Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426 – 447

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental impact monitoring in the EIA process

of South Australia
A.K.M. Rafique Ahammed a,*, Bronte Merrick Nixon b,1
a
Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
b
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, PPK House, 101 Pirie Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
Received 1 May 2005; received in revised form 1 September 2005; accepted 1 September 2005
Available online 21 November 2005

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a detailed study of environmental impact monitoring (EIM) in South
Australia by first establishing a context for EIM in the form of a literature review, and by then conducting a
detailed content and practice analysis on EIA documents and on actual monitoring in practice. EIM in
practice for specific projects was found to not correspond with either EIM proposals in the corresponding
environmental impact statement, or EIM recommendations in the government’s assessment report. EIM
programmes appeared to be carried out at the discretion of the proponent, and no projects were found to
have environmental impact monitoring that directly corresponded to either proposals in the EIS or
recommendations in the assessment report. Reasons for this lack of correlation have been postulated to be a
combination of a serious lack of the following factors: clearly assigned monitoring responsibilities, public
accountability, clearly outlined monitoring timeframes, clearly outlined aims and objectives, lack of human
resources, and lack of any EIM legislation.
It should be noted that the study, upon which this paper is predominantly based, was undertaken in
1998. This study looked at developments that were approved (and subsequently built) under the Planning
Act 1982. This Act was later replaced by the South Australian Development Act 1993. Relevant information
from this study that has been reproduced in this paper was accurate at that time.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Environmental impact monitoring (EIM); Auditing; Follow-up;
Practice; South Australia

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 8303 5899; fax: +61 8 8303 3772.
E-mail addresses: a.ahammed@adelaide.edu.au (A.K.M.R. Ahammed), bnixon@pb.com.au (B.M. Nixon).
1
Tel./fax: +61 8 8405 4300.

0195-9255/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.09.002
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 427

1. Introduction

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is being used globally, either as a planning or

management tool, in order to minimise the harmful consequences of development. Its emphasis
is on prevention and it is hence an example of the precautionary principle (Glasson, 1995a).
Ensuring environmental protection and management is the primary goal of EIA (Bailey, 1997;
Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999). Since its introduction in the early 1970s, the role and
scope of EIA are expanding continuously, although its application, practice and procedures vary
from country to country (Glasson et al., 1994). There are still some uncertainties and issues in
EIA that are being discussed in a wide range of literature. In recent years, there has been an
increasing trend in examining the effectiveness of EIA. Sadler (1998) identified at least six areas
for the overall evaluation of the effectiveness of EIA, deffect monitoring and impact auditingT
being one of them.
The importance and benefits of monitoring and auditing in the EIA process has been
repeatedly highlighted in a wide range of literature (Arts, 1998; Arts and Nooteboom, 1999;
Arts et al., 2001; Bisset and Tomlinson, 1988; Canter, 1993; Glasson, 1995b; Glasson et al.,
1999; Holling, 1978; Morgan, 1998; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004; Morrison-Saunders et
al., 2001; Munro, 1987; Sadler, 1988, 1996; Tomlinson and Atkinson, 1987a; Wilson, 1998;
Wood, 1995, 2003, 1999a,b). In 1986, a special committee of the National Research Council
of the USA identified monitoring as the bsingle action that could most improve impact
assessmentQ (Fairweather, 1989). According to McCallum (1987), EIA cannot be expected to
endure in society without the introduction of impact monitoring. Although monitoring and
auditing are two important components of the EIA process, their implementation in the EIA
process is being neglected globally. However, Carpenter (1997) notes that the issue of
monitoring and auditing in EIA is becoming more prominent. The annual conference of the
International association for Impact Assessment (IAIA’00) held in Hong Kong in 2000
specially focused on various issues of monitoring and auditing in EIA and suggested future
directions for good practice.
EIA is reported to be mostly concerned with the prediction and identification of impacts at a
pre-decision level focusing only on the steps before and up to the planning decision but ignoring
post development follow-up activities, such as monitoring and auditing (Arts et al., 2001;
Glasson, 1995b; Petts and Eduljee, 1993). As a result, EIA is failing to maximize its potential for
continuous improvement (Wood, 1999b). Moreover, it would seem that the procedural emphasis
of EIA upon the pre-decision analysis keeps it distant from its goal, i.e., environmental
protection. In a major study on international EIA effectiveness by Sadler (1996), it was found
that there was a lack or poor performance of follow-up activities in EIA. This is considered to be
a major weakness of EIA globally (Arts et al., 2001; Bisset and Tomlinson, 1988; Buckley,
1989a; Dipper et al., 1998; Glasson et al., 1999; Ortolano and Shephered, 1995; Sadler, 1996;
Wood, 2003).
In Australia, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE, 1992) set out a
schedule for EIA, recognizing and acknowledging the need for national participation in all facets
of EIA and accepting the role of EIA in post-development environmental monitoring and
management. This agreement forms a basis for EIA to become one of the most important and
useful tools for environmental management in Australia. However, in the Australian EIA system,
monitoring and auditing remain the weakest areas, requiring the attention of policy makers and
EIA practitioners. As noted by Harvey (1998) in most of the EIA jurisdictions in Australia, EIA
is being used as a planning tool rather than an environmental management tool. Therefore,
428 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

monitoring and auditing programmes are not strictly considered within most of the EIA
processes in Australia; alternatively, they tend to be requirements of the planning approval of the
project. Although Australia is one of the major EIA jurisdictions of the world, very little research
has so far been conducted on EIA follow-up in Australia.
In South Australia, EIA was formally introduced under the provisions of the Planning Act
1982 which was repealed and replaced by the Development Act 1993. Many of the development
proposals approved under the SA Planning Act 1982 have subsequently been built, and
sufficient time has lapsed for monitoring regimes to potentially be established. Therefore, there
is a need to investigate the role of monitoring and auditing in the South Australian EIA process
under this Act. No such study has yet been conducted. This article attempts to look at how the
environmental impact monitoring process was incorporated within South Australian develop-
ment projects that required an EIA under the Planning Act 1982, and establishes the need for
further research under the new legislative provisions at both federal and state levels. Thus
contribution to increased understanding of the Australian situation will be significant for much
wider application.

2. Monitoring and auditing in EIA

The EIA process passes through a dseries of iterative stepsT including; consideration of
alternatives, action design, screening, scoping, preparation of the EIA report, reviewing or
evaluating the report, decision making, and post decision activities such as monitoring and
auditing (Glasson et al., 1994; Wood, 1995). According to Bird and Therivel (1996),
environmental impact monitoring is an essential part of the EIA process, which forms part of
its management component. Glasson et al. (1994) state that EIA should be a cyclical activity,
with feedback and interaction between the various steps. Because the aim of EIA is to ensure
that the consequences of any development action throughout its entire life cycle are
understood and are acceptable, EIA should have some mechanism for checks on the design,
implementation, operation and decommissioning stages of the project cycle. EIA itself is a
check on the project design. The implementation of monitoring and auditing is the only
mechanism available to establish further checks on the later stages of the project cycle. Thus,
monitoring and auditing can play a significant role in the post-decision stage of the EIA
process and, in fact, without their implementation EIA may lose its credibility. Money, time
and effort spent on the baseline studies and predictions are all effectively rendered useless
unless there is some way of testing these predictions and determining whether mitigation
methods will have to be applied.
Monitoring and auditing in EIA have been defined in many ways and are referred to as
dfollow-up actionsT and dpost-development auditT by some prominent authors (Bailey and
Hobbs, 1990; Sadler, 1996; Wood, 2003). Definitions of EIA abound in the literature but rarely
do they make any mention of post-development activities such as monitoring and auditing. The
definition given by Berkes (1988) clearly refers to these activities:
Environmental impact assessment is equivalent to impact prediction; prediction of changes
from the baseline conditions as demonstrated by the results of monitoring (Berkes, 1988,
p. 213).
Early definitions of dmonitoringT and dauditingT are provided by Bisset and Tomlinson
(1983). They specifically relate to the identification of actual impacts of the development
action on the environment, and the verification of the accurateness of the predictions. In more
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 429

