THE nation’s peak agricultural lobby group, the National Farmers’ Federation, has raised issues with proposed new requirements as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or EPBC.
The EPBC was first implemented in 1999, and the proposed changes, known as National Environmental Standards, stem largely from 2020’s Samuel Review and would seek to set benchmarks around four key areas.
They are matters of national environmental significance, environmental offsets, community engagement, and data and information.
NFF president Hamish McIntyre said the proposed benchmarks could be a minefield for farmers.
“These standards go to one of the biggest issues our members are raising with us: how farmers can continue to manage dynamic, productive landscapes with confidence under the reformed EPBC Act,” he said.
“These rules are complex, uncertain and counterintuitive.
“For example, if a farmer can demonstrate their actions are not likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, then the standards won’t apply.
“But, when referrals are deemed necessary, then the standards can apply.
“Farmers manage more than half the Australian landscape. They need rules that are clear, practical and grounded in the realities of farming systems.”
While Mr McIntyre said there was a need for national environmental standards, he also said the way farmers had been involved in the consultation process was challenging.
“This is the first time these standards have been seen together in final form,” he said.
“We need to understand how they interact with each other, how they will be interpreted, and how they will underpin bilateral agreements with the states.
“Our concern is that implementation focuses on major development proposals while agriculture – the sector most exposed to uncertainty from recent changes to continuous use provisions – is left behind.
“Farmers are asking for a system they can understand and implement, one that recognises the unique nature of agricultural landscapes and avoids perverse outcomes.
“The NFF remains of the view that changes to continuous use provisions were unnecessary and should be reconsidered. In the meantime, agriculture must be at the centre of implementation.”