INTERNATIONAL  SYMPOSIUM  ON  ENVIRONMENTAL  ADJUDICATION  IN  THE  21ST  CENTURY  

 PROGRAMME  

8:30  am  –  5:00  pm,  Tuesday,  11  April  2017    

Venue:  Princes  Ballroom,  Pullman  Hotel,  Corner  Princes  Street  and  Waterloo  Quadrant,  Auckland  

 8:30  –  9:00   Powhiri  –  Maori  Welcome  9:00  –  9:05   Opening  remarks  Judge  Newhook  &  Associate  Professor  Ceri  Warnock  9:05  –  9:30   Welcome  to  the  Symposium  –  The  Honourable  Justice  Stephen  Kós,  

President  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  New  Zealand  9:30  –  10:10   Right  Honourable  Lord  Robert  Carnwath  (UK  Supreme  Court)  10:20  –  10:50   Honourable  Chief  Justice  Preston  SC  (New  South  Wales)    11:00  –  11:30   Morning  break    11:30  –  11:50     Dr  Gita  Gill  (Indian  National  Green  Tribunal)  12:00  –  12:20   His  Honour  Judge  Michael  E  Rackemann  (Queensland)  12:30  –  12:50   Dr  Aine  Ryall  (Eire)    1:00  –  1:45   Lunch    1:50  –  2:10   Professor  Tracy  Hester  (Houston)  2:20  –  2:40   Emeritus  Professor  Ben  Boer  (Sydney  /  Wuhan)  2:50  –  3:10   Honourable  Michael  D  Wilson  and  Professor  Denise  Antolini  (Hawai’i)    3:15  –  3:30   Afternoon  break    3:30  –  3:50   Honourable  Justice  Samson  Okong’o  (Kenya)  4:00  –  4:20   Chief  Justice  Rafael  Asenjo  Zegers  (Chile)    4:30  –  4:50   Their  Honours  Principal  Environment  Judge  Laurie  Newhook  and  

Environment  Judge  David  Kirkpatrick  4:50  –  5:00   Closing  remarks  Judge  Newhook  &  Associate  Professor  Ceri  Warnock

2  

WELCOME  SPEECH  BY:    

Justice  Stephen  Kós  President  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  New  Zealand  Justice   Stephen   Kós   graduated   LLB   (Hons)   from   Victoria   University   in   1981   and   LLM   from  Cambridge  University  in  1985.    He  became  a  partner  in  Perry  Wylie  Pope  &  Page  in  1985,  and  in  Russell  McVeagh  in  1988.    He  joined  the  independent  bar  in  2005,  and  was  appointed  Queen’s  Counsel   in   2007.     His   principal   fields   of   practice   were   commercial   and   environmental  litigation.    In  the  latter  field  he  led  for  the  ferry  companies  in  the  Fast  Ferry  Wash  cases,  and  for  the  applicants   in   the  Transpower  North   Island  Grid  Upgrade  and  the  Contact  Energy  Hauauru  Ma   Raki   wind   farm   inquiries.    He   was   formerly   Pro-­‐Chancellor   of   Massey   University   and  Chairman  of  the  New  Zealand  Markets  Disciplinary  Tribunal.    Justice  Kós  was  appointed  to  the  High   Court   in   April   2011,   and   to   the   Court   of   Appeal   in   September   2015.   He  was   appointed  President  of  that  Court  in  July  2016.      

 PRESENTERS    Lord  Robert  Carnwath  of  Notting  Hill  CVO  

Robert  Carnwath  is  a  current  member  of  the  UK  Supreme  Court.        The   son   of   Sir   Andrew   Carnwath   KCVO,   Robert   Carnwath   was  educated  at  Eton  College  (where  he  won  the  Newcastle  Scholarship),  and  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.    He  was  called  to  the  Bar  at  Middle  Temple   in   1968.     He   practised   in   parliamentary   law,   planning   and  local   government,   revenue   law   and   administrative   law.     He   was  appointed   junior   counsel   to   the   Inland   Revenue   (Common   Law)  from  1980  to  1985.    He  became  a  Queen’s  Counsel  in  1985,  and  was  

Attorney  General  to  the  Prince  of  Wales  from  1988  to  1994  (for  which  service  he  was  awarded  Companionship  of  the  Victorian  Order).        Lord   Carnwath   was   appointed   as   a   High   Court   Judge   on   3   October   1994   in   the   Chancery  Division,   and   received   the   customary   Knighthood.     He   served   as   chairman   of   the   Law  Commission   from  1999  to   July  2002.    He  was  promoted   to   the  Court  of  Appeal  on  15   January  2002  and,  as  is  customary,  became  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council.    Between  2004  and  2012  he  provided   judicial   leadership   for   the   reform  of   the   specialist   tribunal   system  and  was   formally  sworn  in  as  the  first  Senior  President  of  Tribunals  on  12  November  2007.        On  20  December  2011,  Lord  Carnwath  was  announced  as  a  new  appointee  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Kingdom.        Lord  Carnwath  also  currently  serves  as  the  Chairman  of  the  Advisory  Council   for   the   Institute   of   Advanced   Legal   Studies   and   is   honorary   President   of   the   UK  Environmental  Law  Association.  Since  2004  he  has  worked  as  an  adviser  to  the  United  Nations  Environment   Programme   (UNEP)   on   judicial   training   and   is   currently   a   member   of   their  International   Advisory   Council   on   Environmental   Justice.   In   2004,   he  was   a   founder-­‐member  and  first  Secretary  General  of  the  EU  Forum  of  Judges  for  the  Environment  (“EUFJE”).      

3  

In  his  free  time,  he  enjoys  golf  and  tennis.  He  is  a  keen  amateur  musician,  playing  the  viola,  as  well   as   singing   in   the   Bach   Choir   (with   whom   he   sang   The   Britten   War   Requiem   at   the  Wellington  Arts  Festival  in  1994).      

