1. Climate Change and Biodiversity Law: A Comparative Analysis between Australia and the United Kingdom
Ilona Millar, Senior Associate, Sydney
Pete Richardson, Associate, London

2. 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

3. 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
Australia’s biodiversity has experienced massive declines over the past century and the interaction of climate change with existing stressors, such as land clearing, habitat fragmentation, fire, and overfishing, will accelerate this rate of species loss.
Many of Australia’s most valued, iconic and internationally significant natural areas are among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. They include the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian Alps, the Queensland Wet Tropics and the Kakadu wetlands.
Recently observed changes in Australia’s biota include the migration of several bird species poleward and to higher altitudes, earlier mating of reptile species, reduced reproduction of wedge-tailed shearwaters on the Great Barrier Reef Islands, the encroachment of rainforest upon eucalypt savanna woodland in the NT, and eight mass bleaching events since 1979 on the Great Barrier Reef.
Australia only ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007, and there are still no federal laws which are specifically designed to deal with climate change. The main piece of federal environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 does not recognise climate change as a major threat to biodiversity, nor does it explicitly address how to deal with the threat of climate change to matters of national environmental significance.
The UK….
Despite, these stark differences, both jurisdictions share similar experiences in that the same questions arise and the same issues are felt by policy makers. For example, both jurisdictions have to deal with the dilemma posed by mitigations actions, such as wind farms and carbon geo-sequestration, that have the potential to significantly impact endangered species. Both jurisdictions are also having to significantly enhance their conservation efforts through the use and design of nature reserves to allow species to migrate and self-adapt to increasing temperatures.
A comparison of the legal frameworks across these two jurisdictions aims to identify what lessons can be learned from each, and what tools legislators might employ to more effectively integrate climate change and biodiversity concerns, to minimise regulatory gaps and avoid the damaging effects of legislative conflict.

4. Themes
Decision makers have already made value judgments between biodiversity and climate change
There is a need to distinguish between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures
More could and should be done to identify the key areas where decision points will occur
Australia’s biodiversity has experienced massive declines over the past century and the interaction of climate change with existing stressors, such as land clearing, habitat fragmentation, fire, and overfishing, will accelerate this rate of species loss.
Many of Australia’s most valued, iconic and internationally significant natural areas are among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. They include the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian Alps, the Queensland Wet Tropics and the Kakadu wetlands.
Recently observed changes in Australia’s biota include the migration of several bird species poleward and to higher altitudes, earlier mating of reptile species, reduced reproduction of wedge-tailed shearwaters on the Great Barrier Reef Islands, the encroachment of rainforest upon eucalypt savanna woodland in the NT, and eight mass bleaching events since 1979 on the Great Barrier Reef.
Australia only ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007, and there are still no federal laws which are specifically designed to deal with climate change. The main piece of federal environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 does not recognise climate change as a major threat to biodiversity, nor does it explicitly address how to deal with the threat of climate change to matters of national environmental significance.
The UK….
Despite, these stark differences, both jurisdictions share similar experiences in that the same questions arise and the same issues are felt by policy makers. For example, both jurisdictions have to deal with the dilemma posed by mitigations actions, such as wind farms and carbon geo-sequestration, that have the potential to significantly impact endangered species. Both jurisdictions are also having to significantly enhance their conservation efforts through the use and design of nature reserves to allow species to migrate and self-adapt to increasing temperatures.
A comparison of the legal frameworks across these two jurisdictions aims to identify what lessons can be learned from each, and what tools legislators might employ to more effectively integrate climate change and biodiversity concerns, to minimise regulatory gaps and avoid the damaging effects of legislative conflict.

5. The legal and policy framework
Australia
There are no federal laws that are specifically designed to address climate change
The 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
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
Does climate change legislation incorporate biodiversity considerations?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Offsets policy
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Carbon Capture and Storage Legislation (onshore and offshore)
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
The Victorian Climate Change Bill 2010

6. 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
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
Does climate change legislation incorporate biodiversity considerations?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Offsets policy
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Carbon Capture and Storage Legislation (onshore and offshore)
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
The Victorian Climate Change Bill 2010

7. Theme 1 – value judgments
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
Does climate change legislation incorporate biodiversity considerations?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Offsets policy
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Carbon Capture and Storage Legislation (onshore and offshore)
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
The Victorian Climate Change Bill 2010
Copyright of the images appearing on this slide is acknowledged

8. Theme 2 – adaptation vs. mitigation efforts
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
Does climate change legislation incorporate biodiversity considerations?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Offsets policy
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Carbon Capture and Storage Legislation (onshore and offshore)
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
The Victorian Climate Change Bill 2010
Copyright of the images appearing on this slide is acknowledged

9. 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
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
Does climate change legislation incorporate biodiversity considerations?
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Offsets policy
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Carbon Capture and Storage Legislation (onshore and offshore)
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme
The Victorian Climate Change Bill 2010

10. Lessons learned
Decision makers have already made value judgments between biodiversity and climate change - Guidance
There is a need to distinguish between climate change mitigation and adaptation measures - Thought
More could and should be done to identify key the areas where decision points will occur - Action
Australia’s biodiversity has experienced massive declines over the past century and the interaction of climate change with existing stressors, such as land clearing, habitat fragmentation, fire, and overfishing, will accelerate this rate of species loss.
Many of Australia’s most valued, iconic and internationally significant natural areas are among the most vulnerable in the world to climate change. They include the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian Alps, the Queensland Wet Tropics and the Kakadu wetlands.
Recently observed changes in Australia’s biota include the migration of several bird species poleward and to higher altitudes, earlier mating of reptile species, reduced reproduction of wedge-tailed shearwaters on the Great Barrier Reef Islands, the encroachment of rainforest upon eucalypt savanna woodland in the NT, and eight mass bleaching events since 1979 on the Great Barrier Reef.
Australia only ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007, and there are still no federal laws which are specifically designed to deal with climate change. The main piece of federal environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 does not recognise climate change as a major threat to biodiversity, nor does it explicitly address how to deal with the threat of climate change to matters of national environmental significance.
The UK….
Despite, these stark differences, both jurisdictions share similar experiences in that the same questions arise and the same issues are felt by policy makers. For example, both jurisdictions have to deal with the dilemma posed by mitigations actions, such as wind farms and carbon geo-sequestration, that have the potential to significantly impact endangered species. Both jurisdictions are also having to significantly enhance their conservation efforts through the use and design of nature reserves to allow species to migrate and self-adapt to increasing temperatures.
A comparison of the legal frameworks across these two jurisdictions aims to identify what lessons can be learned from each, and what tools legislators might employ to more effectively integrate climate change and biodiversity concerns, to minimise regulatory gaps and avoid the damaging effects of legislative conflict.

11. Climate Change and Biodiversity Law: A Comparative Analysis between Australia and the United Kingdom
Ilona Millar, Senior Associate, Sydney
Pete Richardson, Associate, London