Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No Need to Reinvent the Wheel for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Tackling Climate Change: The Contribution of International Biodiversity Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Change and the Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 21))

Abstract

This chapter provides a systematic analysis of the ways in which international biodiversity law contributes to the fight against climate change by assessing and preventing the negative impacts on biodiversity and community livelihoods of measures to address climate change (‘response measures’), and adopting the ecosystem approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In highlighting readily available legal avenues for ensuring the mutual supportiveness of the international biodiversity regime and the international climate change regime, the chapter argues that positive interaction between the two regimes can promote a human rights-based approach to the development of the international climate change regime and its implementation at the national level.

Elisa Morgera holds an LL.M degree from University College London and a Ph.D. from the European University Institute, Florence. She is Lecturer in European Environmental Law and Director of the LL.M Programme in Global Environment and Climate Change Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, UK.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CBD and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (Montreal: CBD, 2010), available at: http://gbo3.cbd.int/ (last accessed on 10 April 2012), at 22 (hereinafter, GBO 3).

  2. 2.

    Ibid., at 11 and 75.

  3. 3.

    I preliminarily explored this argument in Elisa Morgera, “Far away, so close: A legal analysis of the increasing interactions between the Convention on Biological Diversity and climate change law”, 2 Climate Law (2011), 85.

  4. 4.

    Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993, 1760 United Nations Treaty Series (1993), 79, (hereinafter CBD).

  5. 5.

    This is due to the fact that “CBD guidance on climate change and biodiversity is dispersed throughout a myriad of (generally long) COP decisions; and within these decisions, relevant passages are not always well organized or clearly separated by topic or addressee. Frequent qualifications and convoluted drafting further undermine the comprehensibility of COP decisions and of their legal implications under the CBD.” Morgera, “Far away, so close”, supra, note 3, at 86.

  6. 6.

    In line with the hortatory reference in the Cancun Agreements that UNFCCC Parties “should in all climate change related actions, fully respect human rights”, Decision 1/CP.16, Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, 15 March 2011 para. 8. A human rights-based approach has been described as “viewing certain human rights as essential precursors to achieving environmental protection” and focused on procedural rights, see Edward Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change: Moving from an Intrinsic to an Instrumental Approach”, 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (2009–2010), 673, at 699. In this chapter, however, a human rights-based approach is rather concerned both with procedural and substantive rights and aims to achieve both protection of human rights and the environment.

  7. 7.

    Harro van Asselt, Francesco Sindico and Michael Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, 30 Law and Policy (2008), 423; Margaret Young, “Climate Change and Regime Interaction”, 5 Carbon and Climate Law Review (2011), 147; Harro van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes (SSRN, 2010).

  8. 8.

    Under the CBD Working Group on Article 8(j) (traditional knowledge), the fullest possible participation of indigenous and local communities is ensured in all Working Group meetings, including in contact groups, by welcoming community representatives as Friends of the Co-Chairs, Friends of the Bureau and Co-Chairs of contact groups; without prejudice to the applicable rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties establishing that representatives duly nominated by parties are to conduct the business of CBD meetings so that any text proposal by indigenous and local communities’ representatives must be supported by at least one party. Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/11/7, 24 November 2011, para. 20.

  9. 9.

    Human Rights Council, Resolutions on Human Rights and Climate Change: 7/23 of 2008; 10/4 of 2009; and 18/22 of 2011. See generally, Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6; and Lavanya Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives in the International Negotiations on Climate Change”, 22 Journal of Environmental Law (2010), 391.

  10. 10.

    Young, “Climate Change and Regime Interaction”, supra, note 7, at 152–153: although not at the level of adjudication, due to the absence of a compliance mechanism under the CBD. On the latter point, see Elisa Morgera and Elsa Tsioumani, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Looking Afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity”, 21 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (2011), 3, at 10–11 and 28. Other avenues could, however, be available: for instance, in the case of marine biodiversity, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement could provide access to international adjudication for disregarding the duty to protect biodiversity of species associated or dependent from fish stocks from climate change impacts. See, William Burns, “Potential Causes of Action for Climate Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement”, in William Burns and Hari Osofsky (eds), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 14.

  11. 11.

    Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “‘First, Do No Harm’: Human Rights and Efforts to Combat Climate Change”, 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (2009–2010), 593, at 595; Ole Padersen, “The Janus Head of Human Rights and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation”, 80 Nordic Journal of International Law (2011), 403; Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 704–705, who emphasizes that response measures may “undermine” but not necessarily “violate” human rights.

  12. 12.

    To the author’s knowledge, none of the legal scholars writing on climate change and human rights has yet made an argument about the usefulness of the normative activity of the CBD. In addition to the sources cited elsewhere in this article, the author has also consulted: Ole Pedersen, “Climate Change and Human Rights: Amicable or Arrested Development?”, 1 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment (2010), at 236; Amy Sinden, “Climate Change and Human Rights”, 27 Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law (2007), 255; and Rebecca Tsosie, “Indigenous People and Environmental Justice: The Impact of Climate Change”, 78 University of Colorado Law Review (2007), 1625, who briefly refers to the CBD, in ibid., at 1668.

  13. 13.

    Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 395–398.

  14. 14.

    Marilyn Averill, “Linking Climate Litigation and Human Rights”, 18 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2009), 139; Eric A. Posner, “Climate Change and International Human Rights Litigation: A Critical Appraisal”, 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2007), 1925; Hari Osofsky, “The Inuit Petition as a Bridge: Beyond Dialectics of Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights”, 31 American Indian Law Review (2007), 675; and Svitlana Kravchenko, “Right to Carbon or Right to Life: Human Rights Approaches to Climate Change”, 9 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law (2008), 513.

  15. 15.

    That is of a state vis-a-vis its citizens: Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 426.

  16. 16.

    John von Doussa, Allison Corkery and Renee Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, 14 Australian International Law Journal (2007), 161, at 161–162.

  17. 17.

    Van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, supra, note 7, at 17; on the basis of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994, 31 International Legal Materials (1992), 849 (hereinafter, UNFCCC), Arts. 2, 4(1)(d), 1(1) and 4(8).

  18. 18.

    Ibid., Arts. 2 and 4(1)(d).

  19. 19.

    Meinhard Doelle, “Integration among Global Environmental Regimes: Lessons Learned from Climate Change Mitigation”, in Aldo Chircop, Ted McDorman, Susan Rolston (eds), The Future of Regime-Building in the Law of the Sea: Essays in Tribute to Douglas M. Johnston (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008), 63, at 75, based on UNFCCC, supra, note 17, Arts. 3(3) and 4.

  20. 20.

    Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, 10 December 1997, in force 16 February 2005, 37 International Legal Materials (1998), 22.

  21. 21.

    Meinhard Doelle, “Linking the Kyoto Protocol and Other Multilateral Environmental Agreements: From Fragmentation to Integration?”, 14 Journal of Environmental Law and Practice (2004), 75, at 83.

  22. 22.

    Doelle, “Integration among Global Environmental Regimes”, supra, note 19, at 76; and Van Asselt, Sindico and Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, supra, note 7, at 18; based on Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 20, Art. 2(3).

  23. 23.

    Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 20, Art. 13(4)(a); See comments by van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, supra, note 7, at 18.

  24. 24.

    Kyoto Protocol, supra, note 20, Art. 2(a)(ii).

  25. 25.

    CBD, supra, note 4, Art. 5; Frédéric Jacquemont and Alejandro Caparrós, “The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Convention 10 Years After Rio: Towards a Synergy of the Two Regimes?”, 11 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2002), 169, at 179.

  26. 26.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969, in force 27 January 1980, 1513 United Nations Treaty Series 293 (1980), Art. 31(3)(c).

  27. 27.

    CBD, supra, note 5, Art. 6(b).

  28. 28.

    Ibid., Art. 14(1)(a).

  29. 29.

    Ibid., Art. 8(l).

  30. 30.

    Ibid., Art. 10(b).

  31. 31.

    Ibid., Art. 8(h).

  32. 32.

    Ibid., Art. 10(e).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., Art. 11.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., Art. 8(j). Note that this language is partly reflected in Decision 1/CP.16, supra, note 6, Appendix I, para. 2(c-d). For a discussion of the significant evolution in the interpretation of this provision by CBD Parties, see Elisa Morgera and Elsa Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing: Linking Biodiversity and Community Livelihoods”, 15 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2010), 150.

  35. 35.

    CBD, supra, note 4, Art. 22(1).

  36. 36.

    Riccardo Pavoni, “Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A Watershed for the WTO-and-Competing-Regimes Debate?”, 21 European Journal of International Law (2010), 649, particularly, at 655.

  37. 37.

    Jacquemont and Caparrós, “The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Convention 10 Years After Rio”, supra, note 25, at 178.

  38. 38.

