Australian Land Conservation Alliance’s Post

Earlier this week, I wrote about what we need to see in Stage 2 of the federal government's nature law reforms. Unfortunately while the Environment Protection Australia and Environment Information Australia bills tabled today would create important and necessary institutions, the proposed scope and governance of these bodies won’t deliver the urgent and fundamental improvements in decision making that our extinction crisis demands. Just as importantly, the Bills fail to include stronger protections for nature now. We need the government to strengthen the EPA and EIA, set a strong nature positive goal, and deliver a framework better equipped to tackle the extinction crisis. That includes ruling out unacceptable impacts, protecting critical habitat and implementing strong National Environmental Standards while closing existing loopholes and exemptions and ensuring climate change and deforestation are properly embedded in our nature laws. https://lnkd.in/gNdDENGN

Unprecedented news of today for the ocean: 🌊👇 On 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) published its Advisory Opinion which established that “anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from any source constitute «pollution» in the context of Art. 194 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) according to which states must take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control such pollution. Moreover, it found that states have the legal obligation under Art. 192 to protect and preserve the marine environment against the detrimental impacts of climate change, including through effective adaptation measures. Where the marine environment has been degraded, this obligation calls for measures to restore marine habitats and ecosystems. Importantly, under Art. 194 states have stringent due diligence obligations which are informed by the risk at stake and relevant international standards, including those in the Paris Agreement.” Read more details in the article below by the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law. An ocean of thanks to Dr Cymie Payne Prof. Dr. Christina Voigt and many ocean law champions around the world who have been deeply engaged in this process 🙏

Our national environment law has a gaping hole at its heart. It still doesn't explicitly require the government to consider climate change or the destructive impact of climate pollution. Protecting nature from climate pollution must be a top priority in this reform and for the Federal Parliament. Head to our website to learn everything you need to know about fixing Australia's national environment law 🐨

The latest court finding on the National Environmental Policy Act. This will upend NEPA Phase 2 and have continuing impacts on the NEPA process. "In Marin Audubon Society v. FAA, the court ruled that the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) lacks authority to issue binding regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While some are celebrating this as a win against bureaucratic overreach, the ruling creates considerable uncertainty around permitting reform. It also sets a precedent that could limit future presidents’ oversight of public employees, potentially constraining their ability to reform the administrative state". The case at hand centered around air tours over national parks near San Francisco, but the court went beyond the immediate dispute to declare CEQ’s entire regulatory framework unlawful. #archaeology #historicpreservation #NEPA #environmentalstreamlining #environment #permitstreamlining #permit #naturalresources #culturalresources

Are Standing Rights for Environmental Groups in the Public Interest? In 2001, I published an article with this title making the argument that standing rights for environmental groups are not in the public interest. Today, as NGOs are filing law suits left and right to "save the planet", it is more relevant than ever before. Climate litigation in particular is a threat to environmental protection efforts worldwide. This is the argument against litigation privileges for such organizations in a nutshell: Granting standing rights to environmental groups involves the delegation of public authority to private parties, and restrict the government's negative enforcement discretion. In addition, NGO's have conflicting interests and are not accountable for their enforcement decisions. There is no reason to believe that NGO-initiated enforcement will bring us any closer to the desired enforcement level. NGOs do not have to take interests other than the environment and their own interests into account. In addition, the constantly present need for fund-raising may influence their enforcement decisions. Enforcement by NGOs thus creates risks of over-enforcement and excessive litigation in some categories of cases, and will not do much to remedy any under-enforcement, if any exists, in cases that are not attractive from a fund-raising perspective. Moreover, unlike government officials, NGOs are not accountable for their enforcement decisions. The available empirical evidence confirms that the desire to promote environmental quality does not support NGO standing rights. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that NGO-initiated suits harm the environment.

EU Nature Restoration Law Hits a Roadblock The European Union’s landmark Nature Restoration Law (NRL), a key piece of the European Green Deal aimed at restoring 20% of the EU’s land and sea by 2030, is facing serious challenges. Recent developments have seen several member states, including Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands, withdraw their support due to concerns over agricultural impacts and ambitious restoration targets. This reversal poses not only a setback for the EU’s environmental goals but also risks damaging its international reputation as a leader in climate action. The contention around the NRL underscores the delicate balance between ambitious environmental policy and economic considerations. As the EU strives to navigate these challenges, the outcome will significantly impact its ability to meet its biodiversity and climate commitments. The situation highlights the complexities of implementing wide-reaching environmental legislation in a diverse union of member states. https://lnkd.in/eBvbzTT6 #NatureRestoration #EU #EnvironmentalPolicy #Sustainability

The latest impasse stems from efforts to overhaul Australia’s ageing and feeble national environment laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The failings of the law are no secret. In 2020, an independent review by Graeme Samuel delivered blunt findings: the laws were simply not protecting nature. Labor drafted stronger laws, but developers and miners quickly pushed back. So Labor changed tack. It pivoted to a staged reform process – with the full-scale revamp delayed indefinitely. This week, Labor attempted to pass at least some change – a bill to create an independent environmental regulator, Environmental Protection Australia. But it ran into major roadblocks. Mining companies such as Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting and Rio Tinto pushed for the regulator to be stripped of its powers in a private letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Interesting question - and pleased to have contributed my thoughts for this The ENDS Report article by David Burrows. Since its inception, the The Office for Environmental Protection has deployed its full spectrum of duties and powers, including monitoring the implementation of Environmental Improvement Plans and targets, giving advice on changes to environmental law (whether or not requested to do so by the Government), and taking enforcement action where a public authority has failed to comply with environmental law.  The test is whether the OEP’s enforcement powers are sufficient where public authorities fail to comply with environmental law and/or have significant failures, and whether the powers are being deployed. The escalation of powers available to the OEP should mean that, where a serious failure is identified, remedies are quickly implemented and action instigated. This was the case in Northern Ireland where DAERA amended its guidance on ammonia following the OEP’s threat of Judicial Review. A bigger test will be to see whether, following the OEP’s investigation into Defra, OFWAT and the Environment Agency on Combined Sewerage Outfalls, additional action is justified and taken forward. In summary - so far, I don’t have concerns regarding the OEP’s effectiveness.   IEMA Society for the Environment (SocEnv) https://lnkd.in/erFdxM7G

🌿 Three key questions for the Welsh Government on environmental governance 🌿 Back in June, Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs Huw Irranca-Davies appeared before the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. This presented a timely opportunity for our unit to put forward some important questions to the Welsh Government on its proposed environmental governance body: 👤 How will the Welsh Government ensure independence of the governance body from the outset and long term? 📝 Which legal forum will the body use to enforce non-compliance with environmental law or to seek urgent judicial review? ⏲️ When will the Welsh Government publish its timetable for the transition between interim and permanent environmental governance arrangements? We explore these questions in detail in our briefing. We were pleased that the Committee asked the Cabinet Secretary about the transitional arrangements. Join the conversation on securing a sustainable future for Wales and read the full briefing here 👉 https://lnkd.in/dGhR-heE #LegislationandGovernanceUnit #EnvironmentalGovernance #Wales #ClimateAction #PolicyBriefing #Sustainability #EnvironmentalLaw #Biodiversity

There will be further opportunities to consult on key elements of the Nature Positive laws, with a delay announced this week. In this article, my colleagues highlight aspects of the reform package that are expected to be introduced in the coming weeks - laws to create a national, independent EPA and "Environment Information Australia", a body to house national environmental data.