Is Improving the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in the UK Dependent on the Use of Follow-up?

Views of Environmental Consultants

by

Clare Harmer

Thesis is presented in part-fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in accordance with the regulations of the University of East Anglia

School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia University Plain Norwich NR4 7TJ August 2005

2005 Clare Harmer This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the dissertation, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the authors prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents an internal University document and neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness of the dissertation.

Abstract

Since the 1960s, there has been a growing interest in the environment and the detrimental impact that society has on the global environment (Welford 1995). Over the years, there has been a gradual introduction of environmental legislation and management tools, in an attempt to regulate impacts on the environment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has become a widely used tool for identifying the potential impacts of new developments (Glasson et al 1999). However, since its emergence there has been a growing interest in examining its effectiveness, in particular lack of post-decision follow-up is leading to questions over whether EIA is being used to its full potential. The objective of this study was to assess whether improving the effectiveness of EIA in the UK, is dependent on the use of follow-up. The views of environmental consultants were examined closely, using a questionnaire survey and a series of telephone interviews. Data from the questionnaires and interviews was analysed to find information relating to current EIA and follow-up practice and the future for follow-up. In addition, an assessment of the pros and cons of follow-up was conducted for consultants, developers, decision-makers and the environment. The results of this research suggest that the use of follow-up should be extended in the UK, in order to improve EIA effectiveness. In fact, of the consultants interviewed the majority thought that EIA should be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process; in order to provide feedback and ensure that mitigation measures are implemented and effective. However, whilst there are many benefits to be gained from undertaking follow-up, issues related to cost and the quality of EISs all impact on its ability to improve effectiveness and these will need to be resolved.

ii

Contents Page List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements Abbreviations Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Outline Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment 2.2 EIA Process 2.3 History of EIA 2.4 EIA Effectiveness 2.5 The Purposes of EIA 2.6 Current Best Practice 2.7 Follow-up 2.8 Objective and Aims 3 3 5 7 8 9 11 17 1 2 v v vi vii

Chapter 3 Research Methods 3.1 Methodology 3.2 Questionnaires 3.3 Interviews 3.4 Data Analysis 3.5 Limitations 3.6 Ethical Considerations Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 Themes 4.2 Response Rates 22 22 iii 18 18 19 20 21 21

4.3 Description of Respondents 4.3.1 Questionnaire Respondents 4.3.2 Interviewees 4.4 EIA in the UK 4.4.1 Role of EIA 4.4.2 EIA Effectiveness 4.5 Follow-up in the UK 4.5.1 Current Practice 4.5.2 Training and Guidelines 4.6 Pros of Follow-up 4.6.1 For Consultants 4.6.2 For the Developer 4.6.3 For the Decision-maker 4.6.4 For the Environment 4.7 Cons of Follow-up 4.7.1 For Consultants 4.7.2 For the Developer 4.7.3 For the Decision-maker 4.7.4 For the Environment 4.8 The Future for Follow-up 4.8.1 Making Follow-up Mandatory 4.8.2 The Environmental Liability Directive 4.9 Summary 39 40 41 37 37 38 38 33 35 36 36 31 33 26 29 22 25

Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Would extending the use of follow-up make EIA more effective? 5.2 Future Research References Appendix 1: Covering Letter and Questionnaire Appendix 2: Interview Guide 1 and 2 42 44 45

iv

Page List of Figures 2.1 The EIA process 2.2 IAIA principles of EIA best practice 2.3 The four elements of EIA follow-up 2.4 Definition of mitigation 4.1 Proportion of respondents work time spent undertaking EIA 4.2 Respondents EIA environmental specialities 4.3 Respondents sectoral experience in EIA preparation 4.4 Respondents opinion of EIAs ability to contribute to sustainable development 4.5 Selected comments regarding lack of follow-up in the UK 4.6 Selected comments regarding mitigation List of Tables 4.1 Interviewee experience of EIA 4.2 The main purpose of EIA 25 27 4 10 12 13 23 24 24 29 30 34

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the environmental consultants who took part in my questionnaire survey and who allowed me to interview them as part of this project. Also, Dick Cobb and Tracey Nitz for their help and advice. I would also like to thank my parents and friends for their continuing advice and support.

vi

Abbreviations

CEQ DETR DOE EIA EIS EMS EU IAIA IAU IEMA IPC LPA NEPA US

Council on Environmental Quality (US) Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions Department of the Environment Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Management System European Union International Association for Impact Assessment Impact Assessment Unit Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment Integrated Pollution Control Local Planning Authority National Environmental Policy Act (US) United States

vii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Since the 1960s, there has been a growing interest in the environment and the detrimental impact that society has on the global environment (Welford 1995). Over the years, there has been a gradual introduction of environmental legislation, in an attempt to regulate impacts on the environment. Much of this regulation has involved determining compliance levels for pollution emissions. However, other environmental management tools have also been developed. These include environmental auditing, environmental accounting, environmental reporting, life-cycle assessment, environmental management systems, risk assessment and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has become a widely used tool for identifying the potential impacts of new developments (Glasson et al 1999). It is intended to provide decision-makers with an understanding of the probable environmental consequences of a proposed project and thereby facilitate the making of more environmentally sound decisions (Bailey and Hobbs 1990). EIA is now being used in many countries worldwide (Glasson et al 1999). However, since its emergence there has been a growing interest in examining the effectiveness of this environmental management tool. In the 1990s, an international study on the effectiveness of environmental assessment was conducted, which highlighted several areas were improvements needed to be made. Scoping, evaluating significance, review of environmental statements and post-decision monitoring and auditing (often referred to as follow-up) were all identified as priority areas (Sadler 1996). Lack of follow-up is arguably the weakest point in many jurisdictions and this is leading to questions over whether EIA is being used to its full potential. Effective EIA should reduce the environmental impacts of developments. However, without follow-up being completed it is only ever the predicted effects on the environment and not the real effects that are considered. The EIA process can be divided into two stages based around the consent decision for a development proposal: pre-decision and post-decision (Arts et al 2001). Follow-up, which includes post-decision monitoring and auditing, refers to activities undertaken during the postdecision stages of the EIA process to monitor, evaluate, manage and communicate the environmental outcomes that actually occur (Arts et al 2001). At present, current practice has focused on the pre-decision stages of the process, which means that surprisingly little attention 1

is paid to whether the actual impacts of the development correspond to those that were predicted. There is much debate as to the effectiveness of EIA practice without follow-up. Follow-up has not been systematically required or properly implemented within current practice, despite theory indicating the importance of its inclusion. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess whether improving the effectiveness of EIA, is dependent on the use of follow-up. The views of environmental consultants will be examined, as they work closely with EIA and therefore have an insight into current EIA and follow-up practice 1.2 Outline This project will look specifically at EIA and follow-up in the UK. Chapter two will review EIA in terms of its process, history and effectiveness, before closely examining follow-up. It will also outline the objective and aims of this research. Chapter three will detail the methodologies used for completing this project. Chapter five is devoted to the results and discussion and Chapter six will draw conclusions and highlight future areas for research.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental management uses tools and techniques to identify and assess the human impact upon the environment. These tools can improve decision-making for environmental issues and are often seen as a way of promoting and achieving sustainable development (Glasson et al 1999). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is one of the major tools relied upon by governments and societies worldwide to help them to achieve more effective environmental management (Nitz and Holland 2000). It can be defined as a systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development actions in advance (Glasson et al 1999:4) and is primarily used to assist in the identification, prediction and mitigation of environmental impacts caused by certain new developments (Sadler 1996; Dipper et al 1998). The process provides information for local authority planners, other regulators and authorising bodies, interested organisations and the general public. It also assists developers to meet their own environmental standards, to minimise environmental impacts and facilitate the project approval process (Carroll and Turpin 2002). 2.2 EIA Process The EIA process can be represented as a series of iterative stages (Figure 2.1) and although they are outlined here in a linear fashion, EIA should be a cyclical activity, with feedback from later stages to earlier ones (Glasson et al 1999). When discussing EIA it is useful to divide the process into two stages based around the principal consent decision for a development proposal. The pre-decision stage incorporates the early stages of the EIA process prior to proposal implementation (i.e. screening, scoping, impact prediction and the consent decision) (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). The post-decision stage of a proposal, including postdecision monitoring and auditing, is known as follow-up and is concerned with the various components of the plan or project life cycle after the decision has been taken (e.g. final design, construction, operation and decommissioning; project and environmental management) (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). It is important to highlight that the EIA process has been translated into practice in various ways across the world and the previous description relates to EIA theory. Not all of the stages of the process are mandatory in individual EIA systems and the ways in which the individual stages of the process are carried out will vary significantly. In 3

particular, the final stage follow-up is absent in most jurisdictions and this limits the cyclical nature of the process (Dipper et al 1998).

Screening (determining the need for EIA) Scoping (determining which impacts should be considered) Consideration of alternatives Description of baseline environment PRE-DECISION Prediction of impacts Evaluation and assessment of impact significance Identification of mitigating measures Presentation of findings in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Review of EIS Decision-making POSTDECISION Public consultation and participation

POST-DECISION MONITORING + AUDITING

Figure 2.1 The EIA process. Adapted from Glasson et al 1999

2.3 History of EIA Environmental impact assessment emerged in 1969 and has since become a powerful environmental safeguard in the project planning process (Therivel and Morris 2001: 10). Over 100 different countries have developed individual EIA systems each with varying levels of sophistication (Glasson et al 1999). The process was developed in the USA and came into operation as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. In the 15 years following its enactment, the establishment of other mandatory EIA systems were confined to a relatively small number of countries, including Canada, Australia and France (Lee 1995). Less formalised and often more limited provisions for environmental assessment were also introduced in a number of countries (Lee 1995). However, since 1985 a major expansion in the number of formalised EIA systems has occurred. In the UK, the need for EIA is derived from the European Union Directive on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment (Carroll and Turpin 2002). Directive 85/337/EEC was first introduced in 1985 and then amended after a five-year review in 1997 (Directive 97/11/EC) (Glasson et al 1999). The European Member States were given considerable discretion in the Directives detailed transposition into their national legislation, provided its basic principles and procedural requirements were satisfied (Lee 1995). For example, they should ensure that an EIA is undertaken for those projects that may give rise to significant environmental impacts and that these impacts are then taken into account before the project is approved (Lee 1995). In the UK, EIA applies mainly to certain major developments for which planning approval is required from local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Carroll and Turpin 2002). The EU Directive states which projects require EIA in a scheduling system, which means that not all development proposals will require EIA, in fact, less than 0.1% of planning applications are subject to EIA completion (Weston 2002). It has been stated that the UK only has a formal EIA system due to its membership of the EU (Weston 2002). At the time of the EU Directives adoption, the UK Government had an ideological opposition to EIA; they were trying to reduce the role of the state in economic development and actively seeking to speed up decision-making in planning. Nevertheless, despite the less than wholehearted support for EIA, Directive 85/337/EEC was incorporated into UK legislation in 1988 (Weston 2002). However, the regulations adopted were criticised for lacking depth and commitment and allowing a minimalist culture to develop in the conduct of 5

