Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 17 No. 2 (2024)

Articles

Global Public Safety Systems. Research on the Coherence and Effectiveness of International Agreements Protecting Ecological Connectivity

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tkp.9071  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2024-12-23

Abstract

Ecological connectivity is one of the primary prerequisites of effective prevention and adaptation to climate change. However the legal protection of this phenomenon has been scattered in different legal acts of international, European and national law. The main criterion adopted for the purposes of this research was to focus on the development of instruments for the protection of ecological corridors. The research included both framework agreements on the protection of biodiversity as well as agreements strictly related to the migration of fauna and flora. The main conclusions of the research show that the provisions of multilateral nature conservation agreements vary in terms of their legal force, and in most cases leave a wide margin of discretion to the parties with regard to the forms of implementation. Furthermore, the agreements are not integrated and coherent, and are still based on outdated management tools and terminology (dating back to the 1970-1980 period). Binding executive acts are not widely recognised as having the same legal force as framework conventions and are, in fact, lost in the microcosmos of national environmental legislation. It is recommended to conduct a harmonised, in-depth review of the implementation of the conventions analysed, in order to integrate and improve the coherence of the protection regime of ecological networks at national, continental and global levels. This should be done by adopting an integrative agreement under the auspices of all the conventions concerned. The detailed scope of the necessary amendments proposed in the final chapter of this article constitutes the main added value of this research.

