Australia, an academic perspective

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 1. An overview of the federal EA process

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 2. Emerging trends and issues in EA in Australia

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Time taken to complete EAs

15. Times by phases - <1000 days

16. All full EAs

17. 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

18. 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?)

19. 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

20. 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.

21. WA as case study

23. 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

24. 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

25. Thank you for opportunity