John Bailey

Since the 1960s, biodiversity conservation has grown in importance, resulting in the development of a host of relevant policies. Biodiversity conservation policy-making has concentrated on the development and implementation of policy, with limited efforts focused on the evaluation phase, the end result being a gap in the policy cycle at a critical stage. In response to this existing gap, an evaluative framework has been developed based on the principles of policy environmental assessment. The framework was designed to address the complexities found in the conservation of biodiversity. Following framework development, the appropriateness and user-friendliness of the framework was tested via application to a number of natural resource management policies in Western Australia. The application process, which included analysis of the selected policies via use of the framework and face-to-face follow-up interviews with key policy-makers, was completed by a group of purposively selected policy workers from government organizations, non-government organizations and academic institutions.

The process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) brings together a broad raft of professional practitioners including environmental policy-makers, administrators, decision-makers, government agencies, planners, engineers, scientists, social scientists, and business and project managers as well as the public. From the diversity of these practitioners it can be anticipated that people from different backgrounds will have different expectations of how the process should function in practice. This paper presents the results of a follow-up survey of EIA practitioners in Western Australia. The purpose of the research was to examine the role of science in EIA based upon the experiences and expectations of EIA practitioners. Thirty-one EIA practitioners were interviewed. These were drawn from the Environmental Protection Authority (the peak body responsible for EIA in Western Australia) and its supporting administrative agency the Department of environmental Protection, other government decisionmaking authorities, environmental consultants and project managers and environmental officers. Interviewees were also selected to represent different industry sectors (ie. planning, industrial and resource development projects) as well as urban and remote settings. Interviewees were asked about the role of science in impact prediction, monitoring activities, mitigation and management, and EIA decision-making. The results indicate that practitioners have different expectations of the role of science in EIA according to the type of project and its location (ie. urban or remote) and the stage of the EIA process. Most participants indicated that the role of science currently is greatest during the earlier pre-decision stages of EIA and provide the basis for these activities (ie. baseline monitoring, impact prediction and mitigation design). Science input in the post-decision stages of was generally perceived to be of poorer quality. Science was seen to be less important during decision-making and ongoing project management. It is kept in balance with other factors such as socio-political and economic considerations. Despite these differences, overall, good science was seen to be a hallmark for effective EIA and a greater role for science in EIA was advocated, particularly for follow-up activities.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up studies or audits can be conducted for a variety of reasons. Previously many audits have focused on scientific aspects of EIA, particularly the utility and accuracy of impact predictions (eg. Bisset 1984, Culhane et al. 1987, Buckley 1991, Bailey et al. 1992). More recent studies have emphasised other aspects of EIA performance including monitoring programmes and environmental outcomes (eg. Environmental Protection Department 1995, Au and Sanvicens 1996, Arts 1995, 1998). This paper presents the results of an audit of six projects that have undergone EIA in Western Australia that focuses on environmental management outcomes. The emphasis is on the actual impacts that occurred once the projects became operational and the environmental management actions (mitigation) undertaken to avoid or minimise impacts. To achieve this required some consideration of impact predictions as well as a detailed examination of environmental monitoring programmes for the case studies. Background information on the role of environmental management in EIA in Western Australia is presented in Bailey (1997) and a complete account of the environmental management audit study results discussed here can be found in Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999). In this audit, environmental management activities were examined with respect to three stages of EIA based on the principal approval decision point–predecision stage (activities identified prior to decision-making on a project such as preparation of environmental impact statements and public review), postdecision stage (eg. activities that originated when the project was constructed and implemented) and transitional stage (activities identified during the predecision stage but subject to further investigation and modification during the postdecision stage). This paper presents the results of the management audit study, including some practical examples and concludes with some future directions for EIA follow-up and reflections on the role of science in EIA.