Address: Main Office: John Gorton Building
Yüklə 5,14 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Marine bioregional planning
- 2.2 Environmental impact assessment
- Assessments and approvals
- Case study 4: South-east Queensland coal seam gas assessments
- 2.3 Compliance and enforcement
|
On 11 April 2011 the minister endorsed the Midlands Water Scheme, a major new irrigation project in Tasmania, which will build new pipelines, infrastructure and dams. The scheme will deliver up to 47 500 megalitres of water each year to approximately 500 farms in the Midlands region. The scheme is one of several irrigation projects funded by the Australian Government’s $140 million commitment to support efficient irrigation in Tasmania under the Water for the Future initiative. The scheme was the second strategic assessment to be endorsed under the EPBC Act. The strategic assessment was an important consideration in ensuring that the scheme is ecologically sustainable and consistent with the EPBC Act. The strategic assessment enabled the minister to assess the environmental impacts of the irrigation development across the entire Midlands landscape. Importantly, this enabled the cumulative impacts of the entire irrigation proposal, including those on-farm, to be assessed at the one time. This one-time assessment is unique to the EPBC Act’s strategic assessment provisions. The strategic assessment establishes a commitment to avoid impacts on all matters of national environmental significance, unless otherwise approved, including impacts on the Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania. The strategic assessment also potentially benefits the 500 farmers who may take up the scheme, as it sets out the environmental standards which must be met before the scheme’s construction and uptake by landholders. Elizabeth River Valley, Campbell Town, Tasmania. (D.Ziegeler)
Marine bioregional plans are prepared under section 176 of the EPBC Act, which requires the minister to have regard to a bioregional plan in making any decision for which the plan has relevance. Marine bioregional plans present a consolidated picture of the marine environment and conservation values of each marine region, and provide a framework for strategic intervention and investment by government to meet its policy objectives and statutory responsibilities. As part of the marine bioregional planning process, new networks of Commonwealth marine reserves (also called marine protected areas or marine parks) are being identified. These reserves will help meet Australia’s international and national commitments to establish a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) by 2012. The marine bioregional planning process is targeted at Commonwealth waters between the outer limit of state/territory waters (usually three nautical miles off-shore) and the outer limits of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nautical miles from shore. The South-east Marine Region network of marine reserves was established in 2007. The draft South-west marine bioregional plan and a Commonwealth marine reserve network proposal were released for public consultation in May 2011. The draft marine bioregional plans and marine reserve network proposals for the North-west, North and East marine regions will be publically released in 2011–12. A separate process to formally establish the marine reserve networks under the EPBC Act will be undertaken once proposals are finalised. Management plans will then be developed through public and stakeholder consultation.
The department has continued to maintain assessment bilateral agreements with all states and territories throughout 2010–11. The department reviewed the Tasmanian assessment bilateral agreement ahead of the expiry of the agreement on 11 December 2010. After a period of public consultation, the review led to the development of a replacement agreement which commenced on 3 May 2011. The replacement agreement continues accreditation for the processes accredited in the previous agreement and extends accreditation to another Tasmanian assessment process, under Division 2A of Part 4 of the Tasmanian Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. A replacement bilateral agreement with Western Australia is being developed due to changes to the Western Australia assessment processes in November 2010. The draft replacement agreement was exhibited for 28 days with comments closing on 13 May 2011. As of June 2011, the department reviewed submissions received so the minister could consider whether to enter the draft replacement agreement. The approvals bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales relating to the Sydney Opera House expired on 21 December 2010. New arrangements were being negotiated as of June 2011. As of June 2011 the department was also refining the existing assessment bilateral between the Commonwealth and New South Wales to accommodate the New South Wales Government’s repeal of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Further information about bilateral agreements can be found on the department’s website.
The department works closely with proponents and other stakeholders, including consultants as well as state and local governments, to ensure that the requirements of the environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act are understood. The department encourages proponents to discuss projects early in their development so that EPBC Act-related issues can be highlighted and taken into account in a project’s decision-making and planning. Projects that most effectively achieve regulatory certainty under the EPBC Act are consistently characterised by:
The EPBC Act provides for a case-by-case assessment by either the Australian Government or an accredited assessor of state and territory processes under a bilateral agreement. The proponent initiates this process by submitting a referral for a determination on whether there is a significant impact on a nationally protected matter and, if so, whether further assessment and approval is necessary (otherwise known as a controlled action). The EPBC Act allows for selection of an assessment approach that is most appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project. After the proposed action is assessed the minister or delegate then decides whether to approve the action. In 2010–11 the statutory timeframes for the three key decision points in the environmental assessment process—a decision on whether the action is a controlled action, an assessment approach decision, and the approval decision—were met 68 per cent of the time. Of the decisions that ran over the statutory timeframe, 73 per cent were made within a further 10 business days of the statutory due date. Detailed statistics relating to EPBC Act referrals, assessments and approvals are at Appendix A. Referrals In 2010–11, 428 actions were referred to the Australian Government for decision on whether approval was required under the EPBC Act. This was a small increase of 1.5 per cent on the previous year. Fifty referrals were the result of compliance actions by the department. Most referrals received were from Queensland with 24 per cent of the total. Across Australia the figures show an increase in referrals relating to residential development, renewable energy generation and supply, natural resources management and mining. There was a decrease in figures relating to tourism and recreation, non-renewable energy generation and land transport. The possible outcomes of a referral are:
In 2010–11 decisions involving referrals were as follows:
The highest number of controlled action decisions was for mining projects. Twenty-two referrals were withdrawn before a controlled action decision, 18 were withdrawn after a controlled action decision and six lapsed after a controlled action decision. Eleven reconsideration requests were received during the year and 16 decisions were made. Under section 158 of the EPBC Act the minister may exempt a person proposing to take an action from the requirement to conduct an environmental assessment and/or obtain approval in relation to the action if he is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so. One EPBC Act exemption was issued in 2010–11 for the remediation of flood damage to the Warrego Highway near Marburg Range in Queensland.
