Contact groups continue discussions on issues under consideration|2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference

 Following Sunday’s ceremony, opening and regional statements marked the beginning of the official proceedings of the UN Biodiversity Conference, including the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 11th Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CP MOP 11), and the fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (NP MOP 5) on access and benefit-sharing (ABS). Two Working Groups met in the afternoon, to review draft decisions, and establish multiple contact and informal groups. Four contact groups met in the evening to address draft decisions on: Article 8(j) and related provisions on Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and traditional knowledge; digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources; biodiversity and health; and biodiversity mainstreaming.

 

The delegation from the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) has arrived in Colombia to attend the meeting.

 

Co-chaired by Martha Kandawa-Schulz (Namibia) and Marja Ruohonen-Lehto (Finland), the group focused on the possible continuation of the multidisciplinary AHTEG and the development of a capacity-building action plan.  

 

Most delegates agreed on the need for capacity building and technology transfer, and supported developing an action plan, with some stressing it is necessary to reduce inequalities. Some opposed, and proposed addressing the issue under the CP. Opinions diverged on the multidisciplinary AHTEG and the horizon-scanning process of synthetic biology applications: some appreciated the work done and suggested the process be extended, further noting that horizon scanning and capacity building are interlinked. Others expressed concerns and opposed continuation of the AHTEG’s work, calling for focus on the benefits of synthetic biology for GBF implementation and on capacity building to reap such benefits. The Co-Chairs invited submission of textual proposals for preparation of a non-paper.

 

On the draft decision on further work on EBSAs, divergent positions remained, including on requesting the Secretariat to hold additional EBSA-related workshops and their modalities, and on the inclusion of references to the BBNJ Agreement. Delegates agreed to request the Secretariat to develop voluntary guidelines, on peer-review processes for the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria and other relevant compatible and complementary scientific criteria, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Delegates also found common ground on pending issues regarding the modalities for the modification of descriptions of EBSAs and the description of new areas, including on the withdrawal of EBSA descriptions and the information-sharing mechanism.

 

Delegates continued discussions on trigger points for contributions to the DSI fund. A lengthy discussion took place on a suggestion to establish an informal Friends of the Co-Chairs’ group to discuss the scope of DSI under the multilateral mechanism, with some delegates expressing concerns over efforts to define DSI. Delegates then continued Monday’s discussions on who should contribute monetary benefits to the DSI fund and who should not. They focused on relevant thresholds, including turnover, sales, or profit. They further discussed whether a list of sectors or subsectors that benefit from DSI use is necessary for the operationalization of the mechanism.

 

Editor: Maggie

Checked by: Richard      

Contact: v10@cbcgdf.org; +8617319454776

Contribution

Do you know? We rely on crowd-funding and donations. You have the opportunity to help an international movement to advance biodiversity conservation. Donate TODAY to power up the movement to make it a better world for all life.

Donation(501C3)Paypal: intl@wbag.org 

https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=2EYYJJZ8CGPLE