Climate change and land grabbing in Africa

Since 2008, civil society groups and transnational networks have drawn attention to one discrete source of conflict that is on the rise in the wake of resource scarcity: transnational agro-investment (Oxfam 2011; GRAIN 2012; FOE 2012). In practice this form of investment revolves around the acquisition of large areas of land, usually located in the global South and on a doubtful legal basis, often labeled as ‘land grab’. Governments of poor states are eager to welcome investments, even though there is no clear sight on beneficial long-term effects of associated changes in land use (FAO, 2012; ILC, 2012). Most contracts for these long-term transactions are effectuated between foreign investments (often government driven) and national governments that control and own the land. Some (not all) foreign investors are driven primarily by reasons that are related to climate change (we can call this ‘climate induced transnational agro-investments’). First, countries that foresee reduced domestic availability of suitable land for food production due to climate change and rapid population growth try to avoid future food shortage and high prices by producing food overseas (China being an example here). Second, most developed countries have set targets in their energy policies in attempts to cap greenhouse emissions. To meet these targets they are searching outside their own jurisdiction for suitable and affordable land to grow crops for biofuels and forestation. There is, however, another link between land grabbing and climate change: intensified land use for the African host countries not only impairs immediate food and water availability at the local level, but also reduces local communities’ resilience to engage with future climate change (hence, reducing their adaptive capacities). This, in turn, leads to serious and often irreversible socio-economic impacts, such as the displacement of local communities. Climate-induced transnational agro-investment has been on the rise in several countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia and Uganda, where large areas of fertile farmland have already been earmarked for long-term transfer to foreign investors. Companies from China, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK, The Netherlands, Norway and the USA have concluded land lease agreements for biofuel projects with government. Tensions and conflicts are looming as a result of discontent created by the marginalization and loss of property rights of the local communities as well as lack of their participation and a benefit-sharing scheme for use of resources. There already are numerous instances of displacements of the local population as well as clearing of forests and related resources on which the livelihood of the local population depend. These activities of the investors have caused widespread fear and threats to the livelihood of the local communities and have already led to conflict in some localities. An early example of such a conflict in Uganda is the so called FACE-case. The Forests Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions Foundation (FACE) is a Dutch organization that entered a partnership with Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to carry out a reforestation project in Mount Elgon National Park, commencing in 1994. The project involves planting of trees inside the boundaries of Mount Elgon National Park. The idea was that FACE assists with the planting of 25,000 ha of trees to absorb carbon dioxide so as to offset emissions from a new 600 MW coal-fired power station in the Netherlands. A year before the project started, the government declared Mount Elgon a National Park and the people living within its boundaries lost all their rights. People residing in the designated area were evicted without any compensation, and court cases aimed at protecting the community interests, did not yielded much. This resulted in conflicts, where communities deliberately destroyed the trees in the park. Evictions have continued throughout the 2000s, without compensation. Although there exists an assumption that the investment is legally secured by contract law, pertinent legal questions arise about the compatibility of property rights, environmental norms, human rights and participation rights. In general, five sources of law apply to foreign agro-investment: (a) National law of the host state; (b) Customary law of local and indigenous people; (c) International law (treaty and customary law, e.g. investment law); (d) Social responsibility norms and codes of conducts; (e) National law of the investor’s home state. It is unclear, however, how the legal norms of this complex multilevel system interact in practice. Such legal questions regarding changes in land change within the bigger climate change context have largely escaped the attention of environmental, human rights and investment lawyers to date. Legal analyses of the phenomenon of foreign direct investment and its impact on local communities’ rights are scarce. Moreover, evidence shows that legal entitlements and rights are not evenly distributed. In general it can be stated that while investors’ interests are legally enforceable and thereby protected, the interests of local and indigenous people are mostly regulated by ‘soft norms’- e.g. the principle of free prior and informed consent that in practice is extremely difficult to enforce. As climate change threatens to become an ever more acute and serious problem, and population pressure increases, foreign agro - investment is an increasing source of conflict. This being so, we can no longer postpone thinking about the legal nature and the legal implications of climate-induced foreign agro-investment. One promising legal pathway is to focus on the legal agreements through which long-term land deals are being completed. These contracts or bilateral investment treaties contain critical information that determines the scope and terms of the investment deal, including the distribution of risks among stakeholders. The nature of the parties signing the contract (private or public) and through what process, significantly impacts on the extent to which local communities are involved and can make their voices heard. Practice suggests that local communities and rural landowners are rarely consulted in negotiations. Likewise, the terms of the contracts could have profound and possibly irreversible consequences for food security and stability in the host countries. It is hence crucial that contractual arrangements also address both environmental and social issues (e.g. job creation, infrastructure development). This is an area where linking contract law to customary, national, and international law and codes of conduct is particularly important for a full understanding of the implications of the contracts. Recently, several codes of conduct and principles for responsible investment (e.g. World Bank, FAO, IFAD, the UNCTAD, OECD, IFC standards, Ruggie Principles in Responsible Contracts, etc.) have been added at the international level to the existing body of law regulating foreign agro-investments. Similarly, at the regional level there has been increasing activity concerning promoting responsible investment; the African Land Policy Framework and Guidelines Initiative that is being led by the African Union for example addresses the issue. However, how these soft norms relate to individual contracts is far from clear and needs to be explored. It appears that domestic practices throughout Africa are quite diverse, ranging from no relationship whatsoever, to, for example, an explicit coverage of responsible and sustainable investment clauses in all contracts and the duty to have each contract ratified by parliament, as is the case in Liberia. Zambia has largely regulated foreign agro-investments, with the aim to guaranteeing continued supply at fair prices to local markets and the use of local farmers who have to earn a decent salary. A search for best practices in Africa is a good way to start researching effective regulatory frameworks for responsible and sustainable transnational agro-investments!

