Environmental impact assessment and the precautionary principle: Legislating caution in environmental protection

Australian Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 146-158

  Gullett, Warwick ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0342943210     PISSN: 13221698     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14486563.1998.10648411     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 1991. A national approach to environmental impact assessment in Australia. Canberra.
2. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 1996. Guidelines and criteria for determining the need for and level of environmental impact assessment in Australia. Canberra.
3. Bailey, J., and Renton, S., 1997. Redesigning EIA to fit the future:SEA and the policy process. Impact Assessment., 15:319–34.
4. Bates, G. M., 1994. Editorial. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 11:251–3.
5. Brown, A. L., and McDonald, G. T., 1995. From environmental impact assessment to environmental design and planning. Australian Journal of Environmental Management., 2:65–77.
6. Buckingham, D., 1996. “ An industry response to national standardisation of environmental regulation. In:”. In Environmental outlook no 2:law and policy Edited by:Boer, B., Fowler, R., and Gunningham, N., 312–7. Sydney:Federation Press.
7. Buckley, R., 1991. Environmental planning legislation:court backup better than ministerial discretion. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 8:250–7.
8. Cameron, J., 1993. 20–21. Sydney:The University of New South Wales. The precautionary principle core meaning, constitutional framework and procedures for implementation. Paper presented at the Precautionary Principle Conference. Institute of Environmental Studies, September.
9. Code of Federal Regulations. 1500–1517. United States. 40. Parts.
10. Commonwealth of Australia. 1992. National strategy for ecologically sustainable development. Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Service.
11. Court, J., Wright, C., and Guthrie, A., 1996. Environmental assessment and sustainability:are we ready for the challenge?. Australian Journal of Environmental Management., 3:42–57.
12. De Jongh, P., 1988. “ Uncertainty in EIA. In:”. In Environmental impact assessment:theory and practice Edited by:Wathern, P., 62–84. London:Unwin Hyman.
13. Department of Infrastructure (Vic). 1996. Assessment by the Minister for Planning and Local Government with regard to the environment effects of the proposed Point Lillias port and bulk liquid chemical storage facility. Melbourne, 20 June.
14. Department of Planning and Development (Vic). 1995. Guidelines for environmental impact assessment and the Environment Effects Act. Melbourne.
15. Department of Planning and Development (Vic). 1996. Point Lillias port and bulk liquid chemical storage facility:environment effects statement. Melbourne.
16. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (NSW). 1995. Draft for discussion:ESD in EIA. Sydney, November.
17. Department of the Environment. 1998. Reform of Commonwealth environment legislation:consultation paper. Canberra.
18. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories. 1996. Port Hinchinbrook. Media Release, Senator Robert Hill. Canberra, 9 July.
19. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories. 1997. A report in support of the international study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. 21–24. Report of the EIA Tripartite Workshop, Canberra March 1994. Canberra.
20. Deville, A., and Harding, R., 1995. Sustainability, impact assessment and scientific uncertainty:application of the precautionary principle. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics Inaugural Ecological Economics Conference. Coffs Harbour, November.
21. Deville, A., and Harding, R., 1997. Applying the precautionary principle. Sydney:Federation Press.
22. Dixon, J., and Fookes, T., 1995. Environmental assessment in New Zealand:prospects and practical realities. Australian Journal of Environmental Management., 2:104–11.
23. Dovers, S., and Gullett, W., 1998. 5–7. Policy choice for sustainability:marketisation, law and institutions. Paper presented at the Environmental justice and market mechanisms:key challenges for environmental law and policy conference. The University of Auckland, March 1998.
24. Dovers, S. R., and Handmer, J. W., 1995. Ignorance, the precautionary principle, and sustainability. Ambio., 24:92–7.
25. Dovers, S. R., Norton, T. W., and Handmer, J. W., 1996. Uncertainty, ecology, sustainability and policy. Biodiversity and Conservation., 5:1143–67.
26. Ebbesson, J., 1996. Compatibility of international and national environmental law. London:Kluwer Law International.
27. Environment Protection Agency. 1994a. Public review of the Commonwealth environment impact assessment process main discussion paper. Canberra.
28. Environment Protection Agency. 1994b. Assessment of cumulative impacts and strategic assessment in environmental impact assessment. Canberra.
29. Environment Protection Agency. 1994c. Analysis of environmental impact assessment practice and procedures in other countries. Canberra.
30. Farrier, D., 1995. “ Policy instruments for conserving biodiversity on private land. In:”. In Conserving biodiversity:threats and solutions Edited by:Bradstock, R., 337–59. Surrey Beatty & Sons, NSW.
31. Fitzgerald, M. K., 1996. Small-handles, big impacts:when should the National Environmental Policy Act require an environmental impact statement?. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review., 23:437–69.
32. Flemming, A., 1997. Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment and Management of World Heritage. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 14:295–305.
33. Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment. 1997. Unreported judgment, Federal Court of Australia. Decision 55. 14 February.
34. Glasson, J., Therival, R., and Chadwick, A., 1994. Introduction to environmental impact assessment:principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects. London:UCL Press.
35. Gullett, W., 1997. Environmental protection and the ‘precautionary principle’:a response to scientific uncertainty in environmental management. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 14:52–69.
36. Harvey, N., 1992. The relationship between ecologically sustainable development and environmental impact assessment in Australia:a critique of recent national reports. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 9:265–73.
37. Harvey, N., 1998. Environmental impact assessment:procedures, practice, and prospects in Australia. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.
38. Holland, M. C., 1985. Judicial review of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act:an opportunity for the rule of reason. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review., 12:743–90.
39. Lawrence, D. P., 1997. The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review., 17:79–107.
40. Lyster, R., 1997. The relevance of the precautionary principle:Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for the Environment. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 14:390–401.
41. Marsden, S., 1997. Applying EIA to legislative proposals:practical solutions to advance ESD in Commonwealth and state policy-making. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 14:159–73.
42. McIntyre, O., and Mosedale, T., 1997. The precautionary principle as a norm of customary international law. Journal of Environmental Law., 9:221–41.
43. Moffet, J., 1997. Legislative options for implementing the precautionary principle. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice., 7:157–73.
44. Montz, B. E., and Dixon, J. E., 1993. From law to practice:EIA in New Zealand. Environmental Impact Assessment Review., 13:89–108.
45. Mossop, D., 1997. The scope and operation of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth). Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 14:194–206.
46. New South Wales Parliament. 1994. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation—Schedule 1.
47. Pearson, L., 1996. Incorporating ESD principles in land-use decision-making:some issues after Teoh. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 13:47–53.
48. Raff, M., 1996. A history of land use planning legislation and rights of objection in Victoria. Monash University Law Review., 22:90–139.
49. Raff, M., 1997. Ten principles of quality in environmental impact assessment. Environmental and Planning Law Journal., 14:207–221.
50. Sadler, B., 1995. Canadian experience with environmental assessment:recent changes in process and practice. Australian Journal of Environmental Management., 2:112–30.
51. Sands, P., 1995. Principles of international environmental law. Manchester:Manchester University Press. Vol 1:Frameworks, standards and implementation.
52. 1985. Sierra Club v Marsh 769 F.2d 868. (1st Cir.
53. Smithson, M., 1989. Ignorance and uncertainty:emerging paradigms. New York:Springer-Verlag.
54. Stedman, B. J., and Hill, T., 1992. Introduction to the special issue:perspectives on sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review., 12:1–9.
55. Stein, Justice P., and Mahony, S., 1997. 9–10. Sustainable development:from theory to practice—incorporating sustainability principles in legislation. Paper presented at the Australian Centre for Environmental Law Third Outlook Conference. Sydney, October.
56. Tickner, J., 1998. 23–25. A commonsense framework for operationalizing the precautionary principle. Paper presented at the Wingspread Conference, Strategies for implementing the precautionary principle. Racine, Wisconsin, January 1998.
57. Valentine, P. S., 1994. Hinchinbrook area—world heritage values and the Oyster Point proposal. Tropical Environmental Studies and Geography, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, 12 August.
58. Walker, V. R., 1991. The siren songs of science:toward a taxonomy of scientific uncertainty for decisionmakers. Connecticut Law Review., 23:567–626.
59. Walker, K. J., 1994. The political economy of environmental policy:an Australian introduction. Kensington, NSW, University of New South Wales Press.
60. Whitehouse, J. F., 1993. 20–21. Sydney:The University of New South Wales. Will the precautionary principle affect environmental decision making and impact assessment? Paper presented at the Precautionary Principle Conference. Institute of Environmental Studies, September.
61. Wood, C., 1995. Environmental impact assessment:a comparative review. Harlow, Essex:Longman.
62. Wood, C., 1997. EIA:the contemporary scene in the UK and Europe. Paper presented at the Environment Institute of Australia Conference, Developments in environmental impact assessment. The Australian National University, Canberra, 7 April.
63. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
64. Wright, C., 1994. Sydney:The University of New South Wales. Incorporating ecologically sustainable development into environmental impact assessment. Master of Engineering Science Thesis, School of Civil Engineering
65. Wynne, B., 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning:reconceiving science in the preventative paradigm. Global Environmental Change., 2:111–27.