recent times however, opinions are changing. The coverage of monitoring and auditing has
become much broader. Moreover, different authors have proposed different types of
monitoring and auditing in the EIA process (see Bailey and Hobbs, 1990; Bisset, 1987;
Lohani et al., 1997; Thomas, 2001; Tomlinson and Atkinson, 1987b). According to Wood et
al. (2000), EIA auditing refers to the dexamination of the performance of various aspects of the
EIA systemT whilst the term dpost-auditingT refers to the investigation of the accuracy of
predictions made in the EIS. Designing and integrating monitoring and auditing in the early
stages of the EIA process are becoming more important. dFollow-upT is a Canadian term that
includes all activities carried out after the EIA process is complete, such as monitoring and
auditing. The concept of dEIA follow upT seeks to establish a feed back mechanism in the EIA
process after decision-making. Sadler (1998) used the term dex-post evaluationT to review the
overall effectiveness of the EIA process.
It is widely accepted that monitoring and auditing in the EIA process are essential to verify
the performance of the mitigation activities, compliance with regulatory standards, and the
accuracy of impact predictions. Despite its undisputed usefulness, according to Wood (1995),
EIA practice often leaves much to be desired. Apart from the fact that many important steps
are often left out of EIA procedures in many jurisdictions around the world, it is also often
thought that the process itself is too dlinearT, with no real provisions for feed-back (Morgan,
1998).
The implementation of EIA follow-up in practice is not a simple matter (Arts et al., 2001),
with the major issues relating to the initiation mechanism and responsibility (Morrison-
Saunders et al., 2001). Another issue to consider is that environmental monitoring and auditing
activities are also undertaken outside the EIA process. Pollution control, waste management,
land use planning, natural resource management and other aspects of development planning
and policy-making all involve various forms of monitoring of activities. There is often
considerable overlap between the monitoring of EIA and all other aspects of environmental
management (Lee and George, 2000) and it is therefore necessary to establish some sort of
mechanism that can avoid or reduce the overlap between the monitoring and auditing
requirements in EIA and other aspects of environmental management. Monitoring and auditing
involve many stakeholders in the EIA process, each with different interests and
responsibilities. Therefore, proper coordination between the parties including investors,
developers, operators, NGOs, the public, the planning authority, assessing authority and
environmental agency is important for effective implementation. An appropriate institutional
and legal arrangement is also important in this regard.
Many terminologies can make monitoring and auditing seem somewhat complex phenomena.
Moreover, most of the terms overlap considerably (Arts et al., 2001). Sheperd (1998) termed the
monitoring and auditing activities in EIA as dpost-project impact assessment and monitoringT
(PPIAM) and suggests seven components for this. Tomlinson and Atkinson (1987b) define
seven types of auditing for various stages in a typical EIA process. Three of these relate to the
post-development stage whilst others are applicable during the EIA study. Dipper et al. (1998)
argue that monitoring and post auditing are interlinked with each other, the former being
essential for the latter. In actual fact, it is not practically possible to integrate all types of
monitoring and auditing in the EIA process of a particular project at one time. The type of
project and its potential for producing significant social, economic and environmental impacts
will determine what type of monitoring and auditing programmes are needed in the EIA process
of that particular project. Again, there is a need to prioritise actions under the monitoring and
auditing programme in order to fulfil the basic need of EIA. Hence, Wilson (1998) argues that
430 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

auditing the performance of mitigation commitments could be the first priority. It is necessary
however to keep in mind to make EIA more effective and meaningful without promoting any
unnecessary complexity. Therefore, it is important to look into the existing mechanism of the
implementation of monitoring and auditing in EIA in order to work out an effective and
uncomplicated mechanism, which can ensure integration between impact predictions, impact
management and monitoring schemes.

3. Environmental impact assessment effectiveness

Monitoring and auditing play a vital role in making EIA an effective environmental
management tool. According to Bird and Therivel (1996) environmental impact monitoring
and impact auditing are two vital activities, which must be performed in order to assess an
EIA’s effectiveness at achieving environmental protection. Morrison-Saunders (1996) argues
that the effectiveness of EIA is the extent to which it achieves its goals for environmental
protection and management. Gibson (1993) considers monitoring of effects as one of the basic
principles for evaluating the EIA process. Sadler (1996) focused on dfollow upT as one the
major themes in his international EIA effectiveness study and identified follow-up activities as
one of the major priorities for improving EIA effectiveness. In fact, without monitoring and
auditing there is no opportunity for feedback in the EIA process and without feedback EIA is
a static and linear process that does not have any mechanism for the improvement in the
future.
To be truly effective EIA has to achieve goals for better environmental management of any
particular project; however, EIA has the chance to be effective on a nation-wide level by
contributing information to future projects. The review of Commonwealth (of Australia)
Environmental Impact Assessment in 1994 found that very little was done to utilize the
information contained in the multitude of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) around
Australia. Buckley (1989a) also remarked on the lack of effort in Australia to collate information
in a systematic way to be used as a base for future reference. This is indeed unfortunate as a great
deal of time, money and effort would be saved on future EIA preparation if the information
contained in past EISs provided some feed-back. Future projects and activities could then be
compared against similar developments carried out in the past which were subject to similar
variables (Malone, 1997).

4. Monitoring and auditing: the weakest areas in the EIA process

EIA is far from perfect; there are problems in many of the procedural steps from baseline
studies through to monitoring requirements. It is widely believed that monitoring and auditing
are the weakest areas in the EIA process globally. Sadler (1996) reviewed the implementation of
monitoring and auditing in various EIA jurisdictions in his dinternational study of the
effectiveness of environmental assessmentT and found that there was a lack or poor performance
of follow-up activities in EIA. Wood (2003) evaluated the status of monitoring and auditing in
seven EIA jurisdictions of the developed world including the United States, UK, the
Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and he found none of them
to fully meet his evaluation criteria. This is considered as a major weakness of EIA globally
(Glasson et al., 1999). This weakness has been established by many authors.
A review by Dipper et al. (1998) reveals that post-auditing activities are not widespread in
practice and concludes that there is much scope for raising the profile of post-auditing activities
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 431

