At midnight on the last night of their annual meeting, the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity concluded their last controversial debate of the year. In the end, Australia was the only goverment objecting to a decision to adopt “Guiding Principles” for the management of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats and other species – on grounds that the World Trade Organization’s rules provide guidance enough. Specifically, Australia wanted to delete part of a footnote defining alien species and related risk management that would allow “taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations” and two paragraphs in the main text clarifying Principle 15, the so-called “Precautionary Principle” of the 1992 Rio Declaration. The problematic paragraphs read: “The precautionary appprooach should also be applied when considering eradication, containment and control measures in relative to alien species that have become established. Lack of scientific certainty about the various implications of an invasion should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take appropriate eradication, containment and control measures;” and “Where there is a threat of reduction or loss of biolgical diversity, lack of sufficient scientific certainty and knowledge regarding an alien species should not pevent a competent authority from taking a decision with regard to the intentional introduction of such alien species to prevent the spread and adverse impact of invasive alien species.”
In its final objection, Australia explained that these references go beyond existing international agreements, specifically the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards dealing with food safety. This WTO SPS Agreement allows governments to adopt measures restricting trade only on a temporary basis, when scientific proof of harm is lacking, and requires governments to demonstrate that any measures taken are the least trade-restrictive possible. Although the WTO SPS Agreement applies in general to all trade-related food safety issues, its juxtoposition with the CBD seems to be aimed at the debate over risks of genetically-modified seeds and crops. While other governments, including Brazil and Argentina, also expressed concerns about the “Guiding Principles” for managing the risks presented by alien species, only Australia tried to block its final adoption by consensus. After hours of discussion, since 6:30 that evening, the decision to adopt the text nonetheless by the Dutch chair of the meeting was greeted with prolonged applause – a highly unusual response in diplomatic negotiations. Australia then questioned the legality of the decision, despite earlier comments from Brazil, Jamaica and Kenya observing that the usual procedure in such cases is adoption with the concerns of dissenting countries noted in the minutes of the meeting. The situation was particularly complex, since the official procedures for decisionmaking by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity had not yet been agreed. As Spain, speaking for the European Union, put it, “We need a consensus on how to adopt decisions when there is a lack of consensus.”
Two proposals to resolve the problem, put forward by a special “contact group” meeting in private from about 6:45-9:45, were rejected by the full body. One proposal, qualifying the Guiding Principles “in accordance with rights and obligations under the Convention and other international and regional agreements,” was dismissed without debate. Colombia was joined by many other countries in criticizing the second option – of specifying in the final agreement that specific paragraphs were not agreed – as a “terrible precedent… The principle of consensus would be lost,” said the Colombian delegate, “which forms the basis of all decisions in most multilateral negotiations.”
Colombia and Turkey also voiced concerns about the chair’s willingness to entertain Australia’s objections during hours of debate, after rejecting their objections earlier in the negotiations on the basis there was otherwise a consensus, noting that their reservations would be recorded in the minutes. “This is unfair,” said Turkey. Global governance as a topic, in and of itself, has risen on the agenda of many international conferences. How decisions get made at the international level – whether inside a particular treaty body like the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), or between treaty bodies like between the WTO and the CBD – merits public scrutiny and debate. Civil society organizations are pointing out the lack of transparency and democracy in global governance, while more and more governments appear willing to contest inherent unfairness and contradictions in the procedures and outcomes. In the Seattle and Doha Ministerial Meetings of the WTO, clashes between developing and industrialized country governments were extremely heated. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has officially pointed out “apparent conflicts” between the WTO Agreement on TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and fundamental human rights. Numerous other examples can be found. In the Johannesburg Summit to review progress in the world community ten years after the 1992 Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro, in late August of this year, such conflicts over both the substance and the process of the multilateral system will be a prominent part of the official agenda. And, there is no doubt, the tens of thousands of civil society organizations demanding more democratic global governance will not only be watching closely but have plenty of their own ideas for how things should change.:
