ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT COURSE MODULE

COURSE INTRODUCTION
The Module is designed to provide a critical overview of the theory and practice of EIA as operated
internationally to those students who need to understand EIA: this includes formal students being
graduate and postgraduate, plus practitioners/professionals. Within this framework there are
opportunities to customize the material to reflect local jurisdictional procedures and issues.

The Module covers the:

 purpose and aims of EIA;
 EIA administration and practice;
 concept of associated assessment processes;
 key elements of the EIA process;
 undertaking an EIA;
 role of public participation;
 stages that follow EIA;
 the costs and benefits of undertaking EIA; and
 Understanding of the strengths and limitations of EIA.

The aim of the Module is to provide understanding of EIA and confidence with its application and
limitations. Broadly the objectives are for students to:
 appreciate the purpose and role of EIA in the decision-making process;
 understand the strengths of EIA in regard to environmental management;
 understand the technical and social/political limitations of EIA;
 know the administration and procedures that apply in the student’s jurisdiction;
 understand the screening process;
 understand the scoping process and how it is applied;
 know the options for estimating environmental and social impacts;
 know the format of an EIA Report (Environmental Impact Statement, or Environmental
Statement);
 appreciate the factors that assist, and detract, from the usefulness of the EIA Report;
 Understand the purpose of developing follow-up procedures, and the options for designing
these procedures.

1
The learning that students will achieve will come from the structured materials that form the basis of
the Module, the self-administered questions that are contained within the Modules’ Sections, and the
assignments that are specified at certain points in the Module.

1-1Background
This topic introduces the concept of EIA and outlines its history, placing it within the current
framework of sustainable development. Reference is made to:
 the purpose and aims of EIA;
 the nature and scope of environmental issues and impacts;
 the principles of EIA administration and practice;
 the concept of integrated assessment;
 the key elements of the EIA process;
 the costs and benefits of undertaking EIA; and
 The role of capacity building in improving EIA practice.

Learning Outcomes of this Section

On successful completion of this Section, you will be able to:
 Demonstrate an introductory understanding of EIA and why it is necessary;
 Appreciate the worldwide influence of EIA practice.

Structure of these EIA learning materials

In this module, the EIA process is discussed in 11 Sections. Following this introductory section,
Background (Section 1), are the following 10 Sections in order, with a brief description of the purpose
of each stage in the EIA process:
 Law, Policy and Institutional Arrangements (Section 2): To provide regulatory and legislative
governance structures and requirements of EIA processes for project proponents, EIA
practitioners and stakeholders.
 Public involvement (Section 3): To inform the public about the proposal and to gain the inputs
of those directly affected by or interested in the proposal. Public involvement in some form
may occur throughout the EIA process, although it tends to be focused on scoping and review
phases of EIA.
 Screening (Section 4): To decide whether or not a proposal should be subject to the EIA
process and, if so, at what level of detail.

2
  Scoping (Section 5): To identify the key issues and impacts that are likely to require further
investigation, and to prepare the terms of reference for the EIA study.
 Impact analysis (Section 6): To identify and predict the likely environmental and social effects
of the proposal and evaluate their significance.
 Mitigation and impact management (Section 7): To develop measures to avoid, reduce or
compensate for impacts, making good any environmental damage.
 Reporting (Section 8 ): To describe the results of the EIA for decision-makers and other
interested parties.
 Review of EIA quality (Section 9): To examine the adequacy of the EIA report to see if it
meets the terms of reference and provides the information necessary for decision-making.
 Decision-making (Section 10): To approve or reject the proposal and set the terms and
conditions under which it can proceed. The decision-maker also has the option to defer
approval (e.g. until certain conditions are met or to require a proponent to redesign the project
so that the environmental effects are minimised).
 Implementation and follow up (Section 11): To check on the implementation of the terms and
conditions of approval during the construction and operation phases; to monitor the impacts of
the project and the effectiveness of mitigation measures; to take any actions necessary to
ameliorate problems; and, as required, to undertake audit and evaluation to strengthen future
EIA applications.

In this module you will be looking only at EIA. However, it is important to recognise that there is a
general principle of assessment that applies to EIA, and to other assessment processes. There are
several other processes that relate closely to the review of environmental impacts that may result from
a proposed project. The following are well recognised processes:
 Social Impact Assessment
 Risk Assessment
 Life Cycle Analysis
 Energy Analysis
 Health Impact Assessment
 Regulatory Impact Assessment
 Species Impact Assessment
 Technology Assessment
 Economic Assessment
 Cumulative Impact Assessment
3
  Strategic Environmental Assessment
 Integrated Impact Assessment

Some, like Energy Analysis, focus on a particular part of the environment. Others, like Life Cycle
Analysis, enable the consideration of all those parts of the environment that are relevant to the
assessment. Also, depending on how the terms, like health, are defined for the study you may find that
it is covering most of the issues that would be found in an EIA. For example a Technology Assessment
could include review of the impacts on ecosystems, air quality and the like. Similarly, if the definition
of environment is taken broadly for an EIA, then the

EIA may cover the issues of the other assessment processes; for example:
 social aspects (such as impacts on employment, community interaction);
 risks (such as threats to native animals, water supplies);
 life cycle (such as the impacts at each stage of the project design through to operation and
closure); and
 energy (such as use of non-renewable energy sources, Greenhouse gas emissions), etc

So there is the potential for a lot of connections between the different forms of assessment. The
essential difference between them is how the terms, or scope of assessment, are defined narrowly, or
broadly. Otherwise they all follow the same general principle.

Principle of Assessment
With all the assessment approaches noted above, they are designed to identify potential impacts of a
development, action or project. To do this the assessor needs to use personal experience and the
experiences of others (including available knowledge) to think broadly about the changes that are
possible, and whether those impacts will be positive or negative.
Particular approaches emphasis specific types of impacts (i.e. on health, on social groups). All have
basically the same approach, although each may have its own individual language and detailed
techniques.
Most of the assessment processes also include a second step. After identifying the impacts, they also
consider what may be needed to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.

4
Informal Assessments
In this module you will be looking at the EIA processes that are required by governments, or by
organisations that provides funds for projects (such as the Work Bank). An EIA conducted under these
processes can be thought of as a formal EIA, as it is required by formal legislation or other agreement.

However, in addition there are many possibilities of conducting informal EIAs. This is especially the
case where assessment is incorporated in internal processes of corporations. Informal EIA, such as the
environment assessment associated with an Environmental Management Systems, requires
identification and documentation of potential impacts, plus the reporting of how those impacts would
be managed. No matter whether the assessment process is formal or informal, or what terms are used,
the same principle (above) is involved.

Social and political nature of EIA

While EIA has been viewed as a technical process, it is inherently a political process. EIA evolved
from the politics surrounding the impacts that development projects were having on the environment.
Once established it became dominated by technocratic approaches, which may lead to people ignoring
social, political and economic conditions. However, EIA is political in terms of the way in which
governments legislate for EIA, and the ways in which value judgments and political decisions, at the
level of the individual, permeate virtually every element of EIA. A significant political issue is the
choice of proposals to which EIA is applied (this is at the screening stage; Section 4). This can be a
value judgment where one type of project requires an EIA, while others do not. Other value judgments
come into decisions about what environmental issues should be covered in the EIA (scoping; Section
5), which pieces of information are included in the EIA Report (Section 8), and how the information is
presented to the decision-makers.

There are checks and balances in the EIA process to moderate some of these influences, especially
where the public has the chance to be involved (see Section 3). However, there are few opportunities
through the stages in the EIA process for the public to be involved. Even when they have the
opportunity, the public’s ability to be involved in the EIA process has been limited by the resources
available (especially time and expertise).

5
Overview of issues
This module provides you with an introduction to the way in which EIA operates. As a result the
module focuses on the technical aspects of EIA to help you understand how to conduct an EIA. The
module spends only very limited time discussing other assessment types, or the political nature of EIA.
However, when you are engaged in the technical side of EIA you are encouraged to remember these
issues as they may have an effect on the way your EIA is undertaken, and its outcomes.

1-2 Purpose and aims of EIA

Simply defined, EIA is a systematic process to identify, predict and evaluate the environmental effects
of proposed actions and projects. This process is applied prior to major decisions and commitments
being made. A broad definition of environment is adopted. Whenever appropriate social, cultural and
health effects are considered as an integral part of EIA. Particular attention is given in EIA practice to
preventing, mitigating and offsetting the significant adverse effects of proposed undertakings.

The purpose of EIA is to:

 provide information for decision-making on the environmental consequences of proposed
actions; and
 promote environmentally sound and sustainable development through the identification of
appropriate enhancement and mitigation measures.

Sustainable development is a key concept that has gained increasing international acceptance during
the last two decades. A milestone in this process was the Brundtland report, which defined sustainable
development as development that meets the needs of today’s generation without compromising those
of future generations. Five years later, the UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), the Earth Summit, established a number of international agreements, declarations and
commitments (see table below). Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development,
emphasises the importance of integrated environment and development decision-making and promotes
the use of EIA and other policy instruments for this purpose.

6
Four cornerstones of the Earth Summit
Cornerstone Summary
The Rio Declaration on A set of principles which provide guidance on achieving
Environment and Development sustainable development.
Framework Convention on Climate An international treaty to stabilise greenhouse gas
Change concentrations in the atmosphere.
An international convention with three objectives: the
conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its
Convention on Biological Diversity
components, and the equitable sharing of benefits from genetic
resources.
A global programme of action for achieving sustainable
Agenda 21 development to which countries are politically committed rather
than legally obligated.

Perspectives on sustainable development

Sustainable development is an evolving concept, which is continually being redefined and
reinterpreted. The starting point for most people is the Brundtland definition (described above), which
also can be formally stated as twin principles of intra- and inter-generational equity. In practice, these
principles mean improving the welfare of the world’s poor and maintaining the development
opportunities for the generations that follow.

The challenge of sustainable development may be summarised by comparing three overriding

indicators:
 First, human activity is estimated to currently consume or pre-empt 40 per cent of net primary
productivity on land.
 Second, 60 per cent of the world’s population live close to or under the poverty line.
 Third, the world’s population is projected to double by mid-century.

Without major policy and technology changes, UNEP and other institutions have concluded that such
trends threaten the stability of the world community and the global environment.

Why EIA is important

Reducing the burden of environmental impacts is necessary if development is to become sustainable.
These impacts are more complex, larger in scale and further reaching in their potential consequences

7
than thirty years ago when EIA was first introduced. As a result, EIA has become of ever increasing
importance as a tool for development decision-making.
This role is formally recognized in Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development:
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities
that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of
a competent national authority.

In practice, EIA is applied primarily to prevent or minimise the adverse effects of major development
proposals, such as power stations, dams and reservoirs, industrial complexes, etc. It is also used as a
planning tool to promote sustainable development by integrating environmental considerations into a
wide range of proposed actions. Most notably, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies
and plans focuses on the highest levels of decision making, when better account can be taken of the
environment in considering development alternatives and options. More limited forms of EIA can be
used to ensure that smaller scale projects, conform to appropriate environmental standards or site and
design criteria. Such projects include dredging activities, road realignment and upgrading, and housing
subdivisions.

What are the aims and objectives of EIA?

The aims and objectives of EIA can be divided into two categories. The immediate aim of EIA is to
inform the process of decision-making by identifying the potentially significant environmental effects
and risks of development proposals. The ultimate (long term) aim of EIA is to promote sustainable
development by ensuring that development proposals do not undermine critical resource and ecological
functions or the well being, lifestyle and livelihood of the communities and peoples who depend on
them.

Immediate objectives of EIA are to:

 improve the environmental design of the proposal;
 ensure that resources are used appropriately and efficiently;
 identify appropriate measures for mitigating the potential impacts of the proposal; and
 Facilitate informed decision making, including setting the environmental terms and conditions
for implementing the proposal.

Long term objectives of EIA are to:

8
  protect human health and safety;
 avoid irreversible changes and serious damage to the environment;
 safeguard valued resources, natural areas and ecosystem components; and 
 Enhance the social aspects of the proposal.

Limitations of EIA
EIA is also a way of ensuring that environmental factors are considered in decision-making process
along with the traditional economic and technical factors. Importantly EIA requires the scientific
(technical) and value issues to be dealt with in a single assessment process. This helps in the proper
consideration of all advantages and disadvantages of a proposal. Environmental considerations may,
therefore, be set aside in favour of what are felt to be more important considerations. Alternatively,
predicted adverse effects on the environment might lead to strict conditions being imposed to avoid
these effects or remedy any adverse effects, or perhaps lead to the complete abandonment of a
proposal.

However, it is most important to recognise that EIA cannot be regarded as a means of introducing an
environmental “veto” power into administrative decision-making processes. Decisions that are
unsatisfactory from an environmental point of view can still be made, but with full knowledge of the
environmental consequences. The final decision about a proposal depends upon the likely severity of
the adverse effects, balanced against other expected benefits.

In other words, EIA is an administrative process that identifies the potential environmental effects of
undertaking a proposal, and presents these environmental effects alongside the other advantages and
disadvantages of the proposal to the decision-makers. In the vast majority of EIA procedures this
means that the outcome of the EIA process provides advice to the decision-makers. It does not provide
a final decision. So, by itself, the EIA procedures cannot be expected to stop a proposal although this is
an outcome that some members of the general community and environment groups may expect.

In summary then:
 only a very small fraction of proposals are halted, permanently or temporarily, as a direct result
of EIA at the end of the review process;

9
  preemption or early withdrawal of unsound proposals has been reported though it has proved
difficult to document;
 EIA has been useful in developing support for and confirmation of positive environmentally
sound proposals;
 the greening or environmental improvement of proposed activities is frequently seen; and
 particular indirect effects of EIA are both instrumental (such as where policy or institutional
adjustments are made as a result of EIA experience) and educational where participation in the
EIA process leads to positive changes in environmental attitudes and behavior.

With regard to the last point there is considerable advantage to the general community where those
people involved with the proposal, as well as decision-makers, are required to think about the
environmental effects (and thence avoid negative effects), and the public can be made aware of the
details of the proposal.
The limited power of EIA may seem to greatly reduce its value. However, as you have seen there are
many benefits that come from using EIA.

Practical Examples and Case Studies

On the EIA wiki that accompanies this course module there are a large number of case studies
exploring EIA in practice. It is recommended that where possible you review these case studies and
where possible add to them.
Another very interesting resource is the online video documentary produced by Prof. Sharon Beder
dealing with the EIA for the Sydney Harbour Tunnel in Australia.

1-3 NATURE AND SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND IMPACTS

Numerous reports on the state of the world indicate the environmental problems facing society. The
Global Environmental Outlook (GEO) prepared by UNEP provides an authoritative statement of the
major issues and their regional variations. In the GEO-2000 report, UNEP advises that full scale
emergencies now exist on a number of issues, including water scarcity, land degradation, tropical
forest clearance, species loss and climate warming. Some of these issues, such as climate warming and
biodiversity loss, are global or so pervasive that they affect all countries. Other environmental
problems are concentrated regionally and thus affect only certain countries or are more serious for
some than others.

10
The major environmental challenges facing different parts of the world are listed in the table below.
This sample is a starting point for discussion by participants to verify and identify regional and local
examples that are of most relevance to their country, taking account of both current issues and future
trends. For example, many small island states and delta regions of larger countries are vulnerable to
natural hazards and threatened by sea level rise due to climate warming. Other countries are likely to
experience increases in water scarcity and associated environmental stresses as a result of climate
change.

Major environmental issues in developing regions

Sources:
UNEP,
Developing 1999;
Major Environmental Issues
Countries World
Bank,
2000.
The continent has the world’s poorest and most resource dependent population. It
also carries the highest health burden due to severe environmental problems. These
Africa
include desertification and soil degradation, declining food security, and increasing
water scarcity and stress in north, east and southern Africa.
The region has high population densities in Southern and South East Asia. Rapid
economic growth, urbanisation and industrialisation have helped in poverty
Asia and the Paci fic alleviation but also increased pressure on land and water resources, widespread
environmental degradation and high pollution levels. Mega- cities are a particular
focus of environmental and health concerns.
Despite progress with economic restructuring and environmental clean up, there is a
legacy of industrial pollution and contaminated land. In many areas, emissions of
Eastern Europe and
particulates, SO2, lead, heavy metals and toxic chemicals continue to expose the
Central Asia
residents to health risks, and, in the Balkans, war and regional conflict have exacted
a heavy environmental and social toll.
Approximately three-quarters of the population live in urban areas. Many cities are
Latin America and poor, overcrowded, polluted and lack basic infrastructure. The major green issue is
the Caribbean the destruction of tropical forests and consequent loss of biodiversity, which is
especially serious in the Amazon basin.
Most land is either subject to desertification or vulnerable to deterioration from
saline, alkaline and/or nutrient deposition. Water resources are under severe pressure
Middle East
and groundwater sources are in a critical condition. Rapid and uncontrolled
urbanisation has caused worsening air and water pollution in urban centres.

Another way of subdividing environmental issues is to group them under green and brown agendas.
The green agenda focuses on natural resource management and environmental protection issues, such
as rural land and water use, forestry and fisheries and habitat and species conservation. The brown
agenda is concerned with issues of industrial pollution, waste management and urban development.

11
When undertaking EIA, a comprehensive view should be taken of the linkages and interactions among
the issues under review. Also, the EIA should identify both the benefits and costs of development. In
practice, EIA often focuses on the adverse environmental impacts of proposed actions. This is done by
reference to certain key characteristics, which establish the potentially significant effects (see the table
below).

The impacts of a development proposal examined in EIA can be direct, such as the effect of toxic
discharge on air and water quality, or indirect, such as the effect on human health from exposure to
particulates or contaminants, which have built up in food chains. Other environmental and social
impacts are induced, for example by a new road opening up an undeveloped area to subsequent
settlement or by involuntary resettlement of people displaced by the construction of a large reservoir.
Certain adverse impacts may appear relatively insignificant when considered in the context of an
individual action or proposal but have a cumulative effect on the environment when added to all other
actions and proposals; for example, deforestation resulting from plot by plot clearance for subsistence
agriculture. A fuller discussion of environmental impacts and their analysis can be found in Section 6
Impact analysis.
Typology of environmental impacts
Category of Impacts Types of Impacts
type biophysical, social, health or economic
nature direct or indirect, cumulative, etc.
magnitude or severity high, moderate, low
extent local, regional, transboundary or global
timing immediate/long term
duration temporary/permanent
uncertainty low likelihood/high probability
reversibility reversible/irreversible
significance* unimportant/important
*Impact significance is not necessarily related to the impact magnitude. Sometimes very small impacts, such as the disturbance of the
nest of a pair of endangered birds, may be significant. When determining the significance of the potential impacts of a proposal, all of
the above factors should be taken into consideration.

In many early examples of EIA practice, only the biophysical impacts of proposals were considered
(such as effects on air and water quality, flora and fauna, noise levels, climate and hydrological
systems). Increasingly EIA processes are used to analyse a range of impact types within a single
framework. These include social, health, and economic aspects.
However this trend toward integrated assessment for decision-making is by no means universal or
uniform. Even in EIA systems where this trend is well established, the degree and extent of integration

12
varies with legal requirements and accepted practice. In some countries, social impacts are not assessed
or are given only limited consideration. In other countries, EIAs are supplemented by related, but
separate studies of social and health impacts.

Despite a lack of internationally consistent practice, integrated impact assessment, linking biophysical
and socio-economic effects, is identified as an important priority in Agenda 21. As a widely adopted
process that already covers other impacts, EIA is recognised as one of the best available mechanisms
for implementing an integrated approach. In practice, achieving this approach will require greater
attention to be given to the identification of social, health and other impacts in the EIA process. This
aspect is addressed further in Section 6 Impact analysis.

1-4 PRINCIPLES OF EIA ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICE

EIA is one of a number of policy tools that are used to evaluate project proposals. It is also a relatively
recent development when compared to use of economic appraisal methods. A number of factors led to
the introduction of EIA in the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969), including public
concern about the quality of the environment and the increasing effects of new technologies and ever-
larger development schemes. In addition, then available economic appraisal techniques, such as benefit
cost analysis, did not take account of the environmental and social impacts of major projects.

The architects of NEPA intended the environmental impact statement to be the action-forcing
mechanism, which would change the way government decisions were made in the USA. However,
they probably did not foresee the extent to which EIA would be adopted internationally, culminating in
Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Today, EIA is applied in more
than 100 countries, and by all development banks and most international aid agencies. EIA has also
evolved significantly, driven by improvements in law, procedure and methodology. Major trends in
EIA process development are summarised in table below. Except for the early pioneers, the phases and
timescales identified in the table below do not necessarily correspond to the development of EIA in
particular countries. In all countries more strategic, sustainability- based approaches are still at a
relatively early stage.

Major trends in EIA

Phase Time Key Events
Mandate and foundations of EIA established in the USA; then adopted by a few
Introduction and early
1970-1975 other countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand); basic concept, procedure and
development
methodology still apply.
Increasing scope and mid 70s to early 80s More advanced techniques (e.g. risk assessment); guidance on process

13
Major trends in EIA
Phase Time Key Events
implementation (e.g. screening and scoping); social impacts considered; public
sophistication inquiries and reviews drive innovations in leading countries; take up of EIA still
limited but includes developing countries (e.g. China, Thailand and the Philippines).
Review of EIA practice and experience; scientific and institutional frameworks of
EIA updated; coordination of EIA with other processes, (e.g. project appraisal, land
Process strengthening use planning); ecosystem- level changes and cumulative effects begin to be
early 80s to early 90s
and integration addressed; attention given to monitoring and other follow-up mechanisms. Many
more countries adopt EIA; the European Community and the World Bank
respectively establish supra-national and international lending requirements.
EIA aspects enshrined in international agreements (see Section 2 Law, policy and
institutional arrangements); marked increase in international training, capacity &
Strategic and
building and networking activities; development of strategic environmental
sustainability early 90s to date
assessment (SEA) of policies and plans; inclusion of sustainability concepts and
orientation
criteria in EIA and SEA practice; EIA applied in all OECD countries and large
number of developing and transitional countries.

To date, EIA has been applied primarily at the project-level. This first generation process is now
complemented by SEA of policies, plans and programmes, and both EIA and SEA are being adapted to
bring a greater measure of sustainability assurance to development decision making. These trends have
brought new perspectives on what constitutes EIA good practice and effective performance.

Recently, a number of reviews of these issues have been undertaken, including the International Study
of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment (see Section A). It described basic and operational
principles for the main steps and activities undertaken in the EIA process. The International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) and the Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment (IEMA) have drawn on these to prepare a statement of EIA Best Practice. The
Effectiveness Study identified three core values on which the EIA process is based:
 integrity: the EIA process should meet internationally accepted requirements and standards of
practice;
 utility: the EIA process should provide the information which is sufficient and relevant for
decision-making; and
 sustainability: the EIA process should result in the implementation of environmental safeguards
which are sufficient to mitigate serious adverse effects and avoid irreversible loss of resource
and ecosystem functions.
Basic or guiding principles of EIA good practice are listed in the table below. These are applicable to
all types of proposals and by all EIA systems. When applying or referring to them, it is important to
consider the principles as a single package, recognising their varying interrelationships. For example,
some principles overlap (e.g., transparent and participative); others may be counteracting if considered
without reference to the broader framework (e.g. rigour and efficiency). The principles should be
applied as part of a systematic and balanced approach, having regard to the context and circumstances.

14
Guiding principles of EIA good practice
Principles Practical application
EIA should meet its aims of informing decision making and ensuring an appropriate level of
Purposive
environmental protection and human health.
EIA should concentrate on significant environmental effects, taking into account the issues that
Focused
matter.
Adaptive EIA should be adjusted to the realities, issues and circumstances of the proposals under review.
EIA should provide appropriate opportunities to inform and involve the interested and affected
Participative
publics, and their inputs and concerns should be addressed explicitly.
EIA should be a clear, easily understood and open process, with early notification procedure,
Transparent
access to documentation, and a public record of decisions taken and reasons for them.
EIA should apply the best practicable methodologies to address the impacts and issues being
Rigorous
investigated.
Practical EIA should identify measures for impact mitigation that work and can be implemented.
EIA should be carried out with professionalism, rigor, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and
Credible
balance.
EIA should impose the minimum cost burden on proponents consistent with meeting process
Efficient
requirements and objectives.
Operating principles describe how the basic principles of EIA good practice should be implemented.
The EIA Operating Principles provide initial guidance on how to undertake EIA and what results
practitioners should aim to deliver. When applying these operating principles, reference should be
made to the framework of EIA legislation, procedure and guidance that is in force in a country or
jurisdiction. In certain countries, the relatively early stage of EIA process development or limited
resources may constrain the application of some of the operating principles.

1-5 Key elements of the EIA process

EIA systems can be described by reference to three components:
1. the legal and institutional framework of regulation, guidance and procedure, which establishes
the requirements for the conduct of EIA;
2. the steps and activities of the EIA process, as applied to specific types of proposals; and
3. The practice and performance of EIA, as evidenced by the quality of EIA reports prepared, the
decisions taken and the environmental benefits delivered.

15
Legal and institutional framework
The provision for EIA may be made through legislation, administrative order or policy directive. Many
countries have now enacted some type of EIA legislation, which generally can be classified into either
a comprehensive or enabling statute. Clear and specific legal provision is internationally accepted as
the most appropriate basis for EIA. In many cases, regulations (mandatory rules) and procedural
guidance (advisory interpretation) elaborate how EIA legislation is to be implemented. Further
information of these arrangements can be found in Section 2 Law, policy and institutional
arrangements. In this Section, note is made only of the main features of the EIA legal and institutional
frameworks. These also comprise points of reference for developing or strengthening an EIA system:

Basic responsibilities
The proponent normally carries out the EIA in accordance with directions given by the competent
authority (usually the agency which makes the final decision on the proposal but in certain cases an
independent commission or panel). An environment agency (or in some cases a specialised EIA body)
oversees the process and reviews the study with inputs from other government departments. Usually,
EIA studies are carried out by an interdisciplinary team, which is appointed specifically to the task and
has an appropriate range of scientific, economic and social expertise.

Scope of application
Some EIA systems are relatively narrow in coverage; e.g. limited to projects of a specified type and
size. Others have a broader remit, for example encompassing all proposals that have potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the environment is defined broadly; for
example to include social, health and cumulative effects. The inclusion of these broader aspects of EIA
are now accepted as the international standard of good practice and their coverage should be
mandatory.

Consideration of alternatives
Consideration of alternatives is mandatory in some EIA systems but discretionary in others. Varied
provision is made for including a range of alternatives to a proposal, and there are different
requirements for the evaluation and comparison of alternatives as part of the EIA process. At a
minimum, explicit provision should be made for the consideration of the main or reasonable
alternatives to a proposal (including no action). This component is a critical determinant of effective
EIA.

16
Public involvement
This is a cornerstone of EIA and most systems include provision for public involvement. However,
there are marked differences in specific requirements; e.g. regarding access to information, procedures
for notification and involvement of the public, the stage of the EIA process at which these are applied
and third party rights of appeal. At a minimum, public involvement should take account of the
concerns of those directly affected by a proposal.

Quality control and assurance

Within EIA systems, the components described above provide a set of legal and institutional controls
on the quality and effectiveness of the process. In addition, the main stages of the EIA process itself
constitute a further set of procedural checks and balances. The respective functions of each stage are
described below; however, they should be applied iteratively as part of a whole process approach to
provide EIA quality assurance.

EIA process
The particular components, stages and activities of an EIA process will depend upon the requirements
of the country or donor. However, most EIA processes have a common structure (see flow chart below
and watch the video) and the application of the main stages is a basic standard of good practice.
Typically, the EIA process begins with screening to ensure time and resources are directed at the
proposals that matter environmentally. It should end with some form of follow up on the
implementation of the decisions and actions taken as a result of an EIA report.
(click on the EIA Process Flowchart at the right)

EIA practice and outcomes

Marked variations occur in the quality of EIA practice and outcomes among countries, reflecting the
legal provisions, institutional arrangements and procedures that are in force in different jurisdictions.
In addition, the quality of EIA practice varies on a case-by-case basis within the same system,
depending upon events, the complexity of the proposal, the experience of those involved and the time
and money allocated. Strengths and weaknesses of EIA practice are well documented in the literature,
generally and with reference to the experience of certain countries and types of projects.

Widely recognised deficiency of EIA practice include:

17
  Technical shortcomings, expressed by the poor quality of many EIA reports. The accuracy of
impact predictions, the utility of mitigation and management measures, and the relevance of
reports for decision-making often fall short of internationally accepted standards.
 Procedural limitations, including inconsistencies in process administration and guidance. Time
delays and costs of applying EA remain a serious concern for project proponents. Affected
communities are more concerned with the lack of quality control of EIA studies or enforcement
of mitigation measures.
 Structural issues, stemming from the application of EIA as a separate process, unrelated to the
project cycle or the larger context of decision making.
 In order to be effective, EIA requires a coherent policy-planning framework and systematic
follow up procedures. Often neither area is well established.

A number of studies have drawn attention to the particular constraints on EIA practice in developing
countries as compared to developed ones. However, most developing countries have some experience
in EIA and some have a considerable track record, predating the introduction of the EIA Directive in
Europe. There are particular limitations on domestic EIA practice in poorer countries, where typically
institutional arrangements are weak, and human, technical and financial resources are lacking. In these
circumstances, the development banks and international aid agencies play a major role, both long-term
through capacity building for the environment and immediately through their own EIA requirements.
What constitute good outcomes for EIA practice? Where international standards apply or can be
approximated, the following targets should be within the reach of EIA practice:
 screens out environmentally unsound projects;
 modifies the design of feasible proposals to reduce their environmental impact;
 identifies the best practicable environmental option;
 predicts the significant adverse effects of proposals with reasonable accuracy;
 identifies mitigation measures that work successfully to avoid, reduce and offset major impacts;
 influences decision making and approvals and the implementation of terms and conditions; and
 results in environmental gains and benefits relative to other options.
Costs and benefits of EIA
Although there are costs associated with undertaking EIA, experience has shown that the potential
savings over the life of a project can repay the investment many times over. The savings can be
economic (e.g. identification of least cost alternative) as well as environmental (e.g. impact reduction,
maintaining other resource use opportunities). Generally the earlier EIA process is introduced in the
project cycle, the greater the potential returns. When EIA is integrated into the project preparation
18
phase, environmental design considerations can be introduced in the first place rather than the proposal
having to be modified later.
Benefits
The benefits of EIA can be direct, such as the improved design or location of a project, or indirect,
such as better quality EIA work or raised environmental awareness of the personnel involved in the
project. In these cases, there will be with flow-on effects in their future work. As mentioned above,
these potential gains from EIA increase the earlier the process is applied in the design process.
In general the benefits of EIA include:
 Better environmental planning and design of a proposal. Carrying out an EIA entails an
analysis of alternatives in the design and location of projects. This can result in the selection of
an improved technology, which lowers waste outputs or an environmentally optimum location
for a project. A well-designed project can minimise risks and impacts on the environment and
people, and thereby avoid associated costs of remedial treatment or compensation for damage.
 Ensuring compliance with environmental standards. Compliance with environmental standards
reduces damage to the environment and disruption to communities. It also avoids the likelihood
of penalties, fines and loss of trust and credibility.
 Savings in capital and operating costs. EIA can avoid the undue costs of unanticipated impacts.
These can escalate if environmental problems have not been considered from the start of
proposal design and require rectification later. An anticipate and avoid approach is much
cheaper than react and cure. Generally, changes which must be made late in the project cycle
are the most expensive.
 Reduced time and costs of approvals of development applications. If all environmental
concerns have been taken into account properly before submission for project approval, then it
is unlikely that delays will occur as a result of decision-makers asking for additional
information or alterations to mitigation measures. Increased project acceptance by the public.

This is achieved by an open and transparent EIA process, with provision of opportunities for public
involvement of people who are most directly affected by and interested in the proposal, in an
appropriate way that suits their needs.

Costs
It can be difficult to determine the exact costs of an EIA because major projects typically require a
large number of investigations and reports, often for closely related purposes (e.g. engineering

19
feasibility studies of hydrology and surface materials). The World Bank notes that the cost of preparing
an EIA rarely exceeds one per cent of the project costs and this percentage can be reduced further if
local personnel are used to do most of the work. For Bank projects, the relative cost of an EIA
typically ranges from only 0.06 per cent to 0.10 per cent of total project costs. The total cost of an EIA
might range from a few thousand dollars for a very small project, to over a million dollars for a large
and complex project, which has a significant environmental impact and requires extensive data
collection and analysis.
Although many proponents complain that EIA causes excessive delays in projects, many of these are
caused by poor administration of the process rather than by the process itself.

These occur when:

 the EIA is commenced too late in the project cycle;
 the terms of reference are poorly drafted;.
 the EIA is not managed to a schedule;
 the technical and consultative components of EIA are inadequate; and
 the EIA report is incomplete or deficient as a basis for decision making.

Similar considerations apply to the timeframe for the EIA process. Most projects merely require
screening and might take only an hour or two of work. Where further EIA work is necessary, the time
taken can range from a few days or weeks, for a small irrigation or a minor infrastructure project, to
two years or more for a large dam or a major infrastructure project. Generally speaking, the costs and
time involved in EIA should decrease as experience is gained with the process and there is a better
understanding of the impacts associated with different types of projects and the use of appropriate
methods. Over a longer timeframe, the availability of baseline data should also increase.

All participants in the EIA process are stakeholders, who pursue particular interests and hold different
views and preferences. Full public involvement, open to all affected and interested parties, provides the
best means of ensuring the EIA process is fair and credible. It allows decision-makers and participants
themselves to gain an understanding of the diversity and balance of opinion on the issues at stake. The
final decision can then be made in a fully informed and transparent manner, having regard to all the
facts and the views by stakeholders and the public at large Section 3 Public involvement).

In addition, there are a number of specific measures that can help to make the EIA process transparent,
accessible and accountable to the public. Examples of measures that reinforce the fairness of the
process include:

20
  requiring the proponent to register all consultants, their expertise and responsibilities with the
administering agency;
 publishing these details in the terms of reference and the EIA report;
 making all EIA documents and reports available to the public; and
 publishing reasons for decisions screening and final approvals together with requirements and
terms and conditions for mitigation and environmental management plans.
Capacity building is the long-term, voluntary process of increasing the ability of a country to identify
and solve its own problems and risks, and to maximise its opportunities.

In this context, countries should firstly aim to carry out their own EIAs of proposals. Second, they
should aim to use local experts as much as possible when undertaking EIAs of proposals financed by
the World Bank and other multilateral lending agencies. Where this is not possible without
compromising the quality of EIAs and outside experts must be engaged, every opportunity should be
taken to transfer their expertise to local personnel. This strategy will make the implementation of EIA
recommendations more effective and strengthen the basis of EIA expertise locally.

Capacity building can be carried out in a number of ways, including institutional strengthening,
technical assistance and advice, and EIA training programmes. A systematic, long-term commitment
will be necessary to overcome limited capacity of many developing countries to undertake EIA. In
addition, this process should be backed by activities to strengthen education and research institutions.
EIA-specific training can be done at many different levels and over different periods to meet a variety
of needs.

A systematic EIA capacity building programme will need to provide a range of different activities.
These could include advice on drafting or strengthening EIA legislation and procedures, improving
their application to relevant sectors, such as energy and mining, and strengthening particular aspects of
practice, such as public involvement. Pilot projects involving local experts in actual EIAs of proposals
can be used to transfer ‘hands on’ knowledge and skills. Supporting activities include
developing resource materials and establishing a network of practitioners with experience in EIA or
technical analysis.

Summary
EIA involves using a systematic process to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed
development or action. As demonstrated in this Section, EIA has a well-established history and
international standing. Public participation is essential in good practice EIA, and there are both costs
21
and benefits associated with implementation. Principles and practice of EIA administration and
technical processes are introduced and these will be examined in more detail in subsequent Sections of
the Module.

You have now completed Section 1 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Demonstrate an introductory understanding of EIA and why it is necessary;
 Appreciate the worldwide influence of EIA practice.

CHAPTER TWO

LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

2-1 Introduction
22
This topic provides insight into the different types of EIA systems, the range of legal, policy and
institutional arrangements that can be provided and the directions in which these are developing. It also
examines the factors that need to be considered when establishing or modifying a national EIA system.
Learning Outcomes of this Section
On successful completion of this Section, you will be able to:
 Understand the purpose, scope and content of EIA policy and legislation
 Understand the EIA requirements of International Organisations and relevant International
Environmental Agreements
 Demonstrate understanding of the legal principles underpinning a functional EIA system
 Show familiarity with duties placed on local authorities and developers

2-2 About EIA Systems

EIA is an evolving process. When establishing or strengthening an EIA system, there is an opportunity
to build upon the experience of others and to move towards legal and policy frameworks that support
environmental sustainability.

EIA systems have become progressively more broadly based, encompassing a wider range of impacts,
higher levels of decision-making and new areas of emphasis (as described in Section 1 Introduction
and overview of EIA). In particular, there are trends toward:
 more systematic procedures for EIA implementation, quality control, compliance and
enforcement;
 integrated consideration of biophysical, social, risk, health and other impacts;
 extended temporal and spatial frameworks, which include cumulative, trans-boundary and
ecosystem-level effects and, to a lesser extent, global change;
 increasing provision for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policy, plan and
programme proposals;
 incorporation of sustainability perspectives and principles into EIA and SEA processes; and
 greater linkage of EIA systems with other planning, regulatory and management regimes.

These trends are identified in the International Study of EA Effectiveness. This study also illustrates
how EIA has become institutionalized and looks at the strengths and weaknesses of current practice in
relation to different legal policy and institutional arrangements. Other recent and relevant sources of
information include the Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental
Assessment Sourcebook Updates issued by the World Bank (see references).
23
Many lessons can be drawn from these materials by those who are responsible for introducing or
modifying EIA systems, or are amending particular legal, policy and institutional arrangements to
international standards. Not all aspects may be appropriate or replicable in certain developing countries
without further EIA capacity development. However, there is a general trend toward strengthening the
foundations and key features of EIA systems in both developed and developing countries. Key
institutional milestones are summarized in the table below.
Key international developments in EIA law, policy and institutional arrangements the last decade
Key Instrument/Event Requirements/Outcome
Calls for use of EIA as an instrument of national decision-making (Principle 17); other
Rio Declaration on Environment and
principles also relevant to EIA practice (e.g. Principle 15 on the application of the
Development
precautionary approach).
UN Conventions on Climate Change and
Cite EIA as an implementing mechanism (Articles 4 and 14 respectively refer)
Biological Diversity (1992)
Comprehensive reform of long-established
e.g. New Zealand (1991), Canada (1995), Australia (1999).
EIA systems
New or revised EIA legislation enacted by
e.g. Vietnam (1993), Uganda (1994), Ecuador (1997).
many developing and transitional countries
EIA requirements and procedures applied by
Providing loans and implementing projects in developing countries.
international financial and aid agencies
Required all member states to be in compliance by 1999; also being transposed into the
Amendment of EC Directive on EIA (1997) EIA laws of certain countries in transition, which are in the process of accession to the
European Union.
EC Directive on SEA of certain plans and
To be implemented by member states by 2004.
programmes (2001)
UNECE (or Espoo) Convention on EIA in a
Entered into force in 1997 as the first EIA-specific international treaty.
Transboundary Context (1991)
Encourages countries to share expertise and experience with Members wishing to
Doha Ministerial Declaration
perform environmental reviews at the national level (November 2001).
UNECE (or Aarhus) Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision Covers the decisions at the level of projects and plans, programmes and policies and, by
Making and Access to Justice in extension, applies to EIA and SEA (Articles 6 and 7 respectively refer).
Environmental Matters (1998)

Every EIA system is distinctive to some degree, reflecting the political system of a country. An EIA
framework or components from one country (or international organisation) may not be readily
imported into another, at least without significant adaptation. The information gathered during the
Training Needs Analysis should help in identifying current and needed activities in the development of
an EIA system (see UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual).
What are the key features to look for, and how do they differ? The table below provides a framework
for examining EIA systems. It can be used to develop a profile of the key provisions that apply,
including:

24
  the designation of an authority responsible for overseeing the implementation of EIA
procedure;
 the requirement for public participation, and whether it is a mandatory or discretionary
procedure; and
 procedural checks and balances for EIA quality control, comprising key stages of the EIA
process (outlined in the EIA flow chart from the previous section).

The matrix will be most useful when used to compare the EIA systems of countries in the same region.
When completed, the table can be used to identify directions in which legal, policy and institutional
arrangements might be strengthened. In some developing countries for example the arrangements for
public participation made by individual countries may vary significantly, reflecting different traditions
and styles of governance. Some countries have established a separate EIA authority; in others the EIA
process is administered by the environment department or by the planning authority. No single EIA
model is appropriate for all countries.

Analysing legal, policy and institutional arrangements

Procedural checks
Requirement for
Type of EIA Legal provision Mandatory and balances
Country public participation
Authority Yes/No compliance Yes/No Yes/No identify
Yes/No
types*

*Refer to stages of the flow chart on the verso of the Topic Divider

Finally, consideration also can be given to the extent to which SEA or a near equivalent process is in
place. An increasing number of developed countries and countries in transition now make formal
provision for SEA of policies, plans and programmes. Many developing countries also have planning
systems that include elements of SEA. The legal, policy and institutional arrangements for SEA are
more varied than those for project EIA.

Two main types of legal provision are made for EIA:

 general environmental or resource management law, which incorporates EIA requirements and
procedure; and
 an EIA specific law, which can either be comprehensive or take the form of a framework or
enabling statute.

25
Selected examples of national and international EIA systems are given below to illustrate legal, policy
and institutional arrangements that are of particular interest. These include the EIA components and
responsibilities that apply internationally under certain treaties or as result of the lending requirements
of the major development banks. Their geographical scope of application varies and not all aspects will
be relevant to particular countries.

2-3 EIA Policy and Legislation

Examples of EIA legislation are available in the EIA Wiki under EIA Systems. Those specific
legislation that have set precedents or have been used by other countries include:
 US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969)
 New Zealand Resource Management Act (RMA, 1991)
 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 1993; proclaimed in 1995)
 European Commission (EC) Directive on EIA (1985, amended 1997)
The requirements of the Directive are also reflected in the EIA legislation, policy and institutional
arrangements of countries beyond the boundaries of the European Union, notably by applicant
countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) which are bringing their own EIA systems into line
with them. In addition, the Directive can be expected to influence EIA law making in other CEE
countries in transition and may have a more generalised influence as a relatively standardised,
commonly accepted, minimum process for EIA.

The current Directive (97/11/EC) amends the earlier EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) and the key
provisions include:
 broad definition of the effects to be considered
 mandatory application for specified projects
 requirement to submit an EIA report
 types of information to be provided by developer
 outline of alternatives studied and reasons
 submission to be made available for public comment
 results of consultations and information must be taken into consideration in decision-making
 content and reasons for decisions made public detailed arrangements for public consultation to
be drawn up by Member States

26
International environmental law and policy of relevance to EIA
As demonstrated, significant developments have taken place in international environmental law and
policy which are relevant to or applicable by the EIA systems of all countries. These can be divided
into:
 non-binding instruments, such as the Rio Declaration, that establish important principles for
sustainable development, including those which need to be reflected in EIA arrangements (e.g.
the application of the precautionary principle);
 legal conventions and treaties related to environmental protection at the global or regional
level, which carry obligations for signatory countries that may be met through EIA
arrangements; and
 legal conventions and protocols that apply specifically to EIA arrangements – of which the
FEspoo Convention is the most notable example.

A number of international environmental agreements establish substantive obligations on the countries

that ratify them . The Conventions on Climate Change and Biological Change are flagship agreements
because of their global scope, the importance of the issues that are addressed and their ratification by a
large number of countries. EIA is specified as a mechanism for implementing certain aspects of both
agreements. More generally, it can ensure that the proposed actions of signatory countries are in
compliance with these and other international environmental agreements (including those listed in the
EIA Wiki).

2-4 EIA Requirements of International Organisations

The World Bank and the regional development banks, such as the African Development Bank, Asian
Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and Inter-American
Development Bank, now have well-established EIA procedures, which apply to their lending activities
and projects undertaken by borrowing countries. Although their operational policies and requirements
vary in certain respects, the development banks follow a relatively standard procedure for the
preparation and approval of an EIA report. This procedure generally follows the stages outlined in the
flow chart shown on the verso of the topic divider. Borrowing countries are responsible for the
preparation of the EIA, and this requirement possibly more than any other has influenced the
introduction and development of EIA in many developing countries.

27
The EIA policies and arrangements of the development banks remain important, especially in countries
that have weak or non-existent domestic arrangements. Recently, the World Bank has made a number
of changes to make the application of its EIA procedure more systematic, notably through its linkage
to new environmental and social safeguard policies. In addition, the Banks broader environmental
policy has moved from a do no harm approach to minimise the adverse effects of its projects to the use
of SEA as part of a strategy of promoting long-term sustainability and integrating environment into
sector programmes and macro policies (see table below).

The World Bank environmental agenda

Policy Aims
To mitigate the potential adverse effects of the Banks investment projects on the environment and
vulnerable populations, EIA procedures and safeguard policies are applied. In many cases, these have
Do-No-Harm
contributed to better project design and environmental management plans have helped to improve project
implementation.
To foster long-term environmental sustainability and improve conditions in developing countries,
designated Bank projects target the following areas: sustainable natural resource management, including
Targeted Environmental
watershed protection and biodiversity conservation; pollution management and urban environmental
Assistance
improvements; environmental institution and capacity building, and global environmental actions, in
accordance with international environmental conventions and commitments.
Mainstreaming the To integrate environmental concerns at the macro level, the Bank has reviewed the policies of the energy,
Environment at the Level of rural development and other sectors, established an environmental framework for its country assistance
Policy and Programmes strategies and intends to make greater use of SEA at the programme and regional level.

Many countries provide various types of guidance on how to apply their EIA procedure. Where the
guidance is official, it is usually prepared by the overseeing authority to ensure compliance with EIA
requirements. This material is aimed primarily at the proponent, government agencies and others with
designated responsibility for implementation of EIA arrangements. In certain countries, procedural
guidance is oriented more toward promoting EIA good practice for key stages and activities of the
process, such as screening and scoping.

When procedural guidance is not available, it may be developed by reference to guidelines prepared by
other countries or international agencies. There are many examples on which to draw. A useful starting
point is the IIED Directory of Impact Assessment Guidelines (see references). It contains numerous
entries organised by country, sector and agency, and includes guidelines issued by development banks,
bilateral-donor, inter-governmental and UN organisations. (More specialised guidance on appropriate
EIA methodology, and applications to particular types of projects and areas can be found in the World
Banks Environmental Assessment Sourcebook).
In many jurisdictions, more than one set of EIA procedures may apply to a proposal. The lack of
coherence between the EIA requirements of various governments or agencies can lead to uncertainty,
confusion and added expense for proponents. Problems commonly occur when:

28
  countries receive aid from a number of donors, each having its own prescribed assessment
process; or
 a proposal is transboundary in nature, requiring compliance with EIA procedures in two or
more countries, states or levels of government (see Espoo Convention in the EIA Wiki).

The problems of coherence of EIA for international bilateral aid were addressed by the Working Party
of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. A practical guide on this subject was
prepared to aid both officials in bilateral donor agencies and their counterparts in developing countries.
It summarises the various EIA procedures used by the different agencies and provides two key means
of promoting coherence:
 a framework Terms of Reference for the EIA of development assistance projects; and
 a comprehensive checklist for managing EIA.

Experience in many countries indicates that the foundations of an effective EIA system are established
by the following arrangements:
 explicit basis in law and regulation;
 clear statement of objective(s) and requirement(s);
 mandatory compliance and enforcement;
 comprehensive scope of application to proposals with potentially significant impacts;
 prescribed process of steps and activities;
 provision for public consultation and access to information; and
 linkage to project authorization, permitting and condition setting.

In terms of legal provision, aspects of specific importance include:

 broad definition of the environment and ‘effects €™;
 duty to avoid, mitigate or remedy adverse effects arising from an activity;
 requirement for an EIA report to specify mitigation measures the proponent intends to apply;
 procedural guidance on compliance and good practice in applying EIA arrangements; and
 giving reasons for decisions on proposals subject to EIA.

These components can be used to evaluate how current EIA systems measure up against accepted
standards for law, policy and institutional arrangements. Where these pre-requisites are in place, they
do not guarantee, in themselves, good EIA practice and effective performance. Other factors may
intervene. However, where the basic arrangements are inadequate, then the EIA process is very
unlikely to lead in the direction of good outcomes.

29
In developing countries experience has shown a number of underlying conditions will determine
whether and how an EIA system is instituted. These are interrelated and reinforcing, and include:
 a functional legal regime;
 sound administration and flexible policy-making;
 stakeholder understanding of the aims of the process and its potential benefits;
 political commitment;
 institutional capacity for implementation;
 adequate technical capacity, data and information;
 public involvement; and
 Financial capacity.

2-5 Principles for a Functional EIA System

Legislation should make clear and explicit provision for the EIA process and identify the
responsibilities of the various participants. It needs to be framed specifically to achieve the goals or
outcomes that have been identified and incorporate provision for periodic review (to allow for the
lessons of experience, changing societal expectations and new demands). A functional legal system is
needed if EIA legislation is to be implemented effectively.

Sound administration and flexible policy-making

The legal and institutional arrangements for EIA need to be implemented fairly, consistently and
efficiently. EIA policy should be developed flexibly and its effectiveness monitored, giving particular
attention to the following factors:
 the reasons for introducing EIA and the problems that it is meant to resolve;
 the goals of the EIA process and how their achievement can be measured;
 the most appropriate approaches to implementing, enforcing and monitoring the outcomes of
the EIA process; and
 Mechanisms for reviewing and adapting the EIA process to ensure that it continues to meet
needs.
Stakeholder perception of the aims and benefits of the process
It is important for all stakeholders to have a realistic understanding of the role that EIA is intended to
play in development approvals. Also, in order to ensure continued support for the EIA process, its
benefits need to be explicitly recognised and acknowledged, and if necessary, action taken to add value
(see above).

30
Political commitment
The EIA process cannot succeed in its aims without political commitment, public support and adequate
resources. Poorer developing countries with weak economies and/or unstable political conditions might
need to gradually introduce or strengthen their EIA systems.

Institutional capacity
The successful operation of an EIA system requires the responsible institutions to have the capability
to carry out the key functions and activities. Otherwise, even if EIA legislation is in place, its potential
benefits will not be delivered. Even where institutional capacity is sufficient, particular care may need
to be taken to facilitate good communication, coordination and cooperation between the various
government departments responsible for development and environmental management.

Technical capacity, data and information

In particular, the successful operation of the EIA system depends upon the availability of qualified
people with the technical skills and expertise to carry out the research, analysis and preparation of an
EIA report to the level necessary to inform decision-making. The quality of technical work also
reflects upon the availability of baseline data and information on the natural environment, and the
research and education system that is in place in a particular country.

Public involvement
Although attention to technical matters is essential, public involvement is crucial to identifying the
issues and information that may be of importance in EIA. Local knowledge also may be of
considerable benefit to the devel opment and viability of a project. Many projects have failed because
they did not take into account local or traditional factors or because they failed to gain public
acceptance and support.

Financial support
Part of the political commitment to the EIA process is the provision of adequate funds to administer
the process and carry out required activities. Where necessary, this commitment should include funds
for EIA capacity building and training. Often, too, there is a need to provide funding for public
involvement programmes, especially in cases where major projects result in involuntary resettlement
or other types of social dislocation.

31
Generally, the need for these programmes is greatest where financial resources are scarcest.
Realistically, in many cases progress will be limited without international assistance. In the long term,
adequate funding will depend upon the recognition of the benefits that the EIA process brings to a
country. These benefits need to be recorded (such as in case studies) so that they are available for later
use.

The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has developed a number of guidelines related to
the provision of legal, policy and institutional arrangements in the EIA systems of member countries
(see UNECE Principles for Implementation of EIA in the EIA Wiki). If appropriate, review or provide
a copy of these to the participants and adapt or add to them to meet the needs of the local situation.
Criteria for choosing and customising an EIA system to suit are also available (see Criteria for Choice
of EIA Process in the EIA Wiki).
[

Getting ready
The development or modification of countries EIA procedures requires:
 gaining the support of government;
 establishing the pre-conditions noted in the previous section;
 understanding other planning and regulatory processes and their relationship with the EIA
system so as to avoid duplication of requirements and functions;
 consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of legal, policy and institutional
arrangements; 
 identification of appropriate means of implementing them; and
 taking account of key trends and directions for EIA development and their relevance to the
political, social and economic circumstances.
Steps towards establishing an EIA system
A number of steps can be taken in adopting or adapting a national EIA system to meet the needs of a
particular country, including the following:
 establish the goals and objectives of the EIA process;
 review EIA systems established in neighbouring and other countries, especially those that are
similar in nature and level of development;
 identify, and cater for, international obligations and commitments such as those arising from
ratifying the Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change;
 learn from the experience of others (consider international reviews such as the effectiveness
study but also look for regional examples);

32
  incorporate features that will facilitate the move towards sustainability;
 identify appropriate standards and procedures;
 develop trial guidelines to test the system in practice;
 draft or revise the legislation necessary to implement the necessary changes; and
 incorporate measures to appropriately monitor and review the EIA process to ensure that it is
working as intended, and, where necessary, adapt it to meet new requirements and needs of the
country.
Experience with the operation of EIA systems has generated a number of ‘rules of thumb’ that
may be generally applicable or useful when adopting or adapting legal, policy and institutional
arrangements.

Developing a Rules of Thumb

Consider the following in developing the list:
 Without a clear legal and institutional framework, EIA is ad hoc and the benefits are lost or
reduced.
 EIA relies on and is assisted by other environmental policy and regulatory systems which set
objectives and standards (e.g. for ambient air quality, emission and discharge limits etc.)
 Other EIA systems always need to be adapted to the ‘political culture’ of a specific
country, particularly in the area of public involvement.
 EIA should apply equally to private and publicly funded projects; their environmental
significance is what matters.
 In order to achieve maximum effectiveness, the EIA process should be integrated with the
project cycle at the earliest pre-feasibility stage.
 A quick start up to gain hands on experience with EIA arrangements is usually preferable to
lengthy preparatory studies. 
 This approach will pay most dividends when it is part of an explicit attempt to ‘learn and
adapt as you go. 
 Even though institutional capability may be at an early stage, EIA can still lead to substantial
benefits in the form of better environmental protection. 
 When proponents, the government and the public are experienced in the process they are more
likely to have realistic expectations of the process and its outcomes.
2-6 Summary
You have now completed Section 2 of 11 in this Environmental Impact Assessment Course Module.
To demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
33
  Understand the purpose, scope and content of EIA policy and legislation;
 Understand the EIA requirements of International Organisations and relevant International
Environmental Agreements;
 Demonstrate understanding of the legal principles underpinning a functional EIA system; and
 Show familiarity with duties placed on local authorities and developers.

CHAPTER THREE

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

3-1 Introduction
Public involvement is a fundamental principle of the EIA process. Timely, well planned and
appropriately implemented public involvement programmes will contribute to EIA studies and to the

34
successful design, implementation, operation and management of proposals. Specifically public
involvement is a valuable source of information on key impacts, potential mitigation measures and the
identification and selection of alternatives. It also ensures the EIA process is open, transparent and
robust, characterised by defensible analysis.

Learning Outcomes of this Section

On successful completion of this Section, you will be able to:
 Describe the principles and appreciate the importance of effective public engagement in
successful EIA implementation;
 Demonstrate knowledge of how to implement a public involvement programme within an EIA
context; and
 Appreciate the arguments for public involvement.

3-2 What is public involvement?

Nearly all EIA systems make provision for some type of public involvement. This term includes public
consultation (or dialogue) and public participation, which is a more interactive and intensive process of
stakeholder engagement. Most EIA processes are undertaken through consultation rather than
participation. At a minimum, public involvement must provide an opportunity for those directly
affected by a proposal to express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental and social
impacts.
The purpose of public involvement is to:
 inform the stakeholders about the proposal and its likely effects;
 canvass their inputs, views and concerns; and
 Take account of the information and views of the public in the EIA and decision making.

The key objectives of public involvement are to:

 obtain local and traditional knowledge that may be useful for decision-making;
 facilitate consideration of alternatives, mitigation measures and tradeoffs;
 ensure that important impacts are not overlooked and benefits are maximised;
 reduce conflict through the early identification of contentious issues;
 provide an opportunity for the public to influence project design in a positive manner (thereby
creating a sense of ownership of the proposal);
35
  improve transparency and accountability of decision-making; and
 Increase public confidence in the EIA process.
Experience indicates that public involvement in the EIA process can and does meet these aims and
objectives. Many benefits are concrete, such as improvements to project design (see the table below).
Other benefits are intangible and incidental and flow from taking part in the process. For example, as
participants see their ideas are helping to improve proposals, they gain confidence and self-esteem by
exchanging ideas and information with others who have different values and views.
Examples of the contribution of public involvement to project design
Project Example
This project seeks to improve natural resource management. Public consultations drove the entire project design
process from the very beginning. Investments under the village-level land and water resource management
Ghana Environmental
component were entirely designed by the local communities, which diagnosed problems, developed action plans
Resource Management
and are now responsible for implementation. A coastal wetlands component was also largely designed through
Project
local consultation. Affected communities and user groups participated in the demarcation of ecologically
sensitive areas and in determining the levels of resource use and conservation in coastal wetlands.
The original design would have had a negative impact on two communities. By including these communities in
Brasil Espirito Santo
the EIA process through information disclosure and consultation, satisfactory mitigation measures were
Water Project
achieved that counterbalanced the impacts and improved local living conditions.

Key terms and definitions of public involvement are described in the next table. The basic types of
public involvement are organized as a ‘ladder€™ of steps of increasing intensity and interaction.
When reviewing them, note their different requirements with regard to planning and designing a public
involvement programme.

Information and notification, strictly speaking, are preconditions of meaningful public involvement.
On its own, information disclosure is not a sufficient provision in public involvement for an EIA of a
major proposal. Consultation denotes an exchange of information designed to canvass the views of
stakeholders on a proposal and its impacts. Participation is a more interactive process of engaging the
public in addressing the issues, establishing areas of agreement and disagreement and trying to reach
common positions. Negotiation among stakeholders is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mechanism, which is based on joint fact-finding, consensus building and mutual accommodation of
different interests.

In practice, public involvement in EIA largely corresponds to consultation. However, participation will
be appropriate in many circumstances, for example, where a local population is displaced or relocated
as a result of a project. A few countries also make provision for mediation or negotiation facilitated by
a neutral third party. In principle, these approaches to public involvement in EIA are distinctive and
36
relatively separate. However, they may be used in combination; for example, consultation and
participation can be appropriate at different stages of the same EIA process.

Levels and forms of public involvement

Level Form of involvement
Informing One way flow of information from the proponent to the public
Two way flow of information between the proponent and the public with opportunities
Consulting
for the public to express views on the proposal
Interactive exchange between the proponent and the public encompassing shared
Participating analysis and agenda setting and the development of understood and agreed positions on
the proposal and its impacts
Face to face discussion between the proponent and key stakeholders to build consensus
Negotiating and reach a mutually acceptable resolution of issues, for example on a package of impact
mitigation and compensation measures.

3-3 Stakeholders involved

The range of stakeholders involved in an EIA typically includes:
 the people – individuals, groups and communities – who are affected by the proposal;
 the proponent and other project beneficiaries;
 government agencies;
 NGOs and interest groups; and
 Others, such as donors, the private sector, academics etc.

Local people
Individuals or groups in the affected community will want to know what is proposed; what the likely
impacts are; and how their concerns will be understood and taken into account. They will want
assurances that their views will be carefully listened to and considered on their merits. They will want
proponents to address their concerns. They will also have knowledge of the local environment and
community that can be tapped and incorporated into baseline data.

Proponents
Understandably, proponents will wish to shape the proposal to give it the best chance of success.
Often, this involves trying to create public understanding and acceptance of the proposal through the
provision of basic information. More creatively, project design can be improved through using public
inputs on alternatives and mitigation and understanding local knowledge and values.

37
Government agencies
The government agencies involved in the EIA process will want to have their policy and regulatory
responsibilities addressed in impact analysis and mitigation consideration. For the competent authority,
an effective public involvement programme can mean the proposal may be less likely to become
controversial in the later stages of the process. For the responsible EIA agency, the concern will be
whether or not the public involvement process conforms to requirements and procedures.

NGOs/Interest groups
Comments from NGOs can provide a useful policy perspective on a proposal; for example, the
relationship of the proposal to sustainability objectives and strategy. Their views may also be helpful
when there are difficulties with involving local people. However, this surrogate approach should be
considered as exceptional; it cannot substitute for or replace views which should be solicited directly.

Other interested groups

Other interested groups include those who are experts in particular fields and can make a significant
contribution to the EIA study. The advice and knowledge of government agencies and the industry
sector most directly concerned with the proposal should always be sought. However, in many cases,
substantive information about the environmental setting and effects will come from outside sources.
The different benefits provided for key groups by effective public participation are described in the
table below. However, these benefits may not be always realised or acknowledged by participants.
Each of the above groups may perceive the benefits gained from public involvement in the EIA
process through the lens of their own experience and interests.

The benefits of effective participation for different groups

The proponent The decision-maker Affected communities
Raises the proponent’s awareness
of the potential impacts of a Achieves more informed and Provides an opportunity to raise concerns and
proposal on the environment and accountable decision making influence the decision-making process
the affected community
Legitimises proposals and Provides increased assurance that Provides an opportunity to gain a better
ensures greater acceptance and all issues of legitimate concern understanding and knowledge about the
support have been addressed environmental impacts and risks that may arise
Demonstrates fairness and
Increases awareness of how decision-making
Improves public trust and transparency, avoiding
processes work, who makes decisions and on what
confidence accusations of decisions being
basis
made ‘behind closed doors’

38
The benefits of effective participation for different groups
The proponent The decision-maker Affected communities
Empowers people, providing the knowledge that they
Assists by obtaining local Promotes good relations with the
can influence decision making and creating a greater
information/data proponent and third parties
sense of social responsibility
Avoids potentially costly delays Avoids potentially costly delays
Ensures all relevant issues and concerns are dealt
later in the process by resolving later in the process by resolving
with prior to the decision
conflict early conflict early

3-4 Principles of public involvement

People who may be directly or indirectly affected by a proposal will be a focus for public involvement.
First and foremost are the individuals and groups who are likely to be directly and adversely affected.
Usually, their identification is relatively straightforward. The intended beneficiaries of the proposal are
often more difficult to identify because the benefits of the proposal may be generalized across a large
population (which may be regional or national). In some cases, the interest of beneficiaries may be
represented by government agencies, private sector groups and NGOs, which support the proposal on
economic and social grounds.

