SSI Info Update: Int'l Agenda for Biodiversity (Part 1 of 2)
*********************************************************************
Biodiversity Reference Guide, and we felt this important international
effort should be higher on SSI's radar screen. This Update provides:
** some history on the Biodiversity Treaty and subsequent international
proceedings;
** a sense of the US position at the meetings and a description of the
US delegation;
** a brief description of the various issues currently confronting the
of indigenous peoples, intellectual property rights, and biosafety; and
** a brief description of administrative systems set up for getting the
not post this update to any listservers or bulletin boards without
talking first to SSI Organizer Lori Jackson (ljackson@ucsusa.org).
Thanks!
A briefing update produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists
numerous non-governmental organizations are meeting in Buenos Aires to
the third annual Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (COP-3).
**About the Convention on Biological Diversity (Convention)**
The Convention was adopted by the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro
and entered into force as international law in late 1993. It is the
principal international treaty designed to conserve the diversity of
living organisms -- including the genetic variability within species,
differences among species, and the variation among ecological
communities and ecosystems. In addition to conservation, the Convention
has two other stated objectives: The sustainable use of biodiversity
and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of
genetic resources.
The Convention's mix of objectives -- conservation, sustainable use, and
equitable benefits sharing -- sets up inherent conflicts within
individual countries (i.e., simultaneous and sometimes incompatible
pressures to conserve and exploit biodiversity) and between countries
(i.e., between those countries having the most to gain or lose in
benefit sharing). The development of a legal framework for deciding how
profits derived from biodiversity might be distributed -- for example,
partitioning the profits from drug discoveries among the company, the
host country, and perhaps local people who had traditional knowledge of
the plant's pharmaceutical benefits -- has proven complex and
contentious.
More than 150 countries have now ratified the treaty and become Parties
to the Convention. President Clinton signed the Convention for the US in
June 1993 following his administration's interpretation of certain
provisions as safeguarding intellectual property rights and other
industry concerns. Even though the US pharmaceutical and biotechnology
industries were satisfied with the agreement Clinton negotiated, the
Convention was not ratified by the US Senate as expected in 1994 because
of sudden and strong opposition generated by the Farm Bureau, the
American Sheep Industry Association, and several organizations in the
"wise use" movement. It is difficult to capture the exact nature of the
opposition, but some of the key arguments included fears that an extreme
environmental agenda was being imposed on the country, that property
rights would be trampled by the treaty, and that commercial and
recreational activities would be excluded from the concept of
"sustainable use." Others claimed that the treaty was an offensive
religious philosophy in disguise (that all species have equal rights),
that the treaty was really a "cash cow" to transfer wealth and
technology from developed nations, and that US national sovereignty
would be subordinated to the United Nations.
Having lost its initial momentum, ratification seems unlikely any time
soon, especially since the recently reelected Chair of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms (R-NC), is an ardent opponent
of the treaty. Until Senate ratification occurs, the US will remain a
conservation and use, and deal with procedural aspects of implementing
the treaty. The first COP in Nassau, the Bahamas in 1994 established the
basic operating machinery of the treaty -- adopting a work plan,
designating the Secretariat, establishing the science advisory panel,
and designating the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the interim
financial mechanism (described more fully below).
Starting in 1995, each COP has been preceded by a meeting of the
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice
(SBSTTA). This body advises the COP on scientific and technical issues,
and its meetings provide a first take on areas of consensus and
contention -- for example, SBSTTA-1 examined in depth technical aspects
of the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biological
diversity, creating the framework for substantive decisionmaking at the
next COP. The work of the COP often involves consideration of the
SBSTTA's findings or identifying new areas for SBSTTA efforts.
The COP considered its first substantive issue at the second meeting
fully honored their financial commitments. The latter was forcefully put
there is compelling evidence that developed countries, with the sole
exception of Norway, are failing to meet their financial obligations to
support biodiversity conservation in the world's poorer countries.
Simultaneous with the Global Biodiversity Forum was the International
Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, attended by approximately 200
indigenous people from around the world. The Convention stipulates that
indigenous communities should be compensated for use of their
traditional knowledge of biodiversity -- for example, by the
pharmaceutical, food, and cosmetics industries that make use of such
information in product discovery and development. However, indigenous
communities have a voice, but not a vote, at COP meetings. The Forum's
goal was to identify ways to influence the COP and to develop links
among groups for sharing information, analyses, and strategies.
