the convention on biological diversity: the next phase

Volume 6 Issue 3 1997 CBD: The Next Phase

Sam Johnston

Introduction

In a world of increasing globalization and environmentaldegradation, biological diversity is one of the outstand-ing issues which humankind has to address in order tosurvive. It is of common concern to all of us and there-fore not surprising that biological diversity is, along withclimate change, addressed by the international com-munity not only in political but also in legal terms. TheConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)1 is an inter-national treaty with near universal membership. Itentered into force nearly 4 years ago and now has estab-lished most of the elements required to be operational.Attention within the process is now moving towardsimplementation, with the impending review of the oper-ations of the Convention at the fourth meeting of theConference of the Parties (COP) in May 1998 marking animportant development in this transition.

By way of context and in order to understand the issuesat stake in this move towards implementation, this arti-cle will briefly describe the importance of biodiversityand the history of the Convention. It will then elaborateon the provisions of the Convention, its institutionalstructure and the processes on substantive elementswhich the Parties have initiated to develop the substan-tive provisions of the Convention. The last and mostextensive section of this article will reflect in detail onthis transition from establishment to implementationwithin the Convention process. In particular, this articlewill consider three of the most important elements inthis dynamic: the review of the institutional structure ofthe Convention, what has become to be known as themodus operandi of the Convention; the development ofthe responsibilities of the Parties; and the ecosystemapproach, which forms the underlying philosophy ofthe Convention.

Background

The term ‘biological diversity’ is used to describe thenumber and variety of living organisms. It is defined in

219

terms of genes, species and ecosystems which are theoutcome of over 3,000 million years of evolution.Although the concept is poorly understood in terms ofnumbers of species and genes, or even what an eco-system exactly is, it is widely accepted that globally, bio-logical diversity is being lost at all levels. For example,current rates of extinction of species are unprecedented,which in turn directly diminishes genetic variability. Eco-systems around the world are under increasing pressurefrom human activities.

Biological diversity supports society in many importantand real ways. Food security, climatic stability, fresh-water security and the health needs of humans aroundthe world all depend directly upon maintaining andusing the world’s biological diversity. More than 40% ofthe world’s economy and some 80% of the needs of theworld’s poor are derived from biological diversity. Lossof biological diversity threatens these services andconsequently society generally.

Accordingly, the United Nations Conference on HumanEnvironment held in Stockholm in 1972 identified as apriority the need for the conservation of biological diver-sity. The Action Plan in Programme Development andPriorities adopted in 1973 at the first session of UNEP’sGoverning Council identified the ‘conservation of nature,wildlife and genetic resources’ as a priority area. Thenumber of international legal instruments related to bio-logical diversity adopted during the 1970s reflects sucha priority. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of Inter-national Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar Convention),2 the Convention for the Protectionof the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heri-tage Convention),3 the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES)4 and the Bonn Convention on the Conservationof Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)5 are a testi-mony to these efforts and the importance attached tothe issues by the international community. These earlyinitiatives, however, initially emphasized conservation.It soon became apparent that conservation alone wouldnot arrest the decline of biological diversity and thatpolicies which addressed the totality of society’s interac-

CBD: The Next Phase Volume 6 Issue 3 1997

tion with biological diversity were needed. Our CommonFuture, the 1987 report of the World Commission onEnvironment and Development, and the UNEPreport,Global Environment Perspective to the Year 2000,stressed the new challenge facing conservation and sus-tainable use.

The origin of the negotiations for the Convention lies inthe 1987 Governing Council Decision 14/26 of UNEP,which called upon UNEP to convene an Ad Hoc WorkingGroup of Experts on Biological Diversity for the harmon-ization of the existing conventions related to biologicaldiversity. At its first meeting, the Group of Expertsagreed on the need to elaborate an internationally bind-ing instrument on biological diversity. In May 1989, anAd Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversitywas established to prepare an international legal instru-ment for the conservation and sustainable use of biologi-cal diversity, taking into account ‘the need to share costsand benefits between developed and developing coun-tries and the ways and means to support innovation bylocal people’. The Ad Hoc Working Group, which becameto be known in February 1991 as the IntergovernmentalNegotiating Committee (INC), held seven working ses-sions which culminated in the adoption of the NairobiFinal Act of the Conference for the Adoption of theAgreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened forsignature on 5 June 1992 during the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development (UNCED),where it was signed by 152 states and the EuropeanUnion. The Convention entered into force on 29December 1993, ninety days after the thirtieth ratifi-cation was deposited with the Secretary General of theUnited Nations: the Depository. As of 1 August 1997, 168countries and the EU have ratified the Convention anda further 18 countries have signed it.

Provisions and Structure ofthe Convention

The principal objectives of the CBD are the conser-vation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of thebenefits of the use of genetic resources. The Conventionrecognizes that the key to maintaining biological diver-sity depends upon using this diversity in a sustainablemanner. A central purpose of the CBD is to promote theconcept of sustainable development as envisaged in theinstruments arising from the UNCED process, with whichthe CBD was negotiated contemporaneously. The CBD istherefore not simply a conservation treaty: it assumeshuman use and benefit as the fundamental purpose forachieving its objectives. This approach is reflected in theMinisterial Declaration, adopted at the first meeting ofthe COP, held in December 1994, which regarded theConvention ‘as a treaty with a global vision based oncommon concern, mutual reliance and fair and equitablesharing of benefits’. They considered the Convention ‘asmuch more than just a set of rights and obligations. Itis a global partnership with new approaches for conser-vation and development’.

220

The Convention translates its guiding principles of con-servation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of thebenefits of the use of genetic resources into binding com-mitments in its normative provisions contained in Art-icles 6 to 20. These articles contain key provisions on:measures for the conservation of biological diversity,both in-situ and ex-situ; incentives for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity; furtherresearch; education; assessing the environmentalimpacts of projects; regulating access to geneticresources and the technology to use these resources;and finally, financial resources. The Convention alsoestablishes the standard institutional elements of a mod-ern treaty, namely a COP, a Secretariat, advisory bodies,a clearing-house mechanism and a financial mechanism.

Institutional Structure of the ConventionArticle 23 establishes a COP, which is the supreme bodyof the Convention. The principal function of the COP isto regularly review the implementation of the Conven-tion. In particular the COP is established to consider andadopt amendments to the Convention; establish suchsubsidiary bodies, particularly to provide scientific andtechnical advice, as are deemed necessary for theimplementation of the Convention; consider any infor-mation provided by such subsidiary bodies, as well asreports by the Parties to the Convention as required byArticle 26; and contact, through the Secretariat, theexecutive bodies of conventions dealing with matterscovered by the CBD with a view to establishing appropri-ate forms of co-operation with them. Article 23 requiresthe COP to meet on a regular basis. To date the COP hasmet three times: in the Bahamas from 28 November 1994to 9 December 1994; in Jakarta from 6 November to 17November 1995; and in Buenos Aires from 4 Novemberto 15 November 1996. Its fourth meeting is planned tobe held in Bratislava from 4 to 15 May 1998. It is likelythat future COPs will be held on a biannual basis.

