Latest news with #naturalresources
Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Why Congo and Rwanda Agreed to End Three Decades of War
Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have agreed to bring an end to conflict in eastern Congo, where millions of people have died and multitudes have been displaced over the past three decades. A US-brokered accord signed in Washington on June 27 commits the two central African nations to stop fighting, halt their use of armed proxies and work together to develop the natural resources that lie along their shared border. There is well-founded skepticism over whether the truce will last. Distrust between the two long-standing foes runs deep and it's unclear whether their forces and a multitude of militias will heed instructions to lay down their weapons. More than 100 groups are engaged in ethnic disputes or fights over land, minerals and political representation in eastern Congo.
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Pacific island nations tap indigenous know-how to safeguard ocean health
Pacific island nations are racing to enhance marine conservation , establishing sweeping 'no-take' zones and pledging to sustainably manage vast swathes of their territorial waters despite facing limited resources and geopolitical pressure. Advertisement Among them, Samoa last month unveiled a ban on fishing, mining and other extractive activities over 30 per cent of its ocean territory by 2027. The move will create 36,000 sq km (13,900 square miles) of marine protected areas (MPAs) – more than 12 times the country's land size. 'Like other Pacific island nations, challenges like marine habitat destruction, overfishing, and pollution threaten the health of Samoa's ocean, which endanger the well-being of our people,' Toeolesulusulu Cedric Pose Salesa Schuster, Samoa's natural resources and environment minister, told This Week in Asia. 'Samoa's marine spatial plan addresses these urgent issues and offers solutions to sustain the ocean and what it provides for us now and for future generations.' Such planning has become increasingly common across the Pacific, even as global progress on the so-called '30x30' pledge – to protect 30 per cent of Earth's land and ocean area by 2030 – has slowed. Advertisement
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Space law doesn't protect historical sites, mining operations and bases on the moon – a space lawyer describes a framework that could
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. April 2025 was a busy month for space. Pop icon Katy Perry joined five other civilian women on a quick jaunt to the edge of space, making headlines. Meanwhile, another group of people at the United Nations was contemplating a critical issue for the future of space exploration: the discovery, extraction and utilization of natural resources on the moon. At the end of April, a dedicated Working Group of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space released a draft set of recommended principles for space resource activities. Essentially, these are rules to govern mining on the moon, asteroids and elsewhere in space for elements that are rare here on Earth. As a space lawyer and co-founder of For All Moonkind, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting human heritage in outer space, I know that the moon could be the proving ground for humanity's evolution into a species that lives and thrives on more than one planet. However, this new frontier raises complex legal questions. Outer space – including the moon – from a legal perspective, is a unique domain without direct terrestrial equivalent. It is not, like the high seas, the 'common heritage of humankind,' nor is it an area, like Antarctica, where commercial mining is prohibited. Instead, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – signed by more than 115 nations, including China, Russia and the United States – establishes that the exploration and use of space are the 'province of all humankind.' That means no country may claim territory in outer space, and all have the right to access all areas of the moon and other celestial bodies freely. The fact that, pursuant to Article II of the treaty, a country cannot claim territory in outer space, known as the nonappropriation principle, suggests to some that property ownership in space is forbidden. Can this be true? If your grandchildren move to Mars, will they never own a home? How can a company protect its investment in a lunar mine if it must be freely accessible by all? What happens, as it inevitably will, when two rovers race to a particular area on the lunar surface known to host valuable water ice? Does the winner take all? As it turns out, the Outer Space Treaty does offer some wiggle room. Article IX requires countries to show 'due regard' for the corresponding interests of others. It is a legally vague standard, although the Permanent Court of Arbitration has suggested that due regard means simply paying attention to what's reasonable under the circumstances. The treaty's broad language encourages a race to the moon. The first entity to any spot will have a unilateral opportunity to determine what's legally 'reasonable.' For example, creating an overly large buffer zone around equipment might be justified to mitigate potential damage from lunar dust. On top of that, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty assumes that there will be installations, like bases or mining operations, on the moon. Contrary to the free access principle, the treaty suggests that access to these may be blocked unless the owner grants permission to enter. Both of these paths within the treaty would allow the first person to make it to their desired spot on the moon to keep others out. The U.N. principles in their current form don't address these loopholes. The draft U.N. principles released in April mirror, and are confined by, the language of the Outer Space Treaty. This tension between free access and the need to protect – most easily by forbidding access – remains unresolved. And the clock is ticking. The U.S. Artemis program aims to return humans to the moon by 2028, China has plans for human return by 2030, and in the intervening years, more than 100 robotic missions are planned by countries and private industry alike. For the most part, these missions are all headed to the same sweet spot: the lunar south pole. Here, peaks of eternal light and deep craters containing water ice promise the best mining, science and research opportunities. In this excitement, it's easy to forget that