Rethinking Differential Obligations: Equity Under the Biodiversity Convention

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 217-251

  Iles, Alastair ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

biodiversity; bioprospecting; Convention on Biological Diversity; differential obligations; equity; international environmental law

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011436971     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156503001134     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. The World Conservation Union's 2000 Red List of Threatened Species reveals that 24 per cent of mammals, 12 per cent of birds, 25 per cent of reptiles, 20 per cent of amphibians, 30 per cent of fish, and 16 per cent of conifers (and an unknown number of invertebrate species and plants) are threatened. IUCN, Red List of Threatened Species (2000).
2. (1992) 31 ILM 818, UN Doc. UNEP/BIO.Div/N7-INC.5/4.
3. CBD Secretariat, Strategic Plan, Decision 6/26, CoP-6, April 2002. UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/5/ADD1.
4. T. Lovejoy, ‘Biodiversity: Threats and Challenges’, in T. O'Riordan and S. Stoll-Kleeman (eds.), Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities (2002).
5. CBD Secretariat, ‘Biodiversity: Threats and Challenges’ note 3.
6. A.Wood, P. Stedman-Edwards, and J.Mang (eds.), The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss (2000).
7. L. Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy (1968); P. Weil, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law’, (1983) 77 AJIL 413.
8. E.g. L. Perez, Japan Comes of Age:Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties (1999).
9. M. Bedjaoui, Towards a New International Economic Order (1979).
10. Samir Amin, Maldevelopment: Anatomy of a Global Failure (1990).
11. UNDP, Human Development Report (2002).
12. http://www.undp.org/mdg.
13. See http://www.iisd.ca/linkages.
14. (1978) 1302 UNTS 217.
15. S. Bohmer-Christiansen and J. Skea, Acid Politics (1991).
16. Acid Politics.
17. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, (1987) 26 ILM 1550.
18. E. De Sombre and J.Kauffman, ‘TheMontreal ProtocolMultilateral Fund: Partial Success Story’, in R.Keohane and M. Levy, Institutions for Environmental Aid (1995).
19. E.g.Wood et al., ‘TheMontreal ProtocolMultilateral Fund: Partial Success Story’ note 6.
20. US General Accounting Office, Developing Country Debt: Debt Swaps for Development and Nature Provide Little Debt Relief (1991).
21. D.Magraw, ‘Legal Treatment ofDeveloping Countries:Differential, Contextual, and AbsoluteNorms’, (1990) 1 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 70. See also A. Halvorssen, Equality Among Unequals in International Environmental Law: Differential Treatment for Developing Countries (1999); A. Gillespie, International Environmental Law, Policy, and Ethics (1997).
22. P. Sand, Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (1990).
23. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1, vol. 2, (1992).
24. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1., vol. 1.
25. See http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/2002/wssd/1sept.html.
26. R. Olembo, ‘The Potential Effectiveness of a New Biodiversity Convention’, in S. Bilderbeek (ed.), Biodiversity and International Law (1992).
27. Bilderbeek, ‘The Potential Effectiveness of a New Biodiversity Convention’ note 27.
28. V. Koester, ‘The Five Global Biodiversity-Related Conventions: A Stocktaking’, (2002) 11(1) RECIEL 96.
29. Participation was seen as dependent on ‘the ability to accommodate differences between countries with different values, ecological and geographical conditions, economic capacities, and historic contributions to the problems that are being addressed’. P. Sands, ‘Environmental Protection in the 21st Century’, in R. Revesz, P. Sands, and R. Stewart (eds.), Environmental Law, the Economy, and Sustainable Development (2000). See also A. Boyle, ‘The Rio Convention on Biological Diversity’, in M. Bowman and C. Redgwell (eds.), International Law and the Conservation of Biological Diversity (1996).
30. Halvorssen, Participation was seen as dependent on ‘the ability to accommodate differences between countries with different values, ecological and geographical conditions, economic capacities, and historic contributions to the problems that are being addressed’. note 22, at 69.
