Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment [2 ed.] 9781803922133, 9781803922140, 9781803922157

Citation preview

Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment Second Edition

Elgar Advanced Introductions are stimulating and thoughtful introductions to major fields in the social sciences, business and law, expertly written by the world’s leading scholars. Designed to be accessible yet rigorous, they offer concise and lucid surveys of the substantive and policy issues associated with discrete subject areas. The aims of the series are two-fold: to pinpoint essential principles of a particular field, and to offer insights that stimulate critical thinking. By distilling the vast and often technical corpus of information on the subject into a concise and meaningful form, the books serve as accessible introductions for undergraduate and graduate students coming to the subject for the first time. Importantly, they also develop well-informed, nuanced critiques of the field that will challenge and extend the understanding of advanced students, scholars and policy-makers. For a full list of titles in the series please see the back of the book. This is also available on https://​www​.elgaronline​.com/​and https://​www​ .advancedintros​.com/​for Elgar Advanced Introduction in Law.

Advanced Introduction to

Environmental Impact Assessment SECOND EDITION ANGUS MORRISON-SAUNDERS

Professor of Environmental Management, Centre for People, Place & Planet, and School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia; Extraordinary Professor, Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North West University, South Africa, and Senior Associate, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge, UK

Elgar Advanced Introductions

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Angus Morrison-Saunders 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023943149

ISBN 978 1 80392 213 3 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80392 214 0 (eBook) ISBN 978 1 80392 215 7 (paperback)

EEP BoX

Contents

Preface to the second editionvii Preface to the first editionviii Acknowledgementsx PART I

OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT

1

Introduction: setting the scene

2

Forms of EIA

12

3

Back to the beginning – EIA and the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (US)

22

4

A brief reflection on the goals and purpose of EIA

34

PART II

2

GENERIC EIA PROCESS COMPONENTS

5

EIA and decision-making

41

6

Screening and scoping

51

7

Prediction, assessment and mitigation

58

8

Review, approval decision and EIA follow-up

69

PART III ABOUT DEVELOPMENT 9

Spectrum of development and design considerations

83

10

Alternatives and mitigation

92

v

vi

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PART IV ABOUT ENVIRONMENT 11

Representing environment

106

12

Engaging with stakeholders

112

PART V

BRINGING DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT TOGETHER

13

Science, uncertainty and adaptive management in EIA

124

14

Holistic and cumulative impact assessment

136

PART VI CLOSING REMARKS ON EIA 15 Conclusions

150

References160 Index185

Preface to the second edition

Since the publication of the first edition, which I have used each year in my teaching of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to university students, I have continued to research and to reflect on the fundamentals of theory and practice in the field. The underpinning aims and philosophy of the book remain unchanged (as captured in the original Preface below). I have also retained the structure of the first edition. However, I have updated the content throughout. This involved some further delving into the literature to identify and acknowledge where possible the first thinkers and writers on particular EIA topics or ideas (‘EIA archaeology’ so to speak). This has resulted in the inclusion of further original material on specific concepts and topics missed previously. No doubt, however, much more source material remains unaccounted for in this book. I have also included some contemporary material published since the first edition came out. This, too, is highly selective. The literature continues to grow exponentially seemingly, and it is impossible to do justice to all works relevant to my lines of argument. Once again, I apologise for omissions of what my readers may deem to be critical content in this regard. I have continued to acknowledge other introductory books about EIA through citation, with several recently published works included in this edition. Overall and most of all, I hope this book provides an insightful and accessible advanced introduction to EIA for a diversity of readers.

vii

Preface to the first edition

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a formal process for guiding human activity towards sustainable development has been around for some 50 years. Many fine introductory books have been written about EIA in this time. Plenty of books have also been written about specific aspects of EIA and its many specialist derivatives. This book is intended to complement the contemporary and historical library of existing EIA books. A defining characteristic of this book is that it is short. The focus is on the big ideas lying at the heart of EIA. These are the unifying and universal principles of EIA wherever it may be practised. In this manner the book attempts to present an advanced introduction to EIA. It is also intended to provide content useful to EIA practitioners or researchers anywhere in the world. A scholarly approach has been taken to the writing of this book. I draw upon the work of others throughout to acknowledge key sources for the ideas presented. In doing so, I reach back to original sources from the early years of EIA where possible. Much wisdom is to be found in the work of writers from the 1970s and 1980s that rings true today. The available EIA literature, however, is massive and ever growing. Consequently much excellent potential source material must be missed out. I apologize in advance to readers dismayed not to see their particular favourite seminal EIA works cited within. Meanwhile I hope that the ideas discussed are engaging and offer sufficient insight to enable interested readers to pursue them further within the wider available literature.

viii

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

ix

Environmental impact assessment has been central to my career for the past 30 years. From 2000 to 2017 I was fortunate to teach a university course entitled ‘Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment’ at graduate level each year (at Murdoch University, Australia). I always found the course stimulating and engaging to deliver. I am ever grateful to the wise people before me who settled on the name for this course. It encourages taking a fundamental approach to understanding EIA. For me, the underlying principles and big ideas at the heart of EIA are ultimately analogous to some of the biggest defining ideas of what it means to be human or to lead a good life. I hope my enthusiasm and passion for environmental impact assessment spill from the pages that follow, and bring readers along on an engaging journey.

Acknowledgements

This book reflects my teaching and research journey of the past three and a half decades, now updated for this second edition. I would like to thank my students, colleagues and co-researchers for guiding and inspiring me along the way. The manuscript for the first edition was conceived and commenced when I was Associate Professor in Environmental Assessment, Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Australia. Valuable research and writing took place during time spent at North West University, South Africa during my stays there in 2016 and 2017. Revision and updating of the manuscript for this second edition has been informed by my EIA teaching and research at Edith Cowan University since November 2018. I particularly thank my partner, Jenny Pope, for her critical review of the original manuscript for the first edition (as well as the revised Chapter 14 in this edition) and for her invaluable suggestions for enhancement. Finally I thank Edward Elgar Publishing for inviting me to contribute this book to the Elgar Advanced Introductions series, including this second edition and for their ongoing support with copy-editing, publishing and marketing.

x

PART I Overview and context

1.

Introduction: setting the scene

This Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) explores the big ideas that underpin EIA thinking and practice. The emphasis is on the core principles of EIA. These should be applicable (at least to some degree) in all EIA systems worldwide. They should also be relevant to all stakeholders involved in EIA in any capacity. This includes researchers and teachers, as well as university students. The book is also aimed at EIA practitioners, including proponents of new development and their representative consultants who undertake EIA, along with the regulators responsible for administering EIA processes. Finally, this book is intended to be relevant to the general public, in particular community stakeholders affected by new development proposals subject to EIA, in the hope that it may help them understand and be better able to navigate the process. While the book is necessarily divided into chapters and sections that focus on particular facets of EIA theory and practice, there are threads running through the whole book that ultimately unite these facets. There are synergies between different aspects of EIA knowledge that bring these threads together to form a rich tapestry. The whole of EIA is more than the sum of its parts. Ultimately, being able to take a step back and have a holistic view of EIA theory, processes and application to specific development proposals is vital in understanding its purposes and efficacy. Many fine and detailed books have already been published on the topic of EIA and on its many specialist facets and sub-branches, including several since publication of the first edition of this book. There is also a burgeoning volume of journal papers and ‘grey’ literature (for example, government and NGO guidance documents), not to mention individual application specific documents from practice. It is impossible to do justice to all ideas and knowledge about EIA theories and best practices. In the 2

INTRODUCTION

3

face of apparent complexity, I consider EIA to be founded on relatively simple ideas and principles. This short book attempts to reveal the whole in a concise and forthright manner. This chapter sets the scene by exploring the core concepts underpinning the theory and practice of EIA. Subsequent chapters drill down into more specific aspects of EIA, and the concluding chapter seeks to reassemble the pieces into a whole again. The first topic to explore is the big idea of EIA, which underscores all that is to follow.

1.1

Think before you act – the big idea of EIA

EIA is an extension of a common-sense concept. In a nutshell it means ‘think before you act’. This is something all people do every day of their lives at some level. It takes the form of personal assessment of risk: for example, negotiating an unevenly surfaced pavement, or choosing to carry an umbrella when venturing outdoors if rain seems likely. Gibson (2017a) employs the example of a person purchasing tomatoes to illustrate sustainability-oriented EIA in terms of alternatives that they may compare and contrast (for example, between variety characteristics, source or method of production) in order to arrive at a decision. Fundamentally, then, the concept of EIA is simple and straightforward. Partidário (2012, p.1) describes EIA as a ‘forward-looking instrument that is able to proactively advise decision-makers on what might happen if a proposed action is implemented’. Noble (2015) notes that the underlying concept of EIA is ‘quite simple’, being to identify, assess and find ways to mitigate the potential impacts of proposed action on the human and biophysical environment (p. 321). Put more succinctly still, Weiner (1997) noted that EIA ‘boils down to two concepts: (1) think about environmental quality and (2) act on the knowledge gained’ (p. 62). This way of thinking can be applied to human activities at any scale. As Morgan (1998) notes: EIA can be used, at one end of the spectrum, as a mental check by any person in their everyday activities, and, at the other end of the spectrum, it can be used in an institutionalized form by public agencies to manage development of major natural resources. (p. 284)

4

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Amy (1990) explained the world’s first EIA legislation in the USA as requiring government officials to ‘look before they leap’ (p. 60) with the hope that, being better equipped with information and more options, ‘they would be able to make better … decisions that would minimize environmental damage’ (p. 60). Flamm (1973) described EIA as a ‘thinking process’ (p.  202) that ‘should result in “a new thought process” for casting up and evaluating the consequences of alternative courses of action’ (p.  202). The underlying philosophy of EIA is thus that of a rational model of decision-making requiring technical evaluation of the local environment and proposed development activity (Noble, 2015). More commonly referred to as the technical-rational model of decision-making, it is founded on the idea that technical information is provided to decision-makers who are assumed to use it (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999; Cashmore, 2004). In this regard, Caldwell (1998) noted that the establishment of EIA ‘greatly expanded the scope and content of cause–effect analysis’ (p. 9). Starting from the simple premise of thinking before acting makes EIA accessible to all. The more formal but still simple definition for ‘impact assessment’ employed by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) is ‘the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action’.1 Charlie Wolf, who was an EIA practitioner in the 1970s and a founding member of the IAIA (in work posthumously edited by Adrian Hayes), observed that while anticipating the future, EIA is also grounded firmly in the present, as consequences have to be judged according to current values (Hayes, 2017). To understand the future consequences of a human action requires consideration of two key aspects: (i) the nature of development (that is, the action); and (ii) the nature of the receiving environment where the development will take place and which will bear the brunt of the consequences. While each might initially be described separately, the two aspects must also be brought together in a meaningful way. In this framing, EIA is about determining the risk of an activity for the environment. Morgan (1998) argues that all EIA is about assessing risk, being the risk of environmental change occurring as a consequence of proposed development activity going ahead, along with the risk of those changes affecting local people in some way.

INTRODUCTION

1.2

5

The need for and nature of EIA

In an international study of the effectiveness of EIA undertaken in the closing decade of the last century, Sadler (1996) argued that the environment matters more than ever before because of the unprecedented scale at which humans have been altering it. In the ensuing decades, the rate of environmental change on a global scale driven by human activities has become even more rapid. Recent and ongoing pronouncements on climate change and biodiversity (amongst many other sustainability issues) make this abundantly clear (for example, www​.un​.org/​en/​ our​-work/​support​-sustainable​-development​-and​-climate​-action). The modern geological age is now labelled as the Anthropocene (for example, Steffen et al., 2015) in recognition of human activity being the dominant influence on the environment. Formal EIA procedures came into being in the 1970s. The growing scale and impacts of resource developments was one of the factors that led to the introduction of EIA, along with an upsurge in environmental activism coupled with recognition that prevailing techniques and agencies for assessing and regulating environmental impacts were inadequate (O’Riordan and Sewell, 1981a). The formal mechanism of EIA (established in legislation or regulations) provides a basis for designing policies, plans and projects to take account proactively of important environmental considerations and to ensure that the impacts and risks associated with development activities are managed (Sadler, 1996). It is thus a tool for planning, for decision-making and for resource management alike. As will become clearer in subsequent chapters, EIA is a process with scientific, legal, administrative, social and political dimensions. Partidário (2012) describes EIA as having a dual nature, being both technical and procedural, while Noble (2015) frames it as an ‘environmental protection tool, a methodology, and a regulatory requirement’ (p. 3). Consequently the practice of EIA is both science and art (Petts, 1999a; Cashmore, 2004), whereby the science refers to methods of enquiry with systematic acquisition and employment of knowledge in the EIA process and art encapsulates the policy skills and acumen that are acquired through experience and are adapted for purpose and context (Morrison-Saunders and Sadler, 2010). EIA is specifically targeted towards planned future development activity. By allowing one to think ahead, it sets up the opportunity to manage impacts and protect the environment when development proceeds. The

6

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

intention is that potential negative effects can be avoided, minimized or offset through appropriate development design and management of development activity. Importantly then, EIA is undertaken ‘while there is still an opportunity to improve (or, if appropriate, abandon) the proposals’ (UN CEPA, 2021, p.  1). What EIA does not do is seek to assess the environmental performance of existing development (that is, those activities such as cities, agriculture and other resource development that were in place prior to the advent of EIA as a formal tool). Nor does it regulate the activities of individual citizens that also impact on the environment (for example, lifestyle or consumer behaviour). EIA practice may, however, influence individual attitudes and behaviours indirectly through raising awareness of environmental issues and contributing  to  learning about  effective environmental strategies, all while seeking opportunities to facilitate positive environmental and social outcomes from new development.

1.3

Defining EIA

An examination of definitions of EIA and their constituent terms helps in understanding the purpose of the process. Morgan (1998) noted that many of the EIA definitions in the literature and in legislation do not describe specific aims of the process (that is, in terms of what ends it is seeking to reach). Consequently these need to be derived or inferred from the higher-level objectives of EIA that are included in definitions. Such an interpretation will be a product of the perspectives held by particular interest groups and can be expected to vary for different stakeholders. Previously the simple definition of impact assessment employed by the IAIA was presented. In a review of the state of the art of EIA, Morgan (2012) defined EIA as: the essential idea of assessing proposed actions (from policies to projects) for their likely implications for all aspects of the environment, from social through to biophysical, before decisions are made to commit to those actions, and developing appropriate responses to the issues identified in that assessment. (p. 5)

This definition is a holistic one, whereby EIA is seen to apply to all types of development and to consider all types of impact. As Charlie Wolf

INTRODUCTION

7

argued, it thus applies to all ‘sectors, sections, and segments of society’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 186), irrespective of whether the development in question originates from private, government or civil society entities. Left unsaid in the definition from Morgan (2012) is the intention that the ‘appropriate responses’ would normally be aimed at protecting the environment from harm and unnecessary risk – where risk is understood as a combination of probability and consequence (O’Riordan and Sewell, 1981a). EIA invites the consideration of mitigation measures in order to ensure optimal design and that appropriate environmental management is put in place when development proceeds. It might, and ideally should, also actively seek to improve or enhance the quality of the environment affected by development (for example, João et al., 2011). Unpacking the name explicitly (in reverse sequence), EIA is about assessing the impacts of development on the environment. Impacts can be regarded as ‘unusual occurrences’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 187) in the sense that although environments are dynamic and ever-changing, people are accustomed to existing conditions, so such change does not appear impactful. Impacts in the context of EIA are the product of interaction between proposed actions with existing systems and conditions (Hayes, 2017). By assessing impacts (through impact identification, prediction and evaluation of environmental significance, as will be explained in more detail later on), the intention is subsequently to find ways to avoid or minimize the likely adverse impacts, and to enhance or maximize the potential positive impacts. Put another way, EIA is a tool for promoting sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is discussed in more detail at many points within the book, but for now I shall simply define it in accordance with the Brundtland Commission, whereby sustainable development is ‘development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 9). Throughout the book I refer to both sustainable development and the now more common term sustainability, using them interchangeably. However, the extent to which EIA delivers sustainable development will be determined by the kinds of development (or human actions) to which EIA is applied and how ‘environment’ – that is, the E in EIA – itself is defined. There is no singular universal definition of EIA. Regarding what

8

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

is being assessed, a definition of EIA might refer variously to proposed ‘actions’, ‘developments’, ‘projects’, ‘programs’ or ‘policies’. A generic term for all of these is ‘proposal’. While there is variation in the types of development proposal evident in individual EIA definitions, the possibilities remain broad and far-reaching in terms of what the process might be applied to. Beanlands and Duinker (1983) noted that the term ‘environment’ in the context of EIA has come to include the ‘social and economic milieu of development proposals’ (p. 18) as well as the biophysical. Early clarification on this came from the US Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1978) noting that ‘the term “human environment” [as it appears in the National Environmental Policy Act 1969] shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the interaction of people with that environment’ (p. 55988). Petts (1999a) maintains that for effective EIA practice, an integrated definition of the environment is needed which ‘recognizes the complex physical and emotional relationship between humans and the environment’ (p. 8). In a similar vein, Partidário (2012) states that it is desirable to integrate the biophysical, social and economic dimensions in impact assessment, but acknowledges that a given jurisdiction may constrain EIA to analysis of specific types of impacts only. Perhaps most emphatic of all is Gibson (1993), who argues that environmental considerations extend well beyond biophysical effects. Environmental assessment law must define ‘environment’ broadly, and realistically, to recognize biophysical, social, economic, and cultural factors and their interrelations. (p. 14)

There has been a long-term assumption or prerequisite that EIA will only be triggered where the likely effects of a development proposal include biophysical impacts. As CEQ (1978) stated: ‘economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement’ (p. 55988), subsequently using the hypothetical example of the closure of a military base that ‘only affects such things as the composition of the population or the level of personal income in a region’ (p. 55989) as an example where EIA would not apply. The extent to which this holds today is less clear, for example, given that many of the individual Sustainable Development Goals established by the UN (2015) are particular to social or economic concerns specifically. The notion of EIA for sustainable development is further explored in Section 4.2.

INTRODUCTION

9

For now, as these examples from the literature already indicate, how the two parameters of environment and development are defined by individual practitioners and in the procedural specifications within the individual jurisdictions where EIA takes place varies tremendously around the world according to legal and socio-cultural context. Ultimately every EIA system is distinctive because of this (Petts, 1999a). An early account of different approaches to EIA in different jurisdictions is found in Burton et al. (1983), who also note the difficulty in making comparisons between them. There is no ‘one size fits all’ EIA system, nor should there be. Morgan (1998) writes that ‘EIA must reflect local cultural attitudes to decision-making and not attempt to impose approaches from elsewhere in the name of an ideal EIA process’ (p. 51). Petts (1999a) sees the underlying simplicity of the EIA process as a positive characteristic, as it allows for adaptive and flexible implementation to meet ‘particular legislative, administrative, social and political circumstances’ (p. 4). These circumstances also evolve over time, meaning that EIA will continue to be adapted in any given setting. This is one reason why researching and working in the field of EIA remains ever engaging. Despite unique individual applications of EIA, some trends in evolution can be identified; three perspectives follow. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) plot a transition from cost–benefit analysis (that is, based solely on the financial viability of proposed development) to biophysical impact assessment to the inclusion of social and cultural elements, and on to tiered forms of EIA enabling higher-level strategic interventions to be assessed as a ‘creative participatory environmental management activity’ (p. 9). Gibson et al. (2005) plot a four-step evolution from (i) reactive pollution control, to (ii) biophysical EIA, to (iii) inclusion of socio-economic issues, consideration of alternatives and increasing public involvement, to (iv) fully integrated sustainability-oriented planning and decision-making from policy to project level, with consideration of cumulative effects and devoted to empowering the public. Sadler (2002) discusses an evolving paradigm of EIA moving from first generation project-level EIA to second generation strategic environmental assessment (SEA), to third generation assessment for environmental sustainability assurance and on to ‘next generation’ being for ‘sustainability appraisal and integrated environmental management’ (p. 146). A manifesto for ‘next generation’ EIA is laid out in Sinclair et al. (2018) and Gibson et al. (2021) aimed at advancing practice. Common to these accounts of the evolution of EIA is an expanding conception of (i) the types of development being subject

10

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

to assessment, (ii) the components of environment being considered and the means for doing so (with a transition to holistic and integrated approaches, rather than piecemeal reductionist approaches), and (iii) increasing participation of public stakeholders in the process. The remainder of this book is, in large measure, an exploration of the concepts of environment and development, the processes for bringing these concepts together in an assessment undertaking and the people who become involved in such processes. There is complexity associated with this. Large development proposals alone can be complex. Then there are complexities associated with the interconnected nature of ecosystems and the communities they support. The basic premise of ‘think before you act’ can be more difficult than it initially sounds. This is especially the case in the context of contemporary environmental and sustainability challenges faced by human societies globally. Thus solutions to the kinds of challenges faced in the name of sustainable development are unlikely to be simple to resolve (for example, Chapman, 2016). Furthermore, as psychologists and behavioural economists cheerfully point out (for example, Ariely, 2008; Kahneman, 2013; Thaler, 2015), humans are not naturally disposed to thinking rationally and carefully when faced with complex decision situations. In the well-known book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman (2013) demonstrates a natural tendency for humans to rely on fast thinking and to make decisions in a ‘blink’ (Gladwell, 2007). This is very successful in many daily decisions, but becomes a problem when a person is faced with complexity. Here, thinking slowly in a careful, structured and suitably rigorous manner is needed. Most EIA situations represent the latter. How decisions are made in EIA, especially when stakeholders are faced with difficult choices and trade-offs, is a thread running through this book. In light of the above, it is perhaps no surprise that the field of EIA comes with a suite of suggested approaches, techniques and principles to help stakeholders to navigate this complexity. During the rest of this book, I hope to explain the workings of EIA in an advanced but introductory fashion. In so doing, I continue to tie the thinking and ideas about EIA back to fundamental principles to which I hope all humans can relate. EIA is for everyone. Through a simple approach based on the big ideas underpinning EIA, I hope to make it accessible to all while pointing to elegant and achievable solutions that foster sustainable development.

INTRODUCTION

Note 1.

See www​.iaia​.org (accessed 24 January 2023).

11

2.

Forms of EIA

This chapter explains the forms that EIA may take, and clarifies the terminology and focus of EIA in the overall context of this book.

2.1

Formal versus informal EIA

Formal EIA refers to a process specified in the laws, regulations and/ or guidance administered by the responsible agency in a given jurisdiction. The responsible agency will usually be government, but can be a non-government entity. Formal EIA is generally triggered and applied when a proposed new development would appear likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment if implemented, although the mechanisms and principles by which this determination is made vary between jurisdictions. An impact is recognized as a change in the behaviour of the environmental systems in question (Morgan, 1998) as a consequence of the development activities and which is ‘judged to have environmental, political, economic or social significance to society’ (Partidário, 2012, p. 1). Positive impacts are also possible and should be reflected in an EIA (Nisbet and João, 2022), but a development that would produce only beneficial environmental outcomes is not likely to trigger the process in the first instance. Commonly, and central to an EIA process, the proponent of the development is expected or required to prepare an account of the development, in a document generically known as an environmental impact statement (EIS). This holds even where EIA legislation is addressed to a responsible government agency. For example, the review of initial EIA practice in the US resulted in the CEQ (1978) authorizing the preparation of assessments by proponents with the agency responsible for evaluating that content. EIAs can be carried out by an independent body, but Morgan (1998) notes 12

FORMS OF EIA

13

that this is rarely the case in international practice. A variation is where a requirement exists for only accredited professionals to undertake EIA. Nevertheless it is the proponent of development who is normally expected to pay for the main costs of conducting EIA, of which the EIS is a major component (for example, Hart, 1984). Important steps both precede and follow the EIS, and these will be unpacked later on. For now though, the EIS provides a useful entry point for understanding much about EIA. The environmental impact statement describes the environmental setting and the proposed development, setting out predictions of the likely significant impacts and how the proponent intends to manage or mitigate them. The EIS is provided to other stakeholders for their consideration and input prior to an approval decision for the development being determined. Ideally stakeholders will also be involved throughout the EIA process leading up to the production of the EIS, as well as the stages that come later. At the very least, the (typically) government entity responsible for administering the EIA process (the EIA agency) will be a stakeholder who considers the EIS. Other stakeholders may include other government agencies with a responsibility for whatever resources or services are needed to operate the project or will otherwise will be affected by the project going ahead (for example, roads, electricity, water, biodiversity conservation, community development, land-use planning). Experts with specialist knowledge of particular environmental resources that will be impacted by the development are important stakeholders who will probably wish to have input to the process. Members of the general public are also a vital stakeholder. Public stakeholders include local community members living in close proximity to the proposed development, but may extend to any other citizens with a potential interest. The scale of a development activity may be large enough to affect citizens in an adjoining country. The consideration of such transboundary effects in EIA is specifically the focus of the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1991).1 Early reflection on the notion of establishing ‘international EIA’ was provided in Burton et al. (1983), but this possibility has not since been further developed seemingly. Different stakeholders will have different expectations of EIA. To illustrate this, Environmental Resources Limited (1988), Morgan (1998), Petts (1999b) and Noble (2015) each suggest possible different views that

14

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

a range of hypothetical stakeholders in an EIA might hold (such as the proponent, consultants, decision authority, investors, environmental scientist, sociologist, local community member, politician, planner or political scientist). As Noble (2015) notes, the objective of EIA depends on the ‘lens through which it is viewed’ (p. 5). To put it another way, EIA theory and practice can be thought of as occupying a ‘broad spectrum of philosophical beliefs and values’ (Cashmore, 2004, p. 406), in light of the diversity of stakeholders involved. EIA is thus a pluralistic concept, meaning different things to different stakeholders  – this is a notion explored in depth in Bond et al. (2013a) in relation to sustainability assessment practice. The involvement of stakeholders in EIA is discussed in more detail in later chapters, particularly in Chapter 12. The design of a formal EIA system is intended to ensure that all stakeholders – proponent, regulators and community – have an opportunity to think about consequences before action takes place. The decision-maker responsible for the decision to approve or reject the development proposal is generally provided with all of the inputs or perspectives of the stakeholders. Hence they are expected to make an informed approval decision regarding the development proposal. This is how EIA is designed to encourage rational decision-making. Of course, however, there are other issues at stake beyond the EIA considerations. A decision-maker, who is often an elected politician (for example, the Environment Minister), will be faced with social, economic and political pressures that fall outside of the EIA legislative ambit. An approval decision authorizing the development will normally specify the circumstances or conditions under which it may proceed. In this way, mitigation measures and environmental performance expectations can become a specified or legally binding outcome of the EIA process (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2021, 2023). Proponents are expected to implement their development and mitigation measures, and to account for outcomes through monitoring and other follow-up activity. The notion of EIA thus continues throughout development implementation into operation and, where relevant, decommissioning and restoration of the area to an agreed post-development land use (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022). Ultimately EIA is a structured way of thinking about environment and development. Formal legislative procedures are not a prerequisite for this.

FORMS OF EIA

15

Informal EIA might also involve the same activities as outlined above. The point of difference is that there is no legal requirement for the process to take place, or for a formal approval decision to be reached by an external regulator. EIA can therefore be a voluntary initiative. There are many environmental assessment and management tools that operate independently of formal EIA processes built upon the ‘think before you act’ principle and which engage the inputs of stakeholders in planning, designing and implementing development activity. Examples include cost–benefit analysis, ecological footprint analysis, life cycle analysis, environmental management systems and many more. Sheate (2009) outlines these and many others, along with EIA itself, to illustrate the connected nature of the greater family of environmental assessment and management tools. Most, if not all of them, follow similar lines of enquiry or procedural steps as that of EIA (as set out in Part 2 of this book). The need for formal EIA procedures to be in place, with an appropriate legal mandate, is a common perspective within the literature. For example, it forms the first criterion in the well-known comparisons of EIA systems carried out by Wood (1999, 2003). Gibson (1993) is emphatic on this point, arguing that EIA requirements must be ‘established in law and … specific, mandatory, and enforceable’ (p. 17). This is because of the intent of EIA to ‘change the nature and substance of planning and decisionmaking’ (p. 17); Gibson further notes that formal EIA processes are ‘an attack on the status quo’ (1993, p. 17). When EIA is framed in this revolutionary context, it perhaps makes sense that having a legal mandate will be vital, on the basis that otherwise informal approaches may not be taken seriously. It is possible to have EIA procedures sanctioned in legislation, but for a degree of informality to exist regarding their operation or application. A case in point is the jurisdiction of Western Australia (where I base most of my teaching and research), where several mechanisms for informal EIA are included in the legislation. One of these is the provision of informal strategic advice by the EIA agency on development proposals or regarding particular environmental resources. Such advice is directed to the Environment Minister and is made public, but does not result in legally binding conditions and thus has no legal status as such. Nevertheless it has been found to be of benefit to EIA practitioners, especially in terms of providing ‘upfront early advice and greater certainty on what is envi-

16

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ronmentally acceptable’ (Martin and Morrison-Saunders, 2015, p. 275). This enables subsequent development proposals to avoid sensitive areas or to be designed such that they pose so little risk to the environment that the formal EIA process is not triggered. A second example of informal EIA within the same legislation is the provision of publicly disclosed advice by the EIA agency to proponents and/or other regulatory agencies regarding a development proposal that they have determined does not warrant formal EIA (that is, a screening decision not to require formal assessment). This mechanism is employed for situations with only minor environmental concerns that can be readily managed without recourse to a full assessment process. Somewhat ironically, such a decision not to assess a development proposal is the product of having undertaken an assessment in the first instance! A substantially larger number of proposals each year are treated in this manner than those undergoing formal EIA, meaning that the cumulative consequences for environmental performance may be substantial. Follow-up studies, for project- and planning-related development proposals alike treated in this manner (Environmental Protection Authority, 2016a; 2016b), have concluded that such advice has translated into good environmental protection outcomes. The previous examples and discussion of formal versus informal EIA provisions highlight that the value of a legal mandate for the process may not be as clear-cut as the literature and prevailing guidance might imply. EIA systems must clearly be suited to the cultural and governance arrangements for a given society or sector. Ultimately what matters most is that EIA thinking and requisite behaviours for sustainable development do take place. This chapter has so far presented only a sketch outline of what EIA entails, to set the overall scene. Details will be fleshed out in later chapters. At this point, and to complete the chapter, it is appropriate to unpack some specific terminology associated with EIA in order to understand the purpose and focus for practice.

FORMS OF EIA

2.2

17

The terminology and focus of EIA

As with so many specialist fields, the world of EIA is replete with specialist terms and acronyms. This can be daunting for a newcomer to the field. I am an advocate for simplicity, preferring to focus on core principles in the face of a noted tendency for different specialists seeking to forge their own version of EIA. Terminology consideration begins with the very name of environmental impact assessment itself. One perspective is that the term ‘impact’ is too negative and limiting. It implies a reactive response to a development proposal, to try to remedy faults in development design. As noted by Burton et al. (1983), proponent-driven EIA ‘undoubtedly leads to considerable bias in many cases’ (p. 145). In other words, the decision to develop comes first, and the assessment of impacts follows. Harris et al. (2021) argue that the ‘legislative purpose of approving projects undermines confidence that a balanced assessment of impacts has been made’ (p. 1), thus making EIA ‘a pro-industry process’ (p. 1). In a similar vein, Brown and McDonald (1995) refer to EIA as a ‘degraded form of planning’ (p. 77). They prefer the term ‘environmental assessment’ and in another paper discuss how it is desirable to move ‘beyond EIA’ to ensure that there is appropriate environmental input to land-use planning and proactive design of all forms of development (McDonald and Brown, 1995, p. 483). Canada is one jurisdiction where legislation and practice for many years specifically referred to ‘environmental assessment’ (for example, as carried out under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012),2 although this has since been replaced by the Impact Assessment Act 2019.3 In the context of this book, both expressions (EA/EIA and other variants employed in some jurisdictions) are taken to mean the same thing. Then there is the proliferation of particular ‘brands’ of EIA. In Chapter 1, a simple definition of ‘impact assessment’ employed by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) was provided. The IAIA is a professional association that comprises a number of ‘Sections’ for various specialist forms of impact assessment such as social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and others. The simple definition from the IAIA is a generic one used to cover all branches of practice; an approach similarly taken by UN CEPA (2021). In Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014a), 46 types of impact assessment were identified (where nearly all incorporated the

18

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

phrase ‘assessment’ in some manner). Using broader search parameters, Vanclay (2015) identified over 150 forms of impact assessment (far too many to address here). Personally I do not find it particularly useful to try to separate out all of the types of impact by name or brand. I uphold the position of Noble (2015) that EIA should be applied ‘to all biophysical and human factors potentially affected by development, including health, gender, and culture, and cumulative effects’ (p. 17). All impacts are socially constructed. Their meaning and importance are determined by people. As Beanlands (1988) noted: ‘environmental impact assessment is inherently an anthropocentric concept’ (p. 35). This is a shared characteristic regardless of the type of impact being addressed in an EIA. What is considered an ‘impact’ within EIA is ultimately a human judgement (Partidário, 2012). Put slightly differently, Charlie Wolf suggested that ‘all impacts are social, or more specifically, human’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 189). Likewise the concept of sustainability or sustainable development underpinning EIA is fundamentally anthropocentric. On the basis that humans ultimately wish to sustain human existence, the concept of sustainability or sustainable development can be thought of as ‘enduring human wellbeing’ (Grace and Pope, 2015, p. 287). Along similar lines, Charlie Wolf defined the purpose of EIA as being ‘to develop local and global capacity to anticipate, plan, and manage the consequences of change so as to enhance the quality of life for all’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 187). The literature on health impact assessment (HIA) takes a similar angle. The theory and practice of HIA seeks to understand the social determinants of health, with a goal of enhancing the positive impacts on health and contributing to human health opportunities (Quigley et al., 2006; Harris-Roxas et al., 2012; Spickett et al., 2012). As a tool that contributes to sustainable development, EIA can be conceived as being all about sustainability assessment (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2022), and there is a literature devoted specifically to that topic. As Gibson (2017a) puts it, the essentially simple notion of enhancing ‘our prospects for lasting wellbeing, mostly by introducing a little more rigour, humility and foresight into our decision-making’ (p. 1) underlies sustainability assessment. This is an alternative term that could unify all brands of impact assessment. But arguably, as indicated previously, sustainable development is the underlying premise of EIA, and there is danger in

FORMS OF EIA

19

diverting attention away from this purpose through naming different forms of impact assessment. This is perhaps most pertinent in light of the prevalence of EIA (or derivatives) that exists in legislation worldwide relative to the other named forms of impact assessment. On the basis that ‘191 of the 193 member nations of the United Nations either have national legislation or have signed some form of international legal instrument that refers to the use of EIA’ (Morgan, 2012, p. 6), it makes sense to capitalize on that by seeking to enhance the performance of existing systems (as necessary) rather than diverting energy away to the creation of new forms of impact assessment. That being said, however, there may be value in bringing attention to particular issues (for example, social, gender, health, technology) to ensure that they are given due consideration in assessment processes. For example, writers in the field of social impact assessment (SIA) have long written about the practice separate from EIA (for example, Wolf, 1975; Branch et al., 1984; Taylor et al., 1990; Esteves et al., 2012). O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) wrote in terms of ‘EIA plus SIA’ (p. 19) as a means of placing greater responsibilities on elected officials so as to make their job much closer to what ‘democratic theories intend’ (p. 19). This distinction is continued by Partidário (2012) in advocating for practitioners to ensure that impact assessment ‘makes a positive contribution to the environment and the well-being of the people living in it’ (p. 2). Hence it is perhaps no surprise that experts in other branches of impact assessment prefer to name their practice specifically, to ensure it garners attention. It may also be that some forms of impact assessment have evolved from a different history and pathway to that of EIA, as is held to be the case for health impact assessment (Harris-Roxas et al., 2012) and sustainability assessment (Bond et al., 2012; Pope et al., 2017), where HIA arises from public health professional movements and sustainability assessment is found in many tools and processes. I do note that several points of difference arise for impacts on humans (for example, social and also health or gender impacts) relative to impacts on the biophysical environment. First, social impacts may be identified in two ways. They can be identified by an external ‘expert’ who considers how people are affected by development as an observer or outsider. A social impact can also be identified by the person (or community of people) that is being (or will be) impacted by a development. This means that there is a role for ‘human interpretation in determining how individ-

20

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

uals experience interventions’ (Loxton et al., 2013, p. 52). For biophysical impacts, however, the natural environment cannot speak for itself. These impacts can only be attributed by an external or third party. Second, with regard to social impacts, every human life matters. Social impacts can be experienced from the level of the individual through to collective groups of people. Any person who is likely to be significantly adversely impacted ought to be protected or compensated appropriately. Individual components of the biophysical environment, on the other hand, are typically able to be substituted (for example, new trees are planted during the rehabilitation phase of a mining project or in an offset site to replace or counterbalance those removed during development). Humans are not to be substituted in this same way. A final difference between social and biophysical issues within EIA to emphasize is that social impacts do not correlate directly with physical changes in the non-human environment. There are several relationships here. On the one hand, there can be real social impacts arising from a proposed development proposal, even when the development itself does not ever proceed (that is, there is no actual physical change in the biophysical environment at all). For example, Hartz-Karp et al. (2015) describe social impacts on a regional Australian town for which a major oil and gas proposal was planned and assessed, but which ultimately never proceeded. In this case, the anticipation of the development led to significant (adverse) changes in social and economic activity within the community (that is, people’s livelihoods and well-being were adversely affected). In a similar vein, social impacts can be perceived to occur even where no actual physical impact in the environment is taking place. An example might be a cooling tower emitting just steam (that is, a visible plume) which is perceived by passers-by to be causing pollution of a noxious nature, leading to some level of stress/anxiety for those people. Wolf (1975) discusses ‘planning effects’ (p. 7) giving an example of how plans for a series of developments along a lake shore resulted in ‘drastically affected land use’ (p. 7) even though no physical change to the environment had taken place. Finally, O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) point out that ‘social effects are dynamic phenomena changing both with time and public preferences’ (p. 19), and these may or may not be related to biophysical change. Perceptions and value judgements regarding impacts underpin EIA; this topic will be revisited later in the book in relation to the significance concept (Chapter 7).

FORMS OF EIA

21

A saying comes to mind here, that there are two types of people when it comes to classification: splitters and lumpers. Splitters are those who find difference and keep things separate, while lumpers find commonality and minimize differences (for example, Ryan and Bernard, 2003). As is evident in Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014a), I am a fan of lumping, emphasizing points of commonality rather than distinction. To borrow the phraseology of Noble (2015), the way forward to an effective sustainability delivering process is by ‘integrating the silos of EIA’ (p. 325). As argued by Morgan (1998), the very existence of forms of impact assessment such as SIA ‘runs counter to the key concept of EIA as an integrating, non-sectoral, interdisciplinary process’ (p. 33). Thus, like Morgan (1998, 2012) I use EIA as an umbrella term for all forms of impact assessment/environmental assessment (and its synonyms) that can be conceived. Similarly, like Noble (2015), I use the term ‘environment’ to include both biophysical and social considerations and the ‘relations and interdependencies between them’ (p. 122), as both are essential to consider either separately or in unison as part of EIA that will deliver sustainable development. For the remainder of this book I use the term EIA, except where particular distinction of a distinct tool or concept is warranted. In so doing, I intend the term to be used in its broadest fashion around thinking before taking action in the name of sustainable development. Ultimately, as Charlie Wolf exhorted: ‘it doesn’t matter what you call it; what matters is doing it’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 188). The rest of this book unpacks more of the fundamental principles, process steps and key challenges underpinning EIA theory and practice. The next chapter returns to the beginning of formal EIA to shed further light on its origins and intentions.

Notes 1. 2. 3.

Available at www​.unece​.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​env/​eia/​documents/​legaltexts/​ Espoo​_Convention​_authentic​_ENG​.pdf (accessed 9 January 2023). Available at http://​laws​-lois​.justice​.gc​.ca/​PDF/​C​-15​.21​.pdf (accessed 9 January 2023). Available at https://​www​.parl​.ca/​Content/​Bills/​421/​Government/​C​-69/​C​-69​ _4/​C​-69​_4​.PDF (accessed 9 January 2023).

3.

Back to the beginning – EIA and the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (US)

To understand the EIA concept better, it is useful to examine the world’s first EIA system established in legislation in the United States. This chapter explores the origins of the legislation, and the emergence of EIA within it; which sheds light on international expectations and practice for EIA. The chapter ends with accounts of early evaluations of EIA effectiveness in the US and other commentary about the process.

3.1

The National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA)

Before honing in on details regarding the specific invention of EIA, some background policy context is important to understand. The establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act 19691 (NEPA) at the federal level in the United States, which formally commenced on 1 January 1970, in some ways symbolizes the start of the modern environmental movement. Two aspects of the NEPA and the EIA back-story that I find especially intriguing are the time that it took to establish the legislation and the very late inclusion of EIA within it. Despite being a very short Act (it is just six pages long), NEPA was some ten years in the making. As Greenberg and Shapiro (2022) emphasize, NEPA did not suddenly appear, being demanded by the public to address what they ‘viewed as accelerating and devastating destruction of the environment’ (p. 28), and being part of a ‘much broader approach to environmental protection’ (p. 28), with several other key pieces of environmental 22

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

23

legislation coming into being around the same time. An original Bill to establish a Resource and Conservation Act was presented to the US Congress in 1959 (Caldwell, 1997) but was not promulgated. Between this time and the final declaration of NEPA in 1969, several other unsuccessful attempts to introduce some kind of environmental management legislation were made. It was clearly difficult to obtain sufficient traction with the US Congress to implement a national environmental policy. Caldwell (1997) noted that ‘[a] decade of thought, advocacy, and negotiation in and out of Congress preceded the legislation of 1969’ (p. 25). When NEPA was proclaimed, it was seemingly with some reluctance. For example, Dreyfus and Ingram (1976) record that the Nixon administration had aggressively opposed enactment of the measure throughout the legislative process, and the President’s signature on January 1, 1970, was a belated and lukewarm acquiescence to growing national concern with the environment. (p. 243)

They also observed, along with Fairfax (1978), that the arrival of NEPA received scant media or societal attention at the time. Similarly, Wichelman (1976) wrote that ‘[d]espite the President’s endorsement, most administrative agencies initially exhibited a more reserved attitude toward the new legislation’ (p. 267). This is a good reminder to EIA advocates today. Along with the difficulties in getting governments worldwide to tackle proactively major sustainability issues such as global climate change, many environmental issues remain peripheral to continuing mainstream political interest in economic growth and development. The stated purposes of NEPA (in section 2) are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment [sic]; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

A contemporary interpretation would likely simply refer here to ‘sustainable development’. While EIA is not explicitly mentioned in this text, there is a nod to it in the reference to promoting efforts to prevent environmental damage. NEPA is a high-level policy declaration that contains

24

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

some provision for EIA (as outlined below). As noted by Karkkainen (2007), ‘the statute was not intended as an EIA measure at all’ (p. 45). It is interesting to realize that EIA was only conceived in the eleventh hour of NEPA development. It was first presented to the US Senate by Lynton Caldwell during hearings conducted in April 1969. In comparison, most EIA legislation that I have encountered is more specifically directed to the definitions and practice of EIA from the outset.