Article 24 establishes a Secretariat whose principal func-tions are to prepare for and service meetings of the COPand other subsidiary bodies of the Convention and toco-ordinate with other relevant international bodies. Thehost institution of the permanent Secretariat is UNEP.The Secretariat currently has 55 staff positions and islocated in Montreal.

Article 25 establishes an open-ended intergovernmentalscientific advisory body called the Subsidiary Body onScientific, Technical and Technological Advice(SBSTTA). SBSTTA is a subsidiary body of the COP andis to report regularly to the COP on all aspects of itswork. Its functions include: providing assessments of thestatus of biological diversity; assessments of the typesof measures taken in accordance with the provisions ofthe Convention; and responding to questions that theCOP may put to the body. The SBSTTA has met threetimes: in Paris from 4 to 8 September 1995; in Montrealfrom 2 to 6 September 1996 and in Montreal from1 to 4 September 1997. The SBSTTA develops much ofits advice intersessionally through the use of smallgroups of experts. For example, the preparations on mar-ine and coastal biodiversity, forests, and indicators for


the last meeting have all benefited from such a mech-anism.

Article 21 establishes a mechanism for the provision offinancial resources to developing countries for the pur-poses of the Convention. Under Article 20, developedcountries undertake to provide ‘new and additional fin-ancial resources to enable developing country Parties tomeet the agreed full incremental cost’ of implementingthe obligations of the Convention. Article 39 appointedthe Global Environment Facility (GEF) on an interimbasis to operate the financial mechanism of the Conven-tion. The mechanism is to function under the authorityand guidance of, and be accountable to, the COP. Thefirst meeting of the COP adopted guidance for the finan-cial mechanism. This guidance has been refined at eachof the subsequent meetings of the COP. As of 1 May 1997the financial mechanism has approved 87 projects witha total commitment of over US$511 million. Pursuant toArticle 20(3) developed country Parties may also pro-vide such financial resources through bilateral andmultilateral channels.

Paragraph 3 of Article 18 anticipated the establishmentof a clearing-house mechanism to promote and facilitatetechnical and scientific co-operation. A Pilot Phase of themechanism has duly been established pursuant toDecisions I/3 and II/3 of the Conference of the Parties.

The nature of the issues which the Convention seeks toaddress means that it is heavily dependant for its effec-tiveness on the actions of Parties and other institutions.The need to develop institutional links with other inter-national bodies, to develop co-operative relationshipswith such bodies and hence mechanisms for co-ordinat-ing these relationships, is fundamental to the implemen-tation of the CBD. The importance of co-operation andco-ordination between the CBD and other conventions,institutions and processes of relevance has beenaffirmed at every meeting of the COP. Consequently, itis not accurate to simply think of the institutional struc-ture of the Convention in terms of those institutionsestablished by the process itself.

The most important example of the role that externalbodies play in the institutional structure of the Conven-tion, yet one which is often overlooked in descriptions ofthe Convention’s institutions, is the financial mechanismwhich in institutional terms is largely housed in the GEFand its Implementing Agencies: UNEP, UNDP and theWorld Bank.

Institutional links have been established with a widerange of other bodies as well. The Secretariat of the CBDhas participated in the Inter-Agency Task Force of theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development (IACSD)of the United Nations.

Agreements to provide a framework for developing insti-tutional links and co-operation with other bodies havebeen concluded between the Secretariat of the CBD andthe Secretariats of the Ramsar Convention, CITES, CMS,the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the

221

World Bank, IUCN – the World Conservation Union andthe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), amongstothers.

The COP has regularly adopted decisions directed toother processes and invited them to take an active rolein implementing aspects of the Convention. For example,the third meeting of the COP invited the Ramsar Conven-tion to co-operate as a lead partner in the implemen-tation of activities under the CBD related to wetlands.Consequently, the Ramsar Bureau has played animportant role in the preparations for the considerationof the biological diversity of inland waters for the forth-coming COP. As a result, it is expected that the pro-gramme of work which the COP may establish to addressthe issue will invite the support and participation of theRamsar Convention process.

The full breadth, scope and complexity of these relation-ships is explored in greater detail in Lee Kimball’s articlein this issue.6 The point of raising them in this contextis not to analyze them but simply to note that theseother bodies are looked to as forming an integral part ofthe institutional structure of the Convention.

Substantive Elements of the ConventionThe Parties have moved rapidly not only to establish theinstitutional framework of the Convention, but have alsobegun to establish a number of processes to develop thesubstantive elements of the Convention. These include:the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on Bio-safety to negotiate the first protocol to the CBD; pro-grammes of work on various thematic areas such ascoastal and marine biodiversity, forest biodiversity andagricultural biodiversity; and an international process tofurther consider the rights of indigenous and local com-munities under the CBD.

BiosafetyDespite the considerable benefits which biotechnologymay bring, the technology does also have the potentialto cause harm to the environment and human health.Mindful of these dangers the COP established an Ad HocWorking Group on Biosafety to develop an inter-nationally legally binding protocol, specifically focusingon the transboundary movement of any living modifiedorganism resulting from biotechnology that may have anadverse impact on the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity. The Group met in July 1996 and May1997. It is planned to meet in October 1997 and a suf-ficient number of times in 1998 to complete its workthat year.7

At the meeting in May 1997, the Group discussed a rangeof topics which it considered central to the protocol,including procedures for the transfer of living modifiedorganisms (LMOs), the Advanced Informed Agreement(AIA) process, information sharing, competent auth-orities, risk assessment and risk management. Draftelements papers were developed on these items whichare intended to form the framework for government sub-missions of draft text for consideration at the next meet-ing of the Group. The Secretariat was instructed to


develop draft articles on the financial mechanism, insti-tutional framework, jurisdictional scope and relationshipwith other international instruments. The next meetingof the Group will also discuss socio-economic issuesassociated with the proposed regime.

Marine and Coastal BiodiversityThe second meeting of the COP instigated a programmeof work, known as the Jakarta Mandate, which proposesa framework for global action to maintain marine andcoastal biodiversity.8 The Jakarta Mandate identified 5thematic programmes areas which will be the focus offurther attention in the CBD process. They are: inte-grated marine and coastal area management; marine andcoastal protected areas; sustainable use of coastal andmarine living resources; mariculture; and alien species.The Mandate also established an intersessional pro-cedure to further develop its principles centred aroundthe development of a roster of experts which are to meetand assist the Secretariat in the development andimplementation of the programme of work.

