10.1 - There is no clear, authoritative source of environmental data and information

There is no clear, authoritative source of data and information on Australia’s environment. There are many disparate sources of information but these are hard to navigate and not always reliable. This adds cost for business and governments, as they collect and re-collect the information they need. It also results in less community trust in the process, because the quality of information on which decisions are made is questioned, as are the outcomes that result from them (Chapter 4).

Existing information is produced by a wide range of organisations, including proponents, researchers, various Commonwealth agencies, State and Territory governments, local governments and regional natural resource management organisations. Each organisation collects and manages information to suit their own needs. For example, the distribution of the same species is mapped differently by different jurisdictions because they are intended to underpin different types of decisions. There are also key gaps in information due to a lack of data being collected, shared and made available in a timely way.

At the Commonwealth level, several different organisations play a role in coordinating and delivering environmental information. The 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement for the Environment discusses data collection and handling and refers directly to the Australian Land Information Council (now ANZLIC) and the Environmental Resources Information Network within the Department. The Australian Biological Resources Study, Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) and CSIRO also all have roles relating to environmental information. Each State and Territory also has agencies with expertise in environmental data and produces different information products aligned to their responsibilities and priorities.

All these agencies play a different role, but the distinction between the information products that they provide is not always clear. This can create the risk of inappropriate use of information to underpin a given decision because the user doesn’t fully understand the data – for example, using information collected on a broad scale for local, project-level decisions.

There is no clear, authoritative point of expertise to help users identify and access the range of information that is relevant and appropriate to inform the various decisions being made under the EPBC Act. This means those who interact with the Act are faced with a confusing range of portals, tools and datasets. Departmental datasets – including the Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database and the Protected Matters Search Tool – do not refine and present data in a way that is useful for proponents, assessment officers, decision-makers or the general public. The Atlas of Living Australia attempts to bring together disparate sources of data in one place, but even its custodian, CSIRO, acknowledges its shortcomings (Box 31).

Valuable data are often ‘locked’ in inaccessible formats, which makes it very difficult and time consuming to find, review and analyse. Historical data are stored in paper reports. Information on listed species and communities contained in conservation advices and recovery plans are usually in PDF form. To access this information, each document must be found, opened and read individually.

Large amounts of valuable environmental data collected are not shared within government, between governments or made available for further use. Data collected by proponents to support environmental impact assessments or the acquisition and management of offsets is not provided in a way that is able to be shared or re-used by governments. As discussed in Box 35, collecting, collating and sharing the raw data that underpins these reports could have significant benefits for governments and industry.

The current barriers to data sharing between governments are largely cultural and legal, complicated by a lack of structured approaches and technical systems that ‘talk to each other’. The culture of open government, and the ‘public good’ nature of environmental data, has not filtered through to the operation of the EPBC Act. Proponents typically use a consultant to undertake environmental surveys. In most cases, the nature of the contract means that the consultant retains ownership of the raw data. This, along with a perceived lack of value in sharing the data with government, creates a significant barrier to sharing (Box et al. 2018). This jars because proponent information is being collected as evidence to justify impacts on MNES. The Review considers that claims that the data collected to inform environmental impact assessments is commercial-in-confidence and subject to copyright are unacceptable. Regulators should not be dictated to by the regulated community.

Trust and credibility is reduced when information is used for reasons beyond its original intended purpose, or without a good understanding of its limitations. The risk of inappropriate use of information can also be a barrier to sharing by agencies, particularly when they are not adequately resourced to maintain the data and undertake quality assurance for a wider range of potential uses.

The current settings of the EPBC Act and its regulations incorporate limited powers to compel proponents to provide datasets in a format that would support sharing and re-use. The EPBC Act regulations also provide some counter-productive options, such as allowing referrals to be provided in non-electronic form. In some States and Territories, another disincentive to sharing data is that some systems require people to pay for access to data lodged with governments (Box et al. 2018).

Data collected by the research community is often targeted for scientific publication and not always easily accessible for wider use. Regrettably, critical data and the opportunity to establish longitudinal datasets are lost over time as organisational priorities change and the resources to maintain datasets are withdrawn.

The costs and frustrations of unclear requirements, limited access to shared data, duplication and lack of transparency in the environmental assessment process have been widely acknowledged. In November 2019, environment ministers from across Australia agreed to work together to digitally transform environmental assessment systems. In 2019 the Australian and Western Australian Governments made financial commitments to the collaborative Digital Environmental Assessment Program. This will deliver a single online portal to submit an application across both tiers of government and a biodiversity database that is intended to be rolled out nationally (Box 37). This is a good first step to improve the interface between proponents and regulators and access to and ease of use of information for environmental impact assessments. However, given this only applies to one State, it is only a pilot for a potential national system.

10.1.3 - There is no enduring national strategy to manage environmental information

There is no clear national strategy for environmental information. Unlike other areas of national policy (such as the economy, the labour market and health), environment and heritage policy does not have a comprehensive, well-governed and funded national information base. Efforts are duplicated and Australia does not make the most of public investment in information and data. Multiple parties collect or purchase the same or similar information, often because they aren’t aware of other efforts. Similar systems and databases are built by multiple jurisdictions. Shared or collective development would be more efficient.

The Commonwealth, States and Territories have put considerable resources into research, data collation and integration, and analysis to help make better decisions about the environment. Several government-funded initiatives have sought to deliver a level of prioritisation, greater coordination and standardisation of environmental data. Insights from the implementation of these initiatives are discussed in Box 32. Funding though is often uncertain because it consists of ad-hoc program-based investments.

These programs have also suffered from a lack of accountability. There is minimal meaningful reporting on outcomes and no expectation for decision-makers to demonstrate they are using best available evidence. Despite considerable effort, governments often must resort to negotiating case-by-case data licensing and sharing, rather than having data-sharing agreements and systems that can talk with each other. The collation of information on the impacts of the 2019–20 bushfires on the environment is an example of this (Box 35).

There is no comprehensive long-term national strategy or coordination. There are custodians for some national-level data and information (for example, Geoscience Australia coordinates satellite data and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority coordinates information about the Great Barrier Reef) but there are major gaps in coordination and oversight, particularly for terrestrial environments. The information and resourcing to support understanding of the state, condition and effectiveness of management of Australia’s natural and cultural heritage has also declined in recent years (Mackay 2016).

No single organisation has clear responsibility or adequate and ongoing funding for stewardship and coordination across the breadth of national environmental information required to support decisions under the EPBC Act. The lack of coordination drives higher costs for government and industry, and derives fewer benefits from the investments that are made in information collection and curation.