¹ Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto (Japan), 11 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.

² 42 USC §§ 7651–7651o.

³ Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Directive 96/61/EC (ETS Directive) [2003] OJ L 275/32.

⁴ Operation of the EU emissions trading programme for GHGs has also been hampered by a drop in the price of allowances. To the extent that this kind of market impact on emissions trading programmes is not the result of manipulation and fraudulent trades, it is beyond the scope of this article.

⁵ Chopra, K. et al. . (eds), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses (Island Press, 2005), available at: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.772.aspx.pdf, vol. 3, at p. vii.Google Scholar

⁶ Goble, D., ‘What Are Slugs Good For? Ecosystem Services and the Conservation of Biodiversity’ (2007) 22(2) Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, pp. 411–40Google Scholar, at 423, quoting Daily, G., Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, 1997),Google Scholar at p. 3. See also Ruhl, J.B., ‘Ecosystem Services and Federal Public Lands: Start-up Policy Questions and Research Needs’ (2010) 20(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, pp. 275–90Google Scholar, at 275–6 (‘Ecosystem services are the economic benefits humans derive from the ecosystem structure and processes that form what might be thought of as natural capital.’).

⁷ Chopra et al., n. 5 above, at p. 3.

⁸ Salzman, J., ‘Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services: Notes from the Field’ (2005) 80(3) New York University Law Review, pp. 870–961, at 877.Google Scholar

⁹ Smith, M. et al. . (eds), Establishing Payments for Watershed Services (IUCN, 2006), at p. 39, available at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-054.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Thompson, B., ‘Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: Reconceiving Environmental Management’ (2008) 17(1) New York University Environmental Law Journal, pp. 460–89, at 475.Google Scholar

¹¹ Salzman, J., ‘What is the Emperor Wearing? The Secret Lives of Ecosystem Services’ (2011) 28(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 591–613, at 602–3.Google Scholar

¹² Giupponi, C. et al. ., ‘A Pilot Study on Payment for Ecological and Environmental Services in Lashai Nature Reserve, China’, in Kumar, P. & Muradian, R. (eds), Payments for Ecosystem Services (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 110–43, at 111.Google Scholar

¹³ Hirsch, D., ‘Trading in Ecosystem Services: Carbon Sinks and the Clean Development Mechanism’ (2007) 22(2) Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, pp. 623–39Google Scholar, at 634. See also Ruhl, J.B., ‘Agriculture and Ecosystem Services: Strategies for State and Local Governments’ (2008) 17(1) New York University Environmental Law Journal, pp. 424–59Google Scholar, at 434–5 (discussing ‘incentive programmes … designed to compensate farmers for enhancing the flow of regulating ecosystem services above [a prescribed] baseline to identified off-farm populations and areas. For example, if riparian buffers and onsite recharge features were not required under the baseline, providing them would entitle a farmer to some compensatory benefit in return.’).

¹⁴ Cooley, D. & Olander, L., ‘Stacking Ecosystem Services Payments: Risks and Solutions’ (2001) 42(2) Environmental Law Reporter, pp. 10150–65, at 10150–1.Google Scholar

¹⁵ 42 USC §§ 7651–7651o.

¹⁶ See, e.g., Womble, P. & Doyle, M., ‘The Geography of Trading Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Wetland and Stream Compensatory Mitigation Markets’ (2012) 36(1) Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 229–96Google Scholar, at 234. By one account, the acid deposition control programme ‘changed the way that policymakers thought about environmental regulation by creating a model within which every measureable unit of environmental improvement had economic value’: Davis, A., ‘Ecosystem Services and the Value of Land’ (2010) 20(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, pp. 339–84, at 347.Google Scholar

¹⁷ 42 USC §§ 7651–7651o.

¹⁸ See, e.g., Ruhl, J.B., ‘Keeping the Endangered Species Act Relevant’ (2009) 19(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, pp. 275–93Google Scholar, at 291–2 (discussing the use of conservation banking to protect endangered species habitat).

¹⁹ Womble & Doyle, n. 16 above, at p. 235.

²⁰ 33 USC § 1344(a).

²¹ 33 CFR §§ 332.1 to 332.8 (US Army Corps of Engineers regulations governing compensatory mitigation for loss of aquatic resources).

²² 33 CFR § 332.3(b)(2).

²³ Womble & Doyle, n. 16 above, at pp. 235–6. See also Ruhl, J.B. & Juge Gregg, R., ‘Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking’ (2001) 20(2) Stanford Environmental Law Journal, pp. 365–92Google Scholar, at 365–6 (‘In wetlands mitigation banking, a “bank” of wetlands habitat is created, restored, or preserved and then made available to developers of wetlands habitat who must “buy” habitat mitigation as a condition of federal government approval for development in wetland areas.’); Wainger, L. et al. ., ‘Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades’ (2001) 20(2) Stanford Environmental Law Journal, pp. 413–78Google Scholar, at 414 (‘Under this banking mechanism, land developers must either purchase credits from specific mitigation banks or pay into “in-lieu fee” trust funds in order to receive permits to alter wetlands.’).

²⁴ Ruhl, J.B., Salzman, J. & Goodman, I., ‘Implementing the New Ecosystem Services Mandate of the Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Program: A Catalyst for Advancing Science and Policy’ (2009) 38(2) Stetson Law Review, pp. 251–72, at 254.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., at p. 255.

²⁶ 33 CFR § 332.2.

²⁷ Walls, M. & Riddle, A., Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Land Use: Comparing Three Federal Policies (Resources for the Future, 2012), at p. 9, available at: http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-12-08.pdfGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ 16 USC § 1538(a)(1)(B).

²⁹ Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon v. Babbitt, 515 US 687 (1995).

³⁰ 16 USC § 1539(a)(1)(B).

³¹ 16 USC § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iii).

³² Ruhl, n. 18 above, at pp. 291–2.

³³ Madsen, B., Carroll, N. & Moore Brands, K. (eds), State of Biodiversity Markets Report: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010), at p. 2, available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Stanton, T. et al. . (eds), State of Watershed Payments: An Emerging Marketplace (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010), available at: http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdfGoogle Scholar; Davis, n. 16 above, at p. 357 (noting that ‘trading programs which enable potentially liable parties [for impaired water bodies] to purchase offsets are in development across the country’).

³⁵ Davis, n. 16 above, at p. 355.

³⁶ EU ETS, n. 3 above.

³⁷ See Ellerman, A.D. & Buchner, B.K., ‘The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Origins, Allocation, and Early Results’ (2007) 1(1) Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, pp. 66–87Google Scholar; Kruger, J., Oates, W.E. & Pizer, W.A., ‘Decentralization in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Lessons for Global Policy’ (2007) 1(1) Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, pp. 112–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Oskam, A., ‘Understanding the Common Agricultural Policy’ (2012) 39(4) European Review of Agricultural Economics, pp. 735–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grant, W., ‘Policy Instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy’ (2010) 33(1) West European Politics, pp. 22–38.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Beckmann, V., Eggers, J. & Mettepenningen, E., ‘Deciding How to Decide on Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Political Economy of Subsidiarity, Decentralisation and Participation in the European Union’ (2009) 52(5) Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, pp. 689–716Google Scholar; Dobbs, T.L. & Pretty, J., ‘Case Study of Agri-Environmental Payments: The United Kingdom’ (2008) 65(4) Ecological Economics, pp. 765–75Google Scholar; J. Poláková et al., ‘Addressing Biodiversity and Habitat Preservation through Measures Applied under the Common Agricultural Policy’, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Sept. 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/biodiversity-protection/full_text_en.pdf.

⁴⁰ European Commission, ‘Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, COM(2011)244, Annex outlining proposals that the European Commission will propose that CAP direct payments will reward delivery of environmental public goods.

⁴¹ Dobbs & Pretty, n. 39 above, at p. 766.

⁴² N. 1 above. See generally Wara, M., ‘Measuring the Clean Development Mechanism’s Performance and Potential’ (2008) 55(6) UCLA Law Review, pp. 1759–803.Google Scholar

⁴³ Hirsch, n. 13 above, at pp. 625–6.

⁴⁴ Davis, n. 16 above, at pp. 353–4.

⁴⁵ See Cooley & Olander, n. 14 above, at p. 10157; Achterman, G. & Mauger, R., ‘The State and Regional Role in Developing Ecosystem Service Markets’ (2010) 20(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Journal, pp. 291–337Google Scholar, at 325 (‘Additionality is the concept that credited ecosystem improvements must “represent an overall increase in, or a [measurable] avoided reduction of, ecosystem services, relative to those services that would have existed without creating the credits”.’).

⁴⁶ Driesen, D. & Ghosh, S., ‘The Functions of Transaction Costs: Rethinking Transaction Cost Minimalization in a World of Friction’ (2005) 47(1) Arizona Law Review, pp. 61–111Google Scholar, at 94 (‘Paper trades allow operators to escape an applicable emission control requirement in exchange for a claimed reduction that reflects no extra actual emission reduction.’).

⁴⁷ Drury, R. et al. ., ‘Pollution Trading and Environmental Injustice: Los Angeles’ Failed Experiment in Air Quality Policy’ (1999) 9(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, pp. 231–89, at 263.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Rodgers, W., ‘The Worst Case and the Worst Example: An Agenda for Any Young Lawyer Who Wants to Save the World from Climate Chaos’ (2009) 17(2) Southeastern Environmental Law Journal pp. 295–335, at 323.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Drury et al., n. 47 above, at p. 259.

⁵⁰ Ibid., at p. 277.

⁵¹ Ibid., at pp. 260–2.

⁵² 42 USC § 7545(o).

⁵³ National Petrochemical & Refiners Association v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 147 (DC Cir. 2010).

⁵⁴ Notice of Violation of Renewable Fuel Standards, 7 Nov. 2011, available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/novs/civil/caa/fuel/astraoil.pdf; 40 CFR § 80.1460(b).

⁵⁵ McArdle, J., ‘Md. Man Found Guilty of Selling Fraudulent Renewable Credits’, E&E News PM, 25 June 2012, available at: http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?p=3072Google Scholar; Peterka, A., ‘As Fake Credits Roil Markets, Companies and Policymakers Scramble for Solutions’, Greenwire, 29 June 2012, available at: http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/06/29/4 .Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See, e.g., Vinmar Overseas, Ltd v. OceanConnect, LLC, 2012 WL 3599486 (S.D. Tex., 20 Aug. 2012).

⁵⁷ Peterka, n. 55 above.

⁵⁸ Siciliano, J., ‘EPA Slated to Offer Regulatory Plan to Address Concerns over RINs Fraud’, InsideEPA Environmental Policy Alert, 25 July 2012, at p. 27, available at: http://insideepa.com/Inside-EPA/Inside-EPA-07/20/2012/epa-slated-to-offer-regulatory-plan-to-address-concerns-over-rins-fraud/menu-id-153.html.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Wara, n. 42 above, at p. 1782.

⁶⁰ E. Rosenthal & A. Lehren, ‘Carbon Credits Gone Awry Raise Output of Harmful Gas’, New York Times, 9 Aug. 2012, at A1, A10, available at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E5DD1638F93AA3575BC0A9649D8B63&ref=andrewwlehren.

⁶¹ Ibid., at A10.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Ibid., at A1.

⁶⁵ Wara, n. 42 above, at p. 1783.

⁶⁶ Siciliano, n. 58 above, at A1.

⁶⁷ Ibid., at A10; Wara, n. 42 above, at p. 1785.

