achieving the aichi biodiversity targets - sbstta 18 event.pdf · 2014-06-26 · •indentified...

Achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Frederic Perron-Welch and Freedom-Kai Phillips

CISDL Biodiversity & Biosafety Law Research Programme

Legal Aspects, Best Practices and Lessons Learned

to Support Implementation

Presentation Prepared for the Eighteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 18) – June 23-28, 2014

Outline

Sections and Contents

Section 1 Overview of the CISDL Program of Work onBiodiversity (2002-2014)

• Selected Publications

• Capacity Building

Section 2 Launch of the Global Overview on Nationaland Regional ABS Measures, 3rd Edition

• Country Overviews

• Challenges and Opportunities

Section 3 Launch of the Biodiversity LegislationStudy: A Review of 8 Countries

• Country Overviews

• Lessons Learned

Overview of the CISDL Research Programme on Biodiversity and Biosafety Law

A decade of innovative legal research

Informing policy makers

Empowering communities

Publications

• This scoping study examined future research prioritiesfor access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing(ABS).

• Indentified that future ABS research priorities that willcontribute to international development need to beunderstood from the perspective of the interests ofdeveloping countries and local and indigenouscommunities.

• Prepared following COP 7 in February 2004.

Overview

Sustainable Biodiversity Law: Global Access,Local Benefits

CISDL, 2004.

Kathryn Garforth and Jorge M. Cabrera (CISDL)

Publications

• This paper examines the history, evolution and currentstatus of the negotiations of an international regimeon ABS under the CBD.

• It addresses the inter-relationship between ABS andthe World Trade Organization (WTO), the InternationalUnion for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants(UPOV) and the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization (WIPO).

• Highlights options and scenarios for a synergisticimplementation global instruments.

Overview

The Political Economy of the International ABSRegime Negotiations

International Centre for Trade and SustainableDevelopment (ICTSD), 2010.

Jorge M. Cabrera (CISDL)

Publications

• This study analysis the relevant concepts in theITPGRFA to identify possible loopholes and grey zonesbetween these three ABS regulations.

• Examines: (1) the general dynamics of the negotiationsunder the international ABS regime, (2) differentoptions in the current negotiations in relation to trade,intellectual property and bio-diversity issues and inparticular disclosure of origin in IPR applications. (3)possible outcomes for the negotiations on theseissues, and (4) the relationship of the ABS negotiationswith other multilateral fora.

Overview

The Interface between the Nagoya Protocol onABS and the ITPGRFA at the International Level

Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 2013.

Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Frederic Perron-Welch, andFreedom-Kai Phillips (CISDL) with Morten Walløe Tvedt,and Ane Jørem (FNI)

Publications

• Aims to facilitate the understanding of the legalobligations of the Parties under the Protocol.

• The guide is the product of collaboration with ABSexperts to develop a publication that serves as anadaptable tool for future ABS capacity-building andawareness raising initiatives, as well as an importantreference for countries in their efforts to implementthe Nagoya Protocol and operationalize ABS inpractice.

Overview

An Explanatory Guide to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing

IUCN, 2012.

Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Frederic Perron-Welch (CISDL)and Thomas Greiber (IUCN), et al.

Publications

• Part of the CUP series on treaty implementation forsustainable development.

• Examines key legal aspects of implementing theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the UN Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD) at national andinternational levels.

• Discusses key issues under the Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety that affect the further design of national andinternational law on biosafety, and analyzing recentprogress in the development of domestic regulatoryregimes for biosafety.

Overview

Legal Aspects of Implementing the CartagenaProtocol on Biosafety

Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Frederic Perron-Welch,Christine Frison, Eds (CISDL)

Publications

• The scoping paper sets out the state-of-the-art legalknowledge on Aichi Biodiversity Target 16 and identifypriority areas for future research.

• This survey of legal knowledge provides a foundationfor future research work on the most promisinginstruments that will support the implementation ofTarget 16.

• Also examine the effectiveness of specific regional,national and subnational legal approaches.

• Prepared under IDLO’s Legal Preparedness forAchieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets program.

