Abstract
In the past few years, the ocean, as a potential resource of energy, has caught the attention of the industrial sector. However, the possibility of ocean energy exploitation faces several challenges: the development of the needed technologies; the legal framework; the regulatory framework; the environmental aspects. This paper focuses on the international legal framework, specifically with regard to the States’ (exclusive) rights of exploitation within their national jurisdiction and to biodiversity conservation. In this regard, UNCLOS is the primary legal document to be taken into consideration, since it sets a static legal framework of maritime zones and (to them) correlated jurisdiction(al rights). It seems that the exploitation of ocean energy is possible, but two conditions must be satisfied: (1) The States can exploit the ocean energy resource within their national jurisdiction, but it is questionable if they can conserve exclusive rights resulting from industrial activities, due to the fact that rights of third Parties (namely those related to navigation and fishery) must be taken into account; (2) The (sitting and permitting) procedure that allows exploitation of ocean energy will only be legitimized through: (2.1) public participation in the decision making process; (2.2) the implementation of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) regarding all stages of exploitation. This will provide for a long-term monitoring of impacts that exploitation may cause on marine biodiversity, allowing the adoption of adaptive and risk-based management strategies for dealing with uncertainty.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Baroni (1992), in a study designed to investigate a few definitions that were given to the term “sustainable development”, concluded that some authors define it as they believe it should be, or as they would like it to be. On the other hand, there are those who “confuse sustainable development with ecological sustainability—which refers only to the capacity that natural resources have to reproduce themselves”. Differently, some authors recognize that the current model of economic growth leads to an unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and, for that reason, it must be limited. Finally, there are those who replace the traditional notion of economic development by the modern notion of sustainable development, so that the new adjective attached to it (“sustainable”) implies that development itself was not able to increase the well-being of citizens and to reduce the poverty. Taking into account all these point of views, Frey (2001) has summarised the several concepts of sustainable development presented by the specialized literature. He has based his analysis on three dimensions: the model of political-administrative relation, the role of the State in economy regulation and the democratic potential regarding decision making in environmental affairs. As a result, the author has proposed the following systematization, divided into three groups of ideas: (1) the free market notion, which sees on the market the regulatory strength of sustainable development; (2) the ecological-technocrat notion of economic planning, which considers the State regulatory action on economy the key point to ensure the prevalence of citizens well-being in the development process; and (3) the political notion of democratic participation, which considers the society, through social mobilization, the key element to the achievement of sustainable development. Ultimately, it can be concluded that there is no consensus on how to achieve sustainability through development, due to the highly different ideological components of the many definitions given to the aforementioned term by its authors. As a result, this lack of conceptual clarity leads to inefficient policy making, especially in international contexts. At this regard, Cf. Lélé (1991), pp. 607–221.
- 2.
Although, some indicative elements can be found in the mentioned document, such as: the increase of employment, the guarantee of minimum consumption standards, more food production (but based on ecological policies), the change of energy consumption patterns (to more greener standards), housing, water supply, sanitation, and health care, among others.
- 3.
For an overview of general aspects, Cf. A guidebook to the Green Economy (2012).
- 4.
For an overview of general aspects, Cf. Blue Economy (2015).
- 5.
It is well known that, in an international perspective, there are few regional legal frameworks that regulates, event thought they are not yet fully developed, the specific features of ocean energy. It can be mentioned, here, the initiatives of the European community law, such as the action plan to support the development of blue energy within Europe 2020 Strategy and beyond.
- 6.
It is important to remark that UNCLOS assigns sovereign rights and jurisdiction(al rights) to the States, instead of sovereignty, in referring to the prerogative of powers exercised by coastal States over their respective EEZ. This can be explained by the fact that, actually, the EEZ constitutes a third genre (EEZ is said to be sui generis), since it does not fit into the standard legal discipline of the territorial sea, nor the high seas (Gavouneli 2007), but retains legal implications of the both mentioned maritime zones. Then, it can be implied that although the EEZ is subject to the prerogative of power exercised by coastal States (typical feature of the territorial sea), such prerogative is limited by the rules of international law, such as the freedom of navigation (typical feature of the high seas). In other words, meanwhile the full sovereignty is exercised over the territorial sea and the absence of sovereignty is the characteristic that drives the high seas, only sovereign and jurisdictional rights are exercised over the EEZ (Gavouneli 2007).
- 7.
It can be mentioned: The Convention on Wetlands (1971); The Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972); The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitat (1973); The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979); The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (1980); The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992).
- 8.
It can be mentioned: The Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (1976); The United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982); World Charter for Nature (1982); The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). It has been said that the there is an indirect protection, because in these international instruments, the biodiversity has been introduced as a privileged requirement to be considered when carrying out the Environmental Impact Assessment. Regarding European community law, the introduction of biological diversity as a requirement to be considered when carrying out the Environmental Impact Assessment is also present. It can be mentioned: The EIA Directive 85/337/CEE, that applies to a wide range of defined public and private projects, and the Directive 2001/42/CEE, that applies to a wide range of public plans and programmes. In this respect, Cf. Billet (2008), pp. 62–63.
