Determining the value and influence of informal strategic advice for environmental impact assessment: Western Australian perspectives

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of s16(e) strategic advice (Environmental Protection Authority 2013c).

Specific projects
Kimberley LNG Precinct (2008)	Review of potential sites for a proposed multi-user liquefied natural gas processing precinct in the Kimberley region
Fremantle Ports Outer Harbour Project (2006)	Advice on the development of a new port facility and related transport infrastructure for container trade and general cargo in Cockburn Sound
Barrow Island Gas Processing Complex (2003)	Environmental advice on the principle of locating a gas processing complex on Barrow Island Nature Reserve
Strategic environmental advice on particular areas
Dawesville to Binningup Area (2010)	Strategic environmental advice on the Dawesville to Binningup area to identify areas of conservation significance and areas that may have potential for development and land use compatible with the environmental values of the area
Preston Industrial Park (2008)	Advice on areas of conservation significance in the Preston Industrial Park. A project by the Western Australian Planning Commission to develop a structure plan for 2950 hectares at Preston Industrial Park
Keralup formerly Amarillo Masterplan, Karnup (2008)	Advice on the project by the Department of Housing and Works (DHW) to develop a new town site at Amarillo. If developed, the 4000 hectares area would become a fully integrated urban community housing up to 90,000 people
Mount Manning Nature Reserve (2007)	Advice on areas of the highest conservation value in the proposed extensions to Mount Manning Nature Reserve
Environmental issues more generally
Waste to Energy technologies (2013)	Environmental and health performance of waste to energy technologies
Conservation of Roadside Vegetation (2008)	Review of regional road upgrade processes and potential impacts on biodiversity and ecological linkage values
Managed Aquifer Recharge (2005)	Strategic advice on managed aquifer recharge using treated wastewater on the Swan Coastal Plain.

Table 2. Interview questions on value of advice provided by the Environmental Protection Authority under section 16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Demographic data questions
1. How many years have you been working in the environmental assessment field in Western Australia:  < 5 years 5–10 years 10–15 years >15 years
2. What best describes your role:
Consultant	Industry proponent	OEPA staff (specify) Other Govt. agency	Other (specify)
3. Which types of projects are you mostly associated with:
Industry	Planning	Infrastructure	Resource management
4. Approximately how much of your working time do you spend directly on environmental assessment: < 5 years 25–50% 50–75% 75–100%
5. How many section 16(e) submissions/proposals have you been involved with?
Qualitative data questions (open questions)
6. Do you consider the s16(e) process to be valuable? If so what do you see as the best value and the main benefits that s16(e) advice offers?
7. Can you provide an example of how s16(e) advice influenced subsequent activities by others? (i.e. how it has been used in practice)
8. Are there specific components of the s16(e) process that have been ineffective or that could be improved? If so, how?
9. Do you have any other comments to make regarding informal processes for EIA in Western Australia?
10. Is there anyone else that you know who is working in this field that may be interested in sharing their experiences with s16(e) advice?

Table 3. Demographic characteristics of interview respondents (n = 29, 100%).

Respondents		Number of responses
1. Years of experience in environmental assessment	< 5	2 (7%)
	5–9	7 (24%)
	10–15	8 (28%)
	>15	12 (41%)
2. Role in environmental assessment field	OEPA staff	11 (38%)
	Other government agency*	6 (21%)
	Industry proponent	5 (17%)
	EPA board/Ex-board members	3 (10%)
	Researcher	1 (3.5%)
	Consultant	1 (3.5%)
	Environment minister (previous)	1 (3.5%)
	Environmental defence lawyer	1 (3.5%)
3. Types of projects involved in	Industry	1 (3.5%)
	Planning/infrastructure	12 (41%)
	Resource management	4 (14%)
	Planning and resource management	2 (7%)
	All project types	10 (34.5%)
4. Time spent on assessments	Up to 25%	15 (52%)
	25–50%	1 (3%)
	50–75%	6 (21%)
	75–100%	7 (24%)
5. Number of section 16(e) projects involved with	1–2	15 (52%)
	3–4	5 (18%)
	5–10	3 (10%)
	11–20	3 (10%)
	>20	3 (10%)

*Department of Water, Department of Planning, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Local Government.

Table 4. Most frequently cited responses on the value/benefits of s16(e) advice.

Respondents		Frequency
Yes it has value (83%)	Certainty and clarity of what's acceptable (direction, guidance, ground rules)	19 (66%)
	Upfront, early advice	13 (45%)
	Published information available to everyone	13 (45%)
	EPA position on issues it considers important (clarifies position and expectations)	12 (41%)
	Broadens scope – strategic	11 (37%)
	Seeks best available information (base in science, from many sources, collaboration)	10 (35%)
	Background information, benchmarking	9 (31%)
	Flags issues (identifies early)	7 (24%)
	Flexible (not bound by statutory restrictions/limitations, room for negotiation)	7 (24%)
	Independent view	6 (21%)
	Avoid need for formal assessment (when based on recommendations)	5 (17%)
	Address cumulative impacts	4 (14%)
	Answers specific questions, e.g. new technology	4 (14%)
	Raises awareness on important issues	3 (10%)
	Continuity and consistency	3 (10%)
No – it has no value	Condition community to a certain view – to get greater sway in an argument; disadvantages those who made ‘false’ acquisition or development decisions; delays process; no public scrutiny	3 (10%)
Mixed views	Has value when: clear objectives set and achieved, advice is usable, audience interested, realistic recommendations, able to implement	2 (7%)

Table 5. Most frequently cited examples on the ineffectiveness and possible improvements of s16(e) advice.

Responses on advice	Frequency
Cost, time and resources (who's going to pay for it)	9 (31%)
Shelf-life/currency (need to remain current to be useful, has a use-by date – after a period of time it is less valuable advice)	8 (27%)
Listening and uptake – receptive audience (not always taken up, ignored)	6 (21%)
Not enforceable – needs a higher level of surety	6 (21%)
Implementation – needs a vehicle for implementing recommendations, how is the advice transferred	4 (14%)
Unsure of effectiveness/value (struggle to measure the value of this advice)	4 (14%)
Adhoc (tends to be driven by whatever the pressures are)	4 (14%)
Generalised information	3 (10%)
Improvements
Clear objective – clear purpose that everyone's aware of, a common objective	7 (24%)
Timing and the time it takes (improve timing of release, relevance)	6 (21%)
Public consultation seen as important (has no mechanism for public comment)	5 (17%)
Review to remain current	4 (14%)
Underused, need more of it (guide on issues/areas)	4 (14%)
Collaboration/cooperation (streamlining/aligning with government agencies and allocating resources in to allow it to be effective)	4 (14%)
Finding the issues early and addressing them (rather than the project being the trigger for the advice)	3 (10%)

Environmental Protection Authority [EPA]. 2013c. Strategic advice. Perth: Environmental Protection Authority [accessed 2013 July 31].

 Google Scholar