In Queensland, contaminated land investigation must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person (SQP). This is regulated such that contaminated land assessment, which can be complex, is only undertaken by people who are appropriately and sufficiently competent and experienced. The catch, or bonus, depending on your point of view, is that it's self assessable.
So what does it take to be an SQP?
current membership in a professional organisation prescribed under the EP Reg
qualifications and experience relevant to the regulatory function undertaken on a particular site.
Part 1 is relatively easy to assess, part 2 is where it gets a little grey.
Self interest is the enemy of self assessment.
Being a consultant can be very hand to mouth, turning away work, even if it's on the borders of your capability and experience, is not in a consultant's self interest. It's also pretty common to overestimate your competence. The more I learn, the more I realise what I don't know.
There are some safety nets. Auditors cannot certify a contaminated land investigation document (CLID) required for a regulatory decision unless it is prepared by an SQP. Government guidance on SQP self assessment even suggests that people contact an auditor to assist them to determine if they meet the requirements.
This does not assist in the large number of projects undertaken that do not involve auditor certification and it certainly doesn't help clients looking to engage a professional whose scope of work is well outside of their usual course of business. Additionally, auditors are not a free resource or government employees. Auditors are private consultants working in an open market and building their businesses by developing relationships with consultants. Whilst they are required to act independently on behalf of the government when conducting an audit, they are chosen and engaged by clients, often following recommendations from consultants.
You don't need to be Einstein to see the issues.
Consultants presented with a potentially lucrative project aren't likely to say no just because they haven't done it before. Clients already vested in a project with a consultant don't want to hear from an auditor that they may have made the wrong choice. Much easier to find an auditor who's 'on board'. Embarrassing consultants or turning away potential clients on the basis of their consultant choice isn't good business for auditors either.
Of course, it's not all bad, the vast majority of SQPs, auditors and clients have very high levels of integrity and professional independence, but we're all human.
Is self assessment really best practice?
What prompted this article was an email received from the Australian Institute of Geoscientists discussing issues associated with the JORC* version of SQP self assessment.
JORC recently received numerous pieces of correspondence from the regulator in their framework (ASIC), expressing concerns with respect to the efficacy of competence self-nomination. Specific concerns were also raised around Competent Person(s) taking responsibility for broad technical areas that are likely well outside their relevant experience. It was made clear by the regulator that there was no ‘do nothing’ option with respect to the issue of competence in reporting and JORC members are acting.
Regulation in the geoscience industry with respect to resource reporting to the public, as in the taxation realm, is tight, primarily because of the money at stake and the potential to affect the broader public. It's unlikely that your tax professional is interpreting the taxation act for a lack of guidance or precedence. Amazing the action that is taken when there are dollars at stake.
Contaminated land is perhaps the sleeping issue. Its mis- or non-assessment is often hidden in the ground, negative effects may take decades to become apparent and when it does come to bite, it's often a limited group of people directly affected and, more often than not, not the regulator.
What's the answer?
These articles are intended to be informed conversation starters. There's no silver bullet.
The Certified Environmental Practitioner Scheme (CEnvP) is a step in the right direction, however, currently, it is only a requirement that auditors be CEnvP's, not SQP's and the scheme is governed by just one professional association. The CEnvP scheme doesn't address the particulars of a site either, some assessments are far more complex than others. You don't go to a brain surgeon for a knee replacement, though they are both specialist surgeons.
A framework for clear and concise SQP assessment before each investigation. Currently, declarations from SQPs attesting to their qualifications and experience relevant to the investigation, are only required when submitting contaminated land investigation documents to the government for a statutory decision. In this case, Auditors provide an opinion, because CLIDs can only be certified if prepared by an SQP, but this only helps on these projects where auditors are involved, and currently, that may only be a small proportion of investigations undertaken.
Triggers for contaminated land assessment. Perhaps the biggest area for improvement in the regulation of contaminated land in Queensland. The issues associated with this one are broad, suffice to say that the statutory triggers requiring a contaminated land assessment involving a CLID, an SQP declaration, and an audit certification, are very limited. It's all or nothing too. If the requirements provided in planning regulation are not triggered, there is no regulation beyond everyone's general environmental duty; no assessment required, no declarations or oversight.
The upshot of the current situation is that insurers and financiers become default regulators where statutory involvement is not triggered, but this is reactive, reflecting the trickle-down from many people's bad outcomes. It would seem, even to the layperson, that the risks are sufficient not to rely only on everyone's good conscience, especially when self-interests (unconscious or conscious) don't align with desired outcomes.
* the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves
#ContaminatedLand #ContaminationSimplified #SQPSelfAssessment #ContaminationRegulation
Christian Atkinson is a contaminated land auditor and a suitably qualified person for contaminated land assessment in Queensland with more than 25 years of experience. Any discussion is general in nature and does not consider your specific circumstances. If you are considering acting on any matters discussed, you should seek advice from qualified and experienced professionals.
Коментарі