Open Access Research Article
SUSTAINABILITY IN FOCUS: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Published Paper
Article Details
SUSTAINABILITY IN FOCUS: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORED BY - HARSH ENANIYA
Assistant Professor,
ABSTRACT
The development of Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) has faced significant impediments, hindering its potential to
effectively mitigate environmental degradation. However, EIA has emerged as a
new commitment to environmental protection, playing a crucial role in
integrating sustainability into development projects. Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) is essential for evaluating policies, plans, and programs,
ensuring the implementation of the sustainable development principle. A tiered
approach to EIA, encompassing both project-level and strategic assessments,
enhances the effectiveness of environmental impact management. Guidelines for
EIA preparation must be established and adhered to, ensuring that assessments
are comprehensive, transparent, and participatory. By adopting a tiered
approach and prioritizing SEA, EIA can become a powerful tool for achieving
sustainable development and environmental protection. This paper explores the
role of EIA in promoting sustainability, highlighting the importance of SEA,
and discussing guidelines for effective EIA preparation.
Keywords: Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Sustainable
Development, Environmental Protection, Impact Assessment
1.
INTRODUCTION
Reason dictates that man ought to look
before he leaps. In environmental terms, this translates to knowing the
environmental consequences of his actions before acting upon them. In
environmental parlance, this is called Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
EIA is the process of predicting and
evaluating an action's impacts on the environment, the conclusions to be used
as a tool in decision making. EIA is an effort to anticipate, measure and weigh
the socio-economic and bio-physical changes that may result from a proposed
project. It assists and enables the decision makers in considering the proposed
project's environmental costs and benefits, thus making the project justiciable
if its proposed benefits sufficiently exceed its cost. But what must be
properly understood here is that it cannot, by itself, achieve that prevention.
In short, we can state, that EIA involves the process of reviewing the existing
state of the environment and the characteristics of the proposed action (and
possibly alternative actions); predicting the state of the future environment
with and without the action (the difference between the two being the action's
impacts); considering methods for reducing or eliminating any negative impact:
preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) that discusses these points;
and after a decision is made about whether the action should proceed, possibly
monitoring the actual impacts of the action. The EIA, as an approach to
environmental issues, can be characterised as multidisciplinary and predictive.
The one area, which is a refined version of
EIA, and which is growing and attracting considerable interest is the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA), which is the consideration of the environmental
impacts of PPPs-policies, plans and programmes. The Netherland government set
up a statutory SEA system in 1987. the New Zealand authorities have required
its preparation since late 1991, and the European Community's (EC) Directorate
General XI produced a proposed directive
The development of EIA started more than
twenty years ago in the U.S. with the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 (U.S. Govt. 1970) and rapidly spread to countries like Canada
(1973), Australia (1974), West Germany (1975), France (1976) and later
world-wide. In 1985, EC Directive 85/337 made EIA mandatory in certain
circumstances, and more uniform throughout the European community than
previously. In India, a new mechanism to protect environmental concerns has
been initiated that requires the Planning Commission's approval of any major
project, and a review report by the Department of Environment, which was
established in November 1980. The EIA was introduced in 1984 to achieve a more
comprehensive oversight of major projects.
Although no equivalent statutory mandate
exists in India, an administrative requirement for minimal environmental impact
reports based on departmental guidelines is applied to certain development
projects. Under these guidelines, project authorities are required to submit
environmental information to the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests,
by filing out "questionnaires" or checklists along with their
detailed project reports. Sometimes the ministry also insists that an EIS
accompany an Environmental Management Plan. The task of environmental appraisal
is carried out by a multi-disciplinary staff in the ministry's "impact
statement divisions". After preliminary scrutiny of environmental impacts
in one of these divisions, the project proposal is considered by the ministry's
"environmental appraisal committee". These committees hold
discussions with the project authorities and wherever necessary, visit the
sites for on-the-spot assessment. On the basis of these deliberations and
evaluations, the committees approve or reject the projects.
When projects are approved, the approval is
usually conditional upon the implementation of specified safeguards.[1]
The African continent lags behind others in
its implementation of ElAs, mainly due to its growing population, frequent and
violent changes in government, environmental calamities, and its endemic
corruption, which leaves few resources for preventive environmental management,
in a continent that needs it probably more than any other.[2] Most of the EIAs in Africa and South
America are carried out by development organisations such as the World Bank and
USAID.[3]
2.
IMPEDIMENTS
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIA
EIA, however, is neither a bed of roses nor
is it unimpeachable. There are several hurdles to its development.
Firstly, the type of projects that tend to
be subject to an imposed requirement for EIA are often limited. Those that are
frequently excluded include defence and security related projects, agricultural
and afforestation projects, small-scale projects, and projects under the remit
of uncooperative government agencies or of particularly powerful lobby groups.
Barrett and Therivel, in their book on Japan, have stated that the Japanese
government requires a weaker form of EIA for power stations than for other
forms of development, because the powerful Ministry of International Trade and
Industry argues that energy production is a matter of national importance and
thus should not be impeded.[4]
Secondly, the information required in an EIA
is also often limited, as the regulations or guidelines may not require the
full range of potential impacts to be addressed.
Thirdly, the objectivity and thoroughness of
an EIA is also influenced by the organisation that carries it out. Usually, the
proponent, not an independent, local or a neutral government agency, carries it
out. In the U.K. for instance, the EIAs have been shows to cost between .000025
and 5% of project cost.[5]
The participation by the public at the preparation
of EIA also influences its effectiveness. Collections of environmental impact
statements have been set up in many countries, both to improve public
participation and as a way of improving the quality of future EIAS.[6]
The above, then, are not the only
impediments. A project, for example, even though it passes the EIA test, may
face other (sometimes totally unrelated) political, social and economic
factors, which hamper its development. And finally, the techniques and
procedures for monitoring and auditing of actual environmental impacts are
still in their infancy.[7]
The predictions that are made in EIAs are
rarely tested against what actually happens when the project is built and
operated, so impact predictions have little chance of being improved.[8]
3.
EIA
- A NEW COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
EIA as an "enduring legacy" not
only symbolised a new commitment to environmental protections but was an
"affirmation of faith" in the use of science for planning and
decision making.
The EIA is only one form of impact
assessment, there are many others. However, the early versions of impact
assessment were always prefaced by the adjective 'environmental'; as in
environmental assessment or environmental impact assessment. As the field
developed, additional prefixes surfaced such as technology assessment, social
impact assessment, community assessment and so on.
However, according to Rossini and Porter,
all forms of impact assessment ideally have several key factors or features in
common.[9] They should be effects- focussed,
future-oriented; centred around technological developments, systematic,
comprehensive and inter-disciplinary in approach, comparative and
policy-oriented.
The EIA fits all the above, and emphasises
the bio-physical sciences, providing a process whereby the principles and
paradigms of ecological science can be applied to the consideration of the
ecological effects of various forms of development on natural ecosystems.[10] EIA bases its foundation on Risk Assessment
(RA). An environmental risk is a hazard or danger with adverse, probabilistic
consequences. It is involved with how different societies evaluate risk.[11] According to L. Graham Smith, RA basically
involves three elements:[12] risk identification, risk estimation and
risk evaluation.
Impact assessment and risk assessment are
mutually supportive concepts.[13] In most impact assessments, technical and
economic factors are handled with clarity. Other factors, such as duration of
impacts, uncertainty and public preferences, are usually less precise and
controllable, remaining fuzzy and, ultimately, inconsequen- tial to the final
assessment of impact. The present status has been succinctly stated by Clark
& Herlington's[14] as: “an excessive interest in
methodologies and techniques has.... tended to direkt attention away from
viewing the experience of EIA within the broad process of environmental
planning”. In other words good, in technique, but poor in process; for
e.g., successive administrations in the United States have chosen to leave the
interpretation and enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
largely to the courts. This has resulted in an emphasis on the judicially
enforceable aspects of NEPA to the neglect of its substantive provisions.[15] Its problems are “less scientific and
technical than political”[16]
It is only through reconceptualization and
consideration of process as well as methodology, that impact assessment will
achieve its full promise.
4.
IMPORTANCE
OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)
SEA can be defined as the formalised,
systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of
a policy, plan, or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation of
a written report on the findings of that evaluation, and using the findings in
publicly accountable decision-making.[17]
SEA is an improvement over project EIA.
There are some important differences between the EIA and SEA -
1) EIA
cannot by itself lead to a comprehensive protection of the environment for the
simple reason that the EIA reacts to development proposals rather than
anticipating them;
2) EIA
does not consider the cumulative impacts of more than a single project. It does
not, for example, consider whether the environment may be resilient up to a
certain level and whether it may degrade subsequently; whether the total
impacts of several projects exceed the sum of their individual impacts
(synergistic impacts); the cases where additive impacts of developments that do
not require EIA according to existing legislation; where one development
project can stimulate secondary developments and infrastructure; where the
environment does not have time or space to recover from one impact before it is
subject to the next one, otherwise called time-crowded or space-crowded
impacts.
