DRAFT - Public Consultation document - Improving the ... Web viewDRAFT - Public Consultation document - Improving the permission system Last modified by: Sara Lando Company: GBRMPA

Improving the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permission system

This opportunity for public comment closes 18 December 2015

Invitation for public comment:

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityImproving the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permission system

Contents

Summary..................................................................................................................................3

Privacy declaration...................................................................................................................4

Introduction..............................................................................................................................5

Scope of the review..............................................................................................................6

Timelines for the review........................................................................................................6

Regulatory impact.................................................................................................................7

Potential changes to the permission system............................................................................8

1. Minimising decision timeframes.............................................................................8

2. Reviewing which activities are included on a standard ‘routine’ tourism permit... .8

3. Requiring relevant information at the time of application.......................................9

4. Changing the permit application and assessment fee system.............................10

5. Switching off the EPBC Act..................................................................................11

6. Identifying different assessment processes.........................................................12

7. Improving the assessment criteria.......................................................................13

8. Evaluating prudent and feasible alternatives.......................................................14

9. Changing the public advertising requirements.....................................................14

10. Changing the process for suspending and revoking permits...............................16

11. Expanding limited impact research definitions.....................................................16

12. Defining impacts...................................................................................................17

13. Using risk management tools...............................................................................18

14. Managing facilities................................................................................................19

15. Setting permit terms.............................................................................................19

Appendix................................................................................................................................21

2


Summary

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is the Australian Government agency responsible for the long-term protection and management of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region. In managing the Region, GBRMPA must seek to act in a way that is consistent with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (the Act), including the principles of ecologically sustainable use.

The Act, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 (the Zoning Plan) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 (the Regulations) establish that certain activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park require written permission (a permit), accreditation or notification to GBRMPA. The agency manages these activities through a joint permitting system with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS). The ways in which activities are managed are collectively referred to as the ‘permission system’. More information about the permission system is available on our website.

The Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment Report and its Program Report (2014) identified that changes to the permission system are needed to reduce duplication and to improve rigour, consistency and transparency.

In August 2015, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) released a report on the findings of a performance audit of GBRMPA’s permission system. The ANAO report identified the need to improve rigour in the assessment of permit applications to better address risks and regulatory requirements.

This document outlines possible changes to the permission system that are being considered by GBRMPA. These changes relate only to the Commonwealth Marine Park aspect of the permission system, and focus on the assessment and decision making stages. We would like to hear your views about these possible changes.

How you can help

You can help GBRMPA by providing your feedback — look for these blue boxes to guide you with some discussion questions.

GBRMPA is seeking input from permit holders and other interested people about:

changes being considered by GBRMPA any other suggestions you have for improving the permission system.

A survey is available which will walk you through the possible changes. Alternatively, you can send your own written comments to:

Manager, Strategy DevelopmentEnvironmental Assessment and [email protected] PO Box 1379Townsville QLD 4810

This opportunity for public comment closes on 18 December 2015.

Please refer to our privacy declaration on the next page to understand how your information may be used.

3

mailto:[email protected]

http://surveys.couttsjr.com.au/s3/GBRMPA-improving-permissions

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2015-2016/03/ANAO_Report_2015-2016_3.pdf

http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/2860

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/permits

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/permits


Privacy declaration

Notification of the collection of personal information Personal information you provide to GBRMPA is protected by the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act). The Privacy Act contains thirteen Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) that regulate how GBRMPA must handle your personal information.

Why we collect your informationIf you choose to make a submission to GBRMPA about the proposed amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983, or other proposed changes to the permissions system, your personal information, such as your email address, postal address or other contact details may be provided to us with your submission.

If you decide to provide your personal information to us, we will not use this information for any purpose.

GBRMPA’s APP Privacy PolicyGBRMPA’s APP Privacy Policy contains information about how you may:

access your personal information and seek correction of your personal information

complain to GBRMPA about a breach of the APPs and how GBRMPA will deal with your complaint.

GBRMPA’s APP Privacy Policy and complaints procedure can be found on our website.

Further information about privacy may be obtained from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner .

4

http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/about-privacy

http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/about-privacy

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/home/privacy


Introduction

BackgroundGBRMPA ensures ongoing protection and conservation of the Marine Park and works with state and Commonwealth government agencies to manage the Region as a whole.

The Queensland Government and GBRMPA have a long history of partnership in managing marine and land environments within the Region. A joint permitting process between GBRMPA and Queensland has existed for 30 years, as most activities in the Marine Park also access the state’s Marine Park.

The Australian Department of the Environment manages activities that may impact on matters of national environmental significance, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. GBRMPA works with the department to consider activities proposed within or outside the Marine Park which may impact on the Marine Park.

