The Business Council of Australia’s (BCA) membership includes more than 120 chief executive officers of Australia’s most impactful companies. We have been engaged with government and stakeholders on the reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act since prior to the Samuel Review in 2020. Our membership includes companies directly engaged in EPBC Act assessments and approvals, including in the mining and resources, energy, property, infrastructure, and legal sectors. More broadly, our members also have a strong interest in achieving positive environmental outcomes for the nation, including through policy settings that are durable, credible, and capable of maintaining community confidence.
For the EPBC Act reforms to ultimately be judged as successful, they will need to deliver measurable improvement in environmental outcomes, working towards the goal of halting and reversing environmental decline, while supporting the efficient delivery of ecologically sustainable development. High integrity offsets provide an important component of this goal given their role in compensating for residual significant impacts to the environment from an approved action, allowing for ecologically sustainable development to occur while at the same time facilitating overall improved environmental outcomes.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Standard National Environmental Standard for Environmental Offsets. The BCA will separately provide submissions on the other items open for consultation in parallel. The Standards will operate as a package of documents, and there is a clear need for cross-reference between them. As we noted in our submission on the MNES Standard, the full package of Standards is not available at the time of preparing this submission, limiting the overall quality of feedback that may be provided.
In reviewing the most recent draft of the Offset Standard, it is clear that the Department has taken onboard stakeholder feedback, and made significant improvements to the workability and clarity of the Standard, while preserving its focus on environmental outcomes.
Key recommendations
Recommendation 1
- The changes made to the current draft Offset Standard are supported and should be incorporated into the final version, noting additional comments and recommendations in this submission.
Recommendation 2
- Align language between the objective of the Standard and the outcomes and principles of the Standard for greater clarity. Relevant terms should be defined.
Recommendation 3
- The terms “high degree of certainty” and “high level of confidence” risk excluding novel and innovative offsets, given the inherent uncertainty associated with environmental outcomes and ecological projections. Consider revisions that recognise this uncertainty without compromising the end environmental outcome sought.
Recommendation 4
- The Standard should be updated to link back to the gateway test for a residual significant impact of “will have or is likely to have”, to address the risk that low-probability impacts are unintentionally captured.
Recommendation 5
- To support consistent implementation, Principle 2 (Security of Offset) should be clarified in relation to the evidentiary role of expert input and the temporal requirements applying to direct offsets. This would provide greater certainty for both proponents and decision-makers in applying the principle.
Recommendation 6
- Guidance, developed with stakeholders, will be required to support the establishment of appropriate offset baselines under Principle 4.
Recommendation 7
- There should be clarification of the meaning of ‘measurable improvement’ relative to the meaning of ‘net gain’.
Recommendation 8
- There should be close consultation with stakeholders in the development of the revised offsets calculator. The calculator should maintain full back-end transparency to support consistent application, accountability and confidence in its outputs.
Recommendation 9
- Update the wording in Principle 5 around state and territory offsets to remove ambiguity, as well as recognising state and territory offset funds.
- Develop guidance around the consideration of state and territory offsets in EPBC decision making, and on scaling up or extending existing programs while still meeting additionality requirements.
Recommendation 10
- Terminology around the expectations for like-for-like requirements under Principle 6 should be revised for consistency with other parts of the Standard.
- Consideration should be given to alternative approaches to determining like-for-like outcomes as the current proposal will be challenging to implement given planning documents are infrequently updated and do not cover all matters. These alternative approaches should be bounded by clear criteria and only apply where it can be demonstrated that the alternative approach will deliver a greater conservation outcome. Similar concerns around linkages to planning documents also exist for indirect offsets in Principle 3.
Recommendation 11
- Further definition of ‘same area’ and ‘ecologically and culturally relevant area’ is required to support the practical implementation of Principle 7 and clarify where spatial flexibility is permitted while also being consistent with the environmental purpose of the Standard.
Recommendation 12
- Clarify the meaning of ‘commenced’ in the Standard, to reflect the practical realities of implementation (particularly for large-scale or long timeframe projects) in terms of offset planning and delivery, while maintaining appropriate linkage between impact and offset timing.
Recommendation 13
- Restoration Contribution Charges should be capable of being updated where project development results in a verified reduction in disturbance footprint, so that obligations remain proportionate and continue to incentivise impact avoidance and minimisation.
Recommendation 14
- Provide definitions for terms in the Standard that are currently undefined and develop guidance on priority implementation issues identified through consultation with stakeholders.
View our full submission here.
Related submissions: