Partijen en gegevens

‛ The Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea declares its understanding that ratification of the Convention shall in no way constitute a renunciation of any rights under International Law concerning State responsibility for the adverse effects of Biological Diversity as derogating from the principles of general International Law. ’

Within their respective competence, the European Community and its Member States wish to reaffirm the importance they attach to transfers of technology and to biotechnology in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The compliance with intellectual property rights constitutes an essential element for the implementation of policies for technology transfer and co-investment.

For the European Community and its Member States, transfers of technology and access to biotechnology, as defined in the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity, will be carried out in accordance with Article 16 of the said Convention and in compliance with the principles and rules of protection of intellectual property, in particular multilateral and bilateral agreements signed or negotiated by the contracting parties to this Convention. The European Community and its Member States will encourage the use of the financial mechanism established by the Convention to promote the voluntary transfer of intellectual property rights held by European operators, in particular as regards the granting of licences, through normal commercial mechanisms and decisions, while ensuring adequate and effective protection of property rights. ’

The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares, with respect to Article 27 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that as far as the Republic of Cuba is concerned, disputes that arise between Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this international legal instrument shall be settled by negotiation through the diplomatic channel or failing that, by arbitration in accordance with the procedure laid down in Annex II on arbitration of the Convention.

The Italian Government, when signing the Convention on Biological Diversity, declares its understanding that the decision to be taken by the Conference of the Parties under article 21.1 of the Convention refers to the ‘amount of resources needed’ by the financial mechanism, not to the extent or nature and form of the contributions of the Contracting Parties.

The Republic of Georgia will use both means for dispute settlement referred to in the Convention:

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declare their understanding that article 3 of the Convention sets out a guiding principle to be taken into account in the implementation of the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland also declare their understanding that the decisions to be taken by the Conference of the Parties under paragraph 1 of article 21 concern ‘the amount of resources needed’ by the financial mechanism, and that nothing in article 20 or 21 authorises the Conference of the Parties to take decisions concerning the amount, nature, frequency or size of the contributions of the Parties under the Convention.

Upon signature:

With reference to article 3, that it interprets that article as a guiding principle to be taken into account in the implementation of the Convention; With reference to article 21, paragraph 1, that the decision taken periodically by the Conference of the Parties concerns the ‘amount of resources needed’ and that no provision of the Convention authorizes the Conference of the Parties to take decisions concerning the amount, nature or frequency of the contributions from Parties to the Convention.

The Republic of Austria declares in accordance with Article 27 Paragraph 3 of the convention that it accepts both of the means of dispute settlement mentioned in this Paragraph as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting an obligation concerning one or both of these means of dispute settlement. ’

The Government of Chile, on ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, wishes to place on record that the pine tree and other species that the country exploits as one of its forestry resources are considered exotic and are not taken to fall within the scope of the Convention.

Upon signature:

The Swiss Government wishes to emphasize particularly the progress made in establishing standard terms for cooperation between States in a very important field: research activities and activities for the transfer of technology relevant to resources from third countries. The important provisions in question create a platform for even closer cooperation with public research bodies or institutions in Switzerland and for the transfer of technologies available to governmental or public bodies, particularly universities and various publicly-funded research and development centres.

It is our understanding that genetic resources acquired under the procedure specified in article 15 and developed by private research institutions will be the subject of programmes of cooperation, joint research and the transfer of technology which will respect the principles and rules for the protection of intellectual property. These principles and rules are essential for research and private investment, in particular in the latest technologies, such as modern biotechnology which requires substantial financial outlays. On the basis of this interpretation, the Swiss Government wishes to indicate that it is ready, at the opportune time, to take the appropriate general policy measures, particularly under articles 16 and 19, with a view to promoting and encouraging cooperation, on a contractual basis, between Swiss firms and the private firms and governmental bodies of other Contracting Parties. With regard to financial cooperation, Switzerland interprets the provisions of articles 20 and 21 as follows: the resources to be committed and the management system will have regard, in an equitable manner, to the needs and interests of the developing countries and to the possibilities and interests of the developed countries.

The Argentine Government considers that this Convention represents a step forward in that it establishes among its objectives the sustainable use of biological diversity. Likewise, the definitions contained in article 2 and other provisions of the Convention indicate that the terms ‘genetic resources’, ‘biological resources’ and biological material’ do not include the human genome. In accordance with the commitments entered into in the Convention the Argentine nation will pass legislation on the conditions of access to biological resources and the ownership of future rights and benefits arising from them. The Convention is fully consistent with the principles established in the ‘Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights’, including trade in counterfeit goods, contained in the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of GATT. (VN-vertaling)

Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honor to address you, in your capacity as depositary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in order to refer to the note sent to you by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 27 March 2015 regarding the attempt of that country to apply the Convention to the South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands.

The Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, are integral part of the national territory of the Argentine Republic and, being illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are subject to a sovereignty dispute recognized by the United Nations and other international fora and organizations.

The illegitimate occupation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland led the United Nations General Assembly to adopt resolutions 2065(XX), 3169 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Malvinas islands and calls on the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations with a view to finding, as soon as possible, a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has made repeated statements to the same effect, the most recently by means of the resolution adopted on 25 June 2015.

