At a high-level, NFF does not support the MNES Standard that has been presented. The draft Standard does not provide a clear, practical, or viable pathway for agriculture to assess our obligations or determine whether routine farming activities have a Significant Impact on a MNES. It is therefore unfit-for-purpose and cannot be progressed in its current form.
The regulatory burden that has now been placed upon farmers post-legislative reform is significant and is creating major concern and distress. The lack of clarifying guidance to exempt or mitigate what is clearly low-risk and routine agricultural activities from assessment, and/or commitment (or understanding for that matter) toward the urgent updating of outdated guidance materials for agriculture (i.e., 2013 Significant Impact Guidelines for MNES) despite provisions in the Budget to support compliance and extension, has meant reforms have increased uncertainty and worsened what was already a challenging task for farmers seeking to understand their obligations under Federal law.
In addition to the above, NFF notes that the consultation process to-date has deviated substantially from what would ordinarily be expected for reforms of this scale and consequence. No comprehensive Impact Assessment has been undertaken to understand or quantify the impact of reforms to agriculture. This is particularly concerning given legislation includes an embedded non-regression principle (which is novel), while subordinate instruments relating to Tranche 2 are now being substantially brought forward with unclear timelines ahead of the initial November time horizon.
Should the Commonwealth proceed with finalising the MNES Standard through the current process, significant amendments are required to make it workable and fit-for-purpose for agriculture. This includes in summary:
- Better integrating Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) including through a dedicated Principle so that the Principles-led approach to implementation actually reflects and gives practical effect to the Objectives and Outcomes of the Standard, let alone requirements under the Objects of the EPBC Act (Section 3A);
- Duplication against future Standards are removed and deferred to those separate dedicated processes (in relation to Environmental Offsets, Data and Information, Community Consultation, and First Nations Engagement);
- Refine legislative drafting to ensure matter-specific Objectives do not introduce broader obligations than those already required under existing international agreements and frameworks;
- Use clearer and more consistent drafting as it relates to the multiple differently framed Significant Impact concepts so that proponents can better understand their Self-Assessment and referral obligations; and
- A commitment to exempt routine and continuing-use agricultural activities from the assessment process and urgently prioritise development in real partnership with industry of clear, useful, and fit-for-purpose guidance for farmers including:
- Plain English definitions;
- Clearly outline what is and is not an acceptable practice (i.e., examples that are grounded in the reality of production systems and reflective of what is a legitimate practice);
- Improved guidance documentation;
- Better mapping; and
- Increased resourcing to support extension and communication.
Stacey Davidson