Convention on Biological Diversity Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Convention on Biological Diversity Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

The conve ntion on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international treaty signed by a coalition of 153 countries at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The convention became officially recognized in December 1993 and has 188 members. The United States is the only country that has signed but not yet ratified the CBD. Based on the principle of sustainable development, the main goals include “the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.” Member countries, adopting a precautionary principle approach, are legally required to create plans for identifying and protecting biodiversity, restoring degraded areas, and preventing possible impacts of the introduction of nonnative species and genetically modified organisms into the environment. The convention also recognizes the importance of public participation and protecting the rights of traditionally marginalized communities most directly affected by environmental threats. To do this, it sets a framework utilizing both economic criteria (based on the market value of environmental resources) and noneconomic factors, such as cultural significance, to determine the value of biodiversity as well as the risks and benefits of economic growth.

The governing body of the CBD is the Conference of Parties (COP). Made up of representatives from all member countries, the COP is responsible for identifying priorities, proposing plans of action, reviewing national proposals, and coordinating with international institutions. It also has the authority to create advisory panels like the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), a group assisting with and assessing the convention’s implementation. As of 2006, the COP had eight regular meetings with focuses ranging from protecting marine, forest, and agricultural diversity to examining technological cooperation and intellectual property rights. In 2002, the COP adopted a strategic plan for meeting the three goals of the convention, aiming to achieve a broad reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.

In addition, the COP called an extraordinary meeting in 2000 to introduce a supplementary agreement to the CBD, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force September 2003. By April 2006, 132 countries had ratified the protocol that established rules on the transboundary movement, handling, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Expressing the mandate of the CBD, member countries are encouraged to adopt a precautionary principle approach in assessing the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic risks of GMOs. There have been a number of measures taken to facilitate national capacity building, including financial support and the establishment of the Biosafety Clearing-House, an online database for international information exchange.

Conflicts and Obstacles

Nevertheless, there are numerous obstacles to the implementation of the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol. Primarily, efforts at strengthening national mechanisms for biodiversity protection have come into conflict with the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the regulation of biotechnology. The WTO, adopting U.S. regulatory views on the safety of genetically modified products, has focused on opening international markets and protecting intellectual property rights for biotech corporations. In contrast, the Cartagena Protocol establishes a framework for countries to adopt stricter scientific criteria for determining acceptable risk, allowing the refusal of genetically modified products until their safety can be proven. In this sense, the protocol acts as a counterweight to the WTO by augmenting the bargaining power of developing countries. This conflict is evident in a recent $38.4 million biosafety project carried out in 123 countries to fulfill the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol. Sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the goals are to create national legislative and decision-making systems for biotechnology regulation.

In Guatemala, public consultations opened a space for struggle over possible environmental, human health, and socioeconomic risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. Although not resolving intense national disagreement, Guatemala was one of the first countries to complete the project, resulting in a protocol that could form the basis for future legislation. In October 2005, though, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service began a technical review process, revising the proposed UNEP-GEF legislation to reflect U.S. regulations and excluding civil society groups. While the USDA argues that the national proposal exaggerates the potential risks of the technology and would hinder free trade, Guatemala’s program representatives believe the protocol was based on sound scientific evaluation and negotiation between different civil society groups and that the suggested revisions threaten national sovereignty.

These problems also illustrate conflict within the CBD itself that arose during its negotiation from 1989-92 between southern and northern countries. During this time, debates over the control of genetic resources led to ambiguously worded articles recognizing both the sovereignty of southern countries and local communities in decision making and the authority of international trade norms. Although the environmental movement has been influential in shaping the implementation of the CBD since then, conflicts in its creation further reflect internal tensions over contrasting views of development and conservation. On one hand, the CBD adopts the tenets of green environmentalism, which critics assert reduces biodiversity to a commodity traded on the world market. In the case of biotechnology, the CBD has helped codify the rights of transnational corporations to reap the profits of biodiversity, while local communities see little benefit. On the other hand, it has created spaces for southern states and social movements to negotiate alternative views on the cultural and socioeconomic value of nature and the potential risks of current economic growth strategies to biodiversity.

Bibliography:

Convention on Biological Diversity, “Article One: Objectives,” www. biodiv.org (cited April 2006);
Kathleen McAfee, “Biotech Battles: Plants, Power and Intellectual Property in the New Global Governance Regimes,” in Rachael Schurman and Dennis Kelso, , Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents (University of California Press, 2003);
Timothy Swanson, Global Action for Biodiversity (Earthscan/James & James, 1997).