Great Barrier Reef

The 37th session of the World Heritage Committee is sitting in the Kingdom of Cambodia, in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap-Angkor, from 16th to 27th June 2013.

 

The 37th session is organized by UNESCO and the National Commission of Cambodia with the support of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

Last week the World Heritage Committee has delayed its decision on whether to list the Great Barrier Reef as ‘in danger’.

The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides an overarching mechanism for protecting the World Heritage values from inappropriate development, including actions taken inside or outside which could impact on its heritage values. This requires any development proposals to undergo rigorous environmental impact assessment processes, often including public consultation, after which the Federal Minister may decide, to approve, reject or approve under conditions designed to mitigate any significant impacts.

A recent amendment to the EPBC Act makes the GBR Marine Park an additional 'trigger' for a matter of National Environmental Significance which provides additional protection for the values within the GBR.

The Qld Government has welcomed the opportunity to continue our initiatives while further considerations are made over the next year.

The 2009 Outlook Report identified the long-term challenges facing the GBR; these are dominated by climate change over the next few decades.

The extent and persistence of damage to the GBR ecosystem will depend to a large degree on the amount of change in the world’s climate and on the resilience of the GBR ecosystem to such change. This report also identified continued declining water quality from land-based sources, loss of coastal habitats from coastal development, and some impacts from fishing, illegal fishing and poaching as the other priority issues requiring management attention for the long-term protection of the GBR.

Emerging issues since the 2009 Outlook Report include proposed port expansions, increases in shipping activity, coastal development and intensification and changes in land use within the GBR catchment; population growth; the impacts from marine debris; illegal activities; and extreme weather events including floods and cyclones.

Further building the resilience of the GBR by improving water quality, reducing the loss of coastal habitats and increasing knowledge about fishing and its effects and encouraging modified practices, will give the GBR its best chance of adapting to and recovering from the threats ahead, including the impacts of a changing climate.

The Qld Government is attempting to address UNESCO’s concerns and deliver on their recommendations.

They include:

·       Establishing a scientific panel to monitor Gladstone Harbour as part of a $4 million Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership,

·       Committing $35 million each year for reef protection and improved water quality,

·       Releasing a draft Ports Strategy that clearly states our intention to limit port development to existing areas.

The Qld Government has implemented a best management practice programs with the agricultural industry to reduce nutrient run off and improve water quality.

A letter to the Enviro Minister on Enviro Offsets

Hon Andrew Powell

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection

Dear Mr Powell,

I was reading an article on Biodiversity offsets, which prompted me to have a quick look at the EHP website for the Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy.

I noted that a lot of the content on the website is no longer available.

Many of the triggers in legislation appear to be under review or being amended including:

·         Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (PDF)*

·         Environmental Protection Act 1994 (PDF)*

·         Nature Conservation Act 1992 (PDF)*.

I wonder if you are able to provide any insights into what the Qld Government’s current and future policy on Environmental Offsetting will be?

Regards,

Rowan Barber


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In response, an EHP representative wrote:

Good afternoon Rowan.

Thank-you for email.  Apologies for the website – there is currently a review of the department’s web material, which has resulted in some documents being unavailable at this time.

CURRENT

At the moment the Queensland Government has five offset policies:

·         Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection –offsets@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·         Queensland Biodiversity Offset Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection –offsets@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·         Offset for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection - seqkoala@ehp.qld.gov.au)

·         Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (administered by Department of Natural Resources and Mines –vmenquireis@dnrm.qld.gov.au)

·         Marine Fish Habitat Offset Policy (administered by Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

General information about offsets and the policies can be found from the below link.

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/environmental-offsets/environmental-offsets.html

FUTURE

In relation to the future of Queensland’s offset policies, the Queensland Government committed, through the Six Month Action Plan July to December 2012, to review the overarching framework for the Biodiversity Offsets Policy.  The review will create a single policy that incorporates requirements of all five existing Queensland Government offset policies.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection is leading this review.

The single policy will address all Queensland Government offset requirements and could be adopted as the foundation for local government offset policies if desired by councils.

