Michael Bowman

Lyster's International Wildlife Law: The World Heritage Convention

Background The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC) was adopted on 16 November 1972 and came into force on 17 December 1975. Its origins can be traced to three separate but related factors. The first is that by 1972 the international community was becoming increasingly receptive to the concept of a ‘common heritage’. In the context of the Convention, this is reflected in the idea that there are certain outstanding natural or man-made features, such as the Serengeti or the Pyramids, the Galapagos Islands or the Taj Mahal, which should be seen as the heritage of more than just one state. They constitute part of the heritage of all people, and humankind as a whole accordingly has certain rights and duties with respect to their conservation. In this respect, the Convention tapped into the emergence in the 1960s and 1970s of the concept of the common heritage of mankind, which was to feature prominently in the negotiation of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. It also reflects the concepts of ‘universal heritage’ and ‘the common heritage of humanity’ found in other UNESCO instruments. In the particular context of wildlife protection, the Convention has maintained this distinctive perspective in protecting the natural heritage both within UNESCO and, more widely, as part of a web of biodiversity-related treaties under the umbrella of the 1992 CBD.

Lyster's International Wildlife Law: The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Background In view of mounting political concern during the 1970s regarding the poor implementation of existing wildlife conventions in the region, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe established a committee of experts to prepare a draft of a new treaty. The resulting Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats was formally approved by the Committee of Ministers in June 1979 and opened for signature on 19 September in Bern. The Bern Convention came into force on 1 June 1982. By January 2010, there were fifty contracting parties in total, including the EU, four African countries, and all but two member states of the Council of Europe itself. The aims of the Convention are to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, to promote co-operation between countries in their conservation efforts and to give special attention to endangered and vulnerable species, including those that are migratory. Detailed provision is accordingly made for the conservation of wildlife and habitat generally and for the specific protection of species listed in Appendices I (strictly protected plants), II (strictly protected animals) and III (protected animals). Alongside the aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic values of the wildlife heritage, the preamble recognises also its intrinsic value – the first such affirmation in a major wildlife treaty.

Conflict or compatibility? The trade, conservation and animal welfare dimensions of cites

Abstract While analysis of the effectiveness of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) often focuses on its ability to ensure sustainable trade in the species it regulates, the treaty also contains many provisions intended to ensure the welfare of species introduced into international trade. While such provisions serve salutary objectives, they are often complied with only in the breach. Efforts should be made by the Parties to CITES to ensure implementation of the animal welfare provisions of CITES through stricter enforcement measures, enactment of national legislation and an interpretation of treaty provisions that furthers the underlying welfare objectives of the Convention.

The Ramsar Convention Comes of Age

The second of February 1992 marked the 21 st anniversary of the adoption of the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, commonly known as the Ramsar Convention after the town in Iran where it was concluded. For those more familiar with modern concepts of majority, 21 December 1993 constituted the 18th anniversary of its entry into force. The period between these two dates witnessed a significant endeavour by the international community, through the signature at the Rio Earth Summit of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to establish a basic conceptual framework to underpin the various conservation initiatives embodied in the now substantial number of international treaties for the protection of wildlife. This framework, which was arguably already emerging in customary international law, emphasises a broad, threefold obligation regarding the conservation of ecosystems, of species and of genetic diversity within species. As each species, and indeed each individual member of that species, exists not in isolation but as a functioning unit within a wider ecosystem, it is axiomatic that the protection of natural habitats must continue to play a particularly crucial role in the global conservation effort.

Public authority negligence revisited

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire , Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council . It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

Law, legal scholarship and the conservation of biological diversity: 2020 vision and beyond

The evidence of this failure was all around. Many of those species whose prospects of survival had been formally assessed were moving closer to extinction, with coral species experiencing the most rapid rate of deterioration and amphibians facing the greatest risk generally. Nearly a quarter of all plant species were judged to be threatened with extinction, while population surveys suggested that the overall abundance of vertebrate species had fallen by nearly one third between 1970 and 2006, and was still falling, with the severest declines occurring in the tropics and amongst freshwater species. Despite some successes in slowing the process, natural habitats generally continued to decline in both extent and integrity. The services provided by forests, rivers and other natural ecosystems had progressively been compromised by fragmentation and degradation, while the genetic diversity of crops and livestock in agricultural systems remained in decline. The five principal drivers of biodiversity loss – habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change – were either undiminished or actually increasing in intensity. In sum, humanity’s ecological footprint exceeded the biological capacity of the Earth by an even wider margin than at the time the 2010 target was originally agreed. This failure was acknowledged by the decision of the UN to follow the International Year of Biodiversity with the devotion of an entire decade to the global conservation project, in the hopes of achieving significant progress, if not actually turning things around, by the year 2020.

