![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Part 1 of this article develops a methodology to assess how offshore petroleum licensing regimes deal with the interests of future generations. Part 2 uses that methodology to assess the regime of the United Kingdom. Part 1 first examines how the idea of intergenerational equity developed in a resources context and why it consists of broad concepts. It next examines leading commentary to extract the important elements of intergenerational equity before converting them into focus areas and questions that provide a structure to examine and compare the functional outcomes of regimes that have an impact on future generations.
Notes
1 In this article ‘petroleum’ refers to hydrocarbons in the form of oil and gas. Where it is necessary to distinguish them the expressions ‘oil’ and ‘gas’ will be used.
2 See n 10, 12, 19, 30, 38 and 46 for some of the leading texts.
3 Aspects of regimes, particularly fiscal and economic, have been reviewed. See eg Joseph Mawejje and Lawrence Bategeka, Accelerating Growth and Maintaining Intergenerational Equity Using Oil Resources in Uganda, Africa Growth Initiative at BROOKINGS, Research Series No. 111 (Economic Policy Research Centre, Kampala, September 2013) 9 which focuses on efficiency and speed of resource extraction, use of revenue and possible damage to the environment. See also Stanley Nwabuishi Onuosa, ‘Sustainable Development of Petroleum Resources: The Rumpus and the Resolution’ in Zhiguo Gao (ed), Environmental Regulation of Oil and Gas (Kluwer Law International 1998).
4 In the international law context Brown Weiss states that ‘there is no international legal instrument that defines the elements of the principle of intergenerational equity’; see Edith Brown Weiss, ‘Intergenerational Equity’, Oxford Public International Law (Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, February 2013) https://opil.ouplaw.com/view para 1, accesssed 7 October 2020.
5 Catherine Redgwell, ‘Introduction’ in Martha Roggenkamp and others (eds), Energy Law in Europe (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2016) 15.
6 These are the Australian regime and the Norwegian regime. The former is contained in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) and the latter in the Petroleum Act 1996 (Norway).
7 John AP Chandler, ‘Developing Offshore Petroleum to Meet Socio-Economic Objectives: Lessons from Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom’ (2020) 144 Energy Policy 111618. This article deals with licences. The other main legal form used for the exploitation of offshore petroleum is the production-sharing contract. For a discussion of the various kinds of regimes see Bernard G Taverne, Petroleum, Industry and Governments: A Study of the Involvement of Industry and Governments in the Production and Use of Petroleum (Kluwer Law International, 2nd edn, 2008).
8 In 1988, 167 men were killed when a fire and explosion occurred on the Piper Alpha platform in the North Sea. The report by Lord Cullen that followed was highly influential in changing safety regulation: Cullen, The Hon. Lord William Douglas (November 1990), The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster (London: HM Stationery Office).
9 The methodology was first tested in a discussion paper sent out to a group of 15 academics, practising lawyers, regulators and judges in June 2019. It was amended following the comments received. It was then tested at seminars held by the author in December 2019 and February 2020.
10 See eg RI Sikora and Brian Barry (eds), Obligations to Future Generations (Temple University Press 1978); P Laslett and JS Fishkin (eds.), Justice Between Age Groups and Generations (Yale University Press 1992).
11 eg Beckerman acknowledges that the current generation can owe moral obligations to future generations. Wilfred Beckerman, ‘The Impossibility of a Theory of Intergenerational Justice’ in Joerg Chet Tremmel (ed), Handbook of Intergenerational Justice (Edward Elgar 2006) 68.
12 Peter H Sand, ‘Evolution of International Environmental Law', in Daniel Bodansky, Jetta Brunnee and Ellen Hey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2004) 30, 36. A 2012 publication assesses the number as 140: John Glasson, Riki Therivel and Andrew Chadwick, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (Routledge, 4th edn, 2012) 272.
13 Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), 1997 CanLII 14612 (NL CA) [9].
14 Ibid, [2] to [8]. In discussing the Canadian and Newfoundland environmental assessment legislation of the time, the court said ‘if the rights of future generations to the protection of the present integrity of the natural world are to be taken seriously, and not to be regarded as mere empty rhetoric, care must be taken in the interpretation and application of the legislation. Environmental laws must be construed against their commitment to future generations and against a recognition that, in addressing environmental issues, we often have imperfect knowledge as to the potential impact of activities on the environment. One must also be alert to the fact that governments themselves, even strongly pro-environment ones, are subject to many countervailing social and economic forces, sometimes legitimate and sometimes not. Their agendas are often influenced by non-environmental considerations’.
