TL: Integrating social impact assessment and environmental impact assessment: Sydney Olympics SO: Greenpeace Australia DT: April 1995 Greenpeace Olympics Project Social Issues Action Paper FINAL DRAFT by Gary Cox Social & Environmental Planning Consultant PO Box 813 Darlinghurst NSW 2010 tel 02-358 4227 ( fax 02-358 4138 12 April 1995 Table of contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Social action goals 5 3 Major social impacts of the Olympics 12 4 Public and community involvement 29 5 Action on social issues 32 6 Linking environmental and social goals 41 7 Future directions 43 References 45 Appendices 48 1 Introduction The Social Issues Action Paper is 1 of 16 Action Papers for the Green Games being prepared for the Greenpeace Olympic Project. These Action Papers are part of Greenpeace's strategy to ensure a green Sydney 2000 Olympics. The papers recommend outcomes to promote environmental, social and economic goals consistent with principles of ecologically sustainable development and Greenpeace's own global campaign goals. Overview of the Social Issues Action Paper The Social Issues Action Paper encompasses 4 main elements: examination of social impact studies already undertaken; identification of environmental objectives with positive social outcomes; investigation of local employment potential for ongoing maintenance and infrastructure; and recommendations for political and social structures to achieve environmental goals. The paper is mainly focussed on the impacts in the local government areas of Auburn, Concord and Strathfield. The Social Issues Action Paper links in with the other Action Papers both in terms of enhancing the positive social effects of environmental objectives and minimising any negative impacts of the Games. The general approach of this paper is to integrate social impact assessment into a total environmental impact assessment. A critical focus is how to maximise positive social outcomes from positive environmental ones, linking socially sound and ecologically sound development projects. The other major focus is on how to encourage and facilitate public participation at the local level. This is especially desirable given the limited public participation process in the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment. Approach The task of this paper is not to conduct an alternative social impact assessment. The approach taken builds on existing recent work in the social impact field, namely (in approximately chronological order): * Johnston, C. & Deakin, E. 1993, Sydney Olympics 2000: Approaches and Issues for the Management of Social Impacts, Office on Social Policy, Social Policy Directorate, Sydney, New South Wales. * Cox, G. 1994, Better Communities Through Social Impact Assessment, Best Practice Paper 4, Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate. * Cox, G., Darcy, M., & Bounds, M. 1994, The Olympics and Housing: A Study of Six International Events and Analysis of Potential Impacts of the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Shelter NSW, and the Housing and Urban Studies Research Group, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. * Keys Young 1994, Social Impact: 2000 Olympics and Paralympics - Background Information & Questions for Consultation, Keys Young, Sydney. * Keys Young, in association with KPMG Management Consulting & King, A. 1995a, Preliminary Social Impact Assessment of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Volume 1 - Report, Office of Olympic Co-ordination, Premier's Department, Sydney. * Keys Young, in association with KPMG Management Consulting & King, A. 1995b, Preliminary Social Impact Assessment of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Volume 2 - Appendices, Office of Olympic Co-ordination, Premier's Department, Sydney. * Cox, G. 1995, Techniques for Effective Social Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide, Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate. * Cox, G. & Miers, S. 1995, Social Impact Assessment for Local Government: A Handbook for Councillors, Town Planners and Social Planners, Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, & Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate. The central document for the Social Issues Action Paper is the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment prepared by Keys Young, which was publicly released in February 1995 by the Office of Olympic Co-ordination (OOC). Decisions on how the recommendations in the report will be implemented have not yet been made. Clearly, this will follow the recent restructuring of the planning and management of the Olympics under a new Olympics Co-ordination Agency responsible to the Minister for the Olympics, Michael Knight. As well as reviewing the documentation, a complementary approach taken has been direct contact with some of the key stakeholders in the local government areas of Auburn, Concord and Strathfield. These have primarily been the local councils and the Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils (IMROC). However, some community groups and housing lobby groups have also been contacted. Finally, two of the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment workshops were attended by the consultant; comments from participants have also been noted where relevant. 2 Social action goals Ecologically sustainable development A useful starting point for this discussion on social goals is a review of the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). In many areas of policy and urban planning, ESD is becoming accepted as a set of base principles upon which to judge social programs, development proposals, and public policies relating to the environment (see Cox 1995). In the context of the Green Games, it clearly has an added relevance. Furthermore, though the focus of this Action Paper is on social issues, an important objective is to link beneficial environmental outcomes to social or community benefits. Sustainability recognises the interdependence of society, the economy and the environment. A standard definition of ecologically sustainable development is given in the table. Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) Ecologically sustainable development means using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased. Commonwealth of Australia 1990. The Commonwealth Government discussion paper on ESD identified 5 general principles that are key elements in ESD (Commonwealth of Australia 1990). These are important for both decision-making and impact assessment: * integrating economic and environmental goals in policies and activities; * ensuring that environmental assets are appropriately valued; * providing for equity within and between generations; * dealing cautiously with risk and irreversibility; and * recognising the global dimension. Following the establishment of the ESD Working Groups and their subsequent reports, 2 further principles were defined (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, and Territories 1991): * the improvement of individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic progress that does not impair the welfare of future generations; * the protection of biological diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and systems. In essence, ESD promotes livability and a widened concept of quality of life that includes concern for future generations. Ultimately, it promotes a conserver culture rather than a consumer culture. Integral to the concept and its underlying principles is the linking of environmental/ecological and social goals. The Rio Declaration The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janiero, Brazil in 1992 placed sustainable development firmly on the political agendas of major nations. Seen as a significant follow-up from the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, the 1992 conference's final statement the Rio Declaration emphasised, amongst other things, the social and equity aspects of ESD. Three of the Rio Declaration principles are worthwhile quoting in the context of this issues paper: Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, states should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies. Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. Principle 3 refers to the need for social equity to be considered in all future development. Principle 8 is applicable to land development as much as to industrial processes. The links between urban planning policies and demographic policies are significant too. Finally, Principle 10 stresses the importance of citizen participation and public awareness in environmental decision-making. The role of free and readily available information is central to this. Given that the Australian Government is a signatory to the Rio Declaration, these principles are relevant when assessing both the social and environmental impacts of such a multi-faceted development such as Homebush Bay and the Olympics and Paralympics themselves. Social goals Important social goals are the improvement of quality of life and social justice. Quality of life is a subjective measure of well-being. People from different cultural backgrounds or age groups may view it in very different ways. Recently, the NSW Government Social Policy Directorate published a discussion document entitled Quality of Life: A Social Policy Approach (Office on Social Policy 1994). This analysed what influences people's quality of life. It looked at how economists, social theorists and environmentalists view quality of life. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has developed a list of 'social concerns' that it considered central to people's quality of life. A modified version of this is shown in the table. A quality of life checklist > a healthy life > employment and quality of working life > personal economic security > individual development through education > shelter and housing security > personal safety and protection from crime > social opportunity and participation > pursuit of culture and leisure activities > a satisfactory living environment > recognition and protection of political and civil rights > non-discrimination > freedom from political or religious oppression Quoted in Office on Social Policy 1994. The goal of social justice conventionally refers to the fair and more equal distribution of income and wealth. However, a more encompassing definition is more relevant here - one of sharing both benefits and costs of an activity fairly or equally. The Sydney Olympics theme of Share the Spirit could be invoked here. Finally social justice includes notions of non-discrimination, human and social rights, impartiality before the law, and freedom from political or religious oppression. Social justice also implies equal rights of access to decision makers and the political process for all those affected. This has implications for public participation processes, discussed below. Community goals Community goals are very much linked with the quality of life goals listed in the checklist. However, the main distinction is that they are decided by the community or groups in the community. This may involve various processes of community consultation or public participation. Alternatively, community groups or individuals may form these goals through their own processes of decision-making. These will be developed depending on the opportunities, threats and challenges posed. Sydney 2000 Olympics goals The Environmental Guidelines for the Summer Olympic Games set the environmental and social goals for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games (Environment Committee 1993). This was the outcome of Greenpeace Australia's close involvement with the Sydney 2000 Olympic Bid Limited. The guidelines incorporate the principles of ecologically sustainable development and define the principles that are to apply to all Olympic Games developments. In summary, the key principles of the Environmental Guidelines were: '- energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources - water conservation - waste avoidance and minimisation - protecting human health with appropriate standards of air, water, and soil quality - protecting significant natural and cultural environments.' (Environment Committee 1993, p. 1) Furthermore, the paper canvassed a number of global environmental issues, including threats to biodiversity and ozone depletion. It delineated criteria for sustainable Olympic facility development and environmentally responsible event management. Under the heading Planning and Construction of Olympic Facilities, the Environmental Guidelines state that host cities commit themselves to: ' - environmental and social impact assessment, with community participation in the planning process' (Environment Committee 1993, p. 3). This represents a commitment to assess the social impacts of a particular facility. However, it does not mandate an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the event itself (Johnston 1994). On 3 November 1993, the NSW Government gazetted State Environmental Planning Policy No. 38 - Olympic Games Projects (Department of Planning 1993). This plan was consistent with the Environmental Guidelines and Sydney Olympics 2000 Bid Limited's commitments to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for an event consistent with principles of ecologically sustainable development. The SEPP establishes a common procedure for assessing Olympic projects, including accommodation for athletes and media personnel (cl. 3). It is significant in being the first SEPP or Regional Environmental Plan to stipulate principles of ecologically sustainable development, defined as: 'development which uses, conserves and enhances the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased.' (cl. 3) SEPP 38 also references the Environmental Guidelines, stating that Olympic development must be consistent with these (cl. 11). Significantly, the determination of applications is vested with the Minister for Planning instead of local councils (cl. 6). Homebush Bay Development Guidelines There are 6 volumes of Development Guidelines relating to the Homebush Bay development. These guidelines were produced following the Homebush Bay Masterplan and the Homebush Bay Structure Plan and are meant to be consistent with both SEPP 38 and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 24 - Homebush Bay. In the context of this paper, the most important document is the Environment Strategy (Homebush Bay Corporation 1995). These guidelines make the following claim (p. 6): In producing the Homebush Bay Development Guidelines, the Homebush Bay Corporation has set out to achieve a model for ecologically sustainable development in an urban setting and attain best practice in all facets of development at Homebush Bay. The document asserts the need to balance environmental design, social considerations and economic constraints and will produce selection criteria for construction tenders accordingly. The guidelines were developed through a series of workshops, involving environmental groups, State and local government, ecological experts, the development industry and community groups. The ESD principles adopted at the Council of Australian Governments in 1992 were used as a starting point. Key performance areas were adopted and within these specific issues were identified. The specific issues of relevance to social impacts are shown in the table. To be consistent with the Environmental Guidelines for the Summer Olympic Games, 2 more performance areas should be integrated into the Development Guidelines. These are: * environmental economics, and * social equity and public participation. The latter performance area is addressed in the Social Actions in Section 5, below. Homebush Bay Development Guidelines - philosophy Environmental goal: Together with the community, industry and government, position Homebush Bay as an international environmental showcase of ecologically sustainable development and management. Performance area 1 - conservation of species Specific issue Principle People (their environment) That after redevelopment, Homebush Bay offers a high quality of life to those who live or work at the site, and a highly desirable destination for recreation or visitation. Performance area 2 - conservation of resources Open space That redevelopment of Homebush Bay preserves significant areas of open space as a resource for generations to come. Performance area 3 - pollution control Light That developments at Homebush Bay minimise the impact of night lighting on environmental conservation and residential areas. Homebush Bay Corporation 1995, pp. 9-11. Summary The social goals of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games stem from the Environmental Guidelines both in terms of the key principles (protecting cultural environments) and from the social equity assumptions of ESD. ESD is the foundation stone of the Environmental Guidelines and consequently incorporates concepts of quality of life and social equity within and between generations. These concepts and principles are underlined in terms of Australia's international obligations (the Rio Declaration) and also in the recent Development Guidelines for Homebush Bay itself. There can be no doubt that these principles must be followed diligently both in terms of best practice environmental design but also in terms of socially just and equitable outcomes. The overall intention is to enable such principles and practices to be adopted as normal or standard practice throughout Australia. 3 Major social impacts of the Olympics Social impact assessment Social impacts are defined as significant events experienced by people as changes in their way of life, their culture or their community. Social impacts can be positive (benefits) or negative (costs or losses). Social impact assessment refers to a more or less formalised procedure for the assessment of social impacts; the standard stages are shown in Appendix A. Although, some social impact assessments are 'desk-jobs', the social impact assessment currently being advocated by the State Government and by local government, involves some form of community consultation (see Cox 1994; Cox & Miers 1995). Fundamentally, social impact assessment is about connecting with various views of quality of life and social justice. It is about making quality of life, or social well-being, a key element in decision making. Good social impact assessment will also link in with the principles of ESD mentioned above, especially in terms of equity within and between generations (see Cox 1994 & 1995). Background to the Olympics social impact assessment In June 1993, Bruce Baird, the Minister responsible for the Olympic Bid, requested Jim Longley, Minister for Community Services, to undertake a social impact assessment for the Sydney Olympic Games. The initial intention was that this would be completed prior to the decision by the IOC in September. However, due to the short timeframe only a framework for such an assessment was possible. This paper, Sydney Olympics 2000: Approaches and Issues for Management of Social Impacts, was released in September 1993, just days before the IOC decision was due (Johnston & Deakin 1993). It was not until the following year that the social impact assessment proper was commenced. In April 1994, the Office of Olympic Co-ordination, under the auspice of the Premier's Department, invited tenders to conduct the social impact assessment for the Olympic Games and the Paralympics. A Steering Committee for the Social Impact Assessment was set up with community and government