    Morgera, “Far away, so close”, supra, note 3, at 89.

  39. 39.

    I am grateful to Jaime Webbe, CBD Secretariat, for drawing my attention to this point, which I discussed in more detail in Morgera, “Far away, so close”, supra, note 3.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., at 113–115.

  41. 41.

    The lack of cross-reference in decisions taken in the context of the international climate change regime to relevant decisions taken in the context of the CBD has been emphasized by van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, supra, note 7, at 36–37, referring specifically to decisions on forests, and Jamie Pittock, “A Pale Reflection of Political Reality: Integration of Global Climate, Wetland and Biodiversity Agreements”, 1 Climate Law (2010), 343, at 355.

  42. 42.

    Decision 1/CP.16, supra, note 6, Appendix I, para. 2(a, c–e). Note that the explicit reference to the CBD in Decision 2/CP.15, The Copenhagen Accord, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 30 March 2010, para. 8, Annex, “[does] not reappear in subsequent COP decisions dealing with REDD” as highlighted by Annalisa Savaresi in her contribution to this volume.

  43. 43.

    Van Asselt, Sindico and Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, supra, note 7, at 425.

  44. 44.

    Jutta Brunnée, “COPing with Consent: Law-making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002), 1; Annecoos Wiersema, “The New International Law-Makers? Conferences of the Parties to Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, 31 Michigan Journal of International Law (2009), 231.

  45. 45.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, supra, note 10. Strangely enough, none of the general studies on COP decisions has ever referred to the CBD as a case study: in addition to the sources cited supra, note 44, see also Malgosia Fitzmaurice, “Consent to Be Bound – Anything New Under the Sun?”, 74 Nordic Journal of International Law (2005), 483; and Robert Churchill and Geir Ulfstein, “Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law”, 94 The American Journal of International Law (2000), 623.

  46. 46.

    Van Asselt, Sindico and Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, supra, note 7, at 430.

  47. 47.

    Young, “Climate Change and Regime Interaction”, supra, note 10, at 147.

  48. 48.

    Art. 31(3)(c); Van Asselt, Sindico and Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, supra, note 7, at 430.

  49. 49.

    Pavoni, “Mutual Supportiveness”, supra, note 36, at 661–669.

  50. 50.

    Morgera, “Far away, so close”, supra, note 3.

  51. 51.

    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979, in force 1 November 1983, 1651 United Nations Treaty Series (1991), 333.

  52. 52.

    Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar, 2 February 1971, in force 21 December 1975, 996 United Nations Treaty Series (1976), 245.

  53. 53.

    World Heritage Convention (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage), Paris, 16 November 1972, in force 7 August 1956, 1037 United Nations Treaty Series (1977), 151; and Policy Document on the Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties, WHC-07/16.GA/10, September 2008. Nonetheless the World Heritage Committee has been “reluctant to impose more than site-specific mitigation obligations on State Parties,” basically “deferring to the general mitigation options contained in the UNFCCC”: comments by Young, “Climate Change and Regime Interaction”, supra, note 10, at 148–149 and 152. See also William Burns, “‘Belt and Suspenders’? The World Heritage Convention’s Role in Confronting Climate Change”, 18 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2009), 148; and Anna Huggins, “Protecting World Heritage Sites from Adverse Impacts of Climate Change: Obligations for State Parties to the World Heritage Convention”, 14 Australian International Law Journal (2007), 121.

  54. 54.

    The other two biodiversity-related conventions have only begun to address climate change: the COP to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington DC, 3 March 1973, in force 1 July 1975, 993 United Nations Treaty Series (1976), 243) adopted in 2010 decisions on information-gathering related to climate change impacts on the Convention (Decisions 15.15 and 15.16); while a Ministerial Conference on Biodiversity, Food Security and Climate Change, held on 11 March 2011, in Bali, Indonesia, adopted the Bali Ministerial Declaration on the Role of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Food Security. Note also that under this Treaty (Rome, 3 November 2001, in force 29 June 2004, 2400 United Nations Treaty Series (2006), 303) the multilateral benefit-sharing fund provides financial support for the development of strategic action plans to adapt plant genetic resources for food and agriculture to climate change, as well as financial support for the implementation of immediate action projects that in the second round prioritized climate change adaptation: accordingly, the Treaty’s benefit-sharing fund is recognized as an adaptation-funding mechanism in the UNFCCC adaptation funding interface, available at: http://unfccc.int/adaptation/implementing_adaptation/adaptation_funding_interface/items/4638.php (last accessed on 10 April 2012). I am grateful to Elsa Tsioumani for drawing my attention to this development.

