法庭上的生物多样性:《区域森林协议》会使《EPBC法案》变得无关紧要吗?

IF 1.6 Q3 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Pacific Conservation Biology Pub Date : 2021-09-21 DOI:10.1071/pc21035
D. Lindenmayer, Peter Burnett
{"title":"法庭上的生物多样性:《区域森林协议》会使《EPBC法案》变得无关紧要吗?","authors":"D. Lindenmayer, Peter Burnett","doi":"10.1071/pc21035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two key pieces of Australian legislation regarding the protection of biodiversity and forest management are the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) Act 2002. Both have significant deficiencies. A Federal Court ruling associated with a challenge to the Victorian Government-owned logging company, VicForests, by a community environmental group (Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc.) found that RFAs are exempt from the EPBC Act. There was an argument of legal interpretation concerning the exemption in the EPBC and RFA Acts relating to RFA forestry operations that are conducted ‘in accordance with’ an RFA. The Court held that ‘in accordance with’ only required that forestry operations be ‘conducted under’ an RFA rather than ‘in compliance’ with it. Therefore, the mere existence of the RFA is enough to exclude the biodiversity protections of the EPBC Act, even where there are extensive breaches of codes of practice for logging operations and logging is demonstrably unsustainable in terms of its environmental impacts. This amounts to the loss of the ‘safety net’ provided by EPBC Act to protect threatened forest-dependent species. The decision in the Federal Court highlights how deficient Australia’s environmental laws are in conserving the nation’s biodiversity, especially for forest-dependent threatened species. The ruling serves to further weaken already very weak legislation. Major reforms to the EPBC Act are urgently required.","PeriodicalId":38939,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biodiversity in court: will the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) make the EPBC Act irrelevant?\",\"authors\":\"D. Lindenmayer, Peter Burnett\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/pc21035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two key pieces of Australian legislation regarding the protection of biodiversity and forest management are the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) Act 2002. Both have significant deficiencies. A Federal Court ruling associated with a challenge to the Victorian Government-owned logging company, VicForests, by a community environmental group (Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc.) found that RFAs are exempt from the EPBC Act. There was an argument of legal interpretation concerning the exemption in the EPBC and RFA Acts relating to RFA forestry operations that are conducted ‘in accordance with’ an RFA. The Court held that ‘in accordance with’ only required that forestry operations be ‘conducted under’ an RFA rather than ‘in compliance’ with it. Therefore, the mere existence of the RFA is enough to exclude the biodiversity protections of the EPBC Act, even where there are extensive breaches of codes of practice for logging operations and logging is demonstrably unsustainable in terms of its environmental impacts. This amounts to the loss of the ‘safety net’ provided by EPBC Act to protect threatened forest-dependent species. The decision in the Federal Court highlights how deficient Australia’s environmental laws are in conserving the nation’s biodiversity, especially for forest-dependent threatened species. The ruling serves to further weaken already very weak legislation. Major reforms to the EPBC Act are urgently required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Conservation Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Conservation Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/pc21035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/pc21035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

澳大利亚关于保护生物多样性和森林管理的两项关键立法是1999年《联邦环境保护和生物多样性保护法》和2002年《区域森林协定法》。两者都有明显的不足。联邦法院的一项裁决涉及社区环境组织(利德比特之友的Possum股份有限公司)对维多利亚州政府所有的伐木公司VicForests的挑战,该裁决认定RFA不受EPBC法案的约束。关于EPBC和RFA法案中与“根据”RFA进行的RFA林业作业有关的豁免,存在法律解释的争论。法院认为,“根据”只要求林业作业“根据”RFA进行,而不是“遵守”RFA。因此,仅RFA的存在就足以排除EPBC法案的生物多样性保护,即使在大量违反伐木作业守则的地方,而且就其环境影响而言,伐木显然是不可持续的。这相当于失去了EPBC法案为保护受威胁的森林依赖物种而提供的“安全网”。联邦法院的裁决突显了澳大利亚的环境法在保护国家生物多样性方面的不足,尤其是对依赖森林的濒危物种。该裁决进一步削弱了本已十分薄弱的立法。迫切需要对EPBC法案进行重大改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biodiversity in court: will the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) make the EPBC Act irrelevant?
Two key pieces of Australian legislation regarding the protection of biodiversity and forest management are the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) Act 2002. Both have significant deficiencies. A Federal Court ruling associated with a challenge to the Victorian Government-owned logging company, VicForests, by a community environmental group (Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum Inc.) found that RFAs are exempt from the EPBC Act. There was an argument of legal interpretation concerning the exemption in the EPBC and RFA Acts relating to RFA forestry operations that are conducted ‘in accordance with’ an RFA. The Court held that ‘in accordance with’ only required that forestry operations be ‘conducted under’ an RFA rather than ‘in compliance’ with it. Therefore, the mere existence of the RFA is enough to exclude the biodiversity protections of the EPBC Act, even where there are extensive breaches of codes of practice for logging operations and logging is demonstrably unsustainable in terms of its environmental impacts. This amounts to the loss of the ‘safety net’ provided by EPBC Act to protect threatened forest-dependent species. The decision in the Federal Court highlights how deficient Australia’s environmental laws are in conserving the nation’s biodiversity, especially for forest-dependent threatened species. The ruling serves to further weaken already very weak legislation. Major reforms to the EPBC Act are urgently required.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pacific Conservation Biology
Pacific Conservation Biology Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Pacific Conservation Biology provides an important discussion forum for regional conservation issues, debate about management priorities, and dissemination of research results. The journal publishes original research, reviews, perspectives and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Ivor Beatty Award 2022 Special issues in Pacific Conservation Biology – an update <i>Corrigendum to</i>: The role of grass-tree <i>Xanthorrhoea semiplana</i> (Asphodelaceae) canopies in temperature regulation and waterproofing for ground-dwelling wildlife <i>Corrigendum to</i>: Community-driven shark monitoring for informed decision making: a case study from Fiji Retraction notice to ‘Key research priorities for the future of fish and fisheries in Australia’ [Pacific Conservation Biology (2022) doi:10.1071/PC21073]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1