Shale gas debate finally kicks off in the Netherlands

Fifteen years after the first economical shale fracture in the United States, the debate on shale gas extraction has finally reached full speed after the publication, in August 2013, of a research report by three consultancy firms lead by Witteveen + Bos, on the potential risks and consequences of shale gas and coal seam gas extraction in the Netherlands. In the report for the Dutch government, the researchers reviewed the existing literature on the impact of shale gas extraction and “translated” the findings to the Dutch situation. Most of the information on the impact of shale gas extraction is from experiences in the US and the UK. The comprehensive report focuses on all possible consequences, such as water use, underground impact on the soil, methane emissions and the impact on the carbon footprint, pollution of the environment (including groundwater) by fracturing fluid and flowback water, noise and light pollution from installations, flaring, safety issues, earthquakes and subsidence. Generally, the report concludes that most if not all of these risks can be managed by setting strict permit conditions. Unlike in the US, the Dutch shale gas reserves are at great depth, well below ground water aquifers, and, also unlike in the US, in the Netherlands there already exists an extensive regulatory system that sets strict rules. Flowback water, for instance, cannot be stored in open basins, but has to be stored in closed tanks that are stored on watertight floors as a consequence of EU waste water law. Although the report looks sufficiently overarching and detailed, it also gained criticism. It was for instance criticized for its selected use of sources. Professor Jan Rotmans, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (29 August 2013) stated that the report heavily relied on data coming from the industry (75% of the data used is from industry related sources), rather than on data from more independent sources. In addition, the lack of data is usually interpreted in a ‘positive’ way, i.e., concluding that a certain impact is not problematic, while in fact we do not know because of lacking data. Applying the precautionary principle would have led to the opposite conclusion in such a situation! Unfortunately, the Minister decided to grant the research project to a consortium of three private companies, one of which is Fugro, which states on its website: ‘Fugro’s activities (…) are primarily aimed at the: oil and gas industry, construction industry, mining sector’. On such a sensitive issue, it would have been better for the Minister to grant the project to a consortium of universities rather than of private businesses with ties to the shale gas industry, or at least have a university team lead the consortium. Another problematic feature of the report is that it does not focus on specific local conditions. This is a bit strange because a) the government selected the three locations on which exploratory drillings are to take place long ago (2010), and b) the report argues that local zoning requirements are needed to protect specific sites, such as Natura 2000 sites (protected areas under the EU’s nature conservation laws) and groundwater protection areas (in use for drinking water supply), and probably also (although not specifically mentioned in the report) other types of protected areas, such as water storage areas, silence areas, and national parks. The report also suggests to protect buffer zones around such protected areas, without detailing how big these have to be. Given the fact that populated areas probably have to be avoided as well, it would have been interesting to test what drilling options remain. By leaving a lot of issues to the local level, authorities resisting shale gas extraction have an immense opportunity to block drilling, even in case the national authorities granted concessions. We already see developments going into this direction: a majority of politicians of the province of Noord-Brabant in which two of the designated exploration locations are located, have announced to prohibit shale gas exploration in their province in the Provincial Environment Ordinance. It is clear from the report that shale gas extraction is only acceptable under strict legal conditions. The report does, therefore, constantly refer to laws and regulations that are or should be in place to minimize the negative impact of fracking. A full assessment of current laws is lacking, though. Current Dutch mining legislation does not explicitly deal with fracking, simply because it predates the large scale use of this technology. An earlier EU investigation of existing environmental laws, by a consortium that, interestingly enough, also included Witteveen + Bos, found many gaps and shortcomings. It is unlikely that all of these do not exist in the Netherlands. The report, furthermore, relies on law in the books rather than on the law in action. Although there are supervising authorities, both on the implementation of mining legislation and environmental legislation, much depends on the way the various authorities involved deal with their decision-making and monitoring and enforcement powers. The debate will not be over for a while. This is a good thing. Before investing billions of euros into new infrastructure to extract fossil energy resources, it is worthwhile to rethink whether such investments perhaps are more appropriate in the dwindling Dutch renewable energy sector. According to the 2013 Renewable Energy Progress Report, the Netherlands is on a snail ride, moving from a 2,4% share in 2005, to a 3,8 share of renewable energy sources in the total energy consumption in 2010. Compare this to some of nearby countries, such as Germany (11%), France (13.5%), and Denmark (22.2%)… In 2012, the share went up to 4,7%. In this pace, it is highly unlikely that the Netherlands will meet its target for 2020 of 16%... Investing in shale gas extraction will not speed up this process.

Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Law

This is the cover of the Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Law, that was just published by Edward Elgar Publishers. So far, legal research has mostly focused on mitigation. Some adaptation topics are well covered through individual papers and law journal articles. This is especially true for adaptation in the fields of water management and biodiversity conservation, coastal adaptation, and climate induced displacement. Other topics are not, or hardly, covered, if so only in scattered papers. With this book I want to provide a full overview of current adaptation law scholarship on all topics, in all relevant sectors. To date there is one other book that also addresses the whole emerging field of adaptation law: 'The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change: United States and International Aspects', edited by Michael Gerrard and Katrina Fischer Kuh, published by the American Bar Association. As the title indicates, this book as a primary focus on the US. My book takes a transnational perspective, i.e., an approach which is detached from a specific domestic legal system, but instead focuses on generic issues, using examples from across the world. In the introduction, adaptation and its various forms are explained, as well as the relationship between adaptation and mitigation, and the main questions that are addressed in the book: What are the legal challenges and barriers to climate change adaptation and how can they be overcome? What can be done within existing legal frameworks, and where are new or adapted frameworks needed? The second chapter gives an overview of the role of adaptation in current international and regional climate law and policy. The third chapter, by Rosemary Lyster (University of Sydney), can also be seen as an introductory chapter as it deals with justice issues. Then, we the book dives into a series of more specific topics: climate change induced displacement (Mariya Gromilova & Nicola Jägers, Tilburg Law School), adaptation and compensation (Michael Faure, Maastricht University), adaptation and disaster law (Dewald van Niekerk, North West University), adaptation and public health law (Lindsay F. Wiley, Washington College of Law), adaptation and agricultural and forestry law (Robert W. Adler, University of Utah), adaptation and water law (by me), adaptation and marine and coastal law (Tim Stephens, University of Sydney), adaptation and biodiversity law (Arie Trouwborst, Tilburg Law School), adaptation and land use planning law (Keith H. Hirokawa, Albany Law School, and Jonathan Rosenbloom, Drake Law School), adaptation and green building (Keith H. Hirokawa and Aurelia Marina Pohrib, Albany Law School), adaptation and environmental and pollution control law (me again), adaptation and electricity infrastructure (Rosemary Lyster and Rebekah Byrne, University of Sydney). The contributions to this book show that, although adaptation receives a growing amount of attention, both in practice and in academia, adaptation law is only just starting to emerge. In most instances, there are some plans or policies aimed at adaptation in various fields, usually those fields that already have to deal with increasing problems, such as storm water management and flood management. An adaptation of the laws still has to start. It is obvious that existing laws have to be assessed on their ability to facilitate adaptation. This is a huge undertaking because there is hardly any field that is not affected by climate change. All laws and regulations that in any possible way organize society have to be ‘climate proofed’, laws regarding agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy and telecommunications infrastructure, water management, air quality, industrial installations, nature conservation, buildings, transport infrastructure, public health, migration, disaster management, coastal defenses, etc. Although research on adaptation law, so far, has mainly concentrated on specific sectors, some overarching conclusions can be drawn: every field faces specific climate change impacts and needs specific adaptations, adaptations that also need to vary according to local circumstances. In various chapters, examples are presented of how existing laws are effectively applied to create resilience or to otherwise prepare for extreme weather events or other climate change impacts. Often, though, existing legislation needs to be adapted so that the competent authorities are obliged to plan for and take adaptation measures. The EU, for example, has just embarked on an ambitious programme to climate proof all existing Directives and Regulations. In 2013, the first climate proofed piece of EU legislation is expected to be adopted (a revised Directive on environmental impact assessment). It will probably take at least ten years before the entire body of EU law has been climate proofed. Similar programmes will have to be set up on all levels of government: international, regional, national/federal, provincial/regional and local. Since many impacts of climate change will be local impacts, and since these impacts can greatly vary from one location to another, it is important that at the local level the authorities take the lead in local adaptation programmes. At that level, planning law probably is the most important instrument in the authorities’ adaptation toolkit. Higher levels of government have to ensure that the authorities at the local level have sufficient room for manoeuvre. For adaptation issues at the higher levels, i.e., at the level of transboundary river basins, national or transboundary coastal areas, international marine areas, regional or international migration and others, international institutions will have to take the lead and coordinate international adaptation efforts. At all levels, issues of equity and justice arise and need to be incorporated into the law-making process. And yes... this blog will become more active as of now!!!

