Contents

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 1

Defra’s Coexistence Proposals for GM Crops: A Recipe for Confrontation?
Christopher Rodgers

Defra has pursued a cautious and step by step approach to the development of coexistence measures to allow genetically modified ('GM') and conventional farming to work side by side when (as is widely expected) the go-ahead is given for the commercial introduction of GM crops in the UK. It published a wide-ranging consultation document on GM Coexistence measures as long ago as July 2006. The consultation closed on 20 October 2006, and stimulated no fewer than 11,676 submissions. Defra published its initial analysis of these in November 2007. The vast majority of responses came from members of the public (11,442), but three petitions generated most of these and a large number of stock answers were prepared by organisation campaigning against GM agriculture. Those responses from the public that were not on stock letters or forms fell into to broad categories, according to Defra: those registering a general opposition to GM crops (approxomately 1,370 in total) and those whose primary concern was to protect organic agriculture (approximately 390). The consultation revealed highly motivated, and continuing, opposition from sections of the public to the introduction of GM agriculture in the UK. Before finalising it’s legislative proposals Defra is waiting for two further developments: the conclusion of three research projects on coexistence and crop separation distances due to report in Spring 2008, and the adoption of EU thresholds for labelling adventitious GM presence in conventional seeds.

[close]

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 9

The Second Anniversary of the Constitutionalisation of the French Charter for the Environment: Constitutional and Environmental Implications
David Marrani

The former French president J. Chirac will most likely be remembered for his international standing against the US and domestically, within France, for having initiated a major ‘Bill of Rights’, the Charter for the Environment and for its constitutionalisation. Two years on, it is time for an assessment and analysis of the Charter’s outcomes. In this paper, I will consider whether or not the Charter has achieved what was expected of it, if it does ‘enshrine an humanist ecology’ while at the same time completing the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

[close]

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 28

Pursuing Substantive Environmental Justice: The Aarhus Convention as a ‘Pillar’ of Empowerment
Carine Nadal

Adopting a grassroots perspective of environmental justice, this analysis illustrates the untapped potential of the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention to serve as a tool of empowerment, both in terms of fair treatment and meaningful involvement, for those suffering environmental injustice. The author argues that by upholding the general principle of non-discrimination, and by providing opportunities for public participation in decision-making and influencing the substance of the decision, the Convention can ensure fair treatment and meaningful involvement. Overall however, owing to inherent weaknesses and an absence of an environmental justice rationale, the Convention is a weak pillar of empowerment.  Pursuit of substantive environmental justice thus demands explicitly contextualising the Convention in the broader framework of grassroots environmental justice. 

[close]

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 46

The Waste Strategy for England 2007: Is it Deliverable?
Julie Adshead

Following a Defra consultation from February to May 2006, the Government published its new waste strategy in May 2007. This substantial publication runs to 123 pages, eight chapters and multiple appendices. The strategy constitutes part of the implementation of the Framework Directive on Waste and is a waste management plan for the purposes of the Directive. A national waste strategy is also a requirement under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The strategy forms part of a tiered system in which it represents the national level. There are also strategies for waste in Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Plan documents. The 2007 strategy builds upon the White Paper ‘Waste Strategy, 2000’ and is supplement by PPS10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’. Its eight chapters are themed as follows: Chapter 1 introduces the new strategy. Chapters 2 and 3 focus on the use of pricing and the regulatory framework. Chapter 4 deals with targeting action on priority materials, products and sectors. Chapter 5 sets out the government’s plans to promote investment and use public funding to stimulate change. Chapter 6 is concerned with strengthening governance arrangements at national and local levels in order to achieve a co-ordinated approach to increased investment. The engagement of individuals and organisations and stimulation of behaviour change is the focus of Chapter 7 and the final chapter identifies indicators and targets to monitor progress.

[close]

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 52

Life after the Biotech Products Dispute
Ilona Cheyne

In May 2003, after a series of complaints about the difficulty of gaining approval to export biotechnology products to the EC, the governments of the US, Canada and Argentina requested consultations under the WTO dispute settlement process. A dispute settlement panel was established and began to hear evidence in April 2004. Under the normal dispute settlement rules, a panel is expected to take no longer than six months after its establishment to issue its final report. Where an extension is needed, this should not extend the period to more than nine months. However, because of the complexity of the issues, the Panel was unable to issue its interim report until February 2006. Interim reports are supposed to be confidential while they are being reviewed by the parties. However, interest in the Biotech Products dispute was intense and when the interim report was made public unofficially it became the subject of intense debate. The Panel issued its final report to the parties in September 2006. The unprecedented length of time that the process took, and the fierce public controversy over the interim findings, underline the range, scope and incommensurability of the issues raised in the conflict over GMOs.

[close]

[close]

ENV L REV 10 (2008) 65

On Winning the Battle but Losing the War …
Karen Morrow

Greenpeace initiated a claim for judicial review seeking a quashing order in respect of the Government’s decision to support nuclear new build as part of the UK’s future energy mix. The decision, which appeared in The Energy Challenge Review Report published in 2006, represented a volte face in this aspect of energy policy as previously expressed in the 2003 White Paper Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy. In that document, the government indicated that it had decided against supporting the building of new nuclear power stations as part of the UK energy mix, opting instead to concentrate its efforts on encouraging the development of renewable energy sources. In Our Energy Future the government had explicitly stated that: 'Before any decision to proceed with the building of nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper setting out the Government’s proposals.'

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 2 (2000) :   4

Volume 3 (2001) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 4 (2002) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 5 (2003) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 6 (2004) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 7 (2005) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 8 (2006) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 9 (2007) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 10 (2008) :   1

[close]