Nature and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World (1997)
Chapter: Science and Technology in the Convention on Biological Diversity
Page 387
Science and Technology in the Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations Environment Programme 1992) made its debut at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, where it was presented for signature (UN Conference on Environment and Development 1992). At this historic event, 152 states and the European Community signed the convention. Since then, 175 states and one regional economic integration organization have ratified the convention (http://www.biodiv.org [1999, July 28]). With this near-universal membership, the convention rapidly has become one of the most important forums for international environmental-policy guidance.
One of the most important features of the convention is its relationship with the scientific and technological communities. The scientific community, operating through a wide network of institutions and individuals, provided the scientific basis for international action on the conservation of biological diversity. The problem was defined in terms of institutional change. The outcome not only was a diplomatic effort to consolidate existing subregimes dealing with the conservation of biological diversity under the auspices of what became the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also went beyond that consolidation and embedded existing regimes in a much broader context.
The process of regime creation took the form of the convention's medium-term program of work, which ended with the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP), held in Bratislava, Slovakia, in May 1998. This meeting had the important task of reviewing the implementation of the convention, evaluating the effectiveness of its internal organization, and establishing a longer-term work
Page 388
program for the convention. One of the main issues discussed in Bratislava was the place of science and technology in the evolution of the convention. To put this issue into perspective, we place the discussion in the context of the institutional structure and functioning of the convention. The institutional history of the convention is evolving in three phases. We believe that the success of the convention will depend largely on the degree to which scientific and technological issues will be integrated into its operations during its upcoming third phase.
The Genesis of the Convention
Role of Epistemic Communities
Interest in the fate and state of life forms is not new; it has been a dominant feature of intellectual inquiry and popular perception for centuries. The organization of this process into international concerns is associated with the post-World War II period, especially with the establishment of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1948. This and many national institutions around the world, as well as activities in sections of the UN system, provided a basis for the emergence of an epistemic community that is devoted to a variety of concerns related to the conservation of biological diversity.
This community has made politicians and international negotiators aware of the need for international instruments on different aspects of biological diversity. Scientistsparticularly those from the biological disciplinesin leading research institutions and universities all over the world, particularly those from the United States, have emphasized the need to conserve biological diversity in all its aspects and by all means.
Much of this work has been done through ad hoc scientific activities, such as those which resulted in the formulation of major biodiversity-related initiatives. Most of these efforts concentrated on the traditional field of conserving wild species and uncultivated land through the establishment of national parks. However, in the 1960s, concerns about integrating conservation with human activities started to play a prominent role in international forums. The Intergovernmental Conference of Experts on the Scientific Basis for Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere, which convened in Paris in September 1968 under the auspices of the UN Scientific, Educational, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), was a major step in this process and resulted in the establishment of the Man and Biosphere Programme, emphasizing humanity's place in the natural order of things and the importance of the ecosystem approach to conservation of nature (Di Castri and others 1981; UNESCO 1993).
Science and International Action
The UN Conference on Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, gave high priority to the need to conserve natural resources, including natural ecosystems and endangered wild species and their habitats (Stockholm Declaration of the Conference on Human Environment and Action Plan 1972). The Action Plan on Programme Development and Priorities, adopted in 1973 at the first
Page 389
session of the Governing Council of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), identified the conservation of nature, wildlife, and genetic resources as having high priority. Since then, conserving of biological diversity has remained one of the most important functions of UNEP. While these groups focused on conservation, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) emphasized the use of genetic resources. Institutional innovations to respond to the scientific and technological aspects of conserving and using the genetic resources of plants for food and agriculture were developed within the framework of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (Pistorius 1997; Fowler and Mooney 1990).
In the meantime, the number of international and regional legal instruments related to biological diversity increased, all of which sought to address specific aspects of conservation and sustainable use. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat of 2 February 1971, 1982), the Convention for the Protection of the World Heritage (Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural heritage of 23 November 1972, 1982), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora of 3 March 1973, 1982), and the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 19 September 1979, 1982), to name but a few, were adopted. However, no common framework existed to deal with the different levels of biological diversity, that is, genes, species, and ecosystems. Furthermore, little was done over this time to provide a global view of trends in biological diversity.
In the middle 1970s, interest grew in providing a global picture of the loss of species. Much of the statistical information was provided by a few agencies of the UN but research institutions, the US National Academy of Sciences, and especially the scientific journals started to call for a fresh look at the issue of the loss of species. One of the most important efforts to provide such a picture was the Global 2000 Report to the President of the United States, commissioned by President Ronald Reagan (Council on Environmental Quality and the US State Department 1980). Although this report focused primarily on tropical forests, it laid the basis for further global assessments of the status of biological diversity. It was also here that the term biological diversity started to get special attention. The report not only dealt with conservation, but also emphasized the economic importance of biological resources.
The historic National Forum on BioDiversity, held in Washington, DC, September 21–24, 1986, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution, gave prominence to the term biodiversity (Wilson 1988). That meeting and other complementary events within the framework of the IUCN provided the scientific basis for creating an international regime for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. This received much-needed political impetus from the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. Its report in 1987, Our Common Future, called for a Species Convention, emphasizing global cooperation but also
Page 390
recognizing the sovereign rights of states to the natural resources under their jurisdiction (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).
International Negotiations on Biological Diversity and Their Results
The process of creating this regime fell to UNEP, which convened the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in June 1987 to harmonize the existing conventions related to biological diversity. With this decision, what was originally a scientific endeavor became the subject of international diplomacy. The group agreed on the need to create a binding international instrument on biological diversity.
In May 1989, the Governing Council of UNEP established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity to prepare an international legal instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (Decision 15/34 of 25 May 1989). During its second special session in August 1990, the Governing Council of UNEP again discussed the mandate of the working group and the possible content of a convention. Decision SS II/5 asked the working group to consider the need to share costs and benefits between developed and developing countries and the ways and means to support innovation by local people (Decision SS II/5 of 3 August 1990). The ad hoc working group, which came to be known in February 1991 as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), held seven working sessions, which culminated in the adoption of the Nairobi Final Act of the Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. After 5 years of negotiations (Sanchez and Juma 1994; McConnell 1996), the convention was presented for signature on June 5, 1992.
The convention defines biological diversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems” (article 2). The objectives of the convention are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, including the appropriate access to genetic resources, appropriate transfer of relevant technologies (taking into account all rights over those resources and technologies), and appropriate funding (article 1).
The character of the convention was shaped mainly by issues that dominated the preparations for UNCED, and it is a convergence of the conservation efforts that arose from the work of such institutions as IUCN. It also has taken on a number of issues concerned with international equity. The only major feature that is peculiar to the convention is the promotion and regulation of access to genetic resources, as outlined in article 15 and other relevant provisions.
On the whole, the convention has retained its scientific and technological character, as reflected in the number of its articles that deal with technical issues. Article 7 covers identification and monitoring of biological diversity and of processes and categories of activities that have possible substantial adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. This article includes
Page 391
the obligation to maintain and organize relevant data. Article 8, on in situ conservation, is committed to a variety of activities that range from establishing a system of protected areas to restoring and rehabilitating of degraded ecosystems to controlling alien species and modified organisms. Article 9, on ex situ conservation, looks to conserve the complementary components of biological diversity outside their natural habitats. Article 10 stipulates obligations about the sustainable use of biological diversity, including cooperation between government authorities and the private sector in the development of methods for the sustainable use of biological resources. Article 12 strives for increased research and education in the field of biological diversity. Article 14 covers the impact assessment of effects and the minimization of adverse effects. Article 18 asks contracting parties to promote international technical and scientific cooperation in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Finally, article 26 is the control provision which strives to have nations report on the measures that they have taken to implement the convention and their effectiveness in meeting its objectives. The main challenge is how to relate the important promise of the convention to practice.
Structure and Functioning of the Convention.
The Structure
The convention's structure is defined by a number of internal and designated organizations. The main internal organizations, within the convention are the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Secretariat, and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). The convention also has established two mechanisms: the financial mechanism and the clearinghouse mechanism. At its first meeting, the COP designated the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the institutional structure that implements the financial mechanism on an interim basis. The clearinghouse mechanism, which is devoted to technical and scientific cooperation, is implemented through the Secretariat in Montreal.
