Search

‘Shared responsibility’ for managing risk is central to Australian adaptation and disaster-resilience policies, yet there is no consensus on what this term means or how it is discharged by various actors at each phase of the risk-management process. This has implications for both equity and effectiveness, because shared responsibility assumes that individuals have capacity and that the decisions they make will not conflict with other public values. This article explores how law assigns responsibility for climate adaptation by examining its approach to a specific climate impact in Australia: the increasing frequency and severity of bushfire. Australia faces heightened bushfire risk from the interplay of climate change effects and demographic shifts. While planning laws attempt to limit exposure of new communities to fire risks, adapting existing communities involves hazard mitigation across the landscape, through fuel reduction – accomplished by controlled burning or clearing of brush and timber – and the construction of fuel breaks. Most Australian jurisdictions impose some form of obligation on land managers or owners to mitigate fire risk. However, the effectiveness of shifting responsibility onto individual landholders, measured in terms of bushfire risk mitigation, is not established. The shifting of responsibility also has implications for equity because shared responsibility for fire management assumes that individuals know what must be done and have the capacity to do it themselves or pay others to. The law also privileges bushfire protection above other public values, including the protection of biodiversity and cultural values. To account for the complexity of adaptation decision-making, bushfire mitigation laws should avoid creating inequities and should include mechanisms for resolving trade-offs between competing values.

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.

Australia is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth. However, despite well-established legal frameworks for conservation, its biodiversity is in rapid decline. This national 'biodiversity crisis' will be exacerbated by long-term climate impacts such as sea level rise and species redistribution. Climate change will also compound the impact of existing threats such as invasive species and changing fire regimes. Australian biodiversity must adapt as the climate changes, to avoid increasing rates of species extinction and ecosystem collapse. Despite a growing understanding of the implications of climate change for biodiversity, there has been little consideration of how existing legal frameworks for conservation either facilitate or hinder climate adaptation by species and ecosystems. This thesis addresses this gap, using the adaptation strategies most commonly advocated in conservation scholarship as a lens to investigate Australian conservation laws and policies for facilitating climate adaptation. The adaptation strategies are: (1) increasing and enhancing the protected area estate; (2) improving landscape connectivity; (3) reducing non-climatic stressors; (4) translocating organisms at risk of extinction; and (5) engaging proactively with ex situ conservation. This analysis shows that while each adaptation strategy is present in Australia's law and policy, none are designed to respond to climate change or facilitate climate adaptation. This analysis also finds that conservation paradigms underpinning existing laws contribute to the lack of targeted adaptation laws. These paradigms embed a static concept of 'nature' and emphasise the value of 'wild' nature removed from human influence. Implementation of each adaptation strategy demonstrates additional limitations, including a lack of clarity about desirable conservation outcomes for biodiversity and a consistent failure to adequately legislate, implement or achieve adaptive management processes and outcomes. This thesis proposes three principles to guide legal reform. Conservation laws must embody proactive conservation approaches, improve legal flexibility without reducing accountability, and prioritise adaptive management for biodiversity conservation. This novel approach provides practical insights for improving the way adaptation strategies are implemented in Australia, with lessons for countries facing similar conservation challenges under climate change.

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. Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11160-020-09631-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Climate change is a fundamental threat to biodiversity. Climate mitigation in general, and Negative-Emission Technologies (nets) in particular, have the potential to benefit biodiversity by reducing climate impacts. Domestic laws could help to ensure that nets have benefits for biodiversity adaptation to climate change (e.g. reducing land clearing and habitat loss and facilitating habitat restoration, corridors for species’ migration, and broader ecological resilience). Domestic laws will also need to govern trade-offs between nets and biodiversity adaptation (e.g. increased competition for land and landscape-scale fragmentation by new industrial developments and linear infrastructure). We argue that domestic laws should be used to maximize the benefits of nets while minimizing trade-offs for biodiversity. These laws should ensure that trade-offs are, at the very least, explicit and transparent, both in terms of their implications for current biodiversity and in the context of an acceleration of climate-driven biodiversity decline.

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.

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11160-021-09641-3.

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:(i)proactive creation and enhancement of economic incentives for mitigation and adaptation;(ii)supporting the proliferation of local initiatives to spur a global transformation;(iii)enhancing proactive coastal adaptation management;(iv)investing in research to support adaptation to emerging risks;(v)deploying marine-based renewable energy;(vi)deploying marine-based negative emissions technologies;(vii)developing and assessing solar radiation management approaches; and(viii)deploying appropriate solar radiation management approaches to help safeguard critical ecosystems. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11160-021-09678-4.

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.

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.

Globally, biodiversity is under increasing pressure from human activities despite protective measures in conservation laws. Climate change will exacerbate those pressures and the effects of habitat loss and species decline. Current approaches to conservation law in most countries focus on establishing protected areas and limiting activities outside reserves that might affect priority species, habitats, and ecological communities. These measures have had mixed success depending on scale and implementation, but are likely to perform poorly under conditions of future change. To prepare for the future, we consider how conservation law and policy needs to anticipate and manage for future change; widen its scope beyond species and ecological communities that are currently threatened; and support adaptive management of priority areas and species. Using Australian conservation law as a case study, we outline three possible routes by which this shift could occur. The first involves enhancing the adaptiveness of conservation law, the second expands the focus of conservation law from protected areas and listed species to include ecosystems and ecosystem services, while the third attempts to do both simultaneously. We examine the legal mechanisms needed to implement each route, examples of their use in practice, and barriers that must be overcome for successful implementation.

© 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society Climate change is driving a pervasive global redistribution of the planet's species. Species redistribution poses new questions for the study of ecosystems, conservation science and human societies that require a coordinated and integrated approach. Here we review recent progress, key gaps and strategic directions in this nascent research area, emphasising emerging themes in species redistribution biology, the importance of understanding underlying drivers and the need to anticipate novel outcomes of changes in species ranges. We highlight that species redistribution has manifest implications across multiple temporal and spatial scales and from genes to ecosystems. Understanding range shifts from ecological, physiological, genetic and biogeographical perspectives is essential for informing changing paradigms in conservation science and for designing conservation strategies that incorporate changing population connectivity and advance adaptation to climate change. Species redistributions present challenges for human well-being, environmental management and sustainable development. By synthesising recent approaches, theories and tools, our review establishes an interdisciplinary foundation for the development of future research on species redistribution. Specifically, we demonstrate how ecological, conservation and social research on species redistribution can best be achieved by working across disciplinary boundaries to develop and implement solutions to climate change challenges. Future studies should therefore integrate existing and complementary scientific frameworks while incorporating social science and human-centred approaches. Finally, we emphasise that the best science will not be useful unless more scientists engage with managers, policy makers and the public to develop responsible and socially acceptable options for the global challenges arising from species redistributions.

Distributions of Earth's species are changing at accelerating rates, increasingly driven by humanmediated climate change. Such changes are already altering the composition of ecological communities, but beyond conservation of natural systems, how and why does this matter? We review evidence that climate-driven species redistribution at regional to global scales affects ecosystem functioning, human well-being, and the dynamics of climate change itself. Production of natural resources required for food security, patterns of disease transmission, and processes of carbon sequestration are all altered by changes in species distribution. Consideration of these effects of biodiversity redistribution is critical yet lacking in most mitigation and adaptation strategies, including the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals.

To the Editor — The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) is a vast area — 1.5 million hectares — with diverse geology, landforms and vegetation. It is listed under the World Heritage Convention owing to the outstanding value of its natural and cultural features, and has been described by the World Heritage Committee as one of the "last remaining temperate wilderness areas in the world"1 (Fig. 1). However, that status has served to attract increasing numbers of high-end ‘eco-tourists’, placing the area under development pressure.

Wilderness is vanishing. Despite explicit legislative protection of wilderness values for over half a century, rapid environmental degradation worldwide in recent decades has severely diminished the extent and quality of terrestrial and marine wilderness to the point where we must reassess the fundamental premises and future of wilderness law. With increased human demands on the natural world, and with climate breakdown looming, the very notion of “wilderness” itself may one day be considered meaningless or irrelevant. We examine legal developments in the United States, Australia, and Europe to critically evaluate the state of wilderness law. In this Anthropocene era, when humans control so much of Earth’s resources, we examine whether the law should aim for a “purist” approach, in which wilderness areas are simply left untouched, or a “pragmatic”’ approach, in which wilderness is actively managed to maintain its cherished values in the face of mounting adversity. A variety of intermediary positions are conceivable between these endpoints, and the best approach to wilderness management will likely depend on several considerations including who or what “wilderness” is meant to serve, the geographic and biological features of the landscape, environmental threats the area faces, the presence of Indigenous or other local communities, and the values that the guiding law means to serve. We offer recommendations to improve wilderness law to navigate the Anthropocene. We suggest proceeding with care and humility, staying as close to purism as possible, while acknowledging that sometimes we must take a pragmatic approach and intervene to preserve the wilderness qualities our laws are designed to protect.