Ongoing debate

This is my final blog from Australia, from tropical Queensland to be precise. It’s hard to believe, but throughout the six months I have been here, climate change has never been out of the news. Let’s have a look at the latest headlines, starting with the approval rating of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, which has hit an all-time low. She has brought it on herself by introducing a carbon tax in anticipation of an emissions trading scheme similar to the European model. Her days as Prime Minister appear to be numbered in a country where leadership of political parties is determined by the prevailing popularity of politicians in the polls. In the meantime, the introduction of the carbon tax does appear to be proceeding and the debate is focusing on the compensation program: how much money will the government give low-income households to compensate for the predicted rise in energy bills as a result of the carbon tax?
And then there are the death threats made to climate scientists at the Australian National University in Canberra. The university’s governing body subsequently moved them to secret locations in order to foil the threats. The university’s rector told the media that the scientists were severely affected by the threats. “Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way. The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them.”
A new report was also published containing the latest insights into the rise in sea levels around Australia. Existing estimates are too low. Between 2000 and 2100, the average rise in sea level will be between 50cm and 1 meter rather than between 18cm and 76cm, as had been assumed till now. This has major consequences for low-lying cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. There are also huge regional variations. For instance, sea levels around Arnhem Land (named after the Dutch town by Dutch seafarers in the early 17th century) in northern Australia are rising by 7 mm per year, while the global average is 3.2 mm. The region’s Kakadu National Park, one of the world’s most beautiful tropical wetlands, will undergo a complete character change. From being a large fresh-water area, it will transform into a tidal salt-water area with completely different flora and fauna. This is bad news for the harmless fresh-water crocodiles (known to Aussies as ‘freshies’), which can still be found here, but good news for the highly dangerous salt-water crocodiles, which can grow up to 6 meters in length and are already present in large numbers.

CCS or algae?

Storing CO2 under the ground, which climate change specialists often refer to as CCS (carbon capture and storage), is seen as an important step on the road to a society in which we are no longer dependent on burning fossil fuels. The technology for removing CO2 from the air has existed for quite some time already (as evidenced by the addition of carbonic acid to drinks to make them fizzy). In a new generation of power plants, the CO2 could be removed before it ever has the chance to get into the atmosphere. But the transportation of the CO2 to the storage site, and the process of storing it, are more problematic. This is because the CO2 must be transported and stored in such a way that it cannot escape – ever again. A blow-out would not only defeat the whole object of storing the CO2 in the first place, it could also be very dangerous. A small leak from a pipeline in Berkel en Rodenrijs in 2008 received international attention, even though casualties were limited to a few ducks. But the worst case scenario at the back of everyone’s minds is the large-scale escape of CO2 from a lake in Cameroon in 1986 as a result of volcanic activity. The escaped gas suffocated 1700 people. Storage in thinly populated or uninhabited regions or under the sea bed would seem to be the best solution, but the disadvantage of this is that it requires long pipelines. Many trial projects are underway in both Europe and Australia, mostly still in their initial phase. In 2009, an EU directive was issued including regulations on the underground storage of CO2. These focused particularly on preventing any harmful environmental effects, especially over the longer term. The most important legal issue is liability. Who will be responsible if in the future, say 100 years from now, damage is caused despite all the security measures that have been taken? For American and Australian companies, this is now a cause for extreme caution in moving forward with CCS. In the EU, this problem has been solved by the automatic transfer of liability to the state after a certain period of time.
However, it now seems that new technology is becoming available which could be much more lucrative than CCS – that is recycling CO2. In Australia, a company has been set up which uses an industrial application of CO2 to cultivate algae and produce commodities such as cattle food, bio fuels and raw materials for medicines. I’m certainly curious about the legal issues that will arise from that!

