotion of information and awareness campaigns, to involve and enable smallholder farmers, indigenous and local communities, and other relevant stakeholders to effectively participate in decision making processes related to GURTs. To our knowledge this has not yet occurred and we recommend that it be made a priority. We strongly recommend SBSTTA request the Secretariat to create mechanisms for the implementation of Decision VII/16 D1 and 4, with the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples. These particular decisions are essential to insure Indigenous peoples have the opportunity for capacity building so we may contribute substantially to these discussions. Furthermore, we believe that the Article 8(j) Working Group is the most competent body of the CBD to make recommendations to the COP with regards to impacts on the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples. Due to lack of resources to attend SBSTTA, this forum will not hear from many Indigenous peoples, however, a much stronger presence will be had at Working Group on Article 8(j). Therefore, we request that no decision of SBSTTA prejudice the review of GURTs by the Working Group on Article 8(j) and its ability to make recommendations that protect the rights of Indigenous peoples. Decisions that would allow for the unleashing of dangerous technologies such as GURTs technologies would be a fundamental violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples and a breach of our right of self-determination. We call upon the SBSTTA to insure a full and transparent review of all potential impacts of GURTs, as called for by paragraph 23 of decision V/5, and to insure the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in this process. Canadian government delegate lobbies Working Group 1 Chair. Photo: ENB On February 10 th, Working Group 1 Chair Lim introduced draft recommendations on the AHTEG s report on genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) prepared by the Friends of the Chair group (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/WG.I/CRP.4). The following description of the discussion was prepared by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin: 13

14 Delegates discussed stating that the AHTEG report was not a consensus document, and agreed to note that SBSTTA could not reach consensus on it. CUBA proposed deleting the preambular paragraph on the potential impacts of GURTs. NORWAY suggested deleting references to the impacts observed from field experiments, as well as all references to the use of GURTs. Regarding a recommendation on requesting further comments, CUBA and COLOMBIA said the current information-collection process should be considered as concluded, and the Article 8(j) Working Group should only deal with GURTs socioeconomic impacts and SBSTTA with the scientific and technical aspects. The EC proposed retaining a call for new comments to be considered at a later stage. On reaffirming COP decision V/5 Section III (GURTs), Burkina Faso requested specific reference to paragraph 23 on field testing, while the European Community and Canada suggested, and delegates agreed, to refer to the section on GURTs. Bolivia proposed a recommendation on protecting traditional knowledge and farmers rights to the preservation of seeds. Delegates supported focusing capacity-building initiatives on social, cultural and environmental aspects. Liberia, for Africa, opposed by the ETC Group, said GURTs are a biosafety issue. Colombia requested that the COP determine which CBD bodies should address GURTs different aspects. Delegates adopted the CRP with these amendments. 5 The final document on this agenda item is contained in UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/L.6. GURTs will also be addressed by the Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions at is fourth meeting scheduled for March 2006 in Spain. Recommendations for critical future work on GURTs are contained in section VI below. IV. Other Agenda Items Covered The following statement was given by Earl Stevenson, Anishinaabe, on behalf of the Peguis First Nation and the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB): Agenda Item 5.3 Document SBSTTA 10/8 Page 2 Para 4: Recommended as Additional Preambular Paragraph Recognizes that many indigenous and local communities have recognized tenurial and resource rights, and the implementation of targets should take these into consideration, particularly in the establishment of marine and coastal protected areas, and that indigenous and local communities be involved in the planning and management of these areas in the implementation targets