3.2

Invention of the formal EIA mechanism

The introduction of EIA was an attempt to provoke action to deliver the high-level policy goals of NEPA. This action-oriented characteristic of EIA is common to all subsequent practice and processes worldwide. In the words of Dreyfus and Ingram (1976): Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were invented in response to the anticipated administrative indifference or outright hostility toward the environmental council and the environmental policy statement. (p. 251)

In essence then, the invention of EIA was an ‘action enforcing mechanism’ (Andrews, 1976; Dreyfus and Ingram, 1976; Caldwell, 1997). It was included within NEPA to ensure that federal US agencies actually did something substantive by way of environmental protection and management. Wichelman (1976) wrote that NEPA, of course, was designed to reform agency–clientele relationships by forcing agencies to add environmental considerations to those criteria against which they traditionally tested their actions and to admit into their policy subsystems environmental interest groups that had been excluded in the past. (p. 271)

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

25

The specific provisions of NEPA that do this relate to EIA as people would think of it today. It is worthwhile citing these provisions here in full, as they remain relevant to contemporary EIA practice worldwide. All agencies of the Federal Government shall: Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on (i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) Alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s [sic] environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. (NEPA, s. 102(2)(c))

It can be seen that the EIA provisions were specifically directed at government agencies, whereas in international practice elsewhere, the actions and development proposals of private proponents are typically also included. What is particularly interesting about this section of NEPA is that it captures an expression of EIA that can be seen mirrored in virtually all other legislative provisions for the process worldwide. It is the proponent of development who is expected (or required) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – a point clarified by CEQ (1978) as mentioned in the previous chapter. In other words, a polluter-pays philosophy underpins EIA thinking. The emphasis of EIA is upon likely significant adverse impacts or effects arising from the proponent’s proposal (a topic addressed further in Chapters 6 and 7). Also, alternatives to the development to that favoured by the proponent should be considered (addressed in Chapter 10). It is also interesting to note what is absent from this first account of EIA in legislation. There is no mention of identifying and putting in place appropriate mitigation measures to counterbalance the likely adverse impacts, although perhaps this is implied to some extent in points (ii) and (iii) of s. 102(2)(c). Such an inclusion is common in EIA legislation elsewhere and increasingly also post-implementation follow-up of performance to determine the effectiveness of mitigation. Also there is no mention of

26

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

public engagement during EIA, although s. 102(2)(c) of NEPA goes on to specify that: Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved …

and it also further indicates that the EIS and comments from other agencies shall be made public. Culhane (1985) suggests that the NEPA requirement to ‘subject agency proposals to public and interagency review’ (p. 376) is a particularly powerful agent for positive change. It can be anticipated that within this consultation and disclosure, mitigation measures and expected outcomes of development would be central. Mitigation and stakeholder engagement within EIA are key topics within Chapters 10 and 12, respectively. Overall, many of the best practice principles of EIA espoused by the IAIA and the Institute of Environmental Assessment UK (IEA) (1999) – such as the basic principles of being ‘purposive’, ‘participative’, ‘integrative’ and ‘systematic’ (p. 3), as well as operating principles around ‘impact analysis’, ‘examination of alternatives’, ‘review of the EIS’ and ‘decision-making’ (p. 4) – are encapsulated in this single section of NEPA. These elements of EIA are unpacked in more detail in subsequent chapters, including specific EIA process steps hinted at within s. 102(2)(c) of NEPA which are now common worldwide. These process steps are introduced in Chapter 5 and are the focus of the subsequent chapters in Part 2. In terms of the development of key EIA concepts and practices under NEPA, Greenberg and Shapiro (2022) note that this was determined through successive legal challenges and the interpretation of the courts on a case-by-case basis. The regulations established by CEQ (1978) represent a consolidation of such cases during the initial years of NEPA operations, and Greenberg and Shapiro (2022) note that ‘modifications to the EIA process have been going on for 50 years’ (p. 28).

3.3

EIA and development

The application of EIA within NEPA to ‘proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions’ has a broad basis. It can include the notion of

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

27

‘strategic environmental assessment’ (SEA) which is typically conceived as applying to policies, plans and programmes (for example, Therivel, 2004). Fischer (2002) and Bina (2007) acknowledged this potential for SEA to be delivered in their analyses of NEPA. At the same time, however, NEPA also embraces the assessment of individual development projects, and this has arguably remained the focus of EIA practice under this act. In my experience of other EIA provisions from around the world, I have encountered numerous examples like NEPA, which implicitly or explicitly provide for SEA alongside that of project-level only assessments within the same legislation (for example, Australia, Canada, South Africa). There are also situations such as the European Union where separate provisions are made for the assessment of the effects of individual projects (that is, Directive 2014/52/EU) and land-use plans or programmes (that is, Directive 2001/42/EC) on the environment. Once again, I use the term EIA broadly within this book – unless otherwise stated, the assessment of strategic development activity is encapsulated in the ideas that I discuss. Further discussion of the spectrum of development to which EIA can apply comes in Chapter 9.

3.4

EIA as an action-forcing mechanism for behavioural change

The action-forcing nature of EIA, as expressed in NEPA (and elsewhere internationally), is perhaps the single most heralded feature and success of the process. I opened Chapter 1 with quotations from Amy (1990) and Weiner (1997) regarding how EIA made US government agencies think before taking action. In a similar vein, Taylor (1984) wrote: The novelty of the impact statement approach should be appreciated. The National Environmental Policy Act is a case of substituting analysis for reorganization. (p. 7)

Thus, as the title of Taylor’s (1984) book indicates, EIA was a mechanism for ‘making bureaucracies think’ (especially proponents implementing new development proposals). The ultimate goal of influencing thinking is

28

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

to foster behavioural change and action for the environment and sustainability, as will be discussed further in the next chapter. The action-forcing provisions of EIA have consequences for government more broadly. I refer here to the effect of the process on EIA agencies responsible for assessing the proposals put forward by proponents (whether public or private) and the responsible official (for example, the Environment Minister) and ruling government. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) contend that EIA should be regarded as a ‘profound and exciting development in government’ (p. 2) through means such as: • clarifying national priorities for environmental protection and management; • opening up government activities to more detailed public analysis; and • wider public participation in policy and decision-making rather than sole reliance on representative elected politicians. Not surprisingly, whole new techniques and approaches, especially with regard to consultation, have emerged as a result of the EIA requirement. Some of these are addressed in subsequent chapters. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) note that at the same time that EIA was transforming governments, it also cemented a central role for government in environmental decision-making. In this regard, Karkkainen (2007) emphasizes that the work of a leading environmental law academic, Joseph L. Sax, is a vital aspect of the history of NEPA at the time of its founding. Sax argued for an expansion of ‘the public trust doctrine’ (Karkkainen, 2007, p.  52) to include natural environmental resources (e.g. biodiversity, air, water, etc.). These would thus need to be treated with care for the public’s benefit and citizens would be able to sue government to protect environmental quality. The NEPA provisions subsequently paved the way for action-forcing change for and by the public; legal challenges being an important mechanism in practice (Karkkainen, 2007; Greenberg and Shapiro, 2022). Interestingly though, it is the procedural aspects of EIA that courts uphold (Caldwell, 1998; Karkkaninen, 2007) not substantive environmental protection outcomes. Thus, Burton et al. (1983) point out that ‘there is no need for projects to be environmentally sound’ (p. 138) and no provision requiring a decision-maker to ‘withhold approval on environmental grounds’ (p. 138). Similarly, albeit not addressed to NEPA, Preston (2020) observes that ‘EIA does not prevent decisions being made that degrade the environment, as there is usually no prohibition on

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

29

approving activities that cause significant adverse environmental impacts’ (p. 424). Nevertheless, Caldwell (1998) noted that without the vigilance of non-government environmental groups, the ‘declared policy intent [of NEPA] may slip by unnoticed’ (p. 11).

3.5

Early evaluations of EIA effectiveness

Within three years of the promulgation of NEPA, studies documenting the effect of EIA started to be published. For example, by the end of 1973 alone, more than 25 journal papers and at least one book on EIA under NEPA had appeared (as documented in the bibliography compiled by Clark et al., 1980). In this section, some of the key findings from a small selection of early studies are considered briefly here before exploring some other early perspectives on the rationale and utility of EIA under NEPA and more generally. The focus here is on the effectiveness of NEPA in a US context, but not forgetting that it has had significant influence on environmental policy internationally, being ‘emulated abroad more than almost any other US statute’ (Caldwell, 1993, p. 13). Evaluating the effectiveness of EIA is challenging, with Hill and Ortolano (1976) pointing out the ‘impossibility of establishing that NEPA caused certain changes’ (p. 1094) in the face of other laws, regulations and changes taking place in the US at the same time. Andrews (1976) sought to understand the effect of NEPA in bringing about ‘changes in administrative behaviour’ (p. 302) in two federal US agencies implementing water resource development programmes. Both of the agencies examined in this study were found to have taken action focused on the procedural aspects of NEPA rather than its policy goals, and the motivation for action arose primarily from ‘political pressures from sources external to each agency’ (p. 315). As noted by Caldwell (1993), there was agency resentment at having this external legislative process imposed on them, meaning they tended to resist implementing NEPA. Andrews (1976) found that the EIS requirement proved not to be a single action-forcing mechanism but was pivotal for other mechanisms arising, especially comments received from other agencies combined with internal re-evaluation of organizational approaches to development. The most effective of all of these was the threat of ad hoc involvement and legal action arising from ‘EIS review by non-governmental individuals and

30

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

groups’ (p. 321). A complementary finding was reported by Wichelman (1976), who observed significant influence being exerted by environmentalists implementing litigation in the federal courts seeking injunctions against proposed agency actions in the main part for alleged ‘inadequate compliance with NEPA procedures’ (p. 273). In a similar vein, Friesema and Culhane (1976) noted that a key benefit of subjecting an EIS to review by external stakeholders is that it ‘gives increased access to environmental, ad hoc community and public interest groups, particularly those groups which might not otherwise have close, informal access to decision makers’ (p. 349). Similarly, Hill and Ortolano recorded ‘increased input into the planning process’ (1976, p.  1095) arising from EIA under NEPA, noting that the review and comment procedures for EISs served as an important ‘vehicle for obtaining missing expertise’ (p.  1095) within agencies and ‘increased consideration given to comments of other agencies’ (p. 1096). In their empirical analysis of several hundred EIS documents and processes, Friesema and Culhane (1976) reported low-quality levels of science and ‘inadequate treatment to problems of social impact’ (p. 344), which overall pointed to ‘a very discouraging evaluation  of NEPA’ (p. 348). However, they found that environmentalists featured strongly in providing EIS comments relative to other consultees of agencies and that such ‘comments on EIS’s [sic] can serve commentators’ purposes throughout the process’ (p. 354). While they concluded that the EIS process was found to be effective in bringing environmental pressures to bear on agency decision-making, they noted that this outcome was an unintended consequence of NEPA. Not everyone agrees that this action-forcing approach of NEPA was necessary or even the optimal approach to take. Fairfax (1978) argued forcefully against several of the EIA provisions of NEPA, using evidence and examples including that: • the alternatives concept is flawed because proposals are indicators of agency values such that ‘an unbiased analysis of alternatives is difficult to achieve’ (p. 745). This is something borne out by subsequent research (for example, Steinemann, 2001) and is discussed further in Chapter 10; • the focus on proposals has distorted the direction of scientific research towards applied rather than pure research and that it favours a ‘quick justification of previously defined positions’ (p. 745);

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

31

• the public involvement requirements in other environmental legislation in the USA at the time were superior to the ‘skimpy urgings of NEPA’ (p. 746); and • that public involvement is ‘arduous’, ‘repetitive’ and dull (p. 746) because of the focus on the EIS and the development proposal to the extent that ‘it seems to have stifled meaningful dialogue between citizens and agencies’ (p. 746). The overall conclusion of Fairfax (1978), which is also captured in the subtitle of their paper, is that EIA under NEPA ‘turned energy, attention, and effort away from a redefinition of agency authorities and spent it on proliferating paper’ (p. 747), and that it restricted engagement with the public and other stakeholders to ‘talking about documents’ (p. 747). A related warning had previously been raised by Andrews (1973) drawing attention to the voluminous amount of data being amassed for court case challenges of EIA decisions. Andrews (1973) further noted that if EIA processes are not comprehensive and ongoing assessments and decision-making between alternative courses of action, then it becomes ‘at worst a paperwork problem and at best an expensive subsidy for consultants’ (p. 203). Similarly, Friesema and Culhane (1976) noted that the EIS is ‘a formal requirement prepared to support a predetermined decision’ (p. 355) – that is, meaning a decision of the proponent to pursue a particular development activity. They also stated that ‘[i]t seems indefensible to devote considerable agency resources to building multivolume records for such a purpose’ (p. 355). They further noted ‘an inherent organizational contradiction in requiring agencies to prepare EIS’s [sic], which are thorough evaluations of a project, while also demanding that EIS’s [sic] be publicly reviewed before agencies have become committed to the project’ (p. 356). Hill and Ortolano (1976) similarly noted that consultation occurred ‘very late in the overall planning process’ (p. 1099). Consequently changing the trajectory of a proponent’s preferred development approach is inevitably going to be difficult. These findings resonate with a key conclusion of Andrews (1976) that: The most important failure of NEPA so far is not the attenuation of its tactical mechanisms for forcing action in individual cases, but the rarity of its influence upon truly major federal decisions at the policy, programmatic, and legislative levels. (p. 322)

These are sobering perspectives that still appear to have some relevance today. For example, there continue to be sharp criticisms of EIA practice

32

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

worldwide highlighting similar deficits as those directed towards NEPA during its first decade of operations (for example, Harris et al., 2021; Laurance, 2022). These perspectives are worth reflecting on, especially in the context of threats to EIA in the name of ‘streamlining’ or ‘green-tape reduction’ (Bond et al., 2014) that seem to repeatedly be advocated by governments worldwide. Such attacks on EIA practice emerge in response to the financial and time costs borne by proponents associated with conducting EIA (Hart, 1984). They translate into significant political pressure to reduce the application of EIA in practice, especially during periods of economic downturn. More generally, it seems that even today, governments actively resist the transformative sustainable development intention of EIA as was the case at the founding of NEPA in the US and its subsequent implementation. Outside of the community of EIA practitioners, it is difficult to find openly vocal supporters of the process. I confess, of course, to being fundamentally biased in that I believe that EIA is a good thing, having spent decades studying and advocating for the process! However, determining the costs and benefits of EIA is not easy for several reasons. First, the specific costs of doing EIA are difficult to distinguish from other costs in assessment and approval processes for development proposals (Wood, 2003) because of the integration of EIA into decision-making processes (Hart, 1984). Sadler (1996) suggested that estimating the costs of compliance with EIA requirements has ‘typically been a creative accounting exercise’ (p. 58). Many of the financial costs faced by proponents associated with doing EIA will be offset by cost savings when problems are avoided through good design or good mitigation. Such cost accounting is not a normal feature in EIA practice, but perhaps should be. Second, many of the benefits of EIA are intangible (for example, as reviewed in Morrison-Saunders et al., 2015). Examples include involving new stakeholders in the process, increased public involvement, enhancement of the environmental profile of the proponent and stimulating environmental education within EIA stakeholders more generally. Meanwhile, though, it is not possible to know what the world would be like had EIA not been invented, and had other environmental approaches been adopted. It remains a useful thought experiment to imagine the world without the invention of formal EIA procedures. However, as argued in Chapter 1, the underpinning idea for EIA pertains to a common-sense concept. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) provide examples of forms of

EIA AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 1969 (US)

33

EIA being undertaken as early as the 1930s, concluding that ‘EIA-type developments in project appraisal would have occurred in many Western countries in the 1970s irrespective of the passage of the US National Environmental Policy Act’ (1981b, p. 297). Perhaps the emergence of a tool such as EIA is simply to be expected as part of the growing maturity in resource management and governance. This chapter has returned to the origins of EIA to understand more about its intended functions. The goals and purpose of EIA are the focus of the next chapter.

Note 1.

Available at www​.energy​.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​nepapub/​nepa​_docu​-​​ments/​ RedDont/​Req​-NEPA​.pdf (accessed 9 January 2023).

4.

4.1

A brief reflection on the goals and purpose of EIA

Models for how EIA works

A commonly expressed explanation of the core purpose of EIA is that it is intended to inform environmental decision-making (for example, Sadler, 1996; Bartlett, 1997; IAIA and IEA, 1999; Cashmore et al., 2004; Morgan, 2012). For example, Noble (2015) suggests that of all the characteristics of EIA, ‘perhaps most important, it is a “process” designed to aid decision-making’ (p. 3). By aiding or informing, what is really intended is that better decisions are realized for environmental protection as a result of considering the future (environmental) consequences of implementing a proposed development. This accords with the ‘information processing model’ of EIA described by Bartlett and Kurian (1999, p. 417), analogous to the ‘technical-rational’ model of decision-making introduced in the opening chapters. This is predicated on the notion that obtaining the appropriate quality and quantity of information about a proposed development and the environmental setting will enhance and guide decision-making. EIA is thus forward-looking and seeks proactively to advise decision-makers (Partidário, 2012). This is sometimes conceptualized as ‘knowledge speaking to power’ (Pope et al., 2013, p. 4). Information generated by the forward-thinking predictive processes of EIA is intended to inform the environmental design of development proposals as well as provide input into the formulation of approval decision-making to establish the conditions upon which development consent should be granted (Cashmore et al., 2004). The information processing model of EIA has been widely criticized for many years for being a naïve representation of how decision-making 34

A BRIEF REFLECTION ON THE GOALS AND PURPOSE OF EIA

35

works. As Owens et al. (2004) make clear, in practice any kind of decision-making is highly political. It comes about not as a rational result of information provision but as an interplay of knowledge, values and power. Therefore the contribution of EIA via the mechanism of generating technical knowledge may be limited in practice. Fortunately, it has also been apparent from the earliest days of EIA that information provision is not the only mechanism at play when EIA is undertaken. In theorizing on how EIA works, Bartlett and Kurian (1999) put forward six explanatory models, only one of which focuses on the immediate influence of EIA in terms of decision-making around a specific proposal (the information processing model). The other five are framed in terms of values transformation within society generally, changing the internal politics of organizations engaged in EIA, voluntary adoption of EIA principles and practices by private corporations for activities conducted outside of formal process requirements, and transformation of political institutional structures to accommodate environmental and sustainability thinking. Such transformations are the product of the role that EIA plays in ‘making bureaucracies think’ (Taylor, 1984), as outlined in the previous chapter in relation to the notion of EIA as an action-forcing mechanism and the early evaluations of the effectiveness of NEPA. Continuing this theme, and rather intriguingly, Bartlett (1990)1 described EIA as a ‘worm in the brain’ strategy (p. 82), further writing that: By requiring and encouraging political actors, as individuals and as organizations, to think ecologically and to consider environmental values, EIA imbeds procedural ecological rationality in political institutions. (p. 90)

This is the long-term purpose, or at least hope, for having formal EIA arrangements. The ideal situation would be where there is no need for a formal EIA process beyond its simple existence in law, because there are no significant adverse environmental impacts at stake for proposed new development activities. In this ideal world, proponents and other stakeholders would have already considered consequences and altered the design of their activities to be environmentally benign. Were such behaviour change to be the norm across society, it could be expected that sustainable development would be embedded or ingrained into societal thinking. As Weiner (1997) noted in relation to the world’s first EIA system from the USA, the process was framed and constructed so as ‘to

36

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

allow agencies to think, dream, “contemplate” actions …, or otherwise do early planning and environmental thinking without being required to prepare a formal … environmental assessment (EA) or EIS’ (p. 69). Thus, an overall purpose of EIA lies in the transformation of individuals, institutions and society at large (Loomis et al., 2022). The work of Bartlett (1990) is perhaps especially well known with regards to documenting how EIA works to elicit behavioural change by proponents and other organizations. Caldwell (1998) emphasizes this outcome of EIA advocating that ‘unless EIA contributes to organizational learning and to review of agency priorities, its effective implementation is unlikely’ (p. 13), further remarking that ‘farming out EIA to external consultants defeats its purpose’ (p.  13). A contemporary account of behavioural change being induced in a proponent that had engaged in numerous EIAs over a period of decades can be found in Jones and Morrison-Saunders (2017). In this study, having documented evidence of organization learning over time and transformation of the mission statement and other documents describing the internal workings of the proponent, we concluded that Bartlett’s (1990) ‘worm in the brain’ concept does appear to work, and that the real value in having formal EIA procedures in place is to promote behaviours that ultimately could avoid the need to undergo formal assessments (Jones and Morrison-Saunders, 2017).

4.2

EIA for sustainable development

The previous discussion is concerned with how EIA works to change behaviours and ways of thinking, hopefully for the betterment of environmental outcomes. This still leaves the question of what exactly it should ideally seek to achieve. In Chapter 2 I discussed how the focus of EIA can vary from purely biophysical concerns through to broader conceptualizations of sustainability that more explicitly also recognize impacts on people, on societies and on human well-being. Sustainability remains a highly contested concept, especially in the context of specific decisions or EIAs. Pope et al. (2017) describe some of the different ways of conceiving and representing sustainability that are relevant to EIA and how this will affect the way in which assessment and development occur. Given that different stakeholders are likely to hold very different views, quite what sustainability means in a particular decision-making context is

A BRIEF REFLECTION ON THE GOALS AND PURPOSE OF EIA

37

always subject to extensive interpretation and debate. Sustainability may prove impossible to agree upon, but this should not be a reason not to try, since sustainability is arguably the overarching goal of EIA and has been from the beginning. A form of sustainability thinking is evident in NEPA, where points (iv) and (v) within s. 102(2)(c) of the Act (reproduced in the previous chapter) clearly communicate an intention that a ‘sustainability’ approach be adopted for the EIA process, notwithstanding that this term itself was not employed until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Bond et al. (2010) further document the expectation of sustainability that has underpinned the whole field of EIA since its inception. It is important to acknowledge that perhaps unlike NEPA itself, many other EIA systems have been formulated with an ecological or biophysical emphasis. Indeed, as argued in Morrison-Saunders and Fischer (2006), EIA can be viewed as an explicit environmental advocacy tool. For example, Conover et al. (1985) noted that EIA initially was limited to, or was dominated by, a focus on impacts in the physical, chemical and biological environment, while Morgan (1998) noted a tendency in the early days of EIA for the word ‘environment’ to be defined in these terms. Nevertheless, Hacking and Guthrie (2008) posit that even such biophysically oriented EIA contributes to sustainable development. They point to ways in which such practice can be grown or expanded to address a full spectrum of sustainability considerations. This notion of expanding biophysical EIA into a fully sustainability-oriented tool resonates with the view of Gibson (1993) cited earlier also that ‘environmental considerations extend well beyond biophysical effects’ (p. 14). In a similar vein, Sheate (2009) argues that all ‘environmental assessment and management’ (p. 19) tools share a common goal to deliver sustainability or sustainable development, even if they did not start out with that as the underlying purpose. Globally there has been a change in policy rhetoric away from environmental conservation and towards sustainability as the desired goal (as enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations, in 2015).2 As noted previously in Chapter 2, in essence all versions of EIA are forms of ‘sustainability assessment’ (Bond et al., 2015). Framing EIA for sustainable development does lead to some particular ways of thinking about environment and development. Throughout the rest of this book, I intend for EIA to be understood as a tool to

38

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

promote sustainable development. The extent to which it accomplishes this in practice is a feature of individual process design and approach. As Cashmore (2004) points out, an ‘individual’s, or a society’s, conception of precisely what sustainable development (the ultimate goal) means will influence the perceived contribution of EIA to this management maxim’ (p. 417). Presently, sustainability is perhaps most widely conceived in the context of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) and various authors have explicitly sought to link EIA with these (e.g. Kørnøv et al., 2020; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2020; UN CEPA, 2021). More insight on differences of approach to EIA in view of sustainability as an overarching goal are provided in subsequent chapters and discussion in this book. For now the key point is that there is a spectrum of possibilities (for example, as laid out in Pope et al., 2017). At one end of this spectrum, EIA might simply consider a suite of environmental, social and economic impacts, and seek to balance them in the name of sustainable development. At the other end is EIA that seeks to deliver what Charlie Wolf describes as a ‘transformation from presently unsustainable and inequitable systems and conditions to inclusive and sustainable development’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 188). This is the difference between EIA as a process to minimize negative outcomes of development to a point of acceptability (which unfortunately does remain typical of practice) to EIA as a process of facilitating a positive contribution to sustainability through development (for example, Gibson et al., 2005; Gibson, 2006; 2017a). In the remainder of the book I bias the discussion towards this latter, more radical model, which I believe represents the true transformative potential of EIA. A final point to make here is that while EIA legislation may define what the process is specifically intended to deliver, to some extent the decision to adopt any given approach remains a choice of the EIA practitioners and stakeholders themselves. Morgan (1998) observes that there are many methodological decisions to be made throughout EIA regarding how a given process is managed and how the information produced during the process is used. He further notes that these decisions will be based on the impact assessor’s own judgement. In a similar vein, Petts (1999a) contends that the ‘quality of any particular EIA relies as much upon the quality of the individuals who undertake it as on the adherence to any particular procedure or application’ (p. 5). Petts (1999a) further notes that ‘EIA practice is still profoundly affected by the attitudes and capabilities

A BRIEF REFLECTION ON THE GOALS AND PURPOSE OF EIA

39

of those who take, and those who seek to influence, decisions’ (p. 8). Formal legislative procedures for EIA often do not dictate the approach to be taken, and regardless, practitioners may choose to operate ‘beyond compliance’ where only a minimum expectation is set out. The choices that EIA practitioners make regarding how they think and behave during EIA is a key theme running through the book. The spectrum of options and possibilities available in each step of EIA (outlined in the chapters that follow) has profound implications in terms of sustainable development. As was argued and demonstrated in Weaver et al. (2008), there are always opportunities for individual EIA practitioners to ‘raise the bar on day-to-day EIA activities that will push the vectors of sustainability’ (p. 91) to deliver positive sustainable development gains. Having reflected on the context and goals of EIA, the chapters that follow in Part 2 drill down into the specific stages of the process.

Notes 1. Robert Bartlett produced several other works in the 1990s regarding the influence or effect of EIA on organizations which are not cited here. 2. Available at www​.un​.org/​sus​tainablede​velopment/​sustainable​-development​ -goals (accessed 24 January 2023).

PART II Generic EIA process components

5.

EIA and decision-making

Part 2 of the book is dedicated to understanding generic steps in an EIA process and to unpacking the fundamental thinking behind them. This chapter commences with a brief discussion of EIA decision-making. Eight EIA process steps, or decision points, are then introduced. These are framed with reference to sustainability and the notion that individual EIA practitioners are making choice decisions. The second part of the chapter focuses on trade-off decision-making which is paramount in choice decisions. Subsequent chapters in Part 2 unpack the eight EIA process steps in order to explain the principles and necessary practices that underscore each step.

5.1

What decisions are addressed by EIA?

Without explanation or contextualization of what decisions might be informed by EIA, the default position for most people would typically be the approval decision. However, the entire EIA process can be conceived as a series of decisions, only one of which concerns the granting of development approval. This point was made by Beanlands (1988) with regards to proponent and government responsibilities for different decisions regarding development project planning and expressed by Weston (2000) as follows: not only is EIA an aid to project authorization decision making, decisions are made at every stage of the process, from screening out those projects where EIA is not necessary, through the identification of significant impacts, to the choice of alternatives and mitigation measures and on to the project authorization stage and beyond … Decisions are made by the developer, their environmental and planning consultants, the competent authorities and all the consultees in the process. (p. 185)

41

42

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Thus a broad notion of governance applies (Meuleman, 2015) that incorporates the thinking and actions of all EIA stakeholders and institutions. Generic process steps can be identified for EIA regardless of where it is practised. The actual details of each step provided in specific legislation vary, being tailored to customs and expectations within each jurisdiction. The sequence of steps and specific stakeholders responsible for each will vary too. However, at the level of generic process steps or principles of EIA, a commonality in decision types and purpose can be identified. EIA is an expansion of the four stages of the rational comprehensive planning described by Hudson et al. (1979) comprising (i) goal setting, (ii) identification of alternatives, (iii) evaluation of means and (iv) implementation of chosen course of action. For example, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2014, p. 9) outline a five-step integrated sustainability appraisal approach variant, Therivel (2004) outlines six steps for an ‘[i]dealized model of strategic decision-making’ (p. 13) to describe the practice of strategic environmental assessment, while Hanna (2016) lists a seven-stage decision-making model that he suggests underpins EIA practice. Irrespective of the exact number of steps in any given model, this structure and the sequence to follow is intended to generate the requisite knowledge for scientifically rational decision-making to be realized (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). Following the lead of Weston (2000), EIA is represented in this chapter as eight decision points, summarized in the middle column of Table 5.1 and presented in question form. Like other similar representations of a generic EIA process (for example, Sadler, 1996; Wood, 2003) or the EIA steps expressed in the operating principles of IAIA and IEA (1999), they capture the whole of a formal process. This extends from the decision to conduct EIA for a proposed development proposal (screening) right through to implementation decisions associated with the management and monitoring of actual performance (follow-up). The choices made at each decision point affect what comes later in the EIA process.

EIA AND DECISION-MAKING

Table 5.1

EIA step

43

EIA process steps with corresponding prompting questions EIA prompting questions (after Weston, 2000)

Sustainability prompting questions (after Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a)

1. Screening

Is the development proposal one for which an EIA is necessary?

Is a sustainability-oriented EIA approach going to be taken? (For example, the proponent or regulator might frame the assessment as: How can the development proposal make a positive contribution to sustainability?)

2. Scoping

What environmental impacts need to be examined?

What are the desired development outcomes in sustainability terms? What alternative forms of development could achieve the desired outcomes? What sustainability goals and criteria will apply to the assessment?

3. Prediction

What is the size, magnitude or extent of the likely impacts?

What is the size, magnitude or extent of the likely impacts (for each alternative)?

Is the impact significant?

To what extent do predicted impacts conform with the established sustainability goals and criteria? What is the proponent’s preferred development alternative and why (that is, considering trade-offs arising)?

What can be done to reduce the (adverse) impacts?

What can be done to enhance and fine-tune the preferred development alternative to minimize adverse impacts and to maximize positive outcomes?

Is the assessment and the Environmental Impact Statement adequate?

Has the most sustainable development alternative been realized? Will a net positive contribution to sustainability be achieved? What can be done to optimize the sustainability potential of the proposed development?

4. Assessment

5. Mitigation

6. Review

44

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EIA step

EIA prompting questions (after Weston, 2000)

Sustainability prompting questions (after Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a)

7. Approval decision

Should the development proposal be authorized to proceed? If so, under what terms or conditions?

What is the preferred development alternative and conditions for approval? What trade-offs have been made in arriving at this decision and how will they be addressed?

8. Follow-up

What environmental impacts occurred during implementation of the development? Do the mitigation measures work? What is the environmental performance?

What is the progress towards the desired development outcomes (from the scoping step)? Are positive sustainability outcomes being realized? What ongoing adaptive management is necessary to enhance sustainability performance?

In the context of EIA for sustainable development, particular decision choices have important ramifications for the sustainability potential that an EIA can deliver. In other words, there are trade-offs at stake throughout EIA. The right-hand column in Table 5.1 draws attention to sustainability considerations for each EIA step. The eight steps of EIA and corresponding decision questions of Weston (2000) are represented in Table 5.1 in the typical sequence in which they might be expected to occur. A very brief summary of each step follows. More detailed discussion of each of the eight steps appears in the chapters that follow, and some of the topics are subsequently explored in greater depth in subsequent chapters. The screening decision (Step 1) is when formal EIA is triggered, meaning that the proposed development poses sufficient risk to the environment that proceeding with the full process will be necessary. Scoping (Step 2) seeks to focus the assessment on environmental issues that matter most. Prediction (Step 3) seeks to understand the likely consequences. These need to be assessed (Step 4) and judged in terms of perceived significance. Mitigation (Step 5) measures can then be designed to reduce the extent of impact so as to optimize environmental performance. Review (Step 6) is when the proponent’s EIS is formally made available to public and government stakeholders for their input. The approval decision (Step 7)

EIA AND DECISION-MAKING

45

will normally be the responsibility of an elected official (for example, the Environment Minister) and when a development proposal is authorized to proceed the necessary terms and conditions under which it should be designed and operated will be specified within the approval. Follow-up (Step 8) refers to the implementation phase of development, which should extend right through to cessation and decommissioning of the development activity and rehabilitation of the affected area where applicable, during which monitoring and evaluation studies serve to provide feedback on environmental performance. This summary introduction to the eight EIA steps has focused on the middle column of the table. Also depicted in Table 5.1 are some sustainability considerations (adapted from Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). These align closely with the process steps advocated for the practice of SEA (for example, Therivel, 2004). The sustainability considerations are intended to prompt thinking about the potential trade-offs of both a procedural and substantive nature (explained further on) that might arise during assessment and which could undermine sustainability performance. These considerations will not necessarily be found within EIA regulations and guidance (whereas the eight steps of Weston (2000) typically will). They are provided here as a reminder of choices that individual EIA practitioners can make. An assessment process that seeks to maximize the sustainability potential of development can be expected to operate beyond the minimum legal provisions for EIA. It is important to realize that Table 5.1 is just a convenient representation of the steps in EIA. Good EIA practice is not simply linear or a one-off exercise. An iterative approach to EIA is more representative of reality, and some authors prefer to depict EIA processes in a circular form (for example, Petts and Eduljee, 1994, p. 49) or with feedback loops (Wood, 1999, p. 11) to denote a series of repeated pathways between all or some of the process steps. As Andrews (1973) pointed out in the early days of practice, EIA must be recognized as an ongoing activity that takes place at increasing levels of detail throughout the planning process … from problem definition to formulation of alternatives, then on to impact assessment and finally evaluation, with feedback loops to show the iteration of the process. (p. 200)

An illustrative example of the iterative nature of EIA follows. Having got to the point of choosing a mitigation measure to address a predicted

46

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

impact (Step 5), it is obviously prudent to repeat the predictive process again with that measure taken into account, to determine whether the new outcome is going to be acceptable. Other steps may be continuous rather than one-off. For example, the identification of environmental impacts that ought to be addressed in an EIA (Step 2, scoping) and appropriate mitigation measures to address these might arise, or be progressively refined, during any stage. This was an important finding of an empirical follow-up study to understand the origin and application of environmental management and mitigation measures for six EIA case studies in Western Australia. Here a number of unexpected impacts (those not predicted in pre-approval decision EIA documentation) were identified during the implementation of the projects, and new mitigation measures (again those not proposed in pre-approval EIA) were enacted to address these (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999). While the sequence of eight steps in Table 5.1 implies a particular timing for EIA undertakings, this example illustrates that scoping and mitigation can be continuous activities throughout the EIA life cycle. Finally, it is important to acknowledge a fundamental component of EIA that is missing from the list of eight steps: stakeholder consultation and engagement. This would ideally occur for each of the eight steps and consequently be an ongoing process. Effective stakeholder involvement in EIA entails more than just allowing for a review of the proponent’s EIS (Step 6). As noted in Chapter 1, there are multiple stakeholders involved in EIA and their expectations for the process may vary considerably. Whom to consult during EIA and how to engage them is a specific focus within Chapter 12. The generic EIA steps, decision questions and sustainability considerations laid out in Table 5.1 are intended to draw attention to the key matters warranting attention in EIA. These are the main matters to think about prior to taking action. Because they are choice decisions, practitioners must be prepared to confront trade-off situations. The remainder of this chapter considers the issue of trade-off decision-making.

EIA AND DECISION-MAKING

5.2

47

Trade-off decision-making

The inevitability of encountering trade-offs in EIA decision-making is well recognized (for example, Glasson, 1999; Weston, 2000; Gibson, 2006; Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). Before expanding on the types of decisions to be made during EIA, an explanation of the trade-offs and psychology of human decision-making more generally are introduced. Choice decisions are trade-off decisions. A trade-off arises when a gain in one area occurs at the expense of losses in another. When a choice must be made between two or more competing options, only one option can ultimately be selected. There will inevitably be certain strengths of the chosen option relative to the other options at stake, but also weaknesses. Another way of defining trade-off decisions is in terms of winners and losers. Hayes (2017) notes that the outcomes of proposed development will probably ‘result in differential impacts, winners and losers’ (p. 195), meaning that marginal and vulnerable people are likely to miss out on the benefits relative to powerful or influential groups within society. Noting that EIA is intended to contribute to ‘better political judgement and performance’, O’Riordan (1976a, p. 215) wrote that if ‘properly done, it should indicate who gets what, who loses what, how, when and why’. The notion of winners and losers has profound implications for sustainability. Glasson et al. (2012, p. 206) note that the discussion in relation to EIA may be ‘sometimes reduced to the “jobs versus the environment” dilemma’, whereby natural environmental capital is lost for immediate or short-term socio-economic gain. Noble (2015) likewise notes that development projects often create many positive impacts, particularly economic ones, pointing out that if this were not the case, democratic societies and their governments would be hard-pressed to justify their approval. Simply knowing that trade-offs are likely to occur is not sufficient; further understanding of the nature of trade-offs and of strategies for managing them is warranted for effective EIA practice. Trade-off decisions may be of two types: process or substantive trade-offs. Process trade-offs pertain to the ‘choices that organisations make in the way they conduct their activities’ (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a, p. 55). Examples here relating to choices made by proponents include the time and money resources invested in EIA, whether alternatives to a proposed development are seriously considered, or who is consulted and

48

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

how during the process. Regulators will also make choices regarding how EIA is actually carried out (notwithstanding legal process requirements that may apply). Substantive trade-offs refer to the actual performance outcomes delivered from an assessment process; they are particularly evident at the approval decision point. Mitigation measures that are necessary to avoid or counterbalance an adverse impact may be argued to be too expensive or impractical (by either proponents or regulators), and a development may be permitted to proceed without such measures being put in place. This relates to the previously noted tendency for short-term socio-economic considerations to trump environmental protection. So, for example, a development that removes an important habitat might be allowed to proceed without a requirement for the proponent to purchase and manage an offset site that would counterbalance the loss of that habitat for development. That said, given the present concern globally with biodiversity loss along with advocacy for development that will deliver net biodiversity gain (for example, CIEEM et al., 2016; Dasgupta, 2021; UNEP et al., 2021), I would like to think that such trade-offs of the natural environment would no longer be tolerated! As Preston (2020) emphatically states ‘EIA is clearly intended to encourage environmentally positive outcomes’ (p. 424); it should not be used as a means to facilitate further loss or deterioration of environmental quality. Despite the inevitability of encountering trade-offs in EIA decision-making, this is not to say that they are easy to address. Psychologists (for example, Kahneman, 2013) and behavioural economists (for example, Ariely, 2008; Thaler, 2015) have repeatedly demonstrated that human decision-making is not rational or logical, even in the face of apparently simple or logical decision choices. Rather, it is completely normal for humans to succumb to biases or over-simplistic (or lazy) thinking and to make errors of logic, all of which fall short of ideals for rational decision-making. The types of experiments used by these researchers typically involve simple choice decisions with a minimum number of variables at play. Decision-making in EIA is more complex in terms of the number of issues and stakeholders involved. At the same time, arguably the EIA process has been structured with discrete decision points and with a systematic approach to decision-making in mind. Nevertheless, it is useful for practitioners and stakeholders to be aware of the human foibles involved in decision-making. These are beyond the scope of this book to address, but initial attempts to bring awareness of psychological aspects

EIA AND DECISION-MAKING

49

of human decision-making into EIA can be found in Retief et al. (2013; 2015). It has been argued by Gibson et al. (2005, p. 128) that EIA tailored to deliver sustainability must be designed to provide ‘a forum and framework for explicit attention to the key trade-offs’ (a point reiterated in Gibson, 2017b). The way in which trade-off decisions are made and the transparency of the decision-making process are of key importance. Sadler (1996), for example, noted that all too often, important EIA decision-making takes place ‘behind closed doors’ (p. 16). Gibson (2006; 2017b) has long advocated for trade-off decision-making rules to apply in EIA decision-making so that the basis of decisions is apparent along with full transparency and accountability (also Gibson et al., 2005). The rules embrace a mixture of processes to follow (for example, disclosure and justification of trade-offs by proponents and regulators) and substantive outcomes to strive for (for example, to accept a development proposal causing significant adverse effects only where all other alternatives are demonstrably worse). A model for conceptualizing and managing trade-offs in EIA is provided in Morrison-Saunders and Pope (2013a). It is intended to draw attention to matters that practitioners could consider with the aim of avoiding or minimizing substantive trade-offs during an assessment. Impacts are denoted in terms of the three sustainability pillars (biophysical, social or economic) on the basis that the indicator or receptor for an impact will ultimately fall into one of these categories (Hacking and Guthrie, 2006). The model is predicated on the notion that for every EIA, there will be ‘negotiable’ and ‘non-negotiable’ impacts at stake (Sippe, 1990), meaning that threshold tests for environmental acceptability (Sippe, 1999) will need to be determined. In Table 5.1, the sustainability goals and criteria established in the scoping stage (Step 2), along with the desired development outcome, become the basis for such threshold determinations. Only impacts falling into the acceptable/negotiable category would be eligible for trade-off consideration, as crossing the threshold of unacceptability would not be consistent with sustainable development. When trade-offs are made between sustainability pillars in this manner, there should nevertheless be an appropriate use of compensation or offsetting so that a principle of no net loss (or better still, delivery of a net gain) is attained (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). Further discussion of offsets is provided in Chapter 10, and suggestions relevant to the model for concep-

50

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

tualizing and managing trade-offs are woven into the discussion of EIA process steps and decision points in the chapters that follow.

6.

Screening and scoping

This chapter addresses the initial two decisions in EIA: deciding what development activities should be subjected to formal EIA (screening) and the focus for the ensuing process (scoping).

6.1 Screening Screening is the first step in a formal EIA process. It is the decision to undertake EIA for a given development proposal. It would normally be a one-off decision (that is, unlike subsequent EIA steps, which may be iterative in practice). EIA will generally be triggered by a proposed development ‘that affects the public interest as defined by legal authority’ (Hayes, 2017, p. 187). The point of concern is whether the development is likely to result in a significantly adverse environmental impact (for example, Sippe, 1999). Two approaches may be adopted to screening (or a hybrid of both), based on whether the environment or the type of development is the central focus (Glasson et al., 2012, pp. 86–7). These are discussed in turn. In an environment-centred approach, the screening decision is made on a case-by-case basis involving judgement as to whether the development proposal will potentially result in a specified environmental threshold being crossed or simply knowledge about particularly sensitive areas or other known dangers or risks where the development is proposed to take place (Noble, 2015). In essence, such a judgement requires a kind of initial or preliminary EIA to be undertaken. A suitably systematic, sound and structured approach to impact identification should be adopted at this stage and recorded for the benefit of other parties in the EIA steps to follow (Morgan, 1998). In this approach to screening, pre-established 51

52

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

environmental values are important. Where there are particularly sensitive environments (including human communities) at stake or a particular protection status already exists for a given area (for example, national parks, heritage classification), it would be anticipated that EIA would be necessary for most if not all forms of development. Judgements of significance (more on this topic in Chapter 7) will play a central role in the environment-centred approach to screening. My own view is that having an environment-centred test for EIA makes most sense in terms of seeking proponent behaviour change. This is because an environment test rewards ‘good’ proponents (that is, those who design their development proposals to be demonstrably sustainable at the outset). As indicated in the right-hand column of Table 5.1, the proponent may choose specifically to adopt a sustainability-oriented approach to EIA by way of the screening step. In a development-centred approach, screening lists are used to identify which types of development must undergo EIA. These are also referred to as ‘inclusion lists’ (Noble, 2015, p. 73). Often such lists will specify the size of a particular industry or activity that will trigger an EIA requirement; for example, it might be: • the number of animals in an intensive farming operation (such as a piggery or dairy herd); • how many mega-watts of electricity a power station will produce; or • the tonnes or volume per annum of production (for example, solid waste to go to landfill, ore to be mined, chemicals to be manufactured in a factory). This practice is also known as ‘threshold-based screening’ (Noble, 2015, p. 74). Lists are obviously comparatively easy to apply. They do have several drawbacks, however. First, any new forms of development (that is, those not on the list) may have significant adverse environmental consequences but would not trigger formal EIA. Second, development might appear on a list and hence trigger EIA, but actually be benign because it is to take place in a low-value environmental setting or otherwise have been very well designed to avoid environmental impacts. The development-centred approach simply puts out a net that attempts to catch all proponents irrespective of their environmental credentials. Such a lack of discernment regarding the quality of development may present EIA in a negative light

SCREENING AND SCOPING

53

to proponents. It can also result in unnecessary overloading of EIA agencies and consequent delays in making approval decisions. Finally, screening lists have led to the practice of project splitting or ‘salami-slicing’ (for example, Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2016, p. 152), whereby proponents avoid EIA by putting forward multiple smaller-scale projects which fall below the development-centred thresholds (Noble, 2015). Exclusion lists might also be utilized. These identify types of development not requiring EIA because prior experience has demonstrated that the adverse effects of these activities are not significant (Glasson et al., 2012) or fall into other categories for special consideration, such as projects carried out in response to a national emergency (Noble, 2015). Where the environmental consequences of frequent types of development are well known, it makes sense that routine management controls can be established through other mechanisms (for example, industry standards, land-use planning provisions and other regulatory agency measures), thereby reducing or avoiding the need for formal EIA processes. A hybrid approach is where a screening list initially identifies the types of development that might require EIA but without specifying a size trigger. In this instance, a discretionary decision can be made in each case as to whether EIA is warranted, giving consideration to both the scale of development and the environmental resources to be affected. The EIA system of the European Union (Directive 2014/52/EU)1 utilizes a development-centred approach to screening whereby Annex I presents a list of development types and sizes for which EIA must be undertaken, and Annex II presents a list utilizing the hybrid approach. While the screening decision is the start of the formal EIA process, there is nothing preventing a proponent from undertaking EIA-related work earlier in the development of their proposal. Zhang et al. (2013) refer to the ‘pre-EIA stage’, which ‘includes agenda setting, initiation/deciding to decide and project formulation’ (p. 150). An enlightened proponent may, for example, undertake consultation with relevant stakeholders or investigate different forms of development or location before settling on the proposal that they wish to submit formally to regulators. Early commencement of EIA (that is, in other words, to take the process seriously as a planning and decision-making tool for sustainable development) has long been advocated (for example, Andrews, 1973; Hill and Ortolano, 1976; Munn, 1979; O’Riordan and Sewell, 1981b; Clark, 1983).

54

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A proponent who views the regulatory EIA process as an administrative hurdle to be jumped or to be avoided altogether will be thinking differently from a proponent who decides to adopt a sustainability-oriented approach to the design of their proposal and subsequent activities throughout the EIA process. The earlier example of project splitting by proponents is one way to avoid doing EIA. Government regulators have also been found actively to avoid EIA. Weston (2011) found that there was a ‘culture of resistance to EIA among planners’ (p. 90) in England whereby discretionary decision-making was used to avoid triggering EIA. In relation to NEPA application in the USA, several authors have noted it was the ability of civilians to take agencies to court if they did not engage in EIA adequately that ensured that the process was taken seriously (for example, Dreyfus and Ingram, 1976; Amy, 1990; Bartlett, 1997). At the other end of the spectrum, Pope gives examples of proponents in Australia who have voluntarily engaged in sustainability-oriented EIA, internalizing the thinking and practice in a proactive manner (Pope, 2006; Pope and Grace, 2006; Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013b). The work of Jones and Morrison-Saunders (2017) documents the internal transformation of one proponent’s purpose and mission arising from effective engagement with EIA thinking and practice. All of the above examples reiterate the element of choice underscoring practice, irrespective of the laws and regulations for the EIA process.

6.2 Scoping The scoping decision question posed by Weston (2000) in Table 5.1 – ‘What environmental impacts need to be examined?’ – appears simple enough at first glance. In the first instance it means that impact identification, already commenced during screening, is a fundamental aspect of scoping (Morgan, 1998). Unpacking this question, however, reveals many additional considerations vital to a successful EIA. Sadler (1996, p. 113) identifies four key determinations within the scoping stage of EIA: • • • •

the information necessary for decision-making; the important issues and concerns (interests of EIA stakeholders); the significant effects, factors and alternatives to be considered; and the appropriate boundaries of an EIA study.

SCREENING AND SCOPING

55

All of these aspects point to a need to focus and prioritize an EIA. The intent of EIA is that it is only the significant impacts that need to be examined; that is, there should be a focus on which environmental resources or issues matter most in a given context. This context is a function of the sensitivity of the environment in question and the values and expectations of stakeholders involved. It is clear that all components of the environment are interlinked (for example, as captured in the concept of ecosystem or more broadly the socio-ecological system) in some way. EIA would not be feasible if all possible impacts were to be considered. Therefore a focus only upon the significant, or most significant, potential environmental impacts is desirable. Sadler (1996) explains how the range of potentially significant impacts associated with a development proposal can be progressively ‘opened out during scoping, notably during public consultation’ (p.  113) and the difficulty lies in ‘narrowing these concerns down again’ (p. 113). The significance concept in EIA and ways to determine significance is a separate topic of discussion in Chapter 7. In the words of Kennedy and Ross (1992), impact scoping is ‘the process of identifying important issues of a proposal and focusing the EIA on the high-priority issues’ (p. 475); a suitably focused EIA, according to Noble (2015), would place emphasis on ‘those issues most important to managing the impacts of the proposed project and to informing the decision at hand’ (p. 95). Scoping is thus about determining boundaries for an EIA, where the overall trajectory ought to result in a progressive sharpening of focus upon what matters most. Four key types of boundaries in EIA can be identified (for example, Beanlands and Duinker, 1984; Conover et al., 1985). There are administrative/jurisdictional bounds to consider. These relate to which legislation or policy applies to the area affected by the development. Here consideration needs to be given regarding whether the EIA study will cross interagency, interstate or international borders (for the latter, the Espoo Convention should come into play2). There are physical bounds for specific actions associated with the proposed development. Three physical zones can be identified here, for: 1. direct physical disturbance – for example, land cleared to construct facilities; 2. routine events – for example, emissions of noise or waste products; and

56

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3. accidental releases that extend over a greater area than the other two – for example, an oil spill at an offshore production facility. Next are the socio-ecological bounds. These allow for impacts on populations that may extend the physical zones of influence due to migration of species or other forms of dispersal within ecosystems and communities. Time frames are important considerations for both physical and socio-ecological bounds in terms of how long it takes for ecosystems to recover following an impact. Finally, there are technical bounds. These concern limitations imposed on an EIA study due to the current state of knowledge and capability to understand the environmental consequences (for example, ability to model, predict or manage impacts on people or ecosystems). While establishment of boundaries serves to focus an EIA, further prioritization of environmental issues and impacts is needed. Kennedy and Ross (1992) advocate a three-phase approach to scoping. The initial phase involves issue identification with consideration being given to the ‘wide realm of public and scientific issues related to the EIA’ (p. 476). Thus stakeholder engagement is essential. The second phase involves assessment ‘to eliminate the non-significant impacts and concentrate on the important impacts’ (p. 476). This sense of impact or issue prioritization is something that seems to be lacking in much EIA practice. There has often been criticism that EISs are excessively long and that they have become increasingly longer over time (for example, Kennedy and Ross, 1992; Cashmore et al., 2004; Ross et al., 2006; Landim and Sánchez, 2012; Noble, 2015; Fernández et al., 2018). This sentiment is captured in the title of Culhane’s (1985) paper that EIA is about ‘decision making by voluminous speculation’. Finally, Kennedy and Ross (1992) advocate ‘an impact management planning phase in which a plan for the monitoring and mitigation of those key impacts is elucidated and communicated to decision makers and the public’ (p. 476). Ultimately, then, prioritization in EIA scoping is about what matters to decision-makers responsible for each step in the EIA process. Scoping also informs ongoing management and monitoring activity (Noble, 2015). The desirable sustainability performance outcome of a proposed development to strive for during implementation ideally would be established in the early (that is, pre-approval decision) stages of EIA. Consequently, scoping for sustainability-oriented EIA practice will

SCREENING AND SCOPING

57

include the establishment of appropriate sustainability goals and criteria to guide the assessment (as indicated in Table 5.1). As discussed previously, this should include the establishment of thresholds for acceptability against which sustainability progress can be evaluated. Without such vision and guidance in place, performance monitoring and management can have little or no meaning. A final scoping consideration for sustainability is the identification of alternatives to the preferred development of the proponent. Gibson (1993) argued that EIA decision-making must be aimed at identifying the best options rather than merely acceptable proposals. Consideration of alternatives in EIA is vital because sustainability is itself a moving target with no end state to be reached (Gibson et al., 2005; Bond et al., 2012). In the absence of the consideration of alternatives, there must be reliance on absolute criteria for judging sustainability credentials which Gibson (1993) suggests is usually more problematic than the use of a comparative approach. The sustainability credentials of a given development proposal are most easily understood in relative terms through comparison with alternative possibilities. Attempting to assert that a development is or is not sustainable in an absolute sense is ultimately impossible. When two or more alternative forms of development are compared, though, it is relatively easy to determine which of them is the most and which the least sustainable relative to each other. In so doing, however, trade-offs must be made between the strengths and weaknesses of one proposal versus those of the alternative. Such trade-offs come later. For now, good scoping simply means that the potential alternatives that will form the basis of assessment and evaluation will be identified.

Notes 1. 2.

Available at http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​celex​%​​3A 32014L0052 (accessed 10 January 2023). Available at www​.unece​.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​env/​eia/​documents/​le​-​​galtexts /​Espoo​_Convention​_authentic​_ENG​.pdf (accessed 10 January 2023).

7.

Prediction, assessment and mitigation

The next three steps in a generic EIA process – impact prediction, assessment and mitigation – are very much intertwined. The point of demarcation between impact prediction and assessment, at least according to Weston’s (2000) eight-step framework shown in Chapter 5, is that impact prediction identifies what changes are likely to the receiving environment as a result of a development, while assessment is the process of whether or not this change is important. This is a somewhat blurry distinction, as will become apparent in the following discussion. These two steps actually occur at several points in the EIA process in various levels of detail. Preliminary impact prediction and assessment are often conducted at the screening stage to determine whether or not formal EIA is required at all. Then the same steps are typically applied at the scoping stage to determine which potential impacts should be assessed in more detail. Then when mitigation measures are proposed to minimize negative impacts, the residual impacts (those remaining after the implementation of the mitigation) should be assessed again to determine whether or not they are then likely to be acceptable. The discussion that follows is therefore relevant not just to Steps 3 and 4 as depicted in Table 5.1, but also to Steps 1, 2 and 5. The discussion that follows pertains mostly to adverse impacts. However, positive impacts should also be considered and ideally assessed, especially in the context of sustainability-oriented assessment, where positive contributions (or net gains) are sought.

58

PREDICTION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

7.1

59

Impact prediction

The prediction of impacts lies at the heart of EIA. An impact prediction can be defined simply as ‘any statement that predicts a change, or no change, to any part of the biophysical or social environment as a result of project implementation’ (Bailey et al., 1992, p. 4). Impact prediction is about understanding the relationships between (Environmental Agency (UK), 2002, p. 17): • the receptor (what or who within the environment is being affected); • the source of the impact (the location of a material or activity that may be harmful); and • the pathway or route by which a harmful action or material is able to reach the receptor. Numerous impact pathways are possible. For example, an impact may be direct (also called a primary impact), such as clearing of vegetation, or it may be indirect (also known as secondary or tertiary impacts), such as soil erosion arising because the vegetation is no longer present to hold it in place (which may in turn lead to sediment deposition in a river or lake downstream). Impacts may also be cumulative, meaning that they combine with an impact from another source. Cumulative impacts can combine in different ways and assessment of them is particularly challenging, as will be discussed in Chapter 14. While some impacts may be obvious, the impact prediction process is ‘complex and often a highly uncertain task, since many cause–effect relationships are unknown and physical and human environments are “moving targets”’ (Noble, 2015, p. 119). The inclusion of indirect and cumulative impacts as separate categories is a useful reminder to check for less obvious impacts (Morgan, 1998). But the distinction is academic: from the perspective of the environment, there is just impact! Some further clarification about why it is important to consider receptors is warranted here. A common mistake is to treat an emission (for example, dust, noise, acid mine drainage) as though it were an impact. However, to create an impact, an emission needs a receptor. For example, noise emission from an industrial site might have no impact on workers at the site (that is because it is within normal expected or accepted levels for such a site and they routinely wear ear protection) but be a nuisance to residents living nearby or scare away birds that would otherwise visit

60

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

nearby remnant vegetation. Thus, to be useful, an impact prediction should indicate who or what will be affected (as implied in the definition from Bailey et al., 1992 previously). Vanclay (2002) makes a similar point in relation to social impact assessment, distinguishing between social change processes (analogous to emissions) and social impacts (how these changes are experienced by a community). The value assigned to the receptor is a key consideration in evaluating significance, as discussed in the next section. Predicting an impact requires an understanding of the receiving environment (the receptor) prior to any development occurring, that is, the baseline. In essence, a predicted impact is the difference between the baseline status of an environmental resource (the receptor) and the expected new status following development, taking into account known trends projected forwards in time (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983; Glasson et al., 2012). The prediction of impacts, whether biophysical or social, is largely a technical undertaking. It will normally require input from appropriate discipline specialists and experts, and indeed it is usual for proponents to engage consultants with the necessary ecological and social scientific knowledge and skills to make credible predictions. The role of science in impact assessment will be discussed further in Chapter 13. Such expert inputs are typically provided as technical appendices to an EIS, with a summary account of the key impact predictions being included in the main text. There are specialist books outlining EIA methods and approaches, with individual chapters targeting different parts of the environment – such as water, soils, air, cultural heritage, health and so on (for example, PADC Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit, 1983; Canter, 1996; Therivel and Wood, 2018) or different types of development activities – such as energy, road and rail infrastructure, mining, water projects and so on (for example, Petts, 1999a). It is beyond the scope of this book to attempt to cover the possibilities for prediction here. However, some further reflection on what might be expected from impact predictions follows. Since prediction can never be an exact science, consideration must be given to the quality of the information generated through the impact prediction process. Some of the key attributes here for ensuring useful impact predictions are delivered include the clarity, precision, defensibil-

PREDICTION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

61

ity and testability of predictive statements (for example, Bailey et al., 1992; Morgan, 1998; Glasson et al., 2012; Noble, 2015). All of these attributes serve to ensure that the prediction can be understood and subsequently audited, with a desire that predictions be quantified if possible, or otherwise be clear and unequivocal as to what the predicted change is expected to be (for example, Beanlands and Duinker, 1983; Culhane et al., 1987; Bailey et al., 1992). Explanations should always be provided of the method used to make the impact prediction, including any assumptions upon which it is based and disclosure of any uncertainties in method or knowledge base. In other words, impact predictions should be transparent and defensible (for example, Duinker and Baskerville, 1986). While proponents and their expert consultants are principally responsible for impact prediction, there should also be an opportunity for other stakeholders to contribute predictions to the EIA process. For example, submissions received from the public when an EIS is made available for review may contain impact predictions. EIA regulators may also make predictions of their own during their assessment of the proposal prior to the approval decision being made. Impact predictions may also emerge during screening and scoping from any of the stakeholders involved in these earlier stages of EIA. The prompting question for impact prediction of Weston (2000) asks: ‘What is the size, magnitude or extent of the likely impacts?’ (p.  186). These considerations represent the consequences that could occur as a result of the development. Since prediction is an inexact science, equally important is an evaluation of the likelihood of these consequences occurring. Combining consequences and likelihood gives an assessment of the overall level of risk to the environmental resources affected (receptors). Risk assessment is fundamental to EIA thinking and practice. Factors that help to define consequences include whether or not the predicted impact is reversible, and for how long it might endure (for example, Environmental Resources Limited, 1985; Bailey et al., 1992; Glasson et al., 2012). Factors that influence likelihood include the timescale over which the impact will occur, considering continuity, immediacy, frequency or regularity (for example, some effects may be seasonal and some may be associated with an emergency situation that would be expected to be very rare) (for example, Culhane et al., 1987; Bailey et al., 1992; Noble, 2015). A considerable amount of professional judgement is involved in undertaking such risk assessments. Sometimes it may be possible to draw

62

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

on actual experiences of similar developments to inform the impact prediction and risk assessment process.

7.2

Assessment – determining significance

The aim of assessment is to determine whether predicted impacts are significant or not. Significance evaluation requires consideration of ‘those impacts that are likely to occur at a level that is of concern [which] need to be evaluated for their social significance’ (UN CEPA, 2021, p. 17). The European Commission (2017a) emphasize that ‘significance is always context-specific and tailored criteria should, thus, be developed for each Project and its settings’ (p. 48). They also note that the ‘concept of significance considers whether or not a Project’s impact could be determined to be unacceptable in its environmental and social contexts’ (p.  47). Mitigation of a predicted adverse impact can reduce its significance and/ or increase its acceptability by EIA stakeholders. In this regard, there are three broad categories into which adverse impacts might fall with regards to their significance (Sippe, 1999). On one end of the spectrum will be impacts considered to be acceptable and for which no special attention (that is, mitigation) beyond normal custom or practice is deemed necessary. At the other end of the spectrum are impacts that are clearly unacceptable as predicted and for which there is no ready mitigation response available to address them. These are colloquially known as ‘fatal flaws’ because without major redesign or relocation of the development proposal to avoid the predicted impact, the development would not (normally) be permitted to proceed. In the middle zone of the spectrum are impacts that would be considered to be significant but manageable. They may be unacceptable or simply undesirable in the form initially predicted, but with the application of mitigation measures they can be rendered acceptable. It is possible too that a significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated will be found to be acceptable. To uphold a sustainability approach to EIA, such a scenario should accord with one of the trade-off decision-making rules of Gibson (introduced in Section 5.2), as follows: Avoidance of significant adverse effects – No trade-off that involves a significant adverse effect on any sustainability requirement area (for example, any effect that might undermine the integrity of a viable socio-ecological system)

PREDICTION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

63

can be justified unless the alternative is acceptance of an even more significant adverse effect. (Gibson, 2006, p. 176)

Determining significance requires ‘value-dependent’ judgements (Euro-​ pean Commission, 2017b, p.  42), notwithstanding that they will be ‘informed by scientific data in most cases’ (p. 42). It involves consideration of the level of risk associated with predicted impacts (from the impact prediction step) along with consideration of the perceived importance of the environmental resources in question (Haug et al., 1984; Kjellerup, 1999; Sadler and McCabe, 2002) and the acceptability of the predicted changes to the affected community (Sippe, 1999; Gibson et al., 2005). This relationship was represented as a kind of equation by Sadler and McCabe (2002, p. 274) as follows: Impact Significance ​= Impact Characterization x Impact Importance

In this equation, impact characterization is principally a technical undertaking based upon risk assessment usually carried out by technical experts, as discussed above. Determination of impact importance is value-driven and will be perceived differently by different stakeholders. All stakeholders in EIA have a role to play in significance determination (Sippe, 1999; European Commission, 2017a). As argued by Aaen et al. (2022), active involvement of EIA stakeholders in significance determinations, especially the community, is necessary to counterbalance the ‘technocratic approaches’ that currently dominate practice. There is no universal legal definition for the impact significance concept in EIA and no single agreed method for determining significance. However, a call for ‘addressing significant impacts coherently’ has been made by Duarte and Sanchez (2020, p. 1). Common elements and what might arguably be identified as best practice can be identified, with Jones and Morrison-Saunders (2016) putting forward four essential principles as follows. First, having a clear operational framework for how significance is determined throughout the EIA is important. Ehrlich and Ross (2015) refer to the ‘significance spectrum’ and put forward a four-step process to demonstrate how significance determinations should be made: • Determine the threshold for significance for each environmental resource to be impacted.

64

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• Weigh the evidence and consider predicted impacts. • Decide which side of a predetermined threshold the predicted adverse impacts fall on where the threshold is based upon acceptability of impacts in the specific context of the development area. • For unacceptable impacts, determine whether mitigation measures can make the residual impact acceptable. Second, EIA attention should be focused only on significant issues, and therefore the evaluation of significance is an essential component of EIA (IAIA and IEA, 1999). Third, it is important to ensure that the term significance is specified and applied consistently throughout the EIA process (Ehrlich and Ross, 2015; Ross et al., 2006). Examples are prevalent in the literature of the word ‘significance’ and/or synonyms being used in multiple ways in a given EIA or jurisdiction, leading to confusion among stakeholders or bias in decision-making (for example, Kjellerup, 1999; Au, 2006; Ross et al., 2006; Ehrlich and Ross, 2015; Jones and Morrison-Saunders, 2016). Wood (2008) noted that the EIA process is susceptible to bias when inconsistent language is used; this bias ultimately tends to fall in favour of proponents who have substantial control over the information upon which decisions are based. Finally, transparency in EIA decision-making is important so that significance determinations are clear to all stakeholders (IAIA and IEA, 1999; Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 2000; Gibson et al., 2005; Wood, 2008). All EIA stakeholders should be able to understand the relationship between significance determination and decision outcomes (Lawrence, 2007). Wood et al. (2007) consulted public stakeholders directly using environmental simulations to understand their perceptions of impact significance communicated in simple everyday terms. In subsequent work, Wood (2008) reported that transparency could be enhanced through the use of well-defined significance criteria and evaluation frameworks. A similar point was made by Ehrlich and Ross (2015), who also noted that justification of the rationale and decisions made during significance determination  must be stated in language that is accessible to all EIA stakeholders. The discussion of significance here has mentioned only individual predicted impacts. A particular challenge arises in EIA when a given impact for an individual development proposal is found to be insignificant on its

PREDICTION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

65

own, but subsequently becomes significant in the context of either (i) all of the impacts of a development taken together in a holistic impact assessment of the proposal, or (ii) cumulative impacts on that environmental resource in the region. The assessment and management of holistic and cumulative impacts in EIA will be the focus of Chapter 14. For sustainability-oriented EIA, the assessment stage involves comparing the impacts of each alternative against each other and with sustainability goals and criteria established in the scoping step so as to be able to choose the best or most sustainable alternative. Here, the same tests of significance as outlined above will also apply. However, in addition to the focus on the adverse impacts and mitigation measures to bring those down to an acceptable level, there will be an emphasis on optimizing and enhancing positive effects. Andrews (1973) pointed out that ‘impact assessment does not mean focussing only on the adverse effects or damages of a proposed action’ (p. 199), urging an approach that seeks to understand all interactions and changes using systems thinking. More recently, Gibson et al. (2005; Gibson, 2006, 2017a) argue emphatically that minimizing negative impacts is not enough for progress towards sustainability; rather, serious effort must be devoted to enhancing the socio-ecological systems in which development takes place. In this context, EIA is about making a positive contribution to sustainability (Gibson, 2011, 2021), something that has been incorporated into the Canadian Impact Assessment Act 2019.1 It is important to point out that positive impacts could also be judged to be not acceptable in the sense that the level of desired change to be realized is insufficient in the context of the issue at hand. Examples here might be a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or a small contribution to improving well-being for a marginalized community. While both represent a positive change relative to the status quo, this might be considered insufficient, with EIA decision-makers and other stakeholders expecting or demanding better performance (for example, tied to an internationally agreed target level for greenhouse gas emissions). The assessment stage will be iterative, allowing for different EIA stakeholders to engage. In the first instance, it will be the proponent who takes the lead. Where they determine that a predicted impact will (probably) have a significant adverse impact, they can then determine an appropriate mitigation response (the next step in the EIA process) for which most likely they will be responsible for implementing. This additional infor-

66

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

mation would then be included in the proponent’s EIS, along with a new impact prediction for the anticipated consequence or residual impact with the proposed mitigation measures in place. During the subsequent review stage, other EIA stakeholders will have the opportunity to undertake their own assessment of the EIS.

7.3 Mitigation If impacts are predicted to pose significant adverse environmental risks (that is, they are likely to be unacceptable), it is obviously desirable to mitigate them. Further, in the interests of optimizing environmental protection, it is desirable to mitigate any adverse impact (even those not identified in scoping as being the matters of significance for a given EIA). Mitigation might simply be defined as ‘measures to protect natural resources from project impact’ (Savage, 1986, p. 319). Gibson et al. (2005) point out that the ‘adequacy of mitigation commitments depends on their likely success in reducing the significance of anticipated risks and damages’ (p. 174). Wood (2003) notes that in principle, ‘EIA should lead to the abandonment of environmentally unacceptable actions and to the mitigation to the point of acceptability of the environmental effects of proposals that are approved’ (pp. 1–2). Mitigating impacts may be costly, time-consuming or technically challenging, with uncertainty surrounding their likely success. Thus, as noted previously, what is deemed acceptable will be context-specific, meaning such considerations will need to be taken into account and related to the values held by the EIA stakeholders. Like other steps in a generic EIA process, mitigation is an iterative one that occurs throughout the process in some form or another. Hence, Glasson et al. (2012) emphasize that mitigation is not limited to one point in the assessment. Although it may follow logically from prediction and assessment of the relative significance of impacts, it is in fact inherent in all aspects of the process. (p. 138)

It is likely that mitigation measures will start being identified by EIA stakeholders during the screening and scoping stages (and even earlier, before formal EIA commences). Documented accounts of mitigation are expected from proponents in their EIS, as noted previously. Other stakeholders will also have opportunities to consider the proposed mitigation

PREDICTION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

67

measures and offer others if they consider the residual impact to be unsatisfactory or where they believe that measures put forward by proponents are inadequate or likely to fail. Mitigations can take many different forms. Ideally, adverse impacts would be avoided altogether. If this is not feasible, then opportunities should be sought to reduce the consequences of an impact and/or the likelihood of the impact occurring. For example, selecting a less toxic chemical in a processing plant will reduce the consequences of a chemical release, while putting the chemical storage tank in a bund will reduce the likelihood of chemicals escaping into the environment and causing impacts. However, if impacts do occur, they should be remedied. These different approaches to minimizing and managing risk comprise the mitigation hierarchy, which will be discussed further in Chapter 10. For now, I wish to focus on the centrality of mitigation to EIA. It can be seen as a core purpose of EIA. For example, Carbon (1995) emphatically stated that the objective … [of EIA] is environmental management by the proponent. Those who are concerned with the accuracy of environmental predictions should focus instead on the effectiveness of management processes to protect the environment. The important question to ask afterwards is ‘was the environment protected?’ (p. 63)

Early practitioners of EIA, such as Andrews (1973) and Holling (1978), advocated a systems thinking approach which ultimately revolves around actions seeking to protect and manage the environment. Storey (1986) similarly called for particular emphasis on the environmental aspects of projects. Culhane (1993) put forward a managerial model for EIA in which outcomes of the pre-approval stages of EIA could be viewed as management objectives to guide the subsequent implementation and management of development proposals. In a similar vein, Noble (2015) advocates an ‘impact management’ (p. 149) approach to EIA, where the emphasis is on plans and strategies to avoid or alleviate adverse impacts and to generate or enhance positive or beneficial impacts. In keeping with the polluter-pays philosophy underpinning EIA, mitigation is principally the responsibility of the proponent. Mitigation measures that proponents commit to (and potentially also those suggested by other stakeholders) will become part of the legally sanctioned

68

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

development proposal at the approval decision stage or else be specified in conditions attached to an approval. Proponents are of course inclined to assert that expensive mitigation measures will place ‘an unreasonable and unbearable economic burden on the project’ (Savage, 1986, p. 319), meaning that what is technically achievable must be weighed up against economic viability. Importantly though, for progress towards sustainability, mitigation measures beyond the capacity and role of proponents will be necessary, and thus government will play an important role here (Jenkins et al., 2003). For example, in the EIA of the Mackenzie Gas Project in Canada, a large number of mitigation measures specifically directed at government agencies formed part of the project recommended for approval by the review panel, where the emphasis was on seeking ways to enable a positive contribution to sustainability to be realized for the project if implemented (Gibson, 2011). Further exploration of mitigation will occur in Chapter 10. It also forms a vital part of EIA follow-up, which will be addressed in the next chapter following discussion of the review and approval decision steps in EIA.

Note 1.

Available at https://​www​.parl​.ca/​Content/​Bills/​421/​Government/​C​-69/​C​-69 ​_4/​C​-69​_4​.PDF (accessed 9 January 2023).

8.

Review, approval decision and EIA follow-up

The final three steps in a generic EIA process – review, approval decision and EIA follow-up – all involve degrees of evaluation. They are addressed in turn in this chapter.

8.1 Review The review stage is when EIA stakeholders other than the proponent are provided with the opportunity to examine the case for development and environmental management put forward by the proponent in the EIS. The decision question at stake is to assess the adequacy of the development proposal as represented in the EIS. In EIA with an emphasis on mitigating the negative consequences of development, the test for each stakeholder might revolve around whether they find the residual impacts (that is, once mitigation measures have been taken into account) to be acceptable or not. Sippe (1997) advocates the establishment of environmental acceptability criteria for application in EIA for this purpose. He subsequently noted that such criteria would need to be developed for individual jurisdictions so as to be ‘firmly focused on their individual needs’ (Sippe, 1999, p. 90). This reiterates a theme running through this book that EIA must be context-specific and tailored to the socio-political and -cultural setting where it takes place. Thus, no attempt is made to present environmental acceptability criteria here. Suffice to say that they must meet the needs of all stakeholders such that the ensuing EIA process (Sippe, 1997): • takes account of proponents’ needs; • satisfies community expectations; and • meets the political requirements of government decision-makers, 69

70

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

all while retaining the integrity of EIA as a ‘fundamental tool for environmental protection and sustainable development’ (Sippe, 1997, p. 20). The actual stakeholders and types of review that take place will be a function of jurisdictional requirements and norms, and also the specific development context. As a minimum the relevant EIA regulator would be expected to review the proponent’s EIS. They may, however, call upon the services of independent experts to serve as peer reviewers or to seek input from other government agencies with a vested interest in the issues associated with the proposed development. Internationally, especially in democracies with advanced EIA practices, some form of public review would normally be expected. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) hypothesize that as a country ‘matures’ politically (p. 9), meaning that government has to face up to increasing democratic responsibilities, the level of public review, engagement and participation in EIA decision-making will increase. There are countries, however, where open public participation in EIA and public review of an EIS are not the norm. Where public review does occur, the minimum position is simply to make the EIS available (for example, as a free download from a website hosted by the proponent or regulator, or hard copies put on display in a public library or community meeting place) and for written submissions to be received. More active engagement and review processes may be undertaken, including consultations, meetings or panel hearings with interested and affected parties which enable oral submissions to be made. These may employ translators to enable people from different cultural and language groups to participate. There will be further discussion on public engagement in Chapter 12. Proponents may be asked to respond formally to public review submissions, thereby providing them with an opportunity to modify their development proposals prior to a final evaluation by regulators and the approval decision-making step. Such iterative approaches are of course intended to enhance and optimize the sustainability potential of development. This practice is somewhat akin to the peer-review process utilized by scientific journals to enhance the quality of a paper prior to publication. This analogy falls short, however, in light of the likelihood that many public stakeholders in EIA may be actively opposed to a proposed development. They may simply be seeking to stop the development from going ahead rather than suggesting mitigation enhancements. In such cases the

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

71

review process may become more of a political power struggle than cooperation for a mutually desired outcome. Nevertheless, the expectation that proponents engage with and respond to EIS review submissions remains an important element of proposal design and management as well as upholding principles of accountability and transparency (for example, Sadler, 1996; IAIA and IEA, 1999). Ideally there would be open acknowledgement of the trade-offs inherent in the preferred development proposal of the proponent. The decision-making trade-off rules of Gibson (2006) and Gibson et al. (2005) include that the burden of argument should lie with proponents, who must justify the trade-offs being advanced. A further rule is that the trade-off decision-making process should be open, allowing for stakeholders to be involved. Thus the review stage is important in this context.

8.2

Approval decision

The approval decision is the decision point within EIA that attracts the most attention. As Munn (1979) observed, everyone involved in EIA is playing a role in shaping this decision. Of all EIA stakeholders it is of course an especially vital one for proponents. While proponents wish for consent simply so that they can proceed with their development, the EIA approval may also be important to them for securing the finance necessary to proceed with the detailed design and implementation of their activities. In other words, there are other stakeholders in the broader development process, such as financiers with a particular interest in the EIA approval step (not to mention opponents to a proposed development seeking a refusal decision). All decision points within EIA have a political dimension (Weston, 2000) and this is especially the case for the approval decision (Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2021). Worldwide, practice once again varies, but the approval decision will often be the responsibility of an elected politician (for example, the Environment Minister), or the government agency responsible for administering the EIA process. Where EIA is enshrined in law, it is typically the case that the approval decision-maker must take into account the results of the EIA process up to this point when making the decision, including inputs from public engagement

72

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

and submissions. This accords with the principle of natural justice or procedural fairness underpinning environmental law and the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 (for example, Hartley and Wood, 2005; Morrison-Saunders and Early, 2008). Further discussion of the role of natural justice in EIA will appear in Chapter 12. While this process design is intended to promote rational decision-making, with consideration being given to the inputs obtained from all stakeholders in the process thus far, it remains a political decision (for example, Bartlett, 1997; Glasson, 1999; Weston, 2000). Ultimately EIA is just one input to the approval decision, and it has been shown repeatedly that socio-political, -economic and -legal considerations often trump the environmental factors (for example, Hollick, 1986; Sadler, 1996; Cashmore et al., 2004; Morgan, 2012; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). There are three broad decisions that can be reached in the EIA approval step (Sippe, 1999): • rejection; • approval with modification and requirements for mitigation (where the details are specified in conditions attached to the approval); or • approval of the project as filed by the proponent. Rejections are rare (Sadler, 1996; Glasson, 1999; Wood, 1999; Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2021; Fonseca and Gibson, 2021), and the middle option would appear to be the most common outcome for most EIAs worldwide. Some reflection on the rareness of EIA rejections is warranted. While a rejection decision means maintenance of the status quo, there may be circumstances where this is worse than proceeding with development. For example, the social consequences of the status quo continuation played an important role in the sustainability assessment of the Mackenzie Gas Project in Canada. The panel making recommendations to government as to whether this project should proceed or not determined that while the ‘no project’ option would clearly be better for the biophysical environment and would retain gas resources for exploitation in the future, there would be substantial negative social sustainability effects associated with not proceeding. This was because the baseline socio-economic conditions experienced by the Indigenous Peoples in the region, and the predicted

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

73

future trajectory of these, were considered unacceptable. If done well, the project had the potential to make a positive contribution in this area. The panel concluded that not proceeding with the development ‘would do nothing to improve the unhealthy social–economic conditions of many communities and was, overall, unacceptable’ (Gibson, 2011, p. 237). At the approval decision step, the substantive trade-offs being made in EIA become particularly apparent. This is because of the choices being made in terms of the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of proceeding or not with the proposed development. A broadly held principle of EIA is that of transparency (for example, Sadler, 1996; IAIA and IEA, 1999), whereby the basis and outcome of the approval decision should be publicly disclosed (at least in democratic nations) – this is also specified in the Aarhus Convention mentioned previously. For progress towards sustainability, one of the Gibson trade-off decision-making rules is that there be explicit justification of trade-offs made by decision-makers in the context of the sustainability criteria or vision established for the development (Gibson et al., 2005; Gibson, 2006).

