Regulatory concerns regarding the nsw biobanking scheme

Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 113-135

  Suvantola, Leila ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68149110144     PISSN: 13205323     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (105)

1. See Australian Government, Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR), Draft Policy Statement: Use of environmental offsets under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Australian Government, August 2007) 2 〈http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/ publications/pubs/draft-environmental-offsets.pdf〉 at 10 October 2008.
2. See Jonathan Verschuuren, 'Effectiveness of Nature Protection Legislation in the EU and the US: The Birds and Habitats Directives and the Endangered Species Act' in Han Somsen et al (eds), Yearbook of European Environmental Law vol 3 (2003) 305, 327.
3. Westerlund argues that the legislator has to create a system to compensate degradation of biodiversity which ensures that the impact of human activities remains within ecologically sustainable limits: Staffan Westerlund, 'Where would mankind stand without land' in Ellen Margrethe Basse, Jonas Ebbesson and Gabriel Michanek (eds), Fagelperspektiv pa rattsordningen - Vanbok till Staffan Westerlund [Bird's eye view of the the legal system - in honour of Staffan Westerlund] (Iustus Forlag, Uppsala, 2001) 19, 45.
4. Eg, in Germany the impact mitigation regulation (Eingriffsregelung) according to the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Federal Nature Conservation Act) has forbidden avoidable interference with biodiversity values since 1976 and sets the duty to (1) restore the ecological functions or the landscape of the impacted site in-kind or (2) compensate unavoidable adverse effects to the comparable level with off-site measures. Similar requirements are included in the Baugesetzbuch (Federal Planning Act).
5. See K Rundcranz and E Skärbäck, 'Environmental Compensation in Planning: A Review of Five Different Countries with Major Emphasis on the German System' (2003) 13 European Environment 204, 207.
6. Axel Klaphake, 'The Assessment and Restoration of Biodiversity Damages - Some remarks on environmental damages under the directive 2004/35' (2005) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 268, 270.
7. See EU Commission, Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EU Clarification of the Concepts of: Alternative solutions, Imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Compensatory measures, Overall Coherence, Opinion of the Commission (2007) 18 〈http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/guidance-art6-4-en.pdf〉 at 3 February 2009.
8. On pollution control trading mechanisms, see, eg, David Sohn and Madeline Cohen, 'From Smokestacks to Species: Extending the Tradable Permit Approach from Air Pollution to Habitat Conservation' (1996) 15 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 405, 416.
9. James Boyd, Dennis King and Lisa Wainger, 'Compensation for Lost Ecosystem Services: The Need for benefit-Based Transfer Ratios and Restoration Criteria' (2001) 20 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 393, 394-95
10. See also Rosemary Lyster, '(De)regulating the Rural Environment' (2002) 19 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 34, 53-55
11. Paul Curnow and Louisa Fitz-Gerald, 'Biobanking in New South Wales: Legal issues in the design and implementation of a biodiversity offsets and banking scheme' (2006) 23 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 298, 303-1.
12. Eg, the 'Ökokonto' arrangements in Germany. See Rundcranz and Skärbäck, above n 4, 214.
13. OECD, Recommendation of the Council on the use of economic instruments in promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, 21 April 2004, C(2004)81 〈http://webdomino1.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/ Display/FC32046F0ED8F9E5C1257297004784DF?OpenDocument〉 at 5 March 2008.
14. Ibid, esp the Annex, Economic considerations to be taken into account by OECD member countries in promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, pt IV.
15. See OECD, above n 10.
16. For market failure, see, eg, Michael Faure and Goran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law (2003) 94-7.
17. Holly Doremus, 'A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands' (2003) 6 Environmental Science & Policy 217, 219.
18. For wetland mitigation banking, see, eg, J B Ruhl and R Juge Gregg, 'Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking' (2001) 20 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 365.
19. Ibid 365-6; Charles E Di Leva, 'The Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources through Legal and Market-Based Instruments' (2002) Review of European Community and International Environmental 84-95, 89.
20. Garth Riddell, 'A crumbling wall: The Threatened Species Conservation Act 10 years on' (2005) 22 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 449.
21. For the concept of a hybrid, see Jody Freeman and Charles D Kolstad, 'Prescriptive Environmental Regulations versus Market-Based Incentives' in Jody Freeman and Charles D Kolstad (eds), Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation - Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience (2007) 6.