- 9.
In fact, these general duties constitute the main argument for justifying the creation of Marine Protected Areas in the High Seas. In this respect, Cf. Scovazzi (2003).
- 10.
For an overview, Cf. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2015), 108 pages, especially pp. 32–46 (for the concept).
- 11.
For an overview, Cf. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). Ecosystem-based management: markers for assessing progress (2006), especially pp. 4–7 (for the concept). Highlighting the importance of this concept, it can be pointed out that the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (“Ospar Convention”) has explicitly mentioned, in its Annex V, the “integrated ecosystem approach” as a necessary tool “to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems”.
- 12.
For an overview, Cf. Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage of Australia. The benefits of Marine Protected Areas (2003). Especially p. 4 (for the concept).
- 13.
For an overview, Cf. Agardy (2010), especially pp. 09–10 (for the concept—including explaining the relationship and the difference between ocean zoning and land zoning).
- 14.
For example, in a context of uncertainty, there are very interesting propositions in the literature, such as the concept of a probabilistic risk assessment, that could be applied at several risk scenarios. For an overview, Cf. Malsch (2013), pp. 215–224.
- 15.
It is important to remark that considering public participation as a condition of validity of the decision making process does not mean that decision maker is fully bounded by the public will. It means that the public intervention must be taken into account (Schrage 1999), but it is not binding. It can be explained by the fact that decision makers figure the risk out in a different way compared with the public in general. In fact, as decision makers are assisted by experts, who bear specialized knowledge, they take into consideration not solely the potential risks, damages and losses, but also the potential benefits which could result from the exploitation of certain industrial activity (Sunstein 2013).
References
Doctrine
Agardy, T. (2010). Ocean zoning: Making marine management more effective. London: Earthscan.
Amado Gomes, C. (2007). Risco e Modificação do Acto Autorizativo Concretizador de Deveres de Proteção do Ambiente. Dissertation, University of Lisbon.
Barbosa, G. S. (2008). O Desafio do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Revista Visões, 1(4), 1–11.
Baroni, M. (1992). Ambiguidades e Deficiências do Conceito de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 32(2), 14–24.
Batey, D. L. (2010). Intellectual property – Protections and pitfalls. In The law of ocean and tidal energy: A guide to business and legal issues (pp. 1–5). Stoel Rives Ocean Energy Team.
Bétaille, J. (2010). La Contribution du Droit aux Effets de la Participation du Public: de la Prise en Considération des Résultats de la Participation. Revue juridique de l’environnement, 35(2), 197–217.
Billet, P. (2008). La place de la diversité biologique dans les évaluations environnementales, l’information du public e la participation. In Revue juridique de l'environnement, Limoges, n.spécial. Biodiversité et Évolution du Droit de la Protection de la Nature: Réflexion Prospective (pp. 57–67).
Boehlert, G. W., & Gill, A. B. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81.
Cot, J. P. (2010). L’Océan Partagé. In Annuaire du Droit de la Mer (Vol. Xv, pp. 13–21). Paris: Institut du Droit Economique de la Mer. Pedone.
Craig, R. K. (2012). Comparative ocean governance: Place-based protections in an era of climate change. New horizons in environmental and energy law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Fletcher, S., & Potts, J. (2007). Ocean citizenship: An emergent geographical concept. Journal of Coastal Management, 35(4), 511–524.
Frey, K. (2001). A Dimensão Político-Democrática nas Teorias de Desenvolvimento Sustentável e suas Implicações para a Gestão Local. Ambiente & Sociedade, 9, 115–143.
Gavouneli, M. (2007). Functional jurisdiction in the law of the sea. Publications on ocean development (Vol. 62). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
Gollier, C., Jullien, B., & Treich, N. (2000). Scientific progress and irreversibility: An economic interpretation of the “Precautionary Principle”. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 229–253.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
Jayakumar, S. (2013). The continental shelf regime under the United Nation Convention on the law of the sea: Reflections after thirty years. In M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore, A. Chircop, & R. Long (Eds.), The regulation of continental shelf development: Rethinking international standards (pp. 3–12). Leiden: Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Martinus Njhoff Publishers.
Kannen, A., Kremer, H., Gee, K., & Lange, M. (2013). Renewable energy and marine spatial planning: Scientific and legal implications. In M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore, A. Chircop, & R. Long (Eds.), The regulation of continental shelf development: Rethinking international standards (pp. 153–178). Leiden: Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Martinus Njhoff Publishers.
Lane, M. B. (2003). Participation, decentralization, and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 360–373.