in EIA worldwide. Barker and Wood (1999) report that of eight European countries studied, only
Greece was found to take measures to strengthen EIA follow-up. Briffett’s study of Asia (1999)
found that within 15 EIA jurisdictions only four countries (Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea
and Phillipines) had compulsory provisions for monitoring and auditing in EIA (Briffett, 1999).
There is some research on environmental impact auditing that determines the overall
performance of impact predictions within the EIA procedure. The problems and issues
associated with monitoring and auditing in EIA, which has been discussed in a wide range of
literature are similar (see Bailey et al., 1992; Bird and Therivel, 1996; Bisset, 1981, 1984;
Buckley, 1989b; Culhane et al., 1987; Dipper et al., 1998; Morrison-Saunders, 1996; Thomson
et al., 1997; Tomlinson and Atkinson, 1987b; Wood, 2000; Wood et al., 2000). Some of the
prominent earlier research including the work of Buckley (1989a) in Australia, Culhane et al.
(1987) in the United States and Bisset (1984) in the United Kingdom identified weaknesses in
EIA in predicting impacts. A study on 28 UK projects by Wood et al. (2000) showed that out of
865 predictions 488 (56%) were auditable and of them 105 (21%) predictions were inaccurate.
This study reported six unanticipated impacts and identified the reasons, including the lack of
data, vague or ambiguous prediction and time dependency, which made the predictions not
auditable. Buckley (1989a) reported that many EIAs in Australia were descriptive as opposed to
predictive and there was considerable problem with predictions in EIA (28% of the auditable
predictions were found to be completely inaccurate). Bailey et al. (1992) found 22% of the
auditable predictions inaccurate in seven artificial waterway developments in Western Australia
and noted that the lack of monitoring data constrained auditing of impacts. Another study in
Western Australia by Morrison-Saunders (1996) found 29% of inaccurate predictions with 14%
of actual impacts not predicted at all. The only research in South Australia relating to post
auditing is the work of Read (1994) which shows a different scenario. This research found the
faunal predictions in the EIS of a mineral mine accurate and useful overall.

5. Provisions for monitoring and auditing in EIA in Australia

Australia is one of the three EIA jurisdictions that partially meets Wood’s evaluation criteria
of monitoring (Wood, 2003). However, monitoring and auditing are considered as one of the
weakest areas in the EIA systems in Australia (Conacher and Conacher, 2000; Harvey, 1998;
Malone, 1997). In Australia, there are several reports and studies that exemplify the lack of
monitoring in this country (see the Review of Commonwealth Environmental Impact
Assessment, 1994 and Buckley’s environmental impact auditing studies, 1989a,b, 1991a,b,
1992 and 1995), despite government documents such as, for example, the Intergovernmental
agreement on the Environment (1992) which states that:
The environmental impact assessment process will provide a basis for setting
environmental conditions, and establishing environmental monitoring and management
programmes (including arrangements for review) and developing industry guidelines for
application in specific casesQ (Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, p22,
schedule 3 (3xii)).
Unlike the EIA system of Canada, the requirement of monitoring in the Australian EIA
systems is discretionary. In some Australian EIA jurisdictions (e.g. New South Wales and South
Australia), developers are required to carry out impact monitoring under planning consent
conditions or the legal environmental permit system. The Australian approach has a similarity
with that of United Kingdom in this regard. Although monitoring is still a weak link in Australia,
432 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

some Australian EIA jurisdictions do have provisions for it in their legislation. Harvey (1998),
however, notes that it is largely discretionary and has not been an important part of the EIA
process. It must be noted that even if monitoring is not provided for in legislature, it does still
occur on an ad hoc basis in some areas. The Commonwealth Review of Environmental Impact
Assessment in 1994 found that generally, monitoring is limited to that required by licences.
According to Wood (1995), the Commonwealth of Australia makes a requirement for EIA
reports to contain a section on monitoring arrangements to ensure that mitigation is effective, but
there are no provisions to compare monitoring results with predictions. Wood then states that in
practice the monitoring of impacts is seldom carried out.
EIA in Western Australia is often cited as being a good example for the other Australian states
to follow, as it places emphasis on environmental monitoring and management (Bailey et al.,
1992; Wood, 1995; Wood and Bailey, 1996). In Western Australia, the Environment Protection
Authority (EPA) has the combined roles of assessing authority and licensing authority and thus
EIA is integrated into the licensing system (Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency,
1994). Monitoring is restricted to licence conditions (Section 48 of the Environmental Protection
Act 1986) and if the conditions are not met, the Minister has the power to halt activities or to
request compliance with the conditions (Harvey, 1998). Western Australia has an extensive audit
programme in place making the reports public (Harvey, 1998). Wood and Bailey (1994) note that
during the assessment of a project the EPA sets an environmental objective to be met by the
proponent which is accompanied by a requirement for monitoring. As noted by Morrison-
Saunders and Bailey (1999), EIA influences effective environmental management outcomes in
Western Australia.
In the Northern Territory, paragraph 15 of the Administrative Procedures contains
provisions for the monitoring of environmental effects. These provisions provide a basis to
require an audit in order to determine the effectiveness of the EIA process and to make
monitoring recommendations to the Minister. This creates an opportunity for monitoring
results to be fed back into the system in order to improve the over all EIA process (Harvey,
1998). Despite this, the case study of McKillop and Brown (1999) on a large mining project in
the Northern Territory reveals that there is a lack of connection between the EIA process and
project management outcomes and EIA has failed to ensure effective environmental
management outcomes. However, in the Northern Territory, mining proposals usually require
monitoring under lease conditions, and the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) required
for mining proposals includes monitoring requirements (Commonwealth Environment
Protection Agency, 1994).
There are no legislative requirements for monitoring in Tasmania and monitoring is restricted
to licence conditions (Harvey, 1998; Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, 1994).
The Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control under section 25 (6) (c) of the
Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 may require monitoring
as part of the permit conditions. Monitoring is also weak in Victoria, although Wood (1993)
notes that it does occur in practice. Monitoring requirements are outlined in the assessment
report but Environmental Effects Statements (EES) commitments in general are not monitored.
Planning permits may include monitoring conditions. However, monitoring is mostly restricted
to the licensing system with non-licensed parameters generally not monitored (Commonwealth
Environment Protection Agency, 1994).
There are no provisions for monitoring in New South Wales although in practice it is required
for all approvals made by the Minister (Harvey, 1998). In NSW Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) commitments in general are not monitored and monitoring is restricted to
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 433

licence conditions (Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, 1994). Similarly the

Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Queensland do not have any monitoring provisions
unless they are part of the conditions of approval. There is no mechanism for enforcement except
where licences are required. However, in practice, some monitoring does occur in Queensland
(Harvey, 1998). The study of Nitz and Holland (2000) reveals significant increases in follow-up
commitments in EISs over time in Queensland. In ACT, there is an informal mechanism in place
where any person/body can apply for an order requiring monitoring (Commonwealth
Environment Protection Agency, 1994). In Queensland, proponents must prepare an
environmental management overview strategy (EMOS) for mining proposals including
measurable parameters (Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency, 1994).
Until recently, provisions for monitoring did not exist in South Australian EIA legislation.
Under the South Australian Development Act 1993, there were no provisions for monitoring. In
1997, an amendment to the Development Act 1993 made discretionary provisions for monitoring
and auditing (Harvey, 1998). Section 48C of the Act states that the Minister may require a person
who is undertaking a development or project, to carry out specified tests and monitoring relevant
to the development or project, and to comply with the requirements of an audit programme. The
Minister may also conduct tests and monitoring if necessary. According to Chapman (1998,
personal communication) this amendment provides the Environmental Impact Assessment
Branch of the South Australian Planning Authority with the opportunity to arrange monitoring
activities if they have been neglected by other parties. Monitoring does take place in South
Australia under the legal environmental permit system. Monitoring has also been improved in
this state because of the fact that conditions of approval for each project or development are now
published in the Government Gazette as of 1997 (Smith, 1998, personal communication). This
could aid in making conditions for monitoring more publicly accountable.
Given the poor record of environmental impact monitoring in South Australia under the
Planning Act 1982 where there were no provisions for monitoring, it was chosen as the basis for
the study upon which this paper is based to look at the extent of monitoring, not only in practice,
but as outlined in EIA documents as well.

6. Monitoring intentions in South Australian EISs

Based on the methodology of Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b) an analysis of contents of
all EIA documents was done for all projects/developments subject to EIA requirements under the
Planning Act 1982, which were approved and subsequently implemented. Out of the total of 16
projects/developments, only one project (Lincoln Cove 2 Marina) required an amended EIS
under the new legislation, the Development Act 1993. The following criteria were set for this
study in order to find out how environmental impact monitoring intentions were actually
discussed by each EIS:

5 Were monitoring intentions discussed in a separate, clearly indicated monitoring chapter or

section?
5 Were there clear, specific commitments to monitor impacts, as opposed to a vague reference
that could easily be avoided?
5 Were monitoring plans or programmes outlined for scrutiny and public comment?
5 Were monitoring aims and objectives outlined?
5 Were responsibilities for monitoring outlined clearly?
5 Were any monitoring timeframes provided?
434 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

Table 1 demonstrates the tabulated results on how specific environmental impact monitoring
intentions were discussed in each EIS. It was found that 9 out of 15 assessable projects (60%)
had monitoring intentions outlined in a separate, clearly indicated monitoring chapter or section.
Seven projects (47%) made specific monitoring commitments as opposed to vague, easily
avoidable reference of impact monitoring. None of the projects had clearly outlined monitoring
programmes or plans included in their EIS for public scrutiny, although 4 projects (27%)
partially achieved this by outlining variables that were intended to be monitored and how often
they would be monitored, and either standards to be achieved, the methods of monitoring, and to
whom the results would be reported. Four of the projects (27%) outlined their monitoring aims
or objectives, whilst the same number assigned responsibilities to monitoring (with three more
doing so partially). Finally none of the projects included any true monitoring timeframes,
although 4 (27%) of them did for some variables only. Hence, it is clear that monitoring in the
South Australian EIA system is not based on a common procedural framework and the EISs do
not reflect clear monitoring intentions.

Table 1
EIS environmental impact monitoring intentions
Project Separate monit. Clear monit. Monit. progr. Monit. aims Monit. respons. Monit. timeframe
type/name section comm. outlined and objectives outlined outlined
Marinas
Porter Bay Yes No No No Partially No
Jane Eliza Yes Yes Partially Yes Partially No
Whyalla Yes Yes No Yes Yes Partially
Hindmarsh Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes Partially
Lincoln Cove Yes No No No Yes No

Waste
Waterloo Cnr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Power
Wasleys-Adel Yes Yes Partially Yes No Partially

Urban
Thomps. Bch Yes Yes No No Yes No

Defence
Pt. Wakefield No No No No No No

Water
Woolpunda No No No No No No

Tourist
Granite Island Yes Yes No No No No

Industrial
Apcel Pulp Yes Yes Partially Partially Partially Partially

Transmission line
Tunng-Chrry No No No No No No
Victoria to SA No No No No No No
Tung-Tailem No No No No No No
Ardros-Dalry No No No No No No
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 435

7. Monitoring issues in South Australian EIA documents

The following criteria were set for this study to demonstrate how potential environmental
(including social and economic) issues were addressed in the EISs, Assessment Reports and
conditions of approvals in terms of their monitoring requirements:

5 The number of environmental issues that could potentially be affected (i.e. impacted) by each
particular project.
5 The number of environmental impact monitoring programmes proposed for each particular
project.
5 The number of environmental issues with a monitoring programme expressed as a percentage
for each project.
5 The number of environmental issues that were likely to be of definite impact (to whatever
degree) from each particular project.
5 The number of definite impact issues that were referred to for a monitoring programme.
5 The number of definite impact issues with monitoring programmes expressed as a percentage
for each project.

7.1. Monitoring issues in EISs

Nine out of the 15 assessable EISs were found to contain at least one reference to
environmental impact monitoring. More than 50% of the EISs were found not to contain either
definite impact issues or definite impact monitoring programmes. Projects with highest number
of potential impacts outlined in the EIS (e.g. Porter Bay and Apcel Pulp) did not have the highest
number of proposed monitoring programmes. Similarly, projects with bdefinite impact issuesQ
(issues that would be definitely affected) did not have an equal number of definite-impact
monitoring programmes in most cases. Even for projects with definite impact issues (e.g.
Lincoln Cove and Pt Wakefield) no definite impact monitoring programme was suggested.
Table 2 shows that there is no correlation between the number of potential environmental
issues and number of monitoring proposals. Having a high number of issues or related impacts
for a project does not imply that there will be a similar number of proposed monitoring
programmes. As Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b) states bImpact monitoring is unlikely to
be approaching comprehensiveness in even a select few casesQ (Frost, 1994, cited in Glasson,
1995b, p 314).
The paper will now look at how often an issue was described as being a potential or highly
likely impact in all of the EISs, and also the total monitoring proposals it received. Although
dVisual AmenityT was the issue referred to most often as being potentially affected by the
projects (5.0%), water quality was the actual issue that had the highest total monitoring proposals
(15.4%). This is in accord with results obtained by Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b) who
also found that water quality was the issue most likely to have a monitoring proposal in United
Kingdom Environmental Impact Statements. The next most likely issue to be monitored for
South Australian projects was dGroundwater IssuesT (7.8%), followed by other impacts such as
marine communities and terrestrial flora and fauna, coastal management issues, erosion, impacts
arising from project construction, general social impacts, and traffic issues (5.1%).
The percentages of some monitoring proposals are perhaps less than what might have been
expected, for example native vegetation, which was a significant potential issue for several
projects, was only referred to for 2.3% of total monitoring proposals. The same was found for
436 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

Table 2
Issues and environmental impact monitoring in EISs
Project Num.of Num. of Percentage of Num. of Definite-impact Percentage of
type/name issues monit. progr. monitored issues definite-impact monit. progr. definite-impact
issues monitored
Porter Bay 30 4 13 4 4 100
Jane Eliza 15 6 40 0 0 0
Whyalla 14 2 14 3 2 67
Hindmarsh 17 7 41 2 2 100
Lincoln Cove 15 2 13 1 0 0
Waterloo Cnr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wasleys-Adel 9 4 44 1 1 100
Thomps. Bch 12 6 50 0 0 0
Pt. Wakefield 13 0 0 4 0 0
Woolpunda 9 0 0 0 0 0
Granite Island 14 4 29 0 0 0
Apcel Pulp 21 4 19 0 0 0
Tunng-Chrry 12 0 0 0 0 0
Victoria to SA 11 0 0 0 0 0
Tung-Tailem 18 0 0 0 0 0
Ardros-Dalry 12 0 0 0 0 0

impacts related to noise and visual amenity, although these variables are often more difficult to
monitor. Socio-economic and agricultural impact proposals were limited when compared to
physical, and biological impact monitoring proposals. Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b)
notes, however, that impact-monitoring proposals vary between projects. For example Marina
projects are skewed towards water quality, coastal management and marine communities
monitoring, whilst industrial projects may look more at leachate, air emissions and effluent
discharge.