The consideration of cumulative impacts in
project EIA is often limited by the lack of knowledge concerning other
development proposals and lack of control over these proposals.[18]
Further, project EIA discusses alternatives
to the proposed project in a limited manner. This is primarily due to the fact
that a project's details are already drawn up with irreversible decisions by
the time an EIA is prepared, and also partly due to the reason of lack of guidance
and emphasis meted out to alternatives in EIA legislations. The United States
provides a good lead wherein USCEQ[19] states that EIAs must rigorously explore
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated. This, however, does not allow for an assessment
of alternatives in earlier stages of planning, as would be provided for by SEA.
Another factor that is similarly limited is the measures for mitigation of
impacts proposed in project ???.
3) Another fundamental difference between an
EIA and a SEA is the public participation. Public consultation is often brought
into a project too late to make an adequate contribution. A strategic approach
would enable relevant experts to be more fully involved at early stages of
planning. A similar view has been expressed by Contant and Wiggins, and by
Montgomery.[20]
5.
SEA
THE IMPLEMENTOR OF THE 'SUSTAINABLE PRINCIPLE'
SEA has been defined by Jacobs, as meaning
that, the environment should be protected in such a condition and to such a
degree that environmental capacities (the ability of the environment to perform
its various functions) are maintained over time: at least at levels sufficient
to avoid future catastrophe, and at most at levels which give future
generations the opportunity to enjoy an equal measure of environmental
consumption.[21] SEA is needed as a way of implementing the
above concept.
The Netherlands, which is the front runner
of the above National Environmen- tal Policy Plan (NEPP) of 1990, aims to carry
out the requirement of an EIA for all policies, plans and programmes that have
significant environmental impacts. Thus, we see that SEA would not only
overcome the worst limitation of the existing system of project EIA, but it
would be a proactive step towards attaining sustainability.
SEA is nothing but an extension of the EIA.
If EIA can be considered as a 'solid rock', SEA can be viewed as a beautiful
structure that has taken final shape. SEA helps in chopping of irregularities
of and smoothening out the rough edges in the functioning of EIA, It requires
institutions to consider the consequences of a range of actions early on in the
planning process; to choose the most beneficial action on the environmental as
well as on the socio-economic grounds, and to minimise any harmful
environmental impacts. It is characterised by its strategic nature and its
emphasis on preventing environmental damage. Its role is thus akin to the
"precautionary principle".
The methodologies for SEA are not yet fully
developed. They are, however, likely to include elements of cost-benefit and
monetary valuation, cope with the high levels of uncertainty, encourage the
development of precautionary methodologies as well as the collection and
interpretation of baseline environmental data. It thus allows the principle of
sustainability to be implemented in a phased way from policies to plans,
programmes and the projects.
6.
THE
TIERED APPROACH TO EI?
Several academicians and governmental
agencies have suggested that EIA be carried out in "overlapping
tiers".[22]
7.
GUIDELINES
FOR THE PREPARATION OF EIA
A number of guidelines for the preparation
of EIAs have been published by international organisations.[23] The following outline summaries the basic
elements included in most of them:
1) Environmental
impacts should be identified before the completion of the preliminary design of
the project. This process identifies problem likely to be significant and to
require special study. If no significant impacts are found, a decision may be
made that no EIA is necessary, or that a full EIA need not be performed.
2) A
baseline study should be prepared, projecting environmental changes likely to
occur in the absence of the project and those likely to occur with the project.
3) An
evaluation of the environmental impacts on humans, natural resources,
production, ecology, social organisations, and cultures should be prepared and
to the maximum extent possible converted into monetary costs.
4) Mitigation
measures should be determined for the environmental impacts indicated in (3),
together with cost estimates of mitigation measures.
5) Comparison
of the costs of alternative measures for mitigating environmental impacts with
the benefits of those measures should be made, using benefit-cost analysis, in
preparation of the final project design. The alternatives should include
entirely different projects with less harmful environmental impacts or no
project.
6) An
EIA should be made available to officials responsible for the final approval of
the project or for a loan for the project. A detailed summary (if not the
entire EIA) should be made available to the public well before approval of the
project of loan.
8.
