Search

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?

As wildfires, biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, and climate change increasingly impact upon ecosystems and human livelihoods around the world,1 a growing number of scholars are emphasizing the importance of hope. Hope can mitigate the paralysis of helplessness and catalyze ambitious efforts towards sustainability.2 Charting Environmental Law Futures in the Anthropocene, edited by Michelle Lim, carves out its place in that context, as an ambitious and forward-facing contribution to environmental law scholarship. The book presents a diverse series of case studies and conceptual analyses. In doing so, it proposes a roadmap for improving the capacity of environmental laws to promote desirable futures in a period of unprecedented global change.

The article evaluates the role of law in adaptation over the past decade. We track the emergence of international adaptation law within the climate and non-climate regime, alongside increasingly dire extreme events and strident scientific consensus. Examining the growth in national and subnational laws for adaptation, we reflect on the role of framework legislation and legal mechanisms used in sectoral laws. Based on progress over the past decade, we outline how the role of law can be enhanced and accelerated in the decade ahead. We identify important trends in adaptation law and consider the potential for these innovations to drive future adaptation: the sheer growth in priority and volume of laws directed towards adaptation; the intersection of adaptation with other policy domains, especially disaster risk reduction; the need for improved architecture for funding adaptation; and the important role of strategic litigation. Largely absent from the past decade of adaptation law reform is evaluation of effectiveness, or examples of systemic reform that addresses underlying causes of vulnerability. With slow progress in implementing transformational adaptation law reform, we identify five design principles for adaptation laws. The design of laws must (1) be responsive to change; (2) address equity dimensions of climate change; (3) implement innovative solutions; (4) maximize co-benefits; and (5) establish processes for managing trade-offs.

Free‐ranging domestic cats Felis catus, from owned pets to feral cats, impact biodiversity through predation, fear effects, competition, disease and hybridization. Scientific knowledge regarding these impacts has recently increased, making it timely to assess the role of nature conservation legislation in this connection. We do so with particular regard to the obligations of governments around the world under international wildlife law. First, we provide an overview of current knowledge, based on a literature review, concerning the ways in which domestic cats impact wildlife; the resulting effects on native species’ populations and ecosystems; and available strategies for addressing these issues. In light of this knowledge, using standard legal research methodology, we then identify and interpret relevant legal instruments, with a particular focus on international wildlife treaties. Lastly, we identify and assess factors that may influence the implementation of relevant obligations. The outcomes of this analysis indicate that numerous legal obligations of relevance to free‐ranging domestic cats already apply under global treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Migratory Species and World Heritage Convention, and a range of regional legal instruments for biodiversity conservation. Of particular significance are obligations concerning (a) invasive alien species; (b) protected areas and (c) protected species. Many national authorities around the world are currently required, under international law, to adopt and implement policies aimed at preventing, reducing or eliminating the biodiversity impacts of free‐ranging domestic cats, in particular by (a) removing feral and other unowned cats from the landscape to the greatest extent possible and (b) restricting the outdoor access of owned cats. Factors that can influence or impair the application of these obligations include considerations of feasibility, scientific uncertainty, the interests of cat owners and the (perceived) interests of domestic cats themselves. Even if such factors may to some extent explain why many authorities have hitherto failed to take effective action to address the threats posed by free‐ranging domestic cats, from a legal perspective these factors provide little ground for justifying non‐compliance with international wildlife law. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Anthropogenic climate change represents a wicked problem, both for the Earth’s natural systems and for biodiversity conservation law and policy. Legal frameworks for conservation have a critical role to play in helping species and ecosystems to adapt as the climate changes. However, they are currently poorly equipped to regulate adaptation strategies that demand high levels of human intervention. This article investigates law and policy for conservation introductions, which involve relocating species outside their historical habitat. It takes as a case study Australian law on conservation introductions, demonstrating theoretical and practical legal hurdles to these strategies at international, national and subnational levels. The article argues that existing legal mechanisms may be repurposed, in some cases, to better regulate conservation introduction projects. However, new legal mechanisms are also needed, and soon, to effectively conserve species and ecosystems in a period of unprecedented ecological change.