FUENTES DE FINANCIACIÓN EXTERNA:

Industry and its environmental impact, especially pollution, has been addressed by regulation in Australia for at least the last three decades. These regulations through command and control have achieved a degree of success. Gunningham (2004) describes command and control as a ‘blunt tool’ that has picked ‘the low hanging fruit’. Policy makers recognise that command and control has its limitations and provides only part of the policy solution in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex interdependent world (Gunningham 2004). There is a need for a broader mix of measures to maintain and increase these improvements.

Environmental management in Australia is often described as a partnership approach, with a mix of regulatory, economic and voluntary instruments and is relatively transparent. Voluntary measures and agreements exist between government, industry and community groups and play a central part in environmental management process. In its 1998 Environmental Performance Review the OECD stated that one way the Australian government could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental management was by setting environmental standards. At the time the OECD report was being written, these standards were being defined in the National Environment Protection Measures.

A number of states have Environmental Protection Authorities (EPA), this single agency is responsible for the integrated management of the natural resource base. The legislation that created it in 1970 was the first in the world to provide a framework for an integrated approach to managing the environment (OECD 1998).

State Governments in Australia have the major responsibility for environmental policy. The National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) was established in 1995 to oversee the development of national environmental regulatory measures and the national harmonisation of a range of environmental regulatory measures, such as standards for ambient air quality and the management of waste and contaminated sites.

There is a move towards the use of industry guidelines or codes of practice at State government level for certain industries, these would be worked out in co-operation with industry and eventually replace licensing (OECD, 1998). There have been a number of

programmes implemented throughout Australia based on voluntary approaches; these have occurred at federal, state and local government levels and from within industry.

A federal programme developed in 1993 and implemented in 1997, Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Australia, was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Box 5 provides the key factors that contributed to the success of the programme. This programme was described by the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon. Ian Campbell (December 2005) as ‘the best local government sustainability programme in the world’. No other voluntary environmental programme in Australia has had the level or length of support from the federal government.

The framework of this programme was based around a formal commitment made by the council participant, this led to the establishment and design of five ‘milestones’. Milestones were established by first measuring the status quo to setting reduction targets, setting and implementing action plans and finally monitoring and reviewing the results.

At a state government level, voluntary environmental audits (VEA) are available to industry in New South Wales, as stated in the State Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Independent environmental consultants are contracted and funded by the business to carry out environmental audits; the results of these audits are ‘protected documents’. The key benefit of this piece of legislation is that the audit results cannot be used in enforcement or prosecution actions against the business site or owner. Other benefits include; information that identifies areas of environmental risk, pollution reduction programmes can be developed as well as cost benefits through reduced insurance premiums.

Box 5: The key factors that contributed to Cities for Climate Protection:

 the level of commitment by local government to make it work,

 this was supported in turn by the performance-based programmes of the International Councils for Local Environmental Initiatives,

 actions implemented were practical and affordable,

 most importantly was the continuous and consistent funding by the Australian

government for eight consecutive years.

From an industry perspective this approach could be seen as a way to check if it is compliant without the repercussions of any regulatory action and allow it the opportunity to develop a plan to improve its performance if needed. From a regulatory perspective, local regulatory staff are reliant on environmental consultants providing the right information for a business to improve its performance. Furthermore, it is up to the business that is audited to decide if it wants to implement any advised changes brought to its attention by the environmental consultant. The participant may feel the benefit in reduced insurance costs could be enough to ensure it implements changes.

Gunningham and Sinclair (2002) looked at a number of factors within voluntary approaches in the Australian mining and forestry sectors. Both of these sectors have implemented unilateral commitments, the forestry sector also has public voluntary programmes in operation too. This study first discussed what internal characteristics are most likely to make a voluntary programme effective.

Gunningham and Sinclair (2002) believe that clearly defined targets are desirable for mature agreements; otherwise they run the risk of losing credibility and those voluntary programmes in the early stages of development should begin with good faith agreements. It is better to let participants feel their way rather than hold them to unrealistic targets that seem unachievable and potentially put them off the process.

Accountability and transparency are equally important; a participant ideally should publicly promote or announce the performance indicators and timetables they are aiming to achieve within the programme. Once this is done a robust independent system is needed that collects, reports, collates and analyses data to show these targets are being reached. To provide the independence or verification that results are actually being achieved Gunningham and Sinclair (2002) believe that a workable set of performance indicators should be established at the target setting stage. To maintain credibility an auditing process should be operated by either an in house team, selected from outside the programme team or have an external third party conduct the audit.

One of the key findings of Gunningham and Sinclairs

(2002)

study that is relevant to this research is the use of generic voluntary programmes implemented broadly over all industry types. They found that generic programmes could be less effective than an industry specific

programme. By implementing an industry specific programme the chances of success are maximised as appropriate initiatives and design features can be included.

Gunningham and Sinclair (2002) consider that voluntary programmes can obtain a place in the policy mix, of voluntary approaches, government regulation and third party interest groups. There needs to be some alignment within private and public interests, with effective regulatory monitoring and enforcement practices in place. Industry sectors see the benefit of voluntary programmes through either self-preservation for their future and/ or the extent that market forces and consumers demand increasing levels of sustainability from industry.

The first generation of voluntary approaches achieved modest success due to industry playing a central role in target setting, uncertainty over regulatory threats, non-enforceable commitments, poor monitoring and lack of transparency. Current programmes tend to have more specific targets set by government over and above business as usual achievements (Gunningham 2004). To date literature surrounding voluntary instruments in Australia has focused on perceived process improvements, not on environmental outcomes. The influence of voluntary approaches was not as strong in practice as literature suggest it should be, other factors such as pressure from parent companies or clients, public pressure and economics all had equal if not greater effect on environmental performance (Annandale et al. 2004).

In document Crowd Factory Events (página 36-48)