Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

336 I Global biosphere policy
I 3.2.1
Innovative structures
One fundamental and overarching topic in the
preparation phase of the COP-5 has been a revision
of the way the CBD works. The existing bodies allow
for continuous cooperation among the parties, but so
far they do not provide for the incorporation of independent
scientific experts and can only provide insufficient
guarantees in the crucial monitoring of
progress.
An informal meeting of experts (London, January
1998) discussed the possibility of improving the
structure and working methods of the CBD and forwarded
recommendations to the COP-4 that took
place in May 1998 in Bratislava.
These recommendations related in particular to
an improvement in the scientific advice and monitoring
of implementation, the incorporation of non-governmental
players and cooperation with other conventions
and programmes.
The fact that a special working meeting was convened
in June 1999 (ISOC) shows what importance
the community of parties accords this topic. The
establishment of a new Subsidiary Body on Implementation
(SBI), a proposal for which many parties
from the Group of 77 and China had called, however,
made it more difficult to achieve agreement. The
Council recommends that the German federal government
support the further development of the
CBD institutional system and in that context in particular
take up the recommendations and arguments
discussed in the following Sections I 3.2.1.1 and I
3.2.1.2.
I 3.2.1.1
Establishment of an IPBD to provide scientific
advice
Experience from a variety of negotiating processes in
international environmental and sustainability policy
make it clear that there is a need for well founded
and independent scientific advice. The IPCC (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) fulfils this
role for climate policy (WBGU, 1997, 1998a).There is
no comparable institution to provide for advice and
follow-through on international biodiversity policy.
The vagueness of the scientific foundations, terms
and concepts with which work is being conducted in
the negotiations is increasingly becoming an obstacle
to the development and implementation of decisions
by the contracting countries. One example for this
situation is the discussion on the definition and
design of the ecosystem approach (Section I 3.2.3)
that is one of the fundamental concepts of the CBD.
The scientific deficit may be seen at two levels.
First of all, the knowledge available on the state
and loss of biological diversity and the consequences
of this trend is still insufficient and patchy. The gaps
must be identified systematically and worked on. At
the same time sound scientific follow-through of topics
that have already been processed politically is also
important.
Furthermore, there is the failure to translate the
results of scientific research into politically relevant
options for action and the integration of scientific,
socio-economic and legal expertise.
A first attempt to do justice to these shortcomings
was undertaken with the Global Biodiversity Assessment
(GBA; WBGU, 1996). This GEF-financed
report was published by UNEP in 1995 and submitted
to the COP-2 in Jakarta (Heywood and Watson,
1995).As the original title indicates, it was initially an
exercise in taking stock that constitutes a very good
scientific basis for international biodiversity policy.
The report was produced with the broad, international
participation of scientists and involved peer
review procedures very similar to the work of the
IPCC.A continuation and supplement to the GBA in
the form of a continual evaluation and advisory procedure
was not envisaged and it remained at a oneoff
endeavour– with many unresolved questions of
practical policy against the background of the established
dramatic and irreversible loss of biological
diversity.
Providing scientific-technical advice in biodiversity
policy has up to now been the job of two permanent
bodies: SBSTTA and the Scientific and Technical
Advisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF.These bodies,
however, fulfil firmly delineated tasks within the
political process. STAP is first and foremost responsible
for evaluating GEF project applications and
evaluations and does not provide policy advice
beyond that task. It is the function of SBSTTA in the
CBD system to suggest and evaluate scientific expertise
in response to specific requests from the COP.
The results of these expert assessments must then be
packaged into motions for decision by the COP.
SBSTTA, as a subsidiary body subject to instructions
from the COP, is closely bound to the programme of
work of the CBD, must work on the instructions from
the COP and is not free to select the topics it investigates.
In the force field of political interests the independent
scientific work that would be necessary cannot
be realized. Often at SBSTTA meetings instead
of independent scientists it is government representatives
who are present and who conduct discussions
at the political level of the COP: SBSTTA is increasingly
becoming a ‘mini COP’. It remains to be seen
whether the envisaged establishment of an Ad Hoc