A variety of other individuals and groups may be indirectly affected by a proposal or have some
interest in its outcome. Often, the representation of the interests of indirectly affected parties will
coincide with those of other stakeholders, such as local community, private sector and environmental
organizations. However, this relationship cannot be assumed automatically. For example, certain major
projects may affect such an extensive area that identifying a representative and manageable range of
participants is difficult. In such cases, it may be helpful to systematically map the stakeholders and
differentiate among their interests.

Every effort should be made to seek a fair and balanced representation of views. Often, an inclusive
approach to public involvement is taken. A common rule of thumb is to include any person or group
who expresses an interest in the proposal. However, particular attention should be given to those at risk
from the impact of a proposal. World Bank guidance indicates this group should have the most active
involvement.

39
Most EIA systems make some type of provision for public involvement. The legal and procedural
requirements for this purpose vary. In developing countries, the EIA procedure established by the
development banks will take precedence for projects carried out with their assistance. All of the major
development banks consult the public during the EIA process carried out on their operations.

Their specific requirements differ regarding timing and scope of consultation and the type and amount
of information disclosed. For example, World Bank Operational Policy (4.01) specifies that
consultation with affected communities is a key to the identification of impacts and the design of
mitigation measures. It strongly recommends consultation with affected groups and NGOs during at
least the scoping and EIA review stage. In projects with major social components, such as those
requiring voluntary resettlement or affecting indigenous peoples, the process should involve active
public participation in the EIA and project development process.

The provision made for public involvement should be consistent with principles established by
international law and policy (see table below). The most comprehensive treaty in this regard is the
Aarhus Convention, although this applies only to UNECE countries and only entered into force in
2001 (by ratification by a sufficient number of signatory countries). However, it is likely to set
important new precedents for standards of public involvement.

Reference to public participation in international law and the Aarhus Convention

International legal instruments Reference to public participation
UNECE Convention on Environmental
Provides for the participation of the public in the areas likely to be affected by a proposal
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
(article 2, paras 2 and 6, and article 4, para 2)
Context (Espoo, 1991)
Framework Convention on Climate Requires Parties to promote and facilitate public participation in addressing climate change
Change (1992) and its effects and developing adequate responses (article 6 (a) (iii)).
Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on States that each individual shall have the opportunity to participate in decision-making
Environment and Development (1992) processes, facilitated by the widespread availability of information.
UNECE Convention on Access to
The most comprehensive legal instrument relating to public involvement. It describes how
Information, Public Participation in
public participation should work in cases of decision-making. The main text indicates that
Decision Making and Access to Justice in
public participation should be effective, adequate, formal, and provide for information,
International Environmental Matters
notification, dialogue, consideration and response.
(Aarhus 1998)

Key principles for public involvement, which are widely agreed, are outlined as:
 inclusive – covers all stakeholders;
 open and transparent – steps and activities are understood;
 relevant – focused on the issues that matter;

40
  fair – conducted impartially and without bias toward any stakeholder;
 responsive – to stakeholder requirements and inputs; and
 Credible – builds confidence and trust.
3-5 Scope of involvement
The scope of public involvement and its relationship to the EIA process should be commensurate with
the significance of the environmental and social impacts for local people. Ideally, public involvement
should commence during the preparatory stage of project development and continue throughout the
EIA process. This is particularly important for major projects that affect people’s livelihood and
culture. Five main steps at which public involvement can occur in the EIA process are discussed
below.

Screening
For certain categories of proposal, the responsible authority may consult with people likely to be
affected in order to gain a better understanding of the nature and significance of the likely impacts.
This information can assist in determining if an EIA is required and at what level (see Section 4 –
Screening). In addition, the early identification of affected parties and their concerns provides
information that can be incorporated into the scoping stage of EIA and assists future planning for
public involvement.
Scoping
Public involvement is commonly undertaken at the scoping stage. This is critical to ensure that all the
significant issues are identified, local information about the project area is gathered, and alternative
ways of achieving the project objectives are considered. Terms of Reference for an EIA provide a
means of responding to and checking against these inputs (see Section 5 Scoping). They should also
outline any specific requirements for public involvement in EIA preparation, review, and follow up.

Impact analysis and mitigation

The further involvement of the public in these phases of EIA preparation (see Section 6 Impact
Analysis and 7 Mitigation and Impact Management) can help to:
 avoid biases and inaccuracies in analysis;
 identify local values and preferences;
 assist in the consideration of mitigation measures; and
 select a best practicable alternative.

Review of EIA quality

41
A major opportunity for public involvement occurs when EIA reports are exhibited for comment (see
Section 8 Reporting and 9 Review of EIA Quality). However, making written comments is daunting to
all but the educated and literate. Other means of achieving responses should be provided where
proposals are controversial. Public hearings or meetings may be held as part of EIA review. They can
be formal or informal but should be structured in a way which best allows those affected to have their
say. Many people are not comfortable in speaking in public and other or additional mechanisms may
be needed.

Implementation and follow up

The environmental impacts of major projects will be monitored during construction and operational
start up, with corrective action taken where necessary (see Section 11 Implementation and Follow-up).
Local representatives should scrutinise and participate in the follow up process. This arrangement can
assist proponents and approval agencies to respond to problems as they arise. It can also help to
promote good relations with local communities that are affected by a development.

Public involvement in practice

In many EIA systems, public involvement centres on the scoping and review stages. This can be a
response to procedural requirements or reflect accepted practice. More extended forms of public
involvement occur when:
 proposals are formally referred to public review, hearings or inquiries;
 proposals seek to apply a best practice process to their proposal;
 proposals depend upon gaining the consent or support of local stakeholders; and
 Proposals have major social impacts and consequences, such as the relocation of displaced
people.

3-6 planning a public involvement programme

Planning by the proponent for a public involvement programme needs to begin early before other EIA
work. Following scoping, the terms of reference for an EIA study should include specifications for the
proposed programme, including its scope, timing, techniques and resources. If there are none, a

42
separate document should be prepared by the EIA project team with advice and input from an expert
(e.g. a social scientist) who is knowledgeable about the local community and participation techniques.
The plan should describe the means of notifying and informing the public about the proposals and the
EIA process, beginning at an early stage and continuing with updates on the progress of the EIA study
and feedback on community concerns. Specific reference should be made to the ways in which the
public will be engaged, how their inputs (knowledge, values and concerns) will be taken into account
and what resources (people and money) are available to assist their involvement. Wherever possible,
meetings and inquiries should be held within the local community, especially if there are basic
constraints on its involvement (see below).

A systematic approach to planning a public involvement programme typically involves addressing the
following key issues:
 Who should be involved? – identify the interested and affected public (stakeholders), noting
any major constraints on their involvement.
 What type and scope of public involvement is appropriate? – ensure this is commensurate
with the issues and objectives of EIA.
 How should the public be involved? – identify the techniques which 0061re appropriate for
this purpose.
 When and where should opportunities for public involvement be provided establish a plan and
schedule in relation to the EIA process and the number, type and distribution of stakeholders.
 How will the results of public involvement be used in the EIA and decision making processes?
describe the mechanisms for analysing and taking account of public inputs and providing
feeding back to stakeholders.
 What resources are necessary or available to implement the public involvement programme?
relate the above considerations to budgetary, time and staff requirements.
In certain cases, some basic constraints on public involvement may need to be overcome. Particular
attention should be given to disadvantaged groups, ethnic minorities and others who may be inhibited
from taking part or may have difficulty in voicing their concerns. Often, special provision may need to
be made to inform and involve these groups. Except in unusual or extenuating circumstances, others
should not speak for them, although knowledgeable NGOs may help in ensuring they represent their
views directly and in a way that is meaningful to them.
Some of the under lying factors that may constrain meaningful public involvement include:
 Poverty involvement means time spent away from income-producing tasks, and favors the
wealthy.
43
  Remote and rural settings increased or dispersed settlement distances make communication
more difficlt and expensive.
 Illiteracy involvement will not occur if print media is used.
 Local values/culture behavioral norms or cultural traditions can act as a barrier to public
involvement or exclude those who do not want to disagree publicly with dominant groups.
 Languages in some countries a number of different languages or dialects may be spoken,
making communication difficult.
 Legal systems may be in conflict with traditional systems and cause confusion about rights and
responsibilities over resource use and access.
 Interest groups bring conflicting and divergent views and vested interests.
 Confidentiality may be important for the proponent, and may weigh against early involvement
and consideration of alternatives.

3-7 Public involvement techniques

Some of the techniques that are commonly used for communicating and involving the public and
illustrate their strengths and weaknesses in relation to key requirements and objectives are provided at
Public Involvement Techniques in the EIA Wiki.

For example, various methods of public involvement can be rated in terms of the level of interaction
promoted. However, it should not be inferred that methods with a high level of involvement are the
preferred approach “a mix of methods is usually necessary as part of a systematic process of public
involvement.

The methods of public involvement should be tailored to suit the social environment and, wherever
possible, targeted specifically at particular groups. Limitations and constraints (identified previously)
should be taken into account. For instance, although people want to be consulted, they may not have
the time, resources or ability to locate EIA information and report their views to the relevant
authorities. Traditional local decision-making institutions and the use of the mass media (such as
television, radio and papers) may be far more appropriate than placing reports in local libraries (which
is the normal approach in a number of EIA systems).
When selecting public involvement techniques, the following points should be considered:
 the degree of interaction required between participants;
 the extent to which participants are able to influence decisions;
 the stage(s) of the EIA at which public involvement will occur;
44
  the time available for involvement;
 the likely number of participants and their interests;
 the complexity and controversy of the issues under consideration; and
 the consideration of cultural norms which may influence the content of discussions, for
example relating to gender, religion, etc.

When using public involvement techniques, the following principles can help to achieve a successful
outcome:
 provide sufficient, relevant information in a form that is easily understood by non-experts
(without being simplistic or insulting);
 allow enough time for stakeholders to review, consider and respond to the information and its
implications;
 provide appropriate means and opportunities for them to express their views;
 select venues and time events to encourage maximum attendance and a free exchange of views
by all stakeholders (including those that may feel less confident about expressing their views);
and
 respond to all questions, issues raised or comments made by stakeholders. This fosters public
confidence and trust in the EIA process.

Conflict management and dispute resolution approaches are beginning to be applied in a number of
EIA processes. As recognised by the World Bank and other international agencies, the use of these
approaches in developing countries must be consistent with local practices:

The objective is to define traditional mechanisms for making agreements, for negotiations, and for
managing conflict in affected communities. Understanding and working within cultural expectations
and practices may enhance consultation and participation processes, especially in projects where there
are multiple and competing stakeholders or where disputes or conflict are evident. (The World Bank,
1995)

Negotiation, mediation and other alternative means of dispute resolution have different rules compared
to more traditional open door forms of public consultation and participation. These processes are
carried out by a small number of representatives who are nominated by the major stakeholders (some
of them may form coalitions for this purpose). Stakeholder dialogue is a more informal version of this
process and focuses on sharing views and information to find win-win solutions to issues. As shown in

45
the table below, the approach differs in kind rather than degree from more traditional forms of public
involvement.

However, there may be opportunities to reduce or resolve conflict in more traditional forms of public
participation, providing all stakeholders are involved at the earliest stage of the proposal and sufficient
time and appropriate opportunities are provided. A skilled facilitator may be able to assist stakeholders
in finding common ground. In most cases, however, the range of interests and the different values of
the participants will mean that consensus is unlikely. The focus of attention then should be on
minimising the areas of dispute, and narrowing it to those key issues that cannot be resolved and
leaving it to the decision-making process to arbitrate among the different positions (i.e. determining the
winners and losers.

Principles which will help minimise conflict, particularly if applied consistently from the earliest
stages of the planning of the proposal, include:
 involving all those likely to be affected, or with a stake in the matter;
 communicating the need for and objectives of the proposal, and how it is planned to achieve
them;
 actively listening to the concerns of affected people, and the interests which lie behind them;
 treating people honestly and fairly, establishing trust through a consistency of behaviour;
 being empathetic, putting yourself in the shoes of the other party, and looking at the area of
dispute from their perspective;
 being flexible in the way alternatives are considered, and amending the proposal wherever
possible to better suit the interests of other parties;
 when others interests cannot be accommodated, mitigating impacts to the greatest extent
possible and looking for ways to compensate for loss and damage;
 establishing and maintaining open two-way channels of communication throughout the
planning and implementation phase; and
 acknowledging the concerns and suggestions of others, and providing feed-back on the way
these matters have been addressed.

When conflict arises, try to defuse it at the earliest possible time. The use of an independent, mutually
acceptable third party as the convenor of discussions between disputants can improve the chances of a
satisfactory outcome. It is desirable for that third party to be trained in the principles of negotiation or
mediation, and to be able to assist the parties in dealing with the feelings, facts and process issues
associated with the dispute.

46
Comparing the characteristics of traditional consultation and stakeholder dialogue
Stakeholder dialogue tends to:
Traditional consultation tends to:

Search actively for win/win results and ways to add value for
Assume win/lose outcomes
all parties
Explore shared and different interests, values, needs and
Focus on differences and polarise rival
fears, and build on common ground while trying to resolve
positions
specific disputes
Focus on processes as well as issues and results in order to
Focus on issues and results build long-term ownership of and commitment to mutually
agreed solutions
Produce results that are perceived as Produce results which can be judged on their merits and
inequitable, reflecting the traditional which seem fair and reasonable to a broad spectrum of
distribution of power and resources stakeholders 
Take into account, as well, feelings, values, perceptions,
Stick to the facts and positions
vulnerabilities
Ignore the importance of building Strengthen existing relationships and build new ones where
relationships and bridging differences they are most needed
Invest in mutual learning as a starting point for future
Offer no learning
processes and projects

3-8 Arguments for and against public involvement

Public involvement can be a time-consuming and costly exercise. This issue can be best addressed by
sound planning. A proposal may be subject to delay and added expense if public consultation is non-
existent or inadequate. A proposal may be subject to delay and added expense if public consultation is
non-existent or inadequate. More generally the benefits of involving the public have been identified by
Cahn and Cahn (1971) as:
 a means of mobilising under-utilised resources (untapped labour or productivity);
 a source of knowledge (both corrective and creative); and
 an end in itself (affirmation of democracy and elimination of alienation, hostility and lack of
faith).
To these can be added a fourth and perhaps overriding advantage; that is, it provides:
 better decision-making.

Although this last point is somewhat nebulous, it is frequently considered to be the main value where
objectives for public participation exercises have not been clearly thought out. “Better decision-
47
making” would include aspects of the first three points, and particularly dissemination of information,
identification of relevant issues (and perhaps values), and avoiding objections and delay at later stages
(since the opportunity to participate has already been provided).

From the point of those developing an EIA, according to Sadar (1994) the advantages of providing
opportunities for public involvement are likely to be:
 the public is informed;
 different viewpoints are identified;
 concerns raised by the proposal are made clearer;
 potential areas of conflict are identified;
 trust and mutual respect are fostered; and
 the ‘comfort level’ of decision-makers is raised.
Clearly there are good reasons for undertaking public engagement programs. However, Molesworth
(1985) also sees there are disadvantages in developing these programs:
 only those with scientific or technical training are able to contribute to positive and constructive
decision-making;
 it is more efficient to have a small number of people involved in making decisions (efficiency
of time, and being decisive);
 members of the public tend to be subjective whereas professionals (technical or bureaucratic)
are thought to be objective;
 the existing political process works to take into account public opinion; public participation is
almost interference;
 third parties should not be allowed to interfere with another person’s democratic right to do
something;
 public participation is not truly representative of public opinion;
 public participation adds to the costs of projects or governing;
 public participation encourages litigants to disrupt the proper processes of
government/administration; and
 the public cannot appreciate the importance of many affairs of state (which only government or
its agencies can fully understand).
Various arguments have been and still are advanced to justify avoiding public involvement. Some of
the commonly used reasons and answers follow in the table below:

48
Common arguments for and against public involvement
Reason Solutions
The early provision of information to the public will minimise the risk of untrue and damaging rumours
about the proposals. Even though the proponent may not have a clear idea of project details,
Its too early; we haven’t yet
communicating the objectives of the proposals can start to build trust with the community, allow useful
got a firm proposal
public input on site constraints and alternatives and can help the proponent devise a robust scheme.

Public involvement can be expensive and time- consuming. If integrated into the project planning
It will take too long and will
process, excessive timelines can be avoided. The costs of not involving the public are likely to be even
cost too much
greater in terms of costs arising from delays.
Those who are likely to oppose a project will not be dissuaded by the lack of a public involvement
It will stir up opposition, and programme. Rather such a programme can ensure that all sides of the debate are heard. Importantly, the
the process will be taken over issues raised by opponents should be thoroughly examined and treated on their merits. If the impacts
by activists cannot be avoided, public involvement can help demonstrate that the concerns of all segments of the
community have been fairly addressed.
Those who are articulate, knowledgeable and powerful find it easier to use the opportunities provided
We will only hear from the
through public involvement. Those preparing and managing such programmes must be aware of this, and
articulate
incorporate measures to ensure that the views of the silent majority are expressed and understood.
Great care must be taken in the first phases of a public involvement programme to ensure that
We raise expectations we can
unreasonable expectations are not raised.  The purpose of public involvement in EIA and decision-
satisfy
making should be clearly communicated, together with decisions which have been made already.
Lack of technical education does not negate intelligence and the understanding people have of their own
The local community won’t
surroundings. Often people knowledge of their environment and how it will be changed can be more
understand the issues involved.
accurate than that predicted by models.
No public involvement programme will be effective unless the proponent is serious in engaging with
the community in a two-way dialogue and is open minded to what it can contribute to the proposal.
Key prerequisites are a willingness to listen to the information, values and concerns of the community,
to amend the proposal so as to minimise community concerns, and to acknowledge the value of
community input.
Overall, it may be easy to say that the disadvantages noted above are insubstantial. However, while
they may not carry much weight in dismissing the need for participation, they should be considered as
aspects to be aware of in designing a participation program. If the design can reduce these
disadvantages, it will be a better program than one which simply ignores potential problems.
3-9 Summary
You have now completed Section 3 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Describe the principles and appreciate the importance of effective public engagement in
successful EIA implementation;
 Demonstrate knowledge of how to implement a public involvement programme within an EIA
context; and
 Appreciate the arguments for public involvement.

49
 CHAPTER FOUR
SCREENING
4-1 Introduction
This section introduces the different procedures and methods for identifying whether or not an EIA is
required for a proposal. It examines their relative strengths and weaknesses, and allows participants to
gain initial familiarity with the concept of impact significance and its importance in triggering the right
level of EIA review.
Learning Outcomes of this Section
On successful completion of this Section, you will be able to:
 Understand and explain why screening is necessary in EIA;
 Know how to undertake screening, including knowledge of procedures and project lists; and
 Be able to articulate the criteria determining the need for EIA.

4-2 Screening procedure

50
Screening is the first key decision of the EIA process. Some type of screening procedure is necessary
because of the large number of projects and activities that are potentially subject to EIA. The purpose
of screening is to determine whether a proposal requires an EIA or not. It is intended to ensure that the
form or level of any EIA review is commensurate with the importance of the issues raised by a
proposal.

The conduct of screening thus involves making a preliminary determination of the expected impact of
a proposal on the environment and of its relative significance. A certain level of basic information
about the proposal and its location is required for this purpose. The time taken to complete the
screening process will depend upon the type of proposal, the environmental setting and the degree of
experience or understanding of its potential effects. Most proposals can be screened very quickly (in an
hour or less) but some will take longer and a few will require an extended screening or initial
assessment. Similarly, the majority of proposals may have few or no impacts and will be screened out
of the EIA process. A smaller number of proposals will require further assessment. Only a limited
number of proposals, usually major projects, will warrant a full EIA because they are known or
considered to have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment; for example, on human
health and safety, rare or endangered species, protected areas, fragile or valued ecosystems, biological
diversity, air and water quality, or the lifestyle and livelihood of local communities.

The screening process can have one of four outcomes:

 no further level of EIA is required;
 a full and comprehensive EIA is required;
 a more limited EIA is required (often called preliminary or initial assessment); or
 Further study is necessary to determine the level of EIA required (often called an initial
environmental evaluation or examination [IEE]).

Screening establishes the basis for scoping, which identifies the key impacts to be studied and
establishes terms of reference for an EIA. Many EIA systems have formal screening and scoping
procedures. In some cases, however, these terms may be used differently or applied at the discretion of
the proponent. Also, on occasion, the screening and scoping stages may overlap, for example, when a
further study (or IEE) is undertaken to determine whether or not the potential impacts are significant
enough to warrant a full EIA.

51
The requirements for screening and the procedure to be followed are often defined in the applicable
EIA law or regulations. In many cases, the proposals to which EIA applies are listed in an annex.
Usually, the proponent is responsible for carrying out screening, although this is done by the
competent authority in some EIA systems. Whatever the requirements, screenng should occur as early
as possible in the development of the proposal so that the proponent and other participants are aware of
the EIA obligations. It should be applied systematically and consistently (so that the same decisions
would be reached if others conducted the screening process).
The screening procedures employed for this purpose can be classified into two broad, overlapping
approaches:
 prescriptive or standardised approach proposals subject to or exempt from EIA are defined or
listed in legislation and regulations; and
 discretionary or customised approach proposals are screened on an individual or case-by-case
base, using indicative guidance.

Specific methods used in screening include:

 legal (or policy) definition of proposals to which EIA does or does not apply;
 inclusion list of projects (with or without thresholds) for which an EIA is automatically
required; exclusion list of activities which do not require EIA because they are insignificant or
are exempt by law (e.g. national security or emergency activities); and
 criteria for case-by-case screening of proposals to identify those requiring an EIA because of
their potentially significant environmental effects.

Both prescriptive and discretionary approaches have a place and their specific procedures can be
combined into a comprehensive procedure (as shown in the figure below). Where inclusive project lists
are used, the disposition of most proposals will be immediately apparent. However, some proposals
will be on the borderline in relation to a listed threshold and for others, the environmental impacts may
be unclear or uncertain. In these situations, case-by-case screening should be undertaken, applying any
indicative guidelines and criteria established for this purpose. This process gives the proponent or
competent authority greater discretion than mandatory lists in determining the requirement for EIA.

52
  
In this context, screening is a flexible process and can be extended into preliminary forms of EIA
study. These extended screening procedures include:
 initial environmental examination carried out in cases where the environmental impacts of a
proposal are uncertain or unknown (e.g. new technologies or undeveloped areas);
 environmental overview carried out as a rapid assessment of the environmental issues and
impacts of a proposal; and
 class screening carried out for a family of small projects or repetitive activities, where the
environmental effects and means of mitigation are known but there is potential for cumulative
impacts (e.g. dredging, road realignment, bank stabilisation).
4-3 Project lists for screening
Project lists are widely used to screen proposals. These lists are of two types. Most are inclusion lists,
which describe the project types and size thresholds that are known or considered to have significant or
serious environmental impacts. Usually, listed projects that fall within these predetermined thresholds
will be subject automatically to full and comprehensive EIA. Some EIA systems also maintain
exclusion lists of activities that are exempt because they are known to have little or no environmental
impact. The inclusion lists used by countries and international organisations differ in content,
comprehensiveness, threshold levels and requirements for mandatory application. In certain EIA
systems, scale thresholds are specified for each type of listed project for which an EIA is mandatory.
Other projects that may require an EIA are screened individually against environmental significance
53
criteria, such as emission levels or proximity to sensitive and protected areas. Internationally, reference
is often made to:
 Annexes I and II of the European EIA Directive, which respectively list projects subject to
mandatory EIA and non-mandatory EIA; and
 Annex E of the World Bank Operational Directive on EA, which is illustrative and provides a
framework for screening.
Use of these lists is reported by the World Bank to be a reliable aid to the classification of proposals
into one of three categories (see the table below):
 projects requiring a full EIA because of their likely environmental effects;
 projects not requiring a full EIA but warranting a further level of assessment ; and
 projects not requiring further environmental analysis (for example health and nutrition,
institutional and human resource development and technical assistance).

Listed projects provide a standardised framework for screening proposals. This approach is simple to
apply, at least in its most basic form of identifying the type and size of project for which EIA is
mandatory or almost certainly required. However, project lists should be used cautiously and with due
regard to their weaknesses, especially if they are the sole basis for screening. The automatic application
of EIA to proposals may be avoided by staying just below the predetermined size threshold; for
example building a major road in 19 km sections when the threshold for inclusion is 20 km. Secondary
project lists or other screening procedures should be in place to ensure such proposals are subject to the
appropriate level of EIA.

World Bank and international experience indicates that project lists should be used flexibly in
screening proposals. Reference should be made to the location and setting of the proposal, as well as
its scale. A low-head hydropower dam or small-scale quarry (<100 ha) normally would not merit full
EIA (e.g. by reference to the World Bank Annex E lists). However, the proposal may need to be
reclassified if it is located in or near sensitive and valued ecosystems, or heritage resources, displaces
people who are particularly vulnerable and difficult to resettle or has evident cumulative impacts (e.g.
one of a series of quarries or dams). The methods available for this purpose are discussed below.