⁶⁸ Siciliano, n. 58 above, at A10. See also Wara, n. 42 above, at p. 1789.

⁶⁹ ‘Point Carbon’, 14 May 2010, quoting from a Hungarian government report, available at: http://www.kvvm.hu/index.php?pid=1&sid=1&hid=2640.

⁷⁰ Frunza, M.-C., Guegan, D. & Lassoudiere, A., ‘Missing Trader Fraud on the Emissions Market’ (2011) 18(2) Journal of Financial Crime, pp. 183–94Google Scholar; Nield, K. & Pereira, R., ‘Fraud on the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Effects, Vulnerabilities and Regulatory Reform’ (2011) 20(6) European Energy and Environmental Law Review, pp. 255–89.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Giupponi et al., n. 12 above, at p. 114.

⁷² See Smith et al., n. 9 above, at p. 75; Achterman & Mauger, n. 45 above, at pp. 317–8. According to one account, the operation of the CDM has been hampered by unclear property rights, among other factors. Chopra et al., n. 5 above, vol. 3, at p. 7. See S. Manea, ‘Defining Emissions Entitlements in the Constitution of the EU Emissions Trading System’ (2012) 1(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 303–23.

⁷³ See Giupponi et al., n. 12 above, at pp. 114–5.

⁷⁴ For analysis of the impact of inadequate financial support for agencies charged with administering environmental, health, and safety regulatory programmes, see Steinzor, R. & Shapiro, S., The People’s Agents and the Battle to Protect the American Public (University of Chicago Press, 2010), at pp. 54–71Google Scholar (describing the consequences of ‘hollow government’).

⁷⁵ Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, 2161 UNTS 447, available at: http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/aarhus-convention.html.

⁷⁶ See, e.g., Davis, n. 16 above, at p. 350 (describing financial assurances in a wetlands banking scheme ‘similar to a bond tied to project success’).

⁷⁷ 33 CFR § 332.3(n)(1).

⁷⁸ 33 CFR § 332.3(n)(2).

⁷⁹ 33 CFR § 333.3(n)(3).

⁸⁰ Salzman, J. & Ruhl, J.B., ‘Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law’ (2000) 53(1) Stanford Law Review, pp. 607–94Google Scholar, at 671–73 (‘Put differently, if wholesale review resembles the government’s oversight of a commodity market, then retail review requiring substantive approval by the government looks more like a barter market. … The challenge lies in devising a program that enables the arbiter to “see” bad trades and provides the institutional authority and incentives to do something about them.’).

⁸¹ Ibid., at p. 673.

⁸² Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 73 Fed. Reg. 19,594 (10 Apr. 2008) (codified at 33 CFR pts. 325 & 332, and 40 CFR pt. 230).

⁸³ 33 CFR § 332.3(c)(2)(iv).

⁸⁴ 33 CFR § 332.3(l)(1).

⁸⁵ 33 CFR § 332.4(c)(2)–(14).

⁸⁶ 33 CFR § 332.5(b).

⁸⁷ Chopra et al., n. 5 above, vol. 3, at p. 3.

⁸⁸ See Salzman & Ruhl, n. 80 above, at p. 668 (‘Unlike children trading baseball cards, when trading involves the environment there are interests beyond those of the traders that must be taken into account.’

⁸⁹ Salzman, J., A Policy Maker’s Guide to Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services (2009), at p. 51Google Scholar, available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2081 (‘Public participation ensures not only that the relevant stakeholders are involved but feel they have meaningfully participated in decisions – that their concerns have been heard. Broad participation provides decisionmakers important information about the needs and concerns of relevant stakeholders and may also inject new, creative ideas into the program design. Moreover, stakeholders are more likely to support decisions in which they feel vested.’).

⁹⁰ N. 75 above. The Convention has been applied through a raft of EU instruments: see Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies [2006] OJ L 264/13; Directive 2003/35/EC Providing for Public Participation in Respect of the Drawing Up of Certain Plans and Programmes Relating to the Environment and Amending with Regard to Public Participation and Access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L 156/17; Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment [1985] OJ L 175/40.

