生物多样性公约议程的历史和相对主导地位:对决定和建议的个案分析

IF 2.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Research Communications Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1088/2515-7620/ad6d3b
HyeMin Park
{"title":"生物多样性公约议程的历史和相对主导地位:对决定和建议的个案分析","authors":"HyeMin Park","doi":"10.1088/2515-7620/ad6d3b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gives developing countries greater bargaining power owing to their abundant natural resources. CBD negotiations tend to be increasingly dominated by agendas related to the CBD’s third objective: benefit sharing. The first and core objective of CBD is biodiversity conservation, but it is often neglected in favor of benefit sharing. To verify this tendency, this study used topic modeling to analyze the recommendations of the subsidiary bodies and decisions made by the Conference of the Parties (COP) over the past 30 years. The study identified the ten most frequently discussed agenda, then determined the relative dominant agenda between the COP and subsidiary bodies. By categorizing the negotiation agendas into strategic decision agendas and operational conservation agendas based on the level of the meeting which the agenda dominated, this study offers a new framework that can be used to understand how strategic and operational factors interact in CBD negotiations. The findings show that biodiversity conservation, the first objective of CBD, is no longer dominant, at least during negotiations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of all documents generated during CBD negotiations since its inception.","PeriodicalId":48496,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Research Communications","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Historical and relative dominance of the convention on biological diversity agenda: a case analysis of decisions and recommendations\",\"authors\":\"HyeMin Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/2515-7620/ad6d3b\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contrast to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gives developing countries greater bargaining power owing to their abundant natural resources. CBD negotiations tend to be increasingly dominated by agendas related to the CBD’s third objective: benefit sharing. The first and core objective of CBD is biodiversity conservation, but it is often neglected in favor of benefit sharing. To verify this tendency, this study used topic modeling to analyze the recommendations of the subsidiary bodies and decisions made by the Conference of the Parties (COP) over the past 30 years. The study identified the ten most frequently discussed agenda, then determined the relative dominant agenda between the COP and subsidiary bodies. By categorizing the negotiation agendas into strategic decision agendas and operational conservation agendas based on the level of the meeting which the agenda dominated, this study offers a new framework that can be used to understand how strategic and operational factors interact in CBD negotiations. The findings show that biodiversity conservation, the first objective of CBD, is no longer dominant, at least during negotiations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of all documents generated during CBD negotiations since its inception.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Research Communications\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Research Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad6d3b\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Research Communications","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad6d3b","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与《联合国防治荒漠化公约》(UNCCD)和《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)相比,《生物多样性公约》(CBD)赋予发展中国家更大的讨价还价能力,因为它们拥有丰富的自然资源。与《生物多样性公约》第三项目标--惠益分享--相关的议程日益成为《生物多样性公约》谈判的主要内容。生物多样性公约》的首要核心目标是保护生物多样性,但这一目标往往因利益分享而被忽视。为了验证这一趋势,本研究使用主题模型分析了附属机构的建议和缔约方大会(COP)在过去 30 年中做出的决定。研究确定了十个最常讨论的议程,然后确定了缔约方大会和附属机构之间的相对主导议程。本研究根据议程占主导地位的会议级别,将谈判议程分为战略决策议程和业务保护议程,从而提供了一个新的框架,可用于了解生物多样性公约谈判中的战略和业务因素是如何相互作用的。研究结果表明,生物多样性保护作为《生物多样性公约》的首要目标,至少在谈判过程中不再占据主导地位。据我们所知,这是首次对《生物多样性公约》谈判期间产生的所有文件进行的全面调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Historical and relative dominance of the convention on biological diversity agenda: a case analysis of decisions and recommendations
In contrast to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) gives developing countries greater bargaining power owing to their abundant natural resources. CBD negotiations tend to be increasingly dominated by agendas related to the CBD’s third objective: benefit sharing. The first and core objective of CBD is biodiversity conservation, but it is often neglected in favor of benefit sharing. To verify this tendency, this study used topic modeling to analyze the recommendations of the subsidiary bodies and decisions made by the Conference of the Parties (COP) over the past 30 years. The study identified the ten most frequently discussed agenda, then determined the relative dominant agenda between the COP and subsidiary bodies. By categorizing the negotiation agendas into strategic decision agendas and operational conservation agendas based on the level of the meeting which the agenda dominated, this study offers a new framework that can be used to understand how strategic and operational factors interact in CBD negotiations. The findings show that biodiversity conservation, the first objective of CBD, is no longer dominant, at least during negotiations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of all documents generated during CBD negotiations since its inception.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Research Communications
Environmental Research Communications ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
136
期刊最新文献
The impacts of climate change on violent conflict risk: a review of causal pathways. Effect of atmospheric response induced by preceding typhoon on movement of subsequent typhoon over Northwestern Pacific From consumption to context: assessing poverty and inequality across diverse socio-ecological systems in Ghana Deciphering the degradation of sulfonamides by UV/chlorination in aqueous solution: kinetics, reaction pathways, and toxicological evolution Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances removal in water and wastewater treatment plants: overall efficiency and performance of adsorption
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1