Protecting world heritage sites from the adverse impacts of climate change: obligations for states parties to the World Heritage Convention.

• Author: Huggins, Anna

Through its mandate to protect and preserve places of 'outstanding universal value', the World Heritage Convention provides an unlikely yet effective tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. The practical efficacy of the Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses ('the Strategy'), which represents the World Heritage Committee's primary response to the threats posed by climate change to World Heritage sites, is undermined by its weak stance on mitigation. This paper argues that the World Heritage Convention Imposes stronger obligations on States Parties than those contained in the Strategy, including a duty on States parties to commit to 'deep cuts' in greenhouse gas emissions States Parties must engage in extensive mitigation strategies without delay.

Introduction

In recent year, the combined weight of the Stern Review on the Economics Of Climate Change (1), Al Gore's film in An Inconvenient Truth and the United Nations ('UN') Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's ('IPCC') Fourth Assessment Reports (2) have contributed to a widespread consensus on the reality and gravity of anthropogenic climate change. As a result, public and political debate has shifted from whether or not climate change is occurring, to what action needs to be taken to mitigate and manage adverse climate impacts. It is widely agreed that although some degree of climate change is inevitable as a result of historic greenhouse gas ('GHG') emissions, 'dangerous' climate change may still be prevented if global temperatures do not increase by more than an average of 2 to 3 [degrees] C. To achieve this, 'deep cuts' in GHG emissions of 60 to 80 percent less than 1990 levels will need to be achieved by 2050, with further reductions thereafter (3).

The primary mechanisms for addressing climate change at the international level are the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change ('UNFCCC') (4) and its Kyoto Protocol (5) which sets binding, quantitative targets for GHG emissions. However, given the obfuscation of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States, one of the highest per capita GHG emitting countries in the world, and the limitations of the Kyoto Protocol in facilitating sufficient reductions in GHG emission to prevent 'dangerous' climate change, other legal avenues for promoting greater action on climate change should be explored. Through its mandate to protect and preserve places of 'outstanding universal value', many of which re grave risk from climate change, the World Heritage Convention "'the Convention') provides one such avenue (6).

The fact that 'the impacts of climate change are affecting many World Heritage properties and are likely to affect many more, both natural and cultural, in the years ahead' was recognized by the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the Cultural and natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value ("World Heritage Committee') at its 29 the session in 2005 (7). The primary document representing the Committee's approach to this issue is the Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses ('the Strategy') (8). This article examines the efficacy of the Strategy in realising the objects of the Convention. It also considers whether the provisions of the Convention provide scope for stronger obligations on States Parties than those contained in the Strategy to mitigate climate change and thereby protect invaluable World Heritage sites.

1. Climate Change and World Heritage

   The UNFCCC defines climate change as 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable periods of time' (9). Highly regarded sources such as the Stern Review and the IPCC confirm that climate change is occurring, is largely attributable to human activities and 'prevents very serious global risks'. (10) In its most recent Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III of the IPCC concluded that global GHG emissions have increased by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004, and with 'current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices will continue to grow over the next few decades.' (11) By the end of this century, the global mean surface temperature is projected to increase by somewhere between 1.8[degrees]C (likely range 1.1 to 2.9[degrees]C) for a 'low scenario' and 4.0[degrees]C (likely range 2.4 to 6.4[degrees]C) for a 'high scenario'. The corresponding sea level rises for these low and high scenarios are 18 to 83 centimetres, and 26 to 59 centimetres, respectively. (12)

   A host of other impacts are predicted to accompany rising temperatures and sea levels. (13) Sensitive environments and ecosystems worldwide, many of which are protected under the World Heritage Convention, are highly vulnerable to climatic variability. The World Heritage Committee has produced two recent reports--World Heritage Reports 22: Climate Change and World Heritage, (14) and Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage (15)--detailing the impacts of climate change on World Heritage sites. According to these reports, the impacts on natural World Heritage (16) include: the melting of glaciers in both mountainous and Polar Regions: increased bleaching and widespread death of coral as a result of rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification; implications for terrestrial biodiversity as a result of plant and animal species migration; changes in the timing of biological cycles; more intense and frequent bushfires; and migration of pests and invasive species. (17) More broadly, the physical and biological changes resulting from climate change affect ecosystem functioning, with significant implications for the provision of ecosystems goods and services and therefore human livelihoods. (18)

   The climate vulnerability of six iconic World Heritage sites--Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, Huascaran National Park in Peru, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Belize's Barrier Barrier Reef Reserve System, the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in the United States and Canada and Greater Blue Mountains Would Heritage Area in Australia--has received particular attention as a result of recent petitions to have them included on the 'List of World Heritage in Danger'. There petitions were made under article 11(4) of the Convention, which provides a mechanism for the creation of an 'in danger list' for World heritage properties requiring heightened international and national protection. (19) Each of the six in-danger petitions filed has been in relation to a natural World Heritage site, possibly due to the facts that these sites are particularly at risk from climate impacts, are not able to be replaced or recreated by human efforts, and are inextricably interconnected with surrounding ecosystems and processes. Thus, whilst it is recognised that climate change will have significant impacts on cultural World Heritage sites as well, for the purposes of this discussion the focus will be on the protection of natural World Heritage sites.

   The protection of World Heritage sites may seem relatively trivial concern considering the broader ecosystem degradation and devastation likely to result from unabated climate change. However, the iconic nature and high profile of many World Heritage sites makes them ideally suited to build public and political support for greater action to ameliorate climate impacts. (20) This is reinforced by the idea that heritage sites are 'places in the heart', that is 'places and objects [that] contribute to a sensory and emotional perception of belonging, of home and community'. (21) As a result, current and future climate change impacts on these sites are likely to be more tangible and immediate to ordinary people than the science of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere or global temperature variations. (22) Moreover, measures taken to protect these sites from climate change will potentially have flow-on positive effects for other sensitive environmental areas and ecosystems not subject to World Heritage protection. This is because States have special obligations in relation to the protection of World Heritage sites, and if strong measures are taken to meet these obligations by, for example, reducing, GHG emissions to mitigate climate change impacts on protected areas, other non-protected areas will also benefit. As Achim Steiner, Director General of the World Conservation Union ('IUCN') comments:

   World Heritage is not only about protecting places of exceptional value; they also protect some of the most important and endangered biodiversity of the planet and maintain ecosystems critical to the well-being of millions of people. (23) Thus, the Convention emerges as a somewhat unlikely, but nonetheless effective, tool in the fight against climate change.

2. The World Heritage Convention

   The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ('UNESCO') on 16 November 1972. The Preamble reflects the Convention's raison d'etre, recognising that as:

   [P]arts of the cultural or natural heritage are of outstanding interest and ... need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind ... it is incumbent on the international community as a whole to participate in the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value, by the granting of collective assistance which, although not taking the place of action by the State concerned, will serve as an effective complement thereto. (24) The Convention's protection strategy for sites with universal heritage value is three-pronged--listing of heritage sites, recognition of sites in danger, and financial support for maintenance and restoration of sites'. (25) The World Heritage Committee, which is composed of 21 States...