POSTED ON BEHALF OF HELMUT GAUGITSCH (MODERATOR)
-----
Dear participants of the online forum,
I would like to thank all participants who shared their views during the last two weeks of discussion and the subgroup members for their hard work leading up to the discussion.
We had quite an intense discussion in which 31 participants posted comments.
Among the comments, I am very glad to see so many concrete proposals to improve the text. These proposals will undoubtedly improve the quality and usefulness of the Guidance.
As you are well aware, in some situations it is rather challenging to reconcile different views, for example among those who wished to delete the text boxes and those who wish to keep them. In this context, I appreciate the proposals that seek a middle-ground between the different views, such as the proposals to harmonize the text boxes and provide links to them in the text. Based on your views, the AHTEG at its face-to-face meeting in July 2016 will follow an inclusive approach to explore all possibilities to reach a middle ground on the various outstanding issues, including by harmonizing the text boxes, for example by categorizing the different types of boxes, and explaining the purpose of each type of box at the beginning of the guidance. We will also endeavor to add links or references to the boxes in the appropriate passages of the text.
Reflecting upon the work done and what remains to be done, I recognize that some parts of the text need to be further improved, for example when referring to problem formulation which is a crucial element of risk assessment.
I also recognize the concerns of some participants with regard to the process, in particular with regard to difficulties in following the process and lack of transparency, not having a chance to comment on all changes, previous suggestions not being reflected in the text, comments in categories B and D that still remain to be addressed, and limited time to review documents and provide comments.
Although the focus of this online discussion was not on procedure, and these types of comments distract from the main task, they must also be taken seriously and I would like to respond to them as follows:
(a) As noted in a few interventions, the process set out in decision BS-VII/12 is complex and demanding. On the one hand, the task provided by the COP-MOP is rather challenging and demands a considerable amount of time and dedicated work. On the other hand, we are a large group of people with many different views. Nevertheless, one aspect of the process that cannot be overly emphasized is that the entire work leading up to the current version of the Guidance, including the many iterations of the work of the sub-group, is publicly available for anyone to see (as per my introductory message to this discussion, the discussions of the sub-group are available in their entirety at
http://bch.cbd.int/onlineconferences/RA_ahteg_subgroup). While I recognize that reviewing the work of the sub-group is time consuming due to the amount of information generated in the multiple steps of the process, this challenge cannot and must not be used as a reason to claim lack of transparency in the process.
(b) The online forum plays a crucial role in assisting the AHTEG. In order to move forward with the improvements to the text of the Guidance, each discussion must build on previous work and focus on new revisions to the text. Any attempt to do otherwise, would lead us to move in circles. Any participant who wishes to examine, for informational purposes, all the changes made to date to the text of the Guidance is welcome to use the “compare documents” function in Word or ask the Secretariat to do so. Towards the end of the process later this year and similar to what was done in the last intersessional period, the online forum will have an opportunity to consider a draft report of its work which will be forwarded to the COP-MOP. I expect that the Secretariat will reflect the different views in this draft report, both in terms of substance as well as process.
(c) All views posted in the forum are considered very seriously. However, given the fact that many views are highly polarized, you will all agree with me that it is humanly impossible to reflect every suggestion in the revised text. In cases where the suggestions that were made are mutually exclusive (for example, adding or not adding the text boxes on specific topics), an attempt is made to add some text that reflects all the diverging views.
(d) It is true that the testing comments in categories B and D were not yet taken onboard in a systematic manner but that is what was intended from the onset of the work. It had been decided, in consultation with the online forum, that specific comments would be taken up first, followed by, in a step-wise manner, comments that are more general or of structural/overarching nature. In addressing the specific comments in category E, a large number of the comments that were placed in categories B and D were already indirectly addressed. During the remaining amount of time, as per the calendar of activities, the sub-group with the help of the Secretariat will review all comments in categories B and D, taking into account the views expressed in all past discussions of the forum, and will make proposals in preparation for the AHTEG meeting. At its meeting, the AHTEG will attempt to reconcile the different views aiming to arrive at a balanced and improved text. As requested by the COP-MOP, explanations on what happened to each comment of the testing will be provided to the COP-MOP.
(e) The question of limited time is a difficult one to address .Here too an attempt is made to strike a balance between what needs to be done and the amount of time that is available to accomplish our task. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that we are all very busy and, no matter how much we try, no amount of time given to an additional task will ever be ideal to our already busy schedules.
Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to those members of the forum who demonstrated the spirit of compromise that provides the necessary foundation for any intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder process. In particular I would like to thank those who went beyond their own views and preferences and who attempted to find common ground and build upon that to reach compromise among the diverging views.
I kindly invite all of us to refrain from judging too early and in a polarized manner about the results of our efforts but rather to believe in our joint problem-formulation and problem-solving capacity so that we can at the end of this year provide an improved version of the Guidance to the COP-MOP for its consideration. I am looking forward to working with the sub-group, the Secretariat, the AHTEG and the online forum in achieving this challenging goal.
Thank you for your expertise and dedication and kind regards,
Helmut Gaugitsch
