EPBC 2.0: The Reforms, the Risks, and the New Rules of the Game for Consultants

Australia’s environmental approval reforms are being described as the biggest transformation in decades. Some of that is true. Some of it is political theatre. And some of the most consequential elements (cumulative impacts, offsets, digital readiness) remain unfinished.

But one thing is clear: the reforms will fundamentally change how environmental consultancies work, what they produce, and how evidence must be structured for the next era of approvals.

This article offers a grounded assessment from someone who has sat inside the EPBC decision-making system, reviewed the referrals, assessed the arguments, challenged the logic, and issued the decisions. This isn’t a headline summary — it’s the practical, structural truth about what’s coming.

1. A New Institutional Architecture (but not a new system yet)

The two biggest structural changes are:

Environment Protection Australia (EPA)

An independent regulator responsible for approvals, enforcement, compliance and decision-making.

Environment Information Australia (EIA)

A national, centralised environmental data body responsible for monitoring, transparency and long-term environmental information.

On paper, these two agencies finally give Australia a coherent environmental governance system:

• one regulator

• one information authority

• one set of standards.

This is a major improvement over the last two decades of fragmentation that saw decisions split between multiple Commonwealth delegates, NOPSEMA, inconsistent bilateral agreements, and widely variable state/territory assessment quality.

But institutions alone do not solve environmental decline. They only create the conditions for better decisions. What actually matters next is how these institutions use data, standards, and evidence — and how project proponents and the consultancies they employ supply it.

2. National Environmental Standards — The Foundation for Predictability

Standards will underpin the new approvals regime. They’re the missing piece the EPBC Act has always lacked: clear, binding, rules-based criteria against which decisions must be tested.

This matters for several reasons:

• reduces discretionary decision-making

• helps define “unacceptable impacts”

• creates more consistent expectations for proponents

• should strengthen the quality of information submitted

• allows earlier triage of poor-quality or high-risk proposals.

This alone will change consultancy workflows. The days of “write everything and hope something sticks” are over.

3. Earlier ‘Unacceptable Impacts’ — Finally Operational, Not Theoretical

The EPBC Act has technically allowed early “clearly unacceptable” decisions for years.
Yet almost no one used the mechanism.

Why?

• high legal risk

• ambiguous criteria

• political pressure to progress projects

• ministers reluctant to make early ‘no’ calls

• inconsistent interpretation

With standards + an independent EPA + digital screening, this mechanism becomes real.

This means:

• consultants will need to identify fatal flaws earlier

• poor-quality proposals will fall over sooner

• missing evidence will be exposed by the digital system

• proponents will need stronger internal triage

• early ecological and hydrological clarity becomes essential.

The window for late-stage fixes shrinks significantly.

4. Digital Approvals: The Operational Shockwave

This is where the reforms move from policy to reality. Under the digital system:

• submissions must be structured

• data must be complete

• files must conform to defined formats

• metadata and version control matter

• inconsistent or contradictory evidence is more visible

• “document dumping” becomes impossible.

This fundamentally changes consultancy practice. For decades, many firms survived by producing volume instead of clarity; burying weaknesses under 400-page PDFs, annexures, unstructured species data, and long narrative impact assessments.

That era is ending.

When submissions are machine-readable:

• gaps are exposed

• contradictions are surfaced

• missing data is obvious

• irrelevant content becomes transparent

• regulators (and eventually AI systems) can cross-compare assessments quickly.

Workflows must become cleaner, more consistent, and more data-driven.

5. Cumulative Impacts: Still the System’s Blind Spot

Despite progress, Australia still lacks:

• a national cumulative impact framework

• regional cumulative impact models

• species-level pressure rollups

• thresholds for cumulative significance

• consistent metrics across jurisdictions

• automated cumulative datasets

• national integration of state/territory datasets.