EIA (Lambert and Wood 1990). The Department of the Environment (DoE) Circular 15/88 for the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 defined environmental assessment as the whole process required to reach the decision, i.e. the collection of information on the environmental effects of a project, the consideration of that information which must be carried out by the local planning authority and the final judgement resulting in development consent or refusal (DoE 1988). This is a very narrow definition of EIA, with the process ending at the development consent decision. In fact, the process was essentially adapted to fit within the existing UK planning system (Weston 1997) and a policy of minimum compliance became the culture (Weston 2002). However, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a degree of change in EIA culture and that procedurally EIA is much stronger today than when it was first implemented (Weston 2002). This may be partly due to amendments made to the EIA Directive at EU level in 1997 and the subsequent regulatory amendments made in the UK in 1999. In addition, it can be attributed to a shift in the UK government position from hostility and reluctance to substantial support for research and best practice guidance (Glasson 1999). Nevertheless, the current Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions Circular (DETR) 02/99 for the Town Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 still contain a narrow definition of the EIA process the whole process by which environmental information is collected, published and taken into account in reaching a decision on a relevant planning application (DETR 1999). Therefore unsurprisingly, there are currently no provisions for follow-up of any kind to be completed after a development has been constructed, however the local planning authority (LPA) does have the means to impose conditions on the granting of planning permission and therefore can require monitoring activities etc. to take place where it is a reasonable request (Bond 2000). 2.4 Effectiveness Since EIA emerged in 1969, academics have been questioning the effectiveness of the process, in both theory and practice (Lee et al 1994; Sadler 1996; Glasson 1999; Cashmore et al 2004). During the 1970s, there was widespread feeling that the institutional framework for EIA had been put in place before the scientific basis had been properly established (Munn 1975 and Carpenter 1976 in Beanlands and Duinker 1984). This was reported to have resulted

in scientifically inadequate environmental impact statements and therefore there was much early criticism of the concept of environmental assessment (Beanlands and Duinker 1984). Since then further research has been undertaken and there are still ongoing debates concerning effectiveness. On a basic level, it seems that EIA offers more in theory than it has so far delivered in practice (McDonald and Brown 1995; Sadler 1996), in particular concerning issues such as assessing alternatives and post-decision follow-up. EIA can be seen as an effective environmental management tool, if it achieves three purposes: aid to decision-making, aid to developer and, achieving sustainable development (Glasson et al 1999). Literature also states that EIA is effective if it achieves its goals for environmental protection, is cost-effective, and assesses impacts throughout the life of a project (Lee et al 1994; Morrison-Saunders and Bailey 1999). The latter is important as the majority of development projects have a life cycle, which will include planning, construction, operation and decommissioning, which may cover a very long period. EIA should be a means to good environmental management over the life of a project (Glasson 1994; Glasson et al 1999). However, this can only be achieved if the impacts of the development are assessed throughout its life cycle. This means that for EIA to be effective a short sighted build it, forget it approach, where the EIA simply stops when the decision has been made, is inappropriate (Culhane 1993). However, in many jurisdictions where EIA is primarily related to the pre-decision stage of developments, there is a danger of this occurring. Generally, it is agreed that EIA has led to improvements in the environmental management of development activities (McDonald and Brown 1995; Bailey 1997). However, the development of EIA theory and practice has also been accompanied by a significant amount of literature that identifies numerous weaknesses. Lack of consideration of cumulative impacts, insufficient public participation, little monitoring and auditing, limited influence on decision-making process, inadequate consideration of alternatives and the poor quality of environmental impact statements have all been highlighted as weaknesses of current practice (Lee 1995; McDonald and Brown 1995; Glasson 1999; Glasson et al 1999; Harrop and Nixon 1999; Benson 2003). In the 1990s, a major international study on the effectiveness of environmental assessment was carried out. The aim of the study was to review environmental assessment practices and to identify major strengths and weaknesses (Sadler 1996). It focused on four priority areas, which were scoping, the evaluation of significance, review of Environmental Statements and post-decision monitoring and auditing (Sadler 1996). More recent research has continued to 7

show that follow-up remains a weakness in EIA and that in practice, is only performed in a minority of cases (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). Many authors state that lack of follow-up is a major constraint on the advancement of overall EIA practice (e.g. Dipper et al 1998). As such, a common theme in much literature regarding EIA is that of great potential but of unfulfilled expectations (Arts and Nootebloom 1999: 229) and this can definitely be related to practice in the post-decision stages of follow-up. 2.5 The Purposes of EIA As stated in section 2.4, EIA is a process with several important purposes, the first and principal of which is to be an aid to decision-making. EIA was first established as a response to increasing concerns regarding the environmental effects of major development projects (IEMA 2004). The objective of EIA is to provide decision-makers with a focused evaluation of the likely environmental consequences of sanctioning a proposed development action, before a decision is taken and at a time where it can actually affect the outcome (Glasson et al 1999). The EIS produced can be considered alongside other planning related documentation to enable the decision-maker to reach an informed conclusion about the acceptability of the proposal. Completing an EIA should lead to more balanced decision-making, as due consideration and weight should be given to environmental factors, in conjunction with other factors such as costs (Lee et al 1994; IEMA 2004). EIA is, therefore, not a substitute for decision-making, but it should help to clarify some of the trade-offs associated with the proposed development and lead to a more rational and structured decision-making process (Glasson et al 1999). The second purpose of EIA is to aid the developer. Although EIA is undoubtedly often seen as a time-consuming and expensive hurdle, EIA can be a great benefit to developers. If the process is fully integrated into the project design cycle, it can enable developers to identify environmental issues at an early stage, allowing them to minimise or eliminate the adverse impacts on the environment (Glasson et al 1999). This may lead to improved relations between the developer, the local authority and the local communities and therefore lead to a smoother planning permission process (Glasson et al 1999). Research has also commented on the benefit of follow-up to developers, in terms of better project management, protection from liability and establishing a green profile (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). However, it

could also lead to increased expenditure, as developers will often have to cover the costs (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). In the longer term, the ultimate purpose of EIA is to help to achieve sustainable development. In theory, EIA enables developers to identify, avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts at the design stage and in some cases the development might be prevented (Glasson et al 1999), all of which can be seen as a move towards achieving more sustainable development. In addition, EIA has also been described as a powerful tool that has been remarkably successful in allowing for the consideration of social, economic and environmental effects in the review of major development projects (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a: xx). Significantly, this means that all three imperatives needed for sustainable development to be realized are being considered. Nevertheless, to achieve overall sustainable outcomes the consequences of decisions taken must also be investigated, communicated and acted upon as necessary (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a). To this end, post-monitoring and auditing can be seen as a powerful instrument for providing the information needed to ensure an environmentally sustainable development (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). However, as already stated, follow-up in EIA has not yet been systematically required and this is major weakness in EIA helping to achieve sustainable development. These limitations provide a justification for completing this research. 2.6 Current Best Practice Increasing concern over EIA effectiveness and therefore the processes ability to achieve its purposes identified in section 2.5 has led to the development of a number of best practice guidelines. In 1999, the diverse nature of EIA systems worldwide led the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) to set out principles of best practice, with the aim of promoting effective and consistent EIA worldwide (Figure 2.2). Within these guidelines the IAIA set out objectives, basic and operating principles that were to be applicable to all levels and types of development proposals (IAIA 1999). The operating principles set out the stages of the process, which need to be achieved if EIA is to be effective and significantly, the majority of these have been incorporated into individual EIA systems worldwide.

Best Practice Principles Objectives of EIA To ensure that environmental considerations are explicitly addressed and incorporated into the development decision-making process. To anticipate and avoid, minimise, or offset the adverse significant biophysical, social and other relevant effects of development proposals. To protect the productivity and capacity of natural systems and the ecological processes which maintain their functions. To promote development that is sustainable and optimise resource use and management opportunities. Basic Principles EIA should be: Purposive Rigorous Practical Relevant Cost-effective

Efficient Focused Adaptive Participative Interdisciplinary

Credible Integrated Transparent Systematic

Operating Principles Specifically the EIA process should provide for: Screening Scoping Examination of alternatives Impact analysis Mitigation and impact management Evaluation of significance Preparation of EIS Review of EIS Decision-making Follow-up

Figure 2.2 IAIA principles of EIA best practice. Adapted from IAIA 1999 Inherent in many of these best practice principles (Figure 2.2) is an aim to ensure that the EIA process is an effective environmental management tool. In particular, the basic principles, which include phrases such as rigorous, interdisciplinary and systematic can all be associated 10

with achieving good environmental management. Within the guidelines set out by the IAIA the need for follow-up has been specifically recognised as an essential operating principle, in order: To ensure that the terms and conditions of approval are met. To monitor the impacts of the development. To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures. To strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation measures. To undertake environmental audit and process evaluation to optimise environmental management (IAIA 1999). In the UK, the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) have also included follow-up as part of their best practice guidelines. IEMA state that follow-up is one of the most important parts of the EIA process as it helps determine whether EIA makes a difference in terms of improved environmental protection (IEMA 2004). However, despite these recommendations follow-up remains the one stage of the EIA process that is under-utilised worldwide. 2.7 Follow-up Much literature on EIA focuses on the pre-decision stages of the process. However, follow-up is concerned with events after approval: are actions actually implemented? The term can be taken to mean follow-up to the consent decision and is used as an umbrella term for various EIA activities, including: monitoring and auditing, ex-post evaluation, post-decision analysis and post-decision management (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). Follow-up has been defined as the monitoring and auditing of the impacts of a project or plan (that has been subject to an EIA) for management of, and communication about, the environmental performance of that project or plan (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b: 4). Follow-up comprises four elements, each of which, it has been argued are important for an effective process (Figure 2.3).

11

1. Monitoring and Auditing the collection of data and comparison with standards, predictions or expectations. 2. Evaluation the appraisal of the conformance with standards, predictions, or expectations as well as the environmental performance of the activity. 3. Management making decisions and taking appropriate action in response to issues arising from monitoring and evaluation activities. 4. Communication informing the stakeholders as well as the general public about the results of EIA follow-up. Figure 2.3 The four elements of EIA follow-up. Adapted from Arts et al 2001 Follow-up is an important stage in EIA, as without it the usefulness of the process and the environmental outcomes of development activities will remain unknown (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a). Follow-up links the pre-decision and post decision stages of EIA, thereby overcoming the gap that can arise if there is a considerable difference between a projects plan (including the EIS) and its implementation (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). This is significant as ultimately it is the real effects on the environment and not the predicted impacts that are relevant, and follow-up provides an opportunity for these to be assessed and mitigated against if necessary (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). The rationale for completing followup is similar to that of EIA itself, understanding the uncertainties associated with a development (Arts et al 2001). There will often be uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, however follow-up provides a method of reducing these uncertainties in a systematic manner (Glasson 1994). Recent research has identified that follow-up can serve many purposes, although generally there is a common goal of improving EIA knowledge and practice. Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004b) have identified the various objectives of follow-up: Control of projects and their environmental impacts: Provides both verifying and controlling functions for implemented projects. Maintain decision-making flexibility and promote an adaptive management approach: Feedback allows project managers to respond when changes in an activity or in the environmental context warrant adaptation of current practices.

