Lawrence (2003:7) provides a detailed definition which shows the immense breadth and complexity of EIA in modern times, as the systematic process of:
- Determining and managing (identifying, describing, measuring, predicting, interpreting, integrating, communicating, involving, and controlling) the
- Potential (or real) impacts (direct and indirect, individual and cumulative, likelihood of occurrence) of
- Proposed (or existing) human actions (projects, plans, programs, legislation, activities) and their alternatives on the
- Environment (physical, chemical, biological, ecological, human health, cultural, social, economic, built, and interrelations)
It is important to note the broad view of ‘environment’ adopted in EIA practice today. The most immediate benefit of EIA, is to give decision-makers an indication of the potential environmental consequences of any proposed action. This is to ensure that development only proceeds in an environmentally responsible or sustainable manner. EIA provides the mechanisms for project proposals to be modified where necessary, and to mitigate potential negative impacts. Although EIA may lead to the cancellation of some proposals, its primary focus is on the mitigation of any potentially harmful environmental impacts (Jay et al., 2007). Environmental Impacts are becoming more complex, larger in scale and further reaching in terms of potential consequences (Sadler and McCabe, 2002); hence, mitigating the negative environmental consequences of our activities is crucial if development is to become sustainable.
According to Weaver (2003), detailed stages in the EIA process vary internationally; however, there are some standardized steps which are adhered to across board (see figure below):
Generalized EIA process
Source: UNEP, 2002
The EIA process results in the production of an Environmental Statement (ES) which serves an informative document useful for planning and promoting sustainable development by integrating environmental, social and economic considerations into a wide array of proposed actions. Many things take place in the decision making process, and there can be a high level of confusion and complexity. Sometimes decision-makers simply do not really know what to do or how to do something (Koernoev 1998 cited in Devuyst et al, 2001:147). EIA offers (though, as a tool among many) to help achieve more open, informed, coordinated, unbiased, and systematic planning and decision-making.
The practice of EIA has been extended to include the assessment of programmes, plans and policies. This application of EIA to higher level proposals has become known as Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEA) (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler,1999). SEA can provide a platform to incorporate sustainable environmental considerations and alternatives directly into a policy or plan before a programme or project is designed. This integration of EIA into planning and policymaking has been called by some as the "ultimate means by which sustainable development can be achieved" (Partidario, 1996:34 cited in Shepherd and Leonard, 1996:321). This view is supported by Devuyst et al. (2001) when the co-existence of a strong policy at the local level is necessary for the achievement of sustainable development.
According to Petts (1999), the procedures and methods of EIA are largely intact in SEA; the two are therefore not entirely distinct. SEA has a wide perspective and a low level of detail and results in the production of a broad vision and overall framework while EIA has a narrow perspective and a high level of detail and results in the production of project-specific data (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler,1999). These can therefore be used complimentarily. SEA therefore can be used to streamline and strengthen the EIA process but it cannot replace it.
EIA was introduced into the UK via the European Union Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments. It was implemented in 1985 and has since been amended three times, in 1997, in 2003 and in 2009 (European Commission, 2011). The Directive was designed in a manner that gave the Member States ample discretion to incorporate the EIA practice into their individual legislations. The only condition was that, the basic principles and procedural requirements had to be satisfied (Lee, 1995). Within the United Kingdom, EIA is applied mainly to some major projects or developments which require planning approval from local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act (Carroll and Turpin, 2002).
Initially, the UK Government was not in favour of the EIA Directive because it believed it had an effective local planning system already in place (Glasson et al., 2005). Despite the reluctance to adopt EIA into its legislation, UK adapted the EIA directive in 1988 to fit within its existing Planning system (Weston, 1997; 2002) but the attitude was that of minimum compliance (Weston, 2002).However, there has been a significant and progressive improvement in EIA practice and the procedure is much stronger than it was at the beginning (Weston, 2002; European Commission, 2009). Currently, the European directive on EIA has been implemented in the UK by means of various regulations, of which the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, as amended, for England and Wales apply to far more projects than those of all the other regulations put together (Jones and Wood, 1997).
It is reasonable to say that, in evaluating the effectiveness of EIA in ensuring environmentally sound and sustainable development in UK, one must consider the following factors:
1. The quality of Environmental statements (ESs) produced (Lee et al., 1991; Oosterhuis, 2007)
2. Whether the ES or EIA process actually lead to any modification in project proposals before implementation and
3. To what extent EIA affects the final outcome or decision making process of the Local Planning Authority
With regard to the quality of ESs, according to Lee et al. (1999), a review package developed by Colley in 1989 was used to evaluate the quality of a number of samples of UK environmental statements between 1988 and the mid1990s by Lee and Brown (1992).Lee and Brown (1992) discovered that two thirds of the ESs they sampled were unsatisfactory in terms of quality in 1988-1989 (i.e. in ‘D’, ‘E’ or ‘F’ quality categories). According to Lee et al. (1999), this result was backed by Wood and Jones (1991), who obtained very similar results, using different samples of ESs. However, using later sample of ESs completed between1990-1991, Lee and Brown (1992) found that the proportions that were unsatisfactory had reduced to about two fifths. The European Commission (1996) also conducted a study, which compared the quality of samples of ESs in 1990-1991 and 1994-1996 in various European Union countries. The Commission discovered a further decline in the proportion of unsatisfactory quality ESs in the United Kingdom. The results suggest that, by the mid1990s, the significant ES quality problem appeared to have been considerably reduced though some unsatisfactory ESs were still being produced. Given the significant and progressive improvement in EIA system in UK (Glasson, 1999; Weston, 2002; European Commission, 2009), there is good reason to believe that the quality of ESs in UK will keep improving. This view is supported by Lee et al. (1991), Glasson (1999) and Oosterhuis (2007). Though there are still concerns of ES quality, the trend of increasing quality suggests that the ESs are generally matching up better to what is required of a good ES. The benefit of higher quality ESs in UK is that, it leads to more informed decision making which may lead to more sustainable outcomes (Fuller and Blinks, 1995).
Concerning whether EIAs have any effect in causing any project modification, studies conducted by Wood and Jones (1991, 1992) using a sample of 20 project applications and Kobus and Lee (1993) using 32 applications, showed that, nearly two-thirds of projects were modified as a result of the EIA process though some of these changes were minor. A later study by Lee et al. (1994) also showed that, in the opinion of the LPA officers involved, around 50 per cent of projects were modified to some degree on the basis of the ES and the consultations associated with it. The results from these studies and others including Frost (1994), Nelson (1994), Glasson et al. (1996) show that EIA indeed has some effect on project design which would otherwise not have occurred. In support these findings, the EC (1996) found out that a majority of cases reviewed, EIA contributed to higher standards of mitigation than would otherwise have occurred to spare environmentally sensitive areas. This is not always the case though as sometimes no changes are made or only “material” changes are made on the document (Nelson, 1994; Glasson et al., 1995).In all cases though, planning officers believed the ES was an aid to the decision-making process (Hughes and Wood, 1996).These findings show that, indeed EIA practice in UK, does have an effect in shaping a project.
Jones and Wood (1997) conducted a study using 40 EIA cases throughout the UK to find out how EIA affected planning decisions. The cases covered time periods from 1988-1994.Also, the cases selected for the study were gathered from all parts of the UK and were therefore considered to be sufficiently representative of the UK.
With regard to the influence of ESs on decision-making, the study indicated that two-thirds of planning officers found the ES to be useful in making their recommendations as to whether a project should receive planning permission. They gave considerable weight to the ES in writing up their recommendations in over one-third of the cases. Planning officers, together with developers and members of major public interest groups and local action groups, believed that planning committees gave considerable weight to the contents of the ES when reaching their decisions in about one-third of the cases.
With regard to the influence of EIA on final decision outcomes, Jones and Wood (1997) found that, over one-third of planning officers indicated that environmental issues were the major factor influencing the decision by the committee. In three of the cases, the inadequacy of information on environmental impacts in the ES was cited as one of the reasons for refusal. But then again, other views from planning some officers indicated that some decision outcomes would have still remained the same without the EIA (Jones and Wood, 1997).
EIA practice in UK is not without some major criticisms. According to (Glasson, J. et al., 2005), these include the poor treatment of combined and cumulative impacts of a proposal where it is one of several in an area; a lack of attention to global impacts on air quality and climate and lack of consideration for alternative sites, processes or technologies.
From the cited studies, it is evident that the quality of ESs are much better, EIA leads to modifications in proposals and that it contributes to the decision making process. EIA therefore has contributed to more sustainable development in UK since its implementation. These studies and others however suggest that this is not always the case hence; the full potential benefits of EIA are not being realized (Jones and Wood, 1997). There is still much room for improvement if its contribution to sustainable development is to be maximized.
REFERENCES:
Andre, P., Delisle, C.E. and Reveret, J.P (2004) Environmental Assessment for Sustainable Development : Process, Actors and Practice. Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada.
