Search results

AbstractThe social and economic trends that have contributed to the current climate and biodiversity crises have been created by and reflected in the law in many ways. Looking primarily at experience in the UK, it can be seen that much that is deeply embedded in the law needs to change to enable a more sustainable future. In particular, we have seen a move to greater individualism when we need to adopt more collective solutions, we have seen an emphasis on short‐term priorities when we need to take a longer‐term view and we have seen a focus on economic and commercial value when we need to value more highly the natural world. The past trends in the evolution of the law must be reversed, requiring consideration across many legal areas. Examples of past evolution are identified to show how the law encourages unsustainable ways of working and obstructs, or fails to enable and incentivise, improvement, before more recent positive developments are discussed to illustrate how legal structures can be recast to support a new way of living based on collective and long‐term approaches and a partnership with nature. Ensuring a sustainable future requires a break from many inherited legal structures.

The UK's withdrawal from the EU will not bring about immediate changes to the substance of environmental law in the UK, but that law will become easier to change. The future position is complicated by devolution within the UK, where differing policy objectives on continuing alignment with the EU and weaknesses in the inter-governmental structures are causing problems. Environmental principles are being given legal recognition and new structures for environmental governance being created for each nation. These include environmental watchdogs that go some of the way to making up for the loss of the oversight provided by the EU institutions.

Attitudes towards nature have changed greatly in the last 60 years. Wildlife laws that contribute effectively to conserving biodiversity will look very different from the laws that were developed when wildlife was viewed simply as a resource to be exploited or when a few species or places were first granted legal protection. The purpose of this paper is to examine the attributes that laws supporting biodiversity should possess and to explore how the law has evolved to develop these by examining how the laws in one country, Scotland, have changed since the conservation of nature first came to be accepted as a desirable objective deserving legislative support. The early conservation measures simply prohibited specific forms of direct harm to a few selected species. Then the protective measures were extended in their range and a new dimension added by the recognition of the need to look after habitat as well as to prevent direct harm. In turn the habitat measures too have been extended, becoming stronger and responding to the appreciation that maintaining habitat in good health demands active conservation measures rather than just passive prevention of harmful activities. Now there is further emphasis on the eco-system approach to conservation and on biodiversity in all its forms and in all areas, requiring a further shift in approach. Several points emerge as essential if the law relating to wildlife is to fulfil its potential. The law must be pervasive in its efforts to conserve biodiversity rather than dealing with designated sites or species in isolation from the wider environment. It must be positive, actively supporting biodiversity rather than just seeking to prevent particular harm. It must give conservation adequate priority in the face of competing interests. It must be participative, engaging a wide range of parties rather than being a closed matter for dedicated agencies and landowners. Finally, in view of the dynamic nature of our environment, and our understanding of it, it must be precautionary and proactive if the future health of the natural environment is to be secured. Only laws which display these attributes can be expected to meet the challenge of combating the many threats to biodiversity. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy on 13th December 2012, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13880292.2012.724326#.U8_Oc-NdV8F Article DOI 10.1080/13880292.2012.724326

This book explores the right of access to environmental information, considering both the environmental aspirations which underlie the right and how far these are evidenced in the right's use in practice. The right has a history separate from wider moves towards freedom of information. From its origins in the Rio Declaration to its current embodiment in the Aarhus Convention, a key aim of the right is to promote environmental governance and protect the environment through the provision of environmental information, both proactively and upon request.However, there is little empirical evidence to show whether the right is achieving these environmental aims, if it is being used for its intended environmental purpose, or even how far it is being viewed as distinct from the general right to information. This book seeks to fill this gap through qualitative research conducted in Scotland, the findings of which highlight that individuals who seek environmental information under the right are often doing so for personal or professional reasons that do not further the right's environmental purpose. This is significant, because if the right is not being used for its intended environmental purpose, then its contribution to environmental governance can be questioned, as can the value of maintaining this specific right, distinct from wider freedom of information laws

This book explores the right of access to environmental information, considering both the environmental aspirations which underlie the right and how far these are evidenced in the right's use in practice. The right has a history separate from wider moves towards freedom of information. From its origins in the Rio Declaration to its current embodiment in the Aarhus Convention, a key aim of the right is to promote environmental governance and protect the environment through the provision of environmental information, both proactively and upon request.However, there is little empirical evidence to show whether the right is achieving these environmental aims, if it is being used for its intended environmental purpose, or even how far it is being viewed as distinct from the general right to information. This book seeks to fill this gap through qualitative research conducted in Scotland, the findings of which highlight that individuals who seek environmental information under the right are often doing so for personal or professional reasons that do not further the right's environmental purpose. This is significant, because if the right is not being used for its intended environmental purpose, then its contribution to environmental governance can be questioned, as can the value of maintaining this specific right, distinct from wider freedom of information laws.

Two conflicting forces beset any attempts to fit responsibility for environmental matters into modern constitutional structures. On the one hand the political desire for less centralised government calls for devolution of power to regional or local authorities, so that responsibilities are divided and distributed between different levels of government. On the other, the fact that no aspect of the environment can be treated as if it were a separate compartment suggests that responsibilities should be integrated in one place, an approach supported by the increasing awareness that there is a need for environmental considerations to influence all areas of policy if the goal of sustainable development is to be achieved. Fitting responses to the conditions1 of a particular locality is an important element in successful environmental policy, but so is ensuring that a coherent and holistic approach is taken, unhindered by institutional divisions.2 The purpose of this paper is to examine how two structures of devolved administration, for the Autonomous Communities in Spain and for Scotland, meet the challenge of reconciling these opposite forces, and how the constitutional structures influence the way in which potential problems are resolved.