Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Australian National Botanic Gardens Management Plan) Instrument 2022

The management plan is structured around four principal concepts that recur throughout the instrument: (1) the ANBG as a Commonwealth reserve and national institution; (2) integrated collections and data management; (3) regulated access to biological resources and controlled activities; and (4) an institutional role in national and international obligations for biodiversity.

ANBG as Commonwealth reserve and institution: The plan treats the ANBG both as physical Commonwealth land declared in 1991 and continued under the EPBC Act, and as the nationally significant institution that operates living, seed and herbarium collections (Establishment and Functions, pp. 19-21, Part 1). The Director of National Parks is identified as the statutory manager, a corporation sole with functions under s 514B and broad power under s 514C of the EPBC Act (Director of National Parks, p. 20). Management obligations are therefore dual: to protect the reserve’s environmental and heritage values and to operate national scientific, horticultural and education programs (Purpose and content of a management plan, pp. 24-25).

Integrated physical and digital collections: The plan emphasises linked, multi‑format collections , living plants, a National Seed Bank, the Australian National Herbarium (ANH), the Australian Plant Image Index (APII), library and archives , stitched together by the Integrated Botanical Information System (IBIS) and the concept of Extended Specimens (Sections 2.1-2.6, pp. 41-62). The plan frames these collections as scientific infrastructure supporting taxonomy, conservation, seed science and horticultural research, and as a national dataset contributing to the Atlas of Living Australia and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (pp. 2, 36, 54).

Regulated access and activity controls: The plan repeatedly cross‑references EPBC Act prohibitions (ss 354, 354A) and EPBC Regulations (Part 8A for access to biological resources; various 12.xx provisions governing recreational and commercial activities). It sets out permit procedures, circumstances where the Director may authorise otherwise prohibited acts (e.g. for research or to preserve the reserve), fees under s 356A, the potential for Schedule 11 permit fees, and impact assessment thresholds and pathways (pp. 20-22, 46-56, 69-71, 89-92). This creates a layered control architecture: statutory prohibition, plan authorisation, permit/licence/lease, and, where necessary, ministerial referral for controlled actions.

National and international obligations: The plan explicitly aligns ANBG activities with international conventions , the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya Protocol, CITES, the UNFCCC and the Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions where relevant (pp. 26-27). It commits the ANBG to benefit‑sharing where material is used commercially, to prior informed consent principles for access, and to using recognised data standards (Darwin Core) and national collaborations (CHAH, Atlas of Living Australia) for data exchange (Sections 2.6-2.8, pp. 53-58).

Operational governance concepts: The plan codifies performance indicators and periodic review mechanisms (annual reporting, a technical audit before preparation of the next management plan) and gives the Director discretion to set charges and enter funding or partnership agreements (Implementation and reporting, 4.11, pp. 94-95; Fees and charges, p. 21; Financial sustainability, 4.2, pp. 79-80). The plan therefore embeds accountability mechanisms while preserving managerial discretion over priorities, partnerships, permits and cost recovery.

These concepts interact: the institutional objective to expand research and collections increases demand for permits, staff and capital works, which must be balanced against statutory heritage protections, assessment thresholds for controlled actions and obligations under international access and benefit sharing frameworks. The plan identifies those tensions and embeds policy responses (curatorial frameworks, seed bank strategy, impact assessment procedures) rather than setting an entirely open policy space.

The plan creates legally and operationally binding effects for a range of actors. Identify who pays, who decides and who changes behaviour as a result.

Decision-makers and gatekeepers

• The Director of National Parks is the primary decision-maker under the plan. The Director administers the ANBG, issues permits, grants licences and leases, determines charges subject to Ministerial approval under s 356A and may authorise otherwise‑prohibited acts (Director functions and powers, pp. 20, 44-46, 79). The Director also implements assessment procedures and may recover costs associated with administering proposals (Policy 4.9.4, p. 91).
• The Minister retains oversight: the instrument is made under ss 370-371 approval process and charges set under s 356A require Ministerial approval (instrument header; Fees and charges, p. 21). Major proposals that are controlled actions must be referred to the Minister under chapters 2-4 of the EPBC Act (Environmental impact assessment, pp. 21-22).

Operational staff and affiliated institutions

• Parks Australia staff and other employees assigned to assist the Director perform duties in accordance with this plan and the EPBC Act (Director and Parks Australia references, pp. 18, 52). CSIRO is a core partner through the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research (CANBR); joint management of the Australian National Herbarium is a structural feature (CANBR Agreement, ANH, pp. 16, 48-49).
• Rangers and wardens appointed under the EPBC Act exercise enforcement powers on site; AFP special members are ex officio wardens (Security and compliance, p. 83). Non-warden staff cannot exercise those powers but are expected to promote compliance through education.

