Chapter six

BOX 6.1 An overview of EIA

The following observations describe EIA:

• It is proactive assessment, and should be initiated pre-project/programme/policy,

before development decisions are made. In-project/programme/policy and post-
project/programme/policy assessment are common. While these may not allow much
problem avoidance, they can advice on problem mitigation, gather data, feed into
future impact assessment, improve damage control and exploitation of unexpected
benefits.
• It is systematic evaluation of all significant environmental (including social and
economic) consequences an action is likely to have upon the environment.
• It is a process leading to a statement to guide decision makers.
• It is a structured, systematic, comprehensive approach.
• It is a learning process and means to find the optimum development path.
• It is a process by which information is collected and assessed to determine whether it
is wise to proceed with a proposed development.
• It is an activity designed to identify and predict the impacts of an action on the
biogeophysical environment and on human health and well-being, and to interpret
and communicate information about such impacts.
• It is a process which forces (or should force) developers to reconsider proposals.
• It is a process which has the potential to increase developers’ accountability to the
public.
• It usually involves initial screening and scoping (to determine what is to be subjected
to EIA, and decide what form the assessment should take).
• It should be subject to independent, objective review of results.
• It should publish a clear statement of identified impacts with an indication of their
significance (especially if any are irreversible).
• It should include a declaration of possible alternative development options, including
nil-development, and their likely impacts.
• Ideally there should be public participation in EIA ( often it is partial or avoided).
• There should be effective integration of EIA into the planning/legal process.

Source: Part-based on Barrow, 1997: Box 1.1, p.3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT

developed to identify and avoid problems or missed opportunities. In addition to warning of
impacts, risks and hazard, some of these approaches can help make planning and management
more accountable to the public, and may encourage more careful decision making. They are
often not the quantitative scientific approaches they seem; rather, they are ordered but subjective
methods for improving judgement (Fairweather, 1993:10).

Environmental impacts assessment

There is no universal definition of what exactly environmental impact assessment (EIA)
is, so it is best treated as a generic term for a process which seeks to blend administration,
planning, analysis and public involvement in pre-decision assessment. A shorter explanation
might be’an approach which seeks to improve development by a priori assessment’ (Boxes 6.1
and 6.2). Figure 6.1 illustrates how EIA fits into planning, Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show how it
relates to other approaches.
Identifying consequences of a proposed activity is common sense, rather than a
revolutionary idea. However, for much of history it has not been the planning and management
approach adopted. Impact assessment has been evolving for over a quarter-century, but it is still
imperfect and is often misapplied or misused. The field has been dominated by EIA; however,
there are a number of approaches running parallel (and sometimes overlapping), with broadly
similar goals, frequently exchanging information, techniques and methods, which are of value
for environmental management. These include social impact assessment (SIA) (see later this
chapter), hazard assessment, risk assessment, technology impact assessment, eco-auditing, CBA,
and a range of forecasting of futures scenario-prediction methods (Ryecroft et al., 1988). These
approaches have a lot in common: for example, there is usually an effects focus: they are
systematic, focused, interdisciplinary and comprehensive, and generally iterative.
EIA can ofter much more than simply a common-sense approach to development: it can
be a policy instrument, a planning tool, a means of public involvement and part of a framework
crucial to environmental management and the drive for sustainable development. Some view
impact assessment as a philosophy rather than just a technique; Graham Smith (1993:12) argued
that it should be treated as’a bridge that integrates the science of environmental analysis with the
policies of resourse management.
Attitudes towards EIA vary from the view that it is just a required rubber-stamping
activity, or that it determines optimal development, to the idea that it has a vital role to play in
improving environmental management and planning to achieve sustainable development
(Lawrence, 1997).
Until recently planners and managers mainly asked:
• It is technically feasible?
• It is financially viable?
• It is legally permissiable?