References

  1. Belletti, Bianca, et al. 2020. “Broken Rivers.” Nature, December 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12258 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, Graham, and Kalemani Jo Mulongoy. 2006. Review of Experience with Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Technical Series No. 23, Montreal. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bodansky, Daniel. 2024. “Four Treaties in One: The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.” American Journal of International Law 118, no. 2:299-323. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2024.9 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bond, Monica L., Curtis M. Bradley, Christian Kiffner, et al. 2017. “A Multi-Method Approach to Delineate and Validate Migratory Corridors.” Landscape Ecology 32:1705-721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0537-4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Byron, Helen, and Lindsay Arnold. 2008. TEN‐T and Natura 2000: The way forward an assessment of the potential impact of the TEN‐T Priority Projects on Natura 2000. Final report. Sandy: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). [Google Scholar]
  6. Catchpole, Robert D. J. 2016. “Connectivity, Networks, Cores and Corridors.” In Mapping Wilderness, edited by Steve Carver and Stephan Fritz, 35-54. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7399-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chapman, Ben B., et al. 2014. “Patterns of Animal Migration.” In Animal Movement Across Scales, edited by Lars-Anders Hansson and Susanne Åkesson, 11-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677184.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ćurčić, Nikola B., and Slobodan Đurđić. 2013. “The Actual Relevance of Ecological Corridors in Nature Conservation.” Journal of the Geographic Institute Jovan Cvijic 63, no. 2:21-34. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fromageau, Julie, Abdelmounaim Cherkaoui, and Raphaël Coll (eds.). 2023. Measuring the Effectiveness of Environmental Law through Legal Indicators and Quality Analyses. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 91. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. [Google Scholar]
  10. Good, Jervis A. 1998. The Potential Role of Ecological Corridors for Habitat Conservation in Ireland: A Review. Dublin: Dúchas, The Heritage Service. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  11. Goyes, David R. 2024. “National Legislative Adoption of International Wildlife Law After Treaty Ratification.” Crime, Law and Social Change 81:143-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10117-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hilty, Jodi A., et al. 2020. Guidelines for Conserving Connectivity through Ecological Networks and Corridors. IUCN. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jakiel, Maciej, and Aleksandra Bernatek. 2015. “Assessment of an Ecological Network at Local Scale in the Context of Landscape Changes: A Case Study from NE Poland.” In Landscape Analysis and Planning, edited by Mariusz Luc, Urszula Somorowska, and Jan Szmańda, 245-56. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13527-4_14 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kettunen, Marianne, Piero Genovesi, Gerhard Gollasch, et al. 2007. Guidance on the Maintenance of Landscape Features of Major Importance for Wild Flora and Fauna: Guidance on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kleining, Bettina. Natura 2000 – A Coherent Nature Conservation Network? A Proposal for Reforming the Rules on Designation under the Habitats Directive. [Google Scholar]
  16. Krämer, Ludwig. 2009. “The European Commission’s Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.” Journal of Environmental Law 21, no. 1:59-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqn028 [Google Scholar]
  17. Michel, Catherine, Emmanuelle Russier-Decoster, and Franck Clap. 2015. Infrastructure Corridors, Ecological Corridors? Status Report and Recommendations. Paris: IUCN France and CILB. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mekonnen, Alemayehu, Peter J. Fashing, Colin A. Chapman, et al. 2024. “The Ethiopian Wolf Can Act as a Flagship and Umbrella Species to Protect the Afroalpine Ecosystem and Foster Sustainable Development.” Environmental Conservation 51, no. 1:45-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892923000309 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pchałek, Marcin, and Irmina Grzegrzółka. 2017. “Legal aspects of application of the method of estimating environmental flows in the protection of riparian ecosystems dependent on waters.” Environmental Liability – Law, Policy and Practice and Management 25 (5): s. 208-213. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pchałek, Marcin. 2010. “Ochrona Gatunkowa w Działalności Inwestycyjnej.” In Wybrane Problemy Prawa Ochrony Środowiska, edited by Bartosz Rakoczy, and Marcin Pchałek, s. 126-148. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pchałek, Marcin, Paulina Kupczyk, Piotr Matyjasiak, et al. 2011. Efektywność ochrony korytarzy ekologicznych. Koncepcja zmian legislacyjnych. Warszawa: WWF Polska. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pchałek, Marcin. 2019. “Prawo środowiska Unii Europejskiej a rozwój śródlądowych dróg wodnych.” Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 11:18-24. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pichon, Benoît, et al. 2024. “Integrating Ecological Feedbacks Across Scales and Levels of Organization.” Ecography e07167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07167 [Google Scholar]
  24. Piniarski, Wojciech. “Challenges of a GIS-Based Physical-Geographical Regionalization of Poland.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 195:1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11734-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pritchard, Duncan (ed.). 2010. Ramsar Handbooks, 4th edition. Handbook 16: Impact Assessment. Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/hbk4-16.pdf [accessed: 26.08.2024]. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rees, Siân E., et al. 2013. “A Legal and Ecological Perspective of ‘Site Integrity’ to Inform Policy Development and Management of Special Areas of Conservation in Europe.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 72, no. 1:14-21. [Google Scholar]
  27. Saura, Santiago, Örjan Bodin, and Marie-Josée Fortin. 2014. “Stepping Stones Are Crucial for Species’ Long-Distance Dispersal and Range Expansion through Habitat Networks.” Journal of Applied Ecology 51:180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12179 [Google Scholar]
  28. Shen, Xiaoli, et al. 2020. “Effectiveness of Management Zoning Designed for Flagship Species in Protecting Sympatric Species.” Conservation Biology 34, no. 1:158-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13345 [Google Scholar]
  29. Silva, Ana T., et al. 2018. “The Future of Fish Passage Science, Engineering, and Practice.” Fish and Fisheries 19:340-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12258 [Google Scholar]
  30. Torres, Andrea, Christopher Patterson, and Jochen A. G. Jaeger. 2022. “Advancing the Consideration of Ecological Connectivity in Environmental Assessment: Synthesis and Next Steps Forward.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 40, no. 6:451-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2134619 [Google Scholar]
  31. Van der Sluis, Teunis, Maarten Bloemmen, and Ingrid M. Bouwma. 2004. European Corridors: Strategies for Corridor Development for Target Species. 1st ed. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wieser, Matthias, et al. 2011. Guidelines for Regional, Interregional and Cross-Border Development Strategies Creating Ecological Corridors. Graz, Austria: Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung, Abteilung 16 Landes und Gemeindeentwicklung. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.