Other jurisdictions have this, including USA (NEPA cumulative calculators), Canada (cumulative effects frameworks) and the EU (species/habitat integration at regional scale). But it appears like Australia still expects consultants to produce what the system cannot:

• integrate pressures

• assess cumulative significance

• justify methodology

• explain uncertainty

• defend a conclusion that the regulator cannot replicate

• compensate for inconsistent datasets across states

This is unreasonable and it makes cumulative impacts the weakest and most vulnerable part of the entire system. Yes, the reforms help (better data via EIA, stronger expectations), but they do not fix the fundamental structural gap.

And until they do, cumulative impacts will continue to be a major driver of risk, delay, inconsistency and litigation.

6. Offsets — Higher Integrity, But Still Fragmented and Suboptimal

Offsets are tightening. The Australian Government will be looking for higher integrity, stronger evidence, more scrutiny, and more transparent standards when identifying and designing offsets.

But several critical weaknesses remain:

• no national offsets market

• no transparent offsets register

• no public monitoring of offset outcomes

• no consistent unit of biodiversity value

• no regional strategic offset plans

• no supply/demand visibility

• no integration between offsets and cumulative impacts.

By comparison:

• Canada has habitat banking systems with pooled, landscape-scale outcomes

• The US Wetland Mitigation Banking Program uses market mechanisms, verified outcomes and enforceable monitoring.

Australia still negotiates offsets project-by-project — a process that often delivers:

• fragmented ecological gains

• small sites disconnected from broader landscape needs

• inconsistent ecological equivalence

• low monitoring transparency

• unpredictable supply

• uncertainty for proponents

• scepticism from communities and NGOs.

The reforms strengthen the rules, but the architecture of the system still needs a major upgrade. Offsets remain one of the biggest sources of project risk and public distrust.

7. So Where Does AI Fit? (And What It Can Really Do)

Let’s be clear: AI will not replace ecology, modelling, cultural knowledge, hydrology or on-country expertise. What AI can do, and what consultancies urgently need, is support to improve the clarity, consistency and completeness of their work.

AI can help by:

• detecting inconsistencies in evidence packs

• surfacing missing documentation

• mapping multiple datasets for cumulative context

• generating clean summaries of modelling outputs (where the model exists)

• organising structured submissions

• providing transparent reasoning trails

• visualising impacts and scenarios clearly

• supporting internal triage processes

• improving quality control before submission

• strengthening logic for unacceptable-impact assessments

• enabling regional overlays and pressure maps (with real data)

AI becomes a second set of expert eyes, not a substitute for ecological judgement. In a world where digital approvals expose weaknesses instantly, AI is a defensive tool; a way to ensure quality before the regulator ever sees a document.

The consultancies who adopt AI for rigour, not shortcuts, will be the ones who thrive.

8. What Successful Consultancies Will Do Differently

The next era of environmental approvals demands that firms shift from:

• Volume to Clarity: Long reports won’t mask poor logic.

• Narrative to Structure: Digital approvals reveal contradictions quickly.

• Fragmented workflow to Standardised evidence packs: Consistency becomes competitive advantage.

• Manual cross-checking to AI-assisted verification: Fast, repeatable quality assurance is essential.

• Project-level thinking to Regional cumulative context: Even without national frameworks, clients expect a cumulative story.

• Offset compliance to Offset viability: Integrity and long-term ecological outcomes matter more.

The Reforms are the Starting Line, Not the Finish Line

The EPBC reforms strengthen our institutions, clarify expectations, and push environmental decision-making into a more transparent, data-driven model.

But major gaps remain relating to cumulative impacts, offsets architecture, national datasets, monitoring, regional context, and supply of ecological uplift

This is where consultancies will need to step up — and where thoughtful, ethical use of AI will help environmental professionals deliver clearer analysis, better evidence, and stronger outcomes.

At Driftwood Crew Consulting, we’re building tools, frameworks and templates to help firms adapt to this next phase — with clarity, pragmatism and respect for the complexity of the landscapes we work in.

Contact us if you would like to chat further or book in a free, no obligation AI Strategy Session.