15 Sand (n 12) 30, 35.
16 Eg the Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79 (entered into force 29 December 1995); and the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, opened for signature 29 December 1972, 1046 UNTS 120 (entered into force 30 August 1975).
17 UN Doc A/CONF.48/14 (1972).
18 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, World Conservation Strategy (‘WCS’) https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/WCS-004.pdf accessed 7 October 2020.
19 Klaus Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability – Transforming Law and Governance (Ashgate 2008) (‘Bosselmann, Sustainability’) 28.
20 WCS (n 18) Introduction, para 12.
21 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press 1987); see also World Commission on Environment and Development, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/42/427 (4 August 1987) annex (‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’).
22 Brundtland Report ch 2: Towards Sustainable Development, para 1.
23 Segger and Khalfan suggest that sustainable development was a ‘compromise term for more environmentally sound natural resource exploitation, or to describe conservation policies in developing countries’. Mairie-Claire Cordonier Segger and Ashfaq Khalfan, Sustainable Development Law Principles, Practice & Prospects (OUP 2004) 15.
24 For example, Section 5(2)(1) of Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 says that ‘a public body must act in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
25 Philippe Sands and Jacqueline Peel, with Adriana Fabra and Ruth MacKenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2012) 207. Onuosa (n 3) 436 refers to four principles of sustainable development, being the principle of intergenerational equity, the principle of sustainable use, the principle of equitable use and the precautionary principle.
26 ‘It is sufficiently flexible to allow a wide variety of policy decisions from a given set of facts. It combines environmental, social and economic concerns but does not prioritize them in case of conflict; it does not establish an environmental bottom line’. B. Pardy, Environmental Law: A Guide To Concepts (1996) 267 quoted in Allan Ingelson, ‘Sustainable Development and the Regulation of the Coal Bed Methane Industry in the United States’ (2005–2006) 20 Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law 51, at 54.
27 Bosselmann, Sustainability (n 19), 98.
28 Ibid.
29 Distributive justice builds on the work of John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press 1971). It has developed into a specific area of energy justice in recent years. See Raphael Heffron and Darren McCauley, ‘The Concept of Energy Justice across the Disciplines’ (2017) 105 Energy Policy 658.
30 First published in 1988 by the United Nations University Tokyo and Transnational Publishers, New York.
31 Ibid, 7. This is sometimes shortened along the lines that ‘every generation holds the Earth in common with members of the present generation and with other generations, past and future’, see eg Edith Brown Weiss, ‘Intergenerational Equity’, Oxford Public International Law (Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, February 2013) para 1 https://opil.ouplaw.com/view accessed 7 October 2020.
32 Brown Weiss IFFG 21.
33 Lynda M Collins, 'Revisiting the Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity in Global Environmental Governance' (2007) 30 Dalhousie Law Journal 79, 87, 134.
34 eg the preamble to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 161 UNTS 75 (1946) refers to ‘the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks’.
35 Beckerman (n 11) 66.
36 See LB Solum, ‘To Our Children's Children's Children: The Problems of Intergenerational Ethics’ (2001) 35 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 169.
37 See Vaughan Lowe, 'Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments’ in Alan Boyle and David Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford University Press 1999), 31; Wilfred Beckerman (n 11) 66.
38 Malgosia Fitzmaurice, ‘Intergenerational Equity Revisited’ in James Crawford and others (eds), International Law Between Universalism and Fragmentation (Brill 2008) 229. The conceptual difficulties highlighted in Section 1.6 come through in the UN Secretary General's 2013 report Intergenerational Solidarity and the Needs of Future Generations, UN Doc A/68/322 (5 August 2013) (‘UN Intergenerational Solidarity Report’) 5–21 that discusses some of the underlying concepts, such as the meaning of future generations and whether they have rights.
39 Ibid.
40 Michael Decleris, The Law of Sustainable Development General Principles (European Communities Luxembourg 2000) 33. Lowe describes sustainable development as ‘a meta-principle, acting upon other legal rules and principles – a legal concept exercising a kind of interstitial normativity, pushing and pulling the boundaries of true primary norms when they threaten to overlap or conflict with each other’ Lowe (n 37) 31.