12

Enhance scientific and technical knowledge: Many tasks involved in EIA are grounded in scientific methods and follow-up can be used to assess the effectiveness of these tasks. Improve public awareness and acceptance: Ongoing programmes may improve public awareness about the actual effects of developments and thereby allay public concerns. Integration with other information: Programmes may dovetail with other environmental information programmes such as Environmental Management Systems and therefore contribute to a greater understanding of environmental effects.

These objectives emphasise the many different benefits of using follow-up, not only to improve the effectiveness of EIA, but also to improve the quality of the environment and therefore moving towards a more sustainable world. A further benefit of completing follow-up is the ability to assess whether the mitigation measures stated in the EIS have been undertaken and whether the measures have been successful in mitigating the environmental impacts (Glasson et al 1999). The prevention or reduction of environmental impacts of a development is regarded as one of the major benefits of EIA (IEMA 2004). Therefore, mitigation which involves taking measures to either reduce or remove identified impacts, for example landscaping to reduce visual impact or sound proofing to reduce noise impact (Bond 2000), is a very important part of the EIA process. In 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the US defined mitigation as a strategy comprising of five components (Figure 2.4), a system which is still widely accepted today. The identification of mitigating measures is part of the pre-decision stage of the EIA process and is one of the requirements of UK regulations (IEMA 2004). However, these 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimising impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact overtime by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Figure 2.4 Definition of mitigation. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1978 13

measures are of little or no value unless they are actually implemented and hence there is a clear link between mitigation and follow-up. Follow-up should include an assessment of mitigation effectiveness (Glasson et al 1999). The procedural and stepwise nature of most EIA systems means that there is a tendency for the final granting or refusal of a development consent to be perceived as the end point in the EIA process (Dipper et al 1998: 733). Research has commented on the fact that the emphasis in EIA has, all too often, been on the pre-decision stages and the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and, that it is used purely as a means of achieving development consent rather than as tool for achieving sound environmental management (Dipper et al 1998). As Sadler (1988) states, the paradox of EIA is that very little attention is paid to the environmental effects, which actually result from the development. As such, despite theory indicating that follow-up is an important stage in EIA, in most jurisdictions, there is little emphasis on comparing what was predicted with what really happened and on feeding the results of such exercises back into the EIA process (Dipper et al 1998). Feedback is essential in order to learn from experience (Glasson 1994) and develop knowledge with regard to the EIA process and in particular impact predictions and mitigation measures. Yet, in the UK, follow-up is only performed in a minority of cases. This means that, overall, in practice EIA remains a static and linear exercise, rather than becoming the dynamic and iterative process that is shown in theoretical perspectives. The absence of follow-up within most jurisdictions is often identified as the most critical weaknesses of EIA practice (Sadler 1996; Dipper et al 1998). Yet, academics have been recommending that post-decision monitoring should be formally recognised as an integral part of the EIA process since the 1980s (Beanlands and Duinker 1984). A Canadian study advised that EISs should provide as much rationale and technical detail for monitoring studies as for pre-decision studies and that for each EIA clear responsibilities should be established for conducting and reviewing monitoring programs (Beanlands and Duinker 1984). More recently, other studies have also suggested the introduction of monitoring and auditing to improve EIA effectiveness (Sadler 1996; Barker and Wood 1999). As attention to the importance of follow-up has increased, several jurisdictions have made provisions for some form of post-decision analysis (Morrison-Saunders et al 2003). For example, in 2002 amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act formalised 14

Canadas commitment to follow-up, making it a mandatory component of EIA practice (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a). The Act now states that where it is considered appropriate, the responsible authority for a project will design a follow-up program and ensure its implementation (Noble and Storey 2005). Under the Canadian Act, a follow-up program means a program for both verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a project and determining the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of a project (Noble and Storey 2005). The importance of follow-up has clearly been recognised in certain countries, however it has proved difficult to employ follow-up in practice (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). In Canada, followup has proved difficult for a number of reasons, including the use of vague, imprecise and untestable terms, such as slight reduction or minor effect making it difficult to evaluate and verify the accuracy of impact predictions (Noble and Storey 2005). Other reasons why followup has been difficult in practice have been summarised by Arts and Nootebloom (1999): 1. Uncertainty and limited information: Uncertainty during the pre-decision stages of EIA is often a principal reason for initiating follow-up. However, these uncertainties will not necessarily go away and may continue to pose difficulties post-decision. 2. Deficiencies in EISs: Inadequacies in EISs have been well documented and include problems with vague and qualitative impact predictions, extrapolation from little or no baseline monitoring or an absence of rigour with which projects are described and arguments constructed. 3. Lack of guidance: Currently there is little guidance on how to conduct follow-up studies. 4. Legislation deficiencies: Part of the reason why there is minimal guidance is because there are relatively few jurisdictions with a formal requirement for follow-up in place. 5. Demands on financial and staff resources: Follow-up requires considerable resources in terms of time, money and staffing in both developer and regulatory agencies. Recent research has also found that having regulations in place does not necessarily guarantee that follow-up occurs in practice. For example, despite having regulations making follow-up mandatory in the Netherlands, it has only occurred for 60 projects out of 800 since the introduction of the regulation (van Lamoen and Arts in Morrison-Saunders et al 2003). This suggests that alone the traditional command and control technique may not be sufficient for follow-up success (Morrison-Saunders et al 2003). 15

Where follow-up remains a non-mandatory stage of the EIA process, it is usually difficult to persuade developers that it is in their own interest to have a continuing approach to EIA (Glasson 1994). However, there is evidence to suggest that industry led initiatives have played a role in developing follow-up. In the UK, voluntarism and self-regulation in the form of environmental management systems (EMS) have been used successfully to drive follow-up activities (Marshall in Morrison-Saunders et al 2003). Nevertheless, in the UK it is difficult to assess the amount of follow-up that is taking place. A research study in the Impact Assessment Unit (IAU) at Oxford Brookes University estimated that approximately 30% of 675 EISs assessed included at least one reference to impact monitoring (Frost in Glasson 1994). In addition, they found that in practice EISs tended to understate the actual amount of monitoring that is carried out (Frost in Glasson 1994). However, this research does indicate that follow-up remains an under-utilised. In the European Union, Directive 85/337/EEC as amended does not include any follow-up requirements and this has led to the majority of member states, including the UK, paying little attention to follow-up in practice. However, this does not necessarily mean that EIA practices are unbalanced as many jurisdictions provide other ways, outside the EIA framework for dealing with follow-up (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). For example, permit compliance monitoring by proponents and authorities or area wide monitoring by authorities (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). In particular, the UK government argues that the wealth of environmental legislation, some of which requires monitoring, makes further regulation for EIA follow-up unnecessary (Frost 1997). Under the UK Environmental Protection Act 1990, integrated pollution control (IPC) operation consents will often require emissions monitoring and similarly licenses to discharge into water bodies may require monitoring under the Water Resources Act 1991 (Frost 1997). Despite this, there is still a question as to whether dealing with follow-up outside the framework of EIA is the most effective technique. It is argued that these piecemeal requirements for monitoring are no real substitute for EIA follow-up (Frost 1997). Plus, many will argue that when EIA is confined to the stages leading up to the consent decision, it may easily lose it relevance (Arts and Nootebloom 1999) and therefore it is important that EIA follow-up takes place. Recognition of the importance of the role of follow-up in EIA has been well established since the 1980s (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a). The original draft of Directive 85/337/EEC even included a requirement for monitoring and auditing, however after a lengthy consultation 16

period it was dropped from the final version (Frost 1997). Therefore, there is still a need for further investigation into the issue of follow-up. In particular, there is a need to examine the views of environmental professionals, who practice EIA to ascertain whether they feel that follow-up would lead to a more effective EIA process and as such, this provides further justification for this project. The objective and aims of this project will be discussed next, before chapter three outlines the methodology used in the research. 2.8 Objective and Aims The objective of this project is to assess whether improving the effectiveness of EIA in the UK is dependent on the use of follow-up. The project will be examined primarily from the view of environmental professionals, who work closely with EIA and will therefore have an insight into current EIA and follow-up practice in the UK. The aims of this project are as follows: To examine the current use of EIA and follow-up in the UK. To explore the views of environmental consultants with regard to follow-up. To assess the pros and cons of follow-up. To consider the future for follow-up in the UK.

17

Chapter 3 Research Methods 3.1 Methodology This project was conducted using an inductive research approach, which aimed to establish knowledge by objective, theory-free observations. This means that the data collected was objective and unbiased and the analysis tried to generalise from the findings (Bryman 2004). To achieve the aims a series of methodologies have been applied, the first of which involved a broad review of secondary data sources associated with EIA. It is crucial to frame any research within a literary context in order to identify where conclusions have already been reached and also to highlight where the focus of the research is required (i.e. gaps in knowledge) (Denscombe 1998; Taylor and Bogdan 1998; May 2001). This allowed for a greater understanding of EIA effectiveness and an assessment of current EIA practice in the UK. Then a more specific investigation into follow-up was carried out, which involved drawing on information from various academic and practical sources. The information obtained then helped the researcher to put together the questions for a questionnaire-based survey and interviews, which were the main sources of data for the project. 3.2 Questionnaires To explore the views of EIA practitioners a questionnaire-based survey was completed. Questionnaires are a commonly used method for research where a relatively large number of respondents are needed (Goodwin 2004). For this study, the questionnaire technique was used as it enabled the researcher to gain information from a large number of subjects and therefore make inferences from a wider population (Marshall and Rossman 1999; Silverman 2005). Care needs to be taken when devising a questionnaire in order to maximise the response rate. For example, closed questions with a range of pre-given answers give the impression that the questionnaire is simple to complete and may encourage the respondent to complete the survey (Denscombe 1998). Whereas a questionnaire which is lengthy and contains many open ended questions may limit the response rate. When using this technique the first factor to consider is who needs to be surveyed in order for the aims of the research to be achieved. In this case, environmental consultants who deal specifically with EIA will need to be questioned. Research into UK environmental consultancies 18

showed that over 400 deal with EIA. Further research and consideration of time constraints, then enabled a list of 130 potential consultants to be constructed. These consultants were then telephoned and asked if they would participate in the survey. The majority of consultants agreed to take part and were consequently sent a carefully worded letter explaining the research and the questionnaire to complete (Appendix 1). The second factor to consider is the questionnaire, which will be sent out to respondents. The questionnaire was constructed both to assess current use of follow-up in the UK and to explore views regarding EIA effectiveness and follow-up. The questionnaire was divided into three sections; the first section included general questions about the consultant to find out their experience in EIA. Section two assessed the strengths and weaknesses of EIA practice in the UK, before section three went on to discuss follow-up. This final section was separated into two in order to include questions for consultants who had dealt with follow-up and those who had not. Those who had completed follow-up were asked about their experiences of the process, including why it was being undertaken and the problems they had experienced. Whereas those who had not completed follow-up were asked why the process was not being undertaken and whether they felt it would benefit a selection of EIA stakeholders. The questionnaire was tested to check its usefulness and reliability before being sent to all respondents. A time frame of four weeks was set before data analysis would begin in order to maximise the response rate. 3.3 Interviews To further investigate the views of consultants a set of telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews are a commonly used method for explorative research that seeks to either discover respondents own interpretations of the area under discussion or look for reasons when developing theories rather than proving or disproving a hypothesis. For this study, interviews were used to gather more in depth information, once the questionnaire survey had been completed. It is recognised that being asked questions by a neutral listener is generally more rewarding for respondents, because it gives them the chance to explain situations and attitudes in their own words rather than in a pre-determined format (Seale and Filmer 1998). Therefore, a better quality of response can normally be expected. However, it is important that the researcher considers interviewer bias, when the interviewer influences the respondents replies by revealing their own opinions or through the line of questioning (Seale and Filmer 1998). 19

