Improving governance

Conserving the environment remains one of the most important and emotive issues of modern times, featuring prominently in newspapers, political manifestos and popular entertainment. Certain elements of the natural world have always attracted more public support and attention than others within western societies; from the rainforests to whales and elephants. Tropical coral reefs fall into this category, in large part due to their aesthetic beauty and association with tropical idylls. More importantly, over the last 25 years a deeper global understanding has developed of the importance of these complex ecosystems in sustaining life on earth – including humankind – as well as the problems they are facing and the action needed to conserve them. Yet before this book, stake-holders, conservationists, academics, and marine environment regulators and managers have had few resources at their disposal assessing in-depth the international environmental law response for supporting the conservation of these ecosystems.

International environmental law can offer a number of benefits. It can aid conservation efforts through the provision of resources, financial support and information exchange. Further, the commitment of governments to such efforts can be improved through the additional visibility of (in)activity made possible by commitments and mechanisms introduced under treaties. This might involve centrally maintained inventories of protected areas or committees reacting to official or public reports. The conservation of habitats like coral reefs can also be enhanced through international recognition and ‘branding’, which can empower pressure groups and environmental ministries. These groups may then be able to slant decisions towards favouring conservation when conflicts arise with development. Such international recognition is also important in terms of raising awareness within local communities about the importance and fragility of such ecosystems.

As has been revealed in the preceding chapters, there exists a body of international law that, by increment, addresses the majority of problems faced by coral reefs. What is more, action is being taken under some of these legal initiatives explicitly to improve the conservation of coral reefs. Indeed, in some respects (notably the promotion of MPAs), the extent of the law is such that lawyers are more likely to encounter replication of efforts under separate regimes, rather than lacunae in the system. It is impossible to deny the existence of this body of law, which has sustained the existing scholarship and this book.

Perhaps the reality is, therefore, that states have not undertaken the time-consuming and difficult process of negotiating a bespoke treaty, as they regard existing legal regimes to be adequate for the purpose. If so, the survey of agreements conducted in Part II of this book actually creates a mixed picture as to the adequacy of international legal responses to the various threats posed to coral reefs.

2.1 A single solution

Whilst there is no dedicated treaty for the conservation of reefs, a few could claim to offer a single solution given their wide jurisdictions in the field of wildlife and habitat protection. For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity has succeeded in garnering the support of a large number of coral reef states for a treaty charged with a comprehensive agenda for conserving biodiversity and ensuring the sustainable use of its components, including corals and the other components that make up the ecosystem. However, this broad jurisdiction leads to problems. Obligations remain broadly defined, with few quantifiable commitments. What is more, the broad jurisdiction also leads to insufficient focus upon single threats and ecosystems. This initially resulted in a predominantly descriptive, policy formulation, approach. There have been recent efforts to move on from that stage with the introduction of soft-law quantifiable targets for biodiversity conservation. Such targets will, however, be difficult to monitor and enforce in a regime averse to international monitoring, and lacking many compliance tools. Consequently major concerns exists that the conservation of coral reefs can get lost in the welter of other agenda items and in the face of stretched resources and limited monitoring.

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands offered a system in which coral reefs were far more prominent conservation subjects. Arguably the wise use obligation could be interpreted to demand action from state parties with respect to almost all of the threats facing coral reefs, such as controlling extractive use and the development of tourism. The wise use obligation could even be deployed to question the utilisation of marine waters as receptors of land-sourced pollution. Of course, the extent to which the Ramsar Convention can be regarded as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for reef conservation also depends upon the definition of ‘wetlands’ being wide enough to capture all reefs including those with no parts lying within 6m depth of water. However, a far greater barrier to the convention being an adequate single solution is that the obligation to use wetlands wisely is largely inchoate; the provisions of the treaty delivering no extra detail or measurable parameters for this commitment. The majority of the effort being expended under the Ramsar Convention is still directed towards the management of wetlands of international importance, and it is with regard to MPA strategies that the convention’s real strengths are therefore to be found.