The first meeting of experts took place in Indonesia inMarch 1997 and agreed upon conclusions and rec-ommendations covering: implementation of marine andcoastal activities; applications of the precautionaryapproach to biodiversity impacts; implementation ofintegrated marine and coastal area management; defin-ing a ‘healthy ecosystem’; regional implementationcapacity; open oceans ecosystems; and eco-labelling.

The meeting identified elements of a three-year workprogramme, including time frames and ways and means.The elements are: evaluation of the precautionaryapproach as applied to the conservation and sustainableuse of marine and coastal biological diversity; integratedmarine and coastal area management; marine and coas-tal living resources; marine and coastal protected areas;mariculture; alien species; and general elements.

ForestsForests provide the most diverse sets of habitats forplants, animals and micro-organisms, holding the vastmajority of the world’s terrestrial species. Consequently,the maintenance of forest ecosystems is crucial to theconservation of biological diversity and degradation offorests has a dramatic impact on biodiversity. Theimportance of forests for the purposes of the Conventionand the mandate of the CBD in issues of forest biologicaldiversity has been confirmed repeatedly by the COP.

The third meeting of the COP requested the ExecutiveSecretary to develop a focused work programme for for-est biological diversity. The optional elements for sucha work programme should initially focus on research, co-operation and the development of technologies neces-sary for the conservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity. The programme should also takeaccount, and complement the work of, relevant inter-national fora, and facilitate the application and inte-gration of the objectives of the CBD in the sustainablemanagement of forests at the national, regional and glo-bal levels, in accordance with the ecosystem approach.The SBSTTA has been requested to contribute advice on

222

the draft programme and report back to the fourth meet-ing of the COP. Parties have been encouraged to activelyassist the Executive Secretary in carrying out this work.9

The COP also noted that the implementation of forestconservation and sustainable use policies depends, interalia, on the level of public awareness and policies out-side the forest sector and recognized the vital roleplayed by forest ecosystems for many indigenous andlocal communities.10

The programme will also complement existing national,regional or international criteria and indicator frame-works for sustainable forest management; and incorpor-ate traditional systems of forest biological diversity con-servation. This will build upon the co-operation withother relevant fora that the CBD has already undertaken.For example, the CBD has actively participated in theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) established bythe CSD. The second meeting of the COP issued a state-ment to the IPF on biological diversity and forests whichnoted that more effort on biological diversity wasneeded in research, training and other capacity-buildingactivities. Important topics include development of poli-cies, criteria and indicators, methodologies and techno-logies for sustainable forest management, and theimpact of utilization of components of biological diver-sity, particularly those under threat, on ecological pro-cesses.11 The COP has instructed the SBSTTA to under-take work on these topics. The CBD Secretariat has beenactively involved in the work of the Inter-agency TaskForce of the IPF, mainly through providing advice andinformation on the relationship between indigenous andlocal communities and forests as invited by the Inter-agency Task Force of the IPF.12

AgriculturePromoting sustainable agriculture and rural develop-ment have been acknowledged within the CBD as centralto achieving the aims of the CBD. This is due to theimportance of maintaining agricultural biological diver-sity for ensuring sustainable use of biological diversity,and the dramatic impact that unsustainable agriculturepractises have had on biodiversity generally. Forexample, deforestation of the Amazon basin, an issuewhich dramatically raised awareness of the loss of biodi-versity, was in part due to land conversion for unsus-tainable cattle ranching in the region. More importantly,food security is being threatened by the rapid loss ofagricultural biodiversity.

The third meeting of the COP established a multi-yearprogramme of activities to arrest the decline of agricul-tural biodiversity. The objectives of the work pro-gramme are: first, to promote the positive effects andmitigate the negative impacts of agricultural practices onbiological diversity in agro-ecosystems and their inter-face with other ecosystems; second, to promote the con-servation and sustainable use of genetic resources ofactual or potential value for food and agriculture; andthird, to promote the fair and equitable sharing of bene-fits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

Parties have been requested to identify and assess rel-evant ongoing activities and existing instruments at the


national level and to identify issues and priorities thatneed to be addressed at the national level and to reportback to the COP, which several Parties have alreadydone. Parties have also been encouraged to use and/orstudy and develop methods and indicators to monitorthe impacts of agricultural development projects, includ-ing the intensification and extension of production sys-tems, on biological diversity and to promote their appli-cation.13 Countries are also invited to share case-studyexperiences addressing the conservation and sus-tainable use of agricultural biological diversity, which,among other ways of sharing information, should beposted through the clearing-house mechanism.

The COP, recognizing the central role that the FAO hasto play in this area, has sought to work closely with theirprogrammes. For example, the COP delivered a state-ment to the Fourth International Technical Conferenceon the Conservation and Utilization of Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture.14 Furthermore, theExecutive Secretary has been requested to identify andassess relevant ongoing activities and existing instru-ments at the international level, in close collaborationwith the FAO, other relevant United Nations bodies andinternational organizations.

The clearing-house mechanism shall be used to promoteand facilitate the development and transfer of tech-nology relevant to the conservation and sustainable useof agricultural biological diversity by facilitating con-tacts among groups needing solutions to specific prob-lems. These groups include holders of technologiesdeveloped and maintained by all sources, technology-transfer brokers and, enabling agencies which fund tech-nology transfer. The COP requested the FAO to considerthe need to strengthen capacity-building, in particular indeveloping countries.15 Parties have also been encour-aged to work towards the empowerment of their indigen-ous and local communities and to build their capacityfor in-situ conservation and management of agriculturalbiological diversity, building on the indigenous knowl-edge systems. Parties should also make efforts tostrengthen capacity to develop new crops and varietiesthat are specifically adapted to local environments.16

Article 8(j)Indigenous and local communities have been deve-loping, conserving and using the biological resources ontheir lands and territories in a sustainable manner formillennia, and consequently have a vital role to play inachieving the objectives of the CBD. The CBD recognizesthe importance of indigenous and local communities tothe conservation and sustainable use of biological diver-sity in several of its provisions. These stress the rightfor indigenous and local communities to share in thebenefits derived from ideas and innovations they havedeveloped that prove useful to others and calls uponParties to respect, protect and encourage customary useof biological resources. As a result, indigenous and localcommunities have actively participated in the CBDprocess.

The third meeting of the COP stressed the need for Par-ties to implement the relevant provisions of the CBD and

223

initiated an intergovernmental process to furtherdevelop these provisions. As part of this intersessionalprocess, the Executive Secretary has been requested toarrange a five-day meeting of the Parties and other parti-cipants before the fourth meeting of the COP.