Researchers, students and partners

• Researchers and partner institutions seeking access to biological material must comply with access procedures, sign agreements describing purpose and restrictions, and often obtain permits (Access to biological resources, 2.7, pp. 55-56). The ANBG will enter benefit‑sharing agreements for commercial usage and requires prior informed consent for acquisitions (Policies 2.7.3, 2.7.5, 2.8.4, pp. 55-58).
• CANBR, CSIRO, tertiary students and early career researchers are specifically identified as beneficiaries of research programs (Goal 1 outcomes, pp. 31-39).

Commercial operators and lessees

• On‑site businesses (café, bookshop, day spa) operate under leases; the plan authorises granting leases and licences for commercial activities and events consistent with the plan’s goals (Commercial operations, 4.1, pp. 76-79). The Director decides whether to grant leases, determine rent (market rate guidance), and require environmental protections (Policies 4.1.7-4.1.10, pp. 78-79).
• Commercial photographers for weddings and media organisations are expressly exempted from requiring permits for certain image captures (Policies 4.1.5-4.1.6, p. 78). Other commercial uses require permits or leases under the EPBC Act and Regulations.

Community, volunteers and Friends

• The Friends of the ANBG are recognised as a key community partner; activities are to be governed by an agreement with the Director and supported by facilities (Policies and Actions 3.6.1-3.6.4, pp. 72-74). Volunteers participate under the Director’s Volunteer Policy (4.6.1, p. 84).

Visitors and the general public

• Recreational users face specific restrictions: many activities are regulated under the EPBC Regulations (e.g., no pets, limits on group sizes, restrictions on bicycles, fires, commemorative markers) and the Director may prohibit activities for safety or protection of values (Section 3.4, pp. 69-71). Charges for parking and services are in place and may be revised periodically (s 356A, pp. 21, 79).

Traditional owners and Indigenous stakeholders

• The plan signals an intent to seek new opportunities to collaborate with Indigenous people and to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into scientific investigations, but it does not create a statutory veto or land rights instrument. It requires consultation on relevant programs and benefit‑sharing where possible (Partnerships, 1.3; Education Policies 3.1.3; Genetic resources 2.8.4, pp. 31-32, 66, 57-58).

Who pays and bears costs

• Proponents of projects generally bear assessment, rehabilitation and environmental impact assessment costs for works they propose (Policies 4.8.3, p. 87; 4.9.4 on cost recovery, p. 91). Users of services may pay fees set under the Schedule of Charges and s 356A (parking, education services, plant identification, photographic services , p. 21). The Director and the Commonwealth retain obligations to fund core functions, including maintaining collections, labs, staff and security; the plan anticipates requesting government resourcing (Policy 4.11.2, p. 94).

Behavioural changes expected

• Researchers and commercial actors will increasingly formalise agreements, obtain permits and comply with provenance and benefit‑sharing rules when accessing biological resources (Sections 2.7-2.8, pp. 55-58).
• Developers and event operators must factor impact assessment categories (Table 1 & 2) and potential referral requirements into project planning (Assessment of proposals, pp. 89-92).
• Visitors will face regulated behaviours (no pets, no large public gatherings without permit, restrictions on some recreational items) and may experience fees for parking and some services (Recreation and Charges, pp. 69-71, 79).
• The ANBG’s partners must coordinate on data standards and integration (IBIS, Darwin Core), producing greater transparency and shared datasets (Section 2.6, pp. 53-54).

In sum, the plan distributes decision rights to the Director and Minister, places operational and cost burdens on proponents and commercial users, formalises researcher access and provenance obligations, and regulates public behaviour on site. The plan also elevates the ANBG’s role in national scientific infrastructure and data stewardship, which creates both opportunities and administrative demands for partners.

This management plan converts statutory functions into concrete duties and rights for the Director of National Parks, staff, third parties and users. The plan frequently cross‑references EPBC Act powers and Regulations; here are the principal duties and rights it creates or operationalises.

Duties and powers of the Director of National Parks

• Administer, manage and control the ANBG consistent with the EPBC Act and the plan (Director functions s 514B and general powers s 514C are invoked; see Director of National Parks discussion, p. 20). The Director must implement the plan’s policies and actions and report on implementation (Implementation and reporting, 4.11, pp. 94-95).
• Issue permits, licences and leases and authorise otherwise‑prohibited acts under ss 354 and 354A where necessary to implement the plan or to preserve or protect the ANBG (Policies 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.10.3, 3.4.4, 4.10.2, pp. 45, 61, 70, 93).
• Determine and impose charges for entering/using part of the ANBG and for services, subject to Ministerial approval under s 356A (Fees and charges, pp. 21, 79-80). The Director is required to review the Schedule of Charges periodically (Actions 4.11.5, p. 95).
• Assess proposed activities using the plan’s three‑category decision matrix and Table 2 matters, and refer actions that may be “controlled actions” to the Minister as required by the EPBC Act (Assessment of proposals, pp. 89-92). The Director may recover costs from proponents for administering proposals (Policy 4.9.4, p. 91).