Frack it!

A genuine revolution is underway in the energy sector, now that new methods are being used to extract ever larger amounts of natural gas. The gas, known as ‘coal seam gas’ or ‘shale gas’, is extracted from underground rocks by injecting them with large quantities of water and sand under high pressure. This causes the rocks to fracture, releasing the gas contained inside them. The process is called ‘fracking’. After it has been extracted, the gas can be used just like conventional natural gas. Large reserves of gas are available for extraction in this way, especially in Australia, Canada and the US, where more shale gas is now being extracted than conventional gas. There is probably a large amount of this type of gas in the Slochteren gas field in the Netherlands, too. The energy sector is embracing these new methods of production enthusiastically because gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal, and it could therefore be used as a temporary replacement for coal until more sustainable forms of energy become available on a large scale. Burning natural gas produces much fewer pollutants than burning coal.

However, there is also growing criticism of this use of ‘clean’ fossil fuels. Natural gas is methane, a greenhouse gas that remains a hundred times more powerful than CO2 for twenty years after it is extracted. The problem is that a small percentage of this hyperactive greenhouse gas will always escape into the atmosphere during extraction, processing and transportation. In fact, American researchers have recently discovered that the negative effect of shale gas on the climate could be up to 20% greater than the effect of burning coal. And other environmental drawbacks are also being encountered. At the end of May, residents living near a shale gas extraction site in Arkansas in the USA made a damages claim for 4.75 billion US dollars against the Australian company BHP Billiton, which is responsible for the production of shale gas there. They claim that the extraction process has led to the pollution of ground and surface water, and even to an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.7 on the Richter scale. Shell, which extracts coal seam gas in Queensland in Australia, recently had to deal with a gas and water explosion. Various governments are now being persuaded to tighten up the environmental regulations on extracting shale gas. Although the first results of this seem to indicate that the emission of methane into the atmosphere can be reduced, it is still unclear whether this can prevent all the damaging effects. So it remains to be seen whether the initial euphoria over these new, clean forms of fossil energy will prove justified.

Coastal adaptation

Around the world, coastal defenses are an integral part of climate policy. The risk of flooding is increasing due to a number of factors – the rising sea level (which in the Netherlands is being exacerbated by subsidence), the increasing intensity of storms and rising water levels in rivers. The Dutch parliament is currently looking at proposals for a new Delta Law, which is designed to address these increasing dangers. This law, as well as the legislation that already exists, is among the most advanced in the world. But of course, that is because half of our country is susceptible to flooding, either from the sea or from rivers.
Unlike in the Netherlands, most of the coastal areas around the cities of southern and eastern Australia are in the hands of private landowners. These ‘ocean view properties’ are spectacular, and extremely expensive. That makes it difficult for the government to build coastal defenses. Many interesting legal cases are already underway in this area which will clarify how this aspect of climate law will be put into force in the future. Essentially, the law states that the authorities must create a coastal protection area where they can make provisions for the effects of climate change. This policy will determine whether projects in coastal areas are allowed to go ahead. But what should be done in cases where houses are under threat from the sea?
One of the most famous cases is that of a rich landowner in Byron Bay to the south of Brisbane. The government had decided not to defend a section of the coastal area against the increased risk of erosion, but rather to let nature take its course as a part of a wider plan that involved protecting other, more important areas. The owner of the land decided to take measures to protect the land from erosion himself by renewing the old coastal defenses. The government denied him permission to do this, for the same reason as it had decided not to do so itself. When it looked as if the dispute would be settled in favor of the landowner, the government decided to renew the coastal defenses after all. However, it is clear that this is only a temporary measure until the next storm comes along. There is no prospect of a definitive solution, not least because land owners are opposing the construction of new coastal defenses for the future. After all, this would mean their land would no longer be located directly on the coast, and so it would be worth considerably less...