Parties have been encouraged to conduct case studiesof the relationships between intellectual property rightsand the knowledge, practices and innovations of indigen-ous and local communities.17 Parties have also beeninvited to share experiences on incentive measures andmake relevant case studies available to the Secretariat.Parties are also encouraged to promote the mobilizationof farming communities, including indigenous and localcommunities, for the development, maintenance and useof their knowledge and practices in the conservation anduse of biological diversity in the agricultural sector.18

Parties are encouraged to develop national strategies,programmes and plans which, inter alia, empower theirindigenous and local communities and build theircapacity for in-situ conservation and sustainable use andmanagement of agricultural biological diversity, buildingon the indigenous knowledge systems.19

The need for Parties to initiate projects on capacity-building with indigenous and local communities toaddress concerns in the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity, and of the equitable sharingof the benefits arising from the utilization of their knowl-edge, innovations and practices, has been emphasized.The financial mechanism has been requested to examinesupporting capacity-building projects for indigenous andlocal communities embodying traditional lifestyles rel-evant for the conservation and sustainable use of bio-logical diversity with their prior informed consent andtheir participation.20

Implementation: the NextPhase

It is evident that developments so far within the CBDprocess have been focused on establishing the insti-tutional structure and clarifying the scope of the Conven-tion. It is expected that this process of establishmentwill be largely completed by the results of the forth-coming COP in May 1998. The focus of the process there-after is expected to shift to implementing the COPdecisions and provisions of the Convention. In this light,the Convention process can be characterized as movingfrom an establishment phase, the dominant feature ofthe COP 1 to COP 4 period, into an implementation phasein the post COP 4 period.

The vast scope of the Convention and its emphasis onan integrated approach has meant that the agenda ofthe process has rapidly expanded. If this trend were tocontinue unabated then there will be a point where theprocess is so overburdened as to be ineffectual. Themost acute focus of threat is the operation of COP, as aconsequence of its position at the apex of the process.The challenge for the process as it moves into itsimplementation phase is to develop an approach which


will find a balance between pursuing a truly holistic andintegrative approach demanded by the Convention,whilst at the same time being focused enough to allowdevelopment of its provisions. The nature of the CBDprocess means that suggested solutions to this problemhave been described in terms of development of: theinternational institutional structure of the Convention;the responsibilities of the Parties; and a clear philosophi-cal basis or intellectual modus operandi for the process.All of these approaches are essentially intended toincrease the effectiveness of the Convention and conse-quently are inter-dependent. To develop any one aspectof these aspects of effectiveness at the expense of theother will in the end not provide an effective solution tothe issue. Whilst acknowledging the importance of thisinter-relatedness, for the sake of clarity the rest of thearticle will consider them separately.

The Review of the Institutional Structureof the ConventionThe agenda of the CBD has expanded to the point whereit is arguable that the international institutional struc-ture for the Convention is no longer adequate to copewith the demands of the process. Inadequate insti-tutional capacity hampers many parts of the inter-national community. The efforts of the UN Secretary-General to increase the efficiency and responsiveness ofthe UN is one of many manifestations of this issue. Moreefficient use of existing resources is the context in whichthe debate about effectiveness of international pro-cesses is being carried out throughout the internationalcommunity and is certainly evident in the discussionbeing carried out within the CBD process. The nature ofthe debate within the CBD is, however, wider than sim-ply identifying more efficient ways of undertaking thebusiness of developing the Convention. Parties are genu-inely contemplating the need for further institutionaldevelopment for the effective operation of the Conven-tion.

The fourth meeting of the COP will re-examine the insti-tutional structure of the Convention under the follow-ing headings:-

O the operations of the Conference of the Parties andits subsidiary bodies;

O the overall review of the medium-term programme ofwork for 1995-1997; and

O a longer term programme of work.

Parties, participants and other relevant institutions wereinvited by the last meeting of the COP to submit theirviews to the Executive Secretary on these matters. Fromthese submissions it is clear that this matter will be thesingle most important issue at the fourth meeting of theCOP. It is also clear that Parties will wish to considerthe matter in a broad, holistic and profound manner. Thesubmission from the UK Government, who will hold thePresidency of the EU at COP 4, described the prioritythey placed on the issue as follows ‘if the way in whichthe Convention organises its work programme is notmade as effective and efficient as possible, the overallimplementation of the Convention will be appreciablyweakened’. Similar sentiments have been expressed byother Parties.

224

Theoretically, it would be sensible to identify the needsof the Convention, in particular the programmes of workdeveloped for the above-mentioned ecosystems, andconstruct the institutional structure to meet them. Inreality, of course, much of the structure already existsin the form of the COP and other bodies. The reviewundertaken by the Parties at COP 4 will be within theparameters of this existing structure and initially, atleast, will consider practical ways that this existingstructure can be improved. In doing so the COP willdraw on other sources of relevant experience, mostparticularly other international environmental agree-ments such as the UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange (FCCC)21 and the Protocol on Substances thatDeplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol).22 The sub-missions received by the Secretariat so far have indi-cated that there are a number of common suggestionswhich appear to enjoy sufficient political support to beconsidered as viable alternatives and improvements.These suggestions are the subject of the following sec-tions.

The Conference of the PartiesAs the supreme body in the structure any considerationof the institutional structure of the Convention muststart with an examination of the COP. The central pur-pose of the COP as the supreme authority of the systemis to validate the work of the other parts of the system.It is the body which confers the necessary politicalendorsement of actions, decisions etc. which are neededto implement the Convention at the domestic and inter-national level. It need not negotiate every element of theactivities undertaken in the name of the Convention. Inorder to ensure that the entire system operates in aneffective and co-ordinated fashion the COP should con-centrate on delegating authority to other parts of thesystem, avoiding overlap and duplication, and monitorand review the execution of that delegation. As such, itscore functions must include being able to act as thepoint of contact, co-ordination and authority for all theother parts of the system. For reasons of efficiency itshould not micro-manage delegated authority.

Experience has demonstrated that the effectiveness ofthe COP is hampered by factors which can be summar-ized as follows: (1) the effectiveness of the meetings ofthe COP; (2) co-ordination of the internal institutionalbodies of the process; and (3) co-ordination of the exter-nal parts of the system.

