Podcasts about natural resources group

In the latest episode of our Greener Arbitrations podcast series, Alison Eslick and Vanessa Thieffry moderate a spirited debate between Michelle Nelson (Dubai) and Clément Fouchard (Paris) as they explore the pros and cons of electronic signatures and notification of awards, including discussion on recognition and enforcement, cost savings, technology challenges, convenience, security risks and resistance to change. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, global head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. Welcome to our Greener Arbitrations podcast miniseries where Reed Smith's International Arbitration lawyers will be exploring the legal and technical issues involved in reducing the environmental footprint of arbitrations. I'm Alison Eslick, an International Arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Dubai office and I am Vanessa Thieffry, an International Arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Paris office. In these episodes, we will hear from leading arbitration practitioners and external speakers and discuss insights, news and trends relevant to greening arbitration and the challenges that are entailed. We hope you enjoy this episode. Vanessa: Welcome back to another exciting episode of Reed Smith's Arbitral Insights. I am Vanessa Thieffry and together with Alison Eslick, we are delighted to host the sixth and final episode of our Greener Arbitrations miniseries in which lawyers of Reed Smith debate, how to reduce the environmental footprint of arbitrations. In 2022 Reed Smith launched an initiative to reduce the environmental footprint of our arbitrations. We quickly identified the need to raise awareness both internally and externally and organizing a podcast miniseries on greener arbitrations appeared as an obvious tool to do that. In the five first episodes, we addressed arbitration agreements and whether they should include sustainability measures, the campaign for greener arbitrations model procedural order and whether it was unavoidable. The topic of hard copied submissions in which we wondered if they were a thing of the past witness and expert preparation and whether video conferencing can match in person meetings and in person hearings and whether they are still worthwhile. If you haven't listened to them yet, they are available on Reed Smith's podcast channel, Arbitral Insights. Alison: Thank you, Vanessa. Now, in this episode, we focus on the entire points of going to arbitration and that is of course obtaining an enforceable award. So recently we see more and more institutions notifying awards by email and arbitrators signing awards electronically. Now this may well be greener, but when it comes to something as important as the final award, is green always better? So that is the question that our debaters will tackle today. I do have a short disclaimer as we always do with these debates, our debaters have been assigned the positions that they are advocating and this is so they can fully advocate for or against the proposition. The debate is of course role playing and none of the views expressed during the debates should be attributed to Reed Smith, the debaters themselves or of course any of our clients. So joining us today for this challenging topic, uh Reed Smith partners Michelle Nelson and Clément Fouchard who will present their primary positions and then each will have a chance for rebuttal. Vanessa: Thanks Alison. Let's see what our first speaker has to say. Clément Fouchard is up. Clément is a partner in Reed Smith's Paris office in the Energy and Natural Resources Group, focusing on international commercial and investment arbitration. He has over 16 years experience advising on major litigation and arbitration proceedings in particular in complex disputes in construction, energy and infrastructure, mining defense and distribution sectors. As well as considerable experience with joint ventures, imposed acquisition disputes. In addition to acting as counsel Clément acts as an arbitrator in domestic and international arbitration. Clément, the floor is yours. Clément: Thank you, Vanessa and Alison. I'm very happy to be with you today and to argue in favor of green arbitration, electronic signature and notification of rewards. Is green always better? So yes, green, that is the use of electronic signature and electronic notification of rewards is always better. And I will explain why. First a definition, an electronic award or e-award is an arbitral award that is signed digitally by the arbitral tribunal and emailed to the parties directly or if an institution is involved for transmission to the parties by the institution. First, I will start by saying that the appeal and desirability of electronic awards cannot be denied. In a survey published last year in the Journal of International Arbitration, questions were asked to leading arbitration institutions regarding the use of and practice of electronic awards. The participants overwhelmingly agreed that electronic awards are faster, 95% of the response. Cheaper, 85% and better for the environment, 80%. So let's look at those three criterias. First of all speed, while it is true that in some jurisdictions, it may take time to obtain a detailed signature for the first time. It cannot be denied that an award can be signed by the three arbitrators and sent to the parties by email in a manner of minutes. The same cannot obviously be said for hard copies awards that need to be printed out, circulated among tribunal members for signature and hard copy original notified by courier service. As to cost, now again, there is little doubt that an electronic awards are most certainly cheaper since they can often be prepared at no cost at all given that one, e-signature software are often for free and two, the sending being done by email, there is no additional cost and this is to be compared with courier service costs for all the back and forth required to have the award being signed by all members of the tribunal and then harm to the environment when electronic awards save paper because they do not need to be printed. This is abuse and reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses because they do not require physical transportation. Of course, electronic rewards are not entirely without carbon footprint, either data storage and related energy consumption have a certain, albeit, I submit a very small impact on the environment, however, the data storage needs of a paper award are in practice greater than those of electronic award. As to the COVID-19 crisis, put the world on hold. The legal community, and international arbitration in particular had to adapt and they actually adapt in a new way of working where online meetings and online hearings, it became the norm. So looking at e-signature of arbitral awards, there is clearly a growing trend amongst the major arbitration legal system, the vast majority of arbitration laws and institutional rules require the award to be in writing and to be signed. These requirements have primarily evidentiary functions and they have therefore little to do with the written text in digital or tangible formats. And this is the same situation regarding e-signature awards which will depend upon the electronic signature law, which in most cases would in principle allow the e-signature of arbitral awards. The New York Convention does not prohibit the electronic signature of awards and therefore most reductions should permit the arbitral award to be signed with any signature of awards. The issue of e-signature should be assessed, therefore, as the applicable at the applicable law level in this respect, we note that there is a growing number of jurisdictions allowing the signature of arbitral awards electronically. Looking first at France, Article 1366 of the French civil code provides that an electronic