1 / 9

Biodiversity Cooperation

Biodiversity Cooperation. CITES. CITES (1973): Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora Regulates trade in living species and products derived from them; Annex I: threatened with extinction; both export and import permits are required;

tucker
Download Presentation

Biodiversity Cooperation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biodiversity Cooperation

  2. CITES • CITES (1973): Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora • Regulates trade in living species and products derived from them; • Annex I: threatened with extinction; both export and import permits are required; • Annex II: not yet but may become threatened with extinction unless trade is regulated; monitoring and export permits; • Annex III: exporting country can list species as requiring export permits

  3. Trade in Elephant Products? • Banned in 1990 under Annex I • Should ban be partially lifted for South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe? On Annex II since 1997-99, but no trade • Yes: capable of sustainable management; opportunity and actual cost of trade restrictions • No: will be back to pre-1990 practices in states with weak management; intrinsic value of wildlife Is it just to punish sustainable states for the failures of weak states?

  4. South Oppose free access to biological resources Application of IPR to technologies based on local resources Tech transfer Additional financial resources for biodiversity conservation Bio-safety North BD global resource IPR fundamental Control over financial/technology transfers Not too much money too fast Bio-safety not a strictly biodiversity issue The Convention on Biological Diversity The Great North-South Divide (Rio 1992)

  5. Provisions • Sovereign right over biodiversity resources • Genetic resources granted according to “mutually agreed terms” • IPR are “supportive and don’t run counter to” the convention’s objective • Identification, monitoring, and scientific assessment • National plans and programs • Integration of biodiversity consideration in other policies • Weak monitoring and compliance system • In force 1993, about 188 parties.

  6. Main financing mechanism – established first on an experimental basis Cover “incremental” costs: For climate projects – additionality principle For biodiversity – recipient commitment? Global Environmental Facility (GEF)

  7. Institutions Represented on MA Board Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Council for Science (ICSU) Ramsar Convention on Wetlands UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) United Nations Foundation United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Bank World Conservation Union (IUCN) World Health Organization (WHO) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

  8. Cartagena Protocol on BiosafetyNegotiations • Miami group: US, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Uruguay • Minimal regulation (cover only LMOs for deliberate release) • Against precautionary principle/trade restrictions • Like minded group: Developing countries (without Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) • All LMO should be regulated • Advance Informed Agreement (AIA), or AIA-type rules for all LMOs • EU • Right to restrict LMP imports under the precautionary principle (in conditions of scientific certainty) • Compromise group: Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, East Europeans, Singapore, New Zeeland

  9. Biosefety Protocol Advance Informed Agreement (AIA) for LMOs for deliberate release into the environment (e.g. seeds, etc.). No AIA for GM products: “GM tomatoes or ketchup made of GM tomatoes” Biosafety Clearing House for LMO domestic approvals, which importing countries can choose to consult Shipment documentation stating presence of LMOs for commodities Broadly endorsees pre-cautionary principle: “lack of scientific certainty …..shall not prevent the Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organisms….”(art. 10.6 and 11.8)

More Related