Everywhere in the world, the issue of climate change presents an archetypal environmental problem. Communities often fight governments, both at the state and national levels in a bid to protect the environment they have known for ages. Governments, on the other hand, protect these natural settings by formulating laws and policies that ensure the society does not lose its treasures[1]. However, some seek to use the protected spaces as a means of developing projects that will provide the state or nation with more resources, revenues and products. These may be good developmental projects, but they ought to protect the environment first before they can sell such ideas to a conservative society. As in all other nations, Australia has also been engulfed in a fight to save the environment as the government looks at creating developmental projects that will necessary block any advantages that the local community has enjoyed since time immemorial[2]. By seeking to repeal at least 60% of protection that the New South Wales Far North Coast’s forests, wetlands and wildlife habitant, the government is slowly seeking to destroy the local community. Conservatives will agree that the best way of protecting the environment is by setting aside a portion of some indigenous scenery and protect it from encroachment[3]. However, encroachment is still a biting problem and the recent statements by the authorities only heighten the environmental issues at hand. Legal processes and issues have arisen with groups seeking to go to court to block the said expansions by the local authorities. The report herein will look at aspects of the law that will help protect the environment from the said degradation, and offer advice on how these legal issues may be addressed.

Statement of facts:

Globally, the emergence of ecological degradation as a threat to the environment has led to the utilization of the environmental laws as a way of protecting the natural resources available. As a community, stripping of the protection of the natural resources in the area and encouraging other developments is against the laws that govern the country. In regard to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 which provides the Australian Government with key legislation on the environment[4]. The developments may bring revenue to the state, but the aftermath of the same is disastrous. It is with immense concern the community knows of the need to reduce carbon emissions, and conserving the natural environment is one way of achieving this seamlessly[5]. The government is creating a project that aims at increasing the revenues of the state but the bottom line still stands: the destruction of the natural habitant. As each party seeks to expound on its concerns and argue in favor of its stand, the ideological positioning should not take a political spin[6]. Some may be benefiting from the project while placing the community under possible environmental disasters. Climate law and environmental conservation cannot be fought under the old regulatory schemes alone[7]. The new ideological attributes that contribute to the betterment of the society should be addressed and embraced. Australia is ready for new legal avenues through which they can claim a right to the protection of their biodiversity, as well as ensure those in power are accountable for their actions. The Save North Coast Nature Campaign has embarked on an ambitious project of protecting the environment from the developmental projects that have been suggested by the minister in charge of planning and infrastructure. Development is crucial in any setting. However, the environment cannot be compromised as they seek to promote a few interests.

Forests are habitats to wildlife that earns the state foreign exchange from tourism. It is also a source of heritage as the local community prides itself in the natural presence of such environmental attributes within their vicinity. There is local tourism, which still earns the state revenue and promotes tourism. Such are the benefits that the state benefits from, in addition to clean atmosphere and, a clean environment. The locals have better environmental attributes based on what they own and what is within their locality. Forests are also a source of ecosystem stabilization, which means that the environment within the North Coast is fully balanced with carbon emissions reduced by the presence of these trees. The climate is another beneficiary of the presence of these trees as they provide a myriad of climatic changes that benefit the locality the most. The other benefits of tress and the forest in general is the reduction in soil erosion purification of air through their emission of oxygen and the absorption of carbon.

The wetlands were at one time considered as useless and even drained for development. However, the realization that they play a significant role in the world ecosystem has changed the whole outlook. The wetlands are vital not only to the local community, but also to the species and organisms they support. They are able to filter water and let it sip to the ground during the dry periods. This ensures that the underground waters are still up and running, which forms a source of water for the local communities. It also allows the local flora and fauna to flourish during the wet and dry seasons without substantial effects. The sipping and the filtration allow for the natural cleansing of water, which helps eliminate as much waste, toxic and pollution from the water system. It also reduces some nutrients that may make the water susceptible to a bloom in algae. They can support a wide range of species which makes it a source of tourist attraction and a source of local heritage. These areas also have the ability to halt the velocity of floods and this protects villages from flooding. They help disperse the excess water, and this is an essential contribution to the community. Any disturbance may thus reduce this susceptibility and place the North Coast in the path of destruction from the excess waters. Crops planted in these areas are also susceptible to frost which means that the community will suffer from under development, starvation and environmental consequences[8].

Economic models may come up as a way of fighting the repealing of the protection clauses as the communities are likely to suffer the most from the reluctance by the authorities to protect the environment. The community does not wish to see their heritage destroyed by developments that will amongst other things change the future for good[9]. The law supports the protection and management of the heritage places in Australia and lists all those areas that require national protection. The North Coast has been under government protection for quite a time. The repeal will put the whole area under development, disadvantaging the local community as such, it is clear that legally, the national government is supposed to place the interests of the nation at the forefront before engaging in activities that place them under risk[10].

Legal issues:

According to the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995, the commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory agreed to make joint legislative provisions that would allow them to establish bodies that would oversee the protection of these heritage sites. This means that the authorities already understand the significance of these natural resources that could earn them revenue in their current state. As a conservation measure, several measures have been put across to ensure that this comes to pass. However, the recent backtracking by the authorities raises more questions than answers. Legally, the community can petition to have the repealing of the 60% protection rules halted. This means that environmental conservation that the act foresaw almost a decade ago is still relevant.

