A LITERATURE REVIEW OF DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES Prior to the early 1970s, when Translation Studies (TS) as a discipline was

As discussed in Chapter 5, many property developers, and allied organisations have developed various voluntary industry-specific codes, standards and measures to address the sustainability of property development. These schemes include reporting tools such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); the Green Star and the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) rating systems; and the

EnviroDevelopment certification scheme. For example, industry certification tools, such as EnviroDevelopment, are encouraging developers to take a sustainable approach to property development by incorporating a range of sustainable practices with respect to waste, energy and materials. Although EnviroDevelopment does not brand itself as a tool to mitigate climate change, many of its proposed practices carry ancillary benefits to climate change mitigation and thus need to be recognised in the context of climate change mitigation.

The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation 109

This research found that nearly half (48%) of survey respondents used the Green Star system, and to a lesser extent, NABERS and EnviroDevelopment. These schemes were commonly used by many interviewees and focus group participants. All participants viewed them positively.

“It would be useful to take that general market perception and how to translate into real benefits and the Green Star – because you can say there is a real benefit here, we are delivering extra environmental

goodies, and there is an independence to that and people are convinced that it is real” (MD2, Medium Developer).

However, most schemes are used in commercial development, and only to a lesser extent in residential development. A strong commercial demand existed for Green Star and NABERS ratings, driven by tenant demand, lower operating and maintenance costs, competition between developers for ratings, and government subsidies.

Developers said these ratings helped attract quality tenants, who demanded them.

Industry self-regulation thus appears to be a potentially valuable driver for sustainability and increased adaptation to climate change. Of note, little demand for “green” buildings was reported as coming from the residential sector. Therefore, only the largest

developers introduced substantial sustainability initiatives into residential developments. Some demand for sustainability initiatives was noted from the retirement sector, based on a desire to save money. If this could translate into the wider residential sector, then the existing industry support for such tools, could be a valuable adaptive measure.

Legal and Litigation

Like insurance, litigation has the potential to be a driver or barrier, to climate change adaptation. For example, developers may be liable for legal consequences, if they develop in areas vulnerable to climate change (UDIA (NSW), 2008). Some legal disputes have already occurred between developers and LGAs in coastal areas deemed at high risk for inundation from sea level rise (Briggs et al., 2010; Fitzgibbon, 2010). To date, these lawsuits have resulted in maladaptation rather than adaptation, as the residents of areas, such as Belongil Beach in NSW, prevented the LGA from enforcing a planned retreat policy (Perinotto, 2012).

In this study, respondents were largely unconcerned about the possibility of litigation.

They felt that if they adhered to the BCA and LGA standards and planning regulations, they would not be held liable for legal action. A consultant said such companies were protected by law; and as they always worked in accordance with the law, and

standards, they were protected against litigation. It was also stressed the engineers are very tightly controlled by law and professional standards, and as a group tended to be extremely cautious.

A sustainability consultant said that property developers largely did not recognise the potential litigation risks that could result from climate change. However, in Queensland, there were no legal precedents for litigation based on negligence of climate change risk. This was emerging, but was as yet, untried. The consultant also felt that the nexus of climate change and property development wold be determined in court, and would come down to who had the best lawyers (i.e. firms with the most money) or those who could successfully lobby government to change the law.

This is not to say that developers and consultants were not sued; this happens

frequently. Litigation between developers, consultants, local and state government and proponents is frequently argued in the Planning and Environment Court. Such cases are not overtly about climate change, but if a site was flood prone, and not specified as such, a developer could sue the local government for loss of value.

110 The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation Where cases have been argued in court (for example, Belongil Beach in NSW), the residents of properties at risk (in this case, an upper income area that the Byron Shire Council wished to resume under a planned retreat scenario), sued the LGA. At present, the legal environment favours private property rights; and if property owners thought governments were inadequately defending their properties, they often took legal action.

Regulation

The regulatory regime can also be a major driver or barrier to adaptive capacity.

Regulation aims to manage development in a number of ways including: prevention and removal of development; regulation of some market aspects; and engineering and building codes. For example, development may not be permitted in certain areas, and according to specified rules; such as below 5m AHD on a frequently inundated

floodplain. Regulatory policies require a developer to adhere to certain conditions, such as density and site coverage; and to implement environmental management plans.

Compulsory regulations are often backed by punitive measures, such as penalties.

Regulatory drivers, such as changes to coastal planning policy, are not voluntary, and are often developed by the public sector, with little private sector input (Taylor et al.

2012). This can lead to industry dissatisfaction, and may result in companies suffering financially, choosing not to develop, or even resorting to illegal practices to circumvent the policy, particularly if decision makers are sceptical about climate change.

This study found that respondents held markedly different views on regulation: some thought that regulation would drive adaptation, whereas others thought the market would drive adaptation. The latter assumed that private companies, such as bankers, insurers and developers, would be the main drivers of change, then the government would follow suit. To some extent, this is supported by the findings; most evidence of adaptive measures (i.e. insistence on Green Star rated commercial buildings) was driven by the private sector, and not by the regulators.

Regulatory issues were also seen as barriers to adaptation; some felt that the degree of regulation was inversely proportional to the degree of innovation. One significant barrier was the time taken to approve development. Respondents felt that if regulators took twice the time to approve an innovative development, then they were not prepared to take that risk again. If their development took twice as long to build as the

developer’s competitors, this was seen as a major disincentive.

The lack of information from government was also seen as a barrier. Some were sceptical about government risk modelling, emphasising that much government data are regional assumptions, and not locally specific. As an example, a consultant had analysed the use of shopping centres as designated refuges during climate events, and had found that the owners were generally unaware of building’s status as a designated refuge. Moreover, the construction and facilities were largely inadequate to protect a large number of people during a major event.

“You are very heavily reliant on what you are told about what the parameters are; the risk of flooding or your risks of that particular location. You are relying on the planning agencies to have the right knowledge, and they will give you the right information…because the knowledge is not in the hands of the developer. They don’t generally have the scientists employed. They are not looking in 30 year’s out, they are looking in the planning framework, which says you can build within these guidelines. And these guidelines are not very clear”

(LD2, Large Developer).

Other respondents thought that regulation and not the market, would drive adaptation;

and that developers would not do anything more than the minimum required by the regulations and BCA unless there were a market advantage in doing so. Moreover, if

The capacities of private developers in urban climate change adaptation 111

they felt a regulation significantly disadvantaged them, some large developers and the PCA reportedly lobbied the government to change the law. Despite this, some of these respondents felt that adaptation to climate change would eventually be mandatory, and eventually all developers would have no choice but to conform.

An innovative driver suggested by a consultant, was to put flood hazard zones on rates bills or property titles. This might dissuade people from buying in certain areas (either from perceived threats to property, litigation, insurability, or capital growth).