The COP. The COP operates by consensus and deals with the internal governance of the convention. Its main function is to keep the implementation of the convention under review by considering national reports and the advice of the SBSTTA or any other advisory body or processes and by adopting protocols to the convention. The COP also reviews the implementation of the convention by contacting the executive bodies of other conventions that deal with the same matters with a view to establishing appropriate forms of cooperation with them. It makes these contacts through the Secretariat.
The COP also may establish subsidiary bodies to obtain whatever scientific and technical advice is deemed necessary for implementation of the convention. Finally, the COP may consider and undertake any additional action that may be required to achieve the purposes of the convention in the light of experience gained in its operation.
Page 392
The Secretariat. The COP is supported by the Secretariat, which was established under article 24 to arrange for and provide service to meetings of the COP, to perform the functions assigned to it by any protocol, and to prepare reports on the execution of its functions under the convention and to present them to the COP. The Secretariat is also charged with the mandate of coordinating with other relevant international bodies and, in particular, entering into such administrative and contractual arrangements as may be required for the effective discharge of its functions.
SBSTTA. Article 25 of the convention established the SBSTTA to provide the COP and, as appropriate, its other subsidiary bodies with timely advice relating to the implementation of this convention. The SBSTTA was designed to be open to participation by all parties and to have a multidisciplinary approach. Its members are government representatives who are competent in relevant fields of expertise, and it reports to the COP on all aspects of its work.
The specific responsibilities of the SBSTTA are to provide scientific and technical assessments of the status of biological diversity; to prepare scientific and technical assessments of the effects of types of measures taken in accordance with the provisions of this convention; to identify innovative, efficient, state-of-the-art technologies and know-how related to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to advise on how to promote the development and transfer of such technologies; to provide advice on scientific programs and international cooperation in research and development related to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; and to respond to scientific, technical, technological, and methodological questions that the COP and its subsidiary bodies may ask.
The Financial Mechanism. The convention established its financial mechanism to provide financial resources to developing-country parties as grants or concessions. The mechanism functions under the authority and guidance of and is accountable to the COP. The GEF conducts the operations of the mechanism. The COP determines the policy, strategy, program priorities, and eligibility criteria for access to and use of financial resources under the mechanism. The function of the GEF as the institutional structure that implements the financial mechanism on an interim basis is governed by a memorandum of understanding signed by the COP and the Council of the GEF.
The Clearinghouse Mechanism. Article 18(3) of the convention established the clearinghouse mechanism to promote and facilitate scientific and technical cooperation. At its second meeting, the COP established a pilot phase of the clearinghouse mechanism and agreed that this phase would start by promoting the exchange of information, with emphasis on the role of emerging information and communication technologies. The clearinghouse mechanism works closely with the financial mechanism in promoting the establishment of basic communication facilities for the parties of the convention.
Page 393
Functioning:
Experiences Gained
Global learning: Normative and programmatic functions. Because of the nature of the convention as a legally binding instrument, meetings have focused on normative and programmatic activities, leaving operational activities to governments and international institutions. The normative activities of the convention include, first of all, providing overall guidance on policy and advice on biodiversity-related activities through decisions of the COP.
This includes the decision to take an ecosystematic approach to the objectives of the convention. Detailed programs of work have been or are being elaborated on themes of biological diversity in marine and coastal areas, agricultural areas, inland waters, and forests. The programs of work include elements of integrated management, living resources, protected areas, alien species and genotypes, and methods of production, such as mariculture or agroforestry.
Interpretive community. The COP functions as an interpretive community that seeks to clarify certain aspects of the provisions of the convention as well as those of other relevant bodies. So far, the most advanced interpretive activities of the COP have been related to such issues as the role of the clearinghouse mechanism and the transfer of technology. This interpretive function also has benefited from the advice of the SBSTTA and has drawn on the results of other international processes and meetings.
In addition, the COP has sought to clarify the interpretation of biodiversityrelated activities in other forums. For example, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) under the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) benefited from input from the convention. A more elaborate interpretive effort is the current process to renegotiate the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources of the FAO to bring it into harmony with the convention. Another interpretive activity is the realignment of the work program of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) with the convention's Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity.
