A United Nations special rapporteur has stepped in regarding Australia’s recent decision to extend the North West Shelf gas project operated by Woodside for an additional 40 years.
Astrid Puentes Riaño has submitted documents as part of three legal challenges in the Federal Court aimed at reversing this extension. The court will review her submissions during hearings scheduled to continue in July.
According to an independent expert from the UN, Australia failed to sufficiently assess the climate implications tied to the prolongation of its largest gas initiative. Ms. Puentes Riaño, who specializes in the right to a healthy environment, is engaging in the legal actions initiated by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of Australian Rock Art (FARA) against the North West Shelf project.
In a recent exclusive interview with ABC, she urged the Australian government to reconsider its decision to extend the project’s lifespan until 2070, emphasizing the need for alignment with international law. “We are facing a triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and toxic pollution,” she remarked. “It is crucial for Australia to ensure that any activities leading to increased fossil fuel production undergo a comprehensive evaluation.”
Environment Minister Murray Watt approved the 40-year extension for Woodside’s Burrup Peninsula facilities, imposing 48 conditions aimed at safeguarding adjacent Indigenous rock art. He acknowledged that emissions from the project, ranking as the third highest in Australia, are likely inflicting irreversible harm on the Murujuga World Heritage site, known for its ancient rock carvings.
Despite these concerns, Mr. Watt stated that his decision did not need to factor in the project’s impact on climate change since most of the extracted resources would be exported, thus falling outside Australia’s emissions commitments. Recent reforms to the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) now require project proponents to disclose direct emissions, but there remains no mechanism to reject projects based on their climate pollution.
The UN special rapporteur expressed that this omission is a significant gap in current evaluations of projects. “Australia has a prime opportunity to lead globally through this case and revise regulations to ensure proper oversight,” she said.
Last month, Australia was one of 141 nations to support a pivotal resolution from the International Court of Justice, which determined that states have a legal obligation to consider climate factors in their environmental impact assessments.
Ms. Puentes, who assumed her UN role focused on environmental health in 2024, indicated that her decision to intervene was driven by the need for Australia to adhere to established international legal standards.
Last week, Justice Catherine Button accepted Ms. Puentes’s submissions as an amicus curiae, marking a significant precedent for the Australian Federal Court. Legal representatives for the Mexico-based expert argued that she could provide crucial insights into Australia’s human rights obligations.
“Safeguarding the environment and climate system, ensuring justice access, public participation, and proper information dissemination are fundamental human rights,” Ms. Puentes stated. “These are essential components of the right to a healthy environment and the rule of law.”
An affidavit detailing Ms. Puentes’s arguments, obtained by ABC, contended that Mr. Watt misapplied the “substantial cause” criterion of the EPBC Act, downplaying the North West Shelf’s greenhouse gas emissions. The affidavit critiqued the Minister’s reasoning as overly simplistic, failing to adequately consider the specific risks and significant harm associated with the project, as required by international law.
Woodside has opposed the intervention, presenting a nine-page argument questioning the procedural appropriateness of Ms. Puentes’s involvement. A spokesperson for the company clarified that her application was made independently and not representing the UN, asserting that the procedural implications of her joining as amicus curiae would outweigh any potential benefits to the court.
Legal challenges are ongoing, with Susan Swain, a co-convenor of FARA, expressing support for Ms. Puentes’s contributions. “The orders affirm that this case holds global significance and that international law may influence the Commonwealth Minister’s responsibilities under the EPBC Act,” she stated.
Minister Watt maintained that his decision was compliant with the law, with conditions set to mitigate significant damage to the rock art as mandated by the EPBC Act. Justice Button will evaluate the special rapporteur’s submissions during the upcoming hearings for both ACF and FARA, set to resume in July. A related challenge by FARA against the state government’s approval has been postponed in the WA Supreme Court until November.
