Download NQCC submission on Common Assessment Method for Threatened

114 Boundary Street
Railway Estate, Townsville
Qld, 4810
PO Box 364, Townsville
Ph: 61 07 47716226
[email protected]
www.nqcc.org.au
22 April 2015
Richard Seaton
Principal Conservation Officer
Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage Protection
E: [email protected]
Dear Richard
Re: MOU on the Common Assessment Method for Determining the
Listing of Threatened Species
NQCC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal that
Queensland sign the Memorandum of Understanding on a Common
Assessment Method for the Listing of Threatened Species (the CAM). We
thank you for the additional time that has been accorded to us in order
to make this submission.
NQCC is the regional conservation council for the area from Cardwell to
Bowen and from the Reef to the NT border, and one of ten regional
councils under the broad umbrella of Queensland Conservation Council.
It was established in 1974 and has worked as the voice of the
environment for the north since then; focusing on education, advocacy
and policy development.
Our achievements and focus are provided in more detail on our website,
www.nqcc.org.au
We offer the following comments on the CAM.
1. Biodiversity loss in Australia
The rate of loss of biodiversity In Australia exceeds anywhere else in the
world. Despite plans and targets to protect our biodiversity, we are
seeing more and more endemic species pushed to extinction or to the
edge of extinction. The flow-on effects of the loss of one or more species
in a system of interlocking dependencies can be serious or even
catastrophic.
For example, with the native dingo being regarded as a pest, their
numbers are decreasing. As a result, numbers of genuinely invasive
species (such as rabbits, foxes and feral cats) are increasing. With each
of the estimated 20 million feral cats believed to exist in Australia killing
an average of at least six animals (largely native) every night, the size of
the impact becomes staggering.
Given the size of the problem and the intensity of the pressure it is
essential that protection of our biodiversity, and especially threatened
species, is rigorous, and that impacts on them taken into account the
precautionary principle, a key element of the EPBC Act.
2. The objects of the CAM
The objects of the CAM are given as:
A. commit to apply the Common Assessment Method for assessing and listing
Nationally Threatened species and, where a Party opts-in, ecological
communities;
B. commit to establish in each jurisdiction a Single Operational List of
threatened species, and, where a Party opts-in, of threatened ecological
communities; and
C. implement these reforms, including through a review of legacy species and
ecological communities, and making legislative changes, where required
Nowhere in the objects is there any reference to the object of
IMPROVING the protection of threatened species. It is hard to avoid the
conclusion that this CAM has been designed to increase ease of
coordination rather than protection of biodiversity.
3. The costs and benefits of the CAM
According to the Background information on the CAM, it will:
...offer greater confidence that statutory protection for threatened species is assessed
efficiently and consistently across Australia. It provides opportunities to improve listing
efficiency and timeliness, reduce duplication of effort and maintain effective protection
for threatened species and communities.
The emphasis on efficiency, consistency and timeliness is of concern. The
primary emphasis should be on better protection of threatened species.
Maintenance of effective protection is not what is needed. First, given
the loss of species, it is questionable whether or not protection to date
has been effective. Second, the focus of any changes to the methods
for assessing and dealing with biodiversity MUST be on improvement of
effectiveness.
There is nowhere in the information provided any evidence that the
CAM would improve the level of protection.
Furthermore, the claims made about the benefits of the system remain
unsubstantiated. There are no data or information presented that relate
to an assessment of the total and net costs and benefits (including nonmonetary) of the proposed system. It is stated as a fact or a truism that
this would be better; that it would be more effective. Indeed, there
appears to be no evidence that it would even be more efficient.
The statement is made that the CAM would ‘release resources to
consider more species and amend lists in a more timely fashion’. Do we
have a guarantee that this...’ will release resources to consider more
species and amend lists in a more timely fashion?
Or will it be an excuse to cut yet further the resources allocated to
environmental protection agencies?
4. Incentives for a race to the bottom
Would a common assessment method lead to a race to the bottom?
