EIA

Problem Definition
Scope
Data Collection and Analysis
Data Interpretation
Presentation

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) have lost credibility with environmental and resident groups over recent years because they are being increasingly perceived as biased public relations documents. The EIS is prepared by the developer or consultants hired by the developer and the developer often views an EIS as a supporting document prepared as part of the procedure for gaining approval for a project.

Because the EIS is done rather late in the planning process the project proponents will almost certainly have committed considerable financial resources to a particular option at a particular site. The EIS at this stage becomes another obstacle in a field of bureaucratic hurdles on the way to their end goal. Naturally, they will want that document to emphasise the advantages of the project to the community and to down play the disadvantages.

Hired consultants can also have much to lose if the project doesn't get approval because of an EIS. Consultants are dependent on the judgement of clients and that judgement is based on whether they are perceived to be able to deliver what is required by the client. Consultants with over-developed consciences, who do not put the client's priorities first, are less likely to be given work in future. Professional integrity and codes of ethics don't always withstand such pressures.

The goal of a completely objective document is illusory because science requires judgements. This is exacerbated by the circumstances of EIS preparation where large investments, careers and the viability of businesses are at stake. It is therefore inevitable that the values and goals of those preparing an EIS will shape its contents and conclusions through the way scientific data is collected, analysed, interpreted and presented.

Occasionally there are gross abuses of the EIS system by project proponents who leave vital information out of an EIS or falsify results. For example, the Water Board omitted the findings of two studies of fish from its EISs for the Sydney deepwater outfalls. The studies were undertaken by the Fisheries Research Institute in the vicinity of the ocean outfall sites. In one study, seven out of eight blue groper sampled near the North Head outfall were above the National Health & Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) maximum residue limits for mercury and one red morwong out of eight was also over. In the other study, red morwong and blue groper caught near the sewage outfalls were found to be accumulating dieldrin and DDT and of the 58 red morwong sampled, ten exceeded NH&MRC limits for dieldrin and five exceeded those limits for DDT. Several more were just under these limits for dieldrin and DDT. These omissions enabled the Board to claim that toxic waste coming through the outfalls would not be a problem when they were extended into deeper water.

Such blatant omissions, although sometimes difficult to detect, are probably rare nowadays. More often biases are subtle and arise from the many value judgements that are made at every stage of the preparation of an EIS.

...back to top