Is climate change litigation an effective strategy for promoting greater action to address climate change? What other legal mechanisms might be appropriate?

In recent times a widespread consensus on the reality and gravity of anthropogenic climate change has emerged. Perceived inadequacies in the Australian government’s legal and policy responses to climate change issues have resulted in environmental activists increasingly turning to the courts as a strategy to promote greater action to address adverse climate impacts. The efficacy of this strategy for achieving climate goals is limited by the time and expense of litigating, the restrictions inherent in environmental law administrative challenges, and the possibility that judicial decisions may be overruled by the legislature. To date, climate change litigation in Australia has met with varied success, yet its significance extends beyond the court room as an important mechanism for raising public, political and commercial awareness about climate change issues. Ultimately, however, the types of far-reaching changes needed to mitigate and manage adverse climate impacts require strong regulatory backing. The most effective approach to addressing the complex challenges posed by climate change is a coordinated suite of regulatory measures spearheaded by the Federal Government.

Practical implementation of species' recovery plans - Lessons from the White-backed Woodpecker Action Plan in Sweden

Successful biodiversity conservation requires safeguarding viable populations of species. To work with this challenge Sweden has introduced a concept of Action Plans, which focus on the recovery of one or more species; while keeping in mind the philosophy of addressing ecosystems in a more comprehensive way, following the umbrella concept. In this paper we investigate the implementationprocess of the ActionPlanfor one umbrella species, the White-backed Woodpecker (WBW) Dendrocopos leucotos. We describe the plan's organisation and goals, and investigate its implementation and accomplishment of particular targets, based on interviewing and surveying the key actors. The achievement of the targets in 2005-2008 was on average much lower than planned, explained partially by the lack of knowledge/data, experienced workers, and administrative flexibility. Surprisingly, the perceived importance of particular conservation measures, the investment priority accorded to them, the money available and various practical obstacles all failed to kg? explain the target levels achieved. However qualitative data from both the interviews and the survey highlight possible implementation obstacles: competing interests with other conservation actions and the level of engagement of particular implementing actors. Therefore we suggest that for successful implementation of recovery plans, there is aneed for initial and inclusive scoping prior to embarking on the plan, where not only issues like ecological knowledge and practical resources are considered, but also possible conflicts and synergies with other conservation actions. An adaptive approach with regular review of the conservation process is essential, particularly in the case of such complex action plans as the one for the WBW.