Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia - Assignment Example

1 Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia Like in other countries, Environmental Impact Assessment EIA in Australia began as a means to protect and improve environment and the quality of life (Elliot and Thomas, 2009). This indicates that governments adopt the process of Environmental Impact Assessment to safeguard their programs or policies of sustainability by systematically measuring the impacts of human activities on the environment, socially and naturally (Elliot and Thomas, 2009). Screening of EIA System The essence of screening an EIA system for a particular project is to investigate the possibility of the system mitigating the high risk (to the environment) that could emerge during the execution of the project. A seemingly centralized mode of screening EIA system in Australia is of two approaches: (i) prescriptive or standardized approach—which entails running the EIA system through the defined legal and regulations guiding its usefulness for a particular project; (ii) discretionary or customized approach—the EIA system is screened based on the individual requirements by the project under consideration (EPA, 2009). Assessment Process for EIA in Australia In Australia, there are different assessment procedures for EIA depending on the complexity of the project involved. For simplicity in this paper, the assessment process for 2 greenhouse gas emission would be used to demonstrate how assessment procedures are carried out. From July 1 2008, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 encourages companies to register and report their greenhouse gas emissions for the fiscal years of 2008-2009. They are expected to reveal the state of their emissions if: (i) They emit 25 kilotonnes or more of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent), or produce or consume 100 terajoules or more of energy, or (ii) Their corporate group emits 125 kilotonnes or more of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent), or produces or consumes 500 terajoules or more of energy to report to the Department of Climate change (Elliot and Thomas, 2009; Burgman, 2005). Suitability of the Assessment Procedure Described Above For the fact that controlling the problem of climate change is the riskiest project for any government to undertake, it is imperative that the suitability of the procedures or processes for assessing for the applicability of EIA must be appropriate. According to the guideline provided by the Northern Territory Government’s Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Art and Sport, the following outcomes are expected in principled if the processes are perfectly carried out: The identification of a conservation measure for energy consumption. Reduction of the greenhouse gases from the air (environment) Discovering new ways to increase energy efficiency so as to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the air 3 Identifying the areas where greenhouse gases emission can be made through the use of renewable energy sources. Encouraging the trading scheme for carbon to force companies to adopt a new way of saving energy and moving away from over dependence on fossil fuel. The good news here is that all the observations highlighted above are meant to increase the sustainability of the environment through the reduction of greenhouse gases in the environment (Northern Territory Government, 2009). EIA System: Theories and Practice Past experiences have demonstrated that there is a huge gap between the theories and physical practice in Environmental Impact Assessment. The EIA system chosen for this paper is the one that attempts to reduce the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment. Naturally, as corporations increase in number and sizes, they also cause more havoc to the environment through the large amount of greenhouse emissions. The described above, in theories, expect companies or corporations to make great progress in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that are released to the environment and keep track of their energy-consumption trends through proper and constant measurement of the amount of greenhouse gases emissions (Gilpin, 1995; Pearman, 1988). The primary objectives of using the EIA for greenhouse gases emission are to curtail the amount of gases that companies emit in a particular fiscal year/period and encourage the consumption of clear and safer energy that 4 would not threaten the survival of the environment. To achieve this, the Northern Territory Government in Australia has set up machineries to accomplish this: these machineries include; (i) The Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act 1984—this is a legal framework designed to compel corporate to declare the amount of carbon dioxide they emit within a certain fiscal year; (ii) Adoption of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007—which is another legal framework meant to enforce routine monitoring and reporting of thee greenhouse gas emissions in Australia; Acceptance of Australian Government’s National Carbon Offset Standard—which is the set of standards or rules meant to encourage the companies play safe in the area of energy consumption, which normally leads to the emission of greenhouse gases (Northern Territory Government, 2009). But in spite of the legal frameworks above that are established to compel corporations to embrace efficiency in their energy consumption, the opposite is the case. In Australia, the emission of greenhouse gases is still a grave issue that demands urgent solution (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000). The inability of corporations to remain committed to cause based on the fear of spending more money on sustainability is the sole cause of failure in the application of EIA for greenhouse gas emission. Although this is not a new issue in Australia, other mega EIA projects had likewise under-formed against the backdrop of 100% efficiency as predicted by the theories. For examples, the following huge projects in Australia also have their shortcomings: (i) EPS-Macedon Gas Development; (ii) 5 Pilbara Iron Ore and Infrastructure Project; (iii) Kwinana Ethanol Bio-refinery; and (iv) Magellan Lead Carbonate Project, Wiluna (EPA, 2009). For the fact human elements are involved in the implementation of all EIA systems, it is impossible not to expect some forms of disappointment in the efficiency of these systems during the implementation (Wathern, 2009; Petts, 1999; Sheate, 2010) Systematic Weaknesses Accounting for the Gap between Actual Performance and Theories There are some systematic weaknesses that hinder the strong determination in Australia to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Examples of these systematic weaknesses are:- (a) Planning and Assessment Process:-Many a times the planning and assessment process of EIA may be inefficient right from the beginning. Hence, it will be difficult for such a system to perform up to expectation over a certain period of time (Eccleston and March, 2010). This shows that efforts must be put into having a fixed plan before the EIA system is being applied. The system will be effective if a proactive assessment process is employed. (b) Sustainability:-The primary aim of reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air is to preserve the environment from being destroyed. However, corporations do not spend much money on their sustainability policies because of their intended expectation for higher profitability (Fischer, 2009). This attitude has been identified as 6 one of the main reasons a gap has been created between theoretical expectation and actual performance. To bridge this gap, corporations must be ready to invest in their sustainability programs which include but are not restricted to the reduction of greenhouse gases that are responsible for climate crisis that is increasing the temperature of the world. (c ) Standardization:- When corporations fail to carry out their energy consumption in a way that is safe and harmless to the environment, this indicate that some standards have been compromised. These standards are outlined in the legal frameworks discussed above, together with other guidelines set up to achieve optimum performance of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Schmidt, 2008). Improvement for the National EIA System The national EIA system covered in this paper is Greenhouse gas emission EIA. This is the most famous EIA supported by national legal framework and guidelines in Australia. Therefore, it is important to highlight how this EIA system could be improved for better performance. Some of the important issues that must be addressed include but are not limited to: (i) Social-ecological system:-This system demonstrates the interrelationship between social functions and the survival of our ecological surrounding. Human activities have been identified as the main cause of environmental degradation. In other words, human beings operate businesses, travel and burn 7 fossil fuel to get energy for consumption. All these actions contribute to the multiplication of greenhouse gases in the air (Wood, 2003). So, any human activity that seems to threaten the survival of the environment must be stopped so that there could be a good balance in Australian ecology. (ii) Availability of Funds:- Most corporations in Australia have great sustainability policies with which they aspire to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit into the atmosphere. But since they do not have adequate resources to finance these policies, there will be apparent gap between the theoretical expectations and the actual performance. Therefore, funds must be provided to corporations in the forms of governmental grants or non-governmental sponsorship (Morgan, 1998). (iii) Political Influence:- It has been discovered that political influence can also affect the efficiency of EIA system. This is possible in the sense that if the political class refuses to make laws and other legal supports that would encourage corporations to use renewable energy sources, it will be difficult to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are released into the environment (Morgan, 1998). (iv) Intergovernmental Collaboration:- In a country like Australia where there are territorial, state and national governmental bodies, it is imperative that all these forms of government should collaborate on environmental issues before the 8 greenhouse gas emission EIA could become quite effective. It is in this respect that concerted efforts could be done to combat the threat of the greenhouse gases to global climate. Conclusion The facts explained above reveal that EIA system for environmental preservation and development is one of the riskiest project that the Government of Australia has undertaken because it requires complete support from the Australian corporations, territorial and state governments before it could be successful. Screening an EIA is the very first step required to determine the usefulness of the system. Without this, it is impossible to discover which EIA system will be functional in handling the issue of environmental degradation. The good news is that the current legal structures and the willingness on the part of Australian corporations have shown some possibilities that the climate problem may someday be over as companies turn to renewable energy sources for their energy consumption. It is clear that this process may not be efficient if the governments in Australia do not collaborate on all fronts to resolve this huge problem. 9 References Burgman, M., 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eccleston, C.H. and March, F., 2010. Global environmental policy: concepts, principles, and practice. Florence (KY): CRC Press. Elliot, M. andThomas, I., 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia. Sydney: The Federation Press. Environmental Protection Authority, 2009. Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Western Australia.[Online] Available at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/abouttheepa/eiareview/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 5 September 2011]. Fischer, D.C., 2009. Corporate sustainability planning assessment guide: a comprehensive organizational assessment. Milwaukee (WI): ASQ Quality Press. Gilpin, A., 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): cutting edge for the 21st century. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Morgan, R.K., 1998. Emvironmental Impact Assessment: a methodological perspective. Ew York: Springer. 10 Northern Territory Government, 2009. NT Environmental Impact Assessment Guide: greenhouse gases emissions and climate change. [Online]. Available at: http://www.iaia.org/IAIA-Climate-Symposium-DC/documents/Australia%20NTG%20EIA%20and%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf> [Accessed 5 Sept 2011]. Pearman, G.I., 1988. Greenhouse: planning for climate change.Leiden (Netherland) Brill Archive. Petts, J., 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Environmental Impact Assessment. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Schmidt, M., 2008. Standards and thresholds for impact assessment. New York: Springer Verlag. Sheate, W.R., 2010. Tools, techniques & approaches for sustainability: collected writings in environmental assessment policy and management. Hackensack (NJ): World Scientific. Wathern, P., 1998. Environmental Impact Assessment: theory and practice. New York: Routledge. Wood, C., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. London: Prentice-Hall. 11 Yencken, D. and Wilkinson, D., 2000. Resetting the compass: Australia’s journey towards sustainability. Victoria (Australia) Csiro Publishing. Read More