With respect to the effectiveness of the meetings them-selves, there are a number of outstanding issues whichimpair the efficiency of the COP. First, the rules of pro-cedure governing the meetings of the COP have not beenfinalized, which not only affects meetings of the COP butall other subsidiary bodies as they apply these rules mut-atis mutandis. The most important lacuna relates to therules governing voting and the mechanism for assessingfinancial contributions. As a result, decision-making isconsensual, which, in a process with 169 Parties, makesfor a very low common denominator and a rather slowand cumbersome process. In the absence of a cleardecision on assessing contributions, the UN Scale ofAssessment is used as a default. This has resulted in a


discrepancy between the adopted budget and the actualbudget for the process, with detrimental consequencesfor planning the work of the process. Second, the Minis-terial Segment of the COP has in the past been organizedin such a way as to not take full advantage of the politicalweight and support that it could generate. Third, effec-tive consideration of all the issues on the meetingsagenda would be improved if several working groupscould operate in tandem during the meeting. Partici-pation of developing countries is limited and this meansthat there is a reluctance to entertain an expansion inthe number of working groups at a meeting of the COP.Fourth, in the past the pre-session documentation haslargely concentrated on providing background infor-mation on topics. It has not contained well developedrecommendations or costing of proposals. Allowing theSecretariat to develop such recommendations has raisedconcerns about the implications of having a proactiveSecretariat and the impact this might have on the locusof sovereignty in the process. Nevertheless, the absenceof this type of information in the documentation contrib-utes to the fact that concrete negotiations and decision-taking does not usually occur until the latter half ofthe meeting.

The above issues, although of importance, will not fun-damentally improve the operations of the process as awhole. The key issue for the effective functioning of theCOP is the overburdened agenda, which means thatdecision-making at meetings of the COP does not receiveadequate attention. To date the favoured approach withrespect to improving the extent that decisions of theCOP are properly considered involves the exercise ofgreater discipline with the agenda. This in turn is depen-dent upon a clearer prioritization of the issues taken upby the process. The approach taken to date has been toconcentrate on one thematic area for each COP. Whilehighlighting a particular ecosystem at a particular COPmay appear to add focus, in practice this approach hastended to increase the workload, since much of theagenda is still taken up with progress reports on pre-viously prioritized areas.

Suggestions as to how to achieve better prepared, infor-med and effective decisions by the COP include: greateruse of informal and ad hoc processes, such as the useof small groups of experts (called liaison groups withinthe Convention process); more use of experts throughan international system of rosters developed by the Sec-retariat; greater use of the bureaux of the various bodies;establishing an executive committee along the lines ofthe Montreal Protocol; establishing an open-ended inter-sessional intergovernmental body such as the SubsidiaryBody on Implementation (SBI) of the FCCC; changing thenature of the existing meetings of the SBSTTA and theregional preparatory meetings of the COP to be morelike a Preparatory Committee than they currently are. Atthe heart of these proposals is the idea that many mat-ters which have in the past come before the COP couldin fact be developed by subsidiary bodies, thereby focus-ing the work of the COP on those crucial matters forwhich a COP decision is absolutely necessary therebyimproving the efficiency of the process as a whole.

225

Expansion of intersessional activities ultimately can onlybe done if there is also development of more subsidiarybodies. The rapid development of such institutionswithin the FCCC and the Montreal Protocol processes isseen, not only as the precedent for this type of develop-ment in the CBD process, but as the inevitable pre-requi-site of effective international conventions. Developmentalong these lines would, however, demand greaterresources for the process. Given the current scarcity ofresources and the prevailing mood in the departmentsof finance throughout the developed country Parties itis likely that this approach will only provide a partialsolution to the problem.

Delegation to outside bodies is another institutionaldevelopment which would relieve the burden on theCOP. This idea is explored in more detail below and else-where in this issue of RECIEL. In this context, it shouldbe remembered that delegation to outside bodiespresents institutional problems and has many hiddencosts associated with managing the relationship.Another approach which will contribute to the focusingof the work and operation of the Convention isdeveloping the underlying philosophy of the Convention.Developments in this respect are described below in theconsideration of the ‘ecosystem’ approach. Fullydeveloping the role of Parties under the Convention isanother important way of relieving the burden on theCOP and is considered in the next section. Ultimately,however, these developments will only be effective if theCOP functions effectively.

SBSTTAIt is clear from the experience of the process so far thatincreasing the level of scientific and technical input intothe system would improve the effectiveness of the pro-cess. The principal body for bringing this type of infor-mation into the process is the SBSTTA. The experienceof the SBSTTA so far is that it has had difficulty indeveloping into a truly scientific and technical advisorybody for the COP. The structure of its meetings, as open-ended intergovernmental meetings, has meant that inmany respects SBSTTA has operated as a preparatorymeeting for the forthcoming COP. The experience ofother international environmental issues is that inter-national action has not been forthcoming until a certainlevel of consensus has been achieved regarding theunderlying scientific knowledge. The experience of theMontreal Protocol in regulating the production and con-sumption of CFCs is one of the better known examplesof this relationship. Suggestions which have beenreceived by the Secretariat along the lines include;clearer instructions from the COP, closer co-operationwith other scientific bodies such as the GEF Scientificand Technical Advisory Panel, DIVERSITAS23 and theInternational Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), limitingthe composition of delegation to qualified scientists orroster(s) of experts developed by the Convention,greater use of intersessional process to support the dis-cussions and deliberations of SBSTTA, and limiting thesize of SBSTTA through the use of representative con-stituencies.

In the end it must be realized that generating the neces-sary scientific information will be limited by the com-


plexity of the issues raised by the Convention and therelatively poor scientific understanding of the issue.Improvement of this aspect of the CBD process will alsodepend on the effectiveness of the clearing-house mech-anism. Even though the experience of other internationalinstruments has been poor to date, with new techno-logies, particularly the Internet and the significant com-mitment of the Parties to this mechanism, the experi-ence of the CBD in this regard may be more promising.

Other Bodies of the ConventionCo-ordination within the process must not only concen-trate on the relationship between the COP and subsidi-ary bodies such as SBSTTA or some SBI but also withfuture protocols. Although the exact nature of therelationship between the Convention and its protocolsis a matter which can only be determined in light of thespecific nature and structure of the particular protocol,general guidelines regarding the institutional relation-ship and how protocols should function within the CBDprocess are needed and should build upon the natureof the relationship between the subsidiary institutionalbodies of the Convention itself (i.e., SBSTTA, the clear-ing-house mechanism and the financial mechanism) andthe COP. In this respect the exact nature of the protocolon biosafety will be enormously influential, due to theprecedent that it will establish. It is therefore imperativethat the COP address this issue in a strategic and holisticway and provide some guiding framework for the futureprotocols, before the Ad Hoc Working Group on Bio-safety develops the exact nature of the relationship theyfeel necessary to implement the proposed protocol onbiosafety.