The  Honourable  Justice  Brian  J  Preston  SC  Justice   Preston   is   the   Chief   Judge   of   the   Land   and  Environment  Court  of  New  South  Wales.    Prior  to  being  appointed   in   November   2005,   he   was   Senior   Counsel  practising   primarily   in   New   South   Wales   in  environmental,   planning,   administrative   and   property  law.    He  holds  a  BA  and  LLB  (first  class  honours)  from  Macquarie   University,   practised   as   a   solicitor   from  1982-­‐1987   and   then   at   the   bar   from   1987-­‐2005.     He  was  appointed  Senior  Counsel  in  1999.        Justice  Preston  has  lectured  in  post-­‐graduate  environmental  law  for  over  23  years,  principally  at  the  University  of  Sydney,  but  also  at  other  universities  in  Australia  and  overseas.    He  established  two   law   courses:   environmental   dispute   resolution   and   biodiversity   law.     He   is   currently   an  Adjunct  Professor  at  the  University  of  Sydney.    Justice   Preston   is   the   author   of   Australia’s   first   book   on   environmental   litigation   and   the  subjects   of   his   writings   include:   sustainable   development;   biodiversity;   climate   change;  heritage;   environmental   impact   assessment;   environmental   crime;   the   courts   and   the  environment;  public   interest   litigation;  and  administrative   law  and  environmental   law.  He  has  been  involved  in  a  number  of   international  environmental  consultancies  and  capacity-­‐building  programmes,   including   for   the   judiciaries   in   Indonesia,   Kenya,   China,   Trinidad   and   Tobago,  Thailand  and  Sri  Lanka.      Justice  Preston  is  an  official  member  of  the  Judicial  Commission  of  New  South  Wales.  He  was  the  recipient  of  a  commendation  in  the  2010  Australian  Institute  of  Judicial  Administration  -­‐  award  for   excellence   in   court   administration   -­‐   for   his   work   in   implementing   the   international  framework   for   court   excellence   in   the  Land  and  Environment  Court   of  New  South  Wales.    He  was   also   the   recipient   in   2010   of   an   award   by   the   Asian   Environment   Compliance   and  Enforcement   Network   in   recognition   of   his   outstanding   leadership   and   commitment   in  promoting  effective  environmental  adjudication  in  Asia.      

Dr  Gitanjali  Nain  Gill  Dr   Gill   joined   the   School   of   Law,   Northumbria   University   in  2011  where   she   is   currently  a  Reader   in  Law.  Previously  Dr  Gill   was   employed   at   India’s   leading   University,   Faculty   of  Law,  Delhi  University.  She  has  been  awarded  Fellowships  by  UNITAR,   the   British   Council,   Cardiff   University   and   also   a  British   Academy   Research   award   that   supported   her   field  work   and   research   into   the   innovative   National   Green  Tribunal  of  India.    Her  project  focused  on  the  National  Green  Tribunal   as   one   element   of   a   reformist   approach   to  environmental   government   and   explores   its   working   and  effectiveness.   She   is  widely  published  on  environmental   law  

in   India   and   has   articles   in   the   Environmental   Law   Journal,   Environmental   Law   Review,  Transnational  Environmental  Law,  Northern   Ireland  Legal  Quarterly,  Public  Law  and  chapters  

4  

in  several  books.  In  January  2017  her  research  findings  and  conclusions  were  published  in  her  book  ‘Environmental  Justice  in  India:  The  National  Green  Tribunal’  [Routledge,  Earthscan,  UK].  Her   research   agenda  will   continue   to   focus   on   India   and  will   also   include   comparative  work  within  China.    

His  Honour  Judge  Michael  E  Rackemann  His   Honour   Judge   Rackemann   is   a   Judge   of   the   Planning   and  Environment   Court   in   Queensland,   Australia,   and   since   2009  has   been   the   Senior   Listings   Judge   for   the   Court.   He   has   also  been  a  Judge  of  the  District  Court  since  January  2004.  He  holds  a  Bachelor   of   Laws   (Hons)   degree   from   the   University   of  Queensland.    Prior   to   his   appointment,   Judge   Rackemann   was   Convenor   of  the   Bar   Association   of   Queensland   Planning   and   Environment  Subcommittee  and  a  Member  of  the  Queensland  Environmental  Law   Association’s   Integrated   Planning   Act   Subcommittee.   He  was   admitted   as   a   Barrister   of   the   Supreme   Court   of  

Queensland   in   1990   having   previously   been   a   clerk   to   Judge   Row   of   the   Queensland   District  Court,  and  an  articled  clerk  and  solicitor  of  the  law  firm  Morris  Fletcher  &  Cross.    His  Honour  has  been  a  member  of  various  committees  and  associations  including  the  National  Environmental  Law  Association,  the  Queensland  Environmental  Law  Association,  District  Court  Planning   Committee,   District   Court   Conferences   and   Judicial   Education   Committee,   District  Court   Salaries   and  Entitlements  Committee,   the  District  Court  Civil  Procedure  Committee  and  the  Rules  Committee.    

Dr  Áine  Ryall  Dr   Ryall   teaches   and   researches   environmental   law,   European  Union   law   and   tort   law   at   the   School   of   Law,   University   College  Cork,   Ireland.     She   is   a   graduate   of   the   London   School   of  Economics   (LLM)   and   holds   a   PhD   in   European   Union  environmental   law   from   the   European   University   Institute,  Florence.    She  is  also  a  barrister  and  was  called  to  the  Irish  Bar  in  1995.        On  6  October  2015,  Dr  Ryall  began  her   term  as  a  member  of   the  Aarhus   Convention   Compliance   Committee.     The   Committee   is  tasked   with   overseeing   how   State   Parties   comply   with   their  obligations  under  the  Convention  as  a  matter  of  international  law.      Dr  Ryall  served  recently  as  Vice-­‐Chair  of  the  An  Bord  Pleanála  Review  Group  (appointed  by  the  Minister   for   Environment,   Community   and   Local   Government)   which   reported   in   February  2016  and  made  over  100  recommendations  relating  to  An  Bord  Pleanála  (the  Planning  Appeals  Board).        Dr  Ryall  served  previously  as  a  member  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  Review  Group  which  reported  to  the  Minister  for  Environment,  Heritage  and  Local  Government  in  May  2011.    In  February  2013,  she  was  appointed  directly  by  the  Minister  to  the  Advisory  Committee  of  the  