Rights and obligations of researchers and scientific partners

• The ANBG and CANBR may authorise research and monitoring that would otherwise be prohibited, under agreements or permits (Policies 2.1.6-2.1.7, p. 45). Researchers must comply with permit conditions, ensure projects will not threaten conservation status, and provide data/publications back to ANBG (Policies 2.7.6, 2.7.11, pp. 55-56).
• Access to biological material is conditioned on prior informed consent, provenance documentation and mutually agreed terms; access outside Australia must comply with CITES where relevant (Policies 2.7.1-2.7.6, 2.8.2, 2.8.4, pp. 55-58).

Third party commercial rights and duties

• Third parties may be granted leases or licences for commercial activities, provided proposals align with ANBG values and the Director’s assessment procedures (Policies 4.1.1-4.1.4; 4.1.7-4.1.10, pp. 78-79). Leases must define area, minimise adverse impacts and include environmental protection requirements (Policy 4.1.10, p. 79).
• Commercial proponents pay for environmental impact assessments, rehabilitation and any costs associated with administering and managing proposals (Policies 4.8.3; 4.9.4, pp. 87, 91).

Rights and duties of the public and visitors

• The public has rights to access the ANBG consistent with the Schedule of Charges, permitted activities and the EPBC Regulations (e.g. access limits, permitted assistance animals, regulated public gatherings) (Recreation and visitor management, 3.4, pp. 69-71). Visitors are required to adhere to prohibitions such as no pets, no unauthorised fires, and no erecting commemorative markers without permission (Regulations summarised on p. 69-71).
• The Director may restrict access to parts of the ANBG for safety, conservation or operational reasons under reg 12.23 and may prohibit classes of activities under reg 12.23A (p. 69).

Heritage and conservation duties

• The plan requires the Director to manage the ANBG consistently with Commonwealth Heritage management principles, to prepare heritage strategies and registers where prescribed and to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect Commonwealth Heritage values (Heritage protection, pp. 23-24; Appendix B). Section 341ZC of the EPBC Act is cited for the duty of Commonwealth agencies not to take actions likely to have adverse impacts unless no feasible and prudent alternative exists.

Data management and sharing duties

• The ANBG (via IBIS and CANBR) must maintain and enhance botanical databases, apply recognised standards such as Darwin Core, and share data with national and international repositories (2.6 Policies and Actions, pp. 53-54). Data and publications arising from use of biological material are required to be recorded and made accessible to staff (Policy 2.7.6; Action 2.7.11, pp. 55-56).

Financial management duties

• The Director must maintain a Schedule of Charges and apply sound financial stewardship, including accepting donations and bequests consistent with Commonwealth rules, and seeking philanthropic support (Financial sustainability, 4.2, pp. 79-80). The plan authorises using revenue to enhance ANBG programs subject to applicable laws (Policy 4.2.6, p. 80).

Review and accountability duties

• The Director must undertake annual reviews of plan implementation, report to the Director of National Parks, and arrange a technical audit before preparing the next plan (Actions 4.11.3-4.11.6, pp. 94-95).

Taken together, the plan creates a system where the Director has broad discretionary authority to permit or prohibit activity, set charges and enter agreements, but must exercise those discretions within the plan’s policies, the EPBC Act’s statutory constraints and international obligations. Many duties rest with third parties and proponents to document provenance, bear assessment costs and comply with permit conditions. The plan therefore reassigns operational responsibility for implementation costs to external proponents in many project scenarios while preserving core collection and conservation duties for the Director and the Commonwealth.

The management plan sits within the enforcement architecture of the EPBC Act and EPBC Regulations and establishes both preventive controls (permitting, leases, charges, assessment) and enforcement mechanisms. The plan summarises statutory prohibitions and anticipates compliance measures; it does not itself create new criminal offences beyond those in the EPBC Act.

Statutory prohibitions and criminal exposure

• The EPBC Act (s 354) prohibits specified acts in Commonwealth reserves unless done in accordance with a management plan. Those actions include killing, injuring or moving a member of a native species; damaging heritage; excavating; erecting structures; carrying out works; or taking actions for commercial purposes (Control of actions in Commonwealth reserves, pp. 20-21). Section 354A provides that in certain circumstances those acts are criminal offences. The plan makes repeated cross‑references to these statutory prohibitions and to the Director’s authority to permit or authorise otherwise‑prohibited acts when they are necessary to implement the plan (e.g. Policies 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.10.3, pp. 45, 61).
• Mining operations are specifically prohibited by s 355 of the EPBC Act except when authorised under a management plan (p. 21). The plan does not authorise mining; it reiterates the prohibition and focuses on permitted works and capital developments consistent with Master Plan objectives.