The SecretariatThe role of the Secretariat and how far it should beinvolved, if at all, in providing technical support to theParties in implementing the Convention is another issuewhich has been raised by Parties. These suggestionshave pointed to the experience of CITES and WIPO inthis regard. The issue raises serious concerns about thelocus of sovereignty in the process and the size of theSecretariat. Consequently, such suggestions have beentreated with extreme caution by other Parties. Neverthe-less, the nature of the AIA procedures being discussedwithin the negotiations on the biosafety protocol, inparticular the role of the Secretariat in the docu-mentation process for AIA, means that it cannot beignored.

The Role of External InstitutionsOne obvious way that the burden on the CBD processcan be relieved and the CBD made more effective is tolook to existing institutions to undertake the responsi-bility for areas which they are competent. As previouslydescribed the role of co-operation with other institutionsis one that has received considerable attention alreadywithin the CBD process. It is also an issue in which theCBD is involved in many of the leading experiments atthe international level. For example, the CBD process isinvolved in: the GEF, which itself is an experiment in co-operation and collaboration; the IACSD, which waspraised in the Secretary General’s report on the UN;24

and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests and its pre-

226

decessor the IPF. The agreements that have beenentered into with other biodiversity-related instrumentsand organizations also represent advanced and experi-mental techniques for an international legal instrument.An important development contained in these agree-ments is the commitment by some of the institutions tomake formal submissions to the COP. It is hoped that intime this will provide an effective way for the COP tobe kept informed as to the type of activities that otherprocesses are engaged in, how they are relevant to theCBD process and to eventually monitor those activities.Through such a devolved structure of organization andresponsibility the Convention could be effectivelyimplemented through the many organizations active inareas covered by the process.

The major limitation that the process is experiencing inthis regard is not so much ideas, the willingness to pur-sue collaboration, or support from other institutions, butthe hidden costs of properly managing the relationshiprequired and generating the necessary resources withinthe CBD process. In this respect the problem is mostacute at the Secretariat level which is asked to collabor-ate with an enormous number of institutions. Simply toattend the major meetings organized by other relevantprocesses is beyond the capacity of the current staff ofthe Secretariat. Indeed, it would probably require anincrease of an order of magnitude in the number of staffjust to undertake this, let alone to follow up on issuesraised at such meetings. The Parties are beginning torealize the level of resources required to undertake thistask properly. A partial solution to this capacity problemis to broaden the base of which institutions can rep-resent the Convention in other fora. This notion hasreceived the most attention in the context of being ableto properly draw on the scientific expertise of other pro-cesses and organizations, through the use of the bureauof the SBSTTA.

Development of the Responsibilities of thePartiesThe effectiveness of any international treaty is, ofcourse, dependent upon the extent that it is respectedand implemented by its Parties. With over 95% of bio-diversity located within existing national jurisdictionsthis means that the Convention is dealing with the man-agement of an essentially domestic resource. In contrast,international environmental instruments normallyaddress the use, or abuse, of international or sharedresources, such as protection of the world’s oceans, theozone layer and the global climate. A consequence ofthis difference is that Parties will not only be responsiblefor implementation, but they will also have an importantrole through domestic activities, as distinct from inter-national activities, to develop policy for the inter-national level.

The international policy role of the domestic activitiesof Parties is often overlooked due to the perception thatas a framework convention the provisions of the Conven-tion are merely exhortatory and require further elabor-ation before they can be implemented. It has also meantthat much of the implementation work already under-


taken by Parties is overlooked in assessment of the effec-tiveness of the Convention. Although many of the pro-visions of the Convention require considerabledevelopment before they can be described as having anynormative consequence, as is evidenced by the need forwork programmes for each of the ecosystems describedabove, many aspects of the Convention are currentlybeing implemented by Parties without further elabor-ation at the international level. This implementation pro-vides important precedents or ‘case studies’ for otherParties, which, to the extent that they are relied uponby these other Parties, develops the detail of the pro-visions of the Convention.

An illustration of this phenomena is the implementationof the provisions of the Convention with respects toaccess to genetic resources under Article 15 and theequitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of gen-etic resources. As noted by Lyle Glowka in this issue ofRECIEL,25 these provisions of the Convention havealready been implemented by a number of Parties. A var-iety of strategies have emerged in those countries whichhave begun the process of establishing controls overaccess to their genetic resources in order to implementequitable sharing of the benefits of their use. In somecountries, the route to introducing access measures isto produce specific legislation on access and benefit-sharing. The measures already introduced in the Philip-pines and the Andean Pact fall into this category, as dodrafts under consideration in Brazil and India. Othershave developed provisions within new legislationdesigned to implement a much broader set of objectivessuch as establishing a basic framework to implement theConvention or to ensure sustainable development gener-ally. Fiji is pursuing this approach. Other Parties havesimply modified existing legislation, such as conser-vation, wildlife or forestry laws, to incorporate accessprovisions. Western Australia has already introducedamendments to its Conservation and Land ManagementAct. A fourth category of measures are those intendedprimarily for other purposes, but touching on access andbenefit-sharing. An example is the Government ofIndonesia’s Regulation on Plant Seed Management, theobjective of which is to ensure the quality of seeds, butwhose provisions on plant seed management containclauses concerning the introduction and supply of seedsand propagating material to and from the country, andwithin it. These are being looked to by those Parties con-sidering how to implement Article 15 and have had asignificant impact on the nature of the discussionsregarding Article 15 within the CBD process.

Similar responsibilities fall to the Parties in most, if notall, of the other provisions of the Convention. The emerg-ing emphasis on the responsibility of Parties in thedecisions being taken by the COP is a manifestation ofthe recognition of this role. For example, Decision III/13on agricultural biodiversity compared with Decision II/10on marine and coastal biodiversity places a muchgreater emphasis on actions by Parties and much lessemphasis on calls for further studies by the internationalcommunity in general and the Secretariat in particular.

Fully realizing this responsibility is not only crucial forimplementation in the traditional sense (i.e., translating

227

international norms into legally enforceable law at thenational level) but it also makes an important contri-bution to relieving the burden on the international pro-cess. It represents an important type of delegation ordevolution of responsibilities, which is critical to theoverall effectiveness of the process. Three importantareas will need development and support in order tofully release this role. They are national reports;capacity building; and generation of information.

National ReportsCentral to the development of this role is the nationalreporting mechanism of the Convention. Article 26 of theConvention calls upon each Party to present to the Con-ference of the Parties reports on measures which it hastaken for the implementation of the provisions of theConvention and their effectiveness in meeting the objec-tives of the Convention. The second meeting of the COPdecided that the first national reports by Parties willfocus in so far as possible on the measures taken for theimplementation of Article 6 CBD, ‘General Measures forConservation and Sustainable Use’, as well as the infor-mation available in national country studies on biologi-cal diversity.26 Guidelines for national reporting on theimplementation of Article 6 request a structure con-sisting of an executive summary, an introduction, back-ground, goals and objectives, the strategy chosen, part-ners involved, action for implementation, budget,monitoring and evaluation and sharing of nationalexperience.27 The first national reports are due to besubmitted in time for the fourth meeting of the COPwhich will take place in May 1998. At this meeting, theCOP will determine the intervals and form of subsequentnational reports based on the experience of Parties inpreparing their first national reports.

