Cumulative environmental impacts are a central problem that contemporary environment-related laws must face, from laws that allocate natural resources such as forests and water, to rights-based approaches to nature and human health. This introduction sketches the basic characteristics of a cumulative environmental problem – accumulating, incremental harms at different scales, caused by many and diverse actors, with the added complexity of interacting and uncertain effects addressed by multiple legal regimes. It explains why addressing cumulative environmental problems requires reaching across disciplines, legal contexts, and jurisdictions. The CIRCle Framework is introduced - a Framework of four integrated functions of formal rules for responding to cumulative environmental problems – conceptualization, information, regulatory intervention, and coordination. The chapter also introduces case studies of laws addressing environmental justice concerns related to groundwater in the Central Valley of California, cumulative harms to the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, and cumulative impacts to grasslands as biocultural landscapes in South Tyrol, Italy.

This chapter provides a bird’s eye view of the landscape of laws that can deliver the CIRCle Framework functions of conceptualization, information, regulatory intervention, and coordination to address cumulative environmental problems. Its scope is broad, covering traditional and customary laws; environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment; natural resources, land use planning, conservation, pollution, and other environment-related laws; and broader areas of public law, including constitutional environmental rights. It also discusses the way international treaties and development bank policies deal with cumulative impacts. The chapter provides a simple compass for navigating this landscape: considering whether the dominant focus of the law is a matter of concern that is threatened by cumulative impacts (e.g., environmental justice, national parks), impacts (e.g., environmental impact assessment, water pollution), or activities (e.g., road construction, mining), or whether it instead indirectly influences a cumulative environmental problem (e.g., laws for intergovernmental coordination).

Readers are presented with achievable reforms of laws and policies discussed in earlier chapters.

What would it mean to say that the public trust doctrine is transnational law? This chapter addresses that question. My main conclusion is that the public trust doctrine is a transnational legal norm but not a transnational legal order. To unpack this claim, I apply concepts from Gregory Shaffer and Terence Halliday’s theory of transnational legal orders (TLOs). My claim is that the public trust doctrine is not a transnational legal order in the way that, say, the rule of law is a transnational legal order. In using the public trust doctrine as a case study of the transnational dimensions of public fiduciary law, this chapter aims to introduce an empirically focused socio-legal approach into conversations about public fiduciary theory. Some scholars have made the conceptual claim that public fiduciary law is transnational in scope. In response, this chapter suggests the need for rigorous analysis of normative settlement (or lack thereof) around public fiduciary norms. To the extent that public fiduciary theory aims to reform transnational law, it must confront the challenges of achieving normative settlement in legal practice. The public trust doctrine’s transnational career is a case study in these challenges.

The first chapter introduces the problem to which the book responds: the ongoing exclusion of indigenous groups in many parts of the world from legal and policy frameworks determining the right to use water on their lands. The chapter presents the problem using academic and policy debates about indigenous water rights and the regulation of water while explaining how the comparative experiences considered in the book provide new perspectives on the reasons why indigenous water rights are needed, and the role law might play to provide for them.