Skip to main content

News and Events

Exciting Programme of Speakers Announced Ahead of Postgraduate Research Symposium on Environmental Law

23 Apr 2018

The symposium will see an array of international speakers present their research on contemporary environmental issues. 

10th Annual Postgraduate Research Symposium on Environmental Law

 

School of Law, University College Cork

 

School of Law Board Room (AL 1.64), First Floor, Aras na Laoi Building

 

Wednesday, 25th April 2018

 

 

1.30 pm           Welcome and Opening Remarks: Prof Owen McIntyre.

 

1.45 pm           Ms Celia Le Lievre, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Law & Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy, University College Cork:

                        Sustainably Reconciling Nature Conservation and Low-Carbon Energy Infrastructures under the Appropriate Assessment Procedure of the EU Habitats Directive: the Example of the Marine Renewable Energy Sector. 

 

2.15 pm           Mr Edwin Alblas, Ph.D. Candidate, Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin:

Regulating Costs of Environmental Proceedings under the Aarhus Convention: A Role for Citizens?

 

1. 45 pm           Ms Amanda Mundell, Ph.D. Candidate / Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University:

Neighbourhood Planning - Does it Increase Understanding of Development Processes and Decisions?

 

3.15 pm           Ms Orla Kelleher, Ph.D. Candidate, Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin:

The Revival of the Unenumerated Rights Doctrine: A Right to Environmental Protection and its Implications for Future Climate Change Litigation in Ireland.

 

3.45 pm           Tea / Coffee Break

 

4.00 pm           Ms Caer Smyth, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University:

Exploring the Rationalist Assumptions that Shape Spaces for Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making.

 

4.30 pm           Ms Aoife Long, PhD Candidate, Environmental Research Institute & Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI), University College Cork:

Should Renewable Gas be used as a Heat, Electricity or Transport Fuel in Ireland?

 

 

5.00 pm           Mrs Raashi Chauhan, Ph.D. Candidate / Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg:

                        Effective Environmental Compliance with Specific Reference to the Extractive Mining Industries.

 

5.30 pm           Ms Laurie O’Keefe, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Law, University College Cork / Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA):

                        The Scales of Justice: Fisheries and the Courts - Selected Case Studies.

 

6.30 pm           Mr Imad Ibrahim, Ph.D. Candidate, Sant’ Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa / Project Manager, Global Law Initiative for Sustainable Development:

                        A New Opportunity for the Harmonization of International Water Law after Entry into Force of the United Nations Watercourses Convention.

 

7.00 pm           Closing Remarks

 

8.00 pm           Conference Dinner – Rachel’s, 27 Washington Street, Cork

 

SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACTS

 

Sustainably Reconciling Nature Conservation and Low-Carbon Energy Infrastructures under the Appropriate Assessment Procedure of the EU Habitats Directive: the Example of the Marine Renewable Energy Sector.

 

Celia Le Lievre

 

This paper suggests a more sophisticated approach to environmental approval for marine renewable energy developments under the appropriate assessment procedure of the Habitats Directive.  The Habitats Directives have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union so that licensing authorities must be satisfied beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that projects will not significantly impact upon the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. Such a standard of proof, reminiscent of criminal law, is extremely difficult to establish in dynamic marine environments, particularly for novel marine renewable energy technologies where environmental data and scientific evidence is still being collected. Reconciling EU policy objectives relating to renewable energy and biodiversity conservation requires a nuanced approach to the precautionary application of EU nature conservation rules so as to facilitate scientifically-informed regulatory licensing in the face of scientific uncertainty. To address these regulatory issues, this paper explores the legal feasibility of implementing a risk-based approach to consenting under the Habitats Directive that embeds adaptive management and ecosystem-based management principles in an operational way.

 

 

 

Regulating Costs of Environmental Proceedings under the Aarhus Convention: A Role for

Citizens?

