Search

Screening is a critical first stage of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, vetting development proposals to determine whether or not they require a full assessment. Inadequately executed significance tests undermine EIA's purpose of environmental protection. There is considerable variation across jurisdictions in terms of prescriptive and discretionary significance tests and the criteria and thresholds within them. Of all aspects of EIA, screening is cited as the most frequent source of actual infringements, yet there is a dearth of research in this area. This paper presents an empirical study from South Australia that investigates the adequacy of its discretionary screening process. The findings suggest that improvements are much needed toward improved consistency and transparency of decision-making and, ultimately better environmental protection. The paper prompts a thorough examination of significance testing elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper reports the pros and cons of co-management (i.e. concerted actions towards climate change and air quality management) through local sustainability initiatives using three case studies, each encompassing the planning and management issues at local government levels. Case study I is policy-based and reports the outcome of a consultation exercise while case studies II and III have greater scientific bearing. These case studies pave the way for development of a more integrated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan at local scales, specifically regarding policies on emissions sources from transportation and decentralised energy. They highlight the merits and the trade-offs of implementing local scale co-management practices, using a more integrated planning framework than what is currently under offer. We recognise that delivery of such ambitious, cross-cutting agenda may be impeded, primarily owing to limited expertise in assessing the synergies and the expected outcomes from cross-fertility between these two arenas. This calls for a step-change through more cohesive, cross-disciplinary policy frameworks, going beyond the local administrative spheres to maximise the co-management potentials while mitigating the wider environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]