document has the same evidential value as a paper document provided that the person from whom it originates can be duly identified and that it is drawn up and stored in conditions that guarantee its integrity. So as we can see, the focus is made on the originality and the integrity of the electronic documents. Once this requirement is satisfied, French law grants the electronic document the same evidential value than a paper document. The legal framework dealing with the authentication of e-signatories has been based in France on the requirements of the EU regulation which deals with electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. So we have actually a legal framework in place and I could continue with the United States with the Uniform Act of 2000 which requires that an award must be signed or otherwise authenticated by an arbitrator. An arbitrator can therefore sign an award with an electronic signature. In the UK, the draft reform of the English Arbitration act explicitly unfazed that there was no need for an explicit reference to electronic signature and notification of words as these are already authorized and I can continue on and on. As to e-notification, the arbitral award uh is also on the rise. Taking again the example of France Article 1519 paragraph three of the French Code of Civil Procedure states that notification of international arbitral awards shall be made by service,  meaning by bailiff, unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that the parties can agree to another means of notification such as in the context of ICC arbitration, the electronic notification of awards by ICC Secretariat. So in conclusion, I submit that those solutions in e-notification and e-signature of rewards are more and more used and should be the preferred way in the international arbitration practice. Alison: Thank you very much Clément, some excellent points made there. And I do remember printing those thousands of pages back in the day. So let's see what our second speaker Michelle Nelson has to reply. Michelle Nelson is a partner in Reed Smith's Dubai office. She sits in our global Energy and Natural Resources Group. Michelle is a specialist arbitration lawyer with 27 years of experience advising a variety of clients on oil and gas and construction disputes. She is a qualified solicitor advocate. She sits as arbitrator on regional disputes and also has rights of audience before the DIFC courts. And I do have to mention that she is the only female in the Legal 500 Hall of Fame for Construction and has been ranked in the 2024 edition of  Who's Who Legal for the Arbitration category. So Michelle take it away. Michelle: Thank you very much, everyone and I'm delighted to participate in this Greener Arbitration podcast series and particularly on the topic of e-signatures and e-notifications of arbitral awards. I've been tasked today with arguing against the proposition that my colleague Clément put forward and specifically why in the case of e-signatures and e-awards, a greener approach is not always best. So my colleague Clément made some interesting points but there are fundamental reasons why parties should cautiously approach e-signatures and e-notifications of awards, even if they are better for the environment. A point which certainly from my side is itself is debatable, but there's specifically three points against the proposition that I'm going to be considering in some detail. First, the end goal of any claimant in arbitration is to have an enforceable award. And I think Clément agrees with that proposition. Whilst e-signatures and e-notifications of awards may well be a greener option, they will not necessarily be valid and enforceable in every jurisdiction and this requires a cautious case by case approach. If the award is unenforceable, then greener clearly is not better. Secondly, parties and tribunals who accept e-signatures and e-notification of awards open themselves up to a host of potential cybersecurity and data integrity risks. Even the largest law firms and the most prominent barristers chambers have been victims of hacking and data leaks. And as the world becomes increasingly more reliant on digital technology, these risks are expected to increase. This is the downside or perhaps I should say the dark side of opting for e-signatures and e-notification of awards. Thirdly, I have to question whether my opponent's claims that e-awards are demonstrably better for the environment at all. I suggest that in practice, the positive environmental impact of signing an award with an e-signature or notifying an award by email has perhaps been grossly exaggerated by my opponent. Whilst one could argue that every little bit counts, there are several other areas of arbitration and we've, we've, we've heard about those in terms of the printing of bundles and thousands of pages of submissions and issues of virtual hearing e-bundles and the like which certainly I would suggest should be prioritized. So taking down each one of these points. Firstly, the issue of enforcement now arbitration, in contrast to other ADR mechanisms has the advantage of a binding decision at the end, making it a viable and well established alternative to traditional litigation. Any doubts about enforceability of an award puts at risk, the whole purpose of the arbitration itself. The use of e-awards and e-signatures is particularly risky in the context of international arbitration. Each jurisdiction has its own different requirements as to the validity of enforceability of awards ranging from the need for a wet ink signature to an originality requirement where it will be expected that a hard copy original award will be provided. Awards with e-signatures, or that have notified by email only, will not suffice and are likely to lead to increased costs and prolonged legal battles around enforcement. Now, my opponent Clément gave a shopping list of examples of countries which theoretically allow for e-awards. Yet the countries mentioned only included Western European countries and the U.S. So I do have to ask, what about the rest of the world? e-Awards may not be enforceable in a number of countries. So care must be taken. Whilst I accept my friend's argument that national courts of some countries are moving towards acceptance of digital methods, we simply aren't there yet. The suggestion that scholars may argue that e-awards cannot be challenged will not give clients much comfort when a court says no. Here in the UAE for example, there are currently a number of cases in the courts and have been sent to the courts where nullification proceedings have been put on hold. Whilst the tribunals have actually been told to go away and reissue awards and sign them in wet ink, which not only of course, is increased time, it causes increased cost as well. And the risk the award will not be enforceable in any event. I should note that the Chartered Institution of Arbitrators has also given some reluctance in its guidance and said that even though digital technology is rapidly becoming a widely accepted business and legal tool, it's advisable to keep key procedural documents in both soft and hard copies containing signatures of participants where necessary. So again, this is suggesting a cautious approach. So the bottom line, I would say any party considering use of an e-award or e-signature perhaps should obtain an opinion from local council first to make sure that there is not a risk in that individual jurisdiction. Clearly greener is not better if the award is unenforceable. Secondly, although data security risks are inherent in any form of electronic communications, the stakes are higher when it comes to e-awards due to their commercially sensitive and confidential nature. Confidentiality is one of the many factors that makes arbitration more attractive than litigation. Yet, a cybersecurity threat puts this at risk. Big businesses may well have excellent firewalls but many arbitration parties are smaller businesses without top class IT support. When it comes to a final award there are good reasons why it's worth having a hard copy in your office safe. And doubts could also be raised as to the authenticity of e-signatures used and the award itself. For example, courts may question whether the integrity of the e-award has been preserved and whether or not the award was safeguarded against later modification. One can imagine an enforcement scenario where a fraud has been committed and local courts do not have the means to authenticate thee-award, even if the local law ordinarily permits its enforcement. Now, I accept my friends point that some jurisdictions including the EU and specific EU countries like France have taken regulatory steps towards developing a framework to protect against forgery and other mischief involving e-signatures. But again, this does not include the majority of the world's countries. And in fact, underscores the very real risks that e-signatures present. And statistically, I think it's right to say that much of the world's users of arbitration is not necessarily in the EU. As for e-notifications, email does not provide the same level of certainty as a courier delivered and signed for paper award, a standard email will not inform the sender as to whether or not the recipient had received it, the email might be shown as sent however, there's no certainty as to whether it has in fact been delivered and given the sheer volume of email traffic, one could even imagine a scenario where a party misses that all important email. And if the award needs to be annulled time will be ticking to file those proceedings with irreversible consequences if a time bar is missed. So lastly, even if one were to disregard all of the things that I've said so far, we need to consider whether or not e-awards make a significant difference for sustainability. My friend was keen to point out the benefits of online hearings, general correspondence and so forth. But this debate is focused on e-signatures and e-awards. Now I accept that it is not ideal to fly several copies, an arbitration award around the world to be signed by three arbitrators and then delivered to the parties. Yet in the grand scheme of an arbitration carbon footprint, it is a relatively small package being carried on a large airplane that was making the trip anyway. While arbitrations do have a significant carbon footprint, studies show that energy use powering law firm offices and air travel for in-person hearings are the top two biggest causes of CO2 emissions in arbitrations. Apparently 92.7% of carbon emissions for hearings come from flights alone that if we really want to make arbitrations greener, our priority should be on those areas instead. So in closing, it comes down to a cost benefit exercise. Parties should ask themselves whether the benefit of a small reduction in paper waste and CO2 emissions is worth the risk of an unenforceable award. Indeed, a recent Queen Mary International Arbitration survey confirmed that participants are generally not overly enthusiastic about receiving an e-award. Only 14% stated that they wanted awards to be signed electronically. It seems that people have spoken and would agree with me that when it comes to e-awards, greener is not always better. Thank you. Vanessa: Thank you, Michelle. There are some very compelling arguments here. Both sides have made extremely strong arguments but how do we tell them apart? Well, it's time for rebuttal starting with Clément. Clément, what do you have to answer to Michelle? Clément: In response to Michelle's very interesting points I will limit myself to the following three remarks. First, as to enforcement of awards. As I said earlier, the question of enforcement must be resolved by looking at the applicable law and national solutions may vary from one region to another. That said, I also note that one, the New York Convention is silent on the delivery of the awards to the parties and two, although the risk regarding enforcement of e-awards has been expressed in relation to the formal requirements of an award, question of due process or international public policy, the reality is that e-awards cannot in fact be seriously challenged on those grounds. As mentioned earlier, formal requirements have in reality very little to do with the format digital or tangible of the substantive text of the award. As to due process requirements, a party must be given proper notice of an arbitral proceedings. And nowadays, emails are an accepted mode of giving notice while there are issues such as being unable to prove when a party receives an email. Email software has made it simpler for a sender to be notified if the receiver of the email opens a particular email by creating provisions of read receipts. And for instance, in another instance, the High Court in India has held that a notice sent on WhatsAppp was actually good service. And finally, the rendering of e-awards does not breach international public policy as we actually failed to see what would be the valid ground in this respect. Two on cyber security and online arbitration, I've listened to the legitimate concerns raised by my learned colleague. While these concerns should not be ignored, I submit the risk is that link, again I would say, to the form of the original award electronic or paper because in either case, the arbitrators can be hacked and the award tampered with. The reality is that both wet ink and e-signatures can be forged. And the difference lies in reality in the way in which the fraud is proven or discovered for a paper signature with the help of an expert, a graphologist expert, and for the electronic signature with the help of an IT specialist. The real issue is how to ensure that the signature on the award is not forged. As to online signatures are used additional requirements may be imposed. In application of the EU regulation mentioned earlier, French law, for instance, has created four different levels of security in which signatures can be categorized. The two highest levels are recommended to companies for their contracts and agreements where e-signatures are certified as having the same value of a paper hand signature. And there are numerous specialized IT platforms, and I will mention for instance, DocuSign, which has been certified by the French government to ensure the integrity of e-signatures. Last points, e-signatures and notification of awards in arbitration constitute a means to tackle the climate change problem. As it allows to reduce, reducing the impact of arbitration on the environment. They have a direct effect on paper consumption. And two, they have also an impact in reducing the need for air travel. As we know every step count and as international arbitration is taking the green transition turn e-signature and e-notification of rewards must be adopted on a wider scope. Thank you very much. Alison: Ok. Our time is up for this episode and we would like to thank warmly Michelle and Clément for their time and precious insights on this topic. Vanessa: This was our last episode for this miniseries on how to reduce the environmental impact of arbitration. But we will revert soon with a new topic. Until then, thank you for listening to our Arbitral Insights Greener Arbitrations podcast series. We hope you enjoyed it. Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producer is Ali McCardell. For more information about Reed Smith's Global International Arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first of its kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on Spotify, Apple, Google Play, Stitcher, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship,  nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. All rights reserved. Transcript is auto-generated.

