The Biodiversity Treaty

In 1992 the United Nations convened the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and representatives of more than 150 nations came together to discuss the preservation of species. Each nation signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, also known as the Biodiversity Treaty. This treaty called for worldwide listing of endangered and threatened species as well as cooperation among nations for their preservation, including a pay-for-use plan in which industrialized nations pay developing nations for any plants and animals they take.

Despite ambitious goals, the program fell victim to red tape and bureaucracy. Part of the problem arose from a fear that large corporations might exploit developing nations that contain most of the world’s biodiversity. Precautions against this exploitation hampered scientists’ attempt to study biodiversity in developing nations. Curator Douglas Daly of the New York Botanical Garden told the New York Times in 2002, “Something that was well intentioned and needed has been taken to an illogical extreme.” Daly and other scientists complained that it had become easier to cut down a forest than to study it.

The Biodiversity Treaty’s critics cited three central concerns. First, the pay-for-use plan created an opportunity for rich nations to exploit poorer nations, an activity called biopiracy. Second, developing countries could possibly hold their resources for ransom, and, third, the resources might disappear even faster with the treaty in place. The experience of Professor Ricardo Callejas of the University of Antioquia in Colombia highlights the difficulty of navigatinging the treaty’s rules. He explained to the New York Times the challenges of collecting a small sample of plants for his research: “If you request a permit you have to provide coordinates for all sites to be visited and have to have the approval from all the communities that live in those areas. Otherwise, go back to your home and watch on Discovery Channel the new exciting program on dinosaurs from Argentina. I am still waiting after fourteen months for a permit for collecting [black pepper species] in Choco.” Ironically, President George H. W. Bush refused to sign the treaty, claiming it was too vague. Opponents added another worry: The treaty would impede the work of pharmaceutical companies that sought new compounds from unique biota. In 1993 President Bill Clinton acknowledged those worries but agreed to sign the treaty, saying, “We cannot walk away from challenges like those presented by the biodiversity treaty. We must step up to them.” As Clinton suggested, the Biodiversity Treaty continues to play a role in conservation.

Today the treaty’s signers continue to study biodiversity-related issues such as global warming, habitat destruction, poverty, and the business aspects of environmental science. Said Callejas, “I have trouble convincing my closest friends that what I do is because of passion, curiosity, a desire to know more about a group of organisms.” Perhaps Callejas’s friends feel as many people do who think biodiversity loss has become so enormous a problem, a single treaty cannot fix it.

Source of Information : Green Technology Biodiversity (2010)