This paper surveys the types of performance requirements (PRs) in use around the world, and briefly describes the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).

The study focuses on the meaning and scope of PR-related clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the interpretation of such clauses by investment tribunals.

If well formulated and applied, PRs can be effective tools to maximize the economic, environmental and social benefits of foreign investments. Therefore, it is important for states, particularly developing countries, to retain the possibility of using them when circumstances warrant it.

In this context, the growing trend of prohibiting most PRs in some investment treaties, combined with the investor–state dispute settlement mechanism, seriously impairs the ability of developing states to use these development policy tools. Notably, these restrictions and prohibitions on PRs often go beyond WTO TRIMs prohibitions— and, when available, exceptions in BITs are not always effective before tribunals.

Finally, the paper provides some options to help states preserve their policy space in BITs for imposing, if needed, PRs on foreign direct investment (FDI) in their territory.

This brochure introduces IISD’s vision of the mining sector’s potential to be a substantial contributor to inclusive growth and social development in communities and states, without compromising the environment.

Governments, companies and communities increasingly recognize the need for a broader understanding of mining’s potential contribution to local and national development.

Transforming this awareness into action requires building the capacity, knowledge and tools required for appropriate reform of government and company policies and processes. For more than a decade, IISD has helped governments, companies, mining associations and civil society members to identify, promote and implement policies and actions that lead to sustainable development in the mining sector.

This publication, originally published as a news-style insert in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Brandon Sun, explores the many benefits of wetlands and showcases examples of how Manitobans enjoy and use these areas.

Four major benefits of wetlands detailed are: fuel provision, water filtration, flood protection and food provision. In particular, the value of the common wetland plant, cattail, is detailed. Additional benefits include habitat provision and carbon storage.

Specific topics covered include the use of cattail and grass-based fuel pellets to heat the City of Winnipeg’s Living Prairie Museum, efforts to improve the health of Netley-Libau Marsh, a newly developed boardwalk at Brokenhead Wetland Ecological Reserve, landowner restoration of wetlands, emerging water management policies in Manitoba and the harvesting of cattail at Pelly’s Lake, Manitoba. In addition, a detailed graphic introduces readers to some of the species in Manitoban wetlands.

This document was created in partnership with the Lake Winnipeg Foundation and Ducks Unlimited Canada.

Sustainability is no longer an issue left to policy-makers, environmental activists and scientific researchers.

Leading businesses are becoming increasingly sensitized to the growing fact that sustainability issues affect their bottom lines. Profit margins are increasingly determined by how well companies take into account livelihoods and the environment. Canadian businesses will gain leverage if they are able to seize the innovation agenda and use it to enhance productivity and promote novel approaches that increase competitiveness. IISD is uniquely qualified to help business successfully tackle these challenges.

IISD has earned a reputation for developing smart approaches to the growing challenges and opportunities of integrating environmental and social priorities with continued economic development.

IISD has identified the Arctic as an area of critical importance to our vision: equity and a healthy planet.

We envision an Arctic that respects and prioritizes the perspectives of the region’s people, including indigenous peoples and societies; an Arctic with increased resilience and capacity to adapt to a changing climate; and an Arctic with a growing stream of sustainable local economic benefits.

Our Arctic Initiative supports bottom-up transformations to sustainability. We work with governments, communities, companies and other actors in the following four areas: climate change adaptation and food security; extractive industries; infrastructure and renewable energy development; and transformative knowledge.

Investor–state arbitration has boomed over the past decade, with the number of recorded cases having risen from 51 in 2000 to 568 by the end of 2013.

At the same time, state–state arbitration has taken a backstage role—only four such cases have occurred under investment treaties. Despite their rarity, state–state dispute settlement options are gaining renewed attention, given the growing concerns over the nature of investor–state arbitration claims (which often include challenges to legitimate environmental and other public welfare and financial policy measures), the high costs of arbitration, and the perceived lack of openness, independence and predictability.

Key questions today are: as investor–state arbitration is increasingly put into question, should investment dispute settlement be conducted solely on a state–state basis? Or, if both state–state and investor–state arbitration are included in the treaty, what areas should be subject to either mechanism exclusively, and what areas to both? Finally, if both are included, how should the two mechanisms interrelate?

This paper looks at state–state dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements. It examines the different mechanisms used to settle investment disputes, including judicial, quasi-judicial and arbitration procedures. It then looks at the different types of claims that can be brought under the typical state–state clause, which include diplomatic protection claims, interpretive claims and declaratory relief requests. The paper also analyzes how treaty and case law deal with the interaction of state–state and investor–state dispute settlement where the treaty provides for both. It concludes with recommendations on how state–state dispute settlement could be used as an alternative to investor-state arbitration, or, if both mechanisms are included, on how to define the relationship between the two and to strengthen the state parties’ control over the interpretation of their treaty.

