Date of Publication:
Erin Okuno, Rights of Wetlands and the Ramsar Convention, in Wetlands and International Environmental Law: The Evolution and Impact of the Ramsar Convention (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Ramsar Convention Governance and Processes at the International Level, in Ramsar Wetlands: Values, Assessment, and Management (Peter A. Gell et al. eds., Elsevier, 2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Various players participate in the governance of the Ramsar Convention. The Conference of the Parties (COP), which typically meets every 3 years, consists of the Convention’s Contracting Parties and holds ultimate decision-making authority. At each COP, Resolutions are adopted, providing instruction and guidance regarding the Convention’s implementation. Between COPs, the Standing Committee, consisting of Contracting Parties based on regional representation, exercises decision-making authority. The Convention’s Secretariat, which is located in Switzerland, provides administrative support, while the Scientific and Technical Review Panel is the Convention’s scientific advisory body. The Convention is further supported by International Organisation Partners, which are intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. Ramsar operates largely through consensus and collaboration. Much of the Convention’s first 50 years focused on building institutional structures and developing technical guidance. Yet, as the Global Wetland Outlook indicates, the Contracting Parties have thus far failed to halt wetland loss and degradation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Ramsar at the National Level: Application and Incorporation into Domestic Law, in (Peter A. Gell et al. eds., Elsevier, 2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
A Contracting Party to the Ramsar Convention assumes certain obligations under international law: designation and conservation of wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Sites), wise use of all wetlands within its territory, and international cooperation regarding shared wetland resources, including species. Although it is a framework convention that lacks a formal enforcement mechanism, the Ramsar Convention influences domestic legal regimes in a number of ways. Its impact on domestic laws, policies, and practices for wetlands depends in part on whether a particular Party subscribes to a monist, dualist, or mixed approach to international law. In a monist system, Ramsar obligations, including those flowing from Resolutions agreed upon at the regular Conference of Parties, may apply directly within a domestic legal regime. Under a dualist approach, Ramsar obligations may require specific implementing legislation before they are effective within the domestic sphere.
Date of Publication:
Gillian T. Davies et al., Reply to Bridgewater (2021), “Response to Davies et al., ‘Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands’”, 72 Marine and Freshwater Research 1401 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
We reply to the main concerns raised by Bridgewater (2021) in his response to Davies et al. (2021a), ‘Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands’. We appreciate the contribution of Bridgewater (2021) to this emerging conversation and, although we disagree with some of his assessments and statements, we do not find his points to be incompatible with support for the Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands (ROW). This reply focuses on four areas of concern raised by Bridgewater (2021). First, we describe why a wetlands-specific declaration will add important value to other Rights of Nature declarations. Second, we discuss how the ROW does not detract from, but rather can contribute to and complement, existing conservation and management approaches and mechanisms. Third, we agree on the importance of weaving Indigenous and local knowledge with other knowledges and emphasise that the ROW should not be confused with or misused to undermine the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Finally, we explain how legal rights can and have been granted to non-humans, including elements of Nature, such as wetlands.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Long-Term Management of Mitigation Sites (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This resource is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches to implementation. This particular guide will assist ILF program sponsors and other stakeholders can preparing for the long-term management of mitigation sites. After noting the regulatory requirements, this guide discusses typical challenges for ILF programs related to long-term management and makes recommendations on how to avoid or address some of the common challenges. It also offers sample language for certain provisions regarding long-term management and concludes with additional resources for further information.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca Kihslinger et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Full Cost Accounting (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The following is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches to implementation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca Kihslinger et al., Improving In-Lieu Fee Program Implementation: Programmatic Audits (Environmental Law Institute, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The following is part of a series of comprehensive guides on some of the most challenging components of ILF program implementation identified through extensive research and interviews with operating ILF programs and other mitigation stakeholders. These guides help address perennial problems for ILF programs by identifying specific challenges, providing detailed recommendations on ways to meet these challenges, and including examples or case studies of programs to illustrate effective approaches.
Date of Publication:
G. T. Davies et al., Towards a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands, 72 Marine & Freshwater Research 593 (2020)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The rights of Nature, a concept recognised by several courts, legislatures and international governance institutions, is being promoted by some non-governmental organisations, scientists, attorneys, Indigenous peoples, local communities, and others. In this article we propose a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands, consistent with the 1982 World Charter for Nature. Recognition of these rights supports the provision of ecosystem services essential to human well-being and to other life on Earth. Further, such rights could reinforce efforts to reduce wetland loss and deterioration, thereby slowing climate destabilisation and biodiversity declines. Because world scientists have warned that biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and climate destabilisation, which intensify wetland loss, constitute global emergencies, new approaches are required to ensure that wetlands are protected and their benefits to people sustained. The proposed Universal Declaration of the Rights of Wetlands states that wetlands possess rights to: exist; their ecologically determined location in the landscape; natural, connected and sustainable hydrological regimes; ecologically sustainable climatic conditions; naturally occurring biodiversity; regeneration and restoration; integrity of structure, function and evolutionary processes; fulfil natural ecological roles in the Earth’s processes; and be free from pollution and degradation. Recognition of these rights is seen as an essential step in efforts to stop wetland loss and deterioration.
Date of Publication:
Erin Okuno, Live Critique of Oral Arguments: Response to Amanda L. Sholtis, Say What?: A How-To Guide on Providing Formative Assessment to Law Students Through Live Critique (2020)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., CWA In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: Project and Programmatic Risks, 49 Envtl. L. Reporter News and Analysis 10538 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In 2008, after prompting by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) issued a regulation governing compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies’ primary goal was to improve the effectiveness of mitigation projects to offset the impacts of filling wetlands and streams. The 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule was also designed to level the playing field for the three types of mitigation providers: mitigation banks, in-lieu fee (ILF) programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation.
After a decade of experience with this regulation, it is appropriate to reflect on its implementation. Although much has been written about mitigation banks, less attention (in the literature at least) has been paid to ILF programs and permittee-responsible mitigation. This Comment focuses on ILF programs.