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

Abstract

Formal processes for environmental impact assessment (EIA) have been established throughout the world and dominate research and practice papers. In Western Australia informal strategic advice, which sits outside of the legally binding project-based EIA, is used to inform the pre-project stages of development. Through interviews with 29 practitioners who have been involved in the formulation or use of this advice, this research investigated the value and influence of informal non-binding strategic advice. Strategic advice was considered valuable in providing upfront early guidance although practitioners would prefer greater certainty and clarity on what is acceptable. Identified limitations in its use included the cost, time and resources required in providing advice; currency and shelf life; uptake; and issues with implementing non-enforceable recommendations. Provision of clear objectives, improvements in the timing and relevance of advice and making more use of advice during EIA were identified as positive ways forward. Overall results recognise the value of informal strategic advice as a means to complement formal EIA and as a useful tool to assist with making better informed decisions earlier in the assessment process.

Keywords:

• environmental impact assessment
• informal assessment
• strategic advice
• voluntary
• non-binding
• legislation
• Western Australia

1. Introduction

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) emerged as a formal mechanism for environmental management over 40 years ago in response to public pressure and concern for the environment in relation to development, and is now regulated in nearly all countries in the world (Morgan 2012; Bond & Pope 2012). Its aim was to improve environmental protection and achieve more sustainable outcomes through informing or influencing decisions (Cashmore et al. 2004). This has since evolved to other forms of environmental assessment, such as strategic environmental assessment (SEA), which allows for earlier consideration in the decision making process, going beyond project level to policies, plans and programs (PPPs) (Marsden & Ashe 2006; Fischer & Onyango 2012).

Interestingly the IAIA, IEA (UK) (1999) best practice principles for EIA do not specify having a legal basis as being essential. According to Gunningham (2009), regulation is considered the key motivator for improved environmental performance where information-based strategies provide a means to compliment legal mechanisms. This includes informal and strategic processes such as the use of guidelines, bulletins, technical reports and ‘strategic’ advice that are voluntary and non-binding (Environmental Protection Authority [EPA] 2013b). Unlike formal processes that require ‘following the rules’ (Cherp et al. 2007), informal or non-binding processes, such as strategic advice for EIA, are where no binding conditions are set within the advice so there is no mechanism by which it can be imposed ‘other than through subsequent project-level assessments’ (Malcolm 2002, p. 76).

Although a number of authors, such as Malcolm (2002), Partidario and Fischer (2004), Marsden and Ashe (2006), Stoeglehner et al. (2009) and Tetlow and Hanusch (2012), provide reference within their text to ‘informal processes in EA’, there is no in-depth study into its value or the role informal advice might play in influencing proponents before they start the assessment process. Their focus tends to be on formal processes with only recommendations for further review of ‘informal and “non-traditional” SEA approaches’ (e.g. Tetlow & Hanusch 2012, p. 22). So what value or benefit might this early informal advice then provide in EIA, especially as Cherp et al. (2007) pointed out that informal processes and strategic initiatives can be difficult to measure and ‘rules are not set’ and can quickly change?

This article presents an empirical investigation of the value of informal approaches to EIA. We sought to determine the overall utility of employing informal (voluntary, non-binding) strategic advice within EIA practices in Western Australia. Two research questions are addressed:

• What is the value of informal strategic advice in environmental assessment in Western Australia?; and

• How does this informal strategic advice influence or affect the outcomes of subsequent development proposals in the views of practitioners?

To contextualise our research, we commence with a short review of international literature perspectives on current understanding of the efficacy of informal EIA processes, including advantages of a strategic level focus, followed by an overview of EIA arrangements in Western Australia. Sections on methods, results and conclusions follow this.

2. Informal and strategic advice in EIA

Whether formally or informally applied, SEA is a useful tool for proactive assessments (Marsden, 2002), where the provision of early (informal strategic) advice has the potential to reduce the need for project EIA later on, and improve environmental protection such as through greater certainty on acceptability of proposals early on and addressing cumulative impacts (Waldeck et al., 2003; EPA 2009). According to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA 2010, p. 18), strategic advice is about providing early advice to ‘influence the achievement of better environmental outcomes’. Strategy involves plans or policies to achieve something, where SEA is the process that then ‘leads to a strategy for action’ (Marsden 2002, p. 3).