 

Edwin Alblas

 

Private citizens and environmental NGOs fulfil a key role in enforcing the environmental obligations of public actors, as scholars widely concur. The Aarhus Convention, to which both the European Union (EU) and its Member States are party, echoes in this regard that ‘every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and even the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment’. To enable the enforcement of this right, the Aarhus Convention lays down several provisions to facilitate wide access to justice in environmental matters.

Although the EU institutions emphasize the importance of private access to justice in environmental matters, it is no secret that such access before the Court of Justice of the European Union (`CJEU’) remains extremely challenging. Applicants are hence forced to start proceedings in national courts, which are generally more lenient in this regard. A major issue that hampers the access to justice before national courts in environmental cases, however, are the litigation costs.  These costs are often staggeringly high, as well as highly unpredictable. As environmental proceedings are generally initiated to protect public interests - often without financial gains in view - excessive costs may have a strong deterring effect.

This observation directly contravenes the Aarhus Convention's ‘not prohibitively expensive' (NPE) rule, which essentially holds that present litigation costs should not have as result the deterrence of future applicants. Absent of a harmonized application of the NPE rule at the EU level, the question whether awarded costs will deter civil society from initiating legal proceedings is now largely up to the discretion of individual judges, decided on a case by case basis, and seemingly based on not much more than a ‘gut feeling’.

Undefined in the Aarhus Convention and underexplored in the literature, the presented paper examines the (latent) potential of the NPE rule as a tool to regulate the setting of costs of environmental proceedings. Doing so, I propose the involvement of citizen responses on costs of proceedings as feedback mechanism for quantifying their potential prohibitive effect.

The structure is briefly as follows. First, I will doctrinally assess the meaning and function of the NPE rule in the Aarhus Convention and the EU's implementing Directives. Second, I will draw from political science literature to provide a critical account of why legislative and judicial efforts to formalize the NPE rule at the EU level have, thus far, been largely unsuccessful. Third, the paper engages regulation theory to advance a citizen’s feedback mechanism that gives practical shape to the NPE rule, while respecting national procedural competences. I start from the assumption that for private parties to start proceedings, the perceived net environmental gain (e) must have a higher value than risked costs (r). Where e < r, we can speak of a prohibitive effect (p). Using citizen’s feedback to attach values to these variables, I hold, the NPE rule becomes a tool that is quantifiable and verifiable, providing real-time data on prohibitive costs to be used by judges, and resultantly aiding access to justice in the field. 

 

 

Neighbourhood Planning - Does it Increase Understanding of Development Processes and Decisions?

 

Amanda Mundell

 

The planning system within the United Kingdom is plan-led requiring that planning applications for development proposals are ‘determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’[1].  Since the advent of the modern planning system it has, according to some, become “too defensive, too pessimistic”[2] with little co-operation between the stakeholders involved and where the sense of community is absent[3].  A recently growing theme in planning policy and strategy has been the participation and empowerment of communities[4].  Effective community involvement has been identified as being essential in creating ‘successful places and securing public support for new development’[5] .    The emerging localism ideology has been part of the political landscape for over a decade and political parties have continued to reaffirm their commitment to allow "local people [to] have more say on local planning and let them vote on local issues."[6] The concept has also been “increasingly embedded in legislation”[7] beginning with the Localism Act 2011[8] [9] and the introduction of neighbourhood plans, which were seen as having the potential to have a profound effect on environmental justice[10].   Legislation has subsequently been amended and developed, most recently with the adoption of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.  Although the Localism Act 2011[11] reaffirmed the starting-point for decision-making on planning applications as being the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, it also identified the importance of community involvement in the process including through the adoption of neighbourhood plans.[12] Neighbourhood plans have statutory weight attached in the planning decision making process[13] as part of the development plan framework.  The development plan is defined at s.38 (3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and includes the policies of the local plan (or LDF policies), the waste and minerals plans, neighbourhood development plans, the regional strategy and, in London, the spatial development strategy. The meaning and construction of policies within the development plan is a matter of law[14] [15].

