Search

Begin New Search Topic Environment Publication Year within 25 Years

21. The Mekong Matters for America/America Matters for the Mekong

Author:
East-West Center and Stimson Center
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
This report explores the trade, investment, business, diplomacy, security, education,and people-to-people connections between the United States and the five countries of mainland Southeast Asia referred to as the Mekong region. Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam are bound together and geographically defined by the Mekong River, which has historically provided a rich, natural bounty of fish, agricultural productivity, physical connectivity, and key environmental services to more than 60 million people living in the river basin. The Mekong’s importance has only grown as the region’s social, economic, and diplomatic ties export the river’s bounty to the rest of the world. As the region develops, urbanization, infrastructure development, and climate change—among other changes—are all impacting the river, its resources, and the millions who depend on the mighty Mekong. This publication was produced in partnership with the Stimson Center Southeast Asia Program.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Urbanization
Political Geography:
Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Southeast Asia, Laos, Myanmar, and United States of America

22. New Solutions for a Changing Climate

Author:
Molly Jahn
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
US public investment in agricultural research in the 20th and 21st centuries has resulted in unprecedented worldwide production of a few staple crops and the improvement of dozens more. Increased crop yields and animal production have drastically reduced famine compared to previous centuries and supported an overall increase in global affluence. Today, agricultural producers around the world are facing new challenges as global climate changes become increasingly unpredictable. Inconsistent rain, extreme temperatures, droughts, flooding, wildfires, and shifting pest and disease patterns are just a few of the obstacles farmers face as they try to feed their families and produce enough food to feed the world. In spite of these dire challenges, US public agricultural research funding has been decreasing over the past several decades. This has allowed competitors such as China and Brazil to outpace American ingenuity, take over American markets, and put American farmers at a disadvantage. The lack of investment in agricultural research and development is a critical national security concern. Historical US agricultural strength has contributed to US hard and soft power around the world. As the US food system is beset by increasing climate, economic, financial, and security threats, US rural communities have been left behind, undermining US power and domestic well-being. Increasing global food insecurity, which has been amplified by increasing weather extremes, will lead to economic and political instability in many areas of the world, further threatening US national security. Although the private sector plays a crucial role in the development of new agricultural techniques and products, public funding has been the backbone of many agriculture and food system advances. While agricultural research and development has historically focused primarily on increasing yields, this narrow focus does not adequately support the food requirements of today’s growing global population. There must be a revitalization of public investment in agricultural research, American food systems, and international agricultural development that focuses on the challenges of the future. US leadership is vital to ensuring the global research agenda does not leave farmers behind. Opportunities to build upon and enhance existing US agricultural research infrastructure across many diverse government entities abound. The US government should recognize these investment opportunities to address current and future climate challenges.
Topic:
Agriculture, Climate Change, Environment, and Research
Political Geography:
China, Brazil, North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

23. Considering a Soil Initiative for Africa

Author:
David Nielson
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
Considering a Soil Initiative for Africa JANUARY 31, 2020 By: David Nielson In Sub-Saharan Africa, 65 percent of arable land suffers from soil degradation. The most extensive data on soils in Africa is grounded in soil mapping done in the 1950s and 1960s—60 to 70 years ago—which suggests that the problem could be even worse than currently known. This destruction is stifling agricultural productivity and income growth while prohibiting the soil from carrying out its climate control functions such as carbon sequestration and water filtration. This paper diagnoses the challenges faced by governments, international organizations and research institutions in mitigating and reversing the decline of soil quality in Africa. It highlights the dearth of human capital and resources that undermines these efforts and employs the lessons learned towards outlining a framework that is based on global partnership, stronger farmer engagement and robust investment. The paper argues for a new soil initiative that is organized around workstreams that prioritize establishing soil information systems, understanding the economic costs and consequences of soil degradation, and enhancing human and institutional capacity towards soil science. This multipronged approach will reinvigorate the fight against soil degradation and destruction both globally and on the African continent.
Topic:
Agriculture, Environment, Government, and Partnerships
Political Geography:
Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa

24. Enhancing the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts – the Draft Principles of the International Law Commission and Beyond