8.3

EIA follow-up

EIA should be ‘a continuing activity not only prior to the [approval] decision point but also afterwards’ (Munn, 1979, p.  11). This conceptualization around the approval decision generates a sense of activities occurring both before and after development actually takes place. It gives rise to the notion of EIA follow-up, which was seemingly first used by CEQ (1978) for the step coming after the ‘record of decision’ (p. 55980) on the EIS, thus: Insure follow-up of agency decisions. When an agency requires environmentally protective mitigation measures in its decisions, the regulations provide for means to ensure that these measures are implemented and monitored. (CEQ, 1978, p. 55980)

Despite this early usage of the word ‘follow-up’, other terminology such as post-project analysis, monitoring, auditing (with various different specific forms of the latter two), ex-post evaluation or simply evaluation was mostly utilized in the ensuing decades (for example, Munn, 1979; Bisset, 1980; Munro, 1985; UNECE, 1990; Bailey et al., 1992; Arts, 1998). Use of

74

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

the term ‘EIA follow-up’ gained prominence in the 1990s (for example, Arts, 1998) and is now in common use globally. Although I employ the term here and in other academic research publications, I do not consider it to be ideal as it sends an implicit message that EIA ends with the approval decision, and that activities occurring after that point are something of an ‘add-on’ rather than being an inherent part of EIA. One researcher uses the expressions ‘life after the decision’ and ‘post-decision learning’ (Glasson, 1994 and 2022 respectively) to refer to follow-up (as expressed in the titles of these works). I take a whole of proposal life cycle approach to EIA, that is, from the development concept and initial assessment through to approval, construction, operation and decommissioning (where relevant), rehabilitation and transition to some other use of the environment. In this conception there is a role for key activities associated with EIA follow-up throughout the process. Perhaps the terminology itself thus contributes to the apparent worldwide weaknesses in EIA follow-up (a point returned to later on). EIA follow-up can be simply defined as ‘understanding the outcomes of projects or plans subject to [environmental] impact assessment’ (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022). Previously, Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004) described EIA follow-up in terms of ‘the monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of a project or plan (that has been subject to EIA) for management of, and communication about, the environmental performance of that project or plan’ (p.  4). More recently Pinto et al. (2019) and Morrison-Saunders et al. (2021) argued that governance is also a key consideration. It thus comprises five key components (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022): • Monitoring – collection of activity and environmental data relevant to project or plan performance determination. • Evaluation – of monitoring data in light of performance standards, objectives, predictions or expectations. • Management – making decisions and taking appropriate actions in response to issues arising from monitoring and evaluation activities. • Engagement and communication – with stakeholders on all aspects of IA follow-up. • Governance – processes and arrangements enabling the implementation of IA follow-up activities. (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022, p. 1)

Monitoring is the essential starting point as it provides the foundational knowledge for understanding development performance. Drawing on

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

75

his own literature review and experience, Morgan (1998) identifies many reasons for conducting monitoring, such as providing early warning of unpredicted impacts, checking that mitigation measures have been implemented and are working effectively, providing an evidence base to counter claims by external parties that environmental performance is inadequate or in breach of approval conditions, documenting the actual impacts that occur as a result of development and verifying the accuracy of impact predictions. There are three main types of monitoring used in EIA (Munro, 1985; Morgan, 1998; Arts et al., 2011; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004): • baseline monitoring to determine the initial state of environmental indicators prior to the implementation of development – this forms the basis for impact prediction as discussed in the previous chapter and for subsequent performance evaluation; • compliance monitoring to provide information to environmental managers and EIA agencies regarding the degree to which the proponent is implementing mitigation measures and other requirements specified in approval conditions; and • effects or performance monitoring to determine environmental or sustainability performance by documenting the changes that have occurred because of the implementation of development. Hollick (1981) argued that performance monitoring should be ‘strategic rather than detailed so that early warning in a wide range of factors can be obtained’ (p.  199). Such an approach means that an EIA follow-up programme may detect changes in the environment beyond only those matters featured in scoping and impact prediction. Where approval conditions specify clear environmental outcomes to be attained, effects or performance monitoring and compliance monitoring equate to the same thing. Effects monitoring may also include consideration of prediction accuracy, since observed impacts can be cross-referenced to impact predictions and to intended outcomes when mitigation measures were put in place. Numerous follow-up studies in the 1980s and 1990s explicitly examined prediction accuracy (for example, Bisset, 1984; Culhane et al., 1987; Bailey et al., 1992). All forms of monitoring need to be suitably robust and rigorous to serve the purpose for which they are intended. Noble and Birk (2011) describe another curious type of monitoring utilized in EIA: ‘comfort monitoring’, which refers to monitoring undertaken principally because the

76

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

community wanted it to take place, meaning that it provided them with ‘peace of mind’ and a level of ‘trust and assurance’ (p. 23), rather than returning much useful data that could be used to support effects-based management. Evaluation simply refers to the interpretation of monitoring data. It will necessitate a comparison against thresholds and any sustainability goals and criteria established in the early stages of EIA to arrive at an understanding of the trajectory of the indicators being monitored and the level of performance being achieved. Evaluation provides the basis for any management response that might be needed or to confirm that existing mitigation measures are satisfactory. Management in the context of EIA follow-up is really just the continuation of the mitigation step into the implementation phase of development. Bailey (1997) examined the theory and practice of EIA with respect to project-based environmental management activities, seeing ongoing environmental management as providing an important indicator of the effectiveness of the process. Empirical work in Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999) subsequently demonstrated the linkages between EIA and actual environmental management performance for a suite of case studies. While the majority of management actions had been formulated during the pre-approval stages of EIA, demonstrating the value of the EIA process as a planning and design tool for environmental protection, we nevertheless found that significant environmental management activity originated once approval had been granted and during the implementation of proposals. In other words, monitoring and evaluation activity undertaken during EIA follow-up precipitated particular management responses, rather than these being an explicit product of pre-implementation design. The engagement and communication component of EIA follow-up maintains the best practice principles of credibility and transparency (IAIA and IEA, 1999) for the implementation phase of development. More recently, specific international best practice principles for public participation in EIA follow-up have been developed (Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2023; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2023). At the very least, it can be argued that stakeholders other than the proponent and regulator have a right to know the environmental performance outcomes of development. They may also play an important role in undertaking some of the EIA tasks

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

77

themselves (some examples are provided later), or by eliciting a management response to issues that concern them. For example, analysis of the same suite of EIA case studies of Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999), mentioned above, regarding the origin of management measures with respect to three broad stakeholder groups (proponent, EIA regulator and public) revealed an important influence of public involvement in relation to follow-up (Morrison-Saunders, 1998). This included public pressure exerted on proponents and on regulators during project implementation to remedy perceived problems, some of which were new impacts not previously identified in pre-approval EIA documentation. Apart from the opportunity for the public potentially to influence the management of development activities, open disclosure of follow-up findings is also vital for learning to be realized. An ongoing challenge remains in adequately capturing, storing and being able to retrieve EIA follow-up information to inform future assessments and development activity (Sanchez and Morrison-Saunders, 2011). Governance arrangements for EIA follow-up are important and should be clearly communicated; one best practice principle being to ‘provide clear accountability for EIA follow-up responsibilities’ (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2021, p. 9). Much follow-up activity will be the responsibility of the proponent, and there are opportunities to link the EIA follow-up undertakings with other management and control measures such as environmental management systems (for example, Perdicoulis et al., 2012). At the very least, government agencies will play an important role in verifying EIA follow-up results. For actions for sustainability, more active engagement by government in mitigation measures and associated follow-up is likely to be necessary (for example, Jenkins et al., 2003; Gibson, 2011). Having independent verifiers or peer reviewers scrutinizing EIA follow-up programmes, whether working as experts or in consort with community representatives, is important to account for the work of proponents and government alike and to enhance the integrity of EIA follow-up practices (for example, Morgan, 1998; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2003; 2023; Wessels et al., 2015). There may even be third-party EIA follow-up whereby community representatives rather than proponents or regulators conduct key activities directly (for example, Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004; Ross, 2004; Noble and Birk, 2011), such as the notion of ‘participatory monitoring’ (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2023, p.  53). This may be important for credibility for affected communities and may operate

78

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

in tandem with follow-up programmes implemented by the proponent. Ross et al. (2001) provide an interesting example (a summarized account is in Morrison-Saunders et al., 2001) from Thailand, in which simple odour detection in relation to an industrial estate was carried out by local Buddhist monks using nothing more than their own noses. The opinion of the monks was held in high regard by the community and was sufficient to prompt appropriate management responses for individual industries within the estate deemed responsible. Similarly, the use of traditional environmental knowledge and the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples may play an important role in EIA follow-up (for example, Ross, 2004; Noble, 2015; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2021, 2023), as well as being a way of engaging affected communities in the implementation phases of development. The five components of EIA follow-up are interlinked and interactive to some degree, meaning that the process is iterative and dynamic. The studies mentioned above demonstrate this. They also echo the pioneering work on adaptive management by Holling (1978), who maintained that scoping should focus on aspects of the socio-ecological system that were important or useful to study in the context of proposed new development, knowing that it cannot be predicted or fully understood. Subsequently management should become the focus, with a clear expectation that an adaptation of management regimes would be necessary in response to changing conditions in the environment or arising from learning through monitoring the system. Further discussion of a systems approach to EIA will occur in Chapter 11 and there will be more on adaptive management in Chapter 13. The theoretical value and purpose of EIA follow-up are clear and straightforward. Unfortunately EIA follow-up has been regularly identified as being largely neglected in practice, as the sample comments below attest: • ‘monitoring and EIA follow-up mechanisms remain poorly developed’ (Sadler, 1996, p. 126); • while ‘it seems only sensible to carry out some form of follow-up study once the proposed activity has been implemented, to find out just what the actual effects of the activity are. Yet, that follow-up process, monitoring, is still poorly developed in EIA’ (Morgan, 1998, p. 181); • ‘It [EIA follow-up] has been much neglected to date’ (Wood et al., 2000, p. 24);

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

79

• ‘EIA follow-up, a notoriously weak aspect of EIA practice …’ (Kolhoff et al., 2010, p. 147); • ‘Often it is found that [post-EIA] evaluations are not carried out effectively’ (Zhang et al., 2013, p. 151); • ‘In practice ex post evaluation seldom occurs, despite the fact that it is required by EA legislation and despite its perceived importance by a large group of EA professionals’ (Runhaar et al., 2013, p. 19); • ‘Commentators have been discussing for almost two decades the role of EIA follow-up, a potential “missing link” from EIA’ (Hollands and Palframan, 2014, p. 43); • ‘in the UK, publications to date have all noted that its uptake has remained poor’ (Jones and Fischer, 2016, p. 19); • ‘there were considerable disparities in the quality and the rigor of EIA follow-ups conducted … along with some existing deficiencies of EIA follow-up, such as the lack of corresponding monitoring and management’ (Chang et al., 2018, p. 7); • ‘The enduring poor performance of SEA monitoring significantly reduces the ability of the impact assessment research and practice community to determine whether SEA is resulting in sustainable outcomes and preventing adverse effects on the environment’ (González, 2022, pp. 173–175). Given that follow-up is the only step of EIA in which actual performance can be ascertained, it perhaps deserves greatest emphasis and attention. As argued in Morrison-Saunders et al. (2015), it is vitally important to be able to demonstrate the benefits of doing EIA to stakeholders outside of the community of practitioners who earn their living directly from conducting or researching about EIA. Obviously this will not be possible in the absence of follow-up programmes. The benefits of EIA might be realized from follow-up studies conducted at three different scales and represented diagrammatically as a kind of pyramid (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2004, p.  312). At the bottom layer of the pyramid is the project level, or micro-follow-up, referring to monitoring and evaluation of performance on a project-by-project basis, as discussed previously. In the middle of the pyramid is the EIA jurisdiction level, or macro-follow-up, referring to learning that informs the review of a system to enhance procedures and overall practice within it. This is typically carried out by government; sometimes EIA legislation specifies regular intervals for formal reviews to be carried out. Academic

80

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

research, such as the studies of EIA under NEPA mentioned in Chapter 3, is also a form of macro-follow-up. An important component of the learning arises from project-level follow-up activity, notwithstanding that pressure to reform EIA procedures appears to be politically motivated (for example, Gibson, 2012; Middle et al., 2013; Bond et al., 2014). At the top of the pyramid is the EIA concept level, or meta-follow-up, referring principally to academic research studies investigating the effectiveness of EIA itself writ large (an example here being the international effectiveness study of Sadler, 1996). The rationale for the pyramid form was that most follow-up takes place at the project level, thereby forming the base of the pyramid, with a medium level of activity at the jurisdictional review  level  and comparatively little at the meta level (the top of the pyramid). In a nutshell, and regardless of the terminology employed, EIA follow-up is about learning and managing (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2023). The decision questions at stake here (see Table 5.1) are about understanding what environmental impacts have actually occurred, whether the mitigation measures have been successful and what the resulting environmental performance is. This is the learning aspect of follow-up at the development project level. Where problems are apparent (for example, actual environmental impacts are found to be far worse than expected in impact predictions, mitigation measures have failed or are inadequate, and environmental performance falls below acceptable levels), then appropriate management responses should be implemented to remedy the situation. This is the essence of adaptive management (Fitzpatrick and Williams, 2020; Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2022). The benchmark is the baseline  monitoring undertaken before the development activity commenced. For sustainability-oriented EIA, the desired development outcome established during the scoping stage can be used as an additional benchmark. Where progress towards desired sustainability goals falls short, it might provoke adaptive management by the proponent and other stakeholders. As intimated previously, there would typically be an important role for government to play in implementing appropriate measures to achieve sustainability goals. Ultimately follow-up, while represented as the final step in EIA, is an integral part of the process. It is what ensures the continuity of assessment

REVIEW, APPROVAL DECISION AND EIA FOLLOW-UP

81

activity for the life cycle of development. The next Part of the book further explores ways of thinking about development in EIA theory and practice.

PART III About development

9.

Spectrum of development and design considerations

This chapter focuses on activities within EIA that revolve around the design and implementation of development proposals. It begins with further discussion of the spectrum of development with respect to the degree of ‘strategicness’ (Hacking and Guthrie, 2008, p. 75) before exploring the potential for EIA to influence development planning and design positively.

9.1

Spectrum of development

EIA can be applied to many forms of development at different levels. Development activity can be conceived on a broad spectrum from the strategic proposals (policies and plans) through to projects and sub-project changes. Each of these might warrant EIA in its own right (depending upon screening processes in a given jurisdiction) because of the potential for significant adverse environmental impact. EIA practice is frequently thus framed in terms of tiers of development and of assessment. Early thinking on this can be found in O’Riordan (1976a), who put forward the ‘notion of overlapping “tiers” of EIAs’ (p. 209) whereby initial assessment would occur for highly strategic forms of development such as legislation and departmental policies, with an emphasis at this level on considering the pros and cons of various alternatives or packages of alternatives along with interdepartmental and public consultation. He suggested that [s]ubsequent EIAs would then be provided for successive steps in policy formation so that final project proposals need not contain (as they currently tend

83

84

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

to do) the laborious evaluations of philosophy and policy that are inappropriate at the point of project development. (O’Riordan, 1976a, p. 209)

The desirability for EISs to avoid the repetition of higher- or strategic-level EIA is also flagged by CEQ (1978). Individual project-level EIAs could be understood as a way of developing and implementing policies (Burton et al., 1983). O’Riordan (1976a) noted that EIA for the ‘first tier of EIA’, as he called it (p. 210), would necessarily be conducted by government. Project-level EIA ‘based on information supplied by the developer and scrutinised by task forces of local officials and interested citizens representing a variety of local interests’ (p. 211) was the third tier of EIA, with the second tier being an intermediate step also envisaged as the responsibility of government. The CEQ (1978) regulations provide some early guidance for tiering practice, while a recent international review is provided in Therivel and González (2021). This concept of tiering in EIA has become an important theory in use worldwide (for example, Lee and Walsh, 1992; Wood and Dejeddour, 1992; Partidário, 1999; Wood, 2003; Arts et  al., 2011; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Noble and Gunn, 2016). The idealized version of tiering is that EIA would occur first for the top tiers, and the outcomes would be carried forward or would ‘trickle down’ to subsequent tiers (Lee and Wood, 1978; Therivel, 2004; Therivel and González, 2021). While such a linear conceptualization may not reflect reality with multiple pathways up, down or within the tiers of development thinking being likely to occur, nevertheless the tiering concept serves as a useful way to differentiate forms of development and hence also of EIA. O’Riordan (1976a) signalled that EIA was perhaps the wrong phrase to employ at the third tier level, as the activity here would be more about ‘review’ than ‘assessment’, since it would review the extent to which development proposals conformed to criteria established at the higher strategic assessment levels. Subsequently O’Riordan and Sewell (1981b) wrote about incorporating ‘environmental and social appraisals’ into ‘strategic land use planning’ (p. 301) and advocated ‘strategic analyses of the suitability of regions and communities for certain kinds of development’ (p. 302) prior to specific development decisions being made. The term strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has since come into use as a specific form of EIA for these kinds of functions, with Wood and Dejeddour (1992) being given credit for the first usage of term SEA

SPECTRUM OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

85

(for example, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005, p. 9). The term EIA has been retained for project-level considerations, with SEA having become adopted as the term for consideration of development levels above this – for programmes, plans and policies (PPP) (for example, Therivel and Partidário, 1996; Fischer, 2002; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Sadler et al., 2011; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012) and for legislation (for example, Therivel, 2004). For consistency with the tide of history in the literature, usage of the term SEA in this manner is continued here to denote practice specific to these ‘higher’ tiers of development proposals, especially policies, plans and programmes. Irrespective of the terminology employed, the underpinning principles or big ideas of EIA and SEA are essentially the same. Lee and Walsh (1992), for example, noted that ‘SEA and EIA share the same objectives, and should closely relate to each other within the same policy and planning process’ (p. 131), and ‘are based on common principles’ (p. 132). However, some characterizing features of SEA can be identified. In many respects these represent solutions to the ‘limitations of project-based EIA’ identified by Lee and Walsh (1992, p. 126). SEA characteristics were distilled by Noble (2000) and refined in subsequent work of the same author as follows: • A focus on strategy, meaning ‘the determination of objectives and means and the identification and evaluation of courses of action to achieve the desirable, rather than the most likely, end’ (Noble and Gunn, 2016, p. 98). It is interesting to note that the adaptive management approach for EIA put forward by Holling (1978) commences with the ‘generation of alternative objectives’ and the ‘design of effective policies’ (p. 14) to achieve these. Holling’s approach meshes with contemporary SEA, notwithstanding that the term ‘strategic’ was not employed. In contrast to an objectives-led process, arguably project-based EIA is more focused on specific ends. • Being futures-oriented, involving identifying visions and desired outcomes. This is generally interpreted in sustainable development terms such that SEA is seen to have a ‘sustainability mandate’ (White and Noble, 2013, p. 60; Noble, 2015). • SEA explores strategic options, meaning that it is especially concerned with the consideration and evaluation of alternatives (a topic of discussion in the next chapter). This means that it is ‘broadbrush and non-technical’ (Noble, 2000, p. 210) as there is ‘often an absence of

86

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

detail about specific physical developments proposed within [PPPs]’ (Wood and Dejeddour, 1992, p. 8). Consequently SEA has ‘less rigour’ and ‘more uncertainty’ (Glasson et al., 2012, p. 301) relative to expectations for project-based EIA (Noble, 2015). There are also expectations that SEA is best suited for addressing cumulative environmental impacts in a regional context (Gunn and Noble, 2011). • It is proactive and forward-looking by seeking the preferred development strategy from available alternatives. Noble and Gunn (2016) state that ‘[p]roject-based EIA focuses primarily on mitigation of the adverse environmental impacts of proposed activities, whereas SEA focuses on the root problems—and opportunities—related to PPP priorities and choices’ (p. 99). • SEA is sensitive to context (that is, legal, administrative, planning and political circumstance). While this can be said of any EIA process, Noble and Gunn (2016) suggest that where project-based EIA operates under a relatively tightly prescribed legislated process, SEA needs to be ‘effective under both legislated and informal or ad hoc SEA systems’ (p. 100). Hence the role and aims of SEA will vary according to the planning and decision-making context in which it is applied (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). • It is nested or tiered (Noble, 2015), meaning that SEA is not intended to operate in isolation and should facilitate ‘trickling-down sustainability’ (White and Noble, 2013, p. 62). The idea is that sustainability principles incorporated at the policy level ‘can “trickle-down” through plans and programs, ultimately to projects and other specific activities’ (Stinchcombe and Gibson, 2001, p. 355) in a similar tiering process as that envisaged by O’Riordan (1976a) and others discussed previously. In relation to the final point above regarding sustainability and EIA practice, the greatest sustainability benefit can be realized at higher strategic levels. Posing a ‘decision question’ to represent the central approval decision at stake within a given EIA helps to reveal this sustainability potential (Pope, 2006; Morrison-Saunders and Therivel, 2006). The decision question also serves to determine the ‘strategicness’ of an EIA (Hacking and Guthrie, 2008) and the range of alternatives that might be considered. A selection of decision questions is provided in Box 9.1. The decision questions are increasingly open (that is, more strategic) towards the top of the list. They invite broader consideration of alternatives and

SPECTRUM OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

87

hence enable greater  sustainability potential to be realized. The bottom levels are associated with ‘project-based EIA’ practice.

Box 9.1 Selection of decision questions How would Policy Objective Z best be delivered? What should the future of Area Y be? What is the best way to provide Service X to Community Y? What is the best location for Project X? Is Proposal X acceptable at Site Y? Is it acceptable to change Existing Operation X by means of …? Source: Adapted from Morrison-Saunders and Therivel (2006).

As noted previously, the more strategic questions are principally the domain of government, reflected in legislation and policy, strategic planning of public services and land-use planning. Private proponents may put forward programmes of development, containing multiple individual development activities, for assessment. While the theory of tiering suggests that decisions made at higher levels influence those at lower levels, this can also happen in reverse. For example, individual project-level development proposals might also trigger a review of an existing plan or policy. Trickling down occurs at the same time as ‘evaporating up’ (Arts et al., 2011, p. 421) or ‘tiering up’ (Noble and Gunn, 2016, p. 101), whereby the results of EIAs trigger the need for changes in higher-tiered PPPs. Implementation mechanisms may need to be different at different levels. Placing conditions of approval on the proponent of a project development is comparatively straightforward relative to how a policy decision might subsequently be implemented within society. In systems that provide for the full spectrum of development proposals to be assessed under a single piece of EIA legislation (for example, as is the case in Australia), it may be possible to ‘streamline’ project-level assessments by carrying forward conditions of approval from a higher level of assessment (for example, Stoeglehner et al., 2010). In such systems each form of EIA here might be

88

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

thought of as analogous to Russian dolls – they all bear the same likeness, sharing the same core or basis, but differ in scale and scope. Where SEA and project-level EIA provisions exist in separate legislation, relevant mechanisms will be needed to accommodate the outcomes of other assessment processes, while seeking to avoid duplication for proponents and regulators alike. Whether or not different processes are in operation across the spectrum of development, the thinking underpinning each EIA process is essentially the same. Most importantly, the desired outcome for sustainable development by changing behaviour and designing environmentally sound proposals underpins the theory and intended practice of all levels of EIA.

9.2

EIA as a design tool

The advantages of a proactive or strategic approach to development were introduced in the previous section. In large measure this remains an aspiration of EIA, something that can be voluntarily embraced by proponents and other practitioners rather than being something that can be prescribed in legislation or procedure. While acknowledging the success of EIA in terms of its popularity in terms of spread and widespread uptake, McDonald and Brown (1995) noted that most applications of EIA are based on a ‘“passive” model and tend to keep it aloof from direct involvement in the environmental design and management of projects’ (p. 484). They identify three key weaknesses of conventional EIA practice: • a tendency to ‘focus on a limited range of projects and activities’ (p. 486) which does not adequately account for cumulative impacts (a topic addressed further in Chapter 14); • only focusing on community involvement in a reactive manner, without establishing long-term visions or encouraging ‘community responsibility for environmental management’ (p. 486); and • a tendency ‘to focus on the mitigation of impacts of proposed activities rather than determining their justification and siting’ (p. 486). These criticisms of EIA echo the concerns of Fairfax (1978) reproduced in Chapter 3 regarding the focus on documents and the development agenda of proponents.

SPECTRUM OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

89

In order for EIA to fulfil its potential as a design tool to promote the delivery of positive contributions to sustainability through development, many authors have cautioned against it becoming too legalistic and thus losing its creativity and flexibility; some examples follow. When arguing the need for SEA, Bina (2007) remarked on the ‘straightjacket of narrow interpretations of [project-based] EIA’ (p. 601) as a key factor holding back practice. Kidd and Retief (2009) expressed similar concerns when considering EIA practice in South Africa, describing it in terms such as ‘legalistic’, ‘mechanistic straight jacketing’, ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘lifeless’ (cited in Morrison-Saunders and Retief, 2012, p. 38). Much earlier, O’Riordan and Sewell (1981b) had highlighted a danger for EIA being the ‘tendency to become programmed into routine patterns, and thereby for it to become inflexible and bureaucratic, and have so standardized an application that it fails to recognize the varied mix of aspirations among impacted communities’ (p. 299). Adelle and Weiland (2015) noted that impact assessments often occur ‘too late in the day to have any substantial influence’ (p. 112), and in some cases ‘are seen as nothing more than “tick box exercises” to legitimize predetermined decisions’ (p. 112). For Noble (2015), one sign of EIA being ineffective is when proponents undertake EIA late in the design process. In a similar vein, one of five important things to do for advancing practice identified by Partidário (2012) is to shift EIA thinking ‘away from the licensing stage’ (p. 2) and to increase the influence of EIA on concept and design. Finally, Doelle and Sinclair (2006) wrote that ‘[f]ar from the lofty goals of project [EIA] becoming a planning tool and an effective tool for sustainable development, [EIA] has become little more than an additional regulatory hurdle for proponents’ (p. 189). The mechanisms put forward by McDonald and Brown (1995) through which EIA can better serve as a design tool resonate with aspects of SEA from the previous section. These incorporate the integration of environmental goals into plans, including both ‘environmental resource goals’ (p. 488), such as controls on production levels and conservation of wildlife and biodiversity, and ‘environmental sink goals’ (p. 489), which entail putting in place waste management measures, pollution prevention controls and human health protection. Earlier, Andrews (1973) emphasized the role of EIA in ‘planning analysis’ (p. 198). McDonald and Brown (1995) also discuss a range of land-use planning mechanisms for ensuring environmental considerations are captured and required at these higher strategic levels, while Brown and Hill (1995) advocate ‘decision-scoping’

90

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

(p. 223) in EIA as a means to integrate key planning decisions into the process. These mechanisms are intended to ensure that the considerations are absorbed into the project planning and design activities of proponents. There is obviously value in having formal mechanisms for environmental management in place within all tiers of EIA consideration. The extent to which this influences the behaviour of individual proponents is going to vary; in many respects it depends upon their attitude, values and internal operating culture. As Savage (1986) noted: To some developers, however, mitigation can come as an unwelcome afterthought; measures to protect natural resources from project impact are sometimes hastily assembled late in the planning process and aimed principally at slipping the project past natural resource agency ‘censors’. (p. 319)

The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA, 2015) has produced a guide for enhancing the design and quality of development proposals during EIA. The guide is part of their education and capacity building materials for registered organizations with their EIA Quality Mark scheme.1 The IEMA (2015) advocates a four-fold approach of: • early, effective and ongoing interaction between environmental professionals as part of the design process; • appropriate stakeholder engagement to gather external views on the approaches that could be taken; • reducing and managing ‘consenting risk’ through ‘designing out negative effects and designing in environmental benefits via the EIA process’ (p. 2); and • providing a clear narrative or ‘record of how the project’s design has responded to the environmental issues identified’ (p. 2). Attempting to get proponents to shift from being reactive to the requirements or expectations of EIA (that is, the checklist or ‘tick-box’ approach) to being proactive for sustainable development remains a challenge. It is desirable that the design of development proposals is taken seriously, with environmental management having real influence rather than simply bolting on mitigation measures. It will produce better outcomes as well as making the process smoother or easier for regulators and community

SPECTRUM OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

91

stakeholders engaged in the process, who can see that the development design has already been optimized in a sustainability context. For large, complex proposals, formal EIA may come far too late in the development life cycle to make any significant difference to outcomes. Major development activities (for example, large transport infrastructure projects, industrial complexes or extractives projects) take many years of planning and design at increasing levels of detail, and formal EIA typically comes towards the end of these phases. It is therefore important that EIA and sustainability thinking are embedded into all phases of the development life cycle from the beginning,  and not just at the point at which construction and implementation approval is sought. Conversely, some proponents may only receive finance once an EIA approval is secured, and therefore may seek an approval in the absence of final project details (for example, it might be the exact location, site configuration or processing technologies that are unresolved). This is one aspect of uncertainty in EIA practice, requiring a degree of flexibility and adaptive management (which will be discussed further in Chapter 13). This discussion of the spectrum of development and of EIA as a design tool has also served to introduce the centrality of alternatives consideration and of mitigation. These topics will be the focus of the following chapter.

Note 1.

Available at www​.iema​.net/​eia​-quality​-mark (accessed 11 July 2017).

10. Alternatives and mitigation This chapter focuses on the consideration of alternatives and the hierarchy of mitigation strategies in the context of how development proposals are addressed during EIA.

10.1 The hierarchy of alternatives A hallmark feature of EIA extending back to NEPA as introduced in Chapter 3 is the consideration of alternatives. Karkkainen (2007) credits a court case regarding a hydro-electricity development in the mid-1960s as establishing the prototype for alternatives consideration in NEPA. Alternatives consideration is also a tension point in terms of the design of EIA processes. The user-pays or proponent-based approach to EIA (outlined in Chapter 2) fundamentally makes the process oriented to the agenda of the proponent and their own goals for development. In the words of Burton et al. (1983) on this point, ‘reliance on the self-assessment approach … has major implications for the consideration of genuine alternative concepts of development’ (p. 146). The involvement of other stakeholders – affected community and relevant government agencies – means that the needs and wishes of these people should also be taken into account to some extent. Of particular interest to other stakeholders will be alternatives to the development proposal of the proponent, and this is where the tension arises. As Preston (2020) puts it: ‘EIA occurs as part of an ex post facto justification of a project that has already been chosen [by the proponent]’ (p. 424). Alternatives may be available across a spectrum of possibilities from maintaining the status quo (that is, no-development option) through to different forms of development, down to more narrowly defined options for consideration. This is the hierarchy of alternatives (for example, Therivel, 92

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

93

2004; Gibson et al., 2005; Glasson et al., 2012; Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a; European Commission, 2017a) which can be articulated as follows: • Need/demand – What is the need for the development? Therivel (2004) argues that there should always be a comparison against the ‘do nothing’ (p. 111) option to consider what the environment will be like if the status quo is maintained. As Steinemann (2001) notes: ‘the no action alternative is designed to provide baseline conditions by which to evaluate and compare the other alternatives’ (p. 6). This alternative also serves to represent the ‘probable degree of change in the environment if a proposal were to go ahead’ (Morgan, 1998, p. 36). Importantly no action does not mean that no environmental impacts would occur, and sometimes maintaining the status quo represents a poor outcome – for example, as in the case of the Mackenzie gas pipeline (Gibson, 2011) discussed previously. If need is to be considered meaningfully, proponents should be able to defend the need for their proposed development. In arguing for EIA to shift from a focus on acceptability to one of sustainability, Gibson (1993) argued that ‘the process must require proponents to define and defend the objectives of their undertakings’ (p. 17). In terms of the alternatives hierarchy, I am not aware of legal provisions within EIA that extend this far, although Gibson (1993) indicates that the EIA provisions for Ontario at the time did require proponents to address the purpose of their undertaking. • Mode/process – How best should the development be undertaken? Each alternative approach or technology (for example, road versus rail for transportation, open-cast versus underground mining, or particular choices of refining and chemical processing with industrial operations) will impact the environment in particular ways which are worth examining in the specific environmental context. • Scales of development – What is the most appropriate size for this development? Glasson et al. (2012, p. 91) point out that scale may be varied easily up or down for some developments (for example, the size of a landfill or number of wind turbines in a wind power enterprise) but not for others (for example, a nuclear power plant cannot easily be scaled down, and infrastructure such as a pipeline or bridge must be built in its entirety). • Location – What is the best location for the development activity? Considerations here might variously be a function of planning (for

94

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

example, whether the land is zoned appropriately for a proposed activity), the biophysical environment (for example, mining can only occur where ore is to be found) or engineering (for example, topography and gradient for road construction). There are also alternative project/site layouts and designs to consider (Glasson et al., 2012), as the specific location of infrastructure with the overall development site may affect aspects such as visual impact, noise attenuation or simply the avoidance of impact on particular local environmental features. • Timing – What is the best timing to construct/implement/operate the development activity? Construction might be timed to avoid interference with the breeding season of a particular species utilizing the area. A large development might be implemented in a series of stages spread over many years, timed to enable a supporting infrastructure or services to be developed progressively to accommodate it. Operational times of an industrial facility might be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance on surrounding residents. • Implementation mechanisms – What mitigation measures should be applied? This gives rise to the mitigation hierarchy discussed separately in the following section. As Weiner (1997) noted: ‘[a]lternative courses of action may be formulated for the purpose of avoiding or otherwise mitigating the environmental impacts associated with a proposed action’ (p. 72); thus mitigation is part of the hierarchy of alternatives. In light of the numerous categories in the hierarchy, it should always be possible to consider alternatives in some way in EIA. Therivel (2004) advocates considering all the possibilities in the hierarchy and then eliminating those that are impractical or illegal, have a high risk in implementation or high risk of not working, are technically or financially infeasible, or are clearly unsustainable in the context of the established policy and EIA decision-making framework. As an example of the latter kind, it would not make much sense to consider fossil-fuelled power stations as an alternative to a proposed wind farm development where a clear policy commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions or provision of renewable energy has been established. Hence alternatives need to be considered in the broader context in which EIA occurs. It is not just which alternatives that are considered by the degree of detail given to each that matters. As Andrews (1973) noted, because EIA attempts to ‘deal explicitly with complex systems of consequences and values’ (p.  200),

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

95

there is inherent difficulty in ‘deciding which alternatives and impacts should be studied and in how much detail’ (p. 200). There is invariably some disparity here, in my own observation of practice, in the expectations of proponents versus other stakeholders in the process (especially community members directly affected by development proposals) for the extent to which alternatives are addressed in EIA. Ultimately, alternatives must be realistic and reasonable to the proponent as ‘the number of Alternatives to a proposed Project is, in theory, infinite’ (European Commission, 2017a, p. 52). Glasson et al. (2012, p. 94) use the example of a mining company that has secured a parcel of land enabling access to an ore body, pointing out that it would not be reasonable to expect that proponent to consider alternative land uses such as wind power generation. However, it would be reasonable to expect that same proponent to consider other potential sites for mining as well as other scales of development and processes for extraction and processing. The reasonableness test may not be so clear-cut where the proponent is a government agency. For example, a road building authority is hardly likely to consider alternative forms of transportation (for example, railway) to road construction, and yet citizens might expect such consideration from their government. This highlights the further importance of the broader policy and planning context in which EIA occurs – to continue this example, there may be a land-use plan or transportation policy operating at a higher level than the road construction proposal to which the road building authority is responding. Expectations regarding what might be considered reasonable when considering alternatives will come back in part to how this aspect of EIA is stipulated in legislation and regulations for practice. For example, in Chapter 3, the relevant wording from s. 102(2)(c) of NEPA was reproduced, which simply indicates that an EIS shall include a statement on ‘alternatives to the proposed action’.1 This phrasing is broad and open. Ideally the entire hierarchy should be applied (as is typically required for the mitigation hierarchy, as will be discussed later in this chapter). In the philosophy of EIA advanced by Andrews (1973), EIA should ‘be treated as a form of planning analysis, aimed at developing information to clarify tradeoffs among alternative … actions rather than simply at documenting the possible effects of a chosen course of action’ (p. 198). Thus full and comprehensive consideration of alternatives underscores this approach to EIA, as can be seen in the seven steps for full assessment of all alternatives

96

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

that would accomplish the objectives of a proposed development outlined by Flamm (1973). From a sustainability perspective, the considerations at the top of the hierarchy of alternatives offer the most promise, since they are the most strategic in nature (Morrison-Saunders and Therivel, 2006; Hacking and Guthrie, 2008; Gibson, 2013). With each step down in the hierarchy, ‘the options become progressively narrower in scope’ and offer less ‘room to move’ (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a, p. 57). As Gibson (2013) notes: ‘assessment processes that require comparative evaluation of potentially reasonable approaches to serving broad purposes have the scope to seek trade-off avoiding options’ (p. 5) from the outset. This is superior to trying to compensate for a poor mode or location choice for a development proposal through mitigation measures. While the consideration of alternatives ‘is the heart of the environmental impact statement’ (CEQ, 1978, s. 1502.14), they are also perhaps the most contentious and poorly executed component. There is long-standing criticism and frustration over the consideration of alternatives in EIA, some of which were noted in Chapter 3. Weiner (1997) found that many EISs in the USA do not comply with the basic requirements of NEPA, writing that they treat the summary simply as an annotated table of contents and devote the first major section to describing the alternatives rather than to comparing their key impacts. Few EISs compare the alternatives with each other on the basis of NEPA’s substantive goals, such as pollution prevention, sustainable development, or biological diversity. (p. 79)

In another US study, Steinemann (2001) identified 11 problems with the treatment of alternatives based on an analysis of 142 EISs. These included procedural, institutional, judicial and analytical deficiencies, each of which undermine the goals of EIA. Some specific problems documented by Steinemann (2001) were the narrow definition of alternatives which eliminates much from potential consideration and the presentation of ‘dummied-up’ (p. 13) options intentionally designed to be less attractive than the proponent’s proposed development. Also evident were weak evaluations of alternatives during screening, leading to early exclusion from further consideration and limited public engagement occurring too late to influence alternatives development. A review of court cases that challenged alternatives analyses in the USA under NEPA by Smith (2007) found that ‘federal agencies are overwhelmingly successful against such challenges’ (p. 126), winning 30 of the 37 cases heard in the federal

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

97

Courts of Appeals over a ten-year period. It thus appears that even in the face of clear and specific regulations requiring the consideration of alternatives, practice can fall short. Steinemann (2001) notes that ‘there is a difference between a legal range of alternatives and a good range of alternatives’ (p. 19). Steinemann (2001) and Smith (2007) end their papers with exhortations for improving practice, including better engagement with the full hierarchy of alternatives especially the high-level steps, explaining the reasoning for choices made in alternatives analyses, giving early consideration to environmental issues during proposal design, and putting forward alternatives that better reflect societal goals and not just those of the proponent. This reiterates a key theme of this book: that important choices are made by EIA practitioners as to the extent to which they embrace best practice. Comparing alternatives can add to decision complexity, especially in instances where either many alternatives are at stake or the nature of these alternatives differs substantially (that is, alternative modes). Specialist techniques, such as multi-criteria analysis, have been developed to facilitate detailed comparison of alternatives in EIA processes oriented towards maximizing sustainable development outcomes (for example, Geneletti and Ferretti, 2015). It is beyond the scope of this book to consider such techniques further here.

10.2 The mitigation hierarchy As indicated previously, the mitigation hierarchy itself is a continuation of the hierarchy of alternatives. Nevertheless it tends to be separated out as a discrete step within EIA (as indicated in Table 5.1). The mitigation hierarchy can be traced back at least as far as the CEQ (1978) guidelines in the USA, where it is expressed as follows: ‘Mitigation’ includes: 1. avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and

98

ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5. compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. (CEQ, 1978, s. 1508.200 – emphasis added)

Recent versions of the mitigation hierarchy reduce it to just four steps – avoidance, minimization, restoration and compensation (for example, BBOP, 2012; Brownlie and Treweek, 2017) – as minimizing and reducing can be seen to be synonymous. There is some degree of overlap of the mitigation hierarchy with aspects of the hierarchy of alternatives. For example, alternatives regarding mode, scale, location or timing might each have ramifications for avoiding an impact in the first instance (Noble, 2015). Further, there are relationships between different steps on the hierarchy. For example, where there is likely to be a requirement for rectification of environmental impact at some point in the future, such as habitat restoration following temporary construction activity or removal of a development at the end of its life, there is likely to be an incentive for proponents to minimize the extent of disturbance in the first instance so as to avoid the costs associated with habitat restoration work. The intention of the mitigation hierarchy is that proponents (and other stakeholders) apply it in sequence from the top. The residual impact that remains once each mitigation step has been applied (that is, the expected change to a part of the biophysical or social environment as per the definition of a prediction in Chapter 7) is carried through to the next step in the hierarchy for further attention. The ultimate aim is to eliminate the impact entirely if possible, and if not, at least to render it acceptable. Different phases tend to relate to specific steps in the application of the hierarchy. For example, options to avoid impacts are mainly available in the conceptual planning stage, while rectifying and reducing may apply mainly to the operational phase of developments. This also points to the ongoing nature of mitigation, and the need for a variety of approaches to address any given impact. It also implicitly evokes the concept of adaptive management (addressed further in Chapter  13). This is also where EIA links with the voluntary ISO 14001 environmental management systems standard. Proponents adopting this standard will be required to demonstrate continuous improvement in performance, such as reduced emissions or enhancements in resource usage efficiencies over time, and

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION

99

this is a mechanism for ‘furthering EIA’ into the implementation phases of development (Perdicoulis et al., 2012). Also implicit in the definition of mitigation encapsulated within the hierarchy is that it pertains only to adverse impacts (a point raised previously in Section 7.2). Noble (2015) explicitly frames the mitigation hierarchy as strategies for managing adverse impacts, noting that these are the main focus of EIA. While this makes sense (for example, bearing in mind the trigger for EIA at the screening step), it also makes EIA into a reactive tool, and the loss of environmental resources is taken as a given, notwithstanding the compensation provision at the bottom of the hierarchy. As Gibson (2006) wrote: Minimization of negative effects is not enough; assessment requirements must encourage positive steps towards greater community and ecological sustainability, towards a future that is more viable, pleasant and secure. (p. 172)

In this spirit, Bond et al. (2013b) advocated ‘placing “enhance” on the top of the mitigation hierarchy’ (p. 242). Glasson et al. (2012) suggest that ‘benefit enhancement is becoming an increasingly important element in EIA, especially for major projects’ (p. 139). An aim of EIA emphasized by Partidário (2012) is to optimize positive effects and make a positive contribution to environmental and human well-being. To this end, Nisbet and João (2022) developed a framework for evaluating enhancement initiatives within EIA practice. Notwithstanding this increasing interest in pursuing enhancement and net positive outcomes, the classic mitigation hierarchy reproduced above continues to be the main way of thinking about how EIA contributes to environmental protection, in my experience. Noble (2015) is one of many authors who advocates development projects making a positive contribution to environment and society. He outlines a number of strategies for doing this, including the use of ‘environmental protection plans’ (p. 156), adaptive management strategies and the use of impact benefit agreements with local communities. The latter tool is used to ensure that social benefits are realized for local communities (often Indigenous Peoples) affected by large-scale resource development projects (for example, Whitelaw et al., 2009; O’Faircheallaigh, 2010a; Vanclay et al., 2015). In the context of the mitigation hierarchy, Noble (2015) suggests that impact benefit agreements are usually associated with compensation measures. They are legally binding agreements between

100 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

a proponent and a community negotiated for different reasons, depending on the particular need or community interest (Noble, 2015), which often remain confidential (that is, the contents are not publicly disclosed). While triggered by the kinds of development activity subject to EIA, they tend to be a mechanism for delivering social benefits that lie outside of the formal EIA process and are not considered further here. Other environmental management mechanisms that exist independently of formal EIA processes, such as environmental management systems and others mentioned in Chapter 2, may deliver important beneficial outcomes for proponents implementing them during the life cycle of their development activity (for example, Sheate, 2009; Perdicoulis et al., 2012; Noble, 2015). Returning more specifically to the mitigation hierarchy, the compensating step of the hierarchy, whereby adverse environmental impacts are compensated for by positive environmental impacts of some kind in a different time or place, does have the potential to deliver environmental enhancement. Such compensation is increasingly known as offsetting. At the very least, offsetting is intended to ensure that no residual adverse impact remains. This is the ‘no net loss’ approach to EIA and resource management more broadly that is reflected in offset principles and policies (for example, IAIA, 2005; Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007; BBOP, 2012; Brownlie and Treweek, 2017), but the idea of extending offsets to deliver net gain has also been mooted. For example, BBOP (2012) define the offset step at the base of the mitigation hierarchy as measures taken to compensate for any residual significant, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, minimised and / or rehabilitated or restored, in order to achieve no net loss or a net gain of biodiversity. Offsets can take the form of positive management interventions such as restoration of degraded habitat, arrested degradation or averted risk, protecting areas where there is imminent or projected loss of biodiversity. (p. 1, emphasis added)

There are other necessary components of offsets that must be provided for, if they are truly going to offset impacts on biodiversity and not deliver some other form of compensation (Pope et al., 2021). Relative to the other steps in the mitigation hierarchy, offsets are complex and contentious. Weiner (1997), for example, suggests that compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute environmental resources is the ‘most controversial element of mitigation’ (p. 75), because

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION 101

it is an admission that some impacts cannot be avoided and the affected environment cannot be rehabilitated. Offsets are thus worthy of further consideration here. While discussion of environmental compensation and offsets has occurred over decades (for example, early practice is reviewed in Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007), there has been a dramatic increase in attention to the topic in recent years. Although offsets can take many forms, the focus for discussion of offsets in relation to EIA concerns the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity (for example, as is evident in the work of BBOP cited previously and most of the examples that follow). The topic has attracted considerable attention from ecologists. Comparatively little is said about social offsets. The discussion that follows provides a brief overview of the application of offsets as the final step of the mitigation hierarchy, and identifies some of the challenges that this poses for the practice of EIA. First, it is important to note the distinction between mitigation and offsetting (notwithstanding previous framing of the mitigation hierarchy to include offsets). In the words of Pope et al. (2021), ‘by definition, offsets seek to compensate for impacts on the development site in another place that is outside the development envelope and therefore there can be no real confusion between offsets and the other steps in the mitigation hierarchy’ (p. 425). Thus, I think of mitigation as management actions undertaken at the development site, where adverse impacts on the environment occur and these are principally the responsibility of proponents. Offsets occur elsewhere, and while the proponent is responsible (in the sense of the polluter-pays model of EIA), the actual management actions may be undertaken by other parties. They also require an additional assessment process to be undertaken to judge their suitability to deliver a true biodiversity offset (as further outlined in Pope et al., 2021). Essentially, offsets are a form of trade-off that involve substitutions of impacted resources in time, place and kind (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a). There is normally a requirement or at least a preference for equivalence in the substituted resource so as to deliver on the principle of ‘like-for-like’ (for example, Hayes and Morrison-Saunders, 2007; BBOP, 2012; Maron et al., 2012). Where an offset site involves rehabilitation of an existing degraded habitat to compensate for a comparatively pristine portion of that same habitat type, there will be a substitution in time

102 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

due to the length of time taken for the rehabilitated site to recover an ecological structure and functions equivalent to those on the impacted site. Construction of an artificial wetland to replace a natural wetland lost to development (for example, a new road) is an example of substitution in place. Substitutions in kind appear to be more likely for social impacts. Gibson et al. (2005) note that these are ‘perhaps most dramatic, and potentially controversial’ (p. 128) because of the difficulty in judging equivalence. An example is the loss of access to traditional hunting for Indigenous Peoples in exchange for new community recreational facilities and other health or well-being services. For a community to acquiesce to such a trade-off perhaps implies that the offset represents a like-for-better outcome from their perspective. Even where biodiversity is returned in an offset somewhere else, there are social impacts associated with the loss of local access to nature at the development site (for example, Kalliolevo et al., 2021; Tupala et al., 2022). Meanwhile, ecologists are concerned that restoring habitats to their former natural values and delivery of the like-for-like principle are not actually technically possible. A review of ecological restoration programmes by Maron et al. (2012), for example, led them to conclude that: … many of the expectations set by current offset policy for ecological restoration remain unsupported by evidence … the domain within which restoration can deliver ‘no net loss’ offsets remains small. (p. 141)

Similarly, a follow-up study of 287 offsets established in EIA approvals over a ten-year period of practice in Western Australia found effective delivery for just 39 per cent, with 14 per cent following implementation too soon and 18 per cent having insufficient available information to judge, while the remaining 30 per cent2 were found to be ineffective or inadequately implemented (May et al., 2017). Inadequate biological surveys to monitor and verify offset performance were also evident in the study of Kalliolevo et al. (2022). These perspectives seriously challenge the utility and integrity of the compensation step in the mitigation hierarchy, at least as far as biophysical sustainability considerations are concerned. How offsets are communicated and reported on in their overall ecological context is also important. Maron et al. (2016), for example, argue that the conceptual basis of offsets – explicitly linking each unit of biodiversity loss to at least an equivalent gain – is essential to turning the tide of extinction and

ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION 103

biodiversity decline. However, without a genuine balance sheet showing not just conservation wins, such as new protected areas, but the losses too …, we risk entrenching biodiversity losses while at the same time celebrating what we think are gains. (p. 388)

Kujala et al. (2022) stipulate that public national registers are necessary to demonstrate and confirm that no net loss biodiversity associated with offsetting practices is being delivered in practice. A focus in EIA on the project development site and a corresponding offset site alone is not adequate for understanding sustainability performance. If an offset represents substitution in kind, then there will be a net loss of that original environmental resource. Meanwhile, for substitution in time and place, the concern remains that sustainability is displaced from the ‘here and now’ of the development area subject to EIA to the ‘there’ or ‘then’ of an offset site (Morrison-Saunders and Hughes, 2018). The extent to which individual development activity subject to EIA can be understood to represent sustainable development remains a practical challenge in this regard. In addition to concerns about tangible outcomes, ethical concerns have been raised about how offsets are being applied in EIA. Specifically it has been argued that there may be a tendency (or perceived tendency) for proponents to propose offsets before they have properly applied the earlier steps of the mitigation hierarchy. Middle and Middle (2010), for example, noted a possible perception of the use of offsets in EIA practice ‘that the proponent is “buying” an approval’ (p. 322). Weiner (1997) uses even stronger language, pointing out that the use of offsets lends itself to the ‘twin abuses of regulatory “blackmail” and “bribery”’ (p. 75). The implication from these perspectives is that the offsets provide an opportunity to expedite development approval, rather than being truly oriented to delivering net environmental benefits. All steps in the mitigation hierarchy deserve appropriate attention in EIA and especially in the proponent’s EIS. Offsets, however, warrant special treatment, as the proponent must now be held accountable for a portion of the environment separate to the development area – that is, which is otherwise the main focus of EIA. Pilgrim et al. (2013) put forward a six-step process for assessing the ‘offsetability’ of biodiversity impacts. At the development site, this process requires assessment to (i) understand the biodiversity conservation concern and (ii) to determine the magnitude of the residual impact once the previous steps in the mitigation

104 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

hierarchy have been pursued. For the offset area, it requires assessment of (iii) the offset opportunity in terms of the natural distribution of the biodiversity values in question, the ecological functionality and availability of offset options. Implementation becomes the focus of step (iv) to assess the offset feasibility in terms of confidence in techniques to be employed and capacity of the proponent to deliver a successful outcome in an appropriate time frame. The three preceding considerations are then combined to (v) categorize the likelihood of offset success. Finally, the biodiversity concern from the first step is combined with the step five offset success determination into (vi) a burden of proof framework. In essence then, consideration of offsets generates an entire assessment process akin to the EIA process itself. The authors intend that the process commences during project design and thereafter is iteratively applied throughout all phases of EIA. While the approach of Pilgrim et al. (2013) is directed solely to biodiversity offsets, the same thinking could be tailored to all impacts encountered in EIA warranting compensation or an offset. Perhaps such a process does or should underpin the development and use of impact benefit agreements discussed previously for deriving positive social impacts from development. Not mentioned in the above, but equally key to success, will be appropriate stakeholder engagement to ensure that appropriately sustainable or acceptable outcomes are attained. This is a key topic within the next Part of the book.

