Search

The Victorian Government Inquiry into wildfires that killed 173 people in 2009 has driven an Australian policy shift from self-evacuation or staying and defending a well-prepared property ('go or stay') to self-evacuation under catastrophic fire weather ('leave early'). The Inquiry also led to the establishment of national 'performance standards' for Private Fire Shelters (PFSs, that are also known as bunkers). Nonetheless, the incorporation of PFSs into national bushfire policy remains embryonic, with only Victoria having streamlined accreditation and planning approval processes. Arguments against PFSs include potentially engendering complacency about preparing dwellings to survive fire and encouraging risky behaviour in response to a fire threat. Counteracting these arguments is research that shows that residents without PFSs have low engagement with bushfire preparation and typically delay evacuation. In any case, because wildfire is unpredictable, it is accepted that self-evacuation plans must have fallback positions that include sheltering 'in place' from the bushfire, making properly used and well-maintained PFSs an important element of bushfire safety. A less discussed barrier to PFS uptake outside Victoria appears to hinge on a lack of clarity about obligations for their design, certification, and consistency with planning approvals. The escalating Australian fire crisis demands much greater research and development in legal frameworks, policy and planning processes for PFSs, as well as design and construction standards. Progress in enhancing Australian laws and policies on this issue may offer important opportunities for other jurisdictions that will experience similar challenges as climate change intensifies fire regimes around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodiversity laws around the world differ, but, at their core, these laws promote the fundamental objective of preventing environmental decline and species extinctions. A variety of legal mechanisms have been implemented in domestic laws around the world to achieve this objective, including protection for habitat, environmental impact assessments and threatened species recovery plans. In many jurisdictions, if these mechanisms fail to protect a species, it may be legally declared extinct, or added to a formal list of those that have been lost. This article examines the conservation purpose and legal implications for laws about extinction. A legal power to recognise a species as extinct has the potential to foster ambition, transparency and rigorous measurement of progress against conservation goals. However, in practice, efforts to prevent extinction are applied selectively. Without an obligation to learn from extinctions, recognition of species extinctions in law may have perverse effects, or no effect at all. This article proposes a conceptual model for the role of law in relation to extinctions, highlighting opportunities to improve legal frameworks to achieve more productive and positive conservation outcomes, even as climate change and other pressures drive many more species towards extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australian landscapes, people and laws have a long history with fire, but climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of fires and the scale of their impact. In this article, we ask the question: what laws make up the constituent parts, or the anatomy, of our legal framework for bushfire? We propose a novel conceptual model for the full spectrum of laws that relate to bushfire -- from the crime of arson through to consumer lending laws and the Constitution -- and reveal a complex web of (sometimes competing) values, objectives and substantive tools. Understanding this legal context can help us to prepare more effectively for a future that will be defined by our experience of fire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's 2019-20 fire season has been described as the 'Black Summer'. Vast swathes of the continent burned, including areas that have not been fire-prone in the past, such as wet rainforest and alpine wetlands. This article considers the implications of more frequent and intense wildfires for wetland ecosystems and the extremely valuable ecosystem services that they provide. The article investigates what Australia's laws have to say about restoring ecosystem services after extreme events such as fire. In particular, the article considers the extent to which existing laws anticipate the possibility of ecosystem transformation, asking: what do our laws require if restoration is not possible? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article emphasizes the urgent need for reform in biodiversity conservation laws due to the direct and extensive impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems. Topics include the inadequacies of current conservation strategies, the application of Resilience Thinking to conservation law, and the examination of biodiversity offsets as a case study for reform.

This paper examines conservation objectives in Australian law in the context of climate change. The rate of climate change and the scale and extent of its impacts on natural systems drive the need to re-evaluate current conservation objectives, from basic concept definitions, to overarching goals and values, to the way they are operationalized at all levels. We outline the case for reform of objectives in the legal framework for conservation and discuss three key strategies that would facilitate this transition: (1) acknowledgment in conservation law of system dynamism; (2) focus on ecosystem function, stability, and resilience; and (3) an explicit recognition that systems operate across multiple scales. Law reform is a slow process, but the potential of climate change to drive transformational changes means that urgent action is needed to overcome the limitations of current objectives and in the legal framework itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marine ecosystems and their associated biodiversity sustain life on Earth and hold intrinsic value. Critical marine ecosystem services include maintenance of global oxygen and carbon cycles, production of food and energy, and sustenance of human wellbeing. However marine ecosystems are swiftly being degraded due to the unsustainable use of marine environments and a rapidly changing climate. The fundamental challenge for the future is therefore to safeguard marine ecosystem biodiversity, function, and adaptive capacity whilst continuing to provide vital resources for the global population. Here, we use foresighting/hindcasting to consider two plausible futures towards 2030: a business-as-usual trajectory (i.e. continuation of current trends), and a more sustainable but technically achievable future in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We identify key drivers that differentiate these alternative futures and use these to develop an action pathway towards the desirable, more sustainable future. Key to achieving the more sustainable future will be establishing integrative (i.e. across jurisdictions and sectors), adaptive management that supports equitable and sustainable stewardship of marine environments. Conserving marine ecosystems will require recalibrating our social, financial, and industrial relationships with the marine environment. While a sustainable future requires long-term planning and commitment beyond 2030, immediate action is needed to avoid tipping points and avert trajectories of ecosystem decline. By acting now to optimise management and protection of marine ecosystems, building upon existing technologies, and conserving the remaining biodiversity, we can create the best opportunity for a sustainable future in 2030 and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ocean governance is complex and influenced by multiple drivers and actors with different worldviews and goals. While governance encompasses many elements, in this paper we focus on the processes that operate within and between states, civil society and local communities, and the market, including industry. Specifically, in this paper, we address the question of how to move towards more sustainable ocean governance aligning with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the UN Ocean Decade. We address three major risks to oceans that arise from governance-related issues: (1) the impacts of the overexploitation of marine resources; (2) inequitable distribution of access to and benefits from marine ecosystem services, and (3) inadequate or inappropriate adaptation to changing ocean conditions. The SDGs have been used as an underlying framework to develop these risks. We identify five drivers that may determine how ocean governance evolves, namely formal rules and institutions, evidence and knowledge-based decision-making, legitimacy of decision-making institutions, stakeholder engagement and participation, and empowering communities. These drivers were used to define two alternative futures by 2030: (a) 'Business as Usual'—a continuation of current trajectories and (b) 'More Sustainable Future'—optimistic, transformational, but technically achievable. We then identify what actions, as structured processes, can reduce the three major governance-related risks and lead to the More Sustainable Future. These actions relate to the process of co-creation and implementation of improved, comprehensive, and integrated management plans, enhancement of decision-making processes, and better anticipation and consideration of ambiguity and uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proactive and coordinated action to mitigate and adapt to climate change will be essential for achieving the healthy, resilient, safe, sustainably harvested and biodiverse ocean that the UN Decade of Ocean Science and sustainable development goals (SDGs) seek. Ocean-based mitigation actions could contribute 12% of the emissions reductions required by 2030 to keep warming to less than 1.5 ºC but, because substantial warming is already locked in, extensive adaptation action is also needed. Here, as part of the Future Seas project, we use a "foresighting/hindcasting" technique to describe two scenarios for 2030 in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation for ocean systems. The "business-as-usual" future is expected if current trends continue, while an alternative future could be realised if society were to effectively use available data and knowledge to push as far as possible towards achieving the UN SDGs. We identify three drivers that differentiate between these alternative futures: (i) appetite for climate action, (ii) handling extreme events, and (iii) climate interventions. Actions that could navigate towards the optimistic, sustainable and technically achievable future include: proactive creation and enhancement of economic incentives for mitigation and adaptation; supporting the proliferation of local initiatives to spur a global transformation; enhancing proactive coastal adaptation management; investing in research to support adaptation to emerging risks; deploying marine-based renewable energy; deploying marine-based negative emissions technologies; developing and assessing solar radiation management approaches; and deploying appropriate solar radiation management approaches to help safeguard critical ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most pronounced effects of climate change on the world's oceans is the (generally) poleward movement of species and fishery stocks in response to increasing water temperatures. In some regions, such redistributions are already causing dramatic shifts in marine socioecological systems, profoundly altering ecosystem structure and function, challenging domestic and international fisheries, and impacting on human communities. Such effects are expected to become increasingly widespread as waters continue to warm and species ranges continue to shift. Actions taken over the coming decade (2021–2030) can help us adapt to species redistributions and minimise negative impacts on ecosystems and human communities, achieving a more sustainable future in the face of ecosystem change. We describe key drivers related to climate-driven species redistributions that are likely to have a high impact and influence on whether a sustainable future is achievable by 2030. We posit two different futures—a 'business as usual' future and a technically achievable and more sustainable future, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. We then identify concrete actions that provide a pathway towards the more sustainable 2030 and that acknowledge and include Indigenous perspectives. Achieving this sustainable future will depend on improved monitoring and detection, and on adaptive, cooperative management to proactively respond to the challenge of species redistribution. We synthesise examples of such actions as the basis of a strategic approach to tackle this global-scale challenge for the benefit of humanity and ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migratory movements of animals frequently span political borders and the need for international collaboration in the conservation of migratory species is well recognized. There is, however, less appreciation of the need for coordinated protection within nations. We explore consequences of multilevel governance for top-down implementation of international agreements, drawing on examples from Australia and with reference to the United States and European Union. Coherent implementation of legislation and policy for migratory species can be challenging in federal jurisdictions where environmental law making can be split across multiple levels of governance and local and federal priorities may not necessarily be aligned. As a result of these challenges, for example, two-thirds of Australian migratory birds remain unprotected under national legislation. In Australia and elsewhere, coordinated protection of migratory species can be implemented within the current framework of conservation law and policy by actions such as designating national migration areas, negotiating nationally coordinated agreements or listings of migratory species and pursuing new bilateral agreements with key countries along migratory routes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]