The EPBC Act is not delivering what was intended in an efficient and effective manner

The EPBC Act is predominantly used for the purposes of making decisions about developments that impact upon the ‘matters of national significance’ outlined in the Act. Its focus is on process, not outcomes. One of the greatest flaws is that nothing is off limits: every aspect of Australia’s environment is on the table for development and as a consequence, we continue to see species and ecosystem decline and ongoing rapid biodiversity loss. Forests under Regional Forests Agreements (which allow logging in otherwise protected areas) are not covered by the Act, demonstrating how the legal framework preferences development over environmental protection.

Planning, active and regular monitoring and robust enforcement are all crucial components of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation. However, these functions are either absent from the Act, or where there are provisions they have not been prioritised or utilised as may have been intended when the legislation was initially drafted.

The absence of strong laws and institutional guardians for the environment means volunteer-led community groups become the environment’s front line of defence. Community organisations carry the load of advancing the interests of the environment, resourcing their efforts using donations from the community and, where they can, philanthropic grants.

Should we mention that climate change is a glaring omission from the list of matters of national significance to be taken into account in assessing the environmental impacts of developments?

Reform is needed to enable the EPBC Act to address future challenges

The EPBC Act is not currently designed to meet the worsening problems of environmental degradation and climate change facing Australia. A key deficiency of the Act is that it defines ‘matters of national interest’ too narrowly. The absence of a trigger for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions is a major shortcoming. It also lacks triggers for the processes that drive species loss and ecosystem decline such as land clearing and habitat destruction.

Turning around the current trajectory of continued biodiversity loss, species extinction and worsening climate impacts requires a much stronger, nationally led approach. Strong laws and institutions need to be in place; so too does government funding.

Priority reforms needed to the EPBC Act include:

• Protection of the environment must be the primary object of the Act and the achievement of strong environmental outcomes must be a guiding principle of the Act.
• There must be new triggers in the Act to ensure the most significant environmental assets are protected and challenges addressed. This includes triggers for Ecosystems of National Importance and vulnerable ecological communities, significant land-clearing activities, significant greenhouse gas emissions and significant water resources.
• Two new statutory authorities must be established; a National Sustainability Commission for planning, monitoring and strategy development and a National Environment Protection Authority for assessment, approval and enforcement.
• The role of the community must be elevated including enhanced rights for Indigenous communities, strong public participation and access to justice provisions.

New environmental markets and trust funds have potential but should be established in partnership with philanthropy, impact investors and community

We see value in government and philanthropy working in partnership to solve difficult environmental issues. However, philanthropic funding cannot be seen as an alternative to government funding. The level of philanthropic funding in Australia will never match government funding but philanthropic funding has some critical roles to play. There have been decades of under investment by Commonwealth and State Governments and many cuts to public environmental funding.

Conservation finance could be a significant source of capital with government providing cornerstone investment and sending the right signals to investors through policy settings. In order to put the right policy settings in place, we recommend using a collaborative co-design approach, including conservation organisations, philanthropy and impact investors in the process. A starting point for collaboration needs to be a clear understanding of the different roles that philanthropy, impact investors and government play and how the different sources of funding work together to create outcomes.