In particular, the paper recommends evaluating the risks and benefits of state–state dispute settlement as the sole mechanism or as additional to investor–state dispute settlement. States should clarify whether they wish to require exhaustion of local remedies and other customary international law requirements before a state–state claim can be initiated. It would also be useful to weigh the pros and cons of ad hoc third-party adjudication in comparison to a more permanent, judicial or quasi-judicial mechanism, as well as to clarify the meaning of “dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty” or allowing for (advisory) opinions. Finally, states could clarify whether and in which situations the state–state decision should be binding for subsequent state–state or investor–state tribunals; they could also clarify how parallel state–state and investor–state cases might be coordinated, for example, if one had to be suspended in certain circumstances.

This brochure provides an overview of IISD’s watershed-focused approach to the bioeconomy.

To do so, it details two case studies of watershed-based bioeconomies in: 1) the Lake Winnipeg watershed (Canada) and; 2) Wuliangsuhai Lake (China). In recent years, the idea of the bioeconomy has taken root in government policy and business development. IISD applies the bioeconomy concept at the watershed scale, using plant materials that are either naturally occurring (e.g., wetland plants) or are by-products of existing activities (e.g., agricultural crop residues) to help create such end-products as bioenergy (e.g., pellets, cubes, biomethane, syngas, ethanol, biocoal), biochar, solid and liquid fertilizers, biocomposites and building materials. IISD’s work in this area looks not only at the tangible end-products of the bioeconomy, but also values other benefits that can be gained from developing bioeconomies on a watershed basis. These include: water quality improvements; nutrient capture to prevent algal blooms; carbon credits; methane credits; habitat improvement; flood and drought protection; and strengthening rural economies.

Policies that cannot perform effectively under today's complex, dynamic and uncertain conditions run the risk of not achieving their intended purpose; instead of helping, they may actually hinder the ability of individuals, communities and businesses to cope with and adapt to change.

ADAPTool for Creating New Policies is the first guidance tool to draw on the underlying principles for intervening in complex adaptive systems.

This Microsoft Excel-based tool is designed for policy-makers who are considering or are in the process of formulating a new policy, program, strategy or initiative. The Adaptive Design and Assessment Policy Tool (ADAPTool) for new policies will help policy and program designers articulate key future stressors that may affect relevant sectors, stakeholders and the policy performance itself. These future stresses can include climate change, volatile market prices, demographic pressures or any other driver of change that can potentially have a big impact on policy performance. ADAPTool for New Policies will also help you create a policy that can adapt effectively and efficiently to changing conditions brought on by such stressors, a critical functionality for the turbulence and complexity of the 21st century. ADAPTool is intended for use in designing policies, strategies, programs or legislation. We use the term "policy" in this guidebook to refer to any or all of these categories.

ADAPTool for New Policies is based on the 2009 book Creating Adaptive Policies: A Guide for Policy-Making in an Uncertain World, which was co-authored by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

The process of applying the tool is interactive and iterative. Ideally, it should be led by a policy designer who has had previous training in adaptive policy-making. For maximum efficiency, this person should work closely with someone who has knowledge of the proposed policy and related issues. For information on training courses for adaptive policy-making, visit

The tool is best applied in parallel with the overall policy design process, the latter being the means by which the overall policy objective and specific purposes are conceived and vetted.

The issue of compensation for foreign investors adversely affected by expropriation in their host State has always led to a profound divergence of views in international investment law centered on whether or not there existed an international obligation on the part of a host State to compensate foreign investors for expropriated investments.

Major capital-exporting countries generally defended the existence of such an obligation, while newly independent countries and communist countries challenged the right of foreign investors to receive compensation in the event of expropriation on various legal grounds, such as national treatment, or to address economic inequalities borne out of "colonial sin" or excessive profits. Today, some of these controversies are no longer in dispute. Investment protection treaties and customary international law now obligate host States to protect foreign investments such that any expropriation must be done according to certain rules.

The objective of this paper is to analyze, from a legal perspective, the principles governing compensation for expropriation, as well as the primary methods of calculating the amount. In our conclusion, we emphasize that our most important recommendation for signatory States to BITs is to define more clearly what can be qualified as indirect expropriation when certain types of legitimate laws and regulations are at issue. In addition, States are strongly recommended to be more precise when drafting clauses related to compensation for expropriation in order to address certain current problems. While it is impossible to find a magic formula good enough to apply to all situations, it is possible to guide the tribunals which will have to assess the compensation payable for expropriation. This clarification of standards for calculating compensation is particularly necessary in the case of indirect expropriation, because its evaluation can be very complex.

Countries can have a variety of reasons to include registration or approval requirements for investment in their treaties.

Some may wish to include such requirements to ensure treaties are consistent with domestic law, others may desire to have an overview and know in advance which investments are covered by the investment treaty, thereby increasing clarity and predictability.

Finally, registration and approval requirements can serve to ensure quality control.This paper analyzes registration and approval requirements for investments in investment treaties, and examines the interpretation of such provisions by arbitral tribunals. In addition, it provides concluding remarks and recommendations for states contemplating the use of approval or registration requirements to achieve chosen policy goals.