Decision makers must not only consider which climate change mitigation investment opportunity will bring the most financial and environmental value – but more importantly – they must also consider the impact that their decisions have on our ability to produce food and ultimately satisfy our inherent human rights obligations.

That was one of the messages from Clayton UTZ Senior Associate Caitlin McConnel at this year’s Protein conference at Dalby, QLD.

The lawyer working in the area of agribusiness, food, environment and sustainable development and QLD farmer told the crowd that behind the United States, Australia has the second largest volume of climate litigation in the world with case numbers growing.

She also explained that the “ultimate objective” of the legally-binding Paris Agreement on climate change is to achieve the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions without threatening food production.

Sharing insights into the climate, law and what it means for primary producers, Caitlin explained that for “the very first time in modern history, farmers and lawyers are fundamental to overcoming the two major economic challenges we are facing globally, climate change and food security”.

Referring to the Paris Agreement, Caitlin said the thing that “excites” her is that member states, including Australia, in signing the agreement recognised the need for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change on the basis of the best scientific knowledge available.

“That means the methodologies we use and the science that ensues is allowed to develop and change over time,” she said.

“There is no one hard or fast solution when it comes to nature.”

She also stressed that signatories to the Paris Agreement also recognise the “fundamental priority” of safeguarding food security and acknowledge that when tackling action to address climate change, they should respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights. They also agree that sustainable economic development should not threaten food production, Caitlin said.

“These acknowledgements are in black and white in the first two pages of the Paris Agreement before we even get to the point about pursuing emissions reduction targets or limiting the temperature increase,” she said.

Caitlin told the crowd that a “significant” percentage of climate litigation, to-date, had been focused on government administrative decisions but there was now an increasing focus on claims against corporate entities, particularly large emitters.

“In particular, claimants are now actively seeking to test the boundaries of establishing legal principles to extend to climate related harm and responsibility by choosing to hold decision makers, including directors, to account with cases including claims of misleading and deceptive conduct,”she said.

“More commonly known as green washing, green hashing and now even green freezing.”

With this in mind, she encouraged the crowd to make “fully considered ESG (environmental, social, governance) decisions.

Her tips included

• Treating climate, ecosystems and human society as parts of an integrated system.
• Weigh-up the legal benefits and risks of environmental versus societal outcomes
• Rely of scientific/expert advice that is substantiated by qualified, independent and up-to-date environmental data or scientific findings.
• Be direct and open about sustainability transitions that are subject to clear and actionable plans, and ongoing evaluation.
• Consider potential impacts on all human rights.