Global Biodiversity Forum · Convention on Biological Diversity. The Forum addressed four themes:...

REPORT OF THE ELEVENTH

Global Biodiversity ForumExploring Synergy Between the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity

Buenos Aires, Argentina

The Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) was conceived in 1992 by the partners of the GlobalBiodiversity Strategy – the World Resources Institute, IUCN-The World ConservationUnion, and the UN Environment Programme. The Forum is designed to contribute to thefurther development and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and other biodiversity-related instruments at the international, regional and national level.

The eleventh session of the Global Biodiversity Forum, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina atthe Fourth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) in November 1998, aimed to explore synergy between the UNFCCC and theConvention on Biological Diversity. The Forum addressed four themes: (1) Forests in theClimate Change Agenda; (2) Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance; (3) NationalStrategies and Action Plans; and (4) Sustainable Use and Climate Change.

Following two days of discussion, the participants concluded that the goals of ecosystemconservation and of the equitable and sustainable use of natural resources need to betaken into account when addressing climate change. Subsequent to the Forum, a networkof governments, NGOs, international institutions, and private sector representatives hasbeen established to raise the profile of ecological and social concerns within the climatechange agenda. Part I of this report examines the linkages between the climate changeand biodiversity agendas and summarizes the discussions and emerging issues from theForum. Part II contains an in-depth summary of the presentations and discussions fromthe four workshop sessions as well as the opening and closing plenaries.

Published with financial support from the MacArthur Foundation, the Swiss Agency forDevelopment Cooperation, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, and the United NationsEnvironment Programme.

IUCN-The World Conservation UnionWashington Office1630 Connecticut Ave., NW 3rd FloorWashington, DC 20009USAEmail: [email protected]: http://www.iucnus.org

IUCN-The World Conservation UnionBiodiversity Policy Coordination Division28 Rue Mauverney1196 Gland, SwitzerlandEmail: [email protected] website: http://www.gbf.ch

Edited byBrett M. OrlandoLesley Smeardon

Convened byIUCN – The World Conservation UnionWorld Resources Institute (WRI)African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)IUCN National Committee for ArgentinaClimate Action Network – Latin AmericaUnited Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET)Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network (IPBN)

In collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention Biological Diversity

Implemented with the financial assistance from:The MacArthur FoundationThe Swiss Agency for Development CooperationIUCN – The World Conservation UnionUnited Nations Environment Programme





The designation of geographical entities in this book and thepresentation of the material, do not imply the expression ofany opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning thelegal status of any country, territory or area, or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarilyreflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK

Copyright: © 1999 International Unionfor Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication foreducational and other non-commercialpurposes is authorized without priorpermission from the copyright holderprovided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resaleor other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout the prior written permission of thecopyright holder.

Citation: IUCN – The World Conservation Union.October 1999. Report of the EleventhGlobal Biodiversity Forum: ExploringSynergy Between the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and theConvention on Biological Diversity. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

ISBN: 2-8317-0495-2

Cover design by: tm design, inc.

Produced by: IUCN Washington Office

Printed by: Éditions MultiMondes

Available from: IUCN – The World Conservation UnionWashington Office1630 Connecticut Ave, NW 3rd FloorWashington DC 20009 USATel ++1 202 387 5826Fax ++1 202 387 4823Email: [email protected]: http://www.iucnus.org

IUCN Publications Services Unit219c Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 ODL UKTel ++44 1223 277894Fax ++44 1223 277175Email: [email protected]

IUCN – The World Conservation UnionBiodiversity Policy Coordination Division28 Rue Mauverney1196 Gland, SwitzerlandTel ++41 22 999 0001Fax ++41 22 999 0002Email: [email protected] website: http://www.gbf.ch

Printed in Canada

http://www.iucnus.org

http://www.gbf.ch

C o n t e n t s

Part I: Background to, and EmergingIssues from, the Forum

Introduction .............................................................................. 7

The Climate Change Agenda .............................................. 7

International Efforts to Address Climate Change

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Kyoto Protocol

Linking the Climate Change and Biodiversity Agendas..... 9

The Vulnerability of Ecosystems and Speciesto Climate Change

Improving Resiliency to Climate Change

Utilizing Biodiversity to Mitigate Climate Change

Linking the Climate Changeand Biodiversity Conventions.................................. 11

Thematic Programs

National Strategies and Communications

Financial and Economic Incentives

The Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF)............................ 13

The 11th session of the Global Biodiversity Forum

Emerging Issues from GBF 11 .......................................... 14

Forests in the Climate Change Agenda

Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance

National Strategies and Action Plans

Sustainable Use and Climate Change

Epilogue.................................................................................... 17

End notes ................................................................................. 19

Part II: Forum Report

Opening Plenary .................................................................... 21

Forests in the Climate Change Agenda........................ 22

Overview of presentations

Emerging issues

Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance.................. 25


Emerging issues

National Strategies and Action Plans .......................... 28


Emerging issues

Sustainable Use and Climate Change ........................... 30


Emerging issues

Closing Plenary ...................................................................... 34

Part III: Appendices

Appendix 1: Statement of the GBF............................... 35

Appendix 2: Participants List........................................... 37

P a r t I

Background to,and Emerging Issues from,the Forum

Part I: Background to, and Emerging Issues from, the Forum

7

I n t r o d u c t i o n

In 1896, Professor Svante Arrhenius published a paper inthe Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Sciencetheorizing that large scale burning of fossil fuels (first

seen during the industrial revolution) could raise theconcentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphereand thus raise the surface temperature of the Earth. Over100 years later, mounting evidence would suggest thatProfessor Arrhenius was, at least partially, correct.

The year 1998 was the warmest on record since 1860,capping off a consecutive 20-year warming trend,according to the World Meteorological Organization(WMO). Global temperatures are almost 0.7 ºC abovethose a century ago, with the 10 warmest years alloccurring since 1983 and seven of them since 1990.i

The year 1998 also witnessed one of the most severe ElNiño events in recent memory. El Niño influenced climatearound the globe including forest fires in Indonesia andBrazil, drought in Guyana and Papua New Guinea,flooding in China, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Peru and Kenya.

In China, floods resulted in the loss of over 3,000 liveswhile in Bangladesh, three major floods in just twomonths left 50% of the country under three meters ofwater for extended periods. In Central America, massiveflooding and landslides, triggered by Hurricane Mitch,killed over 9,000 people, displaced 2.4 million anddamaged over 130,000 homes.ii El Niño is also blamed fora wave of high sea surface temperatures that swept overmany of the world’s oceans in 1997-98, and for triggeringone of the most extensive and severe coral bleachingepisodes on modern record.

The events and aftermath of El Niño have served as areminder of the intimate relationship between climate,natural resources and people, and are closely linked to oneof the most important questions facing policy-makers today– the extent to which human activities have influenced thewarming of the Earth over the last 100 years. Although thedistinction between human-induced change and naturalvariability has yet to be fully resolved, there is a growingscientific consensus that human activities are having adiscernible influence on the global climate.

With this background, a large number of organizations,including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) andinternational institutions, co-convened the 11th sessionof the Global Biodiversity Forum. The Forum, held duringthe fourth Conference of the Parties to the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) inNovember 1998, sought to address key ecological,economic, institutional and social issues related to theclimate change agenda.

Part I of this report examines how climate change relatesto ecosystems, species and people. The events that led upto the 11th GBF and the key themes and challengesemerging from the Forum are also described. Part IIcontains a full report from each of the four workshops aswell as the openning and closing plenaries at the Forum.

T h e C l i m a t e C h a n g e

A g e n d a

It is widely acknowledged that the amount of carbondioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases in theatmosphere are increasing. Carbon dioxide in particular

has increased by 30% over the last 200 years, primarilyas a result of changes in land use (e.g. deforestation) andthe combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and naturalgas (e.g. in automobiles, industry and electricitygeneration). If current trends continue, the amount ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere will double during the21st century, with further increases thereafter. Theamounts of other greenhouse gases will also increaseduring the 21st century due primarily to human activities.

The accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhousegases in the atmosphere will change the climate byenhancing the greenhouse effect, leading to an increase inthe Earth’s average surface temperature. Currently, the bestestimate is that the global average surface temperature

will rise 1-3.5 ºC (about 2-6 ºF) by the year 2100 (relativeto 1990), with continued increases thereafter. Becausemost greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a longperiod of time, even if emissions from human activitieswere to stop immediately, the effect of accumulated pastemissions would persist for centuries.iii

International Efforts to Address Climate ChangeClimate change was initially recognized as a seriousproblem meriting international attention at the FirstWorld Climate Conference in 1979. The Conference issueda declaration calling on the world’s governments toprevent potential human-caused changes in climate thatwould adversely impact the well-being of humanity.

Greater understanding of the global climate and evidenceof increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbondioxide caused the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organi-zation to establish the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was given theresponsibility of assessing the current state of knowledgeon the science of climate change, and its potentialecological and social impacts, as well as framing optionsfor mitigating and adapting to climate change.iv

The IPCC published its First Assessment Report on ClimateChange in 1990. The Report affirmed the underlyingscientific basis of climate change. It also noted fossil fuelcombustion from vehicles and industrial activities as oneof the main contributors to human-induced carbon dioxideemissions. The Report also recognized the historic, currentand future contributions of forest and land use activities toclimate change.v Using the IPCC report as a basis, theUnited Nations General Assembly established the Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee to begin negotiatinga Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1990.

The United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC)At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development (the so-called Rio Earth Summit), theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) was signed by 154 governments. The statedobjective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphere at a level that wouldprevent dangerous, human-induced climate change. TheConvention calls upon Parties to achieve that level in a

time-frame which will allow ecosystems to adaptnaturally to climate change, and to ensure that foodproduction is not threatened, and to enable economicdevelopment to proceed in a sustainable manner.vi

The Convention divides the world into two groups:industrialized (Annex I) countries who have been primarilyresponsible for human-induced greenhouse gas emissions;and developing (non-Annex I) countries, who in the futurewill contribute to an increasing proportion of human-induced emissions. The Annex I group consists of 39countries, including the US, Canada, the countries of theEuropean Union, Japan, Australia, Poland, and Russia. TheConvention specifies that these two groups have commonbut differentiated responsibilities for tackling the climatechange problem.

Among the common responsibilities, Parties are obligatedto develop national inventories of greenhouse gasemissions by source and removals by sinks.vii They are alsocommitted to developing national strategies for adaptingto, and mitigating climate change, and to take climatechange considerations into account in the social,economic, and environmental policies. Further, Parties arecalled upon to promote the sustainable management,conservation, and enhancement of sinks of greenhousegases, including forests and all other terrestrial, coastal,and marine ecosystems.

The Parties designated the Global Environment Facility(GEF) as an interim financing mechanism. In addition, theUNFCCC recognized the concept of ‘Joint Implementation.’Under Joint Implementation, Parties acting under theauspices of the Convention voluntarily agree to undertakea project to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gasemissions. In a subsequent meeting, a pilot phase wasestablished to gain experience with Joint Implementation.

In recognition of their historical, and therefore dif-ferentiated, responsibilities for the build-up of greenhousegases in the atmosphere, developed nations committedunder the UNFCCC to voluntarily reduce emissions to1990 levels by the year 2000. The UNFCCC instructed thefirst Conference of the Parties to determine whetherdeveloped country commitments were adequate.

Three years later, emissions in most industrializedcountries were above 1990 levels and in some cases risingsteadily. At the first Conference of the Parties in 1995,Parties recognized that voluntary commitments were

11th Global Biodiversity Forum

8


9

inadequate and agreed to the Berlin Mandate, whichcalled for Parties to initiate a process for strengtheningthe commitments of Annex I Parties in the period beyond2000. A separate subsidiary body, the Ad Hoc Group onthe Berlin Mandate, was created to draft a protocol foradoption at the third Conference of Parties in 1997. TheBerlin Mandate talks were given a significant push whenthe IPCC issued its Second Assessment Report in 1995concluding “the balance of evidence suggests a discerniblehuman influence on the global climate.”viii

The Kyoto ProtocolOn December 11, 1997, delegates from 160 nations agreedto the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. The Protocol callsfor the first ever legally binding commitments to reducecarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Whileindividual country commitments vary, the Protocol callsfor an overall reduction by five per cent from 1990 levels.Those countries with commitments are those Annex IParties to the Convention. Developing (non-Annex I)countries have no commitments.

To accommodate national circumstances, each Annex Icountry agreed to a specific greenhouse gas reductiontarget. For example, Japan committed to a six per centreduction, USA to a seven per cent reduction, while theEuropean Union, as a group, committed to an eight percent reduction. Not all Annex I countries agreed to areduction; Australia was allowed an eight per centincrease from their 1990 emission level. ix

These reductions must be accomplished within the‘commitment period’ from 2008-2012. This five-yearperiod was created to allow for increased flexibility in thetiming of reductions. For example, Japan’s emissions maybe above the six per cent agreed reduction target in anygiven year during the commitment period, as long as theaverage over the five years is not. The Protocol requiresinventories of the six major greenhouse gases.x

To meet their Protocol commitments, Annex I countrieshave a number of options. They may:

• take domestic action to reduce emissions from theirindustrial sectors, such as replacing fossil fuel usewith renewable energy sources

• take domestic action in the forest sector through alimited set of activities – afforestation and reforestation,that count as reductions, and deforestation, that countsas an emission

• utilize three market-based mechanisms created bythe Protocol. Two of these (emissions trading andproject-based credit trading) allow Annex I countriesto buy, sell, or trade greenhouse gas reductions andemission allowances from other Annex I countries.The third mechanism allows Annex I countries to buyor trade project-based credits from non-Annex Icountries – the Clean Development Mechanism.

L i n k i n g t h e

C l i m a t e C h a n g e a n d

B i o d i v e r s i t y A g e n d a s

The Vulnerability of Ecosystems and Speciesto Climate Change

Climate change is considered to be one of the majorthreats to biodiversity at both the species andecosystem levels. The main reason for this is because

the rate of global climate change is projected to be morerapid than any change in climate that has occurred in thelast 10,000 years. This is compounded by the fact thathumans have altered the structure of many of the world’secosystems making them less resilient to further change.Moreover, pollution and other indirect effects of theutilization of natural resources have increased since the

beginning of the industrial revolution. It is likely thatmany ecosystems will not be able to adapt to theadditional stress of climate change without losing some ofthe species they contain or the services they provide.

