Book: Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia 6th Edition By Mandy Elliott (19 Feb 2014)

Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia

6th Edition

By Mandy Elliott

Federation Press – 2014 – 352 pages

Description:

The sixth edition of Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia: Theory and Practice has been revised in the context of reviewing EIA practice around Australia and updates a number of case studies throughout the text to complement the theory. The case studies demonstrate key points within the text and should not be viewed as the only way of doing EIA (or a component of EIA).

Thomas's experience in the historical context and evolution of environmental impact assessment and the research in this area of EIA provided in previous editions remains in many parts, although updated where relevant. The sixth edition focus continues to provide commentary on the evolving theory and practice regarding impact assessment, specifically strategic environmental assessment, cumulative impact assessment, health impact assessment, sustainability assessment, the role of EIA in developing countries and the issues surrounding post EIA monitoring.

Elliott's experience working in EIA for the State Government of Victoria for ten years and most recently as a consultant assisting proponents with EIA, has provided insight into how EIA is undertaken in practice. Reflected throughout this edition is this practical application - how good assessments can lead to better decisions as well as how politics plays an integral role in EIA. Early and effective stakeholder consultation is also highlighted as an important mechanism to delivering a successful EIA process.

Once again, the Commonwealth, State and Territories EIA procedures, have been revised, as many of these jurisdictions have had their procedures reviewed over the past 4-5 years, including amendments to their EIA legislation, or to existing EIA Guidelines/administrative procedures. Notwithstanding these changes, the way in which EIA is undertaken still remains. That is, screening, scoping, EIS production, public review and Assessment.

Review:

Reviews of previous editions:

One of the book's strengths is its comprehensive overview and comparison of Australian environmental impact assessment regimes. Further, much of the theory and development of practice of environmental impact assessment used in the book is drawn from international and interstate jurisdictions. The most interesting and substantial updates to the book relate to the long-awaited adoption of strategic environmental assessment into many Australian jurisdictions and the possibilities for the practice and theory of environmental impact assessment to be used in novel ways, particularly in the international realm… legal practitioners and students will find this edition more relevant and more useful than earlier versions.

–Law Institute Journal of Victoria, August 2009

Except for a necessary update to ever-evolving administrative arrangements, this book remains a key text on the topic in Australia. It has the hallmarks of a guide, a handbook, a textbook and a manual. The price makes it accessible to a broad readership from undergraduate students to commencing practitioners in consulting firms, industry or government. In a material and mechanical way the authors achieve what they set out to do; "illustrate the practice and provide a resource for anyone seeking detail on EIA".

–Geographical Review, Vol 45 No 1, March 2007

This text can be considered well researched, informative and well-written. The strong point of this book lies in the delicate balance between theory and practice. Ultimately, EIA ought to be well received and useful to a broad audience.

–Eingana, Vol 28 No 2, August 2005Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia: Theory and Practice is a valuable reference book. It is comprehensive and logical in its handling of the subject matter, and is a very useful handbook for both new and experienced practitioners. The book should have wide appeal to environmental professionals wanting guidance in undertaking EIA in Australia as well as legal practitioners and professionsals engaged in environmentally-related discliplines.

–Australian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 12/2, June 2005

Content:

1. The Background of EIA 2. EIA: Context and Content 3. The Many Faces of Impact Assessment 4. The Public Face of EIA 5. EIA Worldwide 6. EIA Procedures in Australia 7. Contents of the EIS 8. Determining Impacts for the EIS 9. Stepping Through EIA 10. The Future of EIA

source from:

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781862879454/

Read More

China News: Public participation still lacking from China's environmental laws (22 Nov 2013)

Public participation still lacking from China's environmental laws

William J. Schulte

12.11.2013

The history of US environmental legislation may offer useful lessons for China’s evolving environmental laws

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to revoke permits when petitioning citizens demonstrate that they were issued in violation of the law (Image bySteve Rhodes)

 

Mass environmental protests in China have increased at a rate of around 29% per year since 1996, and by a staggering 120% in 2012. A common complaint is that the legal requirements for transparency and public 

participation in environmental decision-making are often ignored. It has been 10 years since the adoption of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law, and seven years since the Ministry of Environmental Protection issued its implementing regulations, but many in China still feel the process is opaque.

The history of how public participation developed in the US may offer some insights for China. Some of the first experiments with it occurred during President Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1920s and serve as a cautionary tale for allowing participation without clear rules or procedures.

The US began to address some of these issues with the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, which set the foundations for future participation in environmental decision-making. By the 1960s US citizens were beginning to question the wisdom of blindly pursuing rapid development without first considering the potential environmental and public health consequences (much like in China today). By 1969 the United States had adopted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was closely followed by groundbreaking laws such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The public participation requirements of China’s EIA Law, enacted in 2003, have many similarities with these laws. Both laws, as well as the CAA and CWA, require public notice of environmental reviews, disclosure of environmental review documents, public comment periods, the potential for hearings or meetings to garner public opinion, and substantive responses to comments received, including an explanation of why comments were or were not incorporated into the final review document.

Nevertheless, significant differences remain. NEPA requires the government agency to begin soliciting public opinion on a project at a much earlier stage than required by the EIA Law. This allows significant issues to be brought to light early on in the process and prevent later disputes. Moreover, the public comment period required by the EIA Law is a mere 10 days; NEPA requires a minimum of 45 days to comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement.  

With respect to document disclosure, the EIA Law and implementing regulations are vague at best - many environmental advocates continue to experience an uphill battle in obtaining the documents they need to meaningfully review the proposals under consideration. NEPA, on the other hand, specifically mandates the notice of public availability of environmental review documents, including any supporting documents used in the review process.  

However, one of the most important differences between these laws is in obtaining a remedy in instances where the responsible entity fails to abide by the requirements for public participation. The EIA Regulations do allow citizens to petition the environmental agency charged with approving the final EIA if they feel that their concerns have not been addressed, but it is unclear what, if anything, the agency is required to do at that point. 

In contrast, the CAA clearly requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke permits when petitioning citizens demonstrate that they were issued in violation of the law. For example, in a case I was involved in back in 2009, we discovered that a state agency had issued an air permit to a waste incinerator in Newark, in the state of New Jersey, without following any of the participation requirements. This incinerator was known for its out-of-date pollutant emissions controls, and the community wanted to advocate for technology that would protect their neighbourhood. We petitioned the EPA, which required the state agency to re-issue the permit to allow for public participation. The community was then able, through both written comments and public hearings, to convince the state agency to reach a deal with the facility to install technology for the control of fine particulate matter emissions.

Improving the EIA Process   

While the situation may seem grim for Chinese citizens shut out of the public participation process, there are several reasons to hope for improvement. First, the MEP has been taking aggressive measures to discourage EIA consultants from falsifying public participation reports, even going so far as to withdraw their licenses. Nevertheless, some question whether such measures will be sufficient to address the systemic shortcomings of China’s EIA process.  Second, in May it was reported that amendments to the Administrative Litigation Law that may allow NGOs to file lawsuits against environmental agencies for failure to properly implement the EIA law will be presented to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress this month for review. If adopted, the amendments will presumably enable environmental NGOs to seek relief from the courts when the public’s right to participate is violated.        

Finally, many key figures in the environmental movement in China are continuing to push for more equitable and inclusive environmental decision-making. For example, on August 23 over 20 prominent environmental lawyers, scholars and advocates gathered in Beijing for a symposium to discuss and address these issues. The participants all agreed that China’s EIA process is severely flawed and must be fixed – otherwise, China will continue to see a rapid rise in environmental protests around the country.

source from: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6482-Public-participation-still-lacking-from-China-s-environmental-laws

Read More