Australian_Network_of_Environmental_Defenders_Offices
Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) is an Australian NGO that encourages, funds, and provides lawyers and legal support for litigation, law reform, and community engagement on climate change and environmental issues. EDO formed in late 2019 with the merger of eight separate state and territory organisations into one national organisation. Topics of interest to EDO include: climate change, biodiversity, water, and healthy communities.
| Company type | Non-governmental organisation |
|---|---|
| Industry | Environmental law |
| Founded | 2019 (2019) |
Key people | David Morris (CEO) |
| Services |
|
| Website | edo |
EDO has eight offices around Australia, located in: Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Perth and Sydney.
EDO finds and represents members of the public and environmental groups in legal action which seeks to protect biodiversity, local communities and Australia's unique landscapes.
EDO lawyers have been involved in some of Australia's biggest climate change and environmental legal battles, from the Adani mine and drilling in the Great Australian Bight, to protecting whales in the Antarctic.
EDO lawyers regularly make submissions on aspects of environmental law reform and participate in Federal and State Government inquiries and consultation processes. EDO has advocated strongly for changes to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to better protect Australia's unique wildlife and landscapes from ongoing threats.
EDO conducts workshops, seminars and webinars to inform members of the public about how to participate in the legal process and use the law to protect the environment. The organisation produces factsheets on matters of environmental law and its fortnightly Insight newsletter highlights opportunities to participate in government decision making.
Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7
In February 2019, EDO (as EDO NSW) secured a landmark legal victory, with the refusal of the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine in the New South Wales Upper Hunter region. A key factor in the win was the mine's potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.[1]
Bylong Coal Project (SSD 6367)
EDO (as EDO NSW) represented local community group, the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance, in opposing the 6.5 million tonnes-per-year open cut and underground mine – which would have been built in an area known for its scenic beauty and agricultural productivity. The Independent Planning Commission found that the proposed mine would have unacceptable impacts on groundwater and that the area could not be restored with the same scenic, heritage and natural values after the mine had closed.
Significantly, the panel cited the Rocky Hill case in its decision, describing the emissions from the mine's coal as 'problematical'. It said the mine was not in the public interest because it was contrary to the principles of intergenerational equity.[2]
The Environment Centre Northern Territory v The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority and Anor
In a legal first in 2019, the Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT), represented by the EDO (as EDO NT), challenged a permit to allow the clearing of more than 20,000 hectares of Northern Territory native vegetation at Maryfield Station, including on climate change grounds. The successful case demonstrates the community's ability to hold governments to account for their decisions.[3]
Ralphs Bay Tasmania
From 2008 to 2010, EDO (as EDO Tasmania) represented community group, Save Ralphs Bay Inc, against a proposed 460-lot canal housing and marina development in a conservation area at Lauderdale. This would have been the first canal estate proposal in Tasmania.
Mackay Conservation Group Vs Commonwealth of Australia
In 2015, EDO (as EDO NSW) successfully challenged the Federal Government's approval of Adani's Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland, on behalf of the Mackay Conservation Group (MCG).The case was won over the Federal Environment Minister's failure to take into account the approved conservation advice for the Yakka Skink and the Ornamental Snake. With the consent of the parties, the Court set aside the decision of the Minister because his decision was legally flawed. MCG also alleged that the Federal Environment Minister failed to properly consider the impact of the Carmichael mine on the Great Barrier Reef when he approved the project.[4]
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd
Acting on behalf of client Humane Society International – Australia (HSI), EDO (as EDO NSW) first took action against Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (Kyodo) in 2004, to stop it from whaling in breach of Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).
Kyodo owned ships that conducted whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary for the Japanese Whale Research program. There was evidence that Kyodo had killed 3,558 minke whales and 13 fin whales since 2000/2001, with most of those killings taking place in the Sanctuary. The evidence also indicated that Kyodo intended to start taking humpback whales in the 2007/2008 season.
This was a complex case run over several court appearances to establish the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the right of HSI to serve documents on Kyodo. In 2008, EDO secured a victory when the Federal Court declared that Kyodo was breaching the EPBC Act. The Court granted an injunction to restrain Kyodo from further breaches. HSI representatives travelled to Japan to serve the injunction on Kyodo. But Japan didn't comply with that injunction and continued what it described as 'scientific' whaling in the Sanctuary between 2008 and 2013.
Environmental Defenders' Offices (EDOs) of Australia was founded in 1996 and consisted of nine independently constituted and managed community environmental law centres located in States and Territories of Australia.[5] In 2014, EDO Victoria left to form Environmental Justice Australia.
In 2019, the eight separate EDOs of Australia agreed to merge into one national organisation, Environmental Defenders Office (EDO Ltd).
The Environmental Defenders' Offices (EDOs) of Australia is a registered charity and has an annual revenue of $13.3 Million Australian in 2022/23 financial year, sourced primarily from donations and bequests, and grants.[6] The EDO declared $3.7 million in "overseas grants" in 2022/23, including the Swiss Oak Foundation, the American Earthjustice organisation, the Waverley Street Foundation, the Danish KR Foundation and the European Climate Foundation.
The EDO declared 105 FTE Employees and over 100 volunteers, with $11.7M (AUD) spent on staff expenses. The EDO does not share details of grants or donors, but have thanked contributors including the Graeme Wood Foundation, the Lenko Family Foundation, and the McKinnon Family Foundation. The EDO also receives some funding from various state and territory governments for work providing access to justice and legal services to people in the broad Australian community.
In the 2022 Federal Budget, the Labor Federal Government committed $9.8 million over four years to the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia to "improve access to justice and legal assistance for Australians wanting to uphold environmental laws and protect Australia's environment and heritage."[7]
On January 15, 2024, a significant judgment was handed down in the Australian Federal Court case, Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd.[8] The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) represented Munkara, but the findings by Justice Charlesworth have raised concerns about EDO's conduct in the case.
Judge Charlesworth found evidence of potential interference by EDO in the case, citing that the evidence presented was "so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed." She expressed concerns that "some of the comments and actions of the EDO were “distorting and misrepresenting what the Indigenous informant had said," forcing her to approach their evidence with extreme caution. Ultimately, Santos prevailed in the case and was awarded costs.
The judgment has sparked debate about the role of EDO and the use of government funding for such organizations. Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, labeled the case "environmental lawfare" aimed at disrupting new resource ventures.[9] Former Labor cabinet minister Joel Fitzgibbon echoed these criticisms, arguing that legal aid for activists harms the Australian economy and should be scrapped.[10] " “Hopefully the broader community is beginning to see activist lawfare for what it is, ideological and a threat to our living standards" he stated.
- "Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning - NSW Caselaw". www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
- "Independent Planning Commission - Bylong Coal Project". www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
- "Environmental Law Australia | Maryfield Station clearing case in the NT Supreme Court". Retrieved 22 June 2020.
- "Australian Climate Change Litigation". apps.law.unimelb.edu.au. Archived from the original on 15 March 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
- "EDOs of Australia". Edo.org.au. 15 June 2016. Retrieved 4 December 2016.
- "Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission". ACNC. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- "Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 9". www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 20 January 2024.
- "Cook laments 'environmental lawfare' but won't cut off EDO". The West Australian. 17 January 2024. Retrieved 20 January 2024.
- DUDLEY, ELLIE (16 January 2024). "Green law activists' $16bn risk to projects following Santos decision".