Suggestions and comments from the four European pilot countries and others on the selection of regional treaties:
Belgium (BE) European Union framework The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)(1979) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (1992) The water directive (2000/60/CE) (2000) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 + Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of 30 August 2001 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (under the CITES).
Pan-European and Council of Europe agreements Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), endorsed at the Ministerial Conference ‘Environment for Europe’ (Sofia, 23-25 October 1995) by the environment ministers of 55 European countries The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Strasbourg 1990, Helsinki 1993, Lisbon 1998, Vienna 2003) are important. Sustainable forest management has been defined and the conferences put the care for biodiversity central in the forest policy and forest management Kiev Resolution on biodiversity (2003) European Landscape Convention Council of Europe (Florence, 2000 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979) Agreement on the conservation of populations of European Bats (Eurobats) (1994) (under the Bonn Convention) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (1992) (under the auspices of Bonn Convention) Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (under the Bonn Convention) (AEWA) OSPAR (protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic - its biodiversity and ecosystem strategy component)
I realise it is impossible to cover all of them, given the time constraints to carry out this second phase. For us, the EU directives and regulations are obviously more "obligatory" than the other ones, but on the other hand the pan-European for their wider scope may have relevance to more of the pilot-countries (i.e. also Norway and Russia).
Hungary (HU) EU regulation is not subject of international legislation. EU directives are stronger than national legislation. Those are compulsory and executable by force in member states which are just elements of a much bigger federal state called European Union.
Other agreements on the list have very different status. Some are just variety of large MEAs as Bern Convention, others are raising their status and gradually reaching an EU level as Florence Convention, others are loosing their strength - or never had - as the Kiev Resolution.
What are really serious: Aarhus Convention which is not regional, but originated from this region, and the others mentioned already in Nairobi: the Danube Ecological Agreement and the Carpathian and Alps-Adria Agreements together. These are subject of international law and taken seriously by the parties.
I am going to discuss the issue with our state-secretaries on nature conservation and environment legislation.
According to the approved work program of the Hungarian National Committee of IUCN: 1) CEPA issues, i.e. Aarhus Convention and Education Decade by UNESCO, 2) "Conservation beyond Schengen boundaries" i.e. Danube and Carpathian issue
are the priority.
Norway (NO) All environmental agreements relevant for Norway are listed here: http://odin.dep.no/md/norsk/samarbeid/avtaler/bn.html (also:
http://www.environment.no/templates/PageWithRightListing____2952.aspx) Norway, as a country in the European Economic Area, has to implement many EU-directives. But the directives covering Natura 2000 (habitat- and bird-directive) are not a part of the agreement. As mentioned in the steering group meeting in Nairobi there has been a committee working on a draft new biodiversity legislation for Norway. They have in particular made references to the following international agreements: CBD the Bern convention, incl. Emerald network CMS, incl. EUROBATS RAMSAR CITES WHC European Landscape Convention (Firenze, 2000) The Water directive (2000/60) UNCLOS and some related agreements OSPAR Convention for the conservation of salmon in The North Atlantic Ocean (Reykjavik, 1982) Agreement on conservation of polar bears (Oslo, 1973)
Belgium also has provides reference to many of the ongoing process; MCPFE, PEBLDS, Kiev-resolution. Recommend that we keep a focus on the obligations having the strongest legal value in this phase of the work.
Russia (RU) Regional Agreements of the Russian Federation CMS MoU concerning Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest, 21 April 1992)
Конвенция о защите Черного моря от загрязнения (Бухарест, 21 апреля 1992 г.) and its Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Canberra, 20 May 1980)
Конвенция о сохранении морских живых ресурсов Антарктики (Канберра, 20 мая 1980 г.) Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Oslo, 15 November 1973)
Соглашение о сохранении белых медведей (Осло, 15 ноября 1973 г.) Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki, 22 March 1974)
Конвенция по защите морской среды района Балтийского моря (Хельсинки, 22 марта 1974 г.) Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (London, 1972)
Конвенция о сохранении тюленей Антарктики (Лондон, 1972 г.) Convention on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Southeast Atlantic (Rome, 23 October 1969)
Конвенция по сохранению живых ресурсов Юго-Восточной Атлантики (Рим, 23 октября 1969 г.) Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals (Washington, 9 February 1957)
Временная Конвенция о сохранении котиков северной части Тихого океана (Вашингтон, 9 февраля 1957 г.)
Regional fishery agreements The Convention on the Conservation and Management of the Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea (Washington, 16 June 1994)
Конвенция о сохранении ресурсов минтая и управлении ими в центральной части Берингова моря (Вашингтон, 16 июня 1994 г.) Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean (Moscow, 11 February 1992)
Конвенция о сохранении запасов анадромных видов в северной части Тихого океана (Москва, 11 февраля 1992 г.) The Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic (Reykjavik, 2 March 1982)
Конвенция о сохранении лосося в северной части Атлантического океана (Рейкьявик, 2 марта 1982 г.) Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts (Gdansk, 13 September 19973)
Конвенция о рыболовстве и сохранении живых ресурсов в Балтийском море и Бельтах (Гданьск, 13 сентября 1973 г.) (с поправками, внесенными Заключительным актом дипломатической Конференции прибалтийских государств для подготовки настоящей Конвенции от 30 сентября 1973 г.)
I included ONLY legally binding AGREEMENTS not processes not commitments. I agree with Arnold regarding:
- Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), endorsed at the Ministerial Conference 'Environment for Europe' (Sofia, 23-25 October 1995) by the environment ministers of 55 European countries
- The Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Strasbourg 1990, Helsinki 1993, Lisbon 1998, Vienna 2003) are important. Sustainable forest management has been defined and the conferences put the care for biodiversity central in the forest policy and forest management
- Kiev Resolution on biodiversity (2003)
They all are also very important for us but they are not legal agreements. So they need to be for sure included into resources part and be mentioned and quoted but not reviewed as other conventions.
UNEP WCMC A decision of the World Heritage Committee and a Ramsar resolution that refer to two specific sites follows. These are examples of how WHC and Ramsar frequently refer to sites. In particular for World Heritage, it needs to be kept in mind that such site-specific decisions take up at least 50% if not more of all decisions of regular sessions of the Committee so I have not saved them anywhere. If one looks for particular countries, they are, however, easy to scan.
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) (N 754) Decision 29 COM 7B.19 The World Heritage Committee
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.22 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004);
3. Commends the States Parties of the Russian Federation and Mongolia for their efforts in enhancing their co-operation in order to implement, as required by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004) a plan to reduce sources of pollution in the Selenga River Basin;
4. Notes with serious concern new information received on the construction of the Eastern Siberia – Pacific Ocean pipeline;
5. Notes that the State Party of the Russian Federation provided an update on the status of the planned oil pipeline and on potential or given impacts to the integrity of Lake Baikal;
6. Urges the State Party to inform the World Heritage Centre about the details of the pipeline construction project and requests the authorities to take measures to eliminate all direct and indirect threats to the World Heritage property;
7. Notes the serious concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed new route for the oil and gas pipeline on the outstanding universal value of the property and considers that, according to paragraph 180 b of the Operational Guidelines, any pipeline development crossing the watershed of Lake Baikal and main tributaries would make the case for inscription of Lake Baikal on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
8. Requests the State Party to provide, as a matter of urgency, detailed information on the construction of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline, and to invite a joint mission of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to the property at the appropriate time;
9. Further requests, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006), that :
a) the State Party provide a detailed report on the current
situation of the property to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2006;
b) IUCN provide a detailed report, including a sound analysis of environmental and other risks, in view of the potential threats to the outstanding universal value of the property when the pipeline crosses the watershed of Lake Baikal and main tributaries; and
c) the World Heritage Centre and IUCN report on the outcome of their joint mission referred to in paragraph 8; 10. Decides that, on the basis of the information referred to in paragraph 9, the Committee may consider the inscription of Lake Baikal on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Ramsar Resolution IX.15
27. RECOMMENDS, pursuant to Article 8.2 (e), the following with respect to alterations to the List or changes in the ecological character of specific Ramsar sites and other wetlands included in the Report of the Secretary General to this Conference (COP9 DOC.6) or otherwise brought to the attention of this Conference:
that the government of Australia prepare and make available to all Contracting Parties advice on lessons learned from the application of national legislation in addressing issues of change in the ecological character of part of the Gwydir Wetlands: Gingham and Lower Gwydir (Big Leather) Watercourses Ramsar site;...
IUCN Environmental Law Centre Ines asked me to draw your attention to two EU Directives, namely, Directive 2003/87/EC (13 October 2003) establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/62/EC and Directive 2004/101/EC (27 October 2004) amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol's project mechanisms. One indirect reference I found, in paragraph 15 of the 2nd directive, is the last sentence which says " . . .companies should be encouraged to improve the social and environmental performance of JI [joint implementation] and CDM [clean development mechanism] activities in which they participate."
|
