Shortcomings in Institutional Frameworks
Existing institutional frameworks for environmental planning and management do work. Their present form reflects their historical development, and they evolve continually. Changes needed now are incremental rather than fundamental.
Current institutional shortcomings include: inconsistencies between countries and states; intervention in EIA by other government sectors; inadequate integration between environmental planning, including EIA, and ongoing environmental management, including monitoring and pollution control; inadequate mechanisms for enforcing environmental regulations; poor mechanisms for incorporating science in EIA; inadequate testing of impact predictions; inadequate audit of environmental management processes; no generally accessible repository of information on previous impact predictions; limited formal public involvement in EIA processes; inadequate frameworks for regional environmental planning; inadequate frameworks for integrating economic and non-economic considerations in development planning; and the lack of a coherent framework for environmental planning and management in overseas aid and trade.
Electoral concern over environmental issues is producing pressure for rapid change, and most of the above shortcomings are currently being addressed. Critical to the success of these initiatives, however, will be the ability of government agencies in different areas and sectors to cooperate rather than compete.
As a kind of case study, this chapter also includes an essay on a recurring institutional problem which may be described as “humungous development syndrome”.
KeywordsAssure Expense Nism Protec Monopoly
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Buckley RC (1987) Environmental planning techniques. SADME, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
- Buckley RC (1988a) Critical problems in environmental planning and management. Environ Plan Law J 5:206–225Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1988 b) Integration in environmental planning and management. C Resource Environ Bull 11(4): 1–2Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1988 c) AIDAB’s ability in environmental management of aid projects: relative roles of professional and administrative staff. Report to Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Buckley RC (1989a) What’s wrong with EIA? Search 20:146–147Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1989b) Precision in environmental impact prediction: first national environmental audit, Australia. CRES/ANU, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Buckley RC (1989 c) Environmental implications of development aid. C Resource Environ Bull 12(1): 1–4Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1990a) Environmental science and environmental management. Search 21:14–16Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1990b) Environmental audit: course handbook (3rd edn) Bond University Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Buckley RC (1990c) Environmental audit: review and guidelines. Environ Plan Law J 7:142–146Google Scholar
- Buckley RC (1990d) Adequacy of current legislative and institutional frameworks for environmental audit in Australia. Environ Plan Law J 7:127–141Google Scholar
- Common M (1988) Environmental and resource economics: an introduction. Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Electricity Suppliers Association of Australia (ESAA) (1990) Report on environmental costing methodology: thermal plant. Environment Committee, ESAA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
- Fairweather PG (1989) Where is the science in EIA? Search 20:141–144Google Scholar