Objectives of the CBD

1. Conservation
2. Sustainable Use
3. Benefit Sharing

    [Compare with a somewhat similar framework ]

 International Law and Conservation

There are 300+ Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), of which about 100 have something to do with biodiversity. Most are regional, some are global (such as CITES).  The need to coordinate these multifarious activities has been recognized since long.

In 1981, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) adopted a resolution, presented by the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), to explore ways to manage wild genetic resources.  This led to a draft convention that made its way to governments and NGOs and, in the process, attracted their attention and that of the UNEP (Year/s?).

[IUCN/CEL has a Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development here]
 

In 1987 the UNEP saw two developments in the field of conservation: on the one hand, an  emphasis on sustainability and the economic value of biodiversity (WCED, 1987), and on the other,  an emphasis on the need for a convention on the conservation of species, brought to the governing council by the US, modeled after its own Endangered Species Act.
[Though sceptical, the UNEP Director General acceded to the call for such a convention by the US, according to William Reilly then of the EPA. Ironically, the US is not a signatory to the CBD]

Equity and economic development concerns dominated conservation concerns during the developments over the next 3.5 years (1988-1992).
 

Informal negotiations 1988-1990: 3 sessions (20, 32, 47 countries participating)

Group was constituted to harmonize existing conventions relating to biodiversity. They did not support this but, instead, suggested creating a new convention.

Informal negotiations 1990-1991: 3 sessions (49, 52, 53 countries participating)

Originally conceived as a negotiating stage, but then converted to a body that examined detailed drafts of the convention to prepare for the actual negotiations.  (Although expanded from "Expert Group" to "Legal and Technical Expert Group," there was no change in size or composition of participating delegations.)

Formal negotiations 1991-1992: 4 sessions (55, 53, 57, 59 countries participating)

Adoption of CBD May 1992*

UNCED June 1992  Most of the contentious issues were unresolved at Rio*

CBD in force Dec 1993

Evolution of the CBD agenda 1992-2002

Framework (not Umbrella) agreement. It lays ground for future agreements (proactive) and does not have legal impact on previous agreements (not retroactive).

• Global structure to
• promote continued international cooperation
• support national implementation
• Negotiability of annexes and protocols allows further development
• Builds on existing agreements in a wider context (ecosystem rather than particular sites)

It is not an umbrella convention that "consolidates pre-existing biodiversity conventions," but a "framework sustainable development convention".  The current composition of the expert groups does not reflect this view (and reality?) of the convention.

How ever did "equity and economic development" enter negotiations for a convention on conservation?!

• Negotiations going on during preparations for UNCED (UN Conference on on Environment and Development)
• TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property) and WTO (World Trade Organization) drew attention to issues surrounding biotechnology, technology transfer and financial resources
• OECD countries, especially the US, may have seen WTO and TRIPS as the way to safeguard their economic interests and, therefore, did not worry much about what was happening in the CBD negotiations
• Did developing nations see the CBD as a way to safeguard their interests in the context of TRIPS and WTO?
• Developing countries were involved as brokers at the CBD adoption conference (Nairobi) and at the signing (Rio)
• The fact that UNEP was the CBD's constitutional host
• not UNESCO (or IUCN), which developing countries feared would overemphasize conservation
• not FAO, which OECD countries saw as an politicized
• UNEP was preferred by both the US and IUCN because it was thought to be more amenable to delinking of economic issues from conservation issues
• The personality of the Executive Director of UNEP, Mostafa Tolba, who was a "bully for the planet"
• Limited interest on part of the NGOs and media (the latter was paying more attention to the climate change negotiations)
• The location of the meetings in Nairobi
• the same people were involved in all meetings and ended up having personal stakes in the outcome
• participants either became environmentally literate over negotiations, or were posted in  Nairobi because of their expertise
• The mutlidisciplinary nature of the CBD made it possible for  developing nations to actually participate and negotiate
Uncertainties of the scientific issues helped the developing nations then

Table 1.2 provides a glimpse into how some of the unresolved issues were resolved, and herein lies the hope--here is an institutionalized process that can work.

The Cartagena Agreement has been both lauded (for showing that the process works) and criticized (for prioritizing non-scientific concerns).

WCED. 1987. Our common future: the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, New York.