SUBMISSION: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Sarah Andrew, CMPA Project Manager

The CMPA was given the opportunity to provide comments on the new Guidelines for Assessing Environmental Effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978.

The following are the Association’s comments on the Guidelines.

Time limits on Process

One of the consistent concerns by business and industry is the costs incurred by delays caused by ‘bureaucratic red tape’. At the Federal level the Prime Minister has set in train several initiatives in an attempt to address these concerns. This is not necessarily to argue that a process to seek approval etc is not required but there should be some certainty that the process will be undertaken efficiently, fairly and within a reasonable time-frame.

This latter point can affect the proponent’s decision to proceed with a project. That is, if a project stalls because of bureaucratic procrastination there is every chance that the proponent will withdraw and possibly pursue the activity in another jurisdiction, or even off shore.

Against this background the Association considers it is essential that the Guidelines include default approval steps. That is, approvals will automatically be granted or the project consideration will be escalated to the next stage if the process has continued beyond a set time-frame. This will force a discipline in the consideration of projects and give some certainty to proponents that decisions will be made within a reasonable time-frame.

Minister’s Decision for an EES

The crucial stage of the process is when the Minister decides that an EES is required. Section 3 of the Guidelines provides some illumination of the criteria the Minister should use in making this decision.

However, the criteria are not precise and therefore it is possible that at the margin the same project might require an EES or not. In view of the costs of this decision this is not considered reasonable. The criteria should be far more explicit so that proponents themselves can anticipate with some assurance whether the project will require an EES or not. By being more explicit there is less room for flexibility in the decision-making and less opportunity for inconsistencies to be introduced in decisions.

A greater level of transparency here will ensure that those being driven into an EES can be assured that the decision to require an EES has been based on an established, documented requirement. This will also guard against the process being used as a tool of appeasement between parties or the result of disassociation by responsible bodies (eg councils).

Ecological Sustainable Development

While the concept of ESD has been used in the lexicon for many years there remains confusion about its meaning and scope. The Guidelines include as a comment an extract from the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003 a lengthy definition of ESD including guiding principles.

The definition and principles are so broad that their application can be universal and virtually unrestricted. Such an application can have serious impacts on development generally with subsequent implications for investment, growth and, of course, jobs.

There is therefore a need to define ESD very clearly so that business knows what it needs to do at the outset rather than be faced with incremental requirements to do more and more.

Cost of the EES process

The EES process clearly involves significant compliance costs for business and industry and administrative costs for the public sector. In the business/industry sector the costs are incurred by either public or private capital investors.

Private capital is by far the majority of business ownership in the Association’s membership and these costs are therefore borne directly by business owners themselves. That is, individuals as owners of capital are required to directly provide the funds to comply with the EES requirements.

Publicly funded businesses are at arms length from these costs and generally are therefore less directly impacted. The degree of the cost impact is therefore disproportionate and weighed heavily in favour of public companies. These costs along with all other compliance costs have an escalating effect and result in an unfair and anti-competitive impact on small business.

There is a case therefore that in developing Guidelines for compliance with the EES requirements that consideration be given to the Government providing additional services for the small business sector in its compliance requirements.

This could be done in many ways including fast tracking applications, providing consulting services, reducing EES requirements etc. This approach would ensure the beneficiaries of the EES system (the whole community) pays the costs of the system rather than it being disproportionately allocated to private, small business owners.

Another relatively simple means to alleviate costs of the system for all users is to ensure easy access to EES’ previously prepared so that information can be utilised rather than repeatedly researched.

Transparency issues

Because of the costs of the process and as only big companies can afford such costs, the EES process should be used as a last resort position. Also, commercial outcomes should be separated out of the process and it must only address scientific issues and be clarified and contained to that effect.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login