The ECO FORUM delegation representing environmental citizen organizations across Pan-Europe has made the following statements during the Madrid European Biodiversity Conference on A – Marine and Coastal Biodiversity STRA-CO (2004) 8 B – Mountain Biological Diversity STRA-CO (2004) 9 C – Protected Areas and Ecological Networks STRA-CO (2004) 10 D - Transfer of Technology and Technology Cooperation STRA-CO (2004) 11 in preparation to the CBD COP-7 to augment the valuable base
papers and contributions by governments and others made during the meeting 3rd Intergovernmental Conference “Biodiversity in Europe”, Madrid, 20 January 2004 Statement on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity made by Coastwatch on behalf of the European ECO-Forum We welcome the priority given to Marine and coastal areas in this meeting and the excellent presentation by the Czech government on Marine and coastal biodiversity. We believe that COP 7 is an opportunity of getting some of the pressures on biodiversity in this area under control and setting priorities for both biodiversity protection and remedial action to improve the situation for key species and areas. In this context we scrutinized the STRA – CO 2004(8) and make the following recommendations: 1. Language Throughout the document the use of the word – sustainable- needs to be reviewed. There is a fundamental difference between sustainable management, sustainable mariculture (page 3 and 9) and sustainable development of a given area. A fish farmer may be have a sustainable fish farm operation with his fish crops and financial balance doing well over years, while the wild sea trout and salmon of that area may have been wiped out by his operation. Sustainable development would have ensured protection of the wild fish population. 2. Executive Summary – key message We do not believe that loss of marine biodiversity can be halted, if the pressures continue to increase. In para 4 urgent coordinated action is rightly called for, but it needs to focus on addressing and reducing the pressures. We see zoning and careful management planning not as aims, but as important tools, among others like awareness raising, mandatory biodiversity training of large impact potential users, more careful handling of financial incentives for development. We stress that better law enforcement would be a most immediate step to protecting biodiversity in many areas. 3. The valuable insight into developments of the Mediterranean region need to be augmented by more information from other seas Important initiatives which should be added include the Black Sea Environmental Program with involvement of all riparian states; the Convention on Fishing in the Black Sea (Varna 1959) and the recently signed Framework Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment of Caspian Sea (Tehran, Nov.2003). A reference to the Aral Sea - the "best" example of a huge lost wetland environment would help emphasis the seriousness of biodiversity and resource loss. Priority ACTIONS. We agree with action proposed on marine protected areas but would like to expand the reference to stakeholder participation into two extra points, as we see major potential for progress if these are addressed in a focused manner. 4. Tapping and pooling of Information No matter where you go in the world, you will find inshore fishermen and coastal users who represent an enormous pool of local knowledge. A knowledge of local currents, indicators of fish stock movement, appearance of alien species, algal blooms, pollution slicks, patterns of sediment movement to mention just a few. It is urgent that this knowledge, which is not found in scientific papers but in people's heads and local customs is recognized before it is lost. If we were to tap this knowledge and pool it with scientific know how, we would make a significant step forward towards better understanding and better chance of monitoring and control of pressures. 5. Real public participation in spirit of Aarhus Convention: Sustainable development and biodiversity protection of our seas as last European commons needs to be a transparent process, which we can believe in. Financial gain and opportunity are powerful incentives for individual use coastal and marine resources and space though. While on land, many local people can become involved, indeed may sit down in front of bulldozers to stop outright destruction, it is usually impossible to do this at sea. There is even greater need therefore to have full public and NGO participation below high water when actions are planned and if permitted for compliance monitoring. Sadly though, the sea is the remaining bastion of non democratic means in many countries. For dumping of millions of tonnes of dredge spoil in an estuary with most valuable fisheries, there may be a small information advertisement in a local paper read on only one side of the shore and the authority decision to grant a license comes without an appeal mechanism. We urge parties to discuss points 4 and 5 and consider best avenues of action. A draft proposal on action is included below. If agreed it could be added as COP 7 page 11 as extra bullets:
Statement on Mountain Biological Diversity made by BIOSTAN Ecocenter on behalf of the European ECO-Forum European Eco-Forum congratulates the Government of Italy and its partners with deep and detailed analysis of the situation with international activities in area of protection of mountainous environment. Following the general spirit of the document we would like to add some information from the other parts of Pan-Europe. The Carpathian Convention was one of the key points on the Kiev Conference Agenda. It now needs to be fully implemented. In 2002 at the World Mountain Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan announced the so-called “Bishkek Mountain Platform”, presently signed by the governments of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It is a significant step towards a Convention. The active work on the elaboration of a framework convention to protect the mountainous environment in Caucasus is on the way in this part of Pan-Europe. Several countries of Caucasus and Central Asia already adopted National Strategies/and Action Plans on protection or sustainable development of mountainous regions. In some others these areas are subject of special attention within the frames of the National Biodiversity Conservation, Combating Desertification, and Sustainable development strategies and action plans. In Central Asia protection and sustainable development of mountainous territories became one of the major priorities of the Regional Environmental Action Plan adopted three years ago by all five governments. However, we have a serious concern in regard of the general spirit of the document discussed: • There is no mention of the role and activities developed by non-governmental actors even the Alliance of Alpine Mountainous Communities. We recommend specific reference to the contribution of non governmental actors, especially as Europe has a lot of experience in this respect to share with other parts of the world at the CBD COP7. From our side we are ready to provide Italy with more detailed information on activities/and projects conducted by various actors. • Transfer of technologies and best practice: We would like to stress here the necessity of analyzing and further dissemination not only experience and technologies from the Western Europe, but in the opposite direction as well. There are lot of brilliant examples Central Asia, Caucasus and Central/Eastern Europe, which could be replicated in the West. This principle should be reflected in the STRA-CO (2004) 11 TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION. We support the need of the special attention to the problems of conservation of fragile biodiversity of mountains at the Mediterranean islands. At the same time we would like to draw your attention to another class of mountains, which are under serious threat – the ostans (relict) mountains of Central Asian deserts – the home of unique and endangered biodiversity. Another important point to mention here: very often mountains are the area of political boundaries between the states or even groups of states. In our perception, this political aspect of mountainous areas (and their inhabitants of all kinds) needs a special attention, which we would like to see reflected in the final document. Statement on Protected Areas and Ecological Networks made by BIOTICA Ecological Society on behalf of the European ECO-Forum We welcome the priority given to the issue of protected areas and ecological networks and, recognizing complicated theme of the document STRA-CO (2004) 10 PROTECTED AREAS AND ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS, congratulate Government of the Netherlands and Government of Russia, as well as ECNC and IUCN with well prepared document. The document reflects general difficulties in understanding of the terms and notions of the PEEN, that is why we suggest to use term “system(s) of protected areas” instead of “network(s) of protected areas” throughout. In order to meet the goals set, it would be appropriate to set out recommendations 5 and 8 for input in CBD COP7 in the following version: 5. Establish a global equivalence for protected areas all over the world, using IUCN categories and categorization of biological values. 8. Prioritise the establishment of protected areas and ecological networks in under-protected zones and especially vulnerable ecosystems as: marine areas and coastal zones, including high seas, inland wetlands, semiarid and arid habitats. From our point of view, “disparities in protected areas categories between countries (preventing comparison)” could not be classified as a gap, but as key challenges for Europe, because these disparities are determined by differences in national legislation and definitions. Recognizing that the lack of common technology for identification of elements of ecological networks impedes effective creation of the PEEN, harmonization of approaches and exchange of technologies is needed. Here we see a serious link to the STRA-CO (2004) 11 TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION. Hence, we suggest to move point 6 from section Recommendations for specific European activities in support of national implementation to the section Recommendations for specific European activities, in addition to Kyiv targets for PEEN, to help overcome gaps and tackle the challenges. We propose the addition of the following phrase - Harmonization of current approaches and addition after common methodology and technology to identify the elements of national and transboundary ecological networks. Statement on Transfer of Technology and Technology Cooperation made by CEEWEB on behalf of the European ECO-Forum We would like to compliment on the excellent document in front of us. The paper clearly explains what technology transfer is and how it can be used for helping developing countries. However, representing Non Governmental Originations from countries in transitions, we have a somewhat different understanding of “Technology Transfer” and the role of the countries we represent. The Document STRA-CO (2004) 11 distinguishes between “hard” and “soft” technologies, soft being among others skills and methodologies. With regards to soft technologies, we would like to point out, that perhaps countries in transition have also something to offer for the developed ones. These are practices, methods and skills which enabled the developing countries to utilize biodiversity resources in a more sustainable manner as we are witnessing in – among others – in the EU members states. This has led to richer biodiversity which is being currently endangered now by modern, more exploitive technologies. The developed countries now starting to re-discover the wheel – and investigating the possibilities of traditional practices for the benefit of nature. We would like to point out, that these traditional practices are still available at some places, but being lost by accelerated speed. Therefore, we would like to emphasis that technology transfer – especially with regards to soft ones – must be a two ways process! Please consider that developing countries have also something to offer for the developed ones! But perhaps not for long….. |
|
Developed by BIOTICA Ecological Society Hosted by the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW) |