Introductionandprinciples7Risk assessment (RA)is another term sometimes found associated with EIA.Partly inresponseto events such asthechemicalsfactoryexplosionatFlixborough(UK),andnuclear power station accidents at Three Mile Island (USA) and Chernobyl (Ukraine),riskassessmenthas developed asan approach to theanalysis of risksassociated withvarious types of development.The major study of the array of petrochemicals and otherindustrial developments at Canvey Island in the UK provides an example of this approach(HealthandSafetyCommission1978).SeeCalow(1997)forarecentoverviewof thegrowing area of environmental risk assessment and management.Vanclay and Bronstein (1995) and others note several other relevant definitions, basedlargely on particular foci of specialization and including: demographic impactassessment, health impact assessment, climate impact assessment, gender impactassessment,psychologicalimpactassessmentandnoiseimpactassessment.Othermoreencompassing definitions include policy assessment,technology assessment andeconomic assessmentThere is a semantic explosion whichrequires some clarification.As a contribution to the latter,Sadler (1996)suggests that we should view“EA as thegeneric process that includes EIA of specific projects, SEA of policies plans andprogrammes, and their relationships to a iarger set of impact assessment and planning-relatedtools".1.3Thepurposes ofenvironmentalimpactassessmentAnaidtodecision-makingEnvironmental impact assessment is a process with several important purposes. It is anaid to decision-making.For the decision-maker,for example a local authority,it providesa systematic examination of the environmental implications of a proposed action,andsometimes alternatives,before a decision is taken.TheEiScanbe considered bythedecision-maker along with other documentation related to the planned activity. EiA isnormallywider in scopeand less quantitativethan other techniques,such as cost-benefitanalysis. It is not a substitute for decision-making, but it does help to clarify some of thetrade-offs associated with a proposed development action, which should lead to morerational and structured decision-making.The EIA process has the potential, not alwaystaken up,to beabasisfor negotiation between thedeveloperpublic interestgroups andthe planning regulator.This can lead to an outcome that balances the interests of thedevelopmentactionand theenvironment.AnaidtotheformulationofdevelopmentactionsManydevelopers no doubt seeEIA as another set of hurdlesto jumpbeforetheycanproceed with their various activities; the process can be seen as yet another costly andtime-consumingactivity in thepermission process.However,EIAcan beof great benefitto them, sinceit can providea frameworkfor considering location and design issues andenvironmental issues in parallel. It can be an aid to the formulation of developmentactions,indicating areas where a project can be modified to minimize or eliminatealtogether its adverseimpactson the environment.Theconsideration of environmental
Risk assessment (RA) is another term sometimes found associated with EIA. Partly in response to events such as the chemicals factory explosion at Flixborough (UK), and nuclear power station accidents at Three Mile Island (USA) and Chernobyl (Ukraine), risk assessment has developed as an approach to the analysis of risks associated with various types of development. The major study of the array of petrochemicals and other industrial developments at Canvey Island in the UK provides an example of this approach (Health and Safety Commission 1978). See Calow (1997) for a recent overview of the growing area of environmental risk assessment and management. Vanclay and Bronstein (1995) and others note several other relevant definitions, based largely on particular foci of specialization and including: demographic impact assessment, health impact assessment, climate impact assessment, gender impact assessment, psychological impact assessment and noise impact assessment. Other more encompassing definitions include policy assessment, technology assessment and economic assessment. There is a semantic explosion which requires some clarification. As a contribution to the latter, Sadler (1996) suggests that we should view “EA as the generic process that includes EIA of specific projects, SEA of policies plans and programmes, and their relationships to a larger set of impact assessment and planningrelated tools”. 1.3 The purposes of environmental impact assessment An aid to decision-making Environmental impact assessment is a process with several important purposes. It is an aid to decision-making. For the decision-maker, for example a local authority, it provides a systematic examination of the environmental implications of a proposed action, and sometimes alternatives, before a decision is taken. The EIS can be considered by the decision-maker along with other documentation related to the planned activity. EIA is normally wider in scope and less quantitative than other techniques, such as cost-benefit analysis. It is not a substitute for decision-making, but it does help to clarify some of the trade-offs associated with a proposed development action, which should lead to more rational and structured decision-making. The EIA process has the potential, not always taken up, to be a basis for negotiation between the developer, public interest groups and the planning regulator. This can lead to an outcome that balances the interests of the development action and the environment. An aid to the formulation of development actions Many developers no doubt see EIA as another set of hurdles to jump before they can proceed with their various activities; the process can be seen as yet another costly and time-consuming activity in the permission process. However, EIA can be of great benefit to them, since it can provide a framework for considering location and design issues and environmental issues in parallel. It can be an aid to the formulation of development actions, indicating areas where a project can be modified to minimize or eliminate altogether its adverse impacts on the environment. The consideration of environmental Introduction and principles 7
Introductiontoenvironmental impactassessment8impacts earlyintheplanninglifeof a development canleadtoenvironmentally sensitivedevelopment;to improvedrelationsbetween thedeveloper,theplanning authorityandthelocal communities;to a smoother planning permission process; and sometimes,as arguedby developers such as British Gas,to a worthwhile financial return on the extraexpenditure incurred(Breakell&Glasson1981).O'Riordan(1990)links suchconceptsofnegotiation andredesigntothe currentdominantenvironmentalthemesofgreenconsumerism"and "green capitalism". The emergence of a growing demand byconsumersfor goods that do no environmental damage,plus a growing marketfor cleantechnologies, is generating a response from developers.EIA can be the signal to thedeveloper of potential conflict: wise developers may use the process to negotiate"greengain" solutions, which may eliminate or offset negative environmental impacts, reducelocal opposition andavoid costlypublicinquiries.AninstrumentforsustainabledevelopmentUnderlying such immediate purposes is of course the central and ultimate role of EIA asone of the instruments toachieve sustainable development:development thatdoes notcosttheEarth!Existing environmentallyharmful developmentshavetobemanagedasbest they can.In extreme cases, they maybe closed down,but they can still leave residualenvironmental problemsfordecades tocome.How muchbetteritwouldbetomitigatethe harmful effects in advance,at the planning stage,or in some cases avoid the particulardevelopment altogether.Prevention is better than cure.Economicdevelopmentandsocialdevelopmentmustbeplacedintheirenvironmentalcontexts.Boulding (1966) vividly portrays the dichotomy between theinputsresourcedepletioneconomyenvironmentoutputs(GNP)environmentalpollutionwastesFigure1.2Theeconomicdevelopmentprocessinitsenvironmentalcontext(Adaptedfrom:Boulding1966)
impacts early in the planning life of a development can lead to environmentally sensitive development; to improved relations between the developer, the planning authority and the local communities; to a smoother planning permission process; and sometimes, as argued by developers such as British Gas, to a worthwhile financial return on the extra expenditure incurred (Breakell & Glasson 1981). O’Riordan (1990) links such concepts of negotiation and redesign to the current dominant environmental themes of “green consumerism” and “green capitalism”. The emergence of a growing demand by consumers for goods that do no environmental damage, plus a growing market for clean technologies, is generating a response from developers. EIA can be the signal to the developer of potential conflict; wise developers may use the process to negotiate “green gain” solutions, which may eliminate or offset negative environmental impacts, reduce local opposition and avoid costly public inquiries. An instrument for sustainable development Underlying such immediate purposes is of course the central and ultimate role of EIA as one of the instruments to achieve sustainable development: development that does not cost the Earth! Existing environmentally harmful developments have to be managed as best they can. In extreme cases, they may be closed down, but they can still leave residual environmental problems for decades to come. How much better it would be to mitigate the harmful effects in advance, at the planning stage, or in some cases avoid the particular development altogether. Prevention is better than cure. Economic development and social development must be placed in their environmental contexts. Boulding (1966) vividly portrays the dichotomy between the Figure 1.2 The economic development process in its environmental context. (Adapted from: Boulding 1966) Introduction to environmental impact assessment 8
Introductionandprinciples9"throughput economy"and the"spaceship economy"(Fig.1.2).The economic goal ofincreased GNP, using more inputs to produce more goods and services, contains theseeds of its own destruction. Increased output brings with it not only goods and servicesbut alsomore wasteproducts.Increasedinputsdemandmoreresources.Thenaturalenvironment is the"sink"for the wastes and the "source"for the resources.Environmental pollution and the depletion of resources are invariably the ancillaries toeconomicdevelopment.The interaction of economic and social developmentwith the natural environment andthe reciprocal impacts between human actions and the biophysical world have beenrecognized by governments from local to international levels.Attempts have been madeto manage the interaction better, but a recent European Community report, Towardssustainability (CEC 1992),reveals disquieting trends that could have devastatingconsequences for the quality of the environment. Such EU trends include: a 25 per centincrease in energy consumption by 2010 if there is no change in current energy demandgrowth rates;a25percent increaseincarownershipanda17per