Beyond the “Keystone” cops: The Ecology of Institutional Governance in Conservation Treaty Regimes

Abstract The effectiveness of conservation treaty regimes plainly depends heavily on the extent to which they are informed by developing scientific understanding of the principles which govern the operation of biological systems and natural processes generally. As a result, the “ecosystem approach” has become a crucial element in the substantive conservation policies which underpin such regimes. There is an emerging view, however, that the principles which determine the essential robustness, stability and productivity of biological systems may actually be applicable to complex systems of any kind, including those of an institutional character. Accordingly, it may be instructive to have regard to such principles when devising the institutional arrangements which indisputably represent another crucial element of regime effectiveness. This article explores the relevance of such matters in relation to the structures, attributes and commitments with which such arrangements will need to be invested if their respective regimes are to flourish.

Lyster's International Wildlife Law: Wildlife and the international legal system

Introduction Since this work focuses specifically upon the use of international legal measures for the conservation, management and protection of wildlife, it will be helpful to begin with a brief overview of the international legal system generally, contrasting it with other legal regimes. Public international law is the body of legal principles that governs states and other international persons in their dealings with one another on the international plane. Its scope extends far beyond the realms of environmental regulation to embrace peaceful co-operation and the conduct of diplomatic relations generally, prohibitions on the use of force in international affairs and the protection of human rights, to name but a few major areas of concern. This system is to be contrasted with the collection of norms – known variously as national , domestic or municipal law – that operates within each nation to regulate the activities of ordinary human beings and other entities (such as limited companies and public corporations) that are recognised as possessing rights and duties under the system in question. Public international law must also be distinguished from other supra-national systems, of which the most conspicuous current example is the law of the European Union – a regional inter-governmental organisation created by a succession of treaties which, while themselves governed by international law, have the effect of generating a distinct legal order, with its own institutions, law-making procedures and mechanisms for enforcement, which is applicable to and within member states.

Wildlife and trade

Introduction Over the past two decades the interrelationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) containing trade-related environmental measures (TREMs) and trade agreements has received considerable attention. The purpose of this chapter is not to revisit this wider, and well-documented, ‘trade and environment debate’, but rather to locate the international wildlife law and practice discussed here within it. That such treatment is pertinent is obvious given that some of the treaties considered in this volume directly employ TREMs as a regulatory tool. One of the earliest examples is the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds, which prohibited trade in such birds falling within its scope, or in their eggs, during the close season. Today international trade in wildlife is governed primarily by CITES, where the potential for conflict with trade law may arise in consequence of CITES listing. Reeve points out that in 1997 Zimbabwe apparently considered WTO challenge of Appendix I listing of the elephant, to compensate for loss of ivory markets. This course was not taken because CoP 10 downlisted Zimbabwes elephant population to Appendix II, and permitted limited trade in stockpiled ivory. Yet the direct nexus with trade does not stop here, as CITES also serves to illustrate. Trade – or, more accurately, suspending trade – may also be employed as a compliance tool. As of 2009 there were thirty-two trade suspensions in effect under CITES, for failure to provide the required annual report on illegal trade, for failure properly to implement CITES in domestic law and for significant trade in Appendix II species.

Lyster's International Wildlife Law: The historical evolution of international wildlife law

Introduction It is difficult to obtain a clear understanding of any legal topic without some sense of the chronology of key developments and the wider historical context out of which they emerged. Areas of legal regulation tend to evolve not in a meticulously planned, orderly fashion, but as an unstructured series of responses to perceived problems, and against the backdrop of the social and political realities of the day. Early attempts to regulate whaling and sealing, for example, must be viewed in light of the considerable economic importance such industries once held, which may be difficult to credit from a purely contemporary perspective. More generally, the political emphasis placed on conservation policy and legal regulation has fluctuated significantly over time, reflecting the prevailing preoccupations of the international community during successive eras. This chapter presents a broad overview of the evolution of international wildlife law against the background of such considerations. Early developments The enactment of national legislation to protect wildlife and the environment generally can be traced back to antiquity, with forestry conservation laws adopted in Babylon in 1900 BC and a law for the establishment of nature reserves promulgated in Egypt in 1370 BC. The use of international legal instruments for this purpose is a much more recent phenomenon, however, dating essentially from the final quarter of the nineteenth century.