⁹¹ Directive 2003/35/EC, ibid.

⁹² Salzman & Ruhl, n. 80 above, at p. 681 (arguing that the public should be allowed to comment on proposed individual mitigation sites).

⁹³ Ruhl, J.B. & Salzman, J., ‘The Law and Policy Beginnings of Ecosystem Services’ (2007) 22(2) Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, pp. 157–72, at 162.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Peters-Stanley, M. et al. ., ‘Back to the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets’, Ecosystem Marketplace, June 2011, at p. 38, available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2828.pdfGoogle Scholar (‘To inspire consumer confidence in the quality of carbon offsets as financial instruments, a growing number of suppliers and standards are turning to registries for clarity of ownership and transparency.’).

⁹⁵ Stanton et al., n. 34 above, at pp. 53–4.

⁹⁶ Available at: http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com.

⁹⁷ Salzman, J., ‘A Field of Green? The Past and Future of Ecosystem Services’ (2006) 21(2) Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, pp. 133–51, at 148.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Salzman & Ruhl, n. 80 above, at pp. 668–9.

⁹⁹ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005), at p. 99.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ 5 USC § 553(b)–(c).

¹⁰¹ Drury et al., n. 47 above, at pp. 278–9 (noting that in California the public faces numerous difficulties finding out what companies are trading to avoid compliance with pollution control standards).

¹⁰² 33 CFR § 332.4(b)(1).

¹⁰³ 33 CFR § 332.8(e).

¹⁰⁴ McAllister, L., ‘The Enforcement Challenge of Cap-and-Trade Regulation’ (2010) 40(4) Environmental Law, pp. 1195–230, at 1198–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ N. 90 above. See also Directive 2003/4/EC on Public Access to Environmental Information and Repealing Directive 90/313/EEC [2003] OJ L 41/26.

¹⁰⁶ Commission Communication, ‘Towards an Enhanced Market Oversight Framework for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme’ COM(10)796 final, 21 Dec. 2010.

¹⁰⁷ Chopra, n. 5 above, vol. 3, at p. 4.

¹⁰⁸ See Achterman & Mauger, n. 45 above, at p. 329 (‘The public and environmental NGOs should expect trades to include meaningful ecosystem functions, to be subject to objective and meaningful monitoring and transparent data collection about trades, and to reassess their goals continually to assure they are being met.’); Stanton, M., ‘Payments for Freshwater Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Analysis’ (2012) 18(1) Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, pp. 189–290Google Scholar, at 270 (‘Monitoring also enables decisionmakers to adjust and improve the design of the program over time and enforce penalties whenever there is a breach of contract.’).

¹⁰⁹ See Achterman & Mauger, n. 45 above, at p. 331; Driesen & Ghosh, n. 46 above, at pp. 94–6.

¹¹⁰ See Wilkinson, J. & Bendick, R., ‘The Next Generation of Mitigation: Advancing Conservation through Landscape-Level Mitigation Planning’ (2010) 40(1) Environmental Law Reporter, 10023–49, at 10035.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Tietenberg, T., ‘Tradable Permits in Principle and Practice’, in Freedman, J. & Kolstad, C. (eds), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 65–88Google Scholar, at 71–2. See also McAllister, n. 104 above, at pp. 1204, 1210 (noting that the EPA regulations on continuous emissions monitoring under this programme cover several hundred pages).

¹¹² For a discussion of the unanticipated cost of inspections and auditing under a California emissions trading programme for ozone pollution, see McAllister, ibid., at pp. 1214–5.

¹¹³ Cf. McAllister, n. 104 above, at p. 1200 (‘Accurate monitoring is also critical to whether the program's environmental goal – the overall cap imposed on all the regulated sources – is truly attained.’).

¹¹⁴ Wayburn, L. & Chiono, A., ‘The Role of Federal Policy in Establishing Ecosystem Service Markets’ (2010) 20(2) Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, pp. 385–415, at 410.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ 33 CFR § 332.8(p)(1).

¹¹⁶ 33 CFR § 332.8(q)(1).

¹¹⁷ 33 CFR § 332.6.

¹¹⁸ 33 CFR § 332.6(c)(1).

¹¹⁹ 33 CFR § 332.6(c)(2).

¹²⁰ 33 CFR § 332.6(a)(2).

¹²¹ US Government Accountability Office, ‘Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure that Compensatory Mitigation is Occurring’, GAO-05-898 (2005), available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-898.

¹²² Ibid., at pp. 14–6, 27.

¹²³ See Walls & Riddle, n. 27 above, at pp. 9–10.

¹²⁴ See Wilkinson & Bendick, n. 110 above, at p. 10034 (citing US General Accountability Office, ‘Endangered Species Act: The US Fish and Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 7 Consultations’, GAO-09-550 (2009), at p.11).

¹²⁵ N. 3 above.

¹²⁶ Directive 2003/6/EC on Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation (Market Abuse) [2003] OJ L 96/16.

¹²⁷ Directive 2004/39/EC on Markets in Financial Instruments Amending Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC and Repealing Directive 93/22/EEC [2004] OJ L 145/1.

¹²⁸ Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1031/2010 on the Timing, Administration and Other Aspects of Auctioning of Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowances Pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowances Trading Within the Community [2010] OJ L 302/1.

¹²⁹ Directive 2005/60/EC on the Prevention of the Use of the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing [2005] OJ L 309/15.

¹³⁰ See McAllister, n. 104 above, at pp. 1210–1 (‘Without verification, self-reporters will become lax, and likely lean towards underreporting if that is in their self-interest.’).

¹³¹ Achterman & Mauger, n. 45 above, at p. 330.

¹³² Ibid.

¹³³ McAllister, n. 104 above, at p. 1229.

¹³⁴ See Achterman & Mauger, n. 45 above (‘governments should create procedures that allow NGOs and the public to challenge transactions that are fraudulent or detrimental to public interest and to hold legally responsible parties accountable’).

¹³⁵ See Wilkinson & Bendick, n. 110 above, at 10036.

¹³⁶ US General Accountability Office, n. 124 above, at p. 22.

¹³⁷ See Smith et al., n. 9 above, at p. 82; Salzman, n. 89 above, at p. 53.

¹³⁸ See Smith et al., n. 9 above, at p. 75 (‘Provision for citizen participation is important, including the right of citizens and non-governmental organizations to bring lawsuits for the purpose of enforcing the rules and contracts associated with payment schemes.’); Salzman & Ruhl, n. 80 above, at p. 683 (endorsing liberal citizen suit rights to enforce trading performance standards under strict standards of judicial review).

¹³⁹ Pigou, A.C., The Economics of Welfare (Macmillan and Co., 1920).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ See, e.g., Anderson, T.L. & Leal, D.R., Free Market Environmentalism (Palgrave, 2001) (revised edn).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See Lazarus, R.J., The Making of Environmental Law (The University of Chicago Press, 2004), at pp. 183–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴² Spence, D., ‘Regulation, “Republican Moments” and Energy Policy Reform’ (2011) 2011(5) Brigham Young University Law Review, pp. 1561–623, at pp. 1612–3.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Hansen, K. et al. ., ‘A Bold Ocean Agenda: Recommendations for Ocean Governance, Energy Policy, and Health’ (2009) 39(1) Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis, pp 10012–9, at 10017.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ 36 CFR § 219.1(c).

¹⁴⁵ See, e.g., Grêt-Regameya, A. et al. ., ‘Facing Uncertainty in Ecosystem Services-based Resource Management’, Journal of Environmental Management (in press, available online 22 Aug. 2012), available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712003921.Google Scholar