Guidelines for national implementation. Other normative activities include providing flexible guidelines for national implementation, for example, in the access to and benefit-sharing related to genetic resources and in the protection and promotion of, and reward for local and indigenous innovations, knowledge, and practices. The COP also has provided guidelines for preparing national reports in accordance with article 26 and has developed indicators for biological diversity to be used at the national level.
Harmonization of procedures, standards, criteria, and indicators. The biodiversity regime is setting norms and standardizing procedures, especially through continuing negotiations under the open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety, which has finalized a protocol for adoption by the COP at the end of 1998. This activity also is contributing to the development of international environmental laws related to the precautionary principle. Further work on
Page 394
identifying opportunities for harmonization has resulted from the advice of the SBSTTA on criteria and indicators for biological diversity in forests.
Scientific and technical assessments. The use of scientific and technical input in the implementation of the convention has been debated considerably, especially in the context of reviewing the operations of the SBSTTA. Scientific input has been either parallel to the convention process or on an ad hoc basis. This has been partly because SBSTTA meetings are held annually, which does not allow effective mobilization of the available scientific and technical knowledge.
For example, the Norway-UNEP Expert Conference on Biodiversity, which was convened in May 1993 in Trondheim, Norway (Sandlund and Schei 1993), played a key role in bringing the biodiversity community together. Its results were used in the preparation for the first Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention on Biological Diversity (ICCBD) meeting held in Geneva in September 1993. The Norway-United Nations Conference on Alien Species was hosted by the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment in July 1996 (Sandlund and others 1996); the proceedings provided input to the SBSTTA and to the third COP in November 1996.
Unlike other environmental treaties, such as the Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Convention on Biological Diversity has conducted no formal knowledge assessments. Instead, a Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) was undertaken by UNEP after the convention went into force (Heywood 1995). The GBA was an independent, peer-reviewed scientific analysis by more than 300 experts from more than 50 countries on current issues, theories, and views about the main aspects of biological diversity. Governments were invited to nominate experts to review the GBA in their personal capacity; more than 1,100 experts from more than 80 nations participated in this peer-review process. The report, however, has been used only informally in the framework of the convention, and there has been no follow up by the SBSTTA, although many of the reports prepared by the secretariat have relied on the GBA as one of the most authoritative sources of information available about biological diversity.
Numerous research institutions and networks are seeking to incorporate the agenda of the convention in their programs, and some of them are becoming participants in the activities of the convention. One of these is DIVERSITIES, a scientific research program sponsored by UNESCO. Furthermore, considerable scientific work, management methods, and techniques for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and its components are already available in the relevant institutions.
National reporting. One key instrument for promoting the implementation of the convention is national reporting. The first national reports were made available to the secretariat at the end of 1997. They will form the basis of a synthesized document that will be presented to the COP for consideration and further decision-making. Strengthening of national capabilities for reporting will require concerted effort by the convention in conjunction with its financial mechanism. These reports not only will provide the COP with the basis for further guidance
Page 395
on policy, but also represent one of the most important instruments for monitoring progress. In this regard, the work being carried out by the SBSTTA on biological-diversity indicators will be important for enhancing the normative role of the convention.
Engaging the Scientific and Technological Community
Mobilization of Science
It is evident that if the convention is to conduct its normative functions effectively, it will need to devise methods to mobilize the best available scientific and technical expertise. The main medium for such activities is the SBSTTA. Central to this issue is the continuing debate about the modus operandi of the SBSTTA. A number of options are open to the convention, the first of which is that the role of the SBSTTA itself needs to be reviewed in light of its operating experience. Some evidence suggests that the SBSTTA is emerging as a platform and focal point for international scientific networks. Benefiting from this opportunity will require adjustments in how the SBSTTA functions, especially in relation to its expert groups and meetings. Such groups and meetings, as well as liaison groups, can form the basis for a wide range of intersessional scientific activities.
Application of Technology
The role of technology in the implementation of the convention is now considered to be part of the thematic areas. So far, little work has been done under the convention on technological issues, although further discussion, especially on biotechnology, is expected at the next meeting of the COP. During consideration of this issue, it will be important to remember that many of the technological options available for implementing the convention are in the private sector. In this regard, the convention, possibly through the clearinghouse mechanism or other measures that the COP may wish to exact, could play a key role in encouraging the private sector to participate in the process of implementing the convention.
The Role of the United States
The United States is a leader in the scientific and technological fields that are related to biological diversity. This knowledge is generated by various stakeholders in both the private and public sectors. In the public sector, the federal government supports the generation of scientific knowledge through its various national research institutions.
Conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity are an integral part of policy and law in the United States. Numerous task forces have been set up to formulate strategies for integrating biological diversity into sectoral activities and for developing methods of ecosystem management. Conservation is carried out jointly through national partnerships between federal, state, and nonprofit groups.
Page 396
The United States has a diversified system of protected areas and biosphere reserves, including national wilderness-preservation and wildlife-refuge systems. The national-park system includes 374 areas, covering more than 83 million acres. Various programs aim at conservation and sustainable use, such as those working toward the recovery of threatened or endangered species and habitats and the restoration and enhancement of coastal zones.
Internationally, the United States has set up a variety of global programs on conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of genetic resources. In accordance with its overall environmental policy, the United States is participating actively in the regimebuilding process of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It plays an important role in the convention process and has played a key role in seeking to maintain the scientific and technical role of the SBSTTA. The full scientific, technical, and technological contributions of the evolving convention will be enhanced further when the United States becomes a full party.
References
Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 19 September 1979. 1982 In: Kiss A (ed). Selected multilateral treaties in the field of the environment. Nairobi Kenya: UNEP p 509.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora of 3 March 1973. 1982. In: Kiss A (ed). Selected multilateral treaties in the field of the environment. Nairobi Kenya: UNEP. p 289.
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 23 November 1972. 1982. In: Kiss A (ed). Selected multilateral treaties in the field of the environment. Nairobi Kenya: UNEP. p 276.
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat of 2 February 1971. 1982. In: Kiss A (ed). Selected multilateral treaties in the field of the environment. Nairobi Kenya: UNEP. p 246.
Council on Environmental Quality and the US State Department. 1980. The global 2000 report to the President. Washington DC: US GPO.
Di Castri F, Hadley M, Damlamian J. 1981. MAB: the Man and the Biosphere Programme as an evolving system. Ambio 10(2–3):52–7.
Fowler C, Mooney P. 1990. Shattering: food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. Tuscon AZ: Univ of Arizona Pr.
Heywood VH (ed). 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ Pr and UNEP.
McConnell F. 1996. The convention on biological diversity. A negotiation history. Amsterdam Netherlands: Kluwer Intl.
Pistorius R. 1997. Scientists, plants, and politics. A history of the plant genetic resources movement. Rome Italy: Intl Plant Genetic Res Inst.
Sanchez V. 1994. The convention on biological diversity: negotiation and content. In: Sanchez V, Juma C. Genetic resources and international relations. Nairobi Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies Pr. p 7–18.
Sandlund OT, Schei PJ (eds). 1993. Proceedings of the Norway/UNEP expert conference on biodiversity. The Trondheim conference on biodiver, 24–28 May 1993. Trondheim Norway: UNEP
Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (eds). 1996. Proceedings. Norway/UN conference on alien species. The Trondheim conference on biodiver, 1–5 July 1996. Trondheim Norway: UNEP.
Stockholm Declaration of the Conference on Human Environment and Action Plan. 1972. Intl Legal Materials 11:1416.
UN Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. UN Conference on Environment and Development, 5–14 June 1992, A/Conf. 151/26. Available: http://www.biodiv.org.
Page 397
UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 1989. Decision 15/34 of 25 May 1989, A/44/25, p 161.
UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 1990. Decision SS II/5 of 3 August 1990, UNEP/GCSS.II/3, Annex I, S. 42.
UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 1992. Convention on biological diversity, June 1992. Nairobi Kenya: Environ Law and Inst Prog Activity Center.
Wilson EO. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington DC: Nat Acad Pr.
WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development]. 1987. Our common future (The “Brundtland Report”). Oxford UK: Oxford Univ Pr.
