"A Change of Climate in Cancun:" Adjunct Professor Cecilia Dalupan Reflects on This Month's UN Climate Change Meetings in Mexico

What a difference a year makes. Leading up to the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December of 2009, expectations had been enormously high. The goals were tremendously challenging - international binding agreements on a post-2012 climate framework, including controversial issues such as the fate of the Kyoto Protocol and whether the U.S. and developing countries like China would agree to carbon emission reduction commitments. Those meetings were marked by a number of large protests and covered by intense media scrutiny as the biggest political names arrived and over 30,000 delegates from governments, NGOs, business, and other sectors attempted to complete negotiations in a conference complex built to hold 15,000 people.

The atmosphere at the COP 15 negotiations and some of the language used in meetings there struck me as negative and unproductive, sometimes downright toxic. In the end, negotiations in Copenhagen were not completed as originally designed under the action plan decided by the parties two years before in Indonesia (the Bali Action Plan or BAP), and the limited agreements made were to continue the work and to “note” the voluntary Copenhagen Accord put forward by a number of delegations.

In contrast, expectations for the 16th COP in Cancun talks were manageable, even low, and media attention seemed scant especially by comparison with Copenhagen. This was particularly true for the United States where domestic issues on the legislative agenda dominated the news. It turns out that a sober and reasonable level of media coverage may actually be more productive, as the 24-hour news cycle which thrives on sound bites and hyperbole often can not reflect the sensitivities and complexities of multilateral negotiating processes, much less the difficult and often very technical substance of negotiations.

When I arrived for the second week of COP 16 in Cancun in early December, the differences I immediately noted were obvious but, as it turns out, not superficial – sunny and much more pleasant climate (pun intended) and improved logistical arrangements. Noting the even more obvious heavily armed security forces all over the place as I left the airport, I arrived after what seemed like just a few minutes at Cancunmesse, the first conference center which housed among others, registration, NGOs, media and many party (country/delegation) offices. I recalled, in contrast, the bitter cold and long lines at the massive complex at COP 15 in Copenhagen.

From Cancunmesse, all delegates and accredited representatives had to take shuttle busses to the Moon Palace where negotiating meetings were held. While both venues were situated along the Hotel Zone, they were several kilometers apart. While I heard some complaints about this lay-out, it was probably more manageable for security reasons and it did avoid the over-crowding that often characterized COP 15 and contributed to the already high level of stress there.

The COP 16 organizers apparently took some logistical notes from COP 15 and the results were impressive. I would soon conclude that that this may have been the case not just with respect to logistics, but also to the negotiating process itself. As is typical with most COPs, there were multiple meetings that took place almost every hour of the day dealing with the many different parts of the puzzle that make up the ongoing negotiations towards new global agreements on climate change.

The distinct and increasingly complex parts of the puzzle fall under two main negotiating tracks: the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). These two parallel but inter-connected tracks were decided at COP 13 in Bali. Under these working groups were a multitude of negotiations on many different sections.

I noted a generally positive and at times even upbeat tone of negotiations. Bouncing back from the disappointments at Copenhagen, there also seemed to be a real desire to move forward with clear accomplishments, however modest, to set the stage for other difficult issues that will hopefully be addressed and agreed upon in South Africa in late 2011. The host Mexican delegation, led by their Foreign Secretary and President of COP 16, Patricia Espinosa (picture to the left), constantly emphasized transparency in negotiations and recognized the importance of avoiding even the perception that closed-door meetings were being held with select parties or that alternative texts were being developed outside of the main negotiating sessions.

These negotiations, as with other UN processes, seem to have a language all their own consisting of acronyms, too many and sometimes too long (although it has been difficult to avoid some that I’ve already used here such as COP, AWG-LCA, AWG-KP, BAP etc). I also noted more than ever at these meetings the (over)use of certain catch phrases, for example, “form follows function” (or substance) in the meetings that I followed on the legal form of the outcome of negotiations.

