Lack of political support for biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity conservation is politically sometimes regarded as of lower concern to humanity than other environmental sectors, such as water and air pollution.
Industry, most noteably in the US has made it very clear that it wants total protection of its interests, and that while it wants rights of access to the genetic resources of the Third World, it rejects any interpretation of the [Convention on Biological Diversity] (CBD) which would require the transfer of US research and technology to the Third World. The rejection of a [Biosafety Protocol] by industry was also indefatigably articulated by the US negotiators during the Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration strongly maintains that position, as evidenced by the minority opinion of the US expert on the [UNEP Expert Panel on Biosafety], which was set up to examine issues arising from the Convention. The rest of the Panel members had recommended the establishment of a Biosafety Protocol. The US administration maintains that the interests of US industry will remain the determinant factor of the US interpretation of the [Convention on Biological Diversity].
1. The [Århus Conference] showed that biodiversity still has not overcome its implicit European political label of "marginal political activity", isolated from the mainstream of European policy-making.

2. The interpretative statement of the CBD by the US administration stands and centres on the disturbing fact that the USA wants to shift the focus of the [Biodiversity Convention] from protection of the earth's living diversity to protection of corporate demands for monopoly control of life forms. The US government's only concern is the protection of TNC investments and profits.

(F) Fuzzy exceptional problems