Environmental rights, justice and climate change

The human rights implications of climate change are increasingly gaining attention, with wider international acknowledgement that climate change poses a real threat to human rights. This paper considers the impact of climate change on human rights, looking particularly at the experiences of Torres Strait Islanders in northern Australia. It argues that human rights law offers a guiding set of principles which can help in developing appropriate strategies to combat climate change. In particular, the normative principles embodied in environmental rights can be useful in setting priorities and evaluating policies in response to climate change. The paper also argues that a human rights perspective can help address the underlying injustice of climate change: that it is the people who have contributed least to the problem who will bear the heaviest burden of its effects.

The right to be green: using human rights law to achieve environmental protection

The relationship between the environment and human rights has long been recognised. It is now largely accepted that a ‘good’ environment is a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, and even the right to life. It has even been suggested that as humans we all possess a right to live in an environment of a certain standard, based on the intrinsic value of the natural world to all human beings. In this context much has been written regarding the important role that the environment plays in human lives. This paper looks at the flip-side of this discussion, and examines what human rights can do for the environment. It is argued that, while there are valid criticisms for linking environmental protection too strongly to human needs, there is nonetheless much to be gained from using human rights law as a framework to achieve environmental protection.

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

The links between the environment and human rights are well established internationally. It is accepted that environmental problems impact on individuals’ and communities’ enjoyment of rights which are guaranteed to them under international human rights law. Environmental issues also impact on governments’ capacity to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. In addition to these links between the environment and human rights, it is argued that human rights principles offer a strategy for addressing environmental injustice. The justice implications of environmental problems are well documented, with many examples where pollution, deforestation or other degradation disproportionately impacts upon poorer neighbourhoods or areas populated by minority groups. On the international level, there are environmental injustices which exist between developed and developing states. Further, there are also potential injustices for future generations. This paper investigates the role of human rights principles 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 who are most adversely affected. Further, it suggests that the human rights enforcement mechanisms which exist at international law could be utilised to lend more weight to claims for more equitable environmental policies.

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.

Early land grants and reservations : Any lessons from the Queensland experience for the sustainability challenge to land ownership

Environmentalists have called for a new property paradigm premised on the idea of land ownership as a delegated responsibility to manage land and resources for the public benefit. An examination of Crown freehold grants from the beginnings of settlement until the 1890s in Queensland shows that fee simple titles were granted subject to express conditions and reservations designed to reserve useful natural resources to the Crown, and to promote public purposes. Over time, legislative regulation of landowner’s rights rendered obsolete the use of express conditions and reservations in grants. One result of this change was that the inherently limited nature of fee simple ownership, and the communal obligations to which it is subject, are less transparent than in colonial times.

The Law and Governance of Water Resources : The Challenge of Sustainability

To achieve the sustainable use and development of water resources is a daunting challenge for both the global and local communities. It requires commitments by all groups within the international, national and local communities from their own particular, possibly conflicting, perspectives. Without a set of coherent legal arrangements designed to ensure effective governance of water resources, their sustainable use and development are unlikely to be achieved. This study looks at how the legal arrangements for managing water resources have evolved across the continents over hundreds of years; their relevance for contemporary society; how the norms of current international and national legal regimes are responding; and, most importantly, how legal rights and duties should be structured so as to achieve sustainability in the future.

Legal issues in carbon farming : biosequestration, carbon pricing, and carbon rights

This paper critically analyses the proposed Australian regulatory approach to the crediting of biological sequestration activities (biosequestration) under the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative and its interaction with State-based carbon rights, the national carbon-pricing mechanism, and the international Kyoto Protocol and carbon-trading markets. Norms and principles have been established by the Kyoto Protocol to guide the creation of additional, verifiable, and permanent credits from biosequestration activities. This paper examines the proposed arrangements under the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative and Carbon Pricing Mechanism to determine whether they are consistent with those international norms and standards. This paper identifies a number of anomalies associated with the legal treatment of additionality and permanence and issuance of carbon credits within the Australian schemes. In light of this, the paper considers the possible legal implications for the national and international transfer, surrender and use of these offset credits.

The compatibility of leasehold and freehold tenure arrangements with environmental offset and trading initiatives

Environmental offsets and environmental trading initiatives are being rapidly introduced into environmental regulatory regimes. These relatively new legal mechanisms are attempting to fill in the gaps left by command and control regulation. The introduction of environmental offset and trading policy in Queensland will need to be compatible with existing land tenure regulation. Who owns and who uses natural resources are controlled by a range of legislative reservations and restrictions. Reservations give the State ownership of certain natural resources such as minerals, quarry material and, in some circumstances, forest products. Where there is a reservation in operation, the land holders rights are weakened. Restrictions in relation to uses prevent land holders from carrying out certain activities on the land. An example of a restriction of use is the operation of the Vegetation Management Act 1999(Qld), which prescribes the manner in which vegetation is to be dealt with. This article explores the nature of freehold and leasehold land tenure in Queensland and examines the effect of reservations and restrictions upon the operation of environmental offset and trading initiatives. Presently Queensland legislation does not directly address the relationship between land tenure and environmental offset and trading initiatives. The stability of tenure required for the creation of environmental offsets can be at odds with the flexibility allowed for under leasehold arrangements. This flexibility may act to undermine the permanency requirement of environmental offset creation (i.e. the guarantee that the offset is created for the long term).

Australia and Forest Carbon Partnerships : Indigenous Land Rights

One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.

The Role of the Judiciary in Earth Jurisprudence : An Analysis of Judicial Approaches to Standing in Climate Change and Environmental Justice Litigation

The role of the judiciary in common law systems is to create law, interpret law and uphold the law. As such decisions by courts on matters related to ecologically sustainable development, natural resource use and management and climate change make an important contribution to earth jurisprudence. There are examples where judicial decisions further the goals of earth jurisprudence and examples where decisions go against the principles of earth jurisprudence. This presentation will explore judicial approaches to standing in Australia and America. The paper will explore two trends in each jurisdiction. Approaches by American courts to standing will be examined in reference to climate change and environmental justice litigation. While Australian approaches to standing will be examined in the context of public interest litigation and environmental criminal negligence cases. The presentation will draw some conclusions about the role of standing in each of these cases and implications of this for earth jurisprudence.

Addressing vulnerability and human rights in disaster response mechanisms in Oceania

The Oceania region is an area particularly prone to natural disasters such as cyclones, tsunamis, floods, droughts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Many of the nations in the region are Small Island Developing States (SIDS), yet even within wealthy states such as Australia and New Zealand there are groups which are vulnerable to disaster. Vulnerability to natural disaster can be understood in human rights terms, as natural disasters threaten the enjoyment of a number of rights which are guaranteed under international law, including rights to health, housing, food, water and even the right to life itself. The impacts of climate change threaten to exacerbate these vulnerabilities, yet, despite the foreseeability of further natural disasters as a result of climate change, there currently exists no comprehensive international framework for disaster response offering practical and/or legally reliable mechanisms to assist at‐risk states and communities. This paper sets out to explore the human rights issues presented by natural disasters and examine the extent to which these issues can be addressed by disaster response frameworks at the international, regional and national levels.

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.

Pro bono partnerships in environmental law : enhancing outcomes for universities and CLCs

CLE can be a life-changing event in a law student’s education. It can open their eyes to the day-to-day operation of justice and provide them with examples of possible career paths they may never have thought existed. Yet it can also provide long-term benefits for CLCs and academics. Recent CLE models have moved towards partnerships with external organisations and away from on-site legal clinics. Some examples have exhibited success with a multidisciplinary approach involving students from non-law disciplines to provide a holistic approach to a CLC’s needs. Such a multidisciplinary approach is of particular benefit in community lawyering clinics where students are engaged in social change lawyering. The QUT/EDO partnership presents a new model in the environmental clinic landscape in Australia. Initial feedback suggests that the clinic has assisted students in gaining insight into the access to justice issues arising from mining activities and to raise the level of understanding and awareness among community members of their legal rights to protect the environment. Looking at ways to increase partnerships between universities and CLCs is of vital importance in the future, given recent federal government CLC funding cuts. The legal clinic model has great potential to evolve and contribute in ensuring the continued operation of legal initiatives to protect the environment in the public interest.