Another issue that will require legal interpretation is the fact that the developments to be made are likelier to cause pollution due to carbon emission while the construction is underway. This is against the environmental laws and principles that Australia ascribes to as a nation. If the nation does not agree to such laws, why should the state seek to overturn the federal state? As stated in the NEPC Act, the state should consult widely before making such radical decisions. Any changes will affect the entire community and eventually the rest of the state[11]. People will migrate to new areas, and this may stretch the available resources. The environmental zones that are present in the state require protection and the government seem to be thinking otherwise. This is misusing the law to negate the achievements gained over the years. According to Save North Cost Nature, these natural resources have been under the protection of the community for over 25 years and the risk of being striped the protection status threatens their downfall[12].

According to policies stipulated under the EPBC act, the government is expected to promote ecologically sustainable development through conservationist measures that use natural resources in a manner that encourages sustainability[13]. The act also prohibits any individual from taking any action that has a significant effect on the environment without approval from the minister[14]. Nonetheless, this does not offer the minister an express authority over the decisions that are taken in regard to the action (development, activity or an undertaking) on the chosen piece of land[15]. According to the State v Marloelle Pty Ltd [ACN 070 525 209], the judge concluded that the defendant had a case to answer after clearing 4.5 ha of an endangered ecological community that was listed as endangered under EPBC act. This shows that the government is also going against policies that it is willing to prosecute others for in court. Transparency and accountability should not be lost in the whole development foresightedness. Instead, the due process of the law should be followed to the letter. Protection of the community and its natural resources cannot be possible without involving the community members.

Several legal cases have been heard and determined in the country, and their verdict was almost similar. Councils were asked to pay for the damage cause due to their laxity (see state v Singleton Council [ABN 52 877 492 396]), companies charged for clearing wetlands (see State v Goodman Property Services (Aust) Pty Ltd [ABN 40 088 981 793]), and even farmers were not spared from the same (see Minister for the Environment & Heritage v Greentree [(No 3) [2004] FCA 1317])[16]. They were all tasked with ensuring that the rehabilitation of these areas was taken and that the remaining areas were protected. If the courts argue that heritage areas should remain as such, the minister should also follow the same directive[17]. Pollution of the environment will cost the state more in revenues as opposed to leaving the community to continue taking care of the environment. Legally, the protected areas require the protection of the minister and the entire federation[18]. In the case of the minister offering some proposals to strip the protection status, the community can seek legal redress to protect their environment.

Discussions:

From above, the state is tasked with protecting the society and all the resources within the community. However, the minister has chosen to take into his stride the aspect of policy-making while depriving the society and the community that benefits from airing their views. Though the submissions were extended to accommodate different views, it is imperative that the sate takes a closer look at how these can impact the society as a whole. The most appropriate means is by allowing the legal aspects of the state to take control of the process, and determine whether the minister is in order to have 60% of the protection clauses removed[19]. The minister may have the powers to set up a committee to look at the viability of the project at hand. However, the community has rights that provide them with a voice when their environment is under attack from any quarter. Legal issues emanate from this given the sensitivity of the issue at hand. Some argue that the necessity of environmental laws cannot be justified given the amount of money used to implement them[20]. However, it is crucial that people protect the environment with all that they have and ensure that each natural resource is protected under the law.

There are certain laws that determine how petitions in the environment will be handed. There are laws within the constitution that help protect the various environmental issues arising. This means that the constitution understands the essentiality of the preservation and conservation of the environment. There are common laws that regulate how people interact with each other in regard to the environment[21]. It also protects the way people use the environment for their personal and commercial uses. This informed art of the suit that was filed against a farmer who cleared an area with ecological areas. There are also issues that are covered under municipal and state laws which lay down frameworks that apply across all aspects of the environment within that jurisdiction[22]. Similarly, there are attributes that are local in nature as they need to cater for those resources within their jurisdiction[23]. Therefore, it is vital that these laws be fully comprehended as the community seeks redress on the issue of clearing the resources for development. The management of the law is supposed to be with the interests of the people at the forefront. If the needs of the people have been met, the realization of other goals will be easy. The declaration by the minister that 60% of the land needs to be cleared for development was not in genuine regard to the heritage, their past and the traditions of the local community[24]. The people have grown up under the protection of the wetlands, under the use of the forests and their environmental advantages and with the wildlife acting as a source of revenue for them as tourists visit. They have protected these resources from pollution, degradation and clearance of the resources.

Based on all the rules, laws and rulings made on similar issues, the community has a huge reason to want to petition it from the relevant authorities. Though development is necessary, there is a need to factor the aftermath and repercussions of these developments in the general equation. Further, the issue of the necessity of this matter in the country should not crowd the reality of this issue. The ongoing debate regarding the greenhouse gases, both nationally and internationally, cannot be ignored due to the magnitude and impact on these gases[25]. This means that the community must conduct a cost-benefit analysis that allows them to view the impact of these actions before and after. The realization that the healthy ecosystem cannot be easily quantified should allow the minister to relinquish the quest to harm the environment as such. The community should ensure that the regulations put in place by the authorities before the present issue arose are enforced. This offers a chance to enhance their effectiveness and protect that which they seek to save for the next generation.

