FINAL

ASSIGNMENT
“To what extent are Neighbourhood
Environment Improvement Plans an
effective method to address complex
environmental problems?”

ENVS6510
Environmental
Legislation and
Policy

Lecturer:
Dr Kirstin Ross

Student
Emma Swann
c3171645

17 August 2012 Anglesea: A case study of the Anglesea NEIP

1
ENVS6510 Final Assignment

INTRODUCTION

This essay examines Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plans (NEIPs). It discusses the
theory behind community involvement in environmental decision making, then looks at the
legislative objectives behind NEIPs. It considers the Anglesea NEIP in light of these objectives, and
discusses general issues with community participation. It concludes that while NEIPs have the
potential to facilitate community participation in addressing complex environmental issues,
amendments are needed to improve their effectiveness.

WHY INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING?

Approaches towards environmental law have changed substantially since the 1970’s, where
comprehensive environmental legislation was enacted in most Anglo-Saxon countries. This
‘command and control’ approach was regarded as successful in managing point source pollution, but
criticised as ineffective in dealing with complex issues from multiple sources, such as climate change
(Gunningham et al., 2007:182). In the 1980’s and 90’s ‘new regulatory models’ such as market
mechanisms, voluntarism and eco-labels became popular to supplement government regulation
(Papdakis and Grant, 2010:40).

‘New regulatory models’ also include community participation. A variety of different theories
support public participation in environmental decision making. It is discussed in the Rio Declaration
and the Australian National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Godden and Peel,
2011:137), and valued in the ecosystem approach to the environment (Keen et al., 2005).

Public participation fits with the concept of multilevel governance, which suggests that addressing
environmental issues at all scales from international to local means that they can be more effectively
managed (Paavola, 2007:99). Some argue that increasing public participation at the domestic level
runs parallel with the globalisation of environmental law, where an increased international
understanding of the ‘global environment’ has limited state sovereignty over natural resources
(Taberner et al., 1996:2).

The economic theory of social capital supports community involvement, as it claims that ‘common
knowledge’ is formed by society’s dominant group. Community involvement in decision-making
brings a wider variety of voices, who can challenge this common knowledge, bringing new ideas and
linkages (Ishihara and Pascual, 2009:1555). Community participation is considered to be especially
effective for complex environmental issues precisely because the variety of people involved can
bring innovation, fresh thinking and new ideas (Dovers, 2005:25). In short, support for community
involvement in environmental decision making is found in a variety of disciplines.

NEIP OBJECTIVES

NEIPs are “an innovative tool that communities will be able to use to reduce sources of pollution
within their local area (Hansard Second Reading Speech, 2 November 2000).” They were introduced
in Victoria under the Environment Protection (Liveable Neighbourhoods) Act 2000.

They reflect the realisation of many governments that “an effective environment protection regime
requires a mix of policy tools, ranging from regulatory to economic measures, community
participation, education campaigns and extension services (Hansard Second Reading Speech, 2
November 2000).”

Emma Swann 3171645 2

ENVS6510 Final Assignment

In their research Gunningham et al. concluded that the legislative objectives of NEIPs were to:

•Address complex environmental problems at the neighbourhood level;

•Facilitate community-based processes of decision-making and action; and

•Mobilise new forms of resources while relying on voluntary collaboration (Gunningham et

al., 2007:128).

NEIP PROCEDURE

To implement a NEIP, community members must find a sponsor such as a local council or authority
(Gunningham et al., 2007:132). The community need to develop a proposal and a plan, both
approved by the EPA. The EPA provides some initial ‘seed money’ to employ a coordinator and may
share knowledge on relevant issues including environmental law and governance (Gunningham et
al., 2007:132).

At the proposal stage, some tasks that members must undertake are to identify possible problems and
solutions, engage and try to formally sign up community and business groups, run community
consultation and identify financial resources (Gunningham et al., 2007:132). Once endorsed, the
proposal is used as the basis for the plan. The plan, amongst other things must identify and allocate
the resources for implementation, show how it will be monitored and consult everyone who the plan
may affect (Gunningham et al., 2007:133).

THE ANGLESEA NEIP

The Anglesea NEIP was approved as a pilot project partly because research found that the Anglesea
community had “an exceptionally strong interest in environmental issues (Anglesea NEIP, 2004:6).”
Anglesea, located in south west Victoria on the Great Ocean Road has 2000 permanent residents and
up to 10,000 visitors during holidays (Anglesea NEIP, 2004:9) The Anglesea River runs through the
town, which is bordered by Otway National Park heaths and forests (SurfCoast Shire, 2006:5). Alcoa
operates a power station and coal mine in Anglesea and employs around 100 people (Anglesea NEIP,
2004:9).

