Mining "Approvals" Hit Wrong Note

On the front page of Western Australian Business news for August 6-12, 2009: "Junior miners are upbeat but still frustrated by perennial bugbears such as slow approvals..."

What is wrong with that statement?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

What is the role of our Environmental Protection Agency? Is it to give approval for new mining activity? Is its role, to give approval for major, destructive, possibly permanent damage to our environment? If the role of our EPA is to give approval to environmental destruction -- then the EPA is a waste of time and money.

The true role of the EPA should be to protect the environment. Environmental Protection Agency... get it?! If a new mine would destroy irreplaceable environment, if a new mine would wipe out an endangered species -- then perhaps that new mine should not go ahead.

If we refer to the "approvals" process of the EPA then we are denying the true role of the EPA. The EPA is there to assess and then to approve or to not approve. If we talk only of "approvals" then the EPA is a hurdle to be overcome. If we talk about "assessment" then the EPA gets a valid role.

The EPA exists to protect our environment. If a new mine would destroy valuable evironment then that new mine should not be approved... not by the Environmental Protection Agency. By referring to the "approvals" process, we deny the right of the EPA to refuse approvals. Which makes a paper tiger of our Environmental Protection Agency.

A better option

The EPA exists to protect the environment. Yet its employees are accused of deliberately acting against new proposals. Surely that anti-environmental-destruction activity should be an essential role of the EPA? Denial of that role emphasises the current true role of the EPA: to support development -- or not -- as dictated by government policy.

EPA should be be an independent body for environmental protection. It should not be a decision-maker.

Pass the decision-making to a group for project evaluation. EPA will put in a submission. The mining company will put in a submission. Economic and financial agencies can submit opinions. The government of the day will provide its policy of the day.

Within current government policy (preference to environment, money, climate, kudos, whatever...) the decision-making group will make its decision. If today's policy supports environment then the EPA submission will gain weight. If today's government policy supports profit then EPA issues may be downplayed.

EPA as it exists now is an environmental protection agency with no power for environmental protection. It can say, "Stop!" but that can be bypassed or overridden. When the government supports "profit" then EPA is only an obstacle to be overcome.

Pass actual decision-making to an unbiassed group. Clearly state current government policy and priorities. Let the EPA do its best to protect the environment.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com