The review seeks to reduce costs for government and industry; promote strategic biodiversity outcomes; and provide for shelf ready products that enable rapid approvals for projects.

This review is not linked to the review of assessment requirements or triggers under legislation.  These are being undertaken separately to development of this policy. 

However, where there is a State assessment requirement to avoid, mitigate and offset impacts – the single State Government Environmental Offset Policy will provide how this offset is to be achieved.

Until this review is completed, all current offset policies remain in effect.

Kind regards,

Jane

EHP’s New Regulatory Strategy

EHP’s New Regulatory Strategy

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) has released a new Regulatory Strategy. This strategy sets out how EHP will carry out its role as the state’s environment and heritage regulator.

The new strategy is a significant change to the department’s approach to regulation, and all clients and their advisors are encouraged to read it. There is also a short video to help explain the changes.

I note a wholesale move towards “A light-handed regulatory model”.  I shall be analyzing and unpacking the implications of this in future posts to this blog.

Here we go again #ShaleOil

Media Statements

JOINT STATEMENT

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection
The Honourable Andrew Powell

Minister for Natural Resources and Mines
The Honourable Andrew Cripps

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Newman Government approves oil shale industry

The creation of new jobs and broad economic benefits are expected, following the Newman Government announcement that it will allow the development of a commercial oil shale industry in Queensland under strict environmental conditions.

Natural Resources and Mines Minister, Andrew Cripps, said the Government’s new oil shale policy sets rigorous environmental controls on the industry and will allow existing oil shale operator QER Limited to progress its trial plant at Gladstone to commercial stage.

“Queensland currently has around 90 per cent of Australia’s known oil shale resources, which are equivalent to approximately 22 billion barrels of oil,” Mr Cripps said.

“As the world supply of conventional crude oil diminishes, there are strong prospects for oil shale to become the next major source of liquid fuel supplies in Australia, and Queensland is well placed to lead that charge.

“The industry has the potential to create thousands of new jobs in the construction phase alone, and provide royalties and other economic benefits for our regional communities and the broader economy, which is great news for Queensland.”

Minister Cripps said the new oil shale policy would:

• recognise the strategic importance of oil shale to contribute to energy security, and encourage private sector investment in high quality oil shale extracting technologies
• ensure project proponents must first demonstrate their oil shale technology will meet high environmental standards and community expectations
• allow, in general, the consideration and development of other oil shale deposits in Queensland, pending thorough environmental assessment on a project by project basis
• continue the existing 20-year moratorium suspending development of the McFarlane oil shale deposit near Proserpine until 2028

Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, Andrew Powell, emphasised that strict environmental controls would apply to any proposal to mine and process oil shale.

“To date, there has been extremely limited commercial application of oil shale in Australia and overseas,” Mr Powell said.

“That’s why any proposed oil shale development will be subject to detailed environmental assessments on a project-by-project basis. 

“We will consider these proposals on their merits and require a trial stage to determine the feasibility and environmental performance of any unproven technologies.

“The approval process for any oil shale development will demand that operators adopt best practice environmental management techniques and comprehensive monitoring of the process, its emissions, wastes and impact on the community and environmental settings.

“Under the new policy, existing operator Queensland Energy Resources Ltd (QER) will be able to proceed directly to commercial production, but new entrants to the industry will need to prove their oil shale extraction technologies through trials.

“Importantly, both existing and new operators in the oil shale industry will need to prepare full Environmental Impact Statements for their projects.”

Mr Powell said the QER pilot plant near Gladstone has successfully demonstrated the viability of its processing technology.

“The report into the QER plant demonstrated it operated well within the environmental performance requirements of its Environmental Authority issued by my department,” he said.

[ENDS] 13 February 2013

Media contacts:

Minister Cripps: Jane Paterson             0417 281 754      

Minister Powell: Ken Vernon             0431 027 017      

Further Information:

Oil shale is a fine grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter called kerogen. It is a completely different industry and extraction process to shale gas or shale oil.

Hydrocarbons are derived from oil shale that has been mined and then heated in a processing plant.  This process produces vapours which are condensed and converted into synthetic crude oil, and then refined to produce ultra-low sulphur transport fuels.

Changes to Environmental Regulation in Qld

An Overview of Changes to Environmental Regulation in Qld

 

In the space of eight months, the Qld Government has reformed Environmental regulation and the machinery of Government.

The newly elected Qld Government adopted the former Government’s Greentape Reduction Act (2012).

As you may recall, the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced into parliament in October 2011. The Bill lapsed when the Queensland state election was called.

While there is a strong case for reducing duplication and unnecessary paper work, many folks from the conservation and/or environment movement have grave concerns about the compromising on Environmental Protection and fast-tracking development.

The Newman Government's commitment includes the introduction of the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 into the 54^th parliament on 29 May 2012.  The legislation was adopted by the Newman Government and is intended to streamline environmental regulation to allow development to move through bureaucratic approval processes. The bill was passed on 31 July 2012, but will not take effect until March, 2013.

Other reforms have simply removed environmental protections, clearing the way for increased development of the state.

One of Newman’s first acts as Premier was to push the Commonwealth to cede power to the states for environmental approvals and management.  On 13 April 2012, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) released a communiqué announcing its intention to implement changes to environmental laws across Australia.

The changes are directed at both Federal and State laws with an emphasis on ‘streamlining’ environmental assessment processes. Presently, the Federal Government has to sign off on development in areas designated as having “national environmental significance”.

Supported by some within the private sector, the Qld Premier and Premiers from Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria want the Federal Government to hand over control of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The Federal Government has since backed away from the changes and will retain oversight powers.

The Qld Premier has lobbied for development in the fragile Great Barrier Reef area, for which there are about 45 development proposals in the pipeline.

Dredging work in the Gladstone area, which has already led to changes in environmental standards, is supported by the Qld State Government.

“We are in the coal business,” the Premier told reporters. “If you want decent hospitals, schools, and police on the beat, we all need to understand that.”

The Qld Government is committed to the “four pillar” economy. The four pillars are tourism, agriculture, resources and construction and LNP policy specifically advocates for a removal of impediments to this economy.

Since March 2012, the Qld Government has:

- Dismantled all carbon abatement and climate change schemes;

- Removed the Waste Levy;

- Retracted State Government support from the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn solar research and power plant;

- Eliminated more than 1,400 jobs across government departments dealing with environmental concerns;

- Announced that it would roll back the Wild Rivers legislation;  

- Flagged changes to the enforcement of the Vegetation Management Act;

- Lifted the ban on shooting flying foxes,

- Proposed changes to the management of national parks;

- Announced plans to remove the SEQ urban footprint;

- Prioritised development in the Great Barrier Reef area;

The previous Government had amalgamated a number of Departments into the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM).  The current Government has dismantled DERM.

Now, Qld has departments of:

-     Environmental Protection and Heritage, 
-    Resource Management and Mines,

-     Energy and Water Supply,

-     Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

-     National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing. and

-     State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

-     The Office of Climate Change was disbanded in May, 2012.

In a press conference after his election, Newman said the changes would “create a department with a stronger focus on environment” and that he wanted to be able to speed up mining and development approvals.

In November 2012, National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing minister Steven Dickson announced legislative changes to boost tourism in national parks. The Newman’s Government wants Tourism and National parks together.

The Qld State Government has also made redundant 30 inspectors, whose role was to carry out compliance checks on resource and development projects with environmental conditions attached.

The Queensland ombudsman, Phil Clarke, released a report on 26 September 2012 that found streamlined government processes designed to ensure consistent, expert advice when making environmental assessments were no longer working properly.

In August 2012, the temporary state planning policy ‘Planning for Prosperity’ was released. The Qld coastal-protection plan which regulated development was suspended in October 2012 because it “is not sufficiently supportive of the Government’s commitment to grow the four pillars of Qld’s economy”, according to the draft plan that replaces it.

100 Days

100 Days

On the 19 March 2012, prior to the election, Campbell Newman released his 100 Day Action Plan which was to be a blueprint for the first 100 days of Government. Initially the Newman Government began machinery of Government changes such as disassembling the Department of Environment and Resource Management.

Last week, Premier confirmed his commitment to commence action to implement recommendations of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry.

On the 10 April 2012, the Premier committed to act to repeal Labor’s $372 million Industry Waste Levy with the intention of cutting costs for businesses (to take effect from 1 July 2012).  However, ASBG is concerned the Government is cutting it fine.  No waste levy amending legislation has been seen on the Queensland Parliament’s bills list .  ASBG believes that the proposed ‘cost of living Bill’ which may be out this week.  However, due parliamentary process would mean such a bill cannot be enacted before 1 July 2012, hence levy may not be reduced on 1 July.

The Queensland Government has confirmed the levy will be ended on 1 July 2012 with many of the Waste reduction programs suspended due to no levy revenue to support them.  One can still currently find information about the waste levy, how to pay it  Some content such as those programs that the former Government put in place are disappearing off the website.

In correspondence from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, noted ASBG’s concerns about interstate waste being transported into Qld.  Waste receivers on the Gold Coast are particularly vulnerable.  Opposition Environment spokesperson: Jackie Trad was quoted in the Gold Coast Bulletin: “the axing of the levy would turn Queensland into a dump for NSW”.

“The LNP Government's axing of the levy will only encourage interstate businesses to dump their rubbish in Queensland, the only mainland state without a levy on non-domestic waste.”

Minister Andrew Powell intends to explore these policy options more fully and develop suitable approaches in consultation with stakeholders. Provisions of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 allow for the introduction of disposal bans, which is also referred to in Mr Roberts response. Under the existing legislation, the Minister may regulate waste for the purposes of a disposal ban, but only after considering all of the following:

· Prohibition on the disposal of the waste is the most effective point of intervention in the life cycle of the waste;

· Whether there are viable existing or potential collection systems & markets for any benefit that may be obtained from not disposing of the waste;

·      Whether the costs of monitoring, enforcement & market development are proportional to the benefits;

·      Whether voluntary or other measures for the avoidance of disposal have been shown not to be effective;

·      Whether a prohibition on disposal is required to support an accredited product stewardship scheme, a regulated product stewardship scheme or an approved program.

The Minister may also recommend regulation that identifies waste for the preparation of a priority product statement and the use of product stewardship arrangements, to shift the obligation onto waste generators to reduce waste.

However, a ban will not stop wastes crossing the border.  Free trade between states and territories is a cornerstone of the Australia Constitution.  As such a ban must only cover a specific waste type, but cannot discriminate from where that waste came from within Australia, otherwise it would be unconstitutional.

Under s152-153 reporting entities includes landfills and recycling activities as defined under the Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation 2011.  Such entities must provide an annual report on among other things, waste types and amounts collected and as described under the regulations. Failure to provide a report is $10,000 maximum fine.

There appears no penalty for false or misleading data or reporting. ASBG has considerable issues with the ability of the EHP to police and be able to demonstrate miss-representation of the origin of waste arriving at landfills.  Such monitoring appears to rely on the honesty of the waste deliverers.  If there is commercial interest, the reliability of such information will be questionable

There were been a number of other commitments that are relevant to Environmental Practitioner’s such as:

·  The promised Gasfields Land and Water Commission has been established with John Cotter as its chairman. The Commission’s mission is to rebuild community confidence in and have influence over government processes and decisions on Coal Seam Gas development.

·  On Tuesday 19 June the State Government indicated its intention to terminate the South East Queensland Distribution and Retail Water Reform Workforce Framework 2009 as at 30 June, 2012.

On the 24 June, Premier Newman used a $45k sixty second spot, to urge one to read former Treasurer Peter Costello's interim commission of audit report on the Qld economy. So what happens if the levy is not repealed on 1 July 2012?  It would make for considerable confusion in the waste industry with many customers of landfill wondering why they are still paying the $35/t levy

ASBG are running:

·         Contaminated Land Conference on 18 July 2012

·         Environmental Management Workshop on the 19 July 2012 to bring Managers up to speed on changes to Environmental Law.