The NEIP started in May 2002 when a coordinator was appointed to develop the proposal. The
proposal was approved in January 2003 and the plan was completed in July 2004. The plan’s purpose
was to guide activities for the next 3 years and to help the community meet its objectives to build
community capacity to live sustainably and reduce Anglesea’s ecological footprint (Anglesea NEIP,
2004:13).

The plan identified four key goals and projects. Firstly, it aimed to find practical ways to apply
sustainability concepts at home. This was addressed through the ‘Cool Communities’ project, funded
by the Greenhouse Office. The NEIP developed a sustainability household kit and trained
community members to undertake household auditing. Twenty-four participating households were
retrofitted to reduce their ecological footprint. This program targeted ‘early adopters’ (people already
possessing knowledge and attitude for change) with the hope that they would help spread wider
community change (Anglesea NEIP, 2004:24).

Secondly, there was the Anglesea plastic bag free campaign. This aimed to eliminate the use of
plastic bags in Anglesea. Incredibly, although in the plan, this was not a goal collectively developed
by the NEIP. Rather it was thrust upon them in April 2004 when the State Minister for the

Emma Swann 3171645 3

ENVS6510 Final Assignment
Environment publically announced that “the coastal town of Anglesea is the first community in
Victoria to take up the challenge of going plastic bag free (Victorian Government Media Release,
2004).” The Minister thanked the Anglesea NEIP for their leadership and noted that they had
received a $5000 grant (Victorian Government Media Release, 2004).

According to Steve Cameron, a CFA employee and participant in the Anglesea NEIP, this
announcement came out of left field as they had not proposed it and there was no prior government
consultation. The NEIP stalled for about 9 months, not knowing how to proceed. They had planned
other projects and no-one had the passion to run the plastic bag program. While some members felt
betrayed by the government’s actions and left the NEIP, others saw the opportunity to gain funding
for a coordinator, which had run out (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.).

Most businesses supported the campaign. The local supermarket manager loved it, as he spent
around $27,000 on plastic bags annually. Most Anglesea businesses continue to be plastic bag free,
with residents and holiday-makers educated on using re-usable bags (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.).

The Anglesea NEIP plan had two further goals – to find long-term funding for a coordinator and to
develop a communication strategy, including a website, to create a focal point for local sustainability
projects (Anglesea NEIP, 2004:31). These goals were not met. The Anglesea NEIP peaked in early
2005 then lost its momentum. People were suffering from burn-out and the plastic bag project took
the group off its planned course. When that project was completed, the associated funding finished
leaving the NEIP with no coordinator. The NEIP splintered into different focus groups, including the
Peak Oil and Anglesea Heath groups (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm).

Other members obtained funding from Sustainability Victoria for the ‘Eco Casuarina,’ project, which
is still active. This is essentially an extension of the Cool Communities project focusing on
sustainability at home conducted throughout the SurfCoast Shire. The ex-coordinator of the NEIP
now has his own sustainability consulting business (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.).

DID THE ANGLESEA NEIP MEET THE LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES?

One objective of NEIPs was to ‘address complex environmental problems at the neighbourhood
level.’ According to Cameron, the Anglesea NEIPs goals to increase community capacity to live
sustainability and reduce Anglesea’s ecological footprint were largely met through educational
workshops and the Cool Communities and plastic bag free projects (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.).

Building relationships between key community stakeholders was an important outcome. For
example, prior to the NEIP, a community group focused on preserving the Anglesea heath worked to
reduce weeds and undertake revegetation projects. This conflicted with the CFA’s objective to
reduce fuel close to town as revegetation increased fuel. These two groups hadn’t spoken prior to the
NEIP. It was through the NEIP that they met, talked, understood each other’s views and came to the
solution of planned revegetation in strategic areas. The contacts and good will formed on the NEIP
were invaluable in addressing complex environmental problems at the neighbourhood level, and
continue to be used today (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.).

However, within one or two decades, many of those involved in the NEIP may no longer be active in
the community, leaving the new generation of environmental volunteers in the same position as
community groups prior to the NEIP – working in isolation without knowing or communicating with
relevant community stakeholders. The NEIP’s unrealised goals to find long-term funding for a
coordinator and to create a central website for local sustainability projects would have really
strengthened long-term community relationships between key stakeholders, which are crucial to the
ability of a community to successfully address local environmental issues.
Emma Swann 3171645 4
ENVS6510 Final Assignment

A further objective of NEIPs was to ‘facilitate community-based processes of decision-making and

action.’ The key way to achieve this was through the NEIP proposal and plan procedure outlined in
the legislation. Cameron’s experience that this procedure was “way too big and difficult (Cameron,
2012 pers.comm.)”, is supported by the research of Gunningham et al (Gunningham et al.,
2007:139). Taking over two years to complete, it requires simplification to ensure that volunteer
enthusiasm and momentum are unimpeded.

However, some framework is needed and the proposal and plan did serve a purpose. The structure
helped give the project boundaries and objectives to keep the group on track. Involving all
stakeholders and learning to discuss issues was important and a helpful component of the NEIP
structure. For instance, the new ‘Anglesea Air Action Group’ aims to close down the Alcoa plant.
They have conducted rowdy and threatening protests, alienating a large portion of the community.
According to Cameron, this approach was disempowering and unlikely to achieve anything. The
NEIP structure, which involved key stakeholders like Alcoa, helped avoid this situation (Cameron,
2012 pers.comm.).

The final legislative objective of NEIPs was to ‘mobilise new forms of resources while relying on
voluntary collaboration.’ Arguably the effectiveness of community resources was hampered by
funding issues. In the Anglesea case, EPA seed funding for a coordinator only lasted through the
proposal and part of the plan stage, finishing before implementation of the plan. Prior to the plastic
bag free project, the administrative and technical jobs of the coordinator were being shared between
volunteers. The plan described this arrangement as “unsustainable” and “unfair” to NEIP members,
who were prone to losing enthusiasm if burdened with administrative tasks (Anglesea NEIP,
2004:28). The need for a coordinator as a focal point to coordinate the various volunteers and
projects was considered vital. Furthermore once the plan was approved and the EPA met their
statutory obligations, they were no longer available to provide support (Cameron, 2012 pers.comm).

With community participation models, the government shouldn’t hand over its past responsibilities
to the community without providing solid support in the form of information, assistance with
technical issues and importantly, funding (Lyster, 2002:47). Leadership in a collaborative
arrangement is vital, as strong and effective leadership is key to successful public participation
(Lebel et al., 2006:7). The NEIP model in its current form provides no funding to implement the plan
and pulls EPA support at this crucial time. After spending over two years developing the plan, long
term funding for its implementation, along with continued support from the EPA is crucial.

OTHER CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION MODELS

Critics of community participation have argued that a lack of true representation of all interests in
projects like NEIPs undermines their effectiveness in environmental decision making. In his research
on NEIPs Holley found that the majority did not have a representative sample of participants,
concluding that most were made up of the ‘usual suspects’ (people already involved in
environmental issues) (Holley, 2010:380).

However the majority of the general public don’t understand the extent of the ecological crisis
confronting us (Robinson, 1993:327). Therefore it is little wonder that ‘average community citizens’
aren’t clambering to volunteer in community participation schemes in their spare time. Although
perhaps not representative of all community voices, programs like NEIPs do give many new voices
the opportunity to be heard, substantially broadening the decision making base from that of
government bureaucrats.

Emma Swann 3171645 5

ENVS6510 Final Assignment
The Anglesea NEIP noted that engaging the broader community in their sustainable living agenda
was slow and difficult, because there were no perceived direct environmental threats and no
incentives to change behaviour (Anglesea NEIP, 2004:7). In his research of numerous community
participation initiatives, Holley found that people were generally only involved where there was a
particularly disruptive industry in town, or where people could see a direct threat to their way of life
(Holley, 2010:382). The Anglesea NEIP had to try to make sustainability relevant to the broader
community’s everyday experiences and in doing so the ecological footprint tool was of assistance
(Cameron, 2012 pers.comm.). Still, this is a challenge that all community groups (as well as
governments) are likely to face with such complex environmental issues.

CONCLUSION

Lyster suggests that governments’ quick embracement of community participation may have more to
do with reducing costs and offloading the ‘too hard basket’ cases, as opposed to embracing new
governance models (Lyster, 2002:41). References to the ‘cost effectiveness’ of NEIP’s littered the
Environment Protection (Liveable Neighbourhoods) Bill second reading speech, and combined with
the Victorian government’s blatant disregard for the Anglesea NEIP’s collective goals through the
plastic bag debacle, perhaps Lyster’s cynicism is warranted.

The Victorian EPA is undertaking a review of NEIP’s, to be concluded in December 2012 (Victorian
Environment Protection Authority, 2012). The Anglesea NEIP was successful in its short time in
addressing some sustainability issues in its neighbourhood, and in forming strong relationships
between different stakeholders. This is important, as it is only through knowing what key
stakeholders are doing and thinking that a community can hope to develop effective environmental
strategies. However the Anglesea NEIP could have achieved much more with proper government
support. The legislation needs to be amended to provide long-term funding for a coordinator, so that
community relationships remain strong into the future and to effectively mobilise various community
resources. Government cannot expect community involvement to be a ‘cheap fix’ for the problems
that it cannot solve.

The procedure for implementing the proposal and plan assisted in facilitating community based
processes of decision making and action, in that it ensured clear objectives, project boundaries and
involved key stakeholders. However in order to be truly effective it needs to be simplified, as it was
far too complicated and protracted.

Issues such as ‘true’ representation and linking sustainability to people’s lives so that they
understand its relevance will continue to be challenges for NEIPs and community involvement
schemes in general. There is no easy solution to these challenges, however if environmental issues
are tackled increasingly by multiple parties at multiple levels, this may encourage change in
community perceptions, making their involvement in community schemes more likely.

If these suggested amendments are enacted, NEIPs have the potential to help communities tackle
complex environmental issues at the local level. With the advent of global warming looming ever
larger and in the face of woeful government inaction, strong local communities implementing
innovative environmental strategies are more important than ever.

Emma Swann 3171645 6

ENVS6510 Final Assignment

REFERENCES

ANGLESEA NEIP 2004. Anglesea Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan.

CAMERON, S. 22 July 2012. RE: Personal Communication Regarding the Anglesea NEIP
Experience. Type to SWANN, E.
DOVERS, S. 2005. Thinking about Policy. Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation,
Implementation, Evaluation. Australia: The Federation Pres.
GODDEN, L. & PEEL, J. 2011. Environmental Law: Scientific, Policy and Regulatory Dimentions,
Oxford University Press.
GUNNINGHAM, N., HOLLEY, C. & SHEARING, C. 2007. Neighbourhood Environment
Improvement Plans: Community Empowerment, Voluntary Collaboration and Legislative
Design. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 24, 125 - 151.
HANSARD SECOND READING SPEECH. 2 November 2000. Environment Protection (Liveable
Neighbourhoods) Bill [Online]. Available: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/hansard.
HOLLEY, C. 2010. Public Participation, Environmental Law and and New Governance: Lessons for
Designing Inclusive and Representative Participatory Processes Environmental and Planning
Law Journal, 27, 360-391.
ISHIHARA, H. & PASCUAL, U. 2009. Social Capital in Community Level Governance: A
Critique. Ecological Economics, 68, 1549-1562.
KEEN, M., BROWN, V. & DYBALL, R. 2005. Social Learning: A New Approach to
Environmental Management. In: KEEN, M., BROWN, V. & DYBALL, R. (eds.) Social
Learning in Environmental Management:Towards a Sustainable Future. London, UK:
Earthscan.
LEBEL, L., ANDERIES, J., CAMPBELL, B., FOLKE, C., HATFIELD-DODDS, S., HUGHES, T.
& WILSON, J. 2006. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-
Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11.
LYSTER, R. 2002. (De)regulating the Rural Environment. Environmental and Planning Law
Journal, 19, 34-57.
PAAVOLA, J. 2007. Institutions and Environmental Governance: A Reconceptualisation.
Ecological Economics, 63, 93-103.
PAPDAKIS, E. & GRANT, R. 2010. The Politics of 'Light Handed Regulation' : New
Environmental Policy Instruments in Australia. Environmental Politics, 12, 25-50.
ROBINSON, D. 1993. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making. Environmental and
Planning Law Journal, 10, 320-340.
SURFCOAST SHIRE 2006. Environmental Management Strategy 2006.
TABERNER, J., BRUNTON, N. & MATHER, L. 1996. The Development of Public Participation in
Environmental Protection and Planning Law in Australia
Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 13.
VICTORIAN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY. 2012. Programs [Online].
Available: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/en/our-work/programs/neip [Accessed 2 August 2012.
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT MEDIA RELEASE. 2004. Plastic Bag Free? The First Victorian
Town Accepts the Challenge.

Emma Swann 3171645 7