James Willn, Ana Ulseth, Chris Edwards and Mathilde Adant debate the environmental impact of in-person vs. remote hearings. Hosts Alison Eslick and Vanessa Thieffry moderate the session in which debaters discuss technological issues, security challenges and the financial and psychological impacts of remote hearings.  ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, global head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. Welcome to our Greener Arbitrations podcast miniseries platform where Reed Smith's international arbitration lawyers will be exploring the legal and technical issues involved in reducing the environmental footprint of arbitrations. I am Alison Eslick, an international arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Dubai office. And I am Vanessa Thieffry, an international arbitration lawyer at Reed Smith's Paris office. In these episodes, we will hear from leading arbitration practitioners and external speakers and discuss insights, news and trends relevant to greening arbitration and the challenges that are entailed. We hope you enjoy this episode. Alison: Welcome back to another episode of Reed Smith's Arbitral Insights. I'm Alison Eslick and together with my colleague, Vanessa Thieffry. We are delighted to host the fifth episode of our Greener Arbitrations mini series where lawyers of Reed Smith debate how to reduce the environmental footprint of arbitrations. In 2022, Reed Smith launched an initiative to reduce the environmental footprint of our arbitrations. And we quickly identified the need to raise awareness both internally and externally and organizing a podcast mini series like this on Greener arbitrations appeared a really obvious tool to do that. In the first four episodes, we address these topics: arbitration agreements and whether they should include sustainability measures, the campaign for Greener Arbitration's Model Green Procedural Order and whether it was unavoidable, the topic of hard copy submissions and whether they were a thing of the past, and witness and expert preparation and whether video conferencing can really truly match in person meetings. So if you haven't listened to the podcast yet, please do tune in. They're all available on Reed Smith's podcast channel, Arbitral Insights. Vanessa: Thank you, Alison. So in this episode, we focus on the hard part hearings and more particularly whether in person hearings are worth their while. As compared to virtual hearings with the COVID-19 pandemic, we kept on arbitrating and the arbitration community got into the habit of virtual hearings. Although at first voices of concern and caution were raised in the aftermath of the pandemic. Virtual hearings remained and in-person hearings often have a drastic environmental impact. A case study recently revealed that for a given arbitration, the in-person hearing gave rise to 19 times the carbon footprint of a virtual hearing. Mostly because of the flights of the arbitrators, experts, counsel and witnesses, et cetera, all these people involved with the hearing to get to the hearing venue. So a few, few years back, let's take stock. Are in-person hearings still worth their while? Short disclaimer, please note that for the purposes of these podcasts, our debaters have been assigned the positions that they are advocating. This is because we felt that topics would be better explored if one team fully advocated their position for or against the proposition. The debaters are thus role playing and none of the views expressed during the debates should be attributed to any of the individuals participating in the debates or Reed Smith or any of its clients. Alison: With that said Vanessa, let's start. The first speaker of each team will make their arguments for and against the proposition and a second speaker will make a rebuttal. So the first speaker up is Ana Ulseth. Ana is an associate in Reed Smith's global Commercial Disputes Group in our Miami office. Her practice focuses on international dispute resolution across a myriad of sectors including complex litigation in state and federal courts as well as international commercial and investment arbitrations. Now, Ana is also an eager Reed Smith Greener Arbitrations ambassador. So, Ana, the floor is yours. Why are in person hearings worth their while? Ana: Hello, everyone. And thank you Alison and Vanessa for the kind invitation to join you. I'm thrilled to be here discussing this pivotal topic. In-person arbitration hearings are worth their while. And when I say this, I rely on two main points. First, it is easier to safeguard due process concerns in in-person hearings. As we know, a hearing is one of the most pivotal important junctures in an arbitral proceeding. Generally, a hearing encompasses the exchange of arguments and evidence. The ability to be heard and mount your case or defense is a cornerstone of due process and the requirements of procedural equality and fairness permeates all faces of an arbitration. Article five of the New York convention sets forth limited grounds on which recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused. One of those grounds includes when a party is otherwise unable to present their case as a ground for refusal. Being able to present arguments and evidence in person significantly aids in the conduct of a proceeding that is compliant with due process principles and that helps to secure the sanctity of an award. Everyone from council to the tribunal has more control over the proceeding during in-person hearings. Things like cross examinations and breaks along with any last minute issues that may arise are easier to address when you have everyone in one room. Now, due process or equality may be infringed upon by technological issues experienced by parties during a virtual hearing. For example, if one party is affected by technological issues but not the other this may infringe equality in an ongoing proceeding. Additionally, although the tribunal has the discretion depending on the arbitration agreement and applicable rules or treaties to assist the parties with the determination of whether hearings will be in-person or virtual. This raises potentially challenging questions regarding how the tribunal can make the right call when the parties are in disagreement. Some questions that might arise here are, how will the tribunal ensure that the decision making process is fair to both parties in determining whether to require in person or virtual hearings? What test can be applied and how will the burden of proof be taken into consideration to ensure the ruling is fair and equitable? At the end of the day as council, we have a responsibility to provide zealous advocacy and act in the best interests of our clients. Certainly, this includes preserving the sanctity of an award and indeed, this is more easily achieved in-person. As to my second point which is closely related to the first, in-person hearings provide counsel with more control over the entire proceeding. Various surveys have shown that parties have trepidations about virtual hearings. These trepidations include beliefs that it is harder to concentrate during a virtual hearing than it is during an