International EIAblogs.ubc.ca/environmentalimpactassessment/files/2015/11/GEOG3… · Environmental Impact Assessment, UBC 6-Mar-16 Outline •International EIA •Sustainability

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 1

International EIAArthur ‘Gill’ Green

Environmental Impact Assessment, UBC

6-Mar-16

Outline

• International EIA

• Sustainability in the context of EIA

• Reporting

• Reviewing Reports

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 2

International Context

• Spread since 1970 has already been reviewed

• Practiced in approximately 200 countries

• >70 developing or transitional countries have EIA systems

• Africa had ≈ 12 national systems in place (circa 2010)

• Numerous agencies: UNEP, ADB, World Bank…

International Context

World Bank system emerged as ‘global standard’ (Why?)

• Early adopter: 1989, the World Bank adopted Operational Directive (OD) 4.00, Annex A: Environmental Assessmentand EA became standard procedure for Bank-financed investment projects.

• Widespread influence

• Operating Policy 4.01 – Environmental Assessment (1999)

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 3

Recognized benefits of EIA

• Improved project design

• Reduced costs through early identification of unforeseen impacts

• Early compliance with standards reducing legal costs

• Increased public acceptability through participation, demonstration of proponent’s responsibility (Noble 2010: 17)

Common problems

• Agreement barrier – lack of agreement over what EIA can accomplish

• Knowledge barrier – lack of knowledge about EIA process, its potential

• Technology barrier – lack of appropriate methods

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 4

Common problems

• Financial barrier – prohibitive costs, including for mitigation & monitoring

• Social barrier – limited role of public participation

• Political barrier – limited accountability of proponents in relation to impacts

Common problems

• Multi-jurisdictional:• countries receive aid from a number of donors,

each having its own prescribed assessment process; or

• a proposal is trans-boundary in nature, requiring compliance with EIA procedures in two or more countries, states or levels of government

• Green washing national standards with “sustainability”

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 5

Sustainability Assessment

• Brundtland Report, 1987

• Earth Summit 1992

• National sustainable development strategies

• Unlike SEA, sustainability assessment can be applied to projects and strategic decision making

• Increasing research, but mostly on one-off case studies… Best practices?


3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 6


• Sustainability imperatives (more than minimizing impacts)

• Normative nature of sustainability (+/-)

• Adopt formal mechanisms for tradeoffs in open, accountable manner

• Pluralism (tailor made to context)

• Apply learning

SA – Tradeoff Rules

Gibson (2006) trade-off decision rules:

• Net gains

• Burden of argument

• Avoidance of significant adverse effects

• Protection of the future

• Explicit justification

• Open process

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 7

SA – Comparison Framework

SA – Status Quo

• Pluralism is strengthened by the normative nature of sustainability.

• Consideration of intergenerational equity is weak.

• Timescale is not well established, usually 10-20 years or set by only some stakeholders

• Little to no follow up

• Little turning learning into practice

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 8


• What difference does it make?• Possibly more comprehensive project design

• Possibly more systems thinking

• Possibly better outcomes for all involved

• Perhaps the greatest contribution of sustainability assessment…• Another framework for recognizing and

reviewing critical lacking components of EIA reports and processes

Reporting and Reviewing Reports

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 9

Different names for the same document

• Environmental Impact Assessment report (EIA report)

• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

• Environmental Statement (ES)

• Environmental Assessment Report (EA report)

• Environmental Effects Statement (EES)

The EIA report assists

• the proponent to plan and design

• the responsible authority to decide

• the public to understand

These are the intended audiences.

3/6/2016

Arthur Gill Green 10

The EIA must be

• actionable – by the proponent

• decision-relevant – to the responsible authority

• user-friendly – for the public

EIA Main Elements

1. executive summary

2. need for and aims of the proposal

3. description of proposal and alternatives

4. description of affected environment and community

5. public consultation and views

6. main impacts and their mitigation

7. evaluation of significant residual impacts

8. environmental management plan

3/6/2016


An executive summary should

• target to audience

• keep it short

• make it clear and consistent

• avoid jargon

• summarise key findings

An executive summary should outline

• the proposal and its setting

• terms of reference of the EIA

• results of public consultation

• alternatives considered

• major impacts and their significance

• mitigation and management measures

• any other critical matters.

3/6/2016


Description of the proposal includes

• main elements, phases and alternatives

• requirements for materials, water, energy, equipment

• operational processes and products

• summary of technical, economic and environmental features

• comparison of options (e.g. size, location, etc.)

Description of the impacted environment includes

• spatial and temporal boundaries

• baseline conditions – biophysical, land use, socio-economic

• key trends and anticipated conditions

• relationship to other policies, plans and proposals.

