Karen Morrow

Rio +20, the Green Economy and Re-orienting Sustainable Development

This article looks at the role played by the green economy approach to sustainable development in the run-up to and aftermath of the UNCSD 2012 (the Rio+20 Earth Summit). It examines the inherent tensions that have become increasingly apparent within the sustainable development paradigm and considers the impact of the green economy approach as espoused in the Rio+20 process on sustainability. The positions adopted by major actors (comprising institutions, states and major groups) towards the green economy in the Rio+20 process and its outcome document The Future We Want are discussed. The article reflects on the particular manifestation of the perennial North/South tensions that permeate international environmental law and governance that have been prompted by the green economy debate. It also considers new fractures in the South grouping prompted by the increasing influence calls for a less materialistic, more holistic basis for human/ environment relations. Thus, contrary to the economics-dominated agenda espoused in the Rio+20 process, the Mother Earth Rights/Pachamama approach that is being promoted by a number of South American states emerged (albeit as a minor strand) in the outcome document. The article contemplates both the disappointment of the Rio+20 process and outcome and the seeds for a more creative future that may have been sown in them.

International civil society in international law : the growth of NGO participation.

This article analyses the argument that the development of NGO activity in the international arena in the past decade demonstrates the emergence of international civil society. Such activity has accelerated in several areas, notably environment and human rights, and the integration of NGOs into the implementation of international law, particularly of multilateral treaties, indicates a socialisation of international law, and more importantly, the beginnings of pluralism in international law, where states are not the only actors which can influence the progressive development of international law. NGOs are an appropriate focus for this discussion as most aspects of civil society are represented by such bodies.

Indicators for change: Taking a lead

Abstract The authors argue that sustainable development is a political concept arising from interactions between socio‐economic and physical systems. As such, political values are implicit in many qualitative aspects of sustainability and its communication through indicators. In Great Britain, local government has played the lead role in Local Agenda 21, involving interest groups and community organisations in varying degrees, through public participation. However, the need for local solutions to sustainability problems also exists in Northern Ireland, where governmental bodies are unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for Local Agenda 21. In the Northern Ireland context, the evolving role of Non‐Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and the community sector in the indicators issue has been markedly different to that in the rest of the UK. There are potential problems concerning political values and mandates when the NGO/community sector assumes the lead in such tasks. The authors argue that, while cri...

Book review: Ecological GovernanceWooleyOliviaEcological Governance, Cambridge University Press, 2014; Hardback. 261 pp. ISBN 978-1-107-06045-6

the CAP and nature conservation outside protected areas (VII); ecosystem services and habitat offset and banking. It deals with topical and important issues, including the ambiguous nature of the legal obligations and difficulties with interpretation (see, in particular, Donald McGillivray on ‘compensatory measures, chapter 7, and Lucile Stahl on ‘conservation objectives’, chapter 4). It provides some interesting contributions on management of sites, including a thought-provoking paper by Augustin Garcia-Ureta and Inigo Lazkano on the ‘active management’ of sites and the potential for greater stakeholder involvement. Others make useful contributions on the management of species, including Jan Darpo and Yaffa Epstein on Swedish wolf management. It also seeks to addresses big issues, including climate change (Arie Trouwborst) and how to deal with scientific uncertainty and precaution (Eve Truile-Marengo). EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik, in his forward to this collection of essays, described the Habitats Directive as ‘a work in progress’. Each of the contributors to this book provides a reasoned critique of selected aspects of the directive. It is an essential resource for anyone involved in research in the field of European (and, for that matter, national) nature conservation, as well as an excellent resource for advanced studies. I am pleased to recommend it.

Sustainability, environmental citizenship rights and the ongoing challenges of reshaping supranational environmental governance

This Chapter traces the emergence and development of formal civil society/major group participation in environmental law and policy making processes from its rather weak conceptual origins in the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. It outlines the emergence into the mainstream of the drive to incorporate ‘bottom-up’ participation in environmental law and policy making, supplementing the traditional ‘top-down’ model of the established international regime in this sphere. This development rode on the coat tails of sustainable development through both the methodology and the inherent content of sustainable development identified in the outcome report Our Common Future of the World Commission on Environment and Development as partially embraced by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio in 1992 and in the Rio Declaration (specifically Article 10), as well as the ‘blueprint’ for sustainable development of Agenda 21. At the same time the drive to promote bottom-up participation in the emerging field of sustainable development was also provided by vigorous civil society activism and engagement with the UNCED process, as exhibited in the influence of the Women’s Congress for a Healthy Planet in rendering the originally gender blind draft of Agenda 21 gender literate. The initial slow embrace of broader approaches to participation in the limited sphere of influence of the now defunct Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) and its later General Assembly-prompted development of good practice in this regard, are considered. The Chapter observes that the virtual ‘ghettoization’ of the participation agenda in the restricted institutional context offered by the CSD initially restricted its impact but that its gradual development of a sound body of expertise in this regard sowed the seeds for a wider culture change in this regard in the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Chapter observes that the still-evolving expansive shift in the composition of the international polis in the sphere of sustainable development and environmental law to embrace major groups and other stakeholders that was set in motion by the events referred to above is one hallmark of the shift from government to governance in this area of transnational global endeavour. In considering the development of participation rights, the Chapter considers the role played by the theoretical construction of environmental citizenship and uses Bell’s neo-Rawlsian analysis of this area to frame discussion of the respective merits and limitations of procedural environmental rights and a substantive environmental right in progressing praxis in this field. The Chapter concludes by looking at more recent developments in the participation Agenda as made evident in outcomes of the United Nation as Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in 2012. The argument is made that, while the UNCSD proved disappointing in many ways, there is room for qualified optimism in its relatively enthusiastic reiteration and apparent augmentation of the participation agenda; also arguably evident in the subsequent early work of the new High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – showing that participation remains very much a live issue.

Introduction: Environmental Law and Sustainability after Rio

The fields of environmental and sustainability law, despite strong historical roots and antecedents, are by no means fully elaborated and mature fields of scholarship and professional practice. It is possible, nonetheless, to identify landmarks or milestones in their development and to reflect upon the significance of what has been put in place. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, commonly referred to as the Earth Summit, and the adoption of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development clearly represent one such landmark. It is appropriate, particularly in the field of environmental law, both to commemorate past achievements as well as to take a realistic view of their shortcomings. In recognising achievements, we are able to celebrate and express appreciation for the very significant accomplishments of an earlier generation of researchers, advocates, negotiators and practitioners. The success of their efforts to safeguard the environment gives us hope, an outlook that is not always in good supply. On the other hand, the process of assessment necessarily invites reflection on the shortcomings and limitations of our current situation and encourages a salutary reminder that much remains to be done to secure the foundations of environmental protection and sustainability on a global, national and local basis. The fifteenth anniversary in 2007 of the Rio conference provided a sufficient temporal perspective to attempt the undertaking of an assessment of progress in environmental law in the realm of sustainability. The Brazilian organisers of the Fifth Annual Colloquium of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law thus invited participants from the Academy’s member institutions as well as the broader global university community to convene in Rio de Janeiro and in the heritage town of Parati for presentations and debates under the general theme ‘Rio + 15: A Legal Critique of Ecologically Sustainable Development’. This book contains selected papers from that

Sustainable Development, Major Groups and Stakeholder Dialogue: Lessons from the UN

Sustainability, while promoting the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in the development context, must also be considered in an institutional context as a concept that seeks not only to alter the orientation and content of policy and law, but also to change the way in which these are arrived at by invoking more inclusive and consensual approaches and processes for, deliberation and decision-making. The rationale present in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 requires the promotion of broader input into and ownership of policy and law by engaging stakeholder participation. In order to consider the role of major groups and stakeholders generally, this chapter focuses on the experience of one group in particular-women-and attempts to integrate their voice into the sustainability agenda to see if any more generally applicable lessons may be extrapolated from these experiences to address the situation of the other major groups included in Agenda 21. Keywords:Agenda 21; Rio declaration; stakeholders; sustainable development; UN

On Winning the Battle but Losing the War…: R (on the Application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311, [2007] Env LR 29

Greenpeace initiated a claim for judicial review seeking a quashing order in respect of the Government’s decision to support nuclear new build as part of the UK’s future energy mix. The decision, which appeared in The Energy Challenge Review Report published in 2006, represented a volte face in this aspect of energy policy as previously expressed in the 2003 White Paper Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy. In that document, the Government indicated that it had decided against supporting the building of new nuclear power stations as part of the UK energy mix, opting instead to concentrate its efforts on encouraging the development of renewable energy sources. In Our Energy Future the Government had explicitly stated that: ‘Before any decision to proceed with the building of nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a White Paper setting out the Government’s proposals.’1

Tort and Regulatory Law in England and Wales

This chapter deals primarily with the law as it applies in England and Wales, it is however accompanied by certain observations that hold true for all of the legal systems of the United Kingdom (UK). As an initial comment, it should be pointed out that the term “administrative law” has a very particular (and in comparison to the manner in which it is used in civil law jurisdictions, relatively limited) meaning in UK law. Administrative law, which forms a sub-category of public law more generally, normally encapsulates the law relating to the “composition, structures, powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the various organs of government which are engaged in administering public policies”.1 In the sense that the term “administrative law” is used in this paper, in UK law, it would more usually be encompassed by the term “regulatory law”. The general position in UK law is that the common law is relegated to a subsidiary role in those situations where State sponsored regulatory regimes have been put into place. This general view was endorsed obiter dictum by the House of Lords in the high profile environment torts case of Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 Appeal Cases (AC) 264: “[...] given that so much well-informed and carefully structured legislation is now [...] in place [...] there is less need for the courts to develop the common law to achieve the same end.”2 Indeed it could be said that regulatory law plays the prime role in regulating the environment, supplemented by judicial review controls, with the common law playing very much a secondary, supporting role.3