PLANS by the Environmental Protection Authority to consult with project proponents before finalising the conditions of project approval do not go far enough to streamline the approvals process, the state’s chief mining lobby has warned.
PLANS by the Environmental Protection Authority to consult with project proponents before finalising the conditions of project approval do not go far enough to streamline the approvals process, the state’s chief mining lobby has warned.
Instead, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia said the government should implement all the reforms suggested by an industry working group, established as part of broader review of the approvals process last year.
The EPA this week announced an initiative to help streamline the environmental assessment process by consulting with project developers before recommending conditions to be imposed on project development.
The authority’s deputy chairman, Chris Whitaker, said the measure was aimed at identifying any technical deficiencies or basic errors before a final recommendation was made to the state environment minister.
“Projects are increasingly complex and there can sometimes be simple errors of fact, mistakes in interpretation or perceived difficulties with the implementation of a condition,” Dr Whitaker said.
“If these are not addressed before the EPA report is finalised, then companies often have to resort to lodging an appeal which can add months before they get a final decision.”
Under the current framework, there is no fixed period in which the minister must ‘consider’ the EPA’s findings, or subsequent appeals, and make a final decision.
The EPA also stressed its planned consultation would be limited to “matters of fact, technical issues and implementation only” and categorically ruled out any negotiation with proponents over “the application or content of recommended conditions”.
CME director Nicole Roocke welcomed the EPA’s move but said more definitive action was needed to address the key bottlenecks in the process.
“Quicker identification of technical errors through early consultation is welcome,” she said. “However, the industry continues to push for further streamlining of the environmental approvals process, and awaits a response to the Industry Working Group’s recommendations for reform.”
The government has already acted on some recommendations, splitting the EPA from the department of environment, and setting target deadlines for each stage of the process.
But it has not acted on others, such as shifting responsibility for environmental appeals from the environment minister to the State Administrative Tribunal and creating a single decision making authority to manage all aspects of project approval.
This week’s initiative was also questioned by the Greens as a possible “smokescreen” for a further dilution of environmental safeguards later on.
“The concern is that pressure from the Industry Working Group will end up with a process that centralises final decisions with a single, new decision-making authority that has scant regard for environmental considerations,” Greens MP Robin Chapple said.