Regulatory offences under EPBC Regulations

• The EPBC Regulations prescribe a range of controls over activities in Commonwealth reserves, including restrictions on camping, vehicle use, littering, commercial activities, research and the taking of animals and plants (p. 21). Specific regulations are summarised (e.g. reg 12.19, reg 12.23/12.23A, reg 12.30A, 12.31, 12.32, 12.33, 12.41, 12.55, p. 69-71). Contravention of regulations can lead to infringement notices, civil penalties or prosecution under the EPBC Act and Regulations.

Enforcement roles and powers

• Staff appointed as rangers or wardens under s 392 of the EPBC Act exercise powers and functions conferred by the Act and Regulations to monitor and enforce compliance (Security and compliance, p. 83). The Australian Federal Police’s members and special members are ex officio wardens. Where appropriate, officers from other agencies may be appointed as wardens or rangers. Non‑appointed ANBG staff are expected to promote compliance through education and non‑confrontational interaction; they do not exercise enforcement powers (p. 83).
• The Director may restrict or prohibit access or classes of activities within the ANBG under the Regulations and the plan (see reg 12.23 and 12.23A summaries, p. 69).

Sanctions, cost recovery and administrative measures

• The plan allows the Director to recover costs associated with administering, assessing and managing proposals from proponents (Policy 4.9.4, p. 91). Third parties undertaking capital works must meet costs of rehabilitation and environmental impact assessments required as a result of their works (Policy 4.8.3, p. 87). These are administrative cost‑recovery mechanisms not criminal sanctions but they do create financial enforcement pressure.
• The plan signals use of permit conditions, leases and licences as regulatory instruments, with environmental protection measures to limit adverse impacts (Policies 4.1.10, 4.8.2, pp. 79, 87). Non‑compliance with permit conditions may lead to enforcement action under the EPBC Act.

Inspection, monitoring and reporting

• The Director is required to monitor implementation of the plan, report regularly, and conduct annual reviews and a technical audit prior to the next plan (Actions 4.11.3-4.11.6, pp. 94-95). Security levels and compliance training for wardens/rangers are to be reviewed annually or when the risk profile changes (Policies 4.5.1-4.5.4, Actions 4.5.3-4.5.4, pp. 83-84).

Interaction with heritage provisions

• For Commonwealth Heritage places (ANBG is on the Commonwealth Heritage List), ss 341A to 341ZH of the EPBC Act impose duties on agencies to avoid actions likely to have an adverse impact on heritage values unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and mitigation is taken (Heritage protection, pp. 23-24). These heritage duties supplement general reserve protections and can shape enforcement outcomes where heritage values are implicated.

Practical enforcement risks and compliance burden

• The plan anticipates ongoing enforcement resource needs, requiring appropriately trained wardens/rangers to maintain presence during business hours (Policy 4.5.2, p. 84). It also flags the need for ongoing monitoring (p. 62) and for budgetary resources to fund security and compliance activities (Financial sustainability and Implementation sections, pp. 79-80, 94-95).

The plan therefore embeds enforcement within the EPBC Act framework: prohibitions and criminal/regulatory penalties remain in statute; the Director’s permit, leasing and charging authorities are the principal administrative levers; and cost recovery, permit conditions and site presence through wardens are the main tools to secure compliance. Those subject to the plan face both statutory sanctions for breaches of the EPBC Act and administrative financial exposures via cost recovery and permit conditions.

The plan is not standalone. It operates within, and explicitly references, a network of federal legislation, international agreements and ACT planning rules. Key interactions are set out in the instrument and carry compliance implications.

Primary Commonwealth framework: EPBC Act and Regulations

• The management plan is made under the EPBC Act (ss 366, 368, 371) and must be consistent with the Act’s provisions regarding management plans, control of actions in reserves, and assignment to IUCN categories (see Purpose and content of a management plan, pp. 24-29). It reiterates statutory prohibitions in ss 354 and 354A and uses EPBC Act powers to authorise activities via permits and management plan prescriptions (pp. 20-22, 45-46, 61). The EPBC Regulations (2000) are invoked for specific operational rules, including Part 8A on access to biological resources and several reg 12.xx provisions that regulate recreational activities (pp. 21, 55-56, 69-71).

International conventions and protocols

• CBD and Nagoya Protocol: The plan aligns ANBG practice with the CBD objectives and the Nagoya Protocol’s framework for access and benefit‑sharing, and insists on prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms and benefit‑sharing agreements where commercial use arises (International agreements, pp. 26-27; Policies 2.7.3, 2.7.5, 2.8.4, pp. 55-58). That means Australian statutory permitting and access procedures at ANBG are designed to meet international obligations.
• CITES: The ANBG and ANH are scientific registered institutions under CITES, allowing non‑commercial exchange of specimens under Article VII(6). Movement of CITES‑listed material outside Australia must comply with CITES and EPBC Act provisions (International agreements, p. 27; Access to biological resources, p. 55).
• UNFCCC, Ramsar, World Heritage Convention: The plan states that ANBG activities contribute to obligations (pp. 26-27) but does not create specific statutory duties under those instruments; rather, it frames scientific and conservation contributions to national reporting and strategies.