in person hearing, that virtual hearings may be less secure or confidential. But the impact of any witnesses cross-examination might be diminished by virtual hearings. And that if virtual hearings are to be widely used changes will be required to the civil procedure and arbitration laws of certain jurisdictions. Additionally, virtual cross examination may also not be helpful if there are audio or video distortions, freezing of images or time lapse. Certainly behaviors observed virtually can more easily be over-interpreted or simply erroneously interpreted. Moreover, as advocates, our opening and closing statements are physically and intellectually demanding performance tests. There is a tangible advantage to subjecting opposing counsel and witnesses to these demanding experiences in person. There is no question that virtual hearings are more comfortable for everyone but comfort is not our guiding principle. And while virtual hearings are certainly greener and better for the environment, we should only opt for them if and when it is in the best interests of the client and their case or defense. Lastly, on this point, nonverbal communication is very challenging to understand in virtual hearings. Our job as advocates is to facilitate the tribunal's decision making process. A variety of studies has shown that a range between 55% to 93% corresponds with non-verbal communication. And this is facilitated in in-person hearings in the same room as the tribunal, the witnesses, the parties and the experts. In essence, to sum up my argument, the potential for connectivity issues, frequency of breaks and unexpected interruptions are higher with virtual hearings and have the potential to affect the due process of a proceeding. Vanessa: That is a very strong argument. But let's see what our second debater, Mathilde has to reply. Mathilde is an associate in our Paris office and her practice focuses on international commercial arbitration, especially in the construction and energy sectors. She is a part of our Energy and Natural Resources Group. Matilde will now advocate the position that in-person hearings are not worth their while. Mathilde: While Ana has made a compelling case for the enduring merits of in-person hearings, I will present the reasons why their benefits do not outweigh the virtues of virtual hearings. My starting point is maybe the most obvious downside of in-person hearings which is their environmental impact. International arbitration generally involves parties from different countries or continents. And in this context, virtual hearings minimize travel for all participants including arbitrators, parties, council experts witnesses and court reporters. They also eliminate the need for extra physical infrastructure such as venues and offices which typically contribute to a significant carbon footprint. Second, contrary to what we can sometimes hear making an environmentally conscious choice in favor of virtual hearings does not have to go against efficiency, due process or the client's best interests. Nowadays, technological advancements have made virtual hearings effective and secure. We now have access to high quality video conferencing, secured through robust encryption mechanisms and cybersecurity measures as well as advanced tools for evidence presentation. These technological advancements are perfectly able to ensure the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process. Any concerns regarding technological glitches and data security can be mitigated through continuous improvement and investment in robust technology infrastructure. Furthermore, technology has evolved to bridge the gap in conveying nonverbal communication through, for example, uh video conferencing, screen sharing and advanced virtual collaboration tools. Virtual appearance can also be less intimidating for witnesses which may look for a more open and honest communication. A third point in favor of virtual hearings, which may be more convincing to clients in particular is the fact that they allow parties to save time and costs. As we know, traditional in-person arbitration hearings can be very expensive. They add to the already significant legal costs, costs of travel, accommodation, meals, as well as the costs of renting the hearing venue. All these costs are significantly reduced in a virtual hearing. Virtual hearings can also save a considerable amount of time. They eliminate the travel time for all participants and substantially reduce the time spent on logistics and administrative matters such as securing venues, making travel arrangements and so on. Beyond this, the flexibility and convenience of virtual hearings means that they can be scheduled more easily and that they can be conducted more efficiently. For example, because they allow for the use of time saving tools such as simultaneous interpretation, shared screens or chat features. This reduction in time spent by arbitrators consulting experts also reduces costs for clients. And this decrease in costs also means that individuals or entities with financial constraints can participate without incurring travel and accommodation costs. This makes arbitration which is often considered expensive, more accessible as a dispute resolution method. So as demonstrated by these numerous benefits, the incorporation of technology into legal proceedings makes virtual hearings not only a formidable contender but the ultimate victor over in-person hearings. Alison: Thank you very much, Mathilde. Wow. I mean, I find myself conflicted and agreeing with both Ana and Mathilde at the same time. So let's test these arguments further. We now move on to rebuttal. Uh and Chris Edwards will take the floor. Now, Chris is a council in our Dubai office and a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Group. He has over a decade of experience advising clients on the complete life cycle of construction projects and disputes across the Middle East, Africa and Asia. So Chris, I believe you will advocate for the affirmative. Chris: Hi everyone and thank you to Vanessa and Alison for inviting me to join this podcast today. I want to start by addressing the presumed environmental impact of virtual hearings. And I think there are a number of assumptions that are made about the green credentials of virtual hearings and also in person ones for starters virtual hearings may still require travel, virtual hearings are rarely ever conducted from each person's home. Participants will often congregate across hubs. For example, arbitrators may sit together or the parties and their respective lawyers in their respective officers and equally travel for in-person hearings can be limited, for example, by appointing arbitrators, lawyers experts, all of those can be appointed on the ground in the location of the hearing. It's also an assumption to suggest that travel is necessarily polluting. You could take a Tesla, you could offset your carbon footprint of airplane travel or you could even walk and you may laugh at the latter. But I did walk to a hearing recently. It's also a misnomer to say that you're necessarily eliminating the need for physical infrastructure. As I