15 4(d) Invites Parties and other Governments, recalling Decision VII/16 Sub-section G, in collaboration with the indigenous and local communities to develop national and/or regional targets, as appropriate, to incorporate them into relevant plans, programmes and initiatives, including national biodiversity strategies and action plans; Annex 1 Target 4.1 We propose to add Rights of indigenous and local communities to sustainably use resources are protected. The following statement was given on Item 5.3, Draft Global Outcome-Oriented Targets For The Implementation Of The Programmes Of Work On The Biological Diversity Of Inland Water Ecosystems And Marine And Coastal Biodiversity by a representative of the Canadian Indigenous Biodiversity Network: Statement by the Canadian Indigenous Biodiversity Network (CIBN) UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/WG II/CRP 4 Item 5.3: Global Outcome-oriented targets for the implementation of the Programmes of Work (PoW) on the biological diversity of inland water ecosystems and marine and coastal biodiversity. Recommendations: Page 6, Annex 1, Target 9.2 Columns 2 & 3 Benefits arising from the utilization of Traditional Knowledge, innovations and practices regarding [marine and coastal biodiversity] [biological diversity of inland water ecosystems] are shared equitably with and that such knowledge is used only with the Prior and Informed Consent and involvement of holders of that knowledge, innovations and practices. SBSTTA is requested to maintain consistency with regards to prior informed consent related to Decision VI/10 and Decision V/16. V. Closing Statement to SBSTTA-10 The following statement was prepared for the closing plenary to cover the Indigenous peoples positions on several agenda items taken up during the week. Unfortunately, the chair failed to accept an intervention by the Indigenous caucus. Therefore, the statement was submitted in writing to the Secretariat for the official record. Closing Statement to SBSTTA-10 by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) 15

16 Thank you Mr. Chair for giving me this opportunity to give these closing comments on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. Firstly, on the issue of GURTS we commend the Parties for re-affirming decision V/5, despite heavy pressure by some seeking freedom to pursue their commercial interests in GURTs. To do otherwise would constitute an irresponsible assault on the livelihoods of millions of Indigenous peoples and small-holder farmers who depend upon fertile seed for their sustenance. Any decision that would allow for the unleashing of dangerous technologies such as GURTs technologies would be a fundamental violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples and a breach of our right of self-determination. Indigenous peoples reiterate our resolute opposition to any field trials, commercialization, or any other release of any organisms modified with any GURTs technologies. Secondly, on the implementation of the Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity, we would like to reiterate our request that the Parties include the Indigenous and Local Communities as partners and link to other related decisions [e.i. Article 8(j), PoW Protected Areas, Akwe: Kon Guidelines] as well as relevant international instruments (i.e, UNPFII, UN Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, others). Thirdly, on incentive measures, we are deeply concerned that cultural traditions are construed to have perverse incentives, despite of the fact that these traditions constitute diverse practices, social norms and cultural traditions that have contributed to the sustainable use of global biodiversity over centuries. We would then request the Parties to take a more positive outlook on this matter by supporting these practices and policies as effective ways and means to mitigate perverse incentives. In addition, we would encourage the Parties to look at the issue on subsidies which might in truth be contributory to the removal or mitigating perverse incentives. On the establishment of experts groups, we are concerned that Parties fail to consider the participation of Indigenous and local communities to relevant group meetings. We request that in the future, Indigenous experts be recognized and invited to participate as equally skilled experts in relevant meetings. Finally, we are appalled by the attempts of the Canadian and U.S. delegations, supported by a handful of others, who refuse to recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples within the mandates of the CBD. Their actions to remove language that recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples contravene the mandate of the Convention that recognizes the inextricable link between Indigenous peoples and the world s biodiversity, as well as existing standards in International human rights laws. We commend those Parties who continue to uphold these human rights standards in their actions. 16

17 Thank you Mr. Chair. VI. Recommendations In order to make recommendations for future work of Indigenous peoples on the issues raised at SBSTTA-10 it is necessary to briefly evaluate both the outcomes of the meeting and the gaps revealed. 1. General There are a couple of factors that contribute to the lack of substantial input by Indigenous peoples in the SBSTTA processes and recommendations. First, clearly, with such a small delegation of Indigenous participants at this meeting, it was impossible to cover many of the agenda items under review by the SBSTTA. The few agenda items that were covered were a result of the specific interests and expertise of the Indigenous participants attending SBSTTA. As a result, fortunately, there will be some text that reflects the interests of Indigenous peoples in the recommendations being forwarded to COPVIII. Second, SBSTTA is not a friendly environment in which Indigenous participation is encouraged. Attempts by Indigenous participations to make interventions were routinely ignored. As a result, our input was sometimes limited to submitting written interventions on the topics of discussion. Finally, the Indigenous participants did not caucus formally under the IIFB umbrella. Rather, participants informally consulted on an as needed basis. Participants could not reach consensus as to whether the IIFB should submit interventions under the IIFB name. For instance, a full IIFB statement on GURTs was drafted and circulated among the Indigenous delegates for review and approval. Attempts to seek approval were met by hesitation as to whether we, as Indigenous participants, had the authority to make statements on behalf of the IIFB. As a result, the IIFB GURTs statement was not submitted. Generally, Indigenous participants made interventions on behalf of their own organizations, sometimes in collaboration with the IIFB, and some interventions were made specifically on behalf of the IIFB. In the future, it may be useful to encourage Indigenous participants to coordinate their participation in the SBSTTA under the IIFB framework. This would result in a more united and collective effort by Indigenous participants within the SBSTTA processes, and allow for some consistency in the Indigenous intervention process. Despite these challenges, the small delegation of Indigenous participants had a strong presence in the working groups, and made critical contributions to the outcomes of the SBSTTA discussions. 2. Island Biodiversity Programme of Work The Island Biodiversity PoW is not set for review by any other subsidiary body or working group, and therefore will not be taken up again until COPVIII in If there is any possible way to have it reviewed by the Working Group on Article 8(j), that would be ideal. Perhaps it 17

18 can be lobbied for as an additional item of work for COPVIII to mandate the Working Group to take up in the next intersessional period before COPIX. Therefore, it will need to be raised at WG8j-4 in 2006 immediately preceding COPVIII. At COPVIII, the recommendations for text changes attached as Annex I to this report should be supported by IIFB participants. It will be crucial to have a strong contingent within the IIFB responsible for working within the appropriate working group at COPVIII on the agenda item regarding this PoW. In this regard, it will be important to have Indigenous participation from peoples from islands with expertise in the unique circumstances in conservation and sustainable use of island biodiversity. It will also be vital to have expertise on access and benefit sharing issues, because this features prominently within the draft PoW. Therefore, participants attending COPVIII to work on the proposed international regime on ABS should also consider strong contribution within Island Biodiversity PoW discussions. 3. GURTs Additional review of the socio-economic impacts of GURTs on Indigenous peoples and local communities will be an agenda item for the upcoming WG8j. Necessarily, this will require a substantial effort to help Indigenous participants to prepare for the GURTs discussions, and importantly, to submit written comments pursuant to the Notification of the Secretariat dated May 12, 2004 ( which reads, in part: Potential socio-economic impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on indigenous and local communities In decision VII/16 D, paragraph 2, the Conference of the Parties urged the Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions to consider the potential socio-economic impacts of genetic use restriction technologies on indigenous and local communities (GURTs) on the basis of the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on GURTs, the outcome of the tenth meeting of SBSTTA on this issue, and the FAO study on potential impacts of GURTs on agricultural biodiversity and agricultural production systems. In paragraph 3 of the same decision, the Conference of the Parties invited Parties and indigenous and local communities to review the recommendations of the Technical Expert Group and provide comments to the Executive Secretary for consideration at the fourth meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) and related Provisions. The Executive Secretary is requested to compile comments received. Action required: Parties and governments are invited to provide comments to the Executive Secretary on the recommendations of the Technical Expert Group on GURTS as soon as practicable but no later than 31st May Cross-cutting issues with other thematic area working groups and subsidiary bodies 18