 

Neighbourhoods have shown enthusiasm[16] for producing plans for the areas where they live and work, helping to determine how they are to be shaped for future generations[17].  Since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011 more than ‘1,900 communities across England, covering nearly 10 million people, have started the process of producing a neighbourhood plan.’[18]  However, Neighbourhood Plans have to be in conformity with the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) and the Local Planning Authority’s Development Plan, thereby restricting a community’s unfettered right to decide how their area is to evolve[19] [20] [21].  Neighbourhood Plans also have to progress through a number of procedural stages before they can be considered as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications in an area: these include area and forum designation, publicity, appointing the examiner, holding the referendum and being approved by the community[22]

 

Despite these restrictions and procedural requirements, community enthusiasm for being involved in neighbourhood planning for their area has not been dampened.  In an analysis of all 200 plans that went to referendum between 2013 and 2016, all were approved by their respective communities, with nearly 340,000 votes cast and an average of 89% of voters being in favour of the proposed plan for their neighbourhood[23] [24]

 

However, despite this general enthusiasm, the majority of residents of any neighbourhood only become involved with the planning process upon the submission of a planning application within their area; [25] [26] and it is at this point that the opponents to any development proposal are most likely to surface[27] [28].  The proponents of neighbourhood planning theorise that where neighbourhoods have been involved in understanding the needs of their local area[29], having a say on the merits of those needs and in formalising a plan to determine the pattern of future development in their area, they are more likely to ‘engage with planning and development questions’[30] and be more readily accepting of new development proposals[31]

However, practitioners argue that the complexities of the current planning system make ‘direct and satisfactory engagement for the public difficult, which in turn can …. undermine public confidence’[32] in the decisions made by the system.  Some local authorities have reported that a lack of understanding within communities of the constraints within which their proposed neighbourhood plan must be developed, the status of their neighbourhood plan within the policy framework and how weight is apportioned to their plan policies in making decisions on planning applications has led to dissatisfaction and even disenchantment, notwithstanding Government attempts at clarification[33].

This research explores the extent to which a community being involved in taking responsibility for shaping their area through their involvement in the creation of a neighbourhood development plan results in a greater understanding of the role of planning, the processes of planning decision-making, and acceptance of the planning decisions being taken in their area.

 

 

The Revival of the Unenumerated Rights Doctrine: A Right to Environmental Protection and its Implications for Future Climate Change Litigation in Ireland

 

Orla Kelleher

 

Since the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, the right to a healthy environment has achieved constitutional recognition in over 100 countries, either explicitly or through judicial interpretation of existing provisions.[34] The significance of rulings that read a right to a healthy environment into the text of constitutions is that they ‘provide compelling evidence that constitutions are living trees, capable of modern interpretations to address modern problems that violate human rights.’[35] In an Irish context, this view was also at the fore in the comments of Mr Justice Walsh in the landmark Supreme Court case of McGee v Attorney General: ‘…no interpretation of the Constitution is intended to be final for all time. It is given in light of prevailing ideas and concepts.’[36] When these words were first uttered in 1974, it seems safe to say that the preservation of the environment was probably not within the contemplation of the Irish Supreme Court judge. Yet, on 21 November 2017, in a historic the Irish High Court handed down its landmark ruling Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Fingal County Council & Ors in which it recognised, for the first time in almost 20 years, a new personal unenumerated right: the right to an environment.[37] With the world on track for a dangerous level of 3.2C ° warming by the end of the century and political foot-dragging to boot,[38] the recognition of an unenumerated constitutional right to an environment is timely and certainly accords with prevailing scientific, philosophical and even jurisprudential ideas on the need for urgent climate action.[39]  

 

This paper will explore several dimensions of the new constitutional right to environmental protection in Ireland. Firstly, it will consider whether this new unenumerated right has a more legally defensible underpinning than some of the earlier unenumerated rights enunciated in Ireland in the latter part of the twentieth century. From there, it will examine the parameters of this new right, and its implications for future climate litigation in Ireland.    

 

 

Exploring the Rationalist Assumptions that Shape Spaces for Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making.

 

Caer Smyth

 

Participatory governance is an established principle of environmental law; it is considered to be an effective approach to environmental governance, one that engages the public in environmental decision-making and better protects the planet’s resources for future generations. However, this perspective assumes that these processes are well-equipped to hear environmental arguments. What if this is not the case? What if the embedded assumptions that shape our understanding of nature and shape the way we argue are reproduced in these decision-making processes? How might this inhibit progressive, effective environmental governance?

 

This paper considers how rationalist assumptions might affect these participatory processes and in particular limit people’s ability to make an environmental case in these processes. It draws upon theoretical investigation and upon empirical research.

 

This paper firstly explores the rationalist assumptions that shape spaces for public participation in environmental decision-making, discussing key assumptions in Enlightenment rationality and in Habermas’ theory of communicative rationality. It examines how these assumptions inform public participation in environmental decision-making.

 

Building on this theoretical framework, this paper reflects on initial findings from ethnographic fieldwork currently being conducted as part of this research project; the fieldwork site is a UK public inquiry into a major infrastructure project with significant environmental implications. It considers how rationalist assumptions might be evident in this fieldwork site; through the preference of expert knowledge over lay-person knowledge, the treatment of reason and emotion in the inquiry and in the sense that the space is not equally accessible to all.

 

This research is driven by the following questions:

 

What, if any, rationalist assumptions do we find at the public inquiry, and what affect might they have?

How are reason and emotion treated at the inquiry?

How are expertise and local knowledge understood?

Are different forms of participation, and types of argument, given preferential treatment at the inquiry?

How is the environment depicted and treated at the inquiry?

 

Should Renewable Gas be used as a Heat, Electricity or Transport Fuel in Ireland?

 

Aoife Long

 

This presentation will examine the interaction between EU policy, the Irish context and renewable energy technology and how these are likely to influence the development of a potential renewable gas industry in Ireland.

 

Renewable gas is a versatile energy source that can be used for electricity, heat or transport. It is produced using Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification or Power to Gas technologies. The organic materials suitable for use in Ireland in Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification are Grass, Slurry, Seaweed, Food wastes and Residues, and Willow. Power to Gas uses excess renewable electricity and sequestered carbon dioxide to produce renewable gas which may be termed an electro-fuel. The gas produced is the same quality as natural gas and can be added to the national gas grid.

 

The EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) sets renewable energy supply targets for all EU countries. Ireland’s target is 16% RES by 2020. Within this are individual targets for Electricity, Heat and Transport. Typically 80% of energy is associated with heat and transport, the least decarbonised sectors. In Ireland, a Support Scheme for Renewable Heat was recently introduced. This does not include renewable gas in the first phase but allows for it in a later version of the scheme.

 

Current demand for renewable gas is mainly from large industrial users (such as breweries, distillers and creameries) who see it as a way to decarbonise their processes using renewable heat. This industrial heat demand is therefore seen as a way to kick-start the industry. For transport, Gas Networks Ireland, the gas network operator, aim to roll out 70 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) filling stations in the next 10 years. This would also require freight companies to switch to using natural gas vehicles. Most of the renewable electricity target (40% by 2020) is realised through deployment of wind energy. Natural gas has the least carbon footprint of fossil fuel sourced electricity.

 

In order for a renewable energy source to be considered sustainable in the RED, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be significantly lower than the fossil fuel it is replacing. The proposed EU RED sets fossil fuel comparators (FFC) for the energy sector rather than the actual fuel being replaced. The criteria to satisfy sustainability as defined by GHG savings as opposed to the FFC are more stringent for renewable heat as compared to renewable transport. The EU would prefer biogas to satisfy the least decarbonised sector of energy, which is transport. This has implications for Ireland as it may not be possible meet the demand for renewable heat. This could in turn delay setting up a renewable gas industry until transport infrastructure becomes available.