Overview

Legal Aspects of the Aichi Biodiversity Target 16: A Scoping Study

International Development Law Organization (IDLO), 2013.

Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Frederic Perron-Welch andFreedom-Kai Phillips (CISDL)

Publications

• This study looks at the biodiversity-specific legislationof a series of countries (Costa Rica, India, Japan,Norway, South Africa, South Korea and Vietnam) andone region (European Union) to analyze how theprovisions of the Convention can be implemented inlaw.

• The case studies are used to conduct a comparativeanalysis, and conclusions are drawn to determine themost effective measures for implementation of theConvention.

• Prepared for the 2nd World Summit of Legislators(2014).

Overview

Biodiversity Legislation Study: A Review of Biodiversity Legislation in 8 Countires

CISDL, World Future Council, and Globe, 2014.

Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Freedom-Kai Phillips and FredericPerron-Welch (CISDL)

Publications

• Reviews national ABS measures in Latin America andthe Caribbean, Asia, the South Pacific, Africa, Europeand North America as well as the regional measures ofthe Andean Community, Association of South-EastAsian Nations (ASEAN), the African Union (AU), theEuropean Union (EU) and the Nordic countries.

• It examines the relevant laws and policies and theirprovisions on scope, prior informed consent, mutuallyagreed terms on benefit-sharing, compliance, andmonitoring and enforcement

• Draft launched for comment at ICNP-3 (2014).

Overview

Overview of National and Regional Measures on Access and Benefit-sharing, 3rd Edition

CISDL, Federal Office of Environment (FOEN), 2014.

Jorge Cabrera Medaglia, Frederic Perron-Welch andFreedom-Kai Phillips (CISDL)

Global Capacity Building

• Trained 30 in-country lawyers(IDLO), 100 civil servants (ABSInitiative) and 200 businessleaders (CNI) on implementationof Nagoya Protocol in 2014.

• Providing ongoing technicalsupport to African Union for thedevelopment of AU guidelinesfor use by 54 African countries.

• Shared country experiences inbiodiversity legislation to 100legislators in sustainable use,conservation and equitableaccess of biodiversity.

Overview

Launch of the Global Overview on National and Regional ABS Measures, 3rd Edition

Comprehensive overview of ABS

Key reference guide for policy makers

7 Regions, 50 Countries surveyed

Rationale and Methodology

• CISDL has decided to look more deeplyat existing ABS laws (pre- or post-NagoyaProtocol), and also expand the scope ofour inquiry to include draft frameworks,initiatives and draft legislationdeveloped after the adoption of theNagoya Protocol for the purpose of itsratification and/or implementation.

• When conducting this inquiry, we focuson the relevance of ABS laws andpractices for other countries.

Rationale• In light of the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol and

the goals set out in the Strategic Plan forBiodiversity, notably Target 16, it is important forcountries that have or are in the process of puttingin place national administrative, legislative or policymeasures on ABS to share their experiences inrelation to implementation.

• The CISDL published its first global research findingson National and Regional Measures on ABS in 2005,in preparation for the fourth meeting of the ABSWorking Group (WG-ABS 4) in 2006.

• Following the adoption of the Protocol at COP 10,the CISDL periodically reviewed and revised itsresearch findings to reflect ongoing changes in theinternational legal regime.

Methodology

Countries Surveyed Latin America & the Caribbean• Andean Community• Bolivia• Brazil• Colombia• Costa Rica• Ecuador• México• Nicaragua• Panamá• Perú• Venezuela

Other Development -North America• Canada• United States of America

Asia• The Association of South East Asian

Nations (ASEAN)• Bhutan• China

Asia (Cont)• India• Malaysia• The Philippines

Middle East• Egypt• Iraq• Jordan• Syria• United Arab Emirates

Pacific• Australia• New Zealand

Africa• African Regional Intellectual

Property Organization (ARIPO)• African Unionα• Commission on the Forests of Central

Africa (COMIFAC)• Cameroon

Africa (Cont) • Ethiopia• Kenya• Malawi• Morocco• South Africa• Uganda

Europe• European Union• Nordic Strategy• Belgium• Denmark• Germany• Sweden• Switzerland• Bulgaria• Croatia• Malta• Portugal• Norway• Spain• United Kingdom

Australia

• Strong needs for institutional governanceover biodiversity while incentivizingequitable access and use.