agency representation1. The Steering Committee selected Keys Young Pty Limited out of the 10 consultants who tendered for the project. The Preliminary Social Impact Assessment process The invitation to tender reinforced the Share the Spirit theme of the Games and a major principle behind social impact assessment and management: 'The Government of NSW intends to conduct a Social Impact Assessment of the Games and the Paralympic Games to ensure that all citizens share in the benefits the games will bring and to identify any potential negative impacts.' (Office of Olympic Co-ordination 1994a) The project brief further underlined this social justice approach which flowed from the earlier work by the Social Policy Directorate (Johnston & Deakin 1993). An 'understanding and appreciation of social justice issues' was listed as one of the nine selection criteria for prospective consultants (Office of Olympic Coordination 1994b, p. 5). Specific issues for consideration were listed as: ' sharing of benefits and costs access to economic resources and opportunities access to essential goods and services likely impact on disadvantaged community groups enhancement of human rights inter-generational equity' (Office of Olympic Coordination 1994b, p. 2) The consideration of inter-generational equity marked a convergence with some of the ecologically sustainable development issues emanating from the Environmental Guidelines. Out of this the consultants Keys Young developed a social impact assessment process. This had 4 major components: publication of an issues paper in August 1994; invitation for public submissions; regional workshops and focus groups; and preparation of an assessment report. The issues paper is a brief overview of some of the key impact categories and presents basic information and questions. The questions are designed to highlight issues and stimulate debate for the workshops. The coverage of issues seems to be fairly comprehensive but not very in-depth (Keys Young 1994). Both the consultation and submission phase of the project closed at the end of November 1994. The Preliminary Social Impact Assessment was presented to the Steering Committee in mid-December. The final draft was submitted to OOC in late January 1995. The report was then submitted to the Premier's Department. Overview of the main social impacts Prior to the consultation for the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment, Keys Young issued a background and issues paper (Keys Young 1994). This paper presented basic information on 'areas of possible influence'; these are listed in the table below. Areas of possible influence > housing and accommodation > transport > employment > the environment > prices > health and related services > issues affecting people with a disability > sport and recreation > cultural program > security > local issues > country areas of NSW > Government spending and revenue From Keys Young 1994. In terms of the focus of this study, the possible local issues are worth noting. The background paper states that the Olympics could speed up or intensify 'all sorts of changes' which would have occurred anyway around Homebush Bay. The other issue was the conversion of the Olympic Village to provide housing for around 6,000 people. It also stated that there were private enterprise proposals to use other former industrial land nearby for medium density housing and commercial uses. The Shelter NSW housing study A major study of housing impacts of hallmark events was published in September 1994 prior to the Keys Young consultations. This was a review of 6 hallmark events and their impact on housing. It was produced for Shelter NSW and the University of Western Sydney's Housing and Urban Studies Research Group (Cox, Darcy, & Bounds 1994). The study analysed documentation surrounding the Fremantle America's Cup in 1987, the Brisbane Expo in 1988, the Sydney Bicentennial in 1988, the Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992 and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. The study also reviewed the social impact assessment of the Melbourne Bid for the 1996 Games even though the Bid was unsuccessful as it represented a thorough SIA process. While most of the cases did not purport to have formalised SIA processes, there was sufficient documentation to assess the impacts on housing. The study distilled the impacts on housing from hallmark events as: accelerated processes of urban change, especially gentrification; pressure on the private rental market, taking the form of increased rents and conversions to other uses; conversion of boarding houses to tourist accommodation; displacement of low income tenants; event site developments replacing existing residents; increases in house prices; 'crowding out' of affordable housing investment, public or private, due to increased construction, house or land costs; and, harassment of homeless persons (Cox, Darcy & Bounds 1994, p. 54). Consequently, a number of these impacts were anticipated to occur in Sydney in the lead-up to the Games. The study was significant in estimating, albeit speculatively, both the spatial and temporal dimensions of these impacts. Social impacts in Auburn, Concord and Strathfield A small survey of these councils was conducted for this paper. The main aim was to find out what actions these councils were taking in terms of the impacts of the Games. The results are shown in the table on the next page. There appeared to be some overall lack of knowledge about the social impact assessment process being conducted by Keys Young. None of the 3 immediately surrounding councils had made submissions to the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment. More 'activist' councils, like Leichhardt, did not make submissions either. Though in Leichhardt's case, a local precinct committee, East Balmain, made a submission. Consequently, little can be said on the council perspective on the likely social impacts of the Games at this stage. Furthermore, only Strathfield is currently initiating any action on the impacts of the Games. The Strathfield Olympics Initiative and Opportunities Committee is currently being established. There are no terms of reference yet. However, advertising has occurred for resident representatives. Essentially, the committee seems to be focussed on maximising business and employment opportunities. As one Strathfield Council officer said: 'It is difficult to get people to look beyond the positive aspects of the Games to think there might be some negatives'. Submissions to the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment Four submissions to the Preliminary SIA have been obtained and are worth briefly reviewing. The Shelter NSW/University of Western Sydney study became Shelter NSW's submission to the SIA. This has already been discussed. The other submissions were from the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA), the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils (IMROC). The impact issues raised in each of these submissions are presented in one table. To this have been added comments made by participants at the Sydney City (18 October 1994) and the Liverpool (27 October 1994) consultation workshops. The impacts have been classified as positive or negative and follow the impact categories in the Keys Young background paper. However, it should be borne in mind that the same impact, such as a rise in house prices, may be a benefit to some but a loss to others. In many of the discussions around the Olympic Games, there is a confusion about the difference between positive social impacts and opportunities. Social impacts are said to occur, with varying degrees of likelihood, due to the decision to hold the Games and construct the various venues. Opportunities, on the other hand, may or may not occur but crucially depend on another decision. This may be a policy response by the State Government, a program of a council or local resident initiative. However, without such a response or initiative, these opportunities will not be translated into social benefits. The table below excludes opportunities; these are incorporated into the social actions recommended in Section 5. Social impact issues identified in submissions and workshops Impact category Positive Negative Housing & accommodation * rate increases to local councils from increased property values * urban consolidation from sale of the Olympic Village * capital gains to property owners * rental market gains for landlords * rent increases * decreasing housing affordability due to house price increases * increased competition for rental stock threatening security of tenure * conversion of boarding houses to tourist accommodation and other uses * over-occupancy as a result of bed and breakfast style accommodation * property speculation and artificial property price rises * pressure on council supported community housing and welfare services * accelerated processes of urban change, especially gentrification * displacement of older/ lower income tenants * change in community profile and loss of social mix * increased demand for council funded infrastructure * 'crowding out' of affordable housing investment, public or private * harassment of homeless persons Transport * improved car parking at the Olympic site * improved road linkages * improved and better integrated traffic management * improved rail facility at Sydney Olympic Park * congestion of on-street parking in vicinity * infiltration of traffic from arterial to local roads * Lyons Road, Victoria Road and Parramatta Road of particular concern * transfer of road infrastructure to councils post-Games, leading to maintenance problems * concern that rail and buses will be unable to absorb the planned 85% of spectator and other journeys * congestion of public transport * displacement of planned transit users to private cars, creating greater traffic congestion * increased demand for local community transport during the Games * noise and air pollution from increased traffic, especially near venues * construction dislocation and pollution Employment * increased employment opportunities, especially in service industries, before and during the Games * increased demand on council community services from urban consolidation * increased demand on council information services from tourism * mismatch between local skills and job opportunities * Olympic related service jobs going to outsiders not to the local communities * inadequate locally based training * issues around use of volunteers instead of paid employees * post-Games unemployment The environment * best practice example of Olympic Village housing built to high environmental standards * enhancement of transport corridors and built environment through minimising visual pollution, main street and greening activities * possible incomplete decontamination of the Homebush Bay site * possible dilution of green features of Olympic Village * environmental costs of inadequate waste management facilities at Games * increased visual pollution and ambush advertising * increased pressure on councils for rezoning of less suitable land in the vicinity (housing or commercial uses) * decrease in river water quality from increased numbers of crafts and waste water * damage to parkland from increased use * increased air pollution from traffic * increased aircraft noise pollution for residents under flight paths Prices * small increases in general price levels, impacting mostly on low income earners * cost of Games tickets unlikely to be affordable to low to modest income earners Health and related services * displacement of local people from 50 beds at each of Concord and Westmead Hospitals during Games * urban consolidation will require upgrading of community health and GP services post-Games Issues affecting people with a disability * heightened awareness from Paralympics * increased sensitivity and interest in making recreational and sports facilities fully accessible * more awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cmth) * cost to councils of increased demand for accessible recreational and sports facilities Sport and recreation * potential for new facilities to ease pressure on surrounding councils * participation of residents in spectating, having a beneficial psychological effect * increased demand in councils surrounding for same standard recreation and sporting facilities * temporary displacement of local sports groups from training venues * limited access for low income earners to participate in sport Cultural program * community access to a significant cultural program at Games time and preceding 3 years * demand for more cultural programs in succeeding years after Games Security * potential crowd control problems in residential areas adjoining the venues (congestion, noise) * potential decrease in personal safety (assault, theft, perception of unsafety) * misuse of social control laws * overuse of private security firms in public spaces Local issues * increased demand for counselling and referral services, aged services, childcare from mainly Australian visitors * pressure on councils to institute anti-graffiti measures and programs Country areas of NSW * tourism spillover benefits * use of country venues for acclimatisation and training * perception of having missed out on the benefits of the Games Government spending and revenue * increased Commonwealth income * increased State income * increased local government income from rates and charges * pressure to fund new infrastructure and services with potential to distort expenditure patterns/forward planning * distortion of expenditures towards Games rather than on-going commitments * competition for actual or perceived increased revenue Quoted from: Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW 1994; Cox, Darcy & Bounds 1994; Hand 1994; Johnston 1994. Final report of the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment The final Preliminary Social Impact Assessment was released publicly in February 1995. Given that its release was in the run-up to the 1995 State election, the report received scant media attention. The report presented a great deal of information on likely or possible social impacts. The bulk of these impacts and issues had been identified in the consultation process; however, some desk work was presented on population changes, urban development and housing effects. The main issues have been detailed in the tables above. The main aim of the assessment was to identify strategies and policies to maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts resulting from the Games. To this end, the report makes 37 detailed recommendations. In achieving the aims of the social impact assessment, the report suggests the adoption of 6 broad principles. These are summarised in the table, below. The report also suggests that a Sydney Olympics and Paralympics Charter be adopted to enshrine the key values and principles behind the events. The Charter could be both a reminder to decision-makers about the spirit of the Games and also a basis on which Sydney would present itself to the world in the cultural festivals in the years up to 2000 and in 2000 itself. The report states that this might include 'democratic freedoms, acceptance of and pride in diversity, equality between men and women, racial equality, tolerance of belief systems, respect for minority rights, care for the physical environment and concern for the least advantaged people in society' (Keys Young 1995a, p. 115). The core principles of ESD should also have a place in this Charter. Preliminary Social Impact Assessment - broad principles * co-ordinated action across government and with non-government agencies (requiring good information, continuing research, monitoring, and adequate resources) * a focus on principles of access and equity, in relation to both broad community interests and the interests of particular groups * information be provided to the public about what is happening * effective channels for community consultation * the role of local government be fully considered * monitoring and planning should occur as early as possible Source: Keys Young 1995a, pp.115. The following table summarises the report's recommendations. Many of these are process oriented, such as the setting up of working groups on various issues. A significant recommendation is that full social impact assessments should be conducted in 1996 (after the Atlanta Games) and in 1998. A post-event assessment is also advocated. Some of the recommendations are about obtaining further information or adopting monitoring procedures, such as in the crucial housing area. Some recommendations are specific (e.g. regarding free-to-air TV), while others are more statements of intent (e.g. high quality, high capacity public transport). In general, if all the recommendations are adopted in the spirit in which they are written, the outcome for the Olympics and Paralympics will be a more beneficial one. All the recommendations should be supported. However, Section 5 of this report states a number of further social actions that should be implemented in order to ensure that further social benefits are realised in line with the social and environmental goals enunciated in Section 2. Preliminary Social Impact Assessment - recommendations Planning, consultation and decision-making * continue social impact planning and management; * make information available to the public on an on-going basis and continue community consultation; * establish working groups in key areas (housing & visitor accommodation, employment & training, disability issues, consumer protection, community services); * ensure effective participation by local government and non-government organisations in these working groups; * develop a Sydney Olympics and Paralympics statement of principles or charter; * review social impact management and planning in 1996 (after Atlanta) and in 1998; * organise a post-event social impact assessment after 2000; * develop a post-Olympic program (e.g. celebration of Federation) to minimise community 'let down' post-Games. Public finances * adopt recommendations of the Auditor-General's performance review, regarding auditing and reporting; * assist the public to understand the financial commitments, benefits and risks of the Games; * provide a shared base of information for considering how public finance transfers can be dealt with in an efficient and equitable manner; * establish a funding mechanism to demonstrate that any financial benefits from the Games (such as increased tax revenues) are distributed widely in the community (an Olympic Social Development Fund would be one option). Housing, housing services and visitor accommodation * consider residential housing issues and visitor accommodation issues in a co-ordinated way; * establish a working group in early 1995 to monitor and recommend strategies to ensure the best possible housing outcome (such a group should include local government and non-government representation); * review and refine the Olympics Accommodation Strategy and also bring forward research on visitor accommodation during the Games (phase 2 of the Sydney and Environs Accommodation Demand and Supply Study). Transport * provide high quality, high capacity public transport to the major venues; * ensure improved access to all transport services for people with a disability. Training, employment and the volunteer program * establish a working group to ensue training and employment opportunities are shared by disadvantaged groups (e.g. young & long-term unemployed, Aboriginal people, people of non-English speaking background, people with a disability); * ensure volunteer programs are open to those disadvantaged in the labour market and to persons outside Sydney. Health care * consideration be given by the Health Care Working Group to the wider implications to the community for health care. Community services * assess the implications of the Games for community services. Consumer protection * develop a consumer protection strategy (for both residents and visitors), including monitoring of prices. Security and civil liberties * security measures to satisfy both the criteria of personal safety and respect for individual civil rights; * liaise with a range of civil liberties bodies (government and non-government). Environment protection * wider application of environmentally positive practices and technologies (e.g. the innovative characteristics of the Olympic Village). Sport and recreation * long-term use of the Games facilities to achieve a mix of elite, school, community, and men and women's sport. Cultural program * increase the scope and impact of the cultural program through co-operation with bodies like the NSW Ministry for the Arts and the Australia Council; * promote opportunities for artists and performers outside central Sydney, especially western Sydney; * consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and communities of non-English speaking background. Disability issues * establish a working group to address issues affecting people with a disability (venue and facility design, transport, visitor accommodation, media coverage, information programs, and participation in training, employment, volunteer programs and other aspects of the Games). Cultural diversity * close consultation with indigenous and immigrant communities to ensure Australia's diverse cultures are represented appropriately; * provide opportunities for the involvement of local (Sydney) Aboriginal people; * ensure that indigenous cultural works are authentic and intellectual property rights are protected. Ticketing and media coverage * ensure tickets are accessible to a wide cross-section of society, with special measures to include low-income and other disadvantaged groups; * regard be had to the strong community desire for free-to-air coverage of the Games. Metropolitan and regional effects * monitor the growth and composition of the Sydney region's population in the years up to the Games; * monitor employment, job mix and job distribution in the regions close to the major venues; * promote urban consolidation, public transport and innovative housing in Games developments in order to enhance the livability and long-term environmental sustainability of Sydney; * maximise the potential of other regions of NSW to benefit from the Games, possibly through a special working group. Note: The Health Care Working Group and a Cultural Committee have already been established. The responsible agencies identified in the report have changed post the March 1995 State election. Source: Keys Young 1995a, pp.117-126. Summary The social impact assessment of the Sydney 2000 Olympics should not be viewed a well-defined process, following a standard procedure and steps as would be the case for developments less in the public domain. The Preliminary Social Impact Assessment is but one part of a wider assessment process. This involves non-government organisations and lobby groups as well as the media. Shelter NSW and Greenpeace have both been at the forefront of this wider process as well as local government organisations, such as IMROC. The Preliminary Social Impact Assessment and submissions have identified the major social impacts that may occur with the staging of the Olympics and Paralympics. It should, of course, be borne in mind that many of these impacts would have occurred without the Games, merely as a result of the Homebush Bay development. It follows that these impacts are likely to occur in some form after 2000. The traffic and transport impacts are the most obvious example. The principles and recommendations in the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment should be supported. However, the social impact assessment is an evolving process. The Greenpeace Olympics Project is part of this; hence, further social actions are recommended in Section 5 so that the goals of the Green Games can be fully realised. Before proceeding to the social actions, the role of public participation and community involvement in the process will be discussed. 4 Public and community involvement Consultation is a critical part of the SIA process. Though some forms of SIA have been practiced as a purely technical exercise, the Social Policy Directorate's 'Best Practice Paper' on SIA clearly stated the position: 'It is the community who will generally be the recipient of most of the social benefits or disbenefits of the development. Social impact assessment cannot avoid being people focused...Social impact assessment is about more than exercising technical expertise. It requires a skilful and sensitive approach to community participation.' (Cox 1994, p. 27) The key groups of stakeholders in the consultation process were identified as (a fuller stakeholder list is included in Appendix B): key State, regional and local bodies, and residents of suburbs close to the Olympic zones (namely, Lidcombe, Silverwater, North Auburn, Ultimo/Pyrmont, and Kings Cross) (Johnston & Deakin 1993, p. A-9). Consultation for the Preliminary SIA For the Preliminary SIA, workshops were held in Sydney (2), Parramatta (2), Rockdale, Manly, Newcastle, Wagga Wagga and Liverpool. These were limited to 40 participants and were on a number of topics including 'social impacts generally', 'disability issues', 'housing and tourism', and 'transport and environment' (Keys Young 1994, insert). The focus groups comprised selected individuals designed to obtain views of the 'person in the street'. The format of the workshops was as follows: * explanation of the SIA and participation process; * full group brainstorming of issues using butchers' paper and whiteboards; * more in-depth small group discussions on group-selected topics or impacts; and * small group report back to the full group. For the purposes of this paper, 2 workshops were attended (Sydney City on 18 October 1994; Liverpool on 27 October 1994). The Sydney City workshop had around 40 attendees and the Liverpool workshop had about 10. The workshops engendered a great deal of information about possible impacts, both positive and negative. Suggestions were also obtained about remedial or mitigation measures and wider opportunities. The Keys Young study team also held some direct consultations with groups and individuals. The ones detailed in the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment were (Keys Young 1995a, p. 23): * the Olympics Housing Reference Group (set up by the Ministry for Housing, Planning and Urban Affairs), * a human and civil rights forum (convened by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre), * the Central Western Sydney Planning Group (which includes representatives of councils and community organisations in Auburn, Parramatta and Holroyd Local Government Areas), * the Homebush Bay Local Government Liaison Committee, * representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, * groups representing communities of non-English speaking background, * arts and cultural organisations, * tourism bodies, * real estate agents familiar with the Homebush Bay area, and * staff of councils in the inner city and close to Homebush Bay. Issues were also discussed with relevant officers from Federal and State Government agencies. Was the Preliminary SIA consultation adequate? There has been some criticism about the extent of the public consultation carried out and also the location of the workshops. This has mainly come from local government, including some of the councils in the survey. Though the workshops were very professionally conducted, the consultation process was more limited than that outlined in the framework document from the Social Policy Directorate (Johnston & Deakin 1993). The main shortfalls were as follows: * the consultations were limited attendance workshops rather than open public meetings (though this format was adopted to engender a fuller discussion of issues); * there appears to be some disagreement about how effective the consultation with local government was, especially with the councils in the Olympic zones (see Section 3 - Social impacts in Auburn, Concord and Strathfield, above); * residents and resident groups in locations surrounding the Olympic venues were not explicitly consulted; * human service providers close to the Olympic Park zone and the Sydney Harbour zone were also not explicitly consulted; and, * the conduct of the main workshops was not focussed on issues of locality. Summary There was some dissatisfaction with the consultation process, even though 9 workshops were conducted around New South Wales. However, the workshops did enable valuable input into the process from a range of groups and local and State government officers. The focus of these sessions was on broad impacts and measures to overcome them. Discussion of opportunities also occurred. There is clearly a need for on-going consultation, particularly at the local level - both councils and local residents surrounding the venues. It should be pointed out that Keys Young delivered what had been stated in their tender. However, subsequent social impact assessment briefs - those in 1996 and 1998 - should detail more fully the scope of the consultation expected. Considerable thought should be given as to how to address the local issues around Homebush Bay and how to more effectively involve local government. Recommendations in this regard will be given in the next section. 