Environmental impact assessments - where now?

Peter George, 630 MVA Consultancy, questions the future direction of environmental impact assessments

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) have been around since the late 1960s when, in the US, heightened awareness of social and environmental issues led to the establishment of the National 1999 Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and the enshrinement in law of the requirement for EIAs for certain types of major projects. Several other countries followed suit over the next decade. At the 1816 European Union level, the first EIA Directive came into force in 1985 with Member States being required to enact legislation by 1988. The Directive was revised 10 years later and amended regulations were put in place in 1998.

EIAs are now undertaken by many consultancies across the world, which vie for portions of markets which even in individual countries are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year. From humble beginnings the environment has become big business.

So, how has the EIA evolved over the last two decades? Does it still serve the same purpose its architects envisaged, and how will the recent economic recession influence the way we carry out EIAs in the future?

Wayward evolution

It's fair to say the process of EIA has evolved significantly, particularly in the last 10 years, although not necessarily in a wholly positive way. Let's get back to first principles. In general there are two main purposes for EIA. Firstly, at the regulatory level, an EIA is intended to provide sufficient information on the environmental impacts of the project/development in question to enable the regulators (usually the local planning authority) to make an informed decision on its environmental merits. Secondly, on a broader level, the EIA process aims to inform the planning and design stages of developments and help them find a balance between the almost inevitable adverse impacts in some areas and the opportunities for environmental enhancements in others.

The emphasis on the word 'sufficient' is important because this is where EIA has probably deviated most from its original purpose. Some of the early EIA reports (Environmental Statements) were little more than 20 to 30 pages in length and dealt with impact prediction at a fairly basic level. However, as the science and knowledge improved so the methodologies became more complex and robust. Research and practical experience has led to further developments in assessment methods and in many disciplines a standardised approach is frequently applied. However, whilst this creates consistency across different types of development project, it has arguably also led to a degree of complacency and a loss of focus.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in EIA scoping. Scoping is the process by which EIA practitioners identify the likely key environmental issues/impacts associated with a development and set out the methods by which they will be evaluated. The idea is to 'scope out' those potential impacts that are considered insignificant and focus attention on those that are. Unfortunately, in these days of internet campaigns, organised action groups and courtroom challenges, developers and consultants have tended to respond with information overload rather than professional judgement backed by robust evidence. A majority of scoping reports now resemble almost complete EIAs with masses of information on baseline, legislation and scientific research, all apparently required simply in order to decide whether any particular environmental parameter should be subject to further study in the EIA. 'Sufficient' has been replaced by 'as much as possible'.

Some countries take a more prescriptive approach to scoping. In Hong Kong, for example, the scope of an EIA is set by the Environmental Protection Department of the Government, which determines which topics should be assessed and, often, the methods to be used. There is limited scope to submit an alternative approach. In some developing countries, EIA is still in its early stages and so both scope and content are less stringently regulated. In some cases, EIA reports resemble little more than scoping documents when compared with those in developed countries.

International funding agencies such as the 2000 World Bank, the 2001 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the 1690 European Commission increasingly impose EIA as a condition of funding. Again, they can be very prescriptive but in these cases the EIA is more about gaining funding for a development than about gaining planning consent. The question then is, 'Is the EIA being done to protect the environment or the funders' reputation?'

A lack of confidence

Ultimately, EIA practitioners seem to have lost the confidence to stand up to funders, regulators and objectors and say, "We have considered the nature and scale of the proposed development in the context of its receiving environment and in our professional opinion issues A, B and C warrant further detailed study but issues X, Y and Z are not materially significant and can be excluded from the EIA."

Consequently, scoping studies can take months to complete, potentially causing delays and increasing costs. Similarly, Environmental Statements typically now consist of several volumes, many of which contain detailed technical documents and masses of raw data. For all but the most determined reader (or objector), it is debatable whether much of this is read or even really necessary to enable a planning application to be determined.

Objectors generally see the EIA as the Achilles heel of a planning application and focus their efforts on disputing the evidence and attempting to discredit the conclusions. To counter this EIAs have increasingly adopted the 'just in case' approach to information content, including vast amounts of technical data and scientific research 'just in case' someone tries to challenge the conclusions. Ironically, the end result is often to provide further ammunition to objectors.

The cost of an EIA has increased almost in direct proportion to the volume of information generated. At the upper end, this can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars or Euros. However, public inquiries and legal challenges can easily increase the cost by several times which inevitably deters some developers from even starting on a project; great news for the campaign groups and under-resourced planning authorities but what is the cost to society and even the environment? Stopping development in one location could lead to even less desirable development somewhere else or an environmental problem made worse through inaction.

A stay on progress

In the current economic climate, developers are thinking long and hard before taking forward major developments, particularly those that may be considered controversial. The potential cost of an EIA and public inquiry is a major consideration and no doubt has resulted in some schemes being abandoned or put on indefinite hold.

In the UK, in an attempt to ensure a consistent approach to scheme assessments (and presumably also keep costs down) the appraisal guidance has become increasingly prescriptive. Both English and Scottish EIA guidance aims to distil down all the information into a single summary table, allowing different scheme options to be readily compared side by side. The risk is that key information could be lost or issues oversimplified, leading to poor decision-making.

Recent developments in EIA include attempting to monetise environmental assets and impacts, a risky strategy and something that has been the subject of much debate for more than a decade as part of the wider Environmental Capital approach to valuing environmental assets. Can we really put a monetary value on the tranquillity of unspoilt countryside or the setting of an ancient monument? There are any number of ways to gain insight into the value an individual places on environmental assets, each of which will give a slightly different answer, but, ultimately, which is right? Scientists, politicians and environmental campaigners can't agree on the true value of carbon emissions, yet carbon trading is to be one of the key mechanisms for managing the global response to climate change. It remains to be seen how EIAs will address these issues going forward. Will economists become the new environmentalists and should we embrace environmental monetisation because financial cost benefit is the only thing governments and big businesses really understand and respond to, particularly in the current economic climate?

Retaining relevancy

So what then, is the future of EIA and how can we make sure it remains relevant and economically feasible?

For EIA practitioners, there is a need to be more courageous and to stand their ground in the face of challenge. Information overload is not the answer. EIAs need to be better planned and thought out. If an issue can be scoped out in the early stages it does not need to be included in the Environmental Statement. Sounds pretty obvious, but read almost any ES and there will be whole chapters devoted to the assessment of non-significant impacts. Why? Well, 'just in case'! Trim out these chapters and suddenly the ES becomes a more succinct and relevant document. Costs can also be reduced through better planning and ensuring that only those significant issues are the subject of focused effort.

Better coordination between different specialist areas is also necessary. Technical assessments are frequently completed in isolation, thus missing opportunities to share knowledge and work towards more integrated solutions. For example, far too often landscape mitigation conflicts with ecological mitigation because the two teams don't work together. It's easier to crank the handle and churn out an off-the-shelf assessment than to develop a more integrated approach. However, this does not always lead to cost savings.

For regulators, there needs to be improved understanding of what EIA is about. It is not about producing mini 'State of the Environment' reports on every conceivable issue related to a site, but about informing decision-makers of the significant environmental impacts related to a development. More information does not always lead to better decisions. Very often, the opposite is true.

Finally, as valuable as the environment is and as much as we need to protect it, we also have to accept that there will be an inevitable environmental cost associated with all development, and particularly transport. The focus of EIA should be on the significant issues and not the trivia. We need to be more creative in how we deal with the big issues like carbon emissions and climate change. Key to achieving this will be for developers and EIA practitioners to work more in partnership with regulators and stakeholders instead of seeing them as obstacles to progress.

Sustainable development means striking the right balance between social, environmental and economic considerations. Given the current environmental and economic conditions, EIA has a crucial role to play in achieving this goal, but in doing so, those that carry out EIAs and author Environmental Statements need to focus a lot more on the quality of the information and the conclusions drawn using professional experience and judgement, and a little less on the thickness of the document.