Tag Archives: Environment

Bridging the Climate Change Policy Gap

BLoggIt is clear that to fight climate change, we need to scale up green investment both in terms of amount and geographical reach. However, climate change law, in this case the United Nations Conference Framework on Climate Change and the recently-signed Paris Agreement, do not specifically include terms to promote and protect investment. This is a policy gap.

The SCC, together with the International Bar Association, the International Chamber of Commerce and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, took an initiative to discuss this gap by organising a conference, Bridging the Climate Change Policy Gap: The Role of International Law and Arbitration, in Stockholm on 21 November.

It is noted during the conference that around USD 100 billion in investment over the next fifteen years is needed to combat climate change – a target that is considered achievable. Another speaker emphasised that there is no shortage of capital to address climate change. The challenge is how to get investors to actually invest and how to match the capital with the green investments.

It appeared to be a consensus among the speakers that good policy is key to attracting sustainable investments. Policy needs to be long-term and stable. Short-term policies, often associated with government’s turnover, caused bad impacts, from high transaction costs to the fact that the industry had to fire and re-hire employees depending on how policy is.

A panel of lawyers discussed how litigation has been used to fight climate change, directly and indirectly. Among other things, renewable energy investors have resorted to international arbitration to bring a claim against government for unstable policies and revocation of incentives. Another case being discussed in depth was Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands where a Dutch district court ruled that the government has breached its duty of care to its citizens by not doing enough to address climate change.

It may be foreseen that these types of cases, both in domestic and international fora, will propel the right type of government actions.

A report from the conference with more details will be published soon.

 

Host states’ legitimate expectation

Scenic landscapes of Northern ArgentinaThe investor’s legitimate expectations are often a key question in ISDS cases. Such expectations can be based on, for example, the host state’s laws, policies, or contractual commitments – such as when a host state granted the investor mining rights for a certain number of years. A violation of these expectations can be a ground for the investor to bring an ISDS claim against the host government. Several tribunals have ruled that a host country cannot act contrary to the investor’s legistimate expectations.

Karl P. Sauvant and GüneşÜnüvar have written an article published by Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment, introducing the question of whether or not states can also have legitimate expectations towards the foreign investor. According to the article, such expectations may arise from, for instance, the investor’s statements of its contribution to the host country.

As an example, the article points to Sempra v Argentina, where Argentina argued that it “had many expectations in respect of the investment that were not met or otherwise frustrated … (such as)… work diligently and in good faith…”. The article also notes, however, that since governments currently cannot initiate ISDS proceedings against foreign investors, their reliance on legitimate expectations is limited to counterclaims brought in response to investors’ claims. See our previous post about counterclaims here.

Finally, the article proposes that future international investment agreements (IIAs) could explicitly stipulate that host states’ legitimate expectations are protected, thereby establishing a right for host states to bring a claim on this basis.

Vattenfall v. Germany live stream

Blogg_v41_2In the much-publicised ICSID case between Vattenfall and Germany, the main hearing is currently taking place. The parties have agreed to broadcast the hearing live and those who are interested in ISDS can follow this link to see what a hearing looks like. The broadcast starts at 19.00 CET, every night this week and the next.

Just published: Peter Allard v. Canada

Blogg_v41A much-anticipated award is now released for public, Peter A. Allard v Barbados.

As we have written before, a Canadian investor, Peter Allard, brought a claim against Barbados in Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2010. The case concerned Mr Allard’s environmental sanctuary in coastal Barbados. He grounded his claim on the failure of the government of Barbados to enforce its own environmental law which, as a result, has polluted his sanctuary.

The investor claimed that the government’s failure amounted to violation of Canada – Barbados Bilateral Investment Treaty.

In an award rendered in June 2016, the tribunal rejected the investor’s claim on all grounds.

The tribunal disagreed with the investor that Barbados has failed to accord him full protection and security by failing to prevent pollution from coming to the sanctuary. As a departing point, the tribunal asserted that the obligation of the State to provide the investment with full protection and security standard is of ”due diligence” and ”reasonable care” – not of strict liability.

In this case, the tribunal found that Barbadian officials have taken reasonable steps to protect the sanctuary. Among others, the tribunal pointed out that the officials established a committee tasked with developing plans for preservation of the sanctuary.

The claim of expropriation was also dismissed. The tribunal concluded that there was no substantial deprivation of the investment since the investor remains the owner of the sanctuary and operates a cafe there. The tribunal further referred to the investor’s statement during the hearing that ”there is some kind of business remaining there”.

Meanwhile, Simon Lester, a trade policy analyst for Cato Institute, argues that the case sends an important signal for environmental protection. According to him, the legal standard in BIT may pave the way for future cases that environmentalists could help investors bring against governments who may do too little to protect the environment. An example mentioned is if the impact of climate change, for instance rising sea level, caused damage to an investor’s property.