• The key is having a robust but simpleprocess to bring about compliance whilefacilitating access.

• A simplified system for non-commercialaccess with clear triggers for commercialaccess incentives accounting/indexing ofbiodiversity and innovation.

Overview• Centralized authority with National Ministry of

Environment, but takes a decentralized approachto administration, processing and monitoring ofaccess permits.

• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority(GBRMPA), and the Australian GovernmentAntarctic Division (AGAD)

• Simplified process for non-commercial accessrequiring written permission from each AccessProvider to (a) enter the area, (b) take samples ofbiological resources, and (c) to remove thesesamples.

• Establishment of clear triggers to indicatecommercial intent requiring a material transferagreement and/or to initiate, refine, rework orestablish new terms.

What can be learned?

India

• Simplified process for non-commercial access through collaborative research projects with government sponsored or approved institutions.

• Development of local bodies can facilitate the preservation/protection of biodiversity, cultural practices and TK and streamline access.

• Incorporation of specialist skills on BMC helps to provide technical expertise as well as a diversity of perspectives.

• Goal: Conservation for Sustainable Use

Overview• Policy Structure: Development of policy nationally,

implemented at the state and local levels. • Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) are

local bodies empowered to document biodiversityincluding preservation practices, cultivation andbreeding, and chronicling related knowledge incollaboration with State and National bodies.

• Seven members are nominated, with not lessthan one third of members being women,and not less than 18% being members of theScheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, andState rules incorporating experts such asherbalists, agriculturalists, and academics.

• People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) developedlocally, support a National system of comprehensiveinformation on availability and associatedknowledge biodiversity.


Malaysia

• Designated organization designated forcapacity building, stakeholderengagement and empower ILCs.

• Reciprocal Assurances: Mandates thatany access of genetic resources from ajurisdiction which requires a permit foraccess must be accompanied by thatpermit or its equivalent showing accesswas done legally.

Overview• Requires PIC of relevant ILCs for non-commercial

access to GR and/or TK, and mandates thatresearch undertakings be done in collaborationwith public institutes of higher learning andresearch.

• Advisory Body under the CNA, is to be comprisedof representatives of ILCs to provide guidance onissues pertaining to ILCs.

• Sabah Biodiversity Council is an inter-ministerialbody comprised of representatives from variousimpacted ministries and civil society.

• Sabah Biodiversity Centre is put in place to manageand maintain the use of biodiversity, identify andcollaborate on research, and establish linkages withother bodies, including ILCs and stakeholders, toenhance the preservation and utilization ofbiodiversity.


European Union

• Monitoring User Compliance: recipientsof research funding which involves theuse of GR/TK must declare that duediligence was exercised in regards toaccess, and that the resources wereobtained in legally. If not before duringthe final stages of development.

• Trusted Collections: A register of trustedcollections is created with a set of criteriafor membership. Access form a TrustedCollection is deemed to be in compliancewith the due diligence requirement.

Overview • Recently adopted Regulation which establishes an

implementing framework for Nagoya Protocolwhich enhances available opportunities forresearch and channels benefits from utilization topoverty eradication.

• User Measures: Due Diligence is to be exercised todetermine that genetic resources and traditionalknowledge, which are being used, were accessed inaccordance with domestic benefit-sharinglegislation or regulations and that benefits arebeing equitably dispersed base on mutually agreedterms.

• Checkpoints: establish effective and proportionatecheckpoints to verify compliance with domesticdisclosure requirements and dissuade non-compliance.


African Union

• The strategic principles of the Frameworkaim to ensure that a coordinatedimplementation of the Nagoya Protocolproduces positive socio-economic,development and biodiversityconservation outcomes in Africa

• Principles include national and localimplementation; increased legalcertainty; learning-by-doing; flexible andresponsive implementation; regulatoryfocus on utilization; encouragement ofutilization for discovery in the permittingprocess under standard MAT; support toILC; effective monitoring and compliance.

Overview • The African Union has initiated a process to

develop guidelines for the coordinatedimplementation of the Nagoya Protocol in Africatentatively titled African Union Policy Frameworkfor the Coordinated Implementation of theNagoya Protocol on ABS

• At this time, it consists of a Preamble, PolicyGuidance for Coordination, and Policy Guidelines.

• Key elements include the consistent use of terms; acoordinated approach to awareness raising andinformation sharing; a coordinated approach toaccess for utilization; a coordinated approach tobenefit sharing; a coordinated approach tomonitoring and compliance; a coordinatedapproach to supporting community and farmers’rights, economic development, capacity building,technology transfer, sustainable use andconservation.

Additional Aspects

• Our preliminary conclusions are that there are few post-Nagoya measures enacted, mostly of them in draft form and prepared by developed countries (EU, Switzerland, Denmark).

• They focus is the drafting of user measures. The few post-Nagoya measures in place (Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuban patent and plant variety law amended) not incorporate the legal provisions to comply with the Nagoya Protocol.

• Despite the fact the several countries have ratified the Protocol, some of them are still in the process of determining how to make the Protocol provisions operational.

• After the research carried out, it was not possible to identify a comprehensive draft prepared to be in full compliance with the NP.

Analysis of Post-Nagoya Measures

Conclusions

Defining Ownership

• Ownership of genetic resources will have to be fleshed out in order to meet the Protocol’s obligations related to genetic resources owned by indigenous and local communities.

Understanding the term “utilisation”

• the Protocol does not clarify which uses fall under its scope nor does it provide a an operational definition of the term ‘derivative.

Dealing with special considerations• In relation to access and utilisation of all the genetic resources for food and agriculture, very few

countries provide specific procedures or have created different conditions. • Not all countries in differentiate between commercial and non-commercial research and when they do,

determining whether an application is for basic research or for commercial purposes has proven difficult.

Making Prior informed Consent Operational • Making PIC functional will continue to remain a difficulty for many countries.

Drafting and implementing “compliance measures”• Few of the national ABS measures in this study contain clear compliance-related provisions• The Protocol leaves a great degree of latitude to parties as to the types of measures they may adopt, and

it will be incumbent on countries to put in place adequate compliance mechanisms within their national ABS frameworks.

Challenges

Conclusions

Empowering National Authorities • Provides the basis for strengthening national competent authorities and using information technologies

relevant for the notification of the permit/internationally recognized certificate• New opportunities for strengthening research and development on genetic and biochemical resources in

the countries of the region

Added Clarity • The need to clarify the subject-matter scope of national ABS frameworks, including the definitions of

“utilisation” and “derivatives” may have a positive impact on legal certainty leading to a more coherent and homogenous interpretation and implementation of ABS measures by national authorities.

Research Focus • The need to appropriately address non-commercial research in national ABS frameworks should take into

account the fact that most of the ABS permits/contracts in some countries are for basic research and mostly concern nationals.

Participation of ILCs• Countries can also benefit from the growing jurisprudence regarding the indigenous peoples’ human

rights, especially in relation to the rights over their lands and territories and the right to participate in any decision-making affecting them

Opportunities

Launch of the Biodiversity Legislation Study: A review of 8 Countries

Visionary biodiversity laws

Sharing national experiences

Informing global legislators

Rationale and Methodology

• CISDL undertook a more in-depth look atlaws from eight jurisdictions:

Rationale• COP 10 saw the adoption of the GLOBE Nagoya

Declaration on Parliamentarians and Biodiversitywhich expresses deep concern over biodiversity loss.

• Identifies synergies between the Strategic Plan andGLOBE initiatives, including increasing politicalawareness of the value of biodiversity.

• At Rio+20, legislators from 85 countries convenedfrom 15-17 June 2012 at the first GLOBE WorldSummit of Legislators (WSL) where they adoptedthe Rio+20 Legislators' Protocol.

• Recognizes the role of legislators in developing,passing and overseeing the implementation ofnational legislation, scrutinizing the performance,and raising the level of ambition of governments.

