This assignment builds upon the work conducted in the previous two assignments with a particular focus on critically evaluating the publicly availab
Value:(40%)
This assignment builds upon the work conducted in the previous two assignments with a particular focus on critically evaluating the publicly available documentation for an EIA case study. It is an individual assignment involving writing a short evidence-based paper.
Objective:The objectives of this assignment overall are to:
critically review an EIA case study from practice based upon the publicly available documents for the development project, and
communicate this in a formal scientific styled report
Word limit:no more than1,200 words(excluding Reference list).Provide the word count for the main text of your paper within your submission.
Assignment topicoptions:There are two choices for you to make in carrying out this assignment.
(i) The same selection of 6 topics from Assignment 2 is used (i.e. regarding biodiversity, social impacts, involvement of indigenous peoples, or holistic approach to EIA). You may continue with the same topic you addressed in Assignment 2, or choose another of them for this assignment.
(ii) There are four EIA case study projects and you must exclusively examine one of these. However, not all of the four case studies address each of the 6 topics. Details are outlined below.
Assignment task
Chooseoneof the following assignment topic options and complete the specified task accordingly.
Assignment Option 1:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2, (c) Byford Rail Extension project,or(d) Earl Grey Lithium Project (Revised Proposal);
in regards to the best practice principle that 'EIA should maintain and enhance biodiversity, with a goal of no net loss outcomes as a minimum, and an aspiration for net gain'(derived from Brownlie and Treweek, 2018).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Assignment Option 2:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2,or(c) Byford Rail Extension project;
in regards to the best practice principle that 'EIA should take a holistic and integrated approach to assess project-specific impacts collectively and systemically'(derived from Ehrlich, 2022).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Assignment Option 3:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2, (c) Byford Rail Extension project,or(d) Earl Grey Lithium Project (Revised Proposal);
in regards to the best practice principle that 'There should be a focus on socially sustainable development in EIA, with social impact assessment contributing to the determination of best development alternative(s) and offering more than just being an arbiter between economic benefit and social cost'(derived from Vanclay, 2003).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Assignment Option 4:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2,or(c) Byford Rail Extension project;
in regards to the best practice principle that 'EIA should allow potentially affected indigenous groups to meaningfully take part, using traditional knowledge to complement the knowledge gained from "Western" scientific methods and to preserve indigenous culture in development projects'(derived from Croal et al., 2012 and Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2023).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Assignment Option 5:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2, (c) Byford Rail Extension project,or(d) Earl Grey Lithium Project (Revised Proposal);
in regards to the best practice principle that 'EIA should take an ecosystem perspective, allowing the significance of ecological changes to be assessed at appropriate spatial and temporal scales'(derived from Brownlie and Treweek, 2018).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Assignment Option 6:Critically review the publicly available documentation for eitheroneof:
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project, (b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2,or(c) Byford Rail Extension project;
in regards to the best practice principle that 'EIA shouldinclude social and human dimensions, and in such inclusion, care must be taken to ensure that adequate attention is given to the realm of the social'(derived from Vanclay, 2003).To what extent did the EIA process carried out for the case study represent 'best practice' in this regard?
Case study details: The EPA website provides access to all or most of the publicly available documents for each case study (links below); the Office of the Appeals Convenor provides access to further documents (for those projects for which appeals were lodged).
(a) West Musgrave Copper and Nickel Project -https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/west-musgrave-copper-and-nickel-projectLinks to an external site.,
(b)Sanjiv Ridge Iron Ore Project Stage 2 -https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/sanjiv-ridge-project-stage-2Links to an external site.,
(c) Byford Rail Extension project -https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/byford-rail-extensionLinks to an external site.,
(d) Earl Grey Lithium Project (Revised Proposal) -https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/earl-grey-lithium-project-revised-proposalLinks to an external site..
References for best practice concepts:
Brownlie, S and Treweek, J. (2018)Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series No. 3. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from:https://www.iaia.org/best-practice.phpLinks to an external site.[accessed 15Feb2023]
Croal, P., Tetreault, C. & members of the IAIA IP section. (2012).Respecting Indigenous Peoples and Tradititional Knowledge. Special Publication Series No. 99. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from:https://www.iaia.org/best-practice.phpLinks to an external site.[accessed 15Feb2023]
Ehrlich, A. (2022), Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,40(2), 129145.https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1996901Links to an external site.Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. (2023) International Best Practice Principles:Public Participation in Impact Assessment Follow-up. Special Publication Series No. 12. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from:https://www.iaia.org/best-practice.phpLinks to an external site.[accessed 15Feb2023]
Vanclay F (2003)International Principles For Social Impact Assessment,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,21(1), 511. Available from:https://www.iaia.org/best-practice.phpLinks to an external site.[accessed 15Feb2023]
About the EIAcase study documents:It is important that you access the full range of case study documents.There is a minimum expectation that at least 3 individual case study documents be addressed authored by each of the proponent, the EPA and the Minister for the Environment. This is because details change as the EIA process progresses and different stakeholders have an opportunity to participate.
Format and content
The assignment is to be presented in the form of a formal written paper in a scientific style that directly addresses only the specific assignment topic choice you have made for your chosen case study.It is suggested that a similar structure as demonstrated in the hypothetical example model of Assignment 1 be used.
When critiquing the case study, you must engage with primary source material (i.e. the actual case study documentation that is publicly available, being the actual documentsthe proponent, EPA and Minister or other stakeholders such as public submissions or Appeals Convenor). While secondary source material (i.e. literature or media stories about your case study) may be interesting or useful to consider, marks are awarded primarily in regard to engagement with primary sources. Be sure to provide full and correct reference details for each case study document used (note: this is not always straight forward, and may need a little care to get right). [Note:Do not reference the lecture PowerPoint slides; locate the original source material cited in these slides and engage with that directly].
Any limitations on EIA practice because of the particular institutional arrangements should be explained (i.e. these should have become evident to you from the work conducted for Assignment 2). This is because where the EIA process itself falls short of your best practice expectations, it is likely that the work of proponents and other stakeholders in the process will similarly fall short hence it is appropriate to identify and acknowledge such matters. That said, it is also possible that a proponent does operate 'beyond compliance' with the minimum expectations laid out in EIA proceduresand perhaps does meet your best practice criteria in circumstances where the EIA process as described in legislation, policy or guidance material does not. Such performance should also be noted in your paper.
Published literature examples of case study critiques: It is common in the EIA literature for ideas from theory to be applied to actual case study examples from practice. Following are some examples; you might find it useful to look at these for ideas on how material might be presented.
Chanchitpricha C, A Morrison-Saunders and A Bond (2019) Investigating the Effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Thailand,Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,37(3-4): 356368.
Duart C and L Sanchez (2020) Addressing significant impacts coherently in environmental impact statements,Environmental Impact Assessment Review82106373.
Pope, J., A. Bond, C. Cameron, F. Retief and A. Morrison-Saunders (2018), Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case,Environmental Impact Assessment Review,70: 3444.
Pinto, E, A Morrison-Saunders, A Bond, J Pope and F Retief (2019) Distilling and Applying Criteria for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up,Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,21(2): 32pp. [1950008-1 1950008-32]
Addressing the case study materials
A lot of documentation is generated for one EIA case study project. Benchmark the case study as represented in this documentation against your best practice EIA expectations. As indicated previously, the minimum requirement is to address at least one document authored by each of the proponent, EPA and Minister. It is recommended, however, that attention be given to documents produced for each of the five stages of the EIA process in Western Australia:
Referral documents [Stage 1 of EIA process for the project];
Environmental Review documents [Stage 3 of EIA process for the project];
Proponent response to public submissions [Stage 3 of EIA process for the project];
EPA report on assessment [Stage 4 of EIA process for the project]; and
Ministerial Statement [Stage 5 of EIA process for the project].
Note: a D or HD level student would also engage with other relevant case study material such as: scoping document, appendices of the environmental review documents of relevance, and/or appeals documentation. The specific documents for each case study do vary. For example, sometimes the Referral document and Environmental Review Document are the same thing (in which case there is no separate Environmental Scoping Document either). Also, often what has been identified as a 'document' above will actually comprise multiple separate pdf files. While this might sound rather confusing, all the documents can be found on the EPA website in a structured and systematic ordering system, so you should be able to figure it out.
Marking Rubric
Feedback on this assignment will be provided in accordance with the marking rubric below. The total mark is out of 40, divided into four marking criteria each worth 10 marks. Anything the fails to meet the minimum standards outlined for a Pass within a marking rubric criterion will receive <5 marks/10 for that aspect of consideration. Criteria for each grade category are additional to fulfilment of criteria for the category preceding it.
Rubric
EIA paper (40Pts) Marking Rubric
EIA paper (40Pts) Marking Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEngagement with case study sources [10 marks]
P 5 marks: A minimum of 3 documents from the chosen case study are utilised with identifiable referencing information provided.Cr 6 marks: At least 4 sources utilised (as for P criterion) and connections to the chosen environmental topic are established.D 7 marks: At least 4 sources utilised (as for P criterion) and attempts made to link ideas from multiple sources or to compare and contrast them.HD 8-10 marks: At least 5 sources utilised (as for P criterion). Evidence of deep engagement with source materials (e.g. praising, explaining, juxtaposing or refuting material) in a critical fashion demonstrating depth of understanding. 10pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEngagement with other EIA sources [10 marks]
P 5 marks: Some attempt to include relevant EIA procedural information and/or international sources with referencing information provided.Cr 6 marks: Some inclusion of relevant EIA procedural information and international sources and connections to the chosen environmental topic are established.D 7 marks: Attempts made to link ideas from multiple sources (e.g. juxtaposing case study material with EIA process information and EIA literature) or to compare and contrast them.HD 8-10 marks: Evidence of deep engagement with source materials (e.g. praising, explaining, juxtaposing or refuting material from multiple sources) in a critical fashion demonstrating depth of understanding. 10pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEIA knowledge [10 marks]
P 5 marks: Material directly relevant to the chosen topic is provided.Cr 6 marks: Relevant aspects of the EIA process are critiqued against the best practice concepts. The suggestions are generally reasonable.D 7 marks: Some reasons are given for the conclusions drawn about the EIA process in relation to best practice that arise from the critical analysis. The suggestions are reasonable and demonstrate good understanding of the EIA process.HD 8-10 marks: Sound reasons are given for the conclusions drawn about the EIA process in relation to best practice that flow logically from a critical analysis and demonstrate a deep understanding of the whole topic. 10pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePresentation and communication [10 marks]
P 5 marks: Scientific reporting style is used for paper no longer than 1,200 words. Relevant aspects of the case study are examined. Intended meaning is communicated.Cr 6 marks: Some evidence of structure regarding the case study critique (linked with relevant procedures and/or international EIA best practice). Communication is sound.D 7 marks: The paper is logically organised with regard to structure and argument development. Communication is generally effective.HD 8-10 marks: Clear line of argument evident with focused and convincing content showing deep understanding of EIA theory, the case study and application of EIA procedures. Effective communication throughout (e.g. accurate, engaging and visually appealing). 10pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeFeedback Comments 0pts
Total points:40
