Limiting the Harms of Linear Infrastructure on Migratory Animals in Mongolia

By Wesley Levise

The world is facing what some consider the “Sixth Mass Extinction.”[1] Beloved animals such as the Bactrian camel, Sonoran pronghorn, and jaguar are among the category of animals at risk of becoming extinct in the near future.[2] One inconspicuous cause of their decline is linear infrastructure – fences, walls, and other barriers crossing natural landscapes. Linear infrastructure is problematic for at least two reasons. First, linear infrastructure severely disrupts, and in some cases prevents, the migration of various mammal species by fragmenting habitats.[3] This fragmentation of habitats places stress on migratory species and negatively impacts biodiversity.[4] Second, when built without regard for international wildlife corridors, linear infrastructure disrupts the economic and cultural interests of neighboring sovereign nations relying on thriving mammal populations.[5] Large migratory mammals not only maintain healthy ecosystems, but also drive tourism and provide subsistence hunting and other economic benefits for rural communities.[6] Though some nations have begun discussing border permeability and the impact of linear infrastructure on various species, international laws are largely behind in utilizing international frameworks to protect migratory mammals against the unique risks that linear infrastructure present.[7] For countries like Mongolia, the threat extends beyond hypothetical future losses; it is a present and urgent crisis.

The Mongolian Steppe alone is home to nearly ninety-five percent of global gazelles and numerous endangered species that rely on traversing these lands for survival.[8] The Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), Mongolian khulan (Equus hemionus), Mongolian Saiga (Saiga borealis), and the critically endangered Bactrian camel (Camelus ferus) all depend on the migratory routes within this region.[9] The Mongolian gazelle and khulan have both lost over seventy percent of their geographic range, and the goitered gazelle is similarly seeing a decrease in population.[10] Ongoing threats to the species include livestock farming, development of urban areas, climate change, and fragmentation of habitats and wildlife corridors.[11]

Although conservation efforts within national borders offer some refuge to the animals, the efforts fall short of protecting land essential for their survival.[12] The Arjin Shan Lop Nur Nature Reserve in bordering China protects 65,000 square kilometers of land, and the Daursky State Nature Biosphere Reserve in Russia preserves 2,093 square kilometers of land.[13] Despite the size of the preserves, one study shows that the protected areas in the region only cover roughly eight percent of the gazelle’s range and are not regularly used by the animals.[14]

In 2020, a team of scientists and conservationists, working in partnership with the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (“CMS”), launched the Global Initiative on Ungulate Migration to create the first map of the seasonal migrations of ungulates (hooved mammals).[15] Data is already revealing that border and railway fencing is negatively impacting different species in Central Asia.[16] In particular, fencing along the Ulaanbaatar-Beijing railway in eastern Mongolia and additional fencing and walls along the international border with China present the species with considerable barriers blocking their migratory paths.[17] This region of Central Asia has more than 21,000 kilometers of fencing, with 4,710 kilometers of fencing used to separate China and Mongolia alone.[18] The fencing along the Mongolian border affected the movement of roughly eighty percent of all tracked gazelle.[19] These gazelle travel long distances in herds of up to 200,000 individuals with hundreds dying along railway fences.[20] Gazelle who encountered the border fences traveled an average distance of eleven kilometers to get past the fence.[21] Some gazelle immediately abandoned any attempt to cross the border after encountering the wall, while others moved along the border for up to fifty-nine days.[22]

The Bactrian Camel is critically endangered and depends on the protection of international wildlife corridors between China and Mongolia for survival. Courtesy of Alex Tumee via ShutterStock.com.

Because various species live and migrate along the northern and southern Mongolian border, it is imperative that their migratory routes are not restricted to give the species the best chance at survival.[23] An unrestricted migratory path, for many species, would require Mongolia, China, and Russia to work together and develop strategies to ensure such paths are not significantly obstructed by linear infrastructure.[24] Looking at current international treaties, these three nations already have the legal framework in place to include transboundary regulations on linear infrastructure like fencing and walls.[25]

There are at least four primary agreements that directly cover concerns about linear infrastructure: the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessments in a Transboundary Context (“Espoo Convention”), the Protocol to Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (“Kiev Protocol”), the European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations, and the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries.[26] China and Mongolia have not signed any of these primary agreements addressing linear infrastructure, leaving only Russia as a signatory on the Espoo Convention and the two European Agreements.[27] However, China and Mongolia are not permitted to sign on as signatories to the Espoo Convention. [28] So, unless and until an opportunity arises where China and Mongolia ratify these primary agreements, migratory animals in Central Asia will be left without their protection.[29]

Despite not being signatories to the primary agreements, China and Mongolia have signed one remaining agreement together: the Convention of Biological Diversity (“CBD”).[30] For the CBD’s draft for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, it outlined its “Theory of Change,” stating that CBD’s framework is designed to transform trends contributing to biodiversity loss and to stabilize ecosystems in the next twenty years.[31] Because China and Mongolia have signed the CBD, they are both obligated to work towards protecting the environment by minimizing biodiversity loss.[32]

Due to the emerging research showing that fencing and walls are fragmenting the habitats of endangered species, this obligation should include minimizing the impact that fencing and walls have on the migratory paths of animals.[33] As signatories to the CBD, China and Mongolia have committed to preserving the natural connectivity between ecosystems across borders.[34] By failing to include the impact of fencing and walls in their progress reports, China and Mongolia are failing to fully comply with the terms of the CBD, since linear infrastructure is contributing to biodiversity loss and fragmentation in the region.[35] Fulfilling the treaty's vision of connected transboundary ecosystems requires China and Mongolia to collaborate on creating more permeable borders that allow wildlife to access vital resources on both sides.[36] Fully considering the obligations under the CBD to ensure connectivity among ecosystems is incredibly important because there are currently around 4,710 kilometers of fencing, much of which has barbed wires, severing ecosystems along the China-Mongolia border.[37] Ideally such international cooperation would remove or modify fences and walls damaging migration routes identified by researchers.

As scientists warn of the Sixth Mass Extinction's mounting toll, protecting the migratory pathways of mammals across borders becomes a complex yet urgent issue requiring international cooperation. Mongolia is one of many nations legally obligated under international law to mitigate risks to vulnerable species.[38] However, linear infrastructure like border fences increasingly obstruct migration routes, and Mongolia cannot protect these pathways alone. Cooperation from neighboring nations like China and Russia is essential for Mongolia to preserve mammal movements.[39] Without collaborative efforts to assess and address infrastructure blocking migrations, pathways in Mongolia and elsewhere will remain fragmented, further threatening vulnerable species and negatively impacting shared interests. As linear infrastructure disrupts ancient migration patterns, joint action becomes critical to uphold international law and enable mammal movement across borders.

[1] Aneta Ptaszynska, A Short Guide to the Sixth Mass Extinction – is the Anthropocene an Extended Suicide?, 395 Revista de Educación 1 (2022).

[2] U.N. Environmental Programme Convention on Migratory Species, Guidelines on Mitigating the Impact of Linear Infrastructure and Related Disturbance on Mammals in Central Asia, UNEP/CMS/COP11/Doc.23.3.2, 31 (Sep. 18, 2014) [hereinafter CMS Guidelines]; Proclamation No. 38227, 80 Fed. Reg. 127 (July 2, 2015); Migratory Jaguars, Fact sheet for the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP13) to the Convention on Migratory Species, CMS, 2.

[3] John Linnell et al., Border Security Fencing and Wildlife: The End of Transboundary Paradigm in Eurasia? 14 PLoS Bio., 6, 7 (2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Laura López-Hoffman et al., Ecosystem Services from Transborder Migratory Species: Implications for Conservation Governance, 42 Ann. Rev. of Env’t & Res. 509 (Oct. 2017).

[6] Id.

[7] Linnell, supra note 3, at 8 (explaining that the impact studies of fencing and walls conducted for Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and the borders between Russia-Finland and Poland-Belarus).

[8] Dejid Nandintsetseg et al., Challenges in the Conservation of Wide-Ranging Nomadic Species, 56 J. Applied Ecology 1916, 1917 (2019).

[9] CMS Guidelines, supra note 2, at 3.

[10] Protecting the Goitered Gazelle in Central Asia, IUCN, https://iucnsos.org/protecting-the-goitered-gazelle-in-central-asia/ (last visited July 16, 2023); Mongolian Gazelle, IUCN Red List, https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18232/115142812/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2023); Mongolian Kulan, IUCN Red List, https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7952/176245867#geographic-range/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2023).

[11] Id.

[12] Nandintsetseg, supra note at 8, at 1922.

[13] Daursky Biosphere Reserve, Russia Federation, UNESCO, https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/eu-na/daursky/ (last visited July 16, 2023). The area of 209,314 hectares is equivalent to 2,093.14 square kilometers.

[14] Nandintsetseg supra note at 8, at 1922.

[15] Matthew J. Kaufman et al., Mapping out a future for ungulate migrations, 372 SCIENCE 566, 569 (May 7, 2021).

[16] Id. at 568.

[17] Mongolian Kulan, IUCN Red List, https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7952/176245867#geographic-range/ (last visited Aug. 23, 2023).

[18] Linnell, supra note 3.  

[19] Nandintsetseg, supra note 8, at 1921.

[20] CMS Guidelines, supra note 2, at 17.

[21] Nandintsetseg, supra note 8, at 1921.

[22] Id.

[23] CMS Guidelines, supra note 2.

[24] Id.

[25] See U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, U.N. Doc. CBD/WG2020/3/3 (July 5, 2021) [hereinafter CBD].

[26] CMS Guidelines, supra note 2, at 31.

[27] Id; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Central Asian Countries Collaborate to Enhance Sustainable Trade Growth, Sustainable Development Goals (Sept. 7, 2022), https://unece.org/media/SPECA/news/370358 (explaining that though the Espoo Convention is primarily limited to Europe, it is implemented by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) which has expressed the need for expanding into Central Asia).

[28] See CMS Guidelines, supra note 2, at 36-37.

[29] Id.; U.N. Convention on the Conservation on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Biological Diversity Art. III(4) Append. 1. Beyond the four primary agreements, Mongolia has signed the CMS, the CMS Resolution 7.2 on Impact Assessments and Migratory Species, and the CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Id. When a nation becomes a party to CMS, it agrees to “prevent, remove, compensate for, or minimize, as appropriate, the adverse effects of activities or obstacles that seriously impede or prevent the migration of the species.” Id. at 92.  Because Mongolia is the only nation of the three to sign onto and ratify the CMS, it is alone, in many regards, in its effort to mitigate the risk of linear infrastructure on animals that travel between Russia and China. See id. at 91-93.

[30] CMS Guidelines, supra note 2, at 39. Though Russia did not sign the CMS or CBD, its environmental impact assessments of infrastructure along the Finland border indicate it can likewise assess environmental damage along its southern Mongolian border.

[31] CBD, supra note 25.

[32] Id.; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 31, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter Vienna Convention].

[33] Nandintsetseg, supra note 8.

[34] Id.; See Jiajia Lu et al., Transboundary Frontiers: An Emerging Priority for Biodiversity Conservation, 35 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 679 (Aug. 2020); Vienna Convention, supra note 32.

[35] Nandintsetseg, supra note 8; See CBD, supra note 25 (also stating in post-2020 framework that to reduce threats to biodiversity, nations should work together to ensure connectivity among ecosystems and retain existing intact wilderness areas).

[36] See Lu, supra note 36.

[37] Id. at 682; CBD, supra note 25, at 4 (further stating that parties to the convention should monitor progress “in a transparent and accountable manner,” since studies in Mongolia already reveal fencing and walls negatively affect migratory gazelles) (also calling for transparent and accountable progress monitoring implies nations must track steps taken to mitigate infrastructure’s environmental impact).

[38] CBD, supra note 25, at 4.

[39] Id.