Author:
Britta Sjostedt and Anne Dienelt
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
n 2011, the UN International Law Commission (ILC) took up the topic Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts.1 The decision was triggered by a joint report issued by the UN Environment Programme and the Environmental Law Institute in 2009 recommending the ILC to “[...] examine the existing international law for protecting the environment during armed conflicts [...] [including] how it can be clarified, codified and expanded [...]”.2 Since the inclusion of the item on the ILC’s agenda, the Commission has published five reports3 by the two special rapporteurs, Dr. Marie Jacobsson (2011-2016) and Dr. Marja Lehto (2017-). In 2019, the plenary adopted 28 Draft Principles on first reading.4 The ILC has touched on highly controversial issues such as reprisals,5 corporate liability,6 indigenous peoples’ rights,7 among others. Nevertheless, it was clear from the beginning that the ILC would not be able to exhaustively deal with the topic for two main reasons. First, the Commission has a limited mandate that is restricted to “[...] initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of [...] encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification [...]”.8 Enhanced legal protection of the environment, as one of the purposes of the Draft Principles,9 must therefore be based on existing customary international law and its progressive development. The Commission decided to also include recommendations to account for the uncertain legal status of some of the Draft Principles.10 Second, some related issues touch upon controversial and political matters, as mentioned earlier. Consequently, the ILC has been reluctant to include some of these issues in its workflow.11 Therefore, the adoption of the Draft Principles should be regarded as a starting point for shaping and developing the legal framework for environmental protection in relation to armed conflicts. As a part of that process, Hamburg University and Lund University organized an international workshop in March 2019 in Hamburg. Several members of the ILC, including two special rapporteurs, academic legal experts, and practitioners, attended the workshop to discuss the Draft Principles. The discussion also focused on some issues not covered by the ILC, such as the implications for gender and climate security. The engaging dialogue in Hamburg has inspired the publication of this Special Issue of the Goettingen Journal of International Law (GoJIL) to ensure that the outcomes and ideas of the workshop reach a wider audience. It has also contributed to maintaining the momentum of this topical area of international law by inviting contributions from researchers not present during the workshop in Hamburg.12
Topic:
Environment, International Law, and Non State Actors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

25. Reflections on the Legality of Attacks Against the Natural Environment by Way of Reprisals

Author:
Stavros-Evdokimos Pantazopoulos
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The paper examines the concept of belligerent reprisals and assesses the legality of attacking the environment by way of reprisals. The law of belligerent reprisals, which is linked to the principle of reciprocity, allows one belligerent State unlawfully injured by another to react by means of what under normal circumstances would constitute a violation of the jus in bello, so as to induce the violating State to comply with the law. The instances of lawful recourse to reprisals have been considerably limited, since their application is either explicitly prohibited against certain protected persons and objects, including against the natural environment, or is subject to stringent conditions according to customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Despite its narrowing scope, the doctrine of reprisals remains a valid concept under the existing legal framework. For one, the state of affairs under customary international law with respect to reprisals directed at civilian objects (including against parts of the environment), subject to certain rigorous conditions, remains unclear. To complicate matters even further, any proposition on the status of reprisals in the context of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) is shrouded in controversy, as there is no relevant treaty provision. In this regard, the present author endorses the approach espoused in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Study on Customary IHL, namely to altogether prohibit resort to reprisals in the context of a NIAC. Turning to the status of reprisals against the natural environment under customary IHL, it is argued that a prohibition of attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals is in the process of formation with respect to the use of weapons other than nuclear ones. All things considered, the International Law Commission (ILC) was confronted with an uncomfortable situation in the context of its work on the ‘Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts’. By sticking to the verbatim reproduction of Article 55(2) of Additional Protocol I, the ILC chose the proper course of action, since any other formulation would not only undercut a significant treaty provision, but might also result in the normative standard of conduct being lowered.
Topic:
Environment, International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, and Red Cross
Political Geography:
Global Focus

26. Protecting Protected Areas in Bello: Learning From Institutional Design and Conflict Resilience in the Greater Virunga and Kidepo Landscapes

Author:
Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
It has often been cited that major armed conflicts (>1,000 casualties) afflicted two-thirds (23) of the world’s recognized biodiversity hotspots between 1950 and 2000.1 In 2011, the International Law Commission (ILC) included in its long-term work program Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict.2 This led to the adoption of twenty-eight Draft Principles, including designation of protected zones where attacks against the environment are prohibited during armed conflict.3 Protected zone designations apply to places of major environmental and cultural importance, requiring that they “[...] shall be protected against any attack, as long as it does not contain a military objective.”4 Most research on armed conflict and protected areas has focused on impacts to wildlife and less on how to protect these natural habitats from the ravages of armed conflict.5 This article highlights some of the gaps in the ILC Draft Principles towards protecting protected zones in bello. It uses transboundary protected areas (TBPAs) formalized through multilateral agreements to illustrate challenges on the ground. TBPAs are internationally designated “[...] protected areas that are ecologically connected across one or more international boundaries [...]” and sometimes even established for their promotion of peace (i.e., Parks for Peace).6 There is little legal research on how to design TBPA agreements for conflict resilience, conflict sensitivity, and ultimately positive peace.7 The research draws from two case studies in Africa’s Great Rift Valley: the Greater Virunga Landscape (GVL) between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda, and Uganda, and the Kidepo Landscape, which forms part of the broader Landscapes for Peace initiative between South Sudan and Uganda. Both suffer from armed conflicts of various types and present two of the only TBPAs in the world that have incorporated environmental peacebuilding into their transboundary agreements.8 The case studies illustrate different approaches to TBPA design and the pros and cons of each modality in the context of conflict resilience and conflict sensitivity. This guides us on how to better protect protected areas in bello, ensuring that protected zones endure on the ground and not just in principle.
Topic:
Environment, Culture, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda

27. Enhancing Environmental Protection During Occupation Through Human Rights

Author:
Karen Hulme
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Environmental protection is not specifically included in treaty law relating to State obligations during situations of occupation. While clearly not of the same scale as damage caused to the environment during armed conflict, damage caused during occupation is often similar in nature – largely due to those who seek to exploit any governance vacuum and a failure to restore damaged environments. What can human rights offer in helping to protect the environment during occupations? What protection can be offered by an analysis of environmental human rights law?
Topic:
Environment, Human Rights, Governance, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. Precaution in International Environmental Law and Precautions in the Law of Armed Conflict

Author:
Michael Bothe
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict, in particular during armed conflict is a complex problem as it involves at least two different fields of international law, the law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law) and international environmental law. Their mutual relationship is a delicate issue. International humanitarian law is not necessarily lex specialis. Three principles deserve particular attention in this connection: as to general international environmental law, the principle of prevention and the precautionary principle, as to international humanitarian law the duty to take precautions. The terms prevention and precaution are used in different contexts in environmental law (both national and international) and in the law of armed conflict. The duty, imposed by international humanitarian law, to take precautions has much in common with, but must be distinguished from, the precautionary approach of general environmental law. This paper shows what these principles mean and how they relate to each other. It answers the question to what extent the rules based on these concepts are effective in restraining environmental damage being caused by military activities. The application of these principles in peace and war serves intergenerational equity and is thus an important element of sustainable development.
Topic:
Environment, International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

29. Czech Perception of the EU Climate Policy

Author:
Vít Havelka
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
The latest article from Vít Havelka aims to explain how the Czech population perceives the EU Climate Policy and especially the European Green Deal. Czechs are sceptical about European ability to influence global emissions. The common sentiment is that there is China, the US and India who produce larger amounts of global pollution, and thus even if Europe transformed into a climate-neutral economy, the process of climate change would continue more or less unabated.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Public Opinion
Political Geography:
Europe and Czech Republic

30. European Green Deal: will it bring structural change?

Author:
Lucie Vinařská
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
Lucie Vinařská authored a policy paper for the 12th debate of the Prague Climate Talks series titled "European Green Deal: will it bring structural change?", which will take place online on EUROPEUM's Facebook. The European Union is now taking the lead on climate action when striving to transform Europe into the first climate-neutral continent. This aim is at the core of the European Green Deal, a new strategy introduced by the Commission in December 2019. While the European Union and the rest of the world’s community is mobilizing, the climate change and environmental degradation are reaching unprecedented heights and posing an existential threat to the whole world. Climate change is by its nature a trans-boundary issue that requires a coordinated action. The EU’s ambitious plan was introduced during a time of a “green boom”, when environmental issues were among top political priorities. But is this Deal really going to turn the tables?
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Public Policy, and Health Crisis
Political Geography:
Europe