Once a project is determined to be a controlled action under the EPBC Act, further assessment of the likely impacts to matters of national environmental significance is undertaken. A decision is made for all controlled action determinations on the approach by which this assessment is conducted (the assessment approach decision). There are five different levels of assessment. When deciding on the assessment approach the department considers factors such as the scale of the project, likely impacts and the amount of information already provided. Each level requires technical information provided by the proponent to be considered and each allows for a public comment period. Comments received during this time are then considered as part of the impact assessment. Where appropriate, assessment by bilateral agreements which ‘accredit’ a particular state and territory assessment process may be used to reduce duplication of environmental assessment and regulation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The assessments of 17 projects were completed under bilateral agreements in 2010–11 and a further 94 projects were under assessment using a bilateral agreement at 30 June 2011. Following assessment, the minister will decide whether to approve the proposed action and the conditions applied to that action. In 2010–11, 103 controlled actions were approved, a substantial increase (56 per cent) on the 66 controlled actions approved in 2009–10. Two controlled actions were not approved in 2010–11. Conditions attached to approvals may include requirements to:
Decisions made, notices issued and invitations to comment under the EPBC Act are published on the department’s website.
During late 2010 and early 2011, the department finalised assessment of three large coal seam gas/liquefied natural gas (CSG/LNG) developments in south-eastern Queensland. The department recommended their conditional approval to the minister, who approved these projects in October 2010 and February 2011. The CSG industry is relatively new to Australia. The scale of these exploration and production processes presented several challenges to the department, leading to refined approaches to assessment under the EPBC Act. Collaboration CSG activities in Australia have attracted intense public, media and parliamentary interest. The concerns raised often relate to economic and social matters, including competing land use, rather than the matters of national environmental significance—which are the main focus of environmental impact assessments under the EPBC Act. As a consequence, effective links with other state and Commonwealth agencies and within the department were important to the department’s assessment of issues such as water, climate change, land use planning, food security and health. In particular, independent technical advice from Geoscience Australia underpinned some of the most critical elements of the department’s advice to the minister on the three CSG/LNG projects. Adaptive mitigation The large set of stringent conditions the minister imposed on each of the three CSG/LNG approvals reflects an adaptive management approach intended to ensure that development of the gasfields can occur without compromising environmental standards. For example, plans for clearing vegetation, and for the management of aquifers, groundwater and surface water must be submitted to the minister for approval, and must be implemented as approved. The plans must include detailed planning and monitoring arrangements including methods to re-establish aquifer water pressure if conservative water pressure thresholds are breached. Cumulative impacts The three CSG/LNG projects were very similar in nature and geographical location, with broad but diffuse impacts. The consideration of cumulative impacts, especially in relation to groundwater, was therefore central to their assessment. Groundwater reserves, including the Great Artesian Basin are of considerable economic and social importance. They also support threatened ecological communities, such as The community of native species dependent on the natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin. The department worked to protect values by obtaining internal and independent expert advice on cumulative hydrogeological impacts. Further work in this area is required through approval conditions. Meeting statutory timeframes for assessment approach and approval decisions Assessment approach and approval decisions made under the EPBC Act are governed by statutory timeframes. Fifty of the 124 assessment approach decisions were made outside the prescribed statutory timeframes. The majority of late assessment approach decisions were made within 10 business days of the statutory due date. Twenty-eight of the 105 approval decisions were made outside the statutory timeframe. Further information on statutory timeframes for referral, assessment and approval decisions are provided in Table 14 at Appendix A. Actions by the Australian Government and actions on Commonwealth land In addition to the eight matters of national environmental significance protected by the EPBC Act, the EPBC Act also confers jurisdiction over actions that have a significant environmental impact on Commonwealth land, or that are carried out by an Australian Government agency. In 2010–11 four controlled action determinations were made relating to Commonwealth land and five controlled action determinations were made relating to actions by Australian Government agencies. Australian Government agencies must seek advice from the minister before authorising any of the following actions if it is likely that they will have a significant impact on the environment:
The relevant Australian Government agency or employee must inform the minister of such a proposal and the minister must assess the action before advising the agency or employee on how to proceed. In 2010–11 advice was requested on four occasions by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government for proposals on Commonwealth airports. The minister’s delegate determined that advice was not required for one of those proposals. Statements of reasons Sections 77(4) and 78C(4) of the EPBC Act allow persons to request a statement of reasons about controlled action decisions and reconsideration of controlled action decisions respectively. In 2010–11 no requests were received under these provisions. A statement of reasons can also be requested for administrative decisions made under legislation, by way of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. In 2010–11, 19 requests were received and 18 statements provided. Reconsideration of a decision Reconsideration of a decision is available in limited of circumstances and is the only way to revoke and re-make a decision. Typically, reconsiderations are undertaken on request when there is substantial new information or a substantial change in the likely effects on matters protected. In 2010–11, 16 decisions were reconsidered by the minister or his delegate and 13 decisions were revoked and new decisions made.