The IPCC in its Second Assessment Report provided anauthoritative and comprehensive assessment of thepotential impacts of climate change on ecosystems.xi

According to the IPCC, regional changes in climate willalter forest function and composition significantly. Aboutone-third of the existing forested area of the world willundergo major changes in species composition, and someforests may entirely disappear. Some species with climaticranges limited to mountain-tops could become extinctbecause of habitat disappearance.

Climate change is expected to have a serious effect ondesertification processes, at least in certain regions. In areaswhere the environment becomes drier and the soil becomesfurther degraded through erosion and compaction,desertification is likely to become irreversible. The globalhydrological cycle is likely to intensify as a result of climatechange and could have major impacts on regional waterresources, especially in areas where the quantity and qualityof water supplies are already a serious problem today, suchas low-lying coastal areas, deltas and small islands.

The geographical distribution and extent of wetlands islikely to be altered, and some regional studies indicate aloss of wetlands as a result of climate change. Sea levelrise and changes in storm patterns could result in theerosion of shores and associated habitat, increased salinityof estuaries and freshwater aquifers, altered tidal rangesin rivers and bays and increased coastal flooding. Coastalecosystems, such as coral reefs, mangroves, and coastalwetlands are particularly at risk. Individual species will bemore vulnerable because of climate change, and evenwhere they are able to tolerate changes, they will haveto deal with a variety of new competitors, predators,diseases, and alien species for which they have no naturaldefense. Finally, carbon stored in forests and wetlands, inparticular peatlands undergoing transition, as a result ofclimate change, will likely be lost as CO2, enhancing thegreenhouse effect.

It is believed that climate change may lead to anincreased incidence of floods and extreme weather events,such as hurricanes and windstorms. In the case of floods,this would put hundreds of thousands of people living in

the coastal zone and millions more worldwide at a greaterrisk of occasional storm-related flooding. The risk ofhunger and famine may also increase in some locationsdue to shifting patterns of production in addition to otheradverse impacts on coastal agriculture and infrastructuredevelopment. Communities that are currently strugglingto improve their livelihoods will likely be made morevulnerable by climate change. Addressing the problem ofclimate change is central to efforts to conserve theintegrity and diversity of nature and to ensure naturalresources are used equitably and sustainably.

Improving Resiliency to Climate ChangeAlthough climate variability and change pose risks toecosystems and species, and social and economic systems,they also provide opportunities. Adaptation is an importantapproach for protecting ecological, social and economicsystems. Actions that adapt to and mitigate the effects ofclimate change enhance the resilience of vulnerablesystems, and reduce the risk of damage to human andnatural systems from climate change and variability.xii

Hurricane Mitch in 1998 devastated human settlements,crippled national and local economies, and displaced tensof thousands of people. The floods in Bangladesh andChina had a similar effect. More often than not, the areasmost affected were areas where the environment was themost degraded, and the people who were the mostvulnerable were those most resource-dependent, includingwomen and children. At the same time, protected areasand other areas with effective management regimes inplace demonstrated an ability to buffer at least some ofthe adverse effects.

Good conservation and management practices today maytherefore be the most cost-effective and practical way ofdealing with the variations and changes in climate in thefuture. In order to develop such practices, it will beimportant to consider the vulnerability of human health,ecosystems, and socio-economic systems, and examine therole of communities in improving our ability to cope withthe adverse effects of variations and changes in climate.

Utilizing Biodiversity to Mitigate Climate Change The conversion and degradation of forest and grasslandecosystems are not only significant driving forces behindspecies extinction and the loss of critical ecosystemfunctions and services, but are also contributors toclimate change.xiii For centuries prior to the 1700s, carbon


10

Table 1Forests and Land Use Change Under the Kyoto Protocol

Articles relevant to land use change and forests

3.3 Defines which activities may be utilized byindustrialized countries during the 2008-2012commitment period to achieve emissions reductions inparticular human-induced afforestation, reforestationand deforestation that has occurred since 1990.

3.4 States that later Conferences of the Parties mayinclude additional activities such as forest harvestand management to achieve emissions reductions.

6 and 17 Outline project-based credit and emissions tradingbetween industrialized countries. These allowindustrialized countries to trade emission allowanceswith other industrialized countries. Article 6 specifiesproject-based credit trading and explicitly refers toenhancing carbon storage and reducing emissions,such as by slowing deforestation and tree planting.

12 Outlines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).Allows industrialized countries to meet their reductionsvia projects in developing countries. There is no explicitmention of land use change and forest projects, makingit uncertain that such projects will be allowed.


11

stored in terrestrial ecosystems were reduced as peopleconverted temperate forests and grasslands into farms.Today, owing mostly to deforestation in the tropics,releases from land-based activities are probably greaterthan ever before, accounting for about 16 per cent ofcarbon flows into the atmosphere in 1991.xiv In thecoming years, as rates of deforestation continue to rise,CO2 emissions are expected to increase even further.

Therefore, the conservation of forests offers importantopportunities to protect biodiversity and slow climatechange. For example, old-growth Douglas Fir forests in thePacific Northwest of the United States, provide a criticalbreeding and feeding habitat to a range of species, suchas the Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk. These forestsare also one of the most efficient storehouses of carbon.

Russia and Canada house most of the world’s borealforests, making these two nations critical carbonstorehouses. However, further deforestation or degradationof these forests could potentially be a significant sourceof emissions. These same forests also harbor endangeredanimal species and are the traditional homelands of

indigenous peoples. Carbon sequestration potential, en-dangered forest regions, and biodiversity ‘hot spots’ oftenoverlap, particularly in developing countries, offeringopportunities for synergies among various concerns.xv

The UNFCCC commits nations to promoting sustainablemanagement and conservation of forests and otherterrestrial, as well as marine, ecosystems. The KyotoProtocol could provide opportunities to encourage therestoration, protection, and conservation of forests andother ecosystems within developed and developingcountries. However, a great deal of work needs to be doneto ensure that the ecological and social values of forestsand other biodiversity are given adequate consideration.

L i n k i n g t h e C l i m a t e

C h a n g e a n d B i o d i v e r s i t y

C o n v e n t i o n s

At present the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) are mainly implemented in

parallel rather than jointly, yet the relationship betweenthe two issues is profound. First and foremost, the goalsof the CBD, encompassing conservation, sustainable use,and the equitable sharing of benefits, are unlikely to beachieved without taking climate change into account.Secondly, there are positive synergies that can becaptured, and negative outcomes that need to be avoided,concerning the implementation of these two agreements.Thirdly, there are institutional linkages that could befurther explored to avoid redundancy of effort andcapture economies of scale in operation. There are anumber of issues that immediately provide avenuesthrough which Parties to the CBD and the UNFCCC coulddevelop a mutually supportive relationship. These include:(1) thematic programs; (2) national strategies andcommunications; (3) financial and economic incentives.

Thematic ProgramsForests

Forests have been consistently identified as the single mostimportant substantive topic that the CBD and the UNFCCCshare. Article 4(d) of the UNFCCC explicitly calls on Partiesto promote sustainable management and conservation offorests and other natural ecosystems that serve as sinksof greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes a

limited set of forest activities – afforestation, reforestation,and deforestation – that could be used by industrializedcountries to meet their legally binding commitments toreduce greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the Protocolallows for additional activities in the forest and land usesector, such as forest and land management practices, tobe incorporated into the framework.

There are however no clear definitions for such forestactivities, leading to concerns that countries may adopt anarrow focus toward forests and other natural ecosystemsvaluing them only for their carbon sequestration benefits.This could lead to policies that promote the development offast growing, monoculture plantation forestry at the expenseof the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

The CBD has developed a programme of work which focuseson research, criteria and indicators and development oftechnologies necessary for the conservation and sustainableuse of forest biodiversity. The objectives of the programmeare to develop measures and tools for enhancing integrationof the principles of the Convention into national forest andland-use programmes; to identify financing mechanisms forthese activities; and to contribute to the ongoing work inother international processes, including the UNFCCC. At CBDCOP 4, the Parties noted the potential impact of the activitieslisted in the Kyoto Protocol on forest biological diversity andon other ecosystems; and requested “the Executive Secretaryto strengthen relationships with... the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change and its KyotoProtocol... with a view to making implementation activitiesand institutional arrangements mutually supportive.”xvi

Marine and Coastal Biodiversity

Coral reef ecosystems are considered to be extremelysensitive to climate change, since many corals live on theupper edge of their temperature tolerance. These ecosystems

provide a variety of goods andservices to society, such as

tourism, fisheries, andcoastal protection

but are continuouslyunder stress froma variety of human

activities. One

of the most severe coral bleaching events in modern recordoccurred in 1997-98, due to increased sea surface tempe-ratures. Every major reef region in the world experiencedbleaching, except the Central Pacific Ocean.

At CBD COP 4 the Parties noted the increase in coralbleaching and its possible link to climate change andrequested its Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA) to study the issue andreport its findings to the next CBD Conference of theParties. The CBD Parties also invited the UNFCCC toaddress this matter urgently in its deliberations.xvii

Article 2 of the UNFCCC explicitly acknowledges theimportance of natural ecosystems, and commits Partiesto address the climate change problem in a manner thatwill “allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climatechange.” The vulnerability of countries with coral reefs,such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), to climatechange is recognized in Articles 4.8 and 4.9. Theseprovisions call for full consideration of the actionsnecessary to meet their specific needs and concerns indealing with the adverse effects of climate change.xviii

National Strategies and Communications The UNFCCC and the CBD (as well as the UN Conventionto Combat Desertification – UNCCD) commit Parties toprepare national strategies and action plans in order toimplement these agreements. Under the UNFCCC, allParties, including industrialized and developing countries,are called upon to develop ‘national communications’ thatcontain inventories of greenhouse gas emissions (fromindustrial activities and land use change) and greenhousegas removals by sinks. Further, the Parties agreed to adoptnational programs for mitigating climate change anddevelop strategies for adapting to its impacts.

The CBD, under Article 6, calls on Parties to developnational biodiversity strategies and to integratebiodiversity conservation and sustainable use into relevantsectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies.The UNCCD calls on its Parties to integrate strategies tocombat desertification and mitigate the effects of droughtinto national policies for sustainable development. Underboth the CBD and UNCCD, this would include the plans,programs, and policies that are designed to implementthe UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.


12


13

With the adoption of these and other multilateralenvironmental agreements, the planning and implementingcapacity in many countries has become stressed andfragmented. Investigating ways to integrate communi-cation and reporting requirements between the threeconventions would be a practical step toward increasingefficiency and enhancing synergy in implementation. TheCBD has taken steps with the biodiversity-relatedconventions to explore joint work programs and thedevelopment of integrated information systems in order todisseminate technical and scientific information relevant toboth agreements.xix

Financial and Economic IncentivesThe UNFCCC and CBD are linked in part through the useof the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as their financialmechanism. The GEF has an important and clearly definedrole to play in financing the incremental costs of country-driven projects that provide global environmental benefitsin the context of both conventions. Additional financialinnovations, however, are needed to implement theseconventions.

Firstly, there is a need to explore common issues andchallenges facing the financing of climate change andbiodiversity from several perspectives, in particular,economic, legal, and institutional. Secondly, furtherexamination of the role and function of public nationalenvironmental funds, private social responsibility funds,environmental and social standards for export creditagencies, and the elimination of environmentally perversesubsidies is needed.

For biodiversity, it has been proposed that new approachesto finance need to be developed as part of the broaderframework of enabling conditions, including publicawareness, clearer definition of property rights, strengthen-ing of the legal system, and reforming fiscal policies suchas taxes and subsidies.xx For climate change, the KyotoProtocol calls for the creation of new market-basedmechanisms to facilitate emissions reductions in the mostcost-effective manner possible. It is imperative that thesenew market mechanisms, created by the Kyoto Protocol,do not lead to the loss of biodiversity.

T h e G l o b a l B i o d i v e r s i t y

F o r u m ( G B F )

The Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) was conceived by theGlobal Biodiversity Strategy (WRI, IUCN, UNEP, 1992), andis designed to contribute to the further development and

implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and other biodiversity-related instruments at theinternational, regional and national levels.

The Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) provides anindependent, open and strategic mechanism to fosteranalysis, dialogue and debate among all interested partieson critical issues related to biodiversity. It achieves this by:

• providing a forum to examine a broad spectrum ofperspectives, proposals and experiences from allstakeholders

• building diverse partnerships among stakeholders(including governments, indigenous groups, localcommunities, NGOs and the private sector)

• providing an impetus to key issues and areas thatrequire further development and attention.

The first formal test of the Forum concept was hosted bythe African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) inNairobi in January 1993. Since then, ten sessions of theGlobal Diversity Forum have been held. Box 1 outlinestopics of previous Forums.

The 11th Session of the Global Biodiversity ForumOne of the initiatives of IUCN, following the 1996 WorldConservation Congress in Montreal, Canada, was to developa coordinated strategy for climate change as it relates tothe conservation of biodiversity and natural resources andto participate more actively in the UNFCCC and the IPCCprocesses. Among IUCN’s first efforts to implement thisinitiative, was a collaboration with its members andpartners in organizing in December 1997 the ninth sessionof the GBF, held in Kyoto, Japan during UNFCCC COP 3. Box2 contains the main points from GBF 9.

In July 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the IUCN NationalCommittee for Argentina invited the IUCN Senior Advisorfor Social Policy to discuss the possibility of an eventduring the fourth Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC.

Based on this meeting, the IUCN National Committee forArgentina and the IUCN Climate Change Initiative incollaboration with the IUCN Biodiversity Policy Co-ordination Division (BPCD) and the IUCN Regional Officefor South America (SUR), agreed to take the lead inconvening the 11th session of the Global BiodiversityForum. A host of other organizations agreed to co-convene the event, including some traditional GBFpartners such as World Resources Institute (WRI), AfricanCentre for Technology Studies (ACTS), United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), Biodiversity ActionNetwork (BIONET), and Indigenous Peoples BiodiversityNetwork (IPBN) and some new partners, in particular theClimate Action Network – Latin America and the UnitedNations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Working in close collaboration, these organizations agreedthat the objectives of the Forum would be to:

1. Facilitate a dialogue between the two communities

2. Identify areas for mutually reinforcing collaborationin the implementation of both conventions.

Together, they developed an agenda that aimed to addressthe key ecological, economic, institutional and socialissues related to the climate change agenda.

About 150 individuals from 40 countries participated inthe 11th session of the GBF, held on 6-8 November 1998during UNFCCC COP 4 (2-13 November 1998).

