International Fund for Animal Welfare

IFAW submission: consultation paper on cost recovery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 /

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) works to save animals in crisis around the world. IFAW is an international animal welfare and conservation organisation with representation in 16 countries and carrying out work in more than 40. IFAW focuses its campaigns on improving the welfare of wild and domestic animals by reducing the commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats and assisting animals in distress. IFAW works both on the ground and in the halls of government to safeguard wild and domestic animals and seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well-being of both animals and people.

IFAW welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper on cost recovery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act 1999. IFAW is not likely ever to be directly affected by the plans for cost recovery. However, as an organisation that is keen to see the effective administration of environmental law, in Australia and worldwide, IFAW has some comments in this respect.

Questions in the consultation paper:

IFAW has not attempted to answer all the questions posed in the consultation paper. Only questions to which IFAW has provided comment are outlined below.

2.9 Questions – Cost recovery (general)

What are your views on the introduction of cost recovery to reform the EPBC Act, including the proposed benefits that cost recovery would fund?

On a general level, IFAW supports the concept of cost recovery. Much as the ‘polluter pays’ principle is now widely accepted, a similar approach must be taken to biodiversity use. A part of that process should be covering the costs required by regulatory authorities, such as the Government, in assessing activities that are likely to have an impact on environmental matters in need of protection. IFAW believes it is important that the Government has at its disposal the appropriate level of resources to undertake effectively these assessments. The introduction of cost recovery should help ensure that this is the case.

Do you have other suggestions for resourcing reforms to this regulatory system?

For many activities, it can be difficult to make an accurate assessment of what the likely impacts will be due to a lack of existing understanding or research regarding the environmental matter under consideration. In such instances, it is important that funding mechanisms are set up and funding is available prior to activities beginning so necessary research can be undertaken and results incorporated in management measures. IFAW believes the Government should design a mechanism that sees users of biodiversity contribute funding to that effect.

For example, the North-west marine bioregion, and Commonwealth waters more widely, suffer from a lack of knowledge about biodiversity. Yet at the same time, and in the North-west in particular, massive expansion of the oil and gas industry is underway, along with the accompanying risks to biodiversity this poses, particularly to cetaceans but also other marine wildlife.

The importance of the industry’s contribution to the national economy is not underestimated; however, the industry’s activities must go hand in hand with a long-term environmental stewardship program that includes scientific research rather than a box-ticking exercise during the assessment phase at the beginning of each project. Surveys funded by the oil and gas industry in the North-west have begun to assess the species composition, abundance, distribution and movement of cetaceans in the region but this research must continue and be expanded to include long-term monitoring of cetacean populations and to examine long-term impacts of specific facilities.

On a more general level, however, surveys associated with individual developments must sit within a strategic and independent research program designed to understand marine biodiversity in order to allow fully informed assessments about future exploitation. Clearly such a program will have significant costs attached to it and these should not be carried by government alone. Co-ordinated industry involvement and funding would be key to the successful implementation of such a strategy. IFAW believes this is just one example of alternative resourcing methods that the Government could employ to enhance understanding of biodiversity and provide for better assessments of potentially harmful activities. However, this should exist separately, and be complementary to, the cost recovery process for the actual administration of any assessment process that follows.

As figure 3.2 (p.19) of the consultation paper illustrates, mineral, oil and gas exploration in the marine environment accounts for the second largest amount of referrals (14.3%) under the EPBC Act, only 0.2% less than the top category of residential developments. It seems reasonable, therefore, that sectors which are generating large amounts of work for assessors should be examined to see if there are ways to generate funding for independent research to enable better assessments, such as the methods suggested by IFAW in the paragraphs above.

3.6 Questions – environmental impact assessments

How could the complexity matrix (table 3.2) be refined or improved to provide greater certainty in determining upfront costs … ?

The first two rows of the table refer to listed threatened species and migratory species (matter of national environment significance). For each of these rows, the description in each of the columns describing the level of complexity refers only to habitat. However, it should also recognise that activities may have a direct impact on species themselves and not (or not only) on the species’ habitats. For example, seismic surveying and sonar can have direct harmful effects on cetaceans, many of which are listed as threatened and/or migratory under the EPBC, as well as introducing noise disturbance into cetacean habitat. Therefore, IFAW believes the table could be improved to reflect the possibility that assessment complexity may be influenced by the direct impact on species as well as their habitats.

What other cost recovery arrangements should government consider in order to share the costs of environmental impact assessments equitably between stakeholders, and progress reform of the EPBC Act?

See answer above to the question “Do you have other suggestions for resourcing reforms to this regulatory system?”

Additional comments from IFAW

IFAW believes consideration should also be given to applying cost recovery to post-approval monitoring and audit activities for any environmental impact assessment approval that imposes conditions, as is contemplated later in the consultation paper for strategic assessments. All projects that are deemed to need conditions in order to safeguard the environment should be monitored to ensure compliance. Proponents of projects should pay for the costs of such monitoring and auditing, and it should be made clear when conditional approval is given that this is an integral part of the process.

4.6 Questions – wildlife trade regulations

While IFAW has no comments specific to the questions asked in the wildlife trade section of the consultation paper, IFAW makes the following general comments. Wildlife trade, in particular of CITES-listed species, can pose a substantial risk to biodiversity, as well as posing many welfare issues for live specimens. Therefore, it is necessary that trade is carefully regulated. Such regulation should be based on rigorous assessment. As the paper identifies, many aspects of wildlife trade are already subject to some degree of cost recovery through the current permitting system. However, most components of the permitting functions are substantially under-recovering the cost of delivering the service. IFAW sees no reason why those wishing to trade in wildlife should not bear the full cost of administering the robust system of checks and balances required.

The consultation paper identifies a number of areas of wildlife trade which are not currently subject to cost recovery (pre-CITES certificates/certificates of origin, captive breeding programs, wildlife trade operations). IFAW agrees that these should also be subject to any new cost recovery regime, and as stated above, this the regime should operate at full cost recovery.

5.6 Questions – strategic assessments

In what circumstances would cost recovery of a strategic assessment be appropriate, or are there other mechanisms the government should be considering to resource this function?

In what circumstances would cost recovery of a strategic assessment be appropriate?

IFAW agrees with the department that there are clear examples, such as a private corporation proposing a large scale oil and gas development or industrial or commercial development, where charging a proponent a fee to undertake a strategic assessment is appropriate. Charging is appropriate because there is a clear and identifiable beneficiary of the service provided. As the consultation points out, due to the nature of the activities involved in strategic assessments, the cost of the assessment is generally inconsequential when compared with the project value.

IFAW believes cost recovery should certainly apply to post-approval monitoring and audit activities, as well as the assessment process itself. It is imperative, given the potential large scale impacts of complex projects assessed by strategic assessment, that these projects are carefully monitored to ensure compliance with conditions laid out in the approval process to protect the environment. Proponents of projects should pay for the costs of such monitoring and auditing, and it should be made clear from the outset of the project that this is an integral part of the process.

Are there other mechanisms the government should be considering to resource this function?

See answer above to the question “Do you have other suggestions for resourcing reforms to this regulatory system?” IFAW believes consideration of the approach outlined above is particularly relevant for projects proposed for strategic assessment, given the scale and potentially large impacts on the environment of such projects.

IFAW submission: consultation paper on cost recovery under the EPBC Act, Oct 2011