19 The CBD has several upcoming inter-sessional meetings planned that will have some obvious overlaps for island biodiversity, which include: The first and second meetings of the Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Protected Areas scheduled for June 2005 in Montecatini, Italy ( WGPA-1 )and 28 November 2 December in Montreal, Canada ( WGPA-2 ), respectively; The Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity tentatively scheduled for July 2005 in Montreal, Canada (see The fourth meeting of the Working Group on Article 8(j) ( WG8j-4 ) tentatively scheduled for March 2006 in Spain; and The fourth meeting of the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing ( WGABS-4 ) tentatively scheduled for March 2006 in Spain. WG8j issues have already been highlighted above. WGABS issues will be addressed in the ABS-3 report to AIPP regarding the proposed international regime on ABS. Protected areas and marine and coastal biodiversity cross-cutting issues with island biodiversity are addressed below. Protected Areas With regard to Protected Areas (PA), it is likely that the emphasis placed on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing by the States as was experienced in Island Biodiversity discussions at SBSTTA-10 will be repeated in WGPA. There is already indication that PA may serve as hotspot locations for access to genetic resources. These areas are already recognized for their unique and rich biodiversity, therefore making them havens for bioprospectors, as is suggested by suggested activity (Establish or strengthen national policies to deal with access to genetic resources within protected areas and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization drawing up on the Bonn Guidelines... ). It is also likely that there will be a push to engage Indigenous peoples in the use of Indigenous knowledge, innovations, and practices to further resource mapping and biological inventory, as indicated in suggested activity This issue overlaps with the push to utilize gene banks in goal 1, target 4 of the Island Biodiversity PoW. The following text was suggested in this regard and should be considered and adapted to suit application within the WGPA. Establish, with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, a process and set of requirements governing prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms, and equitable sharing of benefits with respect to traditional knowledge, innovations and practices associated with genetic resources to be held in gene banks. Indigenous participants may consider engaging the mandate within Goal 2.2 to enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders. In particular, suggested activity calls for implementing plans and initiatives to effectively involve IPs at all levels of PA planning, governance and management, which should apply to planning for and regulation of ABS in PAs in island ecosystems. The draft PoW on Island Biodiversity s Goal 2 specific priority action for the Parties involves the identification and establishment of PA with the full respect for the rights of indigenous and 19

20 local communities and with their full and effective participation consistent with national law and appropriate international obligations. The supporting actions developed by the AHTEG and liaison groups were not elaborated on at SBSTTA-10, however, they are expected to receive more in-depth attention at COPVIII. Several of them could use strengthening to actually support the purported priority action regarding respect for the rights of and full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples, for example, empowering Indigenous and local communities to manage ILC conserved areas (see Annex I). If strong language in regard to these issues and any other cross cutting issues emerge from WGPA-1 & 2, then the could be utilized to strengthen the work in Island Biodiversity to give both better synergy. Marine & Coastal Biodiversity Clearly, island biodiversity has overlapping issues with the marine and coastal biodiversity programme of work. Both of these PoW have in common PA as one means of conserving in situ biodiversity. Therefore, all three areas will converge on the issue of marine and coastal protected areas ( MCPA). With this in mind, it will be important for Indigenous experts on PA to contribute to the work of MCPA, including the unique circumstances of Indigenous peoples from islands. It will be crucial that these three areas of PA, marine and coastal biodiversity, and island biodiversity PoWs, and the Indigenous participants attending each of the respective meetings make all efforts to interface and be mutually supportive. Marine and coastal biodiversity was on the SBSTTA-10 agenda as item 5.3 in relation to its mandate to further develop goals and sub-targets to facilitated coherence among the programmes of work, and to provide a flexible framework for national targets (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/8 & 10/8/Add.1 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/6 the report of the Expert Meeting on Outcome- Oriented Targets for the PoW on Biological Diversity of Inland Water Ecosystems and Marine and Coastal Ecosystems). It will be important to evaluate the outcomes and gaps from SBSTTA- 10 on this agenda item, however, that is beyond the scope of this report. The purpose of the meeting of the Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity tentatively scheduled for July 2005 in Montreal, Canada is to identify obstacles to implementation of integrated marine and coastal area management (IMCAM) and ways and means to overcome them, including policy, institutional, technological and financial tools and mechanisms. Indigenous participants may want to note suggested activity (i) under Goal 1, Operational Objective 1.1 which calls for provision of guidance on maintenance and wider application of local and traditional knowledge in the promotion and improvement of IMCAM. The Island Biodiversity PoW Goal 1.3 promotes the use of inventories of the components of biodiversity. The AHTEG on Island Biodiversity and liaison groups developed a supporting action to document traditional use of local species with the prior informed consent of ILCs. Goal 1.4 promotes the use of gene banks to strengthen in situ conservation of wild plants and traditional crops and associated knowledge of ILCs, which would be furthered by two supporting actions that Indigenous peoples should be wary of, including: Development, with the full respect for the rights of ILCs, and with their full and effective participation, the capacity of ILCs to develop and maintain gene banks for aquatic/marine species; and 20