Noble (2000) and Marsden (2002) considered it a proactive approach where the broader context allows consideration for alternatives in the assessment of PPPs above individual project level. This early consideration of environmental concerns in decision-making processes can improve consistency and quality of subsequent assessment decisions and influence choice of alternative developments (Therivel 2004; Tetlow & Hanusch 2012), provide upfront certainty and potentially avoid or streamline ‘any subsequent project level assessments and approvals’ (Stoeglehner et al. 2010, p. 410). Consequently, as Morgan (2012) suggested, there should be less emphasis on EIA as a compliance-driven process and more on decisions within organisations as an integral part of project design and development. Here the focus is on its informal application as strategic advice with respect to its perceived value and influence.

2.1 Value and influence of informal advice in EIA

Here we address the value of informal advice in EIA generally before turning our attention specifically to strategic advice.

2.1.1 Value of informal advice

It has been suggested that non-regulated or informal forms of environmental assessment can contribute to earlier planning and consideration of alternatives often leading to better outcomes (e.g. EPA 2009, Bond & Pope 2012, Pope et al. 2013). More simply still, the mere existence of impact assessment requirements or expectations can change proponent behaviour (with the potential to eliminate downstream EIA). This is captured in Wathern's (1988, p. 6) perspective that ‘the greatest contribution of EIA … may well be in reducing adverse impacts before proposals come through to the authorization phase’. By raising issues in the early concept stages, such as the policy, plan or program level, there is an opportunity for deterring proponents from putting forward environmentally unsound projects in the first place (Pope et al. 2013). Thus one value of informal advice, at least in theory, should be a reduction in need for project level EIAs.

Consideration of the value of informal advice relates to the perceived benefits and utility that it provides, which could include such things as timing, reliability and relevance of advice for decision-makers (Haq 2004). As Therivel (2004, p. xv) argued, effective impact assessment is about ‘making the right comment at the right meeting to get the right person to consider something that they had not thought of before’. The timing of advice, as well as having the right information on hand, can be considered important in decision making to avoid the risk of being irrelevant (Haq 2004).

According to Pölönen et al. (2011, p. 123), assessment processes contain ‘a great deal of informal communication between the developer, the liaison authority and the public’ that goes ‘beyond what the EIA legislation requires’. And outcomes can be dependent on ‘the commitment of the regulators themselves, the proponent (self-regulation) and public pressure’, which ‘cannot be provided for in legislation’ (Arts & Morrison-Saunders 2004, p. 288). Culture is thus important for informal application of EIA. This is demonstrated in the context of environmental protection measures in China by Ma and Ortolano (2000, p. 77) who noted that ‘informal rules embodied in the social norms and unwritten codes of conduct’ are important determinants of environmental performance. They specifically discussed the concept of guanxi giving examples of how the relationship between environmental regulators and proponents, such as industrial plant managers, has proved important to achieve appropriate outcomes even where these do not necessarily comply exactly with regulations but are successful because the approach is appropriately reverential and saves face for the parties involved. Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (2009) similarly documented how relationships between EIA regulators and proponents or their consultants were important for actual performance and implementation of EIA processes. Both the ‘degree of influence on choices’ during the decision-making process and ‘the quality of information delivered’ need consideration (Sadler 2004, p. 263). As highlighted by Wood (2003), the flexibility offered by informal processes helps ensure EIA is focused on outcomes not just ensuring formal procedures are followed.

2.1.2 Informal SEA and strategic advice in Australia

Within Australia, a number of jurisdictions make use of informal forms of impact assessment. For example states such as South Australia and Victoria undertake informal SEA, as explained by Harvey (2002) and Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) in relation to coastal planning and marina development applications. At the Federal level voluntary SEA processes are also in place, with the first completed SEA on urban growth in Melbourne completed in 2010 (Stoeglehner et al. 2010), however these are relatively new and evaluation of effectiveness has yet to be undertaken.

The most extensive practice with informal impact assessment in Australia appears to occur in Western Australia. Malcolm (2002), Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) and Marsden and Ashe (2006) outlined the Western Australian provision for informal SEA under s16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act (EP Act) and record that 41 strategic assessments were completed between 1995 and mid-2001 across a range of proposals. Of these sources, Malcolm (2002) was the only author to further discuss possible benefits and disadvantages of the process. While little is provided in terms of its value or effectiveness on outcomes of subsequent proposals, he does note that where ‘the environmental acceptability of the proposal was all that was required’ it has served its purpose (Malcolm, 2002, p. 76).

2.2 Western Australian provisions for informal EIA

In Western Australia (WA), the EP Act 1986 establishes formal processes for EIA, which lead to legally binding conditions of approval being served on proponents of development with an average of 30–40 such assessments conducted each year (Office of the Environmental Protection Authority 2011, 2013). As indicated previously, informal processes are also available, including the use of non-binding strategic advice for EA (Malcolm 2002, Waldeck et al. 2003; EPA 2009). Advisory provisions of the EPA allow for an informal form of SEA under section 16(e) of the EP Act (Malcolm, 2002). This is termed ‘strategic advice’ (EPA 2013c).

