22IntroductiontoenvironmentalimpactassessmentBeyond the decisionMany EISS are for one-off projects, and there is little incentive for developers to audit thequality of theassessmentpredictions and to monitorimpacts as an input to abetterassessmentfor thenext project.EIAuptoand nofurtherthanthedecisiononaproject isa verypartial linearprocess,with little opportunity for a cyclical learning process.Insome areas of the world (e.g. California, Western Australia), the monitoring of impacts ismandatory,and monitoringprocedures mustbe included inanEiS.The extension of suchapproaches constitutes another significant current issue in thelargely project-based EIAprocess.Beyond project assessmentAs noted in Section1.2,the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies,plansand programmes represents a logical extension of project assessment. SEA can copebetter with cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures than projectassessment. SEA systems already exist in California and the Netherlands, and to a lesserextent in Canada,Germany and NewZealand.Discussions are inhand to introduce anEU-wide system (Therivel et al. 1992). The Fifth Community Action Programme on theEnvironment states:“Given the goal of achieving sustainable development, it seems onlylogical,if notessential, to apply an assessmentof the environmental implications of allrelevantpolicies,plansandprogrammes"(CEC1992)1.6Anoutlineof subsequentpartsand chaptersThis book is in four parts. The first establishes the context of EIA in the growth ofconcern aboutenvironmental issues and in relevantlegislation,with particularreferenceto the UK.Followingfrom this first chapter, whichprovides an introduction to EIA andan overviewof principles,Chapter 2focuses on the origins of EIA under the us NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)of1969,on interimdevelopments intheUK,and onthe subsequent introductionof ECDirective85/337and subsequentamendments.Thedetails of theUK legislativeframework forEIA,undertown and countryplanning andotherlegislation,arediscussedinChapter3.Part 2 provides a rigorous step-by-step approach to the EIA process. This is the core ofthe text. Chapter 4 covers the early starting-up stages, establishing a managementframework,clarifying the type ofdevelopments for EiA,and outlining approaches toscoping,the consideration of alternatives,project description,establishing thebaselineand identifying impacts.Chapter 5 explores the central issues of prediction, theassessment of significance and the mitigation of adverse impacts. The approach drawsout broad principles affecting prediction exercises, exemplified with reference toparticular cases.Chapter 6 provides coverage of an important issue identified above:participation in the EIA process. Communication in the EIA process, EIS presentationand EIS revieware also covered inthis chapter.Chapter7takes theprocessbeyond thedecision on aproject and examines theimportance of,and approaches to,monitoring andauditing in the EIA process
Beyond the decision Many EISS are for one-off projects, and there is little incentive for developers to audit the quality of the assessment predictions and to monitor impacts as an input to a better assessment for the next project. EIA up to and no further than the decision on a project is a very partial linear process, with little opportunity for a cyclical learning process. In some areas of the world (e.g. California, Western Australia), the monitoring of impacts is mandatory, and monitoring procedures must be included in an EIS. The extension of such approaches constitutes another significant current issue in the largely project-based EIA process. Beyond project assessment As noted in Section 1.2, the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes represents a logical extension of project assessment. SEA can cope better with cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures than project assessment. SEA systems already exist in California and the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent in Canada, Germany and New Zealand. Discussions are in hand to introduce an EU-wide system (Therivel et al. 1992). The Fifth Community Action Programme on the Environment states: “Given the goal of achieving sustainable development, it seems only logical, if not essential, to apply an assessment of the environmental implications of all relevant policies, plans and programmes” (CEC 1992). 