When using this technique the first factor to consider is who needs to be interviewed. In this case, similar to the questionnaires, interviews were needed with environmental consultants who deal specifically with EIA. As part of the questionnaire each of the respondents were asked whether they would be willing to be interviewed as part of the research process. Of the 50 questionnaire respondents 20 agreed to be interviewed. were included in the interview process. The second factor to consider is the interview guide (see Appendix 2). This guide was constructed both to substantiate the questionnaire findings and to gain a greater understanding of consultants views with regard to EIA current practice and follow-up. Two interview guides were devised, the first for those who had previously completed follow-up and the second for those who had not (as identified in the questionnaire). Both of the guides were divided into five sections, with four of the five sections the same for each. The opening section, which was used partly as an icebreaker, developed a greater knowledge of the consultants experience of EIA. Section two discussed current practice in the UK. Section three was different for the two guides, for those who had completed follow-up, experience of follow-up was assessed. Whereas for those who had not completed follow-up, knowledge of follow-up was assessed. Section four discussed the costs and benefits of follow-up before section five discussed the future of follow-up and EIA effectiveness. The interview guide was revised slightly after the first interview because a pilot interview could not be conducted on a dummy respondent. Thirteen interviews took place over a two-week period. Each of the interviews lasted between 15 and 30 minutes and responses were recorded in note format. 3.4 Data Analysis Analysis of the questionnaires was completed by using a series of simple statistical techniques, for example, common responses to each question were expressed as a percentage of the total number of responses, which then allowed for comparisons. In the majority of the cases, the results for each question did not add up to 100% due to the respondents selecting more than one option for the same question. Comparisons were completed between level of EIA experience, follow-up experience and size of consultancy. Analysis of the interviews was completed by searching the interviews notes for information associated with current EIA and follow-up practice, the pros and cons of follow-up and the future. 20 In order to gain a better understanding of follow-up, both respondents who had completed follow-up and who had not

3.5 Limitations There are several limitations of the research methodology used to complete this project. Firstly, the use of questionnaires is limiting due to the depth of information that can be obtained. However, this limitation was reduced by completing a series of telephone interviews in order to gain a more in depth understanding of the subject. Secondly, time constraints limited the number of consultants who could be surveyed and although it is possible using an inductive research approach to make inferences from the wider population, a larger sample size would improve the quality of the data. 3.6 Ethical Considerations When completing any research project involving human participants it is important to consider ethics. For this project, it was important to recognise that the questionnaire respondents and interviewees were affiliated to different consultancies and therefore it was important to consider how the research may affect their activities. Therefore, the individual respondents are not named or made identifiable in the final report. The participants were also offered the right to withdraw at any stage of the research. This chapter has reviewed the methods used to complete this research, in particular the use of questionnaires and telephone interviews. It has also considered how the data was analysed, limitations and issues relating to ethical considerations. The next chapter is going to discuss the key issues that the data analysis has highlighted.

21

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 Themes Analysis of the questionnaire responses and interview notes has highlighted a variety of issues that will be discussed in this chapter. For many years, literature has commented on the role of EIA and its effectiveness (Glasson 1996; Sadler 1996; Weston 2002) and this will be discussed here in relation to current practice in the UK. Then the current level of follow-up in the UK will be assessed, before the pros and cons of follow-up to consultants, to developers, to the decision-makers and to the environment will be discussed. The analysis begins by discussing both the questionnaire and interview response rate. Then a general description of the respondents will be given, before the key themes are examined. 4.2 Response Rates Out of the 116 questionnaires sent out via post, fax and email 50 were sent back within the four-week time frame set out in the methodology. This is a response rate of 43%, which can be considered successful, as there is much literature, which discusses the problem of poor rates of response. Of the 20 questionnaire respondents who said that they would be willing to be interviewed as part of this research, 13 were available to be interviewed during the 2-week time frame. This gives a response rate of 65%, which is higher than the questionnaire response rate. 4.3 Description of Respondents 4.3.1 Questionnaire Respondents The 50 questionnaire respondents worked for 33 environmental consultancies based in UK. The size of the consultancies covered a wide range from those employing four consultants through to one employing 1940. Respondents were spread evenly over these consultancies with employees in the range of 0-25, 26-100 and 101-250 (13 respondents (26%) from each band). The remaining 11 (22%) worked in consultancies employing 251+ consultants. The level of EIA experience exhibited by the respondents is fairly evenly spread, with 14 having worked as an environmental consultant for 0-5 years, 17 worked for 6-10 years and 19 worked 22

for 10+ years. The respondents spent different amounts of their work time on EIA (Figure 4.1), however there is no correlation between the length of time spent as a consultant and proportion of work time spent on EIA. The consultants were asked the number of EIAs in which they have been involved with in the last three years. The majority (36%) of the respondents had been involved in 1-5 EIAs and only five had been involved with more than 16 EIAs in the last three years.

24%

28%

0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

28% 20%

Figure 4.1 Proportion of respondents work time spent undertaking EIA. Questionnaire Survey 2005 The majority of respondents are involved in all the stages of the EIA process. For example, over 80% are involved in baseline studies, impact prediction, mitigation proposals and presentation of findings and over 90% are involved in scoping. Ten of the respondents (20%) are involved in project management and/or co-ordination. A total of 19 respondents (38%) stated that they are involved in monitoring. However, this does not correspond to the number who are involved in follow-up. In fact, 62% of respondents stated that they had been involved with EIA follow-up. The respondents are involved in a wide range of environmental components when undertaking EIA (Figure 4.2). Ecology and water are the most common specialities with 17 (34%) of the respondents undertaking both. Other specialities listed by the respondents included project management and co-ordination, flood defence, lighting and archaeology.

23

40 35 30 % of Respondents 25 20 15 10 5 0 Air Quality Ecology Landscape Noise Socioeconomic Environmental Components Soils Transport Water Other

Figure 4.2 Respondents EIA environmental specialities. Questionnaire Survey 2005 The respondents have experience of EIA preparation in a wide range of industry sectors (Figure 4.3). Over 50% of respondents have experience in the housing, transport and energy sectors. Other sectors include mixed use, leisure, business and retail.

70 60 50 % of Respondents 40 30 20 10 0 Agriculture Energy Chemical Housing Minerals Sectors Transport Waste Water Other

Figure 4.3 Respondents sectoral experience in EIA preparation. Questionnaire Survey 2005

24

4.3.2 Interviewees The 13 interviewees worked for 12 environmental consultancies based in the UK. The size of the consultancies covered ranges from those employing 15 consultants through to 1940. Three interviews were conducted with consultants who are employed by consultancies with 0-25 staff, 26-100 staff and 101-250 staff. Four interviews were conducted with consultants who are employed by consultancies with over 251 staff. The level of experience exhibited by the interviewees, similarly to the questionnaire respondents, was fairly evenly spread (Table 4.1). However, the percentage of those interviewed who have been working as an environmental consultant for 10+ years is higher than that of the questionnaire respondents. The respondents spent different amounts of their work time on EIA, however the trend follows that of the questionnaire respondents with the majority of the interviewees spending either 0-25% or 51-75%. Similarly to the questionnaire respondents, few interviewees had been involved with 16+ EIAs in the last 3 years. The majority (46%) have been involved with 6-10 EIAs. The level of training interviewees have received regarding EIA varies with seven (54%) having completed a related MSc, two (15%) having received formal on the job training and five (38%) having had no formal training. Of the interviewees, 54% are IEMA members, with 31% as associates (AIEMA) and 23% as full members (MIEMA). Table 4.1 Interviewee experience of EIA. Questionnaire Survey 2005 No. of years as an environmental consultant 0-5 6-10 10+ No. of EIAs involved with in the last 3 years 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+ No. of Interviewees 3 4 6 No. of Interviewees 3 6 3 1 % of Interviewees 23% 31% 46% % of Interviewees 23% 46% 23% 8%

25

The majority of the interviewees are involved in all stages of the EIA process, with over 80% being involved in scoping, baseline studies, impact prediction and mitigation proposals. Six of the interviewees (46%) are involved with project management and this is a higher percentage than that of the questionnaire respondents. A total of six respondents (46%) stated that they are involved in monitoring, however this does not correspond to the number who are involved in follow-up. In fact, 54% of respondents stated that they had been involved with EIA follow-up. The interviewees are involved in a wide range of environmental components when undertaking EIA. Air quality and noise are the most common specialities with five (38%) of the interviewees undertaking both. The interviewees also have experience of EIA preparation in a wide range of industry sectors. Energy is the most common sector, with 11 (85%) of those interviewed having experience in this field. 4.4 EIA in the UK 4.4.1 Role of EIA When EIA was first introduced into the UK in 1985, many individuals were critical of the process and the way in which it was simply added on to the existing planning system (Weston 1997). The regulations were often criticised for lacking depth and allowing a minimalist culture to develop when conducting EIA (Lambert and Wood 1990). Much literature has discussed the problem of EIA practice simply being a tick box exercise, completed only to achieve development consent (e.g. Dipper et al 1998). This may still be an issue as a number of consultants (16%) stated that the main purpose of EIA is to achieve development consent. When the EIA process is purely used as a means of achieving planning consent and therefore focusing on the pre-decision stage, it is not being used to its full potential. In theory, EIA is an iterative process, which benefits greatly from feedback as it enables uncertainties and gaps in knowledge to be filled, lessons to be learnt and environmental impacts to be controlled (Glasson 1994; Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). However, 32% of the consultants surveyed thought that the main purpose of EIA was reducing the environmental impacts of developments. This is an encouraging sign of EIA practice in the UK, as it highlights that many consultants are aware of the theory behind the process. This is beneficial as it may mean that EIA becomes less of a tick box exercise as, over time, consultants may educate stakeholders, including developers and the local planning authorities,

