Law, Restoration and Ontologies for a More Ecologically Complex World!

Restoration efforts can target very different outcomes. Simply put, restoration is a process, and diverse values and ontological dispositions can shape the why, what and how questions about what people do. Restorative inputs focused on adaptively adding complexity into an ecosystem commits to values that go beyond rehabilitating and just removing threats and harms that are disturbing an ecosystem. Restoring within a landscape to enhance its ecological complexity is a useful goal for adaptive governance, and one which will also enable discussions about how humans and legal and governance institutions can change and respond to managing the environment. Using two scenarios we briefly explore how governance approaches to restoration need ontological dispositions focused on ecological complexity. In particular, we argue in this article that a focus on inputs into ecological complexity creates not only opportunities for overall new gain, but also, and more critically, that it requires legal and governance changes that establish parameters for how the vision will be realised. We explore and briefly discuss four of these institutional challenges to chart further trajectories for how restorative inputs into ecological complexity can be achieved

Transparency in Resource Agreements with Indigenous People in Australia

This working paper examines transparency requirements in agreement making with Indigenous People. In particular, this working paper examines resource payments provided to Indigenous entities or individuals, under a variety of types of agreementsmade by Indigenous peoples with resource companies, and/or governments. In general, these resource payments are made as part of obtaining a social licence to carry out resource activity on Indigenous lands, and in a process of a resource company gaining approval for exploration or production licenses.Benefits made under agreements can include monetary and non-monetary benefits such as training, education and employment benefits. Payments or other benefits are provided by resource companies to Indigenous peoples in relation to investment in oil, gas, mining exploration or production in Australia under various legal regimes and in a range of forms. We call the many diverse payments and benefits that may be provided to Indigenous people under these regimes resource payments for ease of reference in this working paper. Resource payments may be provided to Indigenous entities or individuals, under a variety of types of agreement made by Indigenous peoples with resource companies, and/or governments. In general,these resource payments are made as part of obtaining a social licence to carry out resource activity on Indigenous lands, and in a process of a resource company gaining approval for exploration or production licenses.Overall, there are minimal or no public disclosure requirements for most types of resource payments, in law and practice in Australia. There is also, in general, no legislative prohibition of disclosure or public reporting of resource payments. Most resource payments are made under contractual agreements between resource companies and Indigenous communities. Subject to normal contractual rules, the parties (resource companies and Indigenous communities) could agree to disclose or report resource payments. However, most do not. Australian lawdoes require some reporting of the existence of agreements under which resource payments are made and the parties to those agreements, and also requires some reporting by Indigenous entities of sources of income including resource payments that they receive. There is a spectrum of legal requirements for public disclosure and transparency of resource payments made to Indigenous people by governments and resource companies. Consequently, in this working paper, we organise the different entities and agreements under which resource payments are made, along a spectrum of transparency from those agreements or entities with the greatest amount of publicly available information, to those agreements which are least transparent.Part 1 of this working paper examines the level of transparency in resource payments. Part 2 examines the range of potential benefits that an Indigenous party to an agreement may receive, the potential value of such benefits and the regulatory requirements in relation to received agreement benefits. Part 3summarises reporting requirements for entities that receive resource paymentsand part 4summarises reporting requirements for agreements under which resource payments are made.This report was commisioned by Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements Projec

Ecological Law: Emerging themes and recent developments

Ecological law aims to give coherence to law that align with ecological economics. This session will provide insights on emerging themes and recent developments in ecological law in 2023. Panelists are engaged with research linked to the Leadership for the Ecozoic (L4E) initiative (l4ecozoic.org) and the Ecological Law and Governance Association (ELGA)(elgaworld.org). They will discuss themes such as rights of nature, legal aspects of “territories of life” and placebased governance, ecological law case studies, water governance, climate governance and more, and will provide updates on developments in ecological approaches to law. The session will provide ample time for participant engagement

Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Framework Position Paper

Submission in relation to the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Framework Position Paper </p

Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) Consultation Paper Submission

Joint Submission on Tasmanian Government Reserver Activity Assessment (RAA) Consultation Paper. The Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) process employed by Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) is used to assess development applications in Tasmanian National Parks and reserves. The RAA process is non statutory but is employed to meet the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 (Tas)  (NPRMA) requirements. Any amendments to this process should meet the environmental law principle of non-regression, which requires that any changes to environmental regulation should result in an overall improvement in protections, never a lowering. National Parks and reserves are Tasmanian’s most precious public land, by virtue of their important environmental, cultural, and recreational values. Any development that occurs on the National Park estate should, therefore, be subject to the most rigorous process and standards. We welcome the establishment of a statutory assessment process that increases transparency, consistency and accountability in decision-making. However, we are concerned that the proposed statutory process for proposals usually classified as ‘level 3 activities,’ will not meet these criteria or further the protection of Tasmania’s National Parks and reserves. </p