26 February 2001

The Executive Secretary to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Mr. H. Zedan

World Trade Center

Montreal

Fax: +1 514 288 65 88

c.c. All national CBD focal points

Dear Mr. Zedan,

Thank you for your response to our letter of 31^st October 2000 and for your note to the 6^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 13^th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) on cooperation between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UNFCCC. Having now had the opportunity to analyse the proposals put forward during The Hague negotiations we would like to bring to your attention a number of concerns critical to the implementation of the CBD.

In the following, we highlight some of the issues we feel need to be addressed in the run up to 6^th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the CBD and beyond.

In particular, we draw your attention to the text tabled by the President of the COP, Minister Jan Pronk, during the last day of negotiations at The Hague. This text showed very clearly that, had an agreement been forged, the negative impact on forests and biodiversity would have been far reaching.

The proposals put forward at The Hague would, if accepted and implemented by Parties, result in significant loss of forest biodiversity.

In an attempt by Minister Pronk to bring governments to an agreement at The Hague, forest management activities were made eligible for carbon credits under Article 3.4. This was coupled with the proposed afforestation and reforestation activities in the CDM with no safeguard for biodiversity and no provisions for conservation. The proposal did not include the use of the Ecosystem Approach to Afforestation, Reforestation, and Deforestation (ARD) activities, although this approach has been recently adopted as the overall approach to the implementation of the CBD (Dec. V/6 CBD). All aspects of this proposal would have seriously undermined attempts not only to mitigate the dangerous impacts of climate change, but to keep in line with the provisions of the CBD. The Pronk proposal included:

* The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) definition of forest, which includes tree plantations. This would allow a Party to clear a natural forest and replant it with a tree plantation without getting a debit from the emissions caused by clearing.

·       * No safeguards for the protection of biodiversity and a weakening of previous text, which made direct reference to the need to abide by the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

·        * The inclusion of forest management activities under article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, allowing Parties to emit more greenhouse gas emissions than in a Protocol which did not count land use, land use change and forestry activities.

·        * The inclusion of afforestation and reforestation projects (including large-scale tree plantations) in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

·        * No credit for preventing deforestation and land degradation in the CDM.

The combined effect of promoting the kind of sinks activities that reduce forest biodiversity and allowing countries to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases threaten the objectives and provisions of the CBD, namely the conservation sustainable use and enhancement of biodiversity.

In your most recent note on cooperation between UNFCCC and the CBD (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/11) you highlight many of the potential synergies and conflicts between the CBD and the UNFCCC. We kindly request you, as Executive Secretariat of the CBD, to use your good influence to ensure that decisions made at the UNFCCC do not undermine the provisions of the CBD.

The undersigned NGOs recommend that the next communication from the CBD to the UNFCCC  regarding forest related activities under the Kyoto Protocol include the following:

• A reminder that the CBD and the UNFCCC are both legally binding multilateral environmental agreements, and with the exception of only few countries, the Parties to the two Conventions are nearly identical, making it imperative that any activity undertaken under the UNFCCC should be undertaken in consistency with the provisions of the CBD.
• An explanation of the fact that any activity under the Kyoto Protocol is an activity that falls under Art. 6 b of the CBD, which requires integration of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into all relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.
• A demand that until advice is provided, and COP 6 has deliberated on the findings, no decision at the UNFCCC can be taken regarding LULUCF, as States would otherwise undermine processes and deliberations of one forum in another.

•            In particular, a request that general rules and regulations to implement the biodiversity-related provisions of the UNFCCC and any project implementing the Kyoto Protocol undergo a scientific assessment of its potential consequences on biodiversity.

•         A reminder that all activities under the Kyoto Protocol must promote the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and its sustainable use, in no case having a detrimental impact (cf Art.14 CBD (impact assessment)).

•         A recommendation that the Ecosystem Approach with its 12 Principles and 5 points of operational guidance as adopted in Dec. V/6 CBD must be the framework for all projects and activities undertaken under the Kyoto Protocol.

•         A recommendation that any provisions for implementation of the UNFCCC undergo biodiversity assessments and assessment of how it affects biodiversity and the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (art. 8 (j) and the work programme in Decision V/16).

•         A recommendation that no projects under the Kyoto Protocol be carried out unless there is an agreed set of assessment methodologies that allow for monitoring change in the project area and adjacent areas.

•        A demand that the CBD and UNFCCC ensure that the precautionary approach is applied for activities under the UNFCCC.

We kindly ask you to inform us about the next steps planned to ensure that the provisions of the CBD will not be undermined by activities to implement the Kyoto Protocol and how you intend to address the concerns raised above.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon

Yours sincerely

Saskia Ozinga

Fern, UK

Alejandro Argumedo

Asociacion Kechua Aymara Peru

Tom Griffiths

Forest Peoples Programme UK

Hemmo Muntingh

IFAW Habitat Programme, Belgium

Gjermund Anderson

FoE Norway

Liz Chidley

Down to Earth, UK

Alejandro Argumedo

Indigenous Peoples’ Biodiversity Network

Simone Lovera

Friends of the Earth International

Lioba Rossbach de Olmos

European Secretariat of Climate Alliance

Sjef Langeveld

Both Ends, the Netherlands

Andrei Laletine

Friends of Siberian Forests

Patricia Borraz

Almaciga, Spain