26

of the benefits of undertaking the complete EIA process. Six of the seven interviewees, who had completed follow-up, stated that they had on occasions highlighted the need of follow-up to the developer. Common statements included yes not on every issue but on environmentally sensitive and politically sensitive issues and yes to ensure mitigation measures are carried forward. One interviewee said that they had even told the LPA that follow-up should be included. This perceived informal education of stakeholders may, in the future, lead to improved effectiveness through the completion of an EIA process, which goes beyond that of merely increasing the likelihood of planning consent. It is important to highlight that data analysis from the study indicated that there seems to be a change in consultants views of the main purpose of EIA depending on the length of time that they have been an environmental consultant. A larger percentage of the consultants who have been working for more than 10 years, view achieving development consent as the main purpose of EIA. On the other hand, a greater percentage of those who have been working for less than 10 years stated that reducing environmental impacts is the main purpose (Table 4.2). This could be related to the change in EIA culture that has occurred in the UK (Weston 2002). However, it could also be linked to the greater awareness of EIA, partly due to the growing number of higher education students taking courses in the process and gaining employment in the consultancy sector. Ten courses taught at nine institutions have an EIA focus and teach more than 200 students per year, while 53 courses have some component of EIA (possibly optional) and teach more than 500 students per year at another 29 institutions (Bond 2003). This increased level of expertise in the whole EIA process, which is spreading throughout consultancies in the UK, may in the future lead to greater informal education of stakeholders. Previous experience has shown that environmental professionals have had an influence on the Table 4.2 The main purpose of EIA. Questionnaire Survey 2005 Main purpose of EIA Achieving development consent Aid to decision-making Helping the developer Reducing environmental impacts Instrument for sustainable development 0-5 years as consultant 7% 21% 0% 43% 14% 6-10 years as consultant 6% 12% 0% 35% 6% 10+ years as consultant 31% 26% 0% 21% 5%

27

early stages of EIA, in particular pushing forward sustainability principles in design (Brookes and Miller 2003). Therefore, it may be possible on the post-decision stages of the process as well. The concept of EIA reducing the environmental impacts of developments has therefore been highlighted by a significant minority of the consultants surveyed as a key purpose of the process. On the other hand, 20% stated that the main purpose of EIA was as an aid to decision-making. Within the best practice principles set out by the IAIA (1999), the objectives of EIA include avoiding or minimising adverse impacts on the environment, and ensuring that environmental considerations are included in decision-making. Incorporating environmental considerations, alongside economic and social ones, has been an important part of decisionmaking since the concept of sustainability emerged in the late 1980s. Following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, sustainable development became a major global ideal and governments worldwide have identified it as an overarching goal for society (Crosbie and Knight 1995). In order to achieve sustainability, economic, social and environmental imperatives must all be considered (DeSimone and Popoff 2000), which is therefore why EIA is such an important part of the planning process. EIA provides a systematic examination of the environmental implications of a proposed development before a decision is taken (Glasson et al 1999). In particular, the EIS can be considered by the decision-maker along with other documentation related to the planning activity (Glasson et al 1999). For example, documents that outline the economic and social considerations. Glasson et al (1999) state that the ultimate role of EIA is as an instrument to help achieve sustainable development, which considering that it seems to ensure that the environment is included in the decision-making process of major development projects is achievable. However, there is still much debate as to how effective EIA actually is at contributing to sustainability (Figure 4.4). Of the consultants surveyed as part of this research 36% (18) agreed that current EIA practice is effective in contributing to sustainable development, compared with only 8% (4) who disagree. However, there is only a limited amount of follow-up currently being conducted despite the fact that it is seen as vital for providing the information needed to ensure an environmentally sustainable development (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). It can be argued that although completing EIA is a move towards achieving more sustainable development, there is a need to extend current practice to include an increased amount of follow-up. As to achieve sustainable outcomes the consequences of 28

50 40 % of Respondents 30 20 10 0

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Figure 4.4 Respondents opinion of EIAs ability to contribute to sustainable development. Questionnaire Survey 2005 decisions taken must be investigated, communicated and acted upon as necessary (MorrisonSaunders and Arts 2004a). 4.4.2 EIA Effectiveness The strengths and weaknesses of current practice are a good indication of where EIA could be extended in order to enhance the role of EIA and improve effectiveness. EIA having a good basis in legislation is considered one of the main strengths of current practice in the UK, with 68% (34) of the consultants surveyed highlighting it as significant. Despite literature criticising the way in which the EIA process was adjusted to fit within the existing planning system (e.g. Weston 1997), this indicates that, if and when improvements are made to EIA in the UK, then it may be possible to simply extend existing regulations. A further strength identified by 52% (26) of respondents, is that EIA in the UK involves a variety of components. This is beneficial as it means that EISs will be normally be comprehensive, covering a significant number of environmental variables. However, to ensure an effective process all of the variables included should be dealt with evenly and to a similar degree of complexity. Inadequate consideration of alternatives was highlighted by 40% (20) of the consultants, as a weakness of current practice followed by 34% (17) highlighting the limited consideration of cumulative impacts. However, quite surprisingly, lack of post-decision monitoring was highlighted by 60% (30) of the consultants surveyed as one of the main weaknesses of current 29

practice in the UK. Although there is much academic literature discussing EIA follow-up, there has been little evidence to suggest that it is a major concern among practitioners. However, the survey completed as part of this research indicates that it is a weakness that UK consultants recognise (Figure 4.5). The view that follow-up is a significant weakness, is the same regardless of the level of consultant experience or the size of the consultancy and this indicates that it is an across-the-board concern of many consultants.
There is no requirement for post-decision monitoring which I think is a serious flaw, as

the EIA assumes the implementation of mitigation measures. consultancy.

Questionnaire

Respondent with less than 5 years experience, working for a large environmental

The developer just wants planning permission and pays lip service to the EIA process. Questionnaire respondent with more than 10 years experience, working for a small environmental consultancy. I find that the majority of clients and LPAs tend to work on the basis that once approval is gained the EIA process is complete, someone might monitor planning conditions but even that doesnt happen that often. Interviewee with more than 10 years experience, working for a large environmental consultancy. The ultimate goal is to get planning permission.. little interest in finding out the actual impacts or whether section 106 has been implemented accordingly. Interviewee with 610 years experience, working for a very large environmental consultancy. EIA is simply a point in time exercise. Interviewee with more than 10 years experience, working for a very large environmental consultancy. Figure 4.5 Selected comments regarding lack of follow-up in the UK. Survey 2005 Literature highlights that there are three main purposes of EIA and that the process can be seen as an effective environmental management tool is it achieves these purposes (Glasson et al 1999). As part of this research, consultants were asked whether they feel that current practice is effective at helping decision-makers, helping developers and contributing to sustainable development. Of the respondents, 80% (40) agreed or strongly agreed that EIA is 30

effective at helping decision-makers. Compared with 58% (29) who agreed or strongly agreed that EIA is effective at helping developers and 44% who agreed who strongly agreed that EIA is effective at contributing to sustainable development. Therefore, there is a general feeling among those consultants surveyed that EIA in the UK is effective at achieving its main purposes. However, there are still weaknesses of current practice, in particular lack of followup, which will be discussed further over the next few sections. 4.5 Follow-up in the UK 4.5.1 Current Practice In the UK, current EIA practice is often criticised for being focused on the pre-decision stage of the process (e.g. Glasson 1999). This may change when the EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE) is introduced into the UK in the next few years (discussed in section 4.8.2). Yet, of the consultants surveyed as part of this research, 62% (31) stated that they had been involved with follow-up activities after planning consent had been achieved. This result is unexpected given the amount of literature discussing the limited use of follow-up. However, all of the interviewees who had completed follow-up said that they spent less than 10% of their time undertaking follow-up activities. This indicates that although a significant number of consultants may complete follow-up, they do not spend much of their time doing it. Of those who have completed follow-up 80% (25) have completed monitoring (i.e. the collection of data (Arts et al 2001)), 39% (12) have completed auditing (i.e. the comparison of monitoring data with standards or predictions (Arts et al 2001)) and 58% (18) have completed management. However, only 13% (4) have completed evaluation, which involves the appraisal of the conformance with standards or predictions, as well as the environmental performance of the activity (Arts et al 2001). This low percentage could be related to an inadequate understanding of this specific expression or simply that this stage in the follow-up process is only infrequently completed. It is encouraging that a number of those questioned have undertaken management as part of their follow-up activities. This stage involves making decisions and taking appropriate actions in response to issues arising from monitoring and evaluation activities (Arts et al 2001) and is important because it is only at this stage that the real (and not the predicted) effects on the environment will be mitigated. However, it is important to highlight that, despite this positive 31

finding, a significant minority of consultants have not completed this element of follow-up. This a concern because although there appears to be some link between the pre-decision and postdecision stages of the EIA process, i.e. a significant amount of monitoring being undertaken, it is vital that this data collected is utilised to its full potential. For example, managing any issues that have been highlighted and feeding back into future EIA. As part of this research, those consultants who had completed follow-up activities were asked why the follow-up was being undertaken. The main reason given, by 80% (25) of respondents, was that it was a requirement of planning consent. This is hardly surprising given current regulations, which do not require the developer to undertake any follow-up unless it is stated as a planning condition or obligation. However, of those questioned 68% (21) highlighted that the follow-up was being completed to ensure that mitigation measures are undertaken. This is positive as it indicates awareness of the importance of ensuring mitigation is completed to achieve the EIS predictions. As part of the interviews, those who had not completed follow-up were asked why they had never been involved in such activities. The common response was that they had never been commissioned to undertake it. The client-consultant relationship in the UK is such that the developer commissions a consultancy to undertake an EIA for them. Therefore, the developer is always in control of the process and the length of time the consultants are retained. One interviewee stated, the majority of developers work on the basis that once planning approval is gained the process is over and the consultants can be discharged. Consequently, follow-up is infrequently completed, probably due to the additional costs it would place on the developer. Despite literature emphasising the need for follow-up, it does recognise that it has been difficult to undertake in practice (Arts and Nootebloom 1999). As part of this research, consultants who had completed follow-up were asked whether they had experienced any problems. Of the respondents, 65% said limited financial resources, 42% said limited time, 16% said vague/qualitative impact predictions and 13% said lack of guidance. Unsurprisingly, the issue of cost was identified as the commonest problem, with developers unwilling to spend much money on the process.

32

4.5.2 Training and Guidelines During their time as practitioners, most consultants will complete training related to different parts of the EIA process, for example of the interviewees 62% had undertaken some EIA training. However, none had completed any training specifically related to follow-up. (Although, 5 (38%) had completed some technical training for example in noise, air quality, or groundwater monitoring.) This extremely low level of follow-up training is hardly surprising given current UK EIA regulations, which make no mention of follow-up. In addition, it could be linked to the limited amount of time that consultants spend completing follow-up activities and therefore special training not being of commercial or practical benefit. Similarly, none of the interviewees stated that their consultancy has follow-up guidelines. Most said that when they complete follow-up they follow IEMA guidelines, regulator requirements or technical guidelines for individual assessments, such as air or noise. This could also be attributed to the limited work time consultants spend on follow-up. There is much academic literature that highlights the benefits of follow-up activities (e.g. Arts et al 2001; Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b; Noble and Storey 2005); the following section is going to highlight the pros and cons of follow-up as seen by EIA practitioners. 4.6 Pros of Follow-up 4.6.1 For Consultants For the EIA practitioners surveyed as part of this research there are a variety of benefits to be gained from undertaking follow-up. Naturally, there are commercial benefits to be gained from follow-up activities, for example in terms of increased fees and long-term contracts. A number of the practitioners surveyed highlighted this, with statements such as its a lucrative area of work so we want to be involved and its commercially of benefit to achieve follow-up.. it adds an extra phase to a project. However, these statements were always accompanied with other benefits. For example, one interviewee talked of being satisfied ethically, both as a consultant and as an individual, as it was a way of ensuring the controls that had been recommended were implemented. Another said, it was the peace of mind knowing your hard work has done something.

33

Feeding back information that is learnt from activities, such as monitoring, is one of the key reasons for completing follow-up (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). The practitioners surveyed felt that this was one of the main benefits of follow-up to consultants. Of the questionnaire respondents who had completed follow-up, 71% (22) thought follow-up had helped to improve their knowledge, 55% (17) indicated that it provided a verification of predictions and 55% (17) stated that it helped to improve prediction techniques. This will all hopefully lead to improved effectiveness, as the consultants who have completed follow-up extend their knowledge and ability in undertaking EIA and subsequently share their experience with other colleagues. A significant number of the consultants surveyed believe that one of the main benefits of followup to them as practitioners is to assess the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures (Figure 4.6). Mitigation, which involves taking measures to either reduce or remove identified impacts (Bond 2000), is a very important part of the EIA process. EISs will usually include many measures that will need to be implemented otherwise the EIA findings will not be Follow-up improves knowledge of mitigation measures. Questionnaire Respondent with more than 10 years experience, working for a small environmental consultancy. It makes sure that mitigation is carried out. Questionnaire Respondent with less than 5 years experience, working for a very large environmental consultancy. Follow-up is important to check mitigation measures are being implemented and effective. Interviewee with less than 5 years experience, working for a medium size environmental consultancy. If mitigation measures are shown to be successful, they can be used in subsequent EIAs. Questionnaire Respondent with less than 5 years experience, working for a large environmental consultancy. Follow-up is there is to put right mitigation measures that havent worked. Interviewee with more than 10 years experience, working for a large environmental consultancy. Figure 4.6 Selected comments regarding mitigation. Survey 2005 34

achieved. The consultants surveyed agreed that follow-up provides a good means of a assessing whether the measures drawn up in the EIS have been implemented and whether they are being effective. This is important as it gives the consultants a chance to see whether their recommendations are working and consequently feed this information into their future work. 4.6.2 For the Developer Literature has commented on the benefits to be gained from completing follow-up for the developer, for example protection from liability, maintaining community acceptance, better project management and establishing a green profile (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004b). From the view of the consultants questioned as part of this research, there are a variety of benefits to be gained from a developer commissioning follow-up activities. One important benefit highlighted is the ability to ensure that they meet any planning obligations or section 106 agreements set on obtaining planning consent. It is important that developers abide by all conditions, which are set, otherwise they may be served a breach of condition notice (DOE 1995). Therefore, undertaking EIA follow-up is a way of avoiding any conflict with the LPA. A further benefit identified was to gain general kudos for being environmentally friendly, which is good because it shows local communities and planners that they are committed to the environment. Being environmentally responsible is increasingly seen as important for companies, as it is likely that environmental considerations will form an integral part of commercial normality and competitiveness in the future (Welford 1998). Therefore, completing follow-up activities, such as continual monitoring, can be of benefit to the developer in terms of image. name. The final benefit identified for the developers is concerned with reviewing the effectiveness of EIA recommendations (including mitigation measures). It is thought that developers can benefit over the long-term as tried and tested mitigation is developed. This is because it should reduce the cost of implementing mitigation schemes. In addition, it should guarantee that the measures will be effective; therefore ensuring money spent on reducing environmental impacts is not being wasted. 35 Related to this, one respondent stated that follow-up could reduce neighbour complaints and avoid environmental catastrophes, which could ruin the developers company

4.6.3 For the Decision-maker The consultants surveyed as part of this research identified the ability to ensure that the developer is complying with any planning conditions as the main benefit of follow-up to the decision-maker (i.e. the LPA). EIA follow-up can provide a systematic way in which the monitoring of planning conditions can be achieved. In addition, other follow-up activities (such as management) will allow any issues identified to be rectified. A further benefit identified by one respondent was comfort that environmental controls are being independently audited. This is good for the LPA as it means that they can verify that the planning conditions they are setting are environmentally sound. Follow-up is the most effective way of evaluating the appropriateness of planning consent because it enables the LPA to assess whether they made the correct decision and/or whether they set appropriate planning conditions. One questionnaire respondent stated, it ensures that correct decisions are made. It is important for the LPA to make correct decisions regarding planning, as they may come under fire from their constituents if any problems occur. Therefore, follow-up is essential for the LPA if they are to assess and improve their decisionmaking skills. 4.6.4 For the Environment If follow-up is completed following best practice principles, there are many benefits to the environment. The most important of which is the idea that it is not the predicted impacts that are being assessed and mitigated against but the actual ones. This is advantageous because it means that the impacts on the environment are prevented or reduced. One interviewee said, the benefit doesnt accrue to us consultants but to the environment.. follow-up is there to put right mitigation measures that havent worked. In addition, given the amount of uncertainty that surrounds EIA follow-up is beneficial to the environment as it enables action to be taken if unexpected problems occur. To summarise, the practitioners surveyed as part of this research have identified many benefits of follow-up to consultants, developers, decision-makers and to the environment. In fact, the majority of those surveyed believe that increased follow-up activity would improve current EIA

36

practice in the UK and ultimately improve EIA effectiveness. The following section will discuss the disadvantages of follow-up highlighted by the consultants surveyed. 4.7 Cons of Follow-up 4.7.1 For Consultants There are no immediately obvious disadvantages of completing follow-up for consultants and many of the interviewees could not identify any problems if the use of follow-up was extended. For example, one interviewee stated we do it already, it would become more common and that cant be a bad thing. Nevertheless, a small number of disadvantages for consultants were identified. For instance, due to the longevity of the work, it would be difficult to price and plan it in advance and this would make drawing up accurate contracts difficult. In addition, a significant minority of questionnaire respondents (28%) believe that if follow-up was to be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process it would lead to increased costs for consultants. However, it is unlikely that this increase would be substantial, as the majority of follow-up costs would undoubtedly be passed on to the developer. One further disadvantage identified that could be associated with consultants, but also developers and the decision-makers, is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy to an already complicated planning system. This may mean that planning decisions take longer and the system becomes more complicated. Also, there are questions over who would deal with the information collected during follow-up. One interviewee said they had recently completed follow-up monitoring but the local LPA did not want to receive the information. This is a problem because follow-up is only useful if the information collected is acted upon. 4.7.2 For the Developer At present, the financial burden of any follow-up activities undertaken is the responsibility of the developer. Therefore, unsurprisingly the majority of consultants surveyed as part of this research (94%) believe that if follow-up was to be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process it would lead to increased costs for developers. One interviewee even said it is possible that the resource and cost implications could stop development due to the amount of monitoring

37

that would have to be undertaken. The issue of follow-up costs is therefore understandably likely to be a major issue for developers. 4.7.3 For the Decision-maker The main disadvantage of an increased amount of follow-up activity for the decision-maker (i.e. the LPA) is the requirement for a long-term commitment to be made for each development, in order to ensure that the follow-up takes place. Currently, the LPA has an obligation to ensure that any conditions set out in the planning consent are undertaken. However, an increase in follow-up would likely lead to pressure on the decision-maker to assess information collected during monitoring and request action to be taken. This would lead to an increased workload for LPA departments and the need for training to undertake such activities. 4.7.4 For the Environment There appear to be no disadvantages to the environment of completing follow-up as part of the EIA process, especially if it is completed following best practice principles. However, one interviewee commented that if it is mandatory and developers know they will have to complete follow-up they may put constraints on what is put into the EIS so that they do not have to monitor as many variables. This is not good for the environment because there may be a reduction in environmental components included in an EIA and therefore some areas of the environment, which are being systematically covered, now may be ignored. However, this may resolved by tightening up scoping, i.e. making the stage mandatory, in order to ensure that all significant impacts are included. To summarise, the consultants surveyed as part of this research have identified a number of disadvantages of completing follow-up. The final section is going to discuss the future for follow-up activities in the UK.

38

4.8 The Future for Follow-up 4.8.1 Making Follow-up Mandatory In some jurisdictions around the world, follow-up has been made a mandatory stage in the EIA process. For example, in Canada the responsible authority has to design a follow-up program and ensure its implementation (Noble and Storey 2005). The consultants interviewed as part of this research were asked their views of extending the EIA process in the UK and making it a mandatory stage in the EIA process. The argument used by the UK government for not needing follow-up due to extensive environmental regulation outside the EIA framework (Frost 1997), was supported by one of the interviewees, who stated that, follow-up is done but through other angles.. there are sufficient controls elsewhere. This may be true. However, in reality one of the main reasons for follow-up is to ensure that mitigation measures are being implemented and are effective and this is not covered by other regulation. In addition, as follow-up has been identified by consultants as a means of enhancing their EIA skills, it could be important as a way of improving overall EIA effectiveness. However, one interviewee was unsure about how much extra consultants will gain from increased follow-up, there is a lot out there already, you can learn just from doing EIA and all the guidance that is available. This is clearly an important point because it could be seen as more appropriate to use information already available, such as guidance, than to spend time and money collecting new data. Several of the consultants were concerned over who would pay for the follow-up activity. Including one interviewee who said, in the real world making it mandatory would force the developer to spend much more money.. it would put a significant burden on the developer. This indicates that if follow-up it to be made mandatory then there needs to be a degree of practicality in the regulation. For example, only being mandatory for developments with significant impacts or where there is lots of uncertainty or where mitigation measures need to be implemented. Case by case consideration would also lessen the concerns of another interviewee who did not want to see follow-up made mandatory, as they were worried, it would become overused and not completed properly. However, the majority of those interviewed only had positive things to say about follow-up being extended and made mandatory. Statements such as, it can only be a good thing, it will add credibility to the whole process, it should be made mandatory otherwise it will just be 39

ignored and it would be taken more seriously by developers indicate a general positive feeling towards the idea. In particular, the consultants wanted the use of follow-up to be extended to deal more effectively with mitigation. One interviewee said that, if there are mitigation measures to be put in place then follow-up has to be done otherwise the EIA is just a paper exercise. At the moment, the consultants just have to assume that the LPAs are dealing with mitigation and following through the planning conditions. However, a number of the consultants surveyed were concerned about the extent to which LPAs enforce their planning conditions. This is a significant problem as it reduces the overall effectiveness of the EIA process and the planning process, before the concept of follow-up is even considered. Many of the consultants surveyed also felt that follow-up should be extended to allow the verification of the their predictions, with the aim of improving their prediction techniques. Accurate techniques and subsequently accurate predictions will benefit all involved in the EIA process, as it should help to ensure correct planning decision are made. However, one interviewee who agrees that follow-up should be made mandatory thinks that it will require a change to the current planning system, as it will be difficult to enforce if it is just attached on to the current regulations. For example, it is likely if the regulation is simply extended the LPA will be asked to implement and enforce follow-up. However, given current criticism (by the respondents) of their ability to enforce planning conditions this may not be reliable. Therefore, there is an indication that improved EIA effectiveness through follow-up can only be achieved if enforcement of planning regulations is increased. 4.8.2 The Environmental Liability Directive The EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE) came into force in April 2004 and the UK has until April 2007 to incorporate the provisions into national law. The Directive is aimed at preventing environmental damage by forcing industrial polluters (operators) to pay prevention and remediation costs (Environment Agency 2005). The Directive will apply to environmental damage, or the imminent threat of damage, caused by the operation of certain activities including installations covered by IPPC, waste management and transportation of dangerous goods (EU 2004). Essentially, the Directive will increase operators environmental liability exposure and therefore developers will have to pay much more attention to their environmental impacts. Currently, the Directive has not been translated into national legislation