GBRMPA receives about 460 permit applications each year. The ANAO report stated that over a 10-year period1 the agency issued 4296 permits (excluding permit transfers), containing 6337 individual permissions2. Applications are currently classified based on risk and complexity.

About 90 per cent of applications received each year are low-risk proposals requiring a routine level of assessment, most commonly for tourism operations;

About 9 per cent are medium-risk proposals requiring more detailed assessment, such as for fuel transfer, scientific research or small jetties;

About 1 per cent are high-risk proposals requiring complex assessment of many issues, such as for dredging, marinas or island resorts.

Why changes are neededIn August 2014, the Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment Program Report (Program Report) identified changes to the permission system were required to maintain high levels of environmental protection while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.

In March 2015, the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan) identified a range of actions to protect the values of the Great Barrier Reef, including actions requiring changes to the permission system.

In August 2015, the Australian National Audit Office released the findings of a performance audit of GBRMPA’s permission system and made recommendations for improvement. Through the ANAO process, stakeholders expressed concerns about:

consistency and transparency of decision-making

the independence and objectivity of GBRMPA

the agency’s ability to manage dual responsibility for conservation and regulation.

As a result, in January 2015 GBRMPA started a major review of the permission system, including associated Regulations, policies, guidelines and procedures.

1 Financial years between 2004 and 2014 as documented in the ANAO report2 Each permit may contain one or more permission to undertake an activity in the Marine Park

5

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2015-2016/Regulation-of-Great-Barrier-Reef-Marine-Park-Permits-and-Approvals

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2015-2016/Regulation-of-Great-Barrier-Reef-Marine-Park-Permits-and-Approvals




Objectives of the reviewGBRMPA is proposing changes to its permission system in order to:

• Streamline: Increase efficiencies and focus resources on higher risk proposals. One of several measures includes allowing GBRMPA to seek the Australian Environment Minister’s approval to ‘switch off’ the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) for projects entirely within the Marine Park, on the basis that GBRMPA’s assessment processes adequately consider matters of national environmental significance. This would reduce duplication because a single GBRMPA assessment would also satisfy EPBC requirements.

• Improve consistency, transparency and rigour : Improve consideration of all regulatory requirements and the latest information; provide clear policies, guidelines and procedures for staff, applicants and the public; and ensure decisions are made in a consistent and transparent way.

Scope of the reviewThis proposal only relates to changes to the Regulations, policies, guidelines and procedures. No changes are proposed to the Act, Zoning Plan or plans of management as part of this review.

Timelines for the reviewInitial consultation is planned for October 2015 to December 2015. This will seek suggestions for improvements and feedback on changes that GBRMPA is considering, including changes to the Regulations.

Further consultation is planned for mid-2016 to seek feedback on draft policies and guidelines that will be developed as a result of information received from this initial consultation.

All changes are planned to come into effect on 1 July 2017 as part of a coordinated package. Before changes come into effect, information will be provided to permit holders and the broader public. Email and telephone support will be available to help the public through the transition period.

6

Round 2 Consultation: Policies & guidelines Mid-2016

Implementation Target Date 1 July 2017

Round 1 Consultation: Potential changes Oct – Dec 2015


Regulatory impactThe Australian Government’s Office of Best Practice Regulation has been consulted on this proposal and has advised that a regulation impact statement is not required as the proposed changes “aim to clarify and make minor adjustments to the existing regulatory framework, rather than substantially altering the intent or effect of that framework”3.

3 (OBPR ID 19438, 19439, 19440).

7


Potential changes to the permission system

1. Minimising decision timeframes Key point: Many of the changes outlined in this document are designed to streamline and speed up decisions on low-risk applications, so that more time and effort can be directed towards higher risk applications. This should result in improvements in decision timeframes for all types of applications.

GBRMPA is not required by law to make decisions on permit applications within a particular timeframe, except for deemed applications under the EPBC Act. The ANAO sampled 10 per cent of permits between July 2012 and June 2014. Of these, the ANAO found that for low-risk applications:

57 per cent were decided within two months

31 per cent were decided between two to four months

The remaining 12 per cent were decided between four months and two years.

The ANAO found that for the medium- and high-risk applications sampled:

23 per cent were decided within three months

43 per cent were decided between three months and one year

The remaining 34 per cent took between one and four years to decide.

Some of the reasons for these timeframes are outside GBRMPA’s control. They include awaiting further information from the applicant; conducting native title notification; or awaiting a decision under the EPBC Act. However, in many cases timeframes could be improved through changes to the permission system. This would allow more resources to be directed to assessing medium- and high-risk applications.

Discussion questions:

What costs (financial or otherwise) do you experience as a result of waiting for a permit decision?

What could GBRMPA do to minimise unnecessary administrative steps and reduce decision timeframes, while still properly considering every application?

How do GBRMPA’s decision timeframes impact on you as an individual, community group or business?

2. Reviewing which activities are included on a standard ‘routine’ tourism permitKey point: GBRMPA is considering expanding and clarifying the list of activities, locations and parameters (such as vessel size or passenger numbers) to be included on the standard tourism permit.

Currently, GBRMPA’s permit application form includes the choice of applying for a ‘standard tourism permit.’ If granted, this permit allows certain low-risk tourism activities

8


to be conducted according to standardised permit conditions. Selecting the standard tourism permit option may reduce timeframes for decisions.

GBRMPA is exploring whether additional low-risk tourism activities could be added to the standard tourism permit and whether other parameters (such as vessel numbers, vessel sizes, or group sizes) could be made more flexible, within existing limits set by legislation or plans of management. The intention is to give tourism operators greater ability to expand or diversify their operations without requiring a new permit application or changes to their existing permit.

For example, the existing standard tourism permit does not allow motorised water sports or whale-watching — activities which some in the tourism industry have suggested should be included.


What types of activities, locations, zones, vessel/aircraft types, or group sizes would be appropriate to consider for a low-risk, standard tourism permit?

How would this proposal affect you, your community or your business?

3. Requiring relevant information at the time of applicationKey point: GBRMPA is considering specifying on the permit application form the minimum level of information required to assess different types of applications. This information would need to be provided before the application would be accepted.

The agency receives many applications that are subject to a further information request, as the information accompanying the original application did not have enough detail. GBRMPA spends time and effort seeking further information from applicants, particularly for complex assessments, mooring applications and applications to continue existing permits. This increases timeframes for making decisions.

GBRMPA is considering updating the permit application form so that minimum information requirements would be specified for different types of proposals. An application would not be accepted without this minimum information.

Identifying the information that must be submitted at the time of application would:

allow applicants to plan ahead for the costs of obtaining the required information, rather than being surprised later in the process

increase consistency for applicants when projects are transferred to another GBRMPA officer

potentially reduce decision timeframes, as most of the necessary information would be immediately available to GBRMPA.

These changes would not completely remove the need for further information to be requested, particularly where the initial information provided is deficient or specific details are required to address a particular concern.

9



Should new permit applications be dealt with differently than continuation applications?

What information should or shouldn’t be required for specific types of proposals?


4. Changing the permit application and assessment fee systemKey point: GBRMPA is considering requiring the permit application and assessment fee to be paid (or partly paid for larger projects) at the time of application. The correct fee would need to be paid before the application would be considered valid. The agency is also considering minor changes to the fee system to simplify and clarify categories. Another proposed change to fees, related to switching off the EPBC Act, is described in section 5.

The Regulations set up a partial cost recovery mechanism called the permit application and assessment fee (PAAF). The PAAF system identifies different fees for different types of permit applications or administrative processes. Currently, the Regulations require that after GBRMPA receives a permit application, it notifies the applicant in writing of the fee required. The applicant then has 21 days to pay their fee. The application lapses if the fee is not paid in time.

The current process of having fees due within 21 days creates unnecessary administrative burden for both GBRMPA and applicants. The agency must invoice the applicant and usually follows up with courtesy emails or telephone calls as the due date for fee payment approaches. If an applicant forgets to pay the fee, the application automatically lapses. In the case of continuation applications, this can result in unpermitted structures or operations in the Marine Park, or applicants having to re-apply for the permission.

The current PAAF system uses categories and terms which differ from other categories and terms found elsewhere in the application forms, Act and Regulations, leading to confusion. GBRMPA proposes to rationalise the categories and change certain terms to be consistent with terms used elsewhere in permit application forms and legislation. For example, the agency is considering adding a category specifically for moorings.

GBRMPA is not proposing to substantially change the PAAF system, or review the scale or quantum of fees that should be payable for different processes.

10

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/permits/permit-application-assessment-fee



What suggestions do you have for simplifying or clarifying the fee structure?

What business considerations does GBRMPA need to understand about fee payment or fee structure?

What activities are of a commercial nature and therefore should attract a permit application and assessment fee?


5. Switching off the EPBC ActKey point: GBRMPA has committed to making changes to the permission system (described in Part C of the Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment Program Report) so the Federal Environment Minister can approve GBRMPA to undertake a single assessment which meets the requirements of both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This requires changes to the Regulations as well as policies and guidelines.

Currently, any action proposed within the Marine Park which could have significant impacts on matters of national environmental significance goes through two assessments: one under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) Act, and the other under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Any approval granted results in an EPBC Act approval and a Marine Parks permit with two sets of conditions to comply with.

The Program Report identified changes for GBRMPA to make which will ensure the agency’s assessment adequately considers impacts to matters of national environmental significance. This would allow GBRMPA to seek Ministerial approval to switch off the EPBC Act and undertake a single assessment for actions entirely within the Marine Park. Any approval granted would then be in the form of a single Marine Park permit with one set of conditions.

Currently, the Regulations allow GBRMPA to collect permit application and assessment fees for public environment reports or environmental impact statements, but only if these assessment processes have been required by the Minister under the EPBC Act. The Regulations would also need to be changed to allow GBRMPA to collect the fees for projects where the EPBC Act has been switched off.


What do you see as the positives and negatives of switching off the EPBC Act for an activity proposed entirely within the Marine Park?


11

http://hdl.handle.net/11017/2860



6. Identifying different assessment processesKey point: GBRMPA has committed to changing the Regulations to specify different types of assessment processes for different proposals, based on risk.

Different proposals carry different levels of risk to the values of the Marine Park. The Regulations do not identify different processes for assessment, meaning all applications are dealt with under the same assessment process, regardless of potential impacts or complexity.

In contrast, the EPBC Act identifies assessment processes which increase in complexity with the nature and scale of potential impacts. The assessment processes under the EPBC Act include:

decision on referral information

preliminary documentation

public environment report (PER)

environmental impact statement (EIS)

GBRMPA is proposing to introduce five different assessment processes by amending the Regulations. An application would be assigned to an assessment process, depending on the nature and scale of potential impacts from the proposed activity. The agency is not considering creating different criteria for assessment, only different processes. These are the processes being considered:

1. Routine assessment for low-risk activities where the impacts are minimal, well understood and can be easily managed through standardised permit conditions.

2. Tailored assessment for low-risk activities that are unlikely to have any noticeable impacts to the Marine Parks but require individualised permit conditions.

3. Public advertising for medium-risk activities that may impact on the environment or on the public’s reasonable use of the Marine Park, requiring the opportunity for public comment on the proposal.

4. Public environment report (PER) for high-risk activities which require complex information to be considered and consultation with the community and Traditional Owners to fully understand the potential impacts and how they could be avoided, mitigated or offset.

5. Environmental impact statement (EIS) for very high-risk activities which require extremely complex information to be considered and significant consultation with the community and Traditional Owners to fully understand the potential impacts and how they could be avoided, mitigated or offset.

Your feedback is being sought on whether these processes are appropriate and how these should be assigned based on risk. Guidelines would then be developed to help applicants understand the different assessment processes.

12



Are there any potential implications from outlining levels of assessment in the Regulations?

What different assessment processes should GBRMPA use, and how should these be determined?


7. Improving the assessment criteriaKey point: GBRMPA is considering making changes to the criteria under which applications are assessed and decided. Specifically:

making all criteria mandatory considerations combining some criteria to remove duplication changing the criteria order so the assessment is conducted in a logical sequence

that leads to a decision.

Regulations 88Q and 88R set out criteria for the decision-maker to consider when assessing and making a decision on a permit application. Some examples are:

the potential impacts of the proposal on the values of the Marine Park

options for monitoring, managing and mitigating those impacts

objective of the Marine Park zone in which the activity is proposed

written comments received about the proposal in response to public advertisement

policies, guidelines, plans and international agreements

whether the applicant is a suitable person to hold the permission.

The current assessment criteria are divided into mandatory and discretionary considerations. The assessment must consider all mandatory criteria and may consider any discretionary criteria deemed relevant to the permit application. This creates a perception that discretionary considerations carry less weight than mandatory considerations, despite GBRMPA regarding both as relevant to the assessment and therefore the decision-making. Making all assessment criteria mandatory would ensure more consistent consideration of the criteria, leading to improved assessment processes.4

Rationalising and reorganising the assessment criteria would reduce duplication of similar criteria and rearrange the criteria in a sequence which logically leads a delegate through the considerations to a decision. GBRMPA is also considering introducing a new assessment criterion related to ’prudent and feasible alternatives’. This is explained further in section 8 below.


Which assessment criteria could be improved, and how?


4 ANAO findings – Recommendation 2.

13


8. Evaluating prudent and feasible alternatives Key point: GBRMPA has committed to requiring that applicants for high-risk proposals (those that might have significant impacts on the Marine Park) evaluate lower risk alternatives and justify why their preferred option (rather than an alternative) should be permitted. This could be included as a new assessment criterion.

Applicants are not currently required to evaluate lower risk alternatives to a proposed activity and justify why their preferred option should be permitted. GBRMPA has committed in the Program Report to a requirement that applicants consider prudent and feasible alternatives to their proposal.

Currently, there is scope to consider lower impact alternatives under Regulation 88R(a) (that is, whether the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to prevent harm). However, without clear guidelines this can be interpreted and applied differently.

GBRMPA would like to hear the views of stakeholders to help decide whether introducing a new assessment criterion for ‘prudent and feasible alternatives’ would help achieve better environmental outcomes and to understand any practical implications this might have for permit applicants. One option is to only require this for high-risk applications, such as those needing a public environment report or environmental impact statement.


Should this requirement be limited to high-risk proposals, or should it apply to all permit applications?

How could prudent and feasible alternatives be considered for an existing permitted activity that is applying for continued permission (when their permit nears expiry)? Should they also be required to evaluate alternatives?

What evidence should an applicant be required to provide to justify that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to their proposal?

What weighting, if any, should GBRMPA place on whether alternatives are both prudent and feasible?


9. Changing the public advertising requirementsKey points: GBRMPA has committed to requiring public advertising for any activities which have the potential to impact on the values of the Marine Park or other matters of national environmental significance. This would require an amendment to the Regulations. The agency is also considering changing the way in which comments are received and addressed, to give greater responsibility to applicants.

Changing when public advertisement is requiredCurrently, GBRMPA can only require an application to be publicly advertised if it might restrict the public’s reasonable use of part of the Marine Park. The agency considers these public comments in making a decision.

In comparison, the EPBC Act requires public advertising for any proposal that might impact on matters of national environmental significance. Similarly, the Queensland

14



Marine Parks Regulations 2006 allow public advertising of a proposal that might impact on the values of the state’s Marine Park.

To seek the Minister’s approval to switch off the EPBC Act for actions entirely within the Marine Park, GBRMPA needs to amend its Regulations to require public advertising of proposals which may significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance. This would ensure the public continues to have the same opportunity to comment on such proposals even if the EPBC Act is switched off.

Changing how public comments are receivedCurrently, the Regulations require public comments to be sent directly to GBRMPA. The agency then provides the applicant with a summary of issues and asks the applicant to respond to these.

In contrast, under the EPBC Act public comments are sent directly to the applicant, who then gives the regulatory agency a summary of the issues raised and identifies how these issues have been addressed.

GBRMPA is considering changing its process to remove double handling of submissions and give the applicant more time to consider issues and make any changes necessary to address those issues.

One option would see comments sent directly to the applicant for consideration and response. The applicant would then need to provide copies of all submissions, or simply a summary of the submissions, to GBRMPA. This option might raise concerns that privacy could be compromised or that the applicant might not accurately represent comments. It may also raise concerns about insufficient public transparency.

Another option would see comments sent directly to GBRMPA and then passed on verbatim to the applicant, but without details of who made the submission. This option might raise privacy concerns for some people, particularly where the nature of their comments might identify them.


What sort of proposed activities should be publicly advertised? Consider the types of projects that you would be most interested in commenting on.

How could the process for dealing with public submissions be improved? Where should submissions be sent, and why?


10. Changing the process for suspending and revoking permits Key point: GBRMPA is considering clarifying the process for suspending and revoking permits in cases where permit holders fail to comply with permit conditions. This would require an amendment to the Regulations.

Currently, if a permit holder does not comply with their permit conditions, GBRMPA has limited options for controlling or halting their operations under the permit. To revoke a permit for non-compliance, GBRMPA generally requires:

15


the permit holder to consent to having their permit revoked or

the permit holder to be found guilty or to be convicted of an offence against relevant legislation.

In comparison, the Regulations allow a permit to be revoked due to non-payment of the environmental management charge (EMC) following a clear procedure of investigation, suspension and revocation.

In practice, GBRMPA rarely pursues permit non-compliance through a court process, as working with a permittee to achieve compliance is more desirable. The agency is considering replicating the suspension and revocation procedure that already exists for EMC non-payment to also apply to permit non-compliances. This would allow GBRMPA to give notice to the permit holder that certain actions are required to be taken in a certain timeframe to rectify non-compliance. It would also allow the agency to suspend and then possibly revoke the permission if the required actions are not completed in the specified timeframe.


In what circumstances should GBRMPA suspend or revoke a permit?

Would changing the regulations improve compliance with permit conditions?


11. Expanding limited impact research definitions Key point: GBRMPA is considering changes to the Regulations that would allow more activities to be conducted as ‘limited impact research’ under an institution’s research accreditation.

The Regulations allow some ‘limited impact research’ activities to be conducted without an individual permit if the institution has been accredited by GBRMPA. Currently, the Regulations specify what methods and equipment qualify as limited impact research. The Regulations also list what species can be taken, and in what quantities, as part of limited impact research.

While GBRMPA considers many methods and equipment used by accredited researchers to be of low impact, the current Regulations do not allow for the use of many of these types of methods or equipment. This creates an administrative burden for both researchers and the agency because researchers must apply for individual permits for these activities.

Some methods that have been suggested to be added as low impact are:

clove oil for sedating fish (capped at a maximum concentration)

Alizarin Red dye for studying coral calcification (capped at a maximum concentration)

low-impact or incidental handling of plants and animals in the field (without collecting them), above and beyond the current limits

16


star pickets to help mark out study sites (with restrictions on size, number and installation)

equipment for conducting video surveys, including baited remote underwater video (BRUV) cameras

acoustic receivers to study animal movements.

The current list of species which can be collected as part of limited impact research does not reflect the latest scientific information about threats and vulnerability. There is a need to update the list to ensure protection of some species. A detailed list of proposed changes is in the Appendix.


What types of methods or equipment should be included as limited impact research by accredited institutions?

Do you agree with the suggestions for additional low impact methods and equipment? What restrictions would be appropriate for these?

What changes would you suggest to the species lists in Table 19-1 and Table 29 of the Regulations?

Should this detail be moved from the Regulations (legislation) into policies or guidelines?

Do you have any views on how GBRMPA uses or manages research institution accreditations?


12. Defining impactsKey point: GBRMPA is considering adding a definition of ‘impacts’ to the Regulations, to specify that ‘impacts’ include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.

The Regulations require decision-makers to evaluate potential impacts on the Marine Park’s values, but there is no definition of ‘impacts’ in the legislation.

In comparison, the EPBC Act defines impacts to include direct and indirect impacts of an activity. The Program Report identifies a need for GBRMPA to adequately consider direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to improve its assessment of activities within the Marine Park and promote consistency with the EPBC Act.

Adding a definition to the Regulations would make it clear to applicants and decision-makers the types of impacts that must be considered. Policies and guidelines would then be developed to explain how these different types of impacts would be considered.


What are the benefits or implications of defining impacts in the Regulations?


17


13. Using risk management toolsKey point: GBRMPA is reviewing the tools used to manage risks including environmental management plans, deeds, bonds, indemnities and insurance.

GBRMPA uses different tools, implemented through permit conditions, to minimise the risk of impacts to the Marine Park and to protect the Australian public from the costs of cleaning up an incident or removing a facility. These tools can include:

Environmental management plan : Describes ongoing activities that the permit holder will undertake to manage and monitor impacts over the life of a project.

Deed of agreement or other undertaking : A contract attached to some Marine Park permits which details obligations of the permit holder, including indemnities and any requirements for insurance, bonds or cost recovery.

Bond : A financial security (cash, bank guarantee or undertaking) provided under the terms of a deed by the permit holder to GBRMPA.

Notification approvals : Administrative documents attached to a permit which link a specific vessel, aircraft, facility, mooring or other equipment to that permit. Examples are Vessel Notification Approvals (VNAs), Vessel Identification Numbers (VINs), Mooring Notification Approvals and Facility Notification Approvals.

The agency is reviewing how and when these tools are applied to ensure the least burdensome and most effective tool is used to manage risks to the Marine Park.


Are bonds the best way for GBRMPA to financially insure against potential clean-up and removal costs? What role does insurance play?

How should bonds be calculated?

Are environmental management plans an effective tool? In what circumstances should they be used?

What is the best way to manage and monitor the details of vessels, aircraft, moorings and other equipment (such as VINs and VNAs)?


14. Managing facilitiesKey point: GBRMPA is considering new policies to explain how facilities (such as jetties and pipelines) will be managed.

In some zones within the Marine Park, fixed facilities can be installed with a permit. These include government-owned public facilities (such as stinger nets, boat ramps, water pipelines) and privately-owned commercial facilities (such as moorings, tourism pontoons, island resort infrastructure).

GBRMPA’s Structures Policy (2010) is due for review and no longer provides a contemporary regime to manage the various types of facilities within the Marine Park.

18

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/16968/Structures-Policy-reviewed-2010.pdf


Many older facilities are nearing the point where they require costly repairs to meet modern safety standards or are no longer required for their original purpose. Owners sometimes struggle to appropriately maintain their facilities or to decommission and remove them from the Marine Park once they are no longer needed. The environmental impacts of removing some facilities may be greater than retaining them in the Marine Park.

By updating its policies, GBRMPA can clarify to applicants, permit holders and the general public its expectations of how such facilities will be managed.


How often should different types of facilities be inspected?

Who should inspect different types of facilities? The owner? A registered engineer?

In what circumstances should a disused or abandoned facility be allowed to remain in the Marine Park? In what circumstances should GBRMPA require it to be removed?

Is the safety of some facilities already adequately regulated by other Commonwealth or state legislation?


15. Setting permit terms Key point: GBRMPA is considering changing its policies about the length of time for which different types of permits are valid, with a view to granting longer permit terms for lower risk activities or applicants who meet certain standards.

The current average permit term is six years. Most first-time permit holders are granted a one year permit to allow them to demonstrate their ability to comply with permit conditions. However, permit terms for research, fixed facilities and other non-tourism activities can vary.