I believe that the two assertions often heard in the different sessions, while used at times to mind-numbing, mantra-like proportions, ultimately and actually ended up characterizing – and saving - the negotiations. These were the terms, “party-driven process” and “let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”

At the end of the day, it appeared to me that the overriding sentiment of more than 190 delegations was that the agreements made in Cancun reflected the consensus of the parties, that parties believed that their work drove the process and the outcome. To my knowledge, there were no controversial closed-door meetings or parallel texts and the consensus seemed to be that the Mexican delegation, in its leadership role, went to great lengths to undertake consultations in a transparent manner. Common ground was reached on a number of issues on which compromises were made, and equally recognized was the need to continue working on unresolved issues such as mitigation commitments. The substantive agreements and outcomes of these meetings are now incorporated in official instruments, also known as the Cancun Package, all of which are posted on the UNFCCC website (unfccc.org).

The final day of negotiations that began on December 10 and ended the following day reflected these substantive agreements, but probably more importantly, the progress made on process. President Espinosa - greeted with a standing ovation at the plenary - announced that consultations had been taking place and new consolidated texts had been developed which reflected on-going negotiations, emphasizing that these were not “Mexican texts” (inevitably calling to mind the “Danish text” that was circulated at Copenhagen).

Parties were given a few hours to study these texts and when the plenary session resumed after 9:00 pm, many parties took the floor in general support of adopting the texts with their positions marked by words such as inclusiveness, trust, transparency, and flexibility. And yes, “let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.” Delegations, including China and the United States, concurred with adoption and were met with applause, sometimes cheers. Bolivia, however, maintained its position against the texts citing, among others, the lack of clear agreement on the Kyoto Protocol and mitigation targets. The general plenary adjourned, followed by the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP plenary sessions which commenced after midnight.

At about 3:00 am, the general plenary reconvened and adopted decisions on both the outcome of the work of both negotiating tracks despite the lone resistance of Bolivia. President Felipe Calderon (picture to the left) of Mexico later addressed the plenary, citing among others the confidence regained in the UN process, and he too was met with a standing ovation.

While the COP decisions in Cancun are not a global treaty, they are legal agreements adopted as official UNFCCC decisions, unlike the Copenhagen Accord. A number of the Accord’s provisions - such as emission reduction pledges and a $100 billion per annum Green Climate Fund for mitigation and adaptation programs in developing countries – are now formal agreements under the UN process.

A key message and outcome from Cancun was renewed confidence in multilateralism, however guarded or tenuous. The decisions adopted there moved the negotiating process forward and parties have reason to be cautiously hopeful that broader international agreement might be possible.

There was a moment during the plenary when a delegate who was seated somewhere up front stood up and turned around to walk to the back of the very large conference room. The camera was focused on the podium, and the delegate walked front and center of the camera’s view, prominent on the three massive screens up front. As the delegate walked and realized this, he quickly raised his hand and waved, causing laughter to break out among the thousands in the hall. That shared humorous moment was a fitting symbol of both our common humanity and capacity for convergence – the most important reminders from Cancun.

Cecilia Dalupan
Adjunct Professor

Editor's note: Cecilia Dalupan has attended meetings of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change in Bonn, the Hague, Buenos Aires, and most recently at Copenhagen and Cancun where she served as one of the civil society advisors to the Philippine Delegation. She is an Associate Director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. She is also a principal of the Sustainable Development Strategies Group together with Luke Danielson, and both are adjunct professors at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law co-teaching the courses on Sustainable Natural Resources Development.

Natural Resources Extraction in Congo: "Treasure Amid Turmoil," According to the Financial Times

The abundance of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo alongside the difficulty of actually operating there are explained in a fascinating recent article in the Financial Times.

In "Treasure Amid Turmoil" (Dec. 16, 2010), the FT reports that "As metal and mineral prices rise, Congo's bountiful deposits are growing in investor allure -- though seizures of western assets point to the difficulties of operating in a failing state." The article highlights the political, social, and development-related challenges associated with doing business in Congo. The role of multinationals in working in the country is explained. One thing is clear -- the road ahead will not be an easy one by any means.