5  

Environmental   Protection   Agency   for   a   three-­‐year   term.     In   December   2016,   she   was  reappointed  by  the  Minister  for  a  further  three-­‐year  term.    Dr   Ryall   was   recently   a   Senior   Emile   Nöel   Fellow   at   the   Jean   Monnet   Centre,   New   York  University  School  of  Law.    While  working  at  NYU,  she  focused  on  a  particular  research  project  Mapping   the   future   of   environmental   justice:   the   transformative   effect   of   international   and  European  Union  law.    Dr  Ryall   is  a  member  of   the  Board  of   the   Irish  Centre   for  European  Law  and  a  member  of   the  academic  panel  at  Francis  Taylor  Building,  Inner  Temple,  London.  She  is  also  a  member  of  the  Avosetta  Expert  Group  on  EU  environmental  law  and  the  Royal  Irish  Academy  Climate  Change  and  Environmental  Sciences  Committee.    Dr  Ryall’s   research   interests   lie   primarily   in   the   fields   of   international   and  EU   environmental  law,   with   particular   reference   to   environmental   assessment,   law   enforcement   and   access   to  justice.     Current   research   projects   focus   on:   the   impact   of   the   Aarhus   Convention   and   EU  environmental   law   on   access   to   justice   in   national   legal   systems;   strategic   environmental  assessment  and  integrated  environmental  governance;  and  the  legal  response  to  climate  change,  with  a  particular  focus  on  Ireland  and  the  EU.      

Professor  Tracy  Hester  Professor   Hester   teaches   environmental   law   and  emerging   technology   courses   at   the   University   of  Houston   Law   Centre.     His   research   focuses   on   the  innovative  application  of  environmental  laws  to  emerging  technologies   and   risks,   such   as   climate   engineering,  nanotechnologies,   genetic   modification,   advanced  renewable  power  projects,  and  on  novel  compliance  and  liability  issues.  Prior  to  joining  the  University  of  Houston  Law  Centre,  Prof.  Hester  served  as  a  partner  in  Bracewell  LLP   for   sixteen   years   and   led   the   Houston   office's  environmental  group.      Prof.   Hester   co-­‐directs   the   Environment,   Energy   &  

Natural   Resource   Centre's   Speaker   Series,  which   annually   draws   top   speakers   on   energy   and  environmental  topics  to  the  University  of  Houston  campus.    He  also  organizes  and  assists  in  the  preparation  of  workshops  and  symposia  on  current  energy  and  environmental  topics.    Prof.  Hester  was  inducted  into  the  American  College  of  Environmental  Lawyers  in  2015,  elected  as  a  member  of  the  American  Law  Institute  in  2004,  and  named  the  Top  Environmental  Lawyer  in   Houston   in   2011   by   Best   Lawyers   of   America.   He   was   also   elected   to   the   Council   of   the  American  Bar  Association’s  Section  on  Environment,  Energy  and  Resources  (SEER)  in  2011,  and  he  currently  co-­‐chairs  SEER's  new  Law  Professors  Committee.          

6  

Emeritus  Professor  Ben  Boer  Emeritus  Professor  Ben  Boer  began  teaching  environmental  law  in  1979   at   Macquarie   University,   in   Sydney.     He   was   Professor   in  Environmental  Law,  University  of  Sydney  between  1992-­‐2008.  He  was   also   international   director   of   the   IUCN   Academy   at   the  University   of   Ottawa   from   2006   to   2008.     He   was   appointed   as  Emeritus   Professor   in   the   University   of   Sydney   in   late   2008.       In  2011   he   was   appointed   as   Distinguished   Professor   at   Wuhan  University   Law   School,   China,   in   its   Research   Institute   of  Environmental  Law  and  now  works  in  Wuhan  for  three  months  per  year.     He   served   as   Deputy   Chair   of   the   World   Commission   on  Environmental  Law  of  the  International  Union  for  the  Conservation  of   Nature   between   2012   and   2016.     He   has   been   granted   several  awards,  including  the  Brazil  Association  of  Judges  Medal  for  contributions  to  Judicial  Education,  2016;   IUCN  Academy  of  Environmental  Law,   Senior  Scholarship  Award,  2015;  Law  Council   of  Australia  award  for  “Exceptional  contribution  to  the  development  of  environmental  law”  2011;  New   Zealand   Law   Foundation   Distinguished   Visiting   Fellowship   in   2011;   and   the   Fernand  Braudel  Senior  Fellowship,  European  University  Institute,  Florence,  2010.          Ben   Boer   has   published   steadily   in   environmental   law   since   1979.       He   has   authored   or   co-­‐authored  five  books  and  has  edited  or  co-­‐edited  six  books.      He  has  published  25  book  chapters  and  25   articles,  many   in  peer-­‐reviewed   journals.      He     has   also   authored     45   shorter   articles,  reports   and   reviews.     His   latest   books   are:   Boer   B.   (ed)  Environmental   Dimensions   of   Human  Rights  (Oxford  2015);  Boer,  B.,  Hirsch,  P  Johns,  F.,  Saul,  B.,  Scurrah,  N.  The  Mekong:  A  Socio-­‐Legal  Approach  to  River  Basin  Development.  United  Kingdom  (Routledge  2016).  He  is  the  founding  co-­‐editor  of  the  Chinese  Journal  of  Environmental  Law,  (Brill  2017).  For  further  information  on  his  publications  see  Google  Scholar:  https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=2Cd4BGAAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&imq=Ben+Boer    

Associate  Justice  Michael  D.  Wilson  Associate   Justice   Michael   Wilson   was   appointed   to   the   Hawaii  Supreme   Court   on   April   17,   2014,   after   serving   as   a   Circuit   Court  Judge   of   the   First   Circuit   since   May   10,   2000.     As   a   Circuit   Court  Judge,   he   presided   over   the   adult   drug   court,   adult   mental   health  court  and  the  felony  criminal  trial  court.          Prior  to  his  appointment  as  a  Circuit  Court  Judge,  Justice  Wilson  was  the  director  of  the  Department  of  Land  and  Natural  Resources,  Chair  of  the  Board  of  Land  and  Natural  Resources,  Chair  of  the  State  Water  Commission   and   a   Trustee   of   the   Kahoolawe   Island   Reserve  Commission.    He  was  awarded  a  lifetime  membership  in  the  Western  Association  of  Fish  and  Wildlife  agencies  in  1999.    Previously,  he  was  a   partner   in   the   law   firms   of   Pavey  Wilson   &   Glickstein   and   Hart  

Wolff  &  Wilson  where  he  practiced  civil  and  criminal  trial  and  appellate  law.    Justice  Wilson   received   his   law   degree   from   Antioch   School   of   Law   in  Washington   D.C.,   and  bachelor’s  degree  from  the  University  of  Wisconsin-­‐Madison.            

7  

Professor  Denise  Antolini  Professor   Antolini   has   served   as   the   Associate   Dean   for  academic  affairs  at  the  University  of  Hawaii  Law  School  Faculty  since   2011.     She   joined   the   Law   School   Faculty   in   1996   and  directed   the   nationally   recognised   environmental   law  programme  for  several  years.    Since  2006,  she  has  spearheaded  the   Law   School   building   excellence   project.   She   serves   on   the  State   Water   Commission   Nominating   Committee   (2013),   was  the   inaugural   chair  of   the  Honolulu  City  Council’s  Clean  Water  and  Natural  Land  Commission,  and  is  the  past  chair  of  the  State  Environmental  Council.      Her   courses   have   included   torts,   environmental   law,  environmental   litigation,  domestic  ocean  and  coastal   law,  and   legal  writing.  She  served  as   the  Chair   of   the   American   Association   of   Law   Schools   environmental   law   section   and   from   2005  until  2008,  was  on  the  ABA  Standing  Committee  on  environmental  law.    Professor  Antolini  is  the  past  chair  of   the  Hawaii  State  Bar  Association’s  natural  resources  section  and  was  selected  by  Hawaii  woman  lawyers  as  the  2002  recipient  of  the  distinguished  community  service  award.    

The  Honourable  Justice  Samson  Okong’o  The   Honourable   Justice   Okong’o   is   the   Presiding   Judge   of   the   Land  and   Environment   Court   of   Kenya.     Justice   Okong’o  was   educated   at  the   University   of   Nairobi   and   practised   in   commercial,   land   and  environmental  law  for  19  years  before  being  appointed  to  the  bench.  He  is  a  commercial  arbitrator  and  a  member  of  the  Chartered  Institute  of  Arbitrators  Kenya  Branch.            

Chief  Justice  Rafael  Asenjo  Justice  Asenjo  is  the  Chief  Judge  of  the  Environment  Court  of  Santiago,  Chile.    Justice  Asenjo  has  degrees  from   the   University   of   Chile   and   was   a   Fulbright  scholar   at   American   University   and   University   of  Georgetown,   Washington   D.C.   He   is   an  environmental   policy   and   law  Professor,   held   high  level   positions   within   the   UN   system,   and   was   a  legal   advisor   for   many   corporations   (including  Banco   Interamericano   de   Desarrollo)   before  becoming  a  judge.    He  was  appointed  Justice  of  the  Environment  Court  for  a  period  from  2012  to  2018.    

8  

His  Honour  Principal  Environment  Judge  Laurence  Newhook  Principal   Judge   of   the   Environment   Court   of   New   Zealand,  LLB   (Hons)   (Auck),  AAMINZ  

Judge  Laurie  Newhook  has  been  the  Principal  Judge  of  the  New  Zealand  Environment  Court  since  2011,  and  a  Judge  of  the  Court  since   2001.     Prior   to   that   he   was   a   partner   at   Brookfields  Lawyers   and   had   over   thirty   years   of   advocacy   experience   to  that  point,  with  particular  emphasis  on  environmental  matters,  land,   property,   and   maritime   laws.   Judge   Newhook   has  presented   at   many   national   and   international   conferences   on  the   themes   of   environmental   adjudication   and   the   use   of  technology   in   adjudicative   settings,   and   has   written   multiple  papers  on  the  subjects.    His  Honour  is  a  consulting  editor  of  the  New   Zealand   Resource   Management   Bulletin   and   edits   the  ‘Annual  Review  by  Members   of   the  New  Zealand  Environment  Court’   (https://environmentcourt.govt.nz/decisions-­‐publications/).   Judge   Newhook   has   hosted   international  delegations  to  his  Court  from  many  parts  of  the  World;  chaired  

and  presented  at   the   ‘International  Forum   for  Environment   Judges’,  Oslo,  Norway,   June  2016;  and  chaired  and  addressed  plenary  sessions  at  IUCN  Academy  of  Environmental  Law  Colloquia  and   other   international   conferences.  With   Associate   Professor   Ceri  Warnock,   Faculty   of   Law,  University   of   Otago,   he   has   established   a   website   https://environmental-­‐adjudication.org   to  facilitate  interaction  between  environmental  adjudicators  around  the  world,  and  organised  the    international  symposium  ‘Environmental  Adjudication  in  the  21st  Century’  in  Auckland  in  April  2017.        

His  Honour  Judge  David  Kirkpatrick  Judge  of  the  Environment  Court  of  New  Zealand,  LLB  (Hons)  (Auck)  Judge  Kirkpatrick  had,  prior  to  his  appointment  to  the  Court  in  February   2014,   been   a   Barrister   sole   since   July   2004.   He  specialised   in   administrative   and   public   law   generally,   and  resource  management  law  in  particular.  He  appeared  regularly  before   consent   authorities,   the   Environment   Court,   and   the  High  Court.  He  also  appeared  before   the  Court  of  Appeal,   the  Privy  Council,  and  the  Supreme  Court.    From   1994   to   2004   Judge   Kirkpatrick   was   a   partner   in   the  Local  Government  and  Environment  practice  area  of  Simpson  Grierson.   In   that   role   he   was   the   primary   legal   advisor   to   a  number  of  local  authorities  in  the  Auckland  region  in  regard  to  public   administration,   the   regulation   of   public   utilities   and  resource  management.  He   has   also   acted   for   a  wide   range   of  corporate   clients,   incorporated   societies   and   individuals   in  those  fields.  In  2008-­‐09  he  acted  as  counsel  assisting  the  Royal  Commission  on  Auckland  Governance.  Judge  Kirkpatrick  has  presented  numerous  conference  and  seminar  papers  relating  to  resource  management  and   local  government   law,  and   is  a  contributing  author  of   the  chapter   ‘Land  Use  and  Subdivision  –  Resource  Consent  Procedures,  Designations  and  Appeals’  in  Derek  Nolan  (ed)  Environmental  and  Resource  Management  Law  (LexisNexis)  now  in  its  fourth  edition.      