Therefore, the Argentine Republic objects and rejects the attempt of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to apply the Convention on Biological Diversity to the South Georgias and South Sandwich lslands.

The Argentine Republic recalls that the Convention, adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, is applicable to the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands because they are integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic, as a result of the ratification made by the Argentine Government on 22 November 1994.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty rights over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas.

The Argentine Republic should be grateful if you, acting as a depositary of the Convention, would register this statement, notify the Parties and Contracting Parties and distribute it as document of the Organization among its Member States.

Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honor to address you, in your capacity as depositary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in order to refer to the note sent to you by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 29 June 2016 regarding the attempt of that country to apply the Convention to the Malvinas Islands.

The Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, are integral part of the national territory of the Argentine Republic and, being illegitimately occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are subject to a sovereignty dispute recognized by the United Nations and other international fora and organizations.

The illegitimate occupation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland led the United Nations General Assembly to adopt resolutions 2065 (XX), 3169 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Malvinas islands and calls on the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations with a view to finding, as soon as possible, a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute. The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has made repeated statements to the same effect, the most recently by means of the resolution adopted on 23 June 2016.

Therefore, the Argentine Republic objects and rejects the attempt of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to apply the Convention on Biological Diversity to the Malvinas lslands.

The Argentine Republic recalls that the Convention, adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, is applicable to the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands because they are integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic, as a result of the ratification made by the Argentine Government on 22 November 1994.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty rights over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas.

The Argentine Republic should be grateful if you, acting as a depositary of the Convention, would register this statement, notify the Parties and Contracting Parties and distribute it as document of the Organization among its Member States.

With respect to the principle stipulated in article 3, the Government of the Sudan agrees with the spirit of the article and interprets it to mean that no State is responsible for acts that take place outside its control even if they fall within its judicial jurisdiction and may cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national judicial jurisdiction.

The Sudan also sees as regards article 14 (2), that the issue of liability and redress for damage to biological diversity should not form a priority to be tackled by the Agreement as there is ambiguity regarding the essence and scope of the studies to be carried out, in accordance with the above mentioned article. The Sudan further believes that any such studies on liability and redress should shift towards effects of areas such as biotechnology products, environmental impacts, genetically modified organisms and acid rains. ’

The Republic of Latvia declares in accordance with Article 27 Paragraph 3 of the Convention that it accepts both of the means of dispute settlement mentioned in this Paragraph as compulsory. ’

Ireland wishes to reaffirm the importance it attaches to transfers of technology and to biotechnology in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The compliance with intellectual property rights constitutes an essential element for the implementation of policies for technology transfer and co-investment.

For Ireland, transfers of technology and access to biotechnology, as defined in the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity, will be carried out in accordance with Article 16 of said Convention and in compliance with the principles and rules of protection of intellectual property, in particular multilateral and bilateral agreements signed or negotiated by the contracting parties to this Convention.

Ireland will encourage the use of the financial mechanism established by the Convention to promote the voluntary transfer of intellectual property rights held by Irish operators, in particular as regards the granting of licences, through normal commercial mechanisms and decisions, while ensuring adequate and effective protection of property rights.

The Principality of Liechtenstein wishes to reaffirm the importance it attaches to transfers of technology and to biotechnology in order [to] ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The compliance with intellectual property rights constitutes an essential element for the implementation of policies for technology transfer and co-investment.

For the Principality of Liechtenstein, transfers of technology and access to biotechnology, as defined in the text of the Convention on Biological Diversity, will be carried out in accordance with article 16 of the said Convention and in compliance with the principles and rules of protection of intellectual property, in particular multilateral and bilateral agreements signed or negotiated by the Contracting Parties to this Convention.

The Principality of Liechtenstein will encourage the use of the financial mechnism[lees: mechanism] established by the Convention to promote the voluntary transfer of intellectual property rights held by Liechtenstein operators, in particular as regards the granting of licenses, through normal commercial mechanisms and decisions, while ensuring adequate and effective protection of property rights.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that it accepts both means of dispute settlement referred to in that paragraph as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting one or both means of dispute settlement.

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the Portuguese Republic and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Macau signed on 13 April 1987, the Portuguese Republic will continue to have international responsibility for Macau until 19 December 1999 and from that date onwards the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau with effect from 20 December 1999.

From 20 December 1999 onwards the Portuguese Republic will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Macau.

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Convention on Biologica l Diversity and the Secretary-General’s communication of 6 January 2015, C.N.5.2015.TREATIESXXVII.8, relating to that treaty. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary-General’s capacity as Depositary for the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.

In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that ‘Palestine’ does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘Palestine’ is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on Biological Diversity does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada’s treaty relations, with respect to the ‘State of Palestine’.

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 6 January 2015, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.5.2015.TREATIES-XXVII.8).

‘Palestine’ does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The Government of Israel does not recognize ‘Palestine’ as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider ‘Palestine’ a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel’s treaty relations under the Convention.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.43.2015.TREATIES-XXVII.8, dated 23 January 2015, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on Biological Diversity, dated 5 June 1992.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine ‘non-member observer State status in the United Nations’. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.

As a State Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which enters into force on 2 April 2015, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.

Upon signature:

It is being understood that the signing of this Convention shall not constitute recognition of Israel or leading to any intercourse with it.