41 Decleris (n 40) 42.
42 Nicolas de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles from Political Slogans to Legal Rules (Oxford University Press 2002).
43 Paul Ekins, ‘Environmental Sustainability: From Environmental Valuation to the Sustainability Gap’ (2011) 45(5) Progress in Physical Geography 629.
44 eg Jacques Cousteau launched a Bill of Rights for Future Generations in the 1990s. A redrafted version was approved by the general conference of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on 12 November 1997, but never became law internationally http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13178&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html accessed 7 October 2020.
45 See Jane Anstee-Wedderburn, ‘Giving a Voice to Future Generations: Intergenerational Equity, Representatives of Generations to Come and the Challenge of Planetary Rights’ (2014) 1(1) Australian Journal of Environmental Law 37, 54–60. One initiative raised in the preparation for the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, that of a High Commissioner for Future Generations, resurfaced in the UN Intergenerational Solidarity Report (n 38) 39–40.
46 Catherine Redgwell, Intergenerational Trusts and Environmental Protection (Juris Publishing 1999) 126.
47 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/CONF.151/6/Rev1.
48 See paragraph 15(c) of UN Resolution A/RES/44/228 (22 December 1989). Moving forward, this idea of integration is also reflected in paragraph 13 of UN Resolution A/RES/70/1 ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (25 September 2015)’: ‘Sustainable development recognizes that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, combating inequality within and among countries, preserving the planet, creating sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and fostering social inclusion are linked to each other and are interdependent’..
49 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (n 47).
50 UN GA Res 1803 (1962), UN GA Res 3201 (1974), UN GA res 3281 (1974); 4 December 1986, UNGA Resolution 41/128, UN GAOR, 53rd Supp, 186; https://www.un.org/en/events/righttodevelopment accessed 7 October 2020.
51 Agenda 21 (1992), Report of the UNCED, I, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1.
52 One way for this to occur is if a relevant dispute comes before the court and international law has evolved to the point that intergenerational equity should be allowed for. This happened with environmental impact assessment in the Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) I.C. J. Reports [2010] 14. The court found ‘that it may now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, in particular, on a shared resource’. At 83 [204].
53 ICJ Reports [1997] 7, 88. Judge Weeramantry mentioned intergenerational equity earlier in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion [1996] ICJ Reports 226, 455 in which he remarked on the abundant juristic opinion concerning the rights of future generations. He was not alone amongst the judges on the International Court of Justice in considering it important. Judge Antonio Cancado Trindade reviewed its history and importance in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand Intervening) [2014] ICJ Reports 262, 362–367 [41]–[47]. His concluding remarks in the case included the statement that ‘The formation of international law in domains of public or common interest, such as that of conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources, is a much wider process than the formulation of its “formal sources”, above all in seeking the legitimacy of norms to govern international life’. Ibid, 381 [89].
54 ICJ Reports [1997] 97 and 110.
55 Alan Boyle, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 3(23) European Journal of International Law 616.
56 See the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) and its 1966 implementing treaties the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). UHDR is subject to resolution 217(iii), UN doc A/RES/3/ 217 (1948). ICCPR was open for signature on 19 December 1966, UNTS 3 (in force 3 January 1976).
57 United Nations GA Res. 45/94, UN Doc A/RES/45/94 (1990), ‘Need to Ensure a Healthy Environment for the Well-Being of Individuals’. On the reports see Bosselmann, Sustainability (n 19) 121–27.
58 In 2002 the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg, sometimes described as Earth Summit 2002, reviewed progress of the outcomes of UNCED. Its two main outputs were the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development in the Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc A/CONF.199/20 (2002); and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc A?CONF.199/20 (2002). World Summit on Sustainable Development, 4 September 2002, UN Doc A?CONF.199/20 (2002).
59 For their history and the goals see the UN's webpage on Sustainable Development Goals https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.
60 Edith Brown Weiss, ‘Intergenerational Equity in a Kaleidoscopic World’ (2019) 49(1) Environmental Policy and Law 3. She refers to the number of these provisions increasing from 12 to 55 between 1990 and 2016. In 1988 she was able to refer to 34: Brown Weiss IFFG 107.
61 So Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution gives: ‘Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well’. https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/english/constitutionenglish.pdf accessed 7 October 2020.
