Wanted: Scientists in the CBD Process

An international, high-profile scientificconference that is central to thereaders of Conservation Biology andthat may be of utmost importancefor the future of biodiversity was recentlyheld in Rome. At the 13thmeeting of the scientific board of theConvention on Biological Diversity,over 700 participants gathered fromall over the world for 5 days. Nevertheless,one group was conspicuouslymissing at this conference:scientists.The Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD; www.cbd.int) is currentlythe most important internationalpolitical instrument that dealswith the increasing threat of biodiversityloss. Almost every countryin the world is party to the convention,and the work of implementationshapes the political processwith respect to biological resourcesworldwide. We write to express ourdeep concern over the fact that scientificparticipation in the work of theCBD is extremely limited and is beingweakened. The scientific boardof the convention—the SubsidiaryBody on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice (SBSTTA)—isincreasingly being politicized, effectivelyhalting scientific discussionand progress, strongly limiting thequality of recommendations that willbe taken to the decision-making biannualConference of the Parties (COP).We stress the urgent need to improvethe scientific input and influence inthe CBD process.Together with the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), the Conventionon Biological Diversity representskey agreements adopted at the 2ndEarth Summit in 1992. The Conventionon Climate Change has been exceedinglysuccessful in raising the importantissue of global warming tothe general public and political leaders.Underlining this significant impactwas the awarding of the 2007Nobel Peace Prize to the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change(IPCC) and Al Gore. In contrast, theUNFCCC’s sister convention on biologicaldiversity leads a much lessrecognized and scientifically poorexistence.The objectives of the CBD are conservationof biological diversity, sustainableuse of its components, andfair and equitable sharing of benefitsarising from the use of geneticresources. In the 42 articles of theconvention, and especially in its associatedwork programs, relatively detailedrequests are made of individualparties to ensure progress towardthese objectives. They include developingnational strategies and programsfor assessing and monitoringall levels of biological diversity, andhalting activities that erode such diversity.Currently, 190 nations areparties to the CBD. Andorra, Somalia,Iraq, the Holy See, and the UnitedStates are not parties to CBD.The clear messages and detailedrecommendations of the CBD, togetherwith the worldwide supportand active process of meetings,developed strategies, and workinggroups provide the CBD with the potentialto truly make a difference withrespect to the ongoing sixth megaextinctionevent. Yet, effective actionon the basis of our best possiblescientific knowledge is increasinglyhindered by political quarrelsand turns of phrases.This is not to say that progress hasnot been made within the frameworkof the CBD during its 16 years of existence.For instance, adopted agreementsinclude a protocol that seeksto protect biological diversity fromthe potential risks posed by livingmodified organisms resulting frommodern biotechnology (The CartagenaProtocol on Biosafety), a cleargoal of halting all further loss ofbiodiversity by 2010 (the so-called2010 target), guiding principles forhow to deal with alien species (thespread of which constitutes one ofthemajor agents of biodiversity loss),and practical measures for assuringmaintenance and developmentof taxonomic competence for assessmentof species diversity (GlobalTaxonomic Initiative). Furthermore,thematic programs of work focus attentionon particular issues, for example,on forest and agricultural biodiversity.Nevertheless, the scientific bodyof the convention, the SBSTTA, is increasinglydominated by politiciansand professional negotiators. We, theundersigned of this letter, constitutedthe Swedish delegation at the13th meeting of the SBSTTA (18–22 February 2008). We are active researchersand conservation managersand as such felt very much alone atthis SBSTTA. We had come to discussand provide recommendationson how to identify conservation priorityareas in deep sea waters, manageforest biodiversity in relation toclimate change, minimize and monitorspread of alien species andpopulations, and manage agriculturalbiodiversity with an ecosystemapproach. Instead, we foundourselves devoting hours of discussionson whether to “welcome” or“bear in mind” a report from a particularworking group, or whetherreptiles, amphibians, fishes, and associatedspecies kept ex situ by privatepersons or institutions shouldbe called “aquarium species,” “terrariumspecies,” or both, and whetherthe Conference of the Parties shouldeven be informed about the potentialrisks for biodiversity associated withthe introduction of genetically modifiedtrees. One of the delegates revealedhis biological ignorance whenstating his country’s position on alienspecies with respect to “inter- andintraspecific biodiversity—whateverthe hell that means.”Of course, scientists are not theonly ones responsible for the failureto keep the SBSTTA a scientific forum.Some parties evidently want tosteer the process away from scienceto be able to make sure that decisionstaken within the CBD framework donot interfere with national issues oftrade and economic growth. Manyother parties have given in to thechanging nature of the discussionsand nowadays send a delegation predominantlyconsisting of nonscientists,although they maintain the viewthat SBSTTA ought to be scientific.Clearly, the process of increasingscientific input in convention workmust to be two-fold—political willand scientific interest are needed. Butpoliticians typically do not act withoutpressure, and there is a strongneed for increased pressure on politiciansto halt the ongoing erosion ofscientific quality of the SBSTTA.The fact that political and economicalinterests are currently strongwithin the CBD process should, however,not deter the scientific communityfrom getting involved in theprocess. Rather, this should motivateus even more to take a strongposition. If the current ineffectivetrend for the CBD work is to bereversed, we as scientists need toreclaim our position as providers ofguidelines, knowledge, and perspectivesfor the decision-making parties.As David Johns concludes in his editorialin 2007, “The knowledge—andthe proposals from that knowledge—will be naught if we lack politicaleffectiveness.” The CBD processis the largest global forum forprotecting biodiversity and a placewhere conservation scientists shouldstrive to become politically effective.Here, if anywhere, we need “thedefenders of nature to please rise”(Naess 1986).The Swedish government has appointeda Scientific Council on BiologicalDiversitywith the primary aimof providing advice with respect tothe CBD and its implementation. Thiscouncil was established soon afterSweden became a party to the conventionin 1993, and its members areselected to represent a broad field ofbiological diversity research with insightin practical management. Membersof the council attend SBSTTAand other expert meetings dependingon their particular expertise in relationto the issues being discussed.This strategy is considered to workwell both from a political and scientificperspective and may well be appropriatefor other countries.We urge our colleagues in scienceto become familiar with the currentwork of the convention. Find outwho represents your country in thescientific body, provide your scientificinput on the issues dealt with tothose representatives, and stress theneed for a scientific advisory functionfor CBD implementation within yourcountry. Colleagues in the UnitedStates need to voice the importanceof their country becoming a partyto the CBD, thereby sharing the responsibilityto secure and maintainbiodiversity globally. The voices ofconservation biologists worldwideare badly needed—please get involvedin the CBD process now!