• Legislators now need guidance on developingbiodiversity laws in this context.

Methodology

• Costa Rica,• EU• India,• Japan,

• Norway,• South Africa• South Korea• Vietnam

• Objectives

• Principles

• Institutional Arrangements

• Legal and Policy Instruments

• Sanctions and Penalties

• Monitoring and Review

• Funding

• Analyzed key aspects of each law toidentify visionary practices:

Costa Rica

Overview• BL creates a legal framework in line with the

principles and themes outlined in the CBD and aimsto respond to this goal in an integrated and inter-related manner.

• Broad objectives aimed at conservation and thesustainable use of biological resources and equitabledistribution of the benefits.

• Preventive criterion, Precautionary criterion,Criterion of environmental public interest, Criterionof integration.

• Establishes an administrative body within theMinistry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) tooversee both the National System of ConservationAreas (SINAC) and National BiodiversityAdministration Committee (CONAGEBIO).

• Covers: PES, ABS, EIA, Education and publicawareness, and capacity building.


Ley de Biodiversidad (No.7788) of 1998

• Comprehensive approach to implementing the CBD.

• Equity, protection or rights of indigenouspeoples and local communities andparticipation in the decision makingprocess.

• Incentives and technology transferprovision are incorporated.

• Guiding principles and objectivesincluding the precautionary approach,conservation, and sustainable use.

• Strong institutional development.

European Union

• Successful: more than 26 000 sites andcovering about 17.5% of the EU.

• Opportunities for providing NGO inputinto Natura 2000:

Nominating sites, campaigning forcorridors, evaluating site delineation,,monitoring progress, and improvingmanagement plans among others.

• A series of seminars, organized by bio-geographical regions have been held todiscuss management of Natura 2000sites.

• Existing EU co-financing framework isconsidered inadequate.

Overview • Habitats Directive concern the process of designating

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s), conservationmeasures on the designated sites as well assurveillance and monitoring instruments.

• Member States are “to avoid, in the special areas ofconservation, the deterioration of natural habitatsand the habitats of species as well as disturbance ofthe species for which the areas have beendesignated.”

• Encourages the management of features of thelandscape which are of major importance for wildfauna and flora.

• Projects shall only be carried out on such an area ifthere is no significant negative effect or if there is noalternative solution, or for imperative reasons ofoverriding public interest, including those of a socialor economic nature.


Habitats Directive: Natura 2000

India

• Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC): local multi-stakeholder bodies empowered to document biodiversity, including preservation practices.

Includes women, ILCs, technical skills (herbalists, agriculturist etc)

• People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) developed locally, support a National system of comprehensive information on availability and associated knowledge biodiversity.

• Further clarification is needed on the complementarity/synergistic application of the BD Act and other legislation.

Overview• Focus of this Act is to regulate access to biological

resources and TK so as to ensure equitable sharing ofbenefits arising out of their use.

• Policy Structure: Development of policy nationally,implemented at the state and local levels.

• Local Biodiversity Fund may receive funds by way ofgrant or loan from multiple sources or through feesreceived by the Biodiversity Management Committeewith funds to be used towards conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity in the region.

• Contravening acts are punishable by five yearsimprisonment and a fine. Acts of corporations bringJoint and several liability.

• Monitoring strategies are developed nationally, withState bodies empowered to initiate immediateameliorative measures when biodiversity is beingused in an unsustainable manner.


Biological Diversity Act of 2002

Japan

• Public participation: broad approach to stakeholder engagement including explicit outline of responsibilities of civil society sectors.

Leverages the pre-existing Central Environmental Council as a conduit for stakeholder communication, debate and consultation

• Annual progress reporting & refinement. Including the incorporation of quarterly review cycles.

• Mainstreams biodiversity into all other policies, adopting a primarily preventive approach and long-term viewpoint.

Overview• National formulation of an NBS, in consultation with

civil society, which includes basic principles and targets; comprehensive policies to be implemented by the government; as well as all other necessary matters for the promotion of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

• Prefectures and municipalities are encouraged to formulate regional biodiversity strategies to respond to the unique environmental conditions of each localized ecosystem.

• By reviewing the NBS iteratively and consistently working to incorporate successful practices from the prefectural/municipal levels into the national strategy, Japan has set in place an effective, highly participatory, and continually refined strategic environmental planning framework.


Basic Act on Biodiversity (Act No. 91 of 1993)

Norway

• Competent authority may require theimmediate cessation of activates deemedcontrary the purpose of the Act, with acoercive fine for failure.

• Public consultations are announced forplanned proposals which are alsocirculated for comment with authoritiesat the municipal, county and nationallevel, as well as with the SaamiParliament.

• Explicit recognition of genetic material asa common resource invites an approachto regulation and enforcement thatenhances equity and human security.

Overview• “to protect biological, geological and landscape

diversity and ecological processes throughconservation and sustainable use, and in such a waythat the environment provides a basis for humanactivity, culture, health and well-being, now and inthe future, including a basis for Sami culture.”

• Decision making to be based on: scientific andtraditional knowledge, precautionary principle,ecosystem approach, ‘users pay’ principle,environmentally sound techniques and methods ofoperation, quality norms for biodiversity, and otherimportant public interests including those of theindigenous (Sami) community.

• Charges for willful, negligent and gross contraventionof the act, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

• Effective user measures help to build trust in thedevelopment of ABS in foreign jurisdictions.


Nature Diversity Act (2009)

South Africa

• By nesting biodiversity within the broaderenvironmental legal framework, a greaterdegree of certainty can be established inthe relationship between overlappinglaws and policies.

• Consultations are to be published in bothnational and local newspapers of theimpacted region allowing 30 days forwritten submissions.

• NBSAP provides a comprehensive long-term strategy, including fifteen-yeartargets.

• Provincial conservation authorities andmunicipalities lack skills and resources totackle biodiversity management.

Overview • First South African NBSAP (2005) developed through

extensive stakeholder consultation, formalized in2008 National Biodiversity Framework (NBF) andestablishes priority actions to guide the biodiversitysector and is reviewed every five years.

• NBF provides for an integrated, coordinated anduniform approach to biodiversity management byorgans of state in all spheres of government, NGOs,the private sector, local communities, and otherstakeholders and the public.

• Focuses on ecosystem and species conservation toensure efficiency and adaptation to climate changeby identifying critical biodiversity areas which yieldcatchments for climate change.

• Establishes an ABS regime facilitating equitableaccess to domestic genetic resources and TK.

• Need to work on established systematicimplementation with appropriate resources.


National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 2004

South Korea

• Ecological and environmental maps areto be designed to inform development,through the categorization of land.

• Fee: Operators of projects which have asignificant impact on the environmentshall have a fee levied against them byway of Cooperation Charge on theConservation of Ecosystems.

• National priority which requires localactualization.

• Public awareness of biodiversityconservation must be generated toensure local communities recognize thevalue of species protection.

Overview • Seeks sustainable utilization of nature and to

empower people to lead a healthy life in harmonywith the natural environment through systematicconservation.

• State and local governments are to bear theresponsibility of governance and administration ofconservation efforts in accordance with the coreprinciples of conservation and sustainability.

• Basic Policy for Conservation of the NaturalEnvironment is to be developed nationally.

• Core contents: Current state, targets, strategic plan,restoration efforts, project costs, and duties topromote conservation.

• All local and/or regional policies or plans are to bedeveloped to support the Basic Plan.

• Central Environmental Preservation AdvisoryCommittee acts a consultative body with heads ofrelevant agencies.


Natural Environment Conservation Act (Amended 2008)

Vietnam

• Master Plan on biodiversity provides acoordinated approach to conservationefforts harmonized at the national leveland implemented concurrently at thestate and local levels.

• Funds for biodiversity conservation arederived from multiple locations and areto be used for research, restoration,conservation efforts, control of alieninvasive species, status reports,inventory/lists of species, and capacitybuilding.

• Recent Decree clarifies the breakdown ofcompetences between Ministries.

