Accreditation to undertake threatened species
and biodiversity assessments

18th February 2005

Ms Catherine Price
Biodiversity Management Unit
Department of Environment and Conservation
PO Box A290
SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1232

18th February 2005

Dear Ms Price,

Re: Accreditation to undertake Threatened Species and Biodiversity Assessments

The Environmental Defender’s Office (NSW) is broadly supportive of the proposal to
provide for accreditation of consultants to undertake threatened species and biodiversity
assessments. As indicated by the number of inquiries and concerns received by the
EDO, the independence and integrity of biodiversity assessors is fundamental to a
effective regulatory regime.

In the absence of a dedicated EDO scientific officer, this submission is limited the
Accreditation to undertake threatened species and biodiversity assessments: A Discussion Paper
November 2004, and does not include comment on the Threatened Biodiversity Survey and
Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities Working Draft.

Our key issues and recommendations are outlined below.

Hierarchy of Accreditation

The Discussion Paper suggests a hierarchy of accreditation (p17). The proposal envisages
three tiers of accreditation as follows:

The Discussion Paper does not specify what the difference in prerequisites will be. The
EDO submits that only “highly” accredited persons should prepare both SISs and EPIs.

The lower level of experience required for preparing Assessments of Significance would
establish a structure whereby junior consultants could acquire the experience to later
qualify for the higher level of accreditation (as required for EPIs and SIS preparation).

However, the “low” level must still meet all the prerequisites as listed in the Discussion
paper (p10) as the minimum requirements. The EDO submits that more detail is
required on the different levels of accreditation, and the process by which a consultant
may increase their accreditation.

Application for accreditation

EDO submits that applicants for accreditation must be personally interviewed and
reference checked, in addition to a written application. This will be necessary to ascertain
for example, their immediate familiarity and understanding of recent legislative reforms.

The process for the proposed EIANZ accreditation of environmental practitioners
(CEnvP Program) involves an interview.[1]

We recommend an additional prerequisite for accreditation in the form of a commitment
to continued professional development (as proposed by EIANZ). This is similar to
Continuing Legal Education Units which must be completed by lawyers as a condition of
maintaining their Practicing Certificate. This ensures that consultants are up to date on
legislative reforms and industry developments.

We also support the requirement of a signed statement of ethical conduct (as proposed
in the EIANZ scheme).

Points System

The proposed guidelines should define what constitutes a breach, give examples and case
studies of breaches, and be made available for public comment before being finalised.

Breaches should include breaches of the Code of Conduct.

The Discussion Paper does not explain whether or not points lost due to a breach may
be regained, for example, whether points can be incrementally regained annually where
there are no further breaches. This should be clarified.

Furthermore, it is suggested in the Discussion Paper that if an accredited assessor loses
all their accreditation points, they have to wait 6 months before they can reapply. This
period is insufficient. Loss of all accreditation points signifies a serious breach or a series
of breaches. It is important for the legitimacy of the scheme that breaches resulting in
point loss are taken seriously, and that a significant period debarred from accreditation
act as a deterrent. Provisions similar to section 57 of the Contaminated Lands Management
Act 1997 should apply, whereby an individual cannot claim to be accredited whilst their
accreditation is suspended.

Company Accreditation

The EDO opposes the concept of company accreditation. Accreditation should attach to
individuals within a company. Accreditation of the company does not give any guarantee
of what level of accreditation the consultants will each have, and how the total
experience and accreditation levels of the company will be affected by staff turn-over.

This is consistent with accreditation of individuals under the Contaminated Lands
Management Act 1997.[2]

Audit process

The EDO supports the potential for third parties to play a role in reporting poor
performance. We support the mechanism for auditing of reports and for random audits,
and submit that it is essential that audits be conducted by an independent auditor, and
not be by peer review.

Public register

To ensure that the proposed scheme is transparent, a list of accredited consultants must
be made available on a public register, preferably on a website. The register must note
the level of accreditation, what activities may be undertaken by that level of consultant,
and any points lost. A register is currently proposed on the EIANZ website for
accredited practitioners.

Assessment Panel

The EDO supports the establishment of an Accreditation Panel to administer the
accreditation scheme. In addition to the members suggested in the Discussion Paper
(p18), it is essential that the panel contain a representative who has specialist expertise in
environmental law.

Voluntary Scheme

The EDO submits that accreditation should become compulsory after an appropriate
period (for example 3-5 years). This would ensure a high standard across the profession,
would address issues of unfair market advantage being gained, and would remove any
disincentives to use cheaper unaccredited consultants.

Should you require any further information, please contact Rachel Walmsley on 02 9262
6989.

Yours Sincerely,
Environmental Defender’s Office

Jeff Smith
Director

References

1. See http://www.eianz.org/certupdate.html.
2. See section 57(2).