Convention on Biological Diversity is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles
Convention on Biological Diversity is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Article evaluation for Evaluate Wikipedia Exercise[edit]
This article is missing a thorough explanation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets that the Convention focuses on in its work. The Targets are only mentioned briefly in this article and it would be extremely beneficial to list them explicitly and describe them in detail. As well, an explanation of what projects or initiatives being done within the Convention to address each of these targets poses relevant.
Antonia.macris (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aichi Biodiversity Targets are now included in the Nagoya Convention article, and I have created redirects there. They could do with more fleshing out, but at least it's a start. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Later... Changed my mind, after further reading. They do belong in this article. I've restructured the whole article and made them a bit more prominent, and they could be the subject of a new article if someone feels so inclined, but I don't have time at the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Notice to new editors here: it's great that you're contributing to this article. But please note two things: 1) New posts go at the bottomof each talk page, and please sign every post using four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. This adds your username and a datestamp to every post and helps us work out who said what, and when. Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC) )[reply]
HiNick Moyes. I'm not new, and I know that. I only commented up here as an on-topic response to the comment above (and signed both of my comments) - although I think that editor is not active any more anyway. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing the benefits of biodiversity with developing nations[edit]
Your article simply ignores the discussion on biopiracy and the fact that the Convention calls for the sharing of the results of research and development of products that derive from communities that bare the traditional knowledge of the use of this biodiversity. Pharmaceutic companies are supposed to pay for the use of indigenous knowledge, an area in which developed nations fail to meet their commitments with the Convention. These commitments are made clear in articles 15 and 19 of the Convention:
Article 15. Access to Genetic Resources
1. Recognizing the sovereign rights of States over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national governments and is subject to national legislation.
(...)
7. Each Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, and in accordance with Articles 16 and 19 and, where necessary, through the financial mechanism established by Articles 20 and 21 with the aim of 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. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms.
Article 19. Handling of Biotechnology and Distribution of its Benefits
1. Each Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, to provide for the effective participation in biotechnological research activities by those Contracting Parties, especially developing countries, which provide the genetic resources for such research, and where feasible in such Contracting Parties.
I removed Andorra and Somalia (and for the time being Iraq) from the list of parties, as per both http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/ and the source you posted. According to the page's edit history, someone added those because of a CIA factbook link. Can we get that source linked, and which source should be trusted? I would assume treaties.un.org would be the first source to go to in this case. That one mostly agrees with my cbd.int link, but the dates differ a little, probably because they measure slightly different things, like one lists dates of ratification and one when they turn into effect or something. Lejman (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful page. I was hoping Wiki would have information showing that Canada missed its 2020 targets - but there does not appear to be a progress report. If someone wants to add that, here are three links. In the first, the government of Canada tells you where to find the targets - and in the 2nd link, we see the targets expressed - and an explanation that we promised to conserve at least 17% of terrestrial areas & inland waters. The third link shows that by the end of 2019, we're only at 12.1%. The 2nd link is clear in stating "Canada is making progress but at an insufficient rate to achieve the 17% terrestrial target . . ." SabaBPC (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again a strange redirect. What is the definition of biodiversity/biological diversity? What threatens it? Who or what benefits from it? Are all theese redirect pages stubs for something more ambitious? --Anders Törlind
The redirect is there because of the abbreviation listed on the page of the agreement. If someone wants to write about "biodiversity", the redirect should of course be changed to a link on the page. I did it that way from the start on Whaling. The same goes for Marine Dumping. Note that if someone wants to write about that as a concept, they should use Marine dumping. The reason I want the redirects in the first place is that the CIA World Factbook uses them on its country pages, and I make them links when I get there. Using the long names there would be a pain. --Pinkunicorn
Awlrighty! I figured there was something going on there :-) Too bad i can only supply the questions on the subjects...Oh, well, one can't know everything.I think. --Anders Törlind
When the press release is removed, what is remaining in Nagoya Protocol should probably be merged here. Unless some details not in the press release are provided, it's just an adjunct to the Convention. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still should likely be a section of this article, but we can discuss that when/if it's created, either as a separate article, or as a section here. — Arthur Rubin(talk)08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the interlinkages between convention on biodiversity and Food And Agricultural Organization(FAO) Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture?I could find just that the Nagoya protocol that is a part of CBD does not cover resources covered by the FAO treaty on Plant Genetic Resources Kartikay021 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Convention on Biological Diversity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Brief information about the steps forward of each meeting would be useful rather than only an indication about when they took place. Rrobotto (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Convention on Biological Diversity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I just did a small copy-edit of this section. However, I am really wondering whether the write-up on the outcomes of SBSTTA-13 as well as the name of the current Chair of that body are really necessary. This is not consistent with the narrative on the other CBD bodies. But then, I didn't want to just go ahead and take it out without getting some consensus.
One thing that could be done would be to actually have tables— one listing the Chairs (and their tenure) and another the outcomes of all SBSTTA meetings. – BroVic (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BroVic - a belated response, and I think that by the time I got here it has changed a bit, but I agree about trying to keep current Chair here. Similarly "most recent meetings" and suchlike, IMO, unless in an article which is very actively and continually edited. These kinds of things are apt to be forgotten and get stale - better to refer to the website. I've just removed references to two recent meetings and left a more general description, and added a citation. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and a colleagues looked at this article as part of this project. Here are suggestions for improvement (which we currently don't have time to implement ourselves):
The article doesn't refer to marine, fisheries, whaling or anything specific to oceans or coasts (but it should).
The UN is currently negotiating a new global treaty to managed marine biodiversity under the Law of the Sea. https://www.un.org/bbnj/ . So maybe we should refer this article to the one dealing with marine biodiversity naming this new treaty. There is nothing on Wikipedia that I could find dealing with this new treaty, It should be part of Law of the Sea or a separate new article.
The article doesn't refer to specific biomes or ecotopes - just refers to biodiversity. We could add a link to an article on marine biodiversity eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_life but also the new marine biodiversity treaty under the LoS. A new section on this in the LoS article and even a new article dealing with this new treaty. (added reference to the CBD technical note mapping the linkages between Agenda 2030 (all 17 SDGs) and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets.) EMsmile (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
