Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

Focuses of implementation I 3.2
339
in order to be able to achieve a fundamental understanding
in the population for the importance of biological
diversity and thus an interest in their longterm
preservation. Support should be given to the
development in the biodiversity rich countries of
research institutions of their own and to the mobilization
of corresponding corporate investment.
The Council recommends that the German federal
government take a close look when it develops a
national strategy at the opportunities for enhanced
technology transfer for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity.This is only possible in
close cooperation with the BMZ (Federal Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development).
I 3.2.3
Programmes of work in line with the ‘triad of
objectives’
At the forefront of the gradual development of topicspecific
programmes of work under the CBD for the
various ecosystems (so far, marine and coastal ecosystems,
forests, agrobiodiversity and inland waters)
is an integrated consideration for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity. In this
way, the hitherto prevailing spatial restriction to natural
or semi-natural ecosystems or protected areas
was lifted. This reorientation leads to biodiversity
issues gaining a greater relevance to a larger area and
being given greater consideration in land use planning
as a whole.At the COP-3 it was decided to place
savannahs, arid areas, grasslands and mountain
ecosystems on the agenda of forthcoming COPs.
I 3.2.4
Ecosystem approach
The ecosystem approach is a concept fundamental to
the implementation of the CBD and to which, for
example, reference is made in many of the programmes
of work and decisions of the COP. Furthermore,
this integrative concept is also important for
bioregional management (Section E 3.9). Currently,
however, it is being used in the CBD without a clear
definition or indeed an unanimous view on its content.
Since the ecosystem approach entered the CBD
without prior validation by means of independent
scientific debate or deliberation by the SBSTTA, and
in many instances has perturbed some players, it
seems that an improved scientific grounding for this
approach is more necessary than ever. This process
has already begun with relevant expert workshops
within the CBD framework (most recently in Trondheim,
September 1999). The Council recommends
giving priority to the advancement of the substantiation
of this concept.
I 3.2.5
Indicators and monitoring
Within the framework of the convention the elaboration
of a coherent system of indicators for monitoring
the global status of biological diversity has advanced
very little. There are still major uncertainties regarding
methodology and scientific bases that should be
addressed in targeted research (Section J 2.1). It
would also make sense to bring together various
existing projects on indicator development for biodiversity
at international level (CSD, IUCN, IFF, CCD,
OECD, etc). It would be desirable for the iterative
development and binding introduction of an internationally
compatible core set of biodiversity indicators
to assess, at the various levels of aggregation, pressures,
status/trends and responses to intervention. It
is important for this to be linked to the development
of sustainability indicators as is currently being
advanced for instance by the OECD and CSD. In
order to speed up this process, consideration should
be given to convening an international expert dialogue
whose work could be continued by a future
IPBD.
I 3.2.6
Taxonomy
From scientific circles time and again warnings have
been issued about the lack of capacity building in the
field of taxonomy. Taxonomy is even often referred
to as a ‘dying science’. This is particularly true of
developing countries, but even in industrialized
countries the recording of biological diversity has
often been seriously neglected in terms of both personnel
and funding. In light of this situation, the
Council recommends increased research support for
taxonomy (Section J 3.1.1).
The Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) attempts
to counteract the crisis in taxonomy by developing an
international support programme (Eberhard, 1999).
Recently, there has been discussion about whether
the GTI ought to be institutionalized as a framework
project. At the 4th meeting of the SBSTTA of the
CBD the overwhelming majority of the delegates
supported the promotion of the GTI within the CBD
process. It was disputed however, whether it should
be tied to UNEP. An upgrading of taxonomy would
however bring with it a change in GEF policy since
the latter would have to draw up clear and specific
guidelines in the context of new or existing GEF pro-