Several approaches to environmental management

The term EMS or Environmental Management System, is used very loosely and many of these approaches do not include a system.

All EMS programs start with some form of environmental audit and this is an essential first step, but knowing what is wrong and do something about it are two different things. There is no reason why, given the proper tools and guidance, companies should not initially control their environmental impacts themselves. They know more about their business than anyone else, but they need to open your eyes to practices that had never made represent an environmental hazard. They need to work through a systematic approach and do so with eyes open.

Once you have a control in place and understand the issues, an audit alone is not effective - it only identifies problems. The next step is to develop an environmental management plan (EMP), which hopefully was based on analysis of the risks identified by the audit results. An environmental management plan still does not necessarily lead to good environmental management because there is a feedback loop. It 'so easy to leave things until tomorrow, that never comes.

There is an internationally recognized approach for the analysis of the risks described in AS / NZS 4360: 2004 and this is the correct approach to follow. Some people take a "risk" in the air and decide that it is a low-risk and the other end of this spectrum is shown by some scientists who decide that the determination of environmental risk for an area is a wonderful opportunity to apply for funding for research. The central approach, based on a realistic assessment of both likelihood and consequences within the individual companies is the approach that is recognized internationally. The difficulty with an approach on an industrial scale is that the actual probability and consequences of very different businesses, even within the same industry.

There is a big boost, particularly by some regulators, for codes of practice (CoP) and / or best management practices. Again there is no feedback built in. Some people try to write a code of practice before starting their EMS, verification, risk analysis and plan should come first. The Code of Conduct shall therefore very useful as a starting point for the other of which was based on an analysis of control and risk.

Government agencies often impose practices of industries, without consultation with the sector. The Kingfish farmers in South Australia has developed its own code of practice, and then both PIRSA (Primary Industries and Resources SA) and the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) has imposed so that others now have three. Interestingly, all three are very different. The code field covers most of the other two, but PIRSA and the EPA have developed codes that barely overlap. Nor was based on collaboration with industry to identify real problems, and each is based on perceived government issues.

A code of conduct imposed can not really consider the way in which businesses operate in their particular situation. It is imposing a solution that may not be appropriate. It seems to me that the justification for the Code of Practice is a real need to ensure that the industry behaves legally and does not cause environmental damage. A summary of the legislation that applies to those companies, highlighting areas where the regulators felt more concern, would actually be more useful than a code of conduct, because it increases awareness of legislation, allowing the operator of the field to find the best solution to problems.

There are often calls for greater community control of environmental results. Monitoring is a great tool as long as feed back into action changed if there is a problem. Monitoring to / from an external organization does not necessarily change management and continuous improvement. Government monitoring of the Agency, with long reports written in "science talk" after 18 months were not taken into account in practice changed. A fax machine or the like, there is a problem the day would allow a change of activity. The long-term relationships are mostly just put in a library with minimal impact on management practices. Monitoring is, in fact, a tool that most companies use internally to control their operations. Unfortunately, many citizens do not trust the industry to control their personal results. A classic example is the breeding of fish. Operators quickly learn, if you do not already know, that clean water is essential for growth of healthy fish and are unlikely to pollute the clean water that is so essential to them.

Most so-called environmental management systems that we have discussed previously do not have a SYSTEM - EM I'm alone. For EMS to work well there must be a feedback system to ensure the plan or code of conduct continues in the course of implementation and continuous improvement occurs. The system must include procedures for documentation and statements of service, workers in training and other environmental implications of their work, the incident reports, corrective actions and feedback and the formation of an emergency. This can be kept slim to avoid fees and maintain slimline is the key to make it work well.

The International Standard ISO 14001 Environmental Management begins with a check, using a risk based approach to determine which effects are significant, identifies the legal compliance system and then builds to make the plan to continue working. It includes plans, continuous improvement, internal audit and management review.

Some people do not understand the system that have expressed concerns that there are basic standards for the industry to reach before being accredited. This is actually not true, because the ISO 14001 standard provides for the obligation to identify and regularly review compliance with laws and regulations. So the standard of reference is the environmental legislation and other regulations and that are in place.

The role of certification

Certification adds an additional level of rigor and feedback to the environmental management system. It ensures that tomorrow (in the form of an auditor) actually comes time. Accounts provide a valuable service by bringing a lot of experience and a fresh pair of eyes for business and can provide very useful feedback. Having an independent external auditor to help a business can demonstrate that they take due care. A third-party verified system provides greater security for both regulators and markets. The auditor is paid to provide a useful service and should be approached in this way. Work well with an auditor can be a great learning experience. They can not see, but they can ask questions and be very useful tip.

Some organizations are discussing the creation of their own local rules, or industry. This is a big mistake, because the creation of a standard is very expensive and if the companies who make the commitment to be a certification has worldwide recognition....