Convention on Biological Diversity

About: Convention on Biological Diversity is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2232 publications have been published within this topic receiving 65599 citations. The topic is also known as: CBD & United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Emerging R and D law: the Nagoya Protocol and its implications for researchers.

Abstract: Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the Nagoya Protocol). Like the Biosafety Protocol, It is a protocol made under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and it provides a binding legal framework to ensure fair dealing in the utilization of genetic resources found in biodiversity. Countries around the world are now preparing or amending national legislation to implement their Protocol obligations, including to regulate researchers’ access to genetic resources and their compliance with obligations on its subsequent use. This will have signicant impact on the conduct of both commercial and non-commercial research and investment. For the international research community the most signicant of these new laws is going to be the European Union (EU) draft regulation on access to genetic resources and compliance with the fair and equitable sharing of benets arising from their utiliszation within the EU. The object of the EU regulation is to ensure that researchers use only lawfully obtained genetic resources and comply with its conditions of use. The European Council will consider this new law for nal approval in early 2014. Once adopted it applies to all 28 EU member states and will bind researchers in the EU along with (by necessary association) their research collaborators elsewhere. Some Background. The Nagoya Protocol was adopted by the 193 member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 29 October 2010 at a meeting in Nagoya, Japan. It becomes operational 90 days after the 50th country ratication, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2014. To date 92 countries (including the EU and 23 of its members) have signied their intention to ratify, and 29 have ratied. The Protocol provides the necessary machinery to realize the third objective of the 1994 CBD, that is, the fair and equitable sharing of benets from the use of genetic resources. Negotiation of the Protocol was necessary because progress on this third objective had stalled. The CBD attempted to provide for it through a broad framework, which recognized each country’s sovereignty over their genetic resources along with the right to control access to them and, in return for facilitating that access, obtain a fair and equitable share in benets arising from its use. Access would be granted with a provider country’s prior informed consent (PIC), usually in the form of a permit, and on mutually agreed terms (MAT) including terms for benet sharing, usually in the form of a contract. However, in practice, this broad framework was not consistently introduced nor applied. Many countries did not have the capacity to develop enabling domestic laws, and developing countries in particular were concerned that such agreements would not be honoured once genetic material left their jurisdictions. Conversely, many developed country researchers found obtaining access dicult and subject to excessive negotiation and expense, resulting in delay and a lack of legal certainty, leaving them open to accusations of biopiracy. The Nagoya Protocol seeks to resolve these uncertainties. The cross-cutting issue now addressed by the Protocol is the need for legal certainty when providing, obtaining, and using genetic resources. Prior to the Protocol, source countries were concerned about unauthorized use of their genetic resources (biopiracy), users were concerned that in many countries securing access to such resources was itself legally uncertain, while investors in the commercialization chain were concerned that unclear legal rights led to unacceptable investment risks.

What We Talk about When We Talk about 'Local' Participation in International Biodiversity Law. The Changing Scope of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities' Participation under the Convention on Biological Diversity

Abstract: This article explores the meaning of participation by indigenous peoples and local communities' in the Decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) from the perspectives of civic and radical environmentalism. The first sees participation as key for just and effective decision-making. Radical environmentalism argues instead for fundamental transformation to address environmental crisis. The article contributes to discussions about the importance of indigenous peoples and local communities for better and more just policies, or whether a more radical approach is necessary. The research uses empirical findings to deepen our understanding of 'local' participation under the CBD and uncovers many meanings. Most describe mechanisms for participation, suggesting scope for civic environmentalism. Yet a closer look raises a range of questions, leading to suggestions for future action and research.

Identifying knowledge gaps in the research and management of invasive species in India

Abstract: India, a megadiverse tropical country is grappling with the issue of biological invasions. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, India is committed for managing its major biological invasions by 2020. Lack of prioritization of invasive species for control and management is the biggest hurdle for achieving this commitment. We reviewed 21 High Concern Invasive Species (HiCIS) across four major ecosystems (terrestrial mainland, island, freshwater, and marine) in India, utilizing the prioritization framework for understanding the existing knowledge and gaps. We reviewed the existing peer-reviewed and grey literature on HiCIS for information on their ecology, impacts, and management. Prioritization framework provided “priority scores” and “confidence scores” to each HiCIS, where priority score comprised of the species’ ecology and its management lacunae. Confidence score represented the reliability of the priority score. We found that invasions on terrestrial mainland ecosystem in India are the most studied invasions followed by freshwater, island, and marine ecosystem. Priority score of a given HiCIS was positively correlated with its impacts on biodiversity (R = 0.63), physical environment (R = 0.70), and ecosystem services (R = 0.60). This correlation supports scientific focus on deleterious species. The study also indicates policies and guidelines in place for management of invasions as a part of a larger scheme or Legal Act, resulting in their obscurity to the managers, and hindering management of HiCIS. This quantitative synthesis provides a model framework for countries struggling with channelizing management efforts to an overwhelmingly large number of invasive species.

Environmental indicators for global cooperation

Abstract: The prominence given to countries in global fora has traditionally been based on economic and political consideration. This paper examines a broader approach that includes two important environmental factors - a country's contribution to global pollution, and the global environmental benefits derived from its natural areas and biodiversity.

ON THE TRAIL OF LIVING MODIFIED ORGANISMS: Environmentalism within and against Neoliberal Order

Abstract: Environmental governance regimes concerned with the management of biological life have encouraged not only new forms of expertise, but also political activism and struggle. One such regime, the international Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Biosafety Protocol), a subagreement of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), seeks to monitor the potential risks of releasing living modified organisms, such as transgenic seeds, into the environment. Drawing on market-oriented visions of environmental conservation and risk management, the Biosafety Protocol is closely tied to the development of new bioeconomies and the ascent of neoliberal principles globally. NGOs and environmentalists have played prominent roles in the Biosafety Protocol by occupying spaces designated for civil society participation, raising the question of how activists both disrupt and sustain the neoliberal logics embedded in new regimes of environmental governance. I explore this question through ethnographic research in Costa Rica among activists, biosafety officials, and private biosafety auditors, where activists have engaged biosafety as part of a campaign against transgenic seeds. Working with limited resources and a genuine concern to manage the risks of agricultural biotechnology, officials draw on strategies that position both the market and civil society as key mechanisms of biosafety monitoring. Despite opposing transgenics and the concept of biosafety, activists participate in the government biosafety commission as civil society representatives and informally monitor local fields. Officials have labeled activists “biovigilantes,” viewing them as parallel to private biosafety auditors who subsidize the lack of state capacity in biosafety. Recent research on civil society and governance suggests that discourses of participation have depoliticizing impacts, encouraging specific forms of self-conduct that reinforce a dominant order of things. Illustrating how activists occupy and negotiate civil society and biosafety expertise, I argue by contrast that their engagement with biosafety is uneven and contradictory, revealing an unsettled struggle, rather than some prevailing governmental logic.