9  

Associate  Professor  Ceri  Warnock  University  of  Otago  Associate  Professor  LLB  (Hons)(Cardiff),  LLM  (Auck),  MSt  (Oxon)  

Ceri   Warnock   is   an   Associate   Professor   in   the   Faculty   of  Law,   University   of   Otago.   Her   primary   research   concerns  environmental  constitutionalism  and  explores  in  particular  the   impact   of  modern   governmental   ordering   on   theories  for   environmental   adjudication.   She   was   the   recipient   of  the   2014   ‘New   Zealand   Law   Foundation   International  Research   Fellowship   -­‐   Te   Manatū   a   Ture   o   Aotearoa   Te  Karahipi   Rangahau   Ā   Taiao’   for   her   work   into   legitimacy  and   specialist   environment   courts   and   tribunals.   Ceri  course   manages   and   teaches   Resource   Management   Law,  Energy   Law   and   Inter-­‐disciplinary   Aspects   of   Climate  Change,   and   is   part   of   the   Public   Law   teaching   team.   She  has   been   a   visiting   lecturer   at   Kings   College   London,  

tutored  at  Hertford  College,  University  of  Oxford  and  prior  to  joining  the  Faculty  of  Law  at  Otago  in  2006  practiced  as  a  barrister  in  England  and  Wales.        

ORGANISING  COMMITTEE      Alan  Webb  

 Bronwyn  Carruthers  

 Ceri  Warnock  

 Judge  Laurie  Newhook  

 Russell  Bartlett  QC  

 Suzanne  Janissen  

   

10  

ABSTRACTS    The  role  of  ECTs  in  promoting  the  rule  of  law  and  ensuring  equal  

access  to  justice  for  all    

The  Honourable  Justice  Brian  J  Preston  SC    Principle   10   of   the   Rio   Declaration   of   Environment   and   Development   advocates   that  individuals  and  communities  should  have  appropriate  access  to  information  concerning  the   environment,   the   opportunity   to   participate   in   decision-­‐making   processes   and  effective   access   to   judicial   and   administrative   proceedings,   including   redress   and  remedy.  Sustainable  Development  Goal  16  is  to  promote  peaceful  and  inclusive  societies  for   sustainable   development,   provide   access   to   justice   for   all   and   build   effective,  accountable  and  inclusive  institutions  at  all  levels.  Target  16.3  is  to  promote  the  rule  of  law   at   the   national   and   international   levels   and   ensure   equal   access   to   justice   for   all.  Environmental  courts  and  tribunals  (ECTs)  can  play  an  important  and  influential  role  in  promoting  Rio  Principle  10  and  Sustainable  Development  Goal  16.  The  paper  explores  the  particular  ways  in  which  ECTs  are  promoting  the  rule  of  law  and  access  to  justice  in  environmental   matters.   The   paper   will   provide   examples   of   best   practice   from   ECTs  around  the  world.      The  National  Green  Tribunal,  India:  Decision-­‐Making,  Scientific  

Expertise  and  Uncertainty    

Dr  Gitanjali  Nain  Gill    

My  presentation  focuses  on  the  role  of  scientific  experts  and  their  expertise  within  the  National   Green   Tribunal   (NGT)   India   where   they   act   as   decision-­‐makers   in  environmental   disputes.   Experts   are   ‘central’   not   ‘marginal’,   to   the   NGT’s   normative  structure.  I  trace  and  evaluate  how  an  Act  of  the  Indian  Parliament  created  a  symbiotic  relationship   between   legal   and   scientist   experts   operating   as   decision-­‐makers   and  adjudicators  of  environmental  conflicts  within  the  context  of  the  NGT.  The  NGT’s  efforts  to   reach   decisions   by   centralising   scientific   experts   (an   epistemic   community)   as   full  court   members,   within   the   decision-­‐making   process   thereby   promotes   a   collective,  symbiotic,   inter-­‐disciplinary  bench   that   seeks   to  harmonise   legal  norms  with  scientific  knowledge.   The   robust   application   of   environmental   principles,   particularly   a   ‘strong  precautionary  principle’,  has  promoted  a  response  that  tackles  serious  threats  to  human  health   or   the   environment.   The   decisions,   through   expansive   rationale   and   innovative  judgments,   extend   beyond   the   'courtroom   door'   thereby   having   external   social   and  economic   implications.   By   offering   ecological,   technological   and   scientific   resource  knowledge,   NGT   experts   either   formulate   policies   or   assist   states   with   the  implementation  of   these  policies,   thereby  adopting  both  a  problem-­‐solving  and  policy-­‐creation  approach.  The  interdisciplinary  bench  through  expansive  interpretation  of  both  statute  law  and  Article  21  of  the  Indian  Constitution  produces  a  fascinating  case  study  of  how   a   developing   nation   seeks   to   resolve   its   environmental   issues   through   a   ‘judicial  lens’.          

11  

 How  green  is  my  ECT?    

The  challenge  of  impartial  objectivity      

His  Honour  Judge  Michael  E  Rackemann    

[1] The  growth  in  environmental  law,  environmental  litigation  and  the  recognition  of  the   special   character   of   environmental   disputes   has   been   accompanied   by   the  proliferation   of   specialist   environmental   courts   and   tribunals   (“ECTs”).   The  primary  determinant  of  the  proper  role  and  function  of  any  ECT  is  the  legislative  or   other   authority   by   which   jurisdiction   is   conferred.     The   particular   context  within  which  the  ECT  operates  will  also  be  influential.    Otherwise  however,  ECTs  can   be   pulled   in   different   directions.     Some  want   ECTs   to   be   de   facto   statutory  regulators  or  government  agencies,  whilst  others  look  to  ECTs  for  protection  from  the  excesses  of  such  bodies.    Some  want  ECTs  to  be  environmental  advocates  and  activist,   in   light   of   the   importance  of   environmental   protection   and   the  broader  significance,  beyond   the  parties,  of  environmental   litigation.  Others  seek  a  more  neutral  forum.  

 [2] The  allure  of  an  activist  or  interventionist  approach  can  be  strong,  particularly  for  

the  passionate.    Nevertheless,   subject   to  particular   statutory  provisions,   there   is  merit   in   the   traditional   self-­‐limiting   judicial   approach   in   which   jurisdiction   is  exercised  without   fear,   favour  or  affection  to  arrive  at  a  determination  based  on  established  principle   in   order   to   do   justice   according   to   law,   irrespective   of   the  personal   beliefs,   values  or  passions  of   the  decision  maker.     ECTs  which   adopt   a  different  approach  may  be  cheered  by  some,  but  risk  underestimating  the  value  of  impartial  objectivity  if  not  also  disrespecting  the  rule  of  law  and  undermining  the  sustainability   of   the   ECT   itself,   to   the   potential   ultimate   detriment   of   the  environment.    

