Obstacles and Obligations: Wind Energy and Migratory Bird Protection in New Zealand

<p>Wind farms create unique risks to birds because of the danger of the turbine blades, which can be up to 150 meters tall. Placement of wind farms in the wrong areas can have a detrimental impact on bird species. New Zealand’s commitment to renewable energy is shared with its obligations to protect biodiversity, which are reflected in the ratification of international conventions such as the Convention on Migratory Species and the Biodiversity Convention. Domestic legislation, such as the Resource Management Act 1991, seeks to enhance the development of alternative sources of energy with the intention of reducing the effects of climate change on the environment and conserving indigenous biodiversity. Migratory bird protection in the wind farm context in New Zealand relies upon environmental impact assessment under Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. International obligations include protecting or endeavouring to protect 37 migratory bird species along their complete flight paths. The Resource Management Act 1991 does not meet international obligations to protect migratory birds in the wind farm consent process because (1) the assessment of environmental effects process fails to adequately identify effects on migratory birds; and (2) even if the assessment of environmental effects process adequately identifies effects on migratory birds, the RMA fails to give priority weight to effects on birds when it balances those effects with other factors in deciding to approve the wind farm application. Other countries provide guidance on the next steps for New Zealand to take to comply with its international obligations to migratory birds.</p>

Obstacles and Obligations: Wind Energy and Migratory Bird Protection in New Zealand

<p>Wind farms create unique risks to birds because of the danger of the turbine blades, which can be up to 150 meters tall. Placement of wind farms in the wrong areas can have a detrimental impact on bird species. New Zealand’s commitment to renewable energy is shared with its obligations to protect biodiversity, which are reflected in the ratification of international conventions such as the Convention on Migratory Species and the Biodiversity Convention. Domestic legislation, such as the Resource Management Act 1991, seeks to enhance the development of alternative sources of energy with the intention of reducing the effects of climate change on the environment and conserving indigenous biodiversity. Migratory bird protection in the wind farm context in New Zealand relies upon environmental impact assessment under Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. International obligations include protecting or endeavouring to protect 37 migratory bird species along their complete flight paths. The Resource Management Act 1991 does not meet international obligations to protect migratory birds in the wind farm consent process because (1) the assessment of environmental effects process fails to adequately identify effects on migratory birds; and (2) even if the assessment of environmental effects process adequately identifies effects on migratory birds, the RMA fails to give priority weight to effects on birds when it balances those effects with other factors in deciding to approve the wind farm application. Other countries provide guidance on the next steps for New Zealand to take to comply with its international obligations to migratory birds.</p>

Economics of the Biodiversity Convention

Biological diversity refers to the variety of life on Earth, in all its forms and interactions. Biological diversity, or biodiversity for short, is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species estimates that 25% of mammals, 41% of amphibians, 33% of reef building corals, and 13% of birds are threatened with extinction. These biodiversity benefits are being lost due to conversion of natural habitat, overharvesting, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. The loss of biodiversity is important because it provides many critical resources, services, and ecosystem functions, such as foods, medicines, clean air, and storm protection. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose a major risk to human societies and economic welfare. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”) and enacted in 1993. The international treaty aims to conserve biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of the components of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. The CBD has near universal global participation with 196 parties signatory to the treaty. The non-legally binding commitments established in 2010 by the CBD are known as the Aichi Targets. They include the goal of conserving at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water habitats and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Biodiversity continues to decline at an unprecedented rate and the world faces “biological annihilation” and a sixth mass extinction event. There are several underlying causes of the continuing loss of biodiversity that need to be addressed. First, the CBD Aichi Targets are not ambitious enough and should be extended to protect as much as 50% of the terrestrial realm for biodiversity. Second, it is difficult to place an economic value on the range of direct, indirect, and nonuse values of biodiversity. The failure to take into account the full economic value of biodiversity in prices, projects, and policy decisions means that biodiversity is often misused and overused. Third, biodiversity is a global public good and displays nonrival and nonexcludable characteristics. Because of this, it is difficult to raise sufficient funds for conservation and to channel these funds to cover local conservation costs. In particular, much of the world’s biodiversity is located in (mainly tropical) developing countries, and they do not have the incentive or the funds to spend the money to “save” enough biodiversity on behalf of the rest of the world. The funding for global biodiversity conservation is $4–$10 billion annually, whereas around $100 billion a year is needed to protect the Earth’s broad range of animal and plant species. This funding gap undermines CBD’s conservation efforts. Governments and international organizations have been unable to raise the investments needed to reverse the decline in biological populations and habitats on land and in oceans. There is an important role for private-sector involvement in the CBD to endorse efforts for more sustainable use of biodiversity and to contribute funds to finance conservation and habitat protection efforts.