E m e r g i n g I s s u e s

f r o m G B F 1 1

The opening plenary included introductory remarks bythe IUCN National Commitee for Argentina, the WorldResources Institute as well as the Executive Secretaries

of both UNFCCC and the CBD. The keynote address ofGBF 11 was delivered by the president of UNFCCC COP 4and the Secretary of Natural Resources and SustainableDevelopment, Maria Julia Alsogaray. A Call to Action waspresented by UNEP. The plenary concluded withpresentations of each of the four workshop themes for theForum. They were:

• Forests in the Climate Change Agenda

• Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance

• National Strategies and Action Plans

• Sustainable Use and Climate Change


14

Box 1:Previous topics of the Global Biodiversity Forum

GBF 1 – Gland, Switzerland (October 1993) hosted by IUCN– examined critical issues facing the furtherdevelopment of the Convention. It was heldimmediately prior to the first meeting of theIntergovernmental Committee on CBD (ICCBD1).

GBF 2 – Nassau, Bahamas (November 1994) hosted by theBahamas National Trust – was held immediatelyprior to the first meeting of the Conference of theParties (COP 1) to the Convention.

GBF 3 – Jakarta, Indonesia (November 1995) hosted by theIndonesian Biodiversity Foundation and WWF-Indonesia Programme – was held immediately priorto the COP 2 to the CBD. The first regional session ofthe GBF (GBF-Latin America) was held for LatinAmerica in Colombia in May 1996.

GBF 4 – Montreal, Canada (Aug/Sept 1996) hosted by theCanadian Coalition for Biodiversity, Canadian GlobalChange Program and a number of otherorganizations – was held immediately prior to thesecond meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA2). Thesecond regional session of the GBF (GBF 1-EastAfrica) was held in Kenya in September 1996.

GBF 5 – Buenos Aires, Argentina (November 1996) hosted bythe Fundacision of the GBF (GBF 1-East Africa) washeld in Kenya in September 1996.

GBF 6 – New York, USA (April 1997) hosted by theBiodiversity Action Network (BIONET) – exploredoptions for incorporating indicators and targets intonational implementation reports required under theConvention on Biological Diversity.

GBF 7 – Harare, Zimbabwe (June 1997) hosted by ZimbabweTrust – explored the synergies between the CBD andCITES and was held immediately prior to the CITESCOP10.

GBF 8 – Montreal, Canada (August 1997) hosted by IUCNCanada – was held immediately prior to the 3rdmeeting of SBSTTA. The third regional session of theGBF (GBF 2-East Africa) was held in Nairobi, Kenya,on 17-19 November 1997 and was hosted by ICRAF.

GBF 9 – Kyoto, Japan (December 1997) hosted by IUCN – washeld during the UNFCCC COP 3 and explored thelinkages between biodiversity and climate change.

GBF 10 – Bratislava, Slovakia (May 1998) hosted by IUCNwas held immediately prior to the CBD COP 4.


15

On Saturday, 7 November, the four workshops were heldin parallel over the course of the day. On Sunday, 8November, the workshop organizers presented theconclusions and recommendations of each of theworkshops in plenary, and the Forum was brought to aclose. The following describes the main points thatemerged from the four workshops.

Forests in the Climate Change Agenda Participants in this workshop recognized that the destructionand conversion of forests and other natural ecosystemsworld-wide is a significant contributor to the loss ofbiodiversity and also a part of the problem of climate change.Forest-based measures intended to mitigate climate changecould provide significant biodiversity and socio-economicbenefits. However, this outcome is not assured. Done in-correctly, the forest-based measures to address climatechange through the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol couldresult in negative impacts on forests and other naturalecosystems, communities and the climate system.

It is essential that the Parties develop clear guidelines toavoid adverse impacts of forest-based measures onbiodiversity in the implementation of the marketmechanisms of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. Inparticular, there is a need to avoid measures that replacenatural forests with plantations, even if doing so producesa net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, the Parties to the UNFCCC and its KyotoProtocol should seek to produce benefits for biodiversityconservation. It was recommended that the IPCC SpecialReport on Land Use Change and Forestry assess thebiodiversity consequences of forest-based options formitigating climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. The CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) has the potential to facilitateforest-based projects that contribute to climate mitigation,biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

Biodiversity, Climate Change and FinanceThe participants discussed the role of financial and economicincentives in promoting the objectives of the UNFCCC andthe CBD. The 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 andclimate change initiatives.

Box 2:Forging the link between climate change

and biological diversity

On December 6, 1997 130 participants representing a widerange of stakeholders, including governments, internationalinstitutions, and NGOs met in Kyoto, Japan for a GlobalBiodiversity Forum on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Theforum was convened to coincide with the Third Conferenceof the Parties to the UNFCCC. Below is a synthesis of themajor points that were raised.

1. The negotiations of the UNFCCC have yet to addressdirectly the serious threat that climate change poses tothe diversity of life on Earth. Governments should,therefore, negotiate a climate change treaty whichrecognizes that biodiversity loss is likely to acceleratebecause of climate change.

2. A growing body of research indicates that a clear andimmediate danger now faces individual species andhabitats as a result of climate change. However, moreaccurate predictions of the possible ecological responsesto climate change are needed to facilitate thedevelopment of adaptation strategies to climate change.

3. Projects undertaken in the pilot phase of JointImplementation under the UNFCCC demonstrate thatforest-based carbon sequestration projects have thepotential to serve as a viable element of a climatechange mitigation strategy. Some projects havedemonstrated not only climate benefits, but also benefitsto forest and biodiversity conservation.

4. Provisions under the Kyoto Protocol, such as the “net”approach, emissions trading and the Clean DevelopmentMechanism hold both promise and potential peril forachieving forest conservation objectives. The Conven-tions on Climate Change, Biological Diversity, and De-sertification as well as the Ramsar Convention shouldcollaborate more closely in order to build synergies andstrengthen their effectiveness in promoting sustainabledevelopment.

5. Governments, international financial institutions, andnon-governmental organizations should place a highpriority on developing the institutional capacity toimplement policies and actions that jointly address theproblems of climate change and biodiversity loss.

to implement one agreement may contradict theobjectives of another, such as replacing native forestedecosystems with plantations in order to sequester carbon.

It was suggested that streamlining and coordinatingbetween agreements at the national and international levelwould help to raise the importance of the internationalenvironmental regime within the international system andto bring it to an equal footing with other internationalregimes, such as the World Trade Organization. Theworkshop participants stressed the need to identify areasof common concern that can be pursued in the action plansunder the three Rio Conventions. For instance, local actionsto improve resilience of ecological and social system, forexample, by promoting restoration and/or conservation offorested watersheds is one example where climate,desertification, and biodiversity goals can be reached.

Further, the workshop participants invited the Conference ofthe Parties of each of the Rio Conventions, the ConventionSecretariats, and other stakeholders to promote guidelinesand financial resources to develop and carry out projectsand action plans that implement these agreements in amutually supportive manner. Finally, as a means to promotesynergy among the Conventions, effective communicationmechanisms should be established between the differentgroups and stakeholders working with the three RioConventions at the global, national and local level.

Sustainable Use and Climate ChangeIn this workshop, evidence was presented that recentextreme events, such as the floods in Bangladesh and Chinaand coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean and Caribbean, haveled to a loss of biodiversity, and may be a signal of climatechange. It was pointed out that resource-poor communitiesand communities heavily dependent on natural resourcesface tough choices in adapting to a climate changed world.

The participants suggested that the role of financial and legalinstruments in facilitating adaptation needs to be furtherexplored. Further, it was highlighted that, in spite of thecomplexity of the task, a concerted effort was necessary toassess the economic value on biodiversity goods and servicesin order for that value to be recognized by policy makers. Theneed to enhance the role of local communities and promotethe active participation of groups, such as indigenouscommunities and women, in the climate change debate was


16

In the first instance, it was recognized that the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) has an important and clearlydefined role to play in financing the implementation ofthe UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Itwas also noted that the GEF may be in a unique positionto further the debate on how to implement the twoconventions in a mutually supportive manner.

For climate change, two modalities were presented tofacilitate financing for climate change mitigation. Oneproposed an international currency transactions tax of.25% in order to generate financial capital of approximately$100-200 billion per year, which could be used to financeclean energy investments in industrialized and developingcountries. A second suggestion was to allow within theframework of the Kyoto Protocol the allocation of emissionsentitlements, based on per-capita carbon utilization, witha view toward convergence. It was asserted that this wouldfacilitate an equitable transfer from fossil fuels toenvironmentally friendly non-carbon energy technologies.Overall, it was concluded that the private sector hasindicated a willingness to participate in the implementationof the goals of the UNFCCC and the CBD, but clear rules ofthe game are needed to provide sufficient encouragementfor broad private sector involvement.

Coordinating National Strategies and Action PlansBetween the UNFCCC, the CBD, and the UNCCDThe participants of this workshop took note of the growingnumber of multilateral environmental agreements – theUNFCCC, the Convention on Biological Diversity, theConvention to Combat Desertification, the RamsarConvention, and the World Heritage Convention to name justa few. It was observed that this proliferation of agreementshas lead to a more and more fragmented internationalenvironmental regime. The planning and implementingcapacity of many countries has become stressed.

It was recommended that the international environmentalregime be viewed in a more holistic manner, and that, atthe national level, countries endeavor to do more tocoordinate and build synergy in their efforts to implementthese agreements. This would include exploring measures,such as watershed conservation which simultaneouslymitigate climate change and prevent the loss ofbiodiversity. It was also stressed that the increasingnumber of agreements has created the risk that efforts


17

highlighted. The full participation of all stakeholders in thedesign of strategies and actions is the key to successfullymitigating and adapting to climate change.

E p i l o g u e

The main Forum conclusion was the urgent need forfurther efforts to raise the profile of ecological andsocial concerns within the climate change agenda. In

particular, participants recommended that protecting theecological integrity of nature and sustaining the societies,which are supported by it, must be taken into account inaddressing the climate change issue.

Immediately following the Forum, the co-convenorsprepared a statement to be delivered to the plenary sessionof the fourth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. Thestatement was delivered by Fernando Ardura of the IUCNNational Committee for Argentina on behalf of the GBF co-convenors and participants. It is enclosed in Appendix 1.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, 14 November,delegates to UNFCCC COP 4 adopted the Buenos Aires Planof Action. Under the Plan of Action, the Parties committedto strengthening the implementation of the Conventionand to prepare for the future entry into force of the KyotoProtocol. The Plan gives new guidance to the GEF andentrusts it the permanent financial mechanism of theConvention. It also calls for the Parties to make concreteprogress on the development and transfer of technologyas well as the identification of criteria to determine theadverse impacts of climate change (UNFCCC Articles 4.8and 4.9). The Plan also establishes a process for makingprogress on the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

Subsequent to GBF 11, a concerted effort has beeninitiated to establish an international network ofgovernments, NGOs, international institutions, and privatesector representatives. A website has been created tofacilitate information exchange and further develop thenetwork with a view toward pursuing joint activities onthe many issues and themes highlighted by the Forum.For more information contact: http://www.iucnus.org

Box 3:Forthcoming Dates

2000 CBD SBSTTA-5, Montreal, Canada.

2000 CBD COP-5, Nairobi, Kenya.

2000 Certified emissions reductions in non-Annex 1countries may be credited under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism.

2000 UNFCCC COP-6.

2000 IPCC scheduled to complete its Special Report onLand Use Change and Forestry.

2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, which willdescribe the state of knowledge on the scienceand impacts of climate change as well asmitigation options.

2005 Industrialized (Annex 1) countries under theKyoto Protocol should have made ‘demonstrableprogress’ in meeting commitments.

2008-12 Compliance period during which emissionsreductions targets under the Kyoto Protocol mustbe reached.


i. 1998 Global Surface Temperature – Highest by a Wide MarginAccording to WMO. Annual Statement on the Global Climate,World Meteorological Organization, Press Release, 17December 1998.

ii. Statement at the Fifteenth Session of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change by Professor G.O.P. Obasi, Secretary-General, World Meteorological Organization, San Jose, CostaRica, 15 April 1999.

iii. Common Questions about Climate Change. United NationsEnvironment Programme and World MeteorologicalOrganization. Available online at:http://www.climatenetwork.org/USCAN/index.html

iv. Alan D. Hecht and Dennis Tirpak. ‘Framework Agreement onClimate Change: A Scientific and Policy History’. ClimaticChange 29 (April 1995) no. 4: 371.

v. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 1.Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. WorldMeteorological Organization and United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. J.T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums. eds.New York: Cambridge University Press 1990.

vi. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change . Available online at:http://www.unfccc.de/fccc/conv/conv.htm.

vii. According to the UNFCCC, a ‘sink’ is any process, activity ormechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or aprecursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. A ‘source’is any process or activity which releases a greenhouse gas, anaerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas into theatmosphere. United Nations. United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. (United Nations, New York,1992). Available online at:http://www.unfccc.de/fccc/conv/conv.htm.

viii. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘Summary forPolicy Makers’ in Climate Change 1995: The Science of ClimateChange. eds. Bert Bolin, John Houghton, and L. Gylvan MeiraFilho. (Rome: December 1995).

ix. Japan received a lower target than the USA because it arguedthat as a relatively more energy-efficient nation, greaterreductions would be more difficult. Australia argued that itsdependence on coal would make reductions, or evenstabilization, at 1990 levels too difficult.

x. The six major greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2),nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

xi. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘Summary forPolicymakers,’ in Climate Change 1995: The Science of ClimateChange. Scientific-Technical Analyses of Impacts, Adaptationsand Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Second Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

xii. Joel D. Scheraga and Anne E. Grambsch, ‘Risks, Opportunities,and Adaptation to Climate Change,’ Climate Research 10(1998): 85-95.

xiii. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II.Technologies, Policies and Measures for Mitigating ClimateChange. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss eds.Technical Paper. (November: 1996).

xiv. World Resources Institute et al., World Resources 1996-1997326-29 (1996).

xv. Paige Brown, Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests: Issues andOpportunities Emerging From the Kyoto Protocol. WorldResources Institute and IUCN-The World Conservation Union,1998.

xvi. CBD Decision IV/7, Forest biological diversity. United Nations.Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at:http://www.biodiv.org/COPS.html

xvii. CBD Decision IV/5, Conservation and sustainable use of marineand coastal ecosystems, including a programme of work.United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity. Availableonline at: http://www.biodiv.org/COPS.html

xviii. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change. United Nations, New York, 1992. Availableonline at: http://www.unfccc.de/fccc/conv/conv.htm.

xix. CBD Decisions IV/2, Review of the operations of the clearing-house mechanism, and Decision IV/15, The relationship of theConvention on Biological Diversity with the Commission onSustainable Development and biodiversity-related conventions,other international agreements, institutions and processes ofrelevance. United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity.Available online at: http://www.biodiv.org/COPS.html

xx. ‘Financial Innovations for Biodiversity’. A Workshop at the 10thGlobal Biodiversity Forum (May 98), Bratislava, Slovakia.Organised by: IUCN Economics Service Unit, IUCN WashingtonOffice, and the UNEP Financial Services Initiative. Availableonline at http://economics.iucn.org/98-03-00.htm


18

E n d n o t e s

http://www.climatenetwork.org/USCAN/index.html

http://www.unfccc.de/fccc/conv/conv.htm


http://www.biodiv.org/COPS.html




http://economics.iucn.org/98-03-00.htm

P a r t I I

Forum Report


21

O p e n i n g P l e n a r y

The plenary was opened and co-chaired by IUCN’s headof delegation, Alicia Barcena and Javier GarciaFernandez from the IUCN National Committee for

Argentina. Ms Barcena noted that this GBF was a secondattempt to connect climate change and biodiversityconservation issues, the first being GBF 9, held in Kyoto.