humans already have a deep history of lunar exploration. Scattered on the lunar surface are artifacts displaying humanity's technological progress. After centuries of gazing at our closest celestial neighbor with fascination, in 1959 the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, became the first human-made object to impact another celestial body. Ten years later, two humans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, became the first ever to set foot upon another celestial body. More recently, in 2019, China's Chang'e 4 achieved the first soft landing on the moon's far side. And in 2023, India's Chandrayaan-3 became the first to land successfully near the lunar south pole. These sites memorialize humanity's baby steps off our home planet and easily meet the United Nations definition of terrestrial heritage, as they are so 'exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.' The international community works to protect such sites on Earth, but those protection protocols do not extend to outer space. The more than 115 other sites on the Moon that bear evidence of human activity are frozen in time without degradation from weather, animal or human activity. But this could change. A single errant spacecraft or rover could kick up abrasive lunar dust, erasing bootprints or damaging artifacts. RELATED ARTICLES — Property and sovereignty in space: Countries and companies face potential clashes as they take to the stars — The 1st private moon landing just happened. Is it time for lunar law? — Space pirates already have their sights set on the 'high seas' of Earth orbit. Can we stop them? In 2011, NASA recommended establishing buffer, or safety zones, of up to 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) to protect certain sites with U.S. artifacts. Because it understood that outright exclusion violates the Outer Space Treaty, NASA issued these recommendations as voluntary guidelines. Nevertheless, the safety zone concept, essentially managing access to and activities around specific areas, could be a practical tool for protecting heritage sites. They could act as a starting point to find a balance between protection and access. One hundred and ninety-six nations have agreed, through the 1972 World Heritage Convention, on the importance of recognizing and protecting cultural heritage of universal value found here on Earth. Building on this agreement, the international community could require specific access protocols — such as a permitting process, activity restrictions, shared access rules, monitoring and other controls — for heritage sites on the Moon. If accepted, these protective measures for heritage sites could also work as a template for scientific and operational sites. This would create a consistent framework that avoids the perception of claiming territory. At this time, the draft U.N. principles released in April 2025 do not directly address the opposing concepts of access and protection. Instead, they defer to Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirm that everyone has free access to all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies. As more countries and companies compete to reach the Moon, a clear lunar legal framework can guide them to avoid conflicts and preserve historical sites. The draft U.N. principles show that the international community is ready to explore what this framework could look like. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
National Post
20-06-2025
- Business
- National Post
Major projects bill expected to pass before MPs leave for the summer
OTTAWA — If you blink, you might miss it. Article content Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial major projects bill was set to finish its dash through the House of Commons today — the final day of the sitting before summer — with support from the Conservatives and not-so-quiet grumblings from the other opposition parties. Article content Article content 'Usually, on the last day of sitting before the summer, everyone is smiling, we're in a good mood, we pat ourselves on the backs. But today, I would say that's not really the case,' said Bloc Québécois MP Xavier Barsalou-Duval during a speech on Friday. Article content Article content The final vote on Bill C-5 in the House is set to happen shortly after 5 p.m. before making its way to the Senate for a final adoption expected within a week, on Friday, June 27. Article content Article content The legislation has two parts. The first, which has more support across party lines, aims to eliminate internal trade and labour mobility barriers in Canada. The second part, which would give cabinet sweeping powers to approve natural resource and infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest, has raised considerably more concerns. Article content Indigenous communities, environmental groups, opposition parties and even some Liberal MPs have said they are uncomfortable with the lack of consultation with First Nations, Inuit and Metis people prior to tabling the bill, but also the extent of the powers that would give the government of the day the power to ignore other federal laws for five years. Article content 'Pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham, and we can add an 'e' to that. It's a shame,' said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. Article content C-5 was rushed through committee earlier this week. Despite that, opposition parties managed to pass amendments which include exempting a number of laws — such as the Indian Act and the Conflict of Interest Act — from being ignored when considering major projects and publishing a list of national interest projects with timelines and costs. Article content 'These amendments matter,' said Shannon Stubbs, energy and natural resource critic for the Conservatives when describing the changes in the House. 'They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.' Article content Stubbs said despite those changes, 'major concerns' remain. She cited the need to prevent ministers from removing projects from the national interest list at any time but also add in the bill clear timelines to approve projects to increase certainty for investors. Article content On Friday, opposition parties claimed a small victory. NDP MP Jenny Kwan, with the help of the Bloc's Marilène Gill, argued the Speaker of the House should divide C-5 into two distinct parts so that MPs could vote on the portions on internal trade and major projects separately at third reading. Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia granted their request.
CTV News
20-06-2025
- Business
- CTV News
‘Excess of 100 priority projects': Sask. Premier Scott Moe behind federal bill to remove project hurdles
Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe speaks to the media during a scrum after a televised leaders' debate in Regina, on Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has given his support for federal Bill C-5. 'All projects can move forward in Saskatchewan,' Moe told reporters Wednesday during a meeting with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Lloydminster Alta./Sask. 'The very fact Bill C-5 has been introduced is an admission this hard work does have to happen,' Moe added. Bill C-5, which the Liberals have coined the 'One Canadian Economy' bill, proposes to recognize provincial regulations with the aim of making it easier to improve the mobility of goods and services, as well as labour. It also seeks to speed up the development of major projects deemed to be in the national interest. It's the provisions proposing to grant cabinet new powers, with the intention of centralizing approvals for new natural resource projects that are being heavily criticized as undermining Indigenous rights and environmental protections. There's widespread concern among opponents that if Bill C-5 becomes law, projects could be greenlit without adequate consultation, something prairie premiers have been calling for quite some time. 'If we have to build another pipeline with federal taxpayer dollars, that would be a failure of the process,' Premier Smith said Wednesday. 'The federal government simply cannot put so many barriers in the way that all the private sector proponents are scared out of the realm.' 'And the only way for them to come in is to build at six times the original cost. That shouldn't be the only way things get built in this country,' she added. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith address the media during a joint press conference in Lloydminster on Wednesday, June 18. (Chad Hills/CTV News) Prime Minister Mark Carney has pushed the bill ahead in the House of Commons with the possibility it is passed before the end of the week. 'This legislation is enabling and creates the possibility of these projects,' Carney said Thursday during a press conference. 'It creates the possibility [and] a very clear process, which has at its heart consultation.' Indigenous leaders have been critical of the bill. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told CTV's Power Play its passing may override environmental protections. 'Seven days is not enough time to look at a big bill like this that impacts,' she said. 'First Nations aren't about stalling anything. In fact, they want prosperity, but not at the expense of their inherent rights.' Carney believes the legislation respects Indigenous rights. 'At the heart is, not just respect for, but full and full embrace of free, prior and informed consent,' he said. 'It has to be seen in parallel with very major measures this government is taking to, not just support those partnerships, but also to finance, equity and ownership in these nation building projects. [Including] Indigenous peoples, groups and right holders.' Business experts recognized the concerns of the legislation but welcomed the move in the midst of global uncertainty. 'This is a bit of an authoritarian approach to things,' national leader of economics and policy practice, PwC Canada Michael Dobner told BNN Bloomberg. 'But we are in an economic emergency situation.' Moe says there are dozens of projects waiting in the wings for approval which are facing federal barriers the bill aims to remove. 'We don't have one or two or three projects that are a priority,' he said. 'We have literally in excess of 100 projects that are a priority for [Saskatchewan] to continue to be a wealth creator to a strong growing nation of Canada.' The House of Commons is scheduled to adjourn for the summer Friday, and the Senate is slated to rise by next Friday, June 27. Parliamentary business in both chambers would then be paused until September, barring an emergency recall. - With files from David Prisciak, Luca Coruso-Moro, Rachel Aiello and Joshua Santos