  55. 55.

    CBD, supra, note 4, Art. 1.

  56. 56.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, supra, note 10, at 38; Desiree McGraw, “The CBD: Key Characteristics and Implications for Development”, 11 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2002), 17, at 24.

  57. 57.

    CBD Decision 7/15, Biodiversity and Climate Change, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, para. 8.

  58. 58.

    CBD Decision 5/6, Ecosystem approach, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, 22 June 2000, paras. 1–2.

  59. 59.

    Arie Trouwborst, “The Precautionary Principle and the Ecosystem Approach in International Law: Differences, Similarities and Linkages”, 18 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (2009), 26, at 28.

  60. 60.

    UNFCCC, supra, note 17, Art. 3(3). On the fact that the CBD is based on the ecosystem approach and the UNFCCC on the precautionary approach as a differentiating factor see Pittock, “A Pale Reflection of Political Reality”, supra, note 41, at 349; based on Rudiger Wolfrum and Nele Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law (Berlin: Springer, 2003), at 119.

  61. 61.

    UNFCCC, supra, note 17, Art. 3.3.

  62. 62.

    Burns, “Potential Causes of Action for Climate Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement”, supra, note 10.

  63. 63.

    CBD Decision 7/11, Ecosystem Approach, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, Annex I, Principle 6, Implementation Guideline 6.2.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., Annotations to the Rationale of Principle 9.

  65. 65.

    Trouwborst, “The Precautionary Principle and the Ecosystem Approach in International Law”, supra, note 59, at 26 and 33–34.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., at 36.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., at 33–34.

  68. 68.

    CBD Decision 7/11, supra, note 63, Annex I, para. 12(5).

  69. 69.

    Van Asselt, Sindico and Mehling, “Global Climate Change and the Fragmentation of International Law”, supra, note 7, at 428.

  70. 70.

    The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), also available at: www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx (last accessed on 10 April 2012) is a global scientific process commissioned by the UN Secretary-General to assess the consequences of ecosystem change on human well-being. The report is noteworthy for having facilitated far-reaching global endorsement of the term “ecosystem services” as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, such as: food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, diseases, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling. For a discussion of legal implications, see Elisa Morgera, “The 2005 UN World Summit and the Environment: The Proverbial Half-Full Glass”, 15 Italian Yearbook of International Law (2006), 53.

  71. 71.

    CBD Secretariat, Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Series No. 41 (Montreal: CBD Secretariat, 2009), at 8–14.

  72. 72.

    GBO 3, supra, note 1, at 83; Pavan Sukhdev, Heidi Wittmer, Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Carsten Nesshöver, Joshua Bishop, Patrick ten Brink, Haripriya Gundimeda, Pushpam Kumar and Ben Simmons, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach (Malta: Progress Press, 2010); and CBD Decision 10/4, Third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook: implications for the future implementation of the Convention, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 5; CBD Decision 10/2, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, paras. 7 and 17(e).

  73. 73.

    CBD Decision 10/29, Marine and coastal biodiversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 13(h) and Annex, para. d.

  74. 74.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing”, supra, note 34, at 160.

  75. 75.

    CBD Decision 5/6, Principles of the Ecosystem Approach, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, 22 June 2000, Annex B, Operational Guidance 2, para. 9.

  76. 76.

    CBD Decision 7/11, supra, note 63, Annex I, annotations to rationale to Principle 4.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., Annex I, paras. 2.1.3–2.1.5.

  78. 78.

    CBD Decision 6/22, Expanded Programme of Work on Forest Biological Diversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 27 May 2002, para. 13.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para. 19(h).

  80. 80.

    CBD Decision 6/22, supra, note 78, Annex, activities (b) and (f) under Objective 1

  81. 81.

    CBD, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004); CBD COP Decision 7/12, Sustainable Use (Article 10), UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, Annex II, rationale to Principle 4.

  82. 82.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, supra, note 10, at 15–16 and 18–23.

  83. 83.

    Notably, relevant human rights case law: Mauro Barelli, “The Interplay between Global and Regional Human Rights Systems in the Construction of the Indigenous Rights Regime”, 32 Human Rights Quarterly (2010), 951, particularly at 971–972 and 975–978; and John Knox, “Climate Change and Human Rights Law”, 50 Virginia Journal of International Law (2009–2010), 163, at 189–190.

  84. 84.