The EPA is a five-member independent board appointed by the governor to conduct EIA and who advise the Minister for Environment on environmental matters generally among its powers and functions. These general advisory provisions enable informal assessment outside of the statutory EIA process (Malcolm 2002).

There are four formal assessment types within the EP Act and s16(e), as an informal tool, which sits outside this formal process as an advisory function of the EPA in the Act. The statutory/formal assessment types provided in the Act include new project proposals and planning schemes that are legally required and binding; changes to existing projects that are voluntary and binding; as well as strategic proposals that are voluntary and binding. When the EPA determines that a new development proposal does not warrant formal assessment, it may give informal advice to either the proponent or another decision-making authority (s39A(7) of the EP Act) and each year some 100–150 proposals are treated this way (Office of the Environmental Protection Authority 2011, 2013). This research does not further consider informal advice at the project level.

The focus here is on informal s16(e) strategic advice, which is voluntary and non-binding and takes into account plans and policies that are not subject to formal assessment as they do not directly impact on the environment (Marsden & Ashe 2006; EPA 2013b). Strategic advice as outlined by the EPA (2013b) is considered ‘advice to Government under section 16 (e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986’ and usually relates to ‘a specific project or environmental issue’. It is considered ‘informal’ advice as it is non-binding under the Act and provides a function for the EPA:

to advise the Minister on environmental matters generally and on any matter which he may refer to it for advice, including the environmental protection aspects of any proposal or scheme, and on the evaluation of information relating thereto.

Although the key audience for strategic advice is the Minister for Environment, to assist with informed decision making (Malcolm, 2002), it is also used as guidance by other government agencies and proponents as a framework for what is environmentally acceptable development. This independent EPA advice, while non-binding, outlines minimum requirements whereby proponents would need to justify any deviations from this advice (EPA 2013b). The EPA (2009, p. 37) also encourages the use of s16(e) advice ‘to enable streamlining of downstream proposals’.

The s16(e) function has been used to provide advice to the Minister since 1995 (Malcolm 2002), and the current total of strategic advice reports available on the EPA website now exceeds 50. They have addressed specific projects as well as particular areas or regions and environmental issues more generally – Table 1 provides examples. During a review of EIA processes, the EPA (2009, p. 5) advocated there should be more use of s16(e) strategic assessment ‘to help improve environmental outcomes’ and ‘expedite assessment for subsequent development proposals’. To date however, no formal investigation into the value of informal s16 strategic advice on actual performance has occurred.

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.

3. Methodology

Interviews were conducted with 29 Western Australian practitioners representing primarily Office of the EPA (OEPA) staff and EPA members, but also proponents, consulting firms and/or government decision making authorities involved in s16(e) assessments. Interviewees were selected opportunistically and through the use of a snowball sampling technique based on their involvement in this area (Table 2, question 10). An attempt was made to include a variety of different roles to ensure a range of fields and types of projects were covered. The sample size was not intended to be representative, and was biased towards those providing the s16(e) advice. This was largely due to the principle target group being policy makers and other regulators who were known to have a role in this informal EIA process. Consequently proponents, who may be a one-off project developer under potential influence of s16 advice, are largely absent from the sample. Relative to the regulators, it is difficult to know who proponents are or will be when it is not project-specific advice. Further, some proponents invited to participate in the study were unavailable.

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?

A standardised questionnaire of 10 questions (Table 2) was used to conduct interviews with answers recorded and then transcribed for analysis. Questions 1–5 provided demographic data used to gauge the level of experience and involvement in s16(e) processes. Questions 6–9 generated qualitative data with open questions used to gain interviewee perspectives (e.g. as per Creswell 2003). Questions 6 and 8 address the perceived value and effectiveness of advice; questions 7 and 8 consider the influence of advice on outcomes of subsequent proposals. Qualitative analysis techniques were used to analyse results, where analysis was based on the frequency of common responses (as per Waldeck et al. 2003) and supported by sample quotes using the respondent’s own words.

Two illustrative examples were then used to support the response to questions relating to the influence of advice on subsequent activities and to identify how well EPA strategic advice is utilised in subsequent plans and proposals. These are the Preston Industrial Park advice (EPA 2008a) and Waste to Energy technology advice (EPA 2013a).

4. Results and key findings

Demographic characteristics of interviewees are summarised and key responses to qualitative results are then presented, supported by sample quotes of respondents and illustrative examples using case studies.

