Climate Justice for Future Generations: A Case Study in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Site of Australia

• Author: Keely Boom
• Pages: 597-621

597

Climate Justice for Future

Generations: A Case Study in

the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Site of Australia

Keely Boom

Introduction .................................................................................................597

I. e International Climate Regime and Intergenerational Equity .......... 598

II. World Heritage Convention .................................................................601

A. Interpretation by the High Court of Australia .................................605

B. e Great Barrier Reef ................................................................... 606

III. World Heritage in Danger Petitions .....................................................610

A. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.........613

B. Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine ......................................................614

C. Legal Challenge Against the Carmichael Coal Mine to Promote

Climate Justice ...............................................................................616

D. e Federal Court’s Decision ......................................................... 618

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 621

Introduction

e 1972 World Heritage Convention1 seeks to protect the world’s cultural

and natural heritage of outstanding universa l value for present and future

generations. In 2005, a group of nonprot organizations and individu-

als alerted the World Heritage Committee to the threats posed by climate

change to World Heritage sites around the world. ese petitioners sought to

have threatened sites added to the List of World Heritage in Danger, includ-

ing the Great Barrier Reef of Austra lia.2

1. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Nov. 16, 1972,

11 I.L.M. 1358 [hereinafter World Heritage Convention].

2. S C  I  G L, G C C   G

B R: A’ O U  W H C 5 (2004), a

report prepared for the Environmental Defender’s Oce (NSW), Climate Action Network Australia,

and Greenpeace Australia Pacic [hereinafter SCIG R].

Chapter 22

598 Climate Justice

Australian laws require these sites to be protected, particularly under the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC

Act),3 which gives eect to the World Heritage Convention. A court case

brought by the Australian Conser vation Foundation (ACF) in November 2015

challenged the commonwealth government’s approval of the Carmichael coal

mine. ACF argued that the minister failed to properly consider the impacts to

the Great Barrier Reef from the pollution and carbon emissions from the burn-

ing of the mine’s coa l, and thereby failed to comply with Australia’s obligations

under the World Heritage Convention. e Federal Court dismissed the case

on August 29, 2016.4 ACF has announced that it is appealing the decision.5

Part I of this chapter addresses the international climate change regulatory

regime and the role of intergenerational equity. Part II examines the World

Heritage Convention, and specically considers the interpretation of the World

Heritage Convention provided by the High Court of Australia. It also describes

the Great Barrier Reef, including its value and vulnerability to climate change.

Part III addresses the List of World Heritage in Danger from climate change,

and the possible role of intergenerational climate justice. It highlights the peti-

tion to list the Great Barrier Reef in danger, and the responses by the World

Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre to this and other similar

petitions. Part III also considers Australian legislation, the proposed Carmi-

chael coal mine, and the legal challenge brought by ACF. e legal challenge is

examined to assess the potential role of World Heritage in promoting climate

justice in Australia, particularly for future generations.

I. The International Climate Regime and

Intergenerational Equity

e international climate regime is comprised of the United Nations Frame-

work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),6 the Kyoto Protocol,7

the Paris Agreement,8 and other instruments. ese treaties and other instru-

3. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (Austrl.).

4. Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister for the Environment (2016) FCA 1042 (No.

QUD1017/2015). For a full discussion of this case, see infra Part III.

5. Joshua R obertson, Adani Carm ichael coa lmine face s new lega l challeng e from con servation

foundation, T G, Sept. 19, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/19/

adani-carmichael-coalmine-faces-new-legal-challenge-from-conservation-foundation.

6. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature May 9, 1992, 1771

U.N.T.S. 107, 165 (entered into force Mar. 21, 1994) [hereinafter UNFCCC].

7. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature Mar. 15,

1998, 37 I.L.M. 22 (entered into force Feb. 16, 2005).

8. Adoption of the Paris Agreement, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, 21st Sess., U.N. Doc. FCCC/

CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Dec. 12, 2015), http://unfccc.int/les/home/application/pdf/paris_agreement.

pdf [hereinafter Paris Agreement].