World Summit on Sustainable Development

NGO Position Paper for the plenary debate on Biodiversity
developed by the NGO Biodiversity Caucus
in consultation with the Global Forest Coalition
South Africa, August 2002

We welcome the recognition by both the Secretary General and the WEHAB Working Group that biodiversity conservation and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits are conditions for the achievement of the millennium
Development Goals and sustainable development in general. We hope this awareness that biodiversity is cross cutting issue will be taken forward in the follow up to WSSD.

Human beings are an integral part of the community of life on Earth, which has its intrinsic value. Our well being is derived from and depends on the health of this community and its biodiversity. Diversity in terms of biological
resources, production systems, habitats, languages, cultures and means of governance is still eroding rapidly. Our biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. Half of the tropical rainforests and mangroves have already been lost. About 75% of marine fisheries have been fished to capacity. 70% of coral reefs are endangered. The total loss of species through global extinction is a real concern. Considering the interdependence between biological, cultural and linguistics diversity we urge the WSSD to adopt an integrated approach to support the Earth's living variety. The people who depend on biodiversity for their livelihoods ­ Indigenous Peoples, fore
stdwellers, smallholder farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, and in particular women, are the people who have conserved and developed biodiversity and who contribute to ecosystem services and the maintenance
of the biosphere. We are conscious and proud of their fundamental role.

The biodiversity plenary even at WSSD is intended, in part, to discuss Type II partnerships on the theme of biodiversity. We wish to state out views on the presentation of partnerships in this summit. Partnerships are nothing new, and some local partnerships have undoubtedly benefited biodiversity, but by presenting them as something new at the WSSD they pollute the debate on the need for clear multilateral commitments and legally binding frameworks for, amongst others, corporate behavior. The shift from multilateral commitments to private partnerships will lead to further privatization of official development aid, and thus an even stronger corporate control over sustainable development policy. It also id s clear choice in favor of unilateralism, it is no secret that the US favors partnerships to be able to ignore the rules of multilateral bodies. In summary, these partnerships favor the powerful, not the people.

Instead of discussing partnerships, we would like to focus our observations on what should be the main focus of the WSSD itself: The need for clear, targeted and binding multilateral agreements to effectively address obstacles to implementing legally binding commitments like the Biodiversity Convention and its Cartagena Protocol. It goes without saying that such agreements should be developed and implemented with full and equitable participation of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other rights holders and stakeholders. Such participation should be based on frank dialogue and respect for human rights, including the territorial and other rights of Indigenous Peoples, rather than the dependencies that are often created by "partnerships".

The local communities and Indigenous Peoples are the custodians of biodiversity, and they have the inalienable right and responsibility to continue to manage, save, exchange and further develop the biodiversity and indigenous knowledge are collective in nature, and therefore cannot be privatized or individualized . Current systems of intellectual property rights applied to biodiversity and traditional knowledge are private and monopolistic in nature and there incompatible with community rights. Most countries had prohibited the patenting of biological resources, but the TRIPS Agreement makes it mandatory for WTO member states to allow patenting of at least certain life forms.

There is a clear need to shift decision-making power over ecosystem management to the local communities and Indigenous Peoples that depend on these ecosystems for their livelihood and cultural survival. Such a shift should take into account the need for socio-economic equity, including gender equity, and the need for culturally and linguistically appropriate education and communication systems that build on the revival of traditional knowledge as well as other forms of scientific knowledge.

Identifying Gaps

Human survival depends upon respect for nature and its protection. The market economy on the other hand regards nature and biodiversity as purely commodities that must be exploited for profit and this undermines the very survival of humanity and the planet. The logic of the market ­ which is primarily driven by global corporations ­ has been given much impetus and force with the push for unfettered globalisation, opening up every frontier of the globe for exploitation ­ from our forests, genetic resources to even our genes. The trade agenda has become the key driving force of our macro economic policy making through international institutions such as the WTO, IMF and the World Bank.

The most important direct causes of biodiversity loss and damage to fragile ecosystems include logging, forest conversation programmes such as cattle ranching, plantations for agriculture and pulp, mining, oil exploration, dam building, road construction, urbanization, overfishing and large scale shrimp farming, chemical pollution.

We cannot continue to allow unfettered trade and unregulated corporate behavior to undermine sustainability. The socio-ecological crisis arising from the destruction of biodiversity can only be solved if the processes from which it arises are reversed both at the national and international levels. The protection of nature, and of the poor who depend critically on it for sustenance, needs a socio-ecological thinking and action, which puts the imperatives of Nature's Economy and Peoples' sustenance economy above the imperatives of market and trade.
Many of the high-diversity regions of the world also harbor some of the poorest human populations. We have therefore come to see poverty as a driver of biodiversity loss, yet this is unjust, inequitable and simplistic explanation. As recognized by the WEHAB WG report, overconsumption by industrialized countries and rich elites in poor countries forms by far the main driver of biodiversity loss. This has also created a major ecological debt, which must be recognized, and repaid. A key problem lies in the fact that conventional development pathways ­ as pursued by industrialized countries ­ often focus on the generation and accumulation of private good ­ food, clothing, buildings and other materials goods ­ items that can be traded and exchanged. Powerful technologies, property laws and under-priced transport increasingly allow rich consumers to appropriate resources from anywhere in the world, without facing the ecological and social consequences of such consumerism. The importance of maintaining public goods ­ sustainable food production systems, biodiversity, the atmosphere, the oceans ­ has not been recognized in the process of development.