Economic policy instruments for sustainable phosphorus management: taking into account climate and biodiversity targets

Background Phosphorus (P) is a vital and non-substitutable nutrient for agricultural production. However, P is often used inefficiently in European agriculture. To ensure food security while avoiding environmental damage caused by improper fertilization, a sustainable P management is required. Although P-related problems are partly addressed by existing agricultural and environmental legislation, e.g., in the EU, the current regulation lacks sufficient governance effect. In addition, the existing legal framework is strongly characterized by detailed command-and-control provisions and thus suffers from governance problems such as enforcement deficits, rebound and shifting effects. This paper focuses on how these challenges could be addressed by economic instruments. The article highlights not only the impact of the instruments on P management, but also on adjacent environmental areas. We pay particular attention to the governance effects on reaching international binding climate and biodiversity objectives, for which fertilization and agriculture play a major role. Results The analysis builds on two economic instruments that ensure compliance with the climate target of the Paris Agreement and the Aichi targets of the Biodiversity Convention: a cap-and-trade scheme for fossil fuels and a cap-and-trade scheme for livestock products. We state that both instruments simultaneously address a large part of P-related problems. Moreover, if the two emissions trading schemes are combined with a livestock-to-land ratio at farm level, only little need for regulatory supplementation relating to P remains. The latter includes in particular a threshold value for contaminants in P-containing fertilizers. Furthermore, we discuss an almost complete phasing-out of fertilizers containing rock phosphate by means of a further certificate trading scheme. Conclusions The article shows that a wide variety of problems can be tackled with a few overarching instruments. This is true even for very specific and diverse problems such as those related to P use in agriculture.

FOOD SAFETY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN INDONESIA

Modern biotechnology products have provided considerable benefits for improving human life and well-being, both in the agriculture, food, industry and human health sectors, as well as in the environmental field. But there are concerns that modern biotechnology products, in addition to providing benefits, also have risks that have adverse impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and human health. Therefore, steps need to be taken, both legally, administratively, and technology to ensure the level of biological safety.This study aims to explain and analyze the safety of Genetically Modified Organism or GMO according to international law and their implementation in Indonesia. The problem approach used in this research is normative law (library research). The data used are secondary data obtained from international, national legal regulations and literature data related to material that supports discussion of the problem. Analysis of the data used is descriptive qualitative.The results of research on food safety of Genetically Modified Organism or GMO according to international law, are regulations on food safety of genetically engineered products regulated in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The laws and regulations governing GMO food in Indonesia are good enough because they have carried out the mandate and did not deviate from the biodiversity convention and Cartagena protocol by passing legislation regulations from the legal level to the decision level of the head of BPOM. It’s just that for rules regarding GMO food that is sold in retail, or that is not in the form of packaging, there is still no technical rules that can answer the problems in the field.

Ecological Restoration and International Law

The concept of remedies has always been an important component of the legal system. Throughout the world, countries have utilized environmental law in a variety of ways to legislate for the remediation and rehabilitation of destroyed or degraded land and ecosystems. For example, in some countries, environmental law has provided for the remediation of contaminated mine sites, which can rather be classified as environmental restoration. However, often these countries have yet to properly enforce such law. Furthermore, given the significant increase in anthropogenic harm during the past few decades, there is an increasing realization that more needs to be done than simply acting to protect an environment from harm. Unlike the terms “rehabilitation” and “remediation,” the term “restoration” is drawn from the science of restoration ecology. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” Ecological restoration contributes to the application of the ecosystem approach. There are different approaches to ecological and ecosystem recovery, such as rewilding or extreme forms of restoration such as “de-extinction.” This is due to the inherent complexity of assisting nature to recover from anthropogenic harm. Ecological restoration is the most prominent practice among ecologists to restore ecosystems, but is not the only approach. The main focus here will be on ecosystem restoration. “Restoration ecology” is the broad name for the scientific discipline behind ecological restoration and other recovery initiatives, and is a relatively new but rapidly developing branch within the study of natural sciences. Even more recently, there has been increasing legal attention to ecological restoration. There is no separate instrument in international law dealing with ecological restoration. However, legal obligations for restoration can be found in various multilateral environmental agreements, regional conventions, regional instruments such as European Union (EU) directives, and soft law instruments. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention) is an important convention outlining State party obligations for ecological restoration, as can be seen in both the Convention text and subsequent Conference of Parties decisions, including the 2010 Aichi Targets, which detail a specific target for ecological restoration. Prior to the Biodiversity Convention, the international community utilized the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) to introduce the concept of restoration. Other conventions that address ecological restoration or species restoration include the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Convention on Migratory Species), and several of its additional agreements. Climate change poses both opportunities and additional challenges for restoration. Restoring ecosystems such as forests and peatlands assists in the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. Within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992) and the 2015 Paris Agreement, the role of restoration has been recognized. As various conventions and soft law instruments now impress obligations of restoration, the legal duty to restore the environment has matured into a customary obligation and can be considered as an emerging legal principle. However, most instruments containing legal obligations for restoration do not contain a clear definition or further clarification on how a State party might restore an ecosystem.

DIREITOS DA NATUREZA: O RIO AMAZONAS COMANDA A VIDA

RESUMOO rio Amazonas constitui um objeto natural, cujas águas comandam a vida dos ecossistemas e das comunidades na Pan-Amazônia. As águas amazônicas nutrem a vida de uma diversidade de ecossistemas, que apresentam vastas espécies animais e vegetais, que dependem da integridade do rio Amazonas para existirem. Não é diferente a relação dos povos tradicionais e das comunidades indígenas com as águas amazônicas compartilhadas, pois ancestralmente dependem do rio e, culturalmente, têm uma relação de existência, vivem em e de suas águas, respeitando e integrando harmonicamente a Amazônia, há muitos anos e gerações. O objetivo da pesquisa foi o de analisar o reconhecimento dos Direitos da Natureza, frente ao colapso climático global e a inefetividade das normas internacionais que tutelam o meio ambiente. Foi utilizado o método de pesquisa dedutivo e técnicas de pesquisa bibliográfica. Conclui-se que é possível a tutela jurídica do rio Amazonas, como um bem ambiental, sujeito de direitos bioculturais, em face da existência de leis, constituições e decisões de Tribunais Constitucionais globais análogas, com base na Convenção da Biodiversidade e no seu reconhecimento como patrimônio cultural imaterial. Para tanto, o Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica deve ser interpretado de acordo com os princípios jurídicos bióticos da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica. E o rio Amazonas, em face das tradições, das práticas sociais e rituais das comunidades que vivem em suas margens, deve ser reconhecido como patrimônio cultural imaterial, por sua grandiosidade natural e pela diversidade cultural que nele existe e dele faz parte: o rio, somos nós, nós somos o rio.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Rio Amazonas; Direitos da Natureza; Biodiversidade; Patrimônio cultural imaterial.ABSTRACTThe Amazon River is a natural object whose waters command the life of ecosystems and communities in the Pan-Amazon. The Amazonian waters maintain the life of a diversity of ecosystems, which present vast animal and vegetal species, that depend on the integrity of the Amazon river to exist. It is not different the relationship of traditional peoples and indigenous communities with the shared Amazonian waters, since they ancestrally depend on the river and, culturally, have a relation of existence, live in and of their waters, respecting and harmoniously integrating the Amazon, many years ago and generations. The objective of the research was to analyze the recognition of the Rights of Nature in the face of global climate collapse and the ineffectiveness of the international norms that protect the environment. The method of deductive research and bibliographic research techniques was used. It is concluded that the legal protection of the Amazon River is possible, as an environment good, subject of biocultural rights, due to the existence of laws, constitutions and decisions of similar global Constitutional Courts, based on the Biodiversity Convention and it’s recognition as intangible cultural heritage. To this end, the Amazon Cooperation Treaty must be interpreted in accordance with the biotic legal principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity. And the Amazon River, in view of the traditions, social practices and rituals of the communities that live along its banks, must be recognized as intangible cultural heritage, for its natural grandeur and for the cultural diversity that exists in it and it is part of it: the river, it’s us, we’re the river.KEYWORDS: Amazon River; Rights of Nature; Biodiversity; Intangible cultural heritage.