4.1 Demographic data

Of the 29 participants interviewed, the majority were EPA/OEPA staff (14), other government agency staff (6) or industry proponents (5), with experience in the industry of 10 years or more (69%) and mainly within the planning/infrastructure area (>40%) or across all project types (∼35%). As outlined in Table 3, a mix of experience and involvement in the s16(e) process can be seen across the survey group, where around half of participants have been involved with only one or two s16(e) submissions or proposals.

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.

There appeared to be no clear patterns in the data that would permit further analysis in the sample.

4.2 Qualitative responses: practitioner perspectives on value of s16(e) informal strategic advice

Responses to question 6 indicated that 83% respondents believe that section 16(e) advice is of value, 10% see that it has no value and 7% have mixed views. Interestingly there appeared to be a split in views where those who believe it has no value were industry proponent/environmental defence lawyer, and those with mixed views were government agency/OEPA staff.

The most commonly cited participant responses on the value/benefit are outlined in Table 4 and listed in order of frequency of response. The best value/benefit this advice provides includes certainty and clarity on what's acceptable (66%), upfront, early advice (45%) that states the EPA's position (41%) and it is available in the public arena (45%). A reduction in downstream project EIAs because of s16 advice was noted by a small number of respondents (17%) only and is not further addressed here.

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%)

Of those few who perceive s16(e) advice as not providing value (10%), responses included that it is a way to condition community to a certain view by putting out the environmental position first, that it delays process, and that it takes out the important step of public scrutiny in the assessment process. Those with mixed views (7%) suggest that it is only of value when used pragmatically, where there is a receptive audience and/or in the right context with clear objectives.

All participants provided at least one example of a benefit of s16(e) advice. Although not all participants believe this advice is of value, it is interesting that they all perceived it provided some kind of benefit. The qualitative results for the top three most commonly cited values/benefits of s16(e) advice and responses regarding no value are further explored with practitioner comments and literature.

4.2.1 Certainty and clarity on what is acceptable

Certainty and clarity relate to the effectiveness of EIA in making the right decision in protecting the environment, where s16(e) provides advice on how the EPA might assess something that happens in that area. As respondents suggest, it primarily allows for ‘comprehensive knowledge and certainty’.

It gives clarity to people, certainty and it explains things too … If it's done well it benefits everybody, and putting information out early saves everybody time.

I can actually draw some lines on a map with some surety that those areas aren't encroaching on high environmental values and say does this have development potential when in fact it might not.

Other points raised include ‘managing expectation by knowing the rules’, ‘clarity of process and likely outcomes’, ‘validating facts’, ‘providing context within which projects can be judged’ and ‘rules for acceptability’. This supports better informed choices that can contribute to the effectiveness of EIA relating to delivering its desired outcome of protection of the environment (Bartlett & Kurian 1999; Wood 2003). Proponents, consultants and other government agencies alike find value and benefits in using this advice as guidance in informing EIA decisions, not just the designated audience of advice being the Minister for Environment; that is, where s16(e) is considered advice to Government (EPA 2013b).

4.2.2 Upfront, early advice

Nearly half (45%) of participants feel upfront early advice provides greater certainty on how the EPA will make their decision and expectations on acceptability of a proposal, which can then be incorporated into project planning. For example:

It gave indications and confirmed areas that were important and allowed consideration of options.

It is an opportunity for the EPA to provide informal comment at a very early stage … and provide the direction rather than waiting till things come forward at the last minute.

It is just really about getting that early upfront [environmental] advice out to the community and industry … so that they know up front … this is a no-go area or it identifies what kind of work they'd need to work out.

This links to SEA thinking around earlier more strategic planning (Therivel 2004; Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005; Sheate 2009), in which it allows for early decision processes where strategic decisions can precede and help guide action (Cherp et al. 2007) – providing greater certainty and clarity in proposals. In the Western Australian context, informal EIA demonstrates value in terms of providing direction, encouraging earlier consideration of environmental issues, knowing up front what is acceptable and any additional work that may be required.

4.2.3 Published information available to everyone

Nearly half (45%) of respondents see value in published information being available for use by anyone and as a tool for informing. This aligns with Bartlett and Kurian’s (1999) information processing model of making more informed decisions through the generation and communication of information as well as EIA principles of transparency, credibility and accountability through engaging or informing the public (IAIA, IEA (UK) 1999). Some respondents identified its value as ‘a way of getting your message heard’, ‘a mechanism for putting views on paper which will lead to process and discussion’, ‘a published defendable position’ and as a communication mechanism where ‘government has a responsibility to communicate to community’.

It provides knowledge that can be used by anyone. It doesn't belong to a proponent, it belongs to government and community to use because it's public process as well.

