1 1

Prepared for:– Inter-Linkages –

International Conference on Synergies and Coordination between MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements

14, 15 and 16 July, 1999

The Contribution of Biodiversity-RelatedMultilateral Environmental Agreements To Sustainable Development:

A Discussion of Some the Issues

Juan Ovejero

1 2

Outline

I. Introduction II. The roots of biodiversity-related MEAs III. The pre-Rio biodiversity-related MEAs IV. The Rio Conventions V. Linkages between biodiversity-related MEAs and the WTO VI. Discussion VII. Conclusions and Recommendations

Acronyms and abbreviations

ART - Africa Resources TrustBASP - Biodiversity Action and Strategy PlanCAMPFIRE - Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous ResourcesCBNRM - Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementCBD - Convention on Biological DiversityCCC - Convention on Climate ChangeCCD - Convention to Combat DesertificationCMS - Convention on Migratory Species (or Bonn Convention)CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesCSD - Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentERM - Environment Resource Management Ltd.ESA - Endangered Species ActEU - European UnionGBF - Global Biodiversity ForumGEF - Global Environment FacilityIUCN - The World Conservation UnionMEA - Multilateral Environmental AgreementNAMMCO - North Atlantic Marine Mammal CommissionNAP - National Action PlanOKACOM - Okavango River-Basin CommissionSADC - Southern African Development CommunityUK - United KingdomUN - United NationsUNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNDP - United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP - United Nations Environment ProgrammeUSA - United States of AmericaWTO - World Trade Organisation

1 3

I. Introduction

This paper will review the origin of key biodiversity-related multilateral environmentalagreements (MEAS), the evolution of these agreements, their current technical and legalstatus and the prospects that their co-ordination offers in pursuing the goal of environmentalmanagement within the framework of global sustainable development. The challenges thatMEAs face today are inextricably linked to the increasingly globalised world economy. Thereis little doubt that MEAs are relevant to Sustainable Development, especially since theadoption of the Rio Declaration. MEAs can positively contribute to Sustainable Developmentbut can also undermine it. There is today a solid body of evidence to argue that todaybiodiversity conservation is essentially a socio-economic challenge and that poverty is at thecore of the problem. However, many influential voices, especially in Western countries, arestill approaching biodiversity conservation in isolation from human development. This viewwas voiced in 1998 at the occasion of the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held inDurban, South Africa. Ambassador Jackie Selebi of South Africa’s Department of ForeignAffairs, referred to the raised of environment activism which sought to address environmentalissues in isolation to social and economic factors and noted “more attention was paid toelephants and rhinos than to the poor and starving communities living side by side withwildlife…The protection and conservation of endangered species was pursued by themselves,without factoring the cost of such endeavour for the welfare of the human persons incommunities living side by side with wildlife”.

For the purpose of this paper, the concept of MEA refers to biodiversity-related agreements,treaties and conventions which involve or directly affect the conservation of land-based orterrestrial biological resources including the following: Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), International Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), the Convention on MigratorySpecies or Bonn Convention (CMS), the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)or Washington Convention and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (CCC).

II. The roots of biodiversity-related MEAs

Environmental consciousness, as we know it today, is the result of the growing concern thatthe developed world had since the late 1960s about the degradation of the environment due tohuman economic development activities (Rachel Carson’s “Silent spring”). This emergingawareness led to pressures from a number of governments and the new-born environmentalmovement to start a race to reverse this negative trend. One of the specific actions thatmarked the start of the international debate on environment and development, whichcontinues today, was the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment of 1972organised under the UN 1banner.

The Stockholm Conference largely focused on the crucial importance that the protection ofthe environment had for the future of humanity and in particular in the negative impact ofhuman activities on the environment. Although the overall consensus of the conference wasthat there was an environmental limit to human development -strongly influenced by the Clubof Rome’s ‘The limits of growth’- the delegates attending the conference adopted a twenty-six point Declaration noting that ‘environmental deficiencies generated by underdevelopmentand natural resources disasters can best be remedied by accelerated development through thetransfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance’. This could beinterpreted as a call for international co-operation and the adoption of both CITES and theCMS - in 1973 and 1979 respectively- must be understood in this context.

1

1 4

Later in 1983, the United Nations General Assembly established the World Commission onEnvironment and Development to provide recommendations on a “global agenda for change”,and a strategy for sustainable development to be achieved by the year 2000. The designatedchair of the Commission was the former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Bruntlandt.The recommendations were published in the report ‘Our common future’ of 1987. Perhaps themain characteristic of the report is the conclusion that environment and development areinextricably linked and that there was a need to substantially increase the expenditure in orderto rehabilitate the environment and achieve sustainable development. The Commission is bestknown for coining the widely accepted principle of “Sustainable Development”, defined as“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of furthergenerations to meet their own needs”.