Lélé, S. (1991). Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, 19(6), 607–221.
Long, R. (2013). Offshore wind energy development and ecosystem-based marine management in the UE: Are the regulatory answers really blowing in the wind? In M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore, A. Chircop, & R. Long (Eds.), The regulation of continental shelf development: Rethinking international standards (pp. 15–52). Leiden: Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Martinus Njhoff Publishers.
Malsch, G. (2013). Environmental regulation and probabilistic risk assessment. In M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore, A. Chircop, & R. Long (Eds.), The regulation of continental shelf development: Rethinking international standards (pp. 215–224). Leiden: Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Martinus Njhoff Publishers.
Marffy-Mantuano, A. (2010). Governance Internationale de la biodiversité marine dans une perspective de développement durable. In Annuaire du Droit de la Mer (Vol. Xv, pp. 177–205). Paris: Institut du Droit Economique de la Mer. Pedone.
Massop, J. (2013). The legal framework for the regulation of safety and environmental issues on the outer continental shelf. In M. H. Nordquist, J. N. Moore, A. Chircop, & R. Long (Eds.), The regulation of continental shelf development: Rethinking international standards (pp. 179–193). Leiden: Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Martinus Njhoff Publishers.
Mendes, P. S. (2000). Vale a pena o Direito Penal do Ambiente? Lisboa: AAFDL.
Monediaire, G. (2010). La Participation du Public à L’élaboration des Actes Réglementaires de L’état et de ses Établissements Publics en Matière d’Environnement: La Nécessité d’une Loi Grenelle 3? Revue juridique de l’environnement, 35(1), 223–239.
Munn, J., & Ricketts, S. (2015). Public participation in environmental decision-making, plan-making and executive regulations-Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Aarhus Convention. In The Aarhus Convention: A guide for UK lawyers (pp. 121–139). Oxford: Hart.
Pelc, R., & Fujita, R. M. (2002). Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy, 26, 471–479.
Prieur, M. (1999). La Convention d’Aarhus: instrument universel de la démocracie environnementale. Revue juridique de l’environnement, 24(1), 09–29.
Schrage, W. (1999). La Convention sur l’Accès à l’Information, la Participation du Public au Processus décisionnel et L’accès à la Justice em Matière D'environnement. Revue juridique de l’environnement, 24, 5–7.
Scovazzi, T. (2003). Marine protected areas on the high seas: Some legal and policy considerations. Duban, South Africa. World Parks Congress, Governance Session.
Silva, C. P. (2005). Verde cor de Direito: Lições de Direito do Ambiente. Coimbra: Almedina.
Starrs, T. (1993). Solar, wind and geothermal energy. In C. Campbell-Mohn, B. Breen, J. William Futrell, J. M. McElfish Jr., & P. Grant (Eds.), Environmental law: From resources to recovery (pp. 482–526). St. Paul, Minn.: Environmental Law Institute. West Publishing Co..
Sunstein, C. R. (2013). Beyond the precautionary principle. Public law and legal theory (Working paper n°. 38) (pp. 1–48). Chicago.
Zanella, T. V. (2013). Liberdades e Restrições à Navegação Marítima em Alto Mar no Direito Internacional. Revista do Instituto de Direito Brasileiro, 2(10), 11795–11824.
Online Documents
A guidebook to the Green Economy (2012). Report prepared by Cameron Allen and Stuart Clouth for the UN Division for Sustainable Development. Available at: <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/GE%20Guidebook.pdf>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Blue Economy (2015). UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 195. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/water/regionalseas40/Portals/50221/BlueEconomy_SSSIC_screen_rev.pdf>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Ecosystem-based management: markers for assessing progress (2006). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). The Hague. Available at: <http://www.unep.org/pdf/GPA/Ecosystem_based_Management_Markers_for_Assessing_Progress.pdf >. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Integrated Coastal Management for the Achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: Practical Guidance for Implementation Based on Experience and Lessons Learned from Coastal and Ocean Governance in the Seas of East Asia (2015). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Technical Series No. 76, 108 pages. Available at: <https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-76-en.pdf>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Ocean energy: key legal issues and challenges (2015). In Issue Brief – oceans and coastal zones, n°04/15. IDDRI, Sciencespo, pp. 1–4. Available at: <http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/IB0415.pdf>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development. United Nations. Available at: <http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
The benefits of Marine Protected Areas (2003). Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage of Australia. Available at: <https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/benefits-marine-protected-areas-discussion-paper>. Access in: 02/01/2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tebar, W. (2018). Ocean Energy: Seeking the Balance Between States’ Exclusive Rights of Exploitation and Marine Biodiversity Conservation. In: Ölçer, A., Kitada, M., Dalaklis, D., Ballini, F. (eds) Trends and Challenges in Maritime Energy Management. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74575-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74576-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)