1.6 An outline of subsequent parts and chapters This book is in four parts. The first establishes the context of EIA in the growth of concern about environmental issues and in relevant legislation, with particular reference to the UK. Following from this first chapter, which provides an introduction to EIA and an overview of principles, Chapter 2 focuses on the origins of EIA under the us National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, on interim developments in the UK, and on the subsequent introduction of EC Directive 85/337 and subsequent amendments. The details of the UK legislative framework for EIA, under town and country planning and other legislation, are discussed in Chapter 3. Part 2 provides a rigorous step-by-step approach to the EIA process. This is the core of the text. Chapter 4 covers the early starting-up stages, establishing a management framework, clarifying the type of developments for EIA, and outlining approaches to scoping, the consideration of alternatives, project description, establishing the baseline and identifying impacts. Chapter 5 explores the central issues of prediction, the assessment of significance and the mitigation of adverse impacts. The approach draws out broad principles affecting prediction exercises, exemplified with reference to particular cases. Chapter 6 provides coverage of an important issue identified above: participation in the EIA process. Communication in the EIA process, EIS presentation and EIS review are also covered in this chapter. Chapter 7 takes the process beyond the decision on a project and examines the importance of, and approaches to, monitoring and auditing in the EIA process. Introduction to environmental impact assessment 22
Introduction and principles23Part 3 exemplifies the process in practice. Chapter 8 provides an overview of UKpractice to date, including quantitative and qualitative analyses of the EISS prepared.Chapters 9 and 10 provide case studies of current practice in particular sectors; Chapter 9includes analyses of several new settlement proposals,produced under the Town andCountryPlanning(AssessmentofEnvironmentalEffects)Regulations.Newsettlementsincludeavarietyofactivitiesandland-usesandprovidesomeofthemostcomprehensiveprojects, akin to development plans,for the new procedures.The important project typeofwaste disposal facilities is aiso discussed in this chapter.Chapter 10 includes analysesof major road proposals and power station proposals, which are produced underassociated legislation,respectively the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects)Regulations and Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects)Regulations.Chapter11drawsoncomparativeexperiencefromanumberofdevelopedcountries (the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Japan)and froma number of countriesfrom the developing and emerging economies (Peru, China and Poland)-presented tohighlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of other systemsin practice;theimportantroleof international agenciesinEIApractice-suchastheUNandtheWorldBank-are also discussed in this chapter.Part 4 looks to the future.It illuminates many of the issues noted in Section 1.5Chapter 12focuseson improving theeffectiveness of thecurrent systemof projectassessment.Particular emphasisis given to thedevelopment of environmental auditingtoprovide better baseline data, to various procedural developments and to achievingcompatibility for EIA systems in Europe. Chapter 13 discusses the extension ofassessmenttopolicies,plansandprogrammes,concludingfull circle with afurtherconsiderationofEIA,SEAandsustainabledevelopment.A set of appendices provide details of legislation and practice not consideredappropriate to the main text. A list of further reading is included there.ReferencesANZECC (Australian and NewZealand Environment andConservation Council)1991.AnationalapproachtoEIAinAustralia.Canberra:ANZECCBoulding,K.1966.The economics of the coming Spaceship Earth.In Environmental quality in agrowing economy, H.Jarrett (ed.), 3-14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Breakell,M.&J.Glasson (eds)1981.Environmental impactassessment:from theory to practice.OxfordSchoolofPlanning,OxfordPolytechnic.Breese,G.et al.1965.The impactof large installations on nearby urbanareas.Los Angeles: SageCalow,P.(ed.)1997.Handbookofenvironmental riskassessmentandmanagement.Oxford:BlackwellScience.Carley,MJ.&E.S.Bustelo1984.Social impactassessmentandmonitoring:aguidetotheliterature.Boulder:WestviewPress.Catlow,J.&C.G.Thirlwall1976.Environmental impactanalysis.London:DOE.CEC(Commission of theEuropeanCommunities)1982.The contributionof infrastructuretoregional development.Brussels:CECCEC1992.Towards sustainability:aEuropean Communityprogramme of policyandaction inrelation tothe emvironment and sustainable development,vol.II.Brussels:CEC.CEPA(CommonwealthEnvironmentalProtectionAgency)1994.Assessmentofcumulativeimpacts andstralegicassessmentinEIA.Canberra:CEPA
Part 3 exemplifies the process in practice. Chapter 8 provides an overview of UK practice to date, including quantitative and qualitative analyses of the EISS prepared. Chapters 9 and 10 provide case studies of current practice in particular sectors; Chapter 9 includes analyses of several new settlement proposals, produced under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations. New settlements include a variety of activities and land-uses and provide some of the most comprehensive projects, akin to development plans, for the new procedures. The important project type of waste disposal facilities is also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 10 includes analyses of major road proposals and power station proposals, which are produced under associated legislation, respectively the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations and Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations. Chapter 11 draws on comparative experience from a number of developed countries (the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Japan) and from a number of countries from the developing and emerging economies (Peru, China and Poland)—presented to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of other systems in practice; the important role of international agencies in EIA practice—such as the UN and the World Bank—are also discussed in this chapter. Part 4 looks to the future. It illuminates many of the issues noted in Section 1.5. Chapter 12 focuses on improving the effectiveness of the current system of project assessment. Particular emphasis is given to the development of environmental auditing to provide better baseline data, to various procedural developments and to achieving compatibility for EIA systems in Europe. Chapter 13 discusses the extension of assessment to policies, plans and programmes, concluding full circle with a further consideration of EIA, SEA and sustainable development. A set of appendices provide details of legislation and practice not considered appropriate to the main text. A list of further reading is included there. References ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) 1991. A national approach to EIA in Australia. Canberra: ANZECC. Boulding, K. 1966. The economics of the coming Spaceship Earth. In Environmental quality in a growing economy, H.Jarrett (ed.), 3–14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Breakell, M. & J.Glasson (eds) 1981. Environmental impact assessment: from theory to practice. Oxford School of Planning, Oxford Polytechnic. Breese, G. et al. 1965. The impact of large installations on nearby urban areas. Los Angeles: Sage. Calow, P. (ed.) 1997. Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Carley, M.J. & E.S.Bustelo 1984. Social impact assessment and monitoring: a guide to the literature. Boulder: Westview Press. Catlow, J. & C.G.Thirlwall 1976. Environmental impact analysis. London: DOE. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1982. The contribution of infrastructure to regional development. Brussels: CEC. CEC 1992. Towards sustainability: a European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development, vol. II. Brussels: CEC. CEPA (Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency) 1994. Assessment of cumulative impacts and strategic assessment in EIA. Canberra: CEPA. Introduction and principles 23
24Introductiontoenvironmental impactassessmentClark, B.D. 1984. Environmental impact assessment (EIA): scope and objectives. In Perspectiveson environmental impact assessment,B.D.Clarketal. (eds).Dordrecht:Reidel.Coles,T.,K.Fuller,M.Slater1992.Practical experience of environmental assessment in the UKEastKirkby.Lincolnshire:Instituteof EnvironmentalAssessment.DOE(DepartmentoftheEnvironment)1989.Environmentalassessment:aguidetotheprocedures.London:HMSODOE1991.Policyappraisal and the environmen.London:HMSO.DOE etal.1990.This common inheritance:Britain'senvironmental strategy(Cmnd1200)London: HMSO.DOE1996.Changes in thequality ofenvironmental impactstatements.London:HMSO.Finsterbusch,K.1985.State of theart in social impactassessment.Emvironment and Behaviour17,192-221Hart,S.L.1984.The costs of environmental review.In Improving impact assessment, S.L.Hartetal. (eds). Boulder: Westview Press.HealthandSafetyCommission1978.Canvey:an imvestigationofpotentialhazardsfromtheoperations intheCamvey Island/Thurrock area.London:HMSO.HMG,SecretaryofStatefortheEnvironment1994.Sustainabledevelopment:theUKstrategyLondon: HMSO.Holmberg. J.& R.Sandbrook 1992. Sustainable development: what is to be done? In Policies for asmall planet J.Holmberg (ed.), 19-38. London: EarthscanInternational Association for Impact Assessment 1994. Guidelines and principles for social impactassessment.ImpactAssessment12(2).Jones,C.E.,N.Lee,C.M.Wood1991.UKemvironmentalstatements1988-1990:ananalysis.Occasional Paper29,Department ofPlanning and Landscape,Universityof ManchesterKirkby.J.,P.O'Keefe,L.Timberlake1995.The earthscan reader in susiainabledevelopment.London:Earthscan.Lichfield,N.1996.Community impact evaluation.London:UCLPress.Lovejoy,D.1992.What happened at Rio?ThePlanner78(15),13-14.Munn,R.E.1979.Environmentalimpactassessment:principlesandprocedures,2ndedn.NewYork:WileyO'Riordan,T.1988.Thepolitics ofsustainability.InSustainableemvironmentalmanagement:principles and practice, R.K.Turner (ed.). London: Belhaven.O'Riordan,T.1990.EIA from the environmentalist's perspective.VIA4, March,13.Pearce,D.W.1992.Towards sustainable development through emvironment assessment.WorkingPaperPA92-11,CentreforSocialandEconomicResearchintheGlobalEnvironment,UniversityCollegeLondonPearce, D., A.Markandya, E.Barbier 1989. Blueprint for a Green economy London: EarthscanPreston, D. & B.Bedford 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: a conceptualoverviewandgeneric framework.Evironmental Management12(5).Redclift,M.1987.Sustainable development:exploring the contradictions.London:MethuenReid,D.1995.Sustainable development:an introductory guide.London:Earthscan.Sadler,B.1996.Environmentalassessmentinachangingworld:evaluatingpracticetoimproveperformance. Intermational study on the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Ottawa:CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency.Skolimowski,P.1995.Sustainabledevelopment-howmeaningful?EnvironmentalValues4.Stakhiv,E.1988.An evaluation paradigmfor cumulative impact analysis.EmvironmentalManagement12(5)Therivel,R.,E.Wilson,S.Thompson,D.Heaney,D.Pritchard1992.Strategic environmentalassessmen.London:RSPB/EarthscanTurner,R.K.&D.W.Pearce1992.Sustainable development:ethics andeconomics.Working PaperPA9209, Centre for Social and Economic Research in the Global Environment, UniversityCollege London
