1992 Biodiversity Convention, Sustainability & Indigenous Knowledge

1/4 How would you propose to reconcile the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992, “CBD”) as well as the related Cartegena (2003) and Nagoya (2014) Protocols with the basic 1994 WTO multilateral trade law framework as visible in the Beef Hormones, Shrimp (TED) or Venezuelan Refineries Dispute Resolution Body environment and trade cases previously read? How would you analyze the CBD and WTO Agreements as competing treaties, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Remember, all such treaty law falls into the first half of the 1990s. It is not like they were ignorant of the parallel trade (1994 WTO Uruguay Round) and environment (1992 Rio Conference, resulting in the UNCCC and CBD) tracks, as a technical matter.

2/4 What is your own view of the view of the US’ response to the CBD, given what you read in the Blomquist article, and how would you compare it to Dr Mahatir’s articulation of the developing country view of what was going on in 1992? What, if anything, has changed, or are the differences of opinion and approach still as wide as in 1992? Why?

3/4 We talked about the Exoticwood CITES Petition Problem in Unit 13. Assume the US were a party to the CBD. How would the CBD be applicable to the facts of the Exoticwood problem?

4/4 What role do you think the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or IPBES fulfills? Is it a wannabe IPCC, except for biodiversity instead of climate change, or what? On a programmatic level, beyond the US giving serious consideration finally to joining the CBD, what would you propose as a realistic CBD implementation program along the lines of something like the biodiversity crisis equivalent of the Kyoto Protocol, or the Paris Agreement? What might it look like, if the crisis accompanying biodiversity loss were not simply viewed in practical terms almost as a subcategory of the GHG-driven climate change crisis?

Copyright 2020–21 © David Linnan.