22. See OECD, Saving Biological Diversity - Economic Incentives (1996) 84
23. M D Young, N Gunningham, J Elix, J Lambert, B Howard, P Grabosky and E McCrone, Reimbursing the Future: An evaluation of motivational, voluntary, price-based, property-right, and regulatory incentives for conservation of biodiversity (Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (DEST), Biodiversity Series No. 9, Canberra, 1996) 106
24. N Gunningham and M D Young, 'Toward Optimal Environmental Policy: The Case of Biodiversity Conservation' (1997) 24 Ecology Law Quarterly 252.
25. Department of the Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC NSW), BioBanking Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme - Scheme Overview (Sydney, November 2007) 2 〈http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/ biobanking/biobankingoverview07528.pdf〉 at 18 December 2008.
26. Rosemary Lyster, Zada Lipman, Nicola Franklin, Graeme Wiffen and Linda Pearson, Environmental and Planning Law in New South Wales (2007) 333.
27. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997 (NSW) s 79B(3), (5).
28. Donna Curran, 'The Conservation of Biological Diversity on Private Property in NSW' (2000) 17 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 34, 44.
29. Between 1995 and 2002 an SIS was required for 212 projects. In only five cases the permit was refused and even of those cases three were later approved. DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed Threatened Species Conservation (Sydney, November 2007) (Regulatory Impact Statement) 6 〈http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/biobankingris07507. pdf〉 at 11 March 2008. See also Riddell, above n 17, 449.
30. David Farrier, Andrew Kelly and Angela Langdon, 'Biodiversity offsets and native vegetation clearance in New South Wales: The rural/urban divide in the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development' (2007) 24 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 427, 433, 441.
31. Ibid 440-1.
32. See the examples in the DECC NSW, BioBanking - An investigation of market- based instruments to secure long-term biodiversity objectives. Background paper (Sydney, January 2006) 9-10 〈http://www.environment. nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/biobankback0609.pdf〉 at 14 February 2008.
33. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 126G. See Lyster et al, above n 21, 102.
34. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127D.
35. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127W.
36. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127ZK and 127ZO-127ZP.
37. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZN.
38. The Threatened Species Conservation (BioBanking Assessment Methodology) Order 2008 (hereafter BioBanking Assessment Methodology), Government Gazette (NSW) (No 87, 11 July 2008) pp 7101-7153. DECC NSW, BioBanking Assessment Methodology (Sydney, July 2008) 〈http://www.environment.nsw. gov.au/biobanking/assessmethodology.htm〉 at 8 October 2008. The methodology is established under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127B.
39. The provisions relating to the market deal with the transfer of credits and registration of the transfer: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127Z-127ZB.
40. 35Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) pt 7A, div 8.
41. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127L-127O, 127ZD, 127ZF, 127ZI, 127ZZ.
42. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127I-127J.
43. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127N.
44. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127O.
45. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33, 11-22.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid 8-9.
48. The Credit Calculator uses the methodology to calculate the number and classes of credits required at a development site or created at a biobank site. See DECC, 'Biobanking assessment tools' 〈http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ biobanking/tools.htm〉 at 8 October 2008.
49. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33, 1, 8-9.
50. Ibid 1. These species are identified in the DECC, Biobanking Threatened Species Profile Database avail 〈http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ biobanking/biobankingtspd.htm〉 at 10 October 2008.
51. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33, 1.
52. The peer review panel (Professor Hugh Possingham, Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, Professor of Mathematics and Professor of Ecology, University of Queensland, Dr Philip Gibbons, Senior Fellow at the Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University and David Parkes, Principal Policy Officer, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria) regarded it as an excellent innovation to split taxa into those that can use habitat surrogates and those that cannot. See DECC, Peer Review of the May 2007 Draft of the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (Sydney, November 2007) 1 〈http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/ bbpeerrev07457.pdf〉 at 11 March 2008.
53. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127ZJ - 127ZK.
54. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127ZO - 127ZP.
55. Threatened species survey and assessment can cost around AUD 80,000 for sites with moderately complex threatened species issues, while the biobanking survey and assessment costs will be around AUD 30,000. The process including survey, negotiation and approval time generally takes two years or longer depending on complexity, while biobanking is expected to take six months on average once the scheme is established and there is a good supply of biobank sites: DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement, above n 24, 8.
56. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33.
57. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) ss 127ZL(2), 127ZN. See also DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33, 3.
58. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZL. The provision does not elaborate what is understood by the expression 'cost effective'.
59. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZG(2).
60. See also Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 (NSW) cl 19.
61. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33,3-4.
62. Ibid 4-6.
63. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZP(2).
64. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZZC; Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 (NSW) cl 47.
65. DECC, BioBanking Assessment Methodology, above n 33, 41-2.
66. Ibid 42.
67. Ibid 39-40, 42.
68. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZZC.
69. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127Z.
70. 64DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement, above n 24, 10.
71. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZA; Threatened Species Conservation (Biodiversity Banking) Regulation 2008 (NSW) cl 26.
72. DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement, above n 24, 19-21.
73. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZB(6).
74. DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement, above n 24, 19.
75. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZW(3)(a).
76. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 127ZZ.
77. Judson Agius, Biodiversity Credits: Creating Missing Markets for Biodiversity' (2001) 18 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 481, 497.
78. Sohn and Cohen, above n 7, 446-7.
79. Royal C Gardner, 'Banking on Entrepreneurs: Wetlands, Mitigation Banking, and Takings' (1996) 81 Iowa Law Review 527, 568.
80. Di Leva, above n 16, 90. If the site is not designated as a conservation site there will be an even greater risk of lost offset at a later stage - a concern shared by Sohn and Cohen, above n 7, 448.
81. Jonathan Silverstein, 'Taking Wetlands to the Bank: The Role of Wetland Mitigation Banking in a Comprehensive Approach to Wetlands Protection' (1994) 22 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 129, 133.
82. See the examples of Wallarah Peninsula and Nowra-Nerriga Main Road 92 upgrade both of which concerned setting aside ecologically valuable areas but did not include any biodiversity enhancing management activities. DECC, BioBanking - An investigation of market-based instruments to secure long-term biodiversity objectives. Background paper, above n 27, 9-10.
83. DECC, BioBanking Scheme Overview, above n 20, 2.
84. See Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW) ss 26, 28. See the website of the DECC for information on the BioMetric Tool 〈http://www.environment. nsw.gov.au/projects/BiometricTool.htm〉 at 3 February 2008.
85. Environmental Defender's Office NSW and Total Environment Centre (EDO NSW and TEC), Submission on the Proposed Biodiversity Banking Scheme February 2008 (Submission), 4, 8-9 〈http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/ subs08/biobanking-080207.pdf〉 at 14 February 2008. The NGOs expressed, however, serious concern about the overall acceptability of offsetting, certain details of the methodology, accuracy of databases, and the red flag variation process. See also the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Submission on the Proposed Biodiversity Banking Scheme, 5 February 2008 〈http://nccnsw. org.au/index.php?option=com-content&task=view&id=2258&Itemid= 946〉 at 14 February 2008.
86. On transaction costs, see, eg, OECD, Domestic Transferable Permits for Environmental Management - Design and Implementation (OECD, Paris 2001) 46.
87. See, eg, James C Nicholas and Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer, 'Market Based Approaches to Environmental Preservation: To Environmental Mitigation Fees and Beyond' (2003) 43 Natural Resources Journal 837, 857.
88. Ibid, at fn 101.
89. EDO NSW and TEC, Submission, above n 79, 6, 12.
90. Curnow and Fitz-Gerald, above n 8, 304; Rosemary Lyster and Tim Stephens, 'The Rise and Rise of Environmental Markets in Australia - Biodiversity Banking in New South Wales' (2007) 10 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 1, 10.
91. Ibid.
92. Lisa A.Wainger, Dennis King, James Salzman and James Boyd, 'Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades' (2001) 20 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 413, 420.
93. The European Union Habitats Directive uses the concept of favourable conservation status.
94. So-called non-fungibility. See Lyster, above n 8, 53-5; Curnow and Fitz-Gerald, above n 8, 303-4.
95. OECD, Domestic Transferable Permits for Environmental Management - Design and Implementation, above n 80, 75.
96. See, eg, the Nature Conservation Council, above n 79.
97. See also Gunningham and Young, above n 19, 268.
98. DECC, Regulatory Impact Statement 2007, above n 24, 24.
99. For a map of the catchment regions, see 'Catchment Management Authorities - Area of Operation and Office Locations' [Doc G:\IMTDAM\CORPORAT\CORPROJ\ Index-maps\ CMA's\CMA-050107-BW] 〈http://www.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/cma-3mile- 050107-bw.pdf〉 at 3 February 2009.
100. For the idea of 'circuit breakers' and their removal after a transition period, see Gunningham and Young, above n 19, 292.
101. Eg, Gardner, above n 73, 558, Silverstein, above n 75, 135; Nicholas and Juergensmeyer, above n 81, 858.
102. See Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme which runs online 〈http://hrs1.epa.nsw.gov.au /default.html〉 at 11 March 2008.
103. OECD, Domestic Transferable Permits for Environmental Management - Design and Implementation, above n 80, 46.
104. See the European Union Directive 2004/35/CE of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage [2004] OJ L 143, 56.
105. This has been noted in wetland mitigation banking in the United States. See Gardner, above n 73, 577.