Meanwhile, many false solutions have been proposed since UNCED. Monoculture tree plantations have been proposed as a solution for deforestation. GMOs have been proposed as a solution for hunger and starvation. Dubious concepts like sustainable mining and sustainable tourism have seen the light. All these so-called solutions have exacerbated problems instead of addressed them.

Another issue of major concern in relation to preserving the integrity of ecosystems is the dangers posed by genetic engineering. There is growing scientific evidence that genetic engineering can impact human life and
biodiversity in ways that have not been known before. Hence the need for greater emphasis on the precautionary principle and biosafety.

The Role of Multilateral organizations in the follow up to Biodiversity issues in the WSSD. We welcome that the paper by the WEHAB working group recognized the need to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. However, it fails to explicitly mention the most important underlying cause, in particular corporate-led globalization and the economic models imposed by it. The WTO is arguably the main driving force imposing this economic model of corporate control upon countries. We are particularly concerned that the results of the WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha will undermine the implementation of the CBD and other biodiversity related agreements in numerous ways. Concern over food security and the environment should take precedence over international trade interests. The WTO is not the place to decide on these issues. Neither should regional and bilateral trade agreements affect local biodiversity management.

A considerable amount of work has gone into documenting the current (2002) baseline status of biodiversity in the world. However, reviews of environmental assessments have made little use of civil society expertise
developed to provide independent monitoring, such as the Independent Review and recommendations for Action of the Global Forest Coalition, presented in the Hague at the time of the last conference of parties of the CBD. If the WSSD process is to undertake a focused monitoring exercise of biodiversity implementation initiatives, then it will need to work with a broad suite of independent monitors, including NGOs and indigenous and other local communities located in developing countries.

GEF implementing agencies, like the World Bank, should not be allowed to implement grants when these institutions have not formulated grant regulations and procedures in compliance with the1994 GEF reorganization
and instead, insist on using their loan regulations and procedures on grants especially with NGOs. Unless these institutions do so, they should be banned from implementing GEF NGO-Government partnership grants.

Generate new ideas

The NGO community around the CBD would like to offer the following recommendations and new ideas, to be integrated and explored in biodiversity implementation initiatives:

1. WSSD should not erode the numerous biodiversity-related multilateral agreements already forged, but ensure their effective implementation, including through setting concrete targets and timeless. WSSD should urge all countries to ratify these instruments and resist unilateralism.

2. We urge the WSSD to stand up to ensure the protection of biodiversity and the rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples. In this context, efforts to undermine these agreements in favour of corporate and vested
interests, particular by the WTO must be resisted.

3. We welcome the recognition by the WEHAB working group that the lack or non-enforcement of appropriate regulatory mechanisms is the main market and economic policy failure affecting biodiversity. Therefore, we reiterat e our call for legally binding framework to regulate corporations.

4. We also reiterate that access and benefit sharing mechanisms should be legally binding and not voluntary. Access to biological resources in countries without Access and Benefit Sharing laws should not be permitted. These laws must protect the customary rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities over biological resources, as well as their rights over traditional living knowledge, and farmer's rights. These rights should include the right to denial of access when prior informed consent is sought. By its very nature, patenting of genetic resources, meaning privatization of genetic resources and monopolization of their use upon the WSSD to make a clear statement against Patents and Life and the use of any intellectual property rights on biodiversity and traditional knowledge. The WTO TRIPS agreements must be reviewed. The African Model Law for the Protection of the rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders and for the Regulation of Access to
Biological Resources should be implemented by the African countries concerned and supported by the global community.

5. One cannot share what is destroyed. Considering the devastating trends of biodiversity loss demand a moratorium on all large-scale industrial activities that destroy or threaten to destroy our ecosystems.

6. In accordance with the Precautionary Principle, we demand from our governments to ensure a GE free environment in our countries and in our farming systems and to support to support our efforts to raise awareness
amongst farmers and consumers about the real and potential impact of GE to the environment and to human health. In particular, governments should implement an immediate ban on the release into the environment of GM in centers of origin and diversity of those crops, taking into account the proven risks of genetic contamination . The development and use of Genetic Restriction Technologies should be prohibited. We also strong alert governments to the increasing risks of biological warfare and, of course, the impacts of war itself on biodiversity.

7. Governments and other should support Indigenous and other local peoples to address resource access and land ownership issues and facilitate processes that bring them into decision-making processes around land and
water use.

8. Orient all development, including in agriculture and aquaculture, towards models that are ecologically and socio-culturally sensitive, and which conserve or enhance biodiversity and biodiversity-based livelihoods, taking
into account the special role, rights and interests of women.

9. Educate and restrain consumers in industrial countries, and elite consumers in poor countries, to achieve sustainable and equitable levels of consumption.

While governments are taking and talking, local communities and Indigenous Peoples around the world are resisting the destruction of biodiversity through various struggles. We wish to reiterate our support for all the local
communities and Indigenous Peoples around the world are resisting the destruction of biodiversity through various struggles in defense of their lives and nature. For it is in struggles that the last frontiers our biodiversity remain intact. We commit ourselves to protect and enrich our local knowledge and actively promoted diversified integrated farming systems based on biodiversity in our communities and organizations.

We request that our concerns reflected above are taken into account in any further WEHAB process. We need to build quickly a sustainable development architecture, with three legs (social, environment, economic). In an open and consultative process post Johannesburg, this must provide a context within which the most difficult and controversial can be addressed freely and effectively. In this process we must ensure that Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and other groups are fully and equitably involved.