INTRODUCTION - Amazon S3



AGL Gas Import Jetty ProjectPresentation to the Crib Point IAC Panel3rd December, 2020Dr. Bill GenatSenior Honorary FellowMelbourne School of Population and Global HealthThe University of MelbourneINTRODUCTIONIn this section, first I shall make my presentation to the hearing and then I will call Professor Small as my Expert Witness.OutlineThis presentation proceeds as follows:a brief look at specific matters regarding the Minister's scoping requirements for the submitted EES in terms of the "social;"a brief review of the Proponents’ Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment that informs Chapter 26 Social within the submitted EES;a review of the Proponents’ Expert Witness Statement in terms of the Minister's scoping requirements, that expert's testimony regarding Social Impact Assessment and their response to both the IAC Request for Further Information and other Expert Witness commentary;a review of the evidence to date regarding the rigor of the Proponents’ approach to research and its presentation to the IAC panel;key outstanding questions remaining unexamined by the panel.The Proponents' case is based on four key propositions regarding the project:it contributes to a need for gas within the Victorian community;it complies with current policy and strategy regarding the larger Port of Hastingsit will not have unacceptable environmental impacts;it can be regulated and managed.In this presentation, I wish to challenge these propositions drawing from what we learn about the Proponents' approach to evidence through the example of social research. Social research underpins Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment and Chapter 18: Social within the Environment Effects Statement. DefinitionsFor the sake of my presentation, some clearer definition is required. First, we need to distinguish: the submitted Environment Effects Statement (EES), the Summary Document, the 26 Chapters, the 18 Technical Reports and the Attachments - written by the Proponents in response to the Minister's scoping requirements and presented for public comment; andthe Environment Effects Statement Process (EES Process) - the process of determining the need for an EES, scoping the EES, preparing the submitted Environment Effects Statement, this current panel sitting and public review of the submitted ESS and, making an assessment of the EES.Another key definition, that is central to the panel's examination of the EES are:environmental values; and,ecosystem services.On page 1, the Minister's scoping requirements document presents its purpose: "The scoping requirements for the project set out the specific matters to be investigated and documented in the Environment Effects Statement."The very first of the Minister's specific scoping requirements listed on page 5 is that the EES examine, "effects on biodiversity and ecological values . . . risks to ecological values and ecosystem services of conservation areas, nature parks, marine reserves and Ramsar sites in proximity to the proposal".According to the World Bank's International Finance Corporation's Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability:Environmental values are the values attached to biodiversity and ecosystem services by affected communities;Ecosystem services are the benefits that people, including businesses, derive from ecosystems. Ecosystem services are organized into four types: (i) provisioning services, which are the products people obtain from ecosystems, e.g.: food, freshwater, timber, fibres, medicinal plants; (ii) regulating services, which are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes, e.g.: surface water purification;(iii) cultural services: nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems such as aesthetic enjoyment and spiritual inspiration;(iv) supporting services, which are the natural processes that maintain the other services, e.g.: soil formation, nutrient cycling.1Scoping requirementsAccording to the Minister's scoping requirements, and using the IFC definition above, fundamental matters to be investigated and documented in the Environment Effects Statement are:the ecological values attached to biodiversity and ecosystem services as perceived by affected and interested communities;eco-system services in the form of provisioning services, for example, fishing; and cultural services: including aesthetic, emotional, inspirational and spiritual benefits derived by residents, visitors and tourism operators from conservation areas, nature parks, marine reserves and Ramsar sites in proximity to the proposal.In order to investigate these matters, the Minister's scoping requirement specifies that the Proponents are responsible for informing and engaging the public and stakeholders, identifying, and responding to their issues in conjunction with the EES studies. The Minister's scoping requirement defines "stakeholders" to include: potentially affected parties: the local community; interested organisations;interested individuals; and,government bodies.The Minister's scoping requirement specifies the requirement that the Proponents:"identify stakeholders;""characterise public and stakeholders’ interests, concerns and consultation needs." Within the submitted Environment Effects Statement, the panel would reasonably expect to find the matters above addressed in Chapter 18 Social and within Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment.PART ASocial Impact Assessment in the submitted EES.In this section, I briefly examine the research methods underpinning EES Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment, data collection, data analysis, the evidence presented as findings and the conclusions derived and reported in the submitted EES Chapter 26 Social. In doing so, I draw upon my original submission that analyses the social impact assessment methods regarding the proposed Gas Import Jetty and FSRU only, not including the proposed pipeline.Typical steps of