Combating Climate Change through ISDS

White lily in an environment of green leaves on waterAn article demonstrates how ISDS provides the necessary tools to improve regulatory stability and predictability necessary for low-carbon investment. According to the author, ISDS has the potential to protect low-carbon investments against the risk of regulatory changes that can affect climate policies.

The text takes its starting point at the importance of private capital and technology in the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Kyoto Protocol establishes different implementation mechanisms for State parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mechanisms in which private actors play important roles. In turn, governments may also establish different support schemes for investment in low-carbon technology. Some of the common schemes are guaranteed a minimum price for electricity produced by renewable resources (the so-called feed-in tariff) and investment aid for renewable energy producers.

The article points out some risks for low-carbon investment, including that authorities could withdraw the promised support or shorten its duration.

It further argues that some substantive protections under international investment agreements may play an important role.

One example is the ISDS case, Nykomb v. Latvia. In this case, the tribunal found that the government provided support scheme for low-carbon installations operated by domestic investors, but not for installations operated by foreign investors. The tribunal held that this amounted to discrimination, and the investor obtained compensation.

The article concludes that climate law and investment law are based on comparable principles but having different perspectives. Climate law creates rights and expectations for investors, while investment law aims to protect them. In turn, investment arbitration has the potential to limit the instability that currently affects the implementation of climate change mitigation policies.

Transglobal Green Energy v. Panama

Panama2016This case summary is based on the publicly-available ICSID award in the case between the American company Transglobal Green Energy (”Transglobal”) and The Republic of Panama. In the award from June 2, 2016, the arbitral tribunal rejected the case early on and found that the investors attempted to abusively create jurisdiction under an investment treaty.

The case centered around a hydro-electric power plant in Panama. A company owned by Panamian national Julio Cesar Lisac had been awarded a concession to operate the plant for 50 years. After the first year, the Panamian authorities found that Mr. Lisac’s company did not meet the requirements of the concession and therefore terminated the agreement (and later awarded the concession to another company). Mr. Lisac challenged this termination in Panamanian courts.

Subsequent to the termination of the concession, Mr. Lisac transferred part of his company’s interests in the power plant project to Transglobal, a company incorporated in Texas. Using Transglobal’s American nationality, an arbitration was brought against Panama based on the bilateral investment treaty (”BIT”) between USA and Panama. The investors alleged that the termination of the 50-year concession was made in violation of the BIT.

The arbitrators found that they did not have jurisdiction over the case and thus rejected the claim early in the proceedings. Since Mr. Lisac and his comapny both had Panamanian nationality, the move to transfer the interests in the power plant to American-incorporated Transglobal was held to be made with the only purpose of obtaining protection under the BIT between USA and Panama. Therefore the tribunal stated that the investor attempted to create ”artificial jurisdiction over a pre-existing domestic dispute”, thereby abusing the system of investment treaty arbitration.

The tribunal’s reasoning was similar to that in Philip Morris v. Australia, where another tribunal refused to hear Philip Morris’ claims because they were found to constitute an abuse of the investment treaty system.

Both these recent cases demonstrate that there is no room to exploit ISDS to bring unjustified claims. One academic recently described this as a tendency by tribunals to ”police the gates to investment treaty claims against states”.

Guest blog in Swedish: The first award in solar panel cases against Spain

Solar panels behind fenceIn a guest blog in Swedish this week, Jonas Hallberg, an analyst at the Swedish National Board of Trade, has written about Charanne B.V. & Construction Investments S.A.R.L v. Spain. The award is the first that has been rendered among at least 26 disputes regarding Spain’s measure to reduce incentives for solar panel sectors.

The award is published and can be downloaded in Investment Arbitration Reporter website.

The investors brought the claim under the Energy Charter Treaty, arguing that the measure violated fair and equitable treatment standard and that it constituted indirect expropriation.

The tribunal rejected the investors’ claims in its entirety and ordered the investors to pay Spain’s legal costs which is equivalent to EUR 1.3 million.

ISDS CASE SUMMARY: Maffezini v. Spain

GaliciaBlogOur next case summary is Emilio Augustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7). The summary was prepared based on the award rendered on 9 November 2000.

The claimant was an Argentinian individual who established and invested in a corporation named EAMSA, for the purpose of building a production facility for chemical products in Galicia, Spain. The project was a joint venture with the Sociedad para el Desarrollo Industrial de Galicia(SODIGA), a public-private entity with a mandate to encourage industrial development in Galicia. SODIGA provided the investor with assistance in the form of advice and financing.

