This paper provides an overview of U.S. law and policy concerning energy efficiency and conservation. The United States appears torn between two narratives - one expressing the abundant demonstrated opportunities provided by energy savings and the other based on a fear of deprivation from using less energy. Rather than choosing between the two, U.S. law and policy splits the difference - embracing efficiency and conservation more or less halfheartedly. Energy efficiency and conservation policy thus has a Groundhog Day aspect, in which the same or similar arguments are made year after year, decade after decade, and often (it appears) to little effect. In recent years, however, the federal government has strengthened the nation’s commitment to efficiency and conservation. The paper first discusses federal laws and policies that are intended to support efficiency and conservation as well as laws that are antagonistic to those goals. It then describes energy efficiency and conservation features of proposed climate change and clean energy legislation. Finally, this paper discusses energy conservation under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and in the European Union.
{"title":"Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Laws","authors":"J. Dernbach, M. Tyrrell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1684201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1684201","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides an overview of U.S. law and policy concerning energy efficiency and conservation. The United States appears torn between two narratives - one expressing the abundant demonstrated opportunities provided by energy savings and the other based on a fear of deprivation from using less energy. Rather than choosing between the two, U.S. law and policy splits the difference - embracing efficiency and conservation more or less halfheartedly. Energy efficiency and conservation policy thus has a Groundhog Day aspect, in which the same or similar arguments are made year after year, decade after decade, and often (it appears) to little effect. In recent years, however, the federal government has strengthened the nation’s commitment to efficiency and conservation. The paper first discusses federal laws and policies that are intended to support efficiency and conservation as well as laws that are antagonistic to those goals. It then describes energy efficiency and conservation features of proposed climate change and clean energy legislation. Finally, this paper discusses energy conservation under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and in the European Union.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134059314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Given the increasing interest in understanding (and supporting by means of public policy) innovative activity related to energy efficient technology (EET), I attempt to identify firm-level determinants of innovation and research in this field. A novel dataset of Swiss firms has been assembled by means of a survey in 2009, resulting in more than 2300 observations featuring various indicators of innovative activity and success. Applying standard econometric methodology, I find sizeable differences of the explaining factors of energy efficiency related innovation as compared to overall innovation. In particular, market environment related variables important for overall innovative activity seem to have little explanatory power for EET related innovation, raising the question whether such innovation sufficiently responds to current and potential future demand.
{"title":"Insights into the Determinants of Innovation in Energy Efficiency","authors":"M. Ley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1684532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1684532","url":null,"abstract":"Given the increasing interest in understanding (and supporting by means of public policy) innovative activity related to energy efficient technology (EET), I attempt to identify firm-level determinants of innovation and research in this field. A novel dataset of Swiss firms has been assembled by means of a survey in 2009, resulting in more than 2300 observations featuring various indicators of innovative activity and success. Applying standard econometric methodology, I find sizeable differences of the explaining factors of energy efficiency related innovation as compared to overall innovation. In particular, market environment related variables important for overall innovative activity seem to have little explanatory power for EET related innovation, raising the question whether such innovation sufficiently responds to current and potential future demand.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"209 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114647214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Indonesia sebagai Negara kepulauan masih menghadapi permasalahan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut and pesisir. Kerusakan terumbu karang, mangrove serta overfishing adalah salah satu indikator adanya permasalahan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut. Permasalahan ini termasuk tumpang tindih peraturan perundangan, kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat, dan konflik penggunaan pesisir dan sumber daya laut. Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu adalah pendekatan untuk mencapai keberlanjutan sumber daya laut dan pesisir seperti yang termaktub dalam Agenda 21 dan telah banyak diterapkan di berbagai negera. Pendekatan Pesisir terpadu adalah pendekatan baru yang menggantikan pendekatan sektoral yang dalam kenyataanya pendekatan sektoral ini tidak mampu mengatasi permasalahan kompleks manajemen sumber daya pesisir dan laut. Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu adalah pengintegrasian dan harmonisasi hukum, kebijakan dan kerjasama semua pemangku kepentingan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut dan pesisir. Tulisan ini mengkaji permasalahan dan tantangan pengelolaan pesisir laut terpadu di Indonesia, terutama dengan masih tumpang tindihnya peraturan perundang-undangan dalam pengelolaan sumber daya laut dan pesisir, kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat dan konflik lahan. Kata Kunci : integrated coastal zone management, partisipasi publik, manajemen konflik
