Olivia Woolley, Ecological Governance: Reappraising Law's Role in Protecting Ecosystem Functionality
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Pages | 413-415 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Author | |
| DOI | 10.3366/elr.2016.0380 |
The author sets out a case for re-aligning the environmental law framework to focus on preserving ecosystem resilience and functionality so that ecosystems continue to provide services which are beneficial for humanity. A broad-based precautionary approach not linked to critical loads is essential to this, since the author makes a good case that, even with increasing knowledge about ecosystems, we are unlikely ever to get sufficient knowledge of their critical loads.
Thus, the developments which we allow should be consistent with this objective at least to the extent of having minimal impact on ecosystem functionality and we should also shift away from existing developments which pose risks to ecosystem resilience through a process of “sunsetting”. The author sketches how this could be achieved, notably through the land use planning system and environmental assessment processes, with a much more rigorous approach to the consideration of alternatives that are the least harmful to ecosystems. The developing marine spatial planning system would be employed to the same end in relation to the marine environment. Unlike advocates of devolving all authority to local units to manage their own ecosystems (such as Karkkainen and McGinnis), the author sees a need for central authority to set the overall goals, to ensure effective coordination between different levels of government, and indeed to deal with over-arching issues and the development of national policy.
The switch away from a society based on the values of economics in which environmental issues are marginalised is to be achieved through the adoption of deliberative processes which would be built into policy and plan-making alongside consultation. The author confronts the possibilities that those participating in deliberative processes would choose short-term self-interest over ecological responsibility. She argues that deliberative processes would enable people to question their own belief systems and shift from acting on self-interest to a more enlightened focus of the public good based around maintaining the functionality of ecosystems. A pyramidal structure of deliberative processes at local, regional, and national level is envisaged, with consultation still providing a means of participation for those not included in deliberative processes. Selection for deliberative processes would seem to be through a jury–like selection system, although this is not made entirely clear. The reader is perhaps left...
To continue reading
Request your trial