5 Action on social issues A number of organisations are taking action on the likely social and environmental impacts of the Olympics. It is important that any action suggested here link in with other strategies taking place. The Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils (IMROC), in the absence of explicitly local government focussed consultation, have held focus groups with planners from their member councils2. Out of this process emanated a proposal to develop a regional masterplan: '... to ensure that local communities maximise opportunities provided by the Olympic Games, minimise negative impacts and ensure that both costs and benefits are distributed equally.' (Richie 1994) Specific projects include strategies for the Olympic Corridor, landscape and open space, tourism, housing and transport. Given the localised focus of the Social Issues Action Paper, IMROC is probably the most important organisation to liaise with. Shelter NSW has played a leading role in placing the social impacts of the Games firmly on the political agenda. The impetus from the Olympics and Housing study (Cox, Darcy & Bounds 1994) has resulted in some of the housing impact issues obtaining a headstart, for example with the establishment of the Olympics Housing Reference Group. Other groups that have a potential role in this area are listed in Social Action 1. Olympia 2000+ is a network of community groups, councils practitioners and academics concerned with harnessing the opportunities from the Olympics in a socially responsible and environmentally friendly way. They are sponsored by the Urban Design Program at the University of Sydney and have held workshops recently entitled Common Goals (4 October 1994) and Passages to Homebush: Rail, River, Road (25 November 1994). Olympic 2000+ has an important role in developing ideas and keeping the issue active amongst professionals, council officers, and community representatives. Significance of social impact areas It is difficult to make a realistic assessment of the degree of importance of the social impacts. However, a basic evaluation is made here of the impact areas from the table in the preceding section. These areas have been categorised as high, medium or low; this is based on the number of negative impacts cited and the number of people likely to be affected. Evaluation of broad social impact issues identified in submissions and workshops Impact area Positive impacts Negative impacts Housing & accommodation medium high Transport medium high Employment medium high The environment medium high Prices - medium Health and related services - low Issues affecting people with a disability medium low Sport and recreation medium medium Cultural program high low Security - medium Local issues - medium Country areas of NSW medium low Government spending and revenue high medium From this very basic evaluation, 4 areas emerge with possible high negative social impacts. These are: * housing and accommodation; * transport; * employment; and * the environment. Endorsement of Preliminary SIA recommendations As stated in Section 3, the broad principles and recommendations contained in the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment should be endorsed. It is also important that a Sydney Olympics and Paralympics Charter be adopted that enshrines key ecological and human rights principles. The following social actions are recommended to be adopted in conjunction with these recommendations. They are all complementary to those in the Keys Young report; essentially, they address areas or issues not covered by the official social impact assessment. Proposed social actions The proposed social actions address the most significant impacts highlighted in the above table. The actions also recognise the work of other organisations and community groups, in particular Shelter NSW, IMROC and Olympic 2000+. The recommended social actions follow the same headings as in the Keys Young report (1995a, pp. 117-126). Housing, housing services and visitor accommodation Greenpeace should liaise with Shelter NSW on housing issues, in the first instance. 28 out of the 67 submissions received during the social impact assessment process related to housing and accommodation. This was the highest number of submissions received for one issue. Social Action 1: That a Social Housing Task Force be established to address the re-use of the Olympic Village. The re-use of the Olympics Village should ensure a social mix and not be sold for luxury or executive housing. The objective should be for 20% of the housing units to be affordable social housing and a further 10% be managed under special programs by the Department of Housing, possibly in conjunction with local government. In order to achieve this, a special task force should be established to investigate suitable forms of social housing management. The task force should include representatives from the NSW Department of Housing, Shelter NSW, NSW Federation of Housing Associations Inc., the Association to Resource Co-operative Housing (ARCH), People with Disabilities (NSW) Inc., the Western Sydney Housing Company, Concord Council, Auburn Council, Strathfield Council, and other members of relevant community groups as deemed appropriate. The aims of social housing are: diversification of stock, decentralisation of management, increased tenant/occupant influence, increase in housing choice and the achievement of broader social and environmental objectives, such as livability and sustainability. Consideration should be given to the following types of models: rental housing co-operatives, common equity rental co-operatives, joint ventures with local government (under the Local Government Housing Initiatives Program), housing associations and community tenancy schemes (or a mix of these). The task force should consider innovative uses for the Olympic Village that are in keeping with the spirit of the Games (multi-culturalism, sharing the spirit); these could encompass Aboriginal housing co-operatives, housing for international sports students, half-way accommodation for nearby Silverwater Prison. The Department of Housing's contribution should include best practice housing for older persons and people with a disability. The latter would be consistent with the Olympic Village providing ease of access and appropriate facilities for athletes and officials with a disability for both the Olympic Games and the Paralympics. As mentioned in the submission by the NSW Federation of Housing Associations, both the detailed design of the Olympic Village and adjacent services should be undertaken with the tenure models and post-Games usage clearly in mind. Transport Transport actions will be linked with the Greenpeace Transport Action Paper and should be co-ordinated with IMROC. IMROC have unsuccessfully applied for funding to the Integrated Local Area Planning program3 for a Transport Strategy and a Roads and Rivers Strategy. However, IMROC are currently developing a Regional Transport Strategy and to this end are holding a public forum in July 1995. They are also about to embark on a joint project (with the Federal Department of Housing and Regional Development, the Federal Department of Employment Education and Training, and the NSW Department of Planning and Urban Affairs) on the urban design, transport improvements and economic development of Parramatta Road. Social Action 2: That Auburn, Concord and Strathfield Councils, either jointly or separately, apply for ILAP funding to devise plans to minimise and mitigate the impacts of traffic generated from all activities at Homebush Bay on the amenity of local neighbourhoods (congestion, parking, inappropriate use of local roads by arterial traffic). Training, employment and the volunteer program Local groups attending the Keys Young workshops emphasised the need for employment and training opportunities to be available to disadvantaged and unemployed people in the Auburn, Concord and Strathfield Local Government Areas. In keeping with the theme of the Green Games and the principles of ESD, serious attempts should be made to generate green jobs at Homebush Bay and for the Games themselves. Greener processes are generally more labour intensive than capital intensive since often green technologies involve small scale, decentralised management and maintenance. Therefore, they have significant potential to address structural unemployment in these locations. Any such green jobs initiatives should be consistent with both the recent Commonwealth initiatives in the area (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts 1994) and the ACF-ACTU Green Jobs in Industry Program (Australian Conservation Foundation & Australian Council of Trade Unions 1994). The following social actions should be co-ordinated with local community development groups (such as Auburn Community Development Network) and the 3 local councils. Social Action 3: That the local Commonwealth Employment Services (CES) act as brokers for non-Executive Olympics related employment. The relevant CES offices are Auburn, Burwood, Granville, and Parramatta. Social Action 4: That Auburn Skillshare and Granville Skillshare develop local employment training programs for Olympic related service employment and green jobs. Appropriate skills areas should be developed in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Employment Education and Training, the Olympic Co-ordination Agency, and the ACF-ACTU Green Jobs in Industry Program. Social Action 5: That the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (or a suitable independent body) be funded to initiate a second phase of their Green Jobs in Industry Program. This would be a best practice case study on how to develop green jobs in relation to the Olympics and Paralympics and the on-going functioning of the Homebush Bay development. This should include all phases of the Homebush Bay development, including planning, construction and final uses. Key employment areas could be land care, energy efficiency, waste management, recycling, ecotourism, clean-up services and water re-use. The project should also integrate with the Landcare and Environment Action Program (LEAP), which is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Employment Education and Training to provide young unemployed people with training and experience in landcare and conservation activities. Environment protection The environmental issues obviously have links with all the other Greenpeace Olympics Action Papers. The links between positive environmental outcomes and social benefits are discussed in the next section. Planning, consultation and decision-making Participation Community participation is one of the most important processes in ensuring social impacts, whether positive or negative, are identified and that the local negative impacts are minimised or mitigated. The community involvement in the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment was consultation not participation. Consultation is essentially about information sharing and the agency conducting the exercise listening to responses or opinions from the public. Public or community participation is more involved than consultation. It implies some exercise of control or influence over the decisions made through the process. A good example is a road project where various alignments are proposed. Consultation would merely gather opinion from the community and pass this on to the decision-makers. A participation process would involve the public in some degree of selection of the preferred route option. Clearly some degree of community participation is desirable for the Homebush Bay development and the addressing of the impacts of the Games. A problem may be the already existing plethora of committees each with varying degrees of responsibility and having different forms of community representation. However, the need for a more a thorough-going process of local community consultation in future social impact assessment processes has been identified. Local participation has a significant role to play in the process. Well-resourced local committees can play an essential watchdog role and also ensure that Olympic benefits are enjoyed by people and communities most directly affected by the venues and the Games themselves. Social Action 6: That the 1996 and 1998 social impact assessments focus more clearly on the local communities surrounding the major Games venues. Particular emphasis should be laid on obtaining the involvement of local residents, community groups, councillors and council staff. Methods should be adopted to facilitate the maximum participation of these individuals and groups in the process; proactive targeting of groups may be the best way to ensure full participation in the process. Publicity for the consultations should use both local media and the ethnic press. A variety of techniques should be used from public meetings, small group discussions to attitudinal surveys. Individual discussions with councillors should also be sought. Social Action 7: That the surrounding local councils be encouraged to establish Olympic Impact Committees to monitor the social and environmental impacts of the Games. Similar to the Strathfield Olympics Initiative and Opportunities Committee, they should include local residents and community groups, as well as councillors and officers. Ideally, they should monitor and make recommendations about negative impacts as well as opportunities to maximise the benefits. Precinct committees may be a useful model for this process. Social Action 8: That the Homebush Bay Development Guidelines: Volume 1 - Environment Strategy be amended to include social equity and public participation in its list of key performance areas. The Environment Strategy should then incorporate a process of community participation, using best practice techniques such as precinct planning and user participation in design. Co-ordination Overall co-ordination of actions surrounding the social and environmental impacts of the Games needs to occur at both the regional and the State level. Monitoring also should occur at these levels. Social Action 9: That IMROC continue the role of co-ordinating and monitoring local government's regional response to the Olympics in the inner metropolitan region. Social Action 10: That the NSW Government Social Policy Directorate be the State agency responsible for co-ordinating and monitoring the social impacts of the Olympic Games. The Directorate should receive NSW Treasury funds to enable it to conduct this role efficiently and effectively. Implementation strategy A new body, the Olympic Co-ordination Agency, is to take over the roles and functions of the Office of Olympic Co-ordination, the Olympic Construction Authority, the Homebush Bay Corporation and the sections of the Department of Sport and Recreation and the Department of Planning which are responsible for Games venues. The fate of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) is not clear yet. The following table indicates the possible implementation strategy in terms of agencies targeted as responsible for the Social Actions. Except for Social Action 6, which relates to the 1996 and 1998 social impact assessments, all the other actions should commence as soon as possible. Greenpeace Social Actions - implementation strategy Social Action Implementation agency 1. Olympic Village social housing task force Olympic Co-ordination Agency 2. Local area traffic management strategy Auburn, Concord and Strathfield Councils 3. Olympic jobs employment brokerage Commonwealth Employment Service 4. Local employment training programs Commonwealth Department of Employment Education and Training 5. Green Olympic jobs project Australian Conservation Foundation - Australian Council of Trade Unions (funded by Olympic Co-ordination Agency) 6. Local social impact consultation Olympic Co-ordination Agency 7. Olympic impact committees Auburn, Concord and Strathfield Councils 8. Social equity and public participation in Homebush Bay development planning Olympic Co-ordination Agency 9. Regional co-ordination Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils 10. Statewide monitoring and co-ordination of social impacts NSW Social Policy Directorate Summary Ten social actions have been recommended. These have been suggested following a tabulation of the main social impacts identified in submissions to the Preliminary Social Impact Assessment, the SIA workshops and also direct contact with a number of key stakeholders. The social actions address the most pressing negative social impacts and also the need to reap the full benefits of the Green Games. Issues relating to on-going public consultation and participation are also included. All the social actions are achievable within current policy, funding and institutional frameworks. 6 Linking environmental and social goals Fundamental to the principle of ecologically sustainable development is that environmental benefits flow on into social benefits. This may not be so evident in the short term, though often short term benefits are overlooked due to crude dollar accounting conventions. True social costs and benefits are revealed when all externalities are taken into account. However, some benefits may only accrue over time, maybe to future generations, as society moves to a more sustainable future. These benefits are real nonetheless. The following table summarises the key programs or actions proposed in the other Greenpeace Olympic Project Action Papers. Alongside these are detailed the main social benefits flowing from these. It should be stressed that there may be many social benefits, large and small. This assessment is only an initial broad brush treatment. Social benefits of Action Papers for the Green Games Action Paper Proposed program or action Identified social benefit 1. Toxic waste Remediation strategies Permitting a previously toxic site to be used for socially beneficial purposes 2. Water Reuse, recycling, minimisation strategies Direct cost savings to the consumer 3. Energy Use of renewable sources, energy minimisation, passive solar Direct cost savings to the consumer 4. Transport Emphasis on public transport and personal public transport initiatives Less reliance on private car, increased access for a range of transport disadvantaged groups 5. Biodiversity Maintenance of species biodiversity on the Homebush Bay site Health and scientific benefits of retention of species diversity; social and recreational benefits of retention of wildlife corridors 6. Building materials - toxics Reduction in use of toxic building materials Long term health benefits 7. Building materials - PVC Minimisation or elimination of PVC products Long term health benefits 8. Building materials - timber Use of local plantation timbers (softwood and hardwoods) Promoting sustainable jobs in timber industry; social benefits of conserved old growth forests 9. Building materials - contained energy and environmental impact Balancing environmental impact and minimisation of contained energy in building materials Long term social benefits of reduction in energy use (e.g. greenhouse emissions) 10. Waste Waste reduction and recycling Social benefits of a more sustainable economy 11. Economics Reduction in external costs/externalities Real social and environmental costs reflected in decision-making 12. Development processes Details not available - 13. Organisation Details not available - 15. Construction processes Details not available - 16. Private enterprise Details not available - 7 Future directions Contribution to Greenpeace global goals The outcomes