Jonathan Lash, President of The World Resources Institute(WRI) focused on interconnections between climatechange and biodiversity loss. Both are global withincreasing intensities of impacts and largely irreversible.Mr Lash pointed out that forests are both a reservoir ofbiological diversity and a site of carbon sequestration. Hesuggested that a holistic approach to forest conservationcould be used as an example for future synergisticresponses by parties to the two conventions.

Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Michael ZammitCutajar indicated that synergies do not happen naturallybetween conventions. Leadership is needed to bring thetwo conventions together. Mr Cutajar saw forests as anobvious linkage between the UNFCCC, the CBD, the GEF,the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests. Hecalled for the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) to assist in integrating scientific assessments,intervening in areas that affect aspects of more than oneconvention, and raising public awareness. He also statedthat UNEP needs to provide capacity building in order tobetter integrate the conventions and to merge reportingresponsibilities to assist developing countries.

Acting Executive Secretary of the CBD, Hamdallah Zedanalso supported the need to coordinate activities under theUNFCCC, CBD as well as the UNCCD. Human actionsdisrupt the Earth’s systems and processes throughoverpopulation and unchecked consumption. Tamperingwith the biological diversity of forests, wetlands, coastalareas has effects that are felt at the ecosystem, speciesand genetic levels. He stated the objectives of the CBD andstressed the need for humanity to appreciate ecologicalservices provided by biological diversity, rather than simplyvaluing an ecosystem for its goods. He also stressed thatforest systems must be regarded as more than just a sinkfor carbon – but also as reservoirs for biodiversity.

Maria Julia Alsogaray, President of the UNFCCC CoP 4 andSecretary of Natural Resources and SustainableDevelopment for the Government of Argentina, deliveredthe keynote address and spoke about Argentina’s role incoordinating the various relevant conventions. She statedthat Argentina recognizes that treating each convention inisolation will not lead to the satisfaction of any of the threeRio Conventions’ objectives. She asserted that pursuingsustainable development is not a luxury, but rather anecessity – no one can afford to develop without it.

A Call to Action was presented by Jorge Illueca, Director,Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP based on arecently completed study by the World Bank and UNEPon the inter-linkages between global environmental issuesand human needs. He argued that the integration of theefforts under each convention would allow actions toaddress multiple treaties and obligations and prevent theinadvertent creation of new environmental problems fromthe solution of another. It would also promote nationalplanning and the development of institutions. Research,training, monitoring, and information exchanges could alleasily be coordinated by an integrated approach. Heoutlined a plan of action for effectively integrating theconventions, which included:

• creating a base of knowledge so that meaningfuldecisions can be made

• restructuring institutions to improve the capacity fornational implementation of these conventions

• developing consistency in countries’ environmentallegal regimes

• increasing government coordination and NGO effortsin developing national strategies and action plans.

The opening plenary concluded with descriptions of eachof the four workshops presented by Peter Frumhoff, Unionof Concerned Scientists, USA (Forests); Atiq Rahmann,Vice Chair of IUCN Commission on Economic,Environment and Social Policy (Finance); Jakob Lau Holst,IUCN SUR (National Strategies); and Hans J.H. Verolme,BIONET, USA (Sustainable Use).

F o r e s t s i n t h e C l i m a t e

C h a n g e A g e n d a

The workshop was organized by Union of ConcernedScientists, World Resources Institute, Tata EnergyResearch Institute, and The Nature Conservancy and

was attended by about 40-50 participants.

Overview of presentationsThe first session involved a general discussion of the roleof land use change and forest activities in the climatechange agenda.

Decisions on how to implement the forest provisions ofthe Kyoto Protocol will be informed by the IPCC’s SpecialReport on land use change and forestry issues and thefirst presentation given by Sandra Brown discussed thecontent of this upcoming report. She presented an outlineof the report which included – definitions of forestactivities – possible additional activities – methodologiesand reporting frameworks –implications of full carbonstock accounting and socio-economic impacts of forest-based measures.

Paige Brown of World Resources Institute (WRI) discussedissues and opportunities for forests associated with theKyoto Protocol and its market-based mechanisms.Although the Kyoto Protocol significantly advanced thecause of climate protection, it left many questionsunanswered, including the role of forests and land usechange in meeting obligations to global warming.Concerns were raised over the possible negative environ-mental impacts, such as converting natural forests to fastgrowing plantation in order to claim carbon reductioncredits. The consideration of social and environmentalscreening of projects to help prevent such practices andproject screening to ensure property and usage rights andneeds of local users are taken into account was discussed.

A third presentation was given by Dan Lashof of theNatural Resources Defense Council regarding the potentialof biotic carbon stocks to help stabilize greenhouse gasemissions. In order to achieve the objectives of the KyotoProtocol, tight limits on fossil fuel consumption alongwith accurate accounting and secure management ofbiotic carbon stocks will be necessary. In addition the needto design appropriate policies to create incentives fortechnological innovation in the energy sector was raised.

The final presentation by Marcelo Mautone, fromAsociación para la Acción Clímatica, Uruguay looked atlimitations of greenhouse gas inventory methods foremissions from land use change under the UNFCCC. Themethodological challenges to determining such inven-tories can be addressed by evaluating the accuracy of dataproduced within the country, consulting with experts andevaluating uncertainties to improve monitoring at thenational and international levels.

The second session addressed regional experiences andopportunities for project-based measures to link forestconservation and climate change mitigation.

Hermes Justiniano, from Fundación Amigos de laNaturaleza, Bolivia gave a presentation on the NoelKempff Climate Action Project, situated in a 4 million acrenational park in Bolivia. The project attempts to dem-onstrate that forest conservation projects are credible,measurable and verifiable as greenhouse gas emissionsavoidance strategies. The project implements a carbonmonitoring program to quantify greenhouse gas emissionavoided as a result of retiring logging rights on 1.6 millionacres of land and permanently protects these lands as partof the national park. Long term funding for parkprotection has been established and sustainabledevelopment initiatives for local peoples are supported.With an increase in park size, the genetic continuity ofnumerous species is assured.

Rodel Lasco, Director of the Environmental ForestryProgramme, Philippines, discussed the opportunitiesavailable for forest and biodiversity conservation as aresult of the climate change agenda in the Philippines.These include a greater appreciation of the value ofstanding forests due to their importance as carbon sinks,the potential for enhanced forest conservation andincrease in tree farming, the potential for addressingpoverty in upland areas and the opportunities for fundsourcing. However, there was concern that the


22


23

attractiveness of tropical forests as a carbon sink couldlead to an emphasis on fast-growing, non-nativemonoculture tree plantations.

Tim Afful-Koomson of WRI, discussed forestry mitigationoptions in Africa. It was pointed out that sustainabledevelopment is closely tied to the forestry sector in Africabut that African countries at present are not proactive inmaking forestry projects eligible under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism. Skepticism towards theinclusion of forestry projects in the CDM may be due tomisunderstanding of possible contributions that forestprojects under the CDM could make to sustainabledevelopment in Africa. Also, it may also be due toexperience with previous project-based mechanisms –particularly with AIJ (Activities Implemented Jointly)where Africa received only two out of 72 projects. It wassuggested that pricing carbon sequestration based onecological diversity of the forestry projects and itssignificance in meeting rural development needs wasappropriate to Africa.

The final presentation by Alberto Salas of IUCN, OficinaRegional Para Mesoamérica (ORMA) focused on thefeasibility of establishing a Meso-American BiologicalCorridor for climate change mitigation and biodiversityconservation.

The third session discussed technical and policy issuesunique to forest-based measures under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism.

Geraldo Alatorre of the Grupo de Estudios AmbientalesXalapa, Mexico discussed the use of Latin Americanforests as carbon sinks to prevent climate change. Optionsfor forestry emissions reductions which would lead tomaximizing stocks and sequestration of carbon, and avoidenvironmental and social risks could include sustainablesilviculture and conservation, allowing communities tobecome stewards of their own forests, establishingfirewood plantations, low impact harvesting, agricultureand agro-forestry. Middle scale rather than large scaleprojects would allow local institutions and organizationsto participate in project design and implementation.

Suzi Kerr, Motu Economic Research, presented researchon carbon sequestration and land use in Costa Rica. TheCDM could potentially fund forest projects in the tropicsto sequester carbon to offset fossil fuel carbon emissions.

It was pointed out however, that before this potential canbe realized the rules for measuring certified emissionreductions (CERs) from carbon sequestration must bedefined. A methodology was proposed that wouldestimate the potential supply of CERs from tropical sinksand assess the tradeoff between accuracy of CERmeasurement and value from CERs. The model proposedwould estimate a deforestation threat and reforestationprobability for each piece of land as a function of physicaland economic characteristics.

Though ambiguously defined, the Kyoto Protocol limitsthe calculation of carbon stocks in natural ecosystems toreforestation, afforestation and deforestation. AnneHambleton of the Center for Sustainable Development inthe Americas, discussed a number of activities that couldprovide net climate benefits not currently included inthese categories, such as increasing biomass in existingforests, reduced impact logging and increased soils carbonin agriculture or forestry.

Emerging issuesThe following points summarize the general issuesemerging from workshop discussions. They reflect thediverse perspectives of the presenters and discussants atthe workshop.

General• Forests are an important part of the problem and

potentially an important part of the solution to bothbiodiversity loss and climate change.

• Forest-based measures to mitigate climate changeshould complement fossil-fuel based measures toreduce emissions.

• There is a need to improve greenhouse gas inventorymethods to measure changes in all forest carbonstocks and land use change dynamics.

• Forest-based measures to reduce emissions canpromote increases in technical capacity to monitorand understand forest ecosystems.

• The IPCC special report on land-use change andforestry should assess the biodiversity consequencesof forest-based options for mitigating climatechange under the Kyoto Protocol.

Presentations given during the workshop

Session 1:Forests, climate and Kyoto Protocol: cross-cut-ting issues (Moderator: Peter Frumhoff)

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Special Report on Land Use Change and Forestry Issues– Sandra Brown

• Issues and Opportunities for Forest Biodiversity Emergingfrom the Kyoto Protocol – Paige Brown

• The Role of Biotic Carbon Stocks in StabilizingGreenhouse Gas Emissions – Dan Lashof

• Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories andtheir Limitations under the UNFCCC – Marcelo Mautone

Session 2: Regional experiences and opportunities(Moderator: Eric Firstenberg)

• Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia– Hermes Justiniano

• Philippine Tropical Forests in the Climate Change Agenda– Rodel Lasco

• The Clean Development Mechanism and ForestryMitigation Options in Africa – Timothy Afful-Koomson

• The Meso-American Biological Corridor: Climate Changeand Biodiversity Issues – Alberto Salas

Session 3: Technical and policy challenges(Moderator: Paige Brown)

• The Use of Latin American Forests as Sinks to PreventClimate Change: Potentials and Risks – GerardoAlatorre

• Methods for Assessing Carbon Sequestration andBiodiversity Potential for CDM Projects: Costa Rica study– Suzi Kerr

• Eligibility of LUCF Projects under the Kyoto Protocol– Anne Hambleton

• Linking Solutions to Climate Change and Biodiversityloss through the Clean Development Mechansim– Peter Frumhoff

Forests, Biodiversity and the Kyoto Protocol• Decisions taken by the UNFCCC Conference of the

Parties regarding the role of land use change andforestry should take both climate and biodiversityissues into account.

• Decisions regarding land use change and forestry andtheir implementation should explicitly incorporatetraditional knowledge, perspectives, and rights ofindigenous peoples who live in forest regions.

• Parties to the Convention should develop clearguidelines to avoid adverse impacts of forest-basedmeasures on biodiversity and the climate system.

• In particular, there is a need to avoid measures thatreplace natural forests with plantations, even if doingso produces a net reduction in greenhouse gasemissions.

Clean Development Mechanism• The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has the

potential to facilitate forest-based projects thatcontribute to climate mitigation, biodiversityconservation and sustainable development.

• The CDM also has the potential to create incentivesfor land-use change that undermine achievement ofthese objectives, including the replacement ofnatural forests with plantations.

• Some current forest carbon offset projects can serveas important models to improve methods and buildcapacity to contribute to biodiversity and climatechange solutions.

• Plantations as carbon offset projects should bedesigned to, at minimum, avoid negative impacts tobiodiversity and support sustainable development.

• If a market for forest-based CDM projects develops,specific policies and incentives may be necessary tomotivate projects that provide biodiversity and socio-economic co-benefits.


24


25

B i o d i v e r s i t y , C l i m a t e

C h a n g e a n d F i n a n c e

The workshop was organized by IUCN Economics ServiceUnit, Trexler and Associates, and the IUCN Commissionon Environmental, Economic and Social Policy. It was

attended by 22 experts, representing multilateralorganizations, NGOs, private sector utilities, financialservices, academic and research institutions.

Overview of presentationsThe first session focused on a broad overview of thelinkages between energy sector finance and finance forconservation.

