Environmental law and the economic impact on Australian firms

In response to international awareness of environmental issues and the inadequacies of common law actions, legislation has been enacted by Australian governments to facilitate environmental protection. The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) and accompanying Environmental Protection (Interim) Regulation 1995 (Qld) is one example of government response to mounting public pressure to legislate for the environment. Investigation into the operation of the legislation exposes the costs faced by Australian firms in its application. The legislation identifies a number of environmentally relevant activities and imposes licensing and reporting requirements on firms undertaking such activities. In view of these legislative requirements and the increasing public awareness of environmental issues over the last decade in Australia, it could be expected that firms undertaking environmentally sensitive activities will place greater importance on the management of environmental issues. If so, the greater prominence placed on environmental management may be reflected in disclosures made by the firm to its shareholders and other interested parties. This article investigates the type and extent of costs currently imposed by the body of environmental laws in Australia with the discussion primarily focusing upon costs imposed due to the operation of environmental legislation in Queensland. Further, the article reports empirical analysis of management response to environmental issues where firms are undertaking environmentally sensitive activities.

Public awareness of ‘green’ residential property – an empirical survey based on data from New Zealand and Germany

Over the last few years more stringent environmental laws (e.g. the German “Energie¬ein-sparverordnung ENEV” - Energy Performance of Buildings Directive) and soaring energy prices has increased the need for the real estate industry to react and participate in overall energy reduction through efficient house construction and design, as well as upgrading the existing housing stock to be more energy efficient. Therefore the Property Economics Group at Queensland University of Technology in Australia and Nuertingen-Geislingen University in Germany are carrying out research in relation to sustainable housing construction and public awareness of “green” residential property. Part of this research is to gain an understanding of the level of knowledge and importance of these issues to the house buyer and to determine the importance of sustainable housing to the general public. The paper compares data from two different empirical studies; one of studies analyzes the situation in New Zealand, the other is focused on Germany.

An integrated information management model for ecologically sustainable development

Ecologically sustainable development has become a major feature of legal systems at the international, national and local levels throughout the world. In Australia, governments have responded to environmental crises by enacting legislation imposing obligations and restrictions over privately-owned land. Whilst these obligations and restrictions may well be necessary to achieve sustainability, the approach to management of information concerning these instruments is problematic. For example, management of information concerning obligations and restrictions in Queensland is fragmented, with some instruments registered or recorded on the land title register, some on external registers, and some information only available in the legislation itself. This approach is used in most Australian jurisdictions. This fragmented approach has led to two separate but interconnected problems. First, the Torrens system is no longer meeting its goal of providing a complete and accurate picture of title. Second, this uncoordinated approach to the management of land titles, and obligations and restrictions on land use, has created a barrier to sustainable management of natural resources. This is because compliance with environmental laws is impaired in the absence of easily accessible and accurate information. These problems demonstrate a clear need for reform in this area. To determine how information concerning these obligations and restrictions may be most effectively managed, this thesis will apply a comparative methodology and consider three case studies, which each utilise different models for management of this information. These jurisdictions will be assessed according to a set of guidelines for comparison to identify which features of their systems provide for effective management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on title and use. Based on this comparison, this thesis will devise a series of recommendations for an effective system for the management of information concerning obligations and restrictions on land title and use, taking into account any potential legal issues and barriers to implementation. This series of recommendations for reform will be supplemented by suggested draft legislative provisions.

Managing the impacts of sugarcane farming on the Great Barrier Reef: An evaluation of the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle

This report provides an evaluation of the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) – a principle of international environmental law – in the context of pollution from sugarcane farming affecting Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The research was part of an experiment to test methods for evaluating the effectiveness of environmental laws. Overall, we found that whilst the PPP is reflected to a limited extent in Australian law (more so in Queensland law, than at the national level), the behaviour one might expect in terms of implementing the principle was largely inadequate. Evidence of a longer term, explicit commitment to the PPP was particularly weak.

