ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND THE PURSUIT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMET IOME CHRISTA 1 ABSTRACT Meeting the goals of sustainable development has officially been an aim of those in control of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. With a focus on Australia, this article aims to highlight the differences between the EIA process in theory and its application in reality. KEY WORDS: Environmental Impact Assessment/EIA, Sustainable Development/SD, Ecological Sustainable Development/ESD. INTRODUCTION Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is often described as a tool for sustainable development (Sadler 1999). For the purposes of this essay I have chosen to define sustainable development as Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). The (Australian) National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development defines the goal of ESD as being: development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends. (The Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering committee 1992) Such a goal, especially in a global context is often seen as idealistic and unrealistic (Elliott 1999). However there have been significant attempts through international organisations such as the UN to identify principles and processes that can be used to promote sustainable development (Harvey 1998). One such process is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Designed to identify, predict and evaluate the potential effects of development proposals before major decisions are made (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). This concept has been adopted and formalised in legislation by many countries since its development in the US. This has resulted in some variation (Harvey 1998). This essay addresses the theoretical incorporation of the ESD principles into each phase of the EIA process and their application in reality. A common criticism of the EIA process is that it is not as effective in practice as in theory (Harvey 1998), thus influencing its effectiveness in meeting the goals of sustainable development.
EIA ASSISTS IN THEORY It has been established that EIA can be used to assist in the promotion of sustainable development (Elliott 1999). According to the International Association for Impact Assessment (IEIA), EIA aims to: promote development that is sustainable and optimizes resource use and management opportunities. (International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK 1999, p. 2) While varying in practice between jurisdictions the common features of the EIA process are represented by figure 1, as defined by the IAIA principles of EIA best practice in 1999. Figure 1: The EIA Process Source: International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK, 1999.
I wish to highlight how each part of the EIA process theoretically promotes sustainable development by incorporating the five principles of ESD. Section 3A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) sets out the following five principles of ESD: 1. The Integration Principle 2. The Principle of Intergenerational & Intragenerational Equity 3. The Precautionary Principle 4. The Biodiversity Principle 5. Valuation/Internalisation of environmental costs (Environment Australia 2003). EIA is most effective when it occurs before the commencement of development, as this allows the precautionary principle to play a significant role (Harding & Fisher 1999). As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. Shutting down and cleaning up after a development is far more environmentally and financially costly than preventing or modifying a proposed development (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). The screening of proposed developments is the first step of the EIA process (Figure 1). This is when it is decided whether a proposal should be subject to EIA and, if so, at what level of detail (Environment Australia 2003). In Australia the decision is based on legislated triggers, which define the types of development that should always require an EIA (Harvey 1998). These triggers are based on the principles of ESD as they identify matters of national environmental significance (Environment Australia 2003). Scoping gives involved parties the opportunity to take all principles of ESD into consideration in order to identify the issues and impacts that are likely to be important and to establish terms of reference for EIA (Environment Australia 2003). This step should involve the members of the public likely to be impacted and interest groups as well as the proponent (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). By balancing the interests of all involved intra-generational and inter-generational equity are considered, both are important aspects of ESD (Environment Australia 2003). Examination of alternatives gives the proponent the opportunity to establish the preferred or most environmentally friendly option for achieving proposal objectives (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). A priority at this stage is the conservation of biological diversity thus exercising the Biodiversity Principle (Environment Australia 2003). Forcing the proponent to consider different options also highlights the need for the integration of both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations: The Integration Principle (Environment Australia 2003). A vital part of the process, impact analysis occurs in order to identify and predict the likely environmental, social and other related effects of the proposal (Harvey 1998). This requires the consideration of the biodiversity principle and the principle of inter & intra-generational equity (Environment Australia 2003).
