Contributions from
the Column
Tribune

How not to bridge the digital divide

African profile for German development policy defines its course

Why user fees can make sense

Global governance and biodiversity


06/2006
  

[ Biodiversity ]

Underrated millennium goal

For the poor in particular, the degradation and destruction of ecosystems cause distress. Biodiversity is being eroded, even though the international community has agreed on a convention for its protection. As the convention bodies have now consolidated their modus operandi, there is hope of them becoming a more effective force in the not-too-distant future.


[ By Gudrun Henne ]

“A new era of implementation of the Convention on all life on Earth is born,” read a press release issued by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on March 31, 2006. That was the closing day of the 8th – and biggest-ever – Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention, a meeting attended by 4,000 delegates in Curitiba, Brazil. 1400 participants had represented non-governmental organisations.

In the history of the CBD, there has been no lack of conferences. The Convention was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Since, COP venues included the Bahamas, Nairobi and Kuala Lumpur. In 2008, Germany will host the COP 9. The international community is looking back on 700 official reports, 285 CBD-related meetings and 226 COP decisions.

It is fair, therefore, to ask what has been achieved. The Convention aims at conserving biological diversity, sustainably using it and sharing benefits from genetic resources equitably. Nonetheless, the loss of biodiversity has continued at a rapid pace since the Earth Summit in Rio. This trend threatens food security and vital ecological equilibria. According to the global “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” (MA) launched by Kofi Annan in 2001, the degradation and destruction of ecosystems affects many of the world’s poorest people. The MA showed how important ecosystems are for securing resources and ecosystems vital to human life and for reducing poverty.

It would be wrong to consider the CBD a failure, however. Its mission is extremely complex. Moreover, progress on matters such as democratisation, global governance and normative concretisation fuels hopes that it will have more impact in the near future.

With 188 nations currently having ratified it, the CBD has a fairly global reach. Apart from the United States, North Korea, Iraq and Somalia, the Convention has been ratified by all sizeable countries. In 2002, the parties to it voted to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, as doing so will contribute to achieving the MDGs. The indicators to measure this goal are complex, they do not add up to a single, easily-measured figure. Nonetheless, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 endorsed the goal, which the UN General Assembly is to incorporate into the seventh Millennium Development Goal (environmental sustainability) in September. That will be the first time the international community acknowledges the importance of biodiversity outside the CBD context.

The CBD allows more participation by non-governmental actors than does any other global accord. A scholar from the United Nations University once called it a “groundbreaking experiment in transparency and democratisation of international negotiations”. International advocacy groups are involved, and so are representatives from local farmers’ organisations or indigenous communities. Not only do they have the right to speak at conferences, they also participate in the working and expert groups that prepare the COPs. With some exceptions, they even have a say in informal decision-making rounds during the conferences.

Particularly significant is the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. In the working group on traditional knowledge, they share the chair with a governmental representative. This innovative practice is the fruit of a tough struggle, and shows that it is now broadly acknowledged that traditional knowledge is relevant to reaching CBD objectives. Attempts to establish a more restrictive regime of participation have so far been staunchly resisted.

One mission accomplished is the “Cartagena Protocol” on Biosafety. That such a document be drafted, was enshrined in the original CBD text. So far, 132 countries have ratified the Protocol, thus setting legally binding minimum standards for the safe handling and transboundary transfer of genetically modified organisms. The COP 8 in Curitiba was preceded by a Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (MOP), which decided that living modified organisms produced for food, agriculture or processing must be clearly identified from 2012 on (“Curitiba Rules”). These rules do not apply to dealings with countries that are not party to the Protocol, which, as stated above, include the United States.


Moving forward

Account was also taken of other safety concerns. After extensive negotiation, the recent COP reached consensus on extending the de-facto moratorium on ‘terminator’ seeds. The terms stands for genetically modified, sterile seeds for pesticide-resistant plants. Another step forward was the decision to start negotiating an international regime to govern access to genetic resources as well as fair and equitable sharing of the benefits (ABS – access and benefit-sharing – regime).

A group of “Like-Minded Megadiversity Countries” had started pushing for an international ABS regime in 2002. The group includes Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela. 14 years after the Earth Summit in Rio, the important issue of a legally binding ABS regime is finally being addressed. It is one of the three CBD pillars and its most important innovation: Whoever makes use of genetic resources or traditional knowledge thereof must share the benefits with the holders of such knowledge.

The ABS topic is of particular relevance for developing countries. After all, 80 % of terrestrial biodiversity is found in their ecosystems. It will remain to be seen whether negotiators will come up with an effective regime fast enough to help to slow down the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The challenge is huge, because environmental conditions differ widely in the 188 member countries – and so do ideas on what is needed and what is practicable.

Perhaps the toughest challenge, however, lies in designing the operational machinery for protecting and sustainably using biodiversity. The eight COPs have approved major work programmes on various “thematic areas” (biodiversity in forests, marine and coastal areas, agriculture, dry lands, inland waters, mountains and on islands). These programmes are flanked by nearly 20 cross-cutting programmes on issues such as “protected areas”, the handling of “invasive species” and “intellectual property”. In the context of ABS, the latter term is not understood in the same way as it is defined by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) context.

For the most part, however, the work programmes read like long wish lists and research agendas. They rarely set out clear priorities or measurable objectives. So far, at any rate, COP decisions have not brought about the kind of change needed to achieve the 2010 target.

As for national policy-making, the CBD work programmes are certainly useful. They can help governments and other institutions identify appropriate approaches and objectives for their domestic agendas. Best practices are loudly acclaimed by COP plenaries. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) acts as a financing instrument, helping poor countries to implement the Convention. It also contributes to the development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). However, only 108 Parties to the Convention (around 57%) have adopted NBSAPs. And only around seven percent have defined how they plan to implement the Convention in measurable objectives.

Accordingly, the COP-8 recommended that the goals of the CBD be better reflected in national policies. Among other things, it would make sense to deal with them in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and national MDG implementation reports. Accordingly, biodiversity measures could then be supported by multilateral as well as bilateral donors.

In a long warm-up phase, the COP has consolidated its modus operandi and defined its areas of work. It now faces the challenge of setting out specific and binding requirements, for the CBD to contribute to meeting the 2010 target of slowing down the loss of biodiversity globally. With its visionary and inclusive principles, the CBD could become a model case for global governance in the 21st century. For that to happen, all it needs is the imagination and resolve of its Parties and their actors – no more and no less.



Dr. Gudrun Henne
is a freelance consultant on biodiversity, human rights and development. She has worked for the United Nations Environment Programme, Greenpeace International, the CBD Secretariat, the International Campaign for Tibet, German Technical Cooperation and other institutions.
gudrun.henne@arcor.de