   

Delivering  Access  to  Environmental  Justice  in  Ireland:  Challenges  and  Opportunities  

 Dr  Áine  Ryall    

 This  paper  examines  the  impact  of  international  and  European  Union  (EU)  law  on  access  to   environmental   justice   in   Ireland.     The   UN   ECE   Aarhus   Convention,   and   Aarhus-­‐inspired   EU   directives,   continues   to   have   a   profound   impact   on   fundamental   matters  including   standing   to   bring   judicial   review   proceedings   and   liability   for   costs   in  environmental   litigation.     The   precise   implications   of   international   and   EU   law  obligations  for  access  to  environmental  justice  in  Ireland  continue  to  be  teased  out,  with  three  significant  judgments  delivered  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ireland  in  late  February  2017.    These   judgments  address   standing,   costs   and   the  wider   impact  of   international  and   EU   law   on   national   legislation   and   practice   governing   access   to   the   courts.    International  law,  in  the  form  of  the  Aarhus  Convention,  is  prompting  the  Irish  courts  to  examine  more  closely  a  range  of  issues  impacting  on  access  to  justice  and,  in  particular,  whether  a  right  to  legal  aid  might  arise  in  certain  circumstances.    There  is  no  doubt  but  that   international   and   EU   law   have   led   to   significant   improvements   in   access   to  environmental   justice   in   Ireland.     Further   interesting  developments   are  guaranteed  as  the   applicable   international   and   EU   principles   mature   and   become   embedded   in   the  national  legal  system.          

12  

   

Rethinking  Environmental  Statutory  Interpretation    

Professor  Tracy  Hester    

The   legal   study   of   statutory   interpretation   in   the   United   States   has   matured   into   an  active   and   important   field  of   scholarship,   but   it   has   also  produced  a   small   backlash  of  objection   from   environmental   scholars.     Mainstream   statutory   interpretive   principles  and   canons   typically   focus   on   providing   reliable   and   credible   interpretations   without  regard   to   the   subject   matter   of   the   statute.     Some   environmental   scholars   have  complained   that   this   unchallenged   bias   for   content   neutrality   overlooks   unique   and  important  facets  of  environmental  policy  and  law,  and  it  can  lead  to  corrosive  statutory  interpretations   that   undermine   the   effectiveness   and   vitality   of   environmental  programs.    With   the   rise  of  new  canons   that  directly   target   recent   efforts   to   create  or  expand  regulatory  programs  under  the  canopy  of  long-­‐standing  environmental  statutes,  this   tension  will   likely   continue   to  boil   and   resurface   in   several   pending   challenges   to  future  environmental  statutory  efforts.    This  paper  will  explore  alternative  models  to  interpret  environmental  statutes  by  revisi-­‐ting  the  keystone  assumptions  of  current  statutory  interpretive  doctrine  and  proposing  a   modification   of   the   federal   courts’   current   heavy   reliance   on   strong   concepts   of  subject-­‐matter  neutrality  in  interpretation.    Some  suggested  alternative  approaches  will  likely   focus   on   (i)   the   special   facets   of   environmental   law   that   current   statutory  interpretive   doctrines   fail   to   capture,   (ii)   an   accounting   of   the   unique   institutional  competencies   of   courts,   legislative   bodies,   and   administrative   agencies   engaged   in  environmental   statutory   interpretation,   and   (iii)   a   fuller   conception   of   the   scope   of  legislative   intent   underlying   environmental   statutory   goals.     As   an   empirical   check,   it  will  explore  whether  these  interpretive  reorientations  have  begun  to  emerge  in  caselaw  on  statutory  interpretation  from  special-­‐jurisdiction  common  law  environmental  courts  in  Hawaii,  Vermont,  India,  New  Zealand,  Australia  and  other  nations.      

ECTs  and  the  Environmental  Rule  of  Law      

Professor  Ben  Boer    

This   paper   examines   the   attempts   in   recent   years   to   formulate   a   range   of   special  environmental  law  principles  that  together  can  be  characterized  as  significant  elements  underlying   the   emerging   ‘Environmental   Rule   of   Law’.       It   argues   that   the  ‘Environmental  Rule  of  Law’  will  be  of  central  relevance  to  Environmental  Adjudication  in  the  coming  years.      The  paper   first   looks  at   the  history  of  development  of   these  principles,   from   the  1972  Stockholm   Declaration   on   the   Human   Environment   to   the   2013   UNEP   Decision   on  Advancing   Justice,  Governance  and  Law  for  Environmental  Sustainability,   through  to   the  2016   IUCN   World   Declaration   on   the   Environmental   Rule   of   Law.   From   the   latter  document,   the  paper   selects   several  of   the  more   innovative  and  perhaps   controversial  principles  for  analysis.    These  include  the  Right  to  Nature  and  Rights  of  Nature,  the  Right  to  Environment,  In  Dubio  Pro  Natura,  Ecological  Functions  of  Property,  Non-­‐Regression,  and   Progression.     The   specific   sources   of   these   principles   will   be   identified   and  discussed.    It   concludes   with   some   reflections   on   the   theoretical   and   practical   barriers   to   the  adoption   and   implementation   of   the   principles   and   concepts   associated   with   the  

13  

Environmental   Rule   of   Law   by   environmental   courts   and   tribunals   at   national   level,  especially  in  the  context  of  Asian  courts.        

 Environmental  Adjudication  in  the  21st  Century  

 Associate  Justice  Michael  D.  Wilson  

 This  presentation  will  address   two  challenges   faced  by   judges  who  must  contend  with  application  of   the   environmental   rule   of   law:     access   to   environmental   justice   and   the  personal  challenges  facing  judges  who  must  apply  the  environmental  rule  of  law.    The   impending  catastrophic   consequences  of   ecological  destabilization  are  galvanizing  many  to  seek  protection  through  environmental  law.  The  courts—international,  national  and   subnational—are   often   the   fora   of   last   resort   for   those   who   endeavor   to   protect  human  health  and  biodiversity.    Accordingly,  access  to  the  courts  by  parties  seeking  the  protection   of   the   environmental   law—particularly   indigenous   and   poor   people—is  essential  to  achievement  of  environmental  justice.      In   Hawaii,   access   of   indigenous   people   to   decision-­‐makers   engaged   in   environmental  decision-­‐making  was   recently   addressed   in   the   Hawaii   State   Supreme   Court   decision:    Kilakila  O  Haleakala  vs  Board  of  Land  and  Natural  Resources.        Informed,  specialized  decision-­‐making  by  the   judicial  branch  of  government  to  achieve  protection   of   natural   resources  was   the   primary   purpose   for   the   creation   of   Hawaii’s  environmental   court.     The   challenge   of   being   an   environmental   court   judge   in  Hawaii  will   be   highlighted   by   the   proposed   changes   to   the   judicial   selection   process   and   the  reduction  of  judicial  pensions  sought  during  the  present  legislative  session.    

