Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:15:45.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holistic and Leadership Approaches to International Regulation: Confronting Nature Conservation and Developmental Challenges. A Reply to Farnese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2014

Stuart Harrop
Stuart Harrop*
Affiliation:
University of Sussex, School of Law, Politics and Sociology, Brighton, Sussex (United Kingdom) (UK). Email: S.Harrop@sussex.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International nature protection law has developed without a coherent plan, with disparate governance instruments each largely evolving within their own separate sphere. Yet, many other issues are closely linked to the challenges of nature degradation, such as developmental challenges, climate change, food security and food safety, disease prevention, and rural poverty. These interconnections have partly been recognized in Agenda 21 and more recently in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This response commentary draws on and extrapolates further the conclusions of Patricia Farnese in ‘The Prevention Imperative’, published in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, and argues for a more coherent approach and effective leadership in this area of global regulation, along with a more flexible and holistic approach to governance responses.

Keywords

Nature ProtectionDevelopmentHealth and Disease PreventionClimate ChangeGlobal Integration and LeadershipConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Type
Response Commentary
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , October 2014 , pp. 311 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P.L. Farnese, ‘The Prevention Imperative: International Health and Environmental Governance Responses to Emerging Zoonotic Diseases’ (2014) 3(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 285–309.

2 Ibid., at p. 287.

3 Ibid., at p. 285.

4 Ibid., at p. 286.

5 Lamy, P., ‘The Place of the WTO and Its Law in the International Legal Order’ (2006) 17(5) European Journal of International Law, pp. 969–84.Google Scholar

6 See generally Harrop, S.R., ‘“Living In Harmony with Nature”? Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2011) 23(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 117–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Lu, J. & Li, X., ‘Review of Rice-Fish-Farming Systems in China: One of the Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS)’ (2006) 260(1–4) Aquaculture, pp. 106–13.Google Scholar

8 Farnese, n. 1 above, at p. 287.

9 Travis, J.M.J., ‘Climate Change and Habitat Destruction: A Deadly Anthropogenic Cocktail’ (2003) 270(1514) Proceedings of the Royal Society, pp. 467–73.Google Scholar

10 See Harrop, S.R. & Pritchard, D.J., ‘A Hard Instrument Goes Soft: The Implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Current Trajectory’ (2011) 21 Global Environmental Change, pp. 474–80.Google Scholar

11 Ibid.

12 Bonn (Germany), 23 June 1979, in force 1 Nov. 1983, available at: http://www.cms.int/en/node/3916.

13 Bern (Switzerland), 19 Sept. 1979, in force 1 June 1982, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/default_en.asp.

14 Established by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, DC (US), 2 Dec. 1946, in force 10 Nov. 1948, available at: http://iwc.int/convention.

15 Stephenson, S., Mooers, A. & Attaran, A., ‘Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans’ (2014) 3(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 241–63.Google Scholar

16 Harrop, S.R., ‘From Cartel to Conservation and on to Compassion: Animal Welfare and the International Whaling Commission’ (2003) 6 Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar

17 Washington, DC (US), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975, available at: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.

18 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 22 May 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml.

19 For an analysis of the CBD in this context, see Harrop & Pritchard, n. 10 above.

20 Ramsar (Iran), 2 Feb. 1971, in force 21 Dec. 1975, available at: http://www.ramsar.org.

21 Paris (France), 16 Nov. 1972, in force 17 Dec. 1975, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext.

22 Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab.

23 Officially called the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992.

24 See Harrop & Pritchard, n. 10, above.

25 See, e.g., the Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 62/98 (17 Dec. 2007). See, in particular, F. McConnell, The Biodiversity Convention: A Negotiating History (Kluwer Law International, 1996).

26 See Harrop & Pritchard, n. 10 above.

27 New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 24 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.

28 Bragdon, S., ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity’ (1999) 6(2) Global Environmental Change, pp. 177–9.Google Scholar

29 Though note the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal (Canada), 29 Jan. 2000, in force 11 Sept. 2003, available at: http://bch.cbd.int/protocol; and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya (Japan), 29 Oct. 2010, in force 12 Oct. 2014, available at: http://www.cbd.int/abs.

30 CBD COP Decision VI/26 of 2002, ‘Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity: 2010 Targets’, available at: http://www.cbd.int/2010-target/about.shtml.

31 Harrop, n. 6 above.

32 Among others, see Carwardine, J. et al. ., ‘Hitting the Target and Missing the Point: Target-based Conservation Planning in Context’ (2009) 2 Conservation Letters, pp. 3–10Google Scholar; and for a general assessment and synthesis of the criticisms see Harrop & Pritchard, n. 10 above.

33 CBD COP Decision X/2X/2 of 2011, ‘Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the Period 2011–2020’, annexed to CBD COP10 Agenda Item 4.2, ‘Updating and Revision of the Strategic Plan for the Post-2010 Period’, available at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268.

34 Harrop & Pritchard, n. 10 above. See also Kotsakis, A., ‘Change and Subjectivity in International Environmental Law: The Micro-Politics of the Transformation of Biodiversity into Genetic Gold’ (2014) 3(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 127–47, at 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 CBD COP Decision X/2X/2 of 2011, n. 33 above, Annex, para 1.

36 Ibid., Preamble.

37 Ibid.

38 Farnese, n. 1 above, at p. 289.

39 Ibid.

40 W. Simon, ‘Toyota Jurisprudence: Legal Theory and Rolling Rule Regimes’, Columbia Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper 04-79, at p. 4. available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=602626.

41 Farnese, n. 1 above, at pp. 304–5.

42 See http://www.ipbes.net/about-ipbes.html.

43 In this context see Charnovitz, S., ‘A World Environment Organization’ (2002) 27 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 323–62.Google Scholar

44 These suggestions derive from Article III of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh (Morocco), 15 Apr. 1994, in force 1 Jan. 1995, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm. See also ibid.

45 See, e.g., Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G. & Kent, J., ‘Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities’ (2000) 403(6772) Nature, pp. 853–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Robin, N. et al. ., ‘Global Mapping of Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities’ (2008) 105(28) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp. 9495–500Google Scholar; Carwardine, J. et al. ., ‘Cost-effective Priorities for Global Mammal Conservation’ (2008) 105(32) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp. 11446–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

46 See, e.g., the propositions suggested for a better coordination of European marine conservation in K. Metcalfe, T. Roberts, R.J. Smith & S.R. Harrop, ‘Marine Conservation Science and Governance in North-West Europe: Conservation Planning and International Law and ¨Policy’ (2013) 39 Marine Policy, pp. 289–95.