Introduction
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), established at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, stands as a cornerstone in the international effort to safeguard the planet’s biological wealth. With 196 parties as of recent counts, the CBD represents a near-universal commitment to the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2025). This multilateral treaty has profoundly shaped global conservation efforts by providing a legal and policy framework that encourages nations to address the alarming loss of biodiversity—a crisis that threatens ecosystems, human livelihoods, and the stability of the natural world.
This article explores the impact of the CBD on global conservation initiatives, delving into its legal foundations, operational mechanisms, and tangible outcomes. It also examines the legal processes through which countries enter into treaties under the CBD, focusing on the specific provisions within its text. Furthermore, the article analyzes the monist or dualist approaches to treaty incorporation into national law, using a hypothetical country as a case study for clarity. Finally, it addresses the relationship between the CBD and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, assessing whether the CBD is a party to the VCLT and how this relationship might guide other nations in engaging with the CBD framework.
The Convention on Biological Diversity: A Framework for Global Conservation
The CBD, which entered into force on December 29, 1993, emerged as a response to growing international concern over the rapid loss of biodiversity due to human activities such as deforestation, pollution, overexploitation, and climate change. Its three primary objectives—conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources—provide a comprehensive approach to addressing biodiversity loss (CBD, Article 1). These objectives are not merely aspirational; they are supported by a series of binding commitments and mechanisms designed to translate global goals into national actions.
One of the CBD’s most significant contributions to global conservation is the establishment of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Under Article 6 of the CBD, each party is required to develop national strategies, plans, or programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, integrating these into broader sectoral and cross-sectoral policies. This provision has prompted countries to assess their biodiversity resources, identify threats, and implement targeted conservation measures. As of recent data, over 190 countries have submitted NBSAPs, demonstrating widespread compliance with this critical obligation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2025).
Additionally, the CBD has facilitated international cooperation through mechanisms such as the Conference of the Parties (COP), which serves as the governing body of the Convention. The COP meets periodically to review progress, adopt protocols, and set new targets, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020) and the subsequent Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). These targets have galvanized global efforts by providing measurable goals, although challenges remain in achieving them fully. For instance, while progress has been made in expanding protected areas (Target 11), many targets related to habitat restoration and species protection have fallen short due to funding gaps and enforcement issues (Secretariat of the CBD, 2020).
Legal Foundations for Entering into Treaties under the CBD
The legal basis for countries to enter into treaties under the CBD framework is explicitly addressed within the Convention’s text. Article 27 of the CBD establishes the mechanism for becoming a party to the Convention through signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. Specifically, it states that the Convention was open for signature from June 5, 1992, to June 4, 1993, at the United Nations Headquarters, after which it remained open for accession by any state or regional economic integration organization (CBD, Article 27). Ratification, acceptance, or approval requires states to deposit an instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, formalizing their commitment to be bound by the treaty’s provisions.
Furthermore, Article 28 of the CBD specifies the entry into force of the Convention, which occurred on the ninetieth day after the deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. For subsequent parties, the Convention enters into force on the ninetieth day following the deposit of their respective instruments (CBD, Article 28). These provisions align with customary international law, ensuring that states have clear procedural guidelines for joining the CBD and that their consent to be bound is unambiguous.
Article 30 of the CBD also allows for reservations, except where prohibited by the Convention itself, providing flexibility for states to tailor their commitments to national contexts. However, no reservations can be made to the core objectives or principles of the Convention, preserving its integrity. Additionally, Article 32 addresses the relationship between the CBD and other international agreements, encouraging compatibility and mutual supportiveness, which is crucial for states entering into treaties under or alongside the CBD framework.
Monist or Dualist Approach: A Case Study of Treaty Incorporation
The process by which international treaties such as the CBD are incorporated into national law varies depending on a country’s legal system, specifically whether it adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law. In a monist system, international treaties are automatically part of domestic law upon ratification, requiring no further legislative action. In contrast, a dualist system views international and domestic law as separate, necessitating specific legislation to incorporate treaty provisions into national law (Shaw, 2017).
For the purpose of this discussion, let us consider a hypothetical country, “Ecoland,” to illustrate these concepts. Ecoland operates under a dualist legal system, meaning that international treaties like the CBD do not automatically become enforceable domestically upon ratification. In Ecoland, the government ratified the CBD in 1994, depositing its instrument of ratification with the United Nations. However, for the CBD’s provisions to have legal effect within Ecoland, the parliament was required to enact enabling legislation. This legislation, known as the “Biodiversity Protection Act of 1995,” translated key CBD obligations—such as the development of NBSAPs and the establishment of protected areas—into enforceable domestic law.
This dualist approach reflects a deliberate separation between international commitments and domestic legal obligations, ensuring that national sovereignty and legislative processes are respected. While this can delay implementation due to the need for legislative action, it allows for adaptation of treaty provisions to local contexts. For instance, Ecoland’s Biodiversity Protection Act included specific measures tailored to protect its unique endemic species, going beyond the general requirements of the CBD (Hypothetical Ecoland Government Report, 2023).
In contrast, a monist country would have immediately recognized the CBD as part of its legal system upon ratification, without the need for additional legislation. While this can expedite implementation, it may pose challenges if treaty provisions conflict with existing national laws or if judicial systems are unprepared to interpret international obligations directly. Regardless of the approach, the incorporation of the CBD into national law is critical for its effectiveness, as it ensures that international commitments are actionable at the local level (Crawford, 2012).
Impact of the CBD on Global Conservation Efforts
The CBD’s influence on global conservation is evident in several key areas, including the expansion of protected areas, the integration of biodiversity into national policies, and the promotion of sustainable resource use. One of the most measurable outcomes is the increase in protected areas worldwide. Under Target 11 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, parties committed to protecting at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. According to reports from the CBD Secretariat, global coverage of terrestrial protected areas reached approximately 15% by 2020, a significant achievement though still short of the target (Secretariat of the CBD, 2020).
The CBD has also driven the mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Article 10 of the CBD encourages parties to integrate biodiversity considerations into relevant policies and programs, fostering sustainable practices. For example, several countries have adopted agro-biodiversity initiatives that promote crop diversity and reduce reliance on harmful pesticides, aligning agricultural practices with conservation goals (FAO & CBD Secretariat, 2019). These efforts illustrate the CBD’s role in bridging environmental and economic priorities, a critical aspect of sustainable development.
Another significant impact is the CBD’s emphasis on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) through the Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010 as a supplementary agreement. Under Article 15 of the CBD, parties are required to ensure that the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources are shared fairly and equitably with the providing countries, often indigenous and local communities. The Nagoya Protocol provides a legal framework for ABS, ensuring that biotechnological advancements do not exploit vulnerable populations. Countries like Brazil and India have implemented ABS policies that have generated revenue for conservation while supporting local livelihoods (Nagoya Protocol, 2010).
Despite these successes, challenges persist. Funding remains a significant barrier, particularly for developing countries that host much of the world’s biodiversity but lack the resources for comprehensive conservation programs. Article 20 of the CBD underscores the importance of financial resources and technology transfer to support implementation, yet the Global Environment Facility (GEF)—the primary funding mechanism for the CBD—has often fallen short of meeting demand (GEF Independent Evaluation Office, 2021). Additionally, enforcement of CBD commitments varies widely, with some parties failing to submit national reports or update their NBSAPs as required under Article 26 (CBD Secretariat, 2022).
The CBD and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969 is often regarded as the “treaty on treaties,” codifying customary international law on the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. It provides the foundational legal framework for how treaties, including multilateral environmental agreements like the CBD, are negotiated and implemented (VCLT, 1969). However, it is important to clarify that the CBD itself is not a party to the VCLT, as the VCLT applies to states and international organizations that have ratified it, not to treaties as entities. Instead, the CBD operates within the principles and norms established by the VCLT, particularly regarding treaty formation and state consent.
Most parties to the CBD are also signatories to the VCLT, meaning they are bound by its rules when entering into the CBD or related agreements. For instance, provisions in the VCLT such as Article 11 (means of expressing consent to be bound) and Article 18 (obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force) directly inform how states ratify and implement the CBD. These principles ensure that states’ commitments to the CBD are legally robust and consistent with international law (Sinclair, 1984).
For countries considering entering into treaties under the CBD framework, the relationship between the CBD and the VCLT offers valuable guidance. First, states must ensure that their ratification process adheres to VCLT standards, such as depositing instruments of ratification with the designated depositary (in the case of the CBD, the UN Secretary-General). Second, the VCLT’s rules on treaty interpretation (Articles 31-33) provide a basis for resolving disputes or ambiguities in the CBD’s text, ensuring consistency in how obligations are understood and applied. Finally, the VCLT’s provisions on reservations (Articles 19-23) are relevant, as they align with the CBD’s own rules under Article 30, allowing states flexibility while safeguarding the treaty’s core objectives (Villiger, 2009).
For non-VCLT states, customary international law—as reflected in many VCLT provisions—still applies, meaning that the fundamental principles of treaty law remain relevant. This universal applicability ensures that engagement with the CBD remains consistent across diverse legal systems, facilitating broader participation in global conservation efforts.
Challenges and Future Directions for the CBD
While the CBD has made significant strides in advancing global conservation, several challenges threaten its long-term effectiveness. One major issue is the lack of enforceable compliance mechanisms. Unlike trade or security treaties, the CBD relies on voluntary reporting and peer review through national reports submitted under Article 26. While this fosters collaboration, it also allows non-compliance to go unaddressed, weakening the Convention’s impact (Harrop & Pritchard, 2011).
Climate change poses another critical challenge, as it exacerbates biodiversity loss through habitat destruction, species migration, and ecosystem disruption. Although the CBD acknowledges the link between biodiversity and climate under Article 8 (in-situ conservation), its integration with other frameworks like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains incomplete. Future COP meetings must prioritize synergies between these regimes to address overlapping challenges effectively (Prip, 2018).
Looking ahead, the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted at COP15 in 2022, offers a renewed opportunity to strengthen the CBD’s impact. The GBF sets ambitious goals, including the “30 by 30” target to protect 30% of global land and sea by 2030. Achieving this will require enhanced financial commitments, capacity building, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that targets translate into action (CBD Secretariat, 2022).
Conclusion
The Convention on Biological Diversity has been a transformative force in global conservation efforts, providing a legal and policy framework that unites nations in the fight against biodiversity loss. Through mechanisms like NBSAPs, protected area expansion, and access and benefit-sharing protocols, the CBD has driven measurable progress, though significant challenges remain in funding, enforcement, and integration with other environmental regimes. Legally, the CBD offers clear guidelines under Articles 27 and 28 for states to enter into treaties, ensuring procedural clarity and international cooperation.
The distinction between monist and dualist systems, as illustrated through the hypothetical case of Ecoland, highlights the diverse ways in which CBD obligations are translated into national law, emphasizing the importance of tailored implementation. Furthermore, while the CBD is not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, its operation within the VCLT’s principles ensures consistency and reliability in treaty engagement, offering a model for other countries to follow.
As the world faces escalating environmental crises, the CBD must evolve to meet new challenges, leveraging the Global Biodiversity Framework and fostering greater international collaboration. Preserving our planet’s wealth requires not only legal commitments but also sustained political will, adequate resources, and inclusive participation—a multifaceted endeavor that the CBD is uniquely positioned to lead.
References
- Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). Text of the Convention. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
- Convention on Biological Diversity. (2025). Home. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/
- CBD Secretariat. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- CBD Secretariat. (2022). Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.
- FAO & CBD Secretariat. (2019). Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture: Contributing to Food Security and Sustainability. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
- GEF Independent Evaluation Office. (2021). Evaluation of GEF Support to Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.
- Harrop, S. R., & Pritchard, D. J. (2011). A hard instrument goes soft: The implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s current trajectory. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 474-480.
- Nagoya Protocol. (2010). Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- Prip, C. (2018). The Convention on Biological Diversity as a legal framework for safeguarding ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 29, 199-204.
- Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law. Cambridge University Press.
- Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester University Press.
- Villiger, M. E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
Note: The hypothetical case of Ecoland and associated references (e.g., Hypothetical Ecoland Government Report, 2023) are fictional and used for illustrative purposes only.