40

as it is still in the consultation phase and therefore the final impacts remain unclear. However, it is likely that it will have an impact on the use of follow-up in the UK. Several of the interviewees spoken to as part of this research, highlighted that they predict that the implementation of the Directive will have a significant impact on follow-up. One interviewee believes that developers will be responsible for ensuring mitigation measures are effective, which will put pressure on consultants to be accurate in their recommendations. Another indicated that it will lead to much more EIA upfront and a lot more monitoring so that the developer can be reduce their liability. Therefore, although the impacts of the Environmental Liability Directive remain unclear at the moment, it is likely that it will extend the use of followup in the UK. 4.9 Summary The results and discussion have highlighted current opinion about the effectiveness of EIA in the UK and the potential impacts that increased follow-up activities could have on the process. The respondents identified a number of pros and cons of completing follow-up for consultants, developers, decision-makers and the environment. The final chapter is going to consider whether extending the use of follow-up would help to improve EIA effectiveness.

41

Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Would extending the use of follow-up make EIA more effective? This final chapter is going to assess whether the aims of this project have been achieved and in addition, examine whether extending the use of follow-up in the UK would lead to improved EIA effectiveness. The chapter will then conclude by highlighting various areas where future research may be undertaken. While assessing current EIA and follow-up practice in the UK, a number of key conclusions were highlighted. There is a general feeling among those surveyed that EIA is effective at achieving it main purposes of helping decision-makers, helping developers and contributing to sustainable development. However, the consultants surveyed as part of this research identified several main weaknesses of current EIA practice, including lack of post-decision monitoring. This is significant as although there is much academic literature discussing the lack of followup, there has been little evidence to suggest it is a major concern among practitioners. In total, the views of 50 consultants were explored, with 13 being involved in more in depth telephone interviews. This allowed for a good insight into current views of EIA and follow-up practice in the UK. The pros and cons of follow-up for consultants, developers, decision-makers and the environment were assessed while exploring the views of the environmental consultants. This has enabled an examination of whether extending the use of follow-up would lead to improved EIA effectiveness and this will now be achieved by examining the benefits of follow-up to EIA effectiveness and then the costs. One of the major benefits of follow-up highlighted by the consultants is the ability to assess the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures. The prevention or reduction of environmental impacts is regarded as one of the major benefits of EIA (IEMA 2004). Therefore, successful mitigation, which involves taking measures to reduce or remove identified impacts (Bond 2000), is essential for effective EIA. In fact, the ultimate purpose of EIA is to help to achieve sustainable development (Glasson et al 1999) and this can only be achieved if the consequences of decisions are investigated and acted upon as necessary (Morrison-Saunders and Arts 2004a). Follow-up therefore plays a crucial role in allowing consultants to assess whether mitigation measures have been implemented and more importantly, whether their recommendations have been effective at reducing environmental 42

impacts. Assessing the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation is also beneficial to the decision-makers as it enables them to evaluate the appropriateness of any planning conditions set related to mitigation measures. This is essential for EIA effectiveness because if mitigation measures set out in an EIS are not undertaken then the findings of the EIA will not be achieved. Therefore, the role of EIA within the planning system is diminished. Follow-up of mitigation also allows consultants to feed information into their future work, the benefits of which will be discussed later. One key purpose of EIA is to help the developer to identify and subsequently minimise adverse environmental impacts (Glasson et al 1999). Therefore, as successful mitigation measures will play a large role in achieving this, it is beneficial for the developer to have access to tried and tested mitigation techniques. However, effective techniques will only be known if follow-up activities are undertaken. Consequently, the effectiveness of EIA should be improved if the achievements of mitigation measures are assessed. A further major benefit of follow-up highlighted by the practitioners is the ability to feedback information into the EIA process. In theory, EIA is an iterative process with feedback from the later stages to the earlier ones (Glasson et al 1999), providing practitioners with an opportunity to learn from their experiences and develop their knowledge. However, in practice this has never really been systematically achieved due to lack of follow-up activities (Dipper et al 1998). Many of the consultants surveyed as part of this research who had previously completed follow-up activities thought that it helped to improve knowledge (71%), provide a verification of predictions (55%) and help to improve prediction techniques (55%). All of which indicate the potential benefits for consultants to be gained from completing follow-up. However, the benefits of feedback do not only accrue to practitioners, developers and decision-makers will also benefit, for example in terms of more accurate predictions. Ultimately, increased feedback due to follow-up should help to improve EIA effectiveness. This assessment of current EIA practice in the UK has highlighted that extending the use of follow-up would potentially have several significant positive impacts on EIA effectiveness. In fact, 92% (12) of those interviewed as part of this research agreed that extending follow-up would improve EIA effectiveness. However, when looking at the issues surrounding follow-up there are a number areas where it could possibly reduce or limit EIA effectiveness. Firstly, if follow-up is made mandatory there may be a negative impact on the quality of EISs. In 43

particular, the number of environmental components included may be constrained because the developer does not want to cover the necessary monitoring costs. This will limit the effectiveness of EIA, due to constraints on the number of environmental impacts being assessed and subsequently prevented or reduced. However, this problem could be solved by making the scoping stage mandatory in order to ensure that all significant impacts are covered. A further possible limit on EIA effectiveness caused by the extension of follow-up activities is associated with the costs. One interviewee highlighted the possibility that resource and cost implications could prevent some developments from occurring. Although, in some cases this may be beneficial to the environment, ultimately effective EIA is a tool for ensuring sustainable development (Glasson et al 1999), not stopping development altogether. Therefore, it is essential that follow-up does not burden developers with unreasonably high costs, so that development, that is deemed sustainable, can continue. This could be achieved by a further scoping system, which would identify of the significant impacts, which would need to be followed up. The final aim of this project was to consider the future for follow-up. Overall, the results of this research suggest that the use of follow-up should be extended in the UK, in order to improve EIA effectiveness. In fact, of the consultants interviewed the majority thought that EIA should be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process. In order to provide feedback and ensure that mitigation measures are implemented and effective. However, whilst there are many benefits to be gained from undertaking follow-up, issues related to cost and the quality of EISs all impact on its ability to improve effectiveness and these will need to be resolved. 5.2 Future Research Future research should be involved with furthering the discussion around extending the use of follow-up in the UK. In particular, decision-makers and developers should be surveyed in order to ascertain their opinions of current EIA and follow-up practice and the pros and cons of follow-up, as this would enable a wider understanding of the feelings toward follow-up. In addition, when the Environmental Liability Directive has been translated into national legislation, it will be necessary to examine the implications of this new regulation on EIA and follow-up. This is because it may have a significant impact on the need for follow-up to be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process. 44

References Arts, J. Caldwell, P. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2001) Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-up: good practice and future directions findings from a workshop at IAIA 2000 conference, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19 (3): 175-185 Arts, J. and Nootebloom, S. (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment Monitoring and Auditing in: Petts, J. (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 1, Blackwell, Oxford: 229-251 Bailey, J. (1997) Environmental Impact Assessment and Management: An underexplored relationship, Environmental Management, 21 (3): 317-327 Bailey, J. and Hobbs, V. (1990) A Proposed Framework and Database for EIA Auditing, Journal of Environmental Management, 31:163-172 Barker, A. and Wood, C. (1999) An Evaluation of EIA System Performance in Eight EU Countries, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19 (4): 387-404 Beanlands, G.E. and Duinker, P.N. (1984) An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment, Journal of Environmental Management, 18: 267-277 Benson, J.F. (2003) What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4): 261-266 Bond, A. (2000) Environmental Impact Assessment in the UK, Chandos Publishing Ltd, Oxford Bond, A. (2003) Lets not be rational about this: response to Benson, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4): 266-269 Brookes, A. and Miller, B. (2003) Striving for more sustainable approaches: response to Benson, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4): 269-271 Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford 45

Carroll, B. and Turpin, T. (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities, Thomas Telford, London Cashmore, M. Gwilliam, R. Morgan, R. Cobb, D. and Bond, A. (2004) The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (4): 295-310 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1978) National Environmental Policy Act, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 1508.20. Crosbie, L. and Knight, K. (1995) Strategy for Sustainable Business: Environmental Opportunity and Strategic Choice, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London Culhane, P.J. (1993) Post EIS environmental auditing: a first step to making rational environmental assessment a reality, Environmental Professional, 15 (1): 66-75 Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects, Open University Press, Buckingham Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1999) Circular 02/99: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, HMSO, London Department of the Environment (DoE) (1988) Circular 15/88: Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, HMSO, London Department of the Environment (DoE) (1995) Circular 11/95: The use of Conditions in the Planning Process, HMSO, London DeSimone, L.D. and Popoff, F. (2000) Eco-Efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development, MIT Press, Massachusetts

46

Dipper, B. Jones, C. and Wood, C. (1998) Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41 (6): 731-747 Environment Agency (2005) Environmental Liability Directive http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/netregs/legislation/380525/964277/?lang=_e accessed 19th July 2005 European Union (EU) (2004) Directive 2004/35/CE Environmental Liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_143/l_14320040430en00560075.pdf accessed 19th July 2005 Frost, R. (1997) EIA Monitoring and Auditing in: Weston, J. (ed.) Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice, Pearson Educational, Harlow: 93-119 Glasson, J. (1994) Life after the Decision: The Importance of Monitoring in EIA, Built Environment, 20 (4): 309-320 Glasson, J. (1999) The First 10 Years of the UK EIA System: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, Planning Practice and Research, 14 (3): 363-375 Glasson, J. Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, London Goodwin, M. (2004) Constructing and Interpreting Qualitative Data in: Bond, A. (ed.) Writing Your Masters Thesis, Studymates, Somerset: 21-35 Harrop, D.O. and Nixon, J.A. (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice, Routledge, London Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2004) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment, IEMA, Lincoln International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (1999) Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, IAIA, North Dakota 47

