26 March What law firms and in-house legal are doing to combat the threat of coronavirus March 26, 2020 By AMPLA Admin General, Industry COVID-19, Law Firms, In House 0 The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is drastically changing how we live, work and even play. For law firms and in-house legal practitioners, that means balancing the concerns of your clients with safeguarding your own staff. In some ways, small firms have an advantage over their larger counterparts. Moving to remote or online work is simpler with fewer moving parts to accommodate. On the other hand, it can be challenging to meet the increased needs of your clients at this anxious time. For in-house legal services, the size of the challenge becomes one of risk management for their organisation. But even those with strong governance and business continuity plans in place are struggling to manage many of the unprecedented issues they’re facing today. At the time of publication, a third of the world’s population is under lockdown. That’s causing demand for oil and gas to plummet, plus logistical nightmares for companies who rely on FIFO workers, as so many in energy and resources do. China’s early shutdown has seen construction crash. The flow-on effect is that China now has more steel in stock than it can use, reducing demand for steel feedstocks and possibly also inputs like nickel, alumina and bauxite. On top of these industry-specific concerns come the usual worries. How do we protect our business in challenging times? How can I ensure that my staff stay employed? What are my industrial obligations? To meet the challenge of the times, take a leaf out of other organisation’s books. Divide and conquer To reduce risks, some companies have divided operating groups into teams. This allows them to have different teams attending the workplace on alternate days or weeks, some with separate entry and exit points, toilets and break rooms. This enables them to quarantine one part of a team from the other and to allow isolation. It also ensures there is focused decontamination in the event a member of a team tests positive for COVID-19. This approach has allowed some companies to avoid the closure of their entire operations or buildings while still protecting staff from cross-contamination and enabling rapid cleaning of affected areas. Practice proactive outreach Sydney firm Bartier Perry was better prepared than most to face the crisis, with a pandemic response already in place. That’s freed them up to focus on their clients. Their webpage is full of helpful information, and each lawyer is reaching out to clients to talk to them about how to prepare and protect themselves. Whether your client is an internal business function or an external client, that proactive approach is crucial for good client success. Many clients may not yet realise that they have a problem, may not be focusing on the right things or may be scrambling to find an appropriate response. Reaching out now can help them put a robust prevention plan in place so that if they do get hit with a supply chain problem or plummeting demand they know how to respond. For in-house legal in particular this response package from Gadens may be particularly helpful in helping to identify and manage the plethora of issues that are evolving each day. Adopt digital communication At AMPLA, we’ve quickly adopted digital forms of communication to assist our members. Our support includes running virtual webinars on how to deal with the pandemic to putting in place plans to host online learning and development programs over the coming weeks to continue to keep businesses informed and focused on all the issues at hand. While not the same as shaking someone’s hand, today’s digital tools still allow people to see each other and there’s nothing as powerful as face-to-face communication to build and protect a trusting relationship. That’s why Herbert Smith Freehills have moved to client meetings via “phone, Skype or webinar”. Many corporations have already adopted this approach to managing meetings and keeping the lines of communication open. In fact, this may be an opportunity for law firms to pivot to meet long-standing client desires. A 2018 survey found that 34% of law firm clients would prefer firms to offer video conferencing and instant messaging. Firms have been slow to respond until now, but should certainly consider adopting these technologies in the long as well as short term. Make the pandemic the focus It’s all anyone is thinking about at the moment. BakerHostetler and Alston & Bird, in the US, have both developed coronavirus task forces comprised of lawyers from multiple practice areas. That way they can focus on the immediate issue and any broader ramifications at the same time. Most businesses have also created their own internal teams to manage each aspect of the crisis, and in-house legal is integral to those teams in ensuring the business remains protected. With things changing all the time, legal providers who can adapt fast will be in a much stronger position once the pandemic is over. Related Articles COMMUNITY LEGAL RIGHTS IN MINE CLOSURE PLANNING; A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE AUSTRALIAN STATES Professor Alex Gardner, University of Western Australia Law School, and Laura Hamblin, formerly research associate at the UWA Law School, 2021 Why does the Mining Act 1978 (WA) not provide secure legal rights for community consultation in relation to mining lease proposals and mine closure plans? Addressing this question presents an important theme for this comparative review of some core features of the regulatory frameworks for mine closure in three Australian States. It also raises important questions for future legal research. Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria have prominent but vastly different, and thus uniquely significant, mining industries. Western Australia’s mining industry has a long history of large and smaller scale mining of a diverse range of minerals by various methods that pose significant mine rehabilitation challenges.[i] Queensland’s mining industry is similarly large and diverse, dominated by export coal production, and planning future minerals development in a decarbonising world.[ii] Victoria has a smaller mining industry with a large historical legacy dominated by a coal mining industry for domestic electricity generation in the Latrobe Valley, which is closing as the State actively transitions to renewable power sources.[iii] These States also have significant differences in the regulation of their mining industries. What all three States do have in common is the significance of their mining industries to both the State economy and the communities who depend on or live near mining operations. Importantly, all three States are confronting large legal and regulatory challenges in managing mine rehabilitation and closure. The key to addressing these challenges is effective mine closure planning: the closure of a mine site has ripple effects that are not merely environmental and economic, but social and cultural too. The initial approval of a mine closure plan occurs before any mining has begun and, with the life cycle of a mine often spanning decades, regulatory bodies are approving hypothetical closure scenarios, potentially subject to vast changes. Regulatory bodies may then seek to enforce closure requirements enshrined in a plan that may wane in relevance as mining operations progress, the updating of which may depend on the miner. Yet remedying the regulatory system so that it creates adaptable but consistently effective mine closure outcomes for affected communities still begins at planning. Although that planning is an iterative process across the life of the mine, it is very important at the initial stage of approval. Recent legislative reforms in all three States are adding to the regulatory rigour and adaptability of mine closure planning, though there are very different legal requirements for community consultation. This article aims to explain and assess the regulatory reforms by undertaking a comparative analysis of mine closure planning across Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, with a focus on the initial approval stage and how stakeholders and communities are brought into that process. The facilitation of continuous and comprehensive community engagement is critical to ensuring that mine closure planning accounts for environmental, economic, social, cultural and safety outcomes after mine closure, but it has not been possible to consider here the process of ongoing mine closure planning, especially for amending mine closure plans and determining satisfaction of mine closure plans leading to resource tenure relinquishment.[iv] The article begins by considering core concepts of mine closure planning and the regulatory goals that inform it. It then provides a comparative overview of each State’s mine closure planning requirements under the mineral resources, environmental and land use planning laws and draws out some of the different regulatory structures and processes for mine closure within each State. The third step in our analysis compares the ways in which those laws provide for local communities’ participation in mine closure planning, with specific attention to whether the regulatory provisions create legally enforceable rights for effective community engagement. The article concludes with a summary of the key points from the discussion of three themes in our analysis: (i) the importance of clear definitions of core concepts and key goals, (ii) mine closure planning as an essential part of a mining proposal, and (iii) the legal definition of community engagement and consultation rights. Mine closure planning and implementation is necessarily influenced by many other spheres of law including taxation law, investment law, water law, and the rights of traditional owners, to name a few. A potentially directly relevant Commonwealth law is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), which may require environmental impact assessment of a mining proposal and closure plan and lead to approval conditions supplementing State requirements.[v] Whilst acknowledging the importance of these adjacent spheres of the regulatory frameworks for effective mine closure planning, this article does not attempt to address their impact. In particular, the rights of Traditional Custodians are a crucial part of mine closure planning that are only briefly noted here and that would benefit from future research. WA Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, Major Commodities Review 2022-23”. Qld Government, Department of Resources, Queensland Resources Industry Development Plan, June 022. Vic Government, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Latrobe Valley Regional Rehabilitation Strategy. See L Hamblin, A Gardner, Y Haigh, Mapping the Regulatory Framework of Mine Closure, May 2022, CRC TiME, for a broader exploration of the full life cycle of mine closure regulation. In Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [2013] FCAFC 111; (2013) 214 FCR 301, [144], [227]-[230], referring to the range of approval conditions, which included mine closure. In setting conditions under the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth Minister must consider any relevant conditions under State or Territory law: at [80] citing Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (2008) 174 FCR 14. ARELJ Recent Development- Electricity Infrastructure Investment ACT 2020 (NSW): Key Provisions and Legal Issues for Project Investors to Consider The impact of coronavirus on the energy and resources industry The last few weeks have seen the world face an unprecedented disruption with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). First reported in China, we’re now seeing many countries shutting down for periods of time to try to contain the spread of the virus. Australia is facing a particularly difficult year given the bushfires that ravaged the country recently. Now with COVID-19 adding to the pain, the energy and resources industry is being impacted in several ways outlined below. What is concerning mining and metals industry executives today? Recent surveys conducted in the mining and metals industry sector indicate that climate change, price volatility and the risk of a global depression are the top concerns for executives. The KMPG Mining Risk Forecast 2020/21 Report nominates climate change and price risks as top-of-mind for executives while a mid-year survey by White & Case found that the fear of a global recession was the most common concern amongst those surveyed. It’s worth noting that the KMPG survey was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the concerns raised have ongoing relevance both now and into the future. What to expect from Brazil’s new government On October 30, Brazil elected Luis Inaclo Lula da Silva (Lula) to be its new President. Lula will take over from President Jair Bolsonaro on 1 January 2023. During his campaign, Lula hinted at some reforms that would potentially impact the energy and mining sector, particularly in relation to his environmental and climate agenda. What to expect in 2022 Despite an unpredictable two years, the energy and resources sector has weathered tumultuous conditions and come through stronger. All signs indicate that 2022 and beyond will see strong growth in demand and exciting new developments. Showing 0 Comment Comments are closed.