The Custodian Project

There is a large degree of consensus amongst those that responded to the general questionnaires that the following would make EIA more effective:

(a) In terms of the purpose and objectives of EIA:

• The purpose and objectives of EIA should be clarified and stated in clearer terms to ensure that there is only one national interpretation of what it means;
• The establishment of the desirability of an activity in terms of its scale and nature within its broader locality context is important and activities should go through early screening processes to ensure compatibility with plans, standards and guidelines, prior to assessment of impacts and alternatives;

(b) In terms of the scope of environmental impact assessment processes:

• the scope of the EIA should be determined by the sensitivity of environment and not necessarily by the nature of the activity;
• EIA processes for activities that are small in scope and that occur in environments that are not sensitive should be limited to completing forms, supported by specialist information where needed;
• alternatives should consider and be appropriate to the broader context of the activity;

(c) In terms of the identification and consideration of alternatives

• the identification and assessment of feasible and reasonable alternatives should be mandatory
• the assessment of alternatives should be targeted towards improving proposals to the maximum extent possible and not limited to static comparative assessments of a preferred alternative to bogus unpractical options;
• neither the competent authority, the independent practitioner or the applicant should be allowed the discretion to identify alternatives on their own;

(d) In terms of cumulative impacts:

• every EIA process must address cumulative impacts; and should not be limited to indirect impacts of activities on off-site environmental/service resources that can be measured;
• the concept of cumulative impacts should be better integrated into the EIA process;

(e) In terms of preventing significant impacts and environmental degradation:

• less activities that have significant unmitigated residual impacts should be authorised;
• more inspections should be done to check that conditions of authorisation are met;

(f) In terms of governance, capacity and quality:

• the EIA process should be integrated more closely with other licensing or authorisation processes;
• EIA processes should focus more on ensuring sustainable development than on administration;
• the capacity in terms of qualifications, experience and numbers of staff of competent authorities should be improved;
• the capacity in terms of qualification and experience of environmental practitioners should be improved;
• inappropriate "cut and paste" of work of practitioners should be rooted out; and
• prevent interference by applicant/proponents in the assessment process which often undermines the independence of practitioners and prevents the objective evaluation of EIA by officials.