Andrew Sullivan, Commonwealth Fisheries Association
Submission made in response to the June 2020 Interim Report of the EPBC Act Review
Note: Responses were automatically limited to 255 characters unless otherwise indicated
NATIONAL LEVEL PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ICONIC PLACES
Legally enforceable National Environmental Standards should be the foundation for effective regulation. The Standards should focus on outcomes for matters of national environmental significance, and the fundamentally important processes for sound and efficient decision-making. Standards will provide certainty—in terms of the environmental outcomes the community can expect from the law, and the legal obligations of proponents.
Agree. See comments at end of submission
The goal of the EPBC Act should be to deliver ecologically sustainable development. The Act should require that National Environmental Standards are set and decisions are made in a way that ensures it is achieved. The Act should support a focus on protecting (avoiding impact), conserving (minimising impact) and restoring the environment.
Agree. See comments at end of submission
A greater focus on adaptive planning is required to deliver environmental outcomes. Regional plans should be developed that support the management of cumulative threats and set clear rules to manage competing land uses at the right scale.
Agree. We support this premise, as for a long time fisheries have borne the brunt of poor land practices. We do have concerns that fisheries may be held responsible for the inactions of others under NES especially for protected and threatened species.
Improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians will be achieved by enabling co-design and policy implementation.
Agree.
EFFICIENCY - REMOVING DUPLICATION
Devolve decisions to other jurisdictions, where they demonstrate National Environmental Standards can be met.
Agree. We support the premise of devolved decision making where this will result in increased efficiency and cost savings yet maintain and uphold the objects of the Act.
To base devolution on sound accreditation, quality assurance and compliance, escalation (including step-in capability) and regular review.
Agree. As a minimum, EPBC Act approvals and accreditations based on NES for fisheries need to be aligned with, but not necessarily the same as, globally recognised third-party certifiers.
Assessment pathways should be rationalised and implemented with clear guidance, modern systems and appropriate cost recovery. Small investments can dramatically reduce cost and uncertainty and improve decision-making.
Agree. Aligning NES to be consistent with measures and variables assessed by third party fishery certifiers (such as Marine Stewardship Council, MSC) should be a key aspects of the development of NES for fisheries.
These, and other reform directions proposed (National Environmental Standards, regional plans, information and data, modern regulatory systems) create opportunities for significant streamlining and efficiency, including where low risk actions will not require approval.
Agree. the adoption of NES will be challenging. However, we agree in principle that efficiency and consistency gains between State, Territory and Commonwealth should be pursued.
Streamline provisions for permitting of wildlife trade and interactions with other environmental frameworks.
Strongly agree.
A custodian for the national environmental information supply chain is needed. The Commonwealth should clearly assign responsibility for national level leadership and coordination. Adequate resources should be provided to develop the systems and capability that is needed to deliver the evidence base for Australia’s national system of environmental management.
Agree.
RESTORATION
The EPBC Act should require offsets to be considered only when options to avoid and then mitigate impacts have been actively considered, and demonstrably exhausted.
Agree.
The EPBC Act should require offsets, where they are applied, to deliver protection and restoration that genuinely offsets the impacts of the development, avoiding a net loss of habitat.
Agree.
The EPBC Act should incentivise investment in restoration, by requiring decision-makers to accept robust restoration offsets, and create the market mechanisms to underpin the supply of restoration offsets.
Strongly agree. More work needs to be done to understand the offset contribution of marine habitat restoration activities such as oyster reefs, mangroves, seagrasses and algae
There are opportunities for government to explore policy mechanisms to accelerate environmental restoration including those to leverage the carbon market, which already delivers restoration, to deliver improved biodiversity in suitable habitat types.
Strongly agree. More work needs to be done to understand the offset contribution of marine habitat restoration activities such as oyster reefs, mangroves, seagrasses and algae
There are opportunities for government to explore policy mechanisms to accelerate environmental restoration including those to co-invest with the philanthropic and private sectors, including funding innovation to bring down the cost of environmental restoration, growing the habitat available to support healthy systems.
Strongly agree.
COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND ASSURANCE
Establish a modern, independent regulator responsible for monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance to be a strong cop on the beat.
Not applicable. We worry about the increased cost burden likely to be bore by commercial fishers when we already have high levels of compliance and monitoring
Effectively draw on Standards, simplified law, and better systems to increase compliance and simplify enforcement and assurance.
Agree. Provided this does not result in additional costs to industry
Shift focus toward assurance of devolved decision-making and monitoring, compliance and enforcement of national strategic plans, regional plans, offsets and regeneration.
Agree.
PROPOSED REFORM PATHWAY
Do you broadly agree with the phased approach proposed by the Review?
Agree.
BROADER VIEWS (no character limit)
What has been missed?
The report does not raise the potential role for recognised third party accreditations to be incorporated into approval process such as WTO. The key one for fisheries being the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) accreditation.
The report does not address concerns raised by the CFA in regard to listed species management. As our initial submission stated:
Section 248 contains a list of statutorily protected species. Section 250 conflates this protected list with listing for long term conservation needs. The PC Inquiry (2016) noted that ‘the purpose of the [s248] list is not clear nor is the rationale [behind the listing]’. This a further example of confusion created by overlap and duplication under the EPBC Act. Additional species can be added under Section 250 but only if required for ‘long term conservation’. None have been added. EPBC Act protected species provisions conflate statutory protection with long term conservation, regardless of whether a listed marine species actually requires conservation action. This can cause practical problems for plans for recovery and the need for ‘risk assessments’ when a species is already common. It would appear s248 Protected Species listing represents a social choice and should be addressed as such.
Are there fundamental shortcomings that would require the Reviewer to rethink?
Consolidated comments on National Environmental Standards
Only time will tell how National Environmental Standards will apply to fisheries. The potential gains around certainty would be welcome, however without knowing the cost of such certainty it is difficult to provide a definitive statement on our support or otherwise. We are of the view that commercial fisheries, and particularly Commonwealth managed commercial fisheries are already meeting a very high level of environmental standard (nationally and globally).
We note the Interim Report appears to have assumed that Commonwealth legislation will always be stricter than State legislation. However, Commonwealth fishers, operating in State waters (such as NPF), may find that they breach State laws while still complying with a management plan authorised under the EPBC Act. Addressing this under NES would be a positive outcome. The success or failure of a set of NES for fisheries will be determined by the process in which they are determined, applied, and enforced.
We do have concerns that fisheries may be held responsible for the inactions of others by applying unreasonable NES especially for protected and threatened species.
Given the wide range of approaches to ecologically sustainable development of fisheries and environment protection across jurisdictions, the adoption of NES will be challenging. However, we agree in principle that efficiency and consistency gains between State, Territory and Commonwealth should be pursued.
Aligning NES to be consistent with measures and variables assessed by third party fishery certifiers (such as Marine Stewardship Council, MSC) should be a key aspects of the development of NES for fisheries.