Environmental Impact Assessment in the Arctic: A Guide to Best Practice

AuthorGunnar Sander
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12200
Date01 July 2017
Published date01 July 2017
may be reassigned from the public
to resource users. The author also
outlines more immediate opportu-
nities for change that do not
require systemic adaptation and
which could be implemented via
the removal of harmful subsidies,
the adoption by the CJEU of the
precautionary approach, and the
recognition of the public interest in
the preservation of fish stocks and
their marine ecosystems.
The author successfully frames the
evolution of the CFP in its over-
arching legal structures, and maps
the key difficulties that have
marred the success of the policy.
However, a few limitations of the
book can be identified. First among
these is the prominence given to
unsuccessful measures that predate
the latest CFP update, though this
appears a result of the book having
undergone a long gestation period.
Nevertheless, Wakefield has suc-
cessfully documented and assessed
the key elements of the 2014
reform. Second, some readers may
feel that certain aspects of the cri-
tique, such as whether a potential
abandonment of the MSY standard
may have consequences under
international law, may have been
deserving of further attention.
Another area that may have bene-
fited from further detail is the
extent to which the implementation
of governance strategies such as
those proposed may relieve control
and enforcement pressures in
shared fisheries. Some readers may
wonder whether the relative suc-
cess of the MSY multi-annual plans
rolled out in the last reform may
neutralize some of the critique.
However, the author is coherent in
her defence of a more ambitious
socio-economic and environmental
project, which could not be fulfilled
by the partial recovery of commer-
cial stocks under current MSY
plans in any meaningful way.
The author delves into existing work
on governance, and on the value and
potentialofrightsapproachesinthe
sustainable management of marine
living resources. She successfully
reconstitutes and supplements exist-
ingmaterialintoaformulaforEU
fisheries sustainability. The critical
nature of the work and its theoretical
viewpoint makes it stand out as an
addition to current literature on the
legal structure of the CFP,
4
adding
considerable detail and legal sub-
stance to prior contributions
appraising the promise and short-
comings of the latest policy update.
5
The comprehensive nature of the
book provides a useful centrepiece
to work concerned with specific
aspects of the reform.
6
Whilst con-
veying a sense of lost opportunity in
the development of the CFP, and
lamenting the slow and partial pro-
gress of the EU in the delivery of its
sustainable development objectives,
the book is not devoid of optimism.
As it unveils the comparative rele-
vance of existing environmental
programmes, and suggests viable
options for change, the book should
offer considerable food for thought to
researchers and policy makers alike.
It will be particularly attractive to
thoseinterestedinrights-basedfish-
eries regulation, and to advanced stu-
dents of fisheries law and governance.
Mercedes Rosello
University of Hull
Environmental Impact
Assessment in the Arctic: A
Guide to Best Practice,by
Timo Koivurova and Pamela
Lesser, with Sonja Bickford,
Paula Kankaanp
a
aand Mar-
ina Nenasheva, published by
Edward Elgar, 2016, 311 pp.,
£85.00, hardback.
Environmental impact assessment
(EIA) has been widely recognized as
an important instrument for sus-
tainable development. It has already
received substantial attention from
the eight States with territories in
the Arctic in the 1990s.In 1997, they
adopted guidelines for EIA in the
Arctic, based on recommendations
from a Finnish-led international
project. The main purpose was to
give guidance on how to conduct
EIA in a way that takes the peculiar
characteristics of Arctic nature and
society into account. This was illus-
trated by examples of best practice
from actual projects. The appetite
for further regional collaboration on
EIA within the Arctic Council, how-
ever, was lukewarm; the guidelines
neverwererevised,referencesto
EIA occurred only s poradically in
the ministerial declarations and the
organization did not initiate new
projects to stimulate better national
EIApractices.Today,wheninterest
in economic development in the
Arctic has risen tremendously, it is
therefore very timely that a book
appears to take stock of Arctic EIA.
The authors from the Arctic Centre
in Finland are in a good position to
do so. Their organization has tried
to keep the flame of Arctic EIA
burning with websites, seminars
and research, more recently aimed
at supporting the private sector in
improving their Arctic EIAs.
In the preface, the authors raise
four research questions. Why the
Arctic should be treated as a unique
region in EIAs is largely taken for
granted by reference to the guide-
lines: the ecosystems and human
adaptations to the harsh living con-
ditions are distinct from other
4
See, e.g., S.J. Boyes and M. Elliott, ‘Marine
Legislation: The Ultimate “Horrendogram”:
International Law, European Directives &
National Implementation’, 86:1 Marine Pollu-
tion Bulletin (2014), 39; and R. Long, ‘Stake-
holder Participation in the European
Common Fisheries Policy: Shifting the Legal
Paradigm toward Rights and Responsibil-
ities’, in: C. Esp
osito et al. (eds.), Ocean Law
and Policy: Twenty Years under UNCLOS
(Brill, 2016), 13.
5
For an outline of this topic, see M. Salomon,
T. Markus and M. Dross, ‘Masterstroke or
Paper Tiger: The Reform of the EU’s Com-
mon Fisheries Policy’, 47 Marine Policy
(2014), 76.
6
See, e.g., R. Prellezo and R. Curtin, ‘Con-
fronting the Implementation of Marine
Ecosystem-Based Management Within the
Common Fisheries Policy Reform’, 117
Ocean & Coastal Management (2015), 43;
and J.M. Sobrino and M. Sobrido, ‘The Com-
mon Fisheries Policy: Between Relative Sta-
bility and the Discard Ban’, in: G. Andreone
(ed.), The Future of the Law of the Sea:
Bridging Gaps between National, Individual
and Common Interests (Springer, 2017), 23.
ª2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
182
BOOK REVIEWS RECIEL 26 (2) 2017
bs_bs_banner
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT