Brett Mason
Submission in response to discussion paper
Some have argued that past changes to the EPBC Act to add new matters of national environmental significance did not go far enough. Others have argued it has extended the regulatory reach of the Commonwealth too far. What do you think?
The Commonwealth needs to set the tone and framework in protecting our environment. It needs to promote very clear and strong leadership to the states in order that our laws are uniform and truly reflect the national significance. For these reasons, the past changes have not been enough.
How could the principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) be better reflected in the EPBC Act? For example, could the consideration of environmental, social and economic factors, which are core components of ESD, be achieved through greater inclusion of cost benefit analysis in decision making?
As a landowner in the Bunya Mountains, Qld, I have planted over 3000 trees on land previously cleared for cattle grazing. My primary reason was to assist in the mitigation of human caused climate change but I found that there were few incentives for me to do this. There was considerable expense involved but little financial reward. The principle of ESD needs to recognise the cost of climate change and the costs in mitigation. True costing of both the costs and benefits would help managers of land adopt principles and projects that would actually help the environment. Without incentive to make things better, it simply will not happen on the scale needed to combat the effects of climate change. Land clearing is a huge issue and unless land owners need to face the true cost, it will not improve.
Addressing climate change effects must be a huge part of the EPBC Act. Climate change must be recognised and its significance and mitigation be addressed specifically.
Should the objects of the EPBC Act be more specific?
Absolutely! The objects of the EPBC Act must be far more specific. It must include specific measures for biodiversity and climate change action as a minimum.
Should the matters of national environmental significance within the EPBC Act be changed? How?
The federal government should retain responsibility for Matters of National Environmental Significance, and expand national oversight to:
Guarantee the identification and protection of critical habitats for threatened species and the mandatory implementation of wildlife recovery plans and threat abatement plans.
Provide national protections for water resources and national parks and reserves.
Provide for the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, including a national climate trigger.
Create a new classification for Ecosystems of National Importance that are essential for people and nature, such as critical water catchments, key biodiversity areas and climate refugia habitat.
Implement controls on deforestation and mandate incentives for land managers who are willing to protect and restore natural ecosystems on their properties.
Provide for emergency listings and protections for wildlife and heritage places that are subject to damaging events, such as the current bushfire crisis.
Which elements of the EPBC Act should be priorities for reform? For example, should future reforms focus on assessment and approval processes or on biodiversity conservation? Should the Act have proactive mechanisms to enable landholders to protect matters of national environmental significance and biodiversity, removing the need for regulation in the right circumstances?
For me, the focus should be on biodiversity conservation and promote the preservation of our environment including the remediation of damaged areas. The issue of climate change must be included front and centre in order to ensure a coordinated response.
What high level concerns should the review focus on? For example, should there be greater focus on better guidance on the EPBC Act, including clear environmental standards? How effective has the EPBC Act been in achieving its statutory objectives to protect the environment and promote ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity conservation? What have been the economic costs associated with the operation and administration of the EPBC Act?
The degradation of our environment (such as the enormous rate of mammal extinctions in Australia) shows that the EPBC Act needs to include far clearer environmental standards.
The Act has not been effective if measured in the loss of habitat. For example, since the EPBC Act came into operation, 7.7 million hectares of threatened species’ habitat has been destroyed.
The economic costs are underestimated as no accounting for species loss or habitat degradation is counted.
What additional future trends or supporting evidence should be drawn on to inform the review?
The current omission of any response to Climate Change is a major one. I studied Agricultural Science in the early 80s and we learnt about the Greenhouse Effect back then. In the intervening period, it has been devastating to see the lack of action on t
How can environmental protection and environmental restoration be best achieved together?
The Act should definitely have a greater focus on restoration. Over the last 250 years, our environments have been severely degraded and there have been countless extinctions of both flora and fauna. We have a wonderful opportunity to restore our environment. Post-pandemic, this could form a huge part of our recovery.
Incentives should be provided to land owners and managers to restore environments. Stopping clearing and implementation of remediation could reward owners and provide farmers with ongoing income. Often, farmers are the ones who know and understand their environments the best but they are not provided with the incentives to act.
Should the matters of national significance be refined to remove duplication of responsibilities between different levels of government? Should states be delegated to deliver EPBC Act outcomes subject to national standards?
The federal government should retain responsibility for Matters of National Environmental Significance, and expand national oversight to:
1. Guarantee the identification and protection of critical habitats for threatened species and the mandatory implementation of wildlife recovery plans and threat abatement plans.
2. Provide national protections for water resources and national parks and reserves.
3. Provide for the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, including a national climate trigger.
4. Create a new classification for Ecosystems of National Importance that are essential for people and nature, such as critical water catchments, key biodiversity areas and climate refugia habitat.
5. Implement controls on deforestation and mandate incentives for land managers who are willing to protect and restore natural ecosystems on their properties.
6. Provide for emergency listings and protections for wildlife and heritage places that are subject to damaging events, such as the current bushfire crisis.
7 Ensure binding national standards are set for air pollution and plastic pollution
How should the EPBC Act support the engagement of Indigenous Australians in environment and heritage management?
- How can we best engage with Indigenous Australians to best understand their needs and potential contributions?
- What mechanisms should be added to the Act to support the role of Indigenous Australians?
The recent bushfires have demonstrated the effect of climate change, making fire seasons longer and increasing fuel loads. We have a lot to learn from Indigenous Australians in terms of fire management as well as land use management in general.
The Act needs to consider the knowledge of Indigenous Australians and incorporate those actions into our environment and heritage management. Inclusion of Indigenous Australians in policy making must be considered.
How should community involvement in decision making under the EPBC Act be improved? For example, should community representation in environmental advisory and decision-making bodies be increased?
Community representation in helping deliver the needs of tackling climate change and restoring and protecting environments needs to be improved under the Act. The review of the Act provides an ideal opportunity to listen to community organisations such as LandCare or Greening Australia. These organisations have shown great promise in delivering results at very low outlay.
What is the priority for reform to governance arrangements? The decision-making structures or the transparency of decisions? Should the decision makers under the EPBC Act be supported by different governance arrangements?
Not answered.
What innovative approaches could the review consider that could efficiently and effectively deliver the intended outcomes of the EPBC Act? What safeguards would be needed?
Providing incentives to landowners such as me (apart from just tax incentives) should be considered. These could include carbon farming initiatives and ways to protect and conserve critical habitat.
Should the Commonwealth establish new environmental markets? Should the Commonwealth implement a trust fund for environmental outcomes?
If we had a carbon price, there would be immediate incentive in terms of carbon capture and carbon farming. Farmers in particular would have an additional source of income especially during drought periods which would in itself assist with protection of the environment.
Do you have suggested improvements to the above principles? How should they be applied during the Review and in future reform?
Incorporate planning for the effects of climate change in all the principles.
Is the EPBC Act delivering what was intended in an efficient and effective manner? - Is the EPBC Act delivering what was intended in an efficient and effective manner?
The EPBC Act is clearly not delivering what was intended. Evidence for this includes:
1. Australia leads the world on mammal extinction. We have experienced three animal extinctions since 2009, including the first made extinct by climate change (the Bramble Cay Melomys).
2. Since the EPBC Act came into operation, 7.7 million hectares of threatened species’ habitat has been destroyed.
3. We are still seeing deforestation on an unprecedented scale.
4. Loss of biodiversity
5. Our emissions continue to rise and we are failing to take sufficient action on climate change to meet out Paris targets. This will have a devastating effect on the environment in the future.
How well is the EPBC Act being administered? - How well is the EPBC Act being administered?
The primary driver of the ability to administer the Act is the provision of resources. The federal environment department has been heavily affected by budget cuts which means that there are extended delays and sub-optimal decisions being made.
If the Act were being properly administered, the previously mentioned extinctions, land clearing and loss of biodiversity would not be happening.
Is the EPBC Act sufficient to address future challenges? Why? - Is the EPBC Act sufficient to address future challenges? Why?
The current Act does not even consider the effects of Climate Change so is definitely not sufficient to address future challenges.
The Act should address these effects but also provide incentives for land owners to improve and preserve their land in order to protect biodiversity and threatened species.
What are the priority areas for reform? - What are the priority areas for reform?
The federal government should retain responsibility for Matters of National Environmental Significance, and expand national oversight to:
1. Guarantee the identification and protection of critical habitats for threatened species and the mandatory implementation of wildlife recovery plans and threat abatement plans.
2. Provide national protections for water resources and national parks and reserves.
3.Provide for the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, including a national climate trigger.
4. Create a new classification for Ecosystems of National Importance that are essential for people and nature, such as critical water catchments, key biodiversity areas and climate refugia habitat.
5. Implement controls on deforestation and mandate incentives for land managers who are willing to protect and restore natural ecosystems on their properties
What changes are needed to the EPBC Act? Why? - What changes are needed to the EPBC Act? Why?
Establish new institutions to protect and manage Australia’s precious wildlife
Establish an independent National Environmental Protection Authority to administer national environmental law at arms length from government. A national EPA is essential to restoring integrity and improving transparency of environmental decision making under national law.
Alongside an independent federal EPA, establish a National Environmental Commission to monitor trends in environmental health, set national standards and undertake bioregional planning so that we more effectively deal with the cumulative impacts on our natural environment and cultural heritage.
Is there anything else of importance to you that you would like the review to consider? - Is there anything else of importance to you that you would like the review to consider?
The importance of incentives such as tax incentives or the ability for primary producers to earn income from carbon farming or habitat preservation needs to be included in the review as this could be a huge driver of success in protecting the environment.