CBD: better understanding development and implementation

Sophie

Nat

asha B

rett

2013

CBD: understanding

development and

implementation

This report seeks to better understand the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in terms of development and implementation. In addition to the CBD this report also considers the two supplementary protocols – the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol. The report is concluded with a number of plausible future scenarios for the CBD over the next five years.

Environmental Policy and Management

29 November 2013

Sophie Natasha BrettCBD: understanding development and implementation

2

Table of ContentsSummary................................................................3

Development............................................................4

Convention on Biological Diversity....................................4

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.......................................7

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and

Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the

Convention on Biological Diversity....................................9

Treaty Implementation and Enforcement.................................10

Scenarios for a 5-year trajectory.....................................12

Sources...............................................................13

Appendix 1 – Timeline and Themes of COP meetings......................16

Appendix 2 – Text of the Convention...................................20

Appendix 3 – Text of the Cartagena Protocol...........................50

Appendix 4 – Text of the Nagoya Protocol..............................68

Appendix 5 – Timeline of Convention and Protocols (the Early Years). . .83

Appendix 6 – Aichi Biodiversity Targets...............................84



3

SummaryThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the Multilateral

Environmental Agreement (MEA) which recognised that the conservation of

biodiversity is a ‘common concern of humankind’ for the first time in

international law. It has three main objectives:

The conservation of biological diversity

Sustainable use of the components of biological diversity

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from utilisation of

genetic resources

Supplementary to the CBD are two protocols:

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – which seeks to protect

biological diversity form the potential risks posed by genetically

modified (GM) organisms resulting from modern biotechnology, and;

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and


Convention on Biological Diversity – which aims to provide greater

legal certainty and transparency for both providers and users of

genetic resources.

This report will address the CBD and its related protocols with the aim

to better understanding of issues surrounding development and implementation.

Firstly it will consider the development of the CBD and then both the

Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. It will then go on to consider the

implementation of the convention and aspects of enforcement. The report

will conclude with three brief scenarios of the evolvement of the

convention over the next five years:



4

1. The Nagoya Protocol is ratified by the required instruments and

comes into force.

2. The Nagoya Protocol is not ratified.

3. A World Environment Organisation is formed.



5

DevelopmentThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the first global

agreement to cover biodiversity in all its different forms: genetic

resources, traditional knowledge, species and ecosystems amongst many

other aspects. It has three objectives:

The conservation of biological diversity

Sustainable use of the components of biological diversity

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from utilisation of

genetic resources

The convention came into force on 29 December 1993. It was opened for

signatures at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero on 5 June 1992 and was

ratified by the required instruments 90 days prior to the date of

enforcement. The following Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) was

opened for signatures on 15 May 2000 and came into force on 11 September

2003. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and


Convention on Biological Diversity (NP) has been open for signatures

since 29 October 2010 and will come into force once it has reached the

required 50 ratified instruments. This section of the report will

consider the development of the CBD and supplementary protocols (CPB and

NP). A further detailed timeline on the convention can be found in

Appendix 1.

Convention on Biological DiversityThe CBD is one of the most ratified international treaties on an

environmental issue – there are only three UN parties who have not

ratified the convention (United States of America, Somalia and Andorra).



6

Prior to formal negotiations beginning in November 1988, there was a

phase of pre-negotiation centred on the rationalisation of an

international convention on biological diversity which was convened by

the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Following decision

14/26 of the 14th Governing Session (GS) of UNEP in 1987 an ad hoc working

group of experts was set up by the chair of GS/14 to investigate the

‘desirability and possibility’ of an international umbrella style

convention. The working group on the convention was referred to as the

Ad Hoc Working Group of the Experts on Biological Diversity. Decision

15/34 of GS/15 in 1989 approved a draft decision of the convention. The

group became an Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) and met a

number of times between 1989 and 1991 where the convention text was

negotiated – the final draft of which was adopted in May 1992. The

convention was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit 1992 and opened for

signatures. During these initial negotiations the subject of

biotechnology, genetically modified organisms and biosafety was raised a

number of times. This would later become the Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety – the development of which is considered in the next part of

this section of the report. The text contains 42 articles identifying

various goals, policies and procedures for the convention as a whole. It

also contains two annexes. One outlining Identification and Monitoring

technicalities and one identifying Arbitration procedures.

In the formation of the CBD, three international institutional parties

were created:

1. The Conference of the Parties (under Article 23) – the governing

body of the convention;

2. The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological

Advice (SBSTTA) (under Article 25) – provides scientific, technical



7

and technological advice and recommendations on implementation to

the COP; and

3. The Secretariat (under Article 24) – preparing for and servicing

the meetings of COP and subsidiary bodies and coordinating with

other international bodies. This institution is hosted by UNEP in

Montreal, Canada.

There are a number of national and sectoral interests at play in the

continuing development of the CBD and its supplementary protocols. These

range from issues of national interests by parties of the convention to

those of various global industries practices such as: agriculture and

food; the cosmetics industry; health and pharmaceuticals; energy;

textiles; forestry and paper; amongst others. There are both impacts, and

risks and opportunities for global biodiversity through sectoral

interests (see examples in Table 1). The national interests of individual

parties become more complex as the divide between developing and developed

countries are accentuated. Although there is a fairly balanced

North/South understanding of the importance of biodiversity, it is not so

balanced between poorer and richer countries – this is the premise of the

Nagoya Protocol. During the negotiations phase of the convention there

was a heavy presence of the Group of 77 – a group formed of a number of

the world’s developing countries – however since coming into force a

decline of the G77 in CBD parlance has been noticed. Fragmentation of

the G77 has been cited as a source of this decline and G77 is encouraged

to act once again as a united group and to tackle the development of the

convention to further halt the loss of global biodiversity. There are

alliances and coalitions within the development of the convention and the

protocols. Another notable event within the development of the convention

includes the failure of the United States of America to ratify the treaty

despite being heavily involved in the initial negotiations and signing

the treaty at the Rio 1992 Earth Summit. The US were concerned around



8

issues of the CBD provisions for technology transfer and considered them

as a threat to US intellectual property rights. They were also concerned

that the obligations for financial aid were too vague. There was hope

that the Obama administration would work towards ratifying the CBD,

however this has yet to be done and the US remains one of three UN

countries (Somalia and Andorra have yet to sign) who have not signed up

to the convention and the only country to sign but not ratify.

One of the biggest achievements in the development of the CBD has been to

generate a huge amount of interest in biodiversity. Biodiversity is of

vital importance to both developing and developed countries. The

convention has lead to a paradigm shift in the incorporation of

sustainable use and the equitable benefit and sharing of resources

alongside conservation. Unlike some multilateral environmental agreements

the CBD is relatively balanced on the North/South divide, as mentioned

before, and the recognition of the importance of biodiversity in the

preamble as a ‘common concern of humankind’ has united intergovernmental

as well as nongovernmental groups throughout the world. This recognition

has seen biodiversity become a critically important environmental and

development issue.


Table 1. – Sectoral Interests of the CBD.

Sector Impacts Opportunities/Risks

Agriculture

and Food

-Habitat loss and degradation.-Climate change.-Water security and quality.-Soil degradation and pollutionof waterways.-Loss of genetic diversity through intensive systems-Impacts on native species by introduced invasive species.

-Access to new revenue streamsand markets.-Regulation and Compliance (rationing of scarce resourcesand moratoria on extractive activities).-Development of new technologies that minimise resource use and degradation.

Cosmetics-Over exploitation of plant species with properties of interest.-Impacts of cultivation of species of interest (habitat clearance; pollution of nearby areas and waterways).-Pollution and waste from manufacturing, use and disposalof products.

-New ingredients (increase in demand for cosmetics benefitting from biodiversity)-Branding (responsible management of sourcing and manufacture and packaging could give access to new revenue streams and markets).

Health and

Pharmaceutic

-Over harvesting of wild species containing medically active compounds.