 

 

Effective Environmental Compliance with Specific Reference to the Extractive Mining

 

Raashi Chauhan

 

Environmental management and compliance have been the focus of attention in South Africa over the last decade.  This has been brought about by an international drive toward a more sustainable future.  This thesis will look at environmental compliance in South Africa using the mining industry as a specific case study.  The case study will use mining as an example beacause of the vast amount of damage it causes to land, water and air around us which in turn affects the communities within these areas.  Mines appear to be environmentally compliant; however a thorough examination revealed that many of these companies have in fact committed serious breaches of environmental laws.

 

This research will address two questions the first being, why are so many companies non-compliant despite South Africa having the necessary laws in place?  In order to do so it will be important to fully understand the current environmental legislation in South Africa.  Companies and in particular, the mining industry has to ensure that its activities are compliant with these laws and best practice requirements.  A subsidiary research question addressed in this doctorate will be whether the present enforcement mechanisms are sufficient in order to achieve sustainable development of the environment. This will be significant, especially after the comparative study is completed, in order to evaluate South Africa’s position pertaining to environmental compliance in comparison with the jurisdictions under review with a view to suggest necessary reforms in South Africa.

 

 The Scales of Justice: Fisheries and the Courts - Selected Case Studies.

 

Laurie O’Keefe

 

It is vital in terms of sustainability and conservation of fish stocks that sea-fisheries law is enforced efficiently and effectively. Sea-fisheries law comprises of a suite of both EU and national legislation, including numerous statutory instruments which is mainly enforced through the criminal system. Treating breaches of sea-fisheries law as criminal offences is costly and time consuming due to the high burden of proof and lengthy time delays associated with the criminal system. Sea-fisheries cases are often delayed indefinitely due not only to the delays inherent in the Irish criminal system, but also the lack of priority assigned to sea-fisheries cases. When cases finally make it to court, penalties imposed are often not proportionate to the seriousness of the harm caused or to the value of the infringement which has a detrimental effect on the deterrence value of criminal prosecution. This presentation will highlight two particular case studies which illustrate the difficulties associated with criminal based enforcement. The case studies will inform a wider discussion of whether the criminal system is appropriate for dealing with breaches of sea-fisheries law, or if Ireland should consider moving towards administrative sanctions.

 

 

A New Opportunity for the Harmonization of International Water Law after Ratification and Entry into Force of the United Nations Watercourses Convention.

 

Imad Ibrahim

 

International water law developed at first non-binding instruments that dealt with surface waters in general due to the lack of a clear scientific understanding of the nature of transboundary aquifers. Every time, ground water resources were mentioned in these instruments was because they were considered part of the hydrological cycle linking surface and groundwater. In fact, the continuous efforts of the legal scholars led to the establishment of the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses in 1997 where groundwater was covered through the agreement in the case it was connected to surface water as well as the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers which were adopted through a United Nations (UN) resolution in 2008 and which dealt with shared aquifers. The fragmentation of international water law is currently creating challenges that are complicating the good governance of transboundary groundwater resources. In fact, several scholars have tried to come up with tangible solutions for the legal issues associated with international shared aquifers. For this reason, there are currently proposals for amending the current international instruments and adopting them as a binding treaty or for the establishment of a new global or regional agreement. Other proposals advocate for the development of more robust multilateral and bilateral conventions while advancing the legal framework governing transboundary groundwater through the latters or via the implementation of specific provisions or even legal models established for the extraction of other natural resources such as oil and gas. This paper will highlight the legal challenges facing groundwater regulations as a result of the fragmentation of international water law. It will also attempt to provide solutions for the legal dilemmas challenging international water law as the objective is to ensure efficient use of the global instruments in place which tackles surface and groundwater alike.

 

[1] Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s.38 (6)

[2] Rt Hon. G Clark MP, 2011 Royal Town Planning Institute Planning Convention June

[3] Rt Hon. G Clark MP, 2011 Royal Town Planning Institute Planning Convention June

[4] Government statement regarding the planning reforms to be contained in the Localism Bill, [2011]  J.P.L., 3, 257-260

[5] http://www.housing-communities.org/ accessed 7/2/2017

[6] Conservative Party General Election Manifesto 2015 p.69

[7] J Adshead, (2014), “Revisiting the ideologies of planning law”, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 6 Iss 1/2 pp 174 - 193

[8] Conservative Party General Election Manifesto 2015 p.69.