Notes 1. 2.

The accompanying regulations for NEPA (CEQ, 1978, s. 1502.14) do contain more detailed specifications as to what a proponent is expected to address, which cover most (but not all) of the steps in the alternatives hierarchy. Numbers total 101 per cent (presumably as a result of rounding errors).

PART IV About environment

11. Representing environment This Part of the book is about understanding the environment in which a proposed development would take place. The main focus of this chapter is on how the baseline environment is represented, considering both biophysical and social dimensions. The following chapter expands upon the social dimension by focusing on stakeholder engagement in EIA.

11.1 The importance of baseline monitoring Since the impact of development is understood to be the change observed in the environment following implementation, as discussed in Chapter 7, baseline monitoring of the development area is an essential early task (for example, Wolf, 1975; Wathern, 1988; Kennedy and Ross, 1992; Therivel, 2004; European Commission, 2017a). Morris and Therivel (2001) describe baseline monitoring as forming the ‘backbone’ (p. 5) of assessments. Baseline monitoring can be defined simply as the characterization of relevant aspects of the environment (biophysical and social) existing before development that could be affected by a proposal subject to EIA (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983; Beanlands, 1988). It provides the essential basis for predicting and assessing environmental impacts, and for subsequent EIA follow-up activities such as auditing the accuracy of impact predictions (Munro, 1985) and providing the foundation for effective adaptive management (Lee and Gardner, 2014; Fitzpatrick and Williams, 2020). Baseline monitoring must be suitably comprehensive and compatible with post-implementation monitoring to enable meaningful comparisons to be made (for example, Beanlands and Duinker, 1983; Wathern, 1988; Sadler, 1996; Morris and Therivel, 2001; Hanna, 2016; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2023). It is also fundamental to an assessment of the ‘do nothing’ alternative in EIA (European Commission, 2017a). 106

REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENT 107

It is important to be able to differentiate between environmental impacts (that is, those changes caused by development being subject to EIA) and naturally occurring environmental change, as not all change will be project-induced (Noble, 2015). Given the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the environment, baseline monitoring must take account of natural variation and future trends (Sadler, 1996; Therivel, 2004). In this vein, Hollick (1986) notes that two types of baseline information are required for EIA: ‘project-specific data relevant to the particular site and its immediate surroundings, and less detailed regional baseline data to provide the temporal and spatial context’ (p. 170). Hilborn and Walters (1981) further advocate for ‘long-term studies of unperturbed systems to establish natural baselines’ (p. 267). The time period and spatial scale of baseline studies need to be designed appropriately to enable the past, present and likely future state of the environment to be understood (Noble, 2015). Many authors point out that the ultimate success or effectiveness of EIA will depend largely on how well baseline monitoring is conducted, frequently identifying this aspect of practice as requiring more rigour in approach or as lacking needed data (for example, Beanlands, 1988; Bisset and Tomlinson, 1988; Htun, 1988; Glasson et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013; Hugé et al., 2017). Chapter 13 explores the role of science in EIA in further detail. Baseline monitoring will usually involve the collation and review of existing available information (from published and other sources as appropriate) on the receiving environment likely to be affected by the proposed development. However, this information is likely to be inadequate or out of date, and hence there will be a need to conduct targeted studies of particular aspects of the baseline in order to fill the gaps (Conover et al., 1985; Morris and Therivel, 2001). Baseline monitoring is inherently tied to the scoping process and the relationship between the two is iterative. As explained by Hanna (2016), the existing available baseline data supports the initial scoping process, but the scoping stage can also help decide what additional new baseline information is going to be needed to deliver an effective EIA process. Baseline monitoring is essential for both the biophysical and social dimensions of the environment; however, the vast majority of the literature on baseline studies pertains specifically to the biophysical environment, and

108 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

this focus is mirrored in the following section. As discussed in Chapter 2, biophysical impacts are recorded exclusively by an external expert, while for social impacts a second pathway exists in that an individual experiencing an impact for themselves may be a participant in the EIA process itself.

11.2 Conducting baseline studies Morgan (1998) identifies six aspects that must be considered in the design of environmental baseline studies: 1. an understanding of characteristics of the proposed activity and how it will interact with the environment (this should be already apparent from the screening and scoping steps); 2. determining which variables should be measured – that is, the indicator that will serve to represent the impact and subsequent environmental performance during post-implementation monitoring; 3. determining what geographical area is to be sampled so that the predicted impact can be placed in a meaningful context for the environmental resource in question; 4. choosing an appropriate time period for sampling, taking into account seasonal and other important temporal variations in the environment; 5. choosing an appropriate number of samples or temporal cycles to ensure that the environmental attributes are suitably representative and understood; and 6. ensuring that appropriate control sites are also monitored in an identical fashion so that valid conclusions can be subsequently drawn about impacts associated specifically with the development site. These characteristics all pertain to scientific integrity and robust design. A common criticism of baseline studies of the biophysical environment is that they lack scientific rigour – some of the key problems reported are that: • the focus is biased to information and data that are readily available rather than on what is needed (Beanlands, 1988); • frequently baseline studies are ‘only “snapshots” in time’ (Morris and Therivel, 2001, p. 9), employing the poor practice of ‘helicopter ecology’ (Hilborn and Walters, 1981, p. 266) or ‘superficial

REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENT 109

“walk-over” surveys’ (Treweek, 1996, p. 193) based on simple checklist counts of biota present at a site, not the ecological functions and relationships (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983); • acquiring baseline data is generally one of the most expensive and time-consuming activities in the EIA process (Htun, 1988; Sippe, 1999), and consequently it gets neglected. One example of failure here reported by Treweek (1996) was ecological surveys conducted at inappropriate times of the year, when relevant biota would be absent or difficult to find (for example, plants covered in snow, migratory birds absent from the area); and • simply knowing what to study in advance (Hilborn and Walters, 1981). The solutions advocated by all authors mentioned above revolve chiefly around more rigorous science to underpin baseline studies, along with clear accounts of the methods used and any limitations therein. The role of science in EIA is discussed in Chapter 13. Many call on governments to require minimum standards for sampling and monitoring programmes, and to assist in helping proponents to obtain the necessary baseline information, especially in the context of cumulative impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment where knowledge across a region is needed (for example, Kennett, 2000; Cooper and Sheate, 2004), such as by establishing and maintaining a coordinated information system (Hollick, 1986). The need for baseline studies is clear. Ultimately though, in practice, as flagged by Hilborn and Walters (1981), baseline monitoring is unlikely ever to be sufficiently long or detailed to provide the knowledge ideally sought for the EIA tasks for which it is needed (for example, prediction, detailed proposal design, mitigation and follow-up monitoring and evaluation). Uncertainty will never be eliminated, as I shall discuss further in Chapter 13. A judgement call thus has to be made as to what kinds and how much baseline monitoring is necessary for a given EIA. Beanlands (1988) also points out that EIA is a planning tool and not solely a scientific undertaking, meaning that baseline studies need to inform multiple stakeholders for different decision-making purposes (such as those indicated in Table 5.1). This means that baseline studies should be designed to accommodate the specific information and data requirements of the different decision-makers at various stages in the EIA process.

110 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

11.3 Systems representations of environment In practice, baseline monitoring is typically undertaken by separating environment into components represented by key variables or indicators. Baseline studies are usually the domain of individual science disciplines (flora, fauna, chemistry, hydrology, social science and so on) or specialists within a particular development sector (for example, extractives, water resource development, land-use planning). A renewed interest has emerged in recent years in taking a systems-based approach to EIA which seeks to understand the baseline environment in a holistic manner as an integrated socio-ecological system (for example, Gibson, 2006; Slootweg and Jones, 2011; Audouin and de Wet, 2012; Audouin et al., 2015; Grace and Pope, 2015). This is a return to scientific thinking that was prevalent around the time that EIA was conceived and established, such as the Limits to Growth study of Meadows et al. (1972). As noted previously, Andrews (1973) advocated systems thinking as part of a philosophy of EIA. Conceptualizing the baseline environment as a continuous system acknowledges that actions associated with proposed development activity will change the environment within which the action is taking place (Grace and Pope, 2015). It is about understanding dynamics, limits and feedback loops. In this more holistic approach to understanding the environment, the notion of impact avoids the depiction of singular biophysical, social or economic variables in a linear cause–effect pathway with subsequent indirect impacts or flow-on effects arising. In systems thinking there are no indirect or cumulative effects; there are simply effects (Grace and Pope, 2015) arising from the dynamics of the system behaviour. Being holistic is also important with bringing representations of environment and development together – this will be addressed in Chapter 14. Systems thinking is strongly associated with taking a sustainability-oriented approach to EIA as the previously mentioned sources each demonstrate. Storey (1986) noted that the ways in which systems work (especially social and economic systems in this particular instance) are not well understood and consequently an EIA process that emphasizes EISs based heavily on linear impact prediction is unwise. Storey advocated instead for a management-oriented emphasis. Further discussion of a systems

REPRESENTING ENVIRONMENT 111

approach to EIA is beyond the scope of this book, although later discussion of adaptive management (Chapter 13) and cumulative impact assessment (Chapter 14) will be relevant to the topic.

12. Engaging with stakeholders Understanding the environmental setting for a proposed development should include the social dimension as well as the biophysical one. While much useful information about the social environment can be sourced by descriptive means and external examination (for example, using existing available data sets such as census data), a deeper understanding comes from engaging with relevant parties. This chapter focuses on stakeholder engagement. While it has been positioned in this book in the context of understanding the environment, engaging with stakeholders is an ongoing process relevant to the entire EIA and development life cycle. There are numerous stakeholders involved in EIA, as noted in the opening chapters. Morgan (1998), Petts (1999b) and Noble (2015) refer to there being multiple ‘publics’ that need to be taken into consideration and engaged with during EIA. This includes proponents (and their representatives), EIA agencies, other regulator agencies, independent experts (e.g. peer reviewers), community members and Indigenous Peoples. Two broad stakeholder types can be singled out: those that are specifically or directly affected by a proposal and those simply having an interest in it (IAIA and IEA, 1999; André et al., 2006). The implication here is that perhaps great participation opportunities should be made available to the former group. Another kind of distinction made by Burton et al. (1983) regarding the affected parties is to consider ‘[w]ho will gain and who will lose?’ (p.  147), in light of the differential ways in which the impacts of development might be received by stakeholders. In this book, I use the term ‘public participation’ as a catch-all phrase for the range of stakeholders that might be engaged (for example, by proponents and EIA agencies) during the process. This approach adopts the definitions of

112

ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS 113

terms employed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2007) whereby: • stakeholders are ‘any individual, group of individuals, organizations, or political entity with a stake in outcome of a decision’ (p. 3). This includes those either: ‘positively or negatively affected by a proposed intervention’ (André et al., 2006, p. 1); • public refers to those ‘stakeholders who are not part of decision-making entity or entities’ (IAP2, 2007, p. 3); and • public participation means ‘any process that involves the public in problem-solving or decision-making and that uses public input to make better decisions’ (IAP2, 2007, p. 3). These definitions refer repeatedly to ‘decision-making’, without specifying what that might mean. Often this would be perceived to mean the approval decision in EIA, but as demonstrated in Table 5.1, the entire EIA process can be conceived as a series of important decision points. I draw attention to Cohen and Uphoff (1980), who identified four kinds of participation: ‘(1) participation in decision-making; (2) participation in implementation; (3) participation in benefits; and (4) participation in evaluation’ (p. 219). In this book I have defined EIA to mean the full development cycle from conception to decommissioning of development proposals. Consequently stakeholder engagement should be part of the whole cycle, tailored as appropriate for the needs and purposes of each phase of development activity. This chapter commences by discussing the principle of natural justice and other reasons for public participation in EIA, before outlining a spectrum of public participation and considering what effective stakeholder engagement might entail and the range of techniques that might be employed.

12.1 Natural justice in EIA and other reasons for public participation Underpinning the theory and practice of EIA (especially in Western democracies) is the principle of natural justice or procedural fairness

114 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

(Morrison-Saunders and Early, 2008). A legal definition of this principle is provided by Bates (1997) as follows: Natural Justice – The right to be given a fair hearing and the opportunity to present one’s case, the right to have a decision made by an unbiased or disinterested decision maker and the right to have that decision based on logically probative evidence. (p. 136)

The first and last parts of this definition regarding active involvement in providing input to decision-making and having the decision based on the available (or presented) evidence are especially relevant to public participation in EIA. To know that the principle of natural justice has been upheld in EIA practice means that the outcomes of decision-making must also be disclosed (especially the approval decision step). These three components of (i) public participation in environmental decision-making, (ii) decision-making that takes into account information or evidence provided and (iii) access to information through disclosure of decisions and their basis are captured in several EIA-related international agreements, such as Articles 5 and 6 of the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1991), Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development1 and Articles 4–9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998.2 Likewise, they are evident in the ‘Participative’ and ‘Transparent’ principles for best practice EIA (IAIA and IEA, 1999) and in the ‘Objectives of Public Participation’ within the Public Participation International Best Practice Principles published by IAIA (André et al., 2006, p. 2). The principle of natural justice pertains to procedural aspects of EIA practice and establishes a legal right for public participation in the process. There are additional good reasons for engaging with stakeholders in EIA (Morgan, 1998; Petts, 1999b; André et al., 2006; Glasson et al., 2012; Noble, 2015; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2023). As these authors variously note, engagement can help to: • define the problem or objectives of development more effectively, especially in relation to strategic development proposals (for example, participation in decision-making higher up the alternatives hierarchy); • inform and educate stakeholders; • enable access to a wider range of information, including traditional environmental knowledge, which can inform better development

ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS 115

• • • • • •

design and understanding of social issues and how to manage them effectively; identify socially acceptable solutions, including early identification of a proposal that is likely to be socially unviable; elevate the environmental reputation of both proponents and governments involved in EIA and help build social trust; enhance decision-making, including ensuring greater support for decision outcomes; avoid or minimize conflict and costly delays by building trust, clearing up misunderstandings and allowing better understanding of relevant issues; reduce the possibility of legal challenge; and facilitate development implementation, including participation in EIA follow-up and other activities involving the proponent and community.

In light of the inevitably ‘value-laden business’ of EIA, Gibson (1993, p. 17) suggests that broad public participation and scrutiny is the best way to combat narrow biases and give due consideration to matters of public concern. He further points out that citizens are increasingly unlikely to rely on the assurances of government in the kinds of issues and decisions that EIAs involve. Not only will the public expect to be involved, but it will be necessary for purposes of credibility and legitimacy. In participatory assessment processes it is acknowledged that non-experts have legitimate input in public decision-making alongside the input of technical experts and scientists (Hugé, 2017).

12.2 The importance of context Notwithstanding the extracts from IAP2 (2007) previously, there is no single definition or global consensus on what public participation in EIA should entail. Drawing upon an international literature review within broader perspective of environmental management, Reed (2008) notes that: During the history of its development and in the different contexts where it has been applied, participation has become loaded with ideological, social, political and methodological meaning, giving rise to a wide range of interpretations. (p. 2419)

116 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EIA scholars and practitioners hold varying views regarding the purpose and nature of stakeholder engagement in the process. As Glucker et al. (2013) observed: most scholars are divided over the precise meaning of public participation in the context of EIA. That is, it is not clear what public participation in EIA involves and requires. Furthermore, there is no consensus on who should be allowed to participate in EIA. Lastly, and most strikingly, there is large disagreement as to the specific objectives of public participation in EIA. (p. 104)

That said, some essential elements of meaningful public participation are put forward in Stewart and Sinclair (2007) and Sinclair et al. (2022). In essence these revolve around openness and clear communication with genuine opportunities to engage stakeholders early and throughout the EIA process (including extension of assistance with capacity building where needed), and for that input to taken seriously by decision-makers. In short, avoiding obfuscation, exclusion or tokenism. Beyond these general points, what is regarded as effective or best practice public participation in EIA will, to a large extent, be specific to the context within which the EIA is being conducted. Relevant considerations identified by Noble (2015) include: • the objectives of the proponent and commitment to public involvement in their operations; • the legal requirements for participation that apply; • the sensitivity of the receiving environment along with the magnitude of potential project impacts; • the characteristics and sensitivity of the socio-cultural setting in which the proposed development would take place; • time and resource availability; and • the level of public interest. These points relate both to the specific circumstances of a given EIA and to the broader socio-political context within which EIA is conducted. Several authors emphasize that the practice of public participation in EIA varies according to local political and cultural values, history or traditions and institutions in place (Morgan, 1998; Petts, 1999b; Meuleman, 2015; Noble, 2015). Morgan (1998) notes a tension between Western and non-Western views in this regard. O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a) posited a relationship between national political styles and approaches to public participation in EIA. They anticipated that increasing commitment to principles of democracy would correspond to evolving sophistication and

ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS 117

greater depth of engagement, ultimately leading to participative forms of decision-making. Having considered a range of EIA applications in a variety of different national and political settings, they found some support for their hypothesis (O’Riordan and Sewell, 1981b), although they concluded that the characteristics of proposed development (for example, size and novelty) along with the degree of experience in EIA and commitment to it by regulators were equally if not more of an explanation for practice outcomes. Decades on, however, an examination from practice of public participation in EIAs of major road proposals in Sweden over a seven-year period by Isaksson et al. (2009) would appear to uphold the theoretical perspective of O’Riordan and Sewell (1981a), at least in so far as these authors recorded a ‘shift towards more deliberative approaches to planning and decision-making’ (p. 295). O’Faircheallaigh (2010b) points to the intertwined nature of different approaches, noting, for example, that the ‘use of public participation to obtain information for corporate and government officials can lead to pressures for public control over decision making’ (p. 26), and that this in turn can lead to a redefinition of the purposes of public participation within that system. Authors hailing from robust democratic societies appear to advocate the more empowering approaches to public participation (for example, Petts, 1999b; Doelle and Sinclair, 2006; Reed, 2008; Hartz-Karp et al., 2015). It is worth recalling at this point (as noted in Chapter 8 previously), that not all EIA systems necessarily offer even the minimum level of public participation for upholding natural justice within institutional arrangements. For example, Niyaz and Storey (2011) report on the Maldives as a jurisdiction with little or no provision for public participation in EIA. They also noted a number of other countries where this is similarly the case based upon their review of the literature. In these jurisdictions it may fall upon proponents and their consultants to engage voluntarily with public stakeholders during EIA studies. Regarding the Maldives experience, this approach to public participation was found to be ‘ad hoc and outwardly superficial’ by Niyaz and Storey (2011, p. 75) and not ‘fully fair or competent’ in the subsequent work of Zuhair and Kurian (2016, p. 129). Differences in approach may be warranted even within a given jurisdiction to account for differences in stakeholder groups. An example here concerns engagement with Indigenous Peoples whereby some authors offer specific approaches which are particularly oriented to overcom-

118 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ing imbalances in power and influence (for example, O’Faircheallaigh, 2010a, 2010b; Noble, 2015). Signatory countries to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples commit to particular treatment for Indigenous Peoples such as the concept of free, prior and informed consent (for example, Hanna and Vanclay, 2013), and respecting their rights to their lands, which has ramifications for how public participation is conducted. Regardless of the form of public participation conducted, there is broad consensus that the processes should be considered to be fair and legitimate by those involved (for example, Petts, 1999b; Webler et  al., 2001; Gauthier et al., 2011; Sinclair et al., 2015, 2022). This relates to the ‘ideal of public reason’ described by Bohman (1998) that legitimate decisions are ones that ‘everyone could accept’ or at least ‘not reasonably reject’ (p. 402). A number of other conditions must also be met to ensure meaningful and legitimate participation by stakeholders in EIA, including access to complete and accurate information, freedom from coercion, equal opportunity to participate, and the ability to weigh evidence and assess arguments objectively (Noble, 2015). The processes of stakeholder engagement and the principle of natural justice more broadly are central to this notion of legitimization. The preceding discussion has alluded to a range of different approaches to public participation practice. I explore this in more detail in the following section.

12.3 Spectrum of public participation practice The socio-political context discussed in the previous section will largely shape how EIA is conceived, and this in turn will dictate what constitutes meaningful public participation. O’Faircheallaigh (2010b) describes this in relation to three broad purposes for public participation in EIA, being from obtaining public input into decisions taken by others to sharing decision-making with the public through to altering the ‘distribution of power and structures of decision making’ (p. 20). Cashmore (2004) depicts a sliding scale from EIA as applied science through to EIA as civic

ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS 119

science. The applied science position is captured in the perspective of Canter (1996), for example, who wrote that: The basic purpose of including public-participation programs or activities in the environmental decision-making process is to enable productive use of inputs and perceptions from governmental agencies, private citizens, and public interest groups in order to improve the quality of environmental decision making. (p. 587)

This perspective of public participation is in keeping with the information processing model of EIA (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999), with the main purpose being to inform decision-making about proposed development. A minimum position to accomplish this within institutional arrangements for EIA is implied in the ‘Review’ row in Table 5.1 in Chapter 5. Simply providing the public with the opportunity to submit written comments on an EIS along with transparency/disclosure of approval decision-making outcomes meets the minimum expectations for natural justice outlined previously. Noble (2015) notes that public involvement in EIA is frequently limited just to the provision of written submissions and that anything further than this remains a choice of the proponent, not a regulatory requirement. An evaluation of the Aarhus Convention (that is, the minimum position for EIA) against principles derived from Habermas’ theory of communicative action by Palerm (1999) identified four failings: (i) no provision for two-way communication; (ii) pre-eminence of technocentric decision-making (for example, the Canter perspective above) with insufficient recognition of normative and subjective inputs; (iii) absence of conflict management procedures; and (iv) failure to involve cognitively and linguistically impaired participants. More engaging than the minimum position outlined above, but still in the main serving to uphold the purpose of public participation described by Canter (1996), is the use of panel hearings (such as is the practice in Canada and New Zealand). Conducted by the EIA agency, these are formal proceedings in which affected stakeholders can communicate in person with those who will be formulating the approval decision recommendations to government (Petts, 1999b). Benefits for community members here include engagement with authorities rather than the proponent and the opportunity to participate orally (that is, rather than in writing), which may include the use of translators to accommodate communication in a person’s native language. An additional further level

120 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

above this is more interactive participation (André et al., 2006) such as by means of workshops, negotiation or even co-management. For sustainability-oriented EIA, Doelle and Sinclair (2006) advocate the use of public participation approaches that promote cooperation and consensus building. Similarly and reaching even farther still on the spectrum of public participation, Hartz-Karp et al. (2015) promote the use of ‘deliberative collaborative governance’ which sees the ‘bringing together of public agencies, non-state stakeholders and the broader public in formal, consensus-oriented decision-making processes’ (p. 398). To uphold the notions of equity and justice implied in the sustainable development concept and the integrated nature of socio-ecological systems in sustainability thinking, it might be anticipated that the collaborative and deliberative forms of public participation will be necessary. A power shift is evident in the spectrum of public participation as one moves from the minimum position (EIA as applied science) through to the more engaged approaches (EIA as civic science). In a similar vein, IAP2 (2007) represent the spectrum of public participation in terms of approaches that respectively ‘inform’, ‘consult’, ‘involve’, ‘collaborate’ or ‘empower’ (p. 4), and which Sheedy (2008) subsequently represents in a circular rather than linear depiction so as to demonstrate ‘the interrelationship between these different approaches, how one approach builds on and continues to draw from the previous one’ (p. 7). The notion of power shift across the spectrum of public participation was identified by Arnstein (1969) whereby the minimum position seen in EIA practices of informing and consultation represent degrees of ‘tokenism’ (p. 217), whereas practices seeking consensus, co-management or deliberative collaborative governance represent degrees of ‘citizen power’ (p. 217). Further discussion of Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ in the context of EIA can be found in Petts (1999b, pp. 146–7). O’Riordan (1976b) clearly favours the more engaging and participative side of the spectrum, noting that public participation is ‘essentially a means to social reform and political egalitarianism, a systems-transforming device that is regarded as revolutionary and subversive by many of the elite’ (p. 256). This perspective of public participation aligns with the notion of EIA as ultimately serving to transform values and behaviours across society outlined in the opening chapter.

ENGAGING WITH STAKEHOLDERS 121

12.4 Public participation techniques There are plenty of public engagement mechanisms for practitioners to choose from – too many to cover here. For example, Rowe and Frewer (2005) present an alphabetical listing of over 100 approaches or techniques (p. 257). The IAP2 similarly describe around 60 techniques in their ‘Public Participation Toolbox’3 that they arrange in relation to techniques for (i) sharing information, (ii) compiling and providing feedback and (iii) bringing people together; these techniques coincide broadly with categories for increasing empowerment across the public participation spectrum. A similar but slightly expanded typology of six categories of public participation methods is provided by Morgan (1998) drawing upon the work of others as follows: • one-time output method (for example, presentation event, newspaper feature) that serves just to alert the public about the development and associated EIA process; • ongoing output methods that both alert and inform the public being sustained over a period of time, so are able to provide updates and further information (for example, websites, displays, pamphlets/ brochures); • one-time input methods that aim to collect as much information from the public in a single event or instrument (for example, public hearing, surveys, interviews); • ongoing input methods to collect public opinions about a proposal over a period of time (for example, social media); • one-time interaction methods whereby following a release of information about a proposal, input from the public is sought (for example, group discussion forum, charrettes); and • ongoing interaction methods that establish relatively elaborate programmes and opportunities for dialogue between the proponent and the public (for example, advisory committees), and may extend to conflict resolution techniques where needed. Despite the possibilities, there appears to be little evidence of advocacy for specifically empowering approaches to public participation in EIA regulation. It remains the choice of individual EIA practitioners in the main. Doelle and Sinclair (2006) highlight the importance of motivation for constructive participation (of both proponents and of the public),

122 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

pointing out that there ‘simply is no way to legislate cooperation and creative problem solving’ (p. 192). To close this chapter, there are two further points to make concerning stakeholder engagement in EIA. First, there is the challenge of knowing which stakeholders to engage in an EIA. This is related to the characterization of the baseline environment discussed in the previous chapter. As Meuleman (2015) notes, a ‘classical problem … is that it is sometimes difficult to find a representative “public”’ (p. 13). Thus there is an element of uncertainty here for proponents and regulators alike in terms of knowing who ought to be consulted in the first instance or whether input has been obtained from the ‘right’ people, as there will typically be imbalances with regards who is dominant or empowered to speak up (Meuleman, 2015). This problem may manifest as the ‘noisy minority’ versus the ‘silent majority’. A technique for approaching this perennial challenge in EIA is to plot the influence of particular groups or individuals in the community versus their stake in the outcome using a simple indicative scaling of low/ high in each case (Noble, 2015). The idea here is not only to ensure that all relevant stakeholders have been identified, but subsequently to allocate public participation effort and choice of technique accordingly. So, for example, individuals with a high stake in the outcome but only low power or influence should be afforded ongoing and intimate attention to ensure that their concerns are addressed (Noble, 2015). Second, engagement with the affected community will also turn up new information and understanding of the overall baseline environment and the context within which a given EIA is taking place. This reflects the dynamic nature of environmental settings discussed previously.

Notes 1. 2. 3.

Available at www​.unesco​.org/​education/​pdf/​RIO​_E​.PDF (accessed 9 July 2023). Available at https://​unece​.org/​environment​-policy/​public​-participation/​aar hus​-convention/​text (accessed 9 July 2023). Available at www​.cairns​.qld​.gov​.au/​_​_data/​assets/​pdf​_file/​0005/​19634/​IAP2​ -public​-participation​-toolbox​.pdf (accessed 11 July 2017).

PART V Bringing development and environment together

13. Science, uncertainty and adaptive management in EIA

This Part of the book considers several EIA challenges that arise when thinking about how development and environment are to be brought together to understand likely consequences. This chapter focuses on the three interrelated topics concerning the role of science, uncertainty and adaptive management in EIA. The next chapter considers holistic and cumulative impact assessment.

13.1 Science and EIA As discussed in the opening chapters of this book, EIA serves a number of roles or purposes. Different stakeholders in the process bring different expectations of what EIA should deliver and how this should best be accomplished. One issue that elicits a degree of tension is the extent to which EIA is or should be a scientific undertaking. Reflecting on EIA in the US, Caldwell (1993) stated that ‘the clear intent of NEPA was to draw upon science as an informant and corrective for public policies impacting upon the environment’ (p.  15). Issues relevant to scientific integrity in EIA have surfaced in earlier chapters, especially in relation to baseline monitoring to understand the receiving environment where development is proposed to take place. While science plays an important role at several points in the EIA process, it perhaps comes most sharply to the fore when seeking to understand how development and environment will be brought together – that is, in the prediction and assessment of impacts (Chapter 7).

124

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 125

Eight ‘important qualities that should characterise any EIA methodology’ identified by Morgan (1998, p. 275) are summarized as follows: 1. Clearly define the objectives of the EIA. 2. Focus the study so that data collection is directed to key issues (scoping). 3. Follow scientific conventions in designing sampling and data collection procedures, and enable statistical examination as far as possible. 4. Make predictions as rigorously as resources allow. 5. Carry out follow-up studies to provide feedback on the state of the environment following development. 6. Seek peer review of the research designs and result interpretation. 7. Conduct the assessment with rigour and objectivity, explaining and justifying assumptions and methods. 8. Identify known shortcomings or information gaps and the implications of these for the overall assessment. Most of these points relate to ensuring the quality of scientific input to EIA, since science is about systematic study of the physical world. The scientific quality of EIAs, especially in relation to the impact prediction step, has received considerable attention over the years (for example, Shrader-Frechette, 1985; Bisset, 1988; Curtis and Epp, 1999; Greig and Duinker, 2011; MacKinnon et al., 2018; Mehdic et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020). Morgan (1998) notes that all too frequently, impact predictions are ‘based purely on personal judgement or opinion, with little if any reference to substantive evidence or direct observation of the environment’ (p. 180). There have been some strong calls for the quantification of impact predictions (for example, Beanlands and Duinker, 1983, 1984; Treweek, 1996) on the basis that scientific rigour within EIA is essential for an effective process. In the context of rational decision-making ideals (for example, the information processing model of Bartlett and Kurian (1999) outlined in Chapter 4), Culhane (1985) pointed out that it would be presumed that ‘the more analytical and quantified an EIS prediction, the better it is’ (p. 358). This line of thinking is perhaps most emphatically expressed in the title of Duinker’s (1985) paper: ‘Forecasting environmental impacts: better quantitative and wrong than qualitative and untestable!’ Perspectives such as these provoked Bisset (1988) to remark on a ‘certain missionary, proselytising tone’ (p. 60) evident in the ‘new “scientific” thinking’ (p. 60) literature of the time, although he too

126 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

favoured the ‘application of better “scientific” procedures and the use of projects as natural experiments’ (p. 60). Culhane (1985) also argued that ‘predictions should be correct’ (p. 358), making the point that ‘[i]f a collection of technical, quantified, and seemingly sophisticated predictions is systematically wrong, then any decision based on those predictions can be right only by virtue of dumb luck’ (p. 358). Unfortunately, practice consistently falls short of this expectation. In attempting to audit the accuracy of EIS predictions, Culhane (1985) encountered a major difficulty, reporting that many forecasts were ‘often confoundingly vague’ (p. 374). Similar findings and frustrations with the perceived poor scientific basis of impact predictions were reported by Beanlands and Duinker (1983), Bisset (1980, 1984) and Munro (1985). Decades later Greig and Duinker (2011) expressed frustration at the ‘ongoing weaknesses in the quality of science underpinning EIA’ (p. 159) in light of the advice given in these and other early follow-up studies. On the other hand, empirical studies have found that in some cases, the way in which impact predictions are expressed have little or no bearing on actual EIA outcomes. For example, an audit of predictions for a suite of operational case study projects by Bailey et al. (1992) found no relationship between the scientific rigour of impact predictions and subsequent accuracy. It was concluded that impact identification and the implementation of associated environmental conditions appear to be of more significance than the generation of scientifically testable and accurate predictions. (Bailey et al., 1992, p. 13)

In a similar vein, in Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999) we recorded the environmental management activities implemented for a series of EIA case studies, and found that most impacts (whether predicted or not) were appropriately addressed by project managers. We concluded that: Neither scientific rigor in impact prediction nor prediction accuracy had any bearing on the implementation of environmental management activities. (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999, p. 293)

While previously we had implicitly assumed that good science should always underpin EIA, our findings led us to realize that maintaining a focus on the overall goal or outcomes (that is, sustainable development)

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 127

and how to deliver that might take precedence over the quality of inputs to the process. Where there are limited time and other resources to conduct EIA (for example, money or expertise), as will typically be the case, choices will need to be made as to what to focus EIA effort upon. Obviously it is desirable that predictions are technically competent if possible. But perhaps ultimately it is environmental performance that matters most. It remains possible to judge the acceptability of a development based upon relatively subjective consideration of the worst case scenario or the ‘maximum allowable effects change’ (Noble, 2015, p. 140) in conjunction with mitigation readiness and feasibility. Such an approach may not require very rigorous science to succeed. Some tension is evident between scientific undertakings in EIA and decision-making. In reflecting on the role of science under NEPA practices, Caldwell (1993) noted that ‘it should not be assumed to always yield definitive results’ (p. 16), pointing out that ‘science today is not holistic’ (p.  16) and that there are gaps in knowledge. Caldwell suggested that perhaps the best use of science in EIA is to test the assumptions underlying practice, further noting that ‘science seldom is indicative of policy choices to be made, but it contributes to rational decisionmaking when it reveals the extent to which assumptions are supported by verifiable evidence’ (Caldwell, 1993, p. 16). Earlier, and in a similar vein, Burton et al. (1983) had noted a shortcoming of EIA practice in generating ‘scientifically valid, neutral research not good decisions’ (p. 146). More recently, Singh et al. (2020) reported on a series of scientific shortcomings in EIA practice, concluding that ‘aspects of current impact prediction and reporting practice may systematically obscure findings valuable to decision-making’ (p. 377). Similarly, MacKinnon et al. (2018) were critical of applications of science within EIA, noting at the same time that ‘science outside EIA has demonstrated its ability to design and implement rigorous, long-term experiments in large ecosystems’ (p. 85). Making good decisions in EIA needs more than just robust scientific analysis of physical phenomena, but it remains unclear just how this can or should be accomplished. Mehdic et al. (2020), for example, argue that despite EIA processes being based on ‘a rational technocratic paradigm’ (p. 1771), in practice it is a ‘fundamentally value-laden process driven by subjective judgments and competing interests’ (p.  1787). An earlier survey of international EIA practitioners conducted by Morrison-Saunders and Sadler (2010) found

128 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

over two-thirds of respondents believed that ‘political aspects’ and ‘value judgments’ play a ‘more important role in reaching a decision’ (p. 79) in EIA processes than do ‘scientific aspects’ (p. 79). Other writers have noted mismatches between the nature and purposes of EIA and the principles of scientific practice. Shrader-Frechette (1985), for example, pointed out that science itself is not value free, being the product of individuals whose paradigms and biases influence what and how scientific methods are applied. In reflecting upon the role of science in relation to EIA, she wrote: ‘if constitutive and contextual values prevent science from being completely neutral and purely objective, then this is doubly the case for … EIA’ (Shrader-Frechette, 1985, p. 74). Curtis and Epp (1999) pointed out some other differences between science and EIA, such as that in traditional science, predictions are used for explanation and in proposing falsifiable hypotheses, while predictions in EIA are used for justification and decision-making purposes. Differences in viewpoint within the field of EIA are healthy if they lead to productive debate and overall advancement of the profession. I have shared these perspectives on the role of science in predictions as an illustrative example, with an aim to promote consideration of how best to undertake the different EIA steps. Best practice principles for EIA espoused by the International Association for Impact Assessment include that processes be (IAIA and IEA, 1999): • rigorous – that is, ‘apply “best practicable” science, employing methodologies and techniques appropriate to address the problems being investigated’ (p. 3); and • credible – ‘be carried out with professionalism, rigor, fairness, objectivity’ (p. 3). The related principles of having ‘relevant’ and ‘transparent’ processes (IAIA and IEA, 1999) are equally important. While it is true to some extent that how these principles are interpreted and applied with respect to impact prediction and other EIA tasks will vary depending on the context and the individual practitioners involved, it remains desirable to use scientific methods where appropriate within EIA, and for these to be as robust and rigorous as circumstances will permit.

