Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

THE CONVENTION: International agreement protecting animal species that migrate across national borders

DATE: Opened for signature on June 23, 1979

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals encourages the protection of migratory species by nations around the world. Most of the convention’s success has been in fostering regional daughter agreements that protect particular migratory species of concern.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or the Bonn Convention) arose as the result of recommendations made at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden. Opened for signing in Bonn, Germany, in 1979, the treaty entered into force in 1983. By 2022 the convention had been signed by 133 nations, and many other nonsignatory nations were participating in CMS-sponsored agreements. The United Nations Environment Programme provides the CMS Secretariat.

The convention recognizes that the conservation status of a migratory species is vulnerable to threats in any states that species occupies or passes through. Appendix I to the convention lists for which concerted conservation action is required to ensure their survival. Parties to the convention (that is, signatory nations) are encouraged to forbid the taking of these species, to take steps to enhance their welfare, to remove obstacles to their migration, and to manage uses of the species by indigenous cultures. Appendix II lists migratory species that are not necessarily endangered but would benefit from conservation action.

CMS encourages states whose territories include the biogeographic ranges of migratory species to enter into one of four types of daughter agreements. In order of formality from least to most, these are designated as Action Plans, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), agreements (all lowercase in the CMS text), and AGREEMENTS (all capitals in the convention text).

Action Plans require the least of signatories and generally affirm that species of concern would benefit from research and conservation action and that parties will endeavor to engage in such action. Action Plans are also negotiated as components of the other kinds of agreements. Of the few stand-alone Action Plans that have been developed, one protects birds that use the migration routes within the Central Asian Flyway and another protects several species of African antelope.

MOUs are typically nonenforceable and do not require obligatory actions by parties, but they can help draw official and public attention to species of concern and result in conservation efforts on the species’ behalf. The MOUs that have been negotiated under the auspices of CMS cover a range of species, from West African elephants to flamingoes in the Andes to marine turtles in the Indian Ocean and off Southeast Asia.

Lowercase agreements tend to require action by their signatories that may or may not be obligatory, depending on the agreement. Agreements have been negotiated to protect gorillas in Central Africa, birds that migrate between Africa and Eurasia, European bats, and whales in European waters. Uppercase AGREEMENTS necessitate adequate a priori knowledge of migratory patterns and status and require signatories to follow strict guidelines outlined in the CMS text. By the early years of the twenty-first century no AGREEMENTS had been negotiated.

The main criticism of CMS has been that its area of responsibility is too large for a single treaty, with most progress made by agreements negotiated under the convention but not by the main convention itself. It has also been criticized for fostering weak, nonenforceable agreements, but supporters of the convention note that the range of formalities with which agreements can be made encourages participation by states that perhaps would otherwise be hesitant to engage in conservation. The effectiveness of CMS is limited by the absence of several large states important to migratory species, including the United States, Canada, China, Russia, and Brazil, although several of these do participate in daughter agreements.

Bibliography

Cioc, Mark. The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World Migratory Animals. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2009.

"CMS." Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, www.cms.int/en/legalinstrument/cms. Accessed 16 July 2024.

DeSombre, Elizabeth R. Global Environmental Institutions. New York: Routledge, 2006.