Offset Restoration Charges and Social Licence: Can They Coexist Under the New EPBC Framework?

Offsets can be one of the biggest sources of delay and uncertainty in environmental approvals. For project teams, environmental managers, investors and the communities hosting major developments, offsets are not just a compliance issue. They affect timelines, budgets, community trust and ultimately whether projects can go ahead.

Projects in ecologically sensitive areas, infrastructure crossing habitats, and urban expansion near protected lands are all affected. State and local governments balancing growth and conservation also feel the impact. Traditional Owners and local communities see and experience these environmental changes directly, not just on paper.

Against this backdrop, Australia’s environmental approvals framework entered a new era in late 2025. On 30 October 2025, the government introduced the EPBC Act Reform Package to Parliament, representing the biggest overhaul of federal environmental law in decades.

The seven Bills respond directly to the Samuel Review (2020), which found the current EPBC Act complex, inconsistent and ineffective at protecting biodiversity. The reforms aim to replace fragmented decision-making with a clearer, consistent system focused on measurable environmental outcomes.

At the heart of the reforms are legally binding National Environmental Standards, a new independent regulator, the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and streamlined assessment processes. States will be able to assess projects against federal standards, creating a single-touch pathway that reduces duplication and gives proponents more certainty.

These changes are part of the government’s Nature Positive Plan and signal a move from managing impacts to actively improving environmental conditions. Parliament passed the Reform Bills on 28 November 2025, marking a major shift in how development and biodiversity protection work together.

Introducing the Restoration Contribution Charge

One of the most significant elements of the reform package is the Restoration Charge Imposition Bill 2025. It establishes the Restoration Contribution Charge (RCC).

The RCC applies when a project has unavoidable residual impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance, even after efforts to avoid or minimise harm. Instead of securing a traditional land-based offset, proponents can make a financial contribution that funds restoration actions designed to deliver measurable biodiversity gains.

The reasoning is practical. In many parts of Australia, especially where impacts affect rare ecosystems, threatened species or highly localised areas, finding a suitable offset site is difficult or impossible. For some proponents, the search for offsets has been long, uncertain and disconnected from meaningful environmental outcomes.

The RCC addresses this challenge without reducing environmental expectations. It stays tied to the reforms’ net gain requirement and provides another way to compensate for residual impacts when traditional offsets aren’t feasible.

From Compliance to Confidence: The Social Licence Question

The RCC may solve technical challenges, but it raises a bigger question: how will communities respond?

For local communities, offsets are not just numbers on a report. They represent a visible commitment to repairing local impacts. A restored creek, rehabilitated habitat or protected parcel of land nearby shows that harm has been acknowledged and addressed.

This creates several important questions:

• Can a national restoration payment maintain trust in communities affected by a project?

• If restoration happens far away, will local communities feel their impacts have been addressed?

• Can a contribution to a Commonwealth-managed fund build confidence or will it feel remote and impersonal?
  

Social licence depends on trust, fairness and transparency. Even when biodiversity gains are strong at a national level, local confidence can erode if people feel disconnected from the benefits.

Can Restoration Charges and Social Licence Coexist?

The RCC regulations have not been released yet, so how it will operate is still hypothetical. Even so, several risks are already clear.

1. Perception Risk

   The RCC may be technically sound, but communities may see it as a financial shortcut. Without careful communication, it could feel like replacing local responsibility with a cheque, especially in areas where trust in approvals is fragile.
   

2. Geographic Dislocation of Benefits

   If RCC-funded restoration occurs far from the impact area, local communities may see no direct environmental improvement. This distance can undermine confidence in the project even when national biodiversity gains are achieved.
   

3. Regulation is Not a Substitute for Trust

   NEPA oversight, public reporting, national standards and the net gain test all improve accountability, but they cannot replace social licence. Trust comes from visibility, engagement and a sense that local values have been considered, not just from meeting regulatory requirements.

Turning Risk Into Opportunity

The RCC solves a real challenge for proponents in ecologically constrained areas. Used thoughtfully, it does not have to undermine social licence.

Proponents can shape how the RCC is implemented and communicated. Options include:

• Explaining clearly why local like-for-like offsets are not feasible

• Being transparent about how RCC funds are calculated, allocated and used

• Voluntarily investing in local environmental or community programs alongside the RCC

• Aligning project commitments with nature-positive outcomes that matter to local communities, such as habitat restoration, education or long-term stewardship

What Proponents Should Be Planning For Now

For projects in constrained areas, the RCC will be an important tool under the reformed EPBC framework. Its success will depend on social strategy as much as regulatory compliance.

Proponents need to manage expectations early, engage openly and show how impacts connect to benefits. The key question is not only whether net gain is achieved, but where those gains happen and how the story is communicated.

How Epic can help

Epic’s experience in social impact assessment, stakeholder engagement, approvals and ESG allows us to support proponents through this shift. We help map local expectations, identify social risks, and explain offset feasibility and RCC decisions clearly and credibly. We can also integrate RCC considerations into broader approvals and engagement strategies, ensuring compliance strengthens rather than undermines social licence.

To learn more about how Epic’s social impact assessment, stakeholder engagement, approvals and ESG professionals can help your organisation, please see our related articles below or contact us.