Changes to Project Assessment Approaches Proposed as Part of Australia Governments Planning Review - Term Paper Example

Assessment of the changes to Major Project assessment approaches which were proposed as part of the South Australia government’s ‘Planning Review’, released in June 2008 Executive Summary The objective of this essay is to critically assess the changes to Major Project assessment approaches which were proposed as part of the South Australia government’s ‘Planning Review’. The methodologies followed in the planning review to propose the changes to major project assessment approaches and the reforms suggested by the review against the theories of Environment Impact assessment. The strengths and weaknesses of the Planning Review is carefully assessed and recommendations are made. Introduction In the light of rising debates and concerns over detrimentally influential factors like global warming and natural resource degradation, the demands for wise and sustainable exploitation of the environment is increasingly getting global attention. These debates becomes of increased relevance as almost all the corners of the world has started to face the impacts of over exploitation and the pollution pressure put over the environment. On the other side the developmental needs of the mankind all across the globe is subsequently increasing as well. Thus the need for a sustainable approach in the developmental activities is realized by the policy makers. Bill ,Mary & Geoff (2005, p.38-52) has opined sustainable development as an effort to correlate the growing concerns on varied environmentally related issues with socio-economic concerns. In the last few years, environmental concerns in developmental activities have turned to be an active constituent of the policies and have grown much from a campaign issue. Apart from the developmental and government agencies, private sector companies are also asserting on technologies based on sustainability. The increasing demand for alternate energy sources, environmentally friendly construction methodologies, green factor in constructions all are evident examples for this. These high demands have led to the development of scientific tools for the assessment of sustainability and the subsequent improvement in developmental strategies. For such a policy or a technology to be friendly with the natural system, there must be a scientific system to assess the viability of any policy in relation with the impact that may cause upon the environment. Environment Impact assessment (EIA) serves as a scientific tool for this cause. Wathern (2001, p. 6) has defined Environment Impact assessment as a “procedure for accessing the implications of a decision to enact a legislation, to implement policies and plans or to initiate developmental projects”. In simpler language, Environment Impact assessment is the measurement of the impacts that a particular project may cause on the environment in terms of natural, sociological and economic factors. An Environment Impact assessment would refer to specific points which would indicate the optimal levels of artificial intervention in a natural environment without causing damage to the natural balance in sociology, nature and economy. While Environment Impact assessment measures the benefits of any artificial intervention in a natural environment, it would also point out the negative impacts which may be caused on crossing the optimal limits as suggested by the assessment. Australia is generally known for the diversity and abundance of its natural resources. It has a number of climatic zones and natural eco systems making its biodiversity rich and diverse. This diversity poses great challenges in terms of ensuring the sustainability of the environment while on the other side being apace with the developmental needs of the society. The case of Southern Australia also demands protective measures in terms of environmental sustainability. So as to have a proper monitoring over the suitability policy, the Minister for Planning and Development, Paul Holloway initiated The Planning and Development Review in June 2007 (GSA, 2009). The committee for the review was chaired by Michael O’Brien MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier (GSA, 2009). The committee submitted its final report in On 10 June 2008. The Objective The objective of this essay is to critically analyze the changes suggested as a part of the Planning and Development Review on major project assessment approaches. The changes suggested by the report are evaluated against the theories of Environment Impact assessment so as to analyze the pros and cons in the suggested changes. Relevant changes which may lead to consequences in relation with social, economic and natural factors are being critically evaluated. In the Planning and Development Review a separate chapter has included on streamlining the development assessment process. It generally contains reforms which would ease the implementation of development projects. The consideration of sustainability in the suggested reforms is being reviewed by this essay in comparison with the socio, economic and environmental factors. Pro-Development approach It is quite evident all through the reform report that a pro-development strategy is followed in the policy recommendations. The generic aim of the reform is to promote developmental activities at an increased pace. On one side it is true that Southern Australia with its increasing number of immigrants and as a global competitor in living standards require development at an increased pace. This would in turn demand more construction, transport facilities and other infrastructures resultantly putting pressure on the carrying capacity of the natural environment. However, the approach of the reform report tends to compromise on the environmental checks in relation with development. The Planning and Development Review states “For the full benefits of the proposed reforms to be realized, the development assessment process must be streamlined. By removing minor low-risk matters and unnecessary delays and referrals from the system, it will clear backlogs and free State and local government planners to focus on the strategic performance of the planning system” (GSA, 2009). Though this step would increase the pace of developments, it may lead to compromises on environmental concerns. The reform is supposed to remove hassles which are referred to have very less or no impact on the environment. Some examples for the same also have been included in the report. However, this may open possibilities for bigger environmental hazards wrongly labeled as of no impact and getting excluded from the regulatory measures. The pressure put on the nature are evidently found to get revokes in forms of global warming, tsunamis etc. In this scenario it is not advisable to even include a factor of minor risk in relation with environment. Contrary to this, the approach of the reform to remove low-risk matters would lead to loop holes for natural exploitation. Moreover, a sudden liberalization on regulatory measures would lead to a spurt of unsustainable development. This would cause acute pressure on the environment. Assessment of the carrying capacity of the area would be difficult in such a scenario. The feasibility of conducting as scientifically well structured evaluation is also doubtful on full implementation of the reforms. The plan to dramatically increase the number of cases assessed justifies this statement. The term ‘dramatically’ clearly suggests the lack of a scientific assessment in the quality checks in association with the development cases. This leaves with the possibility of overlooking environmentally detrimental factors in the developmental project plans. Thus the development regulating authorities may happen to sanction environmentally detrimental projects. Thus the liberalized approach in the reform must be rethought. There must be alternative promotional policies to encourage eco- friendly constructions. Similar observations has been made by Andrews (2001, p.93-97). In an urbanized scenario or an ecologically critical scenario, the challenge would be to identify and prioritize the potential environmental hazards and subsequently warrant a management system. Alternative systems of management must be developed according to the arising scenario (Andrews, 2001, p.93-97). Thus it can be confirmed that easing the regulatory measures is not a sustainable solution for accelerating development. Measures like subsidies and easy finance facilities must be accelerated to make the development happen in an environmentally friendly manner. However, there must be measure to improve the pace of assessment processing as well. Automation of the assessment process is a recommendable solution for this cause. The strategy plan to move to an electronic system as mentioned in the review is a very positive effort towards it. Improvement in the capacity of manpower handling assessment formalities also must be initiated. The human resources should be strengthened in terms of their capacity and count. Community Participation Wood (2001, 98-116) has argued that there must be public participation and wide consultation while preparing a development assessment document. The community being the actual owners of the environment such an amendment in the assessment of development should involve active public participation. The Planning and Development Review was prepared by a steering committee involving bureaucrats. The methodology followed for conducting the review as mentioned in the report involved; cross examination of the performance of the South Australian Planning system; comparison of the South Australian Planning system with the planning systems of other areas; analysis of the performance of South Australian economy; examination of potential benefits of the reforms; consultation with major stakeholders; submissions. It should be noted that the list of major stakeholders with whom the consultation was done did not include the representatives of the community (GSA, 2009). Thus without public participation, the review cannot be considered as complete. However, emphasis has been given to consider the benefits that the reform may bring forth to the local community. This to an extent adds to the strength of the reforms. However, the comparative approach with other planning systems followed in the formation of the review report is a very positive methodology. Peter & Riki (2001) has opined the importance of comparing the performance of the planning system with other planning systems in forming an effective Environment Impact assessment strategy. Strategy on environmentally and socially crucial areas Many areas of Southern Australia including Adelaide have places of much cultural importance. These include heritage sites as well. Moreover, there are areas which are very fertile for agriculture and supports Australia’s economic system. Vineyards and food crops are grown widely in these areas. Thus protecting these areas from indiscriminate development is very important. Sustainability in a sense means caring and preserving for the next generation. Thus the preservation of the natural ecosystem and the cultural systems of these areas would directly relate to sustainability. The stricter approach which is suggested while dealing with heritage sites and environmentally relevant sites is quite promising in this regard. These sites have been referred for the strict verification of Heritage council so as to be considered for development. Such measures should be intensified and further integration with research agencies working in lines of history, heritage and ecology must be ensured. A lacking factor in the Planning and Development Review for Southern Australia is the lack of integration with traditional ecological knowledge and management methods. This should be read together considering the richness in the traditional knowledge of Australian aboriginals and other natives who had been naturally preserving their ecology with not much of science involved. Lloyd and Bruce (1993, p.121-133) has explained the potential in involving aboriginal in resource co-management. However, the success of traditional methods always has proved to have scientific justifications involved. Johannes (1993, p.33-39) has classified the traditional knowledge on ecology into four as taxonomic, spatial, temporal and social. The Planning and Development Review has completely excluded the diverse scope of these traditional knowledgebase to be used in the effective management of ecology. Apart from the depth of knowledgebase there are other sociological benefits associated with the involvement of traditional knowledge. Integrating traditional knowledge with environment impact assessment would directly involve some traditionally equipped local communities into the system. This would create a feeling of ownership among the local communities. The active participation and botheration of the local people can serve as one of the most effective tools in impact assessment with regard to ecology and also on management measures. The functional way of integrating traditional knowledge in assessment is to create a knowledge management system which should further contribute towards the decision making process in impact assessment. Creation of such a knowledge bank would further address the issues in identifying potentially viable areas and thus can restrict these areas from unmonitored development. Further these knowledgebase can lead to the replication of standardized models in other areas. The lack of involvement of traditional knowledge is related with the non involvement of local community as well. These two factors are complimentary to each other. Involving local knowledge would automatically involve local community into the assessment process and on the other side local participation in assessment would involve traditional knowledge as well. Conclusion In totality, the development assessment reforms suggested by Planning and Development Review for Southern Australia needs to be further strengthened and streamlined. The review has taken into account the socio economic aspects of impact assessment quite well. The heritage and ecology protection also has been given emphasis. The factor which needs urgent attention in the assessment reform is that the liberalization in the development assessment. This involves the danger of environmental exploitation. Thus such loopholes must be strictly monitored. However, other alternative policies must be initiated to speedup the process of development. Provisions must be included to automate and improvise the systems and process involved in development assessment. The manpower also must be increased and empowered. These measures would help to keep apace with the developmental needs while not compromising on the environmental concerns. Another important weakness of the review is that it in its preparation community participation was not involved. Extended consultations with community representatives and wider sample populations of the community would make the implementation more viable. Moreover it would evoke the interest of the local population as well. The integration of traditional knowledge in the assessment and management also has to be taken care of. These measures would make the development assessment reform for Southern Australia as suggested by Planning and Development Review Report stronger in terms of implementation and further policy preparation. References Andrews, R N L, 2001, ‘EIA & Risk Assessment; Learning from each other’, in Environment Impact Assessment: Theory & Practice, Wathern, Peter , Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd, New York; p.93-97 Bill H, Mary M & Geoff B 2005 ‘Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches’, Sustainable. Development. Vol. 13, pp. 38–52 GSA 2009), The Planning Review, The Government of South Australia, viewed 21 October 23, 2009. Johannes, R E, 1993 ‘Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and management with Environment Impact Assessment’, in Traditional ecological knowledge; Concepts & Cases, Julian T Inglis, International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Ontario p.33-39 Lloyd and Bruce 1993, ‘Aboriginal People & Resource Co-Management’, in Traditional ecological knowledge; Concepts & Cases, Julian T Inglis, International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Ontario p.121-133 Peter M & Riki T, 2001, ‘Methods of Environment Impact Assessment Ed 2’ , Spon Press, London Wathern, Peter 2001, ‘An Introductory guide to Environment Impact Assessment’ , in Environment Impact Assessment: Theory & Practice, Wathern, Peter , Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd, New York; 6 Wood, C, 2001 ‘EIA in Plan Making’, in Environment Impact Assessment: Theory & Practice , iWathern, Peter , Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd, New York, p. 98-116) Read More