mentioned, previously, participants still gather physically and ultimately, in terms of the venue, the venue can deploy green practices. It's really a question of what those are in the specific location where you're sitting. For example, a venue in office, if those are chosen, could use a green protocol or green practices such as electronic bundles technology platforms to display evidence and the use of laptops instead of paper pats and no bottles. So it's not necessarily correct to suggest that eliminating the need for a physical office or venue would in itself be green or not green. The next point in terms of environmental impact is the use of electronic bundles. It's often suggested that virtual hearings go hand in hand with electronic bundles. I don't think that's always the case. I've known arbitrators to request hard copies for virtual hearings and equally hard copies are often exchanged leading up to virtual hearings as well. I've also seen in-person hearings use the electronic bundles, in fact, if I think back to the last in-person hearing that I sat in with hard copy bundles it was almost 10 years ago. So technology has really changed in terms of in person hearings as well. In terms of some of the other points not relating to the environmental impact of in-person and virtual hearings I think there's an assumption that these technological advances in terms of virtual hearings are necessarily entirely effective and secure. Whilst there have been improvements, a virtual hearing cannot compete with an in-person hearing in terms of security. Participants still and also just generally, in terms of effectiveness, participants still struggle to navigate breakout rooms and find that pesky mute button and they will never be more secure than sitting together in a single room. On bridging the gap of nonverbal communication, nothing can beat sitting face to face as we found earlier when we were trying to put this podcast together, took us 10 or 15 minutes to start. Finally on time and cost whilst hiring a venue may be more expensive. Again, this is not necessarily given and in any event, it's not generally significant compared to the overall cost that a party might spend on arbitration as a whole. In respect of time, I'd suggest that focusing everyone in one place can be much more efficient than virtual hearings, which often end up being scheduled across weeks or even months. So I think in terms of which is favorable, I think the general practice of in-person hearings is really returned to the scene and that in itself shows that that's the preference of practitioners at this stage. Whilst virtual hearings have their place in terms of, for example, things like CMCs, full blown hearings are still best in person. Vanessa: Thank you, Chris. There were some strong points in there, fun points and real arguments to each side. We still have one last speaker who may actually help to the scale. James Willn. James will rebut Ana's arguments that in-person hearings are worthwhile. James is a partner in our Dubai office and a member of our Energy and Natural Resources Group. He is an arbitration lawyer with more than 14 years experience and his practice centers on complex disputes and international arbitrations largely within the construction, the offshore oil and gas and other energy industries. In addition, James is recognized for his asset tracing and recovery litigation work as well as his work on contentious and non-contentious sanctions issues. So James, what is your answer to Ana? James: Yeah, thanks. Thanks for that, Vanessa. No, that is really useful and um completely valid points and yes, having been through several hearings, uh interlocutory hearings CMCCs hearings during the COVID period. I can definitely say that they work um in that sense, there is some efficiencies there, time costs and savings. But I um I think where I come from is that real efficiency element of, of, of the of the virtual sense of things. So I, I see this quite a lot. Uh typically from barristers, I have to say who say, well, you know, virtual is fine um up to a point. But you know, you can't beat a good in-person, the whole witnesses the see the, the whites of their eyes and all that kind of stuff. And I, and I sometimes think that that's more about the drama than actually the rub of the dispute or, or getting to the actual evidence. Look, I love a good, full blown bluster hearing myself. You know, it's like a like a day trip to the theater, isn't it? The drama, the excitement, the tension, good witnesses, bad witnesses. Um It's, it's all good fun, but whilst we might be enjoying it as the lawyers and I know certainly some of the clients enjoyed it as well. Ultimately, there's a cost there and with these more, bigger uh more global, more, more complicated arbitrations where, you know, the legal team is four or five individuals. Um The witness team could be six or eight, your expert team, two or three. And then even the client side could be three or four individuals um often from, you know, all around the globe. Um It's very rare that in an international arbitration, all parties are, are located in one jurisdiction. Uh notwithstanding that the seat of the arbitration might be somewhere completely different anyway, So in reality, you're talking travel, you're talking hotels, lack of management, time, uh key individuals away from their, from their day jobs. That that's a, that's a huge cost. So for me, COVID taught me and, and I was as surprised as many that the the virtual hearings really do work. I did a huge multiparty, multidisciplinary, multi jurisdiction uh construction arbitration in the middle of, of COVID uh different languages, some Koreans in there, some Libyans, some Arabic speakers with the whole blown technology and it worked. And I think I was as surprised as many. So where I've seen complicated, difficult, complex time consuming arbitrations work in a virtual context, for me, notwithstanding the drama, the theater and the excitement, the reality is they are just as effective as the, as the in-person and obviously cost a whole lot less. Alison: Thank you, James. Look, our time is up for this episode and we would like to warmly thank Ana, Mathilde, Chris and James for participating in this podcast. Stay tuned for episode six where we tackle perhaps the most important part of arbitration, uh besides the hearing, and that is the award. Our debaters will uh go head to head on the topic, Electronic signature and notification of awards: Is green always better? Until then thank you for listening to our Arbitral Insights, Greener Arbitrations podcast series. We hope you enjoyed it. Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producer is Ali McCardell. For more information about Reed Smith's Global International Arbitration Practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith arbitration pricing calculator, a first of its kind mobile app that forecasts the cost of arbitration around the world, search arbitration pricing calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on Spotify, Apple, Google Play, Stitcher, reedsmith.com and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. All rights reserved.

