Search

Summary: This paper provides a critical analysis of the development and current outcomes of Australia's first endorsed strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, namely, the Melbourne Strategic Assessment. It covers progress towards protection of a number of Nationally Significant Species and Ecological Communities – most notably, the native grassland communities immediately adjacent to Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary. The Commonwealth approval to protect biodiversity and allow urban development was made in 2010 and it aimed to achieve its outcomes by 2020. These outcomes included providing new land for homes, for new transport corridors, and for conservation of biodiversity. Natural Temperate Grassland (4,667 ha), Grassy Eucalypt Woodland (709 ha) and seven other Matters of National Environmental Significance will be impacted. Mitigation for this is establishment of 15,000 ha of grassland reserves, 1,200 ha of grassy woodland reserves, over 4,000 ha of other land zoned for conservation and 300 ha of wetland restoration. We conclude that the Melbourne Strategic Assessment has been a success in terms of the elegance and comprehensiveness of the approach, in cooperation between the levels of government, in the economic benefits, and in some aspects of social engagement of the agreement. However, the achievement of environmental outcomes must be currently considered a failure due to poor implementation. This failure includes not meeting the agreed 10 year deadline for land acquisition and management, poor monitoring and protection of set‐aside areas, and in reporting. We offer suggestions for how these current shortcomings could be overcome. These align well with the recommendations of the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (The independent statutory review of the Act in 2020) and include the establishment of the proposed Office of Compliance and Enforcement, the adoption of National Environmental Standards and the reforms regarding the role of Indigenous Australians in strategic assessments. If these were adopted, we conclude that the strategic assessment approach should be more widely used because of the more holistic approach and efficiencies that it envisages compared with site by site approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]