EIS timeframes doubled this decade – can policy pragmatism prevail?

Ngaire Tranter, Nitro Solutions

In 2010 I completed my first Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We studied all the usual suspects, had town hall meetings, negotiated access and had many productive discussions with the regulators. Climate change had first appeared in our study requirements, and I recall considering how on earth we would factor that into the plan. In a total of 75 weeks, we had our EIS submitted and were moving on.

In 2019 we now spend a minimum of 156 weeks on the EIS and approvals process. In some well-known cases, approvals have spanned almost the entirety of this decade, bringing with it the frustration with the ongoing costs and increasing timeframes.

During this decade, we have seen the introduction of nested governance structures which see projects assessed and approved by all levels of government, independent committees and experts. Assessments address the entire project lifecycle from construction through to rehabilitation and closure planning. We study every aspect in exhaustive detail, guided by Australian Standard risk assessment processes. There are multiple legislated stakeholder engagement processes and regulatory reviews which continue past the approvals process right through operations and into closure planning.

At the start of the decade, compliance costs would be estimated at 1-2% of capital value of the asset, for the life of the mine. Today this figure ranges from 2–5%.

Yet despite this increasing focus upon compliance and ongoing technical work, the broader Australian community remains disapproving. As an industry, we are complicit in this outcome because we have remained quiet, with a ‘business as usual’ approach. After all, we assume people understand that their entire modern lives are established via mining - not only are our homes, workplaces and surrounds established through mined products, our economy relies upon mining.

On the cusp of this decade and the new decade, fresh with possibilities, we have a choice. We can continue to hope for quiet acceptance of our contribution to Australia’s (and the world’s) sustainable future. Or we can do what we do well and dig deep, creating and explicitly communicating our value, while developing and executing our plans to engineering perfection. Here’s how:

Communicate our contribution to scientific knowledge

Communicating value means every individual speaking up about our industry and our immense contribution. Leaving aside the low-hanging fruit of billions of dollars in royalties and taxes, let’s talk about our contribution to Australia’s scientific knowledge. I would suggest that the mining industry collectively has delivered more scientific knowledge about plant and animal species, water resources, air quality, transport, infrastructure, safety and maintenance to the nation than our universities.

Communicate our safety commitment

We have created a culture of safety within our communities. That person wearing shoes and safety glasses while they’re mowing - I’ll hedge a bet that they work in our industry. They’ll also be the person who holds the ladder for you if they see you climbing it. We care about people doing what they do safely.

Communicate how we change lives

We provide catalytic opportunities for change for individuals right through to entire communities. Without mining, I know many people who would not have had access to new levels of education. We offer a truly equal opportunity to reach for the Australian dream, for people of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds to develop their careers.

We offer social value, which may not seem like much - but it’s often the lifeline of regional communities. We support the sports club, charitable causes, the local school and completely unrelated business opportunities. Our industry quietly works with these causes and creates value as part of our commitment to social responsibility.

We also change lives by bringing technological advancements to the table. The development of better data for the environment is being pursued through machine learning environmental monitoring systems - thanks to the mining industry.

Our cumulative impact assessment models are growing in complexity, and with the near-future use of quantum computing, we will be able to truly consider regional-scale impacts which consider not only our demands but that of the collective system. Given the current focus on understanding and developing resilience within our communities this is a critical area of development which will truly enable adaptive policy and management to occur, and one that would not be able to occur without the scientific and economic support of our industry.

Thanks to all of this, we now work with increasingly complex technical and highly detailed information to complete an EIS, and it’s no surprise that approvals timeframes and costs have risen during this decade. I believe that the continued adoption of technologies will counter this to see the timeframes and costs stabilise over the next decade. We can contribute to this time and cost stabilisation by communicating our value proposition effectively through an EIS.

Using the EIS to communicate value

The Terms of Reference guiding the legislative review of the EPBC Act states explicitly that the Commonwealth is focused on ‘making decisions simpler, including by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens for Australians, businesses and governments.’ Perhaps this is a recognition of the colonisation of risk we have seen within this policy for most of this decade. In the lead up to this review, it has been positive to see that strategic approaches and new initiatives for management of Matters of National Environmental Significance have been listed on the agenda.

However, what offers a true opportunity is the recommendation that proponents should have the right to request amendment or removal of approval conditions where there is a more cost-effective way to achieve the requirements of the Act. Should this recommendation be adopted, our industry’s collective knowledge will have a great opportunity to shine.

I’m calling this decade the rise of policy pragmatism - we have a wealth of knowledge about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to environmental management practices. The EIS offers us an opportunity to demonstrate in an evidence-based manner what works for environmental management in mining and the linkage of these practices to broader economic, social and environmental value for the regions and our communities as well as at a collective national level.

However, we cannot achieve this pragmatic approach if we do not communicate our true value to our society. Modern policy is based upon public participation, and we must be cognisant that we need to adapt to the current societal expectations around knowledge and its availability.