Threatened Species Conservation in New South Wales, Australia: A Review of the Value of the Eight-part Test

Stewart Thompson and Thomas Evans

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2002, vol. 45, issue 1, 85-102

Abstract: The Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act, introduced in 1995, represents a significant attempt to conserve and restore biodiversity within the state of New South Wales, Australia. This Act aims to integrate land use planning and environmental impact assessment legislation by placing increased responsibility on applicants, proponents, consent and determining authorities, and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, in the fields of environmental planning, development control and biodiversity conservation. The TSC Act introduced a set of eight factors which have to be considered by decision makers in determining whether a development is likely to have a significant effect upon threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats (the threatened biota) as listed in the Act. These eight factors are commonly referred to as the 'eight-part test'. Fifty environmental impact statements (EISs) containing eight-part tests for development proposals were obtained. The adequacy of scoping and survey exercises, the number of species identified and afforded the eight-part test, and the actual responses to each of the eight factors contained within the test, using a series of criteria, were ascertained. Sixty per cent provided an adequate scoping exercise; 6% of the surveys for flora species, and none for fauna species carried out, were adequate in terms of identifying all threatened species on the development site. Seven hundred and thirty-seven species listed in the Act were identified, 36% of which were omitted from the eight-part test procedure. The eight sections of the eight-part test were completed to a varying degree of adequacy, with none of the EISs completing all eight sections satisfactorily. Both section 4 (regarding the impacts of a development in terms of habitat isolation) and section 8 (regarding the distribution of species potentially affected by a development) were inadequately completed in all 50 EISs.

Date: 2002
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560120100204 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:45:y:2002:i:1:p:85-102

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CJEP20

DOI: 10.1080/09640560120100204

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management is currently edited by Dr Neil Powe, Dr Ken Willis and George Bill Page

More articles in Journal of Environmental Planning and Management from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().