31. T. Athanasiou and P. Baer, Dead Heat: GlobalWarming and Globalization (2002).
32. N. Myers, ‘Biodiversity and Biodepletion: The Need for a Paradigm Shift’, in O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman, Dead Heat: GlobalWarming and Globalization note 4.
33. IPCC, Climate Change Impact Assessment (2001).
34. Sand, IPCC, Climate Change Impact Assessment note 23; Halvorssen, IPCC, Climate Change Impact Assessment note 22.
35. The Kyoto Protocol is predicated on industrial countries reducing their carbon emissions according to a negotiated scale, while developing countries do not yet have reduction obligations. ‘1997 Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change’, (1998) 37 ILM 22.
36. D.McGraw, ‘The CBD-Key Characteristics and Implications for Implementation’, (2002) 11(1) RECIEL 17.
37. Sand, ‘The CBD-Key Characteristics and Implications for Implementation’ note 23, 224.
38. See, e.g., M. Weisslitz, ‘Rethinking the Equitable Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility’, (2002) 13 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 473; J. Tasioulas, ‘International Law and the Limits of Fairness’, (2002) 13 EJIL 993.
39. Boyle, ‘Rethinking the Equitable Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ note 30.
40. OneexceptionintheBiodiversityConventionisArt. 8(j),whichcoverstheinvolvementof indigenouspeoples and the ‘equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations, and practices’. Companies may be granted access to natural resources in the context of national regulatory frameworks implementing treaties.
41. McGraw, OneexceptionintheBiodiversityConventionisArt. 8(j),whichcoverstheinvolvementof indigenouspeoples and the ‘equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations, and practices’. Companies may be granted access to natural resources in the context of national regulatory frameworks implementing treaties. note 37.
42. If through the Montreal Protocol China obtains help with redesigning its industrial manufacturing to use substitutes forCFCs,it canleapfrog technologically,createnewmarketsdomesticallyandinternationally,and preserve the ozone layer. If the European Union cuts its carbon emissions, and transfers significant funding for carbon abatement projects in developing countries, while most developing countries are permitted to increase their emissions (but by a much smaller net amount), the EU demonstrates its commitment and enables developing countries to expand.
43. CBD Conference of Parties, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20.
44. Wood et al., CBD Conference of Parties note 6.
45. OECD, Biotechnology and Development (2001); OECD, The Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability (2001).
46. E.g. J. Scott, Seeing Like a State (1998); M. Killbridge, Problems Often Encountered in Implementing Industrial Projects in Developing Countries (1971); J. Heyer and J. Roberts, Rural Development in Tropical Africa (1991).
47. B. Billon, Modernization Theory and Economic Development: Discontent in the DevelopingWorld (1993).
48. S. Jasanoff, ‘NewModernities: Reimagining Science, Technology and Development’, (2002) 11 Environmental Values 253.
49. R. Kline, ‘Resisting Development, Reinventing Modernity: Rural Electrification in the United States before World War II’, (2002) 11 Environmental Values 327; D. Nye, Consuming Power: A Social History of America's Energies (1998).
50. B. Agarwal, Group Functioning and Community Forestry in South Asia, Working Paper No. 171, UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (2000).
51. Jasanoff, Group Functioning and Community Forestry in South Asia note 49.
52. K. Kapadia, ‘Homegrown Power Plants: The Case forWood-Based Energy Systems in Sri Lanka’, Refocus: The International Renewable EnergyMagazine (February 2003).
53. E.g.W. Cronon (ed.), Uncommon Ground (1995).
54. I. Boal, ‘Damaging Crops: Sabotage, Social Memory, and the New Genetic Enclosures’, in N. Peluso and M.Watts (eds.), Violent Environments (2002).
55. At least 92 CoP decisions touch on genetic resources in some way: CBD Secretariat, http://www. biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/benefit/decisions.asp. See also CBD Secretariat, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Transfer of Technologies’, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/2/17, 6 Oct. 1995; CBD Secretariat, ‘Access to Genetic Resources’, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/3/20, 5 Oct. 1996.
