Editorial

• Published date: 01 April 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12197
• Author: Harro Asselt
• Date: 01 April 2017

Editorial

Just a few months ago, in last issue’s editorial, I was

cautiously optimistic on the prospects of international

environmental cooperation. Though I added that we

cannot take the multilateral agreements reached in

2015 and 2016 for granted, I thought the main chal-

lenge would be one of implementation. In the past few

months, the real scope of this challenge has crystallized.

Following the elections in the United States (US), it has

become clear that one of the world’s superpowers will

not be a major driver of further international environ-

mental cooperation in the near future. Quite the oppo-

site. Domestic environmental policies developed in the

past years (and decades) will be part of a larger agenda

of deregulation, with the unravelling of the Clean Power

Plan perhaps the most eye-catching measure of the new

administration in this regard. But perhaps more impor-

tantly, the election of Donald Trump –coming a few

months after the decision by British voters to leave the

European Union (EU) –can be seen as part of a wider

trend in which countries are increasingly looking in-

rather than outward. Cooperation itself has come

under fire.

While such a sweeping claim of course needs to be

nuanced –for many nations, economic, security and

environmental cooperation is still a key priority –

debates in many countries have steered towards

broader questions about the benefits and drawbacks of

globalization (and, more specifically, about who wins

and who loses). Elections in other European countries

in 2017, including in France and Germany, will tell

whether a similar trend can also be observed in other

countries.

From the perspective of international environmental

cooperation, such times call not only for new leadership

or the formation of new coalitions, but also for new

ways in which international environmental law itself

can be built to last beyond the whims and preferences

of changing administrations (as well as changing voter

preferences). The Paris Agreement is an interesting

example in that regard: though many in the US had

expected a win for Hilary Clinton in the elections, the

fact that the Agreement contains provisions that would

make withdrawal impossible throughout the next presi-

dency meant that the US climate negotiators clearly had

considered the possibility she might lose.

The developments in the US and elsewhere also matter

from another perspective. In a ‘post-truth’world of

‘alternative facts’, the importance and role of scientific

research and expertise has been challenged. Although

environmentalists may scoff at the new chief of the

Environmental Protection Agency questioning the

human contribution to climate change –in direct

contradiction to an overwhelming body of scientific

evidence –such a reaction is not sufficient. What is

necessary, more than ever, is to uphold the highest

standards for scientific research. For a journal such as

RECIEL this means a careful peer review of each contri-

bution to ensure their originality, scientific quality and

accuracy. Yet for researchers –and, likewise, for other

actors in the academic field, such as universities,

research funders and publishers –it also means that

quality –and not quantity, citations or AltMetric scores

–should be the lodestar of scientific research. Because

if we do not ensure that we meet our own scientific

standards, we cannot expect others to still hold us in

high esteem.

This issue of RECIEL contains a number of articles on a

variety of recent topics in international, European and

comparative environmental law.

The issue opens with an in-depth discussion by Renske

Giljam of the role of best available techniques (BAT) in

what has been called ‘ecological governance’. Giljam

explains how BAT, a concept that emerged under the

EU Industrial Emissions Directive, already reflects

some of the characteristics of ecological governance

outlined in the literature. Departing from that observa-

tion, however, she argues that the concept should be

further refined, for instance, by including a requirement

for the polluter to explain why the use of certain tech-

niques is necessary, and by the ‘sunsetting’of polluting

technologies. Moreover, Giljam suggests that the con-

cept can be extended to other issue areas, such as envi-

ronmental impacts of agriculture and forestry. By doing

so, she shows how concepts familiar to certain areas of

environmental law can take on new meaning.

In the following article, Yaffa Epstein compares the reg-

ulation of the protection of wolves in the US and the

EU. Specifically, she examines whether allowing the

killing of wolves to help build social tolerance for the

species is allowed in both legal systems, reviewing a

suite of relevant cases from both jurisdictions. Her

study not only offers a helpful and timely interpretation

of the EU’s Habitats Directive on this particular issue –

with Epstein arguing that the Habitats Directive does

not allow for such killing –but it also makes an impor-

tant contribution to a longer-standing scholarly debate

in comparative environmental law on the role of

precaution in the US and the EU.

One of the core principles of international environmen-

tal law, embodied notably in the Aarhus Convention, is

access to justice in environmental matters. Addressing

this issue, Elena Fasoli examines how environmental

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to

ª2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

3

RECIEL 26 (1) 2017. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12197

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law