Environmental Law Review

Large-scale land acquisitions in African countries by foreign investors who use such lands for agricultural purposes that have negative socio-economic and environmental impact in host countries is considered as ‘land grabbing in Africa’. In the context of the environment, the type of crops and monoculture practices undertaken by the foreign investors led to changes in land use, deforestation, exposure of land to soil erosion, depletion of water sources, pollution of surface water and contamination of ground water as a result of the intense use of agro-chemicals. Collectively, these have had a deleterious environmental impact in host countries. This article examines the phenomenon of ‘land grabbing in Africa’ by identifying the type of land-based agricultural investments by foreign entities and the environmental impact of such investments in African countries like Nigeria. The article argues that the prevailing Nigerian environmental law cannot ensure sustainable development as it does not address the environmental impact of land-based agricultural investments by foreign enterprises in the country. The article proposes that suitable environmental laws must contain the concepts of Community Participation in environmental impact assessment process of land based foreign investments and Environmental Justice for victims of environmental degradation of such investments.

This article analyses the impact of Brexit on devolved competences in environmental protection. It maps the post-Brexit division of the United Kingdom (UK)’s internal (devolved) and external (international) competences and how this may shift when competences are returned from the European Union (EU). Crucially, the article suggests that certain of these EU powers do not simply derive from the EU but are, in fact, already held by the devolved regions in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Consequently, devolved competences are under threat of being pre-empted as the UK seeks to harmonise otherwise fragmented policies and legislation to comply with obligations at international level. This conundrum is illustrated here using a case study on genetically modified crop cultivation, which identifies the conflicts in the UK’s proclaimed strategy post-Brexit between international obligations and devolved competences and the legal challenges this entails.

The EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) is considered one of the most important EU policies in the fight against climate change as it aims to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by industries located in the EU. This article examines the EU (EU ETS) and in particular the question of whether the surrender of wrongly allocated greenhouse emission allowances is compatible with Directive 2003/87/EC. This question was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of a preliminary ruling. This case is particularly relevant as for the first time the Court is asked to express its interpretation on the legal nature of emission allowances. This issue is highly debated and has gained increasing relevance due to the fact that the classification of allowances is not harmonised at EU level.

Powys County Council v Price, a follow-up to the decision of the House of Lords in R (National Grid Gas Plc) v Environment Agency (hereafter National Grid Gas), is concerned with the question of when statutory successors to public authorities will be liable as Class A persons (polluters) for having ‘caused or knowingly permitted’ the relevant substances to be in, on, or under the land, thanks to the contaminated land provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. In deciding that such a body will not be liable unless the legislation establishing the succession on its wording specifically makes such liabilities pass – an outcome which is highly unlikely – the Court emphasises that corporate identity is critical to liability under the provisions but also goes beyond the earlier decision in National Grid Gas. The result is that the burden of remediating land contaminated by a public authority whose identity has changed, and where the acts were committed before the relevant provisions came into force, will almost certainly fall on the owner or occupier of the land for the time being. This note discusses the facts and reasoning in this case, before considering the questions raised by the decision: the issue of succession and the definition of polluter; the question of contingent liabilities; and the consequences of finding that the only ‘appropriate person’ is the owner or occupier of the contaminated land.