South Australian Major Projects System - Essay Example

South Australian Major Projects System Name Unit Course Supervisor Date of submission Introduction Territory governments in Australia have been involved in varying measures to facilitate the development of infrastructure by putting regulatory framework in place to improve efficiency in environmental, social and economic outcomes (Lee 2014, p.3). Since 1993, South Australia has had a robust framework that is applied in the development assessment of major projects. The Development Act of 1993 Section 49 envisages South Australian System of major projects that provides assessment pathway through which major projects and public infrastructure are assessed in South Australia (Lee 2014, p.3). The following paper critically analyses the South Australian (SA) major projects systems. The essay critically describes the SA system of major projects in relation to the formal procedures and legal status and further examines its strengths and weaknesses. The critical analysis will be carried out in relation to internally accepted Environmental Impact Assessment standards such as US EPA. South Australian system of major projects The South Australian major projects system is the legal and formal process that is used to predict the environmental consequences of major projects prior to implementation (Macintosh 2013, pp 543). South Australian major projects system plays a key role in proposing the measures that can be applied to for projects to fit the levels acceptable. The main goal of the South Australian major projects assessment is to ensure that the environmental impact of a project is considered, its implication and the possible mitigation measures that can be taken to avoid environmental hazards (Lee 2014, p. 11). The system is part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA), thus it not drawn on the basis of adherence but require accountancy of environmental values in the process of the decision-making process. The Development Act of 1993 legislates on the processing of major developments in South Australia and provides for legal controls in the implementation of major projects. Under section 46 (b) of the Act, there are provisions that give the minister of planning the mandate to declare a project to be a major development (Lee 2014, p. 9). Despite this mandate guaranteed by section 46, there are no set criteria to use to guide the process of deeming a project to be of ‘Major’ environmental, social or economic importance. Issues that affect SA system The SA system of major projects, as envisaged in Development act 1993, stipulates that processes that have been determined by the Minister cannot be appealed against (Lee 2014, p. 16). This legal provision has been the center of criticism and brings issues that relate to major projects status that are not challenged in South Australia. Kelly, Jackson and Williams (2012, p. 77) noted that major projects system could thus be misused in the classification of the projects. This normally arises in the screening criteria, description of the project, process of scoping and the mitigation of aspects. Environmental impact assessment involves formal processes that are applied to predict the environmental consequences of a project before the actual implementation of the proposed project (Geraghty, Brown & Horton 2006, p. 4). An EIA is a formal process that is governed by administrative procedure that regard to public participation and documentation of a decision-making process. An EIA that makes international sense should propose acceptable levels that investigate the consequences of a project. According to IAIA, environmental impact assessment entails the process of identification, prediction, evaluation and provision of mitigation alternatives for the proposed project (Geraghty, Brown & Horton 2006, p. 5). EIAs perform best when they are based on the legal requirement for its application. For an EIA to be effective and successful it should be integrated in the planning process and included in the screening procedures, scoping, review and public participation should also be part o the process (Kelly, Jackson & Williams 2012, p. 79). Despite the requirements, Geraghty, Brown and Horton (2006, p. 7) noted that it is difficult to have overall judgment about any EIA system due to legal differences. For instance, the framework for US EPA is different from the South Australian system of major projects due to the legal affiliation, the criteria for application and the practice that is applied to the different EIA systems. To meet the international standards, the focus of the criteria is based on the requirements of procedural effectiveness, efficiency and considerations of equity (Barry & Brown 2001, p. 2). Therefore, in assessing the substantive dimensions, the SA system of major projects presents issues in relation to its procedural application. This results in relation to projects that have been processed through SA system and yet cannot be construed to be major projects while the relatively major projects have not applied the process. Issues arise in the criteria for classifying major projects because a project to be major it has to be of major social, environmental and economic importance. This makes the criteria to be very subjective and vague. Relatively minor projects such as the Le Cornu Site, Hackney hotel, and Highway Inn were classified as major projects while Penola pulp mill, which is a major project, failed to be classed in the major projects. Screening of actions plays a critical role in the EIA system. A weak screening process will result in disparities in classification of projects on the basis of minor or major (Wood 2002, p.6). In practice, the SA system of major projects is weak because environmental agencies are not given the mandate to determine the scope of a project. The minister of planning has the sole legal impetus to determine the magnitude of a project and acts as the final decision maker, a decision that cannot be appealed (Lee 2014, p.14). In addition, the SA system for major projects is based on the size of the project rather than the sensitivity of the site (Lee 2014, p.14). The legal basis, as stipulated in Development Act of 1993, is that the Minister has the discretion to determine the project to be included as a major project; this reduces the SA system of major projects to be more entrenched. Development Act of 1993 section 46 gives the minister for planning the responsibility to declare a proposed developmental project as a major project. The declaration is based on the opinion of the planning minister that the development project is necessary to appropriate assessment and the project has great impact on the social, economic and environmental significance (Lee 2014, p. 12). The legal framework that bestows the powers on the Minister serves as the main issue as there are no specific criteria that are provided in the act to provide guidelines for the Minister in making the opinion. However, section 46 (a) and (b) of the Act provide for guidance on what could be deemed a major project (Lee 2014, p.19). The implications for the guidelines are that a project may not be a major development, but its impact on the environment may warrant it to be classified as a major project. Despite the guidelines that provide flexibility for ensuring that that the minister is guided in classification of projects, Kelly, Jackson and Williams (2012, p.81) noted that the guidelines are open to mixed interpretation. For example, SA system of major projects lacks clear criteria, which lead to community being uncertain on its proponents, and it is open to perception of not having transparency in the declaration of projects and the subsequent assessment process. In addition, the legal framework of SA does not provide the requirement that provides an explanation for a decision to pronounce a project as a major development. As a result, some development agents have misused SA system of major projects as a means to fast-track development. This is because ‘major’ projects gain approval faster compared to ‘standard’ development projects. Scoping of impact is an essential undertaking in internationally recognized EIA systems such as US EPA. Scoping should include extensive public consultation and inclusion of assistance from the environmental agencies (Geraghty, Brown &Horton 2006, p. 9). For instance, major projects have significant effects on the locals. Despite significant impact, the SA system allows limited involvement of the local government. The local government is only given the chance to provide comments during the consultation of the public and there is no preference for the minister on the decisions made by the local government (Macintosh 2013, p. 543). Strengths Amidst the weaknesses and criticisms that surround the SA system for major projects, the assessment procedures and declaration of project status are appropriate for grant major projects and are in line with other international environmental systems (Lee 2014, p. 15). The argument of fast tracking, as voiced out by various concern groups, does not absolutely lead to fast tracking proposals for major projects. The reason behind the argument is that there are complex assessment processes that have to adhere to major projects. For instance, once a project is deemed a major project, it is subjected to levels in which it has to go through for assessment. Development Assessment Commission normally determines the assessment levels. Under the SA system, a project that is deemed to be a major development and impacting significantly on environmental, social and economic significance is subjected to three basic assessment levels of an environment's impact assessment (EIS), public environmental report ad development report. The processes that are applied in each of the three levels are outlined in sections 46B, 46C and 46D of the Development Act (Lee 2014, p.7). The highest level of assessment is the environmental impact assessment (EIS). As noted, the determination of the assessment levels is normally by Development Assessment Commission. Key strength to the SA system is that it is carried out by people with high level of expertise, entails public consultation and incorporates agency consultation; hence aligning to international constituencies of internationally recognized EIA (Lee 2014, p. 11). The formal implementation of major development process, as outlined in SA system, is normally undertaken in five stages. In first stage, the minister for planning delegates the assessment responsibility to the Development Assessment Commission. The initial stage is a vital stage for the SA system. Even though the process has been criticized for being expensive and lengthy, it ensures that necessary state agencies are consulted and allows for the determination of further assessment if need be. This makes the SA system to be comprehensive. The second stage entails proponents of the project preparing and releasing assessment document. The third stage involves responding to comments from the public on the assessment document. The public and concerned agencies are given appropriate time to examine and provide their views after which the proponent is given time to respond to the issues raises the public. In the fourth stage, the Minister assesses the whole proposal and provides an assessment report. The decision which minister makes is final and cannot be appealed. The fifth stage is based on section 48 of the Act in which the Governor gives the final decision on the development upon advice by the minister for planning, section 48 of the Act also does not allow appeal against the decision thus the decision arrived at this stage is final (Lee 2014, pp. 16-18). Conclusion An EIA with internationally accepted sense must ensure environmental considerations are addressed and incorporated into the decision-making process of projects. The EIA should be designed to mitigate and or offset the negative significant biophysical, social and other effects that that are related to the development proposal (Spooner 1998, p. 2). The operating principles of internationally accepted EIA are based on a balanced approach that ensures that impact assessment fulfills its purpose. Therefore, an EIA has a clear description of how basic principles should be applied in the different stages of identification of projects, screening, scoping and the process of mitigating risks. The EIA should be rigorous, practical, participative, credible, interdisciplinary, transparent and systematic (Barry & Brown 2001, p. 3). Based on the EIA standards, it is arguable that weaknesses of the SA system for major projects limit it from achieving the full mandate of international standards. This is normally due to a legal framework that regards the minister’s decision as final thus reducing its credibility. However, the process is principally practical and systematic. The SA system for major projects provides basis for screening, scoping, and identification of mitigation processes that are analyzed before a project is implemented. Despite of producing the complete analyses process that measure to the international standards o EIAs, the SA system of major project is legally restrictive hence limiting the participative component while the lack of clear criteria applied by minister in classification makes the system less transparent. References Barry, S. and Brown, K. 2001.Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice. London: Institute of Environmental Assessment, pp.1-4. Geraghty, P., Brown, A. and Horton, F. 2006. The Use of Guidance Materials for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments. International Association for Impact Assessment. 16th Annual General Meeting Paper. Portugal, pp. 2-11. Kelly, A.H., Williamms, P. and Jackson, T. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: New South Wales, Australia, from Scottish practice Lessons. Impact Assessment; Project Appraisal, 30 (2), pp. 75–84. Lee, N. 2014. Development pathways and processes: Major Projects and Infrastructure Assessment Mechanisms. Queensland Department; State Development, Infrastructure, and Planning, pp.4-28. Macintosh, A., 2013. Strategic environmental assessment: A solution to the problems associated with project-based environmental impact assessment. South Australian Environment Review, 28(4), pp. 541–546. Spooner, B. 1998. Review of the quality of EIA guidelines, their use and circumnavigation. London: International Institute for Environment And Development, pp. 1-7. Wood, C. 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment: a Comparative Review, Harlow: Prentice Hall, pp. 2-19. Read More