Commonwealth heritage and property law

• The ANBG is a place on the Commonwealth Heritage List; the EPBC Act heritage protection provisions (ss 341A-341ZH) impose duties on Commonwealth agencies to avoid adverse impacts unless no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and to prepare heritage strategies and registers (Heritage protection, pp. 23-24). The plan states its prescriptions are consistent with these principles and identifies Commonwealth Heritage values in Appendix B.

Public governance and financial accountability

• The Director of National Parks is a corporation sole and a corporate Commonwealth entity for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). The plan therefore must be implemented consistent with the PGPA framework for financial management, acceptance and use of donations, and reporting (Director of National Parks status, p. 20; Financial sustainability, pp. 79-80).

ACT planning and emergency law

• The ANBG is declared National Land under the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 and developments in the ANBG require approval from the National Capital Authority (p. 24; Adjacent lands, p. 86). Fire management is coordinated with ACT agencies and the ACT Emergency Services Authority; in emergency responses the ACT Emergency Services Agency may operate on site and actions will, where practicable, seek to minimise disturbance to listed species (Work health and safety, risk and emergency management, pp. 81-82).

CSIRO and institutional agreements

• CANBR Agreement between the Director and CSIRO governs joint management of the Australian National Herbarium and obligations on shared data, facilities and staff (CANBR Agreement references, pp. 16, 36, 48-49). The plan expects coordination and data integration work with CSIRO, including delivery of a new collections management system and high‑resolution digitisation integration (Actions 2.6.8-2.6.10, p. 54).

Intellectual property, copyright and data standards

• Image collections, copyrights and licensing are addressed; the plan prefers Creative Commons or equivalent licensing for donated images and anticipates reciprocal arrangements with other holders of image collections (Image collection policies, pp. 50-51). Botanical data must follow national and international standards (Darwin Core) and integrate with national data platforms (Policy 2.6.2; Actions 2.6.11, pp. 53-54).

Interactions that create compliance friction or coordination needs

• Access and benefit‑sharing: The plan’s alignment with Nagoya and CBD creates additional procedural and documentation requirements for collectors, researchers and commercial users, especially for legacy collections where provenance and landowner identification are unclear (Policies 2.7.3, 2.8.4; Issues 2.8, pp. 55-58).
• Dual approval layers: Projects that are not merely administrative may require ANBG impact assessment and referral to the Minister if they are controlled actions under the EPBC Act. They may also require National Capital Authority approval for developments and state/territory permits if neighbouring lands are engaged. This multilayer approval requirement raises project transaction costs (Assessment of proposals, pp. 89-92; Adjacent lands, p. 86).
• Data policy and privacy: Linking extended specimen data, genetic sequences and high‑resolution images to national and international databases may implicate data sharing, privacy for personal data in field records and intellectual property rights in images; the plan deals with data standards but leaves implementation details to policies and partnerships (Sections 2.6, 2.4, pp. 53-54, 50-51).

Overall, the plan is designed to operate coherently inside the EPBC legislative architecture and to ensure ANBG practice advances national and international obligations. However, it also creates operational interfaces with other Commonwealth financial and planning rules, CSIRO contractual arrangements, and heritage and emergency management regimes that will require active coordination and resourcing to manage effectively.

The instrument is the fourth management plan for the ANBG and explicitly replaces the 2012 plan. The plan records the history of previous instruments and commits to periodic review.

Succession of management plans

• First plan: 1993-2001. The plan notes the ANBG’s proclamation history (declared a reserve 17 September 1991 under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975) and that the ANBG has been managed under successive statutory frameworks since (Part 2 Background, pp. 14-15; Functions and Establishment, pp. 19-20).
• Second plan: 2002-2008. The document references the 2002 plan and an independent technical audit showing partial implementation of actions and resource constraints (Appendix A, pp. 97-99).
• Third plan: 2012-2022. The 2012 plan came into effect on 29 May 2012 and ceased on 29 May 2022. The current instrument expressly repeals the 2012 plan (Repeal, p. 15). The 2012 plan contained 172 policies and 247 actions; an audit found most were implemented or ongoing (Appendix A, pp. 97-99).

Current instrument and duration

• The 2022 management plan commences on 20 May 2022 and, consistent with the EPBC Act s 373, will cease to have effect 10 years after it took effect unless revoked earlier or replaced (Commencement and note, p. 15). The instrument was made by the Minister under subsection 371(1) and approved under s 370(3)(b)(i); the Ministerial signature and date are recorded (Instrument header). This sets a statutory expiry date and necessitates mid‑term review and a technical audit prior to preparing the subsequent management plan (Action 4.11.6, p. 95).

Notable associated plans and strategies referenced as living documents

• The ANBG Master Plan 2015-2035 remains an overarching capital and site design document informing development decisions (Master plan, capital works and asset management, pp. 87-88).
• The National Seed Bank Strategy 2020-2025 is cited as guiding seed bank curation and priorities (Policies 1.3.1 and 2.2.1, pp. 38, 47).
• The CANBR Agreement (2022-2032) between Director of National Parks and CSIRO is noted as operative and to be delivered upon (Action 1.2.2, p. 36).
• The plan commits to periodic review of subsidiary policies every five years (e.g., Living Collection Policy, Conservation Policy, Interpretation Style Guide) and annual reporting on implementation (Actions 2.1.12, 3.2.2, 4.11.3-4.11.5, pp. 45, 68, 94-95).

Mechanics of amendment and parliamentary oversight

• As a legislative instrument, the management plan must be registered under the Legislation Act and is tabled in each House of Parliament, enabling disallowance within specified sitting days (Management plans, pp. 24-25). This creates an external parliamentary oversight mechanism for any replacement or material amendment that requires re‑making as a legislative instrument.

Practical implementation adjustments

• The plan itself anticipates implementation adjustments through annual reviews, the Director’s discretion to issue permits for actions not specified in the plan (Section 4.10), and a mechanism to develop subordinate operational documents and strategies (e.g., Water Management Strategy updates, Living Collection five‑year plans). These subordinate instruments will be the practical loci of amendment outside the formal management plan replacement cycle (Actions throughout 2.x and 4.x sections).

In short, this instrument replaces the 2012 management plan, continues the established practice of 10‑year statutory plans for the ANBG under the EPBC Act and anticipates ongoing subordinate policy updates, five‑year reviews of certain policies and an audit before the next statutory plan. The plan’s embedded review and audit schedule provides a statutory rhythm for amendment and accountability.

The text supplied is the management plan and its appendices; it does not cite any judicial decisions, tribunal determinations, or litigation outcomes concerning the ANBG or this management plan. The instrument itself names no cases, judicial reviews or legal disputes.

What the plan records and what it does not

• The plan documents prior audits of earlier management plans (technical audits summarised in Appendix A) and internal reviews of implementation performance (Appendix A, pp. 97-99). These are administrative evaluations rather than litigation records.
• The plan summarises statutory frameworks (EPBC Act and Regulations) and outlines processes for referrals of controlled actions to the Minister, and for actions that may require assessment and approval under chapters 2-4 of the EPBC Act (Environmental impact assessment, pp. 21-22; Assessment of proposals, pp. 89-92). That statutory referral process is a pathway that can potentially lead to legal challenge, for example by judicial review of a Ministerial decision or challenge to an approval, but the plan itself does not reference any such proceedings.

Implications for practitioners

• Because no litigation is recorded in the plan, parties should treat the plan and its prescriptions as the operative regulatory instrument but be aware that actions taken under the EPBC Act (for instance, referrals, controlled action approvals, permits or leases) remain susceptible to judicial review, merits review if available, or administrative challenge under general public law principles. The plan’s cross‑references to statutory duties (such as heritage protections under ss 341A-341ZH) suggest that decisions affecting heritage values could attract legal scrutiny, although no cases are cited here.
• Practitioners advising proponents should assume the usual administrative law risk environment present in EPBC Act matters: decisions by the Director or Minister to permit works or to refuse permits, to refer or not to refer actions, or to set conditions on approvals might be subject to statutory rights of review or to judicial review on conventional public law grounds. The plan sets the procedural and substantive criteria that will inform those decisions (Assessment tables, Table 1 & 2, pp. 91-92).

In the absence in the source of any named litigation, this section records that no litigation history is provided. Any research or advice that requires knowing whether the ANBG or its managers have been the subject of litigation will need to consult external case law databases and administrative decisions; the plan itself provides no instances.

This plan contains numerous potentially consequential details and friction points that can catch proponents, researchers and operators unaware if they treat it as merely aspirational. Below are specific operational “gotchas” grounded in the text, with direct references to the plan.

1. Many otherwise ordinary activities can be prohibited without a permit

• The EPBC Act and EPBC Regulations make a range of everyday activities unlawful in the ANBG unless authorised: taking members of native species, excavations, erecting structures, works, commercial activities (ss 354 and 354A summarized, pp. 20-21). The Director may permit such acts, but without a permit a commonly assumed activity could be unlawful. This is especially relevant for contractors, event organisers and researchers.

2. Director discretion is broad and potentially costly for proponents

• The Director has wide authority to grant leases, licences, permits and to require proponents to meet assessment, rehabilitation and environmental costs (Policies 4.1.7-4.1.10; Action 4.8.3; Policy 4.9.4, pp. 78-79, 87, 91). A project proponent should expect to bear assessment costs and possibly ongoing compliance costs. The plan explicitly allows cost recovery for administering proposals.

3. Multiple approval layers and referral risk

• Actions that may be “controlled actions” must be referred to the Minister and may trigger chapters 2-4 assessment and approval processes (Environmental impact assessment, pp. 21-22). Table 1 makes clear that what starts as a Category 3 proposal could end up as a controlled action requiring Ministerial assessment and potentially more onerous conditions (pp. 91-92). Proponents must factor in time and uncertainty tied to ministerial referral.

4. Heritage protection creates a high bar for some works

• Commonwealth Heritage obligations require agencies to avoid actions likely to adversely affect heritage values unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and mitigation is taken (Heritage protection, pp. 23-24). Projects affecting Commonwealth Heritage attributes may face tighter constraints, additional assessments and potential refusal.

5. Access to biological material requires provenance and benefit‑sharing compliance

• The plan enforces prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms and contemplates benefit‑sharing agreements for commercial use (Policies 2.7.3, 2.8.4, pp. 55-58). Legacy collections may lack clear provenance, which complicates downstream commercialisation or export. Researchers must secure agreements and properly document provenance before using or transferring material.

6. Schedule of Charges is dynamic and some fees are in‑place now

• The Director can set charges under s 356A, and a range of fees currently applies (parking, plant identification, photographic services, education programs et cetera; Fees and charges, p. 21). The plan authorises periodic review and revision, meaning cost forecasts for events or programs must account for potential fee changes.

7. Some routine research may still require permits and assessments

• Scientific research that involves taking, keeping or moving native species may be prohibited under ss 354 and 354A except where authorised by the plan or a permit (Sections 2.1, 2.7, pp. 44-56). Reg 12.10 requires that scientific research be provided for in the management plan or authorised via permit. Researchers cannot assume free access even for non-commercial academic work.

8. “No fees” in regulations today does not mean fees cannot be set later

• The plan notes that fees for issuing permits under Schedule 11 of the EPBC Regulations were not in place at plan commencement but that this could change (Fees and charges, p. 21). This means the administrative cost of obtaining permits could rise if the Commonwealth populates those fee heads.

9. Data sharing and digital integration raise IP and operational responsibility

• The plan expects integration of herbarium, seed bank and living collection data via IBIS and data standards like Darwin Core (Section 2.6, pp. 53-54). Proponents supplying images or data should be attentive to copyright, licensing and the ANBG’s preference for Creative Commons or equivalent licensing (Image collection, pp. 50-51). Transferring data or images without proper licences may hamper downstream use.

10. The Director’s “emergency” and “new activity” powers

• Section 4.10 allows the Director to authorise actions not specified in the plan where necessary, but subject to assessment procedures except in emergencies (Policies 4.10.1-4.10.3, p. 93). This residual discretion can be operationally useful but creates legal uncertainty for projects that rely on predictable approvals.

11. The plan’s ambitions exceed current resourcing in places

• The plan repeatedly references resource and capacity shortfalls (e.g. succession planning needs, resourcing for digitisation and genetic sequencing, infrastructure upgrades) and anticipates seeking additional government and philanthropic funding (Issues and Actions in Sections 1.1, 2.3, 2.6, 4.2, pp. 32-33, 48, 53, 79-80). Proponents should not assume immediate capacity for rapid onboarding of new projects without negotiation on resourcing and timelines.

12. Permits, leases and community agreements require ongoing reporting

• The plan requires that recipients of biological material provide reports and acknowledge ANBG contributions and that publications arising from such material be recorded and accessible to staff (Policies 2.7.6, 2.7.11, pp. 55-56). Failure to report can jeopardise ongoing access.

Practitioners should read the plan as the binding operational rulebook for the ANBG. The “gotchas” above are not hidden clauses; they are explicit choices in the instrument that create compliance costs, administrative friction and potential legal risk if not managed. The plan gives broad discretionary power to the Director and reserves the right to change fees, require cost recovery and to enforce heritage and biosecurity protections; actors should build those regulatory and financial contingencies into project planning.

Compliance under this management plan requires aligning proposals and behaviour with the EPBC Act, EPBC Regulations and the plan’s specific policies, actions and procedural tables. The following actionable checklist translates the plan’s prescriptions into practical steps for different actor types, each grounded in the plan text and statutory provisions.

For researchers, students and scientific partners

• Determine whether your intended activity involves taking, keeping or moving a native species, involves genetic resources or is for commercial purposes. If so, plan to obtain a permit or ensure the activity is provided for under the management plan (Sections 2.1, 2.7 and reg 12.10, pp. 44-56, 61).
• Before collecting, agree terms in writing: obtain prior informed consent, document provenance, sign a material transfer agreement that limits use and prevents unauthorised third‑party transfers, and set benefit‑sharing terms if commercial use is possible (Policies 2.7.3-2.7.6; Actions 2.7.9-2.7.12, pp. 55-56).
• Use the ANBG’s IBIS and other linked databases for specimen metadata and ensure data are captured according to Darwin Core or the agreed standards (Policy 2.6.2; Actions 2.6.4-2.6.11, pp. 53-54).
• Expect to return or provide reports, publications and data to ANBG as required by agreements (Policy 2.7.6; Action 2.7.11, p. 56).

For commercial proponents, event organisers and infrastructure applicants

• Classify your proposal under Table 1 categories (Category 1: negligible impact; Category 2: more than negligible but not significant; Category 3: potentially significant) and follow the corresponding assessment pathway (Table 1 and Table 2, pp. 91-92).
• Engage early with the Director’s office to confirm assessment scope, potential referral to the Minister (if a controlled action), and to obtain a list of likely information requirements and estimated assessment costs. Budget for environmental impact assessments and possible rehabilitation obligations (Actions 4.8.3 and 4.9.4, pp. 87, 91).
• Where commercial activity requires a lease or licence, submit a detailed proposal showing compatibility with ANBG values, minimisation of environmental impacts, risk mitigation, waste management plans and expected benefits to the ANBG and visitors (Policies 4.1.1-4.1.4, pp. 78-79).
• Prepare for charges under the Schedule of Charges (s 356A); confirm current fees for parking, venue hire, education services and other services relevant to your activity (Fees and charges, p. 21).

For community groups, Friends and volunteers

• Seek and maintain a formal agreement or memorandum of understanding with the Director of National Parks if you will carry out activities on site (Policy 3.6.1; Actions 3.6.2-3.6.4, pp. 73-74).
• Follow the Director of National Parks Volunteer Policy and complete required induction, training and workplace safety processes (Policy 4.6.1; Actions 4.3.4-4.3.6, pp. 84, 81-82).
• If projects involve interpretation, education or use of ANBG collections, coordinate with ANBG staff to ensure alignment with the Interpretation Style Guide and the Education Strategy (Actions 3.2.2; 3.1.1, pp. 68, 66).

For visitors and recreational users

• Check the ANBG’s signage and online guidance for prohibited activities; note that many common activities may be disallowed or require a permit (Regulations summary and Policies 3.4.1-3.4.6, pp. 69-71).
• For large gatherings or commercial photography beyond the specified exemptions (weddings, media reporting), obtain the necessary permits or approvals from the Director as required (Policies 4.1.5-4.1.6 and reg 12.31 on gatherings, pp. 78, 69).
• Pay applicable charges (parking, certain programs) in line with the Schedule of Charges (s 356A, p. 21).

For data and image contributors

• Provide images and metadata under Creative Commons or equivalent licences if possible; link images to voucher specimens where available and ensure copyright permissions permit ANBG’s intended uses (Policies 2.4.1-2.4.4; Actions 2.4.6-2.4.8, pp. 50-51).
• Coordinate with the ANBG for digitisation workflows and data submission standards to enable integration into IBIS and national platforms (Actions 2.6.9-2.6.11, pp. 53-54).

For proponents working with genetic resources

• Follow the Common Policy Guidelines and the plan’s genetic resource policies. Document provenance, secure landowner permissions where relevant, and prepare for benefit‑sharing negotiations when commercial outcomes are possible (Policies 2.8.1-2.8.4 and Actions 2.8.5-2.8.7, pp. 57-58).
• Anticipate resource demands for sequencing and data storage and discuss funding/support with ANBG/CANBR partners as needed (Issues 2.8, p. 58).

Administrative and procedural compliance steps

• Prior to commencing work, consult the plan’s Assessment of proposals (Section 4.9) and contact ANBG management to determine category, documentation requirements and timelines (pp. 89-92).
• If your action might be a controlled action, prepare a referral to the Minister under the EPBC Act as advised by ANBG staff and factor in the ministerial decision timetable (Environmental impact assessment, pp. 21-22).
• Maintain records of all permits, agreements, provenance documentation, reporting and data submissions; the plan requires accessible storage of publications and reports arising from use of biological material (Policy 2.7.6, p. 55).

Practical tips and risk control

• Treat the Director as the primary gatekeeper. Early engagement reduces the likelihood of later rework, unexpected fees or referral outcomes. Use the ANBG’s published policies (e.g., Living Collection Policy, Conservation Policy, Interpretation Style Guide) to design proposals that will align with stated priorities (Actions 2.1.12, 1.3.2, 3.2.2, pp. 45, 38, 68).
• Budget for contingency: assessment fees, rehabilitation costs, permit processing time and the possibility of modification or refusal where heritage or biodiversity concerns are significant.
• If your project relies on data integration, obtain written confirmation of technical standards and data formats with the ANBG/ CANBR IT contacts to reduce integration and usability risk (Actions 2.6.4-2.6.11, pp. 53-54).

The plan makes clear that compliance is a combination of statutory obligations under the EPBC Act and Regulations, binding policies within the management plan and operational protocols (permits, agreements, data standards). Effective compliance therefore requires procedural discipline, early statutory assessment and transparent agreements about costs, provenance and reporting.