Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7: Contribution to Climate Change
Thursday 21 February 2019 @ 10.37 a.m. | Judiciary, Legal Profession & Procedure | Legal Research | Trade & Commerce
On 8 February 2019, Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land Environment Court, delivered his decision in Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7, in which he confirmed a decision to refuse permission for a new open-cut coal mine, known as the "Rocky Hill mine", near Gloucester in the Hunter Valley. The proposed mine's estimated contribution to climate change was one of the key reasons given for refusal of the application. This decision has been described as a "landmark" decision and that "could further tighten the screws on the coal industry".
Background to the Decision
The case is the result of an appeal by the mining company, Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL), against the refusal by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) in 2017 of an application for a coal mine to be established at Rocky Hill in the Gloucester Valley of NSW. The proposed mine was an open cut coal mine, which was estimated to produce 21 million tonnes of coal over a 16 year period.
The issue relating to the impacts of the mine on climate change were only raised on appeal, by community group Groundswell Gloucester Inc, which was only permitted to intervene in the process at that stage. The original PAC’s refusal of GRL’s application was based on planning grounds and had not included the issue of the impact of climate change.
Reasons for Decision
In general, Chief Justice Preston concluded that the mine should be refused due to its significant and unacceptable planning and visual and social impacts, which "cannot be satisfactorily mitigated". This argument was the principal reasoning used for refusal, while avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and their likely contribution to adverse impacts of climate change added a further reason for refusal of the mine.
Climate Change and Market Substitution
Chief Justice Preston examined the evidence of climate change before the court, and, in doing so, considered both national and international and decisions, international agreements and Australian climate policies before rejecting a series of arguments by GRL [see judgment paragraph 422]. The third argument rejected by Chief Justice Preston relating to "market substitution" has particular significance for other litigation against Australian coal mines, particularly in Queensland. Chief Justice Preston states at paragraph [534] :
The point of GRL's argument being that there will therefore, be at least the same amount of green house gas emissions, namely, coming from those other mines rather than from the Rocky Hill mine.
At paragraph [538] Chief Justice Preston indicates that the market substitution argument is flawed because there is no certainty that substitution will actually happen:
At paragraphs [539], [540] , [541] Chief Justice Preston points out that contrary to the market substitution argument there is the high possibility that by refusing climate affecting projects, developed countries like Australia may actually set a lead that steers countries like India and Indonesia away from green house emitting projects.
Developed countries such as Australia have a responsibility, including under the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, to take the lead in taking mitigation measures to reduce green house gas emissions . . .
Developing countries might consider that domestic mitigation measures to achieve their nationally determined contributions for reducing GHG emissions should include not approving new development for the exploitation or burning of fossil fuel reserves. Developing countries may be encouraged to take such mitigation measures by developed countries taking the lead in doing so in their countries. Hence, there is no certainty that refusal of consent to the Project will cause a new coal mine in another country to substitute coking coal for the volume lost in the open market by refusal of the Project.
Thirdly, the ability of a new coking coal mine in another country to substitute for any volume of coal lost by refusal of the Project will depend on the market, including the demand and supply of substitute sources of coal and any difference in price between coal from the Project and from other substitute sources, which price difference might affect substitutability. Without any evidence about the existence and effect of these market forces on substitutability, no assumption can be made that there would be market substitution by coal from new coal mines in other countries if the Project were to be refused."
In paragraph [542] Chief Justice Preston points out that the market substitution assumption was rejected by the US Court of Appeal in WildEarth Guardians v US Bureau of Land Management 870 F 3d 1222 (10th Cir, 2017) - saying at paragraph [544] that the US Court of Appeals concluded that “the assumption itself is irrational (that is, contrary to basic supply and demand principles” and observing that “it was an abuse of discretion to rely on an economic assumption, which contradicted basic economic principles, as the basis for distinguishing between the no action alternative and the preferred alternative” (see paragraphs 1237-1238 of that judgment).
In paragraph [545] Chief Justice Preston refers to a very important logical flaw in the market substitution assumption, that being:
Reaction and Comment
The Australian Financial Review reports that Baker & McKenzie's global head of climate law, Martin Wilder, has said that:
The ABC News reports that the decision potentially opens up a new chapter in Australia's climate
litigation history, saying:
What's Ahead
According to the Environmental Law Australia website the prospects of an appeal or revised application are high and GRL will almost certainly appeal against this decision but the decision is so learned and well written that it is very likely to survive the appeal. Environmental Law Australia also notes that GRL can also lodge a revised application and re-start the application process for a slightly different mine on the same location.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
Sources:
Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 (8 February 2019)
Landmark Rocky Hill ruling could pave the way for more courts to choose climate over coal (Justine Bell-James, Senior Lecturer, The University of Queensland, ABC News and The Conversation, 12 Feb 2019)
Gloucester Resources case {Environmental Law Australia website]
Climate change takes front seat in NSW court (ABC Law Report, 12 Feb 2019)