The opportunities and challenges involved in operating in a country such as the Democratic Republic of Congo are more fully explored and analyzed in a pioneering three course series that the University of Denver Sturm College of Law has developed. Taught by resources experts, Luke Danielson, a Gunnison, Colorado, attorney, and Cecilia Dalupan, associate director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, the "Natural Resources Development Series" considers how to operate sustainably in three contexts: (1) internationally; (2) within nation states; and (3) within communities where the work actually takes place. The first course -- dealing with emerging international trends -- will be offered over two long weekends in late February and late March 2011. The blog will be reporting more detail on this first course in the coming weeks. The second and third courses will be offered in one-week sessions in July 2011. Each course counts for three credits.

Balancing the competing interests in natural resources development so as to move towards a sustainable model is no small feat. It will take a new generation of practitioners who have studied and thought about what works and what does not work. DU's new series will help prepare this new generation.

Don C. Smith
Director
Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program

"Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resources Projects" Short-Course to be Held Aug. 9-13; Course Registration Still Open

The Sturm College of Law has pioneered a cutting-edge series of courses that involve sustainable development in natural resources development projects. The next course in the series will be "Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resource Projects."

The "short course" will be held from Aug. 9-13. The daily schedule for the three-credit course calls for class to begin at 8 a.m. and run through 5 p.m. each day with several breaks throughout the day.

For students interested in the intersection of development, international, environmental, natural resources, and sustainability law and policy this will be an excellent opportunity to learn more about this emerging and important field of study. The course will be led by two outstanding practitioners, Luke J. Danielson and Cecilia M. Dalupan. Mr. Danielson is a Gunnison, Colorado, attorney with a great deal of experience in the subject area. Ms. Dalupan, who is a licensed attorney in the Philippines and Colorado, has spent much of her career examining these issues. Together, Mr. Danielson and Ms. Dalupan, who are principals in the Sustainable Development Strategies Group consultancy, combine to form perhaps the world's strongest teaching team on these timely and oftentimes vexing issues.

In the August course, Mr. Danielson and Ms. Dalupan will be joined by Dr. Tony La Vina, who is dean of the Ateneo School of Government in the Philippines. Before taking his current position, Dr. La Vina worked at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C. He is the lead negotiator for the Philippines in climate change negotiations, and in 2009 in Copenhagen he chaired the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation negotiation that he led to near agreement.

The following description from the course syllabus offers more details about the upcoming course:

Through much of human history, we were not overly concerned about whether natural resource development was good for local populations, or whether they liked it. Indeed, in some places and times, mining was done by conquered people forced into slavery. The fundamental issues in the industry were geological (finding minerals, timber or oil; and gas), or in the case of dam development, finding good hydroelectric sites; engineering (learning the physical processes to produce and obtain the resources efficiently) and processing (finding more useful products and more diverse and creative ways to use resources). The social, cultural, and environmental dimensions, and the local economic impact, were in the back seat, and whether local people felt they were receiving benefits was rarely considered an issue.

By contrast, we are now at a point where local opinion is extremely important. Whether local people accept and want natural resource development is not at the bottom, but at the top of the list of critical issues in the natural resource industries. Our growing world population and the demand for a higher standard of living have created an unprecedented demand for materials and energy. The different avenues of communication in this internet age make it more and more possible for local developments, voices, and stories to reach a wider and even global audience, which has profoundly changed the way development occurs. And the move from authoritarian regimes to open societies has put a premium on decisions reached by consensus processes rather than imposed by force.

The spread of democracy, the rapid development of open information regimes, and the internet means that it is increasingly important what local communities want, and how they view natural resource production. There has been a movement from coercion to consent as a basis for making these decisions, which is one of the principal themes of this class.

At the same time, the increasing number of people in the world makes it harder to find places that minerals and energy can be produced in the “wide open spaces,” and are forcing us to produce natural resources as more immediate neighbors to local communities.

The natural resource industries have been hit hard by a new challenge, and one they are just starting to understand how to confront: community expectations. This is probably where we seem to have the farthest to go, and the least idea what to do. This is symbolized by the fact that we have not yet fully developed a shared vocabulary to talk about these critical concerns. We talk about the “social license to operate” or “community development” or “community consent,” and use a lot of other words as well, but we are often not entirely clear what we mean. As lawyers, we are struggling with the legal concepts, structures and systems to regulate these processes and encourage peaceful outcomes.