7.2. Monitoring issues in the public submissions

The Supplement or Response report is the only official opportunity for public comment in the
EIA process in South Australia (Harvey, 1995). Here, the public has a chance to comment on the
publicly displayed draft Environmental Impact Statement, with comments then being discussed
in the supplement report. Table 3 shows that 6 projects out of 16 did not receive any submissions
related to impact monitoring even though one of these projects, Port Wakefield, received as
many as 249 submissions containing 1100 points. This could demonstrate that at the time there
may have been a lack of public interest in impact monitoring activities. Of the issues related to
monitoring that were discussed in submissions, water quality monitoring and groundwater
monitoring were among the most common. Responsibilities for monitoring were also a common
theme, with submissions either questioning who will be responsible for monitoring certain
variables, or who will be responsible for enforcing the monitoring of certain variables.
There are also several interesting points raised in monitoring submissions, which are also
discussed in the literature. One of these is that environmental impact monitoring information
from EIAs around Australia should be collated for future use. Another issue is public
involvement in environmental impact monitoring. A third issue is that of responsibilities for
impact monitoring and that perhaps a separate authority should be responsible for monitoring,
also making monitoring information publicly accountable. Finally, there is the conclusion that
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 437

Table 3
Public submissions and environmental impact monitoring
Project name Num. of Public Govt. Num. of total Numb. of points
submiss. (if known) (if known) points raised related to EIM
Porter Bay 13 8 5 42 0
Jane Eliza 26 25 1* 100 2
Whyalla 13 11 2 83 3
Hindmarsh 73 72 1* 577 3
Lincoln Cove 8 - - 90 2
Waterloo Cnr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wasleys-Adel - 11 - 73 public 4 public
Thomps. Bch 6 - - - 0
Pt. Wakefield 249 - - 1100 0
Woolpunda 14 13 1* 74 2
Granite Island 32 - - 293 1
Apcel Pulp 34 26 8 305 14
Tunng-Chrry 39 - - 352 0
Victoria to SA 63 62 1* 604 2
Tung-Tailem 18 14 4 87 0
Ardros-Dalry 22 21 1* 96 0
*Coordinated government response; - not known.

monitoring responsibilities should be outlined early in the planning process. All these points
mentioned above demonstrate that findings such as those discussed here are actual issues
affecting the general success of environmental impact assessment.

7.3. Monitoring issues in assessment reports

A content analysis of Government’s Assessment Reports has once again been done using the
methodology of Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b) who undertook similar studies in UK, and
of Beanlands (1992) who looked at the recommendations contained in Canadian project review
panel reports. Table 4 demonstrates a similarity with the information of the table for the
Environmental Impact Statements (Table 2). Projects with the highest number of issues do not
necessarily have the highest number of monitoring recommendations, and some projects do not
have monitoring recommendations at all. Even projects with definite-impact issues do not have
any definite-impact monitoring programmes. For example, none of the three definite-impact
issues identified for the Port Wakefield project were recommended for monitoring although two
issues of significance such as marine flora and marine communities could be monitored. There
is, again, a very weak correlation between the number of issues discussed in the Assessment
Report and the number of recommended monitoring programmes.
Again, most frequently discussed issues in the Assessment Reports do not necessarily have
the highest monitoring recommendations. For example, Indigenous Heritage was the most
frequent issue discussed in assessment reports but issues related to Groundwater and Water
quality had the highest monitoring recommendations. This may, of course, be due to the
perceived difficulty of monitoring effects to Indigenous Heritage. Overall, physical issues such
as water quality, coastal issues, groundwater and irrigation received the most monitoring
recommendations, followed by biological issues and other issues such as noise impacts, visual
amenity, construction and air quality, whilst, agricultural issues and socio-economic issues
received the least number of recommendations for monitoring. This is in accordance with results
obtained from the content analysis of EISs as mentioned previously.
438 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

Table 4
Issues and environmental impact monitoring in assessment reports
Project name Num. of Num. of Percentage of Num. of Definite- impact Percentage of
issues monit. Progr. monitored issues definite-impact monit. progr. definite-impact
issues monitored
Porter Bay 18 4 22 0 0 0
Jane Eliza 14 4 29 0 0 0
Whyalla 10 1 10 0 0 0
Hindmarsh 13 7 54 0 0 0
Lincoln Cove 21 4 19 0 0 0
Waterloo Cnr 13 2 15 0 0 0
Wasleys-Adel 12 5 42 2 1 50
Thomps. Bch 12 0 0 1 0 0
Pt. Wakefield 13 0 0 3 0 0
Woolpunda 8 1 12.5 0 0 0
Granite Island 8 1 12.5 1 0 0
Apcel Pulp 13 2 15 2 0 0
Tunng-Chrry 15 0 0 0 0 0
Victoria to SA 12 1 8 2 1 50
Tung-Tailem 11 0 0 0 0 0
Ardros-Dalry 11 0 0 0 0 0

There was found to be a lack of conformity between environmentally significant issues of

potential impact, listed in the Environmental Impact Statement and in the Assessment Report,
despite the fact that many of these issues would obviously be affected by the proposed project.
This makes it surprising that there is not more integration between the two EIA documents. For
many projects, the Assessment Report outlines a single recommendation, but with this one
recommendation are several points making further recommendations for EIM (see Table 5 for

Table 5
Recommendations in assessment reports
Project name Number of Number of monitoring Number of issues within
recommendations recommendations monitoring recommendations
Porter Bay 13 2 6
Jane Eliza 39 6 11
Whyalla 10 1 1
Hindmarsh 21 1 7
Lincoln Cove 41 4 4
Waterloo Cnr 4 1 2
Wasleys-Adel 3 3 8
Thomps. Bch 3* 0 0
Pt. Wakefield 5 0 0
Woolpunda 2 0 1
Granite Island 5 0 1
Apcel Pulp 14 1 1
Tunng-Chrry 13 0 0
Victoria to SA 13 1 1
Tung-Tailem 11 0 0
Ardros-Dalry 14 0 0
*Recommended that project not proceed.
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 439

Table 6
Effectiveness of monitoring recommendations in assessment reports
Project type/name Clear monitoring Monitoring progr. Monitoring respons. Regular Monitoring timeframes
comm. outlined outlined reporting outlined
Porter Bay Yes No Yes Yes No
Jane Eliza Yes Partial Partial No No
Whyalla Yes No Yes No No
Hindmarsh Partial No Yes Yes No
Lincoln Cove Yes No Yes Yes No
Waterloo Cnr No No No No No
Wasleys-Adel Yes No Partial No No
Thomps. Bch* - - - - -
Pt. Wakefield* - - - - -
Woolpunda Yes No No Yes Yes
Granite Island No No No No No
Apcel Pulp Yes No Yes Yes No
Tunng-Chrry* - - - - -
Victoria to SA Yes No No No Yes
Tung-Tailem* - - - - -
Ardros-Dalry* - - - - -
*Projects did not have any EIM recommendations to apply to the above criteria.

detail). In many cases the Assessment Report does not specify monitoring timeframes,
programme outlines, clear monitoring commitments, responsibilities and reporting criteria (see
Table 6 for detail).

7.4. Monitoring requirements in conditions of approval

It was only possible to obtain conditions of approval for two projects, the Jane Eliza Marina
and the Apcel Pulp and Paper Mill. The Jane Eliza Marina was given 28 conditions; Condition
12 states that there should be regular reports provided to the Planning Commission on the results
of the monitoring of the settlement of fill material. Additionally, Condition 19 states that
monitoring strategies outlined in the EIS should be adopted and then adhered to. Seven
conditions were imposed on the Apcel Pulp and Paper Mill, one of which requires a monitoring
programme for groundwater to take place. The conditions state that the programme is to be
designed to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Water Supply Department, E and WS,
(currently SA Water), that all monitoring work is to be the responsibility of the applicant with
reports made available to the E and WS Department at agreed regular intervals, and that all
reports are to be made available to the public on request. However, there is a lack of conformity
between the monitoring recommendations of the Assessment Report and the Conditions of
Approval.

