text:
Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), known informally as the Biodiversity Convention, is a multilateral treaty. The Convention has three main goals: the conservation of biological diversity (or biodiversity); the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. Its objective is to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and it is often seen as the key document regarding sustainable development.

The Convention was opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and entered into force on 29 December 1993. The United States is the only UN member state which has not ratified the Convention. It has two supplementary agreements, the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international treaty governing the movements of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology from one country to another. It was adopted on 29 January 2000 as a supplementary agreement to the CBD and entered into force on 11 September 2003.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity is another supplementary agreement to the CBD. It provides a transparent legal framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, and entered into force on 12 October 2014.

2010 was also the International Year of Biodiversity, and the Secretariat of the CBD was its focal point. Following a recommendation of CBD signatories at Nagoya, the UN declared 2011 to 2020 as the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity in December 2010. The Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, created in 2010, include the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

The meetings of the Parties to the Convention are known as Conferences of the Parties (COP), with the first one (COP 1) held in Nassau, Bahamas, in 1994 and the most recent one (COP 15) in 2021/2022 in Kunming, China and Montreal, Canada.

In the area of marine and coastal biodiversity CBD's focus at present is to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) in specific ocean locations based on scientific criteria. The aim is to create an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) involving area-based planning and decision-making under UNCLOS to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ).

Origin and scope
The notion of an international convention on biodiversity was conceived at a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in November 1988. The subsequent year, the Ad Hoc Working Group of Technical and Legal Experts was established for the drafting of a legal text which addressed the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the sharing of benefits arising from their utilization with sovereign states and local communities. In 1991, an intergovernmental negotiating committee was established, tasked with finalizing the Convention's text.

A Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1992, and its conclusions were distilled in the Nairobi Final Act. The Convention's text was opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio "Earth Summit"). By its closing date, 4 June 1993, the Convention had received 168 signatures. It entered into force on 29 December 1993.

The Convention recognized for the first time in international law that the conservation of biodiversity is "a common concern of humankind" and is an integral part of the development process. The agreement covers all ecosystems, species, and genetic resources. It links traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably. It sets principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, notably those destined for commercial use. It also covers the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology through its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, addressing technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety issues. Importantly, the Convention is legally binding; countries that join it ('Parties') are obliged to implement its provisions.

The Convention reminds decision-makers of the finite status of natural resources and sets out a philosophy of sustainable use. While past conservation efforts were aimed at protecting particular species and habitats, the Convention recognizes that ecosystems, species and genes must be used for the benefit of humans. However, this should be done in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity.

The Convention also offers decision-makers guidance based on the precautionary principle which demands that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. The Convention acknowledges that substantial investments are required to conserve biological diversity. It argues, however, that conservation will bring us significant environmental, economic and social benefits in return.

The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 banned some forms of geoengineering.

Executive secretary
As of 1 December 2019, the acting executive secretary is Elizabeth Maruma Mrema.

The previous executive secretaries were: pl:Cristiana Pașca Palmer (2017–2019), Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias (2012–2017), Ahmed Djoghlaf (2006–2012), Hamdallah Zedan (1998–2005), Calestous Juma (1995–1998), and Angela Cropper (1993–1995).

Issues
Some of the many issues dealt with under the Convention include:
 * Measures the incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
 * Regulated access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, including Prior Informed Consent of the party providing resources.
 * Sharing, in a fair and equitable way, the results of research and development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources with the Contracting Party providing such resources (governments and/or local communities that provided the traditional knowledge or biodiversity resources utilized).
 * Access to and transfer of technology, including biotechnology, to the governments and/or local communities that provided traditional knowledge and/or biodiversity resources.
 * Technical and scientific cooperation.
 * Coordination of a global directory of taxonomic expertise (Global Taxonomy Initiative).
 * Impact assessment.
 * Education and public awareness.
 * Provision of financial resources.
 * National reporting on efforts to implement treaty commitments.

Conference of the Parties (COP)
The Convention's governing body is the Conference of the Parties (COP), consisting of all governments (and regional economic integration organizations) that have ratified the treaty. This ultimate authority reviews progress under the Convention, identifies new priorities, and sets work plans for members. The COP can also make amendments to the Convention, create expert advisory bodies, review progress reports by member nations, and collaborate with other international organizations and agreements.

The Conference of the Parties uses expertise and support from several other bodies that are established by the Convention. In addition to committees or mechanisms established on an ad hoc basis, the main organs are:

CBD Secretariat
The CBD Secretariat, based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, operates under UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme. Its main functions are to organize meetings, draft documents, assist member governments in the implementation of the programme of work, coordinate with other international organizations, and collect and disseminate information.

Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)
The SBSTTA is a committee composed of experts from member governments competent in relevant fields. It plays a key role in making recommendations to the COP on scientific and technical issues. It provides assessments of the status of biological diversity and of various measures taken in accordance with Convention, and also gives recommendations to the Conference of the Parties, which may be endorsed in whole, in part or in modified form by the COPs. SBSTTA had met 23 times, with a 24th meeting taking place in Geneva, Switzerland in 2022.

Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI)
In 2014, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity established the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) to replace the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention. The four functions and core areas of work of SBI are: (a) review of progress in implementation; (b) strategic actions to enhance implementation; (c) strengthening means of implementation; and (d) operations of the Convention and the Protocols. The first meeting of the SBI was held on 2–6 May 2016 and the second meeting was held on 9–13 July 2018, both in Montreal, Canada. The third meeting of the SBI will be held in March 2022 in Geneva, Switzerland. The Bureau of the Conference of the Parties serves as the Bureau of the SBI. The current chair of the SBI is Ms. Charlotta Sörqvist of Sweden.

Parties

As of 2016, the Convention has 196 Parties, which includes 195 states and the European Union. All UN member states—with the exception of the United States—have ratified the treaty. Non-UN member states that have ratified are the Cook Islands, Niue, and the State of Palestine. The Holy See and the states with limited recognition are non-Parties. The US has signed but not ratified the treaty, because ratification requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and is blocked by Republican Party senators.

The European Union created the Cartagena Protocol (see below) in 2000 to enhance biosafety regulation and propagate the "precautionary principle" over the "sound science principle" defended by the United States. Whereas the impact of the Cartagena Protocol on domestic regulations has been substantial, its impact on international trade law remains uncertain. In 2006, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the European Union had violated international trade law between 1999 and 2003 by imposing a moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMO) imports. Disappointing the United States, the panel nevertheless "decided not to decide" by not invalidating the stringent European biosafety regulations.

Implementation by the Parties to the Convention is achieved using two means:

National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP)
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) are the principal instruments for implementing the Convention at the national level. The Convention requires that countries prepare a national biodiversity strategy and to ensure that this strategy is included in planning for activities in all sectors where diversity may be impacted. As of early 2012, 173 Parties had developed NBSAPs.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand and Tanzania carried out elaborate responses to conserve individual species and specific habitats. The United States of America, a signatory who had not yet ratified the treaty by 2010, produced one of the most thorough implementation programs through species recovery programs and other mechanisms long in place in the US for species conservation.

Singapore established a detailed National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The National Biodiversity Centre of Singapore represents Singapore in the Convention for Biological Diversity.

National Reports
In accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, Parties prepare national reports on the status of implementation of the Convention.

Cartagena Protocol (2000)
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, also known as the Biosafety Protocol, was adopted in January 2000, after a CBD Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety had met six times between July 1996 and February 1999. The Working Group submitted a draft text of the Protocol for consideration by Conference of the Parties at its first extraordinary meeting, which was convened for the express purpose of adopting a protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. After a few delays, the Cartagena Protocol was eventually adopted on 29 January 2000. The Biosafety Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.

The Biosafety Protocol makes clear that products from new technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and allow developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits. It will, for example, let countries ban imports of a genetically modified organism if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically modified commodities such as corn or cotton.

The required number of 50 instruments of ratification/accession/approval/acceptance by countries was reached in May 2003. In accordance with the provisions of its Article 37, the Protocol entered into force on 11 September 2003.

Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2002)
In April 2002, the Parties of the UN CBD adopted the recommendations of the Gran Canaria Declaration Calling for a Global Plant Conservation Strategy, and adopted a 16-point plan aiming to slow the rate of plant extinctions around the world by 2010.

Nagoya Protocol (2010)
The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan, at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and entered into force on 12 October 2014. The protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and provides a transparent legal framework for the effective implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. It thereby contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
Also at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, held from 18 to 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, a revised and updated "Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020" was agreed and published. This document included the "Aichi Biodiversity Targets", comprising 20 targets that address each of five strategic goals defined in the plan. The strategic plan includes the following strategic goals: Upon the launch of Agenda 2030, CBD released a technical note mapping and identifying synergies between the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This helps to understand the contributions of biodiversity to achieving the SDGs.
 * Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society
 * Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use
 * Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
 * Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services
 * Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building

Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
A new plan, known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was developed to guide action through 2030. A first draft of this framework was released in July 2021, and its final content was discussed and negotiated as part of the COP 15 meetings. Reducing agricultural pollution and sharing the benefits of digital sequence information arose as key points of contention among Parties during development of the framework. A final version was adopted by the Convention on 19 December 2022. The framework includes a number of ambitious goals, including a commitment to designate at least 30 percent of global land and sea as protected areas (known as the "30 by 30" initiative).

Marine and coastal biodiversity
The CBD has a significant focus on marine and coastal biodiversity. A series of expert workshops have been held (2018–2022) to identify options for modifying the description of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) and describing new areas. These have focused on the North-East, North-West and South-Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Seas of East Asia, North-West Indian Ocean and Adjacent Gulf Areas, Southern and North-East Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, North and South Pacific, Eastern Tropical and Temperate Pacific, Wider Caribbean and Western Mid-Atlantic. The workshop meetings have followed the EBSA process based on internationally agreed scientific criteria. This is aimed at creating an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under UNCLOS to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ). The central mechanism is area-based planning and decision-making. It integrates EBSAs, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) and High Seas (Marine Protected Areas) with Blue Growth scenarios. There is also linkage with the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Criticism
There have been criticisms against CBD that its implementation has been weakened due to resistance of Western countries to the implementation of pro-South provisions of the Convention. CBD is also regarded as a case of a hard treaty gone soft in the implementation trajectory. The argument to enforce the treaty as a legally binding multilateral instrument with the Conference of Parties reviewing the infractions and non-compliance is also gaining strength.

Although the Convention explicitly states that all forms of life are covered by its provisions, examination of reports and of national biodiversity strategies and action plans submitted by participating countries shows that in practice this is not happening. The fifth report of the European Union, for example, makes frequent reference to animals (particularly fish) and plants, but does not mention bacteria, fungi or protists at all. The International Society for Fungal Conservation has assessed more than 100 of these CBD documents for their coverage of fungi using defined criteria to place each in one of six categories. No documents were assessed as good or adequate, less than 10% as nearly adequate or poor, and the rest as deficient, seriously deficient or totally deficient.

Scientists working with biodiversity and medical research are expressing fears that the Nagoya Protocol is counterproductive, and will hamper disease prevention and conservation efforts, and that the threat of imprisonment of scientists will have a chilling effect on research. Non-commercial researchers and institutions such as natural history museums fear maintaining biological reference collections and exchanging material between institutions will become difficult, and medical researchers have expressed alarm at plans to expand the protocol to make it illegal to publicly share genetic information, e.g. via GenBank.

William Yancey Brown, when with the Brookings Institution, suggested that the Convention on Biological Diversity should include the preservation of intact genomes and viable cells for every known species and for new species as they are discovered.

Meetings of the Parties
A Conference of the Parties (COP) was held annually for three years after 1994, and thence biennially on even-numbered years.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! style="text-align:center" | COP ! style="text-align:center" | Year ! style="text-align:left" | Country ! style="text-align:center" | Begin ! style="text-align:center" | End ! style="text-align:center" | Days ! style="text-align:left" | City ! style="text-align:left" | Link
 * style="text-align:center"| 	1	|| style="text-align:center"| 	1994	||	🇧🇸 Bahamas	|| style="text-align:center"| 	28.11.1994	|| style="text-align:center"| 	09.12.1994	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Nassau	||	COP 1
 * style="text-align:center"| 	2	|| style="text-align:center"| 	1995	||	🇮🇩 Indonesia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	06.11.1995	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17.11.1995	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Jakarta	||	COP 2
 * style="text-align:center"| 	3	|| style="text-align:center"| 	1996	||	🇦🇷 Argentina	|| style="text-align:center"| 	04.11.1996	|| style="text-align:center"| 	15.11.1996	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Buenos Aires	||	COP 3
 * style="text-align:center"| 	4	|| style="text-align:center"| 	1998	||	🇸🇰 Slovakia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	04.05.1998	|| style="text-align:center"| 	15.05.1998	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Bratislava	||	COP 4
 * style="text-align:center"| 	5	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2000	||	🇰🇪 Kenya	|| style="text-align:center"| 	15.05.2000	|| style="text-align:center"| 	26.05.2000	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Nairobi	||	COP 5
 * style="text-align:center"| 	6	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2002	||	🇳🇱 Netherlands	|| style="text-align:center"| 	07.04.2002	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.04.2002	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13	||	The Hague	||	COP 6
 * style="text-align:center"| 	7	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2004	||	🇲🇾 Malaysia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	09.02.2004	|| style="text-align:center"| 	20.02.2004	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Kuala Lumpur	||	COP 7
 * style="text-align:center"| 	8	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2006	||	 Brasil	|| style="text-align:center"| 	20.03.2006	|| style="text-align:center"| 	31.03.2006	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Curitiba	||	COP 8
 * style="text-align:center"| 	9	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2008	||	🇩🇪 Germany	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.05.2008	|| style="text-align:center"| 	30.05.2008	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Bonn	||	COP 9
 * style="text-align:center"| 	10	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2010	||	🇯🇵 Japan	|| style="text-align:center"| 	18.10.2010	|| style="text-align:center"| 	29.10.2010	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Nagoya 	||	COP 10
 * style="text-align:center"| 	11	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2012	||	🇮🇳 India	|| style="text-align:center"| 	08.10.2012	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.10.2012	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Hyderabad	||	COP 11
 * style="text-align:center"| 	12	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2014	||	🇰🇷 South Korea	|| style="text-align:center"| 	06.10.2014	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17.10.2014	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Pyeongchang	||	COP 12
 * style="text-align:center"| 	13	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2016	||	🇲🇽 Mexico	|| style="text-align:center"| 	04.12.2016	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17.12.2016	|| style="text-align:center"| 	14	||	Cancun	||	COP 13
 * style="text-align:center"| 	14	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2018	||	🇪🇬 Egypt	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	29.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17	||	Sharm El Sheik	||	COP 14
 * style="text-align:center"| 	15	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2022	||	🇨🇦 Canada	|| style="text-align:center"| 	07.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13	||	Montreal	||	COP 15
 * style="text-align:center"| 	16	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2024	||	🇨🇴 Colombia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	21.10.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	01.11.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Cali	||	COP 16
 * }
 * style="text-align:center"| 	9	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2008	||	🇩🇪 Germany	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.05.2008	|| style="text-align:center"| 	30.05.2008	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Bonn	||	COP 9
 * style="text-align:center"| 	10	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2010	||	🇯🇵 Japan	|| style="text-align:center"| 	18.10.2010	|| style="text-align:center"| 	29.10.2010	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Nagoya 	||	COP 10
 * style="text-align:center"| 	11	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2012	||	🇮🇳 India	|| style="text-align:center"| 	08.10.2012	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.10.2012	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Hyderabad	||	COP 11
 * style="text-align:center"| 	12	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2014	||	🇰🇷 South Korea	|| style="text-align:center"| 	06.10.2014	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17.10.2014	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Pyeongchang	||	COP 12
 * style="text-align:center"| 	13	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2016	||	🇲🇽 Mexico	|| style="text-align:center"| 	04.12.2016	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17.12.2016	|| style="text-align:center"| 	14	||	Cancun	||	COP 13
 * style="text-align:center"| 	14	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2018	||	🇪🇬 Egypt	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	29.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17	||	Sharm El Sheik	||	COP 14
 * style="text-align:center"| 	15	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2022	||	🇨🇦 Canada	|| style="text-align:center"| 	07.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13	||	Montreal	||	COP 15
 * style="text-align:center"| 	16	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2024	||	🇨🇴 Colombia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	21.10.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	01.11.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Cali	||	COP 16
 * }
 * style="text-align:center"| 	14	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2018	||	🇪🇬 Egypt	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	29.11.2018	|| style="text-align:center"| 	17	||	Sharm El Sheik	||	COP 14
 * style="text-align:center"| 	15	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2022	||	🇨🇦 Canada	|| style="text-align:center"| 	07.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	19.12.2022	|| style="text-align:center"| 	13	||	Montreal	||	COP 15
 * style="text-align:center"| 	16	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2024	||	🇨🇴 Colombia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	21.10.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	01.11.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Cali	||	COP 16
 * }
 * style="text-align:center"| 	16	|| style="text-align:center"| 	2024	||	🇨🇴 Colombia	|| style="text-align:center"| 	21.10.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	01.11.2024	|| style="text-align:center"| 	12	||	Cali	||	COP 16
 * }
 * }

1994 COP 1
The first ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in November and December 1994, in Nassau, Bahamas.

1995 COP 2
The second ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in November 1995, in Jakarta, Indonesia.

1996 COP 3
The third ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in November 1996, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

1998 COP 4
The fourth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in May 1998, in Bratislava, Slovakia.

1999 EX-COP 1 (Cartagena)
The First Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties took place in February 1999, in Cartagena, Colombia. A series of meetings led to the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in January 2000, effective from 2003.

2000 COP 5
The fifth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in May 2000, in Nairobi, Kenya.

2002 COP 6
The sixth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in April 2002, in The Hague, Netherlands.

2004 COP 7
The seventh ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in February 2004, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

2006 COP 8
The eighth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in March 2006, in Curitiba, Brazil.

2008 COP 9
The ninth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in May 2008, in Bonn, Germany.

2010 COP 10 (Nagoya)
The tenth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place in October 2010, in Nagoya, Japan. It was at this meeting that the Nagoya Protocol was ratified.

2010 was the International Year of Biodiversity, which resulted in 110 reports on the loss of biodiversity in different countries, but little or no progress toward the goal of "significant reduction" in the problem. Following a recommendation of CBD signatories, the UN declared 2011 to 2020 as the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity.

2012 COP 11
Leading up to the Conference of the Parties (COP 11) meeting on biodiversity in Hyderabad, India, 2012, preparations for a World Wide Views on Biodiversity has begun, involving old and new partners and building on the experiences from the World Wide Views on Global Warming.

2014 COP 12
Under the theme, "Biodiversity for Sustainable Development", thousands of representatives of governments, NGOs, indigenous peoples, scientists and the private sector gathered in Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea in October 2014 for the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 12).

From 6–17 October 2014, Parties discussed the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which are to be achieved by the end of this decade. The results of Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, the flagship assessment report of the CBD informed the discussions.

The conference gave a mid-term evaluation to the UN Decade on Biodiversity (2011–2020) initiative, which aims to promote the conservation and sustainable use of nature. The meeting achieved a total of 35 decisions, including a decision on "Mainstreaming gender considerations", to incorporate gender perspective to the analysis of biodiversity.

At the end of the meeting, the meeting adopted the "Pyeongchang Road Map", which addresses ways to achieve biodiversity through technology cooperation, funding and strengthening the capacity of developing countries.

2016 COP 13
The thirteenth ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place between 2 and 17 December 2016 in Cancún, Mexico.

2018 COP 14
The 14th ordinary meeting of the Parties to the Convention took place on 17–29 November 2018, in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. The 2018 UN Biodiversity Conference closed on 29 November 2018 with broad international agreement on reversing the global destruction of nature and biodiversity loss threatening all forms of life on Earth. Parties adopted the Voluntary Guidelines for the design and effective implementation of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Governments also agreed to accelerate action to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, agreed in 2010, until 2020. Work to achieve these targets would take place at the global, regional, national and subnational levels.

2021/2022 COP 15

The 15th meeting of the Parties was originally scheduled to take place in Kunming, China in 2020, but was postponed several times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the start date was delayed for a third time, the Convention was split into two sessions. A mostly online event took place in October 2021, where over 100 nations signed the Kunming declaration on biodiversity. The theme of the declaration was "Ecological Civilization: Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth". Twenty-one action-oriented draft targets were provisionally agreed in the October meeting, to be further discussed in the second session: an in-person event that was originally scheduled to start in April 2022, but was rescheduled to occur later in 2022. The second part of COP 15 ultimately took place in Montreal, Canada, from 5–17 December 2022. At the meeting, the Parties to the Convention adopted a new action plan, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

2024 COP 16
The 16th meeting of the Parties is scheduled to be held in Colombia in 2024. Originally, Turkey was going to host it but after a series of earthquakes in February 2023 they had to withdraw.

title: Convention on Biological Diversity


text:
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas

The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas is an agreement that was designed to solve through international cooperation the problems involved in the conservation of living resources of the high seas, considering that because of the development of modern technology some of these resources are in danger of being overexploited. The convention opened for signature on 29 April 1958 and entered into force on 20 March 1966.

Participation
Parties – (39): Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nigeria, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela.

Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified – (21): Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ghana, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, Liberia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, often abbreviated as Air Convention or CLRTAP, is intended to protect the human environment against air pollution and to gradually reduce and prevent air pollution, including long-range transboundary air pollution. It is implemented by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP), directed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

The convention opened for signature on, and entered into force on.

Secretariat
The Convention, which now has 51 Parties, identifies the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) as its secretariat. The current parties to the Convention are shown on the map.

The Convention is implemented by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) (short for Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe). Results of the EMEP programme are published on the EMEP website, www.emep.int.

Procedure
The aim of the Convention is that Parties shall endeavour to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution. Parties develop policies and strategies to combat the discharge of air pollutants through exchanges of information, consultation, research and monitoring.

The Parties meet annually at sessions of the Executive Body to review ongoing work and plan future activities including a workplan for the coming year. The three main subsidiary bodies – the Working Group on Effects, the Steering Body to EMEP and the Working Group on Strategies and Review – as well as the Convention's Implementation Committee, report to the Executive Body each year.

Currently, the Convention's priority activities include review and possible revision of its most recent protocols, implementation of the Convention and its protocols across the entire UNECE region (with special focus on Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and South-East Europe) and sharing its knowledge and information with other regions of the world.

Protocols
Since 1979 the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution has addressed some of the major environmental problems of the UNECE region through scientific collaboration and policy negotiation. The Convention has been extended by eight protocols that identify specific measures to be taken by Parties to cut their emissions of air pollutants:

 * Protocol on Long-Term Financing of the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP) (1984)
 * 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions
 * Nitrogen Oxide Protocol (1988)
 * Volatile Organic Compounds Protocol (1991)
 * 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions
 * Protocol on Heavy Metals (1998)
 * Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (1998)
 * 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone (1999)


text:
CITES

CITES (shorter name for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Washington Convention) is a multilateral treaty to protect endangered plants and animals from the threats of international trade. It was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The convention was opened for signature in 1973 and CITES entered into force on 1 July 1975.

Its aim is to ensure that international trade (import/export) in specimens of animals and plants included under CITES does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. This is achieved via a system of permits and certificates. CITES affords varying degrees of protection to more than 38,000 species.

, the Secretary-General of CITES is Ivonne Higuero.

Background
CITES is one of the largest and oldest conservation and sustainable use agreements in existence. There are three working languages of the Convention (English, French and Spanish) in which all documents are made available. Participation is voluntary and countries that have agreed to be bound by the convention are known as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on the Parties, it does not take the place of national laws. Rather it provides a framework respected by each Party, which must adopt their own domestic legislation to implement CITES at the national level.

Originally, CITES addressed depletion resulting from demand for luxury goods such as furs in Western countries, but with the rising wealth of Asia, particularly in China, the focus changed to products demanded there, particularly those used for luxury goods such as elephant ivory or rhinoceros horn. As of 2022, CITES has expanded to include thousands of species previously considered unremarkable and in no danger of extinction such as manta rays or pangolins.

Ratifications
The text of the convention was finalized at a meeting of representatives of 80 countries in Washington, D.C., United States, on 3 March 1973. It was then open for signature until 31 December 1974. It entered into force after the 10th ratification by a signatory country, on 1 July 1975. Countries that signed the Convention become Parties by ratifying, accepting or approving it. By the end of 2003, all signatory countries had become Parties. States that were not signatories may become Parties by acceding to the convention. , the convention has 184 parties, including 183 states and the European Union.

The CITES Convention includes provisions and rules for trade with non-Parties. All member states of the United Nations are party to the treaty, with the exception of North Korea, Federated States of Micronesia, Haiti, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, South Sudan, East Timor, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. UN observer the Holy See is also not a member. The Faroe Islands, an autonomous region in the Kingdom of Denmark, is also treated as a non-Party to CITES (both the Danish mainland and Greenland are part of CITES).

An amendment to the text of the convention, known as the Gaborone Amendment allows regional economic integration organizations (REIO), such as the European Union, to have the status of a member state and to be a Party to the convention. The REIO can vote at CITES meetings with the number of votes representing the number of members in the REIO, but it does not have an additional vote.

In accordance with Article XVII, paragraph 3, of the CITES Convention, the Gaborone Amendment entered into force on 29 November 2013, 60 days after 54 (two-thirds) of the 80 States that were party to CITES on 30 April 1983 deposited their instrument of acceptance of the amendment. At that time it entered into force only for those States that had accepted the amendment. The amended text of the convention will apply automatically to any State that becomes a Party after 29 November 2013. For States that became party to the convention before that date and have not accepted the amendment, it will enter into force 60 days after they accept it.

Regulation of trade
CITES works by subjecting international trade in specimens of listed taxa to controls as they move across international borders. CITES specimens can include a wide range of items including the whole animal/plant (whether alive or dead), or a product that contains a part or derivative of the listed taxa such as cosmetics or traditional medicines.

Four types of trade are recognised by CITES - import, export, re-export (export of any specimen that has previously been imported) and introduction from the sea (transportation into a state of specimens of any species which were taken in the marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any state). The CITES definition of "trade" does not require a financial transaction to be occurring. All trade in specimens of species covered by CITES must be authorized through a system of permits and certificates prior to the trade taking place. CITES permits and certificates are issued by one or more Management Authorities in charge of administering the CITES system in each country. Management Authorities are advised by one or more Scientific Authorities on the effects of trade of the specimen on the status of CITES-listed species. CITES permits and certificates must be presented to relevant border authorities in each country in order to authorise the trade.

Each party must enact their own domestic legislation to bring the provisions of CITES into effect in their territories. Parties may choose to take stricter domestic measures than CITES provides (for example by requiring permits/certificates in cases where they would not normally be needed or by prohibiting trade in some specimens).

Appendices
Over 40,900 species, subspecies and populations are protected under CITES. Each protected taxa or population is included in one of three lists called Appendices. The Appendix that lists a taxon or population reflects the level of the threat posed by international trade and the CITES controls that apply.

Taxa may be split-listed meaning that some populations of a species are on one Appendix, while some are on another. The African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) is currently split-listed, with all populations except those of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe listed in Appendix I. Those of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are listed in Appendix II. There are also species that have only some populations listed in an Appendix. One example is the pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), a ruminant native to North America. Its Mexican population is listed in Appendix I, but its U.S. and Canadian populations are not listed (though certain U.S. populations in Arizona are nonetheless protected under other domestic legislation, in this case the Endangered Species Act).

Taxa are proposed for inclusion, amendment or deletion in Appendices I and II at meetings of the Conference of the Parties (CoP), which are held approximately once every three years. Amendments to listing in Appendix III may be made unilaterally by individual parties.

Appendix I
Appendix I taxa are those that are threatened with extinction and to which the highest level of CITES protection is afforded. Commercial trade in wild-sourced specimens of these taxa is not permitted and non-commercial trade is strictly controlled by requiring an import permit and export permit to be granted by the relevant Management Authorities in each country before the trade occurs.

Notable taxa listed in Appendix I include the red panda (Ailurus fulgens), western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), the chimpanzee species (Pan spp.), tigers (Panthera tigris subspecies), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), some populations of African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), and the monkey puzzle tree (Araucaria araucana).

Appendix II
Appendix II taxa are those that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Appendix II taxa may also include species similar in appearance to species already listed in the Appendices. The vast majority of taxa listed under CITES are listed in Appendix II. Any trade in Appendix II taxa standardly requires a CITES export permit or re-export certificate to be granted by the Management Authority of the exporting country before the trade occurs.

Examples of taxa listed on Appendix II are the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), the American black bear (Ursus americanus), Hartmann's mountain zebra (Equus zebra hartmannae), green iguana (Iguana iguana), queen conch (Strombus gigas), emperor scorpion (Pandinus imperator), Mertens' water monitor (Varanus mertensi), bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), lignum vitae (Guaiacum officinale), the chambered nautilus (Nautilus pompilius), all stony corals (Scleractinia spp.), and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius).

Appendix III
Appendix III species are those that are protected in at least one country, and that country has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade. Any trade in Appendix III species standardly requires a CITES export permit (if sourced from the country that listed the species) or a certificate of origin (from any other country) to be granted before the trade occurs.

Examples of species listed on Appendix III and the countries that listed them are the Hoffmann's two-toed sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni) by Costa Rica, sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) by Ghana and African civet (Civettictis civetta) by Botswana.

Exemptions and special procedures
Under Article VII, the Convention allows for certain exceptions to the general trade requirements described above.

Pre-Convention specimens
CITES provides for a special process for specimens that were acquired before the provisions of the Convention applied to that specimen. These are known as "pre-Convention" specimens and must be granted a CITES pre-Convention certificate before the trade occurs. Only specimens legally acquired before the date on which the species concerned was first included in the Appendices qualify for this exemption.

Personal and household effects
CITES provides that the standard permit/certificate requirements for trade in CITES specimens do not generally apply if a specimen is a personal or household effect. However there are a number of situations where permits/certificates for personal or household effects are required and some countries choose to take stricter domestic measures by requiring permits/certificates for some or all personal or household effects.

Captive bred or artificially propagated specimens
CITES allows trade in specimens to follow special procedures if Management Authorities are satisfied that they are sourced from captive bred animals or artificially propagated plants. In the case of commercial trade of Appendix I taxa, captive bred or artificially propagated specimens may be traded as if they were Appendix II. This reduces the permit requirements from two permits (import/export) to one (export only). In the case of non-commercial trade, specimens may be traded with a certificate of captive breeding/artificial propagation issued by the Management Authority of the state of export in lieu of standard permits.

Scientific exchange
Standard CITES permit and certificates are not required for the non-commercial loan, donation or exchange between scientific or forensic institutions that have been registered by a Management Authority of their State. Consignments containing the specimens must carry a label issued or approved by that Management Authority (in some cases Customs Declaration labels may be used). Specimens that may be included under this provision include museum, herbarium, diagnostic and forensic research specimens. Registered institutions are listed on the CITES website.

Amendments and reservations
Amendments to the Convention must be supported by a two-thirds majority who are "present and voting" and can be made during an extraordinary meeting of the COP if one-third of the Parties are interested in such a meeting. The Gaborone Amendment (1983) allows regional economic blocs to accede to the treaty. Trade with non-Party states is allowed, although permits and certificates are recommended to be issued by exporters and sought by importers.

Species in the Appendices may be proposed for addition, change of Appendix, or de-listing (i.e., deletion) by any Party, whether or not it is a range State and changes may be made despite objections by range States if there is sufficient (2/3 majority) support for the listing. Species listings are made at the Conference of Parties.

Upon acceding to the Convention or within 90 days of a species listing being amended, Parties may make reservations. In these cases, the party is treated as being a state that is not a Party to CITES with respect to trade in the species concerned. Notable reservations include those by Iceland, Japan, and Norway on various baleen whale species and those on Falconiformes by Saudi Arabia.

Implementation
As of 2002, 50% of Parties lacked one or more of the four major CITES requirements - designation of Management and Scientific Authorities; laws prohibiting the trade in violation of CITES; penalties for such trade and laws providing for the confiscation of specimens.

Although the Convention itself does not provide for arbitration or dispute in the case of noncompliance, 36 years of CITES in practice has resulted in several strategies to deal with infractions by Parties. The Secretariat, when informed of an infraction by a Party, will notify all other parties. The Secretariat will give the Party time to respond to the allegations and may provide technical assistance to prevent further infractions. Other actions the Convention itself does not provide for but that derive from subsequent COP resolutions may be taken against the offending Party. These include: Bilateral sanctions have been imposed on the basis of national legislation (e.g. the USA used certification under the Pelly Amendment to get Japan to revoke its reservation to hawksbill turtle products in 1991, thus reducing the volume of its exports).
 * Mandatory confirmation of all permits by the Secretariat
 * Suspension of cooperation from the Secretariat
 * A formal warning
 * A visit by the Secretariat to verify capacity
 * Recommendations to all Parties to suspend CITES related trade with the offending party
 * Dictation of corrective measures to be taken by the offending Party before the Secretariat will resume cooperation or recommend resumption of trade

Infractions may include negligence with respect to permit issuing, excessive trade, lax enforcement, and failing to produce annual reports (the most common).

Approach to biodiversity conservation
General limitations about the structure and philosophy of CITES include: by design and intent it focuses on trade at the species level and does not address habitat loss, ecosystem approaches to conservation, or poverty; it seeks to prevent unsustainable use rather than promote sustainable use (which generally conflicts with the Convention on Biological Diversity), although this has been changing (see Nile crocodile, African elephant, South African white rhino case studies in Hutton and Dickinson 2000). It does not explicitly address market demand. In fact, CITES listings have been demonstrated to increase financial speculation in certain markets for high value species. Funding does not provide for increased on-the-ground enforcement (it must apply for bilateral aid for most projects of this nature).

There has been increasing willingness within the Parties to allow for trade in products from well-managed populations. For instance, sales of the South African white rhino have generated revenues that helped pay for protection. Listing the species on Appendix I increased the price of rhino horn (which fueled more poaching), but the species survived wherever there was adequate on-the-ground protection. Thus field protection may be the primary mechanism that saved the population, but it is likely that field protection would not have been increased without CITES protection. In another instance, the United States initially stopped exports of bobcat and lynx hides in 1977 when it first implemented CITES for lack of data to support no detriment findings. However, in this Federal Register notice, issued by William Yancey Brown, the U.S. Endangered Species Scientific Authority (ESSA) established a framework of no detriment findings for each state and the Navajo nation and indicated that approval would be forthcoming if the states and Navajo nation provided evidence that their furbearer management programs assured the species would be conserved. Management programs for these species expanded rapidly, including tagging for export, and are currently recognized in program approvals under regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Drafting
By design, CITES regulates and monitors trade in the manner of a "negative list" such that trade in all species is permitted and unregulated unless the species in question appears on the Appendices or looks very much like one of those taxa. Then and only then, trade is regulated or constrained. Because the remit of the Convention covers millions of species of plants and animals, and tens of thousands of these taxa are potentially of economic value, in practice this negative list approach effectively forces CITES signatories to expend limited resources on just a select few, leaving many species to be traded with neither constraint nor review. For example, recently several bird classified as threatened with extinction appeared in the legal wild bird trade because the CITES process never considered their status. If a "positive list" approach were taken, only species evaluated and approved for the positive list would be permitted in trade, thus lightening the review burden for member states and the Secretariat, and also preventing inadvertent legal trade threats to poorly known species.

Specific weaknesses in the text include: it does not stipulate guidelines for the 'non-detriment' finding required of national Scientific Authorities; non-detriment findings require copious amounts of information; the 'household effects' clause is often not rigid enough/specific enough to prevent CITES violations by means of this Article (VII); non-reporting from Parties means Secretariat monitoring is incomplete; and it has no capacity to address domestic trade in listed species.

In order to ensure that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was not violated, the Secretariat of GATT was consulted during the drafting process.

Animal sourced pathogens
During the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 CEO Ivonne Higuero noted that illegal wildlife trade not only helps to destroy habitats, but these habitats create a safety barrier for humans that can prevent pathogens from animals passing themselves on to people.

Reform suggestions
Suggestions for improvement in the operation of CITES include: more regular missions by the Secretariat (not reserved just for high-profile species); improvement of national legislation and enforcement; better reporting by Parties (and the consolidation of information from all sources-NGOs, TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network and Parties); more emphasis on enforcement-including a technical committee enforcement officer; the development of CITES Action Plans (akin to Biodiversity Action Plans related to the Convention on Biological Diversity) including: designation of Scientific/Management Authorities and national enforcement strategies; incentives for reporting and timelines for both Action Plans and reporting. CITES would benefit from access to Global Environment Facility (GEF), funds-although this is difficult given the GEFs more ecosystem approach-or other more regular funds. Development of a future mechanism similar to that of the Montreal Protocol (developed nations contribute to a fund for developing nations) could allow more funds for non-Secretariat activities.

TRAFFIC Data
From 2005 to 2009 the legal trade corresponded with these numbers: In the 1990s the annual trade of legal animal products was $160 billion annually. In 2009 the estimated value almost doubled to $300 billion.
 * 317,000 live birds
 * More than 2 million live reptiles
 * 2.5 million crocodile skins
 * 2.1 million snake skins
 * 73 tons of caviar
 * 1.1 million beaver skins
 * Millions of pieces of coral
 * 20,000 mammalian hunting trophies

Additional information about the documented trade can be extracted through queries on the CITES website.

Meetings
The Conference of the Parties (CoP) is held once every three years. The location of the next CoP is chosen at the close of each CoP by a secret ballot vote.

The CITES Committees (Animals Committee, Plants Committee and Standing Committee) hold meetings during each year that does not have a CoP, while the Standing committee meets also in years with a CoP. The Committee meetings take place in Geneva, Switzerland (where the Secretariat of the CITES Convention is located), unless another country offers to host the meeting. The Secretariat is administered by UNEP. The Animals and Plants Committees have sometimes held joint meetings. The previous joint meeting was held in March 2012 in Dublin, Ireland, and the latest one was held in Veracruz, Mexico, in May 2014.

A current list of upcoming meetings appears on the CITES calendar.

At the seventeenth Conference of the Parties (CoP 17), Namibia and Zimbabwe introduced proposals to amend their listing of elephant populations in Appendix II. Instead, they wished to establish controlled trade in all elephant specimens, including ivory. They argue that revenue from regulated trade could be used for elephant conservation and rural communities' development. However, both proposals were opposed by the US and other countries.

title: CITES


text:
Environmental Modification Convention

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978.

The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather modification or geoengineering.

Many states do not regard this as a complete ban on the use of herbicides in warfare, such as Agent Orange, but it does require case-by-case consideration.

Parties
The convention was signed by 48 states; 16 of the signatories have not ratified. As of 2022 the convention has 78 state parties.

History
The problem of artificial modification of the environment for military or other hostile purposes was brought to the international agenda in the early 1970s. Following the US decision of July 1972 to renounce the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, the 1973 resolution by the US Senate calling for an international agreement "prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war", and an in-depth review by the Department of Defense of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques, US decided to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement.

In July 1974, US and USSR agreed to hold bilateral discussions on measures to overcome the danger of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes and three subsequent rounds of discussions in 1974 and 1975. In August 1975, US and USSR tabled identical draft texts of a convention at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD), Conference on Disarmament, where intensive negotiations resulted in a modified text and understandings regarding four articles of this Convention in 1976.

The convention was approved by Resolution 31/72 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976, by 96 to 8 votes with 30 abstentions.

Environmental Modification Technique
Environmental Modification Technique includes any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Structure of ENMOD
The Convention contains ten articles and one Annex on the Consultative Committee of Experts. Integral part of the convention are also the Understandings relating to articles I, II, III and VIII. These Understandings are not incorporated into the convention but are part of the negotiating record and were included in the report transmitted by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1976 Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Volume I, General Assembly Official records: Thirty-first session, Supplement No. 27 (A/31/27), New York, United Nations, 1976, pp. 91–92.

Anthropogenic climate change
ENMOD treaty members are responsible for 83% of carbon dioxide emissions since the treaty entered into force in 1978. The ENMOD treaty could potentially be used by ENMOD member states seeking climate-change loss and damage compensation from other ENMOD member states at the International Court of Justice. With the knowledge that carbon dioxide emissions can enhance extreme weather events, the continued unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions from some ENMOD member states could be viewed as ‘reckless’ in the context of deliberately declining emissions from other ENMOD member states. It is unclear whether the International Court of Justice will consider the ENMOD treaty when it issues a legal opinion on international climate change obligations requested by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 March 2023.

title: Environmental Modification Convention


text:
Chaitin's constant

In the computer science subfield of algorithmic information theory, a Chaitin constant (Chaitin omega number) or halting probability is a real number that, informally speaking, represents the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt. These numbers are formed from a construction due to Gregory Chaitin.

Although there are infinitely many halting probabilities, one for each (universal, see below) method of encoding programs, it is common to use the letter Ω to refer to them as if there were only one. Because Ω depends on the program encoding used, it is sometimes called Chaitin's construction when not referring to any specific encoding.

Each halting probability is a normal and transcendental real number that is not computable, which means that there is no algorithm to compute its digits. Each halting probability is Martin-Löf random, meaning there is not even any algorithm which can reliably guess its digits.

Background
The definition of a halting probability relies on the existence of a prefix-free universal computable function. Such a function, intuitively, represents a programming language with the property that no valid program can be obtained as a proper extension of another valid program.

Suppose that F is a partial function that takes one argument, a finite binary string, and possibly returns a single binary string as output. The function F is called computable if there is a Turing machine that computes it, in the sense that for any finite binary strings x and y, F(x) = y if and only if the Turing machine halts with y on its tape when given the input x.

The function F is called universal if the following property holds: for every computable function f of a single variable there is a string w such that for all x, F(w x) = f(x); here w x represents the concatenation of the two strings w and x. This means that F can be used to simulate any computable function of one variable. Informally, w represents a "script" for the computable function f, and F represents an "interpreter" that parses the script as a prefix of its input and then executes it on the remainder of input.

The domain of F is the set of all inputs p on which it is defined. For F that are universal, such a p can generally be seen both as the concatenation of a program part and a data part, and as a single program for the function F.

The function F is called prefix-free if there are no two elements p, p′ in its domain such that p′ is a proper extension of p. This can be rephrased as: the domain of F is a prefix-free code (instantaneous code) on the set of finite binary strings. A simple way to enforce prefix-free-ness is to use machines whose means of input is a binary stream from which bits can be read one at a time. There is no end-of-stream marker; the end of input is determined by when the universal machine decides to stop reading more bits, and the remaining bits are not considered part of the accepted string. Here, the difference between the two notions of program mentioned in the last paragraph becomes clear; one is easily recognized by some grammar, while the other requires arbitrary computation to recognize.

The domain of any universal computable function is a computably enumerable set but never a computable set. The domain is always Turing equivalent to the halting problem.

Definition
Let PF be the domain of a prefix-free universal computable function F. The constant ΩF is then defined as
 * $$\Omega_F = \sum_{p \in P_F} 2^{-|p|}$$,

where $$\left|p\right|$$ denotes the length of a string p. This is an infinite sum which has one summand for every p in the domain of F. The requirement that the domain be prefix-free, together with Kraft's inequality, ensures that this sum converges to a real number between 0 and 1. If F is clear from context then ΩF may be denoted simply Ω, although different prefix-free universal computable functions lead to different values of Ω.

Relationship to the halting problem
Knowing the first N bits of Ω, one could calculate the halting problem for all programs of a size up to N. Let the program p for which the halting problem is to be solved be N bits long. In dovetailing fashion, all programs of all lengths are run, until enough have halted to jointly contribute enough probability to match these first N bits. If the program p hasn't halted yet, then it never will, since its contribution to the halting probability would affect the first N bits. Thus, the halting problem would be solved for p.

Because many outstanding problems in number theory, such as Goldbach's conjecture, are equivalent to solving the halting problem for special programs (which would basically search for counter-examples and halt if one is found), knowing enough bits of Chaitin's constant would also imply knowing the answer to these problems. But as the halting problem is not generally solvable, and therefore calculating any but the first few bits of Chaitin's constant is not possible in a very concise language, this just reduces hard problems to impossible ones, much like trying to build an oracle machine for the halting problem would be.

Interpretation as a probability
The Cantor space is the collection of all infinite sequences of 0s and 1s. A halting probability can be interpreted as the measure of a certain subset of Cantor space under the usual probability measure on Cantor space. It is from this interpretation that halting probabilities take their name.

The probability measure on Cantor space, sometimes called the fair-coin measure, is defined so that for any binary string x the set of sequences that begin with x has measure 2−. This implies that for each natural number n, the set of sequences f in Cantor space such that f(n) = 1 has measure 1/2, and the set of sequences whose nth element is 0 also has measure 1/2.

Let F be a prefix-free universal computable function. The domain P of F consists of an infinite set of binary strings
 * $$P = \{p_1,p_2,\ldots\}$$.

Each of these strings pi determines a subset Si of Cantor space; the set Si contains all sequences in cantor space that begin with pi. These sets are disjoint because P is a prefix-free set. The sum
 * $$\sum_{p \in P} 2^{-|p|}$$

represents the measure of the set
 * $$\bigcup_{i \in \mathbb{N}} S_i$$.

In this way, ΩF represents the probability that a randomly selected infinite sequence of 0s and 1s begins with a bit string (of some finite length) that is in the domain of F. It is for this reason that ΩF is called a halting probability.

Properties
Each Chaitin constant Ω has the following properties:

 * It is algorithmically random (also known as Martin-Löf random or 1-random). This means that the shortest program to output the first n bits of Ω must be of size at least n − O(1). This is because, as in the Goldbach example, those n bits enable us to find out exactly which programs halt among all those of length at most n.
 * As a consequence, it is a normal number, which means that its digits are equidistributed as if they were generated by tossing a fair coin.
 * It is not a computable number; there is no computable function that enumerates its binary expansion, as discussed below.
 * The set of rational numbers q such that q < Ω is computably enumerable; a real number with such a property is called a left-c.e. real number in recursion theory.
 * The set of rational numbers q such that q > Ω is not computably enumerable. (Reason: every left-c.e. real with this property is computable, which Ω isn't.)
 * Ω is an arithmetical number.
 * It is Turing equivalent to the halting problem and thus at level $$\Delta^0_2$$ of the arithmetical hierarchy.

Not every set that is Turing equivalent to the halting problem is a halting probability. A finer equivalence relation, Solovay equivalence, can be used to characterize the halting probabilities among the left-c.e. reals. One can show that a real number in [0,1] is a Chaitin constant (i.e. the halting probability of some prefix-free universal computable function) if and only if it is left-c.e. and algorithmically random. Ω is among the few definable algorithmically random numbers and is the best-known algorithmically random number, but it is not at all typical of all algorithmically random numbers.

Uncomputability
A real number is called computable if there is an algorithm which, given n, returns the first n digits of the number. This is equivalent to the existence of a program that enumerates the digits of the real number.

No halting probability is computable. The proof of this fact relies on an algorithm which, given the first n digits of Ω, solves Turing's halting problem for programs of length up to n. Since the halting problem is undecidable, Ω cannot be computed.

The algorithm proceeds as follows. Given the first n digits of Ω and a k ≤ n, the algorithm enumerates the domain of F until enough elements of the domain have been found so that the probability they represent is within 2−(k+1) of Ω. After this point, no additional program of length k can be in the domain, because each of these would add 2−k to the measure, which is impossible. Thus the set of strings of length k in the domain is exactly the set of such strings already enumerated.

Algorithmic randomness
A real number is random if the binary sequence representing the real number is an algorithmically random sequence. Calude, Hertling, Khoussainov, and Wang showed that a recursively enumerable real number is an algorithmically random sequence if and only if it is a Chaitin's Ω number.

Incompleteness theorem for halting probabilities
For each specific consistent effectively represented axiomatic system for the natural numbers, such as Peano arithmetic, there exists a constant N such that no bit of Ω after the Nth can be proven to be 1 or 0 within that system. The constant N depends on how the formal system is effectively represented, and thus does not directly reflect the complexity of the axiomatic system. This incompleteness result is similar to Gödel's incompleteness theorem in that it shows that no consistent formal theory for arithmetic can be complete.

Super Omega
As mentioned above, the first n bits of Gregory Chaitin's constant Ω are random or incompressible in the sense that we cannot compute them by a halting algorithm with fewer than n-O(1) bits. However, consider the short but never halting algorithm which systematically lists and runs all possible programs; whenever one of them halts its probability gets added to the output (initialized by zero). After finite time the first n bits of the output will never change any more (it does not matter that this time itself is not computable by a halting program). So there is a short non-halting algorithm whose output converges (after finite time) onto the first n bits of Ω. In other words, the enumerable first n bits of Ω are highly compressible in the sense that they are limit-computable by a very short algorithm; they are not random with respect to the set of enumerating algorithms. Jürgen Schmidhuber (2000) constructed a limit-computable "Super Ω" which in a sense is much more random than the original limit-computable Ω, as one cannot significantly compress the Super Ω by any enumerating non-halting algorithm.

For an alternative "Super Ω", the universality probability of a prefix-free Universal Turing Machine (UTM) – namely, the probability that it remains universal even when every input of it (as a binary string) is prefixed by a random binary string –  can be seen as the non-halting probability of a machine with oracle the third iteration of the halting problem (i.e., $$O^{(3)}$$using Turing Jump notation).

title: Chaitin's constant


text:
Computable number

In mathematics, computable numbers are the real numbers that can be computed to within any desired precision by a finite, terminating algorithm. They are also known as the recursive numbers, effective numbers or the computable reals or recursive reals. The concept of a computable real number was introduced by Émile Borel in 1912, using the intuitive notion of computability available at the time.

Equivalent definitions can be given using μ-recursive functions, Turing machines, or λ-calculus as the formal representation of algorithms. The computable numbers form a real closed field and can be used in the place of real numbers for many, but not all, mathematical purposes.

Informal definition using a Turing machine as example
In the following, Marvin Minsky defines the numbers to be computed in a manner similar to those defined by Alan Turing in 1936; i.e., as "sequences of digits interpreted as decimal fractions" between 0 and 1: "A computable number [is] one for which there is a Turing machine which, given n on its initial tape, terminates with the nth digit of that number [encoded on its tape]."

The key notions in the definition are (1) that some n is specified at the start, (2) for any n the computation only takes a finite number of steps, after which the machine produces the desired output and terminates.

An alternate form of (2) – the machine successively prints all n of the digits on its tape, halting after printing the nth – emphasizes Minsky's observation: (3) That by use of a Turing machine, a finite definition – in the form of the machine's state table – is being used to define what is a potentially infinite string of decimal digits.

This is however not the modern definition which only requires the result be accurate to within any given accuracy. The informal definition above is subject to a rounding problem called the table-maker's dilemma whereas the modern definition is not.

Formal definition
A real number a is computable if it can be approximated by some computable function $$f:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{Z}$$ in the following manner: given any positive integer n, the function produces an integer f(n) such that:

 * $${f(n)-1\over n} \leq a \leq {f(n)+1\over n}.$$

There are two similar definitions that are equivalent:
 * There exists a computable function which, given any positive rational error bound $$\varepsilon$$, produces a rational number r such that $$|r - a| \leq \varepsilon.$$
 * There is a computable sequence of rational numbers $$q_i$$ converging to $$a$$ such that $$|q_i - q_{i+1}| < 2^{-i}\,$$ for each i.

There is another equivalent definition of computable numbers via computable Dedekind cuts. A computable Dedekind cut is a computable function $$D\;$$ which when provided with a rational number $$r$$ as input returns $$D(r)=\mathrm{true}\;$$ or $$D(r)=\mathrm{false}\;$$, satisfying the following conditions:
 * $$\exists r D(r)=\mathrm{true}\;$$
 * $$\exists r D(r)=\mathrm{false}\;$$
 * $$(D(r)=\mathrm{true}) \wedge (D(s)=\mathrm{false}) \Rightarrow rr, D(s)=\mathrm{true}.\;$$

An example is given by a program D that defines the cube root of 3. Assuming $$q>0\;$$ this is defined by:
 * $$p^3<3 q^3 \Rightarrow D(p/q)=\mathrm{true}\;$$
 * $$p^3>3 q^3 \Rightarrow D(p/q)=\mathrm{false}.\;$$

A real number is computable if and only if there is a computable Dedekind cut D corresponding to it. The function D is unique for each computable number (although of course two different programs may provide the same function).

A complex number is called computable if its real and imaginary parts are computable.

Not computably enumerable
Assigning a Gödel number to each Turing machine definition produces a subset $$S$$ of the natural numbers corresponding to the computable numbers and identifies a surjection from $$S$$ to the computable numbers. There are only countably many Turing machines, showing that the computable numbers are subcountable. The set $$S$$ of these Gödel numbers, however, is not computably enumerable (and consequently, neither are subsets of $$S$$ that are defined in terms of it). This is because there is no algorithm to determine which Gödel numbers correspond to Turing machines that produce computable reals. In order to produce a computable real, a Turing machine must compute a total function, but the corresponding decision problem is in Turing degree 0′′. Consequently, there is no surjective computable function from the natural numbers to the set $$S$$ of machines representing computable reals, and Cantor's diagonal argument cannot be used constructively to demonstrate uncountably many of them.

While the set of real numbers is uncountable, the set of computable numbers is classically countable and thus almost all real numbers are not computable. Here, for any given computable number $$x,$$ the well ordering principle provides that there is a minimal element in $$S$$ which corresponds to $$x$$, and therefore there exists a subset consisting of the minimal elements, on which the map is a bijection. The inverse of this bijection is an injection into the natural numbers of the computable numbers, proving that they are countable. But, again, this subset is not computable, even though the computable reals are themselves ordered.

Properties as a field
The arithmetical operations on computable numbers are themselves computable in the sense that whenever real numbers a and b are computable then the following real numbers are also computable: a + b, a - b, ab, and a/b if b is nonzero. These operations are actually uniformly computable; for example, there is a Turing machine which on input (A,B,$$\epsilon$$) produces output r, where A is the description of a Turing machine approximating a, B is the description of a Turing machine approximating b, and r is an $$\epsilon$$ approximation of a+b.

The fact that computable real numbers form a field was first proved by Henry Gordon Rice in 1954.

Computable reals however do not form a computable field, because the definition of a computable field requires effective equality.

Non-computability of the ordering
The order relation on the computable numbers is not computable. Let A be the description of a Turing machine approximating the number $$a$$. Then there is no Turing machine which on input A outputs "YES" if $$a > 0$$ and "NO" if $$a \le 0.$$ To see why, suppose the machine described by A keeps outputting 0 as $$\epsilon$$ approximations. It is not clear how long to wait before deciding that the machine will never output an approximation which forces a to be positive. Thus the machine will eventually have to guess that the number will equal 0, in order to produce an output; the sequence may later become different from 0. This idea can be used to show that the machine is incorrect on some sequences if it computes a total function. A similar problem occurs when the computable reals are represented as Dedekind cuts. The same holds for the equality relation: the equality test is not computable.

While the full order relation is not computable, the restriction of it to pairs of unequal numbers is computable. That is, there is a program that takes as input two Turing machines A and B approximating numbers $$ a$$ and $$ b$$, where $$a \ne b$$, and outputs whether $$a < b$$ or $$a > b.$$ It is sufficient to use $$\epsilon$$-approximations where $$ \epsilon < |b-a|/2,$$ so by taking increasingly small $$\epsilon$$ (approaching 0), one eventually can decide whether $$a < b$$ or $$a > b.$$

Other properties
The computable real numbers do not share all the properties of the real numbers used in analysis. For example, the least upper bound of a bounded increasing computable sequence of computable real numbers need not be a computable real number. A sequence with this property is known as a Specker sequence, as the first construction is due to Ernst Specker in 1949. Despite the existence of counterexamples such as these, parts of calculus and real analysis can be developed in the field of computable numbers, leading to the study of computable analysis.

Every computable number is arithmetically definable, but not vice versa. There are many arithmetically definable, noncomputable real numbers, including: Both of these examples in fact define an infinite set of definable, uncomputable numbers, one for each Universal Turing machine. A real number is computable if and only if the set of natural numbers it represents (when written in binary and viewed as a characteristic function) is computable.
 * any number that encodes the solution of the halting problem (or any other undecidable problem) according to a chosen encoding scheme.
 * Chaitin's constant, $$\Omega$$, which is a type of real number that is Turing equivalent to the halting problem.

The set of computable real numbers (as well as every countable, densely ordered subset of computable reals without ends) is order-isomorphic to the set of rational numbers.

Digit strings and the Cantor and Baire spaces
Turing's original paper defined computable numbers as follows:

"A real number is computable if its digit sequence can be produced by some algorithm or Turing machine. The algorithm takes an integer $n \ge 1$ as input and produces the $n$-th digit of the real number's decimal expansion as output."

(The decimal expansion of a only refers to the digits following the decimal point.)

Turing was aware that this definition is equivalent to the $$\epsilon$$-approximation definition given above. The argument proceeds as follows: if a number is computable in the Turing sense, then it is also computable in the $$\epsilon$$ sense: if $$n > \log_{10} (1/\epsilon)$$, then the first n digits of the decimal expansion for a provide an $$\epsilon$$ approximation of a. For the converse, we pick an $$\epsilon$$ computable real number a and generate increasingly precise approximations until the nth digit after the decimal point is certain. This always generates a decimal expansion equal to a but it may improperly end in an infinite sequence of 9's in which case it must have a finite (and thus computable) proper decimal expansion.

Unless certain topological properties of the real numbers are relevant, it is often more convenient to deal with elements of $$2^{\omega}$$ (total 0,1 valued functions) instead of reals numbers in $$[0,1]$$. The members of $$2^{\omega}$$ can be identified with binary decimal expansions, but since the decimal expansions $$.d_1d_2\ldots d_n0111\ldots$$ and $$.d_1d_2\ldots d_n10$$ denote the same real number, the interval $$[0,1]$$ can only be bijectively (and homeomorphically under the subset topology) identified with the subset of $$2^{\omega}$$ not ending in all 1's.

Note that this property of decimal expansions means that it is impossible to effectively identify the computable real numbers defined in terms of a decimal expansion and those defined in the $$\epsilon$$ approximation sense. Hirst has shown that there is no algorithm which takes as input the description of a Turing machine which produces $$\epsilon$$ approximations for the computable number a, and produces as output a Turing machine which enumerates the digits of a in the sense of Turing's definition. Similarly, it means that the arithmetic operations on the computable reals are not effective on their decimal representations as when adding decimal numbers. In order to produce one digit, it may be necessary to look arbitrarily far to the right to determine if there is a carry to the current location. This lack of uniformity is one reason why the contemporary definition of computable numbers uses $$\epsilon$$ approximations rather than decimal expansions.

However, from a computability theoretic or measure theoretic perspective, the two structures $$2^{\omega}$$ and $$[0,1]$$ are essentially identical. Thus, computability theorists often refer to members of $$2^{\omega}$$ as reals. While $$2^{\omega}$$ is totally disconnected, for questions about $$\Pi^0_1$$ classes or randomness it is easier to work in $$2^{\omega}$$.

Elements of $$\omega^{\omega}$$ are sometimes called reals as well and though containing a homeomorphic image of $$\mathbb{R}$$, $$\omega^{\omega}$$ isn't even locally compact (in addition to being totally disconnected). This leads to genuine differences in the computational properties. For instance the $$x \in \mathbb{R}$$ satisfying $$\forall(n \in \omega)\phi(x,n)$$, with $$\phi(x,n)$$ quantifier free, must be computable while the unique $$x \in \omega^{\omega}$$ satisfying a universal formula may have an arbitrarily high position in the hyperarithmetic hierarchy.

Use in place of the reals
The computable numbers include the specific real numbers which appear in practice, including all real algebraic numbers, as well as e, π, and many other transcendental numbers. Though the computable reals exhaust those reals we can calculate or approximate, the assumption that all reals are computable leads to substantially different conclusions about the real numbers. The question naturally arises of whether it is possible to dispose of the full set of reals and use computable numbers for all of mathematics. This idea is appealing from a constructivist point of view, and has been pursued by the Russian school of constructive mathematics.

To actually develop analysis over computable numbers, some care must be taken. For example, if one uses the classical definition of a sequence, the set of computable numbers is not closed under the basic operation of taking the supremum of a bounded sequence (for example, consider a Specker sequence, see the section above). This difficulty is addressed by considering only sequences which have a computable modulus of convergence. The resulting mathematical theory is called computable analysis.

Implementations of exact arithmetic
Computer packages representing real numbers as programs computing approximations have been proposed as early as 1985, under the name "exact arithmetic". Modern examples include the CoRN library (Coq), and the RealLib package (C++). A related line of work is based on taking a real RAM program and running it with rational or floating-point numbers of sufficient precision, such as the package.

title: Computable number