 Hawaii’s  New  Environmental  Court:  The  Fledgling  Years  

 Professor  Denise  Antolini  

 “Pring   Challenges”   3   (Defining   Jurisdiction)   and   8   (Public   Trust   Doctrine)   are   two  powerful  lenses  in  which  to  view  the  early  years  of  the  new  Environmental  Court  in  the  State  of  Hawaii  in  the  United  States  (“HIECT”).    The   HIECT’s   jurisdiction,   defined   by   the   State   Legislature   in   2014,   is   the   product   of  politics   not   principle.     Most   of   the   statutes   under   its   umbrella   involve   environmental  review,  pollution,  and  criminal  natural  resource  violations.    Excluded,  deliberately,  were  land   use   and   zoning   cases,   where   development   interests   lobbied   to   avoid   a   court   of  specialized  jurisdiction  –  and  was  perceived  to  be  a  biased  jurisdiction.    Also  removed,  in  2015,   were   cases   involving   administrative   appeals   of   discretionary   permits   involving  development   on   state   land,   public   utilities   law   (e.g.,   renewable   energy   policy),   and  freshwater  resources.    On  the  other  hand,  the  HIECT  will  benefit  from  the  years  of  case  law  in  Hawaii  prior  to  2014   that   lay  a   strong   foundation   for   the  public   trust  doctrine,  not  only   in   freshwater  cases,  but  also  now  in  ocean  pollution  and  beach  protection.    Although  the  PTD  in  Hawaii  pre-­‐dates   the  HIECT,   and  will   be   articulated  by   the   appellate,   not   the   civil   or   criminal  trial  courts,  this  strong  common  law  provides  an  outer  layer  of  protection  of  the  fledging  HIECT  as  its  begins  to  develop  in  the  coming  years.    

14  

   

Environmental  Adjudication  in  Kenya:  A  reflection  on  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Environment  and  Land  Court  

 The  Honourable  Justice  Samson  Okong’o  

 Environmental  adjudication  in  Kenya  has  a   long  history.   Initially,  Kenya  did  not  have  a  law   or   policy   in   place   specifically   formulated   to   address   grievances   of   environmental  nature.   In   the   year   1999,   Kenya   developed   and   enacted   a   modern   framework  environmental  law;  the  Environmental  Management  and  Coordination  Act,  No.  8  of  1999  (“EMCA”)  which  sets  out  the  principles  of  environmental  conservation,  management  and  administration.   EMCA,   which   was   amended   in   the   year   2015,   established   National  Environmental  Management  Authority  (NEMA)  as   the  principal  government  agency  on  environmental  matters.  EMCA  also  expanded  the  standing  to  sue.  It  conferred  on  every  person   in   Kenya   a   right   to   clean   and   healthy   environment   and   gave   standing   to   any  person   alleging   contravention  of   a   right   to   clean   and  healthy   environment   to   apply   to  court  for  redress.      With  regard  to  dispute  resolution,  EMCA  established  two  (2)  entities,  namely,  National  Environmental   Complaints   Committee   (NECC)   and   National   Environmental   Tribunal  (NET).  The  function  of  the  NECC  includes  investigation  of  complaints  against  any  person  or  NEMA   in   relation   to   the  conditions  of   the  Environment   in  Kenya  while   the  primary  function   of   NET   is   to   hear   and   determine   appeals   against   administrative   decisions   of  NEMA   and   its   committees.   The   enactment   of   EMCA  was   hailed   as   a   turning   point   for  Kenya   in   environmental   protection   and   conservation.   It   was   also   seen   as   a   bold   step  towards  the  promotion  and  protection  of  environmental  rights  in  Kenya.    In   the   year   2010,   Kenya   promulgated   a   new   constitution;   the   Constitution   of   Kenya  2010(“the   Constitution”).   The   Constitution   opened   a   new   chapter   in   environmental  protection   and   conservation   in   Kenya.   The   Constitution   elevated   a   right   to   clean   and  healthy  environment  to  a  fundamental  right  status.  The  rule  on  legal  standing  was  also  expanded  further.  The  Constitution  established  the  Environment  and  Land  Court  (“ELC”)  to  hear  and  determine  all  disputes  relating  to  environment  and  land.  ELC  which  has  the  same  status  as   the  High  Court  has  original  and  appellate   jurisdiction   in  environmental  and  land  disputes.    In   this   paper,   I   intend   to   discuss   the   jurisdiction   of   the   Environment   and   Land   Court  (ELC).   The   paper   would   be   divided   into   seven   (7)   parts.   The   first   part   would   have   a  short   introduction   which   will   cover   a   brief   history   of   environmental   adjudication   in  Kenya.  In  the  second  part,  I  will  look  at  the  structure  of  the  Kenyan  Judiciary  to  highlight  the  position  of   the  ELC   in   the  hierarchy  of   courts   in  Kenya.  This  will   become   relevant  later   in   the  paper,  when  I  will  be  discussing  the  challenges   facing  the  ELC.   In  the  third  part,   I  will   discuss   the   policy   considerations  which   informed   the   establishment   of   the  ELC.   Here,   I   will   briefly   discuss   the   land   question   in   Kenya,   developments   in   land  legislation  and  the  relationship  between  land  use  and  environmental  sustainability.      In   the   fourth  part,   I  will  discuss   the  constitution  of   the  ELC  and   its   jurisdiction.   In   this  part,  I  will  briefly  look  at  the  structure  of  the  court  and  its  jurisdiction  as  set  out  in  the  Constitution   and   the   establishing   statute.   In   the   fifth   part,   I  will   discuss   the   emerging  questions  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ELC.  Here,  I  will  consider  the  emerging  issues  such  as;  whether  the  ELC  has  supervisory  jurisdiction  over  courts  and  tribunals  subordinate  to   it;  whether   ELC   has   judicial   review  powers;  whether   ELC   has   criminal   jurisdiction;  whether  ELC  has  power   to   interpret   the  Constitution;  whether   the   subordinate   courts  have   power   to   handle   disputes   falling  within   the   jurisdiction   of   the   ELC   and   how   the  

15  

court  should  deal  with  matters  raising  cross-­‐cutting   issues  which  can  be  dealt  with  by  other  courts.    In  the  sixth  part,  I  will  discuss  jurisprudence  emerging  from  the  ELC  with  special  focus  on   how   the   court   has   utilized   its   broad   jurisdiction   in   interpreting   and   applying  environmental   law   and   norms   and   how   the   court   has   applied   international   law   in   its  decisions.   In   the  seventh  and   final  part  of   the  paper,   I  will  consider   the  benefits  which  have  accrued  to  the  public  following  the  establishment  of  the  ELC;  the  challenges  facing  the  court  and  what  the  future  holds  for  the  court.        I  believe  that  many  of  the  challenges  highlighted  by  George  Pring  and  Catherine  Pring  in  their  paper,   “The  Challenges   facing  Environmental   Judges”  which  was  delivered  at   the  IUCN  Annual  Colloquium  at  Oslo  on  21st  June  2016  shall  emerge  in  this  paper.    

 Environmental  Adjudication  in  Chile:  Four  Issues  

 Chief  Justice  Rafael  Asenjo  

 The  Environmental  Court  of  Santiago  (ECS),  the  first  of  two  currently  installed  in  Chile,  has   been  working   jurisdictionally   since  March   2013.   Since   then,   252   cases   have   been  introduced  to  the  Court,  184  have  been  decided  and  68  remain  pending  up  to  date.    Its  work   has   been   mainly   concentrated   in   151   illegality   claims   against   environmental  decisions  of  the  Administration  and  34  demands  to  repair  environmental  damage.      The  ECS´s  main  characteristics  are:  the  first,  its  character  of  autonomous  “operationally  independent   ECs”   and   the   second,   its   competence   of   deciding   Environmental  Administrative   litigation,   reviewing   the   legality   of   the   administrative   decisions   of   the  environmental   institutions   of   the   Administration,   and   proving   the   existence   of  environmental  damage  and  ordering  its  repair  when  appropriate.    My   intention   is   to   cover   four   issues   or   challenges   that   have   appeared   particularly  important  in  the  recent  experience  of  the  ECS  and  anticipate  some  trends  that  should  be  developed  if  we  want  to  have  a  stronger  and  more  effective  environmental  adjudication  in  Chile  during  the  coming  years:    (a)   Standing   to   appear   in   Court.   Who   and   how   can   they   have   access   to   this   new  

jurisdictional  mechanism;    (b)   Citizen´s   involvement   in   the   Environmental   Impact   Assessment   process   whose  

decisions   are   reviewed   by   the   ECS,   and   what   the   ECS   has   understood   by   “due  consideration”   of   the   observations   introduced   by   citizens   in   its   public  participation  stage;    

 (c)     Once  proven  by  the  Court  that  environmental  damage  has  occurred,  it  orders  the  

culprit  or  those  responsible  to  repair  the  damage  that  has  been  caused.  Reach  and  content  of  the  Environmental  Reparation  Plan  imposed  by  the  Court;  

 (d)   Compliance  of  the  Judgments  of  the  EC.          

16  

 Issues  with  access  to  justice  in  the  Environment  Court  of    

New  Zealand    

Principal  Environment  Judge  Laurie  Newhook  &  Environment    Judge  David  Kirkpatrick,  Environment  Court  Of  New  Zealand  

 Environmental  law  in  New  Zealand  appears  to  be  entering  a  period  of  considerable  flux.  While   it   is  not  our  place  as   judges  to  comment  on  the   formulating  of  substantive   laws,  our   paper   seeks   to   describe   recent,   past,   current,   and   possible   future   legislative  scenarios   that   might   impact   on   access   to   justice   in   the   Environment   Court.   We   will  address   this   issue   from   a   number   of   perspectives   but   in   doing   so,   we   call   to   mind  Principle  10  of  the  Rio  Declaration  on  Environment  and  Development  1992,  and  aspects  of  the  international  ‘Brundtland  Report’  in  1987.      We  commence  by  offering  a  brief  description  of  our  Court,  where  it  fits  in  the  system  of  environmental   laws,   how   it   works,   and   with   what   outcomes.   The   paper   will   outline  significant  changes  in  recent  years  in  the  nature  of  the  work  of  the  Court,   focussing  on  high   rates   of   resolution   by   alternative   dispute   resolution,   and   the   significant   scale   of  many  of  the  cases  left  for  determination  by  hearing.  Mention  will  be  made  of  innovations  in  both  areas.      We  note  that  the  Court  embraces  change  for  positive  effect,  and  is  constantly  looking  for  efficiencies,  working  with  regular  parties,  the  professions  and  other  stakeholders.  It  has  organised   itself   to   ensure   that   while   offering   important   checks   and   balances   to   the  decisions   of   councils   and   other   authorities,   it   is   not   a   cause   of   unacceptable   delay   in  access  to  justice  before  it.      In  recent  years  the  Government  has  passed  legislation  somewhat  reducing  the  extent  of  access   to   justice   in   the  Environment  Court,   by   limiting   its   jurisdiction   and  by   creating  numbers  of  alternative  fora  that  often  involve  case-­‐specific  ministerial  appointments  of  adjudicators   in   contrast   to   the   fully   tenured   permanent   and   independent  members   of  the   specialist   Environment   Court.   Some   enhancements   have   also   been   made   to   the  Court’s   jurisdiction,   for   instance   concerning   compensation   for   acquisition   of   land   for  public  works,  however  such  enhancements  are  somewhat  peripheral  to  core  aspects  of  environmental  law  such  as  sustainable  management  of  natural  and  physical  resources.      When   the   Resource   Management   Act   was   passed   into   law   in   1991,   it   was   ground-­‐breaking  in  many  ways,  internationally.  It  has  been  amended  many  times  by  successive  governments,   particularly   in   recent   years   concerning   access   to   environmental   justice.  Embedded   in   the   RMA   is   a   core   concept   of   sustainability,   which   might   be   seen   to  encompass   two   general   components,   “ecological”   and   “social/economic”.  We   question  whether   the   trend   limiting   access   to   environmental   justice  might   –   interestingly   –   be  seen  as  paralleling  an  ascendancy  of  the  latter.