Lambert, A. and Wood, C. (1990) Environmental Assessment implementation: spirit or letter?, Town Planning Review, 61: 247-261 Lee, N. (1995) Environmental Assessment in the European Union: a tenth anniversary, Project Appraisal, 10 (2): 77-90 Lee, N. Walsh, F. and Reeder, G. (1994) Assessing the performance of the EA process, Project Appraisal, 9 (3): 161-172 Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1999) Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London May, T. (2001) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process, Third Edition, Open University Press, Buckingham McDonald, G.T. and Brown, A.L. (1995) Going Beyond Environmental Impact Assessment: environmental input to planning and design, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15: 483-495 Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. (2004a) Preface in: Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. (eds) Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, Earthscan, London: xx-xxii Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. (2004b) Introduction to EIA Follow-up in: MorrisonSaunders, A. and Arts, J. (eds) Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, Earthscan, London: 1-21 Morrison-Saunders, A. Baker, J. and Arts, J. (2003) Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1): 43-56 Morrison-Saunders, A. and Bailey, J. (1999) Exploring the EIA/Environmental Management Relationship, Environmental Management, 24 (3): 281-295 Ntiz, T. and Holland, I. (2000) Does Environmental Impact Assessment facilitate environmental management activities?, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2 (1): 1-17 48

Noble, B. and Storey, K. (2005) Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25: 168-180 Sadler, B. (1988) The evaluation of assessment: post EIS research and process development in: Wathern, P. (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, Unwin, London Sadler, B. (1996) International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Environmental Assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Canada http://www.iaia.org/Non_Members/EIA/EAE/EAE_10E.PDF accessed 19th November 2004 Seale, C. and Filmer, P. (1998) Doing social surveys, in: Seale, C. (ed.), Researching Society and Culture, Sage, London: 125-45 Silverman, D. (2005) Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1998) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester Therivel, R. and Morris, P. (2001) Introduction in: Morris, P. and Therivel, R. (eds) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, London: 3-19 Welford, R. (1995) Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development: The Corporate Challenge for the 21st Century, Routledge, London Welford, R. (1998) Environmental Issues and Corporate Environmental Management in: Welford, R. (ed.) Corporate Environmental Management 1: Systems and Strategies, Earthscan, London: 1-12 Weston, J. (1997) Introduction: EIA in the UK in: Weston, J. (ed.) Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice, Pearson Educational, Harlow: 1-25

49

Weston, J. (2002) From Poole to Fulham: a changing culture in UK environmental impact assessment decision making?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45 (3): 425-443

50

Appendix 1 Covering Letter Questionnaire

Miss Clare Harmer 5 Dow Close Three Score Norwich NR5 9HW JobTitle Company Address1 Address2 City PostalCode 19/05/05 Dear Title FirstName LastName, I am undertaking a dissertation as part of my MSc in Environmental Impact Assessment, Auditing and Management Systems at the University of East Anglia. My research seeks to examine the effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) from a survey of environmental consultants. At present, little research has been conducted into the opinions of practitioners. However, as they are the individuals carrying out EIA on a daily basis I feel that their views on this issue are critical. To achieve this I have developed a short questionnaire which I hope you can find the time to complete. It will take a maximum of 20 minutes to complete and the information will be invaluable to my dissertation. As part of this research, I am also hoping to complete a set of interviews in order to gain a more in depth understanding of the topic. The telephone or face-to-face interview would last around 45 minutes. If you would be willing to take part in the process, I would be very grateful it if you mark the box at the bottom of the questionnaire. I would like to assure you of the confidentiality and anonymity you will receive if you agree to take part in this survey. The University of East Anglia has an ethical code that all students are obliged to follow when undertaking research. I would also like to assure you that as a participant you would have the right to withdraw from the process at any stage of the research programme. I very much hope you will be able to help me with this project and would also like to offer you the opportunity of receiving a summary of my dissertation once it is completed this summer. If you require any further information please contact me at c.harmer@uea.ac.uk Many thanks in advance. Yours sincerely, Miss Clare Harmer

Questionnaire 1. How many years have you worked as an environmental consultant? 0-5 6-10 10+

2. Approximately what proportion of your work time is spent on EIA? 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

3. How many EIAs have you been involved with in the last 3 years? 1-5 6-10 11-15 16+

4. Which stages of the EIA process are you predominantly involved in? Please tick all that apply Screening Scoping Baseline studies Impact prediction Mitigation proposals Presentation of findings Monitoring Other Please State

5. When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do you specialise in? Please tick all that apply Air Quality Ecology Landscape Noise Socio-economic Soils Transport Water Other Please State

6. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation? Please tick all that apply Agriculture Energy Chemical Housing Minerals Transport Waste Water Other Please State

7. In your opinion, what is the main purpose of EIA? Please tick one box only Achieving development consent Aid to decision making Helping the developer Reducing future costs Reducing environmental impacts Instrument for sustainable development Contributing to design decisions Other Please State

8. What are the strengths of current EIA practice in the UK? Please tick a maximum of 3 boxes Good basis in legislation Sophisticated prediction methodologies Involves a variety of components Lots of guidelines Scientifically rigorous Other Please State

9. What are the weaknesses of current EIA practice in the UK? Please tick a maximum of 3 boxes Inadequate consideration of alternatives Lack of public involvement Insufficient post decision monitoring Inadequate coverage of developments Poor scoping Limited influence in decision making High levels of uncertainty Limited consideration of cumulative impacts Subjectivity in impact predictions Limited control over EIS quality Design changes after submission Poor coordination with planning regulations Planning department understanding of EIA Other Please State

10. If you were given the opportunity to improve EIA effectiveness would the three weakness chosen in Question 9 be your main priorities? Yes No If No, what would be your main priorities?

11. Do you feel current EIA practice is effective at: For each option please tick the box that you feel most fits your view Strongly Agree Helping decision makers Helping developers Reducing environmental impacts Contributing to sustainable development Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Follow-up is the final stage of EIA and is concerned with events after planning consent has been achieved. For example, the monitoring and auditing of impacts during construction and operation. 12. Are you ever involved in EIA Follow-up? Yes 13. What type of follow-up is being conducted? Monitoring Auditing Evaluation Management No If No please go to Q. 17

14. Why is this follow-up being undertaken? Please tick all that apply Requirement of planning consent Uncertainty over impact predictions To ensure mitigation measures are undertaken To verify impact predictions To reduce costs Other Please State

15. From the following list please indicate why follow-up is beneficial to you? Please tick all that apply Improves knowledge Provides a verification of predictions Helps improve prediction techniques Other Please State

16. When conducting follow-up which of the following have presented you with problems? Please tick all that apply Lack of guidance Vague/qualitative impact predictions Limited financial resources Limited time Limited expertise Other Please State

Please go to Question 19 17. Why is follow-up not undertaken? Please tick all that apply Dont Know Not required by developer Not a planning requirement Too costly Too long term Other Please State

18. Are there occasions when you feel that follow-up would be of benefit: Yes to you as a consultant to the developer to the decision maker If Yes, please elaborate No

19. What changes would occur if follow-up became a mandatory stage in the EIA process? Please tick all that apply Improved impact prediction Increased costs for developers Increased costs for consultants Improved technical/scientific knowledge Reduction in environmental impacts Other Please State

Would you be willing to be interviewed? No Yes If Yes, please state name and contact telephone number

Would you like to receive a summary of my findings? No Yes If Yes, please state name and email address

Thank you for your time.

Appendix 2 Interview Guide 1 Interview Guide 2

Interview Guide 1 For those who have not completed follow-up. Section 1 Consultant Experience 1. What is your job role within the consultancy? 2. What level of training have you received regarding EIA? 3. Are you a member of IEMA? 4. What guidelines do you follow when undertaking EIA? Section 2 Current Practice in the UK? 5. As part of the questionnaire I asked about the weaknesses of current EIA practice, you indicated that (insufficient post-decision monitoring) or (planning department understanding of the EIA) is a weakness can you explain your answer? 6. Do you ever assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures recommended in the EIS? 7. How do you assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures recommended in the EIS? Section 3 Follow-up Experience 8. Can you tell me why you have never completed follow-up? 9. Do any of your colleagues undertake follow-up? 10. Have you completed any training specifically related to follow-up? 11. If yes, what did this involve? Was it useful? 12. If no, do you think that training would be useful? Section 4 Costs and Benefits of Follow-up 13. What do you feel is the main benefit of follow-up to you as a consultant? 14. What would you identify as the main disadvantages of completing follow-up for you as a consultant?

Section 5 The Future 15. Do you believe that extending follow-up would improve EIA effectiveness? 16. Do you feel that there is a need for the use of follow-up to be extended in the UK? 17. Do you think that follow-up should be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process? 18. Why? 19. Would you have any major concerns if follow-up was made mandatory? 20. What would they be? 21. Do have any comments you would like to add about anything that we have discussed today?

Interview Guide 2 For those who have completed follow-up. Section 1 Consultant Experience 1. What is your job role within the consultancy? 2. What level of training have you received regarding EIA? 3. Are you a member of IEMA? 4. What guidelines do you follow when undertaking EIA? Section 2 Current Practice in the UK? 5. As part of the questionnaire I asked about the weaknesses of current EIA practice, you indicated that (insufficient post-decision monitoring) or (planning department understanding of the EIA) is a weakness can you explain your answer? 6. Do you ever assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures recommended in the EIS? 7. How do you assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures recommended in the EIS? Section 3 Follow-up Experience 8. What percentage of your time is spent undertaking follow-up? 9. What parts of follow-up are you involved in? Which parts do you find most useful? 10. Does your consultancy have follow-up guidelines? 11. Have you completed any training specifically related to follow-up? 12. If yes, what did this involve? Was it useful? 13. If no, do you think that training would be useful? 14. How often are plans for follow-up included in an EIS? 15. Do you know how often they are actually completed? 16. Do you ever highlight the need of follow-up to developers? For what reasons?

Section 4 Costs and Benefits of Follow-up 17. Can you tell me of a specific time where you feel that follow-up has benefited you as a consultant? 18. Can you tell me of a specific time where you have had problems conducting follow-up? Section 5 The Future 19. Do you believe that extending follow-up would improve EIA effectiveness? 20. Do you feel that there is a need for the use of follow-up to be extended in the UK? 21. Do you think that follow-up should be made a mandatory stage in the EIA process? 22. Why? 23. Would you have any major concerns if follow-up was made mandatory? 24. What would they be? 25. Do have any comments you would like to add about anything that we have discussed today? Additional Questions What do you feel is the main benefit of follow-up to you as a consultant? What would you identify as the main disadvantages of completing follow-up for you as a consultant?