The Biodiversity Convention: 10 years on

Elizabeth Bravo *

At the Earth Summit in Rio ten years ago, the Biodiversity Convention was all people could talk about. There was something in it for everyone. Governments would benefit from becoming recognised as ‘owners' of their genetic resources; local people from their role as custodians; companies from new profits to be made; and the whole world from novel medicines and other products. To cap it all, the world's biodiversity would be protected and conserved. Ten years on, the pictures is not quite as rosy, says Elizabeth Bravo.

Ten years after Rio, the destruction of biodiversity continues unabated. In the case of the three Andean countries – Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia – oil-drilling licenses have continued to be handed out in protected natural areas, directly threatening the biodiversity they support. New dams and mining projects are doing the same. In farming, the newest threat to agricultural biodiversity is the appearance of genetically-modified crops on a commercial scale. These introductions are having a serious impact, contaminating traditional maize varieties in Mexico (the centre of origin of this species), as well as threatening wild biodiversity, such as many species of butterflies.

So what has the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) actually done? The CBD identifies three key elements in its concept of biodiversity: ecosystems, species and genes. This article explains how the Convention, ten years later, has become a mechanism for marketing these three elements. The logic for this is that without economic incentives, the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is impossible.

1) The ecosystem approach

The ecosystem approach is a biodiversity management proposal which seeks to incorporate the Convention's three objectives:

• the conservation of biodiversity,
• its sustainable use, and
• the equitable distribution of benefits

The ecosystem approach makes a departure from what is sees as the historical tendency to manage biodiversity in the categories of “protected” and “non-protected” areas. It argues for a shift towards seeing the biodiversity playing field as a continuum ranging from strict protection to totally human- made ecosystems. While conserving islands of biodiversity is clearly not desirable, this new approach also raises problems. While in the past protected areas were really no guarantee for biodiversity conservation, the destruction of these areas could at least be targeted with legal actions and protests. Some decisions or policies that put biodiversity at risk could be reverted.

In an ideal world, protected areas would not be needed. Public policies would respect local populations and traditional life styles would be accomodated. There would be no promotion of activities like like mining, oil drilling and intensive lumber extraction in biodiversity-rich areas and no highways would be built to make such activities viable. Living conditions in all areas of the country would be such that people would not be forced to migrate and colonise forest areas. In this sort of world, the work of conserving biodiversity would be much simpler and produce better results. But in the real world that the CBD is responding to, the ecosystem approach approach allows interventions in all fragile areas, justifying such action by the concept of “sustainable use.”

One problem is understanding what “sustainable use” means. Industry periodically produces reports on clean and sustainable production. Initiatives have been launched like the Global Compact, where companies propose voluntary codes of conduct to ensure sustainable development. But these initiatives are meaningless. One company that signed on to the Global Compact is Shell, which is wreaking environmental havoc all over the world, such as in the Niger River delta in West Africa.

There is also talk about balancing the three objectives of the CBD. Who sets this balance? In Ecuador, for example, the government has set as a national priority, above conservation, the construction of an oil pipeline that crosses eleven protected areas and several cities, including the capital, Quito. The plan would allow the extraction of non-renewable resources and lumber from tropical forests, and the establishment of ‘green' shrimp farms, in these so-called ‘protected' areas.

Close your eyes and hope for the best …..

The ecosystem approach calls for a process of loosening up decision-making processes in ecosystem management. It proposes replacing long-term decisions with short-term decisions. It has been precisely this short-sightedness that has endangered our ecosystems, and this kind of decision has always been criticised by environmental movements. The ecosystem approach proposes to “learn by doing,” in the absence of cause-and-effect scientific evidence regarding the impacts of a given practice on an ecosystem. This is the anti-precautionary principle.
Precaution is needed when two circumstances are present: the lack of scientific certainty and the threat of damage. Some say that the precautionary principle should only be used where there is a danger of grave and irreversible damage, but this approximation ignores the cumulative effects of some activities, which may not be obvious with short-term vision. It also ignores the complexity of some ecosystems, such as tropical rainforests. The adoption of the precautionary principle was no doubt the most important achievement at Rio, but it is not being practised. Instead the mantra of “learn by doing” is allowing the extraction of resources to go unchallenged.

Welcome to the money-go-round

The ecosystem approach also introduced a market-based approach to biodiversity conservation, which has profoundly affected the way biodiversity is viewed and managed. The CBD talks of:

• reducing market distortions that adversely affect biodiversity,
• promoting incentives for its sustainable use and conservation, and
• internalising the costs and benefits to the ecosystem as much as possible.

The CBD proposes that we start measuring the value of ecosystems. This raises the problem of categorising as “goods and services” the protection of river basins, a balanced climate, biodiversity, and so on. A “good” is something that can easily become a piece of merchandise, and all merchandise in the globalised world can be privatised, in order to “provide better quality” to users. One very important question we should ask is whether the marketing of ecosystem goods and services is an appropriate means for assuring their conservation.

The privatisation of natural areas, or at least of their administration, is already a fact in some countries. Moreover, with negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and with the inclusion of services in negotiations on the Free Trade Area for the Americas, ecosystems can be made to fit right into the package of tradable goods and services. In the last WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha, a debate was opened regarding the reduction or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental good and services for the next Ministerial meeting, in Cancun. This was ratified in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
Sharing the benefits
The ecosystem approach also proposes a “benefit-sharing” mechanism. Ever since this concept began to be developed, false expectations in local communities have given rise to divisions and breakdowns within traditional organisations. Most of the time, benefits are strictly economic, although there is occasional talk of small infrastructure projects such as schools (with no teachers or books), health clinics (with no medicine or doctor), which are needs that should really be met by governments. Many of these benefit-sharing promises are not kept, thus generating new conflicts.

2) The species approach: Biotrade

The Biotrade Initiative was launched by UNCTAD (the UN Conference on Trade and Development) at the CBD's Third Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in 1996. Biotrade's mission is to stimulate investment and trade in biological resources, in line with the CBD's three objectives. The objective is to take advantage of new investment and market opportunities, which have appeared with the emerging market for biodiversity-based goods and services, particularly in the biotechnology industry. The components of biodiversity and the life itself become “products and services” in the Biotrade Initiative, thus raising the same issues discussed in the preceding section.

One of the initiative's objectives is to change consumption patterns in industrialised countries and in the urban areas of developing countries, by promoting greater acceptance of bioproducts. This is a market niche that has traditionally been occupied by small farmers using alternative approaches. Such marketing experiences have had little impact on local economies or resources. Today the proposal is to put those products on global markets, thus creating major distortions in local economies and pressure on genetic resources. Amongst the services targeted to be turned into commodities are river basins, carbon sinks, ecotourism and bioprospecting. Products envisaged for these markets include natural dyes and paints, essential oils, biochemicals, medicinal extracts and final products such as lumber, handicrafts, nuts, fruit, perfume and medicines.

The Biotrade Initiative brings together the private sector, public agencies, indigenous and local communities, along with other players. The CBD is also a partner in the initiative. One Biotrade project, the Bolsa Amazonica program, was launched as a joint venture between UNCTAD and a Brazilian NGO called Poema in 1998. Poema's objective is to promote ecological conservation through the development of commercial activities. One example of this kind of partnership was established by Poema with the Brazilian affiliate of Daimler Benz AG/Mercedes Benz, which included research on fibres, dyes, oils, latex and resins for the automobile industry, as well as a pilot plant to make automobile parts such as seats, using coconut fibres and latex. Other ‘biotrade-like' initiatives are also being set up, such as Corprobio in Ecuador, which was dreamt up by the government to market the country's biodiversity.

3) The gene approach: bioprospecting

In no field does the issue of marketing life arise as clearly as it does with genes. Genes convey the genetic information that determines an organism's traits. This genetic information can be very valuable, especially to the biotechnology industry. The issue of access to genetic resources has focused much of the CBD's attention. The proposal is to market the genetic information derived from biodiversity, plus the traditional knowledge that comes with it. Countries that are the source of genetic resources and parties to the Convention are obliged to assure that their policies and their administrative, legal and institutional activities do not impose restrictions running contrary to the CBD's objective of facilitating access to genetic resources. As compensation, the CBD speaks of equitably sharing with the country of origin the benefits generated from the use of genetic resources (CBD article 15), as well as with indigenous and local communities when traditional knowledge is involved (CBD article 8j). The CBD stipulates that states must guarantee access to genetic resources, but that they can establish mutually agreed terms between the parties (the country delivering the genetic goods and the country that takes them).

To deal with these issues, a bilateral agreement based on voluntary guidelines is currently being developed by the CBD. An Expert Group on Access and Benefit Sharing has identified short-, medium- and long-term elements, including:

• payment at the moment that access occurs of an agreed-upon sum, or royalties,
• sharing the benefits that arise from the marketing of products derived from access,
• joint-venture agreements.

Non-monetary benefits are also listed, including:

• the conservation of biodiversity,
• capacity building,
• technology transfer, including biotechnology,
• participation in research,
• the possibility of social projects such as schools and other infrastructure works.

The expert group acknowledges the need for intellectual property rights and calls on the World Intellectual Property Organisation to report to the CBD on its progress on matters involving the protection of traditional knowledge. The group recommends that voluntary guidelines should assure access to genetic resources and an equitable distribution of benefits to help conserve biodiversity, along with the promotion of technology transfer. There are other initiatives underway as well at the CBD, such as the “Global Taxonomy Initiative,” which is intended to collect material for non-commercial use. This working group is supposedly seeking more flexible access and benefit-sharing standards, but it is important to recall that taxonomic research has historically being one of the gateways for the flight of genetic material.

