THE National Environmental Protection Agency on Monday released a guide that it says will provide practical support to farmers and landholders with the release of a new guide to help them comply with Australia’s national environment laws.
However, despite Government assurances the guide will be of assistance to farmers, it has not passed the test of farming bodies, with representative groups saying the guide is not a helpful tool for landholders, only creates more confusion and risks orcing farmers into almost “unending paperwork” (see industry reaction further below).
National EPA says guide designed to help farmers comply with reformed EPBC Act
A media release from the National Environmental Protection Agency on Monday said the guide, ‘Agriculture and the EPBC Act’, sets out how the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), Australia’s main national environmental legislation, applies to common agricultural activities.
The National EPA administers the EPBC Act which protects and manages nationally and internationally important plants, animals, habitats and places.
More than 2300 species and ecological communities are protected under the EPBC Act as scientific information has shown that they are threatened with extinction.
The guide is designed to help farmers comply with the Act, including recent Australian Government reforms that mean that ‘continuous use of the land’ may no longer provide an exemption to compliance. These changes bring agriculture into line with other industries and provide greater protection for threatened species and habitat, including the Great Barrier Reef.
The guide is the first industry guidance released by the recently established National EPA and forms part of the ongoing implementation of environmental law reforms.
National EPA CEO John Bradley said the new agency has an important role in educating and supporting the regulated community to comply with national environment laws.
“Australia’s unique plants and animals are central to our nation’s identity, and fundamental to the health of our environment, community and economy,” Mr Bradley said.
“The guide responds to industry feedback and provides simple, practical guidance about EPBC Act requirements, including when further assessment, advice or approvals may be needed.
“We’ve been out on site with farmers and consulted widely with agriculture peak bodies, industry stakeholders, state-based environmental agencies and environmental researchers to ensure the guide is a valuable resource to landholders across the country.
“It’s important to note most routine farming activities can continue as they always have.
“We recognise Australian farmers are some of our country’s most committed environmental stewards. Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity on-farm supports sustainable production through pest control, soil conservation and improving water quality.
“The guide reinforces the National EPA’s proportionate compliance approach which emphasises working constructively with those seeking to comply.
“Where unlawful or unapproved clearing occurs, our response will be informed by behaviour and environmental harm, with strong enforcement reserved for deliberate breaches causing serious damage.”
The guide complements existing resources, including online guidance material, case studies and stakeholder engagement activities undertaken by the National EPA. Landholders can also call the National EPA and speak to one of our experienced assessment managers on 1800 976 422.
‘Agriculture and the EPBC Act’ is available here: Reforms to land clearing exemptions | nationalepa
Excerpt from ‘Agriculture and the EPBC Act’
Table 1: Common farm activities and the EPBC Act
Exempt from the EPBC Act under Section 43B: Lawful continuous land-use from before 2000 (if the activity involves land clearing and the area to be cleared has been previously cleared less than 15 years ago AND is more than 50 metres from a Great Barrier Reef watercourse, wetland, or drainage line).
For actions not covered by exemptions refer to the following three risk categories as a guide to what you need to do:
| Risk level | Description |
|---|---|
| Low risk of significant impact on MNES: detailed self-assessment not required. Retain basic evidence such as diary notes. |
In most cases the following routine farming activities will be low risk of having a significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). Things that are likely not to include significant impacts on MNES, are where activities are carried out on an existing cleared footprint and do not involve any native species, native vegetation, waterways, wetlands or protected heritage places:
Installation of on farm water infrastructure where State/Territory planning requirements are not activated – see Installing polyethylene pipe for water security case study.
|
| Medium risk of significant impact on MNES: self-assessment required, retaining evidence and notes, and potentially book a pre-referral meeting. |
|
| High-risk of significant impact on MNES: referral and booking a pre-referral meeting recommended. |
|
Source: National Environmental Protection Agency
Part of a concerning trend, Cattle Australia
Cattle Australia deputy chair Adam Coffey said the new guidelines continued a concerning trend in the rollout of the new EPBC act.\
“What we have constantly been given are verbal assurances that routine agricultural activities will not be impeded, in reality the guidance fails to provide that level of clarity and assurance to landholders,” Mr Coffey said.
“Our engagement with the National EPA has been ongoing and productive, however the reality is we are collectively stuck with reforms that should not have occurred. The fact that this guide is not fit for purpose proves that the reforms were ill thought through.”
Guide falls short of adressing problems, AgForce
AgForce General President Shane McCarthy said the guide fails to provide the clarity on producers’ responsibilities the organisation had hoped for.
“We welcome the National EPA’s recognition that farmers are some of the nation’s most committed environmental stewards,” he said.
“This guide needs further improvement to give farmers confidence to move forward with routine activities like fencing, pest management, maintaining firebreaks and weed control without fear of breaching compliance standards.
“As it stands, the guide fails to provide a clear pathway for primary producers to get on with the essential work required to maintain their properties and produce the food and fibre that feeds our nation and fuels our export markets.
“We still don’t have the certainty we need on how the legislation will be interpreted and implemented.
“We can’t agree to reforms that negatively impact our land management and impinge on food security.”
AgForce CEO Niki Ford said the organisation also remained concerned about the level of paperwork required under the Act, new requirements in Great Barrier Reef catchment areas and the risk farmers will be forced into over-compliance.
“This guide is an opportunity to outline exactly what farmers can and can’t do under the legislation; the current iteration doesn’t do that.,” she said.
“There is still no clarity around long term vegetation management, particularly the 15-year rule.
“In addition, the regulatory environment in Queensland is made more complex by Great Barrier Reef catchment area requirements under the EPBC Act.
“Under the current interpretation, the EPA currently recommends a referral for the ongoing management of vegetation within 50 metres of any defined drainage feature, wetland or watercourse within the Reef.
“As a result, the administrative burden associated with an EPBC referral risk discourages beneficial works that would reduce sediment runoff.”
Ms Ford said AgForce would continue to advocate for its members to improve the guide.
“It is vitally important that the EPA has a process to transparently receive direct feedback from farmers around their concerns, and we need all primary producers to review the guide and provide that to the EPA during the three-month review process,” she said.
NFF warns EPBC guide leaves farmers with more questions than answers
Since the amendments to the EPBC Act were gazetted in December 2025, the NFF has been in consultation with the department since, especially around the amendments that removed longstanding exemptions for routine agricultural activities involving vegetation more than 15 years old.
“We opposed this decision then and we oppose it now,” Mr Atkinson said in a media release issued in response to the National EPA guide.
“We have worked extensively with our members and Government to seek greater clarity and practical guidance so producers can better understand their new responsibilities.
“This guide is a first version and does not resolve the concerns held by farmers and the broader agricultural sector.
“The guide does not give farmers confidence to carry out routine agricultural practices, such as constructing fences or repairing essential earthworks.
“The real impact is that many potentially affected farmers will read the guide and be more confused than ever about what they can and cannot do.
“The NFF does not support or endorse the guide. Significant questions remain regarding the interpretation and operation of the legislation, and we will continue pressing the Government for greater certainty, practicality and common sense in its implementation.
“We encourage producers to review the guide and provide feedback as part of the Government’s planned three-month review process. That feedback will help identify where further clarification and improvement is needed.
“The NFF has worked to improve the operation of the EPBC Act since its inception in 1999. We will continue to do so, advocating for reforms that deliver environmental outcomes without imposing unnecessary costs, complexity and uncertainty on farm businesses.”
NSW Farmers says a new Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Landholder Guide does not provide the
“The guide is not a helpful tool for landholders and does not provide straightforward advice that gives farmers confidence to manage their land while protecting the environment,” said NSW Farmers Conservation & Resource Management committee chair Bronwyn Petrie.
“This guide needs refining with greater clarity for farmers. Farmers need clear guidance on what activities require approval and what activities can continue as part of normal farm management.”
The guide is supposed to help farmers comply with the Act, including recent Australian Government reforms that mean that ‘continuous use of the land’ may no longer provide an exemption to compliance.
Ms Petrie said routine activities including weed and pest control, maintaining existing infrastructure, fencing, fire management and managing vegetation should not become unnecessarily complicated by additional federal processes.
“Uncertainty creates delays, increases costs and discourages investment at a time when farmers are already facing significant pressures from rising input costs, extreme weather and workforce shortages.”
“Good environmental outcomes depend on farmers being active managers of the landscape, not being tied up in complex approval systems.”
“Farmers are committed to protecting Australia’s unique biodiversity, but they also need a regulatory framework that supports productive agriculture and investment in regional Australia.”
NSW Farmers said a well-designed EPBC act guide should improve environmental outcomes by giving producers greater certainty and reducing the risk of unnecessary compliance issues.
“It allows farmers to make informed decisions, invest with confidence and continue managing their land sustainably without unnecessary delays or confusion.”
Ms Petrie said a revised guide must be supported by practical implementation and ongoing engagement with farmers.
“A guide alone won’t solve the challenges farmers face if the underlying processes remain complex, slow or inconsistent.”
“We need a system that recognises routine agricultural activities, provides timely advice and gives landholders confidence that they’re meeting their obligations.”
Source: NFF, NSW Farmers, AgForce
Great legislation. Fully black and white with words like maybe, possibly, potentially.
The whole act needs to be scrapped and control of flora and fauna to be controlled by each individual state like it used to be in the past.