Introduction

The protection of wildlife was one of the first concern of international environment regulation.
Although the focus of this regulation has changed significantly over time, from primarily
economic consideration to conservation, this body of norms tackling issues as diverse as the
exploitation of seals,1 whaling,2 trade in endangered species,3 or more recently, the
transboundary movement of genetically modified organism.4 The proliferation of international
instruments for the protection of animal and plant life5 makes any attempts to capture the major
axes of this area of regulation a challenging exercise. In the early 1980s, the UN general
Assembly tried to provide an umbrella for this diverse array of instruments with the adoption
of a ‘World Charter for Nature’.6 This instrument was not binding and its strong conservation
focus proved to be an obstacle rather than an advantage in reaching the initial goal. Other
attempts with the same purpose were made in the course of the 1980s. The initiative taken by
UNEP in 1987 to explore the feasibility of adopting a framework convention in the area
deserves particular attention.7 In November 1988 the task was entrusted to an Expert Panel on
Biological Diversity, which in February 1991 became the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee leading to the adoption of the Convention Biological Diversity opened for the
signature at the Rio Summit in June 1992. The CBD was signed by nearly 160 countries, and
it come into force in 19938 where in CBD there are three focused on CBD namely (i) genetic
diversity within species, (ii) species diversity, and (iii) diversity of eco systems.9
The Convention on Biological Diversity
Article 2 of CBD defines biodiversity as:
The variability among living organism from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial, marine
and other aquatic ecosystem and the ecological complexes of which they are parts: this includes
diversity within species, between species and of ecosystem.

There are three points from this definition which biodiversity have to be preserved (i) species
diversity, (ii) genetic diversity within species (iii) diversity ecosystem. The interconnection
among these three categories of biodiversity requires the protection of the species and habitats
that make this diversity possible. Therefore, the role of CBD is important as a hub that gives a
common basis for many (global, regional, bilateral) instrument for the protection of species
and spaces.10

1
Convention between the United States, Great Britain, Japan and Rusia Providing for the Preservation and
Protection of the fur Seals, 7 July 1911, 37 Stat. 1542, TS 564
2
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 24 September 1931
3
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the convention on Biological Diversity, 29 January 2000.
4
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl Habitat, 2 February 1971
5
See Generally M. Bowman, P. Davies and C. Redgwell, Lyster’s International Wildlife Law (Cambridge University
Press, 2nd edn, 2010)
6
World Charter for Nature, 28 October 1982, UN Doc. A/Res/37/7 How. W. Wood, ‘The United Nations World
Charter for Nature: The Developing Nations ‘Initiative to Establish Protection for the Environment’ (1984/1985)
7
9
8
Global Action for Biodiversity, Timothy Swanson
9
The UN Convention Biological Diversity: Elizabeth Dual, ‘ A Liability and Redress Regime for Genetically
Modified Organism under the Cartagena Protocol’, (2004) 36 Gorge Washington International Law Review 173-
2002
10
170
Path to Effectiveness CBD
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio
Janeiro as the world's most comprehensive organized response to international environmental
degradation. From this conference, the studies at Harvard reveal four types of national
policy; some countries simply avoid international obligations by failing to sign treaty
commitments. Others accept commitments but fail to live up to them. A third group accepts
commitments and achieves compliance. Finally, a fourth group surpasses the explicitly
required obligations. According this results, the Harvard research team formulated tentative
general propositions and specific lessons for leaders and designers of international institutions
who wish to use international organizations and regulations to improve the quality of the
natural and human environment. The case studies reveal three distinctive functions of
international environmental institutions: to promote concern among governments; to enhance
the contractual environment by providing negotiating forums and creating ways to disseminate
information; and to build national political and administrative capacity.11
A. Building National Capacity

Finally, it is necessary to appreciate the importance of building political and administrative

capacity within both the state and civil society. When they are effective, international
environmental institutions are not merely rule-making bodies. They are also vehicles for
transferring skills and expertise and for empowering domestic actors to solve domestic
problems of international importance.

Institutions should foster capacity building by providing policy-relevant information that can
be used by government allies to develop better programs and to justify their actions to domestic
opponents. The information also can be used by private organizations, such as NGOs, to
pressure governments to adopt improved regulatory practices. That capacity building is often
a necessary condition for effectiveness is another reason for environmental institutions to begin
by establishing norms and principles and move toward establishing rules. Often the initial
norms and principles, even though they fail to alter state behaviour directly through binding
rules, set in motion a process that builds domestic capacity in member governments. When
conditions become right for binding rules, the capacity is in place to implement them
effectively. In the acid rain regime, the governments of Eastern Europe emerged from the Cold
War with more sophisticated air pollution policy infrastructures than they would have had if
they had not participated in international environmental institutions. This is a striking effect,
given the antipathy of the communist regimes to environmental protection.

