The Diffusion Pattern of
Convention on Biological Diversity:
Why So Different?
June 28th, 2012
T. J. Lah & Jang Hoon Chung
Yonsei 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
•

Migratory Species
•

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973
Treaties regulating the Exploitation of Wild Species
•

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS), 1979
Treaties regulating the Trade in Wild Species
•

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, 1973
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