The Rio Conference or the Earth Summit are the two common names for the United NationsConference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The Conference was held in Rio deJaneiro in 1992 and attended by a large number of heads of state. The meeting established theAgenda 21 and the Rio Declaration which called among other things for the conclusion ofthree new conventions which are central to the debate on MEAs co-ordination: theConvention on Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification and theConvention on Climate Change. Sustainable development is at the core of the threeconventions and this has exacerbated the tensions with the old conventions, in particular withCITES and with the Convention on Migratory Species or CMS. The fact that CITES includestrade provisions, which form an essential though polemic part of the treaty, gives us theopportunity to discuss the legal tensions between these and international trade rules.

III. The pre-Rio biodiversity-related MEAs

III.a. The International Convention on Wetlands or Ramsar Convention

Just a few months prior to the Stockholm Conference of 1972, the international communityagreed to establish the International Convention on Wetlands, also known as RamsarConvention. Ironically, during a period of enthusiasm for environmental protection awarenesswhere any human intervention in natural cycles was perceived as negative, a number ofcountries established a convention which acknowledged that the ‘wise use’ of wetlandecosystems and species is not only compatible with the environment but can make asignificant contribution to its conservation. This was the first biodiversity-related MultilateralEnvironmental Agreement dealing with land-based (and coastal) resources and ecosystem.

Ramsar was adopted on 2 February 1971 in the Iranian city of the same name. It isindependent from the UN system, yet the depository of the convention is the Director Generalof UNESCO. The Convention claims to be the first of the modern inter-governmental treatieson the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. Clearly, Ramsar was twodecades ahead of its time. The Convention is primarily concerned with the conservation andsustainable utilisation of wetland sites which are critical for many Earth inhabitants, includingone billion people living in drylands. The Ramsar Convention was ahead of the conclusionsof the Bruntlandt’s World Commission on Environment and Development which defined theprinciple of Sustainable Development.

Ramsar defines wise use or sustainable utilisation as “the human use of a wetland so that itmay yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining itspotential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations". The Conventionacknowledges that wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, cultural, scientific andrecreational value that should be maintained. By stating in its provisions that ‘listed sites donot necessarily require protected area status, provided their ecological character is maintainedthrough a wise use management approach’ the convention acknowledges that conservation of

1 5

biodiversity does not necessarily mean precluding human economic activities. However, theview that environmental conservation and social and economic development are conflictive ifnot incompatible, gained support in the 70’s and 80’s. This was mainly due to the abusiveway in which the precautionary principle was often applied in international environmentalfora.

Ramsar has also been a precursor of the international co-operation between multilateralenvironmental agreements favouring synergistic approaches. As early as January 1996, theRamsar Bureau (the Secretariat of the Convention) and the CBD Secretariat prepared theground for developing technical co-operation which is seen as a model MEAs co-operation ofpurely scientific nature. The substance of this co-operation shall be developed in next sectionsof this paper.

III.b The CITES Convention

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES), also known as Washington Convention, was signed in 1973 and entered into forcein July 1975. CITES was drawn-up as a tool to control trade in wildlife so that it does not leadto the extinction of species. Although the treaty is independent from the UN system, it doeshave a formal link with UNEP, which administers the convention.

A number of Parties, especially from the developing world, seem to look upon theConvention as a Western creation. This is perhaps due to the fact that the treaty is a commandand control mechanism with strong antecedents in US law. A convincing argument has beenmade (Hutton in press) that the twin principles which underlie CITES are that harvesting andtrade are inherently incompatible with resource conservation and that responsibilities have tobe moved from the range state to a higher level which has greater competence. It follows theprecedent that had been established in contemporaneous US Law, notably the MarineMammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Both lawsremoved jurisdiction with respect to marine mammals and endangered species from theconstituent states of the US and centralised it in the Federal government. This pre-emption, asit was called, said that a state had to have laws at least as strict as the federal laws in order torecover the jurisdiction. However, it made it clear that nothing would prevent a state fromhaving a ‘stricter’ law. Hence, the CITES polemic provisions that allow the Parties to theConvention to adopt ‘Stricter Domestic Measures’ based on the given belief that closingmarkets for a wildlife product is the key for the recovery of the conservation status of thespecies. This provision opens the door for the adoption of trade barriers aimed at preventingthe trade in some species which are not even legally listed as endangered and often based onethic grounds. These have been denounced though not legally challenged for violatinginternational trade rules.

CITES virtually ignores socio-economic and human development factors affectingbiodiversity conservation and sustainable development. In this context, land use policy is amajor factor affecting conservation and there is a growing body of evidence to suggest thatthe fact that resources are undervalued is a major factor contributing to habitat destruction andbiodiversity loss. But at the time the Convention was negotiated, the knowledge about thefactors underpinning the conservation of natural resources was limited. Today, ourunderstanding of biodiversity conservation has increased notably, but the provisions of thetreaty have not been amended. These issues were considered in the study on ‘Theeffectiveness of the Convention’ commissioned by the Standing Committee of CITES and,after a call for tenders, produced by a UK-based consultant, ERM. When reviewing thelinkages between CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Consultant notedthat a number of Parties did not see sustainable use -a fundamental policy feature of the CBD-as being the central theme of CITES and recommended that this issue and its relation toCITES be addressed in an interpretative Resolution by the Conference of the Parties as a

1 6

matter of priority. However, though the delegation of the United States endorsed the report’sview that the treaty should not be amended and thought that the relationship with the CBDshould evolve gradually, it was wary of the report proposal to clarify the meaning ofsustainable utilisation. The progress made so far in analysing the linkages and conflictsbetween these two agreement will be reviewed more in depth in the coming sections in thispaper.

III.c The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) or Bonn Convention

The Bonn Convention is the last of the three pre-Rio Biodiversity-related conventions to beagreed upon and to enter into force.. In its Article II (Fundamental principles) the Parties tothe Convention “acknowledges the importance of migratory species being conserved and ofthe Range stets agreeing to take action to this end whenever possible and appropriate, payingspecial attention to migratory species the conservation status of which is unfavourable, andtaking individually or in co-operation appropriate and necessary steps to conserve suchspecies and their habitat”. The Bonn Convention is, as in the case of CITES, not part of theUN system but it is administered by UNEP. The roots of the Convention are to be found in arecommendation of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held inStockholm in 1972, which recommended the necessity that countries co-operate for theconservation of migrating animals. The agreement follows the bio-centred approach, alsoadvocated by CITES, with practically no acknowledgement of human and socio-economicissues affecting the conservation of migratory species and their habitats. An interestingfeatures of this particular MEA is the fact that the treaty has developed a myriad of protocols,six so far, which tackle the protection of particular migratory species. The following protocolshave been agreed upon: Ascobans, Acomabs, Aiewa, Eurobats, Baltic seals and ArabianBustards. An issue that has raised concern is the important bureaucracy and associatedfunding requirements that these protocols are generating, having each of them its ownsecretariat. The Bonn Convention has acknowledged (CMS 1996 brochure) the necessity offacing the challenges of the Earth Summit of 1992 which seeks a balance betweenenvironmental conservation and human development interests. The Convention has obviouspotential synergies with Ramsar, CITES and the CBD, but would need a serious revision ifthese linkages are to be developed in a pragmatic and efficient manner.

IV. The Rio Conventions

IV.a The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emerged out of the Rio Summit during theUN Conference on Environment and Development of 1992 and is fully attached to UNEP.The Summit decided that three new conventions tackling three critical areas for sustainabledevelopment should be developed, biological diversity perhaps being the all inclusive andtechnically de facto umbrella of the three. As pointed out by the former Executive Director ofthe Convention, Dr. Calestous Juma, during his last statement to the Commission onSustainable Development (CSD) in 1998, the CBD is a sustainable development agreement,as opposed to the classical conservation treaties. The CBD has a strong focus on livelihoodsand ecosystems and is incentive-based.

The Convention has three objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainableuse of its components and the equitable sharing of the resources arising from its use. It seesconservation and sustainable use as head and tail of the same coin. Additionally, theconvention considers issues such as equity, tenure and indigenous knowledge as key elementsto achieve conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD also requiresthat the Parties elaborate their own Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (BASP) and

1 7

develop protocols to implement the provisions of the Convention at national and local level.This implies the application of the principle of subsidiarity. In this context subsidiarity meanstransferring the responsibility of the implementation of the Convention provisions to the levelwhich can do it more efficiently. This is a fundamental difference with other treaties such asCITES, where a well meant decision to ban trade in one species may be taken by theConference of the Parties or unilaterally by just one Party through the adoption of stricterdomestic measures as allowed by the convention. However, these may well have adverse andundesirable effects such as eliminating the value of a species and thus favouring theconversion of the ecosystem in which the endangered species occurs to alternative lands usessuch as agriculture and cattle production. The Convention on Biological Diversity has a legalfocus on the rights of sovereign states. The preamble of the Convention states that “Stateshave sovereign rights over their biological resources” and “States are responsible forconserving their biological diversity and for using these biological resources in a sustainablemanner”.