Social Impact Assessment (SIA)In my submission, drawing upon the professional literature, I outline the typical steps of Social Impact Assessment:Profiling the communities likely to be affected and undertaking a thorough stakeholder analysis to understand their differing concerns and interests, According to Rowan (2009), "the core of SIA is about how people are affected by projects;" Developing a stakeholder engagement plan to enable deliberative participatory processes to facilitate stakeholder input including strategies to enable free participation of interested and affected stakeholders;Scoping likely impacts of the proposal in light of stakeholder perceptions of potential impacts, benefit and risks;Developing a mitigation plan including facilitation of an agreement-making process between stakeholders and the Proponent.Social Impact Assessment as Social ResearchChapter 18 of the EES states, "A social impact assessment is a social research process to identify the potential social effects of planned interventions". Nevertheless, as outlined in my submission and by Professor Small in her Expert Witness Statement, the social research underpinning Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment lacks the necessary primary data, in this instance, the perspectives of affected and interested stakeholders regarding their specific concerns and interests, in particular their perceptions of ecological values and ecosystem services derived from the conservation areas, nature parks, marine reserves and Ramsar sites in proximity to the proposal. Insufficient primary data is collected and analysed to provide the evidence necessary for a comprehensive report on the environmental values and ecosystem services potentially at risk. Insufficient attention has been given to ensuring the research design fits the research question: what are the environmental values and eco-system services derived by stakeholders from the proposed project site and, if the project was implemented, what are the potential harms to these and their likely severity - the associated "risks"?Specific limitations in the underpinning social research of the EESStandard social research is characterised by:a clear research aim; subsidiary research objectives that support the aim;identification of potential participant social groups who can inform the research and design of strategies to ensure they are represented in the data set; a data collection method that will inform the aims of the research; a method of data analysis to categorise and synthesize the data that will make meaning in terms of the research aim;the factual representation of the findings and derived conclusions based upon the systematic collection of data and appropriate implementation of the chosen methods.The underpinning social research of the EES demonstrates a range of shortfalls:1. Lack of specification of research participants to inform the inquiry/assessment.Technical Report M provides an "Overview of Stakeholders" including, for instance: Government: Commonwealth, Victorian, Local and Regulators;Businesses/Industry: Hastings Businesses, Commercial Shipping.However, no finer grained analysis of stakeholders other than these generalised categories is offered nor are their concerns regarding the Gas Import Jetty defined. For instance, with regard to Hastings Businesses, with Technical Report M there is no distinction between disparate Hasting businesses whom may have differing views. For instance, the specific concerns of a tourist charter operator may perceive detriment to their interests from the operations of the FSRU whereas the operator of a trucking company may perceive benefit though additional economic opportunities. We do not have the data to know of these different stakes.The lack of finer grained analysis of all stakeholders and, as a result, a lack of data regarding specific interests and concerns amongst stakeholders means that we have no data regarding who is affected and what is "at stake" for them and therefore no means of assessing and, potentially, accommodating or mitigating their interests.2. Inadequate data collection methodsDespite having two years to prepare the EES, the primary data offered by the Proponents within Technical Report M is confined to four interviews with representatives of four local organisations. From a social research perspective, this is ludicrous; it is inadequate to the point that, on this basis, any observer would rightly query the intent of the Proponents and their regard for the status of the communities concerned. The report relied predominantly on secondary data to derive generalised issues and concerns. In particular, it relied upon secondary sources of data gathered, selectively interpreted and provided by the Proponent's from their own surveys, online discussion forums and community drop-in sessions and published in their own reports. No potential conflict of interest is declared by the Proponent's regarding the social research underpinning the EES Chapter 18 Social.In the Proponents' Stakeholder Engagement reports, stakeholders who made responses specifically about the Gas Jetty Proposal were identified only in general terms; for example: "locals are concerned . . . ", "participants are concerned . . . ", "communities are concerned . . . "“'I’m concerned about more light . . . I value the existing darkness for the wildlife in Crib Point.' (Hastings community session, August 2019)".Within Social Impact Assessment inquiry, Rowan cautions against using general categories as an identifier, for example, "community" "The 'community’ is unlikely to be the social receptor for an impact and that a more exacting definition should be identified: for instance, construction workers, residents living in the LAI, dogwalkers using a green space, property owners who are eligible for compensation, etc."Likewise, within Technical Report M, as outlined in my submission, because of the lack of primary data as a foundation for the research, the data analysis, the factual representation of the findings and conclusions drawn lack rigour. According to the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standard 1 on Environmental and Social Sustainability, the type, scale and location of the project should guide the scope and level of effort devoted to the risk and impact identification process:"The type, scale, and location of the project guide the scope and level of effort devoted to the risks and impacts identification process. The scope of the risks and impacts identification process will be consistent with good international industry practice, defined as, 'the exercise of professional skill, diligence, prudence, and foresight that would reasonably be expected from skilled and experienced professionals engaged in the same type of undertaking under the same or similar circumstances globally or regionally'."Therefore, in terms of the Minister's scoping requirements, the data collection methods informing Technical Report M were inadequate to the task of reporting upon environmental values and ecosystem serves as perceived by affected stakeholders. Thus, Chapter 18 Social within the submitted Environment Effects Statement that reasonably should be expected to rely on solid evidence, reports a set of findings and makes spurious conclusions based upon inadequate data and an absence of solid evidence. Further, with regard to the Social Impact of the Gas Import Jetty and FSRU proposal, I submit that the submitted EES fails to meet not only the Minster's scoping requirements, but also the IFC Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability.On the basis of the submitted EES documents, the evidence before the panel regarding the Proponents' status as corporate citizens demonstrates limited respect not only for regulation and governance - in the form of the Minister's Scoping requirements - not only scant respect for interested and affected communities and key stakeholders - revealed in their lack of consultation with a broad range of stakeholders - but also a lack of integrity regarding evidence and its representation.Considering that the submitted Environment Effects Statement is asserted to be underpinned by evidence produced in the studies that underly the Technical Reports, the whole submitted EES is essentially a research report. However, the lack of integrity regarding evidence and its representation as demonstrated in the Proponent's approach to Social Impact Assessment calls into question the veracity of the whole submitted EES.A telling example of questionable representation of the project by the Proponents is the cover of the Environmental Effects Statement. The cover of the submitted EES is entitled "Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project" whereas in reality the proposal is not for a jetty but rather for a massive heavy industrial Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plant. This is one example of sleight of hand by the Proponents regarding the representation of the project. 349250368300Fig 1: Cover page, EES Summary DocumentFig 1: Cover page, EES Summary DocumentNot only is the title of the project misleading but also the cover photo of the EES is a misrepresentation. The cover photo shows Crib Point Jetty absent any maritime vessels in an apparently unsullied non-commercial environment. There is no image presented of the industrial plant (FSRU) proposed and therefore no indication of the bulk (almost equivalent in size to the Ruby Princess cruise ship) its presence at the jetty will impose on this landscape. This obfuscation provides further reason to question the Proponents' integrity regarding representation. A more factual representation of the proposed installation is shown in Figure 2.0378459Fig 2: View of FSRU and attending LNG Tanker from the water. Fig 2: View of FSRU and attending LNG Tanker from the water. Professor Small will have more to say about social research methods and the approach undertaken by the Proponent in her presentation following.***Now, I would like to turn the attention of the panel to how social impact assessment is being approached by the Proponents within the EES Process subsequent to the tendering of the written EES for public comment. In particular, I wish to examine the evidence tendered by the Proponent regarding social impact assessment within this panel hearing.PART BIn this part, for the panel, I examine:the Proponents’ social impact assessment expert's submissions:written Expert Witness statement;responses to other expert witnesses;verbal evidence;The Proponents' proposition (iii), that the project will not have unacceptable environmental impacts.Social Impact Assessment as part of the EES ProcessThe Proponents’ Social Impact Assessment Expert Witness Statement does identify shortcomings and limitations of Technical Assessment M, for example:the primary research [data collection from stakeholders] is limited [re the Gas Import Jetty] to:primary data confined to four interviews;secondary data provided by the Proponents;the vulnerability of affected dwellings and residents is unknownit does not detail positions [concerns and issues] of the people spoken to or provide a summary of the feedback received;it is unclear what information was sourced directly via consultation for the SIA;operators and users of facilities likely to be impacted by the project have not been interviewed resulting in limited understanding of their vulnerability;the environmental risk assessment (that defined the scope of the SIA) failed to consider recreational risks or impacts on community values or aspirations;the description of the social character of the community is limited;it is based on limited consultation and so it is difficult to ascertain the relative vulnerability of the community.Despite the shortcomings identified above, in "Section 3: Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendations" at the beginning of the Expert Witness Statement, the Proponents’ social impact assessment expert asserts that Technical Assessment M: Social Impact Assessment is adequate:it is largely consistent with established social impact assessment method; and,that it addresses the Minister's scoping requirements.(ibid) (my italics)Despite the obvious inadequacies of the Social Impact Assessment proffered as part of the submitted EES, the Proponents' Expert Witness on Social Impact Assessment subsequently asserts the adequacy of the Technical Report M within the EES Process to:defend a range of critiques raised in public submissions;respond to the IAC Request for Further Information;support his evidence in reply.I submit to the panel that the inadequacy of the Technical Report M disaffirms these responses.Co-option of Public Submissions as social impact assessment dataThe limitations described above were further acknowledged in the Proponents' opening comments prior to the presentation of their Expert Witness on Social Impact Assessment. Nevertheless, while the shortcomings were acknowledged by the Proponents, it was also suggested that they had been "made good" in the subsequent [EES] process. This was so, inasmuch as the Expert Witness on Social Impact Assessment in the Expert Witness Statement included a selective review of the public submissions regarding the EES analysed thematically in terms of social issues.This strategy of the Proponents suggesting they had "made good" the deficiencies in the data set for the Social Impact Assessment by co-opting the public submissions to the inquiry and having their Expert Witness on Social Impact Assessment analyse this data is not tenable in terms of acceptable social research. It is not systematic: there is no clear research question and, similar to the Proponents' Stakeholder Engagement reports utilised previously to inform the SIA, it is secondary data collected for a different purpose.A guiding research question is absent, such as, for instance, what are the environmental values and eco-system services derived by stakeholders from the proposed project site and given project approval, what are the potential harms to these and their likely severity - the associated "risks"? Due to a lack of a precise research question, environmental values and ecosystem services as perceived by stakeholders are under reported. These specific matters requested in the Minister's scoping requirement are subsumed under a generalised category called "concerns". The lack of specificity glossed by the term "concerns" is prevalent throughout the Proponents' Expert Witness Statement on Social Impact Assessment and throughout the Proponents' Response to Key Issues. Within the Proponents' Document 175, Response to Key Issues, various stakeholders are named specifically or implied through association with a location, for example:users (kayakers, fishermen, walkers, beachgoers) of Woolleys Beach (Issue 312);cyclists along Woolleys Rd (313);users (walkers, cyclists, birdwatchers) of Warringine Park (314);anglers, surfers, swimmers and surfers nearby (318);commercial fishermen (319);nearby "community" (325, 326);tourists and visitors to Phillip Island - but not French Island (329).While the Proponents' responses offer solutions to "concerns", there is no primary data to draw upon and so little is known about these stakeholders, ecosystems services they derive from the environment, what they value about it and how they perceive that these could be potentially put at risk by the project. The use of the term "concerns" is particularly problematic in Section 6 of the Proponents' Expert Witness Statement on Social Impact Assessment where fears and "psychological concerns" are discussed without identifying them specifically. The Expert Witness reduces these concerns to a generalised 'fear of the unknown' despite having no evidential base for these judgements. Nowhere are we presented with the environmental values and ecosystem services as perceived by specific stakeholders and the associated stakeholder perceptions of risk. Another example concerns Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. EES Technical Report I: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment reveals that community consultation was not within the assessment's "narrow scope and timeframe". Thus, the environmental values and ecosystem services derived by residents, tourists, visitors and other stakeholders from the visual landscape of a globally recognised migratory wading-bird wetland feeding ground and a designated UNESCO Biosphere Reserve were excluded.The Proponents' Expert Witness on Landscape and Visual Impact when questioned about the differing and unique sensitivities of people to the visual landscape indicated that this was not part of Visual Impact Assessment and should be found within the Social Impact Assessment. However, environmental values and ecosystem services derived by residents, tourists, visitors and other stakeholders from the visual landscape is completely absent from the Social Impact Assessment. I submit that due to the almost complete lack of primary data there is no record capturing the environmental values and ecosystem services derived by interested people from the proposed project site and the Social Impact Assessment is therefore inadequate and fails to respond to the Minster's scoping pliance of the submitted EES with the Minister's scoping requirementsAccording to their Opening Statement to the IAC Panel, the Proponents indicate their use and review of public submissions, while considered by some parties to the proceedings as a post-hoc response, are part and parcel of the EES Process,"We say the IAC assessment, the evidence that is called here, the consideration of the submissions, the responses to the submissions and the formulation of contended adequate controls and our reply submissions are every much part of the process . . . that fit within the very purposes of establishing an EES [Process]."Nevertheless, in terms of the EES Process, the Minister's scoping requirements in Figure 3 specify that after the written EES is prepared there is the public review: exhibition of the written EES and, if necessary as in this case, through the IAC panel and public hearing in which submissions are considered. The public hearing constitutes the forum for hearing about the Proponents’ EES and the public's submissions in response. While it is also a forum for the Proponents to respond to the concerns expressed by the public and stakeholders in terms of project redesign and mitigation proposals, the suggestion that a review of public submissions "makes good" a lack of systematic social research and the associated data collected through such a process is a proposal the panel should reject.I say to the panel, that the submitted Environment Effects Statement, in particular Chapter 18 Social and its underpinning study Technical Report M: Social Impact Assessment fails to comply with the Ministers scoping requirements specifically to examine, "effects on ecological values . . . and risks to ecological values and ecosystem services of conservation areas, nature parks, marine reserves and Ramsar sites in proximity to the proposal" as perceived by stakeholders and the public.The Proponents suggest that environmental impacts and consideration of ecological values including the social is the fundamental consideration for the panel,"[environmental effect] is the umbrella consideration for most of the terms of reference upon which [the IAC Panel] must report . . . and it is appropriate that that be so given the recognised ecological values of Westernport . . . and I am including here, within environmental values, the full range including social, cultural heritage and Aboriginal heritage . . ."Further, in the Day 1 Opening Statement the Proponents suggest that the panel needs to be satisfied that the EES Process has done an adequate job of identifying all the ecological values that need to be assessed,"So, [at para 74a] where we talk about adequate identification of environmental values we don't assert that we need to have identified every single possible environmental value but it needs to be an adequate assessment and this [EES] process can necessarily add to or supplement identified gaps where necessary but it ought be a matter which you need to satisfied about in our submission that the EES [Process] has done an adequate job of at least identifying all those values that need to be assessed."In conclusion, in their Day 1 Opening Statement and speaking in the past tense, the Proponents claim the EES written statement has been a comprehensive assessment of environmental effects and presumably ecological values, prepared according to industry standard and in accordance with the Minister's scoping requirements,"We say that the EES has been a comprehensive assessment of Environmental Effects, we say that ultimately assessed, that we think we can demonstrate that all the effects fall within an objective assessment of what would be considered acceptable . . . we maintain that it is comprehensive and prepared according to industry accepted and recommended practice . . . and, its been prepared according to the specific requirements of the Minister under the Act, the scoping requirements issued by the Minister and the Ministerial guidelines for assessment under the Act . . . the process in Victoria is that one follows the directions issued by the Minister and the procedures and requirements established under the Act by the Minister including scoping requirements.""The Proponents rely, more fundamentally, on the comprehensive assessment of environmental effects documented within the EES in support of the proposition that the proposal will achieve acceptable environmental impacts . . . the Proponents maintain that the EES is both comprehensive and that it has been prepared according to industry accepted and recommended practice."I submit once again to the panel, as at the end of PART A of this submission, drawing upon the evidence of the investigation of social impacts that the submitted EES: is NOT a comprehensive assessment of Environmental Effects due to the absence of primary date, particularly the voices of affected and interested stakeholders describing their ecological values and the ecosystem services they derive from the environment at the project site;has NOT been prepared according to industry standards and recommended practice;has NOT been prepared according to the specific scoping requirements issued by the Minster for assessment under the Act.I also submit to the panel that within the ensuing EES Process, on the basis of the Proponents' representations and conclusions regarding the social impact of their proposal that they again demonstrate:limited respect for regulation and governance - in the form of the Minister's Scoping requirements;disrespect for interested and affected communities and key stakeholders - revealed in their lack of stakeholder consultation; and,a lack of integrity regarding evidence and its representation.ConclusionIn conclusion, I discuss the four key propositions of the proponent based on evidence emerging from the the EES process to date.Assessing the project proposal on the basis of the evidence before the panelAs indicated previously, I submit that an Environment Effects Statement is essentially a research report ideally supported by systematically derived evidence, factual representation of the findings and logically drawn conclusions. As I submit above, drawing upon the example of the Proponents' submission regarding social impact assessment, the Proponents reveal a lack of integrity regarding evidence and its representation. Selective interpretation of evidence by the Proponents is also apparent regarding their four key propositions underpinning their argument for project approval.The Proponents' four key propositions regarding the project are that:it contributes to a need for gas within the Victorian community;it complies with current policy and strategy regarding the larger Port of Hastingsit will not have unacceptable environmental impacts;it can be regulated and managed.Re Proposition 1: it contributes to a need for gas within the Victorian community;I have no comment to offer in addition to what has already been submitted regarding the need to supplement LNG supply within the Victorian Community.Re Proposition 2: it complies with current policy and strategy regarding the larger Port of HastingsI make two specific observations in relation to this proposition and the Proponents' representations supporting it:Policy and strategy documents are live, human-inspired instruments employed to guide actions. They are never concrete, permanent and are always subject to amendment depending on changes with respect to both the key stakeholders involved and the context within which they are employed. They are conceptual representations of how the architects of these policies aspire stakeholders should act with particular outcomes or futures in mind. Currently, the Liberal Party of Victoria has a policy that no industrial development of the port should occur south of Hastings. Until about 2014, they also had a policy and strategy to develop a container port north of Hastings. That changed with a change of government. So, policy and strategy are plastic and always subject to change.Contrasting with policy conceptions of the Port of Hastings are direct human experiences of the Port of Hastings, about which no data is presented in the EES. As a local resident of the area, my understanding and experience of the Port of Hastings is the Hastings jetty and marina. I distinguish Crib Point Jetty as a separate location to the Port of Hastings as I suspect many other local people do. Likewise, I experience Long Island Point as another separate location. For the past 60 years, across three generations, a 1960's inspired policy that envisioned the future industrialisation of Crib Point has dissipated. While the vestiges of the implementation of that policy remain in the form of the petroleum tanks that now have been disused for over 40 years, my experience of Crib Point is as described in a part of Technical Report M, "The township is largely residential in character with small dispersed pockets of local commercial, educational, community and recreational facilities . . . the low profile of development in Crib Point and the area’s unassuming atmosphere . . . are highly valued by residents"Previously, in order to maintain its low development profile, in 2007 the Crib Point community successfully opposed a proposed bitumen plant. Therefore, it is clear that Crib Point residents do not see themselves as part of future further industrialisation of the Post of Hastings in their location. I submit that policy is subject to change, is not set in concrete and is put in place to serve human interests. Ultimately, it is the values and aspirations of key human stakeholders that policy is there to serve rather than the reverse. I submit to the panel that they have been placed in a position where they have a major role to play in policy regarding further industrialisation of Crib Point and they reject the proponents' Key Proposition 2.Re Proposition 3: the Project will not have unacceptable environmental impactsOn the basis of the above analysis of the Social Impact Assessment in the submitted EES and as developed in the EES Policy process, I submit that the panel does not have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision regarding environmental impacts. At this stage in the EES Process, the panel is without an evidence-based account of the potential harms to environmental values and ecosystem services because it has not been presented with the evidence based upon a sufficiently comprehensive data set to make an informed judgement.Re Proposition 4: the project can be comprehensively regulated and managedThe evidence in front of the panel currently is that the Proponents are not disposed to comply with government regulation as evident by their selective interpretation and seeming inability to comply with the Minister's scoping requirements for the Environment Effects Statement.With regard to the Proponent's capacity to manage, I use as examples proposed mitigation measures for monitoring social impact as outlined in the Expert Witness Statement and Evidence in Reply of the Proponents' Expert Witness on Social Impact: MM-SO01, MM-SO02; MM-SE01, MM-SE02. As evident to date through the EES Process, the Proponents have demonstrated a level of disrespect for both the community and a range of stakeholders by not including them in two-way consultation processes and a parallel seeming inability to engage in a two-way dialogue. Each of these mitigation measures is dependent upon the Proponents having that capacity. Nevertheless, to date there is no supporting evidence that could reassure the panel that this is indeed possible. I submit the panel should question the Proponent's capacity with respect to this proposition.RecommendationDue to the inability of the Proponent's to engage in a respectful two-way dialogue with the affected and interested communities and other stakeholders to date, if the panel was to approve this project, I endorse Professor Small's recommendation that the IAC recommend adoption of:EPR-MM SE-03 Funding of an Independent Community Monitoring SecretariatThe Proponents will fund - separate to the proposed Community Fund - an Independent Community Monitoring Secretariat staffed by two full-time positions and its reasonable running costs for the term of the project. The secretariat will monitor the implementation of the project and its compliance with the Environmental Management Plan from a community perspective, advocate for community members with concerns about the project implementation and act as a project resource centre for affected and interested communities. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download