It helps guide people and puts awareness out there about issues, a broader base of information that the public could refer to, to inform.

You need to draw the public's attention to it. That's the benefit of this public advice that you can put things out in the public domain, it's the EPA view and can influence decision-making if proposals come up.

A number of respondents discussed the value of informal EIA in terms of power and influence (e.g. ‘as published advice it's public so that's a powerful thing’), not just as a means to inform when it is published information. So EIA works in many ways, sometimes it is simply raising the ideas to generate discussion, other times it is similar to Cashmore et al.'s (2004) view of EIA as a tool for influencing outcomes not just providing information ‘by making decisions transparent and decision-makers accountable’ (p. 298), where EIA has ‘a subtler influence by affecting stakeholders’ perceptions through provision of information’ (p. 302). Whether formal or informal, information in the public arena has this same capacity. As Bartlett and Kurian’s (1999) information processing model (based on information for a purpose) suggests, EIA is a means to provide information on which decisions can be made, without which it is more difficult to make good decisions.

4.2.4 No value or mixed views

Generally those involved in development saw less or no value in s16(e) advice as it diminished profit margins and land value in their business, which could be financially problematic for some investors, as well as adding time and delays to the process.

Those with mixed views were government agency/OEPA staff. While some respondents perceive s16(e) advice as an informative tool for referral by the public, others see value only where the s16(e) advice can influence government.

To have a good value from section 16 advice you have to have a receptive government for it. If the Minister is not receptive to receiving that advice, then it's almost wasting your time. To be effective you've got to … address topics that are of interest and of relevance.

So when some have been effective there's been a very clear sense of what the objective is that's being sought.

As Sippe (1999, p. 74) explained, EIA needs to provide ‘sufficient usefulness to survive and grow’. This includes raising issues that are relevant and timely, focusing on ‘those decision makers and times that really matter’ (Therivel 2004, p xvi), where an audience is important and generating information should be for a purpose (Bartlett & Kurian 1999). So it is about addressing those EIA principles of being purposive and relevant (IAIA, IEA (UK) 1999), and focusing on ‘delivering information necessary to the decisions to be made’ (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005, p. 15).

4.3 Qualitative responses: influence or effect of s16(e) informal strategic advice on outcomes

All participants provided at least one example of how s16(e) was used in practice in response to interview question 7, indicating varying levels of success depending on the location, issue, scale of area, values of the government of the time or ease of implementation and objectives. It was also noted by respondents that the uptake of strategic advice was sometimes lacking at the project level (e.g. Conservation of Roadside Vegetation (EPA 2008b) or Mt Manning Nature Reserve (EPA 2007) – that the advice may have drawn attention to the issue but lacked the uptake for various reasons). The focus here is on those examples where it was used in subsequent proposals.

The two case studies presented here provide insight into how informal advice can influence subsequent activities, including some of the benefits and obstacles with the type of advice, the scale of its application and any other existing or subsequent advice or guidance that may arise over time.

4.3.1 Case study 1: Preston Industrial Park

Advice on areas of conservation significance in the Preston Industrial Park (EPA 2008a) is an example (given by 45% of respondents) where the s16(e) advice has subsequently been used with environmentally acceptable outcomes. Respondents were a mix of proponents (23%), OEPA/EPA (53%) and Department of Planning (23%). In this case, there was a clear split in views between policy makers and other regulators who felt that it was a good outcome, whereas proponents with vested interest in land development (based on earlier government land-use planning decisions) felt that it was financially problematic for some investors who could no longer develop due to conservation values.

Preston Industrial Park is an area 4 km east of Bunbury identified for light and general industry. The State Government commissioned studies released in Industry 2030 – Greater Bunbury Industrial Land and Port Access Planning (Western Australian Planning Commission 1998) whereby the EPA provided advice to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) that would be used in subsequent planning assessments (EPA 2003). It was applied in the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme Report (released by the WAPC in 2003). Several years later the Minister of Environment formally requested strategic advice from the EPA on environmental issues for subsequent planning stages and this was released as Preston Industrial Park s16(e) advice (EPA 2008a).

This area was identified for development based on the Industry 2030 plan, people made decisions based on the document. This [Preston Industrial Park advice] came out eight years later and said ’no, you can't develop any of that’. In eight years people made decisions made on government's position and then another government came out and said ’no you can't develop’.

So in this case, for it to meet the value of upfront early advice, ‘the benefit would be realised more if the strategic review was done earlier, rather than your project being the trigger for the advice’. This seemed to be the case here, where the s16(e) advice was then ‘acknowledged and recognised in planning and then taken on board and reflected in information’.

The EPA did work closely with Department of Planning, [who] pursued a structure plan for this northern portion which is entirely consistent with the EPA’s advice. … they've got little precinct areas in their structure plan which says that people have to address this EPA advice.

We are seeing those subdivisions coming through with some consistent with the advice … so we're getting better proposals when they come through.

Since the 2008 s16(e) advice was released it has been referred to in subsequent proposals, even though it was contested due to the earlier decisions that had been made.

Based on this advice we've been able to get them to design things in accordance with this advice. There's always a little bit of wriggle room … but largely we've been able to retain these areas through the development. It's been really good because some of these areas were already zoned industrial. So to be able to get people to retain this [s16(e) advice] is a really good outcome.

In this case the informal EIA process led to prioritising areas and retaining those of highest values based on surveys, which was ‘taken on board’ and provided more certainty and clarity on what was acceptable.

It provides some certainty on the EPA’s concerns, and obviously the agencies they've sought the advice from like the Department of Water, Department of Environment in coming up with the s16(e) … It certainly influenced the planning because the s16(e) actually identified the significant areas of bush and the wetland areas, yeah, so we've retained those. So s16 has certainly influenced the design of the estate.

Because the advice is publicly available, when considered in future proposals it does have the capacity to be more strategic and potentially ‘avoid or streamline’ subsequent assessment (Stoeglehner et al. 2010, p. 410).

Providing advice to say look try and avoid these areas and design your industrial precinct around those values to the extent that you can. So you know if you do that and you avoid those things, you're going to get through the system very easily … the whole point of this is that you provide that advice, a proposal comes in consistent with that advice then you've got a very streamlined decision-making process.

The Preston Industrial Estate example illustrates the potential informal strategic advice has to eliminate downstream EIA, where the requirements and expectations in this case led to a structure plan consistent with the s16(e) advice and ‘better proposals coming through’. It also illustrates the relevance to context (Sheate 2009) and how this can change with time. From its earlier zoning as industrial in 2003 (Western Australian Planning Commission 2003) to the release of the s16(e) advice in 2008, there were changes in the areas that could be developed in relation to conservation values. Despite this change in context, the informal EIA content has been taken on board. This shows the influence the EPA's advice can have on outcomes despite differences in value placed on the advice (e.g. between proponents and regulators).

This relates back to Bartlett and Kurian (1999) and Cashmore et al.’s (2004) idea of EIA as a tool for influencing outcomes not just providing information. As Bartlett and Kurian (1999) explained, information alone is not entirely influential where ulterior motives and political agendas also play a role in influencing decision making. And as Cashmore et al. (2004) suggested, power and advantage can often hold more weight in decision-making than technical data, where it is impossible to separate facts and values when outcomes are affected by compromise and trade-offs. Therefore EIA becomes important as a tool for influencing outcomes through transparency and accountability, and ‘changing society's expectations of democracy and development’ (Cashmore et al. 2004, p. 306), not just information provision.

4.3.2 Case study 2: Waste to Energy technologies

The Environmental and Health Performance of Waste to Energy technologies strategic advice came at the request of the Minister regarding development of new technology and the potential environmental and health performance of waste to energy technologies (EPA 2013a). It was requested in November 2011 and released in April 2013 (EPA 2013a). The Port Hedland Boodarie Recovery facility assessment also came out in April 2013 (EPA 2013d). This was seen as a good example by interviewees of s16(e) advice being influential, particularly in relation to its timing and relevance (14% of respondents; a mix of OEPA/EPA and proponents). For example:

So Government's clearly interested in developing a waste to energy industry in Western Australia, and there're a lot of proponents out there with four proposals before EPA … In that case the Minister actually asked for the advice. [which] has to be pragmatic [and] take account of the current situation, you know.

I think it had immediate effect. The Port Hedland proposal came out and that absolutely conforms with the advice, and other proponents who are looking at waste to energy proposals have welcomed it.

This clearly aligns with the idea of a receptive audience and information for a purpose (Bartlett & Kurian 1999) and raises the issue within the right ‘decision window’ at a time when it really matters (Therivel 2004; Haq 2004) – from when the advice was requested, to its subsequent release.

It makes good sense that you release your policy advice and you follow it up with an assessment to a project which is consistent with EPA advice. You want to get your advice there in a timeframe that's going to be relevant to the Minister. So, if this advice had come out after the proposal, you just would've gone ‘well guys you've missed the boat because this one doesn't have the world's best practice in it.’

In this case it also identified with all the key benefits and values highlighted by interviewees in Table 4 including upfront early advice (e.g. coming in at the start of a new industry), certainty and clarity on what is acceptable (e.g. industry best practice), broader scope/strategic (in that it applies to statewide proposals not just project specific), and that it is published information bringing an independent view in demystifying perceptions on incinerators that ‘in the past had a poor reputation’. This again taps into Bartlett and Kurian’s (1999) information processing model in providing timely, usable information based on the latest technologies and international practice.

Look it was driven largely by the EPA but as a proponent we supported that pathway. We believe we have a very clean and environmentally friendly project but it's an education process with the general public because it's new … as the proponent there'll always be a level of mistrust, particularly with the community because we've got the most to gain from getting it up.

The provision of greater certainty and validating information through an independent view provided to the public seems to be particularly important, as highlighted by this proponent comment:

In a lot of respects it checked our facts … that's what the EPA process is all about, you know, validating what we say so provided more certainty, because we actually didn't receive any appeals at the end of the process which from the advice I've been given is pretty unusual.

Even though the advice worked well in this case, an interesting comment raised by one proponent was in regard to their view on the influence of s16(e) advice, its political nature in decision-making (e.g. Bartlett & Kurian 1999) and the influence this advice has coming from the EPA as an independent body.

I think there's a danger it could be used as a political tool. It wasn't in this case. I mean, the Board and the EPA's totally independent from who's in government at the time, but in the wrong hands it could be quite a powerful barrier to projects getting approved. In that regard we got a very fair hearing, because there's a lot of political noise about waste to energy, it's a very hot topic here … So the direction that the s16 heads in is almost solely dependent on the officers and the board of the EPA.

While the EPA only advises the Minister, there is implicit power in the independence of the EPA, the public reporting and the back-up of the EP Act (where Ministerial conditions become legally binding) gives enormous power to whatever the EPA say (based on views of respondents here). Reiterating the point raised by Cashmore et al. (2004) is this use of EIA as a tool for influencing outcomes not just providing information.

As illustrated here informal EIA works best when it feeds into future proposals and ‘the timing between having an issue and asking for advice’. The values of upfront early advice provides certainty and clarity on what is acceptable in a new statewide industry, where being publicly available helps to both inform and guide EIA. It also aligns with the idea of a receptive audience and information for a purpose, providing timely, usable information (Bartlett & Kurian 1999; Therivel 2004).

4.4 Improving the effectiveness of s16(e) advice

Almost all participants provided a response on possible ineffectiveness and/or ways to improve s16(e) advice (question 8, Table 2). Although most had a positive view on the s16(e) process (>80%), there were a number of suggestions on improving the process (Table 5). The most frequent participant responses include the cost, time and resources required; its currency/shelf-life; its uptake that is not enforceable and the need for clear objectives.

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%)

The issue of uptake of advice was raised by OEPA/EPA respondents only; otherwise there were no clear patterns in the data relating to demographics.

4.4.1 Ineffectiveness – cost, time and resources, shelf-life/currency, listening and uptake

One of the key issues raised in terms of ineffectiveness was the question of cost, time and resources to provide this informal advice – that is who's going to pay for it? Especially considering that it comes before projects and at the project level proponents have the responsibility to provide this detailed level of information (EPA 2012).

It does take up a lot of time and resources which can delay the timing on release of advice when extensive studies need to be undertaken.

It would be good to have more of that to provide clarification on other issues or related areas, but it does take up a lot of time and resources.

They also need to remain current to be useful, so shelf-life and currency need to be considered, particularly where the ‘advice is slightly dated’, as it can be superseded by other information or advice. So this comes back to the EIA best practice principles of being fit for purpose and remaining relevant (IAIA, IEA (UK) 1999; Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005).

I think you'd have to be careful if you continue to use s16(e) advice which is slightly dated because I don't think it's a sound basis then for doing assessments or providing proponents with guidance if it's not up to date.

Currency relates to whether the advice ‘gets revisited’, which it ‘currently doesn't’, and if it should be reviewed. A few respondents suggested that it possibly should not – as it is often ‘just the start point in raising or flagging an issue to bring some attention to the area, issue, environmental value etc’.

Although the process is good, the listening and uptake is not always there.

Sometimes I think it's a disappointing take-up of some of the recommendations. … It's always going to depend on the people who are involved in that area of listening and taking it up.

This all comes back to addressing EIA principles of relevant, purposive and necessary for the decision at hand (IAIA, IEA (UK) 1999; Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005), and focusing on ‘those decision makers and times that really matter’ (Therivel 2004, p. xvi). So it becomes a balancing act of providing information and influencing decision makers, where an audience for information becomes important (Bartlett & Kurian 1999).

4.4.2 Potential improvements – clear objectives and timing of advice

A number of improvements were identified as positive ways forward, including provision of clear objectives and the importance of timing of advice – where it was identified that informal EIA works best when it feeds into future proposals in a timely fashion. Review to retain its currency depends on the type of advice and area it is in or if issues it address are still current, where ‘none of these things stay in place’.

Provision of clear objectives aligns with Cashmore et al.’s (2004, p. 296) thinking that constraints of effectiveness relate to ‘issues of purpose, rather than inadequate legislative provisions’; and Wathern’s (1988, p. 6) view of ‘reducing adverse impacts before proposals come through’ to eliminate downstream EIA.

You've got to have a very clear understanding of what its purpose is and what you're trying to achieve. Otherwise it's just probably wasting your time.

Tell the people what the environmental objectives that you're aiming for as early as you possibly can and then work out if and how they're going to achieve them. Because if they can't they might just go away, it might save you a lot of work.

So is the objective to influence proponents … to change government policy settings … to give more certainty to proponents about the assessment process and the outcomes … to influence site selection. It's working out what is the objective of that s16 advice and the EPA running a process that is continually referencing that objective.

Timing of advice is important and the time it takes. As illustrated in the Waste to Energy case study, s16 advice works best when it feeds into future proposals. Where the advice was provided a long time ago, the issue may have changed or the advice progressed into other subsequent processes.

Timeliness and relevance (Therivel 2004) relate to advice for a purpose (Bartlett & Kurian 1999) and its usefulness for decision-making (Sippe 1999). Additionally, no matter how comprehensive resultant scientific data may be, it can rapidly become redundant (Cashmore et al., 2004).

Timeliness is a key thing, and relevance, I guess they are related. You want to get your advice there in a timeframe that's going to be relevant to the Minister. The Minister might have asked for it [and] because this has taken so long to get to …, they've already had to make a decision … these days we'd be working to make sure that the advice was provided in timely manner even if it was at a higher level so that it does provide that context.

This comes back to the idea by Therivel (2004) and Haq (2004) around timing and raising the issue within the right decision window, which can help to improve listening, uptake and implementation of recommendations.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the value of informal strategic advice in EIA and how this advice influences or affects outcomes of subsequent proposals. The study design revolved around reviewing international and local literature in combination with interviews with a selected number of Western Australia EIA stakeholders chosen for having particular involvement with s16(e) advice of the EPA, and two case studies.

With respect to value, this research has shown practitioners have a strong belief in the value of s16(e) informal strategic advice in EIA in Western Australia. While not without criticism, it is currently seen as beneficial for providing upfront early advice and greater certainty on what is environmentally acceptable where a published position of the EPA's view is available to everyone. The perspective of Western Australian practitioners connects well with international literature. For example, this upfront early advice links with SEA thinking where earlier decision processes and strategic decisions can precede and guide action (Cherp et al. 2007), providing greater certainty and clarity in proposals.

In regards to how informal strategic advice influences outcomes, this research highlights some of the benefits and obstacles with the variation within the type of advice at hand, and how it may affect subsequent proposals. While its uptake can be variable and there are limitations in its use (time and resources required, currency and shelf-life and uptake), the benefits and value of providing upfront early advice can be seen in its subsequent use. As the case studies illustrate, s16(e) advice works best when it feeds into future proposals, in the early stages of the decision process with a receptive audience (e.g. Waste to Energy case study). Informal EIA processes can also lead to better proposals coming through, such as in the Preston Industrial Estate advice where subsequent planning aligned with the conservation values of the area.

It seems apparent that the use of strategic advice is of most value where it has clear objectives, remains audience focused, is timely and relevant; so there is an opportunity to improve its use and uptake through more focused, timely and purposive application. Although s16(e) is a purely informal process, the formal provisions of the EP Act are running parallel in the background, which may add more weight to its uptake when it is seen to reduce or streamline formal subsequent EIA.

These findings challenge the normative view expressed in international literature that places emphasis on legally binding EIA. It recognises that EIA is a process of learning and negotiation, not just strict compliance and following of procedures. Information and ideas are important to informing decisions – because by definition the future is uncertain and EIA is triggered in light of uncertainty and where environmental risk is involved. Informal advice can help reduce uncertainty and increase knowledge. Proving cause and effect in an informal situation is challenging, and it can often be easier to give attention to legal matters because they are binding and obvious, whereas informal processes are less definitive. However, the evidence gathered in this study suggests that the informal strategic advice used by the EPA in Western Australia does add value and has influence on EIA outcomes.

Acknowledgements

We thank interview participants for sharing valuable time and accounts of their experience in the industry, which form the basis of this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.