“Globalization” means many things in different contexts. Among them are these: we have reached the point where the decisions of company executives in a boardroom in someplace like London or Toronto have an enormous impact on the future of a traditional community halfway around the world. In turn, the reactions of people in that traditional community now routinely determine whether projects succeed or fail, whether companies survive, and whether executives are promoted, or lose their jobs. The Managing Director in the company boardroom and the village elder in a rural part of Africa thus determine each others’ fate, even though they almost certainly do not speak the same language, share the same religious world view, have the same understanding of what property rights are, or share many cultural values. That is another theme of this course.

In short, while most of us acknowledge that communities need to have some kind of voice in the decisions that affect them, we do not have a clear idea of how to incorporate the desires of communities into the decision making process. That is yet another principal thread of this class.

Industry has a clear idea of what it wants: the ability to develop projects without obstacles risk and delays, and to be appreciated as a positive contributor to the communities in which it works. But we have very little idea in many cases how to achieve that, or of what the other actors want. This is the great visible challenge of the future, and is one we still in most cases do not know how to approach with confidence of success.

If we are just guessing at what local communities want, and we have no rigorous way of measuring what we are in fact delivering, or whether that corresponds to what communities want, we are simply wandering in the dark. Any progress will be an accident.

Perhaps the light that can lead the way is a set of ideas we call “sustainable development.” Sustainable development is a set of concepts that attempts to harmonize a number of seemingly competing goals. These include providing better conditions of life and more opportunity for people, especially the poor. They also include bringing production and consumption within limits that ecosystems can tolerate in the long run.

As governments, companies, researchers, and others attempt to understand what kinds of actions and policies are needed to move us individually and collectively onto such a track, it has become clear that the drive for better conditions of life requires a much broader vision of what constitutes well-being than traditional numerical economic measures. It is also clear that achieving development on a sustainable path requires us to build more effective structures of governance, within which market competition can create greater abundance without damaging the other values we consider important.

Improving the condition of the poor, creating more opportunities, protecting the productivity of the ecosystems on which we all depend, and establishing more accountable and efficient institutions of governance are goals that seem hard to object to. At the same time, they seem to some to be very abstract and far removed from the daily concerns of business and industry.

But on a strategic level, these are the central issues that are likely to determine the industry’s future: whether it has adequate access to the resource base, access to capital, a steady supply of skilled specialists, a sympathetic ear for its policy concerns: in short whether it is a healthy, profitable industry, or one at the margins of the economy, barely able to meet its cost of capital, unsafe to work in, and adding inexorably to the already considerable environmental legacy of past centuries of mining, smelting, oil production and refining, timbering and dam building.

They are also among the key drivers of legislation, regulation, voluntary standards and a host of policies that lawyers working for any kind of clients in the natural resource sector need to understand. Lawyers, legal scholars, and consultants in allied disciplines such as anthropologists, sociologists, and conflict management specialists, have an important role in the dramatic shift that is occurring in how natural resource development is conducted, regulated and governed.

The new legal challenges need to be understood on a variety of levels:

o The emerging set of international standards and requirements governing foreign direct investment;

o Changing national priorities in mineral legislation and the laws governing extraction and use of mineral products; and

o Meeting community expectations for development.

This class is designed to explore the issues of sustainable development at the third of these levels: the community. And it will proceed on these major themes:

I. INTRODUCTION

II. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER: DIFFERENCES IN CULTURE, VALUES, AND IDEAS

III. SOURCES OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFLICT

IV. INCORPORATING COMMUNITIES IN THE DECISION PROCESS: MANAGING CONFLICT SUCCESSFULLY

V. CONCLUSION

Sturm College of Law students may register for the class the same way they register for any JD class, just keep in mind that this is an interterm course (semester code 201065, CRN 1001). The course is also open to other University of Denver students as well as other professionals who are associated with the natural resources industries. For more information on the course, please contact Don Smith at dcsmith@law.du.edu or Lucy Daberkow at ldaberkow@law.du.edu.

Adjunct Professor of Sustainable Development Law Luke Danielson and Two Sturm College of Law Students Featured in News Story

Gunnison, Colorado, attorney Luke Danielson, an expert on sustainable natural resources development law, was featured recently in a news article in his hometown newspaper, the Gunnison Country Times.

In "Small Operation Strives for Big Impact," Mr. Danielson explained the genesis of the Sustainable Development Strategies Group (SDSG) that works on matters of sustainable development in the natural resources extraction industries (e.g., mining, oil and gas projects).

This summer, Mr. Danielson, who teaches three sustainable development and natural resources-related courses that are part of the "Sustainable Natural Resources Development Series" at the Sturm College of Law, has employed one DU master's of law graduate and one DU law student to work on a model mining development agreement in conjunction with the International Bar Association's Mining Committee. The DU graduate is Charles Afeku, an official in the Ghanaian Mining Ministry, who graduated with an LLM in Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy in May. The DU law student is Kristi Disney, who will graduate next year with her juris doctorate degree as well as her LLM degree.

As Mr. Danielson told the Gunnison Country Times:

"Ultimately, the successful natural resource project of the future is one that meets international expectations, clearly benefits the nation [where the work is taking place], and which is good for the communities around it. That's a tall order given the ways we've done things in the past, but that's where we plan to go."

The next course in the Sustainable Natural Resources Development Series will be held in Denver Aug. 9-13. The one week short-course will involve an intensive assessment of community expectations in the context of natural resources development projects. The course will include a wide range of guest speakers as well as lectures by adjunct professors Mr. Danielson and Cecilia Dalupan, assistant director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. The course is open to all DU law students, law students from other law schools, industry officials, and other graduate level students. For more information, please contact Lucy Daberkow at ldaberkow@law.du.edu

Natural Resources Development and Communities Where it Takes Place: A Story from the Peruvian Amazon

There is a direct relationship between natural resources extraction efforts and the communities in which the extraction takes place. As a world economy hungry for resources expands, there will no doubt be hundreds and even thousands of individual stories about the relationship between extraction efforts and the people who live in close proximity to these efforts.

National Public Radio's Morning Edition recently considered the case of the Peruvian Amazon, a region rich in oil and gas. But the region is also home to communities who worry about the impacts of such extraction efforts. In "Toll of Oil Drilling Felt in Peru's Amazon Basin," (Morning Edition, June 22, 2010), the relationship is put in more context.

To be sure, there are complicated and interdependent issues related to the "when, where, and how" questions of natural resources extraction. In response, the Sturm College of Law has introduced a first-of-its-kind set of courses, "Sustainable Development of Natural Resources Series," led by internationally-recognized experts Luke Danielson and Cecilia Dalupan. The aim of the series is to consider these issues carefully and in a broader context.

The next course in the series, "Sustainable Natural Resources Development: Community Expectations" will take place in Denver Aug. 9-13. The three credit course is intense -- class sessions run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day of the week and students can expect assignments both before and after the conclusion of the class sessions. However, students who took the course in August 2009 (the first time it was offered) were nearly unanimous in their praise for course content and coverage.

Consequently, if this is a subject that is of interest to you, consider registering for the course. The issue of natural resources extraction and how it can be undertaken in a sustainable manner is one of the key issues today's world faces. For more information, contact Don Smith at dcsmith@law.du.edu.

Adjunct Prof. Cecilia Dalupan, an Advisor to the Government of the Philippines, Discusses Copenhagen Climate Change Conference at ADR Session

University of Denver law students, professors and guests recently learned what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009 were really like at a presentation by Cecilia Dalupan. Ms. Dalupan, an attorney licensed both in the Philippines and Colorado, participated in the climate change negotiations as a legal advisor for the Philippine delegation. Ms. Dalupan’s extensive experience in international law, natural resources law, and alternative dispute resolution contributed to her involvement in the negotiations.

Ms. Dalupan described the vast array of negotiating groups and interest groups present at the negotiations. While each party is entitled to one vote, with the exception of the European Union, whose votes correspond to its 27 member countries, the parties develop negotiating strategies as negotiating groups or blocks, such as the Group of 77 and China (G77 and China), a negotiating group of developing countries which has now grown to over 130 member states.

While China and the U.S. produce the largest percentage of global emissions of greenhouse gases, the world’s least developed countries emit only a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. Statistics such as these, coupled with the fact that the least developed countries have little capital to invest in reduction of greenhouse gases and little to no ability to send representatives to meetings in places like Copenhagen, create immense challenges in the negotiating process. Some developed countries, for example, were able to send hundreds of delegates to the convention, including experts on issues ranging from forestry to use of markets to promote mitigation, while other countries had much leaner delegations that were then faced with a severe disadvantage in negotiations that occurred around the clock in simultaneous meetings.

Hundreds of non-state actors, such as United Nations bodies, nonprofit organizations, and intergovernmental organizations, were admitted to the negotiations, but their representatives were often forced to wait outside the conference building as pressure escalated to vote on an agreement; there simply was not enough room for everyone to be in the building.

The negotiations toward a “Copenhagen Accord” focused on emission reduction targets; verifiable mitigation commitments by all major economies; mitigation and adaptation support for developing countries; measurement, reporting, and verification; and a mandate for a final agreement. Negotiations continued through the late evening and early morning hours, including some positive steps forward, but much blaming, finger pointing and name-calling.

Towards the end of the conference, the exhausted negotiators were left debating over choices of words ranging from “noting” to “have agreed,” that could either stall or solidify the agreement. These final debates became so heated, perhaps exacerbated by pressure from the public and the media to finalize a deal, that the ultimate decision resulting from the conference reads simply as “The Conference of the Parties, Takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009,” attached to summaries from various ad hoc working groups. Despite the unusual form of this agreement, over 110 countries have responded since then by submitting particular emission reduction targets and related actions to be completed by 2020, including a U.S. commitment to cut 17% from 2005 emissions levels and to enact legislation.* On the other hand, Ecuador, Kuwait, Nauru, Cook Islands, and Cuba have rejected association with the accord.**

Ms. Dalupan expressed that progress in the negotiations will necessitate improved conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms in a setting where the parties have very different ideas about what conflict resolution means. However, without such mechanisms, the negotiations may end in stalemates and blame games rather than produce the trust and innovative thinking required for the parties to provide long-term solutions. Dalupan also advocated for increased transparency in the various bilateral meetings and side negotiations that occur throughout the process so that all parties may share in the process.

Particularly relevant to the event that brought Ms. Dalupan to DU, “Alternative Dispute Resolution Week,” sponsored by the DU ADR Society, was her observation that very highly skilled negotiators and mediators are required for this negotiating process to succeed. Thus, individuals who wish to affect climate change, as in many areas of international and natural resources law, are advised to develop strong negotiation and mediation skills.

To see Ms. Dalupan's PowerPoint presentation, please click here.

Ms. Dalupan is originally from the Philippines. She now works as an Associate Director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation and a volunteer part time director of Sustainable Development Strategies Group. The week of May 24-28, Ms. Dalupan, attorney Luke Danielson, and University of Dundee Prof. Elizabeth Bastida will be teaching a three-credit, one-week intense course on "National Perspectives Related to Sustainable Natural Resources Development." You can read more about this course, which is part of a four-course series, by clicking here.

--Kristi Disney

J.D./LL.M. Candidate Spring 2011

*Jacob Werksman, "Associating" with the Copenhagen Accords: What does it Mean? World Resources Institute, March 25, 2010.
**Werksman.

Career Panel Spring 2010; Opportunities, Challenges, Trends Presented by Six Environmental and Energy Leaders

Pursuing a graduate degree is in effect building a foundation for the future. But what kind of future? And what does it take to effectively make the transition from student to worker?

The Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Graduate Program sponsored a career panel recently at which these and other similar issues were discussed and analyzed. The panel, organized and brought together by Assistant Director Lucy Daberkow, reflected stories of success and determination related to many of the different aspects that a student must consider when preparing to move into the job market. Taken together the panelists provided insightful guidance about the job market and the future.

The panelists (in alphabetical order) were:

• Adjunct Prof. Cecilia Dalupan, Associate Director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation.
• Tukka Hess, 2009 LLM graduate, counsel in the Project Development and Finance Group at the law firm of Holland & Hart.
• Andy Lubner, 2009 LLM graduate and Contract Specialist for the National Park Service.
• Gene Holland, 2008 MRLS graduate; Senior Project Leader in Deployment and Industry Partnerships at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
• Kate Marks, 2009 MRLS graduate and Managing Director for the National Association of State Energy Officials.
• Adjunct Prof. Bob Noun; Director of Communications and External Affairs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Among the key pieces of advice for those attending the session:

• Look for ways to network with key actors in the field; volunteer to do research projects; take on writing assignments as a means of "proving your worth" to potential employers.
• Be persistent and don't rely on a resume or CV to "open the door" for you.
• Work on improving your writing; being a good writer is a benefit no matter what type of position you are seeking.
• Talk to your friends about the type of work you are looking for; see if they have contacts with whom you should follow up.
• Be committed to constantly learning about your field; learning can take many forms including reading about new developments and trends, attending conferences, meeting speakers.
• Look for publications to contribute to; leaders tend to be interested in who is writing about the newest developments.
• Be willing to look outside of the "normal" places for work; this includes outside of Colorado and outside the U.S.
• Look for contract/temporary work for federal agencies that can lead to permanent employment in the future.
• Accept that in your career you are likely to have many different positions, many of which will be dictated by the trends in your field at a particular time.

Finding a new position or "inventing" a position for yourself are not always easy and things do not always happen when we would like them to. On the other hand, there are things that a student can control such as being as prepared as possible when an opportunity does come along.

Many thanks to each of our panelists who offered much advice and context for finding a job in tomorrow's job market. And thanks again to Lucy Daberkow for bringing together such a talented, energetic, and thoughtful panel.

To watch a video of the career panel, please click here.

--Don Smith

"Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resources Projects" Short Course Concludes

A thought-provoking and cutting-edge short course, "Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resources Projects," came to a close last Friday with these conclusory comments by Luke Danielson: "One of our world's greatest needs is to integrate the idea that those who consume goods and materials need to also be concerned about the conditions under which these things are produced."

Mr. Danielson, a Gunnison attorney, principal in the Sustainable Development Strategies Group (SDSG), and widely-recognized international expert in addressing sustainable development matters in large natural resource development projects (for instance, mines, oil and gas projects, etc.) and his teaching partner Cecilia Dalupan, an attorney licensed in the Philippines and the U.S. and also a principal in SDSG, conducted the five day "short course" for a group of DU law and graduate students.

The course was organized in five components:

• Introduction: what is sustainable development in natural resources projects?
• Understanding each other: differences in culture, values, and ideas
• Sources of misunderstanding and conflict
• Incorporating communities in the decision process: managing conflict successfully
• Conclusion

Mr. Danielson and Ms. Dalupan presented a series of lectures, which provided the context for the major issues explored in the course. They also reflected on their own global experiences in dealing with the issues while encouraging students to reflect on the often vexing issues involved with natural resources development.

Among the course highlights included guest lectures from an outstanding array of leading figures such as:

• Robert Bassett, attorney with Holland & Hart (who also teaches International Mining Law in the DU graduate program)
• James F. Cress, attorney with Holme Roberts & Owen (who has also taught in the graduate program)
• Donald C. Ewigleben, executive officer of sustainability and legal affairs for mining firm AngloGold Ashanti, one of the world's leading gold producers
• Ralph Godell, attorney with Fognani & Faught
• George (Rock) Pring, DU law professor
• Don Proebstel, director of environmental affairs and sustainability for Natural Power Concepts
• Connie Rodgers, attorney with Davis Graham & Stubbs
• Jonathan Stacey, program manager for Rio-Tinto/Birdlife International Partnership
• Susan Waldau, partner with mediation firm CDR Associates

Another highlight involved student presentations that went on during the course of the week. Each student was assigned a topic to research, analyze, and then present to their colleagues. The presentations were provocative and often raised as many questions as they answered. For example, one of the presentations focused on the Chino mine closure in southwest New Mexico. Others dealt with projects that were located in Africa, South America, and elsewhere.

The week was a busy one to be sure. But from what I observed first-hand, the benefits were many both quantitatively and qualitatively.

In closing, Mr. Danielson said, "This has been just great. You as students have worked hard and really put your hearts into it." I could not have said it better.

New Course Involving "Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resource Development Projects" Begins

Today saw the launch of a new short course, "Community Expectations for Sustainable Development in Natural Resource Development Projects," being offered by the graduate program.

The intensive one-week course is aimed at introducing students to the very real issue of how natural resource development projects can be undertaken with the acceptance of the local community in which the work is being done. The course is being taught by two well-known figures in this area, Luke Danielson and Cecilia Dalupan, both attorneys and principals at the Sustainable Development Resources Group.

Mr. Danielson, who was the project director of the seminal report "Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development," published by the International Institute for Environment and Development, began today's session by saying that the "number one issue in the world today in terms of natural resources development is community resistance." In his mind, if a community is against a project the project will not be worth pursuing.

He pointed to the fact that despite what one might think about mining copper, for instance, the developed world relies heavily on copper as an electrical conductor. In the U.S. there are 400 pounds of copper per capita while in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia the amount is less than one pound per capita. And yet, "you see the very real difference that electrification can make to people."

However, with a lack of copper, electrification is not possible. "If we were to get enough copper to people living on $1 a day so they could have a basic minimum amount of electricity, do we have enough copper? The answer is certainly no," he said, thus making the point that the development of additional copper resources is a must if the world is to spread the benefits of electrification to those in poor countries. In summary he said, "It's really hard to argue we don't need more copper."
He also pointed out that the information revolution has altered the relationship between firms doing mining and the communities in which the mining takes place. "If people are unhappy now with a project, we learn about it in real time. So many communities are now 'empowered' through the Internet to explain their side of the story," he said.

In summary, Mr. Danielson noted that the developed world's firms "profoundly affect" the communities in which they operate and that the communities where they operate can profoundly affect these same firms.

As the week evolves, Ms. Dalupan will present on various topics including "Indigenous and Traditional Cultures" and "Indigenous People and Ancestral Land."

The course will also involve a series of "guest lecturers" who will comment on various aspects of the underlying issues.

This course represents another example of how the College of Law curriculum reflects the very real -- and often vexing -- issues that are at the heart of natural resources development. On one hand, as Mr. Danielson so clearly explained, there is a crying need for various types of minerals if living and economic conditions in the developing world are to improve. On the other hand, as he also pointed out, major development projects can disrupt and even cause the disappearance of some communities.

As Mr. Danielson and Ms. Dalupan set out in the syllabus to the course, the stakes could not be higher:

Through much of human history, we were not overly concerned about whether natural resource development was good for local populations, or whether they liked it. Indeed, in some places and times, mining was done by conquered people forced into slavery. The fundamental issues in the industry were geological (finding minerals, timber or oil; and gas), or in the case of dam development, finding good hydroelectric sites; engineering (learning the physical processes to produce and obtain the resources efficiently) and processing (finding more useful products and more diverse and creative ways to use resources). The social, cultural, and environmental dimensions, and the local economic impact, were in the back seat, and whether local people felt they were receiving benefits was rarely considered an issue.

By contrast, we are now at a point where local opinion is extremely important. Whether local people accept and want natural resource development is at the top of the list of issues in the natural resource industries. Our growing world population and the demand for a higher standard of living have created an unprecedented demand for materials and energy. The different avenues of communication in this Internet age make it more and more possible for local developments, voices, and stories to reach a wider and even global audience, which has profoundly changed the way development occurs.

At the same time, the increasing number of people in the world makes it harder to find places that minerals and energy can be produced in the “wide open spaces,” and are forcing us to produce natural resources as more immediate neighbors to local communities.