Al-Amn Magazine

ENVIRONMENT A Lead i ng f rom t he f ront Env i ronment l aws cou l d he l p or harm nat ure depend i ng on t he mi ni s ter ustralia’s national environment law has failed to stop the loss of unique ecosystems, plants and animals over the past 25 years. At the same time, a long wait for development approvals via the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act has frustrated the business community. The current process of rewriting the law may end up being just as frustrating for stakeholders as Environment Minister Murray Watt aims for what he calls a balanced package that delivers gains for the “environment and business”. Clear lines are needed if the legislation is to improve the lot for our natural treasures and species threatened with extinction. But as it stands, key mining and conservation stakeholders are uncertain about what these lines will be. The current legislation has long been criticised by conservationists for not seeking outcomes that benefit the environment and the discretion it grants environment ministers, allowing them to override recommendations from their own department. The proposed changes keep decisions firmly in a minister’s hands while trying to legislate a limit to destruction. The new bill also introduces a “restoration fund” that has come under scrutiny for potentially and perversely allowing further destruction to habitats. Determining ‹unacceptable impacts’ Two key tools were introduced in draft laws, tabled last week in parliament, that aim to improve environmental outcomes. One is the principle of having “net gains”. That means any damage to nationally important environmental values is not just offset by buying land with similar habitat, but actually creating more. The second tool creates several categories of “unacceptable impacts” for environmental destruction that cannot be offset, so should not be touched. A significant impact that causes, will cause, or is likely to cause, loss, damage or alteration to part or all of the World Heritage values. Another category covering threatened species says it is unacceptable to “seriously impair” its viability or do “serious damage” to irreplaceable habitat. (In the 10 years to 2021, about 200,000 hectares of threatened species habitat was approved for destruction under the EPBC Act.) Mr. Watt told Insiders these provisions would stop people from drilling the Great Barrier Reef or driving a species to extinction. “If there was conclusive evidence that a particular project was going to drive a species to extinction, then without wanting to prejudge a future decision, I think it’s likely that a minister would knock that back,” he said. That’s a high bar of destruction. The ambiguity comes in with trying to determine what is below that and what the minimum threshold for refusal might be. Laws spark wide interpretation Under the existing law, the minister only has to take conservation advice from the federal environment department when making a decision to approve or refuse developments. Peak groups, such as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy in Western Australia, are concerned that all the new categories for unacceptable impacts are too broad and will inadvertently stop many industry activities. Conservation ecology professor Brendan Wintle, from the Biodiversity Council, said the interpretation would be open to any given government of the day — be that in favour of nature or development when deciding development applications. “And presumably it will be open for contestation in the courts, and nobody wants that,” Professor Wintle said. Justine Bell-James, an environment law professor at the