BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Earth houses millions of plant and animal species, often linked to each other in fragile ecosystems that have developed complicated interdependencies and natural balances sustaining livelihoods on local and global scale. The rich tapestry of life on our planet is the outcome of over 3.5 billion years of evolutionary history. Human activities often had and have an impact to such ecosystems greater than nature is able to cope with, often resulting in the destruction of the system and eventually a substantial loss in biological diversity. The global extinction rate has rapidly increased over the last fifty years. Species are disappearing at 50-100 times the natural rate. Many of the species that die out every year have never been discovered nor studied e.g. for production of medicines, agriculture or any other economic use. Of the about 13 million species scientists estimate to live on Earth, only 1.75 million have been identified so far.

Fragmentation, degradation, and outright loss of forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and other ecosystems pose the gravest threat to biological diversity. Global issues like climate change or the depletion of the ozone layer add to the stress ecosystems have to cope with, and invasions of non-native species is, in global terms, one of the most important case of biodiversity loss after land-use changes.

The rapid decrease in biological diversity on a global scale may threaten the fundamental ecological processes on which we all depend for our survival. Biodiversity provides the resource base ecosystems need for maintaining natural resource productivity. Plant and animal diversity is most valuable in supporting dynamic and flexible livelihoods, and livelihoods based on a whole range of natural resources are more likely to cope with shock or stress situations. Reduced biodiversity e.g. undermines the potential of natural forests to cope with fungal diseases but also the potential of agriculture to adjust to future epidemics.

The loss of biological diversity is irreversible and, given our dependence on food crops, medicines and other biological resources, poses a threat to our own well-being. The destructive human impact deprives present and future generations of options for their survival and development.

Biotechnology, the practical modification of microbial, plant and animal cells (mostly for economic reasons), has emerged as a major new field of knowledge and techniques for providing numerous benefits for humanity. It is believed to be able to increase food production, improve health through new drugs, control pollution or clean up wastes or spills and generally increase industrial capacities. However, harms and dangers surround the production and use of biotechnology as e.g. grafted genetic materials could escape uncontrolled into wild organisms and cause mutations. The effect of genetically modified food on the human body is largely unknown, in particular long-term effects on humans and the environment have not been adequately studied.

Biotech research focuses mostly on therapeutic or diagnostic applications, and only one in ten companies is applying biotechnology in food and agriculture issues. To date, it is mostly the transnational corporations (TNCs) that the leading players in the game with little or no interest in the food and health needs of the poor people and nations who have no purchasing power. However, these TNCs seek constant access and control over genetic resources of developing countries, not adequately taking into account or compensating informal contributions from indigenous people who cultivated species in question and used their genetic potential for centuries.

Most of the wealth of biological species and genetic diversity is located in the developing countries of the tropics. For example, there is more biodiversity on one tiny island off the coast of Panama than in all of Great Britain. At the same time, the specialised technology, skilled human resources and research funding is located in the private sector of the North. The South argues that its genetic resources have long been exploited by the North without compensating the South for allowing access and the use of these resources.

THE DEBATE

At UNCED, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by 154 member countries. The main objectives of the convention were to conserve biological species, genetic resources, habitats and ecosystems; to ensure the sustainable use of biological materials; and to guarantee the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources.

It has to be noted, that many countries had grave reservations about the convention. The reluctance did not relate so much to the protection of habitats such as rainforests or wetlands, as to the question how the genetic wealth was to be used. Eventually, the US did not sign the convention, because it was feared that the convention would constrain US companies from accessing the genetic resources of developing countries (which was indeed an objective of the convention).

Despite the continued (talkative) efforts of the international community, widespread biodiversity losses continue to occur and thus the status of biodiversity in terms of species, habitats and ecosystems has not significantly improved in most countries. There seems to be a lack of political will to provide international regulations with the requisite enforceability where it really matters and there are also regulatory gaps especially with regard to the protection of biodiversity.

Adopted in January 2000 and to date ratified by almost 20 countries (50 needed to make the it enter into force), the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety addressed the potential risks posed by cross-border trade and accidental releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It also regulates international trade in living genetically modified organisms. Via a Biosafety Clearing House, governments are allowed to signal whether or not they are willing to accept imports of products containing GMOs that in addition have to be clearly labelled. Socio-economic aspects may be taken into consideration in decision-making on imports. As the Protocol touches areas also covered by WTO agreements, a dispute arose on which of the agreements supersedes the other in case of conflict.

Some of the issues discussed at the April 2002 meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (ICCP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity were liability and redress; compliance and the provisions on documentation for living modified organisms (LMOs) for food feed or processing. In general the progress was very slow taking into account the attitude of several countries, including the US and Australia, by delaying decisions on key provisions of the agenda like identification of LMOs and on liability and redress. NGOs were very critical with the lack of substantial progress and reiterated the call for an immediate moratorium on releases of Living Modified Organisms until a biosafety regime is in place, and in addition called for a ban on imports of LMOs in centres of origin in the light of the recent cases of the contamination of maize in Mexico.

At the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, April 2002, a wide range of issues was discussed and more than 30 decisions were adopted on topics like forest diversity, liability and redress, traditional knowledge, acces and benefit sharing. Some of the highlights were the adoption of a Forest Work Plan; the Bonn guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing; the guiding principles for alien species and a Strategic Plan to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss. This Strategic Plan was meant to be an instrument that would help to focus on cross-cutting issues within the Convention, but some participants expressed disappointment with it since it does not go further than reiterating the existing obligations and fails to include an immediate review process. The Forest Work Plan, adopted after more than 60 hours of difficult negotiations was also one of the highlights of the meeting. Nevertheless, some NGOs considered the work plan a minor step taking into account the urgency of the forest crisis and the pressing need for protection of key biodiverse areas like for example seriously endangered ancient forests.

WHAT NEXT?

The World Summit must focus, from the broader perspective, on identifying where implementation is lacking, where gaps exists in present regulations, and on providing stimulating input in the search for new solutions. One example is the perennial demand that a global system of protected areas comprising at least 10-20% of the total land area be established (WBGU, 2001a). In most regions of the world, this figure is nowhere near reached, and many protected areas are poorly managed.

Another example concerns invasions of non-native species; in global terms, this is the second most important case of biodiversity loss after land-use changes. National regulations for the protection of native species in agriculture should be standardised and made tougher in an effort to improve implementation.

To this day, there is no international, legally binding basis for the sustainable management of forests, despite the Forest Work Plan agreed on earlier this year. Forecasts are dismal for many of the tropical rainforests, which aside from a few 'islands' are likely to disappear entirely over the next decades. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the idea of adopting a separate Forests Convention failed to get off the ground. The result were merely the non-binding 'Forest Principles'. Recent years have witnessed repeated efforts to reactivate this topic within international environmental policy-making. Considering the sheer speed at which tropical forests are being cleared, the discussion is proceeding too slowly in too many UN fora (IPF, IFF, UNFF) for any effective instrument, binding under international law, to result.

The World Summit should therefore signal in all clarity that an efficacious regime for protecting the world's forests must be quickly established. It has been repeatedly called for a Forest Protocol to the Biodiversity Convention (WBGU, 1996, 2001a). The Biodiversity Convention is the authoritative one for forests anyway, since forests generally form centres of biodiversity. Furthermore, the broad scope of the Convention embraces conservation, sustainable management and benefit sharing in equal measure. For that reason, the options already provided by the Biodiversity Convention should be exploited more intensively prior to concluding a new Protocol on Forests.