Summary table: MEAs and relevant international fora and their relevance to Arctic biodiversity16
Arctic-relevant MEAs and international fora
Legal:
MEAs, including species agreements, and mechanisms for development of enhanced cooperation
High and direct relevance
• Agreement on the Conservation of African- Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)
• Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears • Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) • Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) • International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)
• United Conventions Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
International Organizations and Policy Forums
• Arctic Council • Barents-Euro Council (BEAC) • European Union – Northern Dimension Policy
• World Trade Organization • United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) • International Maritime Organization (IMO)
states bordering enclosed and semi-enclosed seas and Article 234 relating to Ice-covered areas, are particularly relevant.
It is well-documented that many of the stressors, which are having fundamental impacts on Arctic ecosystems, such as long-range transported air ollution and climate change, have very little to do with human activities in the Arctic region itself. Consequently, the conception of what is “Arctic- relevant” must be expanded, particularly where MEAs are concerned. Integration of efforts, including economic and trade measures (e.g., through the World Trade Organization),
• Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) • Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians (CPAR)
• European Economic Area (EEA) • Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) • Northern Forum
II Medium Relevance
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention)
• World Heritage Convention (WHC) I
is required to address loss of Arctic ecosystem services and biodiversity. Sectoral or regional approaches alone are unlikely to have a major impact on the driving forces behind the potentially fundamental changes that are anticipated for Arctic ecosystems in the future. MEAs applicable to activities outside the Arctic region are, therefore, highly relevant to preserving Arctic biodiversity. Summaries of MEAs considered to be highly relevant to the Arctic can be found online within the Arendal Seminar Overview report on Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Their Relevance to the Arctic10
. LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100