Currently, permits for high standard tourism programmes can be granted for up to 15 years as these operations have been independently certified (through the ECO tourism certification programme) as maintaining a high environmental standard. A 15-year permit term is one of the various incentives offered to high standard tourism programmes, and these operators should not be disadvantaged as a result of any change to permit terms. GBRMPA is seeking to engage with the tourism industry to gauge whether other incentives would be more attractive and what length of permit term would be most desirable for high standard tourism programmes.

Some facilities may be appropriately managed under longer permit terms provided they are properly maintained and remain compliant with permit conditions. Low-risk activities may also be appropriate for longer permit terms as the impacts are well understood and can be easily managed.

GBRMPA is considering expanding the types of permitted activities that could potentially qualify for longer term permits. This would help to reduce the burden on applicants to frequently apply for permit continuation.

19



What are appropriate permit terms for different types of activities or applicants?

Under what circumstances should permits be granted with shorter or longer terms?

What business considerations does GBRMPA need to understand?

Should first-time permit holders be treated differently than people who have previously held a permit?

What is an appropriate permit term for high standard tourism programmes?

Would other incentives or rewards (besides longer permit terms) be more attractive for high standard tourism programmes?


20


Appendix

Proposed changes to Regulation 29 (Protected species) and Regulation 19 (Limited impact research — extractive)

Regulation 29 Protected SpeciesRegulation 29 (Protected Species) defines which species are considered protected species within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Intentional or retained incidental take of any protected species requires a permit. Listing of a species under particular national or state legislation can trigger its inclusion as a protected species under the Regulations. Additionally, species may be added to the table for other reasons — Regulation 29(1)(d) states protected species include those that are at-risk or in need of special protection and are mentioned or referred to in Table 29.

The following species have become listed migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in recent years and, in accordance with Regulation 29(1)(b), need to be added to Table 29:

Manta alfredi (Reef manta ray)

Manta birostris (Giant manta ray)

Mobula eregoodootenkee (Pygmy devil ray)

Mobula japonica (Spinetail mobula ray)

Mobula thurstoni (Bentfin devil ray)

Carcharhinus falciformis (Silky shark)

Isurus oxyrinchus (Shortfin mako shark)

Isurus paucus (Longfin mako shark)

Lamna nasus (Porbeagle shark)

Regulation 19 — Limited impact research (extractive) Regulation 19 details how many species can be taken, in what numbers, as part of limited impact research by accredited researchers. It is important to note that this is in addition to restrictions found in Regulation 29 (Protected Species).

Scientific and conservation management information has continued to advance for a range of species and species groups found within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The current limits on take laid out in Regulation 19 do not reflect the latest information available. A series of amendments are therefore proposed for the categories and listed taxa under Table 19–1. Table 1 details GBRMPA’s proposed changes to Table 19-1.

Note that Regulation 19(3)h) applies a limit for all species not mentioned or referred to in Table 19-1.

21

Table 1: Proposed changes to Table 19-1: Animal species limited by number for limited impact research

Species Common name Summary of change Take limit increased or reduced

Part 1: No specimens to be taken Exclusion and additions

Manta alfredi Manta birostris Mobula eregoodootenkee Mobula japonica Mobula thurstoni Carcharhinus falciformis Isurus oxyrinchus Isurus paucus Lamna nasus

Reef manta ray Giant manta ray Pygmy devil ray Spinetail mobula ray Bentfin devil ray Silky shark Shortfin mako shark Longfin mako shark Porbeagle shark

Additions to include species that will be added to the protected species list in Table 29 of the Regulations

Reduced

Family Muricidae (except Genus Drupella )

Drupes Exclusion added for Genus Drupella Increased for Genus Drupella

Part 2: 5 specimens of each species in total New category addition (new Part 2)

Class ChondrichthyesExcept: Family Pristidae Glyphis glyphis Carcharias taurus Carcharodon carcharias Manta alfredi Manta birostris Mobula eregoodootenkee Mobula japonica Mobula thurstoni Carcharhinus falciformis Isurus oxyrinchus

All sharks, rays, and chimaeras except: Sawfish Speartooth shark Whale shark Greynurse shark White shark Reef manta ray Giant manta ray Pygmy devil ray Spinetail mobula ray Bentfin devil ray Silky shark Shortfin mako shark

Category change.Now described at a whole-of-Class level rather than individual listings for a subset of speciesExceptions are those species that are already, or will be under proposed amendments, listed in Table 29 as protected species within the GBRMP – and are already, or will be, included under the ‘No specimens to be taken’ category within Table 19-1

Reduced



Isurus paucus Lamna nasus

Longfin mako shark Porbeagle shark

Part 3: 20 specimens of each species in total and no more than 5 of each species per location

Renumbered (now Part 3)

Family Nautilidae Chambered nautilus Now described at a whole-of-Family levelCategory change