The effectiveness of the Precautionary Principle in protecting Australia's endangered species

This report is the result of a small-scale experiment looking at improving methods for evaluating environmental laws. The objective in this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the precautionary principle – an accepted principle of international environmental law – in the context of Australia’s endangered species. Two case studies were selected by our team: the (Great) White Shark and an endangered native Australian plant known as Tylophora Linearis.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Increasing relevance and interest : teaching environmental and planning law to built environment students

A new approach was taken to delivering a challenging "stewarship of land" unit to over 350 predominantly first year built environment students stewardship. The new approach involved incorporating environmental and planning law into the syllabus, exposing students to a wide range of statutes, selecting legal cases according to a et of criteria and revisiting the material using different modes of delivery and teaching resources. To evaluate the effectiveness of the new approach, the students were surveyed to elicit their learning experience and preferences. The survey found that most students perceived learning about environmental and planning law, including legal cases, worthwhile.----- Areas identified by the surcey for improvement included the perception by some students that: environmenatl and planning law is irrelevant to their discipline and future caree; studying law is dull and sometimes daunting; and the prescribed reading could be omitted.----- To address student perceptions, it is proposed to reorder the topics commencing with local, charismatic topics, while explanding international content and cases, to enlarge and enhance the repertoire of video clips to include sites of legal cawses and development projects, and to reformat the online weekly quizzes to promote reading of primary material.----- Overall, the approach to teaching environmental and planning law to built environment students, including the criteria for selecting legal cases, described in this paper, was found to be effective.

Carbon capture and storage laws in Australia : project facilitation or a precautionary approach?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be an integral transitionary measure in the mitigation of the global greenhouse gas emissions from our continued use of fossil fuels. Regulatory frameworks have been developed around the world and pilot projects have been commenced. However, CCS processes are largely untested at commercial scales and there are many unknowns associated with the long terms risks from these storage projects. Governments, including Australia, are struggling to develop appropriate, yet commercially viable, regulatory approaches to manage the uncertain long term risks of CCS activities. There have been numerous CCS regimes passed at the Federal, State and Territory levels in Australia. All adopt a different approach to the delicate balance facilitating projects and managing risk. This paper will examine the relatively new onshore and offshore regimes for CCS in Australia and the legal issues arising in relation to the implementation of CCS projects. Comparisons will be made with the EU CCS Directive where appropriate.

Review of regulatory framework for environmental information

If Australian scientists are to fully and actively participate in international scientific collaborations utilising online technologies, policies and laws must support the data access and reuse objectives of these projects. To date Australia lacks a comprehensive policy and regulatory framework for environmental information and data generally. Instead there exists a series of unconnected Acts that adopt historically-based, sector-specific approaches to the collection, use and reuse of environmental information. This paper sets out the findings of an analysis of a representative sample of Australian statutes relating to environmental management and protection to determine the extent to which they meet best practice criteria for access to and reuse of environmental information established in international initiatives. It identifies issues that need to be addressed in the legislation governing environmental information to ensure that Australian scientists are able to fully engage in international research collaborations.

Queensland Environmental Practice Reporter 17(77) (2011/2012) Editorial

This issue begins with a paper by QUT masters student, Jenny Kortlaender, which considers the effectiveness of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in addressing global biodiversity decline. This is followed by a paper by Fiona Leddy which critically analyses international shipping in Australian waters and the approach taken by Australia laws in addressing the risks posed by ship-based oil pollution. The third paper in this issue is by Adjunct Professor Hugh Lavery, Gina Lee and Carolyn S. Sandercoe. This paper considers the ecological principles to be followed in the sustainable design of large-scale marina developments. This paper highlights the differences between the practice of landscape ecology and the design of ecological landscapes. Finally, this issue includes a summary of relevant cases from the Queensland Planning and Environment Court and Court of Appeal by Michael Walton and Ben Job.

Sharing environmental data : the role of an information policy framework and copyright licensing

Advances in information and communication technologies have brought about an information revolution, leading to fundamental changes in the way that information is collected or generated, shared and distributed. The importance of establishing systems in which research findings can be readily made available to and used by other researchers has long been recognized in international scientific collaborations. If the data access principles adopted by international scientific collaborations are to be effectively implemented they must be supported by the national policies and laws in place in the countries in which participating researchers are operating.

Human rights and environmental wrongs : achieving environmental justice through human rights law

The numerous interconnections between the environment and human rights are well established internationally. It is understood that environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation or the misuse of resources can impact on individuals’ and communities’enjoyment of fundamental rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to self‐determination and the right to life itself. These are rights which are guaranteed under international human rights law and in relation to which governments bear certain responsibilities. Further, environmental issues can also impact on governments’ capacity to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. In this way human rights and environmental protection can be constructed as being mutually supportive. In addition to these links between the environment and human rights, human rights principles arguably offer a framework for identifying and addressing environmental injustice. The justice implications of environmental problems are well documented and there are many examples where pollution, deforestation or other degradation disproportionately impact upon poorer neighbourhoods or areas populated by minority groups. On the international level, environmental injustice exists between developed and developing States, as well as between present and future generations who will inherit the environmental problems we are creating today. This paper investigates the role of human rights principles, laws and mechanisms in addressing these instances of environmental injustice and argues that the framework of human rights norms provides an approach to environmental governance which can help to minimise injustice and promote the interests of those groups which are most adversely affected. Further, it suggests that the human rights enforcement mechanisms which exist at international law could be utilised to lend weight to claims for more equitable environmental policies.

Environmental pollution from shipbreaking industry : international law and national legal response

The international legal regime on shipbreaking is in its formative years. At the international level, the shipbreaking industry is partially governed by the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. However, how far this convention will be applicable for all aspects of transboundary movement of end-of-life ships is still, at least in the view of some scholars, a debatable issue. Against this backdrop, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has adopted a new, legally binding convention for shipbreaking. There is a rising voice from the developing countries that the convention is likely to impose more obligations on recycling facilities in the developing countries than on shipowners from rich nations. This may be identified as a clear derogation from the globally recognized international environmental law principle of common but differentiated treatment. This article will examine in detail major international conventions regulating transboundary movement and environmentally sound disposal of obsolete ships, as well as the corresponding laws of Bangladesh for implementing these conventions in the domestic arena. Moreover this article will examine in detail the recently adopted IMO Ship Recycling Convention.

Pro Bono partnerships : community lawyering to promote environmental justice

Rural communities across Australia are increasingly being asked to shoulder the environmental and social impacts of intensive mining and gas projects. Escalating demand for coal seam gas (CSG) is raising significant environmental justice issues for rural communities. Chief amongst environmental concerns are risks of contamination or depletion of vital underground aquifers as well as treatment and disposal of high-saline water close to high quality agricultural soils. Associated infrastructure such as pipelines, electricity lines, gas processing and port facilities can also adversely affect communities and ecosystems great distances from where the gas is originally extracted. Whilst community submission (and appeal) rights do exist, accessing expert independent information is challenging, legal terminology is complex and submission periods are short, leading ultimately to a lack of procedural justice for landholders and their communities. Since August 2012, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has worked in partnership with not-for-profit legal centre - Queensland’s Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) - to help better educate communities about mining and CSG assessment processes. The project, now entering its third semester, aims to empower communities to access relevant information and actively engage in legal processes on their own behalf. Students involved in the project so far have helped to research chapters of a comprehensive community guide to mining and CSG law as well as organising multidisciplinary community forums and preparing information on land access and compensation rights for landholders. While environmental justice issues still exist without significant law reform, the project has led to greater awareness amongst the community of the laws relating the CSG. At the same time, it has led to a greater understanding by students and academics of real life environmental justice issues currently faced by rural communities.