**The United States at COP-3**
Positions that will be presented by the US delegation at COP-3 are
largely based on current domestic policies and programs. The US
delegation typically is the provider rather than the recipient of new
a transition toward sustainable agriculture and the need to conserve and
sustainably use plant genetic resources. The conceptual framework for
addressing agriculture and biodiversity is relatively unformed going into
the COP-3. Consequently, some uncertainty surrounds what type of product
will emerge from the meeting. Likely topics of debate include: the
relative emphasis on traditional versus modern agriculture; whether the
Convention on Biological Diversity is the correct international venue for
promoting sustainable agriculture; whether the COP should promote
biotechnology; and questions about ownership of genetic resources in
germplasm repositories. Recent initiatives by the US Department of
Agriculture to promote sustainable farming practices will form the core
of the US delegation's position in this area -- including increased use
of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and efforts to reduce the risks and
use of pesticides.
(2) The future program of work for terrestrial biological diversity. COP
deliberations of terrestrial systems thus far have focused on forests.
However, the COP has essentially put off its own work pending the outcome
of related efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)
convened by the Commission on Sustainable Development. But participants
have been frustrated by the IPF's slow progress. The central tension in
the IPF proceedings has been balancing the conservation of forest
information and methods for fulfilling the identification,
monitoring, and assessment functions. Among other things, the SBSTTA
concluded that there is a large gap between the Convention
especially in certain systems such as freshwater environments. The
SBSTTA stressed the need to develop indicators that can be used both
to assess and to monitor changes in biodiversity -- in order to
capture the maximum amount of information with the minimum number of
tasks. The COP will consider the SBSTTA's work and may initiate
follow-up or pilot projects to advance development of the necessary
methodologies.
(4) Rights of indigenous and local communities and access to genetic
resources.
One goal of the Convention is to ensure equitable sharing of benefits
from the use of genetic resources. At issue here is who owns these
resources, who should profit from their use, and what ownership and
access rights should be afforded to indigenous peoples, farmers, and
local communities. Additional concerns surround the development of
appropriate mechanisms to compensate local and indigenous communities
for traditional knowledge and innovations.
enabled scientists to genetically and biochemically modify plants,
animals, and micro-organisms to create living modified organism. Many
countries with biotechnology industries already have domestic
legislation in place intended to ensure the safe transfer, handling,
use, and disposal of these organisms and their products. These
precautionary practices are collectively known as biosafety.
The 1995 COP established an "Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group" on
biosafety that met in Denmark last July. There, the Working Group began
the arduous task of developing a global protocol on safety in
biotechnology. The meeting produced little in the way of written results,
but did provide a forum for defining issues and articulating positions.
Some surprising differences emerged in counties' perspectives on
biotechnology, with middle-income developing countries seeing it as a
By far the most contentious -- and perhaps most important -- of the
administrative issues is how funds will be made available to developing
countries to preserve their biodiversity. The Convention identified the
need for an objective financial mechanism by which developed countries
could help developing countries meet the costs of implementing the
treaty. The "Global Environment Facility" (GEF) -- in which funding
programs are implemented by three agencies, the World Bank, the United
Nations Environment Program, and the United Nations Development Program
-- has thus far served this role on an interim basis.
The question before COP-3 is whether the GEF will become the permanent
home of the financial mechanism. The GEF disperses funds not only for
work on biological diversity, but also for projects related to climate
change, ozone, and international waters. Some Parties do not believe the
GEF is an ideal funding mechanism because biodiversity is not its sole
priority, and some countries have raised concerns about inclusion of
countries that are not Parties to the Convention on the GEF Council.
In response to criticisms of the level and speed of GEF's biodiversity
the Convention established an information clearing-house envisioned as a
virtual library of resources available over the Internet. The
clearing-house is still in its pilot phase, but some countries have
questioned whether its functions should expand to include consultation
countries for use of biodiversity resources.
**Brief Analysis of Convention Progress**
Some NGOs chafe at the slow progress in implementing the Convention,
complaining that there has been little tangible progress since the Rio
Summit in 1992. Other participants counter that the treaty has only been
ratified for three years and the delays are not surprising given its
ambitious scope. Each of its goals -- conservation, sustainable use, and
equitable sharing of benefits -- require significant effort, and the COP
has had to develop an institutional structure for implementing the
Convention from scratch. In some cases, the actual functions of the new
organizational entities are somewhat ambiguous. For example, participants
in the 1996 SBSTTA meeting raised concerns that the proceedings were too
much like a COP meeting, with few attendees having appropriate expertise
BACK TO
*********************************************************************