Clark, B.D. 1984. Environmental impact assessment (EIA): scope and objectives. In Perspectives on environmental impact assessment, B.D.Clark et al. (eds). Dordrecht: Reidel. Coles, T., K.Fuller, M.Slater 1992. Practical experience of environmental assessment in the UK. East Kirkby, Lincolnshire: Institute of Environmental Assessment. DOE (Department of the Environment) 1989. Environmental assessment: a guide to the procedures. London: HMSO. DOE 1991. Policy appraisal and the environment. London: HMSO. DOE et al. 1990. This common inheritance: Britain’s environmental strategy (Cmnd 1200). London: HMSO. DOE 1996. Changes in the quality of environmental impact statements. London: HMSO. Finsterbusch, K. 1985. State of the art in social impact assessment. Environment and Behaviour 17, 192–221. Hart, S.L. 1984. The costs of environmental review. In Improving impact assessment, S.L.Hart et al. (eds). Boulder: Westview Press. Health and Safety Commission 1978. Canvey: an investigation of potential hazards from the operations in the Canvey Island/Thurrock area. London: HMSO. HMG, Secretary of State for the Environment 1994. Sustainable development: the UK strategy. London: HMSO. Holmberg, J. & R.Sandbrook 1992. Sustainable development: what is to be done? In Policies for a small planet J.Holmberg (ed.), 19–38. London: Earthscan. International Association for Impact Assessment 1994. Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment 12(2). Jones, C.E., N.Lee, C.M.Wood 1991. UK environmental statements 1988–1990: an analysis. Occasional Paper 29, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester. Kirkby, J., P.O’Keefe, L.Timberlake 1995. The earthscan reader in sustainable development. London: Earthscan. Lichfield, N. 1996. Community impact evaluation. London: UCL Press. Lovejoy, D. 1992. What happened at Rio? The Planner 78(15), 13–14. Munn, R.E. 1979. Environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley. O’Riordan, T. 1988. The politics of sustainability. In Sustainable environmental management: principles and practice, R.K.Turner (ed.). London: Belhaven. O’Riordan, T. 1990. EIA from the environmentalist’s perspective. VIA 4, March, 13. Pearce, D.W. 1992. Towards sustainable development through environment assessment. Working Paper PA92–11, Centre for Social and Economic Research in the Global Environment, University College London. Pearce, D., A.Markandya, E. Barbier 1989. Blueprint for a Green economy. London: Earthscan. Preston, D. & B.Bedford 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: a conceptual overview and generic framework. Environmental Management 12(5). Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. London: Methuen. Reid, D. 1995. Sustainable development: an introductory guide. London: Earthscan. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. International study on the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Skolimowski, P. 1995. Sustainable development—how meaningful? Environmental Values 4. Stakhiv, E. 1988. An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis. Environmental Management 12(5). Therivel, R., E.Wilson, S.Thompson, D.Heaney, D.Pritchard 1992. Strategic environmental assessment. London: RSPB/Earthscan. Turner, R.K. & D.W.Pearce 1992. Sustainable development: ethics and economics. Working Paper PA92–09, Centre for Social and Economic Research in the Global Environment, University College London. Introduction to environmental impact assessment 24
Introductionandprinciples25UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope1991.Policiesandsystemsofenvironmentalimpactassessment.Geneva:UnitedNations.UNWorld Commission onEnvironment and Development1987.Our common future.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Vanclay,F.&D.Bronstein (eds)1995.Environmemtandsocial impactassessments.London:Wiley.Wathern,P.(ed.)1988.Evironmental impactassessment: theory and practice.London:UnwinHyman
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 1991. Policies and systems of environmental impact assessment. Geneva: United Nations. UN World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vanclay, F. & D.Bronstein (eds) 1995. Environment and social impact assessments. London: Wiley. Wathern, P. (ed.) 1988. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman. Introduction and principles 25