Meanwhile, the British government has also advanced a proposal involving botanical gardens, through a model Material Transfer Agreement for the provision of genetic resources to these institutions. For these agreements to offer an “achievable” solution, the approach should be voluntary and proactive, “so that botanical gardens can truly contribute to the conservation and sustainable development of biodiversity, respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities through the equitable sharing of benefits.” That is the theory, but we cannot ignore the fact that many botanical gardens are involved in bioprospecting. We should also remember that it was through this proposal's ultimate author, the Kew Royal Botanical Garden, that centuries ago bioprospecting activities by the British empire took genetic material from South America to British colonies, putting an end to the rubber economy in Brazil, cocoa in Ecuador, and so on.

The Cancun Declaration

One recent event in this context was the meeting of Environmental Ministers from 12 “megadiverse” countries in Cancun, Mexico, in February 2002 (see p 31). They stressed that in addition to the environmental services provided by biodiversity, it also has a strategic, economic and social value and that it offers a development opportunity for nations' peoples and for the international community.

The megadiverse countries recognise the new economic value acquired by biodiversity through its use as genetic resources, especially for biotechnology. To achieve an equitable sharing of benefits from the use of biodiversity, they identify the need to establish mutually agreed terms as a prerequisite for the granting of patents. They also recognise the importance of private enterprise in actions to be taken to achieve CBD principles and in managing the “natural capital” of megadiverse countries. They propose the conversion of innovations by indigenous and local communities into commercial projects and the consideration by current intellectual property systems of traditional knowledge. In Johannesburg at the World Summit for Sustainable Development, the group was established as a permanent nego-tiating group.

In response to all this, we can only wonder whether the CBD's recognition of countries' sovereignty over their biodiversity and genetic resources was a step forward or backwards, vis-à-vis the marketing of life. It all depends on what one means by sovereignty, which can be taken to be:

• the existence of a state that organises access to genetic resources for the transnational corporations that industrialise life, or
• a state that, in the name of an entire nation, defends collective interests including the rights of future generations, food security, public health, improved quality of life and the conservation of natural resources.

Globalisation has had a tremendous impact on the concepts of state and sovereignty. Today it is the transnational corporations that decide on the use of natural resources. They have taken from the state the ultimate authority to decide upon and to watch over the interests of its citizens. We now have, on the one hand, governments with no rights but with a surplus of responsibilities, and on the other hand corporations supported by international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO enjoying absolute rights without responsibilities. The WTO has emerged as the most powerful economic agency in the world. Many policy-making areas formerly under the sovereignty of national states are now controlled by the WTO, which is imposing the adoption of laws by member states that affect their economic, social and cultural affairs. The World Bank and the IMF, meanwhile, have imposed structural adjustment measures, making it difficult for states to carry out their responsibilities to sovereignly represent and oversee national interests. Environmental conventions such as the CBD are also being subordinated to the WTO.

It is our responsibility in organised civil society to restore the true meaning of “sovereignty.” Public interests must not be confused with state interests, particularly when states are under the control of corporate lobbies. Defence of the public interest is the foundation of sovereignty, and this must be exercised through drawing up and implementing appropriate biodiversity policies, subject to grass-roots, bottom-up controls. As for sovereignty over resources found in indigenous territories, many more countries need to follow Ecuador's example. Ecuador's laws somewhat unus-ually recognise the right of indigenous peoples and nationalities to decide on the development model they wish to adopt on their own lands, on their natural resources and on biodiversity. These rights have also been recognised by the International Labour Organisation's Convention 169.

Main sources:

Comunidad Andina, Second Workshop on “Conservación de Ecosistemas Transfronterizos y Especies Amenazadas,” Final Report, Lima, 26-28 March 2001.

Comunidad Andina, Visión de la Región Andina Sobre Conservación y Uso Sostenible de Sistemas Transfronterizos y Especies Amenazadas al 2010, Lima, 26-28 March 2001.

CBD, Decision V/6. Ecosystem Approach. Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing. Bonn, 22-26 October 2001. http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/

CBD, Results of the Pilot Project for Botanic Gardens: Principles on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing, Common Policy Guidelines to Assist with their Implementation and Explanatory Text submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom. Bonn, 22-26 October 2001. http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/conservation/agrbs-policy.html

CBD, Access and Benefit-Sharing and the Global Taxonomy Initiative. Bonn, 22- 26 October 2001. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.asp?wg=ABSWG-01

The Cancun Declaration of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries, Cancun, Mexico, 18 February 2002. http://www.megadiverse.com/armado%20ingles/PDF/three/three1.pdf.

The Biotrade Initiative website: http://www.biotrade.org. Last Updated 2/10/00.

Elizabeth Bravo Elizabeth Bravo is a member of Acción Ecológica, a political pressure group in Ecuador. Acción Ecológica works for sust-ainability, collective rights and food sovereignty, by confronting the main ob-stacles which stand in the way of these goals. It focuses on the activities of the oil, mining and timber industries, and fights agai-nst the privatisation of life, seeds and water from a Third World perspective. Contact Acción Ecológica, Casilla 17-15-246-6, Quito, Ecuador, Tel: + 593 254 7516/+593 252 7583; E-mail: [email protected]