donderdag 1 oktober 2015
donderdag 26 juni 2014
Schaliegas: toenemende interventie door lokale overheden
In most countries,
unconventional gas production (as is the case with most natural resources) is
of national interest. The production of shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas through
hydraulic fracturing is considered an important source of revenue and an
important element in the nation’s energy policy. The big national interests at
stake with unconventional gas production put local governments under pressure.
Local governments usually are concerned with protecting the local environment
for the benefit of present and future generations. Often, these concerns have a
legal basis, either in the constitution, in the public trust doctrine, or in
domestic legislation in the field of land use and planning and/or environmental
protection.
In several shale gas
rich countries around the world, we see attempts by local governments to
challenge hydraulic fracturing (fracking) using various legal pathways. Examples are popping up everywhere, now
almost on a monthly basis. In the US, in December 2013, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court declared an Act that sought to eliminate zoning authority from
municipalities over shale gas extraction, unconstitutional because it infringes
the municipalities’ duty under the state’s constitution (Environmental Rights
Amendment), to act as a trustee of natural resources. In 2014, the shale gas
richest province in the south of the Netherlands and several of the
municipalities in this province, banned exploration and production of shale gas
altogether, using various legal instruments in the field of environmental law
and land use planning law.
Although local
authorities do not have competences in the field of mining law, they do have
responsibilities and associated powers under planning law. Local zoning and
planning is always done at the local level, and hence, municipal authorities
may set restrictions or conditions to any new activity so as to fit in this
activity within the existing land use. These powers can be very far-reaching,
even rendering the use of a production permission entirely impossible. Should,
for instance, a local zoning plan prohibit mining activities at a certain
location, or prohibit the issuing of a construction license to mining
constructions on that location, then no mining can take place there, even after
the competent authority for the mining operations granted all necessary
permits.
Both in the Netherlands
and the United States, however, central governments have legislated in order to
have the regulatory tools to intervene in local decision-making when needed to
ascertain that mining activities go ahead. In the case of shale gas, local
governments and local communities increasingly pursue legal pathways to block
or at least hinder shale gas operations. In the example of Pennsylvania, the state authorities used their legislative
power to overrule local decision-making. Courts, however, seem to be willing to
limit or even block such intervention because it infringes on the
constitutional right to a clean environment and the public trust doctrine, also
laid down in the constitution, according to which governments have to protect
the environment for present and future generations.
In the Netherlands,
instruments to overrule local decision-making in the field of environmental
protection and spatial planning are in place, but have not been applied yet.
The debate on the constitutionality of such intervention has not arisen yet.
Should intervention take place, it is likely to be argued that this is unconstitutional,
not just because of the alleged infringement of the right to a healthy
environment (somewhat similar to Pennsylvania, laid down in the Dutch constitution
in the form of a basic duty for the government), but also because of the
principle of decentralized governance that forms the basis of the Dutch public
governance system. It remains to be seen
whether such reasoning is going to be successful, as the Netherlands does not
have constitutional courts, nor the possibility to have legislative acts of the
national legislature tested against the constitution. Even without these opportunities, however, it
is clear that Parliament will scrutinize any attempt by the Cabinet to overrule
local rules and regulations as this will be considered to undermine future
collaborations with local authorities on which the central government in almost
every policy field depends for the execution of their policies. In a previous
attempt in the Netherlands, to impose national decision-making upon an
unwilling municipality (the selection of a location for an onshore carbon
capture and storage demonstration project), huge public uprising occurred,
ultimately leading to the abandonment of the project.
In Germany and France,
by contrast, public protests, mainly at a local level, have strongly influenced
decision-making at the national level, more or less by-passing local
governments. This probably is due to the fact that in these countries, local
authorities have little power to stop or regulate shale gas exploration and
production. Hence, protesters –with much success– aimed at national political
institutions rather than at local authorities. In France, opposition was
especially fierce because of the lack of public consultation. Both countries
imposed a moratorium on the exploration and production of shale gas through
hydrofracking with the use of chemicals.
The above brief assessment
of the role of local governments in the hydrofracking debate shows that the
local level plays an important role indeed. Simply ignoring or legislating
local governments and local communities out of the picture will be
counterproductive, as the local level has legal and political cards to play
out, and, constitutionally, perhaps even has to play out these legal cards to
protect the environment for present and future generations. It seems,
therefore, that local communities determine the success of unconventional gas
development and should be taken seriously by central governments that plan to
support hydrofracking. Transparency and meaningful involvement of local
communities should be pursued, allowing for any kind of outcome, including the
outcome of a moratorium or ban. It can be expected that at the EU level, where legislation
is currently being prepared, focus will be on such important procedural issues.
dinsdag 25 februari 2014
Waar blijft het juridische kader voor klimaatvriendelijke landbouw?
Between now
and 2050, there will be a sharp increase in the demand for agricultural
products. This is caused by an increase of the world’s population from 7
billion today (2012) to 9 billion, the rise in global calorie intake by 60% due
to greater affluence, particularly in countries like China and India, and the
production of bio-fuels (Meridian Institute 2011). The increase in agricultural
production is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the emission of
greenhouse gasses. Agriculture is responsible for 30% of total global
greenhouse emissions, mainly through land-use change (particularly
deforestation driven by agricultural expansion, also affecting biodiversity),
methane and nitrous oxide emissions (from livestock and the use of
fertilizers). The Meridian Institute, in its 2011 report ‘Agriculture and
Climate Change: a Scoping Report’ shows that agriculture is not only a major
cause of climate change but in many regions of the world, it is also seriously
impacted by climate change. It is expected that by 2050, 56% of crops in
Sub-Saharan Africa and 21% of crops in Asia will be negatively affected by the
consequences of climate change, for instance because of shifts in water
availability, temperature shifts, and changes in the occurrence of pests. This
often has direct effects on the availability of food. In other regions, such as
Europe, it seems that at least in the short term, climate change can be
beneficial to agricultural production, allowing, for example for an additional
yield per year or the opportunity to grow a more profitable crop. Europe,
though, ultimately will be affected by these developments as well: food
shortages are expected due to demand in other markets, particularly the
emerging economies, even when taking into account the decline of Europe’s
population (European Commission 2012).
Limiting food
security risks under climate change requires new climate-smart agriculture
policies to be implemented. Around the world, a wide variety of adaptation and
mitigation projects are being trialed in the agricultural sector under such
headings as ‘carbon farming’ or ‘climate smart agriculture’ (hereafter: CSA). The
FAO website on
climate smart agriculture has a list of more than 150 projects around the
globe. Examples of these are the application of low water use technologies,
crop changes, tillage and residue management, land-use change, agroforestry,
enhancement of agro-biodiversity, etc.
So far, these, mostly experimental, projects have not or only barely
been brought under the existing legal framework on climate change adaptation
and mitigation.
With the
varieties in effects of agriculture on climate change and in the effects of
climate change per region, it is a challenge to come up with an overarching
legal framework that allows for both climate change mitigation and adaptation,
while maintaining or even improving food security as well as providing benefits
to as many people as possible. Although food security has been acknowledged as
an important issue under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
bringing adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sector under the UNFCCC
and the Kyoto Protocol is only happening at a slow pace. Emissions from land
use change and agriculture are included in the Protocol accounting mechanisms,
but only when measurable as verifiable changes in carbon stocks. In addition,
Parties could elect additional human-induced activities related to LULUCF
(Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry), specifically, forest management,
cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation, to be included
in its accounting for the first commitment period. Only four countries elected
for this option in that commitment period, hence strongly limiting the
possibilities under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as well. Furthermore,
methodological questions have led to restrictive limits. Soil sequestration,
for example, has been excluded from the CDM, and land use change can only
account for 1% of all CDM credits. Some support to developing countries in the
field of agriculture is provided for by the Adaptation Fund and the Green
Climate Fund.
In general,
it must be concluded that the instruments aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions only apply to agriculture to a very limited extend. The relationship
between agriculture and climate change is considered to be too complex to be
included in current negotiations. There are seemingly insurmountable practical
difficulties in integrating agricultural emissions in an emissions trading
scheme.
At the
international level, it is not just international climate law under the UNFCCC,
but also international trade law under the WTO that is relevant when
researching the legal framework for CSA. On the one hand, current income
support for farmers may constrain CSA, for instance when support schemes do not
‘reward’ farmers for switching to agricultural practices that are aimed at
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Under the WTO, reducing market
distortions caused by income support to farmers have been discussed for years
now, albeit without significant progress towards the liberalization of trade in
agricultural products. On the other hand, the WTO’s intellectual property
rights law (TRIPS agreement) seems to favour access to climate smart
agricultural technologies and practices, as the TRIPS agreement protects IPRs
while at the same time favouring technology transfer to developing countries,
although the latter –in practice- still is problematic.
At the
domestic level, only in very few countries attempts are made to introduce
financial benefits to farmers for their mitigation efforts. Probably the best
example is Australia that, in 2011, enacted legislation that allows farmers to
(voluntarily) generate carbon credits that can be sold on the domestic and
international carbon market: the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). Thanks to
this initiative, Australia is the country with the most far-reaching example of
active legislation aimed at facilitating and stimulating CSA. Farmers earn
credits through agricultural emissions avoidance projects (projects that avoid
emissions of methane from the digestive tract of livestock, methane or nitrous
oxide from the decomposition of livestock urine or dung, methane from rice
fields or rice plants, methane or nitrous oxide from the burning of savannahs
or grasslands, methane or nitrous oxide from the burning of crop stubble in
fields, crop residues in fields or sugar cane before harvest, and methane or
nitrous oxide from soil), as well as through sequestration offsets projects.
In the EU,
CSA is still very much in the research phase and the regulatory framework is largely
absent. Farming is excluded from the EU ETS, but included in the Effort Sharing
Decision. The Effort Sharing Decision
establishes binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States
for the period 2013–2020. Member States have to develop their own policies in
order to achieve their targets and therefore, may put more emphasis on some
sectors than on others. For agriculture, emission reductions could for instance
be achieved through more efficient farming practices and conversion of animal
waste to biogas. Other than in Australia, LULUCF projects are explicitly
excluded from the Effort Sharing Decision, so important measures like cropland
and grazing land management and revegetation are not covered. The second route
towards addressing emissions from agriculture is through the EU Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in 2013. Here mitigation and adaptation
policies meet, as the CAP is also the primary means for promoting climate
resilient agriculture. In the initial proposals, the European Commission
suggested to earmark 30% of the direct payments for farmers who apply
agricultural practices beneficial to climate change and the environment
(through crop diversification, maintenance of permanent pasture, the
preservation of environmental reservoirs and landscapes, etc.). In addition, it
was proposed to give increased financial support to agri-environment-climate
projects and organic farming under the EU´s rural development policy. In the
final stages of the negotiations, however, these proposals have been watered
down to a considerable extent.
vrijdag 10 januari 2014
Voor het eerst bindend internationaal recht met betrekking tot klimaat-engineering
Each of these techniques
has its own pros and cons. Some are considered to be potentially dangerous
because of the large scale at which they have to be used to be effective and
the risk of unexpected negative side effects. It, for instance, has been
estimated that for stratospheric aerosol injection to be effective, a more or
less continuous emission of aerosols by a very large number of aircraft (perhaps
as many as a thousand) is needed to keep a constant blanket of aerosols in the
atmosphere. As this technique does not interfere at all with the amount of
carbon in the atmosphere, generations to come have to continue applying this
technique. Stopping the emission of aerosols will trigger a very sudden drastic
warming effect. Other negative consequences of SAI are side effects, such as potentially
drastic changes in precipitation in some regions, ongoing ocean acidification and
potential harm to the ozone layer. Ocean fertilization leads to eco-system
changes and may affect fish stocks. There are many reports that describe the
pros and cons of the various geo-engineering techniques. In Germany, the Kiel
Earth Institute published a good report
in English. In the Netherlands, the Rathenau Institute published an up-to-date and
very well accessible report
in Dutch in December 2013.
As is often the case
with the development of new techniques and technologies, the law regulating
these is lagging behind. This, however, does not mean that climate engineering
is completely unregulated at the moment. International law that applies to
(some forms of) climate engineering, can be divided into four categories:
- International
customary law. The no harm principle limits the use of techniques that may have
an irreversible negative side effect for certain states (in the 1997 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
case, the International Court of Justice stated that in the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are
required on account of the often irreversible character of damage to the
environment and of the limitations inherent in the very mechanism of reparation
of this type of damage). An
assessment of the potential negative impacts on the environment of other states
is required as a consequence of this principle (as was concluded by the ICJ in
the 2010 Pulp Mills case). Other international environmental law principles
that are relevant here are the precautionary principle and the principle of
intergenerational equity.
- International
human rights conventions may apply, although both advocates and critics of
climate engineering use human rights as an argument in favour of and against
the deployment of geo-engineering techniques (climate engineering is necessary
to protect human rights which will be affected by climate change, or: climate
engineering may negatively impact on human rights in case of unexpected failure
or negative side-effects)
- Existing treaties
that more or less explicitly deal with climate engineering. The best example before
the adoption of the 2013 amendments to the London Protocol is the 1976 Convention
on Environmental Modifications (ENMOD convention). Although this convention is mainly
aimed at environmental modifications with a hostile intend, it also sets some
conditions to environmental modifications for peaceful purposes, such as climate
engineering. Climate engineering is allowed under the ENMOD Convention,
provided that a State does not develop and employ climate engineering on its
own (international cooperation is needed), the deployment has to contribute to
international economic and scientific collaboration aimed at improving the
environment, and States have to take into account the needs of developing countries.
- Existing
treaties that happen to be applicable to a certain climate engineering
technique, such as the 1979 Convention on long range transboundary air pollution
which sets a cap on various emissions, such as sulphur emissions, thus limiting
the use of sulphur for stratospheric aerosol injection.
The adoption of
amendments to the London Protocol referred to in the first sentence of this
blog fit within the third category, but is special because it is the first time
that climate engineering has been explicitly targeted by international law. Through
the amendments, a new article and two new annexes are inserted into 1996
Protocol. The new article states that “Contracting Parties shall not allow the
placement of matter into the sea from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other
man-made structures at sea for marine geo-engineering activities listed in
Annex 4, unless the listing provides that the activity or the sub-category of
an activity may be authorized under a permit”. Annex 4 then lists ocean fertilization
as a prohibited activity, with the exception of legitimate scientific research.
Such research has to be permitted and assessed under the criteria laid down in
Annex 5. Annex 5 has extensive provisions for the permitting process at the domestic
level by the parties to the protocol, on consultation, prior assessment, site
selection, risk management, monitoring, scientific peer review, etc., etc. States have to adopt
legislation so as to implement these new provisions. Once ratified, these amendments
will thus lead to legislative activity in all of the 44 parties to the protocol.
They will serve as a benchmark for all future geo-engineering law, both at
international and national level.
vrijdag 29 november 2013
Klimaatverandering en biodiversiteit: naar connectiviteit in het Europees natuurbeschermingsrecht
Many protected
areas are badly suited to overcome climate change–induced shifts in species’
geographic ranges. Studies show that protected areas “have not been designed
for efficient (or even complete) representation of species” (Hannah et al. 2007). Fixed protected areas
alone will not be sufficient to safeguard biodiversity from the impacts of
climate change. Hannah et al. show
that between 6% and 22% of species in their analysis failed to meet
representation targets for future ranges that take into account the impact of
climate change, with a further increase expected under more severe climate
change scenarios. Connectivity measures, such as the creation of corridors or
stepping stones compensate for such losses. This is also reflected in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment: “[c]orridors and other habitat design aspects to give
flexibility to protected areas are effective precautionary strategies. Improved
management of habitat corridors and production ecosystems between protected
areas will help biodiversity adapt to changing conditions” (MEA 2005). A
combination of several measures (enlarging areas, securing robust large areas,
securing ecological connections between areas, and establishing real ecological
networks) therefore seems to be the best approach to maximize the ability of
nature to cope with the pressure of climate change on biodiversity.
The IUCN recently published a two volume publication titled ‘The
Legal Aspects of Connectivity Conservation’ (IUCN 2013). Volume 1 gives a broad
overview of current insights and understanding of connectivity conservation and
explains through which legal mechanisms connectivity conservation can be
achieved, taking examples from around the world, and focusing on land use
planning law, development control law, voluntary conservation agreements and
economic and market-based instruments. Volume 2 has a wealth of case studies of
connectivity projects around the world. These projects range from local or
regional projects, to nationwide or even continent wide connectivity projects.
Examples of these are the nationwide ecological network in the Netherlands, the
3600km long corridor of the Great Eastern Ranges in Australia, the EU’s Natura
2000 network (including domestic projects in France, Germany, Spain, the UK,
Finland and Slovakia) and corridors in Brazil, such as the Central Amazon
Corridor.
Connectivity conservation and the management of connectivity
conservation areas are emerging fields of scientific study and conservation
management practice within the broader subject of nature conservation. In the
most basic terms, connectivity conservation is a conservation measure in
natural areas that are interconnected and in environments that are degraded or
fragmented by human impacts and development where the aim is to maintain or
restore the integrity of the affected natural ecosystems, linkages between
critical habitats for wildlife, and ecological processes important for the
goods and services they provide to nature and people. In fragmented ecosystems,
wildlife corridors and other natural linkages such as green belts and large
wildlife corridors have been common representations of connectivity
conservation. The scientific emphasis takes into account connectivity needs
across landscapes and seascapes, and in some cases even across continents,
where necessary to maintain or restore specific linkages for habitat or species
populations, or to maintain or restore important ecosystem processes.
Scientific study and conservation practice have made important strides in
understanding and applying connectivity conservation across a range of scales
and functions.
The overarching conclusion from the research and analyses
undertaken for this project as presented in Volume 1 of the report is the need
for countries to become increasingly alert to their connectivity conservation
needs, undertake connectivity planning, and initiate actions using existing
mechanisms and opportunities as much as possible to negotiate and protect
critical connectivity areas before they are lost to development. To support
this process, a related conclusion is that a wide array of different legal
instruments and tools already exist in many legal systems to begin to promote
and implement science-based connectivity actions in priority
landscapes/seascapes and local sites. Countries should start with these tools,
using the best scientific information available, before development pressures
make conservation or restoration no longer economically or political feasible.
As experience is gained working with communities and landholders, and managing
for connectivity conservation, a foundation of knowledge and support can be
built for amending or enacting new legislation, as needed, to strengthen and
integrate connectivity conservation authority into legal frameworks.
Opportunities to use existing law and policy instruments should not be delayed
by those efforts. It also is important to recognize that the law, by its nature
and function, aims for clarity, certainty, and clearly defined processes and
criteria for achieving specific goals and objectives. These features are essential
for societies to have orderly interactions and effective future planning. In
contrast, connectivity conservation is a tool for adapting to change due to
dynamic factors related to current and new threats to protected areas,
biodiversity and ecosystems, and to global change including climate change. Bringing
the law and connectivity together requires that the law incorporate some
flexibility in order for management to be able to respond to changing
connectivity conservation needs and that connectivity conservation actions be
based on the best available scientific information (in both the natural and social
sciences) so that management actions and commitments are well founded for the
foreseeable future. Law has several mechanisms that can provide flexibility.
These include requirements for periodic review and revision of management
plans, regular monitoring based on ecological criteria, the development of
performance measures to help assess and evaluate whether management plans are
achieving their intended purposes, and decision-making mechanisms to monitor
and incorporate new scientific information relevant for connectivity
conservation management as it becomes available.
For Europe, it is clear that Natura 2000 alone does not
constitute a coherent network in the sense of truly interconnected protected
areas throughout an entire country or throughout the whole of the EU.
Additional, domestic instruments, mainly in the field of nature conservation
law and spatial planning law are needed to create connectivity between the
Natura 2000 sites. Even in case domestic instruments are applied, in addition
to the EU’s Natura 2000 legal framework, to achieve connectivity, we still
cannot be certain that the network remains just an ecological network on paper.
Much depends on the actual application of all the laws and policies on
activities within the areas that constitute the network. Farmers and other
local landowners have to refrain from harmful activities, and/or have to
actively manage the area to support the area’s connectivity function. Financial
incentives are needed to make this happen. Fortunately, we can observe that EU
Member States increasingly do apply such domestic instruments in order to
achieve connectivity. Domestic policies in various Member States, such as the
Netherlands and the UK, provide for additional connectivity instruments that
add to the Natura 2000 network. Domestic subsidy schemes across the EU exist as
well, and the EU’s LIFE+ scheme provide important financial incentives for
connectivity. This, however, is largely due to national policy initiatives, and
based upon national law instruments. At the EU level, there seems to be a slow
movement towards accepting that connectivity measures are legally required by
the current texts of the Birds and Habitats Directive. The Alto Sil judgment of
the EU Court of Justice (Case C-404/09 European Commission v Spain), as well as
a range of policy documents go into that direction. In my view, however, there
is much to say for more explicit regulating connectivity (and restoration)
requirements in binding legal instruments, such as the EU Habitats Directive.
There is a fear that altering the current text of the Habitats Directive will
open Pandora’s Box, leading to a decline of the impact of this Directive on
nature conservation in Europe. Fear, however, generally is a bad advisor. The
Habitats Directive is getting outdated, caught up by climate change and by
large scale landscape fragmentation in Europe.
dinsdag 19 november 2013
Klimaatverandering en landroof in Afrika
Since 2008, civil society groups and transnational networks have drawn attention to one discrete source
of conflict that is on the rise in the wake of resource scarcity: transnational agro-investment (Oxfam 2011; GRAIN 2012; FOE 2012). In practice this form of investment revolves around the acquisition of large areas of land, usually located in the global South and on a doubtful legal basis, often labeled as ‘land grab’. Governments of poor states are eager to welcome investments, even though there is no clear sight on beneficial long-term effects of associated changes in land use (FAO, 2012; ILC, 2012). Most contracts for these long-term transactions are effectuated between foreign investments (often government driven) and national governments that control and own the land. Some (not all) foreign investors are driven primarily by reasons that are related to climate change (we can call this ‘climate induced transnational agro-investments’). First, countries that foresee reduced domestic availability of suitable land for food production due to climate change and rapid population growth try to avoid future food shortage and high prices by producing food overseas (China being an example here). Second, most developed countries have set targets in their energy policies in attempts to cap greenhouse emissions. To meet these targets they are searching outside their own jurisdiction for suitable and affordable land to grow crops for biofuels and forestation. There is, however, another link between land grabbing and climate change: intensified land use for the African host countries not only impairs immediate food and water availability at the local level, but also reduces local communities’ resilience to engage with future climate change (hence, reducing their adaptive capacities). This, in turn, leads to serious and often irreversible socio-economic impacts, such as the displacement of local communities.
Climate-induced transnational agro-investment has been on the rise in several countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia and Uganda, where large areas of fertile farmland have already been earmarked for long-term transfer to foreign investors. Companies from China, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK, The Netherlands, Norway and the USA have concluded land lease agreements for biofuel projects with government. Tensions and conflicts are looming as a result of discontent created by the marginalization and loss of property rights of the local communities as well as lack of their participation and a benefit-sharing scheme for use of resources. There already are numerous instances of displacements of the local population as well as clearing of forests and related resources on which the livelihood of the local population depend. These activities of the investors have caused widespread fear and threats to the livelihood of the local communities and have already led to conflict in some localities. An early example of such a conflict in Uganda is the so called FACE-case. The Forests Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions Foundation (FACE) is a Dutch organization that entered a partnership with Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to carry out a reforestation project in Mount Elgon National Park, commencing in 1994. The project involves planting of trees inside the boundaries of Mount Elgon National Park. The idea was that FACE assists with the planting of 25,000 ha of trees to absorb carbon dioxide so as to offset emissions from a new 600 MW coal-fired power station in the Netherlands. A year before the project started, the government declared Mount Elgon a National Park and the people living within its boundaries lost all their rights. People residing in the designated area were evicted without any compensation, and court cases aimed at protecting the community interests, did not yielded much. This resulted in conflicts, where communities deliberately destroyed the trees in the park. Evictions have continued throughout the 2000s, without compensation.
Although there exists an assumption that the investment is legally secured by contract law, pertinent legal questions arise about the compatibility of property rights, environmental norms, human rights and
participation rights. In general, five sources of law apply to foreign agro-investment: (a) National law of the host state; (b) Customary law of local and indigenous people; (c) International law (treaty and customary law, e.g. investment law); (d) Social responsibility norms and codes of conducts; (e) National law of the investor’s home state. It is unclear, however, how the legal norms of this complex multilevel system interact in practice. Such legal questions regarding changes in land change within the bigger climate change context have largely escaped the attention of environmental, human rights and investment lawyers to date. Legal analyses of the phenomenon of foreign direct investment and its impact on local communities’ rights are scarce. Moreover, evidence shows that legal entitlements and rights are not evenly distributed. In general it can be stated that while investors’ interests are legally enforceable and thereby protected, the interests of local and indigenous people are mostly regulated by ‘soft norms’- e.g. the principle of free prior and informed consent that in practice is extremely difficult to enforce.
As climate change threatens to become an ever more acute and serious problem, and population pressure increases, foreign agro - investment is an increasing source of conflict. This being so, we can no longer postpone thinking about the legal nature and the legal implications of climate-induced foreign agro-investment. One promising legal pathway is to focus on the legal agreements through which long-term land deals are being completed. These contracts or bilateral investment treaties contain critical information that determines the scope and terms of the investment deal, including the distribution of risks among stakeholders. The nature of the parties signing the contract (private or public) and through what process, significantly impacts on the extent to which local communities are involved and can make their voices heard. Practice suggests that local communities and rural landowners are rarely consulted in negotiations. Likewise, the terms of the contracts could have profound and possibly irreversible consequences for food security and stability in the host countries. It is hence crucial that contractual arrangements also address both environmental and social issues (e.g. job creation, infrastructure development). This is an area where linking contract law to customary, national, and international law and codes of conduct is particularly important for a full understanding of the implications of the contracts. Recently, several codes of conduct and principles for responsible investment (e.g. World Bank, FAO, IFAD, the UNCTAD, OECD, IFC standards, Ruggie Principles in Responsible Contracts, etc.) have been added at the international level to the existing body of law regulating foreign agro-investments. Similarly, at the regional level there has been increasing activity concerning promoting responsible investment; the African Land Policy Framework and Guidelines Initiative that is being led by the African Union for example addresses the issue. However, how these soft norms relate to individual contracts is far from clear and needs to be explored. It appears that domestic practices throughout Africa are quite diverse, ranging from no relationship whatsoever, to, for example, an explicit coverage of responsible and sustainable investment clauses in all contracts and the duty to have each contract ratified by parliament, as is the case in Liberia. Zambia has largely regulated foreign agro-investments, with the aim to guaranteeing continued supply at fair prices to local markets and the use of local farmers who have to earn a decent salary. A search for best practices in Africa is a good way to start researching effective regulatory frameworks for responsible and sustainable transnational agro-investments!
of conflict that is on the rise in the wake of resource scarcity: transnational agro-investment (Oxfam 2011; GRAIN 2012; FOE 2012). In practice this form of investment revolves around the acquisition of large areas of land, usually located in the global South and on a doubtful legal basis, often labeled as ‘land grab’. Governments of poor states are eager to welcome investments, even though there is no clear sight on beneficial long-term effects of associated changes in land use (FAO, 2012; ILC, 2012). Most contracts for these long-term transactions are effectuated between foreign investments (often government driven) and national governments that control and own the land. Some (not all) foreign investors are driven primarily by reasons that are related to climate change (we can call this ‘climate induced transnational agro-investments’). First, countries that foresee reduced domestic availability of suitable land for food production due to climate change and rapid population growth try to avoid future food shortage and high prices by producing food overseas (China being an example here). Second, most developed countries have set targets in their energy policies in attempts to cap greenhouse emissions. To meet these targets they are searching outside their own jurisdiction for suitable and affordable land to grow crops for biofuels and forestation. There is, however, another link between land grabbing and climate change: intensified land use for the African host countries not only impairs immediate food and water availability at the local level, but also reduces local communities’ resilience to engage with future climate change (hence, reducing their adaptive capacities). This, in turn, leads to serious and often irreversible socio-economic impacts, such as the displacement of local communities.
Climate-induced transnational agro-investment has been on the rise in several countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia and Uganda, where large areas of fertile farmland have already been earmarked for long-term transfer to foreign investors. Companies from China, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK, The Netherlands, Norway and the USA have concluded land lease agreements for biofuel projects with government. Tensions and conflicts are looming as a result of discontent created by the marginalization and loss of property rights of the local communities as well as lack of their participation and a benefit-sharing scheme for use of resources. There already are numerous instances of displacements of the local population as well as clearing of forests and related resources on which the livelihood of the local population depend. These activities of the investors have caused widespread fear and threats to the livelihood of the local communities and have already led to conflict in some localities. An early example of such a conflict in Uganda is the so called FACE-case. The Forests Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions Foundation (FACE) is a Dutch organization that entered a partnership with Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to carry out a reforestation project in Mount Elgon National Park, commencing in 1994. The project involves planting of trees inside the boundaries of Mount Elgon National Park. The idea was that FACE assists with the planting of 25,000 ha of trees to absorb carbon dioxide so as to offset emissions from a new 600 MW coal-fired power station in the Netherlands. A year before the project started, the government declared Mount Elgon a National Park and the people living within its boundaries lost all their rights. People residing in the designated area were evicted without any compensation, and court cases aimed at protecting the community interests, did not yielded much. This resulted in conflicts, where communities deliberately destroyed the trees in the park. Evictions have continued throughout the 2000s, without compensation.
Although there exists an assumption that the investment is legally secured by contract law, pertinent legal questions arise about the compatibility of property rights, environmental norms, human rights and
participation rights. In general, five sources of law apply to foreign agro-investment: (a) National law of the host state; (b) Customary law of local and indigenous people; (c) International law (treaty and customary law, e.g. investment law); (d) Social responsibility norms and codes of conducts; (e) National law of the investor’s home state. It is unclear, however, how the legal norms of this complex multilevel system interact in practice. Such legal questions regarding changes in land change within the bigger climate change context have largely escaped the attention of environmental, human rights and investment lawyers to date. Legal analyses of the phenomenon of foreign direct investment and its impact on local communities’ rights are scarce. Moreover, evidence shows that legal entitlements and rights are not evenly distributed. In general it can be stated that while investors’ interests are legally enforceable and thereby protected, the interests of local and indigenous people are mostly regulated by ‘soft norms’- e.g. the principle of free prior and informed consent that in practice is extremely difficult to enforce.
As climate change threatens to become an ever more acute and serious problem, and population pressure increases, foreign agro - investment is an increasing source of conflict. This being so, we can no longer postpone thinking about the legal nature and the legal implications of climate-induced foreign agro-investment. One promising legal pathway is to focus on the legal agreements through which long-term land deals are being completed. These contracts or bilateral investment treaties contain critical information that determines the scope and terms of the investment deal, including the distribution of risks among stakeholders. The nature of the parties signing the contract (private or public) and through what process, significantly impacts on the extent to which local communities are involved and can make their voices heard. Practice suggests that local communities and rural landowners are rarely consulted in negotiations. Likewise, the terms of the contracts could have profound and possibly irreversible consequences for food security and stability in the host countries. It is hence crucial that contractual arrangements also address both environmental and social issues (e.g. job creation, infrastructure development). This is an area where linking contract law to customary, national, and international law and codes of conduct is particularly important for a full understanding of the implications of the contracts. Recently, several codes of conduct and principles for responsible investment (e.g. World Bank, FAO, IFAD, the UNCTAD, OECD, IFC standards, Ruggie Principles in Responsible Contracts, etc.) have been added at the international level to the existing body of law regulating foreign agro-investments. Similarly, at the regional level there has been increasing activity concerning promoting responsible investment; the African Land Policy Framework and Guidelines Initiative that is being led by the African Union for example addresses the issue. However, how these soft norms relate to individual contracts is far from clear and needs to be explored. It appears that domestic practices throughout Africa are quite diverse, ranging from no relationship whatsoever, to, for example, an explicit coverage of responsible and sustainable investment clauses in all contracts and the duty to have each contract ratified by parliament, as is the case in Liberia. Zambia has largely regulated foreign agro-investments, with the aim to guaranteeing continued supply at fair prices to local markets and the use of local farmers who have to earn a decent salary. A search for best practices in Africa is a good way to start researching effective regulatory frameworks for responsible and sustainable transnational agro-investments!
vrijdag 6 september 2013
Eindelijk een schaliegasdebat in Nederland
Fifteen years after the first economical shale fracture in the United States, the debate on shale gas extraction has finally reached full speed after the publication, in August 2013, of a research report by three consultancy firms lead by Witteveen + Bos, on the potential risks and consequences of shale gas and coal seam gas extraction in the Netherlands. In the report for the Dutch government, the researchers reviewed the existing literature on the impact of shale gas extraction and “translated” the findings to the Dutch situation. Most of the information on the impact of shale gas extraction is from experiences in the US and the UK. The comprehensive report focuses on all possible consequences, such as water use, underground impact on the soil, methane emissions and the impact on the carbon footprint, pollution of the environment (including groundwater) by fracturing fluid and flowback water, noise and light pollution from installations, flaring, safety issues, earthquakes and subsidence.
Generally, the report concludes that most if not all of these risks can be managed by setting strict permit conditions. Unlike in the US, the Dutch shale gas reserves are at great depth, well below ground water aquifers, and, also unlike in the US, in the Netherlands there already exists an extensive regulatory system that sets strict rules. Flowback water, for instance, cannot be stored in open basins, but has to be stored in closed tanks that are stored on watertight floors as a consequence of EU waste water law.
Although the report looks sufficiently overarching and detailed, it also gained criticism. It was for instance criticized for its selected use of sources. Professor Jan Rotmans, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (29 August 2013) stated that the report heavily relied on data coming from the industry (75% of the data used is from industry related sources), rather than on data from more independent sources. In addition, the lack of data is usually interpreted in a ‘positive’ way, i.e., concluding that a certain impact is not problematic, while in fact we do not know because of lacking data. Applying the precautionary principle would have led to the opposite conclusion in such a situation! Unfortunately, the Minister decided to grant the research project to a consortium of three private companies, one of which is Fugro, which states on its website: ‘Fugro’s activities (…) are primarily aimed at the: oil and gas industry, construction industry, mining sector’. On such a sensitive issue, it would have been better for the Minister to grant the project to a consortium of universities rather than of private businesses with ties to the shale gas industry, or at least have a university team lead the consortium.
Another problematic feature of the report is that it does not focus on specific local conditions. This is a bit strange because a) the government selected the three locations on which exploratory drillings are to take place long ago (2010), and b) the report argues that local zoning requirements are needed to protect specific sites, such as Natura 2000 sites (protected areas under the EU’s nature conservation laws) and groundwater protection areas (in use for drinking water supply), and probably also (although not specifically mentioned in the report) other types of protected areas, such as water storage areas, silence areas, and national parks. The report also suggests to protect buffer zones around such protected areas, without detailing how big these have to be. Given the fact that populated areas probably have to be avoided as well, it would have been interesting to test what drilling options remain. By leaving a lot of issues to the local level, authorities resisting shale gas extraction have an immense opportunity to block drilling, even in case the national authorities granted concessions. We already see developments going into this direction: a majority of politicians of the province of Noord-Brabant in which two of the designated exploration locations are located, have announced to prohibit shale gas exploration in their province in the Provincial Environment Ordinance.
It is clear from the report that shale gas extraction is only acceptable under strict legal conditions. The report does, therefore, constantly refer to laws and regulations that are or should be in place to minimize the negative impact of fracking. A full assessment of current laws is lacking, though. Current Dutch mining legislation does not explicitly deal with fracking, simply because it predates the large scale use of this technology. An earlier EU investigation of existing environmental laws, by a consortium that, interestingly enough, also included Witteveen + Bos, found many gaps and shortcomings. It is unlikely that all of these do not exist in the Netherlands. The report, furthermore, relies on law in the books rather than on the law in action. Although there are supervising authorities, both on the implementation of mining legislation and environmental legislation, much depends on the way the various authorities involved deal with their decision-making and monitoring and enforcement powers.
The debate will not be over for a while. This is a good thing. Before investing billions of euros into new infrastructure to extract fossil energy resources, it is worthwhile to rethink whether such investments perhaps are more appropriate in the dwindling Dutch renewable energy sector. According to the 2013 Renewable Energy Progress Report, the Netherlands is on a snail ride, moving from a 2,4% share in 2005, to a 3,8 share of renewable energy sources in the total energy consumption in 2010. Compare this to some of nearby countries, such as Germany (11%), France (13.5%), and Denmark (22.2%)… In 2012, the share went up to 4,7%. In this pace, it is highly unlikely that the Netherlands will meet its target for 2020 of 16%... Investing in shale gas extraction will not speed up this process.
Generally, the report concludes that most if not all of these risks can be managed by setting strict permit conditions. Unlike in the US, the Dutch shale gas reserves are at great depth, well below ground water aquifers, and, also unlike in the US, in the Netherlands there already exists an extensive regulatory system that sets strict rules. Flowback water, for instance, cannot be stored in open basins, but has to be stored in closed tanks that are stored on watertight floors as a consequence of EU waste water law.
Although the report looks sufficiently overarching and detailed, it also gained criticism. It was for instance criticized for its selected use of sources. Professor Jan Rotmans, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (29 August 2013) stated that the report heavily relied on data coming from the industry (75% of the data used is from industry related sources), rather than on data from more independent sources. In addition, the lack of data is usually interpreted in a ‘positive’ way, i.e., concluding that a certain impact is not problematic, while in fact we do not know because of lacking data. Applying the precautionary principle would have led to the opposite conclusion in such a situation! Unfortunately, the Minister decided to grant the research project to a consortium of three private companies, one of which is Fugro, which states on its website: ‘Fugro’s activities (…) are primarily aimed at the: oil and gas industry, construction industry, mining sector’. On such a sensitive issue, it would have been better for the Minister to grant the project to a consortium of universities rather than of private businesses with ties to the shale gas industry, or at least have a university team lead the consortium.
Another problematic feature of the report is that it does not focus on specific local conditions. This is a bit strange because a) the government selected the three locations on which exploratory drillings are to take place long ago (2010), and b) the report argues that local zoning requirements are needed to protect specific sites, such as Natura 2000 sites (protected areas under the EU’s nature conservation laws) and groundwater protection areas (in use for drinking water supply), and probably also (although not specifically mentioned in the report) other types of protected areas, such as water storage areas, silence areas, and national parks. The report also suggests to protect buffer zones around such protected areas, without detailing how big these have to be. Given the fact that populated areas probably have to be avoided as well, it would have been interesting to test what drilling options remain. By leaving a lot of issues to the local level, authorities resisting shale gas extraction have an immense opportunity to block drilling, even in case the national authorities granted concessions. We already see developments going into this direction: a majority of politicians of the province of Noord-Brabant in which two of the designated exploration locations are located, have announced to prohibit shale gas exploration in their province in the Provincial Environment Ordinance.
It is clear from the report that shale gas extraction is only acceptable under strict legal conditions. The report does, therefore, constantly refer to laws and regulations that are or should be in place to minimize the negative impact of fracking. A full assessment of current laws is lacking, though. Current Dutch mining legislation does not explicitly deal with fracking, simply because it predates the large scale use of this technology. An earlier EU investigation of existing environmental laws, by a consortium that, interestingly enough, also included Witteveen + Bos, found many gaps and shortcomings. It is unlikely that all of these do not exist in the Netherlands. The report, furthermore, relies on law in the books rather than on the law in action. Although there are supervising authorities, both on the implementation of mining legislation and environmental legislation, much depends on the way the various authorities involved deal with their decision-making and monitoring and enforcement powers.
The debate will not be over for a while. This is a good thing. Before investing billions of euros into new infrastructure to extract fossil energy resources, it is worthwhile to rethink whether such investments perhaps are more appropriate in the dwindling Dutch renewable energy sector. According to the 2013 Renewable Energy Progress Report, the Netherlands is on a snail ride, moving from a 2,4% share in 2005, to a 3,8 share of renewable energy sources in the total energy consumption in 2010. Compare this to some of nearby countries, such as Germany (11%), France (13.5%), and Denmark (22.2%)… In 2012, the share went up to 4,7%. In this pace, it is highly unlikely that the Netherlands will meet its target for 2020 of 16%... Investing in shale gas extraction will not speed up this process.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)