The Press WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1975. Environmental impact reports

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33944, 10 September 1975, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1975. Environmental impact reports

The strong objections raised by the Commission for the Environment against the environmental impact report by the Ministry of Works and Development on plans for hydro-electric development of the Upper Clutha have brought the procedures for such reports once more into public debate. Some have argued that requiring environmental impact reports to be prepared for every Government project is impeding necessary development. Others have argued that the reports usually provide a whitewash for unacceptable projects, giving the public the impression that the environment is being cared for while in fact little is being done to ensure its protection. Even people with neither of these points of view have charged that the assessment of the impact on the environment is becoming so bound up with red tape that it is becoming difficult for the public to understand the environmental issues raised by many projects. At present environmental impact reports are merely required by the Cabinet before it will consider work which will be done by Government departments or which need Government money or approval. These reports are generally prepared by the staff of a Government department and then scrutinised, often critically, by the Commission for the Environment The commission has no power to decide whether a project will go ahead; the most it can do is enlist public support for its recommendations and thereby direct pressure on the Government through the normal political channels. Changes may soon be made in procedures for preparing and evaluating environmental impact reports. No-one is suggesting that the Commission for the Environment be given power to veto any projects. But grounds can be found for giving its reports a firmer basis in law and for widening the commission’s power so that it can comment on all important projects which will affect the environment. Environmental impact reports could be made mandatory for all such projects, even if the Government has no part in them But less harsh legislation might encourage local bodies and private promoters to take advantage voluntarily of the commission’s expertness in assessing the import of large projects. The commission itself is clearly chafing at the restraints against its doing more than react to the proposals of others. But the commission should not be given the power to originate investigations. Many Government departments now have officers trained to deal with environmental questions. The reports they produce may at times come closer to special pleading to justify particular projects than to being objective evaluations of the environmental impact of their schemes. But to have yet another body preparing independent reports would mean an unnecessary duplication of effort and a further confusion of responsibilities. It should be enough that departmental reports are checked by a body whose special concern with the environment equips it to detect and expose special pleading whenever it is found. The procedures should be kept reasonably streamlined. The commission should be content to audit reports prepared by others and, on discovering defects, to require further information. The commission is already capable of obliging Government departments to take the foreseeable and possible environmental consequences of their projects into account and to keep the public informed on the protection of the environment and the possible costs of efforts to ensure that it is protected.