CHAPTER2Origins anddevelopment2.1IntroductionEnvironmental impact assessment was first formally established in the USA in 1969 andhas since spread, invariousforms,to most other countries.IntheUK,EIAwas initiallyan ad hoc procedure carried out by local planning authorities and developers, primarilyfor oil-and gas-relateddevelopments.A1985European Communitydirective onEIA(Directive85/337)introducedbroadlyuniformrequirementsforEIAtoallEUMemberStates and significantly affected the development of EIA in the UK.However, ten yearsafter the Directive was agreed, Member States were still carrying out widely diverseforms of EIA, contradicting the Directive's aim of "levelling the playing field"Amendments of 1997 aimed to improve this situation.The nature of EIA systems-e.g.mandatory or discretionary, level of public participation,types of action requiring EIAand their implementation in practice vary widely from country to country. However, therapid spread of theconcept of EIAand its central rolein manycountriesprogrammes ofenvironmental protection attest to its universal validity as a proactiveplanning tool.This chapter first discusses how the system of EIA evolved in the us.The presentstatus of EIAworldwideis thenbrieflyreviewed (Chapter11 will considera number ofcountries systems of EIA in greater depth). EIA in the UK and the EU are thendiscussed.Finally,we review the various systems of EIA in the EU Member States.2.2TheNational Environmental PolicyAct and subsequentUSsystemsThe us National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, also known as NEPA, was the firstlegislationtorequireEIAS.Consequentlyithasbecome animportantmodel forotherEiA systems, both because it was a radically newform of environmental policy,andbecause of the successes and failures of its subsequent development.Since its enactment,NEPAhasresulted inthepreparationofwellover10,000full EISSandmanymorepartial appraisals,which have influenced countless decisions and represent a powerfulbase of environmental information.On the other hand, NEPA is unique.Other countrieshaveshiedawayfromtheformittakes and theprocedures it sets out, notleastbecausethey are unwilling to face a situation like that in the USA, where there has been extensivelitigation over the interpretation and workings of the EIA system.This section covers NEPA'S legislative history,ie. the early development before itbecamelaw,the interpretation of NEPA by the courts and the Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ),the main EIA procedures arising from NEPA, and likely future
CHAPTER 2 Origins and development 2.1 Introduction Environmental impact assessment was first formally established in the USA in 1969 and has since spread, in various forms, to most other countries. In the UK, EIA was initially an ad hoc procedure carried out by local planning authorities and developers, primarily for oil- and gas-related developments. A 1985 European Community directive on EIA (Directive 85/337) introduced broadly uniform requirements for EIA to all EU Member States and significantly affected the development of EIA in the UK. However, ten years after the Directive was agreed, Member States were still carrying out widely diverse forms of EIA, contradicting the Directive’s aim of “levelling the playing field”. Amendments of 1997 aimed to improve this situation. The nature of EIA systems—e.g. mandatory or discretionary, level of public participation, types of action requiring EIA— and their implementation in practice vary widely from country to country. However, the rapid spread of the concept of EIA and its central role in many countries’ programmes of environmental protection attest to its universal validity as a proactive planning tool. This chapter first discusses how the system of EIA evolved in the us. The present status of EIA worldwide is then briefly reviewed (Chapter 11 will consider a number of countries’ systems of EIA in greater depth). EIA in the UK and the EU are then discussed. Finally, we review the various systems of EIA in the EU Member States. 2.2 The National Environmental Policy Act and subsequent US systems The us National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, also known as NEPA, was the first legislation to require EIAS. Consequently it has become an important model for other EIA systems, both because it was a radically new form of environmental policy, and because of the successes and failures of its subsequent development. Since its enactment, NEPA has resulted in the preparation of well over 10,000 full EISS and many more partial appraisals, which have influenced countless decisions and represent a powerful base of environmental information. On the other hand, NEPA is unique. Other countries have shied away from the form it takes and the procedures it sets out, not least because they are unwilling to face a situation like that in the USA, where there has been extensive litigation over the interpretation and workings of the EIA system. This section covers NEPA’S legislative history, i.e. the early development before it became law, the interpretation of NEPA by the courts and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the main EIA procedures arising from NEPA, and likely future