Submission on the Draft Terms of Reference for the Strategic Assessment of the Plan for the Protection of Matters of National Environmental Significance in the Perth and Peel Regions of WA (the MNES Plan)
The Greens WA welcome the Commonwealth/State initiative to carry out a strategic assessment of the MNES Plan being prepared in conjunction with the Directions 2031 Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel to ensure that relevant Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) are managed in accord with the objectives of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act).
We acknowledge that the proponent driven, case-by-case assessment of the environmental impact of proposals is failing to protect MNES. Further, we recognise that a strategic assessment has the potential to ensure the assessment process results in a landscape scale, comprehensive plan to manage MNES to achieve environmental protection and prevent further degradation and loss of habitat and species. However, it also will determine which areas will be available to clearing and to be lost in perpetuity in a region that has already been subject to extensive clearing and degradation of it natural values.
While we welcome this initiative we are also extremely concerned that unless the State creates a moratorium on re-zoning while this Plan is developed it is highly likely that developers will act quickly to lock up any potential conservation estate and/or clear it in advance of any regional assessment of environmental assets.
This is of significant concern especially also given the process is expected to take 18 months.
We recommend in the first instance therefore that
1) A moratorium is placed on the following until the assessment is completed:
i) Any rezoning from urban deferred to urban; and from rural to urban deferred;
ii) Any further subdivision approvals by the WAPC;
iii) Any land clearing on state owned government land (Landcorp sites such as the bushland at Alkimos, Main Roads Department land including the Beeliar Wetlands site and road reserve for Roe 8); and
iv) Any land clearing on federal government owned land (for example on Airport site, Defence, etc).
This recommendation is both pragmatic and possible: it would simply mean refocussing our planning efforts on land already zoned as urban in the next 18 months – something that was actually promised by the Minister for Planning in Directions 2031 and Beyond – which stated: “We must prioritise land that is already zoned: We already have a significant supply of land that has been deemed suitable or potentially suitable for new urban development, and has been zoned accordingly under the metropolitan and Peel region schemes. This land will be the first priority for new development.”1
We also wish to emphasise our support for the submission made by the Environmental Defender’s Office, which provides more detailed comments on the legal aspects of the Terms of Reference.
Finally, we have also attached key articles in the media that highlight the urgent need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Perth and Peel Region, better urban planning, and formalised and statutory protection of our remaining biodiversity. The articles are attached at Appendix 1.
Comments on the Draft Terms of Reference
Section 1 – Purpose
The 2007 State of the Environment Report provided sobering evidence that biodiversity is currently not recognised or respected in decision making. It said: ‘Threats to biodiversity not only come from biological and physical processes, but from institutional issues too. Foremost amongst these problems is the failure to adequately value biodiversity in decision-making…’
In a briefing we received recently from the Perth Biodiversity Project (conducted by the Western Australian Local Government Association) it was made clear that if development occurs on all of the land currently zoned as urban, urban deferred, industrial, roads and ports and the city centre, this will breach the fundamental principle of biodiversity protection and viability outlined in the EPA’s own Guidance statement on planning and development that states at least 30% of original ecological communities in a bioregion and 10% of ecological communities in constrained areas must be protected2. Put simply, if business as usual continues, as directed by our existing Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), we will dip below the critical minimum 10% threshold for all vegetation types in the Perth and Peel area.
The same guidelines state that ‘from a purely biodiversity perspective, a level of 10% of the original extent of a vegetation community is regarded as being a level representing ‘endangered’; and ‘in the first instance, during the formulation of a scheme or proposal, the EPA expects that every attempt will be made to avoid adverse environmental impacts on critical assets’. (Page 97)
In any case, as it currently stands, our MRS directly contravenes our own current EPA Planning and Development guidelines.
The timing and urgency of the Strategic Assessment is clear. We have concerns that this is not captured in the Purpose or Description of the Terms of Reference.
The Terms of Reference need to:
1) Make it explicit that the purpose of the Strategic Assessment of the Plan is to achieve the highest level of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation for those matters that the Commonwealth has responsibility, i.e. National Heritage Places, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and endangered communities and listed migratory species.
2) Make it explicit that the purpose of the Strategic Assessment of the Plan is to ensure there is no further loss or deterioration of matters that the Commonwealth has responsibility for, i.e. National Heritage Places, wetlands of international importance, listed threatened species and endangered communities and listed migratory species.
3) Make it explicit that the Strategic Assessment will include all zoned areas within the Perth Metropolitan Regional Scheme.
4) Provide assurance that the MNES Plan will have legal effect and specify which Planning instruments will be brought into force to compliment it.
Section 3.1 – Project need and justification
The Terms of Reference need to:
5) Include the economic costs and benefits of conservation and biodiversity, in addition to socio-economic costs and benefits being requested in the MNES Plan.
There is a wealth of economic and scientific data now available on the value of ecological services. Australia’s GDP is estimated to be worth $1223billion a year. What is less known is that the value of goods and services provided by nature, called “Environmental production” and including pollination, clean air, clean water, recreational opportunities and so on, is worth $1164 billion per year. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) also estimates currently we deplete $77b of natural resources each year in Australia (urban water pollution, mineral resources depletion, land degradation greenhouse pollution, air pollution, drought, and so on).
Section 3.2 – Planning for Ecologically Sustainable Development
The Terms of Reference need to:
6) Ensure that the Strategic Assessment of the Plan can take a precautionary approach that in particular takes into consideration the likelihood of rapidly changing environmental condition due to climate change.
7) Ensure that the Strategic Assessment of the Plan does not preclude any adaptive management options that are responsive to advances in scientific knowledge.
8)Ensure that the boundaries of the plan are not determined by arbitrary boundaries defined by existing planning legislation and policy but will be defined by biogeographic processes.
9) Ensure that the Strategic Assessment of the Plan is informed by up-to-date mapping of existing ecological communities. This mapping exercise must be comprehensive, on-ground and scientifically rigorous. The mapping must include all land, not just publicly owned land.
Section 4.1 Environment affected by the MNES Plan
We support the Terms of Reference in this section, but believe key items are missing, namely the cumulative impact of clearing and development in the Perth and Peel Regions, and the regional context for the MNES Plan.
Figures from the most recent State of the Environment Report (2007 p132 – 135) show that nearly 900ha of native vegetation was cleared each year in the Perth metropolitan region (equivalent to more than one football oval per day) between 1998 and 2004. This equals a total of 5974 ha in this period. Two thirds of this total was cleared between 2001 and 2004, an average of nearly 1000ha a year in that period.
Most recent clearing between 2001 and 2004 was concentrated in outer Perth suburbs. The cities of Wanneroo and Rockingham have the highest areas of native vegetation cleared (over 1100 and 800 ha respectively).
Across WA, about 7000 and 8000ha were approved for clearing in 2005 and 2006 respectively under the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection act 1986 (equates to about 10 football ovals per day).
The extent of clearing undertaken where a permit has not been required is unknown.
We therefore strongly recommend a consolidated and accurate record of the total amount of native vegetation that has been cleared in WA, and the amount that is being cleared every year following the implementation of the Plan.
To reflect this the Terms of Reference need to:
10) Describe the cumulative impact of land clearing on MNES to date in the Perth-Peel metropolitan region. This would include detailed description of loss of vegetation and impact on MNES in hectares, decline in species, etc; as well as spatial representation (maps and aerial photography over five-year time frames for example) for each. It is recommended the detailed description of the cumulative impact would feature first as point 4(a) and the existing points would follow.
11) Require that annual figures of clearing are recorded and reported publicly following implementation of the Plan.
There is a strong argument that a number of WA species should be fast-tracked to the federal list because they don’t appear anywhere else in Australia. We recommend the state government should elect to include state species and communities, and the Terms of Reference are released again for comment.
The Draft Terms of Reference currently includes matters of national environmental significance that are:
4(a) “..likely to be directly and indirectly impacted” by the Plan; and 4(c) “..otherwise recommended to the Minister for listing by the Threatened Species
Scientific committee prior to submittal of the Report” (Dot point 8).
To this end the Terms of Reference need to:
12) Outline specifically how state threatened species will be included.
13) Include for Potential listing threatened or declared rare species that are also endemic to WA.
There are 46 vegetation complexes in the Perth region, with seven endemic to Perth.
14) Include for Potential listing all critical habitats (for example Banksia woodland) and all areas
above water mounds.
Section 4.3 Management, mitigation or offset of likely impacts of implementing the MNES Plan
The Terms of Reference need to:
15) Reiterate that this Plan should seek to avoid impact, not rely on offsets. The focus is currently too heavily weighted towards ‘management measures’ than actual conservation.
16) Propose that the cost of offsets must be borne by developers.
17) Ensure that if large/strategic scale offsets are proposed by the Plan, these will be accompanied by the estimated cost of such offsets and the type of up zoning and planning instrument to be enforced to protect the area from future development.
18) Add actual targets for conservation and re-establishment of further corridors. Propose the clear objective for no further loss of habitat will occur.
Section 5 Adaptive management
19) Add a List of Circumstances to review the Plan under 5(c) to include:
i. New information on species
ii. Major mining or industrial developments in the metro area that may not have been included in the Directions 2031 plan
iii. Annual review (at least) of clearing and habitat in an audit and report
iv. Whether the development objectives of Directions 2031 are being met, eg 47% infill target and increasing density by 50%
Section 6 Auditing and Reporting
20) Add a list of Conditions to section 6 (b – auditing of the Plan) to include:
i. A timeframe – we recommend third party auditing of the MNES plan to occur every 5 years; and
ii. A definition of ‘third party auditing’ – we recommend it to mean a scientific, stakeholder review panel
Section 7 Endorsement criteria
21) Targets should be added to the Terms of Reference, as previously described. The Plan should not be endorsed unless it lists targets.
Comments on sections that are lacking in the Draft Terms of Reference
New Section – Community Consultation
The consultation process described is very shallow. It lacks genuine, ongoing stakeholder input, engagement and workshops.
New Terms of Reference are needed to:
22) Ensure full and timely consultation with the community on the Strategic Assessment of the Plan.
23) Require a government response to consultation at each stage. It’s recommended for example the government publish a response to the input it has received from consultation and describe how it’s been weighted and in turn responded to. For example, the format used for the “What was said about Directions 2031” document released following the consultation for the draft Directions 2031 draft spatial framework could be utilised.3
24) Require genuine engagement and earlier stages of community workshops before the draft Plan is released. The generic Terms of Reference need to be changed to include more genuine consultation such as regional workshops and regional meetings and briefing sessions, which are essential throughout the process but especially early in the process before the drafting begins.
25) Increase the suggested time the Draft Plan is released for comment to 60-90 days as a minimum, not 28 days as the TORS currently suggest.
New Section – Legal Enforceability
New Terms of Reference are needed, to:
26) Ensure that the Plan contains binding agreements that will ensure that actions under the Plan are legally enforceable in State law.
27) Ensure there are suitable and unambiguous powers for State agencies to prosecute breaches of the final Plan with appropriate penalties for breaches.
Appendix 1: Recent media articles highlighting the need for the SEA
– Draft Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel. August 2010 at http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/827.asp
