Introduction1.1 why a book on environmental law and economics?Sustainability and environmental law have never been more important. If there are new legal toolkits available for building a better, more sustainable world, there is a duty incumbent to explore and learn those new ideas, to transform our legal rules and institutions.This book presents research drawn from literature on the economic analysis of environmental law. 1 Fundamentally, it presents a case that these methods share the established values and principles of environmental law, 2 yet they extend the set of legal policy options to address the needs of environmental protection and sustainable development. 3 Furthermore, it is shown that beyond the theoretical frameworks developed by environmental Law and Economics researchers, there now exists 1 The terms 'economic analysis of environmental law' and 'environmental Law and Economics' are synonymous and interchangeable. The concept of 'economic analysis of environmental law' is distinguishable from the similarly named 'economic analysis of environmental policy', in that the former focuses on law and legal institutions whereas the latter focuses on economics and economic institutions; also, the latter tend to present a greater amount of mathematical content in their literature. Nevertheless, the two literatures are closely intertwined. Fischman and Barbasch-Riley limited their definition of environmental law to include research on legal issues of pollution, species or habitat conservation, land use, natural resource management, and climate change law (Fischman and Barbasch-Riley 2018, at 772). 2 Driesen notes that environmental law still lacks a positive theory of environmental law; thus, it is quite likely that environmental law will continue to evolve much as Law and Economics is evolving (Driesen 2017, at 58). 3 This argument of shared common legal principles was originally presented by Faure and Skogh (2003, at 19-39). The present book honours Professor Skogh's memory, as it extends and deepens the framework originally introduced by Faure and Skogh and additionally provides empirical case studies on the effectiveness of the models proposed in that earlier work. See De Sadeleer (2002, at 15-18) for the comparative reference to the principles of 'conventional' environmental law.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Asbtract In January of this year (2020), a major scientific study (‘the Minshull report’) announced that gas hydrate reservoirs were found in many offshore areas across Europe. The European Commission is now considering a policy view to commercialize the development and extraction of methane gas from European offshore areas. Affirmation from the European Commission that offshore methane hydrates are too useful and too valuable to forego development could initiate a global response to adopt offshore methane hydrates as a new source of natural gas for heating, for electrical power supplies, and for potential new revenues. The upside? The potential rewards from offshore methane hydrates are multi-fold. Coastal states are surrounded in methane hydrate resources that if responsibly developed could enable vast amounts of methane (natural gas) to be produced for decades or centuries beyond the timelines of conventional natural gas assets. There are also massive volumes of fresh water trapped in hydrates that could aid in fighting droughts and desertification. The downside? There are novel foreseeable risks that might result from those commercial methane hydrate activities. The climate change risks and geo-physical hazards from offshore methane hydrates are quite distinct from both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons. There are new challenges to achieving safety and sustainability. In review, this paper both welcomes the discovery and confirmation of offshore methane hydrates in European waters and also raises concerns that more research is required on the optimal policy strategies for the known and foreseeable risks to best enable safe and sustainable policy choices.

No abstract

This Working Papers Series on International Best Practices is prepared within the scope of the Mining Legislation Reform Initiative (MLRI), a project of the AUA Center for Responsible Mining. MLRI is a multi-year effort, funded by the Tufenkian Foundation, to improve Armenia's legislation ensuring that mining in Armenia provides sufficient benefits to the country and local communities. The initiative involves drafting and passing legislation that elevates the socioeconomic benefits of mining, while reducing the negative environmental and public health impacts. A key component of the MLRI is collaborating and partnering with civil society, advocacy groups, academic institutions, and relevant national and international organizations. MLRI works with the key governmental and legislative bodies in getting the draft legislation passed into law. For more information visit http://mlri.crm.aua.am.