Transcript Towards climate change proof international nature conservation law

Climate Change Adaptation
and the Bonn Convention on
Migratory Species and its
Daughter Agreements
8th IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Colloquium
Ghent, 14-17 September 2010
Arie Trouwborst
Tilburg Law School
Climate change & migratory
species
Changes in:
•
•
•
•
Temperature
Precipitation
Extreme events
…
Nature’s
response:
(attempted)
adaptation
Climate change & migratory
species (cont.)
Adaptation problematic:
1. Rate of change
2. Existing pressures
 Adverse impacts,
including species
extinctions
Adaptation measures
•
•
•
•
Enable dispersal
Enlarge habitats
Active translocation
Reduce other
stressors
• …
International
cooperation
International policy: G8/G20
• ‘spontaneous adaptation is not expected
to be sufficient to reduce the impacts on
biodiversity at all levels, or on vulnerable
ecosystems’
• ‘Proactively putting in place actions for
climate change adaptation of natural and
managed ecosystems’
Carta di Siracusa on Biodiversity, 24 April 2009
International law
• Global
– UNFCCC, Kyoto, post-Kyoto
– Ramsar Wetlands Convention 1971
– World Heritage Convention (WHC) 1972
– Migratory Species Convention (CMS) 1979
– Biodiversity Convention (CBD) 1992
• Regional
– EU Birds and Habitats Directives 1979/1992
– CMS daughter agreements 1990-2010
– ...
CMS
•
•
•
•
114 parties
Objective
Appendix I: strictly protected species
Appendix II: species to be conserved
through daughter instruments
CMS & adaptation
Convention provisions:
• Do not address climate change
• Some may favour adaptation:
– Protection App. I species and habitats (Art. III)
– ‘take action to avoid any migratory species
becoming endangered’ (Art. II(2))
• Some may hamper adaptation:
– ‘Historic coverage’ (Art. I(1)(c)(4))
– ‘Range (state)’ (Art. I(1)(f)/(h))
CMS & adaptation (cont.)
• COP Resolution 8.13 (2005) on Climate
Change and Migratory Species
• Study ‘Migratory Species and Climate
Change’ (2006)
• COP Resolution 9.7 (2008) on Climate
Change Impacts on Migratory Species
• Species vulnerability assessments (first
set: 2010)
COP Resolution 9.7 (2008)
‘Concerned that climate change is already known
to be affecting the habitat, behaviour, distribution
and abundance of migratory species listed under
the Convention’
‘Recognising that due to climate change, ranges of
migratory species are changing and that CMS
instruments may need to adapt to these
variations’
‘Acknowledging the considerable threat that
climate change poses for migratory species and
their habitats’
COP Resolution 9.7 (cont.)
‘design and implement adaptation strategies for
migratory species threatened by climate change’
‘wherever possible act upon and fully implement
advice [..] provided by the Scientific Council’
‘incorporation of climate change impacts and
relevant adaptation measures into speciesspecific Action Plans’
‘despite the remaining uncertainty surrounding the
full scale of impacts of climate change on
migratory species, not to delay related decisionmaking and action’
CMS daughters
• Treaties (7)
• Non-treaty instruments (20)
Climate adaptation, stages:
1) Recognize potential threat
2) Call for / commission research into impacts
3) Call for adaptation measures
4) Guidance on adaptation measures
Treaty daughters
1990 Wadden Sea Seals (IV(4))
1991 European Bats (EUROBATS; IV(3))
1991 Baltic & North Sea Small Cetaceans
(ASCOBANS; IV(4))
1995 African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds
(AEWA; IV(3))
1996 Cetaceans Mediterranean, Black Sea &
Contiguous Atlantic (ACCOBAMS; IV(4))
2001 Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP; IV(3))
2007 Gorillas (IV(3))
Treaty daughters (cont.)
Treaty provisions:
• None address climate adaptation
• Various provisions implicitly relevant
MOP decisions:
• Only AEWA
Technical guidance:
• Only AEWA
Example: Gorilla Agreement
‘coordinate their efforts to ensure that a
network of suitable habitats is maintained
or re-established throughout the entire
range of all species and sub-species, in
particular where habitats extend over the
area of more than one Party to this
Agreement’ (Art. III(2)(c))
Example: AEWA
• MOP Resolutions 3.17 (2005) & 4.14 (2008)
on climate change and migratory waterbirds
• 2007 study ‘The Effects of Climate Change
on Migratory Waterbirds within the AfricanEurasian Flyway’
• Strategic Plan 2009-2017 (Target 1.2)
• Conservation Guidelines (No. 12, 2010) on
Measures Needed to Help Waterbirds to
Adapt to Climate Change
Example: AEWA (cont.)
‘designate and establish comprehensive and
coherent networks of adequately managed
sites, to accommodate range-shifts and
facilitate waterbirds’ dispersal’ (Resolution
4.14, 2008)
‘as far as possible, maintain the ecological
character of the sites important for
waterbird populations under changing
climate conditions through appropriate
management measures’ (id.)
Non-treaty daughters
1993 MoU Siberian Crane
1994 MoU Slender-billed Curlew
1998 Action Plan Sahelo-Saharan Antelopes
1999 MoU African Marine Turtles
2001 MoU Great Bustard
2001 MoU Marine Turtles IOSEA
2002 MoU Bukhara Deer
2003 MoU Aquatic Warbler
2005 MoU Western African Elephants
2006 MoU Pacific Islands Cetaceans
1, 2
1, 2
1, 3
1, 2
Non-treaty daughters (cont.)
2006 MoU Saiga Antelope
2006 MoU Ruddy-headed Goose
2007 MoU South American Grassland Birds
2007 MoU Mediterranean Monk Seal
2007 MoU Dugong
2008 Action Plan Central Asian Flyway
2008 MoU W. African Aquatic Mammals
2008 MoU African-Eurasian Birds of Prey
2008 MoU High Andean Flamingos
2010 MoU Sharks
1, 2
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1
Example: Action Plan Central
Asian Flyway
‘Range States shall cooperate to determine
and monitor the impacts of climate change
on migratory waterbirds and their habitats
and where appropriate respond to the
threats’ (Par. 3.5.1)
Example: MoU Western African
Aquatic Mammals
‘Incorporate climate change considerations
into conservation plans, assessments and
strategies, and implement, where
appropriate, implementation strategies
aiming to increase the resilience of marine
ecosystems and species to climate change’
(Small Cetacean Action Plan, Obj. 5.6)
‘Develop long-term strategies to protect
manatee habitats in relation to climatic
changes’ (Manatee Action Plan, Obj. 3.2)
Evaluation
The CMS regime already favours adaptation:
• Implicitly:
– Countering other threats
– Protected area networks
• Explicitly:
– Treaties: COP/MOP decisions, vulnerability
assessments, adaptation guidelines
– Non-treaty daughters: substantive provisions
• State of the art: AEWA (1, 2, 3, 4)
Evaluation (cont.)
Limitations / challenges:
• Outdated treaty & MoU provisions:
– Climate change not addressed
– ‘Historic coverage’
– ‘Range (state)’
• Participation &
implementation
• Mitigation (!)
Legal questions
• Potential future range states (signatories,
observers, cooperating partners?)
• Amendment & interpretation
• Non-migratory species
– Migratory species (‘cyclically and predictably’ /
‘periodically’)
– Non-migratory species:
• ‘Technical migrants’
• Rest
Thank you!
See also:
A. Trouwborst, ‘International Nature
Conservation Law and the Adaptation of
Biodiversity to Climate Change: a Mismatch?’
21 Journal of Environmental Law (2009) 419