56. Earth Negotiations Bureau, Linkages Report on CoP-5, 2000, vol. 9, no. 154, at http://www.iisd.ca/ linkages/vol09.
57. CBD Secretariat, UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20.
58. Earth Negotiations Bureau, Linkages Reports on CoP-4, 1998, vol. 9, no. 96; CoP-5, 2000, vol. 9, no. 154; CoP-6, 2002, vol. 9, no. 239 at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/vol09.
59. For example, ‘Global Biodiversity Forum Statement at the First Session of the Ad Hoc Open-endedWorking Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing’, at http://www.gbf/present session.asp.
60. Earth Negotiations Bureau, Linkages Report on Co.P-5, 2000, vol. 9, no. 154, at http://www.iisd.ca/ linkages/vol09.
61. Global Biodiversity Forum, ‘Workshop on The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Equitable Sharing of Benefits’, Bonn, 2001, at http://www.gbf.ch/desc workshop.asp.
62. ‘Workshop on The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Equitable Sharing of Benefits’.
63. Global Biodiversity Forum, ‘Third Regional Session for Africa:Using Biodiversity to Strengthen Livelihoods’, Mombasa, Kenya, 21-3 Feb. 2000, at http://gbf.ch/present session old.asp.
64. R. Lake, ‘Financial Resources for Biodiversity Conservation in Developing Countries’, Paper 96-07-12, 1996, http://economics.iucn.org.
65. UN Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, Financial Flow Statistics: Adjustment forMonitoring the Financing of Agenda 21 (1996); Global Environment Fund, Annual Report (1995).
66. There are great fluctuations in funding on an annual basis (such as $170 million in 1996 and $472 million in 1998), because of ‘normal fluctuations of the funding cycle’ due to the complexities of government-bank negotiations and the biodiversity issue. Large projects can take time to show up in the figures. Global Environment Fund, Biodiversity Program Study (2001).
67. World Bank, Supporting theWeb of Life: TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity-A Portfolio Update, 1988-1999 (2000).
68. World Bank, Supporting theWeb of Life: TheWorld Bank and Biodiversity-A Portfolio Update.
69. World ConservationMonitoring Centre, Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources (1992).
70. Measures of funding outcomes are more easily linked to geographical and bureaucratic progress (such as numbers of guards hired, amount of land newly sequestered, and so on) than to social and economic development. B. Cracknell, Evaluating Development Aid: Issues, Problems and Solutions (2000).
71. UNEP, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/CO/6/INF/4, 14 Jan. 2002.
72. UNEP.
73. World Bank, Biodiversity Portfolio Report (2001).
74. Genetic and biological material exploitation may have economies of scale, and may be more efficient and easier to look for, if it is heavily concentrated in a small area.
75. World Bank, Genetic and biological material exploitation may have economies of scale, and may be more efficient and easier to look for, if it is heavily concentrated in a small area. note 68.
76. UNEP, World Bank note 72.
77. World Bank, ‘Biodiversity Portfolio Report ’ note 68.
78. World Bank.
79. UNEP, World Bank. note 72.
80. K. ten Kate and S. A. Laird, Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (1998).
81. CBD Secretariat, ‘Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing: Legislation, Administration and Policy Information’, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/COP/2/13, 6 Oct. 1995.
82. C. Juma, ‘Modern Biotechnology’, 2020 Focus 7 (Appropriate Technology for Sustainable Food), Brief 4 of 9, Aug. 2001.
83. Ten Kate and Laird, ‘Modern Biotechnology’ note 82.
84. E.g., CDB Secretariat, Global Biodiversity Outlook (2000).
85. I. Egler, ‘Brazil: Selling Biodiversity with Local Livelihoods’, in O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman, CDB Secretariat note 4.
86. See, e.g., CBD Secretariat, ‘Addressing the Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Genetic Resources’, UNEP/CBD/COP/4/22, 9 Feb. 1998.
87. E.g., D. Simpson and R. Sedjo, Investments in Biodiversity Prospecting and Incentives for Conservation (1996).
88. P. Ball, Made to Measure: New Materials for the 21st Century (2000).
89. M. Sturm, ‘TheMixed Experience of Private Sector Involvement in BiodiversityManagement in Costa Rica’, in O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman, Made to Measure: New Materials for the 21st Century note 4.
90. G. Henne and S. Fakir, ‘NBI-Ball Agreement: A New Phase in Bioprospecting?’, (1999) (September) Biotechnology & DevelopmentMonitor.
91. CBD Secretariat, ‘Access to Genetic Resources’, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/20, 5 Oct. 1996, p. 14.
92. Egler, ‘Access to Genetic Resources’ note 88.
93. Henne and Fakir, ‘Access to Genetic Resources’ note 93.
94. Similarly, in Ecuador the Inter-American Development Bank and national NGOs are cataloguing traditional knowledge of biodiversity into a heavily restricted database to create a market for the knowledge. The resulting capital flows, if any, are to be split between the government and each local community according to what it is judged to have contributed, but always on the government's terms. ‘Synthesis of Case Studies on Benefit-Sharing’, UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.7, 4May 1998, 4.
95. Henne and Fakir, Similarly, in Ecuador the Inter-American Development Bank and national NGOs are cataloguing traditional knowledge of biodiversity into a heavily restricted database to create a market for the knowledge. note 93.
96. CBD Secretariat, Similarly, in Ecuador the Inter-American Development Bank and national NGOs are cataloguing traditional knowledge of biodiversity into a heavily restricted database to create a market for the knowledge. note 87.
97. E.g. R. Hofrichter, Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice (2002); K. Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Claiming Democracy (2002).
98. R. Gottlieb, Environmentalism Unbounded (2000).
99. E.g. Agarwal, Environmentalism Unbounded note 51.
100. C. Larrison, A Comparison of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Community Development Interventions in Rural Mexico (2002).
101. M. Keck and K. Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (1998).
102. G. Daily and K. Ellison, The Commerce of Ecology (2002).
103. Sturm, The Commerce of Ecology note 92.
104. C. Gibson,M.McKean, and E. Ostrom (eds.), People and Forests:Communities, Institutions, and Governance (1999).
105. N. Chambers, C. Simmons, and M.Wackernagel, Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability (2001).
106. M.Wackernagel andW. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (1996).
107. To some extent, the geography discipline-as has the industrial ecology field-has already engaged in work to map resource-flows throughout the world. P. Steinberg, Environmental Leadership in Developing Countries (2000), mapped the flows of ideas about biodiversity into Costa Rica and Bolivia from around the world by recording the location and number of newspaper articles referring to foreign experiences in conserving biodiversity.W. Cronon, Nature'sMetropolis (1991), explored the flows of capital during themid-19th century in the north-eastern United States to invest in the building industry in Chicago.
108. J. Agyeman, R. Bullard, and B. Evans (eds.), Just Sustainabilities: Development in an UnequalWorld (2003).
109. See http://www.rp.org/.
110. See http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants/regions/kenya/hardwood.htm.
111. E.g.D.Tilman,D.Wedin,andJ.Knops,'ProductivityandSustainability InfluencedbyBiodiversityinGrassland Ecosystems’,(1996)379Nature,718;B.Walker,A.Kinzig,andJ.Langridge,'PlantAttributeDiversity,Resilience, and Ecosystem Function:TheNature and Significance ofDominantand Minor Species’, (1999) 2(2) Ecosystems 95.
112. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, CoP-6, 2002, vol. 9, no. 239, at http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/vol09.
113. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
114. CBD, Global Biodiversity Outlook (2001), Ch. 6.
115. CBD Secretariat, ‘Addressing the Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of Genetic Resources’, UNEP/CBD/COP/4/22, 9 Feb. 1998.
116. As theCBDSecretariatnoted in 1998, ‘Whether the sharing of benefits is “fair and equitable” is a question that can only be answered after an in-depth analysis. It depends on the value system upon which the judgment is based’. CBD Secretariat, ‘Synthesis of Case Studies on Benefit-Sharing’, UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.7, 4May 1998.
117. ‘Whether the sharing of benefits is “fair and equitable” is a question that can only be answered after an in-depth analysis. It depends on the value system upon which the judgment is based’., at 21.