62 Oposa v Factoran 224 SCRA 792, 33 ILM 173 (1994).
63 Ibid, 188–91.
64 D Gatmayan, ‘Illusion of Intergenerational Equity: Oposa v Factoran as Pyrrhic Victory’, 15 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 4549–460, referred to in Fitzmaurice, ‘Intergenerational Equity Revisited’ (n 38) 218–21.
65 Compare State of the Netherlands v Urgenda ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2591 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006 with Foreningen Greenpeace Nordern and others v The Government of Norway; case number 16-1666741TVI-OTIR/06 Oslo District Court, which was appealed.
66 Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 2016 (Ghana) section 1 says that ‘all petroleum resources … is the property of the Republic of Ghana and is vested in the President on behalf of and in trust for the people of Ghana’. Similar words are used in Article 257(6) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
67 Constitutional Court Decision 36/PUU-X/2012. For a critical review of the decision see Simon Butt and Fritz Edward Siregar, ‘State Control over Natural Resources in Indonesia: Implications of the Oil and Natural Gas law Case of 2012’ (2013) 31 Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 107.
68 Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick (n 12) 276.
69 Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick (n 12) 114.
70 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC) s 3 A and state legislation such as the Protection of the Environment Act 1991 (NSW) s 6(2)9(b). But see also the new Canadian federal Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, C 28) s 6 and the New Zealand Resource Management Act 1998 (NZ) s 2.
71 EPBC (n 70) s 3A. The others are the integration principle, that ‘decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations’, the precautionary principle; the principle that ‘the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making’ and the principle that ‘improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted’.
72 See Brown Weiss (n 61) 8.
73 Ibid, 8; eg the Hungarian Parliament established an Ombudsman for Future Generations who in 2011 became a Deputy Commissioner in the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights.
74 WFGW s 3.
75 eg Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), 1997 CanLII 14612 (NL CA).
76 Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General of Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Priovince and others [2007] ZACC 13 at 43–47.
77 See n 70. See also the Impact Assessment Act 2019 (Canada) (S.C. 2019, c.28) s 6 and the Resources Management Act 1991 (NZ) s 5.
78 Its website refers to a wide range of publications including papers given by its judges http://www.lec.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/publications/speeches_papers.aspx accessed 7 October 2020.
79 Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 741 [74]. The legislation is the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) that also has as an object the encouragement of ESD – ESD having the same definition as mentioned in n 70 and 71.
80 Brian J. Preston, ‘The Judicial Development of Ecologically Sustainable Development’ (conference paper, IUCNAEL Colloquium ‘Environment in Court’, Oslo 2016) (‘Preston, IUCNAEL’) 7 http://www.lec.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Speeches%20and%20Papers/PrestonCJ/PrestonCJ%20The%20Judicial%20Development%20of%20Ecologically%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf accessed 7 October 2020.
81 Ibid.
82 Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 741, [81]; see also the Honourable Justice Brian J. Preston, ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Promoting Sustainable Development: The Experience of Asia and the Pacific’ (Research Paper No 08/46, Law School, University of Sydney, originally presented to the second Kenya National Judicial Colloquium on Environmental Law, Mombasa, Kenya, 17–22 April 2006) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1124804 accessed 7 October 2020.
83 The Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law (APEEL), The Foundations of Environmental Law: Goals, Objects, Principles and Norms (Technical Paper 1, 2017) http://apeel.org.au/papers accessed 7 October 2020.
84 Ibid.
85 On this see Preston, IUCNAEL (n 80) 499. They were also referred to in Common Cause v Union of India & Others SC WP 2014 Judgement (2 August 2017). In that case the Supreme Court of India did not consider that intergenerational equity was relevant to its decision in the case, but recommended that the Union of India reconsider its mining policy and give serious consideration to intergenerational equity. A new National Minerals Policy was approved by the Union of India Cabinet on 28 February 2019 https://mines.gov.in/writereaddata/Content/NMP12032019.pdf accessed 7 October 2020. Section 10 of the policy refers to intergenerational equity. It notes that natural resources are a shared inheritance and that the ‘state is the trustee on behalf of the people to ensure that future generations receive the benefit of inheritance’. However, it does not set out how that will be done.
86 Gloucester Resources 22 [86].
87 Ibid, 111 [498].
88 Ibid, 142 [664].
89 Ibid, 143 [669].
90 Ibid, [688].
91 Ibid, 88 [398].
92 Edith Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and intergenerational Equity (United Nations University Tokyo and Transnational Publishers New York 1988).