B. Enhance the contractual environment

Enhancing the contractual environment is most relevant for international commons problems,
where regulatory rules specifying mutual restraints are the dominant focus of bargaining. But,
surprisingly, actions that are meant to improve the contractual environment are also relevant
for national environmental problems, where mutual restraints are not an issue. The prior
informed consent rules associated with pesticide trade, for example, are not intended to solve
a commons problem but to assist national responses to the problem in developing countries.
The rules provide points of accountability within national governments that may enable
concerned groups within society and within governments of pesticide-importing countries to

11
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-001/003-001.html
make exact commitments, to pressure for more effective controls on pesticide availability and
use, to monitor compliance, and to apply strategies of reciprocity. In general, institutional
activities that enhance the contractual environment can facilitate the negotiation of norms and
principles governing national problems, as well as those operating at an international level for
commons problems.

Regulations do more than regulate--they help generate political concern, they set normative
standards, they communicate intensity of preferences, and they legitimize financial transfers
that might otherwise be termed bribes or even blackmail. This dual role of regulatory rules
explains why so many international institutional responses to environmental problems have
been regulatory in nature. With the exception of population, regulatory standards were set
(though not always formally enshrined in international law) in each of the case studies
investigated by the researchers, even when it was clearly impossible or unrealistic for many
states to apply them.

C. Increase government concern

There is an ongoing debate about the appropriate role of government for solving environmental
problems, with many environmentalists calling for increased government intervention and
many people more predisposed to individual responsibility calling for less. One of the biggest
problem environmentalist ask to finish is about the lower standard of education in developing
countries which have difficult access to obtain information about the environmental effected
to sustainable environment. 12
In addition, people with more education tend not only to be more concerned about the
environment, but also to engage in actions that promote and support political decisions that
protect the environment.13 By increasing awareness and concern, education can encourage
people to reduce their impact on the environment through more efficient use of energy and
water supplies, especially in areas of resource scarcity14

However, the way we plan today for public education on the environment will have dramatic
effects on the future quality of life. Effective and meaningful environmental education is a
challenge we must take seriously if we and future generations are to enjoy the benefits of our
natural heritage, in some countries especially in developing countries to achieve good
information is tough and more difficult than in developed countries.

One of the example education is useful for sustainable development that has been implemented
in Myanmar. The name of project is ‘Rainwater harvesting’ in schools in Myanmar. Prior to
the projects, the school rarely used rainwater for drinking, instead transporting water from long
distances. Now the rainwater is collected in tanks from corrugated galvanized roofs of the
school buildings. The system requires maintenance, cleaning and repair, completed
collaboratively by the students, parents and local NGO’s. The system provides children the
opportunity to participate equally with adult stakeholders.15

12
http://grist.org/article/the-role-of-government-in-environmental-protection/
13
https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/education-increases-awareness-and-concern-for-the-
environment/
14
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/urban/urbanenv-2/9.asp
15
https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/CFS_Climate_E_web.pdf
Why convention Biological Diversity is international issue
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a globally accepted fundamental document
for the protection of biological diversity, establishing the conservation of biological diversity
as an underlying international principle in the field of nature protection and joint obligation of
mankind.
The CBD takes a comprehensive rather than a sectoral approach to the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity. The first Protocol to the Convention was adopted on 29 January
2000: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. As of 1 December 2000 the Protocol had 80
signatories and two ratifications; it will enter into force 90 days after the 50th ratification. It
deals with potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the introduction of
living modified organisms (LMOs), including genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It
establishes a procedure for ensuring that adequate information is available to allow countries
to make informed decisions before LMOs are imported. It is based on the Precautionary
Principle16

Strategic Plan of CBD is to promote international cooperation in support of the Convention. Reasonable
progress is being made towards this end (Table 3.1). The Convention is playing a major role in setting
the agenda among biodiversity-related conventions (Box 3.4) and organizations, in part due to the clear
importance and widespread appeal of the 2010 target. The target has been endorsed by the World
Summit on Sustainable Development and adopted or acknowledged by the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and by a
number of non-governmental organizations.

In addition, the framework for monitoring progress towards the 2010 target has been adapted for use
by the European region. Many in the scientific community have taken up the challenge of further
developing the framework, and a number of initiatives are underway in support of regional and national
application of the framework.

By inviting other international instruments and processes to integrate biodiversity considerations into
their work, the Conference of the Parties has made progress in promoting policy coherence at the global
level. The International Plant Protection Convention, for example, has developed phytosanitary
standards that cover some of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s concerns on invasive alien
species. Similarly, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has
been developed in harmony with the Convention. Policy coherence is also promoted through joint work
programmes, as evidenced by the adoption of common guidance on impact assessment by the
Convention and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. 17

Conclusion

16
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, and Cartagena Protocol
17
https://www.greenfacts.org/en/global-biodiversity-outlook/l-3/9-convention-biological-diversity.htm#2p0