-Lost opportunities (at current levels of plant/animalextinction losing one major


9

The convention exists in an umbrella format and is implemented by parties

at a national level as will be discussed in the second section of this

report – Treaty Implementation and Enforcement.



10

Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyThe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) to the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) came into force on 11 September 2003, having been

ratified by the required 50 instruments 90 days previously – this year

celebrates 10 years of enforcement. The latest countries to join the CPB

were Afghanistan and Lebanon in February 2013, this is interesting as

acceding to multilateral agreements are sometimes conditions of

international aid. CPB opened for signatures in May 2000 following the

adoption of the final text at the first and only Extraordinary COP

(ExCOP) of the CBD in 1999/2000. The initial ExCOP of the CBD was held in

Cartagena in 1999 and was not forthcoming. It was thus suspended and

further resumed in Montreal in early 2000 where the protocol was adopted.

Aspects relating to biosafety within CBD parlance date back to COP2 in

1995 (see Appendix 1 for main themes of COP meetings). The protocol is

based on the precautionary principle as outlined in the Rio Declaration on

Environment and Development (Principle 15) and has one main objective:

To contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the

field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified

organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse

effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological

diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and

specifically focusing on transboundary movements.

The precautionary principle can also be understood as an evolution of the

medical term first, do no harm. The principle applies where the import of

genetically modified (GM) organisms or products between parties with

differing stances on Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) is of concern. This

has led to the formation and development of a number of procedures such

as Advance Informed Agreement, LMOs-FFP (LMOs intended for feed or food, or for

processing), Handling, Transport, Packaging and Indentification (requires labelling



11

of shipments containing LMOs) which gives countries who object to GM

products the right to refuse imports. The protocol also established a

Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) (Article 20) to allow the exchange of

scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on LMOs; and

to assist the parties in aspects of protocol implementation. The COP to

the convention is the governance body of the protocol and in line with

Article 23 of the CBD the COP meetings have the capacity to adopt

protocols and also act as a Meeting of the Parties MOP to subsidiary

bodies (COP-MOP).

The CPB has been cited as a barrier to international trade throughout its

development and is often mentioned alongside World Trade Organisation

(WTO) agreements. Within the TRIPS Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property), the TBT Agreement (Technical Barrier to Trade)

and the SPS Agreement (application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

measures) there are provisions which are relevant to the CPB and this can

cause frictions amongst parties who see the protocol as inhibiting

aspects of free trade. Examples include a complaint by the US to the WTO

regarding the import of GM goods into the European Communities. The US

argued that the ECs measures of protection against the ‘potentially

dangerous effects [of LMOs] on the environment, human, animal and plant

health’ (the EU applies the precautionary principle in relation to GM

goods) were inconsistent with a number of articles of the SPS Agreement,

the TBT Agreement and two further WTO agreements. The two parties have

reached an agreement between them. Within the text of the CPB parties are

asked to:

Recognise that trade and environments should be mutually supportive

Emphasise that the Protocol is not interpreted as implying a change

in the rights and obligations under any existed agreements; and



12

Understand that the above recital is not intended to subordinate

the Protocol to other international agreements.

Issues surrounding the convention and the CPB often spill over into the

WTO ministerial meetings. There was an incident in 2005 in which India

and Brazil led negotiations for the inclusion of a requirement for the

disclosure of origin of biological materials and related traditional

knowledge in patent applications. Although the negotiations took place,

no disclosure was agreed upon and a reference to the CBD was instead

included. These disputes are settled within the WTO and often result in

compensation to the party raising the concern due to measure they feel

inhibit free trade. Aspects relating to the implementation are considered

in the second section of the report – Treaty Implementation and Enforcement.



13

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair

and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their

Utilisation to the Convention on Biological DiversityThe Nagoya Protocol (NP) opened for signatures on the 29 October 2010

after almost a decade of negotiations. Decision 6/24 at COP6 in 2002, to

adopt the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and

Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization,

provided a platform for further negotiation on Access and Benefit-Sharing

(ABS). The Bonn Guidelines were a voluntary guideline to help support

parties in the drafting of ABS contracts. The discussion of Article 15

(Access to Genetic Resources) of the CBD actually began right back in

COP2 (Decision 2/11) and made regular COP negotiations along with

consideration of related Article 8(j) (in-situ conservation concerning

traditional knowledge (TK)). The protocol directly addresses the third

objective of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) which is the

fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of

genetic resources. The protocol is intended to create greater legal

certainty and transparency for both providers and users of genetic

resources.

The issue of ABS is an interesting one. It accentuates the difference

between biodiversity-rich developing countries and developed countries

seeking genetic resources. The further development and ratification of

the NP relies on developed countries which do not have a history of TK to

recognise the benefit of this to their research and importance of TK to

indigenous communities. As such the developing countries become the

providers to developed countries who are the primary users. This type of

knowledge is heavily used within the cosmetics and pharmaceutical

industries – some issues have been considered previously. A key pro-NP

party is India, which cites that during 2010 some 2000 patents were filed



14

without direct consent from the Indian Government. India is joined by

Brazil and a number of other biodiversity-rich developing countries

concerned with the misappropriation of their genetic resources and TK.

This process is commonly referred to as bio-piracy and relates to issues of

legitimacy. The development of the protocol into the future requires that

developed countries ratify the protocol and bring it into force. Norway

became the first developed country to ratify the NP on 12 October 2013.

They chose to ratify the protocol to make it clear that they take ‘ourcommon environmental challenges and commitments seriously’. The development

of the NP over the ensuing years will provide insight into nations which

recognise biodiversity and the conservation of it as a ‘common concern of

humankind’ and those who see it purely as a resource frontier.

A full timeline of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the

supplementary protocols and the COPs can be found in Appendix 5.



15

Treaty Implementation and Enforcement

ImplementationThe Cartagena Protocol is the main implementation tool of the convention.

The successful and effective implementation of the protocol will

ultimately lead to the realisation of the objectives of the CBD.

International Bodies

As mentioned in the previous section on the development of the

convention, there were three institutions created in the formation of the

convention. These are: the Conference of the Parties (COP), the

Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

(SBSTTA), and the Secretariat.

The COP is the governing body of the convention and, under Article 23 has

the power to amend the CBD and adopt protocols in line with Article 28.

It is also responsible for keeping the implementation of the convention

under review. This is a governmental position and thus only members of

the national government have the power to represent. They can be assisted

by delegates from within relevant industries. COP meetings are attended

by non-governmental organisations in addition to a host of other bodies.

The SBSTTA is a committee which consists of experts from member

governments who are competent in relevant fields. The role of the SBSTTA

is to provide recommendations to the COP on scientific and technical

issues in regard to implementation.

The Secretariat’s function is to organise meetings, draft documents and

assist member governments in their implementation of the convention.



16

National Implementation

Each member party is responsible for implementing National Biodiversity

Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). These are the instruments for

reporting implementation of the CBD at a national level. A national

report on the status of implementation must be prepared by each party as

detailed in Article 26.

The fifth National Report is due on the 31 March 2014 and in addition to

reviewing status and effectiveness of implementation of the 2011-2020

strategy, the fifth National Report must also report on the progress made

through the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (these can be found in Appendix

6). The report is the method by which biodiversity is recorded and

provides the information which allows intergovernmental, non-governmental

and scientific bodies to assist the party in the implementation of both

the convention and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

(NBSAP). These reports are a hugely important part of the implementation

of the CBD as they allow the development of the convention to move

forward in an effective way. They provide data from which policy research

and analysis at regional, national and global levels can be conducted.

They also provide the opportunity for requests and guidance to be passed

on to the international bodies of the convention.

EnforcementThe Convention on Biological Diversity is legally binding by

international law and was negotiated, adopted, signed, ratified and came

into force in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

which sets the basis for multilateral treaties. Although the convention

sets out a secretariat to ‘keep under review the implementation of the

convention’ it has received criticism for its failure to deliver in terms

of non-compliance. There is no secretariat reviewing the non-compliance

of the convention. As mentioned previously India has stated that 2000



17

patents were taken out in 2010 none of which received consent from the

Indian government. They would go as far as to say that biopiracy remains

unabated despite the two decades of the convention expressly stating that

this is an international offense. Incidents of illegal transboundary

movement of organisms are remediated at the expense of the offending

party (Articles 25 and 34 of the CPB). Parties are responsible for the

consequences of illegal movements which is often interpreted as a rather

flexible approach to implementation and enforcement. Another criticism of

the convention is the sheer volume of documents that it creates. It would

seem that the convention is dominated by a tendency to generate text and

has failed to live up to the expectations and effort that has been

invested in it in terms of action. This was recognised by the secretariat

in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 2010 which states that the convention

‘failed to deliver by a number of indicators’. This indicates a gap

between the implementation of the convention and the text on which the

convention is based. As one of the most ratified multilateral

environmental agreements the mechanisms for enforcement do not seem to

live up to the robust and rigorous text and documentation that can be

found on the Convention on Biological Diversity.



18

Scenarios for a 5-year trajectory

1. The Nagoya Protocol is enforced.Should the Nagoya Protocol (NP) reach the required ratified

instruments within the next five years then the future for global

biodiversity is looking good. Ratification of the NP requires the

parties concerned to really take on board and understand the

importance of the convention’s objectives and to embrace global

biodiversity and its related socio-economic aspects on all levels. It

will require industry to approach biodiversity and traditional

knowledge with a much more responsible and respectful attitude than

they currently display.

2. The Nagoya Protocol remains open for signatures. This scenario is less positive in terms of the future of global

biodiversity. It would be expected that the number of instruments

ratifying the NP will increase within the five year period. However,

if the full number for ratification is not met then it could be

expected that issues surrounding compliance and an emphasis to parties

of the main objectives of the convention would be pursued. Perhaps

national strategies for reforming aspects of industrial practice could

be implemented, thereby encouraging industries to work to a higher

level of responsible and respectful behaviour towards the providers of

genetic resources.

3. A World Environment Organisation (WEO) is formed.Although plausible this is the least likely scenario of the three to

become reality. The formation of a WEO has been in discussion for a

period of time. Given the poor record of the CBD to act enforce non-

compliance, among many other poor performers of environmental change,



19

the formation of a WEO could be the answer. Similar to the WTO,

although not a regulatory body, a WEO would offer enhanced monitoring

and dispute resolution with the aim of providing an effective

collaborative approach to halting the loss global biodiversity.



20

SourcesCBD (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. [pdf] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

CBD (2013) Aichi Biodiversity Targets. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ Last accessed 28th November 2013.

CBD (2013) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. [internet] Available at: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/ Last accessed 28th November 2013.

CBD (2013) The Convention. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/ Last accessed 28th November 2013.

CBD (2013) The Convention: Conference of the Parties. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/final-reports.aspx?grp=cop&menu=cops Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

CBD (2013) The Convention: COP Decisions. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/decisions/default.shtml Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

CBD (2013) The First Years – CBD. [pdf] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/CBD-the-first-years.pdf Last accessed22nd November 2013.

CBD (2013) Global Platform on Business and Biodiversity. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/en/business/information Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

CBD (2013) The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing. [internet] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/abs/ Last accessed 28th November 2013.

Boisvert, V. and Caron, A. (nd) The Convention on Biological Diversity: An Ambivalent Attempt to Reconcil Communal Rights and Private Property. [internet] Available at: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/920/boisvertv041700b.pdf?sequence=1 Last accessed 27th November 2013.

CBD (2013) Compliance. [internet] Available at: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_art34.shtml Last accessed 17th November 2013.


http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_art34.shtml

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/920/boisvertv041700b.pdf?sequence=1

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/920/boisvertv041700b.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.cbd.int/abs/

http://www.cbd.int/en/business/information

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/CBD-the-first-years.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/decisions/default.shtml

http://www.cbd.int/meetings/final-reports.aspx?grp=cop&menu=cops

http://www.cbd.int/convention/

http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf


21

CHM Belgium (nd) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. [internet] Available at: http://www.biodiv.be/convention/strategic-plan-2011-2020 Last accessed 28th November 2013.

Democracy Live, 2012 [video recording of European Parliament debate] BBC , Democracy Live. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/europe/newsid_9714000/9714716.stm 20th April 2012.

ENB – Volume 09-Biological Diversity and Plant Genetic Resources. [internet] Available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol09/ Last accessed 28th November 2013.

Faizi, S. (2012) Biodiversity Summit: Need For A Rethinking On Treaty Enforcement. [internet] Available at: http://www.countercurrents.org/faizi011012.htm Last accessed: 22nd November 2013.

GMO Portal (2010) Cartagena Protocol – Compliance. [internet] Available at: http://www.gmo.hr/eng/Cartagena-Protocol/Compliance/Outline-of-the-Article-34-under-the-Protocol-Compliance Last accessed 20th November 2013.

Greiber, T.,Moreno, S.P., Åhrén, M., Carrasco, J.N., Kamau, E.C., Medaglia, J.C., Oliva, M.J. and Perron-Welch, F. in cooperation with Ali,N. and Williams, C. (2012) An Explanatory Guide to the Nagoya Protocol. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 83.

IEEP (2012) Study to analyse legal and economic aspects of implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in the European Union. [internet] Available at: http://www.ecologic.eu/4334 Last accessed 28th November 2013.

IISD (2000) A Brief Introduction ot the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). [internet]Available at: http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cbdintro.html Last accessed 28th November 2013.

IISD (2005) WTO Negotiations on CBD Issues Cause Friction. [internet] Available at: http://biodiversity-l.iisd.org/news/wto-negotiations-on-cbd-issues-cause-friction/ Last accessed 14th November 2013.

IUCN (2010) Saving biodiversity – the debate. [internet] Available at: http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/?5591/Saving-biodiversity-The-debate Last accessed 14th November 2013.

JNCC (2013) The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [internet] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1365 Last accessed 22nd November 2013.


http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1365

http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/?5591/Saving-biodiversity-The-debate

http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/news_by_date/?5591/Saving-biodiversity-The-debate

http://biodiversity-l.iisd.org/news/wto-negotiations-on-cbd-issues-cause-friction/

http://biodiversity-l.iisd.org/news/wto-negotiations-on-cbd-issues-cause-friction/

http://www.iisd.ca/biodiv/cbdintro.html

http://www.ecologic.eu/4334

http://www.gmo.hr/eng/Cartagena-Protocol/Compliance/Outline-of-the-Article-34-under-the-Protocol-Compliance

http://www.gmo.hr/eng/Cartagena-Protocol/Compliance/Outline-of-the-Article-34-under-the-Protocol-Compliance

http://www.countercurrents.org/faizi011012.htm

http://www.iisd.ca/vol09/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/europe/newsid_9714000/9714716.stm%20

http://www.biodiv.be/convention/strategic-plan-2011-2020


22

Kohsaka, R. (2012) The Negotiating History of the Nagoya Protocol on ABS:Perspective from Japan. English Journal 9(1) pp56-66.

Kormos, C. (2009) When it comes to the Convention on Biological Diversitythe US stands with…Somalia and Andorra? Maybe it’s time we join the other192 countries. [internet] Available at: http://www.wild.org/blog/when-it-comes-to-the-convention-on-biological-diversity-the-us-stands-with%E2%80%A6somalia-and-andorra-maybe-it%E2%80%99s-time-we-join-the-192-other-countries/ Last accessed 17th November 2013.

Lumbroso, S. and Gravey, V. (2013) International negotiations and debates: helping or hindering biodiversity integration in the CAP? IIDRI Policy Briefs 05/2013.

Oldham, P. (nd) Negotiating Diversity: A Field Guide to the Convention onBiological Diversity. [internet] Available at: http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/virtual/biodiversity/intro.htm Last accessed 16th November 2013.

Our World is Not For Sale (2007) TRIPS/CBD, enforcement dominate talks at TRIPS council. [internet] Available at: http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/en/article/tripscbd-enforcement-dominate-talks-trips-council Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

Natural England (nd) The Convention on Biological Diversity. [internet] Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/convention.aspx Last accessed 28th November 2013.

The Nordic Page (2013) Norway has ratified the Nagoya Protocol. [ internet] http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/4024-norway-has-ratified-the-nagoya-protocol Last accessed 14th November 2013.

Ragnar, J. (2004) Biopiracy, the CBD and TRIPS – The Prevention of Biopiracy. [internet]Available at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1561387&fileOId=1565619 Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) [square brackets] vol 7 [pdf] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/ngo/square-brackets/square-brackets-2012-10-en.pdf Last accessed 22nd November 2013.

Tamale, E. (nd) Integrating National Measures for Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity into NBSAPs. [internet]


http://www.cbd.int/ngo/square-brackets/square-brackets-2012-10-en.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/ngo/square-brackets/square-brackets-2012-10-en.pdf

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1561387&fileOId=1565619

http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1561387&fileOId=1565619

http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/4024-norway-has-ratified-the-nagoya-protocol

http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/4024-norway-has-ratified-the-nagoya-protocol

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/convention.aspx

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/convention.aspx

http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/en/article/tripscbd-enforcement-dominate-talks-trips-council

http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/en/article/tripscbd-enforcement-dominate-talks-trips-council

http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/virtual/biodiversity/intro.htm

http://www.wild.org/blog/when-it-comes-to-the-convention-on-biological-diversity-the-us-stands-with%E2%80%A6somalia-and-andorra-maybe-it%E2%80%99s-time-we-join-the-192-other-countries/




23

Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/nbsapcbw-global-01/nbsap-nairobi-scbd-cpb.pdf Last accessed 28th November 2013.

UN Decade on Biodiversity 2011-2020, 2012. GEF and CBD live web debate on biodiversity. [video recording] StudioTalk, New York. Available at: http://www.studiotalk.tv/show/live-interactive-un-webcast-the-un-decade-on-biodiversity-20112020 20th September 2012.

UNEP (2013) Time to Consider a World Environment Organisation? From a speech by YAB Dato' Sri Haji Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak (Prime Minister of Malaysia). [internet] Available at: http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/PerspectivesonRIO20/PrimeMinisterofMalaysia/tabid/55555/Default.aspx Last accessed 28th November 2013.

WTO (2013) GMO Disputes. [internet] Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm?id=G103#selected_subject Last accessed 28th November 2013.


http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm?id=G103#selected_subject

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm?id=G103#selected_subject

http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/PerspectivesonRIO20/PrimeMinisterofMalaysia/tabid/55555/Default.aspx

http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/PerspectivesonRIO20/PrimeMinisterofMalaysia/tabid/55555/Default.aspx

http://www.studiotalk.tv/show/live-interactive-un-webcast-the-un-decade-on-biodiversity-20112020%2020th%20September%202012

http://www.studiotalk.tv/show/live-interactive-un-webcast-the-un-decade-on-biodiversity-20112020%2020th%20September%202012

http://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/nbsapcbw-global-01/nbsap-nairobi-scbd-cpb.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/nbsapcbw-global-01/nbsap-nairobi-scbd-cpb.pdf


24

Appendix 1 – Timeline and Themes of COP meetings.

Pre-enforcement

1987 – UNEP Governing Council 14th Session Decision 14/26 requests a working group to ‘investigate the

desirability and possibility’ of an umbrella convention on

biological diversity

1988 – 1st meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on

Biological Diversity Formal negotiations begin.

1989 – UNEP Governing Council 15th Session Decision 15/34 approves the draft rationalisation of the

convention.

1990 – Sub- working group on biotechnology formed

Inclusion of in-situ and ex-situ

Biotechnology considered

Genetically modified (GM) organisms (the safety of the release or

experimentation on) BIOSAFETY.

UNEP Governing Council form new working group to prepare draft

convention (Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee)



25

1991 February – First draft of convention considered by UNEP

Intergovernmental Negotiation Panel (INP)

1991-1992 – INC meet a further 4 times

1992 22 May – Adoption of final text for Convention on

Biological Diversity

1992 5 June – Convention opens for signatures at Rio Earth

Summit Convention requires 50 instruments to ratify before coming into

force. Convention will come into force 90 days after the required

50 instruments,

1993 May – Intergovernmental Committee of the Convention on Biological

Diversity (ICCBD) formed

A number of further panels formed to ensure effective operations

when the convention came into force

1993 October – 1st session of the ICCBD

1993 29 December – Convention comes into force

1994 – 2nd session of the ICCBD Preparation for the 1st Council of the Parties (COP)

Post-enforcement

COP1 – November 1994 Guidance to the financial mechanism



26

Medium-term programme of work

COP2 – November 1995 Marine and coastal biodiversity

Access to genetic resources

Conservation and sustainability of biodiversity

Biosafety

COP3 – November 1996 Agricultural biodiversity

Financial resources and mechanism

Identification, monitoring and assessment

Intellectual property rights

COP4 – May 1998 Inland water ecosystems

Review of operations of the convention

Article 8(j) and related issues (Traditional Knowledge (TK))

Benefit sharing

ExCOP1 – Cartagena February 1999/Montreal January 2000 Initial February meeting was not forthcoming and was thus

suspended. It was resumed in January when the Cartagena Protocol

was adopted.

Following the enforcement of the Cartagena Protocol the CBD COPs also

became the COP-MOP of the Protocol.

COP5 – May 2000 Dryland, Mediterranean, arid, semi-arid, grassland and savannah

ecosystems

Sustainable use including ecotourism

Access to genetic materials



27

COP6 – April 2002 Forest ecosystems, alien species

Benefit sharing

Strategic plan 2002-2010

COP7 – February 2004 Mountain ecosystems

Protected areas

Transfer of technology and technology cooperation

COP8 – March 2006 Island biodiversity

Biodiversity of dry and semi-humid lands

Global taxonomy iniative

Access and benefit sharing (Article 15)

Article 8(j) and related provisions

Communication, education and public awareness (Article 13)



28

COP9 – May 2008 Agricultural biodiversity

Global strategy for plan conservation

Invasive alien species

Forest biodiversity

Incentive measures

Ecosystem approach

Progress in the implementation of the strategic plan and progress

towards the 2010 target and relevant Millennium Development Goals

Financial resources and the financial mechanism

COP10 – October 2010

COP11 – October 2012 ‘Nature protects if She is protected’

COP12 – October 2014

Standing agenda items:

Organisational matters

Reports from sudsidiary bodies, the financial mechanism and the

executive summary

Review of the implementation of the programme of work

Priority issues for review and guidance; and

Other matters.



29

Appendix 5 – Timeline of Convention and Protocols

(the Early Years)



30

Appendix 6 – Aichi Biodiversity Targets Strategic Goal A : Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by

mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society Strategic Goal B : Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote

sustainable use Strategic Goal C : To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding

ecosystems, species and genetic diversity Strategic Goal D : Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem

services Strategic Goal E : Enhance implementation through participatory planning,

knowledge management and capacity building

Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society

Target 1 By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.

Target 2 By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Target 3 By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversityare eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions.

Target 4 By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable productionand consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

Target 5 By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.


http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#GoalE

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#GoalD

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#GoalC

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#GoalB

http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/#GoalA


31

Target 6 By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.

Target 7 By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

Target 8 By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

Target 9 By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Target 10 By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

Target 11By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.

Target 12By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

Target 13 By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.

Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services



32

Target 14 By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored andsafeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Target 15By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributingto climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

Target 16By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation.

Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building

Target 17By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Target 18 By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.

Target 19By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied.

Target 20By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources, andin accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization, should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resource needs assessments



33

to be developed and reported by Parties.


CBD: better understanding development and implementation

Documents

Transcript of CBD: better understanding development and implementation