Bill Powers of IUCN Washington Office, presented on therole of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for linkingbiodiversity and climate. He suggested that the GEF, asthe only instrument that formally joins the two con-ventions, could play a unique role in facilitating greatersynergy in the implementation of the UNFCCC and theCBD. Ecological, political and institutional interlinkagesbetween climate and biodiversity were addressed andthree areas for synergy were discussed: assessment ofimpacts, adaptation and mitigation.

Ross Gelbspan presented a proposal for a World EnergyModernization Plan. The main elements to the planincluded: elimination of fossil fuel subsidies (globallyaround $300 billion) and the establishment of equivalentsubsidies for renewable energy sources. In addition, morestringent efficiency and renewable standards need to beestablished in tandem with the elimination of unnecessarybarriers to energy competition. Finally it was proposedthat a fund sufficient to finance the transfer of climate-friendly energy technology and expertise to developingnations be created. This would be created via a tax oninternational currency transactions. A quarter of a pennytax per US dollar on transactions would yield $100 – $200billion to developing nations.

The second session addressed the potential role of theprivate sector.

Richard Sykes from Shell International gave apresentation on the actions Shell had taken to addressclimate change and biodiversity loss. By 1998, Shell hadmet the Kyoto target across worldwide operations and

aimed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by morethan 10 per cent in 2002 and was aiming to continue toexceed the Kyoto target by 2010. This will be achieved byreducing greenhouse emissions from its own operationsand support customers to reduce theirs by providing fuelswith a lower carbon content and by offering renewableenergy choices.

Dana Younger of the International Finance Corporation(IFC) gave a presentation regarding private sectorinvolvement in the biodiversity and climate changeagendas. More specifically, financing mechanisms werediscussed for engaging the private sector, such as theSmall and Medium Scale Enterprise Program and the TerraCapital Fund (a US $15 million investment fund forbiodiversity projects in Latin America).

Phil Cottle and Justin Mundy from Agricultural RiskManagement, UK presented on the potential role ofinsurance in forestry and agricultural activities for climatechange mitigation. There is already a specialist insurancemarket for commercial forestry world wide which providesprotection against conventional risks related to opera-tional and catastrophic losses due to natural hazards.However, risk profiles under the Kyoto Protocol willintroduce new exposures for project managers,corporations and governments. It was proposed that someaspects of these risks may be mitigated through cost-effective insurance or financial products. Such insurancecould assist in achieving a rapid and cost effectiveimplementation of the Protocol and well as supportingbroader goals of economically and environmentallysustainable development.

Guillermo Jimenez presented a perspective from UNIDO,specifically looking at the effect of climate change onbiodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea, West and Central Africa.The socio-economic implications of the effect climatechange will have on biodiversity was discussed. Forexample, mangroves have vast socio-economic signifi-cance, in the form of fish, oysters, fuel, wood, charcoaland construction materials for the communities living inthe coastal areas. These materials will be lost in the eventof accelerated rise in sea level. The loss of this ecosystemwill also affect coastal fisheries as mangroves constitutethe spawning and nursery grounds for the fishery. Othereffects of climate change on the region will includechanges in agricultural and livestock production,

increased incidence of flooding in some areas and thecomposition of the coast vegetation.

The third session focused on the potential private sectorimpact on biodiversity and climate change initiatives.

Kalipada Chatterjee from Development Alternatives, Indiadiscussed the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) ofthe Kyoto Protocol from an Asian perspective. Hesuggested that the CDM may help in resolving some ofthe socio-economic and environmental problems in Asia.In general four environmental problems in Asian citiesneed to be addressed on a priority basis: water pollution,air pollution, solid waste management, inappropriate landuse. It was proposed that by carefully structuring CDMprojects to address such issues the pressure on the Asianenvironment may be reduced.

Various provisions of Kyoto were discussed includingcertification of emission reduction, monitoring, verifi-cation and the question of additionality. Finally, the needfor a cap on all the three cooperative mechanisms ofKyoto for a strong domestic action for reduction ofemissions by the Annex I countries was raised.

Stephen Mutimba from the African Centre forTechnology Studies, Kenya presented on the potential forthe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to facilitatetechnology transfer leading to sustainable developmentin Africa, while at the same time fulfilling the ultimateobjective of the UNFCCC. It was proposed that a CDM thatwill enable African countries to achieve sustainabledevelopment is one that will facilitate relevant envi-ronmentally sustainable technology transfer throughlicensing, technological capacity building, purchasing ofproperty rights patents and ensuring the adoption of suchtechnologies.

Anil Agarwal from the Centre for Science andEnvironment, India gave a presentation regardingsustainability and equity within the climate negotiations.He raised concern as to how far the principle of equitywill be applied when considering how the emission rightsand entitlements of developed countries will be deter-mined and created for trading emissions under the KyotoProtocol. Further he argued that developing countriesmust insist on equal per capita entitlements and thatmechanisms such as joint implementation, emissionstrading and the clean development mechanism should berejected until these entitlements are accepted.


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 andclimate change initiatives

Energy and Conservation Linkages

Discussion centered on refining the linkage betweenclimate change and biodiversity with regards toinstitutional, financial, economic and legal issues. It wasagreed that the most critical linkages to ensurecoordination and synergy between the biodiversity andclimate change agendas were the provision of appropriatelegal frameworks, institutional capacity, and economicincentives. Moreover, the adequacy of the Kyoto Protocol’scurrent emission reduction targets was debated.Specifically, doubts were raised about the ability of theKyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms to generate suffi-cient funds to ensure government compliance andtechnology transfer. Two alternative modalities werepresented to meet these concerns:

• An international currency transactions tax of .25%might be levied in order to generate capital ofapproximately $100-200 billion per year, whichcould be accessed by developing country economies.The funds generated would be used for projectsmeasured against an energy efficiency standard,renewable energy projects, and stimulation ofmarkets. It was suggested that initial researchindicated openness on the part of some members ofthe financial markets sector to such a move. Mech-anisms for disbursement were left open for furtherdiscussion.

• A second suggestion was that consideration be givento equitable participation by developing countries bythe allocation of entitlements within the frameworkof the Kyoto Protocol. These entitlements would beavailable to allcountries according to current per-capita carbon utilization, with the clear objective of


26


27

convergence and the switch from carbon based toenvironmentally friendly non-carbon based energysectors.

The potential for existing institutional structures tofacilitate linkages between climate change andbiodiversity in policy development and financing waspresented. It was recognized that the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), as the interim financial mechanism for boththe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), had a comparative advantage in furthering thepolicy debate on this topic by helping to identify:(1) effective governance mechanisms; (2) benefits fromcurrent projects: and (3) lessons for future financing.

CDM Issues

Several presentations addressed the CDM, the instrumentfor developed and developing country cooperation underthe UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. Many talks illustrated theweakness of the CDM with respect to equity, technologytransfers and biodiversity conservation, with particularrelevance to developing countries. The potential forcertain developing countries to be marginalized in theCDM, and hence in the implementation of the KyotoProtocol, was pointed out. In general, it was felt that theCDM could be used by developed countries as a way ofavoiding the responsibility of cutting emissions at home.It was suggested that the two modalities presented abovemay represent ways of dealing with this problem.

Implications for the Private Sector

First, the private sector’s role in implementing the KyotoProtocol was recognized. Presentations by the privatesector demonstrated their willingness to participate inflexible mechanisms if given the opportunity for earlyaction. However, it was suggested that the currentincentive system was inadequate to provide sufficientencouragement for broad private sector participation, andthat those that do take early action could be penalizedfor doing so.

Second, it was accepted that risk mitigation measures(e.g. insurance) might provide a way of increasingfinancial flows, generate equity and provide a mechanismfor linking inter-sector policy implementation andcompliance. The use of risk management tools could helpimplement the objectives of the CBD and UNFCCC, and

national sustainable development plans. Critical areas thatrisk management strategies could address includedpolitical and institutional risk, project performance riskand trading risk.


Session 1: The energy sector and conservation: are they related?(Moderator: Atiq Rahmann and Mark Trexler)

• Overview of the Links between Energy and Conservation– Mark Trexler

• Linking Biodiversity and Climate: A Role for the GlobalEnvironment Facility – Bill Powers/Hutton Archer

• The World Energy Modernization Plan – Ross Gelbspan

Session 2: Potential role of the private sector (Moderator: Bill Powers)

• Action on Sustainable Development: Climate Change – Richard Sykes

• Linking Biodiversity and Climate Change: Issues for theInternational Finance Corporation – Dana Younger

• Energy, Forestry and Agriculture: A Role for theInsurance – Phil Cottle/Justin Mundy

• A Perspective for the Energy Sector – Simon Worthington

• A Perspective from UNIDO – Guillermo Jimenez

Session 3: Innovative financing for climate changeand biodiversity (Moderator: Bill Powers)

• Clean Development Mechanism: A Perspective from Asia– Kalipada Chatterjee

• Clean Development Mechanism as a Conduit forTechnology Transfer for Sustainable Development inAfrica – Stephen Mutimba

• Rights to the Atmosphere: Sustainability, Equity andClimate Negotiations – Anil Agarwal

N a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s

a n d A c t i o n P l a n s

The workshop was organized by UN Institute for Trainingand Research, Africa Centre for Technology Studies,IUCN National Committee for Argentina, IUCN Regional

Office for South America, and UN EnvironmentProgramme. It was attended by 12 participants fromnearly every major region of the globe.

Overview of presentationsThe first session addressed early experiences with theprocess of preparing national strategies for each of theconventions.

Gao Pronove from UNITAR presented on CC:TRAIN, acapacity building program managed by UNITAR. Theworkshop participants discussed the extent to which theprogram adopted a top-down approach to nationalclimate change strategies and suggested that a moreinclusive approach in the preparation of nationalstrategies may be more appropriate.

Sitanon Jesdapipat, from Thailand Environment Institute,gave a presentation regarding the national climate actionplan for Thailand. It was argued that a holistic view wasnecessary in implementing climate change action plans.Such a view would identify and integrate existing synergyamong various concerns of other conventions such as theCBD, the Convention on Desertification and RamsarConvention. To do this, a change in the conceptualparadigm was necessary as there was currently noappreciable understanding of the cross-cutting issues ofclimate change and other environmental concerns. Cross-sectoral issues must be identified, explored and debatedand training required for key individuals in order to beable to do this.

Javier Garcia Fernandez from the IUCN ArgentineNational Committee, having led the technical team fordeveloping the national strategy on biodiversity, presentedon the recent experiences of Argentina on its nationalbiodiversity planning, a project supported by the GEF.During 1997 and 1998 Argentina ended the first cycle oftwo national planning exercises – the first on desertifi-cation and the second on biodiversity. At the same time anational project on climate change was executed.Discussions centered around the need to link the different

environmental planning processes and ways to improveeach planning process cycle. Focus was given on the needfor wide participation of all relevant stakeholders innational environmental planning and the funding andtime constraints of GEF-supported planning projects.

The second session discussed concrete examples ofnational strategies and action plans.

Stephen Mutimba from the African Centre forTechnology Studies, Kenya talked about the efforts byKenya to adapt to climate change. He pointed out thatKenya has few explicit adaptation policies and in thisabsence some responses at the local level contribute toadaptation. A case study of a dryland area in Kenya waspresented which illustrated how a climatic event, such asdrought, impacts on rural households and the mechanismsemployed at this level to respond to such an event. It wassuggested that climate change policies should focus onthe household capacity to adapt and especially thoseadaptation options that are based on local resources andwhich are not investment or labor intensive. In this waystrategies can be formulated which will meet theimmediate development needs of the poor and at thesame time satisfy longer term adaptive goals to mitigatethe impact of climate change.

The third session discussed early experiences withcoordinating national strategies between the Rioagreements.

Néstor Oscar Maceira, from the National Institute ofAgricultural Technology of Argentina (INTA) gave apresentation on biodiversity conservation and theprevention of desertification in the agricultural sector ofArgentina. INTA, a national agency whose focus is toprovide technological support to agricultural develop-ment, had an active participation in the development ofthe project for the National Biodiversity Strategy and inthe National Action Plan for the Prevention of Deser-tification. Both were presented for discussion. In addition,various institutional projects, such as the evaluation andmonitoring of desertification in semi-arid and arid regionsand the evaluation of the impact of different manage-ment practices on soil conservation and biodiversity werediscussed.


28


29


It is necessary to view the international environmentalregime in a holistic manner. Otherwise, there is a risk thatefforts to implement one agreement may contradict theobjectives of another.

At the national level, countries should endeavor to domore to coordinate and integrate efforts to implementthe various National Strategies and Action Plans underthe Rio Conventions. Inter alia, it was recommended thatthe implementation of all three of the Rio Conventions(and all other relevant conventions) would be greatlyenhanced if the responsibility for implementation andcompliance resides within the same institution ofgovernment. It should also be ensured that this institutionhas strong links of communication to the rest ofgovernment and society.

The participants of this workshop also recommended thatthe Conference of the Parties of each of the three RioConventions endeavor to streamline and coordinate theagreements. As part of this process, a concerted effortshould be undertaken to raise the importance of the in-ternational environmental regime within the internationalsystem and to bring it to an equal footing with otherinternational regimes, such as the World Trade Organization.

The workshop participants stressed the need to identifyareas of common concern that can be pursued in theaction plans under the three Rio Conventions. Forinstance, local actions to counter the adverse effects ofclimatic, variability and micro-climate instability is oneexample where climate, desertification, and biodiversitygoals can be reached, for example, by promotingrestoration and/or conservation of forested watersheds.

Further, the workshop participants invited the Conferenceof the Parties of each of the Rio Conventions, theConvention Secretariats, and other stakeholders topromote guidelines and financial resources to develop andcarry out projects and action plans that implement theseagreements in a mutually supportive manner.

It should be recognized that all three Rio Conventionshave individual importance, and it is therefore, equallynecessary to maintain mechanisms that address thespecific dynamics of each convention. The potential forsynergy among the three conventions is most apparentat the national level, where sustainable development is acommon objective. To the extent possible, the interna-tional fora mechanisms should support this coordinatedapproach.