Reduced

Family Argonautidae Paper nautilus Addition Reduced

Family ScaridaeExcept: Bolbometapon muricatum Chlorurus microrhinos

Cetoscarus bicolor Scarus rubroviolaceus Coris aygula

ParrotfishExcept: Humphead parrotfish, Steephead parrotfish

Bicolour parrotfish Ember parrotfish Red blotched wrasse

Category change.Now described at a whole-of-Family level.Exceptions are those species that are already included under the ‘No specimens to be taken’ category within Table 19-1

Reduced

Family Siganidae Rabbitfish Category change Reduced

Family Acanthuridae Surgeonfish Addition Reduced

Family Kyphosidae Drummers Addition Reduced

Aethaloperca rogaa Redmouth rockcod Category change Reduced

Anyperodon leucogrammicus Whitelined rockcod Category change Reduced

Cephalopholis sonnerati Tomato rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus fuscoguttatus (none longer than 1 000 mm)

Flowery rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus coioides (none longer than 1 000 mm)

Goldspotted rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus Whitespotted grouper Category change Reduced

23



coeruleopunctatus

Epinephelus cyanopodus Purple rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus maculatus Highfin grouper Category change Reduced

Epinephelus malabaricus (none longer than 1 000 mm)

Blackspotted rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus polyphekadion Camouflage grouper Category change Reduced

Epinephelus tauvina Greasy rockcod Category change Reduced

Epinephelus undulostriatus Maori rockcod Category change Reduced

Plectropomus areolatus Passionfruit rockcod Category change Reduced

Plectropomus laevis (none longer than 1 000 mm)

Bluespotted coral trout Category change Reduced

Plectropomus oligacanthus Vermicular cod Category change Reduced

Variola albimarginata White-edge coronation trout Category change Reduced

Variola louti Yellowedge coronation trout Category change Reduced

Coris aygula Redblotched wrasse Category change Reduced

Family Ephippidae Batfish Addition Reduced

Family Pomacanthidae Angelfish Addition Reduced

Part 4: 50 specimens of each species in total and no more than 10 of each species per location, none longer than 1 000 mm

Renumbered (now Part 4)Now per location rather than per siteThis provides increased consistency among categories.

Reduced (through use of ‘location’)

Genus EpinephelusAll species except: E. lanceolatus and

E. tukula E. fuscoguttatus

Cods and groupers, except Queensland groper potato rockcod flowery rockcod goldspotted rockcod

Category is now per location rather than per siteExceptions are, or will be, listed in other parts of Table 19

Reduced

24



E. coioides E. coeruleopunctatus E. cyanopodus E. maculatus E. malabaricus E. polyphekadion E. tauvina E. undulostriatus

whitespotted grouper purple rockcod highfin grouper blackspotted rockcod camouflage grouper greasy rockcod Maori rockcod


Renumbered (now Part 5)Now per location rather than per siteThis provides increased consistency among categories.

Reduced (through use of ‘location’)

Genus Amphiprion Anemonefish Category changeSpecification at genus level

Reduced

Premnas biaculeatus Spinecheek clownfish Category changeSpecification at species level

Reduced

Phylum EchinodermataExcept: Acanthaster planci Holothuria nobilis Holothuria fuscogilva

EchinodermsExcept: Crown-of-thorns starfish Black teatfish White teatfish

Addition of exceptions for: Crown-of-thorns starfish

Increased for crown-of thorns starfish

Phylum Mollusca

Except:

Family Tridacnidae Family Nautilidae Family Argonautidae Order Octopoda Class Gastropoda

includingo Cassis cornuta

All species of molluscs except:

Giant clams Chambered nautilus Paper nautilus Octopus Gastropods (snails,

welks, slugs, limpets, cowries,) including:

Category changesMost exceptions are, or will be, listed in other parts of Table 19-1. However, aside from those taxa listed below, gastropods do not appear in other parts of Table 19-1:o Helmet shell (Cassis cornuta)o Giant triton shell (Charonia tritonis)o Bailer shell (Melo amphora)o Muricids (murex shells)

Reduced

25



o Charonia tritoniso Melo amphorao Familiy Muricidae

Genus Pinctata

o Helmet shello Giant triton shello Bailer shello Muricids (murex

shells) Pearl oysters


Renumbered (now Part 6)

Family PomacentridaeExcept Genus Amphiprion Premnas biaculeatus

DamselfishExcept: Anemonefish Spinecheek clownfish

Exceptions are, or will be, listed in another part of Table 19-1Addition of exceptions for:

Anemonefish Spinecheek clownfish

Reduced for the exceptions

26

DRAFT - Public Consultation document - Improving the ... Web viewDRAFT - Public Consultation document - Improving the permission system Last modified by: Sara Lando Company: GBRMPA

Documents