This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Convention on Biological Diversity |
| Long name | Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) |
| Date signed | 5 June 1992 |
| Location signed | Rio de Janeiro, Earth Summit |
| Date effective | 29 December 1993 |
| Parties | 196 (as of 2024) |
| Depositor | Secretary-General of the United Nations |
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) is a multilateral environmental treaty concluded at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and opened for signature by heads of state including leaders from United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. It established an international framework for conservation linked to the sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources, endorsed by participants such as Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and Mexico. The treaty’s Secretariat collaborates with entities such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization on implementation and reporting.
Negotiation of the Convention occurred against the backdrop of the 1980s and early 1990s environmental diplomacy involving actors like the International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Wide Fund for Nature, Ramsar Convention, and the United Nations Environment Programme itself, following precedents such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Montreal Protocol. Delegations from states including Canada, Australia, Norway, Nigeria, and Argentina debated provisions on sovereignty over genetic resources and engagement of indigenous peoples such as representatives from Sami and Maori communities. High-profile events during negotiation included interventions by panels associated with the Brundtland Commission, the Global Environment Facility, and non-state actors like Greenpeace and Conservation International.
The Convention sets three primary objectives: conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from utilization of genetic resources, aligning with pledges similar to those in the Agenda 21 outcome of the Earth Summit. Key provisions address national sovereignty over natural resources as recognized in instruments like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, access and benefit-sharing modeled on precedents such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and provisions for protection of traditional knowledge associated with indigenous peoples and communities represented by groups such as ILO forums. Article-based mechanisms require national biodiversity strategies and action plans comparable to frameworks used by European Union member states, Brazilian state agencies, and South African National Biodiversity Institute practice.
Governance is centred on the Conference of the Parties (COP), supported by a Secretariat hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme and subsidiary bodies including the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), echoing governance models used by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Migratory Species. Parties such as Germany, Kenya, Japan, Canada, and Ecuador participate in budgetary and procedural decisions. The COP interacts with multilateral institutions like the Global Environment Facility and partners including World Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and regional commissions such as the African Union.
Implementation requires Parties to develop national biodiversity strategies and action plans, as done by countries including Costa Rica, Colombia, Philippines, Australia, and Norway; to establish protected areas in the manner of United States National Park Service and IUCN guidelines; and to regulate access to genetic resources using legal models from jurisdictions like Brazilian Biodiversity Law (2002) and Indian Biological Diversity Act (2002). Reporting obligations mirror national communications processes used in the UNFCCC. Implementation engages domestic institutions such as ministries of environment in France, Mexico, and Indonesia and consults stakeholders from academia including Smithsonian Institution and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
The Convention spawned protocols including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, comparable in form to protocols under the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Protocol. Other related agreements and instruments include linkages with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the World Heritage Convention, and regional instruments such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Synergies are pursued with global processes like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Convention on Migratory Species.
Financing mechanisms include the Global Environment Facility serving as principal financial mechanism, supplemented by bilateral assistance from donors such as Sweden, Japan, Germany, and multilateral banks like the World Bank. Capacity-building initiatives draw on partnerships with the United Nations Development Programme, Gates Foundation-funded projects, and regional development banks like the Asian Development Bank. Technology transfer arrangements refer to models from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and cooperative programs involving institutions such as the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology and UNESCO.
The Convention influenced national laws in states such as Brazil, India, South Africa, Australia, and European Union members, and guided conservation actions by organizations including Conservation International, World Wide Fund for Nature, and BirdLife International. Criticisms have come from actors like Biotechnology Industry Organization over regulatory burdens, from indigenous representatives associated with Landmark cases for perceived injustices in benefit-sharing, and from scholars at institutions such as Harvard University and University of Cambridge about implementation gaps. Compliance challenges involve dispute settlement procedures, monitoring frameworks similar to those under the UNFCCC, and financing shortfalls noted by bodies like the Independent Evaluation Office of the Global Environment Facility. Outcomes include contributions to targets such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and influence on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework negotiations.
Category:Environmental treaties Category:1992 treaties Category:United Nations conferences