Session 1:Preparing national strategies: early experienceswith the process

• CC: TRAIN: Support for Countries in Preparing ClimateChange Implementation Strategies – Gao Pronove

• National Climate Change Action Plan for Thailand– Sitanon Jesdapipat

• Reflections on National Biodiversity Planning Processes,based on Recent Experiences under the GEF-supportedEnabling Activities – Javier Garcia Fernandez

Session 2: Case studies of national strategies and action plans • Climate Change Adaptation in Kenya – Stephen Mutimba

• National Climate change Action Plan for Zimbabwe– Todd Ngara

Session 3: Early experience with coordinatingnational strategies

• Biodiversity Conservation and Prevention ofDesertification in the Agricultural Sector of Argentina– Néstor Oscar Maceira

• Coordinating National Strategies: A Role for UNEP– Kalemani Mulongoy

S u s t a i n a b l e U s e

a n d C l i m a t e C h a n g e

The workshop was organized by Biodiversity ActionNetwork (BIONET), IUCN Social Policy Group, ArgentineNational Institute of Agricultural Technology, and the

Indigenous People’s Biodiversity Network. It was attendedby a diverse group of about 10 professionals from fivecontinents.

Overview of presentationsThe group focused its work on linking on-the-groundexperiences of impacts of climate change with policydevelopment. The sessions were chaired by Hans J.H.Verolme, coordinator of the Biodiversity Action Network(BIONET) based in Washington, DC, USA.

The first session provided an overview of the impacts ofclimate change on wildlife and habitats.

Merylyn McKenzie Hedger of the UK Climate ImpactsProgramme discussed the need for new dialogues onconservation to take into account climate change. Severalgaps can be identified in current disclosures in thebiodiversity and climate change worlds. There is a ‘PoliticalGap’ of action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, an‘Understanding Gap’ about what will happen in specificsites with climate change and a ‘Will to Act Gap’ aboutwhat to do on biodiversity conservation. Practicalmeasures can be taken immediately by starting in the hereand now to switch research priorities and changeagendas. She proposed to focus efforts more on thevulnerability of ecosystems and to make appraisals morerapid and participatory.

Krishna Dulal Debnath from Friends of the Earth– Bangladesh gave an account of the huge impact recentfloods have had on his country, both on biodiversity andpeople. Flood intensity resulting from climate changeseems to be increasing and countries, such as Bangladeshwith poor infrastructure and a large population livingbelow the poverty level carry the burden of such extremeevents. In such a poor economic and social scenario, anydamage caused by natural disaster becomes almostirreparable.

John Lanchbery of BirdLife International UK presentedcompelling evidence of the impact of climate change on

wildlife habitat in the UK. Breeding and migratorybehavior may change, species may move, decline ordisappear altogether in line with changing temperature,precipitation or both. The difficulties of managingprotected areas and in finding alternative conservationareas for vulnerable species which need new habitats dueto ecosystem changes was raised.

The second session addressed ecological and social issuesrelated to climate change adaptation in various regions,including Central Asia, Southern Africa, and East Africa.

Charles Oyaya presented on behalf of Professor Okoth-Ogendo of ACTS, Nariobi, on the institutional changesneeded for adaptation to work. The example of Kenya’sexperience in land policy reform was used to highlightthe need for security of tenure, participation by local usersin land-use decision making and new technologiesenabling change.

Another presentation by V A Selvam Daniel also focusedon adaptation strategies for climate change in areas undersevere ecological constraints. Effective strategies for theseregions include formulation of effective well representedconservation management groups, continuos collectionof relevant ecological and climatic data, assessing andprioritizing needs through community participation,searching and selecting for management options andimplementation through community initiatives. Ways inwhich women could be key animators in adopting thesestrategies based on adaptation policies in conservationmanagement were discussed. The presentation wasenriched by vivid examples of adaptive livelihoodstrategies of the poor. Most live in semi-arid regions,which are marginal to rain-fed agriculture.

Ruud Jansen of IUCN’s Southern Africa office explainedhow for Southern Africa, an area familiar with climaticvariability and its impact on livelihoods, climate change isa regional problem requiring regional cooperation. Shiftsin the distribution of natural resources, such as water,wildlife, and arable land for agriculture, may createenvironmental refugees and conflict. He described trans-boundary initiatives in which countries of the SouthernAfrica Development Community (SADC) work togetherand explore win-win situations and projects that canharness biodiversity, combat desertification as well asmitigate climate change. Community-based resourcemanagement approaches, recognition of the role of


30


31

indigenous knowledge in sustainable agriculture andmaking equity an important part of the environmentalagenda were elements identified that contribute to newregional policies.

The third session addressed whether climate changemitigation strategies could be used to further sustainableuse initiatives.

Hans Verweij of FACE Foundation, The Netherlands,presented the workshop with the example of an AIJ-reforestation project in Ecuador. He highlighted thetension between the need for short-term financialbenefits local communities demanded and the criteria ofsupplementary cost effectiveness and sustainability FACEimposes. In this case, additional research is needed on themarket viability of native species.

Mary Vasquez of Programme for Belize/The NatureConservancy reported on another project which aims toaddress biodiversity concerns in the context of a climatemitigation project in the Rio Bravo region of Belize. Theproject combines protected area management withsustainable use of timber and non-timber resources.However, because indigenous communities were notresiding in the project core area prior to establishment,this unique project may be difficult to replicate.

In addition to the presentations highlighted above, manyparticipants emphasized the importance of cultural andesthetic values along with the value of biodiversity. Forexample, while some promote reforestation projectsothers prefer to focus on ecological restoration. Therecognition of multiple values of forest ecosystemsshould result in projects with multiple objectives that fitlocal conditions and account for local priorities. Finally, itwas pointed out that in the context of the UNFCCCcompensation to countries heavily impacted by climatechange has only been discussed in the context of theCDM, and this concept requires application to othermechanisms.


The workshop on sustainable use and climate change waspresented with clear examples of current impacts ofclimatic change on specific ecosystems, regions andcommunities. Evidence was shown that recent extremeevents, such as the floods in Bangladesh, have lead to aloss of biodiversity, and may be a signal of climate change.Next, examples of adaptation initiatives and projects withboth climate and biodiversity objectives were presented.

Current difficulties

There still are gaps in the data available, in particular indeveloping countries. In other cases though, knowledgeand awareness is insufficiently translated into policiesand action. Certain actions need to be taken now andresources need to be allocated for those. There is a realrisk of international conflicts over natural resources, suchas water, environmental refugees, and food insecurity.Resource-poor communities and communities heavilydependent on natural resources face tough choices inadapting to a climate changed world. Compensation forcountries heavily impacted by climatic change was calledfor by several participants. Also, there is a need for thefurther development of alternative energy sources.

What do we need?• Research needs to be firmly embedded in a policy

development process. Successful examples werepresented of integrated research as part of theawareness raising process in community-drivenadaptation projects.

• The role of financial and legal instruments infacilitating adaptation needs to be further explored.The compartmentalization of government policy andlegal frameworks was seen to inhibit effective action.The integration of issues by the development of acommon framework with a clear objective is consid-ered imperative.

• We need to enhance the role of local communities,especially promoting active participation by groupssuch as indigenous communities and women. Ingeneral, full participation of all stakeholders in bothdesign and execution of projects is key to theirsuccess. Strategies devised to cope with climaticchange need to be carefully crafted to fit localconditions. Successful strategies, while available tosome, may not work for others. The equitable sharingof benefits with local communities is essential.

• Still, more dialogues and workshops with the aim toeducate the public, provide training, and disseminateinformation are required.

• Despite the complexity and risks involved, the groupshared the opinion that putting economic value onbiodiversity goods and services was necessary inorder for that value to be recognized by policymakers.

• Governments can recognize multiple values in theirnational communications and reports to the climateand biodiversity conventions and by cross-referencing biodiversity and climate initiatives innational action plans.

Possible solutions

A call for a change in attitude and the creativedevelopment of plans was made. In particular, legalinstruments are needed that coordinate policies designedto build an environmentally and socially sustainable future.

Projects with multiple objectives as in the case of climatemitigation/biodiversity conversation projects facechallenges beyond those of single sector projects.However, such projects present us with win-win situationsthat need to be embraced.

C l o s i n g P l e n a r y

Alicia Barcena and Javier Garcia Fernandez co-chairedthe closing plenary. The participants were presentedwith the statements from the four workshops. In

addition, a representative from the Indigenous Associationof Argentina made a brief presentation on the role ofnative traditions and knowledge in environmentalprotection. He stressed the need to integrate theperspectives of the biodiversity community on the issueof forests and land use change into the climate changedebate. He also noted the importance of environmentaleducation for the general public in order for improve-ments in environmental protection to be made. Thestatements were adopted and the forum was closed.


32


Session 1: Impacts of climate change on wildlife and habitats • Reality of Climate Change: New Dialogues needed on

Conservation – Merylyn McKenzie Hedger

• Recent Floods in Bangladesh and Climate Changes:Ecological and Socio-economic Impact – KrishnaDulal Debnath

• Early Indications of the Effects of Climate Change onWild Fauna – John Lanchbery

Session 2: Adapting to a climate changed world: ecological andsocio-economic issues

• Biodiversity Conservation Strategies for Areas underEcological Constraints – V A Selvam Daniel

• Climate Changes, Changes for Whom? A Glance atSocio-economic and Human Impacts in the SouthernAfrican Region – Ruud Jansen

• Climate Change Adaptation: Exploring the Role of LandPolicy Reforms – Charles Oyaya

Session 3: Climate mitigation as a tool for sustainable use? • Biodiversity and Socio-economic Development in

Climate Mitigation: An Example from Ecuador– Hans Verweij

• Forest Conservation and Management for Climate,Biodiversity and People: the Rio Bravo CarbonSequestration Pilot Project – Mary Vasquez

P a r t I I I

Appendices


35

A p p e n d i x 1

Statement of IUCN – The World ConservationUnion on the 11th Session of the GlobalBiodiversity Forum presented to the Plenaryof the 4th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC

Madame President, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies andGentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of IUCN – TheWorld Conservation Union as coordinator of the IUCN

National Committee of Argentina. It is an honor to havewith us in this session the presence of our President,Minister of Environment of Ecuador, Yolanda Kakabadse,and three councilors: Juan Mayr, Minister of Environmentof Colombia, Akiko Domoto, Parliamentarian in theJapanese Diet, and our Head of Delegation, Alicia Barcena,Chief Advisor to UNDP. It is my pleasure to address youtoday to report on the Global Biodiversity Forum. TheGlobal Biodiversity Forum, or GBF, provides an inde-pendent and strategic arena for all stakeholders, includinggovernments, NGOs, the private sector, local and indi-genous communities to discuss and debate importantecological, economic, and social issues relevant to theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

On 6-8 November, a number of institutions, includingUNEP, the World Resources Institute, African Centre forTechnology Studies, Climate Action Network-LatinAmerica, UNITAR, the Biodiversity Action Network, theIndigenous People’s Biodiversity Network, and IUCN hostedthe eleventh session of the Global Biodiversity Forum. Thiswas the second session devoted to exploring the linkagesbetween the UNFCCC and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the first one being held last year in Kyoto at thetime of the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol.

As is recognised in Article 2 of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change, Parties arecalled upon to address the problem of climate change ina manner that ensures that ecosystems and societies arenot threatened. Further, Article 4.1 (d) of the Conventioncommits Parties to promoting the sustainable manage-ment, conservation, and enhancement of sinks andreservoirs of greenhouse gases. It is these same sinks andreservoirs, such as forests and oceans that serve as aharbour for much of the world’s biodiversity.

In this session of the GBF, 150 participants from 40countries addressed four critical issues of concern to thebiodiversity community with respect to the climatechange agenda: National Strategies, Sustainable Use,Finance, and Forests.

In the workshop on National Strategies, the participants tooknote of the growing number of multilateral environmentalagreements – the UNFCCC, the convention on biologicalDiversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification, theRamsar convention, and the World Heritage Convention toname just a few. It was observed that this proliferation ofagreements has lead to a more and more fragmentedinternational environmental regime. The planning andimplementing capacity of many countries has becomestressed. It was recommended that the internationalenvironmental regime be viewed in a more holistic manner,and that on the national level countries should endeavour todo more to coordinate and build synergy in their efforts toimplement these agreements, including exploring measures,such as watershed conservation which simultaneouslymitigate climate change and prevent the loss of biodiversity.It was also stressed that the increasing number ofagreements has created the risk that efforts to implementone agreement may contradict the objectives of another,such as replacing native forested ecosystems withplantations in order to sequester carbon.

In the workshop on Sustainable Use and Climate Change,evidence was presented that recent extreme events, suchas the floods in Bangladesh and China coral bleaching inthe Indian Ocean and Caribbean, have led to a lost ofbiodiversity, and may be a signal of climate change. It waspointed out that resource-poor communities andcommunities heavily dependent on natural resources facetough choices in adapting to a climate changed world.We need to enhance the role of local communities andpromote the active participation of groups, such as

indigenous communities and women, in the climatechange debate. The full participation of all stakeholdersin the design of strategies and actions is the key tosuccessfully mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The role of Financial and Economic Incentives inpromoting the coordination of climate change andbiodiversity issues was also discussed. It was recognisedthat the Global Environment Facility has an important andclearly defined role to play in financing theimplementation of the UNFCCC and the Convention onBiological Diversity. It was also noted that the GEF maybe in a unique position to further the debate on how toimplement the two conventions in a mutually supportivemanner. The private sector has indicated a willingness toparticipate in the implementation of the goals of theUNFCCC and the CBD, but clear rules of the game areneeded to provide sufficient encouragement for broadprivate sector involvement.

In the workshop Forests in the Climate Change Agenda,the participants recognised that the destruction andconversion of forests and other natural ecosystems world-wide is a significant contributor to the loss of biodiversityand also a part of the problem of climate change. Forest-based measures intended to mitigate climate changecould provide significant biodiversity and socio-economicbenefits. However, this outcome is not assured. Doneincorrectly, the forest-based measures to address climatechange through the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol couldresult in negative impacts on forests and other naturalecosystems, communities and the climate system. It isessential that the implementation of the mechanisms ofthe UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol at the very least dono harm to biodiversity conservation.

Finally, the participants to the 11th session of the GBFstressed the need for further efforts to raise the profileof biodiversity concerns within the climate changeagenda. In particular, participants recommended thatprotecting the ecological integrity of nature and sus-taining the societies, which are supported by it, is vital toaddressing the climate change issue.