cent increaseinmilesdrivenby2000;a13percentincreaseinmunicipalwastebetween1987and1992,despite increased recycling:a 35 per cent increase in the EU'S averagerate of waterwithdrawal between 1970and 1985:and a 60per cent projected increase inMediterranean tourism between1990 and2000.Thesetrends are likelytobeeven morepronounced in developingcountries,where,becausepopulationgrowthisgreaterandcurrent living standards lower, there will be more pressure on environmental resources.Therevelation of the state of the environment in many central and eastern Europeancountries, and worldwide, adds weight to the assertion in the same EC report that "thegreat environmental struggles will be won or lost during this decade; by the next centuryitcould betoolate".The 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development(usuallyreferredtoastheBrundtlandReport,afterits chairwoman)defined sustainabledevelopment as"development which meets the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"(UN WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment1987).Sustainabledevelopmentmeanshanding down to future generations not only"man-made capital",such as roads, schoolsand historic buildings, and "human capital", such as knowledge and skills, but also"natural/environmental capital",such as cleanair,fresh water,rainforests,the ozonelayer and biological diversity. The Brundtland Report identified the following chiefcharacteristics of sustainable development: it maintains the quality of life, it maintainscontinuing access to natural resources, and it avoids lasting environmental damage.Itmeans living on the Earth's income rather than eroding its capital (DOE 1990). Inadditiontoaconcernfortheenvironmentandthefuture,Brundtlandalsoemphasizesparticipation and equity, thus highlighting both inter- and intra-generational equity.There is, however,a danger that"sustainable development"may become a weakcatch-all phrase; there are already many alternative definitions. Hoimberg and Sand-brook(1992)foundover70definitionsofsustainabledevelopment.Redclift(1987)sawitas"moral convictionsas a substituteforthought";to O'Riordan(1988)itwas"agoodideawhichcannotsensiblybeputintopractice".Butto Skolimowski(1995),sustainabledevelopment
“throughput economy” and the “spaceship economy” (Fig. 1.2). The economic goal of increased GNP, using more inputs to produce more goods and services, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Increased output brings with it not only goods and services but also more waste products. Increased inputs demand more resources. The natural environment is the “sink” for the wastes and the “source” for the resources. Environmental pollution and the depletion of resources are invariably the ancillaries to economic development. The interaction of economic and social development with the natural environment and the reciprocal impacts between human actions and the biophysical world have been recognized by governments from local to international levels. Attempts have been made to manage the interaction better, but a recent European Community report, Towards sustainability (CEC 1992), reveals disquieting trends that could have devastating consequences for the quality of the environment. Such EU trends include: a 25 per cent increase in energy consumption by 2010 if there is no change in current energy demand growth rates; a 25 per cent increase in car ownership and a 17 per cent increase in miles driven by 2000; a 13 per cent increase in municipal waste between 1987 and 1992, despite increased recycling; a 35 per cent increase in the EU’S average rate of water withdrawal between 1970 and 1985; and a 60 per cent projected increase in Mediterranean tourism between 1990 and 2000. These trends are likely to be even more pronounced in developing countries, where, because population growth is greater and current living standards lower, there will be more pressure on environmental resources. The revelation of the state of the environment in many central and eastern European countries, and worldwide, adds weight to the assertion in the same EC report that “the great environmental struggles will be won or lost during this decade; by the next century it could be too late”. The 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (usually referred to as the Brundtland Report, after its chairwoman) defined sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Sustainable development means handing down to future generations not only “man-made capital”, such as roads, schools and historic buildings, and “human capital”, such as knowledge and skills, but also “natural/environmental capital”, such as clean air, fresh water, rain forests, the ozone layer and biological diversity. The Brundtland Report identified the following chief characteristics of sustainable development: it maintains the quality of life, it maintains continuing access to natural resources, and it avoids lasting environmental damage. It means living on the Earth’s income rather than eroding its capital (DOE 1990). In addition to a concern for the environment and the future, Brundtland also emphasizes participation and equity, thus highlighting both inter- and intra-generational equity. There is, however, a danger that “sustainable development” may become a weak catch-all phrase; there are already many alternative definitions. Holmberg and Sandbrook (1992) found over 70 definitions of sustainable development. Redclift (1987) saw it as “moral convictions as a substitute for thought”; to O’Riordan (1988) it was “a good idea which cannot sensibly be put into practice”. But to Skolimowski (1995), sustainable development Introduction and principles 9
10Introductiontoenvironmental impactassessmentstruck a middle ground between more radical approaches whichdenounced all development, and the idea of development conceived asbusiness as usual.The idea of sustainable development, although broad,loose and tinged with ambiguity around its edges, turned out to bepalatable to everybody.This may have been its greatest virtue. It is radicalandyetnotoffensive.Readers are referred to Reid (1995) and Kirkby et al. (1995) for an overview of theconcept,debateandresponses.Turner & Pearce (1992) and Pearce (1992) have drawn attention to alternativeinterpretations of maintaining the capital stock.Apolicy of conserving the whole capitalstock (man-made, human and natural) is consistent with running down any part of it, aslong as there is substitutability between capital degradation in one areaand investment inanother.This can be interpreted as a"weak sustainability"position. In contrast, a"strongsustainability"position would argue that it is not acceptable to run down environmentalassets,for several reasons:uncertainty (wedonotknowthefull consequencesfor humanbeings),irreversibility(lost species cannotbereplaced),life-support (some ecologicalassets serve life-support functions), and loss aversion (people are highly averse toenvironmental losses).The"strong sustainability"position has much to commend it, butinstitutional responseshavevaried.Institutional responses to meet the goal of sustainable development are required atseveral levels. Issues of global concern, such as ozone-layer depletion, climate changedeforestation and biodiversity loss, require global political commitments to action.TheUnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironment andDevelopment(UNCED)heldinRiodeJaneiroin1992wasanexampleof internationalconcern,butalsooftheproblemsofsecuring concerted action to deal with such issues. Agenda 21, an 800-page action planfortheinternational communityintothetwenty-first century,sets out what nations shoulddo to achieve sustainable development. It includes topics such as biodiversity,desertification,deforestation,toxicwastes,sewage,oceans and theatmosphere.For eachof 115 programmes, the need for action, the objectives and targets to be achieved, theactivities to be undertaken,and the means of implementation are all outlined.Agenda 21offers policies and programmes to achieve a sustainable balancebetween consumption,population and the Earth's life-supporting capacity. Unfortunately it is not legallybinding. It relies on national governments, local governments and others to implementmost of the programmes.The Rio Conferencecalled for a Sustainable DevelopmentCommission to be established to progress the implementation of Agenda 21. TheCommission met for the first time in 1993 and reached agreement on a thematicprogramme of work for 1993-7. This provided the basis for an appraisal of Agenda 21 inpreparation for a special session of the UN in 1997.Within the Eu, four Community Action Programmes on the Environment wereimplemented between 1972 and 1992. These gave rise to specific legislation on a widerange of topics, including waste management, the pollution of the atmosphere,theprotection of nature and environmental impact assessment. The Fifth Programme,"Towards sustainability",is setinthecontext ofthe completionof the SingleEuropeanMarket.Thelatter,withits emphasis onmajor changes in economicdevelopmentresulting from the removal of all remaining fiscal, material and technological barriers
struck a middle ground between more radical approaches which denounced all development, and the idea of development conceived as business as usual. The idea of sustainable development, although broad, loose and tinged with ambiguity around its edges, turned out to be palatable to everybody. This may have been its greatest virtue. It is radical and yet not offensive. Readers are referred to Reid (1995) and Kirkby et al. (1995) for an overview of the concept, debate and responses. Turner & Pearce (1992) and Pearce (1992) have drawn attention to alternative interpretations of maintaining the capital stock. A policy of conserving the whole capital stock (man-made, human and natural) is consistent with running down any part of it, as long as there is substitutability between capital degradation in one area and investment in another. This can be interpreted as a “weak sustainability” position. In contrast, a “strong sustainability” position would argue that it is not acceptable to run down environmental assets, for several reasons: uncertainty (we do not know the full consequences for human beings), irreversibility (lost species cannot be replaced), life-support (some ecological assets serve life-support functions), and loss aversion (people are highly averse to environmental losses). The “strong sustainability” position has much to commend it, but institutional responses have varied. Institutional responses to meet the goal of sustainable development are required at several levels. Issues of global concern, such as ozone-layer depletion, climate change, deforestation and biodiversity loss, require global political commitments to action. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was an example of international concern, but also of the problems of securing concerted action to deal with such issues. Agenda 21, an 800-page action plan for the international community into the twenty-first century, sets out what nations should do to achieve sustainable development. It includes topics such as biodiversity, desertification, deforestation, toxic wastes, sewage, oceans and the atmosphere. For each of 115 programmes, the need for action, the objectives and targets to be achieved, the activities to be undertaken, and the means of implementation are all outlined. Agenda 21 offers policies and programmes to achieve a sustainable balance between consumption, population and the Earth’s life-supporting capacity. Unfortunately it is not legally binding. It relies on national governments, local governments and others to implement most of the programmes. The Rio Conference called for a Sustainable Development Commission to be established to progress the implementation of Agenda 21. The Commission met for the first time in 1993 and reached agreement on a thematic programme of work for 1993–7. This provided the basis for an appraisal of Agenda 21 in preparation for a special session of the UN in 1997. Within the EU, four Community Action Programmes on the Environment were implemented between 1972 and 1992. These gave rise to specific legislation on a wide range of topics, including waste management, the pollution of the atmosphere, the protection of nature and environmental impact assessment. The Fifth Programme, “Towards sustainability”, is set in the context of the completion of the Single European Market. The latter, with its emphasis on major changes in economic development resulting from the removal of all remaining fiscal, material and technological barriers Introduction to environmental impact assessment 10
11Introductionandprinciplesbetween Member States,could poseadditional threatstothe environment.TheFifthProgramme recognizes the need forthe clearintegration of performance targets-inrelation to environmental protection-for several sectors,including manufacturingenergy,transport and tourism.EU policy on the environmentwill be based on the"precautionary principle",that preventive action should betaken,that environmentaldamageshould berectifiedatsource,and thatthepollutershouldpay.Whereas previousEU programmes relied almost exclusively on legislative instruments, the FifthProgrammeadvocatesabroadermixture,includingmarket-basedinstruments",suchasthe internalization ofenvironmental costs through theapplication offiscal measures,and"horizontal,supportinginstruments",such as improved baselineand statistical dataandimproved spatial and sectoral planning. Figure 1.3 illustrates the interdependence ofresources,sectorsandpolicyareas.EIAhasaclearroletoplay.In theUK,the publication of This common inheritance:Britain's environmentalstrategy(DOE 1990)provided the country's first comprehensive WhitePaper ontheenvironment.Thereportincludesadiscussion of the greenhouse effect,town andcountry,pollution control,and awareness and organization withregard to environmentalissues.Throughoutitemphasizesthatresponsibilityforourenvironmentshouldbesharedbetween the government, business and the public. The range of policy instrumentsadvocated includes legislation,standards,planning and economic measures.The last,building on work byPearce etal. (1989),include charges,MANAGEMENTOFRESOURCESairqualitymanagementwaterresourcesmanagementsoil quality malntenancenature,landscapeandconservationenergy security and etficlencydemographicmanagement(includingurban environment,publlichealthand safety)wastemanagementvaluationSUSTAINABLEresearchandpricingDEVELOPMENTAPRODUCTIONANDMOBILITY全SERVICESSECTORSMANAGEMENTinformationlocation (including ea)physicalplanning,includingeducation.operatlon licences (axr)EIA.traininginfrastructureplanning,pollution controls (ec,audit).including modalcholce andenvironmentalaccounting·technologlcaldevelopmentELAotratfic managementproductpolicyvehiclepollution controlindustriai wastemanagementFigure1.3An EC framework forsustainabledevelopment.(Source:CEC1992)
between Member States, could pose additional threats to the environment. The Fifth Programme recognizes the need for the clear integration of performance targets—in relation to environmental protection—for several sectors, including manufacturing, energy, transport and tourism. EU policy on the environment will be based on the “precautionary principle”, that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay. Whereas previous EU programmes relied almost exclusively on legislative instruments, the Fifth Programme advocates a broader mixture, including “market-based instruments”, such as the internalization of environmental costs through the application of fiscal measures, and “horizontal, supporting instruments”, such as improved baseline and statistical data and improved spatial and sectoral planning. Figure 1.3 illustrates the interdependence of resources, sectors and policy areas. EIA has a clear role to play. In the UK, the publication of This common inheritance: Britain’s environmental strategy (DOE 1990) provided the country’s first comprehensive White Paper on the environment. The report includes a discussion of the greenhouse effect, town and country, pollution control, and awareness and organization with regard to environmental issues. Throughout it emphasizes that responsibility for our environment should be shared between the government, business and the public. The range of policy instruments advocated includes legislation, standards, planning and economic measures. The last, building on work by Pearce et al. (1989), include charges, Figure 1.3 An EC framework for sustainable development. (Source: CEC 1992) Introduction and principles 11