A post pandemic national environmental policy
by Dr Ellie Martus
Business and industry groups around the world have been lining up to ask governments to restart the economy. But will economic recovery come at the expense of the environment?
There has been considerable talk about the potential environmental positives that have emerged from COVID-19. This ranges from the reappearance of wildlife in urban areas, to amusing stories of goats taking over Welsh towns. The economic shutdown has also led to significant drops in CO2 emissions and dramatic improvements in the air quality of major cities around the world.
These environmental gains however are likely to be short-lived as lockdown restrictions are lifted and people return to work, return to their cars, and industry starts up again.
Long term change requires serious policy reform.
In some places, there have been encouraging signs. We have seen European cities considering innovative urban planning ideas that emphasise cycling and walking over cars, in addition to smart houses and increased urban green spaces. There have been voices calling for governments everywhere to seize the opportunity and invest in renewables and decarbonise their economies. Many in the EU are hoping the European Green Deal, launched before the crisis in December 2019, can be used to drive a ‘green recovery’ from the pandemic.
What is happening around the world?
Despite the potential for the crisis to bring about a new, more environment-centred way of thinking about how we live and work, there is a strong indication in a number of places that something quite different is happening.
We are seeing an increasing number of examples of large corporate actors lobbying governments for environmental regulatory concessions as part of the post-pandemic economic recovery. Reports by UK based group Influence Map for example have detailed the activity of lobbyists around the world, from the oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors in particular. They have used the crisis to push for environmental concessions that go beyond economic recovery and support for workers.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has suspended enforcement of some environmental laws during the crisis, saying that it will not pursue penalties for companies found to violate regulations as the result of the pandemic. The Canadian province of Alberta has introduced similar changes to its environmental regulations, and the Canadian Government has faced intense lobbying from the oil sector.
There are other examples too. In Europe, a range of industries have pushed for a relaxation of environmental regulations during the crisis, including the car industry and airlines. In Russia, a powerful industry association is lobbying the government to suspend environmental regulations and monitoring. The examples go on and on.
The impact of the pandemic is expected to be severe and long lasting, and governments will, by necessity, focus on economic recovery. In the post-pandemic world, governments will be desperate for job creation and strong economic growth figures. There is a danger that governments will listen to the demands of large corporate actors at the expense of other sections of society.
Actors from all areas of the economy and society and of all political persuasions are trying to position themselves for the profound changes we are likely to see in the post-COVID world. None of this is surprising, but what it demonstrates is that there is a recognition that everything is open to challenge. In some places, this has led to a weakening of environmental legislation. In other places, it has renewed efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation. In Australia, we don’t yet know which way it will go.
What might the post-pandemic environmental policy landscape look like for Australia?
The issue shaping up to be the key battle ground in Australia is the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, the outcome of which is likely to shape environmental policy for years to come.
The EPBC Act is Australia’s premier piece of environmental legislation and ensures Australia has a national environmental policy rather than a series of disconnected state and local programs. It is currently undergoing its statutory 10-year independent review to assess the extent to which the act is meeting its objectives.
Why does this matter now?
Most would agree that the act is in need of reform. Indeed, as noted in the review’s discussion paper, the health of Australia’s environment has declined over the lifetime of the act. There are particular concerns over the failure of the act to prevent species loss, and the lack of an independent statutory body with oversight for the act. Some environmental groups have called for a clarification and strengthening of the EPBC Act’s primary objective, while others argue for its replacement.
The business case for reform of the act is focused on the development approvals process. Industry argues that the EPBC Act is inefficient, and approvals can cause significant delays. In its submission to the review for example, the Minerals Council of Australia notes how regulatory inefficiency can impact on investment, adds considerable costs to businesses, and poses a risk to the industry’s competitiveness at a global level. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies points to the need for reducing red tape to assist with the economic recovery post-COVID.
The government seems to agree, and at times, echoes the language used by business. In launching the review in October 2019, the government flagged the need to reduce ‘green tape’. The review’s terms of reference are to be guided by a number of principles, such as ‘making decisions simpler, including by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens’.
The result is a highly politicised debate, in which policy reform risks becoming polarised along ideological lines rather than trying to strike a balance between economic, social and environmental factors. This is far from new: similar discussions were held following the previous review, chaired by Allan Hawke over a decade ago.
What is different however are the circumstances and timing. The final report on the review is due in October this year, however the environment minister has hinted at potentially introducing legislative changes prior to the completion of the review. Haste could be politically expedient for the government, seen to be acting in the name of economic recovery. It could also be very damaging.
Acting without proper consultation and without waiting for the findings of the review, the risk is that we end up wasting an opportunity to reform the act. There is also the possibility that weakening Australia’s environmental regulation might be on the cards as part of economic recovery as it has been in a number of other places around the world.
In Australia, after a horrendous summer in which the ecological devastation caused by bushfires was front and centre of the public’s consciousness, and the desire for action on climate change appeared to be gathering momentum, it seemed as though environmental issues would receive serious political attention. That was pre-COVID.
Now we are facing a whole new set of challenges.
One thing is certain though: the pandemic will have profound implications for the development of environmental policy around the world. The biggest risk is that the environment gets side-lined in discussions of post-pandemic economic recovery and long-term changes are introduced that undermine policy and governance for years to come.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ellie Martus
Dr Ellie Martus is a Lecturer in Public Policy at Griffith University in the School of Government and International Relations and the Centre for Governance and Public Policy. She has previously held positions at the University of Melbourne and the University of Warwick, UK.
Ellie’s research explores environmental politics and policymaking, with a particular focus on policy capacity, and the role of corporate interests in shaping environmental and climate policymaking.
