Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef

Marcus Sheaves; Rob Coles; Pat Dale; Alana Grech; Robert L. Pressey; Nathan J. Waltham

doi:10.1111/conl.12219

Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef

Marcus Sheaves^*, Rob Coles, Pat Dale, Alana Grech, Robert L. Pressey, Nathan J. Waltham

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

26 Citations (Scopus)

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The unique values of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are under threat from environmental change and the unforeseen, cumulative consequences of coastal development. Development decisions are underpinned by Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) but these are plagued by inconsistent methods and a lack of independent evaluation, leading to perceptions of inadequate scientific rigor. To be credible and effective, EIAs should be subject to independent peer review, the yardstick applied in the normal process of science. Without it, decisions based on EIA are at best contestable and potentially invalid. Peer review should be applied to the whole EIA process from project development to reporting and auditing approval requirements. It should be based on rigorous, standard protocols, and produce standardized and publicly available data. Securing the future of the GBR and other global natural assets requires refocusing EIA so it becomes a tool for strategic environmental protection rather than ad hoc permitting of development.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	377-383
Number of pages	7
Journal	Conservation Letters
Volume	9
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12219
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2016

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2015. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

environmental impact assessment
Great Barrier Reef
peer review

Access to Document

10.1111/conl.12219

Publisher versionFinal published version, 222 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{0c0f8d0b522c443c9ad51df2e3cdef5b,

title = "Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef",

abstract = "The unique values of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are under threat from environmental change and the unforeseen, cumulative consequences of coastal development. Development decisions are underpinned by Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) but these are plagued by inconsistent methods and a lack of independent evaluation, leading to perceptions of inadequate scientific rigor. To be credible and effective, EIAs should be subject to independent peer review, the yardstick applied in the normal process of science. Without it, decisions based on EIA are at best contestable and potentially invalid. Peer review should be applied to the whole EIA process from project development to reporting and auditing approval requirements. It should be based on rigorous, standard protocols, and produce standardized and publicly available data. Securing the future of the GBR and other global natural assets requires refocusing EIA so it becomes a tool for strategic environmental protection rather than ad hoc permitting of development.",

keywords = "environmental impact assessment, Great Barrier Reef, peer review",

author = "Marcus Sheaves and Rob Coles and Pat Dale and Alana Grech and Pressey, {Robert L.} and Waltham, {Nathan J.}",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2015. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2016",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/conl.12219",

language = "English",

volume = "9",

pages = "377--383",

journal = "Conservation Letters",

issn = "1755-263X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enhancing the value and validity of EIA

T2 - serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef

AU - Sheaves, Marcus

AU - Coles, Rob

AU - Dale, Pat

AU - Grech, Alana

AU - Pressey, Robert L.

AU - Waltham, Nathan J.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2015. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - The unique values of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are under threat from environmental change and the unforeseen, cumulative consequences of coastal development. Development decisions are underpinned by Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) but these are plagued by inconsistent methods and a lack of independent evaluation, leading to perceptions of inadequate scientific rigor. To be credible and effective, EIAs should be subject to independent peer review, the yardstick applied in the normal process of science. Without it, decisions based on EIA are at best contestable and potentially invalid. Peer review should be applied to the whole EIA process from project development to reporting and auditing approval requirements. It should be based on rigorous, standard protocols, and produce standardized and publicly available data. Securing the future of the GBR and other global natural assets requires refocusing EIA so it becomes a tool for strategic environmental protection rather than ad hoc permitting of development.

AB - The unique values of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are under threat from environmental change and the unforeseen, cumulative consequences of coastal development. Development decisions are underpinned by Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) but these are plagued by inconsistent methods and a lack of independent evaluation, leading to perceptions of inadequate scientific rigor. To be credible and effective, EIAs should be subject to independent peer review, the yardstick applied in the normal process of science. Without it, decisions based on EIA are at best contestable and potentially invalid. Peer review should be applied to the whole EIA process from project development to reporting and auditing approval requirements. It should be based on rigorous, standard protocols, and produce standardized and publicly available data. Securing the future of the GBR and other global natural assets requires refocusing EIA so it becomes a tool for strategic environmental protection rather than ad hoc permitting of development.

KW - environmental impact assessment

KW - Great Barrier Reef

KW - peer review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953239147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/title/1507590432928/675941

U2 - 10.1111/conl.12219

DO - 10.1111/conl.12219

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84953239147

SN - 1755-263X

VL - 9

SP - 377

EP - 383

JO - Conservation Letters

JF - Conservation Letters

IS - 5

ER -

Enhancing the value and validity of EIA: serious science to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this