New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

framework are secured and equitably accessible to all Parties, especially developing countries, in particular, the least developed countries and small island developing States […]” 277 As we mentioned earlier, one of the biggest constraints are limited funding, upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (and that is a global problem, not just in developing countries). 278 So, the whole financial mechanism and processes adopted by CBD lack sufficient efficiency. Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework confirms these words by so-called “Goal D”: “Adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to fully implement the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework […] progressively closing the biodiversity finance gap of 700 billion dollars per year, and aligning financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.” 279 When it comes to biotechnology, its dangerous nature demand adequate measures. For example, The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology issued a report in 2019 noting that the detectability of single nucleotide or small genomic changes could pose further challenges for some countries. Furthermore, some noted there is a lack of appropriate tools for performing risk assessment to address the specific challenges from some organisms, products, and components of synthetic biology. 280 CBD itself does regulate it only in a general manner. CBD set certain rules in Article 14 regarding environmental impact assessment and minimizing adverse impacts. 281 What diminishes its effectiveness, is the language, that has been used. Contracting parties are obliged, but only “as far as possible and appropriate.” 282 The issue of biotechnology is regulated in more detail in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. As the introduction of the Protocol states, it has been hailed as a significant step forward in that it provides an international regulatory framework to reconcile the respective needs of trade and environmental protection concerning a rapidly growing global (biotechnology) industry. 283 Generally, the Protocol is considered a success regarding biosafety. Last, but not least, it is necessary to positively evaluate the emphasis 277 Draft decision submitted by the President: Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework (CBD/ COP/15/L.25) accessed 18 December 2022. 278 Speaker T, O’Donnell S, Wittemyer G et al, ‘A Global Community-Sourced Assessment of the State of Conservation Technology’ (2022) 36(3) Conserv Biol 13871. 279 Draft decision submitted by the President: Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework (CBD/ COP/15/L.25) accessed 18 December 2022. 282 CBD deals with biosafety also for example in Article 8(g) and 19(3): “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: Establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account the risks to human health; […] The Parties shall consider the need for and modalities of a protocol setting out appropriate procedures, including, in particular, advance informed agreement, in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.“ 283 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000), Montreal, 29 January 2000 (Introduction). 280 ‘A Global Community-Sourced Assessment of the State of Conservation Technology’. 281 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1982, reprinted in 31 ILM 822 (1992).

78