Abstract
The regulation of environmental impacts from agriculture can take place at various scales. In some nations, with federal systems of government, the multiscale nature of regulatory interventions can be confusing for farmers, not to mention costly and time-consuming to navigate. Regulatory overlap contributes to inefficiency and wastage in governance efforts, reduced trust in government action and can preclude positive environmental outcomes across the landscape. In this article, we explore how Australia’s national-level law has been applied to agricultural land use. We canvas the concepts of regulatory complexity and ambiguity, and argue for a more integrated and flexible policy mix that rewards positive behaviour and stewardship of natural capital. This model would provide financial and other personal gains for those who can demonstrate objectives are being met. Further empirical research on fine-tuning that policy mix, again across scale, is warranted.
Highlights
Agriculture in Federal Systems of Agricultural land use has been described as a ‘leading human influence on the global environment’ [1]
We examine the case of Australia’s national environmental law—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act)—to highlight the difficulties in regulating agricultural impacts at the federal scale, where state governments are responsible for allocating property rights and making the vast majority of land-use decisions
This article has explored some of the challenges that Australia has experienced in the federal regulation of environmental impacts from the agricultural sector
Summary
Agriculture in Federal Systems of Agricultural land use has been described as a ‘leading human influence on the global environment’ [1]. We examine the case of Australia’s national environmental law—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act)—to highlight the difficulties in regulating agricultural impacts at the federal scale, where state governments are responsible for allocating property rights and making the vast majority of land-use decisions (e.g., mining and gas tenures, national parks and reserves, major public infrastructure, etc.). ‘a simplistic appreciation of the issues as being merely about “red tape” or the putative rights of [Australian] farmers, is unlikely to serve the farm sector or the country well’ [20] In this regard, improved coordination between public and private actors is likely to be necessary [21], as well as adopting strategies that direct farmers to engage in planning towards the achievement of public goals, not necessarily through coercive control, but by offering a degree of flexibility and choice [22]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
