|
 
© Steve McCurry
/Magnum/Paris
|
The Rio convention marked
the first major international step towards the sharing of biodiversity based on the
principle of social fairness
 It has become commonplace to
say that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted during the Rio Summit
in June 1992 is an important landmark in integrating the principles of ethics and
equity in the use of biodiversity. To stem the increasingly rapid decline of biodiversity,
it was necessary to take action, and quickly, without waiting for the scientific
community to gather further knowledge. First and foremost, the CBD was an acknowledgment
of this urgent need.
It entered into force in December 1993 and so far has been ratified by 177 States—but
not by the United States. This agreement, the only one of its kind, sets up a framework
for worldwide action aimed at ensuring the conservation, the sustainable use and—a
noteworthy development—the fair sharing of biodiversity’s benefits. More specifically,
the CBD focuses on the definition and the financing of conservation policies, access
to genetic resources, North-South technology transfers stemming from the use of those
resources, and trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In particular, it
acknowledges that poor countries cannot meet their commitments to preserve biodiversity
unless the developed nations provide them with access to biotechnologies and the
related financing. Biodiversity will unavoidably be depleted through overuse if the
current co-existence of unsustainable lifestyles and unacceptable poverty continues,
and if the means of subsistence of families putting strains on resources are not
strengthened.
The CBD has first and foremost been an effective awareness-raising tool. Political
leaders, the media and the general public now know that taking from nature without
restraint jeopardizes humanity’s security. Many states have changed their national
laws to create or strengthen mechanisms to manage biodiversity. The convention has
also lent support to the idea that preserving species with their natural habitats
and enlisting the local people’s support in managing them are vital priorities.
The convention has also prompted over 130 States to adopt a protocol last January
29, 2000 in Montreal (Canada) on biosafety in order to regulate international trade
in GMOs. The negotiations led to a stand-off between the European Union and the “Miami
Group”, consisting of the leading GMO producing countries led by the United States,
Argentina and Canada. According to the text eventually adopted, countries may oppose
GMO imports deemed hazardous for the environment or health by invoking the principle
of precaution—in other words, without necessarily having irrefutable scientific proof
that they are dangerous. However, the issue of whether the protocol overrides the
rules of the World Trade Organization (the WTO, which so far has not recognized the
principle of precaution) remains to be settled. Only a specific dispute brought before
the WTO will show whether the protocol has any teeth.
The CBD has certainly enabled progress, but the funding of conservation projects
is far from guaranteed. Development aid has been steadily declining since 1992. The
Global Environment Facility in charge of, among other things, managing international
financing for biodiversity, has received and distributed about $2 billion in 10 years.
Protecting
traditional knowledge
Lastly and,
most importantly, scant political effort has been focused on guaranteeing a fair
share of biodiversity’s benefits. Many developing countries continue to denounce
what they call “biopiracy” by the governments and companies of the North, which collect
their biological resources for commercial purposes. There is an urgent need to take
steps that would acknowledge and compensate the inestimable contribution of indigenous
rural families to the conservation and improvement of the planet’s genetic resources.
That task requires changing intellectual property rules. They are currently being
revised in the framework of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
agreement, which regulates biotechnology patents and new varieties of crops. The
system in force, based on individually-owned private property, is unsuitable for
protecting indigenous people’s collective traditional knowledge. The World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), which has launched a study on the need to recognize
their rights, is likely to help identify alternative solutions. Next, the international
community must carry out a crucial task: drafting and adopting a protocol on agrobiodiversity
that would protect traditional knowledge and farmers’ rights over plant genomes.
|