The legal and regulatory bars are getting higher around green finance and carbon finance. When seeking funding, industry participants must do more to prove their environmental achievements.  Susan Riitala and Rob Lustrin from our Transportation Industry Group, and Brett Hillis, from our Energy and Natural Resources Group, discuss green finance structures and substantiating environmental claims in the shipping, transportation and ENR industries.

Greg Walcher, president of the Natural Resources Group, joins Kim to discuss his book,

Andrés Weintraub holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Chile a Masters in Statistics and a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Chile. His main research areas are Operations Research, Operations Management in forestry and mining, logistics and transportation. His latest research has been in decision making related to fuel management and forest fires. He has published over 90 papers in recognized journals, including Operations Research, Management Science, Forest Science, the European Journal of Operations Research. His Scopus H is 44. He has also edited several books and journal issues on topics related to Operations Research in forestry and mining. He has carried out multiple projects with industry and governmental organizations, including the US Forest Service and forest firms in Chile in models related to long range planning, short term harvesting and transportation, CODELCO, one of the largest copper firms in the world in models related to long range copper extraction, CSAV, a top 10 worldwide shipping company, housed in Chile, to improve the management of their 500.000 container business, the Chilean Ministry of Education, on determining best locations of rural schools, the Chilean Salmon industry in developing models to plan the salmon production chain and short term transportation, and the Chilean Football Association in scheduling the football season since 2005. The work with Chilean forest firms won the Edelman Prize, the most prestigious award for applied Operations Research, awarded by INFORMS, the US Society for Operations Research and Management Sciences. The work with CSAV was an Edelman finalist in 2011 and the football scheduling was a finalist in 2016. He has grants as principal investigator by Fondecyt, (the individual Research Program from the Chilean National Research Agency) since 1982 when the program was started, except for one year. Papers he has co-authored have been chosen as best of the years 2013, 2014, 2015 by the Energy and Natural Resources Group of INFORMS. He has received many recognitions which include: The Chilean National Prize for Applied Science in 2000, the Harold Larnder Prize given by the Canadian OR Society, the INFORMS Presidential Prize, the Gold Medal from the Chilean Institute of Engineering, its highest recognition. He was awarded a Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Agricultural Sciences of Sweden, and the University of Laval, Canada. He is a member of the US National Academy of Engineering, and the Chilean National Academies of Science and of Engineering and is an INFORMS Fellow. He was a founder and former President of ALIO, the Latin American Association of OR, and President of IFORS, the International Federation of Operations Research Societies, which includes over 50 country members, for the years 1998 to 2000. He led from 2007 to 2018 the Institute for Complex Engineering Systems, which is currently funded yearly with 3 million dollars, and involves 50 researchers and a staff of 15 people. The Institute covers areas such as Operations Research, Data Science, Industrial Organization and Consumer Analytics. The Institute is strong in developing projects with industry and the government which are original and have impact.

This episode features a panel discussion on the topic of Environmental Justice – what it is, the concerns on which it focuses, current policy efforts to address it, and how stakeholders might be affected by regulatory efforts in this realm. Harry Weiss, leader of the firm's Environment and Natural Resources Group, leads the conversation featuring Environmental Protection representatives at a federal and state level.

Our “C” word this week is CONCENTRATION, which in the “C” You In The Major Leagues vernacular is someone who has an ability to focus, hones instincts, and prepares with a purpose.Without a doubt, this week's guest certainly fits that.Shannon Vreeland has gone from club swimmer with the Kansas City Blazers to standout at the University of Georgia, to Olympic gold medalist, to an attorney.After swimming for the Blazers under coach Pete Malone, who's now Veronica Malone, Vreeland continued her career at the University of Georgia, where, as a freshman in 2011, she won the Southeastern Conference title in the 500 meter freestyle. That same year she was First-Team All-SEC, on the SEC's All-Freshman Team...oh, and she was on the SEC First-Year Academic Honor Roll and the Spring Athletic Director's Honor Roll.In 2012, she made the U.S. Olympic swimming team that won the gold medal in the 4x200 freestyle relay in London. Throughout her swimming career, Shannon Vreeland won 19 international medals.Today, Vreeland is an associate attorney in the Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources Group with a firm in Atlanta.We're joined later in this episode by two of our C-10 Mentoring & Leadership program mentors, Caroline and George. LINKS:For more information about the C-10 Mentoring & Leadership program for high school students, visit our website.To make a financial gift to give students life-changing one-on-one mentoring, visit our secure donation page.For all episodes of the C-10 podcast and ways you can listen, click here.If you'd like to make a comment, have a suggestion for a future guest, or your company would like to help underwrite this podcast, please visit our contact page.

In the latest episode of the Construction Week Viewpoint podcast series, we sit down with senior associate in Reed Smith's Energy & Natural Resources Group, Alison Eslick to gain insight on the need for a gender-diverse environment in the projects and construction (P&C) sector.

Former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable discusses the FERC's challenging relationship with the states over clean energy subsidies and their potential impact on the nation’s electricity markets. ---The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the United States’ wholesale natural gas and electricity markets, wielding influence over the cost of energy and the environmental impacts of the nation’s energy consumption. Today, the FERC finds itself at the center of intense debate over the extent to which environmental and climate concerns should factor in the shaping of the U.S. energy system.Colette Honorable, a FERC commissioner from 2015 to 2017, discusses FERC’s struggle to balance clean energy development with the economic and supply considerations that have been the core of its regulatory mandate. Honorable also examines the growing tension between the states and the FERC around state efforts to subsidize nuclear and renewable energy, and over environmental review of the nation’s natural gas infrastructure.In Part 1 of this two-part interview, released on April 30, 2019, Colette discussed FERC’s history and mandate.Colette Honorable served as a FERC commissioner from 2015 to 2017. She is now a partner in the Energy and Natural Resources Group with the Reed Smith law firm in Washington DC.Related ContentWhat’s the FERC, And How is it Shaping Our Energy Future? (Part 2). https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/whats-ferc-and-how-it-shaping-our-energy-futurePennsylvania’s ZEC Bill Reveal. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/reconciling-subsidized-resourcesA Market for Primary Frequency Response? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/market-primary-frequency-responseReconciling Subsidized Resources In PJM’s Competitive Electricity Markets https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/reconciling-subsidized-resources

Former FERC Commissioner Colette Honorable explains the work of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and its often contentious role in shaping the future of U.S. electricity and natural gas systems.---Fundamental changes are taking place across the U.S. energy landscape. The growth of shale natural gas has changed the mix of fuels used to generate the nation’s electricity, with natural gas surpassing coal as the fuel of choice. At the same time, growing concern over climate change has incentivized the development of clean energy technologies and further altered the nation’s energy mix.Yet rapid change has brought conflict, particularly between the states and the federal government over their respective roles in defining the future of our energy system. In the electricity sector, state efforts to support renewable and nuclear power threaten the integrity of electricity markets and federal authority to shape them. In the gas industry, federal regulators have approved a web of new pipelines to transport shale natural gas around the country, only to see some projects stall over state environmental and climate concerns.Former FERC commissioner Colette Honorable discusses the government agency that finds itself at the center of many of today’s most critical energy debates. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also known as the FERC, is charged with regulating the interstate commerce of natural gas and electricity. Its role extends from oversight of wholesale electricity markets to environmental review of natural gas pipelines. This episode covers FERC, its history and mandate. The May 15, 2019 episode will take a closer look at the key debates now embroiling the Commission. Colette Honorable served as a FERC commissioner from 2015 to 2017. She is now a partner in the Energy and Natural Resources Group with the Reed Smith law firm in Washington DC. ---Related ContentPennsylvania’s ZEC Bill Reveal. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/reconciling-subsidized-resourcesA Market for Primary Frequency Response? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/market-primary-frequency-responseReconciling Subsidized Resources In PJM’s Competitive Electricity Markets https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/paper/reconciling-subsidized-resources

New York City boasts an abundance of healthy forests and natural areas thanks to the great work of NYC Parks. Join Kim Eierman in this EcoBeneficial interview as she talks with Kristy King, the Director of Forest Restoration for the Natural Resources Group of NYC Parks. Kristy shares some surprising facts as well as ecological inspirations for any landscape.

Greg Walcher, President of the Natural Resources Group, a consulting firm specializing in energy, water, public lands, forestry and wildlife. In addition, Walcher has served in the Governor's Cabinet as the head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and he also has spent a decade working in the U.S. [...]

Greg Walcher, President of the Natural Resources Group, a consulting firm specializing in energy, water, public lands, forestry and wildlife. In addition, Walcher has served in the Governor's Cabinet as the head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and he also has spent a decade working in the U.S. [...]

In this episode, we go back to a topic we have previously discussed at Cowries and Rice yet one that we judge timely and important enough to revisit: Sustainable development. Both sustainable development and developing sustainably seem to be important slogans for China - Africa relations and reflect Chinese policy priorities. In order to further look into questions of the impact of development on the environment and Corporate Social Responsibility practices by Chinese firms abroad in general and in Africa more specifically, we have invited to the pod Ms. Xiaoxue Weng who is a researcher in International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)'s Natural Resources Group.