Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 6 • Number 7 • 14th April 2006
COMMENTARY ON THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) COP-8
COMMENTARY ON THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD) COP-8
By Jeffrey A. McNeely, Chief Scientist, IUCN-The World Conservation Union*
Curitiba, Brazil, was the host of a gruelling three weeks of fierce negotiations among the Parties to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Parties to the CBD itself (COP-8). The bleary-eyed negotiators ended the ordeal with numerous decisions, but few real breakthroughs and precious little progress toward actually achieving the objectives of the Convention: the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity, and the equitable distribution of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The negotiations took place against a background of unprecedented involvement of civil society, with over 250 side events convened by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector, community groups, governments, and international organisations, working together in various combinations and permutations and covering an amazing array of issues.
Access and benefit sharing (ABS) remains one of the most complex and important issues on the CBD agenda; the COP addresses it exclusively in international terms, thereby linking it directly to trade issues. Many developing countries express great outrage about "biopiracy" — the perceived misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge by large northern corporations — with none of the profits going back to the local communities who conserved or developed the genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The megadiverse countries would certainly have greater credibility in their international negotiations on this issue if they had domestic policies that truly addressed the concerns of indigenous and local communities. Ironically, the activity that is most likely to generate financial benefits from genetic resources is the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), linking the ABS issue closely to the Cartagena Protocol (though without ever making the point explicit). While little progress was made on the real international trade issues of ABS, the Parties at least made some progress toward defining a process to carry out further negotiations on the topic and agreed to a timetable to complete this process by COP-10. Agreeing to continue to negotiate counts as an achievement at the CBD COP.
Another matter that dominated the discussions was the perilous state of the Convention’s financial mechanism, the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Not only has replenishment of the GEF made insufficient progress, but the donor countries have imposed a new Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) that was roundly criticised by developing country Parties as unsuited to the needs of the Convention. But since the GEF is functionally independent, all the COP could do is call for a review of the mechanism at the next COP. In other words, keep talking.
Constantly in the background, and occasionally reaching the voices of delegates speaking from the floor, was the so-called ‘implementation gap’. The COP now has some 1500 pages of carefully negotiated decisions covering everything from tourism to protected areas to agriculture and capacity building. Governments, and especially civil society, are asking how these decisions are actually contributing to the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources. COP-6 agreed a target to reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by the year 2010, as a means of addressing poverty alleviation. While many scientists look at this goal with some scepticism, it still provides a rallying call for many who are pushing this target with considerable vigour. The adoption of a new programme of work on island biodiversity called for action, but was not accompanied by adequate funding and the RAF may leave small island developing states with yet another unfunded mandate.
Many delegates expressed in private their continued frustration at the lack of formal collaboration between the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) and the Secretariat of the CBD, as the latter has yet to be granted formal observer status to the CTE. It is clear that trade negotiations trump biodiversity negotiations, with many delegations ensuring that biodiversity issues that may impinge on trade — such as invasive alien species — are very carefully circumscribed, and decisions are adopted that contain phrases such as "so long as international trade is not thereby affected".
With nearly 4000 participants the entire event felt like a biodiversity trade fair, held in a cavernous building designed to hold such a celebration. Dozens of booths, some of extraordinary size and complexity, others very modest, drew thousands of visitors including hoards of school children collecting as many publications as they could carry.
On the other hand, indigenous peoples again increased their participation in the event, and the CBD arguably offers them the greatest window of opportunity to have their views heard on subjects of great concern to them, especially the impacts of trade on their cultures, access and benefit-sharing, and potential impacts of new trade-related technologies, notably "genetic use restriction technologies" (GURTs), which they consider an ominous threat to their cultures. With regard to the latter, they were joined by civil society groups in their outrage against GURTs, which they call "terminator technology", which helped contribute to a COP decision to continue the de facto moratorium on the use of such technologies agreed at COP-5 to the CBD. And while a few national delegations included indigenous representatives in their delegations, so that they could participate actively in Working Group meetings, the indigenous voice remains muted in the official proceedings even as their participation in side events increases.
Indigenous peoples generally are extremely uneasy about the expansion of global trade, at least partly because they have no cultural history of engaging in such activities and therefore feel at a considerable disadvantage, and partly because they are being left behind when the benefits are distributed. This latter concern is underlined by the activities of mining companies, oil companies, and logging companies on their ancestral lands, exploiting resources for the global market without the prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples who have long lived on the land, while the companies pay substantial royalties to central governments. While indigenous peoples use the COP as a forum to express their concerns, many of the issues are more appropriately considered problems of national policies in regard to nationalisation of resources and national distribution of benefits.
Many CBD veterans are frustrated with the lack of progress of the Convention, as delegates seem to spend longer and longer negotiating less and less relevant points, particularly through implementation at the national level. But this frustration should be measured against the unquestioned reality that governments are taking the issues much more seriously, or at least sending stronger and better-briefed delegations to the COP meetings. Biodiversity is well and truly ensconced on the international negotiations calendar, and many multinational companies are beginning to address biodiversity issues in their operations. While actual conservation and sustainability remain elusive (see the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), the issue of biodiversity is one that governments can no longer comfortably ignore. In a complex and polarised world driven by increasing demands to consume more, this represents at least some progress.
* The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation.