At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed into law by 150 government leaders from across the globe. But what does the Convention on Biological Diversity actually mean, and 32 years on, what has it achieved?
The 20th century witnessed great upheaval. The “Green Revolution” swept the agricultural industry across the globe, although the swathe of machines, monocultures and chemical manufacture which accompanied it proved not to be so green after all. Fishing - aided by wartime technology - became increasingly intensive, and ocean stocks consequently plummeted. Speaking of warfare, weaponry and the human capacity for destruction advanced rapidly, and left in its wake not only millions of dead humans, but irreversibly-scarred ecosystems too.
In fact, some scientists refer to this period as the “Great Acceleration” in terms of the sheer scale of its intensification of industrial-related greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Even with all of the technological progress of the 20th century, there was still a significant knowledge gap when it came to the environment, including uncertainties around the word “biodiversity” itself.
And this was the context with which world leaders arrived at the Rio Earth Summit. With the turn of the century imminent, they were keen to address - or at the very least, appear to address - both environmental and socio-economic challenges.
In 1972, government leaders had signed both regional and international agreements pledging to protect ecosystems at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, but change since then had been slow. In a way, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was a radical departure from traditional environmental discourse. Even today, much environmental discussion focuses on carbon emissions regulations and the impacts of global warming, whilst neglecting the pressing issue of biodiversity loss.
Another factor that made the CBD distinct was its use of hard law. Most international environmental law (including many of the Rio Declarations) is what is known as “soft law” i.e.non-binding and non-coercive, but the CBD is legally binding.
The three core objectives of the CBD are as follows:
The conservation of biological diversity
The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity
The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources.
These are then broken down further into ‘articles’ stipulating further detail of actions each nation should take. Every two years, international governments meet at a Conference of the Parties (COP) to review progress and set new targets in order to meet the stipulations of the Convention.
This COP is a separate event to the more famous COP of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) which meets annually, and is usually what people mean when they refer to the ‘COP.’ Although the UNFCC and the CBD are separate, they were both opened for signature in 1992 at the Rio Summit, (and subsequently ratified into law in 1993) and their aims are of course heavily entwined. Some of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions stipulated by UNFCC targets could be met using ‘nature based solutions’ - i.e. restoring biodiversity as a carbon sink. Conversely, the effects of rapidly intensifying climate change such as warmer temperatures, disappearing sea ice and rising tides will inevitably lead to ramifications on biodiversity.
Another key difference between the CBD and the UNFCC is that the United States signed the latter into law, but not the former. It was the only UN member state to refuse to ratify the CBD into law. At the time of the Rio Summit, George H.W Bush was president, and several Republican senators opposed the treaty, citing concerns that it would force the US to provide financial aid to countries in the Global South for conservation purposes, and that it would impinge upon the intellectual property of the biotech industry, the leading figures of which also wrote to the president in opposition to the treaty. One Republican senator, Malcolm Wallop, decried it as the work of “extremists in the environmental movement” launching “a big green attack” on Bush.
Later that same year, Bill Clinton won the presidential election and vowed to ratify the treaty once he took office. He set out to win over the hold-outs, and some did acquiesce, including many of the large pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies which had initially met the treaty with resistance. But ultimately, a selection of Republican lawmakers blocked the CBD from passing, and three decades on, it still has not been ratified into US law.
Even disregarding the absence of the United States (where 34% of plants and 40% of animals are classified as at risk of extinction) within its governance, the CBD has widely been recognised as a failure.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002 and attended by representatives from 191 governments, it was widely agreed that progress since the Rio Summit had been slow, with biodiversity specifically declining at accelerated rates. For example, the proportion of coral reef loss due to human activities in 1992 sat at 10%, by 2000, it sat at 27%. Representatives agreed to implement changes which would see a “significant reduction” in the rate of biodiversity loss, with the goal set of accomplishing this by 2010.
But when 2010 rolled around and world leaders met once more at the Aichi Biodiversity Summit in Nagoya, Japan, the executive secretary of the CBD, Ahmed Dhjoglaf, was forced to admit that the promise made at Johannesburg to substantially reduce biodiversity loss had not been achieved. Once again, targets were set: this time, 20 of them, due fittingly for 2020.
Not a single one of the 20 targets for 2020 set at Aichi were met. Only 6 of them were even partially achieved, according to a Global Biodiversity Outlook report released by the CBD Secretariat, the CBD’s administration body. Not only that, but the slow rate at which governments are taking action means that globally, we are also not on track to meet the targets set for 2050, under the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework.
According to analysis performed in 2024, the targets with the least implementation globally are Target 8: Pollution (“By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.”), Target 4: Production and Consumption (“By 2020 at the latest, governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.”) and worst of all, Target 18: Indigenous Knowledge (By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovation and practice of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources are respected, subject to national legislation and international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all levels.)
2030 and 2050 may seem far away but they are rapidly approaching. Endless COPs (which Andreas Malm refers to as “epochal uselessness”) and promises made by world leaders have failed to halt the current sixth mass extinction event, and worse, coalitions of governments are knowingly in the midst of enacting ecocide, facilitating oil and gas developments and imprisoning climate activists.
In the next half of this article, I’ll talk about how and why biodiversity conservation - despite individual successes - is failing as a whole across the globe, as reflected in the CBD targets.
Image source: File:Fungi of Saskatchewan.JPG - Wikimedia Commons
Glossary of terms:
Aichi Biodiversity Summit - the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, taking place at the Aichi Prefecture in Nagoya, Japan in 2010. Here, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets were set.
Aichi Biodiversity Targets - a set of 20 biodiversity targets set in 2010 due for completion by 2020. Not a single target was achieved.
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity - the governing body of the Convention on Biological Diversity. A biannual meeting is held to assess progress on the CBD.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - an internationally binding treaty signed into law in 1992 and coming into force in 1993 which requires world leaders to meet regularly and provide updated targets on conserving biodiversity.
Johannesburg Conference - also known as the World Summit on Sustainable Development, a conference occurring in Johannesburg, 2002. Targets for 2010 were set here.
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - A set of targets and goals adopted from 2022 to be completed by 2050. There are 4 goals, comprising 23 targets, aimed at reducing biodiversity loss and encouraging sustainable use of natural resources.
Rio Earth Summit - A summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, aimed at addressing runaway carbon emissions and biodiversity loss. Here, the UNFCC and CBD were signed into law.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - an organisation based in Canada which sits alongside the CBD and assists in the implementation of its targets, schedules its meetings and coordinates with other international organisations to collect data for review.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) Conference of the Parties - an annual conference reviewing the UNFCC, an international treaty signed into law at the Rio summit which commits each signatory to reducing their carbon emissions.
Comments