Transcript The Relationship Between the Legal Frameworks Relating to

Climate Change and Biodiversity Law: A
Comparative Analysis between Australia and
the United Kingdom
Ilona Millar, Senior Associate, Sydney
Pete Richardson, Associate, London
Overview
 Background to this presentation – why compare Australia
and the UK?
 Comparative analysis between Australia and the UK
 Key messages
– Lessons learned from existing cases
– Suggested approaches to promote the integration of
climate change and biodiversity norms within legislative
and policy frameworks to avoid regulatory gaps and the
damaging effect of legislative conflict
Why compare Australia and the UK?
 Acknowledging their differences and the limits of our review
– Climate, landscapes and human intrusion differ
– Environmental laws have followed different paths
– Our review is limited by political and legal reality
 Recognising their similarities and the value of comparison
– Their legal systems fundamentally value private rights
– Their current Governments seek to be leaders
– They face significant energy challenges
Themes
1. Decision makers have already made value judgments
between biodiversity and climate change
2. There is a need to distinguish between climate change
mitigation and adaptation measures
3. More could and should be done to identify the key areas
where decision points will occur
The legal and policy framework
 Australia
– There are no federal laws that are specifically designed
to address climate change
– The 2004-2007 action plan set out principles but its
shortcomings are evident
– States have moved on in the absence of federal action
 United Kingdom
– Geographically on the periphery of the EU but a climate
change law specialist
– At the heart of the EU’s rich biodiversity laws
Lessons learned from a comparative review
 Both jurisdictions have adopted similar approaches to deal
with biodiversity
– Development of reserves to enhance ecosystem
resilience
– Triggers that require decision maker review
– Recovery plans for threatened species
 But there are differences are evident between the two,
e.g.: in relation to climate change measures and the
development of integrated regional approaches
 Both jurisdictions have struggled with similar issues
Theme 1 – value judgments
Copyright of the images appearing on this slide is acknowledged
Theme 2 – adaptation vs. mitigation efforts
Copyright of the images appearing on this slide is acknowledged
Theme 3 – identifying key decision points
 Legislative frameworks to address climate change and
biodiversity have prompted significant activity and research –
problematic project types and sensitive areas are, therefore,
known
 The challenge is achieving the right balance between
promoting low-emission technologies and climate change
measures, and minimising their impacts, as far as possible,
on biodiversity
 With flexible, integrated approaches to climate change
mitigation and adaptation, opportunities will arise for solutions
that deliver both positive mitigation outcomes and enhance
biodiversity values
Lessons learned
1. Decision makers have already made value judgments
between biodiversity and climate change - Guidance
2. There is a need to distinguish between climate change
mitigation and adaptation measures - Thought
3. More could and should be done to identify key the areas
where decision points will occur - Action
Climate Change and Biodiversity Law: A
Comparative Analysis between Australia and
the United Kingdom
Ilona Millar, Senior Associate, Sydney
Pete Richardson, Associate, London