The Environmental Defenders Office Limited is a legal centre dedicated to protecting the environment through litigation, law reform and community education and engagement. EDO Ltd formed in late 2019, when eight separate EDOs of Australia agreed to merge into one national organisation. EDO Ltd has eight offices around Australia in Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Perth and Sydney. Its work is centred around four main themes: Climate Change; Biodiversity; Water and Healthy Communities.
Litigation
EDO 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 environmental legal battles, from the Adani mine and drilling in the Great Australian Bight, to protecting whales in the Antarctic.
Law Reform
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 EPBC Act to better protect Australia's unique wildlife and landscapes from ongoing threats.
Community Engagement
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.
Notable Cases
Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning NSWLEC 7 In February 2019, EDO 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. Bylong Coal Project EDO 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. The Environment Centre Northern Territory v The Northern TerritoryEnvironment Protection Authority and Anor In a legal first in 2019, the Environment Centre Northern Territory, represented by the EDO, 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. Ralphs Bay Tasmania From 2008 to 2010, EDO 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 successfully challenged the Federal Government’s approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland, on behalf of the Mackay Conservation Group.The case was won over the Federal Environment Minister’s failure to take into account the approved conservation advices 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. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd Acting on behalf of client Humane Society International – Australia, EDO first took action against Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd in 2004, to stop it from whaling in breach of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . Kyodo owned ships that conducted whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary for the Japanese Whale Research program. There was evidence that Kyodo had killed 3558 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.
EDOs of Australia
Environmental Defenders’ Offices 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. In 2014, EDO Victoria left to form . In 2019, the eight separate EDOs of Australia agreed to merge into one national organisation, .