For a development to be ecologically sustainable it should ideally have no adverse impacts upon the environment (Elliott 1999). I do not know of any developments where this is the case. This is why mitigation and impact management is part of the EIA process (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). Creating measures to avoid, minimise or offset predicted adverse impacts and incorporating of these into an environmental management plan should result in such impacts becoming almost negligible. Despite such measures there may be residual impacts (i.e., impacts that cannot be mitigated) and the relative importance and acceptability of such impacts should be identified as part of the EIA process. The potential for a significant residual impact should be considered in the decision making process as a reason for delaying or canceling a development, thus taking the precautionary principle into account (Harding & Fisher 1999). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or report is the documentation of the expected impacts of the proposal, the proposed measures for mitigation, the significance of effects, and the concerns of the public affected by the proposal (Harvey 1998). A review of the EIS is conducted to determine whether the report meets its terms of reference, provides a satisfactory assessment of the proposal(s) and contains the information required for decision-making (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). If all other aspects of EIA have taken ESD principles into account the EIS should be clear and impartial, presenting facts to be used when determining the sustainability of the proposal and whether adjustments need to be made in order to make it more so (Wood 2003). Sometimes mistaken as the last step in the EIA process, decision-making (Figure 1) should involve the thorough consideration of all principles of ESD, and result in the rejection or approval of the proposed development (The Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992). It should also establish the terms and conditions for implementation (Harvey 1998). Though officially considered part of the EIA process (Figure 1), unfortunately, follow up is often left out, due to the cost and inconvenience (Harvey 1998, Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). When follow up occurs it aims to: ensure that the terms and condition of approval are met; to monitor the impacts of development and the effectiveness of mitigation measures; to strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation measures; and, where required, to undertake environmental audit and process evaluation to optimise environmental management (International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK 1999, p. 4). In theory all developments undertaken in jurisdictions with an established EIA process should be scrutinised, taking the principles of ESD into account (International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK 1999, p. 4). This should result in developments which impose far fewer adverse impacts on the environment than if they had not been subjected to EIA (Ortolano 1997). Theoretically this means that
EIA promotes sustainable development. However its effectiveness is heavily influenced by the legislation of specific jurisdictions and the influence of development groups upon such legislation (Padgett & Kriwoken 2001). EIA IN REALITY In reality EIA does not necessarily function as it does in theory (Harvey 1998). The weaknesses of EIA in promoting sustainable development are a result of a failure to apply established methods, rather than a lack of methodology (George 1999). While the screening process is useful, does the fact that a development is seen in the screening process not to require any level of EIA really mean that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment, as a result of the development going ahead? It is often noted that EIA doesn t take into account the cumulative effects of several minor developments (Wood 2003). Without taking these into consideration it is difficult to truly promote sustainable development (Sadler 1999). It has therefore been recommended that cumulative effects assessments (CEA) be developed as part of EIA (Sadler 1999). When clear triggers have been established the EIA process occurs before the development commences, this is the only way EIA can truly influence the sustainability of a development (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). Unfortunately it is often noted that EIA does not occur when it is most useful (Harvey 1998, Padgett, R. & Kriwoken, L. 2001). In the past Australian legislation relating to EIA was somewhat unclear regarding triggers; there was a problem with the ad hoc approach. Under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, EIA occurred under the criteria of Commonwealth government proposals and projects directly funded by the Commonwealth, or those requiring a Commonwealth decision and seen to affect significantly effect the environment. The reason why this did not completely promote sustainable development is, for example, a proposed mine owned by a foreign company would have to be assessed but if it was totally Australian-owned it might not have triggered the act (Padgett, R. & Kriwoken, L. 2001, p.27). If EIA doesn t occur, or occurs once development has commenced it is unlikely that all alternatives will be properly examined, producing a less sustainable result. It is common for alternative locations not to be considered by the proponent, as they often own the land they intend to use (Harvey 1998) The precautionary principle requires that uncertainty in impact predictions are assessed and taken into account when evaluating significance (Elliot 1999). In reality this rarely occurs (George 1999). Negative environmental impacts are supposed to be mitigated by the developer. However, without thorough investigation not all impacts can be discovered before the development takes place. As mentioned previously it is often the case that follow up is left out of the EIA process (Harvey 1998, Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick 1994). Without the potential for review of the mitigation procedures required by a project and an audit of their effectiveness it cannot be said that a development is truly sustainable (George 1999).
An Environmental Impact Statement must be clear, able to be reviewed and understood by decision makers and members of the general public (The Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992). However, due to the nature of the development, EIS s may involve quite technical language and, being created by the proponent they can appear biased (Harvey 1998). Decision makers may take the concept and principles of ESD into account (Environment Australia 2003), however there are always economic interests involved in development (Wood 2003). Such interests have to be considered and sometimes, despite thorough review of the EIS and awareness of potentially significant environmental impacts, a decision is made which is more about promoting economic development than ecologically sustainable development (Ortolano 1997). In theory EIA has been designed to promote sustainable development (Sadler 1999), yet the process is not always properly followed, therefore the desired result is not always achieved (Harvey 1998). The truth is that weaknesses in legislation and bias towards development over sustainability has resulted in this situation (Padgett & Kriwoken 2001) and despite significant attempts by the International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK to create guidelines for EIA best practice (1999) there is no guarantee that they are followed. CONCLUSION The relationship between EIA and the pursuit of sustainable development can be summed up with the phrase A poor workman blames his tools. Essentially sustainable development is a huge, idealistic goal that is being pursued superficially by parties biased towards development. As a result EIA is only triggered by development which can be questioned without compromising too much of its economic viability. Those who criticise the EIA process have to realise that it is actually the specifics created by political parties that they are criticising. If the tool were developed and used in a way biased towards the sustainable rather than the development it could actually prevent the majority of potential harmful impacts on the environment, rather than just some of them. In conclusion, meeting the goals of sustainable development has officially been an aim of those in control of the EIA process. However, especially in Australia, there are weaknesses in legislation and the general attitude of society, developers and decision makers, allowing unsustainable development to occur, despite the existence of EIA.
REFERENCE: Elliott, J. 1999, An introduction to Sustainable Development, Routledge, London Environment Australia 2003, ESD Reporting Guidelines (online), Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage Last updated: Sunday, 20-Jun-2004 05:29:15 EST Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/epbc/guidelines/definitions.html#principles (27 August 2004) George, C. 1999, Incorporating Sustainable Development into EIA EIA Newsletter 18 (Online), EIA Centre, School of Planning & Landscape, University of Manchester, Available: http://www.art.man.ac.uk/eia/publications/newsletters/newsletter18/incorporationgsustdev.htm (3 September 2004) Glasson, J., Therivel, R & Chadwick, A. 1994, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, UCL Press, London. Harding.R & Fisher.E (ed.) 1999, Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle, The Federation Press, Sydney Harvey, N. 1998, Environmental Impact Assessment, procedures, practice and prospects in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne International Association for Impact Assessment & Institution of Environmental Assessment UK 1999, Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice (online), Available: http://www.iaia.org/members/publications/guidelines_principles/principles%20of%20ia. PDF (29 August 2004) Ortolano, L. 1997, Environmental Regulation and Impact Assessment, John Wiley & Sons Inc, USA. Padgett, R. & Kriwoken, L. 2001, The Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: What role for the Commonwealth in Environmental Impact Assessment? Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8 (March), pp.25-36. The Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (online), Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage Last updated: Sunday, 20 June 2004 05:29:16 EST Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/strategy/index.html (29August 2004)
Sadler, B. 1999, EIA and Sustainability EIA Newsletter 18 (Online), EIA Centre, School of Planning & Landscape, University of Manchester, Available: http://www.art.man.ac.uk/eia/publications/newsletters/newsletter18/eiaandsustainability.ht m (3 September 2004) Wood, C. 2003, Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, (2 nd edition), Prentice Hall, Longman. 1 Bachelor of Environmental Management (Flinders University), Second year at time of writing (2004), Essay for Environmental Impact Assessment (ENVS3722).