Assessing the Capacity of Nature Conservation Law to Help Biodiversity Adapt to Climate Change: The Case of Finland

• Published date: 01 April 2015
• Date: 01 April 2015
• Author: Suvi Borgström
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12094

Assessing the Capacity of Nature Conservation Law

to Help Biodiversity Adapt to Climate Change:

The Case of Finland

Suvi Borgström*

Climate change is expected to place biological diversity

under increasing stress and threaten several species

with extinction. To combat the threats caused by a

changing climate, several policy documents and items

of literature on conservation biology have proposed a

number of proactive measures to help species and

habitats to adapt to climate change. This article pres-

ents the results of an analysis of the capacity of the

Finnish regulatory system to provide an effective

framework for the measures proposed and the capac-

ity of the regulatory system to enhance adaptive man-

agement, which is considered important in the era of

climate change. The analysis reveals several weak-

nesses in the Finnish regulatory system. Legislative

changes are likely to be needed to harness the existing

conservation tools to support climate change adapta-

tion measures.

INTRODUCTION

Climate change is expected to place biological diversity

under increasing stress and threaten several species

with extinction. Organisms are affected by modifica-

tions in temperature, humidity and weather patterns,

as well as more frequently occurring extreme weather

events associated with climate change.1Many of the

effects that climate change has on species and ecosys-

tems have already been documented, and the effects of

climate change are expected to become increasingly sig-

nificant. For instance, many species and ecosystems are

expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes

and altitudes.2

Given the inevitability that the climate will change in

future decades, regardless of mitigating actions to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a growing

need to increase the adaptive capacity of species and

habitats. Several policy documents and items of litera-

ture on conservation biology have proposed proactive

measures that seem to be necessary for species and

habitats to adapt to climate change. These measures

include protecting large robust natural areas, ensuring

connectivity between those areas, restoring degraded

ecosystems and, in some cases, undertaking active

translocation of populations to climatically more suit-

able areas.3

Effective biodiversity adaptation policy calls for effec-

tive mechanisms for its implementation. Thus, any

legal system that effectively enhances biodiversity

adaptation to climate change should include mecha-

nisms for all these measures. Furthermore, the legal

system should be capable of promoting the adaptive

management considered important under the changing

climatic conditions.4As several scholars have pointed

out, existing conservation regimes may either fail to

deal with the complexities and uncertainties of climate

change or act as actual barriers to effective adaptation.5

* Corresponding author. Email: suvi.borgstrom@uef.f‌i.

1K. Willis and S. Bhagwat, ‘Biodiversity and Climate Change’,

326:5954 Science (2009), 806, at 806–807.

2Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate Change:

Advice on the Integration of Biodiversity Considerations into the

Implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol (Secretariat of the CBD,

2003), at 154.

3See, e.g., Communication of the Commission of the European Com-

munities, White Paper on Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a

European Framework for Action, COM(2009) 147; CBD, Decision

IX/16, Biodiversity and Climate Change (UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/

DEC/IX/16, 9 October 2008); CBD, Decision VII/28, Protected Areas

(UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, 13 April 2004); CBD, Decision X/2

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011–2020 (‘Decision X/2’) and

the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2,

29 October 2010).

4J. McDonald and M. Styles, ‘Legal Strategies for Adaptive Manage-

ment under Climate Change’, 26:1 Journal of Environmental Law

(2014), at 3.

5Ibid.; J.B. Ruhl, ‘Climate Change Adaptation and the Structural

Transformation of Environmental Law’, 40:2 Environmental Law

(2010), 363; H. Doremus, ‘Adapting to Climate Change with Law that

Bends without Breaking’, 2 San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy

Law (2010), 45; R.K. Craig, ‘Stationarity is Dead – Long Live Trans-

formation: Five Principles for Climate Change Adaptation Law’, 34:1

Harvard Environmental Law Review (2010), 9; A. Dodd et al., ‘Pro-

tected Areas and Climate Change: Ref‌lections from a Practitioner’s

Perspective’, 6:1 Utrecht Law Review (2010), 141; D. Schramm and

A. Fishman, ‘Legal Frameworks for Adaptive Natural Resource Man-

agement in a Changing Climate’, 22:3 Georgetown International Envi-

ronmental Law Review (2010), 491; J. McDonald, ‘The Role of Law in

Adapting to Climate Change’, 2:2 WIREs: Climate Change (2011),

283; A. Trouwborst, ‘International Nature Conservation Law and the

Adaptation of Biodiversity to Climate Change: A Mismatch?’, 21:3

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 24 (1) 2015. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12094

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

69