    CBD Secretariat, Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, supra, note 71, 8–14.

  85. 85.

    CBD Decision 10/30, Mountain biological diversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 5.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para. 8(u)-(v).

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para. 17.

  88. 88.

    CBD Decision 10/33 Biodiversity and climate change, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 8(b).

  89. 89.

    CMS Resolution 7.5, Wind turbines and migratory species, Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, March 2002.

  90. 90.

    Ramsar Resolution X.25, Wetlands and biofuels, COP10 Conference Report, 2008, para. 15.

  91. 91.

    CBD Decision 6/7, Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20, 27 May 2002, Annex, Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or process and in strategic environmental assessment.

  92. 92.

    Svitlana Kravchenko, “Procedural Rights as a Crucial Tool to Combat Climate Change”, 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (2009–2010), 613.

  93. 93.

    CBD Decision 7/11, supra, note 63, para. 12(5).

  94. 94.

    CBD Decision 7/28, Programme of Work on Protected Areas, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, Annex, para. 2(1)(1).

  95. 95.

    CBD Guidelines, Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004) in Article 8(j) and related provisions (CBD COP 7 Decision VII/16 F, Article 8(j), UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004), para. 56.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., para. 46.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., para. 3.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., para. 6.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., para. 8.

  100. 100.

    The understanding of “prior informed consent” proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ rights is that prior informed consent does not provide indigenous people with a veto power when the State acts legitimately and faithfully in the public interest, but rather “establishes the need to frame consultation procedures in order to make every effort to build consensus on the part of all concerned” and that consensus-driven consultation processes should not only address measures to mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts of projects, but also explore and arrive at means of equitable benefit-sharing in a spirit of true partnership (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34, 15 July 2009, paras. 48 and 53).

  101. 101.

    CBD, Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines, supra note 95, paras. 50 and 60.

  102. 102.

    Daniel Magraw and Lisa Hawke, “Sustainable Development”, in Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey (eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 630.

  103. 103.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing”, supra, note 34, at 165.

  104. 104.

    CBD and UNEP-WCMC, Global Biodiversity Outlook, supra note 1, at 83.

  105. 105.

    CBD Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Recommendation 15/2, Ways and means to support ecosystem restoration, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/11/2, 7 December 2011.

  106. 106.

    CBD Decision 10/31, Protected Areas, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, paras. 14(d) and (f), and 19(c).

  107. 107.

    Ibid., para. 14(a)-(c).

  108. 108.

    CMS Resolution 11.19, Migratory species conservation in the light of climate change 2011, paras. 9–13, available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/resolutions_adopted/resolutions.htm (meeting report unavailable at the time of writing).

  109. 109.

    CBD Work Programme on Protected Areas, supra, note 94, para. 2.2.5.

  110. 110.

    CBD Decision 10/28, Inland waters biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, paras. 26(a)-(b) and 27.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., para. 29.

  112. 112.

    CBD Decision, 7/4, Biological diversity of inland water ecosystems, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, para. 24 and Annex, Revised programme of work on inland water biodiversity, para. 9.

  113. 113.

    CBD Decision 6/22, supra, note 78, Objective 3.

  114. 114.

    CBD Decision 10/36, Forest biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 8(o).

  115. 115.

    Ibid., para. 8(p).

  116. 116.

    Ibid., para. 34.

  117. 117.

    CBD Decision 6/22, supra, note 78, Annex, activities (b) and (f) under Objective 1; see also UN Forum on Forests, Resolution on Forests for People, Livelihoods and Poverty Eradication, UN Doc. E/CN.18/2011/20, 2011.

  118. 118.

    CBD Decision 6/22, supra, note 78, Annex, activities (b) and (f) under Objective 1.

  119. 119.

    Ramsar Resolution VIII.3 Climate change and wetlands: impacts, adaptation and mitigation, COP8 Conference Report, 2002.

  120. 120.

    Ramsar Resolution X.24: Climate change and wetlands, COP10 Conference Report, 2008, para. 32.

  121. 121.

    CMS Resolution 11.19, supra, note 108, paras. 9–13.

  122. 122.