CONCLUSION
According to Raymond F. Mikesell, many
projects have few adverse environmental impacts and hence, do not require EIAs.
However, this must be determined by careful identification, for example,
education of medical projects may be regarded as harmless to the environment
until it is discovered that the buildings required are to be erected on
wetlands, or that the chemical wastes from the laboratories are to be dumped in
a river. It is important, however, that the mitigation measures be allowed for
in the project design. [24]
Mining projects, for example, do definitely
require an EIA. But the completion of an EIA, may run into several millions of
dollars sometimes requiring as high as 20% of the capital costs of the mine,
thereby making it highly unprofitable or uninviting to the government of
private foreign investors. A case study example can be found in the OK Jedi
Copper and Gold mining project in Papua New Guinea, where the Government of
Papua New Guinea decided to allow the private mining company to go ahead with
the project, despite the fact that no proper EIA was conducted for
environmental safeguards. This was due to the fact that the company was
unwilling to spend exorbitant amounts on environmental planning of the projects
without the assurance of a mining agreement. Also note that no comprehensive
EIA for the Sardar Sarovar project was conducted before the world bank loan was
made in 1985.
Thus, the EIA may identify all the
environmental impacts of a project, provide reliable estimates of their full
social costs, and yet not embody the principle of sustainability.
EIA is an ever-increasing, ever-expanding
and popular concept. Its importance in present day life is not to be
underestimated. In UNCED parlance, the importance of information is captured in
the principle of transparency. The EIA of projects is widely carried out, but
its effectiveness is constrained by socio-political and economic factors. It is
also limited by the fact that it generally applies only to the lowest project
tier of assessment, which in turn is heavily influenced by the higher strategic
tiers that give rise to the projects.
[1] See, A. Rosencranz et
al.. Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases. Materials & Statutes
(1992).
[2] See, P. Harrison, The
Greening of Africa (1987).
[3] P. Wathern, Environmental
Impact Assessment (1988).
[4] B. Barett and R. Therivel, Environmental
Policy and Impact Assessment in Japan (1991).
[5] T.P. Coles et ai.,
Environmental Assessment: Experiences in UK. (Paper presented at first
membership conference. Institute of Environmental Assessment. Birmingham)
(1992).
[6] R. Therivel. Directory of
Environmental Statements 1988-1991 (1991).
[7] R. Therivel et al., Strategic
Environmental Assessment (1992).
[8] R. Bisset and P. Tomlinson. Monitoring
and Auditing of Impacts in P. Wathem (Ed.) Environmental Impact
Assessment (1988).
[9] F.A. Rossini and AL Porter, Why
Impact Assessment? in F.A. Rossini and A.L. Porter (Eds.) Integrated
Impact Assessment (1983).
[10] S.M. Hirst, Applied Ecology and
the Real World 18, 189-213 (1984).
[11] A.Y. Whyte and 1. Burton (Eds.) Environmental
Risk Assessment (1980). John Wiley, Analysing Technological Risks in
Federal Regulatory Agencies in M.E. Kraft & N.S. Yig. (Eds.) Technology
& Politics 184-207 (1988).
[12] L. Graham Smith, Impact
Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management, Themes in Resource Management
(1993).
[13] A.P. Grima et al. (Eds.) Risk
Perspectives on Environmental Impact Assessment (1989).
[14] Clark et al. (Eds.) The
Role of Environmental Impact Assessment in the Planning Process (1988).
[15] L.K. Caldwell, Environmental
Impact Analysis (ElA). Origins, Evolution and Future Directions, Impact
Assessment Bulletin 6, 75-83 (1988).
[16] Id.
[17] R. Therivel et al., Strategic
Environmental Assessment (1992).
[18] T. Montgomery, An Introduction
to the Concept of Tiered Environmental Assessment (1990).
[19] U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act 40 (1978).
[20] C. Contant and L. Wiggens, Defining
and Analysing Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 11(4), 297-309 (1991): Montgomery, supra n. 18.
[21] M. Jacobs, The Green Economy
(1991).
[22] For example, see, The
California Environmental Quality Act, State of California (1986).
[23] See, for example, UNESCAP Environmental
Impact Assessment: Guidelinl!s for Planners and Decision Makers, UN
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (1985).
[24] Raymond F. Mikesell, Economic
Development and the Environment - A Comparison of Sustainable
Development with Conventional Development Economics 96-97 (1992).
Article Information
SUSTAINABILITY IN FOCUS: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Authors: HARSH ENANIYA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/28
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.