associated with this Action Paper are consistent with Greenpeace's global goals. Recommended social actions are based on goals and objectives emanating from the Environmental Guidelines for the Summer Olympic Games (Environment Committee 1993). These guidelines delineate criteria for sustainable Olympic facility development and environmentally responsible event management. The principles of ecologically sustainable development highlight the need for social equity both within and between generations. The social actions are consistent with these principles. Impact management and monitoring In terms of the standard steps in social impact assessment (see Appendix A), the stage of impact management and monitoring is about to be entered. This is obviously a critical phase. Systems need to be in place for both coordination and monitoring. The recommended social actions address this issue. In line with the fundamental principles of the environmental movement and also of best practice social impact assessment, on-going local level community participation structures are also recommended. It is important to stress that the management and monitoring of social impacts cannot be left to the good offices of higher levels of government. Dealing with uncertainty For an event with the magnitude of social and environmental impacts as the Olympics, uncertainty is a major issue. There are other significant factors that will alter the dimensions and the nature of impacts too. For example, the impact of the Third Runway on the inner west housing market may change expectations for some of the housing markets in the Olympic Corridor. As in the field of environmental assessment, the precautionary principle is advocated. The precautionary principle is a prudent risk aversion strategy. Where a situation or threat may lead to a damaging irreversible outcome, lack of complete knowledge should not be used as a reason to postpone mitigation measures. Also, in developing mitigation strategies, decision points and thresholds should be established indicating when mitigation measures need to be implemented to be effective. The uncertainty of impacts and the likely changes in urban context that will occur between now and 2000 underline the importance of the recommended social impact assessments in 1996 and 1998. Future directions in working with other groups The Sydney Bicentennial in 1988 was an example where there was limited forward planning to mitigate the social impacts of that year-long event. Impacts were especially acute in terms of the loss of inner city low income housing. There was also a notable lack of coordination and liaison between local government, lobby groups, community groups and non-government organisations. For the Sydney 2000 Olympics the situation appears to be very different. A number of organisations, like Greenpeace, Shelter NSW and IMROC, have acted early. New networks such as Olympia 2000+ have been established. A formal social impact assessment process has occurred. It is important that these good beginnings are built upon through close liaison, efficient dissemination of ideas and information, and co-ordinated actions. This Social Issues Action Paper represents part of this process. References Australian Conservation Foundation & Australian Council of Trade Unions 1994, Green Jobs in Industry: Key Findings of a Report to the Department of Employment Education and Training by the ACF-ACTU Green Jobs in Industry Program, Australian Conservation Foundation & Australian Council of Trade Unions, Melbourne. Commonwealth of Australia 1990, Ecologically Sustainable Development: A Commonwealth Discussion Paper, AGPS, Canberra. Cox, G. 1994, Better Communities Through Social Impact Assessment, Best Practice Paper 4, Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate, Sydney. Cox, G. 1995, Techniques for Effective Social Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide, Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate. Cox, G., Darcy, M., & Bounds, M. 1994, The Olympics and Housing: A Study of Six International Events and Analysis of Potential Impacts of the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Shelter NSW, Sydney, and the Housing and Urban Studies Research Group, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, Sydney. Cox, G. & Miers, S. 1995, Social Impact Assessment for Local Government: A Handbook for Councillors, Town Planners and Social Planners, Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, Sydney, & Office on Social Policy, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate, Sydney. Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, and Territories 1991, Australian National Report to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, AGPS, Canberra. Department of Planning 1993, Circular No. B34: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 38 - Olympic Games Projects, Department of Planning, Sydney, New South Wales. Environment Committee 1993, Environmental Guidelines for the Summer Olympic Games, Sydney Olympics 2000 Bid Ltd., Sydney, New South Wales. Hand, L. 1994, Social Impact Assessment of the 2000 Olympic Games, Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils, Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW. Homebush Bay Corporation 1995, Homebush Bay Development Guidelines: Volume 1 - Environment Strategy, Homebush Bay Corporation, New South Wales. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts 1994, Working with the Environment: Opportunities for Job Growth, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australian, AGPS, Canberra. Johnston, C. 1994, Sydney 2000: "The Human Rights Games" - A Submission to the New South Wales Government Preliminary Social Impact Assessment on Human Rights and Civil Liberties Issues for Sydney's Olympics and Paralympics, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Sydney, NSW. Johnston, C. & Deakin, E. 1993, Sydney Olympics 2000: Approaches and Issues for the Management of Social Impacts, Office on Social Policy, Social Policy Directorate, Sydney, New South Wales. Keys Young 1994, Social Impact: 2000 Olympics and Paralympics - Background Information & Questions for Consultation, Keys Young, Sydney, NSW. Keys Young, in association with KPMG Management Consulting & King, A. 1995a, Preliminary Social Impact Assessment of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Volume 1 - Report, Office of Olympic Co-ordination, Premier's Department, Sydney. Keys Young, in association with KPMG Management Consulting & King, A. 1995b, Preliminary Social Impact Assessment of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Volume 2 - Appendices, Office of Olympic Co-ordination, Premier's Department, Sydney. Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW 1994, Submission to the Olympics and Paralympics Social Impact Study Keys Young Concerning Potential Issues of Concern to Local Government, Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, Sydney, NSW. Office on Social Policy 1994, Quality of Life: A Social Policy Approach, New South Wales Government Social Policy Directorate, Sydney. Richie, T. 1994, IMROC Olympics Project: Correspondence to Cllr Peter Woods, Local Government Association, Re: Support for IMROC ILAP Submission, Inner Metropolitan Regional Organisation of Councils, Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW. Appendix A Stages in social impact assessment (from Cox 1994, p. 17) THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS Impact assessment - by the proponent Scoping Identify the issues and variables to be described or measured. Delineate the study boundaries and likely areas of impact. Involve affected individuals, groups or communities in the assessment process. Profiling Analyse the current social context and summarise historical trends. Prepare a social profile. Formulating alternatives Examine and compare development options or proposals for change, including the 'no-go' option. Projecting and estimating effects Examine in detail the impacts of one or more options against decision criteria. The decision - by the consent authority Deciding Choose a course of action amongst the available alternatives in the light of a total environmental impact assessment. If the 'no-go' option is selected, the process ends here; otherwise, the next stage is entered - impact management. Impact management - by local government or a State agency Impact management planning Adjust planning objectives, operating procedures, and design specifications. Devise an impact management plan, including mitigation (minimisation or avoidance) strategies and benefit maximisation strategies. Monitoring and mitigating Collect information about the actual effects. Apply this information to mitigate or avoid negative effects, to maximise positive effects, and to manage changes overall. Involve the various participants in the mitigation and monitoring process. Evaluating Retrospectively review the social effects of the change being managed. Evaluate the effectiveness of the social assessment and management process that was used. APPENDIX B The 2000 Olympic Games - Key Stakeholders (Johnston & Deakin 1993, p. A-32 & A-33) 1 The community representatives were Lyn Gain, NSW Council of Social Service; Gillian Thomas, People with Disabilities (NSW) Inc.; and John Nicolades, NSW Ecumenical Council. 2 IMROC's member councils are Auburn, Ashfield, Burwood, Concord, Drummoyne, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Marrickville, Strathfield, and Sydney City. 3 This is a program funded by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (DILGEA). 51 Introduction Social action goals Major social impacts of the Olympics Public and community involvement Action on social issues Linking environmental and social goals Future directions References Appendix A