The Influence of EA on Proposal Planning and Design Learning from Practice

The Influence of EA on Proposal Planning and Design – Learning from Practice

The Influence of EA on Proposal Planning and Design – Learning from Practice

1  Introduction

It has long been recognised that the conduct of EA can influence the planning and design of development proposals to avoid and mitigate adverse environmental impacts (Brown and Hill, 1995; Caldwell, 1998; McDonald and Brown, 1995; Sadler, 1996). Authors such as Brown & Hill (1995), McDonald & Brown (1995) and Hill & Ortolano (1978) consider this to be one of the most important aspects of EA.

This paper uses published empirical studies and data collected from interviews with experienced informants in Australia to examine various aspects of the relationship between EA and proposal planning and design (PPD). EA is considered to have influenced PPD if it is associated with changes to proposal location, design, or construction, operation or decommissioning methods or additional proponent commitments to management and mitigation measures that will be implemented during the life of the proposal. The research focusses on what happens within the EA and PPD processes, rather than overall outcomes, however it is implicit that changes to PPD associated with EA were with the intention of reducing environmental[1] impacts of the development proposal.

2  Empirical Studies on the Effect of IA on Proposal Planning

The influence of EA on PPD has been examined in a number of studies and reveals mixed results.

In a survey of 324 EA practitioners worldwide, 56% considered EA was influential on redesign of proposals and 48% considered EA was influential on siting of proposals (Sadler, 1996). In a more recent study funded by the Minerals Council of Australia, Macintosh (2010b) surveyed 155 proponents in Australian and found that “62% reported that assessment under the [EPBC] Act did not improve the “likely environmental outcomes” of their project, with 14% claiming the regime made the outcomes worse. 37% reported that it improved likely environmental outcomes, while 11% indicated the improvements were significant” (p.181).

A number of empirical studies have identified that changes to PPD have occurred in association with EA (Barker and Wood, 1999; Che et al., 2011; Christensen et al., 2005; European Commission, 2003, 1996; Fischer et al., 2009; Gazzola et al., 2011; GHK, 2010; Hansen, 2011; Hill and Ortolano, 1978; Hill, 1977; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Kobus and Lee, 1993; Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999; Retief, 2007; Therivel et al., 2009; van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009; Wood et al., 2000). In these studies, anywhere from half to all of the sampled proposals underwent modification concurrent with and likely attributable to the conduct of EA. However, while major changes were observed in some cases, changes were typically minor or moderate (none of the studies define what constitutes a major, moderate or minor change).

In addition, Nielsen et al. (2005) Sadler (1996) suggest that the requirement to undertake EA may discourage proponents from presenting clearly unsound projects for to regulatory authorities for screening. Some empirical studies also indicate that the requirement to undertake EA influences PPD before the formal assessment process commences, that is, in the pre-screening stage. Christensen et al. (2005), Nielsen et al. (2005) Tridgell (2013) identified modifications to proposals arising as a result of pre-screening discussions with agencies. Abracosa and Ortolano, (1987), Sánchez and Gallardo (2005) and Tridgell (2013) report proponents modifying project design and/or adopting additional mitigation measures prior to presenting a project for screening based on experiences on previous projects or, as noted by Annandale (2000) and Tridgell (2013) based on observations of experiences of other proponents.

To summarise from the extensive literature on this topic, proponents may be motivated to make changes to PPD in order to reduce the level of assessment required (Nielsen et al., 2005), from previous experience (Abracosa and Ortolano, 1987; Sánchez and Gallardo, 2005), due to public pressure, public opinion and discourse between proponents, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders (de Bruijn and Heuvelhof, 2002; Hill and Ortolano, 1978; Hill, 1977; Kobus and Lee, 1993; Tridgell, 2013).

Close integration of EA with PPD is likely to increase the influence of EA (Che et al., 2011; Gazzola et al., 2011), as is high level of acceptance by participants and a consensus driven approach (Che et al., 2011; van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009). Fischer et al. (2009) and Hansen (2011) noted the importance of availability of information in a timely fashion. In this regard, Brown and Hill (1995) proposed the idea of “decision scoping” whereby environmental and other information requirements for key PPD decisions would be identified up front so that the information generating activities of PPD and EA could be better aligned and decisions informed by environmental as well as technical issues.

In case studies where EA has been considered ineffective in influencing PPD, attributed causes include: pre-determined design outcomes (Dangi et al., 2015; Eales and Sheate, 2011; Isaksson and Storbjörk, 2012), poor integration between EA and PPD (Eales and Sheate, 2011; Isaksson and Storbjörk, 2012; Retief, 2007; Stoeglehner, 2010), poor analytical and technical skills of practitioners and assessors and poor quality of assessment (Dangi et al., 2015; Eales and Sheate, 2011; King and O’Malley, 2012; Therivel et al., 2009); difficulty (inability) in identifying meaningful alternatives (COWI, 2009); and poor commitment to and ownership by those leading the process (Eales and Sheate, 2011; Stoeglehner, 2010; Stoeglehner et al., 2009; Therivel et al., 2009). Studies also indicate that modifications to reduce environmental impacts may not be adopted if cost is substantially increased (Arts et al., 2012; Hansen, 2011), while Therivel et al. (2009) concluded that in SEA of planning instruments in the UK, SEA, environmental considerations were typically traded off in favour of economic and socio-economic (employment) considerations.

3  The Effect of EA on Proposal Planning and Design in Australia

3.1  Method

27 informants from across Australia were interviewed, comprising four executive level proponent representatives, three proponent PPD managers, six proponent environmental managers, three consultants involved in EA preparation on behalf of proponents, three with mixed consulting and regulatory experience and eight regulators. The average relevant professional experience of informants was 21 years, and all informants had experience with at least two organisations, and in numerous development proposals over their careers. Interviews were semi-structured, starting with a broad question of what effect or influence environmental assessment had on development, then exploring various aspects of the influence of EA on PPD.

Interview transcriptions were analysed by sorting responses into the following process-related themes selected from those suggested by the literature: (1) whether EA influences PPD (2) the timing of changes in relation to EA procedural steps, (3) proponent motivations or reasons for making changes, (4) integration of EA with broader PPD processes.

3.2  Results

3.2.1  Does EA influence planning and design of proposals?

All informants identified that EA frequently or always had some influence on PPD, with changes including site and footprint selection, civil and process engineering design, construction and operation methods, management and mitigation measures and offsets. Several regulators commented that influencing PPD was a more important function of EA than the eventual approval decision.

However informants reported that the level of influence was variable and identified various impediments or restrictions, some of which are discussed below.

3.2.2  Timing of changes

Informants reported that modifications to PPD could occur throughout the EA process, however as more significant design decisions are made earlier in the PPD process, so too, the magnitude of changes decreased as PPD progressed (this is discussed further in Section 3.2.4). The results provided particular insights into two stages in the EA process.

Many informants identified that the requirement to undertake EA influenced proposals at the pre-screening stage. EA practitioners (proponent environmental managers, consultants) reported that in many cases proposals were “shaped” to avoid key environmental constraints and address regulatory/policy requirements before being presented for screening. Regulators reported using pre-screening discussions to influence proponents to modify proposals. Early effort by proponents equated to a smoother process and more certain outcome in the subsequent formal EA. Proponents that were more experienced in undertaking EA, had internal environmental teams and better access to baseline data in the earliest stages of PPD appeared more adept at this (see Section 3.2.4 for discussion on integration). Several examples were given of proposals being halted prior to formal screening due to environmental considerations.

It was also of note that most informants felt that formal submissions on the EA report had little influence on PPD, and any changes made at this stage were likely to be minor, for example commitment to additional mitigation measures. Two explanations were consistently offered. Firstly, formal public comments come late in the process, by which time major PPD decisions have been made, design has progressed and proponents are resistant to further modifications. Secondly, many proponents had identified stakeholder issues much earlier in the EA process and already addressed these in PPD.

3.2.3  What drives proponents to modify proposals to reduce impacts?

Informants mentioned a number of reasons for incorporating environmental considerations into the PPD, with the following factors being identified by two-thirds to three-quarters of informants:

·  Meeting legislative and policy requirements and standards and ensuring that the proposal was acceptable to the decision maker and could be approved

·  Corporate responsibility and reputation, gaining and maintaining social licence to operate and meeting community expectations about environmental performance

·  Minimising impacts on landholders and immediate neighbours

·  Avoiding or reducing delays in approval processes, including potentially avoiding triggering approval requirements or reducing the scope of assessment requirements.

EA practitioners consistently reported that modifications to prevent or minimise environmental impacts were more likely to be adopted by proponents when presented in terms of these factors, that is, in terms of risk to approvals process timeframes and outcomes or corporate reputation.

In terms of responding to information availability, decisions to avoid impacts through location and footprint were generally driven by baseline information on environmental values and sensitivities, while changes in design and construction/operation methods and addition of mitigation measures were made to bring predicted impacts within acceptable levels.

The nexus between proposal cost and modifications to reduce environmental impacts was explored with informants. Not surprisingly, private sector proponents were more willing to accept changes when the impact on proposal viability was neutral or minor and would not adopt modifications that made a proposal unviable; examples were given of private sector proponents abandoning a proposal where the cost of meeting environmental standards or community expectations was prohibitive. Regulators generally understood proponent’s commercial drivers and the effect of imposing certain conditions on the financial viability of a proposal, but felt that the impact of cost of a mitigation measure on proposal viability did not justify allowing unacceptable impacts, and that ultimately, whether such conditions should be imposed was up to the decision maker.

Private sector proponents also noted that peaks and troughs in the market for a particular product or service could quickly alter the balance between cost of environmental design and mitigation measures and overall proposal viability. Examples were given where more costly environmentally-motivated design changes or mitigation measures would be acceptable if the proponent was fast-tracking PPD to take advantage of favourable market conditions.

Many informants, including those representing public sector organisations felt that the cost of design changes and mitigation measures was less of an issue for public sector proposals, although the need for cost effective delivery of public infrastructure was also appreciated.

Relatedly, many informants noted that while larger proponent organisations typically had a portfolio of project opportunities and may make a strategic decision not to pursue a particular opportunity if it was likely to be unacceptable to regulators or other key stakeholders, smaller organisations pursuing a single opportunity were more likely to persist when severe or unacceptable impacts were identified. These organisations did not have fallback options, and proportionally, may have already invested a significant amount in the proposal compared to larger organisations. A number of informants were somewhat disparaging about these smaller “cowboy” operators, however this observation may explain why some smaller organisations persist with proposals that seem highly problematic.

3.2.4  Integration between environmental and design

Literature indicates integration between EA and PPD processes to be an important factor in driving modifications that reduce environmental impacts and informants in this study confirmed this and identified a number of opportunities and issues, some of which are explored below.

Overall, informants noted that EA and PPD processes are inherently out of synchronisation. For most proponents, PPD proceeds linearly through stages of need identification, conceptualisation, preliminary feasibility, feasibility and detailed design, culminating in a formal investment decision to implement the proposal. Key decisions such as location, footprint and construction and operating methods, which present the most significant opportunities to avoid or reduce environmental impacts, are made in the earliest stages of PPD. The level of information on the proposal then becomes increasingly detailed with each successive stage; the main implication of this being that it becomes increasingly more disruptive to revisit earlier, high level decisions such as location and form of the proposal as PPD progresses.

While those involved in PPD appreciate the benefits of incorporating environmental considerations into key decisions, the amount of information available on environmental issues, and the reliability of that information, increases as EA studies progress. Paradoxically, EA studies, particularly predictive studies, also require a certain level of design information and the outputs of those studies can indicate that a design change is needed to meet required environmental standards. Most proponents noted that they had experienced significant costs and delays when findings of environmental studies dictated changes late in the PPD process. Once the EA report is put forward for assessment and decision-making, the proposal description should remain fixed and EA practitioners noted significant costs and delays in the EA process arising from late design changes. However the significant time frame from completion of EA reports to a final approval decision means that if delays in implementation of proposals are to be avoided, EA reports need to be finalised as early as possible in the PPD process. Thus, there are significant tensions in process sequencing and information flows between PPD and EA teams.