Overview • “This Law provides for the biodiversity conservation

and sustainable development; rights and obligationsof organizations, households and individuals in thebiodiversity conservation and sustainabledevelopment.”

• Establishes the National Master Plan on BiodiversityConservation with: goals, evaluation of socio-economic conditions, current state, ecologicalmetrics, areas of conservation, needs, strategicassessment of projects, and implementation plan.

• Sets in place a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)platform for all natural ecosystems, and a multi-tiersystem of categories for conservation areas.

• Survey of Natural Ecosystems feed into the masterplanning process and Biodiversity Reports are usedto inform decision-making and strategic planning.


Biodiversity Law (No. 20/2008)

Lessons Learned

Sustainable Use of Natural Resources • Does the law/policy help to ensure that natural resources will be used in a more sustainable way?

• Does it help to address a common concern of humankind and/or aim to promote respect for biodiversity and TK which are the common heritage of humankind?

Equity and Poverty Eradication • Does the law/policy help to address pressing poverty and human rights challenges? • Does it demonstrate inter-generational including the needs of present and future generations?

Precautionary Approach to Health, Natural Resources and Ecosystems • Does the law/policy promote prevention and precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty about a

threat of serious or irreversible harm? • Where there is insufficient scientific evidence, does it ensure that those most affected by a project can

set the acceptable level of risk or threat?

Public Participation, Access to Information and Justice • Does the law/policy provide for public consultation and genuine engagement? • Does it specifically provide for transparency and access to information for concerned citizens, local

communities, and others who might be affected? • Does it provide avenues for appeal and redress for citizens, communities and others?

Lessons Learned (cont)

Good Governance and Human Security • Does the law/policy establish adequate institutions to ensure transparent, prompt, effective and fair

implementation of its provisions?

• Does it promote peaceful resolution of conflict, and help to ensure that human beings are able to live in freedom from fear, and freedom from want?

• Does the law/policy include provisions to ensure that its intentions are not thwarted by corruption, bribery or unethical conduct, and provide appropriate penalties for abuse of rights or violations?

Integration and Interrelationship • Does the law/policy integrate social justice and environmental protection into economic development

plans and projects? • Does it ensure that development decision-making takes environmental and social impacts into account,

providing for mitigation, modification or cancellation if necessary? • Does it provide or enhance benefits for the environment, and the society?

Common but differentiated responsibilities • Does the law/policy take into account historical and other inequalities, including who has benefited from

past activities and policies, when imposing obligations, and provide avenues for redress? • Is the law/policy appropriate and well-adapted to the society or region’s present level of technology,

scientific knowledge, human/financial resources, cultural values and traditions? • Does the law/policy avoid placing inappropriate burdens on vulnerable groups?

• Assessment of biodiversity, including identifying impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, drivers of biodiversity loss and possibilities for halting loss of biodiversity.

• Establishing clear goals in advance to inform and inspire the provisions of laws and policies on biodiversity, thus providing guidance for the selection and drafting of instruments and mechanisms.

• Ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are involved, including those from key government ministries, civil society and indigenous and local communities.

• Identifying policy areas and laws that negatively affect biodiversity.

• Identifying existing international obligations, including relevant COP decisions, as well as existing laws and policies on biodiversity.

• Undertaking a legal analysis of issues in light of the existing legal framework.

• Establish tools to ensure implementation, monitoring and revision of the law when necessary.

Conclusions All countries should engaged in reversing theloss of biodiversity by adopting ambitious legaland policy measures that effectively safeguardthe environment, respect human rights, andembody the highest standards of sustainability.

Fundamentals

Partner Organizations

Questions and Thank You Centre for International Sustainable Development LawThe CISDL is an independent legal research centre that collaborateswith the McGill University Faculty of Law and also works with anetwork of developing countries’ faculties of law to promotesustainable societies and the protection of ecosystems by advancingthe understanding, development and implementation of internationalsustainable development law.

Materials available at: http://www.cisdl.org/aichilex/

http://www.cisdl.org/aichilex/







achieving the aichi biodiversity targets - sbstta 18 event.pdf · 2014-06-26 · •indentified...

Documents