The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1996) and The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2007)
107 The BLG meeting reports can be found at www.cbd.int/cooperation/related-conventions/blg.shtml
108 The comparison of the mode of work of the scientific bodies of the five conventions eventually appeared in the annex to document SC54 Doc. 13.1 of the CITES Standing Committee (October 2006) and was used to inform the first meeting of the Chairs of the Scientific Advisory Bodies of Biodiversity-related Conventions in July 2007 (UNEP/CBD/CSAB1/3).
109 See www.cbd.int/cooperation/BLG-6-rep-final-en.doc.
110 See www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/csab/csab-01/official/csab-01-03-en.doc.
111 See www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/csab/csab-01/official/csab-01-03-en.doc.
112 See www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/csab/csab-02/official/csab-02-03-en.doc.
113 One of the meetings was also attended by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
114 See www.cbd.int/cooperation/liaison.shtml and unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/cooperation_with_international_organizations/items/3464.php.
115 See unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/reportjlg5.pdf.
116 See www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-09-en.pdf.
117 See www.cbd.int/doc/reports/jlg-07-report-en.pdf.
118 See www.cbd.int/doc/reports/jlg-08-report-en.pdf.
119 UNEP/CBD/AHTEG/BD-CC-2/2/5 and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG/BD-CC-2/2/6
120Bannister, K., Hardison, P. 2006. Mobilizing Traditional Knowledge and Expertise for Decision-Making on Biodiversity. IMoSEB Case study. www.imoseb.net//content/download/1312/6745/version/5/file/IMoSEB+Case+study+-+TK+%26scientific+expertise+and+decision+making.doc
121 For the sake of brevity, henceforth the term ‘local community’, or simply ‘community’, is used to denote both indigenous peoples and non-indigenous local communities. However recognizes the importance and central place of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ in any such discussion is recognised.
122Posey, D. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP, Nairobi, and Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
124Musake, M. 1999. The challenge and opportunities of information and communication technologies in the health sector. Paper prepared for the African Development Forum 1999, Makerere University, Kampala. Cited in: Gorjestani, N. 2004. Indigenous knowledge for development: Opportunities and challenges, in Twarog, S. and Kapoor, P. (Eds.), Protecting and Promoting Traditional Knowledge: Systems, National Experiences and International Dimensions, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Document No, United Nations, Geneva, UNCTAD/DITC/TED/10.
141For all SEBI2010 documentation see biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995
142 EEA (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical Report No 11/2007.
143 EEA (2009) Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target. EEA Report No 4/2009
144 Interlinkages between SEBI 2010-indicators: Improving the information power. Intermediate report to the SEBI 2010 Coordination Team, 13 March 2009
145 Adapted from Ramsar COP10 Doc.23
146Defra, UK definition of Horizon scanning 2002. See horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/
147 SKEP ERA-net : Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Protection. How to identify emerging long term strategic issues for environmental research and policies: A diversity of possible approaches. See www.skep-era.net/site/files/WP6_%20Diversity%20of%20approaches191206.pdf.
152 Scientific research, training, information exchange and capacity-building provisions are provided for by Articles 12-17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
155 GEF/C.22/8, Strategic Approach to Enhancing Capacity Building
156 Karlsson, S. et al. 2007. Understanding the North-South knowledge divide and its implication for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environmental Science and Policy 10(7): 668-684; Najam, A. 2005. Developing Countries and Global Environmental Governance: From Contestation to Participation to Engagement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics. Law and Economics 5(3); UN/JIU/REP/2008/3
157 Najam, A. (2005) Developing Countries and Global Environmental Governance: From Contestation to Participation to Engagement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 5: 303–321.
158 http://ncsa.undp.org/. Sample countries are: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, China, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Palau, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yemen.
159 These reflect an increased relevance for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider context of the sustainable development. See:Adomokai, R. & Sheate, W.R. 2004. Community participation and decision making in the Niger Delta. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(5): 495-518; Najam, A. 2005. Quoted above.
160 General guidelines include: (a) to identify or review priority needs for action in three thematic areas (including Biodiversity); (b) to explore related capacity needs within and across the thematic areas (including Ecosystem Services); (c) to prepare a plan of action to address the capacity needs, including funding options; and (d) to identify synergies between country action and other plans within the environment framework.
161 Hassan, M.H.A., 2001. Can science save Africa? Science 292.
162 Karlsson, S., Srebotnjak, T., Gonzales, P., 2007. Understanding the North-South knowledge divide and its implication for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environmental Science and Policy, 10 (7), p. 669.
163 Adomokai, R. & Sheate, W.R. (2004) Community participation and environmental decision-making in the Niger delta, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (5): 495-518.
164 Najam, A. 2005. Developing Countries and Global Environmental Governance: From Contestation to Participation to Engagement. International Environmental Agreements. 5: 303-321.
165 Karlsson, S., Srebotnjak, T., Gonzales, P., 2007. Understanding the North-South knowledge divide and its implication for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environmental Science and Policy 10(7) : 668-684
166 Arunachalam, S. 2008. Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology 28(1): 7-14; Arzberger, P et al. 2004. An international framework to promote access to data. Science 303(5665) 1777-1778; Costello, M.J. 2009. Motivating online publication of data. BioScience 59(5):418-427; Research Information Network 2008. To share or not to share: Publication and quality assurance of research data outputs. http://www.rin.ac.uk/data-publication.
167 UNIDO 2005. Science, technology and innovation in developing countries: some elements for defining policies and assigning resources. IDR2005 Background Paper Series
168 Liaison groups are generally informal and are convened by the CBD Secretariat to gather and assess information on a specific topic. Ad Hoc Technical Liaison Groups are formally created and thereby are officially recognized within the Convention process, usually through production of their reports as SBSTTA or COP meeting documents.
169 In 2005, GISP was founded as a separate legal entity under a partnership of CABI, IUCN, the South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Nature Conservancy.
170 As previously mentioned, the core secretariat of IUCN is a GISP member, whereas the Invasive Species Specialist Group of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission is independent. Discussions are underway on how best to manage the relationship with GISP to focus on each institutions’ expertise and maximize the limited amount of resources available.
171 The unanticipated downside of this close inter-relationship was the dampening effect of the controversy over CBD Decision VI/23. Beyond the realm of the CBD, this resulted in removal of the CBD Guiding Principles and the STRP-approved draft guidelines on wetlands and invasive alien species from consideration by Ramsar Convention COP8. Recent discussions within the CBD and the Ramsar Convention suggest that the lingering impacts of this political issue have largely passed, thereby providing the opportunity to refocus on the management and capacity needs of the Parties.
172http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/, accessed on 16 July 2009.
173 Miller, K., Lanou, S.M. 1995. National Biodiversity Planning: Guidelines Based on Early Experiences Around the World. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme and The World Conservation Union. Washington D.C., Nairobi, Gland.
174 Prescott, J., Gauthier, B., Sodi, J.N.M. 2000. Guide to Developing a Biodiversity Strategy from a Sustainable Development Perspective. Institut de l’énergie et de l’environnement de la Francophonie, Ministère de l’Environnement de Québec, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Environment Programme. Québec, Canada.
175Fernández, J.J.G. 1998. Guide for the Preparation of Action Plans within the Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Development Programme. http://www.unon.org/dgefftp/NCSAResources/Assessment%20Guidelines/Other%20Guides/Guidelines%20for%20NBSAPs%2009Jun04.doc. Accessed on 17 July 2009.
176 Emerton, L. 2001. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans: A Review of Experiences, Lessons Learned and Ways Forward. IUCN Regional Environmental Economics Programme for Asia, Karachi.
177See for example Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
178See workshop report at http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/ina/Vilm_NBSAP_101008-final.pdf.
179 Decision 1/CP.13
180 Decision 2/CP.13
183 Miles,L., Kapos,V. 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Global land use implications. Science 320, 1454-1455.
185 FAO 2009. The State of the Worlds Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
186 ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) 2006a. Report of Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED), 30 January-3 February 2006, ICES Headquarters. ACE:03. 129 pp.
187 Payne, A. 2001 Documentation of the Scientific Literature Pertaining to Environmental Issues Arising from the Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy. In: The European Commission Studies and Support Services Related to the Common Fisheries Policy: Dissemination of the Results of Biological Studies. Lymington, Hampshire, UK: MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd.
188 ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) 2006b. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 5-12 April 2006 , ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ACE:05. 174 pp
189 ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) 2000. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO). ICES CM 2000/ACME
190 Scott, A. 1955 "The Fishery: the Objectives of Sole Ownership" Journal of Political Economy 63:116-124
191 Wilson, D.C. J.R. Nielsen and P. Degnbol (Eds.), 2003. The Fisheries Co-management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp. 193-209.
192 EASE 2007 Final Report of the European Advisory System Evaluation Project (EASE). EU Fifth Framework Programme No Q5CA-2002-01693.
193 CEC Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy Brussels, COM: 163, p. 7
194 Wilson, D.C. 2009 The Paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press
195 Wilson, D.C., Delaney, A.E. 2005. Scientific Knowledge and Participation in the Management of Fisheries in the North Sea. In Gray, T.S. (Ed) Participation in Fisheries Governance. Springer.
196 Wilson, D.C. 2009 The Paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
197 Schwach, V., et al. 2007. Policy and knowledge in fisheries management: a policy brief. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64(4): 798-803
198 Wilson, D.C. 2009. Quoted above.
199 Clark, W.C., et al. 2006. Evaluating the Influence of Global Environmental Assessments. In: Mitchell, R.B. et al. (Eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. MIT Press.
200 Ravetz, J.R. 1999. What is Post-Normal Science? Futures 31:647-653.
201 Hegland, T. J., Wilson, D.C. 2009. Participatory Modelling in EU Fisheries Management. in press
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.