ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION EQUITY EFFECTIVENESS PROCESS COSTS BENEFITS R. 15 Require a declaration from Small increase in administrative Could enhance scheme NA Improves transparency Change to legislative rule landholders that they have read costs for CER and transaction understanding of and reduces asymmetry of participant’s the aggregation costs for scheme participants. obligations and reduce the information between Department’s agreement resources to register an need for compliance action. landholder and aggregated project. aggregator. R. 16 Some industry bodies and local Increases costs for some Could lead to lower cost May increase abatement. NA Industry bodies/local government associations consider industry bodies and local abatement opportunities. government associations providing advice to their government associations. May reduce transaction costs stakeholders on ERF projects. and increase participation. R. 17 Finalise guidance on consultation Increases administrative costs Increases transparency. Increased likelihood of Improves transparency CER with Indigenous communities. for scheme participants. Reduces risk that ERF Government contracting with and ability for EIHs to and conditions projects that will go ahead to negotiate with scheme contract’s Require scheme participants to Restriction on bidding at auction precedent are not met and deliver abatement but less participants. Change to legislative rule notify and engage with Registered may present a barrier to ERF projects do not deliver abatement may be purchased Native Title Body Corporates and procuring finance. Could lead to Treats new entrants abatement, delivering better if auction prices rise. eligible interest holders (EIH) of reduced participation and higher differently to incumbents, value for tax payer funds. intention to register a project and auction prices. EIHs can negotiate with provide the CER with evidence of scheme participants prior consultation. to a contract being in May reduce net administrative place. Scheme participants not be costs for CER. allowed to bid at auction until all eligible interest holder consents have been obtained. R. 18 Make explicit the ability to Increases risks for scheme More efficient administrative NA NA Change to CFI Act CER’s reverse specific decisions in cases participants. decision making. where the original decision was based on false or misleading information.
RECOMMENDATION ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS COSTS BENEFITS R. 15 Require a declaration from landholders that they have read the Department’s aggregation agreement resources to register an aggregated project. Small increase in administrative costs for CER and transaction costs for scheme participants. Could enhance scheme participant’s understanding of obligations and reduce the need for compliance action. NA Improves transparency and reduces asymmetry of information between landholder and aggregator. Change to legislative rule R. 16 Some industry bodies and local government associations consider providing advice to their stakeholders on ERF projects. Increases costs for some industry bodies and local government associations. Could lead to lower cost abatement opportunities. May reduce transaction costs and increase participation. May increase abatement. NA Industry bodies/local government associations R. 17 Finalise guidance on consultation with Indigenous communities. Require scheme participants to notify and engage with Registered Native Title Body Corporates and eligible interest holders (EIH) of intention to register a project and provide the CER with evidence of consultation. Scheme participants not be allowed to bid at auction until all eligible interest holder consents have been obtained. Increases administrative costs for scheme participants. Restriction on bidding at auction may present a barrier to procuring finance. Could lead to reduced participation and higher auction prices. Increases transparency. Reduces risk that ERF contract’s conditions precedent are not met and ERF projects do not deliver abatement, delivering better value for tax payer funds. May reduce net administrative costs for CER. Increased likelihood of Government contracting with projects that will go ahead to deliver abatement but less abatement may be purchased if auction prices rise. Improves transparency and ability for EIHs to negotiate with scheme participants. Treats new entrants differently to incumbents, EIHs can negotiate with scheme participants prior to a contract being in place. CER and Change to legislative rule R. 18 Make explicit the CER’s ability to reverse specific decisions in cases where the original decision was based on false or misleading information. Increases risks for scheme participants. More efficient administrative decision making. NA NA Change to CFI Act
ERF%20Review%20Report.docx