Karen Bubna-Litic

The use of market-based instruments in protecting South Australia’s marine protected areas

In October 2014, a system of sanctuary zones came into operation in the Australian state of South Australia. The coming into force of these sanctuary zones was the last step in a process designed to protect South Australia’s unique marine diversity which began some 15 years previously.1 These sanctuary zones are ‘no fishing’ zones and are part of the marine protected areas of the state.2 They number 83 and cover approximately 6% of South Australia’s marine area. Marine protected areas cover approximately 44% of the state’s marine area. The nonsanctuary zoned marine protected areas, which cover 38% of the state’s marine areas, allow a variety of fishing (both commercial and recreational) and other recreational activities.3 The designation of these 83 sanctuary zones has caused much concern, anxiety and distress to many of South Australia’s fishing communities.4 This paper focuses on the conflict with the commercial fishers and the use of market mechanisms to try to come to a resolution of this conflict. It aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular marketbased instrument to deal with the concerns of these stakeholders and analyse the outcomes in the establishment and zoning of South Australia’s Marine Parks. Section 2 will look at the background to the protection of marine diversity in South Australia (SA). It will describe the uniqueness of the marine diversity of SA and the process embarked on for its protection. Section 3 will set out the concerns of the fishing industry and what efforts were involved in trying to ameliorate these concerns. Section 4 will evaluate the use of the market based instruments used in this process and Section 5 will discuss the resolution using this mechanism and what lessons can be used and applied in other jurisdictions.

Supporting Emission Reductions Through a Viable Wind Energy Industry: Lessons for Australia

Denmark has been the world’s leader in wind energy for many years. In 2011, Denmark produced 28.3 per cent of its electricity from wind power, the largest share of any country in the world. Denmark has had a successful wind energy industry since the 1970s, supported by energy taxes for many years. In addition to these taxes, Denmark has initiated planning law reform and linked wind power development to industry development, heavily involving local communities. Over many years, these policies have helped provide certainty to the industry and allayed community concerns. Australia, on the other hand, has been slowly developing a wind energy industry following the introduction of a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) in 2001 and a carbon tax in July 2012. In 2013, Australia produced 4 per cent of its electricity from wind energy. The recent repeal of the carbon tax and the review of the MRET has resulted in uncertainty for the wind energy industry and a consequent withdrawal of investment. Australia and Denmark are different geographically and geopolitically. Australia is a large, sparsely populated land mass, with wind energy regulated by separate States. Energy security is not an issue. This is advantageous for Australia in that it enables Australia to have large buffer zones for wind turbines and the ability to capture wind at all times through wind turbines at different locations.

Climate Change Impacts on the Poor – a Case-Study of Australia's Indigenous Population and the Impact of Australia's Response on this Population

Climate change is likely to affect indigenous communities significantly, as they often lack the economic and technical resources available to non-indigenous communities to respond to the social and environmental challenges of climate change. These challenges include the increased costs resulting from climate change policy, decreased availability of water and food, decreased security and availability of housing, and adverse health effects. These challenges will be more difficult for indigenous communities to meet because they generally already experience a lower economic standard of living and have less education and training.1 Furthermore, climate change policies, unless carefully designed with attention to their impact on indigenous communities, are likely to disproportionately affect indigenous communities because those communities are generally located in physically isolated, fragile and harsh environments. This chapter presents a case study of the impact of climate change and climate change policy on indigenous Australians. It attempts to answer two questions. The first question is whether climate change will disproportionately impact indigenous Australians? The second question is whether Australia’s response to climate change, by putting a price on carbon, will disproportionately burden indigenous Australians? The chapter concludes that the answer to both questions is ‘yes’. Given that fact, the Australian government needs to pay particular attention to indigenous Australians, who may be disproportionately burdened because they are indigenous. To date, in the climate change debate in Australia, there has been little attention paid to the particular position of indigenous Australians, with the 67 68 Poverty alleviation and environmental law...