    CBD Decision 9/2, Agricultural biodiversity: biofuels and biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/29, 9 October 2008, paras. 1–3. Relevant guidelines were listed in the decision, namely: the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines on Sustainable Use, supra, note 81; the work programme on protected areas, supra, note 94; CBD Decision 5/16, the work programme on traditional knowledge, Article 8(j) and related provisions, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, 22 June 2000; the Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines, supra, note 95; CBD Decision 6/9, The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20, 27 May 2002; the guiding principles on alien invasive species (CBD Decision 6/23, Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20, 27 May 2002); the application of sustainable forest management and best agricultural practices in relation to biodiversity; national biodiversity strategies and action plans; and relevant guidance developed under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Cartagena, 29 January 2000, in force 11 September 2003, 2226 United Nations Treaty Series 208 (2005)).

  123. 123.

    CBD Decision 9/2, supra, note 122, paras. 6 and 8–10.

  124. 124.

    CBD Decision 10/37, Biofuels and biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para. 2.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., para. 4.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., para. 16.

  127. 127.

    Ramsar Resolution X.25, Wetlands and biofuels, COP10 report, 2008, paras. 16–19.

  128. 128.

    In line with the definition of “sustainable use” at CBD, supra, note 4, Art. 2.

  129. 129.

    CBD, Addis Ababa Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, supra, note 81, paras. 8(a), Practical Principles 1–2 and 7.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., Principles 3–4.

  131. 131.

    Useful distinctions are drawn between hard and soft adaptation, as well as between first-generation and second-generation adaptation by Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 690.

  132. 132.

    CBD, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable use of Biodiversity, supra, note 81, Principle 4(a).

  133. 133.

    Ibid., operational guidelines to Principle 4.

  134. 134.

    CBD Work Programme on Protected Areas, supra, note 94, para. 1.4.5.

  135. 135.

    CBD Decision 10/31, supra, note 106, para. 14(a).

  136. 136.

    Ibid., para. 14(b)–(c).

  137. 137.

    Ibid., para. 8(i)–(j).

  138. 138.

    World Heritage Committee Decision 30 Com.7.1, Examination of the State of Conservation of World Heritage properties, UN Doc. WHC.06 /30. COM /19, 23 August 2006.

  139. 139.

    Burns, “’Belt and Suspenders’”, supra, note 53, at 157; and Huggins, “Protecting World Heritage Sites from Adverse Impacts of Climate Change”, supra, note 53, at 126–127.

  140. 140.

    See comments by Huggins, “Protecting World Heritage Sites from Adverse Impacts of Climate Change”, supra, note 53, at 129.

  141. 141.

    CMS Resolution 10.19, Migratory species conservation in the light of climate change, 2011, para. 8 and Resolution 10.3 (2011), The role of ecological networks in the conservation of ­migratory species, para. 9(i), both available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/resolutions_adopted/resolutions.htm (meeting report unavailable at the time of writing).

  142. 142.

    CBD Decision 7/27, Work Programme on Mountain Biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004, Annex, para. 8(c).

  143. 143.

    CBD Decision 10/30, supra, note 85, para. 1.1.1–3 and 5.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., para. 5.

  145. 145.

    CBD Decision 7/27, supra, note 142, Annex, paras. 1.3.7 and 1.3.2–1.3.4.

  146. 146.

    CBD Decision 6/22, supra, note 78, Objective 3.

  147. 147.

    CBD Decision 7/4, supra, note 112, objectives (b)-(c).

  148. 148.

    Ibid., para. 2.2.2.

  149. 149.

    Climate change and wetlands: impacts, adaptation and mitigation, Ramsar Resolution VIII.3, COP8 report, 2002, para. 14.

  150. 150.

    Climate change and wetlands, Ramsar Resolution X.24, COP10 report, 2008, paras. 28–31.

  151. 151.

    Guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ ­participation in the management of wetlands, Ramsar Resolution VII.8, COP7 report, 1999.

  152. 152.

    CBD Decision 10/28, Inland waters biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, paras. 10(l) and 26(c).

  153. 153.

    CBD Decision 10/29, Marine and coastal biodiversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011, para 8.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., paras. 67 and 77.

  155. 155.

    CBD Decision 10/33, supra, note 88, para. 8(e).

  156. 156.

    Ibid., para. 8(f)–(g).

  157. 157.

    CMS Resolution 10.19, supra note 141, paras. 4–7.

  158. 158.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing”, supra, note 34, at 167.

  159. 159.

    Human Rights Council, Resolution 10/4, supra, note 9, at 1.

  160. 160.

    Von Doussa, Corkery and Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 16, at 171.

  161. 161.

    Ibid., at 174.

  162. 162.

    Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 424.

  163. 163.

    Ibid., at 412. Stephen Humphreys, Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide (Geneva: International Council on Human Rights, 2008).

