Environmental Policy and Law

Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation have led to a huge increase in the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) across the globe. The world’s cities generate about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year and this is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tons by 2025. The most common method of waste management adopted by cities is to dispose of MSW in open dumps and oversaturated landfills. The improper management of MSW has become a threat to public and environmental health. However, this waste can also be perceived as an opportunity and a source of energy through Waste to Energy (WtE) technology. WtE technologies are used to produce various by-products like electricity, heat, biofuels and compost. In developed nations, it is primarily the non-organic elements of MSW that are used in WtE incineration. Developing nations are also investing heavily in WtE incineration, irrespective of the fact that their MSW consists primarily of biodegradables. The existing WtE incineration plants in India and China are not only causing heavy pollution but also posing a serious threat to the environment and human health. In this article, the author focuses on the current status and challenges of different WtE technologies used in Europe, US, China, Japan and India. Furthermore, the author recommends that waste incineration should not be treated as a source of renewable energy and suggests anaerobic digestion methods (biomethanation) as a solution for countries with more biodegradable waste.

Given the pivotal role of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in climate finance and the importance of ensuring that it is accountable to its stakeholders, this analysis takes a look at the GCF’s recently created Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) – a grievance redress mechanism that entertains complaints from people affected or potentially affected by a GCF project and from developing countries that have been denied funding by the GCF Board. The analysis provides an overview of the tools and methods that the IRM uses to hold the GCF to account and explores some of its procedural innovations. It argues that although the IRM lacks the power to issue binding decisions, it adequately makes up for this through the use of soft power.

By analysing the legal provisions of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol, this article focuses on the legal implications of recognising biodiversity conservation as a “common concern of mankind”. In this context, the “common concern” concept clearly involves precise environmental protection, through actions (and addressing resources) that transcend the territorial sovereignty of individual States; establish common responsibilities towards the international community; and develop international regulations and institutions to secure these objectives. When applied in this context, this concept poses a significant legal implication for national sovereignty and the international community. It restricts sovereignty by requiring States to meet a national-level version of the standard of due diligence, including by adopting laws, and developing strategic plans, as well as entering into partnership with local, indigenous communities, the private sector and international communities for their implementation. It also establishes among the States a “common but differentiated responsibility” towards the entire international community – a duty to cooperate and collaborate for the conservation of biodiversity. These legal implications have been subject to legal debates and challenges, especially when they require the setting of standards of due diligence applicable to all States and most particularly with regard to commitments they have made regarding technical and financial cooperation. It is clearly quite difficult to enforce such legal obligations precisely, particularly under the CBD’s regulatory regime.

To uphold the “common concern” approach, all nations will need to participate and to accept both their respective differentiated responsibilities and the restrictions that this approach imposes on national sovereignty. The international regulatory regime also needs to develop a new compliance technique and enforcement mechanism. Such global responses and efforts are indispensable for sustaining life on earth.

Regulators around the world are dealing with a fundamental dilemma. Clearly, modern economic activity raises the standard of living but, on the other hand, it creates many environmental hazards that harm our quality of life. To balance these conflicting effects, they are interested in bringing about social equilibrium and for the value of marginal damage to be equal to the cost of reducing it. Excessive investment will result in too much damage to the standard of living, while under-investment carries with it excessive risks. There are two primary ways to approach these concerns regulatorily: through direct command-and-control regulation or through the development and promotion of market-based economic tools (other essential components, such as education and information, will not be covered in this article). Over the years, in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the use of economic tools increased at the expense of direct regulation but, in Israel, there is still a tendency to use direct regulation. Since the beginning of the 21st century, however, Israel too has seen an increase in the use of economic tools. The article considers whether it is better to increase the use of economic tools at the expense of direct regulation. Its examination is based on six case studies from various environmental fields in Israel. The results of the research reinforce the argument that economic tools can achieve policy objectives more effectively while driving the market toward environmental improvement. However, it is almost impossible to clearly attribute other achievements, such as the achievement of advanced environmental goals, the development of environmental awareness or the strengthening of environmental regulation, to a particular regulatory approach. Therefore, the results should be seen as supporting evidence and not as absolute proof of the value of economic instruments.

The authors summarise the issue of regulation of single-use plastics (SUPs) and consider how it will affect Central America. They also discuss the importance of a regionally integrated approach, suggesting how the Central American Integration System (Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana or SICA) could and should develop such an approach, noting additional advantages, if it is done sooner rather than later.

China’s policy-making remains a top-down process. Yet, non-State actors, particularly businesses that have aligned their commercial interest with the national interest and political objectives of the Party-State, are uniquely positioned to impact policy-making. This article uses China’s reopening of the wildlife trade following the end of SARS in 2003 to shed light on the interplay of the Party’s policy guidelines, the policy-making authority of the administrative agencies, and the influence of the country’s wildlife business interest. This article argues that the reversal of the wildlife trade ban was predestined since expanding wildlife business also contributed to the government’s development objectives and served the bureaucratic interest of the administrative authorities. In 2003, the wildlife businesses had unique lobbying power. It was a production of scale that purportedly served the country’s conservation, public health and poverty-reduction purposes. The failure of the Chinese scientists to reach a consensus on the risk of pandemic outbreaks from wildlife operations helped the Chinese authorities to end the wildlife trade, a fateful decision. The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to an enhanced understanding of the connections between wildlife exploitation and pandemic outbreaks. China has come to a crossroads to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its wildlife industry.

This paper explores economic incentive mechanisms for the protection and sustainable use of biological diversity in general and more specifically of animals (often referred to as “wildlife”). Based on the author’s analysis of wildlife and tax legislation provisions and law enforcement practice, it concludes that the Russian Federation lacks effective and efficient economic incentives to promote the protection and use of wildlife. It proposes incentive measures for the implementation of legislative norms and economic regulation regarding the protection and sustainable use of the animal world. These incentives are intended to provide tools for sustainable use of wildlife and enhance the dialogue with business entities regarding the prioritisation of environmentally friendly economic activities.

Creating a land market is one of the most debated and politicised issues of Ukraine’s environmental and agricultural policy. There is an urgent need to examine the following issues (among others): a) identifying priority measures for establishing the land market; b) studying the experience of public land management so as to further adapt the land legislation of Ukraine to the requirements of the European Union; and c) maintaining the domestic agrarian sector in the context of effective conservation of the State’s land resources. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the preconditions and realities of opening up the agricultural land market in Ukraine, including to formulate sound conclusions on the practical consequences of such reforms for domestic landowners. It was researched applying two basic approaches to scientific cognition – general scientific methods and special legal methods. It elaborates the conditions for the introduction of a land market in Ukraine; analyses the historical prerequisites for the implementation of land reform; identifies the main risks for landowners that come into play with the opening of the land market; and formulates further directions of improvement of relevant legal regulations and mechanisms. Noting that currently Ukrainians have the least amount of investment capital and extremely limited access to loans, it concludes that, under current legislation, without a clear definition of the right to purchase their own land, the holders of private farms and other small farmers will struggle to gain access to the Ukrainian land market.