The Diffusion Pattern of Convention on Biological

Diversity: Why So Different?

June 28th, 2012

T. J. Lah & Jang Hoon ChungYonsei University

National Sovereignty over Natural Resources

“States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies..”

- Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration 1972- Article 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992- Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, 1992

States have “the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment or other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”

- Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration 1972- Article 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

Formation of Consensus to Conserve Natural Resources

Concerns about the loss of biological diversity

More than 95% of marine species are under national sovereignty (EEZ 200miles)

No single nation can protect wild species on its own

Soft Laws vs. Hard Laws as International Instruments

Regional Treaties and Sectoral Treaties

Early Treaties to Protect Biological Diveristy

Wild species Genetic resources biological diversity

London Convention on the Protection of Wild Fauna in Africa, 1900

Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture, 1902 (Paris)

London Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State, 1933, later replaced by the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1968 (Algiers)

Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, 1940

Sectoral Treaties

Treaties dealing with Species Species whose range is shared by several States

• Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, 1973 Migratory Species

• The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), 1979

Treaties regulating the Trade in Wild Species• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973 Treaties regulating the Exploitation of Wild Species

• International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 Treaties dealing with Types of Natural Habitat/Areas

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), 1971

• Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972

Research Questions

Research Questions

• What are the diffusion patterns of biodiversity conventions?

• Does the CBD treaty spread more rapidly than others?• If so, why?

Scope of the Research• World Heritage Convention• The Ramsar Convention• CITES• CMS• CBD

1. World Heritage Convention

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972

• Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

• To protect the most prestigious natural heritage• Geological and physiographical formation and precisely

delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value

• Pioneer: notion of “World Heritage” and the principle of a common responsibility (129 Sites, 189 States)

• Limited coverage: small number of areas (heritages)

2. The Ramsar Convention

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitat

• signed 1971, effective 1975

• 161 States

• Parties are required to promote wise use of wetlands on their territory and to take measures for the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl

• Limited coverage: small number of areas (wetlands)

3. CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

• Signed 1973, effective 1975

• More than 30,000 species

• Implementation is well articulated

• Each party is required to designate one or more management authorities in charge of managing the licensing system; one or more scientific authorities to advise to management

4. CMS

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 1979

• to protect species inhabiting waters or those which migrate from one country to another

• Recognizes that migratory species should be considered as shared resources

• Uneven distribution: parties are concentrated in Europe and Africa

5. CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, effective 1993

• To ensure the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components

• Promote a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources

• Provides a comprehensive definition of biological diversity

• Takes broad approach to conservation: requires parties to adopt national strategies and plans

Diffusion Patterns of Selective Biodiversity Conventions

1. Fragmentation Argument

Fragmentation is frequent characteristics of global environmental governance architectures

• Institutional “interlocking”, “overlaps”, “interactions”, or “interplay” in the biodiversity international conservation instruments

“Overlapping” institutional linkages (O. Young, 1996)

• functional scope of one regime protrudes into the functional scope of others

• The majority of overlaps is synergistic, as treaties will often build on compatible norms and positively reinforce each other

Fragmentation Argument

Types of fragmentation (Biermann, et al., 2009)

Synergistic fragmentation The core institution includes all countries Provides for effective and detailed general

principles in distinct yet substantially integrated arrangements

Cooperative fragmentation Different institutions that are loosely integrated When the relationship between norms and

principles of different institutions is ambiguous

Fragmentation Argument

Biodiversity conventions in two distinct phases

The first generation• Developed in the 1970s• Sector-specific approach: specific species or habitats• The Ramsar, the Heritage, CITES, CMS• Implemented successively despite considerable gaps

in coverage

The second generation• towards a more generic, holistic and broad scope of

action• CBD

Possible Explanations of the Fragmentation Argument

CBD is the culmination of conservation activities• Regional conventions are limited to certain areas and

sectoral conventions, habitats or species• Sleeping convention with few achievements• Previous conventions do not provide adequate funds

Although fragmented, previous treaties have paved the way• No mechanism existed to coordinate action taken under

existing conditions before CBD• The priority of new convention (CBD) was to extend the

scope of conservation obligations to a much larger range of situations

• 150 governments signed in Rio in 92 and into force in 93

Possible Explanations of the Fragmentation Argument

Increase in the awareness of States sovereignty limit

• States realized the limitations of sovereignty over natural resources

• Voluntarily agreed to international obligations to conserve certain of their natural resources

• CBD impossible if there had not already been a large number of related conventions Developed into CBD

• Realized to have a real interest in the conservation of natural resources

Possible Explanations of the Fragmentation Argument

CBD, higher status over previous conventions

• CBD not an umbrella convention encompassing the conservation conventions

• Each treaty stands on its own, with its own Parties

• Nevertheless, where there is a conflict with CBD, the provisions of CBD will prevail

2. Theorization Argument

Diffusion is accelerated by theorization

• Theorization means the self-conscious development and specification of abstract categories and the formulation of patterned relationships

• The elaborated theorization (cause-effect) facilitates diffusion

Possible Explanations of the Theorization Argument

Economic modeling and science approaches

• Natural resources as finite goods• Many of the threats predicted in early modeling

efforts remain serious and real

Emergence of SD and the great norm change

• Drawing on the research worldwide, SD provided great momentum for paradigm shift in conserving biodiversity

• SD model called for international activities including CBD

Possible Explanations of the Theorization Argument

Scientific community was instrumental • International Biological Programme • IUCN-the World Conservation Union, Survival Service

Commission (now, species Survival Commission), Publication of the Red Data Books

Scientific consensus was reached on the scientific bases of the wise use and conservation of biosphere resources (MAB)

WCS publications by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF• The maintenance of essential ecological processes• The preservation of genetic diversity• The sustainable use of species and ecosystems

3. Interests Argument

Treaty building as game theory and utilitarian models of bargaining• Accounting for the all relevant interest are crucial• Views between the developing and industrialized

countries were divergent

CBD balanced the needs and concerns of developing countries against the goals of industrialized countries

More experiences, understanding and learning between Stockholm and Rio: More level playing field

Interests Argument

Fight for the recognition of the rights to access and use, was a critical issue in the CBD development process

• Developing countries: counterbalance obligations with the recognition of rights over the genetic materials

• Developed countries (Europe) in favor of elaborating a list based on pre-existing conventions

• Developing countries (India) insisted on increasing the financial support and technology transfer

Possible Explanations of the Interests Argument

Spirit of common responsibility • Developing countries must meet the basic needs in ways

that do not deplete natural resources; industrialized countries refrain form unnecessary and wasteful aspects

• General agreement to provide additional costs of conservation, and those costs should not fall upon countries with significant biodiversity

Access to genetic resources affirmed for the first time• Access to genetic resources shall be subject to prior

informed consent of the Contracting party• Equitable sharing of the benefits • Corresponding duty on the part of the world community

to contribute financially

Possible Explanations of the Interests Argument

Technology transfers allowed equitable sharing of the benefits • Conservation Technologies (Gene Bank)• Use Technologies (Pharmaceuticals)

No absolute obligations The richest countries in biodiversity are also

amongst the poorest in the world Conserve “as far as possible and as appropriate” Made allowance for the difficulties faced by most Systematic qualification of the obligations

weakened considerably

Possible Explanations of the Interests Argument

“Incremental costs” are covered by developed countries

• Financial transfers would have to be “additional” to any assistant

• Such transfers should be exclusively devoted to meeting the incremental costs

• CBD therefore establishes a legal interrelation between the obligation of developing and developed countries, and well received by the developing countries