3/6/2016


Public consultation includes

• identification of interested and affected stakeholders

• method(s) used to inform and involve them

• analysis of views and concerns expressed

• how these were taken into account

• issues remaining to be resolved

EIA evaluating impacts for alternatives includes

• prediction of each major impact

• proposed mitigation measures

• significance of the residual impact

• limitations, uncertainty and gaps in knowledge

3/6/2016


EIA comparative evaluation of alternatives includes

• adverse and beneficial impacts

• effectiveness of mitigation measure

• distribution of benefits and costs

• opportunities for enhancement

• reasons for preferred alternative

EIA environmental management plan includes

• proposed mitigation measures

• schedule for implementation

• surveillance and monitoring programmes

• impact management strategy

• reporting, audit and review procedure

• any institution and capacity building requirements

3/6/2016


Common EIA shortcomings

• objective of proposal described too narrowly

• description does not cover complete activity

• alternatives do not account for the environment

• key problems not described

• sensitive elements in environment overlooked

• relevant standards and legislation not described

Common EIA shortcomings

• best alternative not described (or insufficiently described)

• serious impacts not mentioned or not correctly described

• outdated or ineffective prediction models used

• impacts not compared with standards or targets

• appropriate mitigation measures not considered

• incorrect conclusions drawn

3/6/2016


Purpose and objectives of review

• The purpose of the review process is to establish if the information in an EIA report is sufficient for decision-making.

• Key objectives are to: • review the quality of the EIA report

• take account of public comment

• determine if the information is sufficient

• identify any deficiencies to be corrected

EIA review – aspects for consideration

• compliance with terms of reference

• information is correct and technically sound

• account taken of public comments

• complete and satisfactory statement of key findings

• information is clear and understandable

• information is sufficient for decision-making

3/6/2016


EIA review – types of procedure

• Internal review:• low operating costs

• can lack rigour and transparency

• often no documentation of result.

• External review• independent, expert check on EIA quality

• more rigorous and transparent

• report on sufficiency or deficiency

EIA review procedures

• environmental agency

• independent panel (or moderator)

• standing commission

• inter-agency committee

• planning authority

3/6/2016


EIA review – steps to good practice

• set the scale of the review

• select reviewer(s)

• use public input

• identify review criteria

• carry out the review

• determine remedial options

• publish the review report

EIA review criteria

The following can be used (in order of priority):

• Terms of Reference

• EIA reports of comparable proposals

• Other guidance including: • EIA requirements, guidelines and criteria

• principles of EIA good practice

• knowledge of the project and typical impacts

3/6/2016


Example review criteria

• Review Areas. These are the four major areas of EA activity.• Description of the development, the local

environment and the baseline conditions.

• Identification and evaluation of key impacts.

• Alternatives and mitigation of impacts.

• Communication of results.

• Review Categories. These are the categories of EA activity which must be undertaken within each Review Area

• Review Subcategories.(Lee et al. 1999)

(Lee et al. 1999)

3/6/2016


Carrying out EIA review

• A four-step approach can be followed: • Step 1: identify the deficiencies

• Step 2: focus on critical shortcomings

• Step 3: recommend remedial measures

• Step 4: advise on implications for decision-making

EIA review methods

• general checklists

• project specific checklists

• review packages• Lee, Colley, Bonde, Simpson 1999.

• expert and accredited reviewers

• public hearings

• extended review frameworks

3/6/2016


Rating scale for EIA review

Rating Explanation

A generally well performed, no important tasks left incomplete

B generally satisfactory and complete, only minor omissions and

inadequacies

C just satisfactory despite omissions and/or inadequacies

D parts well attempted but must, on the whole be considered just

unsatisfactory because of omissions and/or inadequacies

E unsatisfactory, significant omissions or inadequacies

F very unsatisfactory, important task(s) poor ly done or not attempted

N/A not applicable, the review topic is not applicable in the context of the

project

Thinking about final projects

• You should see if you can use the Lee et al. 1999 framework to critique your selected EIA.

• However, you are not just reviewing the report… You can look online to see if there is any up-to-date information that gives you insight into:• Changes over time

• Monitoring

• Etc.

3/6/2016


End

Sources:

• UNEP Training Resource Manual

• Lee, N., R. Colley, J. Bonde, and J. Simpson. 1999. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Manchester: EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.

Documents

International EIAblogs.ubc.ca/environmentalimpactassessment/files/2015/11/GEOG3… · Environmental Impact Assessment, UBC 6-Mar-16 Outline •International EIA •Sustainability