Australia, an academic perspective Associate Professor Garry Middle, Head Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University, Western Australia.

Australia, an academic perspective

Associate Professor Garry Middle, Head Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University, Western Australia

Environmental Assessment in Federations: Current Dynamics and Emerging Issues

Two key areas covered

• An overview of the federal EA process;

• A discussion of the emerging trends and issues in EA in Australia. – The EA process in WA is given greater

emphasis.

1. An overview of the federal EA process

EA jurisdiction

• Environmental protection traditionally States issue;

• 1970s saw greater involvement of Commonwealth – international treaties

• EA mainly at State level until 1999 Commonwealth EPBC Act

• State EA– different processes emerged– Different thresholds for significance

EA variety at State level

• Queensland EA under 3 different pieces of legislation – different Minister and Agencies

• In Victoria, EAs under on Act but not an approval process – advisory to relevant DMA,

• The Minister for Planning and Department has the key role in EA

EA variety at State level

• Western Australia– all EAs are carried out under the

Environmental Protection Act 1986, – assessments being carried out by the EPA (a

independent statutory authority)– the Minister for the Environment the final

decision maker– Separate appeals process

State v Commonwealth

• State– Comprehensive– Project and strategic (limited)– State level perspective primarily

• Commonwealth– Matters of national significance only

(horizontal cut)– Actions not proposals – late in process– Provisions for SEA but limited application in

practice

2. Emerging trends and issues in EA in Australia

Methodology

• Survey (email) of 96 Australian members of IAIA;

• 16 responses received (16.7% response rate).

• Four key issues emerged.

• Supplemented these with two of my own.

A. Need for strategic assessments

• EA in Australia is dominated by project EIA;– Unlikely to change– Resource proposals seen as way to address GFC– Government spending on infrastructure

• EPBC Act allows for SEA, but limited to-date;– Really project EA – small scale SEA

• Some States have integrated SEA– Integrated EA with planning approval

• WA long history of SEA– Informal SEA since mid 1990s– Tiered assessments– Limited formal SEA

B. Timeliness and cost pressures

• Growing pressure on the EA process to deliver outcomes more quickly and to reduce the cost to proponents

• Pressure also in integrate EA into other approvals (planning and mining)

• Pressure on indigenous approvals processes

• Perception or reality– Need better research on this

– Also, the hidden costs of more timely approvals

Some initial work in WA EA

• EA since 2000 in WA • Two types of EAs

– Full EAs, all the key steps carried out sequentially• Phase 1 – proponent to produce its EIS;• Phase 2 – pubic submission period;• Phase 3 - the proponent to respond to public

submissions;• Phase 4 – EPA assessment;• Phase 5 – appeals on the EPA’s assessment; and• Phase 6 –Condition setting

– Quick EAs – process shortened by combining the early phases – 1-4

Results

• Assessments covered– Quick EAs – 45; and– Full EAs – 43

• The average time for each EA type are as follows:– Quick EAs – 410 days; and– Full EAs – 890 days.

Time taken to complete EAs

Times by phases - <1000 days

All full EAs

C. Increased No of Commonwealth EAs,

• Growing concern about the increasing involvement of the Commonwealth in EAs;– Late in process and species focused– Is changing to ecosystem

• Focus on highly urbanised areas where most of the land is ‘up’ zoned;

• Move to SEA noted but still limited– Need to have planning expertise and thinking

D. Independence of EA challenged

• Related to pressure to deliver more timely and cost effective EAs;

• Primacy of EA challenged– Governments giving support to proposals

prior to EA– Politicisation of EA decision making

(perception?)

E. Better integration of EA into landuse planning

• Recognition of strategic role of land use planning in government decision making;

• Problem of skills bases within EA agencies– Need to understand land use planning not just

environmental management

F. Increasing uncertainty in predicting impacts

• Remoteness of where resources are;

• Lack of data;

• Uncertainty and reliance of risk assessments;

• Precautionary principle seen as endorsing adaptive management; and

• Reliance on modeling.

WA as case study

Challenges

• Confronting the risk assessment argument in high risk cases;

• Craft adaptable conditions to allows changes in light of new information;– Not usually adaptable

• Problem of cumulative impacts in absence of data– Need for monitoring– Absence of central data processing agency– Prediction of cumulative impacts more difficult– Prevents on-going learning

Some additional observations

• Is the “A” in EA assessment or approvals?• Are we expecting too much of EA?• Issue of track record of proponent.• Agency inertia in face of pressure to change?• EA often drive policy as data gaps emerge

and environmental protection shortfalls emerge.

• Cross State EA bargaining for infrastructure?• How do you provide certainty when

community values change

Thank you for opportunity