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 129

13.2 Understanding and managing uncertainty in EIA The topic of uncertainty has arisen several times in this book thus far. Uncertainty is inherent to the practice of EIA, since the future is uncertain and EIA is simply a structured way of thinking about future consequences. In a sense, the only certainty in EIA is that some level of uncertainty will be encountered! Noble (2015) defines uncertainty as simply being the ‘difference between the “known” and the complete “unknown”’ (p. 143). This brings to mind the well-known quote of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002, which provides a succinct summary of the situation: there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.1 (emphasis added)

To be effective, an EIA process must be designed and undertaken with this in mind. Geneletti et al. (2003) are emphatic that for an EIS to contribute effectively to decision-making, it must include the ‘estimation of the uncertainty factors affecting the impact evaluation and of their effect on the evaluation results’ (p. 471), but they note that the treatment of uncertainty is mostly neglected in practice. Noble (2015) points out that omitting or underestimating uncertainties in EIA can result in systematic bias in decision-making and lead to overconfidence in the assessment process. This may affect the appropriateness of proposed mitigation measures. Appropriate techniques should be employed to reduce uncertainty in EIA, such as probability analysis, sensitivity analysis and confirmatory analysis (for example, as reviewed by Noble, 2015). Importantly also, practitioners should disclose their assumptions and uncertainties about impact predictions or the expected utility of proposed mitigation measures (for example, as established previously in relation to the work of Morgan, 1998). A comprehensive review and categorization of uncertainty can be found in Lawrence (2013, pp. 357–60), who identifies 12 examples of ‘uncertainty concepts’ alone; Aksamit et al. (2020) and Larsen (2021) similarly itemize numerous specific sources of uncertainty in EIA too. I do not attempt here to address them all. In one of the earliest examinations of

130 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

uncertainty in EIA, Environmental Resources Limited (1985) discussed uncertainties in EIA prediction at some length. The sources of uncertainty in impact prediction that they identified included deciding on what environmental receptors and indicators to investigate, data collection methods, predictive techniques chosen, their calibration, and application and presentation of the results. Hilborn (1987) discussed the inherent uncertainties arising from the dynamic and ever-changing biophysical environment, and the challenges that these pose for natural resource managers. Previously Munn (1979) singled out natural variability and the corresponding lack of understanding of the behaviour of environments as constituting a key problem for EIA. There are implications for baseline monitoring and prediction arising from this, such as knowing what to study in the first instance (Hilborn and Walters, 1981). These aspects of uncertainty pertain mostly to scientific methods in EIA, as addressed in the previous section. De Jongh (1988) subsequently added consideration of uncertainties related to values in relation to the more subjective aspects of EIA processes. This links to the pluralistic nature of EIA and points made in Chapter 12 in relation to engaging stakeholders. There is uncertainty associated with the range of values towards environment and development held by different stakeholders in the EIA process that may need to be accommodated as well as simply knowing whom to consult in the first place. Strategies for managing uncertainty should be built into EIA practice, as alluded to earlier. A critical issue noted by Andrews (1973) is associated with determining ‘how much money and effort should be devoted to reducing which uncertainties’ (p. 200). Considerations here include ‘the significance of the uncertainties for the decision in question’ (Andrews, 1973, p. 200) and estimates of how much reduction of uncertainty can be achieved by further study. At the very least, the precautionary principle should be evoked where necessary. This principle is well established in international environmental law, being explicitly mentioned in many environmental agreements (for example, Hey, 2016) and reflects the acknowledged uncertainty in EIA and other environmental governance tools. As Hey (2016) explains, the precautionary principle ‘imposes enhanced due diligence in situations of scientific uncertainty’  (p. 72). The precautionary principle is articulated

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 131

as Principle 15 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) as follows: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.2

There is a strong association with EIA here, as Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration was specifically about the application of EIA by signatory states. The precautionary principle is somewhat conceptually difficult to comprehend or to convey to others (as I experience when teaching EIA) owing to the use of multiple negations within the definition (that is, ‘lack of’, ‘shall not be used’, ‘postponing’ and ‘prevent’). In contrast, all of the basic principles of best practice EIA espoused by IAIA and IEA (1999) are framed as straightforward directives for particular action to take. On the one hand, evoking the precautionary principle would imply not proceeding with development proposals where the consequences of environmental harm are great. On the other hand it might suggest that proceeding with development in the face of scientific uncertainty regarding potential adverse consequences is acceptable provided that suitable mitigation measures are in place. A delaying tactic sometimes employed by environmental groups opposed to development subject to EIA is to demand further studies be conducted to address identified gaps in knowledge (that is, uncertainty). This evocation of the precautionary approach may not stop a development, but serves to buy more time in which further political lobbying can take place, or for other events to occur such as a change in government or an economic downturn which might themselves halt development permanently. The consequences for EIA are bigger EISs (and I can think of several in my local jurisdiction that have run into many thousands of pages, because of calls for further technical studies to be carried out by the proponent in light of knowledge gaps and other uncertainties), and for a much expanded scope relative to the ideal or theoretical version of scoping advanced in Chapter 6. Another related management strategy for managing uncertainty is to subject EIA studies to independent peer review. The use of peer review was discussed previously in Chapter 8 in the context of the review,

132 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

approval and follow-up steps, and also in regards to scientific methodology within EIA earlier in this chapter. Having the views of experts tested and validated through peer review seeks to provide a degree of assurance and credibility for EIA studies and proposed lines of development action. A related strategy is simply around good communication of uncertainty in EIA, especially the value-related sources which may warrant specific engagement processes different stakeholders. In the words of Aksamit et al. (2020) ‘not disclosing uncertainties in a project EIS, and not providing sufficient opportunity to challenge and debate uncertainties and assumptions through information requests or public hearings, does more damage than good to the credibility of the EA process’ (p. 330). Perhaps the most important strategy of all for managing uncertainty in EIA is adaptive management, which is the focus of the final section of this chapter.

13.3 Adaptive management Where development does proceed in the face of uncertainty, an adaptive management approach is often required or at least advocated. This requires flexibility, agility and the ability to be responsive when something partially or completely unexpected happens. Thus the International Association for Impact Assessment advocate an ‘adaptive’ best practice principle for EIA as follows: Adaptive – the process should be adjusted to the realities, issues and circumstances of the proposals under review without compromising the integrity of the process, and be iterative, incorporating lessons learned throughout the proposal’s life cycle. (IAIA and IEA, 1999)

A more recent and specific definition for adaptive management is ‘an approach to natural resource management that, basically, involves implementing management actions, monitoring and evaluating outcomes and systematically adapting those actions according to what is learned’ (Lee and Gardner, 2014, p. 247). This definition in many respects echoes the definition and practice of EIA follow-up from Chapter 8; Fitzpatrick and Willliams (2020) frame adaptive management as a key design element of ‘strong follow-up and monitoring programs’ (p. 11). It is a principle of best practice in this regard (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2021; Arts

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 133

and Morrison-Saunders, 2022), as is the active involvement of EIA stakeholders in adaptive management and associated decision-making (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2022; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2023). The call for adaptive management in the context of EIA was first made by Holling (1978). Here, an adaptive management approach recognizes that ‘prediction is never perfect’ (p. 133) and does not expect it to be so. What is important is not prediction but monitoring the system and responding to measured outcomes. Burton et al. (1983) advocated for a ‘policy of adaptive impact assessment’ (p. 146) whereby the assessment process is considered as an ongoing ‘investigation into, rather than a determination of impacts’ (p. 146) and thus they advocated for periodic review of EIS. In a similar vein, Preston (2020) wrote: Science evolves, community expectations and needs evolve, and environmental problems evolve. Nature does not stand still. Yet project approvals remain static, involving ‘a once-and-for-all determination of the application with no opportunity to reconsider or impose new conditions of consent in response to evolving information or changes in circumstances’. (Preston, 2020, p. 442)

Morgan (1998) notes that the adaptive approach to EIA stresses the ‘need for impact managers to remain vigilant and prepared to cope with unexpected events’ (p. 282). While this message may sit somewhat uncomfortably with practitioners favouring a rational model of EIA which implies degrees of surety and control, it is nevertheless an unavoidable reality which must strongly influence the design of EIA undertakings. An EIA practice to encourage adaptive management by proponents, used in Australia, is for regulators of the process to recommend or prescribe outcome-based approval conditions for development (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2014b). In the words of the Western Australian EIA regulator: Outcomes-based conditions specify a measurable environmental outcome to be met, without prescribing how that outcome is to be achieved. This provides certainty and transparency, is consistent with adaptive environmental management and continuous improvement, and is recognised as regulatory best practice. (EPA, 2021, s. 4.2.3.2, p. 50)

134 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Based on their review of examples from Australian practice, Lee and Gardner (2014) further explain how an effective EIA process should provide for adaptive management as follows: Effective applications of adaptive management require thorough upfront EIA. Prior to the grant of a project approval, there should be, at least, a clear definition of the management problem and baseline conditions, and an effective numerical model to predict the impacts of the project and identify areas of uncertainty … substantive limits on project impacts should be determined as part of this pre-approval EIA process (which includes the opportunity for public comment) and set in the conditions of the project’s. By setting substantive limits in environmental approval conditions, they will be binding on the proponent and provide clear boundaries within which adaptive management may occur. (Lee and Gardner, 2014, pp. 247–8)

However, based on a rich philosophical examination of environmental complexity, science and adaptive management, Chapman (2016) rejects the foundational conception of this approach, arguing that treating the environment as a ‘pre-given background entity is an error in logical typing’ (p. 209). This is because attempting to designate a desired system objective and then apply a ‘plan-act-reflect cycle of negative feedback to stabilise the system around the selected objective’ (p. 208) fails to acknowledge that biophysical and human systems are ‘dynamically self-organising, and their pattern is a consequence of the co-evolution and harmonisation of a vast multitude of internal and external interactions’ (p. 208). In other words, it will not be possible to realize an adaptive management approach through a conventional rational model of EIA based around generating scientific information. The alternative approach (for complex environmental problems generally – not EIA per se) advocated by Chapman (2016) is based on ‘deliberative processes’ (p. 218) involving ongoing collaboration and dialogue with stakeholders, both of which are intended to improve the creative capacity of scientists and others involved finding environmental solutions to complex problems (that is, along the lines of the more empowering approaches to public participation introduced in Chapter 12). A similar process for deliberation and consultation with stakeholders is advocated in MacKinnon et al. (2018). This chapter has sought to draw three key aspects of EIA theory and practice together. The use of scientific method has been a core expectation of EIA from its original conception. Science alone, however, is unable to solve the challenges posed by the inherent uncertainties underpinning the practice of EIA. Adopting an adaptive approach to EIA which

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN EIA 135

acknowledges these uncertainties but also emphasizes deliberation and collaboration between stakeholders appears to offer the most promising way forward for understanding how development and environment can be brought together in creative and effective ways. Where the discussion in this chapter has perhaps alluded simply to the assessment of individual development proposals, the next chapter examines the challenges arising for assessing proposals holistically and the cumulative impacts of development.

Notes 1. 2.

Available at https://​en​.wikiquote​.org/​wiki/​Donald​_Rumsfeld (accessed 9 July 2023). Available at www​.unesco​.org/​education/​pdf/​RIO​_E​.PDF (accessed 9 July 2023).

14. Holistic and cumulative impact assessment Good EIA requires more than simply considering each impact in isolation; there is a need to consider the interaction of individual impacts with others, and the consequences for the environment of impacts arising from multiple development activities taking place in a locality or region. This chapter addresses these two forms of interaction in turn, badged here respectively as holistic impact assessment and cumulative impact assessment. Both concepts, especially cumulative impacts, have been mentioned in passing in previous chapters. Both pose particular challenges when seeking to understand how development and environment come together. This chapter reviews some of these, along with potential solutions.

14.1 Holistic impact assessment The notion of holistic impact assessment (a relatively recently coined phrase used in my home EIA jurisdiction of Western Australia) is concerned with the ‘connections and interactions between impacts, and the overall impact of the proposal [under assessment] on the environment as a whole’ (EPA, 2021, p. 67). Previously in this book, I have drawn attention to systems thinking (for example, Section 11.3), which is part of the philosophy for EIA advanced by Andrews (1973), and which seeks to consider development and environment holistically. Despite this early framing for EIA in theory, the practice of EIA is inherently reductionist. This arises from singling out individual environmental impacts and then devoting attention independently of others (for example, during consideration of significance, impact prediction, mitigation measures and establishing approval conditions). This issue was described in Morrison-Saunders and 136

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 137

Bailey (2000), when evaluating Western Australian EIA practices at the time as follows: A potential weakness with the EIA process adopted by the EPA in Western Australia is that it risks being reductionist. There is a danger that, by breaking each proposal down into discrete parts and assigning environmental objectives to them, it may not adequately represent overall environmental functions. (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 2000, p. 270)

The current inclusion of holistic impact assessment in Western Australian practice seeks to overcome this problem. It remains important to understand individual impacts, and this typically entails specialist skills and knowledge from discrete science disciplines. It is also important, however, to account for the ‘collective impacts’ of a development as Ehrlich (2022, p. 129) describes them. Normally, provided that each of the individual residual impacts considered on their own (that is, once mitigation measures are in place) are deemed to be acceptable, it would be expected that the overall development proposal would be acceptable. Under the ‘impact splitting’ approach that so often characterizes conventional EIA practice, Ehrlich (2022, p. 134) observes that ‘it is easier to argue that a project is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts if you only consider the project’s impacts one at a time, in isolation’ (p. 134). However, there are situations where ‘the multiple impacts of a single project … may not be individually significant, but may be collectively significant’ (Ehrlich, 2022, p. 129). This possibility underpins one key purpose of a holistic impact assessment. Where there are several impacts that are only marginally acceptable (that is, they lie close to thresholds at which the expected adverse environmental change would be significant), it may be the case that a holistic impact assessment will determine that the proposed development should be rejected. To undertake a holistic impact assessment, it is necessary to apply systems thinking in which each individual impact or each individual component of the environment that will be impacted by development is visualized in the broader system. Ehrlich (2022) provides a system diagram from a Canadian EIA to illustrate this in which the relationships between different impacts are denoted along with plus and minus symbols to indicate how each particular aspect influences another. Subsequently predicted changes on the system function should be considered along with mitigation measures applied to individual impacts as well as giving considera-

138 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

tion to ‘any remaining significant impact on the system’ (Ehrlich, 2022, p. 141). It is important that there is appropriate stakeholder engagement in this process, especially when or where individual impacts interact in a socially unacceptable way. Cultural considerations may also be important too. For example, Ehrlich (2022) notes that the ‘Indigenous worldview is holistic and integrated’ (p.  135), very different from the siloed approach commonly observed in EIA practice. At this point in time, beyond the work of Ehrlich (2022) and the broad prescriptions within EPA (2021), I am not aware of well-established EIA procedures or techniques for carrying out holistic impact assessment. This introduction to the topic serves to give it some prominence for EIA researchers and practitioners to consider. I have also noticed that local EIA practitioners have sometimes struggled initially to understand the difference between holistic impact assessment and that for cumulative impacts, to which the remainder of this chapter is devoted.

14.2 Defining cumulative impacts There is an old adage that ‘the solution to pollution is dilution’. When individual impacts and individual development proposals are considered in isolation, they can be found to be insignificant of themselves. However, if other development nearby is causing similar impacts on the same environmental resources of the area, the cumulative effect may become significant. In such cases there is not sufficient space or time lapse for the necessary ‘dilution’ to occur, and consequently ‘pollution’ is the result. While positive impacts can also be thought of in cumulative terms, the focus of this chapter is on cumulative adverse impacts, which are of greater concern to decision-makers. An early (perhaps the first) definition of cumulative impact can be found in the US Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA as follows: ‘Cumulative impact’ is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 139

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (CEQ, 1978, s. 1508.7)

This definition of cumulative impact assessment or others very much like it were utilized in successive decades (for example, by Dickert and Tuttle, 1985 – in what appears to be the earliest review of literature on the topic; Ross, 1994; Canter and Ross, 2010; IFC, 2013; amongst many others). Simple, linear understandings of cause and effect underpin this definition through the notion of impacts being additive. It does not account for complexity or alternative pathways for realizing and responding to cumulative impacts. In recent years a number of authors have explored the meaning of cumulative impacts and critiqued this definition. For example, Gunn and Noble (2011) stated that ‘[t]he very notion of a cumulative effect is predicated on the idea that the complex nature of environmental systems precludes a reductionist approach’ (p. 157). They went on to argue that effective cumulative impact assessment and management ‘requires a shift away from the perception of (environmental) concerns as being point and project specific, toward an awareness and understanding of regional social–ecological system dynamics, including limits, targets, and indicators of change’ (p. 157). A more streamlined, and arguably more open or flexible definition of cumulative impacts is provided by Franks et al. (2010, p. 300) as follows: In the broadest sense, cumulative impacts are the successive, incremental and combined impacts of one or more activities on society, the economy or the environment.

The use of the three sustainability ‘pillars’ in this definition emphasizes that the cumulative impact assessment is not just about the biophysical environment. In addition, this definition implies that different impacts from a single development can also be cumulative (also noted in European Commission, 2017a), despite the apparent language contradiction where the word ‘cumulative’ often implies more than one development. A recent definition for cumulative impact assessment comes from Blakley and Noble (2021) who write that an effective approach ‘is focused on understanding the condition of environmental receptors and whether the total effects via all stressors in a regional environment are acceptable, including the additional stress caused by potential future development’ (p. 160). In accordance with the title of their book chapter, this definition invites EIA

140 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

stakeholders to be thinking in terms of ‘regional and strategic assessment’ (p. 158) when addressing cumulative impacts. As this initial examination of definitions reveals, there is an evolving understanding of what cumulative impact assessment might entail. Blakley and Russell (2022) noted that it ‘is still not well understood conceptually and there remains a need for procedural guidance as support for practitioners’ (p. 186). In light of the definition of impact (Chapter 7) along with the concept of residual impact remaining after mitigation (Chapter 10), every (adverse residual) impact can be thought of as being cumulative from the perspective of impacts (or ‘stressors’ in the previous definition) on the receiving environment. So, for example, every amount of habitat lost as a result of new development activity is cumulative. However, this strict definition is tempered with the necessary judgements of significance that occur throughout EIA, as discussed previously (Chapter 7). To continue the example, such loss of habitat may be considered to be acceptable and consistent with sustainable development goals in the given regional context. There are various typologies for categorizing cumulative impacts; for example, Morgan (1998) provides an account of 11 specific definitions, while Blakley (2021) identifies over 40 types of cumulative impacts, subsequently providing a table identifying over 30 forms in relation to six components of the environment (atmosphere, water, land, geological, community and biota). In simple terms, impacts can accumulate over time and space, leading to problematic ‘time-crowded or space-crowded perturbations’ (Peterson et  al., 1987). Temporal accumulation occurs when the interval between perturbations is less than the time required for the system to recover from each perturbation (Spaling and Smit, 1993). Examples of this are over-fishing or harvesting old-growth forest and replacing it with young even-aged forest; in each case, a slower rate of resource harvesting would avoid the temporal accumulation problem, as the system would fully recover after each intervention. Spatial accumulation is when the space between perturbations is less than the distance required to remove or disperse each perturbation (Spaling and Smit, 1993). An example of this could be the merging of air pollution plumes from multiple sources within an industrial estate, whereby one emission on its own may be acceptable but the combined pollutants cross a threshold for acceptable change in air quality.

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 141

14.3 Cumulative impact pathways Cumulative effects can be the result of additive actions arising from multiple developments of the same type – for example, loss of biodiversity associated with multiple coal mining operations in a region. They also result from aggregative actions whereby different development activities impact on the same environmental resources: for example, coal mines, power stations to convert the coal to electricity, transmission lines, urban encroachment, agricultural activity and roads linking all of the development activity within that region. Each of these individual developments might be subject to EIA in their own right. Furthermore, because cumulative impacts ‘may interact in an additive or a synergistic way, may occur onsite or offsite, may have short-term or long-term effects, and may appear soon after disturbance or be delayed’ (Dickert and Tuttle, 1985, p.  39), accounting for cumulative impacts in a single EIA poses a challenge. There are numerous pathways through which cumulative impacts can arise. Peterson et al. (1987) and Cada and Hunsaker (1990) identified processes of cumulative environmental change along four such pathways (or combinations of them): where there are persistent additions from one process, the cumulative effect can be slowly dissipative (Pathway 1) or a magnification effect might arise (Pathway 2). Where there are compounding effects involving two or more processes, there can be multiple additive impacts (Pathway 3) or synergistic relationships (Pathway 4). Pathways 1 and 3 are direct aggregative effects and relatively easy to account for. Pathways 2 and 4 pose more challenges. An example of the latter is the occurrence of photochemical smog which forms when the necessary air pollutants (nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds) combine synergistically in the right atmospheric conditions (temperature and sunlight). It is obviously much more challenging to predict such synergistic effects. Canter and Kamath (1995), discussing impact pathways in terms of stimuli and response, distinguished between ‘direct’ cumulative impacts where the stimuli–response pathway is clear and linear, and ‘indirect’ cumulative impacts that emerge through secondary mechanisms and intermediary stimuli. Similarly Franks et al. (2013) speak about aggregation and interaction as two different cumulative processes. They also argue that cumulative processes in general, whether additive or interac-

142 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

tive, can generate complex feedback loops and adaptation responses. An example of the latter in the context of cumulative social impacts can be found in Loxton et al. (2013), who highlighted the ability of a community to adapt in response to cumulative impacts rather than just passively absorb them. This perspective highlights the need for systems approaches to understand, assess and manage cumulative impacts. The scale of cumulative impacts can vary tremendously in terms of their dispersal in time and space. Some impacts, although cumulative, might be very localized (for example, impacts of mine dewatering on a local wetland system or groundwater acquifer) or very immediate (for example, noise emissions from mining operations), extending right through to long-term and global-scale relevance (for example, climate change in relation to the greenhouse gases emitted from using fossil fuels). Cumulative impacts often occur incrementally, through a process of ‘nibbling’ (Lee and Gosselink, 1988, p. 591), ‘death by a thousand cuts’ (Preston, 2020, p.  424) or the ‘tyranny of small decisions’ (Gunn and Noble, 2012, p. 5). These might occur over a long time and may be hard to notice or be masked by the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ (Pauly, 1995, p. 430). This is the phenomenon where individuals (for example, scientific researchers or EIA practitioners) accept as the baseline the status of the environment that existed at the start of their careers (McCold and Saulsbury, 1996) or at the commencement of an EIA process. As loss or change of environmental resources occurs over time, so too does the ‘accepted’ baseline. This serves to mask the overall cumulative change until such time as environmental resources that were once considered common or widespread become significantly depleted. In light of this challenge within EIA, McCold and Saulsbury (1996): argue that the appropriate baseline for considering the significance of cumulative impacts is that time in the past when the valued environmental attribute (or ‘resource,’ for brevity) was most abundant. (p. 768)

This means that proponents should consider indicator conditions that incorporate the ‘past baseline’ as well as past development activities (for example, Noble, 2015). Masden et al. (2010) argue that if individual EIAs are to be comparable and free from shifting baseline syndrome, this requires strategic decisions to be made at the policy level (that is, by government) regarding the value of environmental resources, appropriate baseline levels, and acceptable limits and targets.

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 143

14.4 Cumulative impact consideration in EIA In light of their complexity, as evidenced by the discussion above, it is no surprise that cumulative impacts remain a constant challenge for EIA practice. In this regard, I particularly like the following commentary by Duinker (1994): Is cumulative effects assessment [CEA] both essential and impossible? Let me make the case that CEA is both essential and possible, as long as our objectives are modest, our science sharp, and our tolerance for uncertainty substantial. CEA, in my view, is merely EIA done right, thus bearing results that are both useful and defensible. (p. 11)

Traditional EIA practice has struggled to address cumulative impacts because of the narrow temporal and spatial focus associated with a proponent-driven approach. As pointed out by some earlier commentators (but still valid today; see Sonntag et al., 1987; Peterson et al., 1987; Spaling and Smit, 1993), there has been a tendency or bias towards: • ignoring additive effects of repeated developments in the same ecological system, past and future, meaning that just single perturbations and first-order impacts tend to be considered; • dealing inadequately with precedent-setting developments that stimulate other development activity which would not otherwise have eventuated or been approved by government; • ignoring changes in behaviour of ecological systems in response to increasing levels of perturbation, meaning that a simple cause–effect focus only eventuates in the face of complexity and uncertainty; and • failing to develop comprehensive environmental or sustainability objectives that reflect broad goals of society, meaning that only immediate matters (for example, a proponent’s site and development agenda only) are considered. One challenge in cumulative impact assessment is in treating individual proponents fairly. Little consideration might be given to potential cumulative impacts for the first development activity in a region. However, as more developments are proposed for the same region, then thresholds of acceptable environmental impact or change may be approached. This in turn means that proponents of later developments are likely to be scrutinized more carefully than earlier ones, and more stringent mitigation measures be required of them, raising issues of equity.

144 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Definitions of cumulative impacts invariably incorporate the notion of ‘reasonably foreseeable future actions’. This also poses a challenge, since although EIA is inherently future-looking, it is predominantly about the actions of the proponent of the development at hand. It is very difficult for a proponent to predict potential future developments, especially those of other proponents that may well not be in the public domain or fully conceivable. This is another element of uncertainty in EIA. Some future development will be fairly predictable (for example, further mines on a major ore body or expansion of urban areas when a new highway on the outskirts of a city is in place), but others less so. Furthermore, competing corporations (for example, mining companies all targeting the same ore body in a region) are unlikely to be willing to share information on their intended future developments where this will affect their own economic standing. Clearly, a judgement call is needed as to what is ‘reasonable’ to consider. This might vary considerably across practice in relation to when the proponent for EIA is a government versus private entity or when the environment being developed is a public resource versus privately owned land. Greater disclosure or accountability might be expected of government proponents and for development of government vested environmental resources, especially if cumulative impacts are being considered in the context of a regional or strategic assessment. The extent to which permissible or intended future development is identified for a given area within spatial policies and plans also will affect judgements of what is reasonably foreseeable. Climate change is especially challenging to address in EIA, being perhaps the most insidious and well-known case of cumulative impact on a global scale. As pointed out by Doelle (2021), ‘the effects of releasing GHG [greenhouse gas emissions] are felt globally, … the effects are delayed [and] the emissions and effects on sinks are cumulative, with the result that a given effect cannot be traced back to a specific project beyond the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere’ (p.  278). As noted earlier in relation to making impact predictions (Section 7.1), an impact requires a receptor and an emission itself is not an impact. When the GHG emissions from one development project are considered as a proportion of global emissions, it inevitably seems like an inconsequential amount. Meanwhile, targets for reducing GHG emissions set at the national level are not easy to adapt to an individual development project scale. Second, EIA seeks to understand the impacts caused by a particular proponent and to serve mitigation controls on their specific activities. It

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 145

is not possible for an EIA regulator to control the activities of a proponent operating in another jurisdiction, and yet a multi-national organization might be offsetting their GHG emissions for a particular development with climate positive activities undertaken in another country altogether. Similarly, and finally, EIA systems are only set up to account for the immediate impacts attributable to proponents; their direct emissions in the case of climate change, known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Missing is any account of the emissions associated with users of the materials produced by the proponent, which are Scope 3 emissions. Thus, for example, a fossil-fuel mining proposal (for example, of oil, gas or coal) will be assessed with regard to GHG emissions of the proponent in extracting and processing the mineral resources, but without factoring in the emissions to the atmosphere when those fossil fuels are burnt by customers, often taking place in another country. This problem and some other challenges with addressing climate change in EIA are discussed at some length by Preston (2020) and Doelle (2021). Another issue with cumulative impact assessment noted by Noble (2015) is a tendency for it to be featured in a separate section of its own within an EIS, as though they are a different class of effects and are simply derived from summing the total effect of individual stressors. Ultimately Noble (2015) argues that cumulative impact assessment ‘simply cannot work effectively within the confines of project-based EIA’ (p. 323). In earlier work, Westbrook and Noble (2013) noted: In recognition of the complexity of pathways and synergistic nature of cumulative effects, it is now acknowledged that cumulative effects assessment (CEA) requires a more regionally focused and science-driven approach than what is currently practiced. (p. 318)

To accomplish this, there are two broad options or approaches that can be taken either singularly or together as they are not mutually exclusive: a project-based, ‘bottom-up’ approach that is proponent-driven; and a strategic environmental assessment-based, ‘top-down’ approach which most likely would be government-driven based on regional planning (for example, Peterson et al., 1987; Spaling and Smit, 1993; Cooper and Sheate, 2004; Noble, 2015; Blakley and Noble, 2021). The bottom-up approach is to extend project EIA so that proponents account better for cumulative effects. Here Scace (2000) argues that both regional and local effects need to be scoped into the EIA. Scace (2000) also

146 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

emphasizes that government must play an important role in such scoping to ensure ‘a meaningful policy and planning framework, adequate baseline information and an appropriate framework for scoping … against which to review project-specific statements on cumulative effects and mitigations’ (p. 37). Furthermore, this scoping process should not only identify but also possibly reduce the number of issues to be examined until only the most important items remain for assessment, to ensure that assessment effort is not expended on the examination of trivial effects. A six-step framework for ‘cumulative effects assessment and management’ (CEAM) at the project level is put forward by Canter and Ross (2010) as follows (in which the first two steps encapsulate the scoping advice of Scace, 2000): 1. Identify incremental direct and indirect effects of the proposed activity. 2. Identify other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within space and time boundaries that could contribute to cumulative effects on ‘valued ecosystem components’ (VECs) or their indicators. 3. For selected VECs, assemble appropriate information on their indicators, and describe and assess the historical, current and projected conditions. 4. ‘Connect’ the proposed development activity with other actions in the CEAM study area for the selected VECs and their indicators. 5. Assess the significance of cumulative effects on each VEC over the time horizon established for the study. 6. For VECs expected to be subject to negative incremental impacts from the proposed development and for which the cumulative effects are significant, develop appropriate action or activity-specific mitigation measures. A similar approach, expressed as four key steps, is provided in Blakley (2021). There are practical limits to what a single proponent can achieve in undertaking cumulative impact assessment (Noble, 2015). An exploration of the practice of a Canadian proponent undertaken by Gunn and Noble (2012) against regulatory expectations, the proponent’s own publicized standards set themselves and ‘good practice’ derived from the authors’ review of cumulative impact assessment frameworks found it to fall far short of all three tests. One of the study recommendations to

HOLISTIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 147

ensuring good practice cumulative effects assessment and management was for amendments to their local EIA legislation that would clearly express requirements for the analysis of the cumulative effects of land-use projects in order that a more realistic assessment of the impacts of human activities can be determined. (Gunn and Noble, 2012, p. 17)

The top-down approach to cumulative impact assessment is to utilize regional planning and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as the basis (for example, Cooper and Sheate, 2004; Gunn and Noble, 2011; Franks et al., 2013; Blakley and Noble, 2021). By extension this implies a key role for government, since it means undertaking assessment at a higher strategic level. This might entail a range of approaches such as: • programmic EIA or regional-scale planning and assessment; • EIA of policies and plans (i.e. strategic environmental assessment); • tiered assessment (that is, from strategic levels through to project level); and • positioning EIA as a project management tool in a broader system where the setting of social, environmental and resource management objectives is uppermost so that individual project-based EIAs actively contribute to broader regional goals. A similar approach was advocated by Damman (2000), who proposes a framework for cumulative impact assessment comprising of three levels of application: the regional level; the sub-area or locality level; and the site specific. Ogilvie and Johnston (2000) suggested a model based upon the establishment of an independent ‘Regional Steering Body’ that would coordinate and liaise with existing agencies and organizations within a region (for example, responsible for resource planning, management, monitoring and research) including the established EIA process. This approach is about bringing together all of the knowledge for a given region so that cumulative impacts and their effective management can be understood and realized. While the authors mentioned above, along with many others not included in this brief account, advocate for the integration of cumulative impact assessment with regional and SEA-oriented activity, a number of conceptual and methodological challenges remain. In a study involving

148 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

international experts and practitioners, Gunn and Noble (2011, p. 154) reported that: • definitions and conceptualizations for cumulative impact assessment are weak in practice; • approaches to aggregate and account for cumulative impacts vary widely; • use of a systems approach in SEA and cumulative impact assessment alike is lacking; • the multifarious nature of SEA complicates cumulative impact assessment; • tiering arrangements between SEA and project-based assessment are limited to non-existing; and • the relationship of SEA to regional planning remains unclear. While cumulative impact assessment may continue to represent an ongoing challenge for EIA practitioners, it is also clear that it will continue to be fundamental to best practice in understanding how to bring environmental and development together effectively for all temporal and spatial scales of development. This Part of the book has explored some key challenges that arise in EIA practice when thinking about development and about environment and how both are brought together to try to understand the consequences for proceeding with a proposed new development activity. The final chapter of the book will bring all of the threads of discussion of EIA theory and practice together.

PART VI Closing remarks on EIA

15. Conclusions In this chapter I draw on the important themes from the previous chapters to offer my thoughts on the current status and the future of EIA. But before doing so, I shall first reflect briefly on what makes EIA effective.

15.1 Thinking about EIA effectiveness There is a large literature on the effectiveness of EIA and it remains of abiding interest to EIA practitioners and researchers alike (for example, a recent journal special issue was devoted to the topic – Therivel and González, 2019). Cashmore et al. (2004) described EIA effectiveness as an ‘interminable’ issue and things have seemingly not changed in the ensuing period. The literature on effectiveness tends to be fairly dense and convoluted, but the discussion of this topic here is kept deliberately brief and simple. While numerous studies, some dating back to the early practice of EIA in the 1970s, have sought to understand and evaluate the effectiveness of EIA (for example, some examples were included in Chapter 3), the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment by Sadler (1996) was a pioneering work in the field. Sadler (1996) defined the term effectiveness as ‘whether something works as intended and meets the purpose(s) for which it is designed’ (p. 37). As established in the opening chapters of this book, numerous potential purposes of EIA can be discerned. While these may be established by legislation and procedures, much also depends upon the values and views of stakeholders in the process. This book has sought to capture some of the range of possibilities in this regard. Some of these are considered here through the lens of EIA effectiveness.

150

CONCLUSIONS 151

Sadler (1996, p. 39) defined three dimensions of EIA effectiveness, which Pope et al. (2018) examined at some length, arriving at the following modified form as follows: • Procedural effectiveness – Have appropriate processes been followed that reflect institutional and professional standards and procedures? • Substantive effectiveness – To what extent does the assessment lead to changes in process, actions, learning or outcomes? • Transactive effectiveness – To what extent, and by whom, is the outcome of conducting the assessment considered to be worth the time and cost involved? Answering the questions posed above can only be undertaken subjectively and qualitatively (Sadler, 1996; Retief, 2007); neither quantitative nor absolute answers can be expected and the specific context in which EIA takes place is important to consider (Bond et al., 2022). If EIA is taken simply to be a process for thinking before taking action, then an effectiveness evaluation is a way of thinking about EIA thinking! Effectiveness can be conceived at three levels: decision audits of specific EIAs; system-wide reviews; and reflections on the concept of EIA itself (Sadler, 1996 provides further elaboration of the first two). These correspond to the three levels of the follow-up pyramid outlined in Chapter 8. While this book overall serves as a kind of reflection on the EIA concept overall (that is, the upper level), most of the specific discussion has been aimed at understanding best practice for the purposes of carrying out effective individual assessments (that is, the lower level) and how these might be reflected in the institutional arrangements governing EIA practice in a given jurisdiction (that is, the middle level). The three dimensions of effectiveness above are used as guiding topics for drawing together conclusions of the book in the discussion that follows. However, breaking down the topic of EIA effectiveness into three separate categories echoes a long-standing criticism of EIA processes and practice that it tends to be reductionist (that is, hence the emergence of sustainability-oriented EIA, application of systems thinking, emphasis on more strategic forms of assessment and cumulative impact assessment). In the penultimate section of this chapter, I take a step back to think about EIA overall, including how the three forms of effectiveness relate to each other to contribute to overall EIA effectiveness. This corresponds to

152 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

a fourth dimension of effectiveness defined by Pope et al. (2018) regarding the legitimacy of EIA processes.

15.2 Procedural effectiveness – seeking best practice EIA Principles for best practice EIA espoused by the International Association for Impact Assessment (in particular IAIA and IEA, 1999, but also André et al., 2006 and Partidário, 2012) have been used to frame the discussion of aspects of EIA in previous chapters. The ‘operating principles’ of IAIA and IEA (1999) conform with the generic EIA process steps and prompting questions that formed the focus of Part 2 of the book. Each of these procedural elements of EIA theory and practice can be tested or examined through the lens of effectiveness thinking. In so doing, the ‘basic principles’ of IAIA and IEA (1999) provide suggestions for the kinds of qualities to be striving for. So, for example, considering how and what might be accomplished for the scoping step in EIA might be guided by some of the basic principles such as the extent to which the scoping process is ‘practical’, ‘relevant’, ‘systematic’ or ‘credible’ (IAIA and IEA, 1999). A well-known study of procedural effectiveness at the systems level was the comparative review of EIA systems conducted by Wood (1999, 2003). Wood framed the EIA process as 14 discrete components with a single criterion or test question established for each. These encompass the eight generic EIA process steps used in this book with some steps expanded into two tests. For example, one question for the review step was: ‘Must EIA reports be publicly reviewed and the proponent respond to the points raised?’ (Wood, 1999, p. 17). Wood compared a range of national and state-based EIA systems according to his 14 criteria, providing a narrative to explain relative performance. Thus each system was considered in the context of the prevailing legal and institutional arrangements in place while use of the same criteria for each enabled comparison between jurisdictions. This book has highlighted that for most steps in the EIA process, a range of practices is possible, from meeting minimum expectations to what might be thought of as exemplary performance (that is, seeking to contribute to sustainability and upholding international best practice

CONCLUSIONS 153

EIA principles). Often the legislative provisions for EIA represent the minimum position. Without repeating all topics that have been addressed in previous chapters, some examples include: • the hierarchy of available alternatives and how seriously the consideration of alternatives in EIA is engaged with; • whether EIA is used to influence the early planning and design of development, or merely applied to an almost-final proposal; • whether positive impacts and outcomes from EIA are sought versus application of mitigation measures simply to minimize adverse effects; • the extent to which cumulative impacts are assessed in a regional context; and • what level of public participation approaches are incorporated, with their differing levels of input, engagement, empowerment and participation in EIA decision-making. Adopting what might be conceived as best practice EIA is a matter of choice. It is the choice of proponents and their consultants, of regulators, of other stakeholders engaged in the process. Obviously such choices will be dictated by cultural, legal and political realities to some extent (as introduced and explained in Chapter 1), but nevertheless hopefully some of the ideas presented in previous chapters will help to inspire readers to push the boundaries in their own EIA setting. A key assumption underpinning procedural effectiveness is that better-​ quality EIA procedures or inputs are likely to produce better decisions and other substantive outputs. While this argument resonates strongly with the information processing model of EIA put forward by Bartlett and Kurian (1999), I suspect that even those who reject this rational version of EIA would prefer high-quality EIA procedures and procedures rather than otherwise. Perhaps procedural effectiveness is a necessary but insufficient condition for substantive effectiveness, which is my next topic of consideration.

15.3 Substantive effectiveness – does EIA achieve what it is supposed to achieve? EIA means different things to different people and there is no single prescribed set of EIA purposes evident in international practice (for example,

154 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Morgan, 1998, 2012; Petts, 1999b). There will also be different substantive outcomes of EIA arising at different temporal and spatial scales for any given application of EIA. Much of the writing on EIA effectiveness since the work of Sadler (1996) represents a modification or extension to his original notion of substantive effectiveness, which he saw as being to ‘support well informed decision making and result in environmental protection’ (p. 39). This is an immediate and direct substantive goal for EIA of a given development activity that has been subject to the process. Retief (2007) and Bina et al. (2011) added to effectiveness thinking with the notions of indirect and incremental effectiveness, respectively. These can be understood as the longer-term and flow-on substantive consequences of doing EIA, such as ‘changes in attitudes towards the environment, improved awareness, changes in institutional arrangements, etc.’ (Retief, 2007, p. 87). Longer-term behavioural and institutional change along these lines was anticipated by early writers in the field (for example, Andrews, 1976; Wichelman, 1976) and in the models of Bartlett and Kurian (1999) explaining how EIA works as previously discussed in Part 1 of the book. Recently, Loomis et al. (2022) argued for consideration to be given to ‘transformative effectiveness’ (p.  207), referring here to transformations of the values or frames of reference held by stakeholders (individuals and organizations) arising from their participation in EIA. Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013) built on earlier work by Baker and McLelland (2003) to advance a ‘normative effectiveness’ consideration regarding whether EIA delivers normative goals in terms of ‘perception and sustainability’ (Chanchitpricha and Bond, 2013, p. 71) and this concept was further discussed by Therivel and González (2019). In other work, Bond et al. (2013c) added effectiveness criteria for pluralism to reflect that different stakeholders will have different views on all aspects of the EIA process (including its normative goals) that should be considered. Pope et al. (2018) argued that both the normative and pluralism aspects of effectiveness best belong under the heading of legitimacy (addressed later on). Bond et al. (2013c) also added ‘knowledge and learning’ (p. 128) as a dimension of effectiveness which was also subsequently treated separately by Therivel and González (2019). A detailed examination of EIA as a learning process is provided in Sánchez and Mitchell (2017), including a review of many studies reporting on this in practice. Conceptually,

CONCLUSIONS 155

however, knowledge and learning could be considered part of substantiveness effectiveness, as they are examples of indirect outcomes from engaging in EIA. The inclusion of knowledge and learning resonates with the notions of EIA follow-up discussed in Chapter 8 at different scales, whereby learning and feedback can be used to enhance future EIA practice and deliver on sustainable development goals more generally (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2004; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2021). While demonstrating immediate substantive outcomes of EIA is the intention of follow-up programmes established for individual development activities, the more indirect and longer-term outcomes of EIA at both the system level and concept level remain comparatively elusive and difficult to demonstrate. Nevertheless, the longer-term ideals may resonate with the values and personal drivers of individual EIA practitioners to help sustain their interest and efforts in the field. I know that my own personal motivation for researching and teaching EIA is influenced in this way. I hope that the ideas advanced in previous chapters for understanding and approaching various challenges in theory and practice provide food for thought for thinking about the substantial effectiveness of EIA.

15.4 Transactive effectiveness – is EIA worth it? In comparison to the previous two effectiveness types, the notion of transactive effectiveness is relatively straightforward, being concerned with the time and cost involved in carrying out EIA (for example, Sadler, 1996; Chanchitpricha and Bond, 2013; Pope et al., 2018; Therivel and González, 2019). It pertains directly to the basic principle for best practice EIA that it should be efficient, meaning that ‘the process should impose the minimum cost burdens in terms of time and finance on proponents and participants consistent with meeting accepted requirements and objectives of EIA’ (IAIA and IEA, 1999, p. 3). Drives for focus in EIA steps such as screening, scoping and the consideration of significance are motivated by the goal of transactive effectiveness. Not surprisingly, transactive effectiveness, or the perceived lack of it, is the focus of many EIA detractors (Morgan, 1998). Some of these were discussed previously in Chapter 3, such as viewing EIA as ‘green-tape’ (Bond et al., 2014) or a hurdle to be jumped. On the other hand, there

156 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

have also been studies that have reported the overall cost of doing EIA to be modest in the context of the overall cost of major development projects (for example, Hart, 1984; Sadler, 1996; Wood, 2003), and some studies have shown that proponents do recognize and acknowledge important benefits arising from doing EIA (for example, Annandale and Taplin, 2003; Macintosh, 2010). I have been an advocate for researchers and practitioners to carry out formal investigations that will demonstrate the benefits of doing EIA (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2015). While such benefits will be substantive in nature, there is a clear relationship with transactive effectiveness, in that EIA will only be considered worthwhile where the benefits outweigh the costs. This is methodologically challenging as many of the benefits of EIA are intangible in nature (as noted in Chapter 3) relative to the direct financial costs of carrying out EIA studies. Transactive effectiveness may be relatively simple conceptually, but its evaluation remains very challenging in practice. Meanwhile it remains a fruitful area of reflection for those actively engaged with the process to ensure that the best outcomes will be delivered in the most effective and efficient ways.

