English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Determining and evaluating wildlife damage is becoming a necessary procedure in the settlement or adjudication of harm resulting from major oil spills. This is especially so in light of the several present and the many proposed compensation funds which provide for wildlife damage. Once a dollar figure is ascertained, various methods are available in compensating for these damages. In determining damages, two basic problems exist. First is the question of who owns the wildlife or who can assert a claim to ownership of the wildlife. Second, how can the fact and extent of damage to wildlife be assessed. The various theories supporting the right to wildlife damage recovery include: ownership in fee, trusteeship, parens patriae, public interest/private Attorney General, and citizen-guardian ad litem. Ascertaining the fact and extent of damages must be reasonably certain and not speculative. Such certainty can be determined from statistical estimations based on adequate sampling or inventories. Wildlife damage resulting from a major oil spill can amount to many millions of dollars. Arriving at the final figure in most instances necessitates addressing two issues: one, placing a dollar figure on wildlife species having no current market value; two, calculating the damage of the destroyed wildlife in the context of the relevant ecosystem. Methods of evaluating currently non-marketable natural resources and damage to relevant ecosystems include replacement value, psychic value, and consumptive and non-consumptive use values. Means of compensating and settling damage claims can be accomplished by a number of means including the traditional method of direct cash payment. Alternative approaches could include trust funds, specific replacement and restoration programs, maintenance of sanctuaries and reserves, and financing of wildlife refuges and habitats. Compensating for wildlife damage is moving from the strictly unquantifiable approach of civil penalties to an approach which allows for a quantification of damages. This article will discuss many of the issues, as briefly described above, relating to this expanded approach.

RECOVERING FOR MARINE LIFE DAMAGE: LEGAL ASPECTS OF ALLOCATING SOCIAL COSTS AND PROTECTING PUBLIC INTERESTS