The Story of the Biodiversity Convention: From Negotiation to Implementation

2017 ◽  
pp. 7-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Désirée M. McGraw
Author(s):  
Joanne C. Burgess

Biological diversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, in all its forms and interactions. Biological diversity, or biodiversity for short, is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species estimates that 25% of mammals, 41% of amphibians, 33% of reef building corals, and 13% of birds are threatened with extinction. These biodiversity benefits are being lost due to conversion of natural habitat, overharvesting, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. The loss of biodiversity is important because it provides many critical resources, services, and ecosystem functions, such as foods, medicines, clean air, and storm protection. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose a major risk to human societies and economic welfare. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”) and enacted in 1993. The international treaty aims to conserve biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. The CBD has near universal global participation with 196 parties signatory to the treaty. The non-legally binding commitments established in 2010 by the CBD are known as the Aichi Targets. They include the goal of conserving at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water habitats and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Biodiversity continues to decline at an unprecedented rate and the world faces “biological annihilation” and a sixth mass extinction event. There are several underlying causes of the continuing loss of biodiversity that need to be addressed. First, the CBD Aichi Targets are not ambitious enough and should be extended to protect as much as 50% of the terrestrial realm for biodiversity. Second, it is difficult to place an economic value on the range of direct, indirect, and nonuse values of biodiversity. The failure to take into account the full economic value of biodiversity in prices, projects, and policy decisions means that biodiversity is often misused and overused. Third, biodiversity is a global public good and displays nonrival and nonexcludable characteristics. Because of this, it is difficult to raise sufficient funds for conservation and to channel these funds to cover local conservation costs. In particular, much of the world’s biodiversity is located in (mainly tropical) developing countries, and they do not have the incentive or the funds to spend the money to “save” enough biodiversity on behalf of the rest of the world. The funding for global biodiversity conservation is $4–$10 billion annually, whereas around $100 billion a year is needed to protect the Earth’s broad range of animal and plant species. This funding gap undermines CBD’s conservation efforts. Governments and international organizations have been unable to raise the investments needed to reverse the decline in biological populations and habitats on land and in oceans. There is an important role for private-sector involvement in the CBD to endorse efforts for more sustainable use of biodiversity and to contribute funds to finance conservation and habitat protection efforts.


2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Cullet ◽  
Jawahar Raja

This article analyzes the impacts of the international legal framework for the promotion of intellectual property rights on India's legal regime concerning the control over biological resources and inventions derived from biological resources. It focuses in particular on the newly adopted Biodiversity Act and Plant Variety Act as well as on amendments to the Patents Act and their organic relationship within the overall domestic legal framework. It analyzes these enactments in the context of the move towards the control of biological resources and derived products through property rights fostered by existing international treaties, in particular the TRIPS agreement and the biodiversity convention. This has impacts not only for control over biological resources and derived products but also more generally on the management of agriculture in India and other developing countries and the realization of food security and the human right to food at the individual level.


Author(s):  
An Cliquet ◽  
Afshin Akhtar-Khavari

The concept of remedies has always been an important component of the legal system. Throughout the world, countries have utilized environmental law in a variety of ways to legislate for the remediation and rehabilitation of destroyed or degraded land and ecosystems. For example, in some countries, environmental law has provided for the remediation of contaminated mine sites, which can rather be classified as environmental restoration. However, often these countries have yet to properly enforce such law. Furthermore, given the significant increase in anthropogenic harm during the past few decades, there is an increasing realization that more needs to be done than simply acting to protect an environment from harm. Unlike the terms “rehabilitation” and “remediation,” the term “restoration” is drawn from the science of restoration ecology. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” Ecological restoration contributes to the application of the ecosystem approach. There are different approaches to ecological and ecosystem recovery, such as rewilding or extreme forms of restoration such as “de-extinction.” This is due to the inherent complexity of assisting nature to recover from anthropogenic harm. Ecological restoration is the most prominent practice among ecologists to restore ecosystems, but is not the only approach. The main focus here will be on ecosystem restoration. “Restoration ecology” is the broad name for the scientific discipline behind ecological restoration and other recovery initiatives, and is a relatively new but rapidly developing branch within the study of natural sciences. Even more recently, there has been increasing legal attention to ecological restoration. There is no separate instrument in international law dealing with ecological restoration. However, legal obligations for restoration can be found in various multilateral environmental agreements, regional conventions, regional instruments such as European Union (EU) directives, and soft law instruments. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention) is an important convention outlining State party obligations for ecological restoration, as can be seen in both the Convention text and subsequent Conference of Parties decisions, including the 2010 Aichi Targets, which detail a specific target for ecological restoration. Prior to the Biodiversity Convention, the international community utilized the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) to introduce the concept of restoration. Other conventions that address ecological restoration or species restoration include the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Convention on Migratory Species), and several of its additional agreements. Climate change poses both opportunities and additional challenges for restoration. Restoring ecosystems such as forests and peatlands assists in the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. Within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992) and the 2015 Paris Agreement, the role of restoration has been recognized. As various conventions and soft law instruments now impress obligations of restoration, the legal duty to restore the environment has matured into a customary obligation and can be considered as an emerging legal principle. However, most instruments containing legal obligations for restoration do not contain a clear definition or further clarification on how a State party might restore an ecosystem.


1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
M S Swaminathan

Transparent and implementable methods of recognizing and rewarding the contributions of tribal and rural women and men in the conservation of biodiversity have become exceedingly urgent in the context of the provisions of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade Agreement. In this paper, M S Swaminathan points out how considerations of equity can be integrated with those of ecology and economics in recognizing and rewarding informal innovations in genetic conservation and enhancement.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Symone Krimowa

<p>Wind farms create unique risks to birds because of the danger of the turbine blades, which can be up to 150 meters tall. Placement of wind farms in the wrong areas can have a detrimental impact on bird species. New Zealand’s commitment to renewable energy is shared with its obligations to protect biodiversity, which are reflected in the ratification of international conventions such as the Convention on Migratory Species and the Biodiversity Convention. Domestic legislation, such as the Resource Management Act 1991, seeks to enhance the development of alternative sources of energy with the intention of reducing the effects of climate change on the environment and conserving indigenous biodiversity. Migratory bird protection in the wind farm context in New Zealand relies upon environmental impact assessment under Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. International obligations include protecting or endeavouring to protect 37 migratory bird species along their complete flight paths. The Resource Management Act 1991 does not meet international obligations to protect migratory birds in the wind farm consent process because (1) the assessment of environmental effects process fails to adequately identify effects on migratory birds; and (2) even if the assessment of environmental effects process adequately identifies effects on migratory birds, the RMA fails to give priority weight to effects on birds when it balances those effects with other factors in deciding to approve the wind farm application. Other countries provide guidance on the next steps for New Zealand to take to comply with its international obligations to migratory birds.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document