Adverse effects of climate change on biodiversity: Something about the legal international and national law

Lacks in International and Chilean Law: "adverse effects" on biodiversity

Professor Dr. Sergio Peña-Neira
U Mayor/U B OHiggins/Escuela Militar

Introduction

One of the lacks in the law and public policy of Chile related to climate change has been rules to prevent and solve the problem of the consequence of "adverse effects" of climate change on biodiversity, particularly, certain aspects or elements of biodiversity with means of defence. A research on presenting solutions to legal gaps is always needed and recognized possible solutions of "adverse effects" on biodiversity might be of interest.

"Adverse effects" of climate change might be on human beings and society or human environment as well as nature and today biodiversity and its components.

"Adverse effects"

"Adverse effects" might be equivalent to "negative effects".

"Adverse effects" has been a core issue on the subject of climate change. If there is an issue to be addressed, it is adverse effects. 

Effects, effects and more effects, and research: prevention, solutions and positive acts

Firstly, and obviously, if climate change would not produce "effects", no problem on the subject would occur. Actually, no hypothesis, research or discussion might be proposed.

As well, if "effects" would be positive for the environment the discussions, conversations and research will be on the way to address effects. However, "adverse effects" should be "object" of legal rules and public policies.

Notably, in international law these "adverse effects" have been defined and because international treaties should be applied in national legal systems, these rules are part of national law.

Lack of legal rules on positive acts against "adverse effects"

This framework, however, shows a lack of legal rules. Adverse effects have been defined vis a vis to ecosystems and not types of biodiversity.

These types of biodiversity, plants, insects, microorganisms, have been considered as movable. In other words, this biodiversity might be saved if proper legal rules in international and Chilean legal system would be enacted to save being that might not be able to survive to adverse effects from climate change due to their impossibility to move or to move fast from their current place to safe areas.

Alternatives

However, a problem of the best alternative might arise. Due to distance constraints types of biodiversity might be able to move (in case they have notice increase of temperature in more than 1 Celsius degree) from dangerous to safer places.

More problems, increase of difficulties, more uncertainty

Recently, the General Secretary of the United Nations Organization has brought new insides on the topic of increase of temperatures from 1.5 to 4.0 Celsius degree shortly. Such news is disastrous. This means an increase of difficulties for migration of types of biodiversity that are not migratory species and have been living in areas for centuries developing stable relationships with the environment. In other words, knowing where to hunt, to survive from their depredators, to have water, food and shelter. 

Migration, from comfort to uncertainty

Migration will take these types of biodiversity from their "comfort zones" to dangerous areas and in this process human being might take two options, or help or abstain. However, indirectly human beings might be the source of climate change' s "adverse effects" therefore, they are responsible for helping types of biodiversity in their migration or even safe individuals from these types of biodiversity. Unfortunately, non-study has been developed on the subject.

International and Chilean Law

What about Law in the formulation of rules solving the problem of "adverse effects"?

International and Chilean Law have developed certain solutions not clear for human beings and certainly not being proved for all biodiversity. "Resilience", "adaptation" and other terms have been used in international and Chilean Law to describe and order possible solutions to "adverse effects". They reflect "soft" solutions to mainly, human beings under the "adverse effects". The do not reflect the serious problems of migration of human beings as well as animals, plants and microorganisms. 

Human beings might be able to change place and find a new shelter, find food, and other means of survival. But they need regularly help. Resilience and adaptation might be of no help for biodiversity without our help.

In order to find solution research on this subject is necessary. Not only for the degree of solutions and kind of solutions. But more, on the lack to define appropriate legal solution helping biodiversity to survive.