CBD

The production of agrofuel crops and its effects on biodiversity and livelyhoods were a highly contested issue during COP9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn in May 2008. Numerous sessions took place, often till late in the evening and a final compromise was only found around 1:30 in the night in a closed meeting between a few countries.
Now the CBD Secretariat calls to "Parties and other Governments, indigenous and local communities, and relevant stakeholders and organizations [...] to submit information on experiences on the development and application of tools relevant to the sustainable production and use of biofuels as well as relevant information from research on, and monitoring of, the positive and negative impacts of the production and use of biofuels on biodiversity and related socio-economic aspects, including those related to indigenous and local communities."
Details are available at the CBD website.

On Friday, 30 May 2008, when COP9 closed, the German Ministry on Environment issued a press release, summarizing the results. For GM trees it simply stated: "The de-facto moratorium for the use of genetically modified trees will be continues." (Für den Einsatz von gv-Bäumen wird das faktische Moratorium fortgesetzt.) But now, a few days later, the text is changed: "On the topic of GM trees it was decided that without a risk assessment parties to the Convention have the right to renounce the use of GM trees." (Zum Thema Gentechnisch veränderte Bäume wurde beschlossen, dass ohne Risikoanalyse Vertragsstaaten das Recht haben, auf den Einsatz gentechnisch veränderter Bäume zu verzichten.)
The German Minister of Environment is currently president of the COP, so he should know: Is it a de-facto moratorium or not? Or is it one that can't be called like that?

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has identified information exchange down as one of its aims and established a Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) with the task of facilitating technical and scientific cooperation. Information exchange by the National Focal Points, however, is decentralized and lacking a common structure, and lacks the resources required to make the most of its potential.