The South Australian Projects - Report Example

EIA: SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MAJOR PROJECTS SYSTEMS By Student’s Name Code + Course Name Professor’s Name University Cite, State Date Introduction On an international platform, the environmental impact assessment has continued to be used as a planning or a management methodology as a formidable way of minimizing harmful consequences of projects developments. It is important to realize that the EIA is mainly focused on the course of prevention thus it is depicted as a precautionary principle that makes sure environmental protection and its immediate management is the fundamental objective of EIA (Ahammed and Bronte, 2006). Since inception, the role and objective of EIA has been expanded tremendously. However, its application is deemed to vary from one area to another. Notably, the aspects of both auditing and monitoring are considered to be one of the fundamental roles of EIA. In Australia, the intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment is a body formed for purposes of ensuring that EIA’s roles and objectives are recognized and acknowledged in regards to aspects related to post-development environmental monitoring and management for that matter. It is under this notion that the EIA is established to be one of the crucial and necessary tools for environmental oversight in the country. In South Australia, environmental impact assessment was initiated under the provisions set out in Planning Act 1982 that was later replaced by the newly formed Development Act 1993 (Ahammed and Bronte, 2006). Therefore, the focus of this paper is on examining the manner for which EIA processes was integrated within most of the South Australian major development projects in relation to international environmental standards. EIA Effectiveness It is important to note that the processes involved in monitoring and auditing are considered to be one of the most fundamental aspects that make EIA an effective management methodology. They are activities that should be conducted on a timely basis for purposes of assessing an EIA’s effectiveness levels in the course of attaining distinctive environmental protection. On a global perspective, the effectiveness and efficiency of EIA is measured in regards to the manner for which attainment of objectives of protection and management is offset (Wright & Smith, 1992). To be effective in its role and scope EIA has to attain set objectives for fairer environmental management of given project at hand. In fact, it has the capacity to be truly effective on a nationwide scale by way of contributing sufficient information to the development of future projects. Australia is, by far, highly positioned within EIA jurisdiction that conforms to Wood’s evaluation model of monitoring. For instance, unlike in EIA systems implemented Canada, the requirements of environmental monitoring and auditing in the larger part of Australia is considered to be discretionary in nature (Wright & Smith, 1992). In specific areas of Australia like South Australia, project development are expected to execute impact monitoring under a planning agreed upon stipulations or the underlying legal environmental permit system. In this regards, it is established that the Australian model is kind of similar to that practiced in the United Kingdom at large (Arts, Caldwell & Morrison-Saunders, 2001). The Commonwealth of Australia sets out that the EIA reports should involve a provision on the supervision arrangements in order to ensure that the notion of mitigation is indeed effective for that matter. Provisions for monitoring never existed in South Australian EIA legislation framework (Wright & Smith, 1992). In fact, under the South Australian Development Act of 1993, provisions for monitoring were non-existent in nature. Significantly, Se 48C of the Development Act 1993 ascertains that the minister might go ahead to demand from a person who is undertaking developmental projects to execute specific tests and also, monitor relevant audit specifications thereafter (Wright & Smith, 1992). It is established that the aforementioned provision within the act avails to the EIA section of the South Australian Planning Authority with the chance to assemble monitoring activities in case they are neglected by other parties of the process (Wright & Smith, 1992). It is important to realize that the process of monitoring is conducted in South Australia under the legal environmental permit system. In consequence, the process of monitoring has been significantly improved within this state given that approval of major projects is always published within the Government Gazette in the period starting 1997(Wright & Smith, 1992). Environmental Impact Assessment and Monitoring Practice in South Australia In a study conducted to ascertain the happenings in practice in South Australia in relation to the immediate environmental impact of monitoring generated distinctive results. For instance, out of a sample of sixteen major project systems in the state, only four projects were established to have adhered to the EIA monitoring processes (Wood, 1994). Most notably, the majority of the sampled projects that were studied indicated that the process of monitoring took a centre stage in regards to EIA documentation. This was relatively different in comparison to the international standards like within the United Kingdom where EIA tended to understate the monitoring activities of major projects. The environmental impact monitoring and assessment of specific project was found as having not corresponded with proposals within the environmental impact statement, or within the recommendations set out in the government’s assessment reports (Wood, 1994). 12 of the 16 sample projects in South Australia postulated adherence to EIM programme, which are conducted at the immediate discretion of the proponents regardless of them being determined from a governmental agency or a private-run company (Conacher & Conacher, 2000). Retrospectively, none of the sample projects studied indicated a correspondence with the requirements set out in the course of monitoring aspects in relation to either the EIS or recommendations set out within the assessment reports. Some of the well known major projects that were studied within South Australia include; Porter Bay, Lincoln Cove and Woolpunda (Thomson, Treweek & Thurling, 1997). In regards to environmental impact monitoring responsibilities, enough information ascertains that effectiveness is attained whenever prevention of an environmental impact monitoring and assessment programme resource drain allows responsibilities for EIA adherence early on development process. It is also fair that a perfect rapport is attained between the agencies tasked with the enforcement of monitoring and the parties that are deemed accountable for executing monitoring processes (Thomson, Treweek & Thurling, 1997). In South Australian environmental impact assessment systems, the monitoring process is executed by a cooperative integration of the developer and relevant environmental agencies. However, nowadays the responsibility is increasingly inclined towards proponents. In fact, in SA proponents are considered to be the fundamental party tasked with the responsibility of monitoring. The lack of monitoring in most of the projects executed in South Australia is barely generated from the fact that there seems to be a disparity in ascertaining the party responsible for enforcements from one that is responsible with actual monitoring processes. The state of South Australia has also enhanced the activities of environmental impact assessment on major projects within its location by way of allowing for public involvement in the environmental impact monitoring processes. It is believed that the role played by environmental impact monitoring can be fairly expounded by way of involving public notions and recommendations. Public involvement should be allowed in the course of the entire assessment process that follows a screening to EIA follow-up channel. Following this line of reasoning, the public has a distinctive right to be involved in the assessment of major projects in regards to the environmental impacts. For instance, in South Australia, the process of public involvement on matters related to environmental impact assessment and monitoring is enhanced by way of introducing approval conditions that include monitoring conditions that are published within the Government Gazette. The main objective of this involvement is meant to facilitate accessible approval conditions that are more accountable on a public domain. One of the major projects in South Australia that allowed intensive public involvement can be portrayed on Thompson’s Beach project where extensive public monitoring of native vegetation was conducted. In Woolpunda project, public involvement was showcased when monitoring of ground water was carried out by the Botany Club despite it not being recommended within the Assessment Report. In South Australia, just in like other sections of the globe like Canada and the United Kingdom, the aspect of regular reporting is ascertained as being a crucial phenomenon relating to environmental impact assessment and monitoring processes. It allows for an easier and accountable environmental monitoring that is wary of the immediate detrimental alterations that are occurring as a result of executing the project hence, a possible platform for mitigation. Environmental impact assessment is expected, at all times, to formulate and present the approximate duration of the monitoring process however; the programme should also be flexible to allow for enough incorporation of any given level of changes that are deemed necessary to ascertain set objectives. Impact assessment is expected to take place over a significant period of time that is inclusive of the construction, operation and the decommissioning phases of the major projects at hand for purposes of identifying the trends. South Australia’s environmental impact assessment report is considered to either include the Supplement or Response Report as its official domain for public scrutiny. In this regards, the public domain is allowed an opportunity to comment on the publicly portrayed draft within an environmental impact statement. In the course of evaluating contents of all environmental impact assessment documents in relation to major projects and developments within South Australia, an analysis of the EIA requirements related to Planning Act 1982 was studied. It was found out that in a sample of 16 projects; only one required an amendment of its environmental impact system under the new framework policies. A more recent case example of South Australia failure to commit to its environmental impact assessment requirements might be portrayed by the Adelaide Desalination Plant. In this case, the executive team of South Australia embarked on television adverts to advertise to all South Australians that the project would be carbon neutral (Pfenning,1998). In both the EIS and EIS Response documents, the overall government commitment was also assured. This is by far the largest infrastructural project in the region so far. Notwithstanding, the greenhouse emissions that was associated with the materials, components and fossil fuels utilized in the course of developing the project would have been substantial. None of the aforementioned construction emissions have been quantified on a public platform on the contrary, no efforts has been affected to allow for attainment of neutrality for the construction emissions in accordance with the stipulations set aside for carbon neutral guidelines(Pfenning,1998). To make matters worse, it was later established that the carbon neutral commitment made by the state was in fact a publicity stunt. The planning system facilitated the abandonment of the commitment by way of not having the development approvals made an obligation to key promises to South Australians (Pfenning, 1998). In conclusion, it can be seen from the discussion above that most of South Australian projects sampled did not conform to most of the recommendations set out in environmental impact assessment and EIS Response report. There is significant number of findings that ascertains that there is a lack of appropriate timeframes for activities related to monitoring, and also the failure to assign responsibilities earlier on within the EIA processes as well as a lack of regular reporting model. This means that the environmental impact assessment within the region has been compromised. Despite the fact that public participation and involvement is significantly emphasized the adoption of comments into the EIS Response report is non-committal in nature. Most of the sample projects studied indicated that South Australia, despite having been conformed to commit to environmental protection standards that meet international practices, did not put much effort needed to execute the responsibilities. References List Ahammed, R and Bronte, M, N.2006. Environmental impact monitoring in the EIA process of South Australia, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, pp. 426-447. Arts J, Caldwell P & Morrison-Saunders A. 2001 Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions—findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal, 19, 4, pp.1-17 Conacher, A & Conacher J, 2000. Environmental planning and management in Australia. Victoria, Australia, 7 Oxford University Press. Pfenning P, 1998. Personal communication, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide, South Australia. Thomson S, Treweek J, R&Thurling, D, J. 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning Management, 40, 2, pp.15. Wood CM.1994. Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australian discretion rules EA. Journal of Environmental Management, 1, pp.37–59. Wright CJ & Smith PS. 1992. Environmental impact assessment effectiveness in the global environment: Australian implications. National conference on environmental engineering, Gold Coast, Queensland 17–19 June 1992, Australia7 Institute of Engineers Read More

The Commonwealth of Australia sets out that the EIA reports should involve a provision on the supervision arrangements in order to ensure that the notion of mitigation is indeed effective for that matter. Provisions for monitoring never existed in South Australian EIA legislation framework (Wright & Smith, 1992). In fact, under the South Australian Development Act of 1993, provisions for monitoring were non-existent in nature. Significantly, Se 48C of the Development Act 1993 ascertains that the minister might go ahead to demand from a person who is undertaking developmental projects to execute specific tests and also, monitor relevant audit specifications thereafter (Wright & Smith, 1992).

It is established that the aforementioned provision within the act avails to the EIA section of the South Australian Planning Authority with the chance to assemble monitoring activities in case they are neglected by other parties of the process (Wright & Smith, 1992). It is important to realize that the process of monitoring is conducted in South Australia under the legal environmental permit system. In consequence, the process of monitoring has been significantly improved within this state given that approval of major projects is always published within the Government Gazette in the period starting 1997(Wright & Smith, 1992).

Environmental Impact Assessment and Monitoring Practice in South Australia In a study conducted to ascertain the happenings in practice in South Australia in relation to the immediate environmental impact of monitoring generated distinctive results. For instance, out of a sample of sixteen major project systems in the state, only four projects were established to have adhered to the EIA monitoring processes (Wood, 1994). Most notably, the majority of the sampled projects that were studied indicated that the process of monitoring took a centre stage in regards to EIA documentation.

This was relatively different in comparison to the international standards like within the United Kingdom where EIA tended to understate the monitoring activities of major projects. The environmental impact monitoring and assessment of specific project was found as having not corresponded with proposals within the environmental impact statement, or within the recommendations set out in the government’s assessment reports (Wood, 1994). 12 of the 16 sample projects in South Australia postulated adherence to EIM programme, which are conducted at the immediate discretion of the proponents regardless of them being determined from a governmental agency or a private-run company (Conacher & Conacher, 2000).

Retrospectively, none of the sample projects studied indicated a correspondence with the requirements set out in the course of monitoring aspects in relation to either the EIS or recommendations set out within the assessment reports. Some of the well known major projects that were studied within South Australia include; Porter Bay, Lincoln Cove and Woolpunda (Thomson, Treweek & Thurling, 1997). In regards to environmental impact monitoring responsibilities, enough information ascertains that effectiveness is attained whenever prevention of an environmental impact monitoring and assessment programme resource drain allows responsibilities for EIA adherence early on development process.

It is also fair that a perfect rapport is attained between the agencies tasked with the enforcement of monitoring and the parties that are deemed accountable for executing monitoring processes (Thomson, Treweek & Thurling, 1997). In South Australian environmental impact assessment systems, the monitoring process is executed by a cooperative integration of the developer and relevant environmental agencies. However, nowadays the responsibility is increasingly inclined towards proponents. In fact, in SA proponents are considered to be the fundamental party tasked with the responsibility of monitoring.

The lack of monitoring in most of the projects executed in South Australia is barely generated from the fact that there seems to be a disparity in ascertaining the party responsible for enforcements from one that is responsible with actual monitoring processes.

Read More