National reports will be the main way in which the Con-vention will be able to demonstrate concrete progresstowards its objectives, which in turn will be crucial if itis to retain its standing as a major international treaty.National reports in any case have an important part toplay, given the responsibility for implementing the Con-vention largely rests with the Parties themselves. Theimportance of this element of the Convention has notescaped the COP and the other institutions of the Con-vention. For example, mindful of the resource limitationsin many developing country Parties, the second meetingof the COP instructed the financial mechanism to makeavailable financial resources to assist in the preparationof national reports. In response, the financial mechanismdeveloped a fast-track procedure for what has becomeknown as ‘enabling activities’ under which over 90developing countries have received financial assistanceto develop a national biodiversity strategy and reportfor COP 4.

Capacity-buildingA consequence of this policy role for Parties is thatcapacity building within the Convention process notonly contributes to implementation in the traditionalsense, but also directly to the development of the norma-tive content of the provisions of the Convention at theinternational level. Capacity-building is emphasized inevery aspect of the CBD’s principles and their develop-


ment. For example, the first COP identified capacity-building as one of the 13 programme priorities, includinghuman resources development and institutional devel-opment and/or strengthening, for the financial mech-anism to support.28 The second meeting of the COPfurther elaborated the guidance to the financial mech-anism on capacity-building in developing countries. Thefirst COP also suggested that the medium-term work pro-gramme for 1995 -1997 should reflect the importance ofcapacity-building as one of the elements of successfulConvention implementation.29 The suggestion wasendorsed at the second and third meetings of the COP.30

The Secretariat has also started working with the IUCN,the World Bank, the World Resources Institute, UNDPand UNEP to launch a series of efforts to support thework of the CBD on capacity-building.

Information for Decision-makingAnother consequence of this role for Parties is the pre-mium this places on the generation and availability ofreliable and accurate information to guide decision-mak-ers at all levels of governance. It is further emphasizedby the fact that the only compliance technique providedfor in the CBD is Parties’ duty to provide nationalreports. Sharing of experiences has also become a majorelement of all the activities and development which havetaken place within the CBD so far.

The Parties have recognized that dissemination of thisinformation will also be crucial to its effective use.Consequently, considerable resources and attentionhave been devoted to the establishment of a clearing-house mechanism, provided for in Article 18. The mech-anism is envisaged to play a significant role in technicaland scientific co-operation and capacity-building, parti-cularly in providing information for decision-making. Thesecond meeting of COP reaffirmed the importance of theclearing-house mechanism to promote and facilitatetechnical and scientific co-operation and to supportimplementation of the CBD at the national level. Theneed for its accessibility to all countries was also recog-nized. The COP noted that enhanced co-operation withother information systems and activities would contrib-ute to the development of the clearing-house mech-anism. The COP also requested the financial mechanismto explore the modalities of providing support todeveloping country Parties for capacity-building inrelation to the operation of the clearing-house mech-anism. The rapid development and enthusiasm for theclearing-house mechanism illustrates the widely recog-nized need for reliable and accurate information toensure effective implementation of the CBD. The exer-cise has also demonstrated the complexity of estab-lishing an effective and accessible global clearing-housemechanism. It has also demonstrated the importance ofestablishing the system from the ground up anddeveloping it in an organic and flexible manner asopposed to a highly engineered and structured system.

Ecosystem ApproachIn working their way through the different thematicareas of marine and coastal biodiversity, agriculturalbiodiversity and forests, the Conference of the Parties

228

chose for each of them an ecosystem approach toaddress conservation, sustainable use and equitablesharing of benefits.31 An ecosystem approach is also pro-posed for addressing biodiversity of inland waters.32 TheSpecial Session of the United Nations General Assemblyalso endorsed this ecosystem approach of the CBD.33

Contrary to a species approach focusing on a particularspecies and trying to determine the optimum sustainablepopulation or the maximum sustainable yield, or a sec-toral approach aiming at regulating a specific productionprocess, commodity or activity, the ecosystem approachis a holistic one. It is applied within a geographic frame-work or a particular landscape which is defined prim-arily by ecological boundaries as a logical unit of scalefor assessment and co-ordinated management. Althoughit might be difficult in reality to delineate precisely thenatural system and it will be unlikely that any given eco-system will encompass all of the human activitiesimpacting it, the ecosystem approach allows the bestmethod to achieve conservation and sustainable use forbiological diversity. It is necessary because the effectsof the large range of human activities are linked and feltthroughout the entire ecosystem. It is generally agreedthat one cannot focus on biodiversity without address-ing the need for improving the management of biodivers-ity and other natural resources.

Accordingly, the ecosystem approach tries to assess allhuman activities impacting on the ecosystem, be theyeconomic, social, cultural, legal, recreational or others.It integrates ecological, economic, and social factors andits goal is to restore and maintain the health of ecologi-cal resources together with the communities and econ-omies that they support. A fundamental part of theapproach is therefore the inclusion of people and theireconomic needs. Resource problems are, in a sense, notenvironmental problems but human problems createdunder a variety of political, social, and economic con-ditions. In changing the practices, technologies and pat-terns of the use of a particular ecosystem the impact ofhuman beings can be mitigated or even turned into onewith positive impacts on biological diversity.34 The eco-logical system itself might consist in a whole range ofdifferent sub-systems which have a hierarchical struc-ture, e.g., in agricultural ecosystems this might be a fieldor a herd, a farm, a farming-system. Apart from this hier-archy of nested systems, one can identify different mana-gerial systems on each level of the hierarchy which inter-act with those ecosystems. Impacting systems includethe legal systems on the international, national or com-munity level, the economic system and the market struc-ture or production and consumption patterns.