IUCN-The World Conservation Union is one of the world’soldest international conservation organisations. It wasestablished in 1948, and last week we celebrated our 50thanniversary in our birthplace, Fontainebleau, France. As aconservation organisation, IUCN is unique in that it is a

union of other organisations. It brings together 74governments, including many in this room, 105government agencies and more than 700 non-governmental organisations, drawn from 138 countries.Altogether the members of IUCN make up a globalnetwork of 900 institutions and some 8,000 scientists andexperts in six commissions from 139 countries. Ourmission is to influence, encourage and assist societiesthroughout the world to conserve the integrity anddiversity of nature, and ensure that any use of naturalresources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

Our work has indicated that addressing the problem ofclimate change is directly related to this mission. Progresssince the 1992 Rio Earth Summit has been good but slow.The global climate is still very much threatened and wecontinue to see a net loss in quality of life andenvironmental degradation in parts of the world.

Pollution and unsustainable management practicesalready threaten the life support systems upon whichhumanity depends. Climate change is an importantadditional stress. In the face of climate change, the loss ofspecies and ecosystems will likely accelerate. Manyspecies will be made more vulnerable to extinction, andimportant ecosystems, such as wetlands and coral reefs,could be eliminated in some places. Communities that arecurrently struggling to improve their livelihoods will bemade even more vulnerable by climate change. Measuresto protect the species, ecosystems and the goods andservices they provide to society may be renderedineffective by climate change.

Future generations will judge us on our timidity in theglobal struggles to combat climate change, to avoidbiodiversity loss, and to halt desertification. Without amuch stronger commitment to solving these globalproblems, we will bequeath to our children and grand-children an irretrievably impoverished world. Such a fatecan be avoided, but it requires a strong internationalcommitment and concerned action.

Madam President, Honourable delegates, we look forwardto working with Conference of the parties in the comingyears and appreciate the opportunity to make thisstatement. Thank you.

Fernando Ardura,IUCN National Committee for Argentina


36


37

Mr Nestor Omar BarbaroProdia – SRNyDSGallardo 190, PO Box 1908Buenos Aires, Argentinae-mail: [email protected]

Ms Alicia BarcenaIUCN CouncillorCruz Verde 16904330 Mexico DF, MexicoTel: +525 549-1291Fax: +525 202-9116e-mail: [email protected]

Mr William BarclayGreenpeace International965 Mission St94103 San Francisco, USATel: +1 408 466-0421Fax: +1 415 512-8699e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Amanda Bertolutti FlebusPresidenteR I E RED Informatica EcologistaMascagni 2185 e/Dante y Albeniz1686 Hurlingham, Buenos Aires,ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 665-5986e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Martin BornaoPrograma Jovenes – SRNyDSForest Av 16011430 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 554-7752e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Elizabeth BravoAcción Ecológica – OILWATCHAlejandro de Valder N24-33PO Box 17-15-246CQuito, EcuadorTel: +593 2 54-7516Fax: +593 2 52-7583e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Martin AguerreAsociación Forestal ArgentinalBme Mitre 1895 2C1039 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 375-6154e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Djoghlaf AhmedUNEP/GEFPO Box 30552, Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 2 60-4165Fax: +254 2 60-4041e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Gerardo AlatorreGrupo de Estudios AmbientalesXalapa Apdo postal 635Xalapa 91001, Veracruz, MexicoTel:/Fax: +52 28 12-1041e-mail:[email protected]

Ms Marta AndelmanIUCN – CEC MemberFundación Conservatión y ManejoMaipú 853 piso 31006 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 311-2233e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Hutton G ArcherGlobal Environment Facility1818 H Street NW, Suite G6-150,20433 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 458-7117Fax: +1 202 522-3240e-mail: [email protected]: www.gefweb.org

Ms Ivanna BanduraPrograma Jovenes – SRNyDSMuñiz 12741640 Martinez, Buenos Aires,ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 793-4348e-mail: [email protected]

A p p e n d i x 2

Participants listConvenors:• IUCN – The World Conservation

Union• World Resources Institute (WRI)• African Centre for Technology

Studies (ACTS)• United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP)• IUCN National Committee

for Argentina• Climate Action Network

– Latin America• United Nations Institute for

Training and Research (UNITAR)• Biodiversity Action Network

(BIONET)• Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity

Network (IPBN)

Mr Muhammad AbelEnvironment Public AuthorityPO Box 3486573102 Kuwait, KuwaitTel: +965 482-1282Fax: +965 482-0571

Mr Timothy Afful-KoomsonWorld Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, NW2006 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 638-6300Fax: +1 202 638-0036e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Anil AgarwalCenter for Science and Environment41, Tughlakabad Institutional AreaNew Delhi 110 062, IndiaTel: +91 11 647-6401Fax: +91 11 647-5879e-mail: [email protected]

Dr John BrinkmanWorld Conference on ReligionZ Dartmouth Road11786 Shorehaw, NY, USATel: +1 516 744-4513

Ms Paige BrownWorld Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, NW20006 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 662-3068Fax: +1 202 638-0036e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Margo BurnhamNoel Kempff Climate Action ProjectManager, The Nature Conservancy1818 N. Lynn StreetArlington, VA 22209, USATel: +1 703 841-5372Fax: +1 703 841-8440e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Gwenlyn BusbyComité Nacional Pro Defensa Floray Fauna, Hernando de Aguirre 61CSantiago, Chile e-mail:[email protected]

Prof Victor CantonDirección Nacionalde Medio AmbienteRimcon 422 3e PisoMontevideo, UruguayTel: +598 2 917-0616Fax: +598 2 916-5132

Mr Pablo CárdenasFundación AMBIO859-1000 San Pedro, Costa Ricae-mail: [email protected]

Mr Kalipada ChatterjeeDevelopment AlternativesB-32 Tara CrescentQutab Institutional Araa110016 New Delhi, IndiaTel: +91 11 696-7938Fax: +91 11 686-6031e-mail: [email protected]


38

Ms Carolina ChauqueAIRA, Balbastro 17901406 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 452-6258Fax: +54 1 459-21983

Dr Lorenzo CiccareseNational Environment ProtectionAgency, Via Brancati 48PO Box 00144, Rome, ItalyTel: +39 6 5007-2277Fax: +39 6 5007-2313e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Irma ClarkeThe Nature Conservancy10502 Joyceton Drive20774 Upper Marc Iboro, MD, USATel: +1 703 841-4187Fax: +1 703 841-4880e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Laurence ChristenIUCN – Biodiversity PolicyCoordination DivisionRue Mauverney 281196 Gland, SwitzerlandTel: +41 22 999-0281Fax: +41 22 999-0025e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Elizabeth CookWorld Resources Institute1709 New York Ave, NW20006 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 662-3488Fax: +1 202 638-0036e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Lilian CorraFundación ProtegerCC 550, 3000 Santa Fé, ArgentinaTel: +54 42 53-5339Fax: +54 42 98-1745e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Phil CottleAgricultural Risk ManagementSt Mary’s House42 Vicarage CrescentLondon SW11 3LD, UKTel: +44 171 585-3023Fax: +44 171 924-3667

Mr Horacio CrosioSecretaría de Recursos Naturalesy Desarrollo SostenibleSan Martín 4591004 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 348-8499Fax: +54 1 348-8386e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Vetha Anbu Selvam DanielInstitute for Integrated RuralDevelopment (IIRD)PO Box 562, Kanchan Nager,Nakshetrawadi, AurangabadMaharashtra State, 431 002 IndiaTel: +91 240 33-2336Fax: +91 240 32-2866e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Krishna Dulal DebnathFriends of the Earth BangladeshInstitute for Environment andDevelopment Studies – IEDS5/12-15, Eastern View 50 DIT ExtRd, GPO Box 3691, Dhaka,BangladeshTel: +880 2 83-5394Fax: +880 2 956-5506e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Sjaak de LigtFace Foundation, PO Box 5756800 AN Arnhem, The NetherlandsTel: +31 26 372-1670Fax: +31 26 372-1613e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Carlos de PacoAsociación Conservaciónde la Naturaleza (TNC)PO Box 835-1250Escazú, San José, Costa RicaTel:/Fax: +506 220-2551e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Al-Rashidi DeyabMinistry of Foreign Affaires KuwaitPO Box 3 Safat, KuwaitTel: +965 243-0685Fax: +965 482-0571


39

Mr Lambert GnapeletFirst Communication CommitteeCoordinator, Ministry ofEnvironmentBangui, Central African RepublicTel: +236 64-0001Fax: +236 61-8044e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Beatriz Irene GoldsteinForo Buen Ayre /University of Buenos AiresThames 17621414 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 831-4027e-mail: [email protected]

Mr José Luis GonzalezFederación de Indígenas del EstadoBolivar-VenezuelaAv. Bolivar – Qta. Devis n° 62Ciudad Bolivar, Estado BolivarVenezuelaTel: +58 85 25-730Fax: +58 85 26-786e-mail: fieb@Tel:cel.net.ve

Dr Gustavo R. Gonzalez AcostaFundación Ambiente y RecursosNaturales (FARN)Monroe 2142 – 1° B1428 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 788-4266Fax: +54 1 787-5919e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Alvaro Gonzalez GervasioWorld Rainforest MovementInstituto del Tercel MundoJackson 113611200 Montevideo, UruguayTel: +598 2 409-6162Fax: +598 2 401-9222e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Maria Elena GonzalezEmbassy of the Governmentof MexicoLarrea 1250, Buenos AiresArgentinaTel: +54 1 821-7170Fax: +54 1 821-7172

Mr Eric FirstenbergPolicy AssociateClimate Change ProgrammeThe Nature Conservancy1818 N. Lynn StreetArlington, VA 22209, USATel: +1 703 841-5372Fax: +1 703 841-8440e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Cathleen FogelUniversity of California Env. Studies Dept.309 Alta AveSanta Cruz, CA 95060, USATel: +1 408 466-0421Fax: +1 831 459-4015e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Peter FrumhoffUnion of Concerned ScientistsTwo Brattle SquareCambridge, MA 02238-9105, USATel: +1 617 547-5552Fax: +1 617 864-9405e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Ursula FuentesWBGU German Advisory Council onGlobal Change, Secretariat at theAlfred-Wegener-InstitutePO Box 12016127515 Bremerhaven, GermanyTel: +49 471 483-1721Fax: +49 471 483-1218e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Juan Javier Garcia FernandezFUCEMAPringles 10, piso 31183 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 983-7949e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Ross GelbspanWEMP, 247 Kent StBrookline, MA 02446, USATel: +1 617 738-5564Fax: +1 617 738-0213e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Elias Diaz-PeñaSobrevivencia, A.T. Paraguay1867, Isabel la CatólicaPO Box 1380, Asunción, ParaguayTel:/Fax: +595 21 48-0182e-mail: [email protected]

Ms María Pía Di NannoPrograma Jóvenes – SRNyDSDorrego 233, 9120 Puerto Madryn,Chubut, ArgentinaTel: +54 965 73-372

Ms Cecilia ElizondoPrograma Jóvenes SRNyDSSoler 35611425 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 963-7908e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Marta ElisetchU.I.A. FACIF, San José 374Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 814-3047e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Paul EpsteinCenter for Health and the GlobalEnvironment, Harvard MedicalSchool260 Longwood Ave02115 Boston, MA, USATel: +1 617 432-0493Fax: +1 617 432-2595e-mail:[email protected]: www.med.harvard.edu/chge/

Mr Charles EyreEyre MundyThe Old MacihouseUppel ClaffordSP117AL Amdover, UKTel: +44 264 33-5982Fax: +44 264 33-6900e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Jonathan GrantIPIECA, Monmouth House, 87-93 Westborne Grove, W24UL London,UKTel: +44 171 221-2026Fax: +44 171 229-4948e-mail: [email protected]: www.ipieca.org

Mr Kevin GroseUNFCCCMartin-Luther Strasse 8PO Box 260 12453153 Bonn, GermanyTel: +49 228 815-1528Fax: +49 228 815-1999e-mail: [email protected]: www.unfccc.de

Mr Rogelio GuanucoCMPI – CITI, Balbastro 17901406 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 452-6258Fax: +54 1 459-4983

Ms Anne HambletonCSDA, 1700 Connecticut Avenue,Suite 403, 20009 Washington DC,USATel: +1 202 588-0155Fax: +1 202 588-0756e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Anke HeroldOEKO InstituteFriedrichstr. 16510117 Berlin, GermanyTel: +49 30 2016-5087Fax: +49 30 2016-5088e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Guttormsson HjörlerfurParliament of IcelandEspigerdi 4, 108 Reydjavik, IcelandTel: +354 563-0500Fax: +354 563-0780e-mail: [email protected]: www.althingi.is/hjorlg


40

Mr Jakob HolstIUCN-SUR, PO Box 17-17-626Quito, EcuadorTel: +593 2 46-6622Fax: +593 2 46-6624e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Kei InamiBiodiversity Network Japan422 Sangiin Giin Kaikan2-1-1 Nagato-cho, Chiyoda-ku100 Tokyo, JapanTel: +81 3 3508-8422Fax: +81 3 3506-8085e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Francisco IngouvilleSan Martin 523Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +541 403-5885Fax: +541 325-5407e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Mariano JägerElcano 32391426 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 552-6301e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Ruud JansenIUCN BotswanaPrivate Bag 00300Gaborone, BotswanaTel:+267 30-1584Fax:+267 37-1584e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Sitanon JesdapipatThailand Environment Institute210 Sukhumvit 64Bangchak Refinery 4Prakanong10260 Bangkok, ThailandTel: +662 742-9691Fax: +662 742-9697e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Guillermo JimenezUNIDO, WagramerstrassePO Box 3001400 Wien, AustriaTel: +43 1 2602-63612Fax: +43 1 2602-66803e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Andrés Hamilton JosephAsoc. Civil Los Algarrobos25 de Mayo 3765178 La Cumbre, Cordoba,ArgentinaTel: +54 548 52-199Fax: +54 548 51-756e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Jacqueline JosephONGs Los AlqarrobosArgerich 14201686 Hurlingham, Argentina

Mr Hermes JustinianoFundación Amigos de la Naturaleza(FAN), Casilla 2241Santa Cruz, BoliviaTel: +591 2 3 32-9692Fax: +591 2 3 32-9717e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Suzi KerrResources for the Future1616 P. St, NW20036 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 328-5069Fax: +1 202 939-3460e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Jeremy KranowitzWorld Resources Institute1709 New York Avenue, NW20006 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 662-2507Fax: +1 202 737-1510e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Stephen KretzmannProject Underground1847 Berkeley Way74703 Berkeley, CA, USATel: +1 510 705-8982Fax: +1 510 705-8983e-mail: [email protected]: www.moles.org

Mr Andrei LaletinFriends of Siberian ForestsAcademgdrodok 28-13PO Box 26779660036 Krasnoyarsk, RussiaTel:/Fax: +7 3912 43-8837e-mail: [email protected]