93 Both are referred to extensively as very important sources: eg see Bosselmann, Sustainability (n 19) 29–32. For a relatively recent examination of intergenerational equity referring to both see Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2009) ch 3. Intergenerational equity: a reappraisal.
94 Paul Ekins OBE is a professor of resources and environmental policy at University College London. He is the author or editor of over 12 books and the recipient of numerous awards. See https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sustainable/people/prof-paul-ekins. The article referred to in this paper is Paul Ekins, ‘Environmental Sustainability: From Environmental Valuation to the Sustainability Gap’ (2011) 45(5) Progress in Physical Geography 629.
95 Brundtland Report ch 12 para 6.
96 Brown Weiss IFFG 4 and xxii.
97 For example, Edith Brown Weiss, ‘Implementing Intergenerational Equity’ in Malgosia Fitzmaurice, David M. Ong and Panos Merkouris (eds), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2010) (‘Implementing Intergenerational Equity’); Edith Brown Weiss, ‘Intergenerational Equity in a Kaleidoscopic World’ (2019) 49(3) Environmental Policy & Law.
98 Brundtland Report ch 1 para 40.
99 ‘The diversity of species is necessary for the normal functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole’; see Brundtland Report Introduction para 53. See also ch 12 para 11.
100 Brown Weiss IFFG 38; see also Brown Weiss, ‘Implementing Intergenerational Equity’ (n 97) 102.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid. These are supported by five duties and eight implementation strategies. The duties are: Duty to Conserve Resources, Duty to Ensure Equitable Use, Duty to Avoid Adverse Impacts, Duty to Prevent Disasters, Minimize Damage and Provide Emergency Assistance and Duty to Compensate for Environmental Harm; see Brown Weiss IFFG 49–86.
103 Brown Weiss, ‘Implementing Intergenerational Equity’ (n 97) 102.
104 Brown Weiss IFFG 38; Brundtland Report ch 12 para 83.
105 Brown Weiss IFFG 38; see also Brown Weiss, ‘Implementing Intergenerational Equity’ (n 97) 102.
106 Ibid. These are supported by five duties and eight implementation strategies. The duties are: Duty to Conserve Resources, Duty to Ensure Equitable Use, Duty to Avoid Adverse Impacts, Duty to Prevent Disasters, Minimize Damage and Provide Emergency Assistance and Duty to Compensate for Environmental Harm; see Brown Weiss IFFG 49–86.
107 Brown Weiss IFFG 38.
108 Brundtland Report ch 12 para 83.
109 The ideas here are that ‘members of the present generation internalize the costs of their activities so as to deter behaviour harmful to future generations’, see Brown Weiss IFFG 81, and ‘we should compensate future generations for the costs that we are inflicting on them’, see Ibid, 154.
110 Brundtland Report ‘Overview’ para 68, 93.
111 Ibid, ch 8 para 46.
112 Brown Weiss IFFG 141.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid, 213.
115 Brundtland Report ch 12 para 43, 58.
116 Ibid, para 34, ch 12 para 12.
117 Ibid, ‘Overview’ para 38.
118 Ibid.
119 Ibid, para 89.
120 Brown Weiss IFFG 7.
121 Ibid.
122 Brown Weiss IFFG 7.
123 Ibid.
124 Ibid, 51.
125 Brundtland Report ch 2, para 12.
126 Brown Weiss IFFG 51.
127 Ekins (n 43) 637.
128 Ekins (n 43) 637.
129 Ekins (n 43) 648.
130 R Kerry Turner, ‘Sustainability: Principles and Practice’ in R Kerry Turner (ed), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice (Belhaven Press 1993) 6; see also HE Daly, ‘Elements of Environmental Macroeconomics’ in R Costanza (ed), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability (Columbia University Press 1991).
131 Ekins (n 43) 637.
132 Ibid.
133 Ibid.
134 Ibid.
135 Ibid, 639.
136 Ibid, 648. Young also suggests this; see MD Young, ‘The Precautionary Principle as a Key Element of Ecologically Sustainable Development’ in Ronnie Harding and Elizabeth Fisher (eds), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (The Federation Press 1999) 127, 144.
137 Ibid, 640.
138 Ibid, 639.