Environmental Impact Assessment as a Design Tool - Case Study Example

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AS A DESIGN TOOL Introduction In the late 1960s, when the ecological impacts of rapid industrialization and globalization became all too apparent, environmental concern also increased. Such concern paved the way for the emergence and development of environmental laws. Although only a recent area of jurisprudence, it has become increasingly important and is rapidly evolving (Watson, 2003) in proportion to the growing clamour from environmental advocates as well as the increasing scientific validation of very imminent environmental catastrophes. Traditionally, environmental laws are of the “command and control” approach which is based on a state-centred perception and environmental protection is thus of a top-down management scheme (Watson, 2003). For example, government regulatory bodies establish a set of environmental standards which polluting industries must conform to; failure to comply with the said standards result to prosecution. While it is indeed necessary, such regulations are drawn back by several limitation, typical of which are the oftentimes insufficient resources – both human and financial – of the implementing bodies resulting to the reported inefficiency of the said practice. As well as that, state-centred visions do not foresee the complexity of issues on the ground and the top-down management scheme usually fails to address the environmental concerns of the public. Environmental impact assessment was seen to be the answer to the limitations of the “command and control” approach of traditional regulations. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment: a Guide to Procedures provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government (2006), EIA “describes a procedure that must be followed for certain types of project before they can be given development consent. The procedure is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a projects likely significant environmental effects”. Given this definition, EIAs are envisaged to give weight to environmental considerations during the decision-making process along with economic and social factors. The objectives of EIA are divided into short term and long term categories (Abaza et al, 2007). In the short term, the goal of EIA is to identify potentially significant environmental impacts of development projects in order to provide sufficient information to facilitate decision-making process. In the long term, the ultimate goal of EIA is to ensure that ecological functions are maintained for the benefit of present and future local communities in adherence to the tenets of sustainable development. Social considerations are also an integral part of EIA and where appropriate so are cultural and health aspects. The most particular attention, however, is given to the prevention and mitigation of the significant adverse effects of proposed developments (Dougherty & Hall, 1995). The benefits and importance of EIA in facilitating environmentally sensitive decision-making could not be exaggerated but despite its obvious benefits, EIA as a process is not without its limitations and problems that make its application and implementation somewhat controversial and inefficient in some cases. It is the purpose of this analysis to propose reforms to the present EIA system to address its limitations, principally by forwarding the idea of an even more proactive approach – by emphasizing the use of EIA as a design tool rather than a regulatory instrument. In order to arrive at such proposals, the perceived limitations and other relevant issues regarding EIA at present will be extensively discussed as these will provide the foundation upon which the suggested reforms are based. Mitigation in EIA Identifying mitigation measures for the adverse environmental impacts of a development project may be said to be the most useful and probably most important aspect of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), at least in concept. In all interpretations of international EIA procedures, mitigation is an integral regulatory process; particularly in the UK, mitigation is vital to the planning process (Marshall, 2001). As the concept of mitigation permeates throughout the entirety of EIA application, it may come as a surprise that nowhere in UK’s EIA regulation or even the parent EU directive (Directive 85/377/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) was the term “mitigation” used. It is however implied in the UK regulation under the stipulation that applicants should propose measures “to avoid, reduce, and if possible, remedy” the significant adverse effects that are identified for a development project through the EIA process (HMSO, 1999). Munro et al (1986) further underscored the importance of mitigation in the overall objectives of EIA, stating that: “The most important result of an Environmental Impact Assessment, unless it leads to the cancellation of the project is the design and implementation of measures to mitigate adverse environmental effects of the project.” Marshall (2001) defined mitigation as “any process, activity or action designed to avoid, reduce or remedy significant adverse environmental effects likely to be caused by a developmental project”. Application of mitigation measures should aim at avoiding the anticipated environmentally-adverse effects, remedying the impacts, or at least reduced to a level that’s acceptable to all stakeholders concerned. Identifying effective mitigation is thus integral to good environmental design, contributing significantly to the overall objectives of sustainable development to prevent the further degradation of the local environment. Apparently, implementing mitigation on or surrounding the development site will also affect the original design of the project whether its development, construction, operation, specific processes or even the products of the proposed project. O’Hare et al (1983) pointed out that with regards its adverse impacts on the environment, proposed developments almost always have no right place. Thereby in theory, the identification of extreme adverse effects should also be coupled with extreme mitigation measures such as the complete redesign, if not abandonment, of the proposed development project. In reality, however, such radical steps have never been proposed (Marshall, 2001). Developers have been well-advised to adopt strategies that reduce the residual effects of the project wherever such effects could not be avoided by proper location, design modifications, or improved controls. Limitations of and other relevant issues in EIA It is obvious from the foregoing discussion that mitigation measures in particular and EIA in general straddles a rather wide range of interests to consider, particularly the stakeholders of the development project. Planning for a development project and taking its effects on the environment into consideration is an intricate process that would require a balance to be struck between statutory obligations, construction and technical viability, socio-economic feasibility, land use requirements, and environmental soundness (Marshall, 2001). The arguments for and against the methods of assessment and the measures proposed from the EIA process also vary according to the perspective of the stakeholders – the polarity of their position often marks the polarity of their visions regarding EIA. For example, developers on one extreme end view EIA “as a necessary evil, an administrative exercise” whereas for ecologists EIA and mitigation measures are not enough to ensure the conservation of an already fragile ecology and nothing less than abandoning risky development projects are acceptable (Glasson et al, 2005). Although EIA is generally viewed as a positive process that is the most important tool thus far to bridge development with environmental considerations as necessitated by sustainable development, it’s application nevertheless remains controversial not least because of its rather adversarial stance where developers – and even some parts of government – are concerned and its less than scientific and rather more political approach where environmental advocates are concerned. Beattie (1995) reiterates this latter point by pointing out that EIAs are rife with unexamined and unexplained value judgements where most assumptions have been simplified; such simplifications are the result of the climate under which EIA are produced, specifically the tight deadlines and data gaps. In UK, some critics have contended that EIAs are developer-oriented; developers are the ones to assess the environmental impacts of their projects and it is thus unlikely that they would anticipate the environmental destructiveness of their project (Glasson et al, 2005). Developers and some legislators are even wary of EIA because of their tendency to delay projects and the considerable cost EIAs entail (European Commission [EC], 1996). Another issue that hinders the progress of EIA as an important management tool for development projects are inherent in the system of assessment itself, particularly its scope and the methods employed (Glasson et al, 2005). Best practices have shown that widening the scope of EIA is ideal whereas legislators and developers would want to narrow it. Inclusion of socio-economic considerations within the scope of EIA is yet at its nascent stages but undeniably, it should be an integral part of the EIA process; in fact, balancing the trade-offs between socio-economic benefits and environmental impacts is the most critical dilemma for decision-makers. With regards the methods employed, technical and conceptual problems arise when establishing baseline environmental information and when trying to predict impacts; the former have often been argued to be subjective specifically when robust scientific data are unavailable while the latter has never been a simple or straightforward process. There are methods that would help anticipate more fully the impacts of certain development projects in given environmental conditions; however, the more complex and difficult they are, the less likely can the general public participate in the decision-making process. In some cases, public participation is also a point of contention where EIA process is concerned. Most EIA systems make the assessment results available to the general public with the idea that their participation will increase the acceptability of the project (Watson 2003). In the UK regulations and EC directive, this is a recent yet significant addition but it is not without its share of detractors. Most European states, for example, still favour the technocratic approach (Formby, 1990) with some, such as the Greek (Athanassopoulou, 2001) and Spanish (Pardo, 1997), viewing EIA still as a command and control regulatory approach where public views are largely ignored even though it is provided for in their EIA procedures. EIA is not a stand-alone tool to the decision-making process. Even where the affected community or concerned environmental groups desire the suggestions of an EIA result to be the ultimate outcome, EIA is still merely one part of the decision-making process (Abaza et al, 2007) and the final decision does not rest there. EIA is instrumental in providing relevant facts that weigh in on the advantages and disadvantages of proposed development project but environmental considerations could still be set aside to give way to more important considerations. This underscores the importance of proposing sound mitigating measures based on robust risk assessment data as well as the importance of monitoring the implementation of such mitigation measures. According to Fuller (1999), linking the results of the EIA with the project implementation is the biggest challenge yet to instituting an effective EIA, thereby making its monitoring an important mechanism to the overall process. Implementing the mitigation measures and follow-up activities such as environmental audits are traditionally achieved through condition setting (Fuller, 1999). But because of the constrained scope of conditions, setting such conditions are more reactive than proactive; as a result, many such mechanisms are grafted to project implementation rather than being an integral part of the programme as is envisioned (Fuller, 1999). In light of the fact that EIAs do not exercise an environmental veto power to development decision-making process, it is more imperative that impact prediction is thorough, mitigation measures are both systematic and holistic, and their implementations are rigorously monitored. EIA as a design tool Obviously, the Environmental Impact Assessment that is instituted now is still wanting and is in fact a work in progress. Whilst it has made several amendments and that this has greatly improved the process and has gained a more positive repute, the limitations cited above begs a few more reforms. EIA has gone a long way from being originally conceived as a regulatory tool to being a management tool that aids decision-makers; at this point, such decisions have underpinned mitigation measures. Whilst it is largely viewed as a more proactive stance compared to the command and control and top-down approach, the emphasis on mitigation also reveals the still reactive nature of EIAs; that is, the measures undertaken address the negative impacts of development project. A truly proactive approach would be the much reduced environmental adverse impacts at the conceptualization stage and focusing instead the EIA on enhancing the positive impacts of the development project. That is, instead of as an administrative or regulatory process, the next step of EIA should be on it being a tool to aid the design and conceptualization of the development project. The EIA process as a design tool requires that EIA should begin as early as possible in the project planning where it has been, in fact, well-documented to be most beneficial (Fuller, 1999). That is, EIA influences the location and other technical or operational aspects of the development project early on so that potential environmental problems are not even considered in the initial design. Admittedly, this requires strong “buy in” from the project proponent. Such may be difficult to come by given the present impression that developers have of EIA systems, the wide leeway given to developers in carrying out the EIA process, and the considerable discretion afforded to legislators and regulatory bodies, specifically where the EC directive and its application to Member States is concerned (Watson 2003). Nevertheless, EIA as a design tool is the required reform to the EIA process that envisions addressing the limitations and issues that beset the present EIA system. The succeeding discussion will attempt to impress this by drawing a parallel between finding solutions to the problems of EIA and how these solutions are integral to the concept of EIA as a design tool. As we have seen, differing perspectives in the relevance, purpose, and outcomes of the EIA have greatly polarized stakeholders. The issue for the extreme end where lodge the staunch environmentalists is that EIA is not enough to halt environmental degradation specifically because of its emphasis on mitigation measures which they – and even its proponents – have often thought to be trivial and cosmetic (Watson, 2003). Advancing the EIA process into the design phase of the development project would mean that the development project is guided by what is expected to be the outcomes from the environmental assessment process thus designing out the negative impacts that environmentalist fear in the first place. This ideally proactive approach would also focus the subsequent EIA process on how the positive impacts can be enhanced. On the other side of the spectrum that hosts the developers who are wary of the length of time and the financial burden that EIA incurs, using the EIA process as part of the framework for designing the project not only lessens time employed to the iterative or cyclical process of impact prediction and the identification of mitigation measures but also allows the project development to begin on the right footing, so to speak. With regards the cost, pushing the EIA process to an earlier phase would also require that costs are internalized as they are identified earlier, rather than externalized and paid as compensation or as additional control mechanisms so that the impacts are within acceptable standards or levels. Reforms in the scope and the methodologies of the EIA process have also been insinuated in the preceding discussion on the issues regarding the present system, specifically that they be made more inclusive. Any development project that design with the EIA process as a planning tool would not be subjected to the debate of whether it should require EIA or not simply because the said project has taken a proactive approach to include itself within the EIA process. The objective of such inclusion is to enhance the positive impacts of the project more than mitigating the negative impacts; moreover, the latter becomes a secondary concern in such a circumstance because ideally those adverse effects have been designed out. The issues regarding the difficulty of the project is more on the technical and conceptual problems with regards impact prediction which in turn forms the foundation of sound mitigation measures. Again, when such impacts are designed out at the conceptualization stage, such difficulties – which typically require end-of-pipe solutions – are much reduced. With regards public opinion, it is mostly the case that opposition will be likely inflamed when their inputs are ignored and when their objections – which stems from concern for themselves – are not taken into consideration (Athanassopoulou, 2001). This is basic human nature. Adverse effects do not only impact on the environment but also on the entire socio-cultural structure of the downstream community. Discouraging or ignoring public participation would give them the perception that the mitigation measures are lackadaisical and not in their best interests. Consideration of public welfare, as well as empowering them through giving them a voice in the decision-making, is thus greatly comforting and such is an integral part to the EIA process as a design tool. That is, public opinion is one of the foremost considerations when advancing EIA to the design stage of the project development. Public participation in the EIA process itself would greatly reduce the possibility of including what the public will oppose to, thereby greatly facilitating the design as well as review process. Monitoring also becomes an integral part of the programme when EIA is part of the design process. As the entire development project hinges on the proposed measures come about through consultation with the EIA framework, monitoring mechanisms become part and parcel of the design and is thus integrated into the operation of the project. Monitoring the environmental impacts is attached to the follow up mechanisms of the feasibility of the entire project in the long term. Conclusion In development planning and project management process, the design plan needs to be evaluated in terms of its socio-economic feasibility, technical viability, and environmental soundness to ensure its sustainability. Only when the planner and developer takes a proactive stand using the EIA framework to factor in all possible project considerations can the proposed development project be meaningful and beneficial to all stakeholders concerned. Project proponents are given this opportunity to weigh various options prior to decision-making, with the ultimate goal of choosing the best option that entails the least cost or damage both for the project and the environmental resources. In this regard, EIA is both a study and a process that is holistic and interdisciplinary. It does provide the best available tool to make development projects more sustainable and its benefits equitable. Using it as a planning, management, and monitoring tool rather than a command and control regulatory tool also has the added benefit of optimizing scarce resources and making the review process more efficient. EIA becomes a stumbling block in the development process only because it has been traditionally reactive and the focus was largely on negative impacts and how they can be mitigated. Whilst it may be true as several authors contend that development projects are always at the wrong place, initiating the EIA process at a much earlier stage – that is, as a design tool – would greatly circumvent the problems and limitations that have hitherto been attached to EIAs thus placing development projects at the right place from the very start. More than recommending actions to mitigate environmental impacts, it should be the aim of EIAs to design out such adverse effects; only then can EIA give emphasis to enhancing the positive impacts that development projects are envisioned to accomplish. BIBLIOGRAPHY Athanassopoulou, E. 2001. The Implementation of EIA in Greece. In Heinelt, H., Malek, T., Smith, R., and Toller, A.E., eds. European Union Environment Policy and New Forms of Governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 295 - 307. Abaza, H., Sadler, B., Horne, R., and Thomas, I., 2007. Environmental Impact Assessment: Course Module, United Nations University. Available from: http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=173 [Accessed 7 April 2010]. Beattie, R. 1995. Everything you already know about EIA, but don’t often admit. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15. Dougherty, T.C. and Hall, A.W., 1995. Environmental impact assessment of irrigation and drainage projects. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Papers, 53. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Procedures. 2006. London, UK: Department for Communities and Local Government. European Commission [EC], 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment: A study on costs and benefits. Brussels: EC. Formby, J., 1990. The Politics of Environmental Impact Assessmen. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 8: 191-196. Fuller, K., 1999. Quality and Quality Control in Environmental Impact Assessment. In: Petts, J., ed. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (vol. 2): Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice – Impact and Initiative. UK: Blackwell Science, 55-82. Glasson, J., Therivel, R., and Chadwick, A., 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Oxon: Routledge. Gilpin, A., 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Cutting edge for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press HMSO, 1999. The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, Statutory instrument 1999 No. 293. London: HMSO. Marshall, R., 2001. Mitigation in EIA: Application of mitigation and its resolution within environmental impact assessment: an industrial perspective. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19 (3): 195-204. Munro, D.A., Bryant, T.J., and Matte-Baker, A., 1986. Learning from experience: a state of the art review and evaluation of environmental impact assessment audits. Canada: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Ministry of Supply and Service Canada. O’Hare, M., Bacow, L., and Sanderson, D., 1983. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York, US: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pardo, M., 1997. Environmental Impact Assessment: Myth or Reality? Lessons from Spain, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17: 123-142. Watson, M., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment and European Community Law. In: Danube — River of Cooperation, XIV International Conference, 13-15 November 2003, Beograd. Read More