41

Mr Marcelo MautonePresident, Asociación parala Acción Clímatica, Gaboto1666/002CP 11200, Montevideo, UruguayTel: +598 2 916-2498Fax: +598 2 916-2495e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Merylyn McKenzie HedgerEnvironmental Change UnitUniversity of Oxford1a Mansfield RoadOxford OX1 3TB, UKTel: +44 1865 28-1193Fax: +44 1865 28-1181e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Tekleab MesghengMinistry of Land, Water andEnvironmentAsmara, EritreaTel: +291 1 12-0311Fax: +291 1 12-6065

Mr Luis MesiaSenado de la República MexicoReforma 10 piso 11 Desp. 906030 Mexico D.F., MexicoTel: +52 5 1 40-3093Fax: +52 5 1 40-3526

Mr Douglas MeyerThe Nature Conservancy1818 N. Lynn StreetArlington, VA 22209, USATel: +1 703 841-8743e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Christine MilneAustralian ConservationFoundationc/46 Silwood Ave.7018 Howrah, TAS, AustraliaTel: +61 362 44-7540Fax: +61 362 44-8386e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Simone LoveraNetherlands Committee for IUCNc/o Isabel la Catolica 1867Asuncion, ParaguayTel: +595 21 42-3032Fax: +595 21 48-0182e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Miguel Lovera RivasSobrevivenciaIsabel la Catolica 1867Asuncion, ParaguayTel:/Fax: +595 21 48-0182e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Néstor Oscar MaceiraInstituto Nacional de TecnologiaAgropecuaria (INTA)/EEA San LuisCC 17, 5730 Villa MercedesSan Luis, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 657-22616e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Victoria MaldonadoThe Nature ConservancyAv. Bilbao 691, Santiago, ChileTel: +56 2 251-0262Fax: +56 2 251-8433e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Silvana MartinFoundation for the Conservationof Species and the Environment(FUCEMA), Alsina 9121088 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 334-1421Fax: +54 1 334-3401e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Celina Maria MatteriMuseo Arg. Cs. Naturales “B.Rivadavia” e Instituto Nacional deInvestigacisina 912University of Av. A. Gallardo 4701405 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 982-1561/6670Fax: +54 1 982-4494/0306e-mail: [email protected]

Mr John LanchberyThe Royal Society forthe Protection of Birds (RSPB),The Lodge, SandyBedfordshire SG19 2DL, UKTel: +44 1767 68-0551 ext. 2275Fax: +44 1767 69-2265e-mail:[email protected]

Dr Rodel LascoEnvironmental Forestry Programme(ENFOR), College of Forestryand Natural Resources, Universityof the Philippines College4031 Laguna, PhilippinesTel: +63 49 536-2342Fax: +63 49 536-3206e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Daniel A. LashofNatural Resources Defense Council1200 New York Ave, NWSuite 400, Washington DC 20005Tel: +1 202 289-6868Fax: +1 202 289-1060e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Marie-Sylvette LeclercqAssistant to Mr J. WeberE.P. Rue Wiertz1047 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 284-5141Fax: +32 2 284-9141e-mail: [email protected]

Mr K.R. LocklinESCO, 727 15th St NW20005 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 783-4419e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Fidel LopezUNITAR, EcuadorTel: +593 2 26-7916e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Maurice Loustau-LalanneSeychelles, Fairview, PO Box 445Mahe, SeychellesTel: +248 22-5505Fax: +248 22-5131e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Myra Moeka’aMinistry of Foreign AffairsPO Box 105Raratonga, Cook IslandsTel: +682 29-347Fax: +682 21-247e-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Kalemani J. MulongoyInternational Academy of theEnvironment, 4, chemin deConches, 1231 Geneva, SwitzerlandTel: +41 22 702-1867Fax: +41 22 702-1899e-mail:[email protected]: www.iae.org

Mr Justin MundyAgricultural Risk Management42,Vicarage CrescentSW11 London, UKTel: +44 171 585-3023

Mr Stephen MutimbaAfrican Centre for TechnologyStudiesPO Box 45917, Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 2 52-1450Fax: +254 2 57-3002e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Todd NgaraZimbabwe Government, Bag 553Causeway, Harare, ZimbabweTel: +263 4 75-7432Fax: +263 4 75-7431e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Victor NombertoCEDDRE, Victor Brawl 141Lima 13, PeruTel:/Fax: +51 1 224-0124e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Lambert OkrahThe Institute of Cultural AffairsPO Box 02060, OSUAccra, GhanaTel:/Fax: +233 21 22-4167e-mail: [email protected]


42

Mr Jacob OlanderThe Nature ConservancyPO Box 17-17-1501Quito, EcuadorTel: +593 2 55-8763Fax: +593 2 52-2693e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Brett OrlandoIUCN-US1630 Connecticut Ave, NW3rd Floor, Washington DC, 20009USATel: +1 202 387-4826Fax: +1 202 387-4823e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Yolanda OrtizCAMBIARMarcelo T. de Alvear 1261 3e 41Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 816-1241Fax: +54 1 784-2427e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Vincent OttoAfrican Center for TechnologyStudies (ACTS), PO Box 45917Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 2 52-1450Fax: +254 2 57-3002e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Charles OyayaAfrican Center for TechnologyStudies (ACTS), PO Box 45917Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 2 52-1450Fax: +254 2 57-3002e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Jose Luis PanigattiINTA – Soil Science ResearchProgramme CoordinatorVilla Udaondo, Castel 1712Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 621-1448Fax: +54 1 481-1688e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Rolph PayetMinistry of Industries andInternational Business, Victoria677Victoria, Mahe, SeychellesTel: +248 22-5060Fax: +248 22-5086e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Yeshey PenjorNational Environment CommissionThimphuPO Box 466Thimpu, BhutanTel: +975 2 23-384Fax: +975 2 23-385

Mr Ignacio Coike PrafilCoordinardor del ParliamentoMapucheCuba 2986 2p. dpto “D”1429 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 703-3578e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Terry PritchettGeneral Motors3044 W. Grand BlvdPO Box 482-115-25548202 Detroit, MICH, USATel: +1 313 556-7566Fax: +1 313 556-9003e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Gao PronoveClimate Change ProgrammeManagerUnited Nations Institute forTraining and Research (UNITAR)Palais des Nations1211 Geneva 10, SwitzerlandTel: +41 22 788-1417Fax: +41 22 733-1383e-mail: [email protected]


43

Ms Jennifer SekulaIUCNSt antoine West 300Montreal, Quebec, CanadaTel: +1 514 287-9704e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Wright ShannonRainforest Action Network221 Pine Street 50094104 San Francisco, CA, USATel: +1 415 398-4404Fax: +1 415 398-2732e-mail: [email protected]: www.ran.org

Mr Richard ShermanEnvironmental Justice NetworkingForum, PO Box 30684Braamfuntein2017 Johannesburg, GautengSouth AfricaTel: +27 11 403-7666Fax: +27 11 403-7563e-mail: [email protected]: oneworld.org/gem

Mr Günter SiegelFederal Ministry of Agricultureand ForestryFerdinandstrasse 41020 Vienna, AustriaTel: +43 1 21323-7504Fax: +43 1 21323-7216e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Virginia SolariPrograma Jovenes SRNyDSGral. Rodríguez 22481824 Lanús, Buenos Aires,ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 249-8676e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Victor SosaSecretaria de Medio Ambiente,MexicoNicolas Juan 968-501PO Box 03100Mexico DF, MexicoTel: +52 5 75-8877

Mr Clayton RubecEnvironment CanadaOttawa KIA0H3, Ontario, CanadaTel: +1 819 953-0485Fax: +1 819 994-4445e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Fernando RumianoDirrección Nacional des.SustantableSan Martín1004 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 348-8485Fax: +54 1 348-8486

Mr Alberto SalasIUCN ORMAApartado Postal 0146-2150Moravia, San José, Costa RicaTel: +506 236-2733Fax: +506 240-9934e-mail:[email protected]

Ms Maria Cristina SaucedeSecretaria Ciencia y TechnologíaCordoba 831, 4 PisoBuenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 313-1477Fax: +54 1 922-3647e-mail:[email protected]

Ms Susanne SchmidtUNDP304 E 45th St., Room 1011610017 New York, NY, USATel: +1 212 906-6058Fax: +1 212 906-6973e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Micaela Andrea SegouiaPrograma Jóvenes SRNyDSMalnatti 10721663 San Miguel, Buenos AiresArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 664-9610e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Guillermo PuccioFundación ConservationManagementMaipú 853, P. 31006 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 312-6922Fax: +54 1 312-6878e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Marina RatchfordAAAS1200 New York Avenue20005 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 326-6490Fax: +1 202 289-4958e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Oscar RivasSobrevivenciaIsabel La Catolica 1867PO Box 1380Asuncion, ParaguayTel:/Fax: +595 21 48-0182e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Maria Fernanda RodriguezFundación ConservationManagementRamón L. Falcón 2762 3A1406 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 611-1865

Ms Anna Petra RogeGrupo Ecologico Cabayi ChatiaEspaña 8613190 La Paz, Entre Rios, ArgentinaTel: +54 4 372-2119Fax: +54 4 372-2190e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Rodolfo RoldanLegislatura de la Ciudadde Buenos AiresSoler 3561- 2 H1825 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 963-7908e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Gustavo Suarez de FreitasPro NaturalezaApartado 18-1393Lima, PeruTel: +51 14 41-3800Fax: +51 14 41-2151e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Robert SwartIPCCPO Box 13768XN Bilthoven,The NetherlandsTel: +31 30 274-3026Fax: +31 30 274-4464e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Byron SwiftEnvironmental Law Institute1616 P Street, NW20036 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 939-3808e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Richard SykesShell International, Carel vanBylandtlaan 16, Postbus 1622501 AN The Hague,The NetherlandsTel: +31 70 377-1900Fax: +31 70 377-3797e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Martin ThrenCIEFAP/GTZ, Ruta 258, CC 149200 Esquel, RA, Chubut,ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 945 56-126

Ms Maria Elena TorresiFundación Ecológicapor Una Vida Mejor,Italia 1541832 Lomas de ZampraBuenos Aires, ArgentinaTel:/Fax: +54 1 244-1128


44

Dr Mark TrexlerTrexler and Associates, Inc.1131 S.E. River Forest RoadPortland, OR 97267, USATel: +1 503 786-0559Fax: +1 503 786-9859e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Ted TrzynaCalifornia Instituteof Public AffairsPO Box 18904095818 Sacramento, California, USATel: +1 916 442-2472Fax: +1 916 442-2478e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Marydelene VasquezProgramme for Belize2, South Park StBelize City, BelizeTel: +501 2 75-616Fax: +501 2 75-635e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Victor VeraFundacion Moises BertoniCasilla de Correos 714Asuncion, ParaguayTel: +595 21 60-8740Fax: +595 21 60-8741e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Hans J.H. VerolmeBIONET, 3210 Klingle Road NW20008 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 547-8902Fax: +1 202 265-0222e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Hans VerweijFace Foundation, PO Box 5756800 AN Arnhem, The NetherlandsTel: +31 26 372-1670Fax: +31 26 372-1613e-mail:[email protected]

Mr Jup WeberEuropean Parliament, 7 An HierberL6195 Amber, LuxemburgTel: +352 78-0607Fax: +352 78-9870e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Thomas WeltCanadian Delegation3415, SomersetH4k1R7 St-Laurent, CanadaTel: +1 514 331-2453Fax: +1 514 331-8228e-mail: [email protected]

Dr Robert WilliamsUNIDO, PO Box 400Vienna, AustriaTel: +431 26026-3456e-mail: [email protected]

Mr Simon WorthingtonBritish Petroleum, 1 Finsbury CircusLondon, UKTel: +44 171 496-4951e-mail: [email protected]

Ms Natalia Gimena YoccoFARM, Vidal 5751864 Buenos AiresArgentinaTel: +54 1 225 21 875

Mr Dana YoungerInternational Finance Corporation2121 Pennsylvania Avenue NWPO Box F9K-14820433 Washington DC, USATel: +1 202 473-4779Fax: +1 202 474-4349e-mail: [email protected]: www.ifc.org

Mr Gabino ZambranoAsociación Indígenade la RepúblicaArgentina (AIRA), Balbastro1406 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 1 653-8325Fax: +54 1 459-4583

Mr Hamdallah ZedanSecretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity393 St. Jacque StreetMontreal, CanadaTel: +1 514 287-7002Fax: +1 514 288-0983





The Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) was conceived in 1992 by the partners of the GlobalBiodiversity Strategy – the World Resources Institute, IUCN-The World ConservationUnion, and the UN Environment Programme. The Forum is designed to contribute to thefurther development and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and other biodiversity-related instruments at the international, regional and national level.

The eleventh session of the Global Biodiversity Forum, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina atthe Fourth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) in November 1998, aimed to explore synergy between the UNFCCC and theConvention on Biological Diversity. The Forum addressed four themes: (1) Forests in theClimate Change Agenda; (2) Biodiversity, Climate Change and Finance; (3) NationalStrategies and Action Plans; and (4) Sustainable Use and Climate Change.

Following two days of discussion, the participants concluded that the goals of ecosystemconservation and of the equitable and sustainable use of natural resources need to betaken into account when addressing climate change. Subsequent to the Forum, a networkof governments, NGOs, international institutions, and private sector representatives hasbeen established to raise the profile of ecological and social concerns within the climatechange agenda. Part I of this report examines the linkages between the climate changeand biodiversity agendas and summarizes the discussions and emerging issues from theForum. Part II contains an in-depth summary of the presentations and discussions fromthe four workshop sessions as well as the opening and closing plenaries.

Published with financial support from the MacArthur Foundation, the Swiss Agency forDevelopment Cooperation, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, and the United NationsEnvironment Programme.

IUCN-The World Conservation UnionWashington Office1630 Connecticut Ave., NW 3rd FloorWashington, DC 20009USAEmail: [email protected]: http://www.iucnus.org

IUCN-The World Conservation UnionBiodiversity Policy Coordination Division28 Rue Mauverney1196 Gland, SwitzerlandEmail: [email protected] website: http://www.gbf.ch


http://www.gbf.ch

Global Biodiversity Forum · Convention on Biological Diversity. The Forum addressed four themes:...

Documents

Transcript of Global Biodiversity Forum · Convention on Biological Diversity. The Forum addressed four themes:...