The project eventually failed due to surging costs, and the investor filed for arbitration under the Argentina-Spain BIT. The investor claimed (1) that the project failed because SODIGA had given flawed advice underestimating the costs of the project, and (2) that SODIGA was responsible for the additional costs resulting from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because it had pressured EAMSA to begin construction before the EIA process was finalized. Spain contested the allegations, stating that SODIGA was a private company whose acts were not attributable to the state, and that the investor had assumed any risk relating to the feasibility and profitability of his investment.

On the issue of state attribution, the tribunal found that some of SODIGA’s functions were governmental in nature while others were commercial. Accordingly, the tribunal found that it was necessary to categorize the various acts or omissions giving rise to the dispute. On the investor’s main claim – that SODIGA’s bad advice was responsible for the project’s failure – the tribunal found that even though SODIGA officials had provided certain assistance relating to the project’s costs and returns, that assistance did not amount to a public function attributable to the state. Moreover, the investor was, simply put, responsible for his own investment. The tribunal explained:

“Bilateral Investment Treaties are not insurance policies against bad business judgments. While it is probably true that there were shortcomings in the policies and practices that SODIGA and its sister entities pursued in the here relevant period in Spain, they cannot be deemed to relieve investors of the business risks inherent in any investment.”

The claimant also contended that SODIGA was responsible for the additional costs resulting from the EIA, which lead to the investor’s decision to stop the construction work and call off the project. In this regard, the tribunal concluded that the investor should have known that the project – a chemical plant – would require an EIA. According to the tribunal, the investor had known about the EIA requirement from the beginning of the project, but had tried to minimize it so as to avoid additional costs or technical difficulties.

For these reasons, the tribunal found that Spain could not be held responsible for the investor’s losses.

NGO voices in ISDS

Conference table, microphones and office chairs close-up

Beginning in 2001, a number of different NGOs have been active in ISDS proceedings, most commonly in cases with public interest aspects. This includes cases referring to measures related to for example environmental protection and public health.

NGOs may apply to be “a friend of the court”, or commonly referred to as amicus curiae. This means that the organisation contributes with a written submission to assist the tribunal in the assessment of the claims.

Participation of NGOs was initially found only in ISDS cases brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The NAFTA parties have issued a joint statement which essentially says that the NAFTA does not prohibit submission of a non-party, in this case may include NGOs.

Methanex Corp v USA was the first case where the tribunal opened up for NGOs to make written submission, which included environmental organizations and research institutes. In addition, these NGOs also attended the hearing. It was followed by Glamis Gold v. USA, where the tribunal received written submission by, among others, a locally-based Quechan Indian Tribe, whose sacred sites and traditions were affected by the investor’s mining project.

Since then the ICSID Arbitration Rules have been amended to clarify that tribunals have the general authority to allow submissions by an organisation which is not a party in the dispute.

NGOs have participated not only in NAFTA cases. In Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, the tribunal accepted written submission from NGOs with an expertise in human rights, environmental and good governance issues.

A recent development is the participation of international organization in ISDS proceeding, as shown in Phillip Morris v. Uruguay. In this case, not yet decided, the opinions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat will also be heard, based on the ICSID Arbitration Rules.

In a recent development, the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules, in force as of 1 April 2014, provide that tribunal may allow submission from non-disputing parties for matters within the dispute. Read our previous post on this.

 

 

More environmental languages in IIAs

green leaves background in sunny dayInternational investment agreements (“IIAs”) have increasingly addressed environmental concerns related to investment activity.

Based on a survey conducted by the OECD, inclusion of environmental languages in IIAs is becoming more common. The sample in this survey consists of 1,623 international investment agreements, thus covering roughly half of the global investment treaty population.

The first treaty to include environmental language in the sample is the 1985 China – Singapore BIT. In 2008, 89% of newly concluded treaties includes such language. Further, as we have written before, sustainable development is at the heart of the newly-adopted IIAs in 2014 where most of these treaties include a sustainable development-oriented features.

The most common environmental language is a provision which preserves policy space for environmental regulation. For example, Hungary – Russia BIT provides that the agreement does not preclude the application of measures to protect the environment and public health. Another type is a provision which discourages state parties to lower their environmental standards to attract investments.

Some IIAs have referred to international environmental treaties. The Energy Charter Treaty in its preamble specifically recalls the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The preamble of the new Norwegian BIT draft also recognizes that international environmental treaties are to be interpreted in mutually supportive manner.

Overall, 30 of the 49 countries covered by the survey have included environmental language in at least one of their IIAs. Canada is the country with relatively highest tendencies to include such language (83% of its sample treaties), followed by New Zealand, Japan, the United States and Finland.