The department takes a strategic approach to ensure that EPBC Act compliance and enforcement is consistent, efficient and effective across the marine and terrestrial environments. This approach includes the development and maintenance of relationships with other compliance and enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth, states and territories. EPBC Act compliance and enforcement activity is consistent with the department’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy, which was updated in December 2009 following approval by the Attorney General’s Department and adoption by the minister. This policy provides regulated entities, stakeholders and the wider community with clear advice on how the department exercises its compliance and enforcement responsibilities. The policy is publicly available on the department’s website. The EPBC Act provides a range of remedies for compliance issues, including remediation, deterrence, civil penalties and criminal prosecutions for more serious breaches, and reporting on compliance and enforcement issues. The department makes full use of all available remedies, with a particular emphasis on education and selecting remedies that achieve good environmental outcomes. Further information on EPBC Act compliance and enforcement activities is in the cross-cutting activities section ‘Regulatory compliance and enforcement’, of the Corporate Outcome chapter and the annual report of the Director of National Parks.
The department has an active EPBC Act compliance and enforcement program. During 2010–11 the department gave a series of presentations on the EPBC Act throughout Australia for local governments, state agencies and non-government organisations, to encourage greater awareness of and compliance with the EPBC Act. The department shares information and undertakes a variety of joint enforcement operations with other state and territory environmental regulators through the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators Network (AELERT). AELERT is a network of local, state, territory and Australian Government and New Zealand agencies which share information and develop cohesive regulatory practices. Joint compliance and enforcement operations are undertaken by AELERT members in priority operational areas. The department continues to work closely with the INTERPOL Environment Crime Program. Numerous briefings on issues relating to the suspected illegal international movement of wildlife and products were provided in 2010–11 for intelligence and investigation purposes. In October 2010 the department participated in the international INTERPOL-led Operation RAMP, which involved 51 countries. More than 600 operational activities, involving Commonwealth, state and territory authorities and targeting illegal wildlife trade were carried out across Australia under this operation. Operation RAMP’s Australian component led to the seizure of 36 animals, inspections and search warrants on 67 premises, and a number of arrests. In May 2011 the department began to coordinate Operation CETUS, a national operation by Australian Government and state conservation and environment agencies under the AELERT banner. CETUS aims to protect migrating whales from undue disturbance and enforces whale approach limits, particularly at popular whale watching hotspots. The department has established relationships with other Australian Government and state agencies for the provision of EPBC Act regulatory services such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service. Cooperative arrangements are in place with a number of state agencies to provide compliance and enforcement services in state waters adjoining Commonwealth marine reserves. Compliance audit plan The department’s compliance audit plan comprises audits and a strategic risk-based audit program to verify compliance with conditions of approval and particular manner requirements. The compliance audit plan also evaluates the effectiveness of the conditions and requirements for protecting matters of national environmental significance. In 2010–11 the department audited, or began auditing, four projects under the compliance audits program. These projects were selected from approvals made since the inception of the EPBC Act and included an industrial subdivision in Victoria, building works on Christmas Island, a residential development in Queensland and an electricity sub-transmission line in the ACT. The strategic risk-based audit program focuses on specific areas such as industry sectors, geographical areas and protected matters. During 2010–11 the program focused on eight projects in the mining and exploration industries, residential developments in the Melbourne Urban Growth Boundary and a review of approvals that included conditions mandating the conduct of independent audits. Overall, the audits identified a substantial level of compliance with conditions. Instances of non-compliance were addressed in accordance with the department’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy. The audit programs have also increased cooperation with state and local government co-regulators, enabling joint audits to be carried out and improving information sharing. A summary of the findings of each completed audit is published on the department’s website. The department has a program of actively monitoring projects after approval to ensure adherence to conditions attached to approvals and fulfilment of requirements attached to particular manner decisions. Variations of conditions attached to 20 approvals were processed in 2010–11 and three particular manner decisions were reconsidered. One project was suspended for the third time in 2010–11. Yüklə 5,14 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|