IV.b The Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD)

The Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) also emerged from the Earth Summit of1992 and as its sister conventions, the CBD and the CCC, is legally attached to the UNsystem through UNEP. The agreement aims at reversing land degradation in arid, semi-aridand dry sub-humid areas and mitigating the effects of drought in countries experiencingserious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through a number of actions inthe framework of an integrated approach with a view to contributing to the achievement ofsustainable development in affected areas.

The Convention attaches the greatest relevance to local knowledge, decentralisation andcommunity participation. By focusing on drylands, the convention has a strategic interest inencouraging the development of National Action Plans (NAPs), thus contributing to therestructuring of development incentives for rural communities so that Biodiversity and soil-friendly land use models such as CBNRM (Community-Based Natural ResourceManagement) can be developed and implemented successfully. This would contribute to both,the prevention of further soil erosion and human economic needs in arid and semi-arid lands.Because of the strong emphasis of the CCD on livelihoods and ecosystems (drylands), thepotential for operative synergies with the CBD is important and initiatives in this directionhave already been taken. These will be analysed in next sections when the experiencesdeveloped in Africa through the CBNRM programmes of east and southern Africa will beaddressed. In the last decade, the countries of the Southern Africa Development Community(SADC) have been developing rural development strategies based on the biodiversity-friendlyCBNRM model.

The Annex I of the Convention (Regional implementation Annex for Africa) lays down thespecial provisions for combating desertification where it is most felt, Africa. Article 4.2.b)notes that ‘affected African Parties shall aim to…sustain and strengthen reforms currently inprogress toward greater decentralisation and resource tenure as well as reinforce participationof local populations and communities’. Article 8.3 (Content of National Action Programmes -for Africa-) requests that ‘National actions programmes shall also, as appropriate, includeinter alia, the following measures to improve the economic environment with a view toeradicating poverty, increasing incomes and employment opportunities, especially for thepoorest members of the community by: developing economic activities of a para-agriculturalor non-agricultural type, and measures to conserve natural resources, including, vegetationcover and wildlife, water resources, forests and biological diversity’. The support of the CCDto global sustainable development goals is clear. The convention seeks multiple-win actionsdeveloped at local and national level. These must be seek reversing desertification processessuch as soil erosion by conserving and sustainably using natural ecosystems and species

1 8

inhabiting the areas aiming at securing livelihoods and improving the economic conditionsand long term development prospects of communities.

In the ambit of the CBNRM initiatives, a scheme which has attracted international attention inthe last 10 years is the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe. Decentralisation processesbased on the recognition of tenure rights over natural resources have empowered ruralcommunities in Zimbabwe which are using wildlife resources to improve their livingconditions with enormous spin-off benefits for biodiversity conservation and the for the fightagainst desertification. In CAMPFIRE wild resources are used on sustainable basis and thesharing schemes ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the resources while less land isconverted to biodiversity-unfriendly activities, reducing soil erosion. The programme also hasan indirect favourable impact on the climate.

IV.c The Climate Change Convention (CCC)

The Earth Summit adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to consolidatethe work carried out during the previous years by the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). This Convention, also legally ascribe to the UN system through UNEP,entered into force in March 1993 and received the instruments of ratification from 133 parties.The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system. Such level is expected to be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allowecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change to ensure that food production is notthreatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Thisagreement has obvious strategic and technical linkages with all the other biodiversity-relatedconventions. Given the important capacity and role of biodiversity rich ecosystems (forests,wetlands) in contributing to climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration, somehave advocated a biodiversity conservation policy based on a precautionary approach. TheCBD Secretariat had carried out in 1996 an identification of the proximate threats tobiological diversity and listed climate change as one of them. However, if we look in thesame document at the ultimate causes to these threats, we can conclude that economicdisincentives-incentives are at the roots of the problem and that a more progressive approachpromoting and ensuring a sustainable management of biological resources (species andecosystems) could contribute more efficiently to reverse climate change. Emerging issuessuch as “trade and ecosystems” and “climate change and ecosystems” deserve more attention.

V. Linkages between biodiversity-related MEAs and the WTO

As the background paper prepared by the conference organisers indicates, it is crucial thatMEAs be considered within the broader context provided by global international rules andthat the management of the environment must be undertaken in a manner that is compatiblewith international trade rules

The regulation of trade to reduce the risks of species extinction has become a contentiousissue in the last few years. So far, there has never been a formal dispute of any sort betweenan MEA and the WTO, but it has long been recognised that there is potential conflict betweenthe WTO rules and restrictive trade practices pursuant to some MEAs. At the moment, trademeasures are inherent to several MEAs, including CITES. They include trade measures assanctions or direct measures to protect the environment. It was hoped by many that theCommittee on Trade and Environment (CTE), which was the main institutional developmentin the Uruguay Round, constituted to look at MEAs, environmental taxes and labellingschemes would anticipate problems of this sort and suggest fixes (such as the amendment togive more generous exceptions to MEAs). However, the committee has been unable to makeconclusive recommendations.