Buytaert, V., Muys, B., Devriendt, N., Pelkmans, L., Kretzschmar, J.G. , Samson R. (2011) Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15: 3918-3933
Carroll, B. and Turpin, T. (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide for
Planners, Developers and Communities, Thomas Telford, London.
Cashmore, M. (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 4: 403-426.
Craik, N. (2008) The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment process, substance and integration. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. (1999) Strategic environmental assessment: a rapidly evolving approach. Environmental Planning Issues:18
Devuyst, D., Hens, L., De Lannoy, W. (2001) How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments. Columbia University Press, New York
European Commission (2011) Environmental Impact Assessment –EIA .Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm Accessed on: 3.12.12
European Commission (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment in Europe - A Study on Costs and Benefits. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs-benefit-en.htm. Accessed on 30.11.12
European Commission (2009) Report From The Commission To The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of the Regions : On the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. Available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0378:EN:NOT Accessed on 1.12.12
Frost, R. (1994) Project design beyond environmental impact statements, in: Therivel, R. (Ed.) Issues in Environmental Impact Assessment, Working Paper 144:17-48.Oxford Brookes University.
Fuller, K. and Binks, M. (1995) The effectiveness of environmental assessment, Environmental Assessment, 3:88-89.
Gilpin, A. (2000) Dictionary of environmental law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK.
Glasson, J. and Salvador ,N.N.B. (2000) EIA in Brazil: A procedures–practice gap. Environmental impact assessment review, 20: 191–225.
Glasson, J. (1999) The First 10 Years of the UK EIA System: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Planning Practice and Research, 14 (3): 363-375
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Weston, J., Chadwick, A. (1996) Changes in the Quality of Environmental Assessment Statements for Planning Projects. Department of the Environment, London: HMSO.
Glasson, J.,Therievel, R. and Chadwick, A. (2005) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. 3rd edition. Routeledge, Oxon.
Hughes, J. and Wood, C. (1996) Formal and informal environmental assessment reports: their role in UK planning decisions, Land Use Policy 13:101-113
Jay S., Jones C., Slinn P., Wood C. (2007) Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,27 (4): 287-300.
Jones, C.E and Wood, C. (1997) The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority decisions.Urban Studies, 34:12-37
Jones, C. E. (1995) The effect of environmental assessment on planning decisions, Report, October: 5-7.
Kobus, D. and Lee, N. (1993) The role of environmental assessment in the planning and authorisation of extractive industry projects, Project Appraisal, 8:147-156.
Lawrence, D.P. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment : Practical solution to recurrent problems. John Wiley and Sons, US.
Lee, N., Walsh, F. and Reeder, G. (1994) Assessing the performance of the EA process, Project
Appraisal:9(3):161-172.
Lee, N. (1995) Environmental Assessment in the European Union: a tenth anniversary, Project
Appraisal, 10 (2): 77-90
Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J. and Simpson, J. (1999) Reviewing The Quality Of Environmental Statements And Environmental Appraisals, Occasional Paper:55. University of Manchester.
Nelson, P. (1994) Better guidance for better EIA. Built Environment, 20:280-293
Oosterhuis, F. (2007) Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. Institute for Environmental Studies, Netherlands.
O’Riordan, T. (1993) The politics of sustainability. In: Turner, R.K. (ed) Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice. Chichester:37– 69.
Petts, J. (ed) (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impacts and Limitations. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment:2 Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Sadler, B. and McCabe M. (eds) (2002) EIA Training Resource Manual. 2nd edition. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,Kenya.
Sadler, B. , (1999) A framework for environmental sustainability assessment and assurance. In: Petts J, (ed). Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential, 1: 12–32.Oxford: Blackwell.
Shepherd, A., Leonard,O.(1996) Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainable Urban Development. Elsevier Science Inc.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Available online at www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm. Accessed on 30.11.12.
Weaver, A. (2003) EIA and sustainable development: key concepts and tools. In: Tarr P. (ed) Environmental Impact Assessment in Southern Africa. Windhoek: Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment: 1–7
Weston, J. (1997) Introduction: EIA in the UK in: Weston, J. (ed.) Planning and Environmental
Impact Assessment in Practice, Pearson Educational, Harlow: 1-25
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future.Oxford .University Press, Oxford.
Wood, C. M. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review.2nd Edition, Pearson, UK.
Wood, C. M. and Jones, C. E. (1991) Monitoring Environmental Assessment and Planning. London: HMSO.
Wood, C. M. and Jones, C. E. (1992) The impact of environmental assessment on local planning authorities, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 35:115-127.