  164. 164.

    This is quite significant, given the silence of the Convention on human rights, as remarked by Dinah Shelton, “Fair Play, Fair Pay: Preserving Traditional Knowledge and Biological Resources”, 5 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (1994), 76, at 80.

  165. 165.

    The focus on livelihoods is also considered necessary in the context of the duty of cooperation in the climate change regime: Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 425.

  166. 166.

    Von Doussa, Corkery and Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 16, at 167–168.

  167. 167.

    As suggested by Roht-Arriaza, “‘First, Do No Harm’: Human Rights and Efforts to Combat Climate Change”, supra, note 11, at 609–610.

  168. 168.

    This political resistance emerges clearly in CBD negotiations of climate-related decisions. See, Asheline Appleton et al., “Analysis of SBSTTA 14”, The Earth Negotiations Bulletin 9(514) (2010).

  169. 169.

    Savaresi’s contribution to this volume.

  170. 170.

    The importance of this practical value of a human rights-based approach to climate change is stressed by von Doussa, Corkery and Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 16, at 171.

  171. 171.

    Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 429.

  172. 172.

    On a community-focused rather than individualistic human rights-based approach, see Francesco Francioni, “International Human Rights in an Environmental Horizon”, 21 European Journal of International Law (2010), 41.

  173. 173.

    See Gregory Maggio, “Recognizing the Vital Role of Local Communities in International Legal Instruments for Conserving Biodiversity”, 16 University of California Los Angeles Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (1997–1998), 179, at 180 and 185.

  174. 174.

    Possible reliance on article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to that end is explored by Daniel Bodansky, “Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues”, 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law (2010), 511; and Knox, “Climate Change and Human Rights Law”, supra, note 83, at 202 and 206–218.

  175. 175.

    UNFCCC, supra, note 17, Art. 4(3–4). For a discussion of how a human rights approach does not preclude differential treatment, see Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 420–421.

  176. 176.

    CBD, supra, note 4, Art. 20.

  177. 177.

    Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 712–714.

  178. 178.

    Von Doussa, Corkery and Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 16, at 176.

  179. 179.

    The question is posed, although not replied to, by Rajamani, “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-based Perspectives”, supra, note 9, at 428–429.

  180. 180.

    Elisa Morgera, “Bilateralism at the Service of Community Interests? Non-judicial Enforcement of Global Public Goods in the context of Global Environmental Law” 23 European Journal of International Law (forthcoming, 2012).

  181. 181.

    Ibid.

  182. 182.

    These instruments are included in 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, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1, 29 October 2010, Arts.12 and 21; and also in recent recommendations on sui generis systems of protection of traditional knowledge and of customary sustainable use: Article 8(j) Working Group Recommendation 7/5, Development of elements of sui generis systems for the protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices and Recommendation 7/6, Article 10, with a focus on Article 10(c), as a major component of the programme of work on Article 8(j) and related provisions, both in UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/11/7, 24 November 2011.

  183. 183.

    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Natural Justice, “Biocultural Community Protocols: A community approach to ensuring the integrity of environmental law and policy”, 2009, available at: http://www.unep.org/communityprotocols/index.asp (last accessed on 10 April 2012); Harry Jonas, Kabir Bavikatte and Holly Shrumm, “Community Protocols and Access and Benefit-Sharing”, 12 Asian Biotechnology and Development Review (2010), 49. See also UNEP website on community protocol case studies, available at: http://www.unep.org/communityprotocols/casestudies.asp (last accessed on 10 April 2012); and the website of a coalition of different actors on community protocols, available at: http://www.community-protocols.org/ (last accessed on 10 April 2012).

  184. 184.

    This draws on Morgera and Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing”, supra, note 34, at 157–158.

  185. 185.

    In fact, biocultural community protocols are been pioneered in the context of REDD: see UNEP and Natural Justice, Biocultural Community Protocols, supra, note 183, chapter 4.

  186. 186.

    Von Doussa, Corkery and Chartres, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 16, at 170; Amy Sinden, “An Emerging Human Right to Security from Climate Change: The Case of Gas Flaring in Nigeria”, in William Burns and Hari Osofsky (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 173, at 190–191; Averill, “Linking Climate Litigation and Human Rights”, supra, note 14 at 141; Knox, “Climate Change and Human Rights Law”, supra, note 83, at 195–198.

  187. 187.

    Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises: Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008; and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to implement the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011. The Framework and the Guiding Principles were adopted by the Human Rights Council by Resolutions 8/7, in UN Doc. A/HRC/8/52, 1 September 2008 and 17/4 (2011), in UN Doc. A/HRC/17/L.30 (advanced, undated version).

  188. 188.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “The Evolution of Benefit-sharing”, supra, note 34, at 165–167.

  189. 189.

    CBD, Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines on the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, supra, note 81, para. 1 clarifies that: “The principles provide a framework for advising Governments, resource managers, indigenous and local communities, the private sector and other stakeholders about how they can ensure that their use of the components of biodiversity will not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity.”

  190. 190.

    Although they are directed to Parties and governments, as indicated by Akwé, Kon Voluntary Guidelines, supra, note 95, para. 1, the Guidelines are expected to provide a collaborative framework for Governments, indigenous and local communities, decision makers and managers of developments (para. 3).

  191. 191.

    I am here referring to standard-setting led by intergovernmental organizations, not private standard-setting, discussed, for instance, in Roht-Arriaza, “‘First, Do No Harm’”, supra, note 11, at 607–609. See in particular 2012 Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation, available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/2012-Edition#PerformanceStandards (last accessed on 10 April 2012); and, “Final Statement by the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”, 25 September 2009, available at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file53117.doc (last accessed on 10 April 2012), paras. 44–46. See generally, Elisa Morgera, Corporate Accountability in International Environmental Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

  192. 192.

    For instance, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/37, 19 July 2010, Section III. For a discussion, Elisa Morgera, “From Corporate Social Responsibility to Accountability Mechanisms”, in Pierre-Marie Dupuy and Jorge Vinuales (eds.), Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection: Incentives and Safeguards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, 2012).

  193. 193.

    Van Asselt, Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, supra, note 7, at 36.

  194. 194.

    Morgera and Tsioumani “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, supra, note 10, at 33.

  195. 195.

    Contra see Kravchenko, “Procedural Rights as a Crucial Tool to Combat Climate Change”, supra, note 92, at 648, who argued that “a human rights approach helps to find solutions to problems for which environmental law does not have a response.”

  196. 196.

    Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 701.

  197. 197.

    As appears needed to Cameron, ibid., at 709.

  198. 198.

    Ibid.

  199. 199.

    For instance, gender has only been recently addressed by the CBD COP. See CBD Decision 9/24, Gender Plan of Action, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/9/29, 9 October 2008; and CBD Decision 10/19, Gender mainstreaming, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27, 20 January 2011. On gender and climate change, see Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 687.

  200. 200.

    Which was considered a major barrier in applying human rights law to climate change response measures: Cameron, ibid, at 705.

  201. 201.

    Jutta Brunnee, “Common Areas, Common Heritage and Common Concern”, in D. Bondansky, J. Brunnee and E. Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (2007), 550; Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle and Catherine Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), at 128–131.

  202. 202.

    Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 706.

  203. 203.

    Savaresi, in her contribution to this volume, underlines the “fragmented nature of States’ obligations in the human rights field.” On the limited relevance of customary international law on human rights for climate change-related purposes, see Knox, “Climate Change and Human Rights Law”, supra, note 83, at 15; and generally Savaresi’s contribution to this volume, at 140.

  204. 204.

    Roht-Arriaza, “‘First, Do No Harm’”, supra, note 11, at 611.

  205. 205.

    Morgera and Tsioumani, “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, supra, note 10, at 24–25, note possible indications of a change of practice in that regard.

  206. 206.

    Kravchenko, “Procedural Rights as a Crucial Tool to Combat Climate Change”, supra, note 92, at 616.

  207. 207.

    Bodansky, “Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues”, supra, note 174, at 517 and 519.

  208. 208.

    Cameron, “Human Rights and Climate Change”, supra, note 6, at 706.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Old College, University of Edinburgh, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, Scotland/UK

    Elisa Morgera

Authors
  1. Elisa Morgera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Morgera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Yliopistokatu 3, Helsinki, 00014, Finland

    Erkki J. Hollo

  2. 62 Zalongkou Street, Strovolos, 2027, Cyprus

    Kati Kulovesi

  3. Ecological Institute, Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 1630, Washington D.C., 20009, District of Columbia, USA

    Michael Mehling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Morgera, E. (2013). No Need to Reinvent the Wheel for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Tackling Climate Change: The Contribution of International Biodiversity Law. In: Hollo, E., Kulovesi, K., Mehling, M. (eds) Climate Change and the Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5440-9_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation