Responding To Emerging Challenges PDF

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]
On: 05 July 2014, At: 23:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of International Wildlife Law &

Policy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uwlp20
Responding to Emerging Challenges:

Multilateral Environmental Agreements
and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
H5N1
Ruth Cromie , Nick Davidson , Colin Galbraith , Ward Hagemeijer ,
Pierre Horwitz , Rebecca Lee , Taej Mundkur & David A. Stroud
Published online: 07 Dec 2011.
To cite this article: Ruth Cromie , Nick Davidson , Colin Galbraith , Ward Hagemeijer , Pierre
Horwitz , Rebecca Lee , Taej Mundkur & David A. Stroud (2011) Responding to Emerging Challenges:
Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1, Journal of
International Wildlife Law & Policy, 14:3-4, 206-242
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2011.626711
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 14:206242, 2011
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1388-0292 print / 1548-1476 online

DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2011.626711
Responding to Emerging Challenges:

Multilateral Environmental Agreements
and Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza H5N1
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 23:24 05 July 2014
RUTH CROMIE1
NICK DAVIDSON2
COLIN GALBRAITH3
WARD HAGEMEIJER4
PIERRE HORWITZ5
REBECCA LEE6
TAEJ MUNDKUR7
DAVID A. STROUD8
1. INTRODUCTION
Although the emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) of
subtype H5N1 in China in 1997 had caused human fatalities and major impacts
on the poultry industry, it was not until it re-emerged in 2003 and spread
Author sequence is alphabetical, reflecting equal inputs to delivering the outcomes described in this
article from 20052008. The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect
those of their supporting institutions.
1
Head of Wildlife Health, The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester GL2 7BT, United
Kingdom.
2
Deputy-Secretary General, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland,
Switzerland.
3
Deputy Chair, Scientific Council of the Convention on Migratory Species, 45 Mounthooly Loan, Edin-
burgh EH10 7JD, Scotland, United Kingdom.
4
Manager, Shell Partnership, Wetlands International, P.O. Box 471, 6700 AL Wageningen, The Nether-
lands.
5
Associate Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joon-
dalup WA 6027, Australia.
6
Coordinator, Scientific Task Force for Avian Influenza and Wild Birds, c/o The Wildfowl and Wetlands
Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester GL2 7BT, United Kingdom.
7
Programme Manager Flyways, Wetlands International, P.O. Box 471, 6700 AL Wageningen, The Nether-
lands.
8
Senior Ornithologist, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterbor-
ough PE1 1JY, United Kingdom.
206
RESPONDING TO EMERGING CHALLENGES 207
westward in 2005 that it gained wider public and international attention. In

2005, cases of infection in wild birds were reported spreading through Asia
and reaching Europe in late 2005 and Africa in 2006.
Before the emergence of HPAI H5N1 in East Asia, the control of previous
outbreaks of HPAI (of other H5 and H7 subtypes) had caused huge economic
losses to the commercial poultry sector on several continents. HPAI H5N1
was, additionally, of concern to the human health sector (given the ability
of the virus to cross the species barrier and assessed risk of mutating into
a form that could spread as a human pandemic). It was also of concern to
wildlife conservationists, given its disease-causing ability (i.e., pathogenecity
to wild waterbirds, in particular, and to some mammal species) and given
the negative implications for wild birds of ill-defined responses. Triggered

by these negative implications for wild birds and because wild waterbirds
are the natural hosts of other, less disease-causing forms of avian influenza
viruses, there was an understandable interest in the complex implications of
this emergent disease for the conservation of waterbirds and their wetland
habitats along the major flyways in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
We describe some of the key issues that arose for decision-makers within
governments and also for other non-government wetland conservation orga-
nizations, consequent on the spread of this disease, and outline the response
of the Ramsar Convention, which had not previously addressed the issue of
diseases within wetland habitats. In particular, we describe how the Conven-
tion worked with other international organisations and international treaties
to establish and maintain a common position on the issues raised. Ramsars
ninth Conference of Parties (CoP9), 2005, and CoP10, 2008, adopted sub-
stantive formal Resolutions on the issue. We outline the content of these and
describe how they were planned to be complementary to similar Resolutions
adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species and to the
African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (also in 2005 and 2008).
Central to the development of common positions was the creation of a
Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza and Wild Birds to act as a coordi-
nating forum between interested international organizations and treaties. We
suggest that the establishment of the Task Force provides a model for inter-
national conventions to work with other interested parties on other emerging
issues of common concern. However, the effectiveness of such a forum de-
pends on institutional frameworks that allow organisations to respond rapidly
to developing situations and the willingness of individuals to contribute their
time and energy in such endeavors.
2. BACKGROUND
Avian influenza is a highly contagious disease caused by influenza A viruses,
affecting many bird species. Avian influenza is classified according to
208 CROMIE ET AL.
disease severity (to poultry) into two recognized forms: low pathogenic avian
influenza (LPAI) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). LPAI viruses
are generally of low virulence, while HPAI viruses are highly virulent in most
poultry species, resulting in nearly 100 percent mortality in infected domes-
tic flocks. The natural reservoir of LPAI viruses is in wild waterbirds, most
commonly in ducks, geese, swans, waders/shorebirds, and gulls.
In wild waterbirds, LPAI viruses are part of host dynamics in ecosystems.
They have been isolated from over 90 species of wild bird and are thought to
have existed within wild bird populations for millennia in balanced systems.
When LPAI viruses are transmitted to vulnerable poultry species, only
mild symptoms such as a transient decline in egg production or reduction in
weight gain may be induced. However, avian influenza viruses have a high
rate of mutation, and a dense poultry environment, which supports several
cycles of infection, can lead to the generation of a highly pathogenic form
(for H5 and H7 subtypes). HPAI viruses are therefore essentially products
of intensively farmed poultry, and their incidence has increased dramatically
with the greatly enhanced volume of poultry production around the world.9 In
the first few years of the twenty-first century, the incidence of HPAI outbreaks
had already exceeded the total number of outbreaks recorded for the entire
twentieth century.10 Prior to HPAI H5N1, reports of HPAI in wild birds were
extremely rare.11 The broad geographical scale and extent of the infection
in wild birds witnessed over recent years has been both extraordinary and
unprecedented.
After an HPAI virus has arisen in poultry and transmitted locally and
internationally through poor biosecurity practices, it has the potential then to
infect wild birds and also to cause disease in some mammals. If influenza A
viruses adapt inside these new mammalian hosts to become highly transmis-
sible, there could be devastating consequences, such as those that occurred
during the human influenza pandemics of the 20th century.12 The conditions
necessary for infection between different hosts are provided by those agricul-
tural practices that bring humans into contact with poultry and other species
held in high densities, or by other activities that involve high levels of expo-
sure, such as poultry slaughter and subsequent meat preparation. It is in such
situations that there is the potential for viral transmission from infected poul-
try, poultry products, and waste to wild birds, humans, and other mammals,
9
MICHAEL GREGER, BIRD FLU: A VIRUS OF OUR OWN HATCHING 465 (Lantern Books 2006); GRAIN, Fowl
Play: The Poultry Industrys Central Role in the Bird Flu Crisis, GRAIN BRIEFING, Feb. 2006,
http://www.grain.org/briefings files/birdflu2006-en.pdf
10
GREGER, supra note 9, at 465.
11
R. G. Webster et al., Changing Epidemiology and Ecology of Highly Pathogenic Avian H5N1 Influenza
Viruses, 51 AVIAN DISEASES 269, 26972 (2007).
12
E. D. Kilbourne, Influenza Pandemics of the 20th Century, 12 EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1, 914
(2006).
especially those that occur in either shared wetlands or in wet (i.e., mixed
live animal) markets that sell both wildlife and poultry.13
HPAI H5N1 was first recognized following a 1997 outbreak in poultry
in Hong Kong, PR China, with the subsequent spread of the virus to humans.
During that outbreak, 18 human cases were recognized and six patients died.
The outbreak ended when all domestic chickens held by wholesale facilities
and vendors in Hong Kong were slaughtered.14 The disease went unreported
until its re-emergence in eastern and southeastern Asia in 2003, affecting both
poultry and people.
In April 2005, the first major outbreak in wild birds was reported. Some
6,345 wild birds were reported dead at Qinghai Lake in central China,15 which
preceded the onset of the spread farther westwards.

The progressive geographical spread of HPAI H5N1 since then is sum-
marised in Table 1 and described in more detail in Appendix 1 of Ramsar
Resolution X.21.16 Since 2005, HPAI H5N1 of Asian lineage has infected
domestic, captive, and wild birds in more than 60 countries in Asia, Europe,
and Africa. Serious human health consequences have also continued: by 31
August 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) had confirmed 505 hu-
man cases, with 59 percent of those fatal;17 it is recognised that these figures
are likely to be underestimates as many cases may not be recognised nor
diagnosed as HPAI H5N1.18
There are a range of direct, indirect, or potential consequences of HPAI
H5N1 for the conservation of waterbirds and their wetland habitats. These
include direct mortality of wild birds, misguided policies of culling of wild
birds and the destruction of nests or wetland habitat, and multiple conse-
quences of public fear of birds. These issues are explored below and provided
the rationale for the engagement with this disease by nature conservation
organizations.
13
K. F. Shortridge, Is Chinaan Influenza Epicentre?, 110 CHINESE MED. J. 637, 63741 (1997); K. F.
Shortridge et al., Persistence of Hong Kong Influenza Virus Variants in Pigs, 196 SCI. 1454, 145455
(1977).
14
Rene Snacken et al., The Next Influenza Pandemic: Lessons from Hong Kong, 1997, 5 EMERGING
INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 195203 (1999).
15
H. Chen et al., Avian Flu: H5N1 Virus Outbreak in Migratory Waterfowl, 436 NATURE 191, 19192
(2005); J. Liu et al., Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus Infection in Migratory Birds, 309 SCIENCE
1206 (2005).
16
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands, Changwon, S. Korea, 28 Oct.4 Nov. 2008, Res. X.21: Guidance on
Responding to the Continued Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, App. 1, available at
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key res x 21 e.pdf [hereinafter Ramsar, Res. X.21].
17
Global Alert and Response (GAR), Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of
Avian Influenza A/(H5N1) Reported to WHO, WHO. INT (12 Aug. 2010), http://www.who.
int/csr/disease/avian influenza/country/cases table 2010 08 12/en/index.html
18
Further details are given in Appendix 1 of Ramsar Resolution X.21. See Ramsar, Res. X.21, supra note
16.
TABLE 1. Time line of events and responses to the spread of HPAI H5N1, 1996April 2010
210
MEA responses and timelines for Scientific
Date Spread of HPAI H5N1 Scientific understandingkey points in time Task Force on AI and Wild Birds
1996 First isolation of HP H5N1 subtype in
domestic goose in China (Guangdong
province)
1997 First outbreak in domestic poultry and
humans; Hong Kong SAR, China
2002 HPAI H5N1 mortality in captive ducks and
other birds in two collections; Hong Kong
SAR, China
2003 Suspected but undocumented cases in SE
MarchJuly Asia
December First widespread wave of infections in Asia
with infection on three South Korean
poultry farms
2004 First poultry outbreaks in Vietnam, Thailand,
JanuaryFebruary Japan, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Indonesia,
and China; first human cases in Vietnam
and Thailand. First domestic cat infection
in Thailand
March First discussions of HPAI by fourth meeting
of AEWAs Technical Committee and 13th
meeting of CMSs Scientific Council
JuneAugust Second wave of outbreaks in SE Asian Research shows HPAI H5N1 can be lethal in certain
poultry commences with outbreak in waterbird species
Malaysia
October First report in Europe (Belgium) from two Publication of first indications of potential wild bird
raptors smuggled from Thailand transmission of HPAI H5N1 in the wild (2002 in
Virus kills 41 captive tigers in a Thai zoo Hong Kong)19
after being fed infected chicken carcasses
December Third wave of SE Asian poultry outbreaks

begins
2005 Major outbreak at Qinghai, China. At least
AprilMay 6,345 wild birds dead of multiple species
July First cases reported in Russia (Siberia) Reporting on Qinghai outbreak20
August First outbreaks reported in Kazakhstan and Establishment of Task Force by CMS and
Mongolia AEWA
October First outbreaks in Europe (Romania, Turkey, Establishment of EFSA Working Group to AEWA MoP3, Dakar Senegal agrees
and Croatia) develop risk assessment on spread to EU Resolution 3.18
November Infection of domestic birds in Ukraine and First meeting of EFSA Working Group Ramsar CoP9, Kampala, Uganda agrees
first case in Middle East (in a captive Resolution 9.23
flamingo in Kuwait)
December Outbreaks in European Russia (Caspian Sea) CMS CoP8, Nairobi, Kenya agrees
Resolution 8.27
2006 First outbreak reported from Africa (poultry
JanuaryFebruary in Nigeria and Egypt)
First human infects outside SE Asia in
Turkey and Iraq
February Cases of wild bird infection in 12 European
countries21
(Continued on next page)
211
TABLE 1. Time line of events and responses to the spread of HPAI H5N1, 1996April 2010 (Continued)
212
March First (and so far only) case of human Workshop on HPAI held prior to CBD CoP8.
infection from handling a wild bird: a Agreement of CBD Decision VIII/32
dead swan in Azerbaijan
April Outbreaks in nine African countries by end Sixth International Symposium on Avian First technical meeting of Task Force at
of month Influenza, Cambridge, UK UNEP, Nairobi
May Decreased frequency of outbreaks in Europe, Publication of EFSA Risk Assessment
Middle East, and Africa OIE/FAO conference Rome
Further cases reported near Lake Qinghai,
China
June Small number of cases in Hungary, Spain,
and Ukraine
July Small number of cases in Pakistan and
Russia
OctoberNovember Outbreaks in Romania and Croatia EFSA publish supplement to Risk
Assessment
2007 January: new outbreaks in China, Egypt,
January Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, South Korea,
Thailand, and Vietnam
JanuaryMay: outbreaks in 23 European
countries including Turkey and European
Russia
JanuaryJune: Outbreaks in poultry in Ghana
and Togo and Kuwait, and in captive
falcons and poultry in Saudi Arabia
February Mass mortality of swans in Iran Concern as to potential infection of cats in
outbreak areas
April First outbreak in poultry in Bangladesh First experimental evidence published
demonstrating asymptomatic shedding in
wild waterbirds22
May Wild bird outbreaks at several locations in

Qinghai, China
Spread of virus in Bangladesh
June Wild bird outbreaks in Germany, France, and Second technical meeting of Task Force at
Czech Republic, with concurrent Aviemore, Scotland. Theme: Lessons
outbreaks in poultry in Germany and learnt
Czech Republic
November Ramsar workshop on wetlands and human
health, Changwon, South Korea
December By the end of 2007 HPAI H5N1 was
considered endemic in poultry in Egypt,
Indonesia and Nigeria and possibly
endemic in Bangladesh and China
2008 December 2007January 2008: Bangladesh, Experimental asymptomatic shedding Agreement of draft HPAI Resolution by 14th
January Benin, China, Egypt, Germany, India, demonstrated for some geese and swans23 meeting of Ramsars STRP
Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Poland, Ramsar Asia Regional Preparatory
Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and Vietnam Meeting for CoP10 in Thailand, organises
confirmed new HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in a plenary session on avian influenza,
poultry, including chickens, turkeys, wetlands, and waterbirds
geese, and ducks, other than a few cases in
wild birds in China, Poland, and the UK
February Ramsar Standing Committee 36 agrees draft
HPAI Resolution to go to CoP10
March Research shows ducks in rice paddies, rather Agreement of draft HPAI Resolution by
than chickens, are major factor behind eight meeting of AEWAs Technical
outbreaks in Thailand and Vietnam and Committee
outbreak persistence in Cambodia and Lao
PDR24
(Continued on next page)
213
TABLE 1. Time line of events and responses to the spread of HPAI H5N1, 1996April 2010 (Continued)
214
August New strain HPAI H5N1 (clade 2, EMA3)
detected for the first time in Africa
(Nigeria)
September AEWA MoP4, Antananarivo, Madagascar
OctoberNovember agrees Resolution 4.15 (September);
Ramsar CoP10, Changwon, S. Korea
agrees Resolution X.21 (October);
Proposal for draft Resolution at 15th
meeting of CMS Scientific Council; CMS
CoP9, Rome, Italy agrees Resolution 9.8
(November)
2009 Three further cases of human mortality from
February HPAI H5N1 in Vietnam
Four wild bird species found dead with
HPAI H5N1 in Hong Kong
April 7th International Symposium on Avian
Influenza. Athens, Georgia, USA
May 283 wild birds (species not reported) found
dead in Qinghai Province, China
September Extensive Chinese study showing high levels
of HPAI prevalence in wild birds,
contrasting with previous surveillance in
other countries25
December Outbreaks in poultry in Cambodia and
Indonesia one wild bird case in Hong
Kong
2010 Outbreaks in poultry in Egypt, Israel,

January Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam
March Cases reported backyard poultry in Romania Third technical meeting of Task Force at
and in a wild buzzard Buteobuteo in FAO, Rome, Italy
Bulgaria
April Outbreaks along East Asian flyway shown to
relate to latitude and poultry density but
not to migration corridors or wetland
habitats used by migratory waterbirds,
with a temporal mismatch also between
timing of reported outbreaks and wild
duck movements26
19T. M. Ellis et al., Investigation of Outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Avian Influenza in Waterfowl and Wild Birds in Hong Kong in Late 2002, 33 AVIAN PATHOLOGY 492
(2004).
20J. Liu et al., Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus Infection in Migratory Birds, 309 SCI. 1206 (2005).
21U. W Hesterberg et al., Avian Influenza Surveillance in Wild Birds in the European Union in 2006, 3 INFLUENZA AND OTHER RESPIRATORY VIRUSES 1 (2009).
22J. Keawcharoen et al., Wild Ducks as Long-Distance Vectors of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus (H5N1), 14 EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES 600 (2008).
23J. D. Brown et al., Experimental Infection of Swans and Geese with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus (H5N1) of Asian Lineage, 14 EMERGING INFECTIOUSDISEASES136
(2008).
24M. Gilbert et al., Mapping H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Risk in Southeast Asia, 105 PNAS4769 (2008).
25Zheng Kou et al., The Survey of H5N1 Flu Virus in Wild Birds in 14 Provinces of China from 2004 to 2007, PLOS ONE (9 Sept. 2009), http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi
percent2F10.1371 percent2Fjournal.pone.0006926
26J. Y. Takekawa et al., Migration of Waterfowl in the East Asian Flyway and Spatial Relationship to HPAI H5N1 Outbreaks, 54 AVIAN DISEASES 466 (2010).
215
216 CROMIE ET AL.
3. EVENTS IN 2005 AND MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL

AGREEMENTS (MEAS) RESPONSES
Although HPAI H5N1 had been circulating, causing major economic impact
in east Asia in 2003 and 2004,27 significant coordinated attention from inter-
national wildlife conventions was developed only after the major wild bird
outbreak at Lake Qinghai in 2005 and the spread of the disease westward
across Asia during the northern summer and into eastern Europe during the
northern autumn of 2005.
Early consideration of the issues by the fourth meeting of the Technical
Committee (TC) of the Agreement on the conservation of African-Eurasian
migratory waterbirds (AEWA) in March 2004 concluded, somewhat dismis-
sively, that it is well known that most waterbirds species are carrying viruses.
However these viruses are not detrimental for them. The main problem is cur-
rent husbandry, trading of birds, etc. Therefore, the TC did not see any added
value to be involved in this issue.28
However, following a presentation by Wetlands International to the 13th
meeting of the Scientific Council of the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS) a few days later, a more informed discussion ensued, noting that
migratory birds were increasingly being identified as vectors of the disease
but that there was little evidence to this effect. There had been demands in
the countries affected, where large numbers of poultry were infected with
the disease, to start the culling of migratory birds.29 Wetlands International
noted that they had been in contact with WHO and the Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO) (the main UN agencies then dealing with the issue) to
advise that large-scale culling would not be an effective solution, even if [wild
birds] did indeed prove to be the vectors.30 They noted that FAO (with the
World Organization for Animal HealthOIE) had confirmed this position at an
27
See UNEP/CBD, Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 2031 March 2006, Report of the Meeting on the Impact of Avian
Influenza on Wildlife: Note by the Executive Secretary, 1, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/INF/47
(22 Mar. 2006), available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/information/cop-08-inf-47-
en.pdf (noting that by November 2005, i.e., before widespread occurrence in western Eurasia and Africa,
over 200 million domestic birds had died from the disease or been slaughtered in attempts to control its
spread; and the economies of the worst affected countries in southeast Asia had lost revenue estimated
at over US $10 billion. The following year, WHO and FAO reported impacts on 300 million farmers and
losses of US$11.4 billion.) (internal citations omitted) [hereinafter UNEP/CBD, Report of the Meeting
on the Impact of Avian Influenza on Wildlife: Note by the Executive Secretary].
28
AEWA Technical Committee, 5th Meeting of the Technical Committee, North Berwick, Scot.,
30 Mar.2 Apr. 2004, Final Minutes, 155157 (2004), available at http://www.unep-
aewa.org/meetings/en/tc meetings/tc5docs/pdf/final minutes of tc5.pdf
29
CMS Scientific Council, 12th Meeting of the Scientific Council, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 31 Mar.4,
Apr. 2004, Report of the 12th Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council, 107112, available at
http://www.cms.int/pdf/en/scc/ScC report 12.pdf
30
Id.
emergency regional meeting on avian influenza in February 2004 in Bangkok.31

It was noted also that it was important for CMS, as an international convention
of national parties, rather than a UN agency or other international NGO, to
engage with this issue in order to communicate key messages formally to the
countries concerned.
There was little MEA activity for the rest of 2004; however, the ma-
jor outbreaks in China, Mongolia, and Russia in the northern summer of
2005 coincided with the preparations for the meetings and conferences of
the contracting parties of AEWA (2327 October, Senegal), of Ramsar (815
November, Uganda), and of CMS (2025 November, Kenya).
The issue was first picked up at the Meeting to Conclude and Endorse
the Proposed Central Asian Flyway Action Plan to Conserve Migratory Wa-
terbirds and their Habitats, New Delhi, India (1012 June 2005), which called
for the need to [m]onitor disease occurrence in wild waterbirds and, using a
multi-disciplinary approach, assess disease risk and implications for human
health, in relation to poultry husbandry and trade practices, trade in wild
waterbirds and migratory waterbird movements.32
While at the time the media were strongly implicating wild birds as the
principal vector of the viral spread westwards, to ornithologists this seemed
highly unlikely to be the whole story, because the timing and pattern of spread
did not correspond to the migratory movements of any known waterbird and
because the spread was occurring in the summer period when migration does
not occur.33
A Scientific Task Force on Avian Influenza and Wild Birds was con-
vened, initially by CMS and AEWA, in August 2005, to provide a liaison
mechanism between the conservation MEAs and other relevant international
31
See WHO, Geographical Spread of H5N1 Avian Influenza in BirdsUpdate 28, WHO. INT (18 Aug. 2005),
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2005 08 18/en/index.html. (noting the FAO/OIE position that [w]ild birds
should not be depopulated in an attempt to control avian influenza but separation, as much as possible
should be attempted was established in 2004 and subsequently endorsed by the WHO in a position
statement).
32
CMS, Meeting to Conclude and Endorse the Proposed Central Asian Flyway Action Plan to Con-
serve Migratory Waterbirds and Their Habitats, Report of the Meeting to Conclude and Endorse the
Proposed Central Asian Flyway Action Plan to Conserve Migratory Waterbirds and Their Habitats,
New Delhi, India, 1012 June 2005, 40(f), available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/meetings/regional/
caf/pdf/report/Report CAF Meeting 10 to 12 June 2005 with annexes.pdf (Jan. 24, 2006).
33
C. J. Feare & M. Yasue, Asymptomatic Infection with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 in Wild
Birds: How Sound Is the Evidence?, 3 VIROLOGY J. 96 (2006); C. J. Feare, Role of Wild Birds in the
Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus H5N1 and Implications for Global Surveillance,
54 AVIAN DISEASES 201, 20112 (2010); C. J. Feare, The Role of Wild Birds in the Spread of HPAI
H5N1, 51 AVIAN DISEASES 440, 44146 (2007); M. Gauthier-Clerc et al., Review: Recent Expansion of
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1: A Critical Review, 149 INTL J. AVIAN SCI. 202, 20214 (2007),
available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00699.x/full; M. Yasue et al.,
The Epidemiology of H5N1 Avian Influenza in Wild Birds: Why We Need Better Ecological Data, 56
BIOSCIENCE 923, 92326 (2006).
218 CROMIE ET AL.
organizations.34 A member of Ramsars Scientific and Technical Review Panel

(STRP) represented the Ramsar Convention.
Through the Task Force, a small group liaised informally to ensure the
issue was discussed at the forthcoming MEA meetings, seeking the conclusion
of formal Resolutions on the issue.
It was agreed that, ideally, such Resolutions should include elements
related to:
1. Culling: formal endorsement of the WHO, FAO, and OIE position35
that widespread culling of wild birds was an inappropriate response
strategy to cases of HPAI H5N1 infection;
2. Biosecurity: that separation of wild birds and domestic poultry should

be central to the control of HPAI H5N1; and
3. Vectors: that wild birds were just one of a number of possible vectors
for disease spread, and that a polarised debate as to whether either
wild birds or poultry trade were the single cause of HPAI H5N1
spread was unhelpful to both understanding and responding to the
issues posed by the spread of the virus.
3.1 AEWA MoP3

AEWAs third Meeting of Parties (MoP3) was held at Dakar, Senegal, in
October 2005. Although a draft Resolution on HPAI H5N1 issues was not
on the MoP agenda, the issue had been highlighted by many of the opening
high-level statements. The meeting subsequently agreed36 that it was important
that the issue was formally considered. The MoP established a working group
lead by the UK, to develop a draft, which was subsequently endorsed by the
34
Task Force members: AEWA, Birdlife International, the CBD, the International Council for Game
and Wildlife Conservation, CMS, FAO, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Ramsar
Convention, Wetlands International, Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, and
the Zoological Society of London. Task Force observers: OIE, UNEP, and WHO.
35
WHO, supra note 3.
36
Following a presentation by Wetlands International to the MoP plenary:
The UK, on behalf of the EU Member States present, considered it would be useful
for the MOP to reflect on the points contained in the presentation and to set out
the role of AEWA in a draft Resolution. . . . The Chair [of the MoP] requested the
MOP3 Sessional Committee on Scientific and Technical Matters to take up the UKs
proposal and to prepare a draft Resolution.
UNEP/AEWA, Third Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of
African Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, Dakar, Sen., 2327 Oct., 2005, Report of the Third Session
of the Meeting of the Parties MOP3, 106, 110, http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop3
docs/final docs pdf/report mop3 eng final.pdf
TABLE 2. Formal MEA Resolutions concerning HPAI H5N1 in wild birds (20052008)
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

2005 Resolution IX.23. Highly pathogenic avian influenza
and its consequences for wetland and waterbird
conservation and wise use
2008 Resolution X.21. Guidance on responding to the
continued spread of highly pathogenic avian
influenza H5N1
Convention on Migratory Species
2005 Resolution 8.27. Migratory Species and Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza
2008 Resolution 9.8. Responding to the challenge of
emerging and re-emerging diseases in migratory
species, including Highly Pathogenic Avian

Influenza H5N1
Africa-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement
2005 Resolution 3.18. Avian Influenza
2008 Resolution 4.15. Responding to the spread of Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1
Convention on Biological Diversity
2006 Decision VIII/32. Potential impact on avian influenza
on biodiversity
meeting (Table 2). Table 3 gives the Resolution text with respect to the three
issues outlined above.
The AEWA Resolution was valuable in providing endorsement on these
issues from the 54 contracting parties (signatory nations) in Africa and Eurasia.
It was then important to get similar endorsement from the subsequent CoPs
of Ramsar and CMS with their global remits.
3.2 Ramsar CoP9

Some did not consider the issue of a disease created by the poultry industry
as central to Ramsars concerns,37 perhaps in contrast to AEWA where the
issues raised clearly reflected the Agreements core business. Discussions with
national delegations were held in advance of Ramsar CoP9 to build support
for the tabling of an emergency draft Resolution. In this process, many of the
national delegates present at AEWA MoP3 and who also represented their
countries at CoP9 were particularly helpful.38 An initial draft was developed
by an informal group led by the UK and based on the AEWA Resolution,
37
Why is a wetland convention concerned with a chicken disease? was a comment of one of the national
delegates to DAS at Ramsar CoP9.
38
In this respect, Nigeria, Switzerland, and the UK deserve particular note.
220
TABLE 3. Comparison of core elements of Resolutions on HPAI H5N1 adopted by AEWA, Ramsar, and CMS in 2005
AEWA MoP3 Ramsar CoP 9 CMS CoP8

Culling Strongly supports the conclusions of WHO, SUPPORTS the conclusions of WHO, FAO, and Supports the conclusions of WHO, FAO, and OIE
FAO, and OIE that attempts to eliminate OIE that attempts to eliminate HPAI in wild that attempts to eliminate HPAI in wild bird
HPAI in wild bird populations through lethal bird populations through lethal responses such populations through lethal responses such as
responses such as culling is not feasible and as culling are not feasible and may exacerbate culling are not feasible and may exacerbate the
should not be attempted, not least since it the problem by causing further dispersion of problem by causing further dispersion of
may exacerbate the problem by causing infected birds; infected birds;
further dispersion of infected birds; EMPHASISES that destruction or substantive Emphasises that destruction or substantive
modification of wetland habitats with the modification of wetland and other habitats with
objective of reducing contact between the objective of reducing contact between
domesticated and wild birds does not amount domesticated and wild birds does not amount to
to wise use as urged by Article 3.1 of the wise use as urged by Article 3.1 of the Ramsar
Convention, and also may exacerbate the Convention and Articles 1 and 8 of the
problem by causing further dispersion of Convention on Biological Diversity, and may
infected birds;39 exacerbate the problem by causing further
dispersion of infected birds;
Biosecurity Recalling also that the outbreak of H7N7 in NOTES the essential need for adequate Notes the overriding importance of enhanced
The Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany standards for farming and aquaculture, and the biosecurity measures, including adequate
was successfully stamped out in 2003 using need to develop strategies that limit the risk of farming and aquaculture standards, and the need
rigorous control and biosecurity measures, disease transmission between wild and for competent authorities to develop strategies
and further welcomes biosecurity measures domestic birds through enhanced biosecurity; that limit the risk of disease transmission
being taken in the European Union in between wild and domestic animals (through
response to the most recent outbreaks, enhanced biosecurity measures) and humans;
Comparison of core elements of Resolutions on HPAI H5N1 adopted by AEWA, Ramsar, and CMS in 2005 (Continued)
Vectors Noting also that the HPAI is considered to Noting that HPAI is considered to have been Noting that HPAI is considered to have been
have been spread between countries through spread between countries by a number of spread between countries by a number of
a number of different vectors including different vectors, including through the different known vectors, including through the
through the movement of poultry, other movement of poultry, other avian livestock and movement of avian livestock, cage birds and bird
avian livestock and cage birds and cage birds and associated activities to service by-products, legal and illegal trade in birds,
associated activities to service the respective the respective industries, and through both the equipment associated with these respective
industries; through both the legal and illegal legal and illegal trade in birds, and through industries, and movement of people, and noting
trade in birds; movements of people; and migrating waterbirds, and AWARE that the that the migration of waterbirds has been
through the migration of waterbirds, relative significance of these different modes of suspected to be a vector as well, although direct
although aware that the relative significance spread have varied and that evidence of causal evidence is lacking and aware that the relative
of these means of spread varies spatially and links in many cases is weak or lacking,40 significance of these different modes of spread
temporally, has varied and evidence of causal links in many
cases is weak or lacking,
39Since the AEWA Resolution, cases of wetland destruction to avoid waterbirds coming close to settlements and/or poultry farms had been reported. Ruth Cromie, Rebecca
Lee, and David Stroud, A Review of the Conservation Impacts of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1: 20052010 (draft).
40Ramsars addition of text relating to the lack of evidence of causality was a useful addition to the AEWA text.
221
222 CROMIE ET AL.
globalizing some of the text and strongly emphasising the linkage between
HPAI H5N1 and Ramsars wetland wise-use mission.
The Rules of Procedure for Ramsar CoPs require draft Resolutions
to be circulated to all parties three months prior to the CoP.41 However, in
extraordinary circumstances additional agenda items may be considered.42
At its 32nd meeting, on 7 November 2005, immediately prior to CoP9,
the Ramsar Standing Committee considered the need for a draft Resolution on
the matter, noting strong support as well as some concerns as to whether the
matter fell within the Conventions mandate. The Committee requested that
any draft Resolution text developed should follow further informal discussions
among parties and organizations also be submitted for consideration by the
CoP9 Conference Committee.43, The informal draft Resolution, which by
then had already been subject to considerable development by a number of

delegations, was submitted to the Conference Committee for potential addition
to the formal agenda. After some further discussion as whether the issue fell
within Ramsars mandate, the Committee approved45 this draft for formal
submission to the CoP.46 The Resolution was adopted by the 146 contracting
41
Rule 10 states that:
The documents for each ordinary meeting, as per Rule 54, shall be distributed in the
official languages by the Secretariat to the Parties at least three months before the
opening of the meeting.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the
Convention on Wetlands, Changwon, S. Korea, 29 Oct.4 Nov. 2008, Rules of Procedure for the Meetings
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially
as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, Iran 1971) (2009), available at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-
documents-rules/main/ramsar/1-31-114 4000 0 [hereinafter Ramsar, Rules of Procedure].
42
Standing Committee Decision SC329:
The Standing Committee urged the Parties to consult with their capitals if necessary
on the general question of a COP Resolution on the avian flu and migratory waterbirds
issue, and at the same time informal discussions can begin among interested Parties
and organizations on the form that such a DR might take. Any draft text that could
emerge from those discussions will be considered by the Conference Committee for
possible presentation for the COPs consideration.
Ramsar Standing Committee, 32nd Meeting of the Ramsar Standing Committee, Kampala, Uganda,
7 Nov. 2005, Report of the 32nd Meeting, 40, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/sc/32/key
sc32 report.pdf
43
The name of the Standing Committee of the Convention during the Conference of the Parties.
45
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, The 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands, Kampala, Uganda, 815 Nov. 2005, Report of the Meeting, 298302,(23
Dec. 2005), available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/cop9/cop9 conf rpt e.pdf
46
It is believed that this was the first instance a Ramsar Conference Committee formally transmitting a
complete Draft Resolution on a new urgent and important issue to a Ramsar CoP.
parties, with a few minor changes, on 15 November 2005.47 With respect to

the three issues noted above, Ramsar parties slightly modified the text agreed
by AEWA as indicated in Table 3.
The Ramsar CoP9 Resolution also requested the Secretariat working
with the STRP48 to assist, with relevant international agencies and the Task
Force on Avian Influenza, in sharing information, including practical advice
that will assist countries to respond to this serious and rapidly developing
situation, and to report back on progress to the Standing Committee and to
CoP10.49
The STRPs response to this request is further described below.
3.3 CMS CoP8
A similar course of events followed at CMS CoP8, which was held in Nairobi
immediately following Ramsars CoP in Kampala. Switzerland, which had
been closely involved with the development of the AEWA and Ramsar Reso-
lutions, introduced a proposal for a HPAI H5N1 Resolution, noting the prior
discussion of the issues at the 12th meeting of the Scientific Council the
previous year. There had been further endorsement of the need for a Resolu-
tion by the 13th Scientific Council meeting immediately prior to CoP8,50 and,
accordingly, France and Switzerland formally sponsored a draft. Following
procedural consideration by CMSs Committee of the Whole, the final Reso-
lution was adopted on 25 November 2005.51 Table 3 gives CMSs conclusions
on the three core issues.
While the three HPAI H5N1 Resolutions (Tables 2 and 3) from 2005
overlapped in content to some extent, the involvement of many of the same
national delegates in the drafting process (from the UK, Nigeria, and Switzer-
land in particular), together with Wetlands International, ensured that there
was significant reinforcement of the key messages between each one. Ram-
sars Resolution IX.23 was of particular note, being agreed by 146 countries
(cf. 93 at CMS CoP8 and 54 at AEWA MoP3). This total included both Russia
and China, neither of which are AEWA or CMS contracting parties.
47
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands, Kampala, Uganda, 815 Nov. 2005, Res. IX.23: Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza and Its Consequences for Wetland and Waterbird Conservation and Wise Use, available at
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key res ix 23 e.pdf [hereinafter Ramsar, Res. IX.23].
48
The Conventions Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP).
49
Ramsar Res. IX.23, supra note 45.
50
CMS, 13th Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council, Nairobi, Kenya, 1618 Nov. 2005, Report of the
Thirteenth Meeting of the Scientific Council of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals, 10611, available at http://www.cms.int/pdf/en/scc/ScC report 13.pdf
51
CMS, Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Nairobi, Kenya, 2025 Nov. 2005, Re-
port of the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conserva-
tion of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Annex X, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CMS/COP8/Report/Rev.1
(May 16, 2007), available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop8/COP8meeting report docs/ COP
8 REPORT with annexes Revised.pdf
224 CROMIE ET AL.
The slight nuances in messages between the three 2005 Resolutions

(Table 3) are perhaps not surprising given the different mandates of the three
MEAs concerned. As might have been expected, the AEWA and CMS Res-
olutions have a species-orientation in contrast to Ramsars greater focus on
concerns related to wetland habitats and their management.
3.4 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CoP8

HPAI H5N1 issues were briefly discussed at CBDs eighth CoP in Brazil in
March 2006. A brainstorming meeting on the impact of HPAI on wildlife
was held on 19 March, immediately prior to the CoP, and preceded by an
electronic discussion gathering wider inputs. Several Task Force participants
attended the meeting, and the outcome and conclusions were presented in an
Information Paper52 to the subsequent CoP. Although the conclusions from
the meeting made a number of valuable points and there was a detailed report
back to the CoP plenary53 by the Chair of its Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), the resulting CoP Decision54
was disappointingly weak, merely stating that it:
1. Takes note of the report of brainstorming meeting on the potential

impact of avian influenza on wildlife, held in Curitiba, Brazil, on 19
March 2006 (UNEP/CBD/COP/8/INF/47);
2. Invites Parties, through the Bureau, to request the Executive Secretary
to initiate similar consultations as and when there arise emerging
issues that may impact upon the implementation of the Convention.
The Chair of CBD CoP8 noted that [t]he ability of the Convention to
adapt to new challenges, such as the threat posed by avian influenza, showed
that it was flexible enough to adapt to circumstances. However, CBD en-
gagement with HPAI issues has been significantly less than other biodiversity
MEAs, and following CoP8, there has been no significant discussion of issues
by parties (see Section 8 below concerning CBDs procedure for addressing
emerging issues).
52
UNEP/CBD, Report of the Meeting on the Impact of Avian Influenza on Wildlife: Note by the Executive
Secretary, supra note 27.
53
See UNEP/CBD, Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 2031 Mar. 2006, Report of the Eighth Meeting of the Contracting
Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 7075, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/31 (June
15, 2006), available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/official/cop-0831-en.pdf
54
UNEP/CBD, Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 2031 Mar. 2006, Dec. VIII/32: Potential Impact of Avian
Influenza on Biodiversity, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VIII/32 (June 15, 2006), available at
http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-08/cop-08-dec-32-en.pdf
4. EVENTS IN 20062007
Early 2006 saw outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 across Europe together with its
spread into North and West Africa and the Middle East (Table 1). In terms
of international responses, other activities, notably risk assessment in the EU
and technical meetings of the Task Force, were significant. These responses
helped develop an understanding that was to be reflected in debates during
the subsequent round of MEA conferences in 2008.
4.1 EU Risk Assessment

In October 2005, the European Commission requested the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) to advise them on the risk that HPAI H5N1 would
reach the EU.55 EFSAs Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare estab-
lished a Working Group, which first met in November and published its final
assessment in May 2006.
The report56 summarized current knowledge of the virus in terms of
four themes: risk pathways, pathogenesis in wild birds, information about
poultry husbandry and production regimes both outside and inside the EU,
and the environmental stability of, and diagnostic methods for HPAI H5N1.
The Working Group also developed, from the basis of waterbird ecology,
knowledge of the infection dynamics of LPAI viruses, and what little was
then known about the epidemiology of HPAI H5N1, a list of migratory bird
species that were considered to be of higher risk of being exposed to and
maintaining HPAI H5N1 and so potentially transmitting HPAI H5N1 to do-
mestic poultry within the EU. This list of higher risk species was adopted by
55
Specifically,
1. the risk posed by wild birds and particularly migratory birds in the spread of
the Asian lineage H5N1 HPAI virus strain;
2. the risk that populations of wild birds will become a reservoir of the Asian
lineage H5N1 HPAI virus; and
3. taking into account the response to points 1 and 2, the risk that the virus may
pose for entry, exposure, contamination, transmission, and spread to birds and
poultry on the EU territory due to migratory birds flying along the different
migratory pathways crossing the territory.
D.U. Pfeiffer et al., Specific Statement on Migratory Birds and Their Possible Role in the Spread of Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza, EUR. FOOD SAFETY AUTH. J. 4 Apr. 2006, at 4, EFSA-Q-2005243, available
at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/357a.pdf
56
Id. at 130.
226 CROMIE ET AL.
the European Commission57 as the basis of targeted programs of surveillance

on avian influenza in wild birds by EU Member States.
4.2 Task Force Technical Meetings
The Task Force organized a first technical meeting in April 2006 at UNEPs
headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, bringing together representatives of member
organizations together with leading AI researchers, several of which were also
members of EFSAs HPAI H5N1 Working Group. The conclusions58 of that
meeting recommended a series of policy and research needs.
A second technical meeting was convened in June 2007 in Aviemore,
Scotland and was attended by 39 participants from 19 countries, representing
a large number of different national and international organizations. This

meeting focused on assessing practical lessons learned from then nearly
two years of outbreaks in wild birds in western Eurasia and Africa. The
conclusions and recommendations59 addressed issues of surveillance and early
warning systems, epidemiology and outbreak investigation, communication,
education and public awareness, research and data needs, and financing.
5. COPS&MOPS IN 2008
5.1 Ramsar CoP10
The theme of Ramsars CoP10, Healthy Wetlands, Healthy People, was
chosen to highlight the value of the ecosystem services that wetlands provide
to human communities worldwide.
In preparation for CoP10, the Republic of Korea hosted a four-day
STRP workshop on the conference theme from 1113 November 2007.60 This
allowed review of the current situation with respect to HPAI H5N1 outbreaks
and assessment of the Conventions past and current responses. The workshop
identified the need for guidance for wetland site managers in order to develop
appropriate responses to HPAI H5N1, including risk assessment and reduc-
tion. It also reflected on the request by CoP9 for further guidance on the issue
57
Commission Decision 2007/268/EC of 13 April 2007 on the Implementation of Surveillance Pro-
grammes for Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds to Be Carried Out in the Member
States and Amending Decision 2004/450/EC, 2007 O.J. (L 115) 3, 9, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:115:0003:0017:EN:PDF
58
CMS/UNEP /AEWA, Scientific Seminar on Avian Influenza, the Environment and Migra-
tory Birds, Nairobi, Kenya, 1011 Apr. 2006, Conclusions and Recommendations, available at
http://www.aiweb.info/documents/nairobi conclusions recommendations.pdf
59
UNEP/CMS, Conclusions and Recommendations, in AVIAN INFLUENZA & WILDLIFE WORKSHOP ON PRAC-
TICAL LESSONS LEARNED: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC TASK FORCE ON
AVIAN INFLUENZA & WILD BIRDS 52 (Robert Vagg ed., 2007).
60
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 36th Meeting of the Standing Committee, Gland, Switzer-
land, 2729 Feb., Wetlands and Human Health, 1, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/sc/
36/key sc36 doc09.pdf
FIGURE 1. Guide to Guidance Matrix Used in the Annex to Ramsar Resolution X.21
but concluded that since 2005, there had actually been a wide range of guid-
ance published by a range of relevant national and international organizations.
What would be more valuable would be a guide to guidance61 (i.e., a means
by which concerned parties could rapidly identify key guidance documents
appropriate to specific needs). In addition, the Asia Ramsar Regional Meet-
ing, 1418 January 2008, Thailand, had a plenary session on avian influenza,
wetlands, and waterbirds that provided an opportunity for contracting parties
to get an overview of the developments of the disease issues and relevance to
the Ramsar Convention and build their support for the CoP10 Resolution.62
A guide to guidance was developed (Figure 1) which placed key
sources of information in a matrix of activities and national risk states. The
61
The guide to guidance concept has since become increasingly important in guiding the shape and
content of STRPs guidance documents. There is much relevant information in the worldoften what
decision-makers need is a ready way to access existing sources of good guidance rather than novel work.
62
Ramsar Asia Regional Preparatory Meeting for COP10, Bangkok, Thailand, 1418 Jan. 2008, Meeting
Report, 1113, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/mtg/mtg reg asia2008 report.pdf
228 CROMIE ET AL.
resulting matrix provides an innovative index or means of organizing the

ever-growing body of guidance related to HPAI H5N1.
Further significant elements of the guidance package were:
1. Guidelines for reducing avian influenza risks at Ramsar sites and

other wetlands of importance to waterbirds drawn in large part from
a draft text presented to the second Task Force meeting in 200763 and
produced under the framework of the UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane
Wetlands Project in response to international concern over the threat
that HPAI H5N1 posed to waterbird populations, including globally
threatened species such as the Siberian Crane Grusleucogeranus.
That guidance was reviewed and subsequently revised by STRP to
provide guidance more broadly applicable to a range of wetlands,

including Ramsar sites, individual wetlands, and wetland systems
of importance to waterbirds, and to aquatic protected areas more
generally.
2. Recommendations on ornithological information to be collected dur-
ing surveillance programmes or field assessment of wild bird mortal-
ity events, especially at wetlands, drawn from guidance adopted by
the EU in 2007.64
3. Guidance on good practice for facilitating communication between
specialist ornithologists and veterinary authorities, so-called Or-
nithological Expert Panels.65
5.2 AEWA MoP4, Ramsar CoP10, and CMS CoP9
The triennial round of MEA conferences in 2008 commenced with AEWA
(1519 September, Madagascar), followed by Ramsar (28 October4 Novem-
ber, Republic of Korea), and then CMS (15 December, Italy). Draft Resolu-
tions for AEWA and Ramsar had already been prepared by members of the
Task Force and tabled through normal processes.
The proposed draft Resolution for AEWA appended the conclu-
sions and recommendations of the second technical meeting of the Task
Force, providing further international endorsement for a substantive body of
63
Crawford Prentice, Draft Guidelines for Reducing Avian Influenza Risks at Wetland Protected Areas
of International Importance for Migratory Waterbirds, in AVIAN INFLUENZA & WILDLIFE WORKSHOP ON
PRACTICAL LESSONS LEARNED: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC TASK FORCE
ON AVIAN INFLUENZA & WILD BIRDS 47 (Robert Vagg ed., 2007).
64
Commission Guidelines on the Implementation of Survey Programmes for Avian Influenza in Poultry
and Wild Birds to Be Carried Out in the Member States in 2007, SANCO/10268/2006 Rev. 5 work-
ing doc. (16 May 2006), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/controlmeasures/avian/
surveillance4 en.pdf [hereinafter Commission Guidelines].
65
Drawn largely from experience in the UK of RLC, CAG, RL, and DAS.
guidance. The content of the Resolution had been discussed by AEWAs

Technical Committee66 and was adopted by MoP4 without significant debate.
A major (62-page) draft Ramsar Resolution had been progressively
developed since the November Korean workshop and was initially presented
to STRP at its 14th meeting (28 January1 February 2008). Subsequently,
Ramsars Standing Committee approved the draft for transmission to the CoP
at its 36th meeting (2529 February).
At CoP10, in anticipation of significant interest in the subject area, and
especially given the long length and technical complexity of the draft Reso-
lution, STRP convened a special briefing session to introduce the document.
This informal side-event was well attended by interested parties and was
valuable inasmuch as there were only minor comments of detail when the draft
was subsequently debated in plenary. On 3 November 2008, 158 contracting
parties adopted Resolution X.21.
CMS has a flexible arrangement for the development of draft Resolu-
tions such that its Scientific Council, meeting immediately prior to each CoP,
may recommend the development of Resolutions on particular issues. This
flexibility is valuable and is a core part of the workings of the Convention.
At its 15th meeting,67 the Scientific Council recommended that CMS CoP9
further develop the existing draft Resolution on HPAI, in particular, reflect-
ing not just on HPAI H5N1 but also on the wider and developing issue of
other emerging wildlife diseases,68 an issue of growing significance for the
Convention (Figure 2).
The final Resolution adopted by CMS CoP9 (Table 2) called for the
establishment of a separate Wildlife Disease Task Force to be jointly convened
with FAO, and subsuming the CMS Diseases Working Group that had been
established by the Scientific Council in 2004. The Wildlife Disease Task
Force will work alongside the Scientific Task Force on avian influenza and
wild birds.
66
AEWA Technical Committee, Eight Meeting of the Technical Committee, Bonn, Germany, 35
Mar. 2008, Report of the 8th Meeting of the AEWA Technical Committee, 14956, avail-
able at http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/tc meetings/tc8docs/meetings docs pdf/tc8 report.pdf.
There was a significant discussion by the TC as to whether the forthcoming AEWA and Ramsar Reso-
lutions should be either identical (much as the three 2005 Resolutions largely were) or cover distinctly
separate issues. The conclusion was that While it was important that the overall messages from each
should be coherent, the different technical annexes gave an opportunity to maximise the amount of
guidance that was subject to international endorsement. This was valuable.
67
CMS, 15th Meeting of the Scientific Council, Rome, Italy, 2728 Nov. 2008, Report of the Fifteenth
Meeting of the Scientific Council of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals, 5759, available at http://www.cms.int/bodies/ScC/Reports/Eng/ScC report 15 E.pdf
68
Annual Report Surveillance for Avian Influenza in Wild Birds Carried Out by Member States
of European Commission of FebruaryDecember 2006, SANCO/10194/2007 Rev. 1, avail-
able at http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/controlmeasures/avian/annrepres surv wb 0212-
2006 en.pdf
230 CROMIE ET AL.
FIGURE 2. The increasing frequency of references to animal disease (or health) in formal
documents of CMS (including CoP Resolutions), its associated agreements, and other linked
treaties for migratory species, from 1985 to 2009 (Lee, unpublished). Data are total numbers
of formal documents containing the words disease and/or health by triennial periods.
6. MAIN THEMES ADDRESSED BY THE RESOLUTIONS

A number of particular issues were repeatedly addressed by the six resolu-
tions (Table 2), adopted in 2005 and 2008, and several of these remain in
consideration in 2010.
1. Proportionate and informed policy responses by governments. As
explored above, the major rationale for the 2005 Resolutions was to
explain and obtain formal endorsement from the international com-
munity that culling of wild birds or the destruction of their habitats
would not be an appropriate or effective policy response by govern-
ments or others.
2. The consequences of public misunderstanding of risk. The conse-
quences of the often misleading and hysterical media reporting of the
risk that wild birds might infect human populations with HPAI H5N1
in 2005 and 2006 are reported elsewhere.69 In many countries, which
had HPAI H5N1 outbreaks, media confused issues of the virus in wild
birds with those associated with human pandemic influenza. This re-
sulted in wide public misunderstanding of the issues, and a range
of related consequences as explored by Cromie et al. Some populist
69
Cromie, Lee, & Stroud, supra note 48.
media seemed content with sensationalist and inaccurate reporting re-

sulting in public pressure for inappropriate culls of wild birds and/or
for destruction of their wetland habitats. Providing guidance on how
best to technically brief journalists was a particular focus of the sec-
ond Task Force meeting in 2007 and addressing that issue has been
central to seeking a more balanced and accurate understanding of the
risks by both the public and by decision-makers.
3. Identification of wild bird species at outbreaks. The accurate identi-
fication and reporting of wild bird species involved in HPAI H5N1
outbreaks is essential for an understanding of the epidemiology of the
virus, that is, the likelihood of viral transmission and spread. Different
waterbird species have different ecology, occur at different densities,

undertake differing migrations, and show different likelihoods of
exchanging viruses with domestic poultry. However, accurate identi-
fication of birds involved in outbreaks has been grossly inadequate.
Lee (2007)70 reported to the second Task Force technical meeting that
species information was lacking and quality of data was degraded or
lost through the international reporting system (Figure 3). Obviously
understanding viral dynamics is hugely constrained, if not made im-
possible, if the host or victim of the disease cannot be identified
beyond duck or even wild bird.
4. Identification of wild bird species within surveillance programs.
Somewhat more surprisingly, lack of identification to species level
has also been a major issue in national AI surveillance programmes.
In 2006, EU surveillance overall failed to identify 22,223 birds (>18
percent or almost one in five of all birds sampled).71 This represents a
huge waste of expensively gathered information and it was surprising
that some disease control authorities saw such little need to accurately
identify the host species sampled for avian influenza viruses. To as-
sist, practical guidance on bird identification, including guidance on
necessary photographs to be taken if identification is not possible in
the field, was developed, first for the EU72 and with its subsequent
incorporation in the Annex of Ramsars Resolution X.21.
5. Lack of communication and integration between veterinary author-
ities and ornithological experts. Both of the two issues above were
70
Rebecca Lee, The Quality of Ornithological Data Reported to the World Organisation for Animal Health
between May 2005 and May 2007, in AVIAN INFLUENZA & WILDLIFE WORKSHOP ON PRACTICAL LESSONS
LEARNED: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC TASK FORCE ON AVIAN INFLUENZA
& WILD BIRDS 44 (Robert Vagg ed., 2007).
71
Id.
72
See Commission Guidelines, supra note 64.
232 CROMIE ET AL.
FIGURE 3. Poor quality international reporting of species of wild birds involved in HPAI H5N1
outbreaks.73 (a) Poor and declining identification to species of wild birds; global data from OIE
reports, May 2005September 2007. (b) Improving, and then declining, quality of wild bird species
identification in Europe; data from OIE reports, October 2005August 2007.
the direct consequence of poor73 communication, sometimes non-

existent, by veterinary authorities, responsible for national disease
surveillance and reporting, and ornithological institutions and ex-
perts, competent in the capture and identification of wild birds. The
73
Id.
need for multi-disciplinary approaches was very strongly stressed in

all six Resolutions74 and the situation has slowly improved, though
remaining problematic. However, the issue has been a significant
hindrance, over the period of the outbreaks, to understanding the epi-
demiology and spread of HPAI H5N1, with very large amounts of
data effectively valueless scientifically for want of adequate identifi-
cation of the bird species concerned. Recommendations as to practical
means of integrating ornithological advice within veterinary outbreak
assessment processes were a major element of Ramsars Resolution
X.21.
These themes characterize some of the spaces where Ramsar, CMS,
and AEWA were originally ill-prepared to deal with an emergent issue of this
nature, requiring the drafting and adoption of Resolutions, preparation of guid-
ance, and formulation of suitable policy advice where appropriate. We explore
the wider issue of MEA responses to emergent issues more generally below.
7. ENSURING SCIENCE-BASED POLICY GUIDANCE

In 2005, there was very poor understanding of the epidemiology of the virus
in wild birds. Notwithstanding media reporting that wild birds were spreading
HPAI H5N1, robust evidence to that effect was almost completely lacking,
and most studies, which purported to show this causality, were actually flawed
in crucial respects.75
Information that was lacking included the following:
1. Which species of wild bird became infected with HPAI H5N1;
2. Whether wild birds infected with HPAI H5N1 could shed virus
asymptomatically;
3. If that occurred, then the duration of that shedding period;
4. Whether wild birds showing clinical signs of infection could recover,
and
74
The first operative paragraph of Ramsars Resolution IX.23:
CALLS for fully integrated approaches, at both national and international levels,
to address HPAI by bringing ornithological, wildlife, and wetland management ex-
pertise together with those traditionally responsible for public health and zoonoses,
including veterinary, agricultural, virological, epidemiological, and medical exper-
tise.
Ramsar, Res. IX.23, supra note 45.
75
See, for example, the critical reviews of Feare &Yasue 2006 and Feare 2007, 2009, which highlight the
significant data and information deficiencies of other studies. See supra note 33.
234 CROMIE ET AL.
5. Whether infected wild birds were capable of long-distance migration,

thus potentially providing long-distance vectors of infection.
Answers to these questions were fundamental to any risk assessment, as
was highlighted by the EFSA,76 and also to the optimal design of surveillance
programmes to detect the virus in wild birds. This resulted in the first large-
scale EU supported research programmes.77 As laboratory experiments on wild
birds infected with HPAI H5N1 started to answer some of these questions,
the Task Force proved an effective means of sharing such developing under-
standing. In particular, their technical meetings proved crucial opportunities
to exchange knowledge between the research and conservation communities.
They have also ensured the adaptation of guidance and policy advice adopted
by Ramsar and the other MEAs in the light of developing understanding.

This has been particularly important to demonstrate that proposed policies are
firmly evidence-based and so cannot be dismissed as exaggerated position
taking by interest groups.
The Convention-led processes were supported by broader debate, stim-
ulating improved scientific research, and synthesis of information through
various international conferences and meetings (Table 1) on wide ranging is-
sues that brought together the scientists and representatives from agriculture,
environment, conservation NGOs, and other interested sectors.
Cooperation with the regional hunting organizations, including the Inter-
national Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) and the Federa-
tion of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the European Union
(FACE), has also provided opportunities to work with wider stakeholder
groups who share common interests in managing wild birds. Resolutions
of the CIC78 have been important in taking this forward.
The ability of organizations to develop their position in response to
the emergence of new evidence has been striking. For example, although
FAO had stressed in 2004 that control of HPAI H5N1 in wild birds was
not feasible, statements in 2005 indicated an organizational position that
considered wild birds as the sole or primary means of viral spread.79 However,
76
Pfeiffer et al., supra note 55.
77
P. ATKINSON ET AL., URGENT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF ORNITHOLOGICAL DATA RELEVANT TO THE SPREAD
OF AVIAN INFLUENZA IN EUROPE: REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 346 (Simon Delany et al.
eds., 2006), available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/birdflue/docs/
rep spread avian influenza report.pdf; JAN VEEN ET AL.,ORNITHOLOGICAL DATA RELEVANT TO THE SPREAD OF
AVIAN INFLUENZA IN EUROPE (PHASE 2): FURTHER IDENTIFICATION AND FIRST FIELD ASSESSMENT OF HIGHER RISK
SPECIES 60 (Jan Veen et al. eds., 2007), available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/
wildbirds/birdflue/docs/spread avian influenza.pdf
78
International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, 53rd General Assembly of International
Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, Limassol, Cyprus, 15 May 2006, Recomm.: Avian
Influenza, available at http://www.cic-wildlife.org/uploads/media/ResolutionMigratoryBirds-EN.pdf
especially following a joint FAO/OIE conference80 in 2006, a more balanced

outlook developed,81 which reflected more accurately multiple modes of
viral transportation, by then being clearly apparent.82 More recently, FAO has
invested heavily in field research, surveillance programmes, and publication
of guidance materials83 to further develop epidemiological understanding of
the virus in wild bird populations. This more balanced perspective has been
helpful, as has the organisations recent espousal of the One World, One
Health agenda.84
79
Press Release, UN-FAO, Africa May Face Serious Bird Flu Risk: Migratory Birds Could Spread
the VirusInternational Assistance Needed (19 Oct. 2005), available at http://www.fao.org/
newsroom/en/news/2005/1000088/index.html. Quoting Joseph Domenech, the FAOs Chief Veterinar-

ian Officer, the release stated,
The detection of bird flu in Romania and Turkey, following outbreaks in Russia,
Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, confirms FAOs recent warning that the virus is spread-
ing along the pathways of migratory birds outside southeast Asia, said Joseph
Domenech, FAOs Chief Veterinary Officer. Wild birds seem to be one of the main
avian influenza carriers, but more research is urgently needed to fully understand
their role in spreading the virus.. .. One of our major concerns is now the potential
spread of avian influenza through migratory birds to northern and eastern Africa,
Domenech warned. There is serious risk that this scenario may become a reality.
Id.
80
FAO/OIE, International Scientific Conference on Avian Influenza and Wild Birds, Rome, Italy, 3031
May 2006, Recommendations from the International Scientific Conference on Avian Influenza and Wild
Birds, available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/213826/AI recommandationswildbirds.pdf.
81
A FAO EMPRESS Wildlife Unit Factsheet stated,
Since the large geographical expansion of H5N1 HPAI from eastern Asia in 2005
to Africa and Europe, millions of wild birds have made multiple inter-continental
migrations through infected countries to breeding grounds, and back to non-breeding
locations, moving through every country in the world. Yet, to date, H5N1 HPAI has
only been detected in 63 of the over 200 countries or territories worldwide. This
suggests that wild birds are not the primary spreader of H5N1 HPAI but that human
movement of virus through trade, marketing, and fomites likely accounts for the
significant spread of the virus.
S. H. NEWMAN ET AL., FAO EMPRES WILDLIFE UNIT FACT SHEET: WILDLIFE AND H5N1 HPAI CURRENT
KNOWLEDGE (2010), http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/ak782e/ak782e00.pdf
82
A. Marm Kilpatrick et al., Predicting the Global Spread of H5N1 Avian Influenza, 103 PNAS 19368,
1936873 (2006), available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/51/19368
83
See 4 KARRIE ROSE ET AL., FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH MANUAL: WILD BIRD HIGHLY
PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA SURVEILLANCE: SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM HEALTHY, SICK AND DEAD BIRDS
58 (2006), available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0960e/a0960e00.pdf; 5 DARREL WHITWORTH
ET AL., FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH MANUAL, WILD BIRDS AND AVIAN INFLUENZA: AN IN-
TRODUCTION TO APPLIED FIELD RESEARCH AND DISEASE SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 115 (2007), available at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1521e/a1521e.pdf
84
See FAO et al., Contributing to One World, One Health: A Strategic Framework for Reducing Risks
of Infectious Diseases at the Animal-Human-Ecosystems Interface, Consultation Document (2008),
236 CROMIE ET AL.
8. EFFECTIVENESS OF MEAS IN ADDRESSING

EMERGENT ISSUES
In the context of a complex social ecological system, the set of circum-
stances surrounding HPAI H5N1 can be regarded as conforming with all of
Goldsteins85 five common properties of an emergent phenomenon. It can be
seen as the product of non-linear interactions involving intensive production
systems, wildlife, human trade, changing environmental and habitat condi-
tions, and a variety of institutional responses set against the potential for fur-
ther interactions to produce a virus which can be transmitted between humans.
The disease and its consequences were genuinely novel, neither predictable
nor deducible from what was known before; they arose from a dynamical
situation where the whole system itself was evolving.

We are interested here in both the ways that different MEAs responded
to this emergent issue and in the lessons that might be learned in terms of how
they might respond to any emergent issue in the future (given that they will
be, by definition, different).
Properties of emergent phenomena across the MEAs, as described above,
are evidence not just for the way the organizations continued to function
according to their formal imposed texts, structures, or teams set up by the
agreements, but also of self-organization, either through informal leadership or
more participative emergent networks.86 Such forms of self-organization occur
as ways of providing adaptability to deal with, for instance, the constraints of
decision-making structures or time frames (such as the normal triennial cycle
of meetings of parties).
Since CoP8 in 2002, the mandate of Ramsars STRP has been to un-
dertake strategic review of the current tools and guidance available to parties
and new and emerging issues for the Convention.87 At its 11th meeting in
2003, the STRP discussed its approach to advising on emerging issues, noting
that its advice on emerging scientific challenges should not be limited to
the STRPs own work but rather extend to the Convention as a whole.88 Its
recommendations to that end were subsequently formally transmitted to the
Conventions Standing Committee.
available at http://www.oie.int/downld/AVIAN percent20INFLUENZA/OWOH/OWOH 14Oct08.

pdf
85
Jeffrey Goldstein, Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues, 1 EMERGENCE 49, 50 (1999), available
at http://emergentpublications.com/eco/ECO papers/Issue1 1 3.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
86
Id.
87
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Con-
vention on Wetlands, Valencia, Spain, 1826 Nov. 2002, Res. VIII.28: Modus Operandi of the Scientific
and Technical Review Panel (STRP) 7, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key res viii 28 e.pdf
88
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 11th Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel
(STRP), Gland, Switzerland, 811 Apr. 2003, Report of the Meeting, 100, available at
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-strp-11th-meeting-of-the/main/ramsar/131-111 per-
cent5E21949 4000 0
Since STRP 11, consideration of new and emerging issues has been
an important part of the Panels work, addressed specifically through regu-
lar horizon-scanning agenda items at its formal meetings and workshops.
Indeed, several of the major draft Resolutions considered by CoP10 derived
from this process, following recommendations from the STRP to the Standing
Committee that had resulted in drafts prepared for the CoP. Such issues have
included the impacts of extractive industries on wetlands,89 and issues arising
from the developing production of biofuels and implications for wetlands.90
This horizon-scanning procedure is now well embedded in formal Ram-
sar processes and continues to be effective in pro-actively identifying and
addressing significant new issues for the Convention. However, the issue
described in this article was at least initially different in that awareness of

the significance of HPAI H5N1 for wetland conservation emerged in 2005,
only very shortly before CoP8. This gave no opportunity for the STRP to
make recommendations to the Standing Committee and/or prepare a draft
Resolution significantly in advance of the CoP. Yet, as described above, the
CoPs Rules of Procedure91 are sufficiently flexible to have allowed the devel-
opment and adoption of a substantive draft Resolution during the course of
the Conference.
For CMS, the Scientific Council has proved an effective means of re-
flecting on emerging issues, and the meeting of the Council just prior to the
CoP has given an especially effective means of transmitting information to the
Conference, either through the report of the Councils Chair, or more formally
as draft Resolutions.
AEWA is younger than Ramsar and CMS and perhaps operates more
informally than the global conventions. Its procedures were certainly flexi-
ble in developing the first of the MEAs HPAI H5N1 Resolutions described
here. At its most recent meeting, AEWAs Technical Committee92 adopted
the STRPs procedure of undertaking a forward look at emerging issues that
may be of significance for migratory waterbird conservation.93 It is possible
89
See Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the
Convention on Wetlands, Changwon, S. Korea, 28 Oct.4 Nov. 2008, Res. X.26: Wetlands and Extractive
Industries, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key res x 25 e.pdf
90
See Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to
the Convention on Wetlands, Changwon, S. Korea, 28 Oct.4 Nov. 2008, Res. X.25: Wetlands and
Biofuels, available at http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/keyresx25e.pdf
91
See Ramsar, Rules of Procedure, supra note 39, at rules 10, 12.
92
AEWA Technical Committee, 9th Meeting of the Technical Committee, Zagreb, Croatia, 2023 Apr.
2009, Operative Paragraphs of Resolution 4.15 of Relevance to the Work of the Scientific Task Force on
Avian Influenza and Wild Birds, 7, available at http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/tc meetings/tc9/
meeting docs pdf/tc9 9 res4 15 aitf rev1.pdf
93
See AEWA Technical Committee, 9th Meeting of the Technical Committee, Zagreb, Croatia,
2023 Apr. 2009, A Preliminary List of Ongoing and Emerging Issues for the Conservation
and Management of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, Agenda item 21, Doc TC 9.10
238 CROMIE ET AL.
that draft Resolutions on some of these issues may be developed for future
consideration by the Meeting of Parties.
CBDs approach to considering emerging issues, in contrast, has been
complicated. Substantive discussions were undertaken at the 12th meeting
of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technology Advice94
(SBSTTA) on how to identify and address emerging issues. These discussions
continued at SBSTTAs 13th meeting95 and were then remitted to CBD CoP9.96
Further intense debate at CoP9 focused on how to identify and prioritize
emerging issues and how to embed subsequent actions with CBD processes
(specifically, the role of SBSTTA in bringing such issues to the CoP).
It was perhaps unfortunate that discussion of handling of emerging
issues as a generality was initially mixed with the specific issue of biofuels, a
sensitive issue about which views of the international community are deeply
mixed. Indeed, although SBSTTA 11 agreed97 on the agenda for SBSTTA 12,
the agenda item on emerging issues (and the linked discussion on biofuels)
was added between these meetings.
Further tension resulted from, on the one hand, the expressed need to
reduce the number of items for consideration by [SBSTTA] at each meeting
in order to improve the effectiveness of its proceedings,98 and the consequence
of any new process in adding yet further issues to SBSTTAs agenda. In
2008, CBD CoP9 finally agreed procedures for handling emergent issues
(Table 4).
It remains to be seen how responsive this new, complicated procedure
will be in identifying and considering issues not already on CBDs agenda,
(13 Mar. 2009), available at http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/tc meetings/tc9/meeting docs

pdf/tc9 10 emerging issues v2.pdf (David Stroud).
94
UNEP/CBD, 12th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Ad-
vice, Paris, France, 26 July 2007, Recomm. XII/8:Process to Elaborate the Procedure for the Iden-
tification and Consideration of Emerging Issues, available at http://www.cbd.int/recommendation/
sbstta/?id=11467 [hereinafter UNEP/CBD, Recomm. XII/8].
95
UNEP/CBD, 13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice,
Rome, Italy, 1822 Feb. 2008: Recomm. XIII/7: New and Emerging Issues Relating to the Conservation
and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, available at http://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=11620
96
UNEP/CDB, 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Bonn, Germany, 1930 May 2008, Dec. IX/29: Operations of the Convention, available at
http://www.cbd.int/doc/ decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-29-en.doc [hereinafter UNEP/CBD, Dec. IX/29].
97
UNEP/CBD, 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention of Bi-
ological Diversity, Curtiba, Brazil 2031 Mar. 2006, Report of the Subsidiary Body on Scien-
tific, Technical, and Technological Advice on the Work of its Eleventh Meeting 55, available at
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/official/cop-0803-en.doc [hereinafter UNEP/CBD, Re-
port of the SBSTTA].
98
See UNEP/CBD, Recomm. XII/8, supra note 94.
TABLE 4. The Biodiversity Conventions agreed procedure for handling emergent issues as agreed
at CoP9 in 2008.99
11. Decides that proposals for emerging issues should, where possible, be accompanied with
information on:
(a) Why the issue needs urgent attention by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice (including how it impacts biodiversity);
(b) How it affects the attainment of the objectives of the Convention (citing relevant articles);
(c) Thematic programmes of work and/or cross-cutting issues that could contribute to the
resolution of the issue;
(d) Work already under way by relevant organizations addressing the issue; and
(e) Credible sources of information, preferably from peer-reviewed articles;
12. Further decides that the following criteria should be used for identifying new and emerging
issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity:
(a) Relevance of the issue to the implementation of the objectives of the Convention and its
existing programmes of work;
(b) New evidence of unexpected and significant impacts on biodiversity;
(c) Urgency of addressing the issue/imminence of the risk caused by the issue to the
effective implementation of the Convention as well as the magnitude of actual and
potential impact on biodiversity;
(d) Actual geographic coverage and potential spread, including rate of spread, of the
identified issue relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
(e) Evidence of the absence or limited availability of tools to limit or mitigate the negative
impacts of the identified issue on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
(f) Magnitude of actual and potential impact of the identified issue on human well-being;
(g) Magnitude of actual and potential impact of the identified issue on productive sectors and
economic well-being as related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;
13. Requests the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice to review
and discuss the proposals and, as appropriate, identify new and emerging issues and
elaborate a scientific and technical analysis with options for action for consideration and to
submit this analysis to the Conference of the Parties for its consideration[.]
although as a first case, CoP9 did agree, after very intense negotiations, on a
decision99 on biofuels.100
The formation of the Task Force to act as a coordinating forum was
initially an informal participative structure, a form of self-organization,
that provided the adaptability for some of the MEAs to deal with a set of
circumstances that had not arisen before. Seen in this context, those MEAs
that had flexible structures, in terms of abilities to form networks without
being organisationally constrained (i.e., Ramsar, CMS, and AEWA), were
abler and quicker to formalize positions and take responsive actions on the
issue.
99
UNEP/CBD, Dec. IX/29, supra note 96.
100
UNEP/CDB, 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Biolog-
ical Diversity, Bonn, Germany, 1930 May 2008, Dec. IX/2:Agricultural Biodiversity: Biofuels and
Biodiversity, available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-02-en.doc
240 CROMIE ET AL.
9. CONCLUSIONS
The Ramsar Convention has proved effective in engaging with the implica-
tions of a novel issue, which has had great economic impact, human health
consequences, and both real and potential impacts on wetland conservation.101
Prior to 2005, wetland disease issues had not featured on the Conventions
agenda. However, in large part as a consequence of the focus on HPAI H5N1,
CoP10
FURTHER REQUEST[ED] STRP in collaboration with other relevant organiza-

tions to consider how best to develop practical guidance on the prevention and
control of other diseases of either domestic or wild animals in wetlands, espe-
cially those diseases that have implications for human health, and how such guid-
ance can be best incorporated into management plans at Ramsar sites and other
wetlands.102
This guidance is currently in preparation by the STRP for CoP11,

focussing initially on a range of relevant domestic and wild animal diseases
associated with wetlands, including management principles and practices to
prevent and control disease to bring benefits to public health, livelihoods,
domestic animal production, and wildlife health.
We conclude with the following reflections on four issues drawn from
these MEAs responses to HPAI H5N1:
1. Whatever the role of a small number of individuals, active in multiple
fora, was, as it always has been, crucial in ensuring joined-up
international responses. However, the Task Force actively supported
such coordination and facilitated complementary MEA actions by
providing a formal platform for the exchange of experiences and
knowledge. It provides an excellent model for cross-MEA liaison on
other emerging conservation issues. The Task Forces effectiveness
was perhaps especially enhanced by the immediate real-time need
to respond to the developing disease situation, and the real risk,
given extreme media interest, that inconsistent responses by different
organizations would be damaging to all.
2. Great benefit was gained by taking advice and policy models devel-
oped and trialled at one scale (e.g., national, or regionalfor example,
Europe) to another (e.g., global). This has allowed the widest sharing
of good practice. There will be a need to continue to identify and
exchange such experiences and responses in the future.
101
Cromie, Lee, & Stroud, supra note 48.
102
Ramsar, Res. X.21, supra note 16.
3. The Resolutions adopted by Ramsar in 2005 and 2008 had the poten-
tial to be particularly controversial, concerning issues that had been
characterised by some Contracting Parties as beyond the formal man-
date of the Convention. The fact that the major Resolution X.21 was
adopted with just limited changes from the floor of the CoP was a
direct result of dialogue with interested parties over at least the prior
year. This paid huge dividends in resulting (unexpectedly) in almost
no debate on the issues at the CoP itself, in stark contrast to other is-
sues which have engaged late-night Ramsar contact groups debating
for days on end. The result was a Resolution and guidance that has
none of the uneasy compromises that occur in some other of the
Conventions decisions. There is perhaps a lesson here for the han-

dling of future such challenging issues. Time spent in reconnaissance
is truly never wasted!
4. The development of a significant body of guidance in a short time re-
flected the ability of organizations and MEAs to recognise an emerg-
ing situation, which potentially had major consequences for wetland
and bird conservation. In particular, organizational flexibility to allow
rapid responses, especially through the allocation of staff time, was
crucial. The current era of economic restriction is resulting in highly
focussed organizational priorities. However, it will be important for
organisations to continue to be able to respond to unexpected issues
that potentially influence nature conservation. In that context, climate
models suggest that the process of future change may be non-linear,
with threshold (unexpected) events occurring, and the same may be
true in relation to the future spread of pathogens and invasive alien
species. Not least in such contexts, it is very important that national
and international conservation organizations retain sufficient flexibil-
ity to respond rapidly to future emerging issuesin form they may
take.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all those who helped (directly or indirectly) develop or facilitate
the passage of the six Resolutions described in this article, especially Helen
Baker, Gordana Beltram, Olivier Biber, Peter Bridgewater, Sergey Dereliev,
Chris Feare, Robert Hepworth, Bert Lenten, John Mshelbwala, Scott New-
man, Micheal O Briain, John OSullivan, Crawford Prentice, members of
the Working Group on Avian Influenza of EFSAs Scientific Panel on An-
imal Health and Welfare (especially Rowena Langston and Jan Veen), and
all participants in the 2006 and 2007 technical meetings of the Task Force
meetings.
242 CROMIE ET AL.
We gratefully acknowledge support by CMS, FAO, Scottish Natural

Heritage, the United States Agency for International Development, and the
Wildlife Conservation Society for their support and co-funding of the Task
Forces workshop at Aviemore in June 2007 which developed initial texts
for a number of the draft Resolutions discussed. We are also very grateful
to the Republic of Korea for generously funding STRPs 2007 workshop in
Changwon, which provided the opportunity to develop many of the ideas that
subsequently became Ramsars Resolution X.21.
We also appreciate the strong support from the Wildfowl and Wetlands
Trust, Wetlands International, and the UKs Joint Nature Conservation Com-
mittee all of which have enabled our continued involvement in this important
work.

Responding To Emerging Challenges PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Responding To Emerging Challenges PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]

On: 05 July 2014, At: 23:24

Journal of International Wildlife Law &

Responding to Emerging Challenges:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2011.626711

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

ISSN: 1388-0292 print / 1548-1476 online

Responding to Emerging Challenges:

westward in 2005 that it gained wider public and international attention. In

the negative implications for wild birds of ill-defined responses. Triggered

preceded the onset of the spread farther westwards.

December Third wave of SE Asian poultry outbreaks

May Wild bird outbreaks at several locations in

2010 Outbreaks in poultry in Egypt, Israel,

3. EVENTS IN 2005 AND MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL

emergency regional meeting on avian influenza in February 2004 in Bangkok.31

organizations.34 A member of Ramsars Scientific and Technical Review Panel

2. Biosecurity: that separation of wild birds and domestic poultry should

3.1 AEWA MoP3

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

species, including Highly Pathogenic Avian

3.2 Ramsar CoP9

AEWA MoP3 Ramsar CoP 9 CMS CoP8

then had already been subject to considerable development by a number of

parties, with a few minor changes, on 15 November 2005.47 With respect to

The slight nuances in messages between the three 2005 Resolutions

3.4 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CoP8

1. Takes note of the report of brainstorming meeting on the potential

4.1 EU Risk Assessment

the European Commission57 as the basis of targeted programs of surveillance

a large number of different national and international organizations. This

resulting matrix provides an innovative index or means of organizing the

1. Guidelines for reducing avian influenza risks at Ramsar sites and

provide guidance more broadly applicable to a range of wetlands,

guidance. The content of the Resolution had been discussed by AEWAs

6. MAIN THEMES ADDRESSED BY THE RESOLUTIONS

media seemed content with sensationalist and inaccurate reporting re-

waterbird species have different ecology, occur at different densities,

the direct consequence of poor73 communication, sometimes non-

need for multi-disciplinary approaches was very strongly stressed in

7. ENSURING SCIENCE-BASED POLICY GUIDANCE

5. Whether infected wild birds were capable of long-distance migration,

by Ramsar and the other MEAs in the light of developing understanding.

especially following a joint FAO/OIE conference80 in 2006, a more balanced

newsroom/en/news/2005/1000088/index.html. Quoting Joseph Domenech, the FAOs Chief Veterinar-

8. EFFECTIVENESS OF MEAS IN ADDRESSING

situation where the whole system itself was evolving.

available at http://www.oie.int/downld/AVIAN percent20INFLUENZA/OWOH/OWOH 14Oct08.

described in this article was at least initially different in that awareness of

(13 Mar. 2009), available at http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/tc meetings/tc9/meeting docs

FURTHER REQUEST[ED] STRP in collaboration with other relevant organiza-

This guidance is currently in preparation by the STRP for CoP11,

Conventions decisions. There is perhaps a lesson here for the han-

We gratefully acknowledge support by CMS, FAO, Scottish Natural

Вам также может понравиться