[9] Localism Act 2011

[10] R Stanier, J.P.L. 2014, 13 Supp (Power to the People?), OP105-OP116

[11] Localism Act 2011

[12] A Layard, The Localism Act 2011: what is "local" and how do we (legally) construct it? [2012] Env. L. Rev. 134 

[13] R Stanier J.P.L. 2014, 13 Supp (Power to the People?), OP105-OP116

[14] Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] P.T.S.R. 983.  

[15] A Bowes, Planning applications: determination, Latest Update 15 January 2018, Westlaw 2018, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd

[16] J Howell, Keynote address [2011] J.P.L., 13 Supp (Occasional Paper), OP4-8

[17] Government statement regarding the planning reforms to be contained in the Localism Bill, [2011]  J.P.L., 3, 257-260

[18] A Bowes, Neighbourhood planning regime changes confirmed, J.P.L. 2016, 12, 1205

[19] R. (on the application of Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum) v Wycombe DC [2013] EWHC 513 (Admin); [2013] P.T.S.R. 970 (QBD (Admin))

[20] House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee Localism: Third Report of Session 2010-2012 (House of Commons: London, 2011) 4.

[21] T Moore (2014) Neighbourhood Planning: Communities, Networks and Governance, Housing Studies, 29:2, 314-316, DOI: 10.1080/ 02673037.2013.797732

[22] R Stanier J.P.L. 2014, 13 Supp (Power to the People?), OP105-OP116

[23] R Stanier, J.P.L. 2014, 13 Supp (Power to the People?), OP105-OP116

[24] A Bowes, Neighbourhood planning regime changes confirmed, J.P.L. 2016, 12, 1205

[25] B Cullingworth and V Nadin, (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK,14th ed., Oxford: Routledge

[26] Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Fixing our broken housing market  [2017]

[27] P McAuslan, Towards a just planning system: the contribution of law [2013] J.P.L  145

[28] J Sturzaker (2011) Can Community Empowerment Reduce Opposition

to Housing? Evidence from Rural England, Planning Practice & Research, 26:5, 555-570, DOI:

10.1080/02697459.2011.626722

[29] Professor G Parker , Neighbourhood planning: precursors, lessons and prospects, [2012] J.P.L., 13 Supp (Sustainability, I presume?), OP139-OP154

[30] Professor G Parker , Neighbourhood planning: precursors, lessons and prospects, [2012] J.P.L., 13 Supp (Sustainability, I presume?), OP139-OP154

[31] P McAuslan, Towards a just planning system: the contribution of law [2013] J.P.L  145

[32] K Hall, J.P.L. 2017, 13 Supp (Making Planning Great Again), OP17-OP25

[33] K Hall, J.P.L. 2017, 13 Supp (Making Planning Great Again), OP17-OP25

[34] David R Boyd, ‘The Implicit Constitutional Right to Live in a Healthy Environment’ (2011) 22(2) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 171, 172.

[35] ibid, 179. Countries where the supreme/constitutional courts have held that the right to a healthy environment is implicit in the constitution include Bangladesh, Estonia, Guatemala, India, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan,Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Uruguay, see Boyd (n1), 172. 

[36] McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR284, [318]-[319].

[37] Friends of the Irish Environment Clg -v- Fingal County Council & ors [2017] IEHC 695.

[38] Adam Aton, ‘Earth Almost Certain to Warm by 2 Degrees Celsius’ (Scientific American, 1 August 2017) < https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-almost-certain-to-warm-by-2-degrees-celsius/> accessed 23 February 2018.

[39] FIE v Fingal County Council, (n4) [242].

School of Law

Scoil an Dlí

Room 1.63, Aras na Laoi, T12 T656

Top