What guarantees are there (especially given the lack of any real analysis
of the operation of the project – indeed, the lack of many operational
details that are yet to be determined – that the ‘common’ method will
not be the lowest common denominator?
5. Failure to recognise the importance of species survival across Australia
The CAM appears to overlook the fact that Australia is only one country
by cartographic and historical accident. All other inhabited land masses
of the size of Australia (eg Europe, Africa) are made up of a number of
countries. Dealing with the landmass that is currently Australia overlooks
the fact that having a population of a species in, say WA, does not
make up for its extinction in, say, Queensland.
Are we to become a country in which to see a species endemic to
many or all states, say a koala, in the wild, residents and visitors would
need to go to a particular area within a particular state? With the
weaker protection provided by individual states, it would appear that
this could well become the case.
6. Impact on offsets
The CAM would appear to undermine ‘offsets’ (the apology for rigorous
enforcement of environmental standards that is increasingly becoming
the ‘solution’ of choice when development pushes up against
environmental constraints). There is no evidence that offsets work and
both the basis and means of calculation of them defy both science and
logic).
If the impact on a species is such that it would push a species to
extinction in one State but the ‘same’ species flourishes in another State,
the species would (presumably) not be listed nationally, would not be
subject to the EPBC Act, and would require smaller offsets.
7. The failure to recognize sub-species
There is no apparent attempt to recognise that species can adapt to
specific locations and, effectively develop sub-species (for example, as
is the case with the Black-Throated Finch in central and northern
Queensland). These sub-species are important in maintaining genetic
diversity and the best chance of survival of the species.
8. Lack of detail
The documentation notes that;
An inter-jurisdictional working group is developing protocols, standards, and
implementation arrangements to consistently implement the memorandum. This
includes standards of evidence, consultation between jurisdictions and public
consultation during assessment, and dispute resolution.
Briefly, the devil is in the detail. Without these details, it is impossible to
comment effectively on the CAM. The benefit (and costs) of the CAM
will depend to a large part in these details.
Without such detail it is not appropriate for the Queensland government
to sign on to the CAM.
9. Reliance on expert opinion
Where available, quantitative information should be used for assessing against defined
numerical thresholds. In the absence of quantitative information for a particular criterion,
qualitative evidence is acceptable when it is based on expert opinion and observation.
Expert opinion these days is often taken to be consultants working for
proponents of developments. This is not adequate (as evidenced by the
‘expert opinion’ proffered by Adani mines on the Black Throated Finch
for the Carmichael mine ESI during a court case initiated, argued and
financed by not-for-profit environmental groups)
At the very least the ‘expert opinion’ must be independent, including of
governments promoting a development (as is the case in the
Carmichael mine).
10. Newly discovered species
How will newly discovered species be treated? It would appear that a
newly discovered species might only be listed in the State in which it is
first discovered. This is not adequate. A newly-discovered species needs
to be listed as nationally threatened until such time as its distribution
within and across states is identified.
11. Failure to apply the legislated precautionary principle
The CAM states (at 4(d)):
A species or ecological community will be considered as data deficient where data is
insufficient to confirm that it is eligible for listing as Nationally Threatened.
Where is the precautionary principle in this approach?
12. Confidentiality clause
What is the rationale for including a confidentiality clause in a matter of
national and State importance that is relevant to and funded by the
populace?
Such a clause would limit the extent to which members of the
community are able to question or challenge decisions in relation to their
environment.
Summary
Overall, it would appear that there are many questions and many issues
that have not been considered in relation to the CAM.
Of particular concern is that there is no evidence of benefits to the
environment from this attempt to streamline the process. Indeed there
would appear to be many overlooked costs.
The absence of any robust cost/benefit analysis (I.e., one that goes
beyond the merely financial) gives weight to this concern.
As it is presented, NQCC does not support the signing of the
Memorandum of Understanding on the Common Assessment Method,
Yours sincerely
Wendy Tubman
For NQCC