Prioritizing EHS research needs

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

NSCT issued a document for the public to comment. The document listed several research priorities to address Environmental, Health and Security concerns. See more here.

 

, , ,

Responsible NanoCode

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Alliance of UK institutions (Royal Society is one of them) plan to publish a self-regulatory guideline for nano industry. The project is aimed to be launched in 2008. This is from their website:

The Code will be a voluntary code. Like other principles-based codes, it will illustrate expected behaviours and processes, not standards of performance. Indicators of compliance could be developed at a later stage. The Code is not intended, however, to be an auditable standard, it will not detail levels of performance expected of companies, nor will it give guidance on definitions, characterisation and measurement.

It is not intended that this Code supersedes or replaces the development of future legislation and regulation for nanotechnologies; however, given the absence of comprehensive appropriate legislation at present, it aims to provide clear guidance about the expected behaviour of companies in relation to their nanotechnology activities. It is hoped that the Code and the process of its development might assist with the evolution of such legislation by clarifying the principles which may underpin more detailed, verifiable, standards.

I have not find any further details on the expected code. It only says there "...expected behaviour of companies in relation to their nanotechnology activities" so my guess is that it would relate to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health) issues. I don't know if this "code" would extends itself into environmental issue such as labeling and waste management. Nor did I find any information to the extent of "nano"-ness there, does it refer only to "material" science or future nanotechnologies will also be addressed?

Various organizations has issued "best practice" recommendations (click the tags below).

Find out more on Responsible Nanocode here.

 

Introducing a co-blogger

Dear friends, relatives, neighbors, readers...

I'd like to introduce you to a new co-blogger from Jakarta's "legal underworld". He told me that he's going to blog some -- uhm -- sensitive issues on Indonesia's law enforcement. I know that you are longing to know what this person will write. So, without no further waste of time, let me introduce indolawreport's co-blogger,
Mr. C.

 

,

Water war is a class war

Monday, August 20, 2007

That one is column at The Globalist. The author wrote:

For some, water is effectively granted as a right, provided at low cost by the state. For many others — usually those who can least afford it — it is treated as a commodity that must be bought. Access to water is in fact much more closely tied to social class than to climate. In this sense, the conflicts arising from water scarcity are class wars.

He also explained that urbanization will be the main cause for water conflict:

First, there are real engineering challenges: the scale and pace of contemporary urbanization is much greater than in the past. And many slums are growing in places vulnerable to catastrophic change: floodplains or steep hillsides.

Second, because urbanization today is in many places occurring without economic growth, governments in the Global South often lack the resources to undertake such large infrastructure projects and are dependent on global markets for financing. But the global political climate today is much less friendly to large state-driven projects.

I have discussed the link between urbanization and water infrastructure here.

 

, , ,

"Your" water, "their" tribunal. BITs in water privatizations

You don't believe me? There is more than one case, really. I want to get back to that Tanzanian water privatization case, as reported by the Guardian:

Lawyers for Tanzania's government, whose participation in such a tribunal process is among the terms of a bilateral investment treaty signed with Britain in 1994, argue that Biwater failed in its contractual obligations, performing worse than its inefficient state-owned predecessor. If the government was to meet its citizens' need for safe water, it too had no choice, they claim, but to terminate the City Water arrangement just 22 months into what was meant to be a 10-year contract.

Now, you think the government can do anything once such dispute arises?
Despite the secrecy of proceedings - the tribunal is closed to the public, and Biwater sought and was granted a ruling that both parties refrain from speaking publicly to the media during the week-long hearing that finally began in The Hague in April - a host of interested parties will be closely monitoring the outcome in the wake of final arguments submitted as proceedings wrapped up in July.The World Bank, which pressed Tanzania to enter into the contract, now faces the possibility of seeing the country penalised in a tribunal of the bank's own creation.
Voila. "Your" water, "their" tribunal. A state is not that 'sovereign' when dealing with investors.

And check this info too:
According to a new report published by the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, and Food and Water Watch, there are more than 2,500 bilateral investment treaties today, compared to 385 in 1989. And of the 255 investor-state lawsuits filed under these treaties, more than two-thirds have been lodged in the past four years.
There is a way to get around BIT, withdraw! But of course, other investors might pull back too. So this could be a middle way: Can we create a non applicability clause in BITs for water privatisation?


 

,

Will nanotechnology reduces the 'natural monopoly' character in water industry?

The answer is likely to be yes, but if the question is how, maybe the its the engineers that should answer. What is relevant to be discussed is, "what is the legal implication"?

Most water industries are heavily regulated, because it is a natural monopoly (i.e. more seller means higher price, one seller is optimum price). I have red a research indicating that the scale of natural monopolies in the water industry varies. In the developed economy and high-tech countries, the scale of the natural monopoly reduces.

Thus, a reduction in the character of natural monopoly will allow more competitor to enter the market. For example, in water industry, more water supplier might be able to enter the common carriage through an economically feasible schemes. Regulators and network owners should not prevent them from entering these 'essential facilities' because it could amount to a violation of competition law.

This also implies that governments may need to adjust its regulatory mechanism.

But before we discuss this further, I'd like to hear from the engineers. In what way would nanotech makes water purification/treatment cheaper?

 

, , ,

Company Law to be Judicially Reviewed

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Still an unconfirmed news (will be confirmed if they log their case on the Court's registrar). Chairman of Apindo Sofjan Wanandi planned to submit a Judicial Review of the newly enacted Company Law to the Constitutional Court. He argued (link in Bahasa) that the Merger Rules on the new law -- which obligates companies to announce its merger decision prior to general meeting of shareholders-- was unfair.

I still don't know how it can violate the Constitution. Article 33 of the Constitution expressed that the economy is built upon a 'common endeavour' based on familial principles. I suppose, the families here could mean the workers too.