8. Environmental impact monitoring in practice in South Australia

Tables 7 and 8 show what is actually happening in practice in South Australia (at the time of
the study), in terms of environmental impact monitoring. Four (4) of the sixteen (16) projects
have had absolutely no environmental impact monitoring carried out for them at all. For the
majority of projects studied, monitoring activities tended to be overstated in the EIA documents,
i.e, more monitoring was proposed or recommended than actually occurred in practice. This was
 440
A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447
Table 7
Issues monitored in practice
Impacts/issues Porter Jane Whyalla Hindmarsh Lincoln Waterloo Wasleys- Thomsons Port Woolpunda Granite Apcel Tung- Victoria Tung- Adros-
Bay Eliza Island Cove 2 Corner Adelaide Beach Wakefield Island Pulp Cherry to SA Tailem Dalry
Mill Gdn
Terrestrial ü
fauna
Weed and ü
pest control
Native vegetation ü
Ground water ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Water quality ü ü ü ü ü
Stormwater ü
Erosion ü ü
Soils ü
Waste disposal/ ü
management
Effluent treatment/ ü
disposal
Risk/hazard ü
consequences
Fire safety ü ü ü ü
Noise ü ü
Air quality/ ü ü ü ü
emissions
Water supply ü
üIssues monitored in practice.
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 441

Table 8
Environmental impact monitoring in practice for South Australian projects
Project name Num. of issues Responsibilities for Regular Results available
monitored monitoring reporting to public
Porter Bay 2 Government Unknown Yes
Jane Eliza 0 Unknown N/A N/A
Whyalla 0 Unknown N/A N/A
Hindmarsh 5 Proponent No No
Lincoln Cove 2 Proponent and local council Unknown Yes
Waterloo Cnr 2 Proponent Yes No
Wasleys-Adel 6 Proponent and private Unknown No
Thomps. Bch 0 None N/A N/A
Pt. Wakefield 0 Unknown N/A N/A
Woolpunda 4 Proponent (govt.) and public Yes Yes
Granite Island 1 Government No N/A
Apcel Pulp 4 Proponent Yes Yes
Tunng-Chrry 4 Proponent (govt.) Unknown Unknown
Victoria to SA 1 Proponent (govt.) Unknown Unknown
Tung-Tailem 1 Proponent (govt.) Unknown Unknown
Ardros-Dalry 1 Proponent (govt.) Unknown Unknown

found to be in contrast to the findings of Frost (1994, cited in Glasson, 1995b), who states that in
the UK, EIAs tended to understate monitoring intentions. Only three (3) of the sixteen (16)
projects studied in this instance actually conducted more environmental impact monitoring than
was required by EIAs.
Only four of the projects had at least one issue that was common to all three stages of
analysis, the EIS monitoring proposals, the Assessment Report monitoring recommendations
and the actual monitoring in practice. For each of these projects, however, it was only one or
two issues at the most that were in common. This demonstrates a lack of congruity between
the three stages. Only one project out of the sixteen studied, had one issue of definite impact
in common between the EIS monitoring proposals and the Assessment Report recommenda-
tions. This issue is not monitored in practice, demonstrating that there are no issues of definite
impact in common to all three stages of analysis in South Australia. Issues of potential impact
that fell under the dphysicalT categorisation had the highest number of environmental impact
monitoring programmes in practice, followed by the General (or technical) category,
Biological, Socio-Economic and Agricultural issues, respectively. The Socio-Economic
category had only one issue of potential impact monitored in practice, despite having the
highest number of issues in total. This is, again, in contrast to results found by Frost (1994,
cited in Glasson, 1995b).
Environmental impact monitoring for specific projects was found to not correspond either
with proposals in the corresponding Environmental Impact Statement, or the recommendations
in the government’s Assessment Report, or even conditions of approval for those projects where
they were obtainable, and in some cases even the environmental license agreements. At least one
EIM programme does occur for the majority of projects (12 out of 16 projects) but these
programmes appear to be carried out at the discretion of the proponent, whether that be a
government agency or a private company. No projects were found to have environmental impact
monitoring that directly corresponded to either proposals in the EIS or recommendations in the
assessment report.
442 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

8.1. Environmental impact monitoring responsibilities

It is supported by the literature that to be effective, and to prevent an environmental impact

monitoring programme becoming a drain on resources, responsibilities for monitoring should
be established early on in the EIA process (Beanlands and Duinker, 1984). According to
Malone (1997), agreements to monitor should be made legislative requirements so that
proponents cannot escape their monitoring responsibilities. There also needs to be better
communication between authorities responsible for the enforcement of monitoring and the
parties responsible for undertaking the monitoring (Body, 1998). According to Glasson
(1995b) bAssigning responsibility for monitoring to the proponent [is] akin to assigning a fox
to guard the chickensQ. Malone (1997) agrees with this sentiment and states that whilst
proponents should be responsible for funding monitoring, an independent authority should
carry it out.
In many EIA systems, monitoring is undertaken by a combination of the developer and the
relevant environmental authorities. Wood (1995a) states, however, that this is increasingly
becoming the responsibility of the proponent. Table 8 illustrates the responsibilities for EIM for
the 16 South Australian projects, in terms of recommended responsibilities in the Assessment
Reports, and who actually does carry out the monitoring in practice. In South Australia,
proponents are mainly responsible for their own monitoring (10 out of 16 projects were found to
be monitored by the proponent). It is interesting to note, though, that exactly half of the projects
were recommended to be monitored by the proponent in each Assessment Report any way (see
Table 8). In two cases, monitoring was recommended to be the responsibility of the proponent,
whilst in reality this has fallen to the government. This obviously places an extra burden on the
shoulders of the government. In three cases, monitoring was recommended to be the
responsibility of the local council (partly or wholly) although in practice it was not carried
out at all (see Table 8). Apparently, the local council officers recognise the need to monitor and
its importance, but they just are not aware that they should actually be undertaking the
monitoring, and do not know where to start. It could be that a lack of knowledge of who should
be responsible for monitoring and who should be responsible for enforcing monitoring, could be
the reason why there is a lack of monitoring for some projects in SA.

8.2. Public involvement in environmental impact monitoring

Some authors believe that the public could have a role in environmental impact monitoring
(Wright and Smith, 1992; Malone, 1997). Wood (1995) suggests consultation and participation
throughout the whole EIA process from screening to EIA follow-up. Malone (1997) believes that
the public have the right to be involved in the evaluation of a project, specifically in its
environmental success, as they have the right to be in the EIS stage of the EIA. She does
concede, though, that increasing the number of parties involved may actually delay a project and
even increase its complexity. The involvement of public in environmental impact monitoring has
been facilitated in South Australia with the introduction of conditions of approval, including
monitoring conditions, being published in the Government Gazette since 1997. This makes the
approval conditions more accessible and accountable to the public. Only two cases of public
involvement could be found for 16 projects studied. Members of the public were reported to
carry out their own monitoring of native vegetation for the Thompson’s Beach project. The
Woolpunda project is also an example where ground water monitoring was carried out by a local
botany club (when it was not even recommended to be in the Assessment Report).
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 443

8.3. Regular reporting and EIM timeframe

Regular reporting is considered to be an important aspect of environmental impact

monitoring. It makes monitoring more accountable and easier to detect detrimental changes
occurring because of the project and hence instigate mitigation measures. Despite the fact that
the assessment report very rarely recommended regular reporting and the availability of results to
the public (with the exception of the Porter Bay and Apcel Pulp projects) four of the projects
readily made their results available to the public, whilst three of them undertook regular
reporting. It should be noted here, however, that all of those three projects are under conditions
of an environmental license, which can make it a condition to report regularly and make results
available to the public. An EIA should always outline the expected duration of the monitoring
activities but the programme should remain flexible enough to incorporate any changes that are
necessary to meet its objectives (Beanlands and Duinker, 1984). Impact monitoring should take
place over an extended period of time, throughout the construction, operation and
decommissioning stages of the project (Morris and Therivel, 1995; Thomas, 1996), so that
trends can be identified. Only two (Woolpunda and Victoria to SA Transmission Line) out of 16
projects studied had timeframes outlined in the recommendation for bregular monitoringQ
without specifying how regular bregularQ is. This allows proponents to avoid monitoring if they
wish, as without any clear timeframes for monitoring programme it is difficult to check progress.

9. Conclusion

The majority of South Australian projects studied do not conform to any of the following
three recommendations of Beanlands and Duinker (1984).

5 Guidelines or terms of reference should place emphasis on monitoring of effects, as an

integral part of the design of impact studies.
5 Environmental Impact Statements should provide as much rationale and technical detail for
monitoring studies as for pre-project studies.
5 Agencies should clearly establish for each environmental impact assessment the responsi-
bilities of government agencies and proponents for conducting and reviewing monitoring
programme (Beanlands and Duinker, 1984).

Major findings in the literature review, such as a lack of adequate timeframes for monitoring,
the lack of assigning responsibilities early on in the EIA process, and the lack of regular
reporting, were all found to hold true for all of the 16 projects studied. So why is EIM not an
important aspect of the environmental impact assessment process in South Australia? There are
several potential responses to this question, with the correct one more likely to be a combination
of all of them. A lack of monitoring legislation within EIA legislation is a major constraint and
without any legal provisions voluntary environmental impact monitoring simply does not work
in South Australia. According to two EIA professionals, legislation would set a standard process
for monitoring and would allow fines to be implemented for not carrying out monitoring if
specified to (Shultz, 1998, personal communication and Pfenning, 1998, personal communi-
cation). Another view is that although legislation would alleviate the situation, however, without
legislation, and through better education, developers would have a greater sense of ownership
and pride in their environmental management programmes (Cooney, 1998, personal
communication). A lack of clearly outlined aims and objectives for monitoring contributes to
444 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

the situation in South Australia, as this makes it harder to prioritise and to organise a framework
through which to act. A lack of public accountability could also contribute towards the lack of
monitoring in South Australia, although this has changed in this state, as of l997. Other reasons
include a lack of human resources, especially in government agencies, a lack of assigned
responsibilities, and, of course, government reshuffles.
The 1997 amendment made to the current South Australian EIA legislation, the Development
Act 1993, along with the discretionary provisions for monitoring in EIA and the newly
introduced Commonwealth legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva-
tion Act 1999 may have brought some changes in EIA practices in South Australia. This
certainly provides an interesting scope for further research. Similarly, further research of projects
approved and constructed under the current Development Act 1993 would also be of interest,
especially with regards to eventual comparisons with this study.

Acknowledgements

This article is an outcome of a previous Masters’ research dissertation and an ongoing PhD
research in the Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of
Adelaide, Australia. Our sincerest thanks go to Professor Nick Harvey for his supervision,
support and cooperation in the research. We are thankful to officials of Planning SA and other
agencies and organisations who cooperated in this research in many ways.

References

Arts J. EIA follow-up on the role of ex post evaluation in environmental impact assessment. Groningen, the Netherlands7
Geo Press; 1998.
Arts EJMM, Nooteboom S. Environmental impact assessment monitoring and auditing. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of
environmental impact assessment, vol. 1. Oxford7 Blackwell; 1999. p. 229 – 51.
Arts J, Caldwell P, Morrison-Saunders A. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future
directions—findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):175 – 85.
Bailey JM. Environmental impact assessment and management: an underexplored relationship. Environ Manage
1997;21(3):317 – 27.
Bailey JM, Hobbs V. A proposed framework and database for EIA auditing. J Environ Manag 1990;31:163 – 72.
Bailey J, Hobbs V, Saunders A. Environmental auditing: artificial waterway developments in Western Australia. J Environ
Manag 1992;34:1 – 13.
Barker A, Wood CM. An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev
1999;19:387 – 404.
Beanlands G. Research demands of marine environmental impact assessments. Mar Pollut Bull 1992;25(1-4):104 – 6.
Beanlands GE, Duinker PN. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage
1984;18:267 – 77.
Berkes F. The intrinsic difficulty of predicting impacts: lessons from the James Bay hydro project. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 1988;8:201 – 20.
Bird A, Therivel R. Post-auditing of environmental impact statements using data held in public registers of environmental
information. Proj Appraisal 1996;11(2):105 – 16.
Bisset R. Problems and issues in the implementation of EIA audits. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1981;1:379 – 96.
Bisset R. Post-development audits to investigate the accuracy of environmental impact predictions. Z Umweitpolit
1984;4:463 – 84.
Bisset R. Methods for environmental impact assessment: a selective survey with case studies. In: Biswas AK,
Geping Q, editors. Environmental impact assessment for developing countries. London7 Tycooly International;
1987. p. 3 – 64.
Bisset R, Tomlinson P. Environmental impact assessment, monitoring and post development audit. In: PADC
Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit, editor. Environmental impact assessment, NATO ASI Series.
The Hague7 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1983. p. 405 – 24.
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 445

Bisset R, Tomlinson P. Monitoring and auditing of impacts. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment:
theory and practice. London7 Routledge; 1988. p. 117 – 28.
Body P, 1998. Approaches to Ongoing Environmental Management of Major Projects or Developments. Unpublished
paper, Environmental Impact Assessment Branch, Planning SA, Adelaide.
Briffett C. Environmental impact assessment in East Asia. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact
assessment, vol. 2. Oxford, UK7 Blackwell Science Ltd.; 1999. p. 143 – 67.
Buckley R. Precision in environmental impact prediction: first national environmental audit, Australia. Canberra7 Centre
for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University; 1989a.
Buckley R. What’s wrong with EIA? Search 1989b;20(5):146 – 7.
Buckley R. Auditing the precision and accuracy of environmental impact predictions in Australia. Environ Monit Assess
1991a;18:1 – 23.
Buckley R. How accurate are environmental impact predictions. Ambio 1991b;20(3-4):161 – 2.
Buckley R. Response to comment by JM Alho: environmental impact predictions in science and planning. Ambio
1992;21(4):323 – 4.
Buckley R. Environmental auditing. In: Vanclay F, Bronstein DA, editors. Environmental and social impact assessment.
England7 John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Canter L. The role of environmental management in responsible project management. Environ Prof 1993;15:76 – 87.
Carpenter R. The case for continuous monitoring and adaptive management under NEPA. In: Clark R, Canter L, editors.
Environmental policy and NEPA—past, present and future. Boca Raton7 St. Lucie Press; 1997. p. 163 – 80.
Chapman C, 1998. Personal Communication, EIA Branch. Planning SA, Adelaide.
Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency. An analysis of EIA practices and procedures in Australian states and
territories. Review of commonwealth environmental impact assessment. Canberra7 Commonwealth Environment
Protection Agency; 1994.
Conacher A, Conacher J, 2000. Environmental planning and management in Australia. Victoria, Australia7 Oxford
University Press; 2000.
Cooney M, 1998. Personal communication. Marine Facilities Section of Transport SA, Adelaide.
Culhane PJ, Friesema HP, Beecher JA. Forecasts and environmental decision making: the content and predictive accuracy
of environmental impact statements. Boulder, USA7 Westview Press; 1987.
Dipper B, Jones C, Wood C. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review. J Environ Plan
Manag 1998;41(6):731 – 47.
Fairweather P. Where is the science in EIA? Search 1989;20(5):141 – 4.
Gibson RB. Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience. Environ Prof 1993;15:12 – 24.
Glasson J. Environmental impact assessment: the next steps? Built Environ 1995a;20(4):277 – 9.
Glasson J. Life after the decision: the importance of monitoring in EIA. Built Environ 1995b;20(4):309 – 20.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London7 UCL Press; 1994.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. second ed. London7 UCL Press;
1999.
Harvey N. Environmental impact statements for major projects in South Australia 1982 to1994. Sydney7 Royal
Geographic Society of Australasia (SA Branch) Inc.
Harvey N. Environmental impact assessment: procedures, practice and prospects in Australia. Melbourne7 Oxford
University Press; 1998.
Holling CS, editor. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York7 John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment CS, 1992. . Canberra7 AGS; 1992.
Lee N, George C, editors. Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester7 John Wiley &
Sons Ltd; 2000.
Lohani BN, Evans JW, Everitt RR, Ludwig H, Carpenter RA, Tu Shih-Liang, 1997. Environmental impact assessment for
developing countries in Asia, vol. 1. Manilla7 Asian Development Bank; 1997.
Malone N. Environmental impact monitoring. Environ Plann Law J 1997;14(3):222 – 38.
McCallum DR. Follow-up to environmental impact assessment: learning from Canadian government experience. Environ
Monit Assess 1987;8:199 – 215.
McKillop J, Brown AL. Linking project appraisal and development: the performance of EIA in large-scale mining
projects. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 1999;1(4):407 – 28.
Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: a methodological perspective. London7 Chapman and Hall; 1998.
Morris P, Therivel R, editors. Methods of environmental impact assessment. London7 UCL Press; 1995.
Morrison-Saunders A. Environmental impact assessment as a tool for ongoing environmental management. Proj
Appraisal 1996;11:95 – 104.
446 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447

Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. Introduction to EIA follow-up. In: Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, editors. Assessing impact:
handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London7 Earthscan; 2004. p. 1 – 17.
Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. Exploring the EIA/environmental management relationship. Environ Manage
1999;24(3):281 – 95.
Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Barker J, Caldwell P. Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up.
Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):289 – 96.
Munro DA. Learning from experience: auditing environmental impact assessments. In: Sadler B, editor. Audit and
evaluation in environmental assessment and management: Canadian and international experience, proceedings of the
conference on follow-up/audit of EIA results, Victoria, BC, Environment Canada/The Banff Centre, School of
Management.
Nitz T, Holland I. Does environmental impact assessment facilitate environmental management activities? J Environ
Assess Policy Manag 2000;2(1):1 – 17.
Ortolano L, Shephered A. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assess 1995;
13:3 – 30.
Petts J, Eduljee G. Integration of monitoring, auditing and environmental assessment: waste facility issues. Proj Appraisal
1993;9(4):231 – 41.
Pfenning P, 1998. Personal communication, Environment Protection Authority, Adelaide, South Australia.
Read JL. A retrospective view of the quality of the fauna component of the Olympic Dam Project Environmental Impact
Statement. J Environ Manag 1994;41:167 – 85.
Sadler B. The evaluation of assessment: post-EIS research and process development. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental
impact assessment. Routledge7 Theory and Practice; 1988. p. 129 – 42.
Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance Final report of the
international study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Canada7 Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency/IAIA, Ministry of Supply and Services; 1996.
Sadler B. Ex-post evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. In: Porter AL, Fittipaldi JJ, editors.
Environmental methods review: retooling impact assessment for the new century. Atlanta, GA7 Army Environmental
Policy Institute; 1998. p. 30 – 49.
Shehperd A. Post-project impact assessment and monitoring. In: Porter AL, Fittipaldi JJ, editors. Environmental
methods review: retooling impact assessment for the new century. Atlanta, GA7 Army Environmental Policy
Institute; 1998. p. 164 – 70.
Shultz G, 1998. Personal communication. SA Water, Berri Regional Office, South Australia.
Smith P, 1998. Personal communication. Development Assessment Commission, South Australia.
Thomas I. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: theory and practice. Sydney7 The Federation Press; 1996.
Thomas I. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: theory and practice. third ed. Sydney7 The Federation Press;
2001.
Thomson S, Treweek JR, Thurling DJ. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review
of British environmental statements. J Environ Plann Manag 1997;40(2):157 – 71.
Tomlinson P, Atkinson SF. Environmental audits: a literature review. Environ Monit Assess 1987;8:187 – 98.
Tomlinson P, Atkinson SF. Environmental audits: proposed terminology. Environ Monit Assess 1987;8:239 – 361.
Wilson E. A practical method for environmental impact assessment audits. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1998;
18(1):59 – 71.
Wood CM. Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australian discretion rules EA. J Environ Manag 1993;
14:37 – 59.
Wood CM. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow7 Longman; 1995.
Wood CM. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. second ed. England7 Pearson Education Limited;
2003.
Wood CM, Bailey J. Predominance and independence in environmental impact assessment: the western Australia model.
Environ Impact Assess Rev 1994;14:37 – 59.
Wood CM, Bailey J. 1996. Paradise endangered: environmental impact assessment in Western Australia. Report Number
96/2, Institute of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.
Wood CM, Dipper B, Jones C. Auditing the assessments of the environmental impacts of planning projects. J Environ
Plann Manag 2000;43(1):23 – 47.
Wood G. Assessing techniques of assessment: post-development auditing of noise predictive schemes in environmental
impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 1999;17:217 – 26.
Wood G. Post-development auditing of EIA predictive techniques: a spatial analytical approach. J Environ Plann Manag
1999;42(5):671 – 89.
 A.K.M.R. Ahammed, B.M. Nixon / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 426–447 447

Wood G. Is what you see what you get? Post-development auditing of methods used for predicting the zone of visual
influence in EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2000;20:537 – 56.
Wright CJ, Smith PS. Environmental impact assessment effectiveness in the global environment: Australian implications.
National conference on environmental engineering, Gold Coast, Queensland 17–19 June 1992. Australia7 Institute of
Engineers; 1992.

A.K.M. Rafique Ahammed is currently undertaking a PhD programme at the University of Adelaide, Australia in the
Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies. His PhD research focuses on the monitoring and auditing
practices in different EIA systems in Australia. He completed his Masters degree in Environmental Studies from the same
university. His Master’s research work has been published in a recent issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
(Volume 22 (1): 63–78) titled bEvaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures and Practice in BangladeshQ.
He has been working in the Bangladesh Civil Service (Administration) since 1991 and he currently holds the position of
Senior Assistant Secretary.

Bronte Merrick Nixon is currently a Senior Environmental Planner with Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd. She has
completed a Bachelor of Science (Honours) Degree from the Northern Territory University and a Master of
Environmental Studies from the University of Adelaide, Australia. She has more than eight years of work experience as
an environmental consultant in a number of internationally well-reputed consulting companies. Her Master’s research
produced a dissertation titled bThe Role of Environmental Impact Monitoring within the EIA Process in South AustraliaQ,
for which she received the University of Adelaide’s Environmental Studies Medal.