15.5   Putting the pieces together While there are clear linkages between the three forms of effectiveness discussed so far, it is desirable to be able to take a step further back and consider the theory and practice of EIA more holistically. Ultimately EIA must be held to be legitimate in the eyes of all stakeholders involved, and this is the fourth dimension of effectiveness put forward by Pope et al. (2018). Bond et al. (2016) recently defined a legitimate EIA process as ‘one which all stakeholders agree is fair and which delivers an acceptable outcome for all parties’ (p. 188). Pope et al. (2018) captured this consideration with the test question: ‘Was the assessment process perceived to be legitimate by a wide range of stakeholders?’ (p. 43). This means that the three forms of effectiveness must be appropriately complementary and integrated (a point emphasized by Baker and McLelland, 2003 and Bond et al., 2022). It is possible to imagine, for example: • an EIA process that is impeccable in terms of procedural design and implementation but which does not deliver satisfactory substantive outcomes;

CONCLUSIONS 157

• a process that delivers evidence of excellent environmental performance for the development activity but which proved to be unreasonably expensive or time-consuming in doing so, and thus is not a viable model to seek to replicate in future practice; or • an EIA process that accords with best practice principles expectations on all fronts, but where some stakeholders vehemently disagree with the overall purpose(s) established at the outset and consequently remain unsatisfied with both the outcomes and the process. An effectiveness evaluation of SEA case studies in Thailand by Chanchitpricha et al. (2019) noted how procedural, substantive and transactive elements combined to help account for legitimacy of practice. They concluded that strengthening public participation processes along with ‘better knowledge diffusion’ (p. 366) was ‘fundamental to achieving legitimacy’ (p.  366). Laia and Hamilton (2020) argued that the perceptions of ‘legitimacy and accountability’ (p. 10) held by EIA stakeholders need to be addressed in order to uphold procedural justice based on their analysis of the EIA process in Indonesia. For Bond et al. (2022) an effective and legitimate EIA process would ‘accommodate the different values and ethical positions that are relevant for a proposed development’ (p. 5). Legitimacy is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but the overall aim is to reach at least a consensus position where stakeholders accept the process even if the final result does not align with their personal preferences. I recall a senior EIA agency representative once telling me that when each major stakeholder type in EIA (for example, proponent, other government regulators, environmental groups) was just a ‘little unhappy’ with the process, then he knew that it was probably right! As reported in Morrison-Saunders (2013), a slightly unhappy proponent would receive approval for their development but might be required to implement more rigorous or demanding management measures than they would prefer, while a slightly unhappy environmental group means that their concerns have been listened to and at least partially met even if the approval decision does not extend as far as they might wish. This is where the ‘art’ of EIA (for example, Morrison-Saunders and Sadler, 2010) comes into play in terms of finding the appropriate balance between all of the competing goals and forces at play in any given context. That said, it might be hoped that overall proponents would see and clearly understand the benefits in carrying out EIA (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2015), thereby being intrin-

158 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

sically incentivized to engage with it irrespective of legal requirements to do so. Several threads and themes underpin all of EIA and the account of it so far in this book. These include the extent to which an explicitly sustainability-oriented approach is adopted, the matter of uncertainty, that EIA is a series of decisions and choices, that judgements of significance are fundamental to these, and that different stakeholders bring different values and levels of understanding to the process. There are always alternatives that can be considered in EIA and the level of commitment or engagement with these by practitioners (especially the proponent) has major ramifications for potential performance outcomes that can be realized. Accounting for uncertainty in EIA is important, but it also means admitting that knowledge is never going to be perfect. EIA practitioners inevitably operate with imperfect knowledge in a dynamic and ever-changing system. Environments change and so too notions of significance and the values held by different people evolve and change over time. Shifting baselines means that different stakeholders have different understandings and expectations, and there will inevitably be surprise events and impacts, especially in relation to cumulative impact. The pluralistic nature of sustainability means that different purposes for carrying out EIA will be held by different stakeholders in the process. To make EIA work requires vigilance and cooperation. Allowing for flexibility and the ability to adapt is also necessary. This may not sit comfortably with some people. These qualities and realities of EIA all underscore the importance of effective and ongoing communication and engagement with stakeholders during the process. Another key thread in the book has been the pursuit of EIA best practice; a concept explored in depth in its own right by Morgan (2017). At the outset, I framed the big idea of EIA as being to think before you act. But thinking is culturally determined. Normative choices in one jurisdiction or country can be expected to differ markedly from those in another. In this sense there is no ideal ‘best practice’ of EIA. Instead best practice is relative to the given culture – it is best practice in that particular context and to the best ability of the person(s) doing it. This also extends to the specific development and environmental (including the affected community) context. In light of some of the uncertainties and complexities touched on above, there will always remain a good sense of ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom, 1959) in the pursuit of EIA best practice.

CONCLUSIONS 159

15.6 A future for EIA EIA has been around for over 50 years. It has proved to be adaptable and to have stood the test of time, being enshrined in legislation and in use worldwide. In this book I have sought to examine the principles and big ideas underpinning EIA. I would argue that these have not fundamentally changed since the work of the pioneering practitioners and early thinkers and writers on the field in the initial decades of practice. While terminology has changed and there have been shifts in emphasis over time to address particular priorities (for instance, holistic impact assessment, cumulative impacts, offsets and systems thinking are some examples addressed in previous chapters, and an increasing imperative for contributing to positive sustainability outcomes), the core ideas and principles of EIA prevail. No doubt this process of evolving EIA thinking will continue into the future. For example, Retief et al. (2016) identified global mega-trends that are underway that likely will have profound implications for the nature of human development activity and impact on the environment, and for the practice of EIA. A recent major topic of interest (currently appearing in media stories and features regularly) is that of automation and artificial intelligence (for example, Curmally et al., 2022), with the proposition that many current jobs and roles held by humans will be taken over by machines. It will be fruitful for practitioners, researchers and students of EIA alike to reflect upon contemporary sustainability challenges in light of how EIA might best be adapted to deal with them. Meanwhile, though, the basic premise of ‘think before you act’ and the pursuit of sustainable development will remain into the future. In this sense, there will always be a place for EIA in some form.

References

Aaen, S., I. Lyhne and H. Nielsen (2022), ‘A new agenda for significance determination in EIA: promoting community-based determination processes to counterbalance technocratic approaches’, in A. Fonseca (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 146–62. Adelle, C. and S. Weiland (2015), ‘Sustainability assessment at the policy level’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 103–24. Aksamit, C., J. Blakley, J. Jaeger, B. Noble and C. Westman (2020), ‘Sources of uncertainties in environmental assessment: lessons about uncertainty disclosure and communication from an oil sands extraction project in Northern Alberta’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63 (2), 317–34. Amy, D. (1990), ‘Decision techniques for environmental policy: a critique’, in R. Paehlke and D. Torgerson (eds), Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State, London: Belhaven Press, pp. 59–79. André, P., B. Enserink, D. Connor and P. Croal (2006), Public Participation International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 4, Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at www​.iaia​ .org/​uploads/​pdf/​SP4​.pdf (accessed 11 July 2017). Andrews, R.N. (1973), ‘Philosophy of environmental impact assessment’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 28, 197–203. Andrews, R.N.L. (1976), ‘Agency responses to NEPA: a comparison and implications’, Natural Resources Journal, 16, 301–22. Annandale, D. and R. Taplin (2003), ‘Is environmental impact assessment regulation a “burden” to private firms?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (3), 383–97. Ariely, D. (2008), Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, New York: HarperCollins. Arnstein, S.R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4), 216–24. Arts, J. (1998), EIA Follow-up: On the Role of Ex Post Evaluation in Environmental Impact Assessment, Groningen: Geo Press. Arts, J. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2004), ‘Lessons for EIA follow-up’, in A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, London: Earthscan James & James, pp. 286–314. 160

REFERENCES 161

Arts, J. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2022), Impact Assessment Follow-up: Int-​ ernational Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 6. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at https://​iaia​.org/​ uploads/​pdf/​SP6​_22​%20Follow​%20up​_converted​.pdf (accessed 11 January 2023). Arts, J., P. Tomlinson and H. Voogd (2011), ‘Planning in tiers? Tiering as a way of linking SEA and EIA’, in B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. Fischer, M. Partidário and R. Verheem (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan, pp. 415–33. Au, E. (2006), ‘“Common sense” means different things to different people’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24 (1), 14–15. Audouin, M., M. Burns, A. Weaver, D. Le Maitre, P. O’Farrell, R. du Toit and J. Nel (2015), ‘An introduction to sustainability science and its links to sustainability assessment’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 321–45. Audouin, M. and B. de Wet (2012), ‘Sustainability thinking in environmental assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (4), 264–74. Bailey, J. (1997), ‘Environmental impact assessment and management: an underexplored relationship’, Environmental Management, 21 (3), 317–27. Bailey, J.M., V.J. Hobbs and A.N. Saunders (1992), ‘Environmental auditing: artificial waterway developments in Western Australia’, Journal of Environmental Management, 34, 1–13. Baker, D.C. and J.N. McLelland (2003), ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for First Nations’ participation in mining development’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 581–603. Bartlett, R. (1990), ‘Ecological reason in administration: environmental impact assessment and administrative theory’, in R. Paehlke and D. Torgerson (eds), Managing Leviathan: Environmental Politics and the Administrative State, London: Belhaven Press, pp. 81–96. Bartlett, R.V. (1997), ‘The rationality and logic of NEPA revisited’, in R. Clark and L. Canter (eds), Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present and Future, Boca Raton: St Lucie Press, pp. 51–60. Bartlett, R.V. and P.A. Kurian (1999), ‘The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making’, Policy and Politics, 27 (4), 415–33. Bates, G. (ed.) (1997), Butterworths Environmental Management and Law Dictionary, Sydney: Butterworths Australia. BBOP – Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (2012), Standard on Biodiversity Offsets, BBOP, Washington, DC, available at www​.forest​-trends​ .org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​imported/​BBOP​_Standard​_on​_Biodiversity​_Offsets​ _1​_Feb​_2013​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Beanlands, G. (1988), ‘Scoping methods and baseline studies in EIA’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 33–46. Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker (1983), An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada, Institute for Resource and Environmental

162 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Studies, Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Halifax, Canada. Beanlands, G. and P. Duinker (1984), ‘An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, 18, 267–77. Bina, O. (2007), ‘A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 585–606. Bina, O., W. Jing, L. Brown and M.R. Partidário (2011), ‘An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: towards criteria for Chinese practice’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 572–81. Bisset, R. (1980), ‘Problems and issues in the implementation of EIA audits’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 1, 379–96. Bisset, R. (1984), ‘Post-development audits to investigate the accuracy of environmental impact predictions’, Umweltpolitik, 4, 463–84. Bisset, R. (1988), ‘Developments in EIA methods’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 47–61. Bisset, R. and P. Tomlinson (1988), ‘Monitoring and auditing of impacts’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 117–28. Blakley, J. (2021), ‘Introduction: foundations, issues and contemporary challenges in cumulative impact assessment’, in J. Blakley and D. Franks (eds), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 2–20. Blakley, J. and B. Noble (2021), ‘Assessing cumulative effects in regional and strategic assessment’, in J. Blakley and D. Franks (eds), Handbook of Cumulative Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 158–73. Blakley, J. and J. Russell (2022), ‘International progress in cumulative effects assessment: a review of academic literature 2008–2018’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65 (2), 186–215. Bohman, J. (1998), ‘Survey article: the coming of age of deliberative democracy’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4), 400–425. Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds) (2013a), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, Abingdon: Routledge. Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (2013c), ‘Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice’, in A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 117–31. Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Pope (2012), ‘Sustainability assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 56–66. Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and G. Stoeglehner (2013b), ‘Designing an effective sustainability assessment process’, in A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 231–44. Bond, A., J. Pope and A. Morrison-Saunders (2015), ‘Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J.

REFERENCES 163

Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 3–19. Bond, A., J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders and F. Retief (2016), ‘A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: what games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 57, 187–94. Bond, A., J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders and F. Retief (2022), ‘Exploring the relationship between context and effectiveness in impact assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106901. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​ .2022​.106901. Bond, A., J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders, F. Retief and J. Gunn (2014), ‘Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 46–53. Bond, A., C. Viegas, C. Coelho and P. Selig (2010), ‘Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 6–13. Branch, K., D.A. Hooper, J. Thompson and J. Creighton (1984), Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing Social Change, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Brown, A. and R. Hill (1995), ‘Decision-scoping: making EA learn how the design process works’, Project Appraisal, 10 (4), 223–32. Brown, A. and G. McDonald (1995), ‘From environmental impact assessment to environmental design and planning’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 2 (2), 65–77. Brownlie, S. and J. Treweek (2017), ‘The mitigation hierarchy and beyond: guiding appropriate biodiversity trade-offs in assessments for sustainability’, in R. Gibson (ed.), Sustainability Assessment: Applications and Opportunities, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 225–45. Burton, I., J. Wilson and R.E. Munn (1983), ‘Environmental impact assessment: national approaches and international needs’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 3 (2), 133–50. Cada, G. and C. Hunsaker (1990), ‘Cumulative impacts of hydropower development: reaching a watershed in impact assessment’, Environmental Professional, 12, 2–8. Caldwell, L. (1993), ‘Environmental analysis: the NEPA experience’, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, pp. 12–21. Caldwell, L. (1997), ‘Implementing NEPA: a non-technical political task’, in R. Clark and L. Canter (eds), Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present and Future, Boca Raton: St Lucie Press, pp. 25–50. Caldwell, L. (1998), ‘Implementing policy through procedure: impact assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)’, in A.L. Porter and J.J. Fittipaldi (eds), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century, Fargo, ND: The Press Club, pp. 8–14. Canter, L.W. (1996), Environmental Impact Assessment, New York: McGraw-Hill. Canter, L.W. and J. Kamath (1995), ‘Questionnaire checklist for cumulative impacts’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15 (4), 311–39.

164 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Canter, L. and W. Ross (2010), ‘State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (4), 261–8. Carbon, B. (1995), ‘EIA – an overview’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 2, 62–4. 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, 24, 403–26. Cashmore, M., R. Gwilliam, R. Morgan, D. Cobb and A. Bond (2004), ‘The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (4), 295–310. CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President [US] (1978), Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions Of The National Environmental Policy Act, Reprint 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 (2005), available at https://​ceq​.doe​.gov/​docs/​laws​-regulations/​FR​-1978​-11​-29​-43​-FR​ -55978​-CEQ​-NEPA​-Regulations​-NOFR​.pdf (accessed 11 January 2023). Chanchitpricha, C. and A. Bond (2013), ‘Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 65–72. Chanchitpricha, C., A. Morrison-Saunders and A. Bond (2019), ‘Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37 (3–4), 356–68. Chang, I-S., W. Wang, W. Jing, Y. Sun and H. Ronga (2018), ‘Environmental impact assessment follow-up for projects in China: institution and practice’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 73, 7–19. Chapman, K. (2016), Complexity and Creative Capacity: Rethinking Knowledge Transfer, Adaptive Management and Wicked Environmental Problems, Abingdon: Routledge. CIEEM, CIRIA and IEMA – Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Construction Industry Research and Information Association and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2016), Biodiversity Net Gain: Good Practice Principles for Development, available at https://​cieem​.net/​wp​-con‘tent/​uploads/​2019/​02/​Biodiversity​-Net​-Gain​ -Principles​.pdf (accessed 10 January 2023). Clark, B.D. (1983), ‘The aims and objectives of environmental impact assessment’, in PADC Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 3–11. Clark, B.D., R. Bisset and P. Wathern (1980), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Bibliography with Abstracts, London: Mansell Publishing. Cohen, J. and N. Uphoff (1980), ‘Participation’s place in rural development: seeking to clarify through specificity’, World Development, 8, 213–35. Conover, S., K. Strong, T. Earle Hickey and F. Sander (1985), ‘An evolving framework for environmental impact analysis: I. Methods’, Journal of Environmental Management, 21, 343–58.

REFERENCES 165

Cooper, L. and W. Sheate (2004), ‘Integrating cumulative effects assessment into UK strategic planning: implications of the European Union SEA Directive’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (1), 5–16. Culhane, P.J. (1985), ‘Decision making by voluminous speculation: the contents and accuracy of U.S. environmental impact statements’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Audit and Evaluation in Environmental Assessment and Management: Canadian and International Experience, Volume II: Supporting Studies, Proceedings of the Conference on Follow-up/Audit of EIA Results, Banff: Environmental Protection Service of Environment Canada and the Banff Centre, School of Management, pp. 357–78. Culhane, P.J. (1993), ‘Post-EIS environmental auditing: a first step to making rational environmental assessment a reality’, The Environmental Professional, 15, 66–75. Culhane, P., H. Friesema and J. Beecher (1987), Forecasts and Environmental Decision-Making: The Content and Predictive Accuracy of Environmental Impact Statements, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Curmally, A., B. Sandwidi and A. Jagtiani (2022), ‘Artificial intelligence solutions for environmental and social impact assessments’, in A. Fonseca (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 163–77. Curtis, F. and H. Epp (1999), ‘Role of deductive science in evaluation of alternatives in environmental assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 17 (1), 3–8. Dalal-Clayton, B. and B. Sadler (2005), Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience, London: Earthscan. Dalal-Clayton, B. and B. Sadler (2014), Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience, Abingdon: Routledge. Damman, D. (2000), ‘The challenges of developing regional frameworks for cumulative effects assessment’, in A. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Environmental Effects Management: Tools and Approaches, Edmonton: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, pp. 165–76. Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, London: HM Treasury, available at https://​assets​.publishing​.service​.gov​.uk/​government/​ uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment​_data/​file/​957291/​Dasgupta​_Review​_​-​ _Full​_Report​.pdf (accessed 10 January 2023). De Jongh, P. (1988), ‘Uncertainty in EIA’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 62–84. Dickert, T.G. and A.E. Tuttle (1985), ‘Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning: a coastal wetland watershed example’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5, 37–64. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Official Journal of the European Communities, L197/30– L197/36, available at http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​PDF/​?uri​ =​CELEX:​32001L0042​&​from​=​EN (accessed 24 January 2023). Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of

166 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

the European Union, L124/1–L124/18, available at http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​ legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​PDF/​?uri​=​CELEX:​32014L0052​&​from​=​en (accessed 24 January 2023. Doelle, M. (2021), ‘Integrating climate change mitigation into the Impact Assessment Act’, in M. Doelle and J. Sinclair (eds), The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act, Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., pp. 277–300. Doelle, M. and A.J. Sinclair (2006), ‘Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 185–205. Dreyfus, D. and H. Ingram (1976), ‘The National Environmental Policy Act: a view of intent and practice’, Natural Resources Journal, 16, 243–62. Duarte, C. and L. Sanchez (2020), ‘Addressing significant impacts coherently in environmental impact statements’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82, 106373. https:/ / doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106373. Duinker, P.N. (1985), ‘Forecasting environmental impacts: better quantitative and wrong than qualitative and untestable’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Audit and Evaluation in Environmental Assessment and Management: Canadian and International Experience, Volume II Supporting Studies, Proceedings of the Conference on Follow-up/Audit of EIA Results, Banff: Environmental Protection Service of Environment Canada and the Banff Centre, School of Management, pp. 399–407. Duinker, P.N. (1994), ‘Cumulative effects assessment: what’s the big deal?’, in A.J. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: From Concept to Practice. Papers from the Fifteenth Symposium Held by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, pp. 11–24. Duinker, P.N. and G.L. Baskerville (1986), ‘A systematic approach to forecasting in environmental impact assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, 23, 271–90. Ehrlich, A. (2022), ‘Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40 (2), 129–45. Ehrlich, A. and W. Ross (2015), ‘The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33 (2), 87–97. Enríquez-de-Salamanca, A. (2016), ‘Project splitting in environmental impact assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34 (2), 152–9. Enríquez-de-Salamanca A. (2021), ‘Project justification and EIA: anything goes?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 87, 106540. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.eiar​.2020​.106540. Environmental Agency (UK) (2002), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): A Handbook for Scoping Projects, Environment Agency, UK, available at www​ .gov​.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment​_data/​file/​296952/​ geho0411btrf​-e​-e​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Environmental Resources Limited (1985), Handling Uncertainty in Prediction. E.I.A. publication series no. 18, The Hague: Ministries of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment and of Agriculture and Fisheries.

REFERENCES 167

Environmental Resources Limited (1988), Environmental Impact Assessment – Basic Procedures for Developing Countries, Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations Environment Programme. EPA – Environmental Protection Authority (2016a), Review of the Effectiveness of Public Advice for Proposals that are Not Assessed under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, Environmental Protection Authority Evaluation Program, EPA, Perth, Western Australia, available at www​.epa​.wa​ .gov​.au/​sites/​default/​files/​Publications/​s38 Public Evaluation Report-121016. pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). EPA – Environmental Protection Authority (2016b), Review of the Effectiveness of Advice for Planning Schemes and Scheme Amendments that are Not Assessed under Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, Environmental Protection Authority Evaluation Program, EPA, Perth: Western Australia, available at www​.epa​.wa​.gov​.au/​sites/​default/​files/​Publications/​s48A Public Evaluation Report-121016.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). EPA – Environmental Protection Authority (2021), Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Procedures Manual: Requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, Perth: Environmental Protection Authority, available at www​.epa​.wa​.gov​.au/​procedures​-manual (accessed 18 January 2023). Esteves, A.M., D. Franks and F. Vanclay (2012), ‘Social impact assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 34–42. European Commission (2017a), Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects: Guidance on the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU), Luxembourg; European Commission, available at https://​circabc​.europa​.eu/​rest/​download/​b7451988​ -d869​-4fee​-80de​-0935695f67f2​?ticket​=​ (accessed 10 January 2023). European Commission (2017b), Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects: Guidance on Scoping (Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU), Luxembourg; European Commission, available at https://​circabc​.europa​.eu/​ rest/​download/​38742302​-d9d2​-41e1​-85de​-aa88653ebe7c​?ticket​=​ (accessed 10 January 2023). Fairfax, S.K. (1978), ‘A disaster in the environmental movement: the National Environmental Policy Act has wasted environmentalists’ resources on processing papers’, Science, 199, 743–8. Fernández, G., L. de Brito and A. Fonseca (2018), ‘Does size matter? An evaluation of length and proportion of information in environmental impact statements’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 7, 114–21. Fischer, T.B. (2002), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land Use Planning, London: Earthscan. Fitzpatrick, P. and B. Williams (2020), Building the System: Follow-up, Monitoring and Adaptive Management, Winnipeg, MB: The University of Winnipeg, available at http://​winnspace​.uwinnipeg​.ca/​bitstream/​handle/​10680/​1787/​08​%2004​ %202020​%20KMG​%20IA​%20Follow​%20Up​%20Fitzpatrick​%20Williams​.pdf​ ?sequence​=​1​&​isAllowed​=​y (accessed 11 January 2023). Flamm, B. (1973), ‘A philosophy of environmental impact assessment: toward choice among alternatives’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 28, 201–204.

168 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Fonseca, A. and R. Gibson (2021), ‘Why are projects rarely rejected in environmental impact assessments? Narratives of justifiability in Brazilian and Canadian review reports’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64 (1), 1940–62. Franks, D.M., D. Brereton and C.J. Moran (2010), ‘Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (4), 299–312. Franks, D.M., D. Brereton and C.J. Moran (2013), ‘The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions’, Resources Policy, 38 (4), 640–7. Friesema, H. and P. Culhane (1976), ‘Social impact, politics and the environmental impact statement process’, Natural Resources Journal, 16, 339–56. Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and M. Hanusch (2012), ‘Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 15–24. Gauthier, M., L. Simard and J.P. Waaub (2011), ‘Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31 (1), 48–60. Geneletti, D., E. Beinat, C.F. Chung, A.G. Fabbri and H.J. Scholten (2003), ‘Accounting for uncertainty factors in biodiversity impact assessment: lessons from a case study’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 471–87. Geneletti, D. and V. Ferretti (2015), ‘Multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: concepts and case studies’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 235–65. Gibson, R. (1993), ‘Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience’, The Environmental Professional, 15, 12–24. Gibson, R. (2006), ‘Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24 (3), 170–82. Gibson, R. (2011), ‘Application of a contribution to sustainability test by the Joint Review Panel for the Canadian Mackenzie Gas Project’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (3), 231–44. Gibson, R.B. (2012), ‘In full retreat: the Canadian government’s new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (3), 179–88. Gibson, R. (2013), ‘Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (1), 2–12. Gibson, R. (2017a), ‘Foundations: sustainability and the requirements for getting there’, in R. Gibson (ed.), Sustainability Assessment: Applications and Opportunities, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–15. Gibson, R. (2017b), ‘Applications: from generic criteria to assessments in particular places and cases’, in R. Gibson (ed.), Sustainability Assessment: Applications and Opportunities, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 16–41. Gibson, R. (2021), ‘Introducing the Impact Assessment Act’s sustainability agenda’, in M. Doelle and J. Sinclair (eds), The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act, Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., pp. 194–216. Gibson, R., M. Doelle and J. Sinclair (2021), ‘A next-generation assessment framework for examining the Impact Assessment Act’, in M. Doelle and J. Sinclair

REFERENCES 169

(eds), The Next Generation of Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act, Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., pp. 32–52. Gibson, R.B., S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey and G. Whitelaw (2005), Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes, London: Earthscan. Gladwell, M. (2007), Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, New York: Back Bay Books. Glasson, J. (1994), ‘Life after the decision’, Built Environment, 20 (4), 309–320. Glasson, J. (1999), ‘Environmental impact assessment: impact on decisions’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 121–44. Glasson, J. (2022), ‘Follow-up: post-decision learning in EIA’, in A. Fonseca (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 198–218. Glasson, J., R. Therivel and A. Chadwick (2012), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, fourth edition, Abingdon: Routledge. Glucker, A., P. Driessen, A. Kolhoff and H. Runhaar (2013), ‘Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 104–11. González, A. (2022), ‘Strategic environmental assessment monitoring: the enduring forgotten sibling’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40 (2), 168–176. Grace, W. and J. Pope (2015), ‘A systems approach to sustainability assessment’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 285–320. Greenberg, M.R. and S. Shapiro (2022), ‘NEPA in the United States: death by extremism or redesign of a more useful tool?’, in A. Fonseca (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 28–46. Greig, L. and P. Duinker (2011), ‘A proposal for further strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in Canada’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (2), 159–65. Gunn, J. and B.F. Noble (2011), ‘Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31 (2), 154–60. Gunn, J. and B. Noble (2012), Critical Review of the Manitoba Hydro Bipole III Cumulative Effects Assessment, Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Public Interest Law Centre. Hacking, T. and P. Guthrie (2006), ‘Sustainable development objectives: why are they needed and where do they come from?’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (3), 341–71. Hacking, T. and P. Guthrie (2008), ‘A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2–3), 73–89. Hanna, K. (2016), ‘Environmental impact assessment: process and efficacy’, in K. Hanna (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp. 2–14.

170 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Hanna, P. and F. Vanclay (2013), ‘Human rights, indigenous peoples and the concept of free, prior and informed consent’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (2), 146–57. Harris, P., P. McManus, P. Sainsbury, F. Viliani and E. Riley (2021), ‘The institutional dynamics behind limited human health considerations in environmental assessments of coal mining projects in New South Wales, Australia’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 86, 106473. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.eiar​.2020​.106473. Harris-Roxas, B., F. Viliani, A. Bond, B. Cave, M. Divall, P. Furu, P. Harris, M. Soeberg, A. Wernham and M. Winkler (2012), ‘Health impact assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 43–52. Hart, S.L. (1984), ‘The costs of environmental review: assessment methods and trends’, in S.L. Hart, G.A. Enk and W.F. Hornick (eds), Improving Impact Assessment: Increasing the Relevance and Utilization of Scientific and Technical Information, Boulder, CO: Westview Replica Editions, pp. 337–58. Hartley, N. and C. Wood (2005), ‘Public participation in environmental impact assessment: implementing the Aarhus Convention’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 319–40. Hartz-Karp, J., J. Pope and S. Petrova (2015), ‘A deliberative collaborative governance approach to sustainability assessment’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 375–402. Haug, P.T., R.W. Burwell, A. Stein and B.L. Bandurski (1984), ‘Determining the significance of environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act’, Journal of Environmental Management, 18, 15–24. Hayes, A.C. (2017), ‘What is impact assessment? Some personal reflections C. P. Wolf (1933–2015), edited posthumously by Adrian C. Hayes’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35 (3), 186–199. Hayes, N. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2007), ‘The effectiveness of environmental offsets in EIA: practitioner perspectives from Western Australia’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25 (3), 209–18. Hey, E. (2016), Advanced Introduction to International Environmental Law, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hilborn, R. (1987), ‘Living with uncertainty in resource management’, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7, 1–5. Hilborn, R. and C. Walters (1981), ‘Pitfalls of environmental baseline and process studies’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2, 265–78. Hill, W.W. and L. Ortolano (1976), ‘Effects of NEPA’s review and comment process on water resources planning: results of a survey of planners in the corps of engineers and soil conservation service’, Water Resources Research, 12 (6), 1093–1100. Hollands, R. and L. Palframan (2014), ‘EIA and EMS integration: not wasting the opportunity’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32 (1), 43–54. Hollick, M. (1981), Report on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures in Western Australia, Nedlands: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Western Australia. Hollick, M. (1986), ‘Environmental impact assessment: an international evaluation’, Environmental Management, 10, 157–78.

REFERENCES 171

Holling, C. (ed.) (1978), Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Htun, N. (1988), ‘The EIA process in Asia and the Pacific region’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 225–38. Hudson, B.M., T.D. Galloway and J.L. Kaufman (1979), ‘Comparison of current planning theories: counterparts and contradictions’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45 (4), 387–98. Hugé, J. (2017), ‘Participatory sustainability assessment for spatial planning: reflections from a pilot exercise in Flanders, Belgium’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35 (4), 284–92. Hugé, J., A-J. Rochette, L.J. de Bisthoven, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, N. Koedamc and M.P.M. Vanhoveb (2017), ‘Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation’, Environmental Science and Policy, 75, 91–102. IAIA – International Association for Impact Assessment (2005), Biodiversity in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series No. 3, IAIA, Fargo, ND, available at www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​SP3​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). IAIA and IEA – International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute for Environmental Assessment UK (1999), Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, available at www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​principlesEA​ _1​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). IAP2 – International Association for Public Participation (2007), Foundations of Public Participation, IAP2, available at http://​static​.qwad​.com​.au/​iap2/​files/​ 09Foun​dationsBrochure​_PrintReady​.pdf (accessed 11 July 2017). IEMA – Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2015), IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Shaping Quality Development, Lincoln: IEMA, available at www​.iema​.net/​download​-document/​7018 (accessed 24 January 2023). IFC – International Finance Corporation (2013), Good Practice Note – Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets, International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group, available at www​.ifc​.org/​wps/​wcm/​connect/​58fb524c​-3f82​-462b​-918f​ -0ca1af135334/​IFC​_​GoodPracti​ceHandbook​_Cumula​tiveImpact​Assessment​ .pdf​?MOD​=​AJPERES​&​CVID​=​kbnYgI5 (accessed 24 January 2023). Isaksson, K., T. Richardson and K. Olsson (2009), ‘From consultation to deliberation? Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 295–304. Jenkins, B., D. Annandale and A. Morrison-Saunders (2003), ‘The evolution of a sustainability assessment strategy for Western Australia’, Environmental Planning and Law Journal, 20 (1), 56–65. João, E., F. Vanclay and L. Den Broeder (2011), ‘Emphasising enhancement in all forms of impact assessment: introduction to a special issue’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (3), 170–80. Jones, M. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2016), ‘Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34 (1), 87–93.

172 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Jones, M. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2017), ‘Understanding the long-term influence of EIA on organisational learning and transformation’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 131–8. Jones, R. and T. Fischer (2016), ‘EIA follow-up in the UK: a 2015 update’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 18 (1), 1650006. doi:10.1142/S146433321650006X. Kahneman, D. (2013), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kalliolevo, H., A. Gordon, R. Sharma, J. Bull and S. Bekessy (2021), ‘Biodiversity offsetting can relocate nature away from people: an empirical case study in Western Australia’, Conservation Science and Practice, 3 (10), e512. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1111/​csp2​.512. Kalliolevo, H., M. Salo, J. Hiedanpää, P. Jounela, T. Saario and T. Vuorisalo (2022), ‘Considerable qualitative variability in local-level biodiversity surveys in Finland: a challenge for biodiversity offsetting’, Journal for Nature Conservation, 68, 126194. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jnc​.2022​.126194. Karkkainen, B.K. (2007), ‘NEPA and the curious evolution of environmental impact assessment in the United States’, in J. Holder and D. McGillivray (eds), Taking Stock of Environmental Assessment: Law, Policy and Practice, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 45–63. Kennedy, A.J. and W.A. Ross (1992), ‘An approach to integrate impact scoping with environmental impact assessment’, Environmental Management, 16 (4), 475–84. Kennett, S.A. (2000), ‘Lessons from Cheviot: redefining government’s role in cumulative effects assessment’, in A. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Environmental Effects Management: Tools and Approaches, Edmonton: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, pp. 17–29. Kidd, M. and F. Retief (2009), ‘Environmental assessment’, in H. Strydom and N. King (eds), Fuggle and Rabie’s Environmental Management in South Africa, Cape Town: Juta Publishing, pp. 971–1047. Kjellerup, U. (1999), ‘Significance determination: a rational reconstruction of decisions’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 3–19. Kolhoff, A., B. Schijf, R. Verheem and R. Slootweg (2010), ‘Environmental assessment’, in R. Slootweg, A. Rajvanshi, V. Mathur and A. Kolhoff (eds), Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment: Enhancing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–53. Kørnøv, L., I. Lyhne and J.G. Davila (2020), ‘Linking the UN SDGs and environmental assessment: towards a conceptual framework’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 85, 106463. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​.2020​.106463. Kujala, H., M. Maron, C. Kennedy, M. Evans, J. Bull, B. Wintle, S. Iftekhar et al. (2022), ‘Credible biodiversity offsetting needs public national registers to confirm no net loss’, One Earth, 5 (6), 650–62. Laia, J. and A. Hamilton (2020), ‘For whom do NGOs speak? Accountability and legitimacy in pursuit of just environmental impact assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82, 106374. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​.2020​ .106374.

REFERENCES 173

Landim, S.N.T. and L.E. Sánchez (2012), ‘The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time?’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (4), 217–28. Larsen, S.V. (2021), ‘Inclusion of uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessment in Greenland’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106583. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​.2021​.106583. Laurance, W. (2022), ‘Why environmental impact assessments often fail’, THERYA, 13 (1), 67–72. Lawrence, D. (2007), ‘Impact significance determination: back to basics’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 755–69. Lawrence, D. (2013), Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems and Contemporary Challenges, second edition, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Lee, J. and A. Gardner (2014), ‘A peek around Kevin’s corner: adapting away substantive limits?’, Environmental Planning and Law Journal, 31, 247–50. Lee, L. and J. Gosselink (1988), ‘Cumulative impacts on wetlands: linking scientific assessments and regulatory alternatives’, Environmental Management, 12, 591–3. Lee, N. and F. Walsh (1992), ‘Strategic environmental assessment: an overview’, Project Appraisal, 7 (3), 126–36. Lee, N. and C. Wood (1978), ‘EIA: a European perspective’, Built Environment, 4 (2), 101–110. Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ‘The science of “muddling through”’, Public Administration Review, 19 (2), 79–88. Loomis, J., A. Bond and M. Dziedzic (2022), ‘Transformative effectiveness: evaluating how EIA may transform stakeholders’ frames of reference to deliver strong sustainability outcomes’, Environmental Science and Policy, 136, 207–215. Loxton, E., J. Schirmer and P. Kanowski (2013), ‘Exploring the social dimensions and complexity of cumulative impacts: a case study of forest policy changes in Western Australia’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (1), 52–63. Macintosh, A. (2010), ‘The Australian Government’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime: using surveys to identify proponent views on cost-effectiveness’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (3), 175–88. MacKinnon, A.J., P.N. Duinker and T.R. Walker (2018), The Application of Science in Environmental Impact Assessment, Abingdon: Routledge. Maron, M., A. Gordon, B.G. Mackey, H.P. Possingham and J.E.M. Watson (2016), ‘Interactions between biodiversity offsets and protected area commitments: avoiding perverse outcomes’, Conservation Letters, 9 (5), 384–9. Maron, M., R.J. Hobbs, A. Moilanen, J.W. Matthews, K. Christie, T.A. Gardner, D.A. Keith, D.B. Lindenmayer and C.A. McAlpine (2012), ‘Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies’, Biological Conservation, 155, 141–8. Martin, L. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2015), ‘Determining the value and influence of informal strategic advice for environmental impact assessment: Western Australian perspectives’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33 (4), 265–77.

174 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Masden, E.A., A.D. Fox, R.W. Furness, R. Bullman and D.T. Haydon (2010), ‘Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: developing a conceptual framework’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 1–7. May, J., R.J. Hobbs and L.E. Valentine (2017), ‘Are offsets effective? An evaluation of recent environmental offsets in Western Australia’, Biological Conservation, 206, 249–57. McCold, L.N. and J.W. Saulsbury (1996), ‘Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments’, Environmental Management, 20 (5), 767–76. McDonald, G.T. and A.L. Brown (1995), ‘Going beyond environmental impact assessment: environmental input to planning and design’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15 (6), 483–95. Meadows, D., E. Goldsmith and P. Meadows (1972), The Limits to Growth, New York: Universe Books. Mehdic, A., T. Gunton and M. Rutherford (2020), ‘Assessing the role of subjective judgment and science in environmental impact assessment: implications and options for reform’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63 (10), 1771–90. Meuleman, L. (2015), ‘Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33 (1), 4–15. Middle, G., B. Clarke, D. Franks, L. Brown, J. Kellet, S. Lockie, A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope, J. Glasson, E. Harris and B. Harris-Roxas (2013), ‘Reducing green tape or rolling back IA in Australia: what are four jurisdictions up to?’, presented at IAIA13 Impact Assessment: The Next Generation, 33rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Calgary, Canada, 13–16 May, available at http://​conferences​.iaia​.org/​2013/​pdf/​ Final papers review process 13/Reducing Green Tape or Rolling back IA in Australia.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Middle, G. and I. Middle (2010), ‘A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental impact assessment process (EIA) in Western Australia’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (4), 313–22. Morgan, R.K. (1998), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Methodological Perspective, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Morgan, R.K. (2012), ‘Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 5–14. Morgan, R.K. (2017), ‘Conceptualising best practice in impact assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 78‒85. Morris, P. and R. Therivel (eds) (2001), Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, second edition, London: Spon Press. Morrison-Saunders, A. (1998), ‘The effect of public pressure during environmental impact assessment on environmental management outcomes’, presented at IAIA’98 Sustainability and the Role of Impact Assessment in the Global Economy, The Convention Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand, 19–24 April, available at http://​researchrepository​.murdoch​.edu​.au/​id/​eprint/​2444 (accessed 24 January 2023). Morrison-Saunders, A. (2013), ‘Active stakeholder support for an effective EIA process’, in D. Lawrence (ed.), Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems and Contemporary Challenges, second edition, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 262–3.

REFERENCES 175

Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Arts (eds) (2004), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, London: Earthscan. Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Arts (2023), International Best Practice Principles: Public Participation in Impact Assessment Follow-up, Special Publication Series No. 12. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​SP12​_Public participation in IA Follow up.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Arts and J. Baker (2003), ‘Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1), 43–56. Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Arts, J. Baker and P. Caldwell (2001), ‘Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19 (4), 289–96. Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Arts, A. Bond, J. Pope and F. Retief (2021), Reflecting on, and revising, international best practice principles for EIA follow-up, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 106596. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.eiar​.2021​.106596. Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Arts, J. Pope, A. Bond and F. Retief (2023), ‘Distilling best practice principles for public participation in impact assessment follow-up’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 41 (1), 48–58. Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Bailey (1999), ‘Exploring the EIA/environmental management relationship’, Environmental Management, 24 (3), 281–95. Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Bailey (2000), ‘Transparency in EIA decision-making: recent developments in Western Australia’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18 (4), 260–70. Morrison-Saunders, A., A. Bond, J. Pope and F. Retief (2015), ‘Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33 (2), 108–15. Morrison-Saunders, A., A. Bond, J. Pope and F. Retief (2022), ‘Sustainability assessment principles and practices’, in K. Hanna (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 98–113. Morrison-Saunders, A. and G. Early (2008), ‘What is necessary to ensure natural justice in EIA decision-making?’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26 (1), 29–42. Morrison-Saunders, A. and T. Fischer (2006), ‘What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A skeptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment’, Journal of Environmental Assessment, Planning and Management, 8 (1), 1–21. Morrison-Saunders, A. and M. Hughes (2018), ‘Overcoming sustainability displacement: the challenge of making sustainability accessible in the here and now’, in M. Brueckner, R. Spencer and M. Paul (eds), Disciplining the Undisciplined? Perspectives from Business, Society and Politics on Responsible Citizenship, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability, Cham: Springer, pp. 39–53. Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Pope (2013a), ‘Conceptualising and managing tradeoffs in sustainability assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 54–63. Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Pope (2013b), ‘Learning by doing: sustainability assessment in Western Australia’, in A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders and

176 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 140–66. Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Pope, A. Bond and F. Retief (2014b), ‘Towards sustainability assessment follow-up’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 38–45. Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Pope, J. Gunn, A. Bond and F. Retief (2014a), ‘Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32 (1), 2–8. Morrison-Saunders, A. and R. Retief (2012), ‘Walking the sustainability assessment talk: progressing the practice of environmental impact assessment (EIA)’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 36, 34–41. Morrison-Saunders, A. and B. Sadler (2010), ‘The art and science of impact assessment: results of a survey of IAIA members’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (1), 77–82. Morrison-Saunders, A., L.E. Sánchez, F. Retief, J. Sinclair, M. Doelle, M. Jones, J-A. Wessels and J. Pope (2020), ‘Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN sustainable development goals’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38 (2), 113–117. Morrison-Saunders, A. and R. Therivel (2006), ‘Sustainability integration and assessment’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (3), 281–98. Munn, R.E. (1979), Environmental Impact Assessment Principles and Procedures, Scope 5 (second edition), New York: John Wiley & Sons. Munro, D.A. (1985), ‘Learning from experience: auditing environmental impact assessments’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Audit and Evaluation in Environmental Assessment and Management: Canadian and International Experience, Volume I: Commissioned Research, Proceedings of the Conference on Follow-up/Audit of EIA Results, Banff: Environmental Protection Service of Environment Canada and the Banff Centre, School of Management, pp. 5–31. Nisbet, J. and E. João (2022), ‘A framework for evaluating enhancement quality as part of the EIA process’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, 106806. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​.2022​.106806. Niyaz, A. and D. Storey (2011), ‘Environmental management in the absence of participation: a case study of the Maldives’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (1), 69–77. Noble, B. (2000), ‘Strategic environmental assessment: what is it? And what makes it strategic?’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2 (2), 203–24. Noble, B. (2015), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice, third edition, Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Noble, B. and J. Birk (2011), ‘Comfort monitoring? Environmental assessment follow-up under community–industry negotiated environmental agreements’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 17–24. Noble, B. and J. Gunn (2016), ‘Strategic environmental assessment’, in K. Hanna (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, Ontario: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–121. O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010a), ‘Aboriginal-mining company contractual agreements in Australia and Canada: implications for political autonomy and

REFERENCES 177

community development’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 30 (1–2), 69–86. O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010b), ‘Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (1), 19–27. Ogilvie, C. and L. Johnston (2000), ‘Cumulative effects management framework project’, in A. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Environmental Effects Management: Tools and Approaches, Edmonton: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, pp. 177–86. O’Riordan, T. (1976a), ‘Beyond environmental impact assessment’, in T. O’Riordan and R.D. Hey (eds), Environmental Impact Assessment, Westmead: Saxon House, pp. 202–21. O’Riordan, T. (1976b), Environmentalism, London: Pion. O’Riordan, T. and W.R.D. Sewell (1981a), ‘From project appraisal to policy review’, in T. O’Riordan and W.R.D. Sewell (eds), Project Appraisal and Policy Review, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–28. O’Riordan, T. and W.R.D. Sewell (1981b), ‘Some concluding observations’, in T.  O’Riordan and W.R.D. Sewell (eds), Project Appraisal and Policy Review, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 297–302. Owens, S., T. Rayner and O. Bina (2004), ‘New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research’, Environment and Planning A, 36, 1943–59. PADC Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit (1983), Environmental Impact Assessment, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Palerm, J.R. (1999), ‘Public participation in environmental decision making: examining the Aarhus Convention’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 1 (2), 229–44. Partidário, M.R. (1999), ‘Strategic environmental assessment: principles and potential’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 60–73. Partidário, M. (2012), ‘Impact assessment’, Fastips No. 1, Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​ Fastips​_1 Impact Assessment.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Pauly, D. (1995), ‘Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries’, Trends in Ecological Evolution, 10 (10), 430. Perdicoulis, A., B. Durning and L. Palframan (eds) (2012), Furthering Environmental Impact Assessment: Towards a Seamless Connection between EIA and EMS, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Peterson, E.B., Y-H. Chan, N.M. Peterson, G.A. Constable, R.B. Caton, C.S. Davis, R.R. Wallace and G.A. Yarranton (1987), Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: An Agenda for Action and Research, Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Petts, J. (1999a), ‘Introduction to environmental impact assessment in practice: fulfilled potential or wasted opportunity?’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 2: Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 3–9.

178 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Petts, J. (1999b), ‘Public participation and environmental impact assessment’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 145–77. Petts, J. and G. Eduljee (1994), Environmental Impact Assessment for Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Pilgrim, J.D., S. Brownlie, J.M.M. Ekstrom, T.A. Gardner, A. von Hase, K. ten Kate, C.E. Savy, R.T.T. Stephens, H.J. Temple, J. Treweek, G.T. Ussher and G. Ward (2013), ‘A process for assessing the offsetability of biodiversity impacts’, Conservation Letters, 6 (5), 376–84. Pinto, E., A. Morrison-Saunders, A. Bond, J. Pope and F. Retief (2019), ‘Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 21 (2), 1950008. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1142/​ S146433321950008X. Pope, J. (2006), ‘Editorial: what’s so special about sustainability assessment?’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (3), v–ix. Pope, J., A. Bond, C. Cameron, F. Retief and A. Morrison-Saunders (2018), ‘Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 70, 34–44. Pope, J., A. Bond, J. Hugé and A. Morrison-Saunders (2017), ‘Reconceptualising sustainability assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–15. Pope, J., A. Bond, A. Morrison-Saunders and F. Retief (2013), ‘Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1–9. Pope, J. and W. Grace (2006), ‘Sustainability assessment in context: issues of process, policy and governance’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (3), 373–98. Pope, J., A. Morrison-Saunders, A. Bond and F. Retief (2021), ‘When is an offset not an offset? A framework of necessary conditions for biodiversity offsets’, Environmental Management, 67, 424–35. Preston, B. (2020), ‘Contemporary issues in Environmental Impact Assessment’, Environmental Planning and Law Journal, 37, 423–42. Quigley, R., L. den Broeder, P. Furu, A. Bond, B. Cave and R. Bos (2006), Health Impact Assessment International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 5. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​SP5​_3​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Reed, M. (2008), ‘Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review’, Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–31. Retief, F. (2007), ‘Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9 (1), 83–101. Retief, F., A. Bond, J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders and N. King (2016), ‘Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61, 52–60. Retief, F., A. Morrison-Saunders, D. Geneletti and J. Pope (2013), ‘Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (1), 13–23.

REFERENCES 179

Retief, F., A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (2015), ‘Key learnings from psychology for sustainability assessment’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 403–26. Ross, W.A. (1994), ‘Assessing cumulative environmental effects: both impossible and essential’, in A.J. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: From Concept to Practice. Papers from the Fifteenth Symposium Held by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Edmonton, pp. 3–9. Ross, W. (2004), ‘The independent environmental watchdog: a Canadian experiment in EIA follow-up’, in A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, London: Earthscan, pp. 178–96. Ross, W., J. Green and P. Croal (2001), ‘Follow-up studies in cumulative effects: management implications in developing nations’, paper presented at IAIA’01 Impact Assessment in the Urban Context Conference, EIA Follow-up: Outcomes and Improvements Workshop, 26 May–1 June, Cartagena, Colombia. Ross, W., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Marshall (2006), ‘Common sense in environmental impact assessment: it is not as common as it should be’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24 (1), 3–10. Rowe, G. and L. Frewer (2005), ‘A typology of public engagement mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 30 (2), 251–90. Runhaar, H., F. van Laerhoven, P. Driessen and J. Arts (2013), ‘Environmental assessment in the Netherlands: effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 13–25. Ryan, G.W. and H.R. Bernard (2003), ‘Techniques to identify themes’, Field Methods, 15 (1), 85–109. Sadler, B. (1996), ‘International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment, final report, environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance’, report, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services. Sadler, B. (2002), ‘From environmental assessment to sustainability appraisal?’, in L. Billing, C. Jones, B. Sadler, J. Walmsley and C. Wood (eds), Environmental Assessment Yearbook 2002: The EA Agenda for Johannesburg and Beyond, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the EIA Centre, University of Manchester, UK, pp. 145–52. Sadler, B., R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. Fischer, M. Partidário and R. Verheem (eds) (2011), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan. Sadler, B. and M. McCabe (eds) (2002), Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, second edition, United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Economics and Trade Branch, available at https://​wedocs​.unep​.org/​bitstream/​handle/​20​.500​ .11822/​26503/​EIA​_Training​_Resource​_Manual​.pdf​?sequence​=​1​&​isAllowed​=​ y (accessed 24 January 2023). Sánchez, L. and R. Mitchell (2017), ‘Conceptualising impact assessment as a learning process’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 195–204. Sanchez, L. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2011), ‘Learning about knowledge management for improving environmental impact assessment in a govern-

180 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ment agency: the Western Australian experience’, Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2260–71. Savage, N. (1986), ‘The mitigation predicament’, Environmental Management, 10 (3), 319–20. Scace, R. (2000), ‘Vital relationship: complementary responsibilities of government and proponent in scoping’, in A. Kennedy (ed.), Cumulative Environmental Effects Management: Tools and Approaches, Edmonton: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists, pp. 31–41. Sheate, W.R. (2009), ‘The evolving nature of environmental assessment and management: linking tools to help deliver sustainability: tools, techniques and approaches for sustainability’, in W.R. Sheate (ed.), Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,  Singapore, World Scientific, pp. 1–29, available at www​.worldscientific​.com/​doi/​suppl/​10​.1142/​7​519/​suppl​_file/​7519​_chap01​ .pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Sheedy, A. (2008), Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation, Canadian Policy Research Networks, available at https://​oaresource​.library​ .carleton​.ca/​cprn/​49583​_en​.pdf (accessed 24 January 2023). Shrader-Frechette, K.S. (1985), Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology: Some Problems of Technology Assessment and Environmental-Impact Analysis, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. Sinclair, A.J., A. Diduck and J. Parkins (2022), ‘Innovative approaches to achieving meaningful public participation in next-generation impact assessment’, in K. Hanna (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 239–58. Sinclair, A.J., A.P. Diduck and M. Vespa (2015), ‘Public participation in sustainability assessment: essential elements, practical challenges and emerging directions’, in A. Morrison-Saunders, J. Pope and A. Bond (eds), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 349–74. Sinclair, A.J., M. Doelle and R.B. Gibson (2018), ‘Implementing next generation assessment: a case example of a global challenge’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 166–76. Singh, G., J. Lerner, M. Mach, C. Murray et al. (2020), ‘Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally’, People and Nature, 2, 369–79. Sippe, R. (1990), ‘Power and accountability: the contribution of environmental impact assessment to sustainable development in Western Australia’, presented at Science, Assessment and Sustainability Conference, International Association for Impact Assessment, Vancouver, Canada, 24 March. Sippe, R. (1997), ‘Establishing rules for environmental acceptability for reviewing EAs: the Western Australian experience’, Environmental Assessment, 5 (1), 17–20. Sippe, R. (1999), ‘Criteria and standards for assessing significant impact’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Methods and Potential, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 74–92.

REFERENCES 181

Slootweg, R. and M. Jones (2011), ‘Resilience thinking improves SEA: a discussion paper’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (4), 263–76. Smith, M. (2007), ‘A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 126–44. Sonntag, N.C., R.R. Everitt, L.P. Rattle, D.L. Colnett, C.P. Wolf, J.C. Truett, A.H.J. Dorcey and C.S. Holling (1987), Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research and Development, Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Spaling, H. and B. Smit (1993), ‘Cumulative environmental change: conceptual frameworks, evaluation approaches, and institutional perspectives’, Environmental Management, 17 (5), 587–600. Spickett, J., D. Katscherian and Y. Miang Goh (2012), ‘A new approach to criteria for health risk assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32 (1), 118–22. Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S.R. Carpenter, W. De Vries, C.A. De Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G.M. Mace, L.M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers and S. Sörlin (2015), ‘Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science, 347 (6223), 736–53. Steinemann, A. (2001), ‘Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21 (1), 3–21. Stewart, J. and J. Sinclair (2007), ‘Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government’, Journal of Environmental Assessment, Planning and Management, 9 (2), 161–83. Stinchcombe, K. and G.B. Gibson (2001), ‘Strategic environmental assessment as a means of pursuing sustainability’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3 (3), 343–72. Stoeglehner, G., A. Morrison-Saunders and G. Early (2010), ‘Comparing legislative mechanisms for SEA screening and decision-making: Austrian and Australian experiences’, Journal of Environmental Assessment, Planning and Management, 12 (4), 1–25. Storey, K. (1986), ‘From prediction to management: increasing the effectiveness of SIA’, in H.A. Becker and A.L. Porter (eds), Impact Assessment Today, Volume II, Utrecht: Uitgeverij Jan van Arkel, pp. 539–51. Taylor, C.N., C.H. Bryan and C.G. Goodrich (1990), Social Assessment: Theory, Process and Techniques, Studies in Resource Management No. 7, Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Taylor, S. (1984), Making Bureaucracies Think, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Thaler, R. (2015), Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioural Economics, London: Penguin. Therivel, R. (2004), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, London: Earthscan. Therivel, R. and A. González (2019), ‘Introducing SEA effectiveness’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37 (3–4), 181–7.

182 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Therivel, R. and A. González (2021), ‘“Ripe for decision”: tiering in environmental assessment’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 87, 106520. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.eiar​.2020​.106520. Therivel, R. and M.R. Partidário (1996), The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Therivel, R. and G. Wood (2018), Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, fourth edition, London: Routledge. Treweek, J. (1996), ‘Ecology and environmental impact assessment’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 191–9. Tupala, A.-K., S. Huttunen and P. Halme (2022), ‘Social impacts of biodiversity offsetting: a review’, Biological Conservation, 267, 109431. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.biocon​.2021​.109431. United Nations (2015), Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World, United Nations, available at www​.un​.org/​su​stainabled​evelopment (accessed 10 January 2023). UN CEPA – United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (2021), CEPA Strategy Guidance Note on Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, available at https://​ publicadministration​.un​.org/​en/​Intergovernmental​-Support/​Committee​-of​-E xperts​-on​-Public​-Administration/​Governance​-principles/​Addressing​-comm on​-governance​-challenges/​CEPA​-strategy​-guidance​-notes (accessed 9 January 2023). UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1990), Post-project Analysis in Environmental Impact Assessment, ECE/ENVWA/11, United Nations: New York, available at https://​unece​.org/​DAM/​env/​documents/​1990/​ ece​.envwa​.11​.e​.pdf (accessed 11 January 2023). UNEP, WEF and ELD – United Nations Environment Program, World Economic Forum and The Economics of Land Degradation (2021), State of Finance for Nature 2021: Tripling Investments in Nature-based Solutions by 2030, Nairobi: UNEP, available at www​.unep​.org/​resources/​state​-finance​-nature (accessed 9 January 2023). Vanclay, F. (2002), ‘Conceptualising social impacts’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22 (3), 183–211. Vanclay, F. (2015), ‘Changes in the impact assessment family 2003–2014: implications for considering achievements, gaps and future directions’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17 (1). https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1142/​S1464333​215500039. Vanclay, F., A-M. Esteves, I. Aucamp and D. Franks (2015), Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects, Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment, available at www​ .iaia​.org/​pdf/​IAIA​%202015​%20Social​%20Impact​%20Assessment​%20guidance​ %20document​%20copy​.pdf (accessed 15 January 2023). Wathern, P. (1988), ‘An introductory guide to EIA’, in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 3–30. Weaver, A., J. Pope, A. Morrison-Saunders and P. Lochner (2008), ‘Contributing to sustainability as an EIA practitioner’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26 (2), 91–8.

REFERENCES 183

Webler, T., S. Tuler and R. Krueger (2001), ‘What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public’, Environmental Management, 27 (3), 435–50. Weiner, K. (1997), ‘Basic purposes and policies of the NEPA regulations’, in R. Clark and L. Canter (eds), Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present and Future, Boca Raton: St Lucie Press, pp. 61–83. Wessels, J-A., F. Retief and A. Morrison-Saunders (2015), ‘Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 178–89. Westbrook, C. and B. Noble (2013), ‘Science requisites for cumulative effects assessment for wetlands’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (4), 318–23. Weston, J. (2000), ‘EIA, decision-making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 43 (2), 185–203. Weston, J. (2011), ‘Screening for environmental impact assessment projects in England: what screening?’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (2), 90–98. White, L. and B. Noble (2013), ‘Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: a review of a decade of academic research’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 42, 60–66. Whitelaw, G.S., D.D. McCarthy and L.J.S. Tsuji (2009), ‘The Victor Diamond Mine environmental assessment process: a critical First Nation perspective’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27 (3), 205–15. Wichelman, A.F. (1976), ‘Administrative agency implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: a conceptual framework for explaining differential response’, Natural Resources Journal, 16, 263–300. Wolf, C. (1975), ‘Social impact assessment: the state of the art’, in D.H. Carson (ed.), Man–Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications, Part 1, New York: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, pp. 1–44. Wood, C. (1999), ‘Comparative evaluation of environmental impact assessment systems’, in J. Petts (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 2: Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 10–34. Wood, C. (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Overview, Harlow: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education. Wood, C. and M. Dejeddour (1992), ‘Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, plans and programmes’, Impact Assessment Bulletin, 10 (1), 3–22. Wood, C., B. Dipper and C. Jones (2000), ‘Auditing the assessment of the environmental impacts of planning projects’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (1), 23–47. Wood, G. (2008), ‘Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?”’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 22–38. Wood, G., A. Rodriguez-Bachiller and J. Becker (2007), ‘Fuzzy sets and simulated environmental change: evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental impact assessment’, Environment and Planning A, 39, 810–29.

184 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhang, J., L. Kørnøv and P. Christensen (2013), ‘Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options’, Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 148–57. Zuhair, M.H. and P.A. Kurian (2016), ‘Socioeconomic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34 (2), 129–42.

Index

Aaen, S. 63 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information 72, 73, 119 acceptability 49, 63 criteria, environmental 69 action forcing 27–30, 35 adaptive impact assessment 133 adaptive management 78, 80, 85, 98, 106, 132–5 definition for 132 effective applications of 134 science and 132 Adelle, C. 89 adverse impacts 7, 48, 58, 62, 65–7, 99–101, 137 significant 25, 62, 65 Aksamit, C. 129, 132 alternatives 30, 31, 83, 85, 153, 158 assessment of 95–6 consideration of 92–7 criticism and frustration over 96 environmental impact statement 96 evaluations of 96 example of a mining company 95 hierarchy of 92–9 identification of 57 problems with the treatment of 96 regulations 97 review of court cases 92, 96–7 road construction 95 Amy, D. 4, 27 Andrews, R.N. 29, 31, 45, 65, 67, 89, 95, 110, 130, 136

approval decision 13–15, 34, 41, 44–5, 48, 53, 61, 68, 70–73, 86, 113, 119, 157 Arnstein, S.R. 120 artificial intelligence 159 Arts, J. 74 assessment 43, 44, 58 adaptive impact 133 of alternatives 95–6 cumulative effects assessment see cumulative effects assessment (CEA) cumulative impacts 109, 139, 140, 143, 145–8, 151 determining significance 62–6 environmental see environmental impact assessment (EIA) health impact 18, 19 holistic impact 110, 136–8 impact see impact assessment regional 140, 144, 147 risk 61, 63 social impact 19, 21 strategic see strategic environmental assessment (SEA) sustainable development 18–19, 37, 72 automation 159 Bailey, J. 76, 77, 126, 137 Baker, D.C. 154 Bartlett, R.V. 34–6, 153, 154 baseline data 107, 109 baseline monitoring 75, 80, 106–10, 124, 130 185

186 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

defined 106 baseline studies 108–10 Bates, G. 114 Beanlands, G.E. 8, 18, 41, 109, 126 behavioural change 27–9, 35, 36 best practice 26, 63, 76, 77, 128, 131, 132, 152–3, 155, 157, 158 Bina, O. 27, 89, 154 biodiversity 5 gain of 48, 100, 102 loss of 48, 102–3, 141 no net loss 100, 103 offsets 100–104 biophysical EIA 8–9, 37 environment 21, 107, 108 impact 8–9, 19–20, 60, 108 biota 109 Birk, J. 75 Bisset, R. 125, 126 Blakley, J. 139–40, 146 Bohman, J. 118 Bond, A. 14, 37, 99, 154, 156, 157 boundaries 55–6 Brown, A.L. 17, 88, 89 Burton, I. 9, 13, 17, 28, 92, 112, 127, 133 Cada, G. 141 Caldwell, L. 4, 23, 24, 29, 36, 124, 127 Canadian Impact Assessment Act 2019 65 Canter, L. 119, 141, 146 Carbon, B. 67 Cashmore, M. 38, 118, 150 CEA see cumulative effects assessment (CEA) CEAM see cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) Chanchitpricha, C. 154, 157 Chapman, K. 134 choice decisions 41, 42, 44–8 choices 39, 42, 44, 47–8, 73, 97, 127, 153 climate change 5, 23, 144–5 Cohen, J. 113 comfort monitoring 75–6

community empowerment 121, 122 compliance monitoring 75 Conover, S. 37 costs 155–6 and benefits 32 Culhane, P.J. 26, 30, 31, 56, 67, 125, 126 cumulative effects 138, 139, 141, 145–7 cumulative effects assessment (CEA) 143, 145 bottom-up approach 145–7 challenge in 143 integration with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) 147–8 three levels of application 147 top-down approach to 145, 147 cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) 146–7 cumulative impacts 59, 65, 86, 88, 138–40, 153, 158 assessment 109, 139, 140, 143, 145–8, 151 climate change 144–5 consideration in EIA 143–8 defined 138–9 direct and indirect 141 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 144–5 pathways 141–2 regional assessment 140, 144 scale of 142 social 142 stimuli–response pathway 141 synergistic 141, 145 typologies 140 Curtis, F. 128 Dalal-Clayton, B. 42 Damman, D. 147 decision-making 10, 13–14, 26, 28, 30–32, 38, 56, 57, 64, 86, 87, 94, 113, 114, 117–19, 154 approval 13–15, 34, 41, 44–5, 48, 53, 61, 68, 70–73, 86, 113, 119, 157 choices 41, 42, 44–8 discretionary 54

INDEX 187

eight steps of EIA 42–6 environmental protection 34 one-off 45, 46, 51 political 71–2 on predictions 126 rational 4, 14, 42, 48, 72, 125 scoping see scoping screening see screening technical-rational 4, 34–5 technocentric 119 trade-off 44, 45, 47–50, 62, 71 decision-questions 46, 54, 69, 80, 86–7 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 118 Dejeddour, M. 84 De Jongh, P. 130 deliberative collaborative governance 120 deliberative processes 134 design tool, EIA as 88–91 development 8, 9, 12–13, 45, 48, 51 collective impacts of 137 design of 90–91, 153 EIA and 26–7, 33 identifying the types of 54 location for 93–4, 96 mode/process 93 need/demand for 93 proactive 86, 88 proponent of 13, 14, 25, 31, 87 scales of 93, 95 spectrum of 83–8 strategic 83, 86, 88 sustainable see sustainable development/sustainability tiers of 83–5 timing for 94 development-centred approach, in screening decision 52–3 development proposals 15, 16, 20, 31, 34, 42, 45, 51, 55, 57, 67, 69–71, 84, 87, 137 design of 90 project-level 87 of proponent 92 Doelle, M. 89, 120, 121, 144, 145 do-nothing 93, 106 Dreyfus, D. 23

Duarte, C. 63 Duinker, P.N. 8, 125–6, 143 early warning 75 ecological restoration 102 effects monitoring 75 Ehrlich, A. 63, 64, 137, 138 EIA see environmental impact assessment (EIA) EIS see environmental impact statement (EIS) environment 9, 21, 37 definition of 8 environmental acceptability criteria 69 compensation 100–102, 104 complex problems 134 legislation 22–3 management 7, 9, 15, 23, 46, 67, 69, 76, 90, 100 outcome 12, 36, 75, 133 protection 5, 7, 22, 24, 28, 34, 48, 70, 76, 99, 154 resource goals 89 resources 13, 28, 53, 55, 60, 61, 63, 65, 99, 100, 103, 141, 142, 144 sink goals 89 environmental impact assessment (EIA) 17, 21, 36 as anthropocentric concept 18 biophysical 8–9, 37 concept of 3 costs and benefits of 32 definitions of 4, 6–10 as a design tool 88–91 effectiveness 150–52 early evaluations of 29–33 legitimacy 154, 156, 157 procedural 151–3 substantive 151, 153–5 three levels 151 transactive 151, 154–6 evolution of 9–10 follow-up 42, 44–6, 73–81 academic research studies 79–80 benefits of 79

188 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

concept level (meta-follow-up) 80 defined 74 engagement and communication 74, 76–7 evaluation 74, 76, 79 governance 74, 77 jurisdiction level (macro-follow-up) 79–80 learning aspect of 79–80 management 74, 76–80 monitoring 74–6, 78–80 project level (micro-follow-up) 79–80 sustainability 80 future for 159 information processing model 34–5 jurisdictions 8, 9 legislation 12, 15, 16, 22–5, 38–9 and management tools 15, 37 need for and nature of 5–6 rational model of decision-making 4 risk assessment 4 science and 124–8 scientific quality of 125 strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and 84–5, 88 as thinking process 4 three key weaknesses of 88 environmental impacts 35, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, 80, 106, 107 forecasting 125–6 environmental impact statement (EIS) 8, 12, 13, 24, 25, 29, 31, 36, 56, 60, 61, 69, 95, 110, 129 alternatives consideration 96 prediction 125, 126 public review of 70 environment-centred approach, in screening decision 51–2 Epp, H. 128 evaluation 74, 76, 79

evidence-based decision-making 114 Fairfax, S.K. 23, 30, 31, 88 fatal flaws 62 Fischer, T. 27, 37 Flamm, B. 4, 96 follow-up 42, 44–6, 73–81 forecasting environmental impacts 125–6 formal EIA 12–16, 32, 35–6, 91, 100 invention of 24–6 screening decision 51–3 see also informal EIA fossil-fuels 145 Franks, D.M. 139, 141 Frewer, L. 121 Friesema, H. 30, 31 Gardner, A. 134 Geneletti, D. 129 GHG see greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Gibson, R. 3, 8, 9, 15, 18, 37, 47, 49, 57, 62, 65–6, 71, 73, 93, 95, 96, 99, 102, 115 Glucker, A. 116 Gonzalez, A. 84, 154 governance 16, 33, 42, 74, 77 Greenberg, M.R. 22, 26 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 65, 94, 144–5 Greig, L. 126 Gunn, J. 86, 139, 146, 148 Guthrie, P. 37 Habermas’ theory of communicative action 119 habitat restoration 98 Hacking, T. 37 Hamilton, A. 157 Hanna, K. 42, 107 Harris, P. 17 Hartz-Karp, J. 20, 120 Hayes, A.C. 47 health impact assessment (HIA) 18, 19 Hey, E. 130

INDEX 189

HIA see health impact assessment (HIA) Hilborn, R. 107, 109, 130 Hill, R. 89 Hill, W.W. 29–31 holistic impact assessment 110, 136–8 Hollick, M. 75, 107 Holling, C. 67, 78, 85, 133 Hudson, B.M. 42 human environment 8 human well-being 19, 20 Hunsaker, C. 141 IAP2 see International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) IEMA see Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) impact assessment 17–19, 21, 58, 59, 62–6, 89 cumulative 109, 139, 140, 143, 145–8, 151 health 18, 19 holistic 110, 136–8 social 19, 21 impact benefit agreements 99–100, 104 impact prediction 58–63, 65, 66, 144 about uncertainty 129–30 accuracy 75, 106 biophysical or social 60 defined 59 key attributes 60–61 noise emission 59 science in 125–8 impacts 12, 17–19, 49, 56 adverse 7, 48, 58, 62, 65–7, 99–101, 137 biophysical 8–9, 19–20, 60, 108 characterization 63 cumulative 59, 65, 86, 88, 153, 158 environmental 80, 106, 107 importance 63 individual 136–8 management 67 management planning 56 mitigation 66 multiple additive 141

non-significant 56 residual 58, 66, 67, 69, 98, 103, 137, 140 scoping 55 significance 35, 51, 55, 62–5 social 18–20, 108 impact splitting approach 137 inclusion lists, in screening 52–3 Indigenous Peoples 72, 78, 99, 102, 112, 117–18 individual impacts 136–8 see also cumulative impacts informal EIA 15–16 information processing model 34–5 Ingram, H. 23 Institute of Environmental Assessment UK 26 Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) 90 institutional change 154 International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) 4, 6, 17, 26, 128, 132, 152 International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) 113, 115 Isaksson, K. 117 iterative approach 45 Joao, E. 99 Johnston, L. 147 Jones, M. 36, 54, 63 Kalliolevo, H. 102 Kamath, J. 141 Karkkainen, B.K. 24, 28, 92 Kennedy, A.J. 55, 56 Kidd, M. 69 knowledge and learning 154–5 Kujala, H. 103 Kurian, P.A. 34, 35, 153, 154 ladder of participation 120 Laia, J. 157 Larsen, S.V. 129 Lawrence, D. 129 Lee, J. 134

190 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Lee, N. 85 legitimacy 154, 156, 157 like-for-like principle 101, 102 longer-term behavioural change 154 Loomis, J. 154 Loxton, E. 142 lumpers 21 McCabe, M. 63 McCold, L.N. 142 McDonald, G. 17, 88, 89 Mackenzie Gas Project in Canada 68, 72 MacKinnon, A.J. 127, 134 McLelland, J.N. 154 management 56–7, 74, 76–8 adaptive 78, 80, 85, 98, 106, 132–5 environmental 67, 69, 76, 90, 100 impact 56, 67 Maron, M. 102 Masden, E.A. 142 Meadows, D. 110 meaningful engagement 116, 118 Mehdic, A. 127 Meuleman, L. 122 Middle, G. 103 Middle, I. 103 Mitchell, R. 154 mitigation 56, 146 of adverse environmental impacts 86 measures 7, 14, 25, 26, 41, 43–6, 48, 58, 62, 65–9, 75, 80, 90, 94, 96, 129, 137, 153 mitigation hierarchy 97–104 avoiding the impact 97, 98 biodiversity offsets 100–104 compensating for the impact 98–102, 104 for managing adverse impacts 99 minimizing impacts 97–9 rectifying the impact 97, 98 reducing or eliminating the impact 97, 98 monitoring 56–7, 74–6, 78, 79 baseline 75, 80, 106–10, 124, 130 comfort 75–6 compliance 75

effects 75 follow-up 74–6, 78–80 performance 75 Morgan, R.K. 12–13, 21, 37, 38, 75, 108, 112, 116, 121, 125, 133, 140, 158 environmental impact assessment (EIA) 3, 4, 6, 9 Morrison-Saunders, A. 17, 21, 36, 37, 45, 49, 54, 63, 74, 76, 77, 79, 126, 127, 136, 157 Morris, P. 106 multiple additive impacts 141 Munn, R.E. 71, 130 Munro, D.A. 126 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 22–4, 26–8, 54, 92, 96, 124 action-forcing approach of 30 effectiveness of 29–33 EIA provisions of 25, 30 failure of 31 section 102(2)(c) of 25–6, 37, 95 sustainability thinking 37 natural justice 113–15, 117–19 defined 114 NEPA see National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) net gain 100 Nisbet, J. 99 Niyaz, A. 117 Noble, B. 3, 5, 13, 14, 18, 21, 34, 47, 55, 67, 75, 85, 86, 89, 99, 112, 116, 119, 129, 139, 145, 146, 148 noise emission 59 no net loss 100, 102, 103 non-significant impacts 56 normative effectiveness 154 O’Faircheallaigh, C. 117–18 offsets, biodiversity 49, 100–104 Ogilvie, C. 147 one-off decision 45, 46, 51 oral submissions 70, 119 O’Riordan, T. 9, 19, 20, 28, 32, 47, 70, 83–4, 86, 89, 116, 117, 120 Ortolano, L. 29–31

INDEX 191

Palerm, J.R. 119 panel hearings 119 participatory monitoring 77 Partidário, M. 3, 5, 8, 19, 89, 99 peer-review 70, 77, 131–2 performance monitoring 75 Peterson, E.B. 141, 145 Petts, J. 8, 9, 13, 38, 112, 120 photochemical smog 141 physical bounds 55–6 Pilgrim, J.D. 103, 104 Pinto, E. 74 planning 5, 9, 86, 90, 91, 117, 153 analysis 89, 95 effects 20 pluralism 154 policy decision 87 political decisions 71–2 Pope, J. 36, 45, 49, 54, 101, 151–2, 154, 156 PPP see programmes, plans and policies (PPP) precautionary principle 130–31 prediction 43, 44, 46, 133 impact see impact prediction Preston, B. 28, 48, 92, 133 procedural effectiveness 151–3 process trade-offs 47 programmes, plans and policies (PPP) 85, 86 project-level EIA 84–6, 88 project splitting 53, 54 proponent-driven approach 143 public engagement 70, 71, 96 public participation 31, 70, 72, 76, 77, 112, 114–17, 153, 157 collaborative and deliberative 120 cooperation and consensus building 120 defined 113 importance of context 115–18 ladder of 120 legitimate 118 meaningful 116, 118 oral 119 power shift 120 practice 117–1120 purpose of 118–19

six categories of method 121 techniques 121–2 use of 117, 120 Public Participation Toolbox 121 public review 70 submissions 70, 71 rational decision-making 4, 14, 42, 48, 72, 125 rational technocratic paradigm 127 Reed, M. 115 regional assessment 140, 144, 147 regional planning 145, 147 ‘Regional Steering Body’ 147 rejection decision 72 residual impact 58, 66–7, 69, 98, 103, 137, 140 Resource and Conservation Act 23 Retief, F. 49, 69, 154, 159 review 44, 46, 69–71, 84, 152 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15 and 17 of 131 risk assessment 61, 63 Ross, W. 55, 56, 63, 78, 146 Rowe, G. 121 Russell, J. 140 Sadler, B. 5, 9, 32, 42, 49, 54, 55, 63, 127, 150–51, 154 Sanchez, L. 63, 154 Saulsbury, J.W. 142 Savage, N. 90 Sax, J.L. 28 Scace, R. 145–6 science 124–8, 133, 134 in impact prediction 125–8 quality of 125–6 scoping 43, 44, 46, 49, 54–8, 66, 78, 89, 107, 146, 152, 155 determining boundaries for EIA 55–6 impact predictions 61 management and monitoring activity 56–7 stage 54–5 for sustainability 56–7 screening 42–4, 51–4, 58, 66, 155

192 ADVANCED INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

development-centred approach 52–3 environment-centred approach 51–2 evaluations of alternatives 96 impact predictions 61 threshold-based 52 SEA see strategic environmental assessment (SEA) Sewell, W.R.D. 9, 19, 20, 28, 32, 70, 84, 89, 116, 117 Shapiro, S. 22 Sheate, W.R. 15, 37 Sheedy, A. 120 shifting baseline syndrome 142, 158 Shrader-Frechette, K.S. 128 SIA see social impact assessment (SIA) significance 44, 52, 155, 158 adverse impacts 25, 62 determination 62–6 stakeholders in 63, 64 impact 51, 55, 62–5 Sinclair, A.J. 9, 89, 116, 120, 121 Singh, G. 127 Sippe, R. 69 Smith, M. 96, 97 social environment 21, 107, 112 social impact assessment (SIA) 19, 21 social impacts 18–20, 60, 108 cumulative 142 socio-ecological bounds 56 space-crowded perturbation 140 spatial accumulation 140 splitters 21 stakeholders 13–14, 66, 69–71 consultation and engagement 46 defined 113 deliberation and collaboration 134–5 engagement 55, 56, 65, 90, 91, 112–19, 122, 132, 137, 153, 158 involvement of 92 in significance determinations 63, 64 Steinemann, A. 93, 96, 97 Stewart, J. 116

stimuli–response pathway, of cumulative impact 141 Storey, D. 117 Storey, K. 67, 110 strategic assessment 109, 140 decision-making 42 development 83, 86 strategic environmental assessment (SEA) 9, 17, 27, 45, 84–5, 88, 109, 140, 147–8, 157 characteristics 85–6 monitoring 79 substantive effectiveness 151, 153–5 outcomes 154–6 trade-offs 48–9, 73 substitution 101–2 Sustainable Development Goals 8, 37, 38, 140, 155 sustainable development/sustainability 7–9, 18, 21, 23, 32, 35, 49, 65, 68, 70, 73, 80, 85, 86, 88–91, 96, 103, 110, 120, 155, 158 assessment 18–19, 37, 72 EIA for 36–9, 44, 45 scoping for 56–7 systems thinking 65, 67, 110, 137 Taylor, S. 27 technical bounds 56 technical-rational decision-making 4, 34–5 technocentric decision-making 119 temporal accumulation 140 Therivel, R. 42, 84, 93, 94, 106, 154 threshold-based screening 52 tiering 83–7 time-crowded perturbation 140 tokenism 120 trade-off 44, 57, 101, 102 procedural 45 substantive 45, 48, 49, 73 trade-off decision-making 47–50, 62, 71 process 47 substantive 48, 49

INDEX 193

traditional environmental knowledge 78 transactive effectiveness 151, 154–6 transformations 35, 36, 38 Treweek, J. 109 trickling-down sustainability 86 two-way communication 119 unacceptability 49, 62 uncertainty 129–32, 134–5, 158 about impact predictions 129–30 baseline monitoring 130 defined 129 peer-review 131–2 precautionary principle 130–31 strategy for managing 130–32 techniques to reduce 129 Uphoff, N. 113 valued ecosystem components (VECs) 146

Vanclay, F. 18, 60 Walsh, F. 85 Walters, C. 107 Weaver, A. 39 Weiland, S. 89 Weiner, K. 3, 27, 35, 94, 96, 100, 103 Westbrook, C. 145 Western Australian 15, 46, 102, 133 holistic impact assessment in 36–137 Weston, J. 41, 42, 44, 54, 58, 61 Wichelman, A.F. 23, 30 Williams, B. 132 Wolf, C. 4, 6–7, 18, 20, 21, 38 Wood, C. 15, 66, 84, 152 Wood, G. 64 written submissions 70, 119 Zhang, J. 53

Titles in the Elgar Advanced Introductions series include: International Political Economy Benjamin J. Cohen The Austrian School of Economics Randall G. Holcombe Cultural Economics Ruth Towse Law and Development Michael J. Trebilcock and Mariana Mota Prado

International Conflict and Security Law Nigel D. White Comparative Constitutional Law Mark Tushnet International Human Rights Law Dinah L. Shelton Entrepreneurship Robert D. Hisrich

International Humanitarian Law Robert Kolb

International Tax Law Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

International Trade Law Michael J. Trebilcock

Public Policy B. Guy Peters

Post Keynesian Economics J.E. King

The Law of International Organizations Jan Klabbers

International Intellectual Property Susy Frankel and Daniel J. Gervais Public Management and Administration Christopher Pollitt

International Environmental Law Ellen Hey International Sales Law Clayton P. Gillette

Organised Crime Leslie Holmes

Corporate Venturing Robert D. Hisrich

Nationalism Liah Greenfeld

Public Choice Randall G. Holcombe

Social Policy Daniel Béland and Rianne Mahon

Private Law Jan M. Smits

Globalisation Jonathan Michie

Consumer Behavior Analysis Gordon Foxall

Entrepreneurial Finance Hans Landström

Behavioral Economics John F. Tomer

Cost–Benefit Analysis Robert J. Brent Environmental Impact Assessment Angus Morrison-Saunders Comparative Constitutional Law, Second Edition Mark Tushnet National Innovation Systems Cristina Chaminade, Bengt-Åke Lundvall and Shagufta Haneef Ecological Economics Matthias Ruth Private International Law and Procedure Peter Hay Freedom of Expression Mark Tushnet Law and Globalisation Jaakko Husa Regional Innovation Systems Bjørn T. Asheim, Arne Isaksen and Michaela Trippl International Political Economy Second Edition Benjamin J. Cohen International Tax Law Second Edition Reuven S. Avi-Yonah Social Innovation Frank Moulaert and Diana MacCallum The Creative City Charles Landry

International Trade Law Michael J. Trebilcock and Joel Trachtman European Union Law Jacques Ziller Planning Theory Robert A. Beauregard Tourism Destination Management Chris Ryan International Investment Law August Reinisch Sustainable Tourism David Weaver Austrian School of Economics Second Edition Randall G. Holcombe U.S. Criminal Procedure Christopher Slobogin Platform Economics Robin Mansell and W. Edward Steinmueller Public Finance Vito Tanzi Feminist Economics Joyce P. Jacobsen Human Dignity and Law James R. May and Erin Daly Space Law Frans G. von der Dunk National Accounting John M. Hartwick

Legal Research Methods Ernst Hirsch Ballin

Cities Peter J. Taylor

Privacy Law Megan Richardson

Law and Entrepreneurship Shubha Ghosh

International Human Rights Law Second Edition Dinah L. Shelton

Mobilities Mimi Sheller

Law and Artificial Intelligence Woodrow Barfield and Ugo Pagallo Politics of International Human Rights David P. Forsythe Community-based Conservation Fikret Berkes Global Production Networks Neil M. Coe Mental Health Law Michael L. Perlin

Technology Policy Albert N. Link and James Cunningham Urban Transport Planning Kevin J. Krizek and David A. King Legal Reasoning Larry Alexander and Emily Sherwin Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Sales Lawrence B. Chonko

Law and Literature Peter Goodrich

Law and Development Second Edition Mariana Mota Prado and Michael J. Trebilcock

Creative Industries John Hartley

Law and Renewable Energy Joel B. Eisen

Global Administration Law Sabino Cassese

Experience Economy Jon Sundbo

Housing Studies William A.V. Clark

Marxism and Human Geography Kevin R. Cox

Global Sports Law Stephen F. Ross

Maritime Law Paul Todd

Public Policy B. Guy Peters

American Foreign Policy Loch K. Johnson

Empirical Legal Research Herbert M. Kritzer

Water Politics Ken Conca Business Ethics John Hooker Employee Engagement Alan M. Saks and Jamie A. Gruman

New Institutional Economics Claude Ménard and Mary M. Shirley The Sociology of Sport Eric Anderson and Rory Magrath The Sociology of Peace Processes John D. Brewer

Governance Jon Pierre and B. Guy Peters

Social Protection James Midgley

Demography Wolfgang Lutz

Corporate Finance James A. Brickley and Clifford W. Smith Jr

Environmental Compliance and Enforcement LeRoy C. Paddock

U.S. Federal Securities Law Thomas Lee Hazen

Migration Studies Ronald Skeldon

Cybersecurity Law David P. Fidler

Landmark Criminal Cases George P. Fletcher

The Sociology of Work Amy S. Wharton

Comparative Legal Methods Pier Giuseppe Monateri

Marketing Strategy George S. Day

U.S. Environmental Law E. Donald Elliott and Daniel C. Esty

Scenario Planning Paul Schoemaker

Gentrification Chris Hamnett Family Policy Chiara Saraceno Law and Psychology Tom R. Tyler Advertising Patrick De Pelsmacker

Financial Inclusion Robert Lensink, Calumn Hamilton and Charles Adjasi Children’s Rights Wouter Vandenhole and Gamze Erdem Türkelli Sustainable Careers Jeffrey H. Greenhaus and Gerard A. Callanan

Business and Human Rights Peter T. Muchlinski

Water Economics and Policy Ariel Dinar

Spatial Statistics Daniel A. Griffith and Bin Li

Disaster Risk Reduction Douglas Paton

The Sociology of the Self Shanyang Zhao

Social Movements and Political Protests Karl-Dieter Opp

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Tom Davenport, John Glaser and Elizabeth Gardner Central Banks and Monetary Policy Jakob de Haan and Christiaan Pattipeilohy Megaprojects Nathalie Drouin and Rodney Turner Social Capital Karen S. Cook Elections and Voting Ian McAllister Negotiation Leigh Thompson and Cynthia S. Wang Youth Studies Howard Williamson and James E. Côté Private Equity Paul A. Gompers and Steven N. Kaplan Digital Marketing Utpal Dholakia

Radical Innovation Joe Tidd Pricing Strategy and Analytics Vithala R. Rao Bounded Rationality Clement A. Tisdell International Food Law Neal D. Fortin International Conflict and Security Law Second Edition Nigel D. White Entrepreneurial Finance Second Edition Hans Landström US Civil Liberties Susan N. Herman Resilience Fikret Berkes Insurance Law Robert H. Jerry, II Applied Green Criminology Rob White Law and Religion Frank S. Ravitch

Social Policy Second Edition Daniel Béland and Rianne Mahon

Tourism Economics David W. Marcouiller

Substantive Criminal Law Stephen J. Morse

Service Innovation Faïz Gallouj, Faridah Djellal, and Camal Gallouj

Cross-Border Insolvency Law Reinhard Bork

U.S. Disability Law Peter Blanck

Behavioral Finance H. Kent Baker, John R. Nofsinger, and Victor Ricciardi

U.S. Data Privacy Law Ari Ezra Waldman

Critical Global Development Uma Kothari and Elise Klein Private International Law and Procedure Second Edition Peter Hay

Urban Segregation Sako Musterd Behavioral Law and Economics Cass R. Sunstein Economic Anthropology Peter D. Little

Victimology Sandra Walklate

International Water Law Owen McIntyre

Party Politics Richard S. Katz

Russian Politics Richard Sakwa

Contract Law and Theory Brian Bix

European Union Law Second Edition Jacques Ziller

Environmental Impact Assessment Second Edition Angus Morrison-Saunders

Regional and Urban Economics Roberta Capello