1 9

One option is to ignore the problem until a dispute is raised, but many developed countries areconcerned about the status quo, calling for pre-emptory measures to avoid conflict. The EU,for example, has expressed concern that ‘the WTO legal system should provide increasedlegal certainty concerning the use of trade measures in Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreements to prevent conflicting between the two sets of rules’.

Analysis of the situation shows that where the WTO and restrictive trade provisions of MEAsclash one can:

(i) Create a balancing mechanism(ii) Determine that one is superior to the other(iii) Modify one or both systems

Within much of the developed world there is an overwhelming desire for generousexemptions to be crafted for measures taken pursuant to an MEA. Trade measures might belegitimised by:

(i) Amending Article XX to include a new exemption(ii) Encouraging members seek a waiver from WTO obligations(iii) Creating a list of MEAs which prevail over the GATT

In Europe, voices in opposition to this position are rare. However, the African caucus haspointed-out that the WTO should have a say even where measures are taken pursuant to anMEA. Developing countries often feel unfairly disadvantaged by MEA regulations and wishto retain the possibility of appeal to the WTO dispute settlement process as a last resort. Moreformally, it is argued that the move to exempt MEAs makes two key assumptions, that:

(i) MEAs are truly platforms for consensus(ii) MEAs have effective dispute settlement mechanism

Furthermore, the trade restrictions allowed by an MEA might be disproportionate (andcounter to the WTO principle that, even where they are allowed, trade measures should be theleast restrictive necessary to achieve a policy objective). Under these circumstances, is itappropriate to deny the WTO a say ?

CITES is the only biodiversity-related agreement that includes a provision on trade measures,which in the CITES jargon are called, ‘stricter domestic measures’. However, these are notdefined in the convention’s Article XIV, paragraph 1 which allows the Parties to theConvention to use them. Nonetheless, the Parties to the Convention that hold the markets forwildlife products, especially, the USA and the EU have traditionally interpreted in a punitiveand restrictive way, were ‘less things are allowed’. Some experts (Hutton in press) haveargued that if Stricter Domestic Measures are an affront to developing countries, as well asGATT unfriendly, while at the same time their effectiveness is unmeasured, why are they soenthusiastically adopted by many of the main wildlife markets of the world ? The obviousanswer hinges on the non-detriment requirement of Article IV of CITES, which manydeveloping countries, but not exclusively fail to implement effectively, this being the mainjustification for the Stricter Domestic measures taken by key consumers. As indicated earlierin this paper, the CITES Stricter domestic measures provisions and the requirement of non-detriment findings can often act as a disincentive while other biodiversity-related conventionoperate on incentives (CBD, CCD, Ramsar). It has created some major distortions withrespect to equity and benefit sharing which are key features in CBD. CITES has created asituation where ex-situ captive breeding in rich ‘ex-situ’ countries) is favoured overharvesting from the wild in developing countries.

1 10

If the incentive-system promoted by the CBD, the CCD and indeed Ramsar, is to workeffectively in the biodiversity-rich regions of the world, especially in the developing world,attitudes and development policy toward the principles and practices of sustainable use inWestern countries would have to change.

VI. Discussions

Over the past four years a number of initiatives aiming at exploring and developing synergiesbetween the different conventions have taken place. However, it is useful to recall that thethree Rio agreements already advocate synergistic approaches. Articles 16-18 of the CBD andArticle 20-22 (I) of CCD call for “Exchange of information, promote and strengthen theleadership with other relevant conventions while avoiding duplication of efforts”.

Different factors are contributing to this process, including technical, scientific, financial andpurely political ones. The subject deserves attention for many reasons but especially two:limited financial resources and the need to make the conventions more efficient by co-ordinating their actions. However, it is worthwhile to note that already in 1985 during theUNEP Governing Council, the delegation of the United States suggested merging all UNinstruments. The United Kingdom said it would not work but moved the discussion towardthe need for a framework which is what the CBD was perhaps meant to become in 1992.

It has been acknowledged in the CBD that human activities have the capacity to erodebiological diversity through increasing populations, consumption patterns and the associateddevelopment. There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community that climate changeis one of the major threats to biological diversity at all levels. Hence there is a need to takeactions. This process started with the development of the Kyoto protocol. However, it can besaid that the awareness developed in the last few years on the linkages between biologicaldiversity in sensitive ecosystems (i.e.; tropical forests and drylands) on the one hand andclimate change (i.e. anthropogenic emissions) has created a bias in the original holisticdimension of the CBD.

In the last few years there have been calls in several international fora, including MEAs, toreduce the harvest, either commercial or for subsistence, of wild species occurring in thesesensitive ecosystems, ignoring the fact that populations living in these areas would be force toincrease the trend of converting wild ecosystems into agriculture areas, furthering thedestruction of these important habitats that sustain 2 billion people. Therefore, the climatechange debate has often obscured the social and economic objectives and provisions of theCBD (i.e.; sustainable use and equitable sharing) which are pivotal for the conservation ofbiodiversity and indeed for the objectives of the related conventions. .

As indicated earlier in this paper, there is a serious policy gap between the three RioConventions and their more specialised predecessors, notably the Convention on MigratorySpecies (CMS) and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildspecies of Fauna and Flora (CITES). The policy linkages between the Convention onBiological Diversity and CITES deserves special consideration because while they addressissues common to the two conventions the proposed policy options are very different whennot conflicting.

One of the international initiatives that has contributed the most to the ongoing process ofdiscussions on synergies and linkages between MEAs is the Global Biodiversity Forum, forshort GBF. The GBF provides for an independent, open and strategic mechanism to fosteranalysis and unencumbered dialogue and debate among interested Parties to address priorityecological, economic, institutional and social issues related to the options for action toconserve biodiversity, and use biological resources sustainably and equitably. It is designed to

1 11

contribute to the further development and implementation of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) and other biodiversity-related instruments and the local, national andinternational levels. So far, a number of GBF have addressed the linkages, synergies andconflicts between biodiversity treaties and issues.

During the Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF 7) held in Harare, Zimbabwe, in conjunctionwith the COP 10 of CITES, the identification of linkages between the CBD and CITES wasdiscussed by the participants. Both, negative and positive linkages were identified. Among thepositive linkages, participants noted that both conventions stress “conservation” as a goal;though in practice CITES places emphasis on “preservation”, whereas the CBD focuses on“sustainable living”, and equitable benefit sharing. The CBD acknowledges the value of localand traditional knowledge, while CITES has the potential to protect communities fromdestructive commercial use and trade but its top-down approach prevents the implementationof practical solutions at local level with strong local support. It is here suggested thatinternational action should be taken to support local and national initiatives not to replace itwith an inflexible global mechanism. This is a recurrent conflict within CITES and betweenCITES and the Rio Conventions, in particular with the CBD. Among the negative linkages,participants drew attention to the fact that CITES does not stress or incorporate local andtraditional knowledge. There is no local community participation in the CBD or CITESscientific bodies. There is no process of feedback to CITES of its impacts on localcommunities.

The GBF 7 also addressed the opportunities for positive linkages lie in fostering localcommunity participation in CITES processes. There is also a need for formal recognition ofthe critical role that local communities play in species conservation. Some participantsrecognised that CITES has brought positive benefits to some local communities and certainspecies (e.g., by buying time for the establishment of sound management practices or byprotecting access to resources that would otherwise have been traded internationally).However, some observers have expressed scepticism at the ability of CITES to change itsfocus. Others opposed to the use of the word linkages when addressing the CBD and CITESsynergies (Martin, R.B., 1997) Martin notes that when the range of threats to biologicaldiversity which the CBD have identified are taken into account, together with their causes, thesignificant of CITES contribution to the sustainable use objective of the CBD is limited tothat fraction of use which enters international trade. He further notes, the it is doubtfulwhether the word “linkage” is even appropriate: CITES activities are totally contained withina small subset of CBD’s activities.

CITES focuses on just one threat to biodiversity. It tackles this threat (international trade) in arigid, prescriptive way with no reference to socio-economic issues, such a land use planning,demography, habitat conservation or livelihoods. A number of Parties, especially but notexclusively, from the developing world, noted that the convention lacked flexibility and hadinequitable provisions. As mentioned earlier in this paper this brought the Parties to decide atthe CITES COP 9 held in Fort Lauderdale, United States, to commission an study to assessthe effectiveness of the Convention. The review was largely based on a questionnaire sent tothe Parties, provoking a critical response from some of them, especially but not exclusivelyfrom the developing world. Some Western countries such as Spain also noted that the reportdid not address the real shortcomings of the convention and that the proposals to improve theefficiency of the convention are absolutely insufficient when not rhetoric. The commentssubmitted by Spain note that the convention has neither a defined objective nor a strategicplan which is provokes confusion. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) pointed out thatthe report was basically a gathering of views rather than an assessment of effectiveness. Theyalso noted that the report paid little attention to the crucial issue of the impact of the treaty onthe status of species in trade. One of the recurrent issues discussed in the study and amongstthe parties at CITES COP 10 held in Harare, Zimbabwe, June 1997, was the synergy andlinkages with the Convention on Biological diversity. If CITES were ever to function in

1 12

synergy with the Convention on Biological Diversity or as a protocol under that MEA then amajor revision of the CITES treaty would be required.

