While a plurality of legal systems exist within many contested natural resource regimes, this reality of law and culture has not been recognized by most national or local policymakers. For laws to be effectively implemented, legislators will need to increase their awareness of how humans interact within communities. This chapter argues that lawyers concerned with enforcement and compliance of public laws would benefit from acknowledging the efficacy of a pluralistic approach to natural resource management. Using recent examples from efforts to implement marine protected areas and to improve fishing compliance, this chapter suggests that there are untapped opportunities to apply findings from anthropological fieldwork to help design and refine natural resource policy implementation efforts.
This chapter examines five thematic connections between investment law and biodiversity. The first section of the chapter explores how law might shape future investments in emerging biodiversity reliant industries such as global biotech. The second section describes the potential investment implications of States creating protected areas as a strategy to conserve biodiversity. The third section introduces the emerging legal practice of developing access and benefit-sharing agreements as a mechanism for international and domestic investors to formally invest in communities that have been historical stewards for biological resources. The fourth section explores private investment in biodiversity protection. The final section offers three recommendations to provide for better biodiversity management and more accountable international investment: (1) prioritize designating protected areas before approving investment; (2) create institutional review mechanisms that provide for a formal review of proposed international investment proposals by environmental ministries before final approval by national investment agencies; and (3) implement investment risk assessment requirements for companies to document how their investments will be implemented to avoid undermining public interests such as biodiversity protection.
This chapter explains that international governance of highly migratory fish species, such as sharks, billfish and tuna, has proved largely ineffective – for various reasons. Against the backdrop of such failure, it is argued that a valuable role could be played by private, industry-driven management initiatives. By way of introduction it is explained that private actors have historically played important roles in protecting marine biodiversity, but that existing governance structures for the extraction of global commons marine fisheries resources are currently largely found within the ambit of public authorities. A specific case study is considered: the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), with examples of successes and failures being given. Potential lessons are then drawn as to how such private initiatives might be used to supplement, if not replace, international management regimes. It is argued in conclusion that the interaction between public and private governance efforts may in the years to come require a more active response from public actors; and that perhaps, in spite of the legitimacy associated with public governance, which is less apparent in private governance initiatives, states should be following the lead of the ISSF to articulate mandatory policies that support all industry conservation efforts that are as protective or more protective of marine resources than existing public governance efforts.
Food security exists when all people have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their needs. When food security is jeopardized, communities are more likely to become disaster victims. With predictions of global populations rising to 9 billion by 2050, states are facing challenges in meeting national food security. Law as a social institution must play a role in addressing food instability as a disaster risk. This chapter examines what role law currently plays before, during and after a disaster by discussing a state’s duty to prevent or mitigate environmental conditions likely to endanger food security, the human right to food during a disaster, and the obligation for States to ‘build back better’ after a disaster. The chapter concludes with a proposal for increasing investments in regional food networks to address both food security and disaster prevention.
Afshin Akhtar-Khavari and Anastasia Telesetsky
Environmental protection continues to be the key driver of conceptual and technical developments in environmental law and governance. However, protection initiatives alone simply assume that passive restoration will support ecosystem health and resilience moving forward. In the Anthropocene, where talks about breaches of planetary boundaries are too common, we have to rethink whether concepts like protection or even sustainability make us complacent about nature’s own capacity to restore itself. Restoration ecology encourages human beings to actively assist with the holistic recovery of ecosystems to an historical trajectory that will enable it to function in a healthy way. This chapter considers whether international environmental law is geared to supporting restoration generally and restoration ecology in particular. After examining the significance of restoration for reshaping environmental governance in the Anthropocene this chapter surveys international soft law instruments and asks whether and to what extent they have dealt with restoration issues and whether enough evidence exists to suggest that the groundwork has been done to shift environmental law from simply protecting ecosystem to holistically restoring them in the Anthropocene. The chapter argues that international environmental law has yet to use holistic approaches to restoration that compel the involvement of human beings as active agents in the recovery of ecosystem. Crucially, existing international environmental law has yet to define ecological parameters for states who undertake legally mandated restoration; as a result, restoration in practice may do little more than achieve remediation and rehabilitation, leading to an irreversible loss of ecosystem functions.