Transcript IER05_cbdcites_web

Biodiversity Cooperation
CITES
*
CITES (1973): Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species
of Fauna and Flora
* Regulates trade in living species and products
derived from them;
* Annex I: threatened with extinction; both
export and import permits are required;
* Annex II: not yet but may become threatened
with extinction unless trade is regulated;
monitoring and export permits;
* Annex III: exporting country can list species as
requiring export permits
Trade in Elephant Products?


Banned in 1990 under Annex I
Should ban be partially lifted for South Africa, Botswana,
Namibia and Zimbabwe? On Annex II since 1997-99, but no
trade
– Yes: capable of sustainable management; opportunity
and actual cost of trade restrictions
– No: will be back to pre-1990 practices in states with
weak management; intrinsic value of wildlife
Is it just to punish sustainable states for the
failures of weak states?
The Convention on Biological Diversity
The Great North-South Divide (Rio 1992)

South
– Oppose free access to
biological resources
– Application of IPR to
technologies based on
local resources

North
– BD global resource
– IPR fundamental
– Tech transfer
– Control over
financial/technology
transfers
– Additional financial
resources for biodiversity
conservation
– Not too much money too
fast
– Bio-safety
– Bio-safety not a strictly
biodiversity issue
Provisions



Sovereign right over biodiversity resources
Genetic resources granted according to “mutually agreed
terms”
IPR are “supportive and don’t run counter to” the
convention’s objective

Identification, monitoring, and scientific assessment

National plans and programs

Integration of biodiversity consideration in other policies

Weak monitoring and compliance system

In force 1993, about 188 parties.
Global Environmental Facility
(GEF)

Main financing mechanism
– established first on an
experimental basis
GEF Grants 1991-1999 (mn. USD)
$991

Cover “incremental” costs:
– For climate projects –
additionality principle
– For biodiversity –
recipient commitment?
1000
$884
900
800
700
600
500
$360
400
300
$155
200
100
0
Biodiversity
Climate
International Waters
Ozone
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Institutions Represented on MA Board
















Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR)
Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS)
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
International Council for Science (ICSU)
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
United Nations Foundation
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Bank
World Conservation Union (IUCN)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Negotiations




Miami group: US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Uruguay
– Minimal regulation (cover only LMOs for deliberate release)
– Against precautionary principle/trade restrictions
Like minded group: Developing countries (without Argentina,
Chile, Uruguay)
– All LMO should be regulated
– Advance Informed Agreement (AIA), or AIA-type rules for all
LMOs
EU
– Right to restrict LMP imports under the precautionary principle
(in conditions of scientific certainty)
Compromise group: Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea,
Switzerland, East Europeans, Singapore, New Zeeland
Biosefety Protocol
Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) for LMOs for deliberate
release into the environment (e.g. seeds, etc.).
No AIA for GM products: “GM tomatoes or ketchup made of
GM tomatoes”
Biosafety Clearing House for LMO domestic approvals,
which importing countries can choose to consult
Shipment documentation stating presence of LMOs for
commodities
Broadly endorsees pre-cautionary principle:
“lack of scientific certainty …..shall not prevent the Party from
taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import
of the living modified organisms….”(art. 10.6 and 11.8)