{"title":"Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Indonesia: The Implementation and its Challenges","authors":"Laely Nurhidayah","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1666807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1666807","url":null,"abstract":"Indonesia sebagai Negara kepulauan masih menghadapi permasalahan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut and pesisir. Kerusakan terumbu karang, mangrove serta overfishing adalah salah satu indikator adanya permasalahan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut. Permasalahan ini termasuk tumpang tindih peraturan perundangan, kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat, dan konflik penggunaan pesisir dan sumber daya laut. Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu adalah pendekatan untuk mencapai keberlanjutan sumber daya laut dan pesisir seperti yang termaktub dalam Agenda 21 dan telah banyak diterapkan di berbagai negera. Pendekatan Pesisir terpadu adalah pendekatan baru yang menggantikan pendekatan sektoral yang dalam kenyataanya pendekatan sektoral ini tidak mampu mengatasi permasalahan kompleks manajemen sumber daya pesisir dan laut. Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu adalah pengintegrasian dan harmonisasi hukum, kebijakan dan kerjasama semua pemangku kepentingan dalam manajemen sumber daya laut dan pesisir. Tulisan ini mengkaji permasalahan dan tantangan pengelolaan pesisir laut terpadu di Indonesia, terutama dengan masih tumpang tindihnya peraturan perundang-undangan dalam pengelolaan sumber daya laut dan pesisir, kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat dan konflik lahan. Kata Kunci : integrated coastal zone management, partisipasi publik, manajemen konflik","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"328 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129350626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is has been inspired by two latest researches towards natural resources and its local people relation (as mutual life’s relationship) in 2003 and 2005. Either East Kutai or North Lampung District has similar portrait situations. At the locations both research found real ‘lack’ situation on local people lives. Local people here is mentioned in broad meaning, Those are covering masyarakat adat (quoted by adat structure and adat law; and prior domestic migrants from another islands). At the research conducted showed in lesser public facility (basic school, health service) and public infrastructure’s (access road out of villages, local market). Different factors was found are about natural resources potency in East Kutai has huge amount and diversity of natural resources but scarce at North Lampung area. This paper also describes concerning lack and mis-policy practiced by local and central government. Shortly, at both location has illustrated marginalisation through local people access to natural resources that ensuing and inherently due to social impacts. Unjustice happened, human rights has been violated and due produce unfortunately social impacts over there by lower capablity on people which is influenced by either less or huge natural resource they own.
{"title":"Natural Resources, Human Rights and Social Impacts (East Kutai District and North Lampung District Cases)","authors":"S. Sujadi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1663564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1663564","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is has been inspired by two latest researches towards natural resources and its local people relation (as mutual life’s relationship) in 2003 and 2005. Either East Kutai or North Lampung District has similar portrait situations. At the locations both research found real ‘lack’ situation on local people lives. Local people here is mentioned in broad meaning, Those are covering masyarakat adat (quoted by adat structure and adat law; and prior domestic migrants from another islands). At the research conducted showed in lesser public facility (basic school, health service) and public infrastructure’s (access road out of villages, local market). Different factors was found are about natural resources potency in East Kutai has huge amount and diversity of natural resources but scarce at North Lampung area. This paper also describes concerning lack and mis-policy practiced by local and central government. Shortly, at both location has illustrated marginalisation through local people access to natural resources that ensuing and inherently due to social impacts. Unjustice happened, human rights has been violated and due produce unfortunately social impacts over there by lower capablity on people which is influenced by either less or huge natural resource they own.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129781308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Property theory has not kept pace with the growth of empirical and historical information on property systems. This paper, prepared for a Lincoln Institute conference on "The Evolution of Property Systems and Rights Related to Land and Natural Resources": (a) introduces conventional theories of property rights in natural resources (based largely on Hardin 1968 and Demsetz 1967); (b) addresses issues in the construction and meaning of property rights and systems; (c) describes the findings of social scientists from decades of field and experimental research about the structure and performance of existing property systems; and (d) calls on property scholars to move beyond "naive" and simplistic theories of property rights in light of the wealth of empirical evidence demonstrating the variety of successful property regimes in use.
