A recent article in the journal Appeal by Jennifer Cox of the University of Calgary discusses the possibility of legislation regimes for the roughly 700 glaciers in Alberta, Canada. She reviews existing laws and considers alternative forms which might protect these valuable, rapidly-shrinking ice bodies.
Cox argues that existing laws in Canada do not protect glaciers, which she describes as sui generis, or unique. She asserts that Alberta should consider drafting legislation devoted to them, and explores how other countries— like Argentina, Kyrgyzstan, and Switzerland— have legally protected their own glaciers.
Cox begins by mentioning the important status of glaciers. Glaciers provide many ecosystem services and also have touristic and economic value for sightseeing, as well as ecological and scientific value. However, climate change is the greatest threat to Alberta’s glaciers. Since glaciers retreat and their water storage capacity diminishes, problems related to the legal rights of water resources will occur. Moreover, melting glaciers could also lead to possible floods,which some researchers think could be a major problem for Alberta.
Considering that glaciers can provide so many functions and but also spur conflict or disaster, Cox recommends that legislation for glaciers should be created in Alberta and that lawmakers should consider both the pitfalls and successes of laws in other countries first.
Cox raises a slew of questions about glaciers and the law:
As glaciers retreat and their incredible water storage is used up, who gets priority to the water? What happens to the riparian rights downstream when the primary source disappears? Who can tourist companies and national parks sue when one of their main attractions disappear? What if precious minerals, such as gold or copper, are discovered underneath Alberta’s glaciers? Who has rights to glaciers? Is there a right to glaciers? Can glaciers be removed and sold? If so, who gets the pro ts?26 What happens to borders, provincial or international, when the glaciers that differentiate them melt? Who will be liable in the case of a GLOF?
In order to answer the questions above, the author tries to articulate the current situation and to give some recommendations for Alberta from a legal perspective.
The Canada Water Act, the Canada National Parks Act, Alberta’s Provincial Parks Act,and Canada’s other federal and provincial climate change laws do not provide useful guidance related to the legal status of glaciers. The provincial and federal parks acts do not give a layer of direct protection for glaciers within their boundaries, and climate change regulations focus mostly on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As for the Canada’s common law, water riparian rights are neither logically stated nor practically protected. Although international law could provide theoretical guidance, its principle is still legally inapplicable to the glaciers of Alberta. Thus, no legal regime on glaciers currently exists in Alberta.
“Alberta should look to create legislation that is aimed directly at glaciers,” Cox concludes. “Proactive legislation would protect this unique economic and environmental resource for Albertans and Canadians for decades to come.”
Meanwhile, wildfires continue to ravage Alberta and might take several months to extinguish. This unusually large set of wildfires reflects the influence of climate change, and points to the urgency of fighting climate change. As Cox shows, legal systems can be a crucial element in such fights.