The community should get as many signatures that oppose the said developmental issues and open an opportunity to have this issue in court. The signatures will be a sign of a petition that allows as many community members to get involved in the running of issues within the community and take control. The petition will also seek to have the minister share in the values and ideologies of the community members, without having a political spin on the matter[26]. Further, the minister will have a moment to deal with issues that may arise from his developmental activity and expound on its significance to the community. In this manner, may be the minister can convince them to accept his idea or come up with a compromise that does not affect the flora and fauna[27]. Such consultative meetings can halt any legal proceedings and come up with strategies that suit all the members. However, it is good that the members agree in advance what they want to gain from this proceeding. The law allows them to petition any decision made on their behalf and get a fair hearing from the legal mechanisms in the country[28]. However, it will not be helpful going to the same assembly with different agendas.

To solve the issue, it is easier if the courts may not be involved. This may be achieved by public participation and ensuring that the minister gives them a chance to air their views. This will be better because the presentations that the public makes will tell of the exact position that the community seeks to follow[29]. If the public stand does not waiver the minister’s resolve, the next step will be using environmental campaigns to help sway the decision-makers from following this resolve. This will help in meeting the required number of people who will help in increasing the number of signatures for the petition[30]. The use of trade unions will also be a welcome means of fighting the resolve. This implies a chance to meet the minister and the involved authorities where discussions on the community’s future can help in dealing with the issues at hand. There is also the lobbying aspect that will help meet the goals of the community. However, these are only done with the hope that the minister will agree to the terms and conditions that the community offers. If they fail to materialize or meet the standards the community wants, the courts may be the only option. This will mean filing a suit and asking the courts to determine whether the minister is acting legally and under his jurisdiction, when he suggests the stripping of 60% of the protection rights from these resources.

Biography:

Agarwal, L., "Green Police", Green Management, (APH Publishing 2005)

Alam, S., Bhuiyan, J. H., Chowdhury, T. M.R. and Techera, E. J. Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law. (London: Routledge, 2012)

Bates, G.M. Environmental Law in Australia. (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2010)

Beder, S, Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism (Scribe Publications, 1997).

Beder, S, The Nature of Sustainable Development. (Scribe Publications, 1993)

Boer, B and Wiffen, G, Heritage Law in Australia. (Oxford University Press, 2006).

Cullinan, C, Wild law. Governing People for Earth.(Siber Ink, 2002).

Durrant, N, Legal Responses to Climate Change. (The Federation Press, 2010).

Environmental Defender’s Office (NSW), Environmental Law Toolkit NSW. A Community Guide to Environmental Law. (The Federation Press, latest edition)

Fisher, D.E, Australian Environmental Law. Norms, Principles and Laws (Lawbook Co, 2010)

Fitzmaurice, M., Ong, D. M. and Merkouris, P. Research Handbook on International Environmental Law. (Camberley (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011)

Godden, L and Peel, J, Environmental Law. Scientific, Policy and Regulatory Dimensions (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Hardman, R. T., Compensation for Environmental Damages Under International Law, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2011).

Lyster, R., Lipman, Z., Franklin, N., Wiffen, G. and Pearson, L. Environmental and planning law in New South Wales. (New South Wales: The Federation Press)

Mercer, D., A Question of Balance. Natural Resources Conflict Issues in Australia. (New South Wales: Federation Press)

Sands, P. and Peel, J. Principles of International Environmental Law. (London: Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Wolfrum, R. and Matz, N. Conflicts in International Environmental Law. Springer, 2003

-----------------------
[1] Agarwal, p.46
[2] Beder, p.19
[3] Boer and Wiffen, p.59
[4] Lyster, Lipman, Franklin, Wiffen and Pearson, p.69
[5] Alam, Bhuiyan, Chowdhury and Techera, p.70
[6] Lyster, Lipman, Franklin, Wiffen and Pearson, p.72
[7] Beder, p.79
[8] Sands and Peel, p.70
[9] Sands and Peel, p.73
[10] Bates, p.38
[11] Hardman, p.99
[12] Hardman, p.102
[13] Ibid., p.103
[14] Wolfrum, R. and Matz, p.23
[15] Environmental Defender’s Office, p.14
[16] Fisher, p.45
[17] Cullinan, p.51
[18] Beder, p.19
[19] Mercer, p.39
[20] Cullinan, p.56
[21] Durrant, p.16
[22] Ibid., p.18
[23] Beder, p.84
[24] Boer and Wiffen, p.62
[25] Environmental Defender’s Office, p.16
[26] Fisher, p.49
[27] Godden and Peel, p.89
[28] Godden and Peel, p.50
[29] Fitzmaurice, Ong and Merkouris, p.38
[30] Alam, Bhuiyan, Chowdhury and Techera, p.78