The task ahead for the COP and its subsidiary bodies isto develop technical advice based on scientific findingsand the precautionary principle in case of the lack ofknowledge on how the ecological, social, economic,social, recreational and legal aspects and the varioussystems can be reconciled in the ecosystem so that con-servation and sustainable use of the particular ecosys-tem and its components will be achieved. This requiresan analysis of the human activities and their impact oneach ecosystem as well as an analysis of the activities


taking place outside the ecosystem but impacting on it.This will require a consideration of (i) the abiotic orphysical environment, (ii) the biological diversity of theecosystem and (iii) the management practices, socio-economic and cultural factors. This will include factorssuch as, harvesting of components of biological diversity(e.g., sustainable exploitation of target species insteadof over-capitalization), socio-economic needs, produc-tion patterns in the ecosystem like plantations and mar-iculture, effects on non-target species, ecosystem effectslike pollution, alien species or impact by non-livingresources related activities, tourism, subsidies, incen-tives, taxes, laws and regulations, and policies. The over-all objective is to agree on an integrated managementaiming at the sustainable use of the ecosystem and itscomponents which maintains or restores a healthy eco-system. As the ecosystem cannot be separated from thepeople living in it, their involvement is crucial to the inte-grated ecosystem management.

Important for the whole process will not only be theanalysis but the mechanisms which will ensure theimplementation of the ecosystem approach. Relevantmechanisms include environmental impact assessments,application of the precautionary approach, and incen-tives like eco-labelling.

Although each different ecosystem will place differentemphasis on different measures, there will be similaritiesand patterns common to all the different ecosystems.Identifying these core elements of the ‘ecosystemapproach’ will allow for a clearer understanding of whateach work programme entails. It will also facilitate theability of one ecosystem to draw on the lessons of theother ecosystems, in that it will be the prism throughwhich this experience can be translated. Elaborating onthese core elements will also provide the crucial linkbetween the substantive development of the provisionsof the Convention and the institutional requirements ofthese provisions. It will therefore provide the substan-tive grounding for the review of the operations of theConvention and so would make a significant contributionto the overall effectiveness of the process. Aware of theimportance of developing this intellectual underpinningsof the process, the Parties and the Secretariat havestarted an informal process within the rubric of the prep-aration for the review of the operations of the insti-tutional structure of the Convention, which is intendedto develop a clearer understanding of these coreelements of an ecosystem approach in time for thefourth COP and the review of the institutional needs ofthe Convention.

Conclusion

The Convention on Biological Diversity has establishedmost of the elements required to be operational. Atten-tion within the process is now moving towardsimplementation, with the impending review of the oper-ations of the Convention at the fourth meeting of theCOP in May 1998 marking an important development inthis transition.

229

The challenge for the process as it moves into itsimplementation phase is to develop an approach whichwill find a balance between pursuing a truly holistic andintegrative approach demanded by the Conventionwhilst at the same time being focused enough to allowdevelopment of its provisions. This will require closeattention to: the international institutional structure ofthe Convention; the responsibilities of the Parties; anda clear philosophical basis or intellectual modusoperandi for the process. Ensuring that each one of thesekey elements properly reflects the needs of the processand is fully developed is crucial if the Convention is tobe effective and achieve its aims.

This emerging focus on implementation reflects a widertrend throughout the international community. The gen-eral frustration and disappointment associated withmany of the international processes centres around thelack of implementation and the lack of commitment toturn the rhetoric of international diplomacy into con-crete actions which materially address the issues cur-rently facing society. As a result, it seems that alterna-tive ways and means of achieving the aims of sustainabledevelopment to the international conference circuit arenow being seriously considered. It has been suggestedthat civil society turn to the courts and the legal systemto break the impasse which seems to emasculate thecapacity of the international community to respond toissues in a timely fashion. The Convention, as a legallybinding instrument has a vital role to play in translatingthe well meaning rhetoric of the international com-munity into action, both in the traditional sense and inthe alternatives being explored. The success of the CBDprocess in making the transition towards an implemen-tation phase will therefore nor only be important for theConvention itself but will provide valuable lessons andexperiences for other international processes. Indeed, ifthe CBD can rapidly move into this implementationphase then it would make a valuable contribution to arenewed credibility and revitalizing of the internationalorder.

Notes1. Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro) 5 June 1992,

in force 29 December 1993; reprinted in (1992) 31 ILM 822.[Hereafter, CBD].

2. In force 21 December 1975, 996 UNTS 245.3. In force 17 December 1975, 27 UST 37, (1972) 11 ILM 1358.4. In force 1 July 1975, 993 UNTS 243.5. In force 1 November 1983, (1980) 19 ILM 15.6. Lee A. Kimball, ‘Institutional Linkages between the Convention

on Biological Diversity and Other International Convention’ inthis issue of RECIEL at 239.

7. Decision III/20. (Ed.: see the article by Alfonso Ascencio Herrerain this issue of RECIEL at 293).

8. Decision II/10. (Ed.: see the article by Antonio Rengifo in thisissue of RECIEL at 313).

9. Paragraph 7 of Decision III/12.10. Decision III/12.11. Decision II/9.12. The advice of the Executive Secretary is contained in document

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/Inf.3.13. In accordance with Decision I/2.14. Decisions II/15 and II/16.15. Decision II/16.16. Decision II/11.


17. Decision III/17.18. Decision III/11.17(c).19. Decision III/11.15(f).20. Decisions III/5 and III/14.21. In force 24 March 1994, (1992) 31 ILM 849.22. In force 1 January 1989, (1987) 26 ILM 154.23. DIVERSITAS is an umbrella organization for biodiversity

research established in 1992 by the International Union of Bio-logical Sciences (IUBS) and the Scientific Committee on Prob-lems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Councilof Scientific Unions (ICSU) together with UNESCO.

24. The Report of the Secretary-General: A Programme for Reform,16 July 1997.

25. Lyle Glowka, ‘Emerging Legislative Approaches to ImplementArticle 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity’ in this issueof RECIEL at 249.

26. Decision II/17, UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19.27. Decision II/ 17, Annex, id..28. Decision I/2.29. Decision I/9.30. Annex to Decision II/18 and Decision III/22.31. For marine and coastal biodiversity: Decision II/10, Annex II

para. 2 (a), contained in UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19; for agriculturalbiodiversity: Decision III/11 para.1, contained in

230

UNEP/CBD/COP/3/38; see also Consideration of Agricultural bio-logical diversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity,UNEP/CBD/COP/3/14, para. 1 et seq.; for forest biological diver-sity; Decision III/12 para. 6, contained in UNEP/CBD/COP/3/38;see also Biological Diversity and Forests, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/16,para. 59 et seq.

32. See UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/2, para. 18 et seq.33. Decision III/19, Annex, para. 3, contained in

UNEP/CBD/COP/3/38.34. One example of a positive impact are agro-ecological forms of

intensification of agriculture like the traditional system of riceterraces in Bali, Indonesia; cf. Decision III/11, Annex 1 A.2.

Sam Johnston is Acting Legal Officer at the Sec-retariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.He would like to thank Gudrun Henne, PersonalAssistant to the Executive Secretary for her contri-bution and comments in the preparation of thisarticle.

the convention on biological diversity: the next phase

Documents