{"title":"The Variety of Property Systems and Rights in Natural Resources","authors":"D. Cole, E. Ostrom","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1656418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1656418","url":null,"abstract":"Property theory has not kept pace with the growth of empirical and historical information on property systems. This paper, prepared for a Lincoln Institute conference on \"The Evolution of Property Systems and Rights Related to Land and Natural Resources\": (a) introduces conventional theories of property rights in natural resources (based largely on Hardin 1968 and Demsetz 1967); (b) addresses issues in the construction and meaning of property rights and systems; (c) describes the findings of social scientists from decades of field and experimental research about the structure and performance of existing property systems; and (d) calls on property scholars to move beyond \"naive\" and simplistic theories of property rights in light of the wealth of empirical evidence demonstrating the variety of successful property regimes in use.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116635193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Indian reserved water rights have a strong legal foundation buttressed by powerful moral principles. As explained more fully below, the Supreme Court has found implied reserved rights when construing treaties and other legal instruments recognizing or creating tribal reservations when access to water is necessary to fulfill the purposes behind establishing the reservation. The precise scope and extent of these rights in any treaty are unknown until quantified by a court ruling or an agreement ratified by Congress. When litigation is the quantification tool, tribal claims are generally caught up in massive general-stream adjudications. These adjudications are massive because to obtain jurisdiction over the Indian water rights (and over the United States as trustee to the tribes), states must adjudicate all claims to a given river system; they may not engage in piecemeal litigation of only the Indian and federal claims. The result can be that there are thousands of state water right holders who must be joined as parties to exceedingly complex litigation that takes too long and costs too much. Moreover, even when such adjudications are litigated to a conclusion and tribes win a decreed water right, such a “paper right” may do little to advance tribal needs without the financial ability or the infrastructure to put the water to use. At the same time, the general failure of the United States to assert and protect tribal rights until the 1970s, along with its zealous advancement of competing non-Indian uses, created expectations among non-Indians that their state-law water rights were secure. In fact, many non-Indian rights are far from secure. This article first reviews the Indian water rights issues that the Supreme Court has decided. The article then traces a critical issue common to Indian water rights litigation in the federal and state courts: how to determine the purposes of the reservation for which a reserved water right should be implied. The review of Indian water rights cases demonstrates the generally confusing state of the law in significant respects, especially with regard to the “purposes” determination. The relative uncertainty in this context fits neatly into the portions of Professor Frickey’s scholarship that call for less litigation and more sovereign-to-sovereign negotiation. Finally, the article reviews the approach taken by the parties and Congress in several recent Indian water rights settlements. There have been over two dozen Indian water rights settlements since the 1970s, each usually preceded by years of litigation. Given the Supreme Court’s abandonment of long accepted substantive and interpretive rules of Indian law, many tribes now prefer government-to-government negotiations for settling natural resource disputes in lieu of “all or nothing” litigation.
{"title":"Indian Water Rights, Practical Reasoning and Negotiated Settlements","authors":"R. Anderson","doi":"10.15779/Z38BM5C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BM5C","url":null,"abstract":"Indian reserved water rights have a strong legal foundation buttressed by powerful moral principles. As explained more fully below, the Supreme Court has found implied reserved rights when construing treaties and other legal instruments recognizing or creating tribal reservations when access to water is necessary to fulfill the purposes behind establishing the reservation. The precise scope and extent of these rights in any treaty are unknown until quantified by a court ruling or an agreement ratified by Congress. When litigation is the quantification tool, tribal claims are generally caught up in massive general-stream adjudications. These adjudications are massive because to obtain jurisdiction over the Indian water rights (and over the United States as trustee to the tribes), states must adjudicate all claims to a given river system; they may not engage in piecemeal litigation of only the Indian and federal claims. The result can be that there are thousands of state water right holders who must be joined as parties to exceedingly complex litigation that takes too long and costs too much. Moreover, even when such adjudications are litigated to a conclusion and tribes win a decreed water right, such a “paper right” may do little to advance tribal needs without the financial ability or the infrastructure to put the water to use. At the same time, the general failure of the United States to assert and protect tribal rights until the 1970s, along with its zealous advancement of competing non-Indian uses, created expectations among non-Indians that their state-law water rights were secure. In fact, many non-Indian rights are far from secure. This article first reviews the Indian water rights issues that the Supreme Court has decided. The article then traces a critical issue common to Indian water rights litigation in the federal and state courts: how to determine the purposes of the reservation for which a reserved water right should be implied. The review of Indian water rights cases demonstrates the generally confusing state of the law in significant respects, especially with regard to the “purposes” determination. The relative uncertainty in this context fits neatly into the portions of Professor Frickey’s scholarship that call for less litigation and more sovereign-to-sovereign negotiation. Finally, the article reviews the approach taken by the parties and Congress in several recent Indian water rights settlements. There have been over two dozen Indian water rights settlements since the 1970s, each usually preceded by years of litigation. Given the Supreme Court’s abandonment of long accepted substantive and interpretive rules of Indian law, many tribes now prefer government-to-government negotiations for settling natural resource disputes in lieu of “all or nothing” litigation.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134463510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Severe depletion of many genetically distinct Pacific salmon populations has spawned a contentious debate over causation and the efficacy of proposed solutions. No doubt the precipitating factor was overharvesting of the commons beginning along the Northwest Coast around 1860. Yet, for millenia before that, a relatively dense population of Indian tribes managed salmon stocks that have since been characterized as "superabundant." This study investigates how they avoided a tragedy of the commons, where in recent history, commercial ocean fishers guided by scientifically informed regulators, have repeatedly failed. Unlike commercial fishers, the tribes enjoyed exclusive rights to terminal fisheries enforced through rigorous reciprocity relations. The available evidence is compelling that they actively husbanded their salmon stocks for sustained abundance.
