Climate Change Adaptation and the Bonn Convention on

Climate Change Adaptation and the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and its Daughter Agreements 8 th 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 … Ø Nature’s response: (attempted) adaptation

Climate change & migratory species (cont. ) Adaptation problematic: 1. Rate of change 2. Existing pressures Ø Adverse impacts, including species extinctions

Adaptation measures • • Enable dispersal Enlarge habitats Active translocation Reduce other stressors • … Ø International cooperation

International policy: G 8/G 20 • ‘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 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 African. Eurasian 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 Mo. U Siberian Crane 1994 Mo. U Slender-billed Curlew 1998 Action Plan Sahelo-Saharan Antelopes 1999 Mo. U African Marine Turtles 2001 Mo. U Great Bustard 2001 Mo. U Marine Turtles IOSEA 2002 Mo. U Bukhara Deer 2003 Mo. U Aquatic Warbler 2005 Mo. U Western African Elephants 2006 Mo. U Pacific Islands Cetaceans 1, 2 1, 3 1, 2

Non-treaty daughters (cont. ) 2006 Mo. U Saiga Antelope 2006 Mo. U Ruddy-headed Goose 2007 Mo. U South American Grassland Birds 2007 Mo. U Mediterranean Monk Seal 2007 Mo. U Dugong 2008 Action Plan Central Asian Flyway 2008 Mo. U W. African Aquatic Mammals 2008 Mo. U African-Eurasian Birds of Prey 2008 Mo. U High Andean Flamingos 2010 Mo. U Sharks 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: Mo. U 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 & Mo. U 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