IA reports support decision-makers to identify and balance trade-offs. Yet an implementation gap between research and best practice reduces rigour, adding cost in regulatory processes.
The output of any Impact Assessment (IA) process is a report providing the evidence base for a regulatory decision to approve or refuse a proposal. As proposals have positive and negative impacts, this final decision necessitates trade-offs between the benefits and costs of proceeding. In practice, this translates to balancing ecological protection, cultural values, economic development, and social expectations in the IA process.
The ultimate decision, and the balance of factors in that decision, is at the discretion of the statutorily authorised decision-maker. There are concerns that IA reports do not clearly set out these trade-offs, or make it clear when irreversible or long-term impacts on ecological, cultural or other values will occur. This has several implications, including stifling opportunities to avoid trade-offs, excluding evidence that supports ethical rigour and enabling situations such as the destruction of known sites of First Nations and National heritage significance at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia to allow a mining project to proceed.
Frameworks for evaluating trade-offs have been developed in academic settings. However, it is rare to see these applied in IA reports. A gap exists between research and practice in how trade-offs are identified, evaluated and reported. Taking action to close this gap offers an opportunity to improve the reliability and efficiency of IA processes. This presentation argues that by drawing on such frameworks, decision-makers can reliably reduce assessment burden in IA processes and preparation costs for proponents.
Dr Lara Mottee is a Lecturer in Project Management and environmental and social consultant. She has more than 20 years' experience in advising on public and private infrastructure.