{"title":"Salmon, Science, and Reciprocity on the Northwest Coast","authors":"D. Johnsen","doi":"10.5751/ES-03107-140243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03107-140243","url":null,"abstract":"Severe depletion of many genetically distinct Pacific salmon populations has spawned a contentious debate over causation and the efficacy of proposed solutions. No doubt the precipitating factor was overharvesting of the commons beginning along the Northwest Coast around 1860. Yet, for millenia before that, a relatively dense population of Indian tribes managed salmon stocks that have since been characterized as \"superabundant.\" This study investigates how they avoided a tragedy of the commons, where in recent history, commercial ocean fishers guided by scientifically informed regulators, have repeatedly failed. Unlike commercial fishers, the tribes enjoyed exclusive rights to terminal fisheries enforced through rigorous reciprocity relations. The available evidence is compelling that they actively husbanded their salmon stocks for sustained abundance.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124956476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers make up as much as 40 percent of all U.S. farms. Some Federal conservation programs contain provisions that encourage participation by such “targeted” farmers and the 2008 Farm Act furthered these efforts. This report compares the natural resource characteristics, resource issues, and conservation treatment costs on farms operated by targeted farmers with those of other participants in the largest U.S. working-lands and land retirement conservation programs. Some evidence shows that targeted farmers tend to operate more environmentally sensitive land than other farmers, have different conservation priorities, and receive different levels of payments. Data limitations preclude a definitive analysis of whether efforts to improve participation by targeted farmers hinders or enhances the conservation programs’ ability to deliver environmental benefits cost effectively. But the different conservation priorities among types of farmers suggest that if a significantly larger proportion of targeted farmers participates in these programs, the programs’ economic and environmental outcomes could change.
{"title":"Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers: Beginning Limited-Resource, and Socially Disadvantaged Operators' Enrollment Trends","authors":"C. Nickerson, M. Hand","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1551930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1551930","url":null,"abstract":"Beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers make up as much as 40 percent of all U.S. farms. Some Federal conservation programs contain provisions that encourage participation by such “targeted” farmers and the 2008 Farm Act furthered these efforts. This report compares the natural resource characteristics, resource issues, and conservation treatment costs on farms operated by targeted farmers with those of other participants in the largest U.S. working-lands and land retirement conservation programs. Some evidence shows that targeted farmers tend to operate more environmentally sensitive land than other farmers, have different conservation priorities, and receive different levels of payments. Data limitations preclude a definitive analysis of whether efforts to improve participation by targeted farmers hinders or enhances the conservation programs’ ability to deliver environmental benefits cost effectively. But the different conservation priorities among types of farmers suggest that if a significantly larger proportion of targeted farmers participates in these programs, the programs’ economic and environmental outcomes could change.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121179664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In theory, property rights allow markets to achieve Pareto optimal allocations. But the literature on contracting largely ignores what happens when property rights are imperfectly defined and enforced. Although some models include weak enforcement or poorly defined rights or "anticommons," this paper develops a general model that includes all of these possibilities. I find that combinations matter: Policy prescriptions to remedy individual imperfections are sometimes inappropriate under other conditions. For example, stronger penalties for violating rights can decrease Pareto efficiency, contrary to a common view. Also, collective rights organizations, such as patent pools, sometimes worsen problems of overlapping claims.
{"title":"Imperfect Property Rights","authors":"James Bessen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1489880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1489880","url":null,"abstract":"In theory, property rights allow markets to achieve Pareto optimal allocations. But the literature on contracting largely ignores what happens when property rights are imperfectly defined and enforced. Although some models include weak enforcement or poorly defined rights or \"anticommons,\" this paper develops a general model that includes all of these possibilities. I find that combinations matter: Policy prescriptions to remedy individual imperfections are sometimes inappropriate under other conditions. For example, stronger penalties for violating rights can decrease Pareto efficiency, contrary to a common view. Also, collective rights organizations, such as patent pools, sometimes worsen problems of overlapping claims.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124746797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Indian traditional system of medicine, the knowledge about the drugs is largely centered on plants. At present, about 90% collection of medicinal plants is from the wild source and 70% of the plant collections involve destructive harvesting. Due to this, many useful plant species are becoming endangered or threatened. The government is presently emphasizing on two basic essentials i.e. firstly on conservation, secondly on cultivation so as to increase the production of raw materials without destroying the natural habitat.
{"title":"Government Intervention in Focal Areas of Traditional System of Medicine in India","authors":"K. Joshi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1473653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1473653","url":null,"abstract":"In Indian traditional system of medicine, the knowledge about the drugs is largely centered on plants. At present, about 90% collection of medicinal plants is from the wild source and 70% of the plant collections involve destructive harvesting. Due to this, many useful plant species are becoming endangered or threatened. The government is presently emphasizing on two basic essentials i.e. firstly on conservation, secondly on cultivation so as to increase the production of raw materials without destroying the natural habitat.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125687261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：