There is a clear consensus today that a serious and comprehensive management of a speciesgoes beyond the scope of CITES. This alone, is a very strong argument for subsuming CITESwithin the CBD where it would be possible to balance conservation effort over a range ofthreats affecting species, and avoid the out-of-proportion focus on international trade. Thissuggests that CITES would be best placed as a protocol which implements the CBD wherecommercial trade is a threat to biodiversity. This means subsuming CITES within the CBD.However, though this might appear as logical to an outsider, vested interests would preventsuch a move. However, it could be possible to agree that CITES could act in place of aprotocol to the CBD, to which it might have a reporting obligation which in the long runwould force CITES to face up to broad contextual issues which would imply a revision of thetreaty not suited for the challenges of the 21st century.

But what would be the advantages for the species which CITES aims at saving ? LinkingCITES with the CBD could provide access to the Global Environment Facility. At themoment there is very little funding for CITES Appendix I species. It might be possible to getto a situation where these are referred to the Convention on Biological Diversity and in thisway become eligible for GEF funding. Similarly, CITES could be used to identify generic andsystematic problems, especially those related to national capacity to manage wild resources)and using the CBD as a mechanism to tackle this shortcomings with training, improvement oflegislation on the management of natural resources, tenure, access and property rights andothers.

With regard to the Convention to Combat Desertification, a Memorandum of Understandingwith the CBD was also signed in Dakar, Senegal at the occasion of the CCD COP 2. TheMemorandum was preceded by a GBF (12) two-day meeting which looked at the synergiesbetween the CBD and related conventions and the CCD. The Forum’s workshop ‘LinkingBiodiversity and Desertification: a strategic perspective’ recommended that the respectiveSecretariats, Parties, implementing agencies and existing funding agencies: Identify and workto remove perverse policy, institutional and economic obstacles to synergy among thebiodiversity-related Conventions; Create opportunities for learning from case studies and bestpractices, and improve communications between different stakeholders; Improveresponsiveness of funding to the increased demands of grassroots participation and jointimplementation of Conventions; Create mechanisms for building synergy between theconventions through community empowerment. In summary, the recommendations promoteincentive-based solutions and the principle of subsidiarity.

The case of Ramsar, the Convention of Wetlands could serve as a model for CBD and CITESco-operation. The secretariat, Ramsar Bureau, has actively pursued co-operation with otherMEAs. It has established over the past four years Memoranda of Understanding with theConvention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), theConvention to Combat Desertification (CCD) and the World Heritage Convention. The lastConference of the Parties which was held in Costa Rica in May 1999, also agreed to concludeco-operation agreements with the Convention on the International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and the Convention on Climate Change. Becauseof the non affiliation of Ramsar with UNEP, some observers of the process have argued thatthe initiative taken by Ramsar to co-ordinate with other MEAs holds a higher credibility thanother synergistic initiatives that may be the result of political actions. These observers notethat often Memoranda of Understanding are a excuse for taking little actions while keeping agood image.

Another sign of maturity of Ramsar is the fact that the Conference of the Parties has acceptedthat regional multiparty river-basin Agreements such as the Okavango River-Basin

1 13

Commission (OKACOM) are positive developments and can act as a vehicle for theimplementation of the Convention objectives. However, these regional bodies are not alwayswelcomed. When their establishment is partially due to the inefficiency of global agreementsand the decision to create the regional body obeys to the diversion of the global treaty from itsoriginal mission, these are seen as a threat. This is the case for the International WhalingCommission and NAMMCO, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, which wasestablished in 1992 as an inter-governmental body for co-operation on the conservation,management and study of marine mammals in the North Atlantic. The establishment ofNAMMCO is due in part to the dissatisfaction of the North Atlantic nations with thedevelopments within the International Whaling Commission (Sanderson, 1993). Counties inother regions have also opted for establishing regional agreements to manage their biologicalresources due to their frustration with the global convention. The Southern AfricanConvention on Wildlife Management (SACWM) established in 1991 is another example of aregional treaty agreed upon by countries frustrated by the lack of effectiveness of globaltreaties.

VII. Conclusions and recommendations

• The six conventions covered in this paper have a great deal in common. Their contributionto sustainable development is unequal depending on the provisions of each conventionsbut they all hold a tremendous potential to foster sustainable development in areas of theworld were it is most needed.

• The political processes of the different conventions are more important than the technical

co-operation and memoranda of understanding agreed upon by their secretariats. Theseprocesses must embrace sustainable development principles if the convention are to beeffectively implemented.

• In order to make the CBD, the CCD and other biodiversity-related conventions both, more

effective and mutually supportive, a number of strategic policy actions needs to beconsidered.

• The mission and scope of all the biodiversity-related MEAs falls entirely under the CBDtext and spirit. They should be dove-tailed to carry effectively the overall mission of theCBD which, as said before, is clearly all inclusive. Each MEA would carry its mission inco-ordination with the CBD, to which they would report. This would avoid or at leastreduce overlap and duplication. The CCD might be developed to implement the elementsof community development, land use, equity and tenure of the CBD in dryland areas, suchas savannahs, steps and deserts.

• Similarly, CITES, the CMS and Ramsar should be used as a tool to implement relevant

portions of the CBD related respectively to species and sustainable use and wetlandecosystems, reporting to it. In this way it would benefit from GEF funding and it wouldhelp the developing world because of the CBD’s emphasis on economic incentives whichCITES has ignored.

• However, it is unlikely to see CITES having the same privilege relationship with the GEF

unless the convention actually folds itself formally under the CBD. It is already verydifficult to keep what really are limited GEF funds focused on its original thematic areas.Of course, almost any activity demanded or pushed by CITES could be justified under theCBD -but it is unclear whether it would be seen as a priority. Perhaps a few would, and forthese few the CBD Secretariat could push the force for GEF funding, but the argument thatspecies conservation already enjoy substantial multilateral, bilateral, NGO and private

1 14

sector funding is a powerful reason why general CITES requirements do not need theattention of the GEF.

• The myriad of biodiversity-related treaties is increasingly seen as a source bureaucratic

problems and even EU Member States are having a hard time in covering theseConventions effectively, never mind developing countries with less resources. Thissuggests that developing countries could dramatically improve their inter-treatyimplementation and co-ordination if access to GEF was granted.

• Although the desertification agenda is not explicitly part of the Global Environmental

Facility, many activities under the rubric of climate change and biodiversity, such asimproving land use practices, could benefit the objectives of the Convention to CombatDesertification. Therefore, supporting the access of all biodiversity-related conventions tothe GEF, ascribing priority to the concept of subsidiarity in policy development of all theseconvention and using each convention as a tool to implement specific aspects of the CBDare key elements for successfully implementing policies aiming at conserving biodiversityand combating desertification in drylands. Though originally, the Global EnvironmentalFacility was established as a funding mechanism for the CCC and the CBD, the approvalof the GEF Council in February 1995 of ‘the scope and operational strategy for landdegradation’ (GEC/C3/8), as it relates to the focal areas, notably biodiversity, climatechange and international waters, therefore opening possibilities to CCD-related initiatives.Subsequently, in 1997, the restructured GEF went further agreeing that activities related toland degradation are eligible for funding to the extent that they relate to the GEF’s focalareas.

• It does make sense to streamline national and UN MEAs policy and administration costs.

It would clearly help in channelling available funding more efficiently to MEA issues andwould allow for better priority setting amongst competing financial requirements.

• UNEP has a role to provide scientific and technical co-ordination for all these different

agreements. Its past track record is poor but there is a need of an institution to provide thisservice, provided that ‘political interest’ are neutralised and not allowed to intervene in aprocess that must be technical. A key service should be in ensuring continuity indecisions/regulations between different overlapping MEAs. UNEP should produce anannual analysis of the implications of various MEA decisions on other MEAs and suggestrecommendations for reconciling MEAs at each conference of the Parties. Even if formalrecognition of the precedence of CBD over the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, CITESand Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, among others, is not granted, such scientificand legal analysis could establish a history wherein the CBD was clearly interpreted asbeing the principal agreement guiding decisions by the others. Of course, in practiceguidance will go both ways, but the nature of the guidance (type of issues, influence on theother bodies decisions, etc.) could be done to informally establish the precedence of theCBD.

Annex A - References

Dickson, Barnabas. 1999 (in press). CITES, Law Enforcement and the future of Sustainableuse”. Earthscan, London.

1 15

Hutton, Jonathan. 1999 (in press). Who knows best ? Unilateralism in CITES. Earthscan,London.

IUCN, 1998 (unpublished report). Statement of the GBF 12 to CCD COP 2.

IUCN, 1997. Report of the GBF 7, IUCN, Gland.

Martin, Rowan 1999 (in press). CITES in the era of the CBD: The hansom and the four-in-hand. Earthscan, London

SACWM 1996 (unpublished): A critique: submitted by SACWM to the Secretariat and theStanding Committee of CITES

South African Institute for Foreign Affairs. (1998), ‘Aligned to Sustainable Development’Special publication on the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement.