Why is the United States not part of the Convention that will make up COP16 in Cali?

A few weeks ago, the government of President Gustavo Petro and Johns Hopkins University co-sponsored a major event in Washington to "socialize" in the U.S. capital the COP16 on biodiversity, which begins this month in Cali.  

In addition to academics and experts, the event was attended by Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo and John Podesta, President Joe Biden's special envoy on climate change - a clear demonstration of the Democratic istration's for the event, and on an issue where both governments seem to be on the same page.  

Except for one small problem: the United States will not officially participate because it is not a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (or CBD), the international treaty adopted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit that established the COP (or Conference of the Parties) as its governing body.

In fact, the United States is the only country in the world that has not ratified the Convention, a thorn in the side of the CBD since its inception and one with enormous clout as the world's richest and most powerful nation. Something that becomes more visible every two years when the planet gathers to coordinate policy on this front.

Ever since the issue was first discussed in the 1980s, Republicans and certain sectors of the biotechnology industry have opposed the treaty on the grounds that it would violate U.S. sovereignty, jeopardize economic interests, and impose a financial burden on them.

Interestingly, says William Snape, an environmental lawyer and associate dean at American University and a senior advisor to the Center for Biological Diversity, the United States was one of the main proponents of the CBD in the run-up to its adoption because it understood that an agreement was needed to address a concern that existed then and still exists today.

But when it came up for consideration at the Rio conference, then President George H. Bush was facing a tough re-election campaign against Bill Clinton, the governor of Arkansas.

An important part of his party (the Republicans) opposed some of the basic concepts of the CBD. In particular, the concept of "equitable" sharing of biodiversity and genetic resources.

Biotechnology companies, which lobbied in opposition, feared that they would be forced to share their intellectual property rights. They also feared that the U.S. would end up being responsible for helping poorer nations protect their natural resources, and that the treaty would create more environmental regulations.

But in November of that year, Clinton won the election and decided to sign the treaty, which was championed by environmentalists and Democrats at home. Ratification in the Senate, the congressional body responsible for approving such international agreements, proved more complicated.

Although a bipartisan of the Foreign Relations Committee gave its approval after Clinton included assurances that the treaty would not jeopardize intellectual property rights, a group of Republican lawmakers stood in the way and prevented the treaty from reaching the floor of the upper chamber, where 67 votes, or two-thirds, were needed. Since then, no other U.S. president - not even Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden - has resubmitted the treaty to Congress for ratification.

While biodiversity is one of the few issues where there is some consensus in the United States, no one believes there are the 67 votes needed to move the convention forward.  

In fact, Donald Trump was a staunch opponent of ratifying such treaties during his first term, and the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025, which lays out a roap for a possible second term, calls for blocking ratification of the CBD.

"Conservative nationalists in the United States (including in the Senate) have long been suspicious of international agreements. They see them as efforts by the United Nations and foreign governments to limit U.S. constitutional independence, interfere with U.S. private sector activity, and create redistributionist schemes," writes Stewart Patrick, director of International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations.  

Indeed, Biden has sought to reverse many of the anti-environmental policies put in place under Trump. That includes reing the country to the 2016 Paris climate change agreement, which the Republican shot down upon entering the White House.  

But he has taken no steps toward the CBD or other international treaties, knowing that their legislative ratification is politically costly and has little future.  

The unfortunate thing, Patrick says, is that the U.S. would lose nothing by ing the convention because its domestic regulations and environmental policies already meet the requirements of the CBD.

"The United States already meets the substantive requirements of the treaty: it has a well-developed system of protected natural areas and policies to reduce biodiversity loss in sensitive areas," says Patrick. The problem seems to be, as it was 22 years ago, the political climate, which remains as toxic as it was then.  

SERGIO GÓMEZ MASERI

EL TIEMPO CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON