Developing countries now demand a greater share of the economic benefits arising from the use of resources within their boundaries. Until now, these benefits have mainly accrued to the industrial countries with the technological capability to exploit them. At the same time, the developed world has become increasingly apprehensive about the accelerating rate of loss of biodiversity and its global consequences such as the effects of tropical deforestation upon global climate change for example.

These parallel concerns led to the negotiations for a treaty on biological diversity, starting with a draft prepared in 1987 by lUCN. Formal negotiations commenced in November 1990 under the sponsorship of UNEP. They were concluded in Rio when 153 nations, excluding the United States, signed the treaty to protect biological diversity and to use it sustainably. Negotiations, conducted in parallel with the UNCED Preparatory Committee meetings, had been arduous and often acrimonious, with heated arguments mostly along the North/South divide.

Throughout, the treaty is consistent with Agenda 21, which covers both biodiversity (chapter 15) and biotechnology (chapter 16).

The overall objective of the treaty is the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. The latter is to be achieved through "appropriate" access to genetic resources, "appropriate" transfer of relevant technologies and "appropriate" funding (Article 1). In addressing technology and sustainable use, this treaty goes far beyond existing, narrowly defined conservation conventions, but some feel that it has done so at the expense of a more rigorous treatment of specific actions on global biological diversity.

Each party ratifying the treaty is required to develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or adapt existing plans to this purpose. Another requirement ("as far as possible and as appropriate") is the integration of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into relevant cross-sectoral plans and policies (Article 6).

Under Article 7, each party is required (as far as possible and as appropriate) to identify important components of biodiversity, and monitor them, particularly those parts requiring urgent conservation action, or which offer the greatest potential for sustainable use. Article 7 also requires the identification and monitoring of those activities which have or are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Conservation in-situ (that is, in the wild) is deemed to be the fundamental principle for the conservation of biological diversity, with off-site measures such as seed banks having an important but less fundamental role to play (preamble). Each party is required to "establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity". Further, biological resources important for biodiversity conservation should be regulated or managed, whether inside or outside protected areas, to ensure their conservation and sustainable use (Article 8). This is important since it could be used to argue that the exploitation of, for example, fish stocks and forests must be regulated and be made sustainable. It is interpreted by some as potentially the first legal underpinning for sustainable management of all natural resources.

Conservation ex-situ shall be supported "predominantly for the purpose of complementing in-situ measures" and facilities shall be established, "preferably in the country of origin", to help recovery and reintroduction of threatened species. Financial support for the establishment of such facilities in developing countries is encouraged (Article 9).

Each party was bound to integrate conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national decision-making, protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices, support local populations in this regard, and encourage cooperation with the private sector in the sustainable use of biological resources. However, all of this is qualified by the phrase "as far as possible and as appropriate" (Article 10).

Article 11 requires each party to adopt "economically and socially sound measures that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use" of biological resources, again "as far as possible and as appropriate". In the context of the GATT, and at a national level, the issue of agricultural subsidies is clearly relevant.

The treaty obliges each party to facilitate access to genetic resources for environmentally sound uses, although access must be "on mutually agreed terms" and "subject to prior informed consent", so there is some discretion. Parties are encouraged to conduct their research on genetic resources, "where possible", in the country of origin. They should share benefits arising from commercial use of genetic resources with the party providing the resources (Article 15). This provision was the source of some of the strongest US objections to the treaty. It means, for example, that a pharmaceutical company producing a drug based on genetic material from a developing country should not only carry out its research in that country but also share the eventual profits resulting from sale of the drug.

Parties also undertook "to provide and/or facilitate" access to and transfer of technologies (including biotechnology) of two types:

- those that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and

- those that make use of genetic resources and do not cause significant damage to the environment.

Access to and transfer of these technologies is to be provided and/or facilitated for developing countries "under fair and most favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms where mutually agreed". Where the technology is subject to patents and other intellectual property rights, the treaty specifically states that the transfer should be consistent with the protection of intellectual property rights (Article 16).

Article 19 provides for the participation in biotechnological research by parties, especially developing countries, who provide the genetic material. It also enables them to enjoy "priority access on a fair and equitable basis" to results and benefits arising from research. The need for a protocol on the safe transfer and use of living modified organisms (the treaty's euphemism for genetically modified organisms, which the US objected to any mention of) resulting from biotechnology, will be considered.

Each party agreed to provide financial support "in accordance with its capabilities" for national measures to achieve the treaty's objective. Developed country parties "shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs" of implementing the treaty. Developing country obligations to conserve biological diversity are made dependent on "the effective implementation" by developed countries of their commitments relating to finance and transfer of technology. Developing country conservation obligations will also "take fully into account the fact that economic and social development and eradication of poverty are the first and overriding priorities" of the developing countries (Article 20).

A mechanism was agreed for the provision of financial resources to developing countries for purposes of the treaty. This mechanism shall function under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties, that is, the group of nations ratifying the treaty (Article 21), to be convened by UNEP not later than one year after the treaty comes into force (Article 23). Article 21 nearly caused Japan and the UK not to sign the convention. Their worry (and the worry of 17 other nations who signed a declaration to the effect), was that Article 21 would be interpreted to mean that the Conference of the Parties - the majority of whom are developing countries - would have the power to decide the financial contribution of the donor countries. However, Article 23 makes clear that decisions on rules of procedures are made by consensus. A secretariat will be established (Article 24) which Switzerland and Spain have offered to host. The treaty also established a committee to provide the Conference of Parties with scientific, technical and technological advice (Article 25).

The treaty will enter into force 90 days after it has been ratified by 30 countries (Article 36), and it can be amended by the Conference of Parties (Article 29). In Rio, 153 countries signed the convention. Wry observers put the large number of signatories down to the US not signing.