As necessary, project lists should be revised and updated over time to incorporate increasing
experience and to respond to new demands. The reform of project lists and thresholds preferably
should take place through a consultative process, involving government agencies, industry and the
public. When developing project lists from scratch, care should be taken not to adopt those established

54
elsewhere without adequate review of their suitability. Project lists are drawn up with reference to the
developmental and physical characteristics that are particular to a country or jurisdiction, and it is
unlikely they will to be directly transferable without alteration.
Environmental screening – World Bank classification
Source:
World
Category Scope of impacts Projects or components
Bank
(1993)
 dams and reservoirs forestry and production projects;
 industrial plants (large scale);
For projects likely to have significant  irrigation, drainage, and flood control (large scale);
adverse environmental impacts that are  land clearance and levelling (large scale);
serious (i.e., irreversible, affect vulnerable  mineral development (including oil and gas);
ethnic minorities, involve involuntary
 port and harbour development;
Category A resettlement, or affect cultural heritage
sites), diverse, or unprecedented, or that  reclamation and new land development;
affect an area broader than the sites of  resettlement and new land development;
facilities subject to physical works. A full  river basin development;
EIA is required.  thermal and hydropower development;
 manufacture, transportation, and use of pesticides; and
 other hazardous and/or toxic materials
 agro-industries;
For projects likely to have adverse
 electrical transmission;
environmental impacts that are less
significant that those of Category A projects,
 aquaculture and drainage (small-scale);
meaning that few if any of the impacts are  irrigation and drainage (small-scale);
likely to be irreversible, that they are site-  renewable energy;
Category B specific, and that mitigation measures can be  rural electrification;
designed more readily than for Category A  tourism;
projects. Normally, a limited EIA will be
 rural water supply and sanitation;
undertaken to identify suitable mitigation
and management measures, and incorporate  watershed projects (management or rehabilitation); and
them into the project.  rehabilitation, maintenance, and upgrading projects (small-
scale).
For projects that are likely to have minimal
Category C or no adverse environmental impacts. No  None
EIA is required.
An example of a project list for screening can be found at Project Screening Lists in the EIA Wiki.

4-4 Preliminary EIA

Case-by-case screening is carried out when the significance of the potential environmental impact of a
proposal is unclear or uncertain. This process typically applies to proposals that fall just below or close
to the thresholds established for listed projects. In addition, non-borderline proposals may be subject to
screening if they are located in sensitive areas or there is a potential for cumulative effects in
combination with other current and foreseeable activities. The framework outlined in figure 4-1 on
page 4-2 of this course contains a sieve of screening applications with a progressively finer mesh for
including proposals. It has gained a degree of international acceptance as a standard of good practice.

55
The specific criteria for case-by-case screening differ from country to country. Typically, however,
they are based on a number of common factors related to the consideration of the significance of
environmental impacts. These include the location of proposals, environmental sensitivity and any
likely health and social effects on the local population. In this context, reference may be made to the
screening criteria listed in the European Directive, which apply to the selection of listed projects for
which EIA is not mandatory. These criteria may be adapted to wider use in case-by-case screening. A
proposal can be tested for significance by taking account of:
 location near to protected or designated areas or within landscapes of special heritage value;
 existing land use(s) and commitments;
 the relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources;
 the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to wetlands,
coastal zones, mountain and forest areas; and
 areas in which the environmental quality standards laid down in law have been exceeded
already.

Using the emphasised aspects above, consideration can be given to sustainability criteria when
carrying out case-by-case screening. However, this approach demands considerable information about
the environment, which is unlikely to be available at a relatively early stage in project development. In
these circumstances, only a qualified determination of the environmental significance of a proposal
may be possible and screening decisions must be open to change if new information indicates the
advisability of reclassification. (One means of doing so is to incorporate a bump-up or bump-down
provision into the screening procedure.)

Certain proposals may be subject to an extended screening or initial assessment (also called a
preliminary EIA). Such an approach can be used when the requirement for EIA could not be
reasonably determined by the application of the screening procedures described previously; for
example when a proposal involves use of a new technology or is located in an near natural or frontier
area or involves discharges into a water body that may exceed health or environmental standards.
Often, this process, itself, may be sufficient to complete the requirement for EIA established by a
particular country. In this case, a screening report should describe the results and identify any
mitigation measures or actions that need to be taken.

When undertaking this type of preliminary EIA study, the proponent or competent authority may need
to assemble considerable information. A checklist of the types of information that could be relevant for
56
such a study are summarised below. This is accompanied by a framework of criteria and questions that
can help in the conduct of a preliminary EIA. It is based upon Australian and New Zealand EIA
practice and provides a detailed procedure for undertaking an extended screening or initial assessment.
As and where necessary, it could be adapted to wider application in conjunction with the methods
described below. 

Information that may be required for a preliminary EIA study includes:

 a description of the proposal;
 applicable policies, plans and regulations, including environmental standards and objectives;
 the characteristics of the environment, including land use, significant resources, critical
ecological functions, pollution and emission levels etc.;
 the potential impacts of the proposal and their likely significance;
 the degree of public concern and interest about the proposal.

4-5 other types of Screening

Initial environmental evaluation or examination (IEE)
In some EIA systems, an IEE is required when the potential environmental impacts of a proposal
cannot be established by the application of standard screening procedures. Typically, an IEE is a
relatively low-cost analysis that makes use of information already available. It is carried out using EIA
procedures and methods, which are scaled to purpose. For example, key issues can be identified by a
rapid scoping exercise, based on consultation with local people and agencies. A site or area visit should
take place to survey the current situation and obtain baseline information. Simple methods, such as a
checklist or matrix, are used in impact identification and often focus on appropriate mitigation
measures. Depending on its findings, the IEE report can be used either as a scoping document when a
proposal is referred to a full EIA or to support environmentally sound planning and design when a
proposal does not require further review.
An IEE is a preliminary EIA study that:
 describes the proposal and the environmental setting;
 considers alternatives to improve the environmental benefits;
 addresses the concerns of the local community;
 identifies the potential environmental effects;
 identifies measures to mitigate adverse impacts; and
 Describes, as necessary, environmental monitoring and management plans.

57
Environmental Overview
The Environmental Overview was developed by UNDP as an in-house tool to integrate environmental
considerations into its proposed activities at either the project or strategic level. Strictly speaking, the
Environmental Overview is not equivalent to a preliminary EIA study. However, it is based on similar
steps, involves key stakeholders and leads toward the same ends. An Environmental Overview can be
completed quickly through the interaction of a mix of specialists. It follows a structured sequence of
questions, draws primarily on the more important data sources and conforms to strict guidelines on the
organization and length of the final document.
The Environmental Overview is used by UNDP in the stage of formulating proposals. It leads to early
identification of the following:
 the environmental and social baseline conditions of the target area;
 the major environmental and socio-economic impacts and opportunities associated with the
implementation of the proposal;
 the modifications or alternatives to the draft proposal; and
 The measures that are necessary to address the environmental impacts and issues.

The purpose of the overview is to incorporate environmental objectives into the design of the proposal,
rather than produce a report. Recently, the Environmental Overview has been promoted as an effective
tool for programme design, and, specifically, one that is designed to overcome the checklist mentality
of EIA. So far, however, the Environmental Overview has been subject to little testing outside of
UNDP initiatives. A copy of the table of contents for the Environmental Overview can be found in the
resource material at Environmental Overview in the EIA Wiki and may be reviewed in light of the
above comments.

Class screening
A class screening may be undertaken for any type of project or activity where there is a reasonably
sound knowledge of the environmental effects and the mitigation measures are well established. This
approach is used in certain countries, notably Canada (at both federal and provincial levels), and
aspects are also evident in the EIA procedure of the World Bank (see table on page 4-3). It is
applicable to small-scale projects that are routine and replicable, such as dredging, installation of
culverts and realignments to an existing road.

A class screening will document the accumulated information on their likely impacts and standard
mitigation practices. This report then serves as a model in the conduct of future screening of other
58
projects of the same type. It does not relieve a proponent or competent authority of its responsibility
for screening and, where necessary, of factoring additional information on site-specific and cumulative
effects into a class assessment report or preparing a separate document if a project does not meet all of
the previously agreed requirements for mitigation. However, in such cases, class assessment can
greatly simplify and streamline the screening process.

Except where exempt by law, all proposed activities should undergo screening to determine whether or
not they are subject to EIA. Because of their numbers, the screening procedure needs to be efficient,
transparent and robust. In most EIA systems, the proponent or competent authority is responsible for
all aspects of the screening process, from initiation to making the final decision on whether or not an
EIA is necessary and, if so, at what level. Normally, this process will be undertaken in compliance
with the applicable EIA legislation and requirements.
Leading EIA systems have established a number of procedural checks and balances for this purpose.
They include provision for:
 public notification and record of screening decisions;
 access to relevant information and documentation; and in some cases
 Right or avenue of third party appeal for those who consider that the

screening procedure has been applied inappropriately.

Usually, screening has one of four outcomes:

 no further EIA requirement applies the proposal will have an insignificant impact;
 a preliminary EIA study is required the proposal will have an environmental impact that must
be addressed but can be mitigated;
 a full or comprehensive EIA is required to complete the screening process the proposal will
have a potentially significant environmental impact; or
 An IEE is required the potential environmental effects of the proposal are unclear or uncertain.

Certain types of proposals often fall automatically into one of these particular categories. For instance,
large dams, power stations and oil refineries are nearly always environmentally significant and require
full EIA. By contrast, social development or community health proposals rarely demand further
assessment. An extended screening process (or IEE) may be undertaken for proposals for which the
potential environmental impact cannot be identified readily.

59
For proposals that require full or further EIA, the next step in the process is to identify the key issues
and impacts that need to be analysed. This process of defining the issues to be considered is called
scoping. It is dealt with next in Section 5 Scoping.

4-6 Criteria for the determination of the need for, and level of, EIA
Character of the receiving environment
Consider:
 Is it, or is it likely to be, part of the conservation estate or subject to treaty?
 Is it an existing or potential environmentally significant area?
 Is it vulnerable to major natural or induced hazards?
 Is it a special purpose area?
 Is it an area where human communities are vulnerable?
 Does it involve a renewable or a non-renewable resource?
 Is it a degraded area, subject to significant risk levels, or a potentially contaminated site?
NOTE: Off-site (out of area) as well as on-site (local) characteristics should be considered, where
relevant.
Potential impact of proposal
Consider:
 Will implementation or construction, operation and/or decommissioning of the proposal have
the potential to cause significant changes to the receiving environment (on-site or off-site,
transboundary, short term or long term)?
 Could implementation of the proposal give rise to health impacts or unsafe conditions?
 Will the proposal significantly divert resources to the detriment of other natural and human
communities?

NOTE: This should include consideration of the magnitude of the impacts, their spatial extent, the
duration and the intensity of change, the total life cycle and whether and how the impacts are
manageable.

Resilience of natural and human environments to cope with change

Consider:
 Can the receiving environment absorb the level of impact predicted without suffering
irreversible change?
 What are the implications of the proposal for bio-diversity?

60
  Can land uses at and around the site be sustained?
 Can sustainable uses of the site be achieved beyond the life of the proposal?
 Are contingency or emergency plans proposed or in place to deal with accidental events?

NOTE: Cumulative as well as individual impacts should be considered in the context of sustainability.

Confidence of prediction of impacts

Consider:
 What level of knowledge do we have on the resilience of a given significant ecosystem?
 Is the proposal sufficiently detailed and understood to enable the impacts to be established?
 Is the level and nature of change to the natural human environment sufficiently understood to
allow the impact of the proposal to be predicted and managed?
 Is it practicable to monitor the predicted effects?
 Are present community values on land use and resource use known or likely to change?
Presence of planning, policy framework and other decision-making processes
Consider:
 Is the proposal consistent with existing policy frameworks?
 Do other approval processes exist to adequately assess and manage proposal impacts?
 What legislation, standard codes or guidelines are available to properly monitor and control
operations and the types or quantity of the impacts?

Degree of public interest

Consider:
 Is the proposal controversial or could it lead to controversy or concern in the community?
 Will the amenity, values or lifestyle of the community be adversely affected?
 Will large numbers of people require relocation?
 Will the proposal result in inequities between sectors of the community?

Activity 4A – Screening Exercise

For a local proposed project you know of (or as advised by your tutor) apply the ANZECC criteria
above to screen the proposal and decide if an EIA is required.

61
Base this assessment on the knowledge you have of the proposal and readily available information. As
part of this process briefly note the type of information you would need to make a more detailed and
better considered assessment and briefly write down what tasks you would undertake in order to
collect this information.

4-7 Summary
You have now completed Section 4 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Understand and explain why screening is necessary in EIA;
 Know how to undertake screening, including knowledge of procedures and project lists; and
 Be able to articulate the criteria determining the need for EIA.

CHAPTER FIVE
SCOPING
5-1 Introduction
On successful completion of this Section, you will be able to:
 Understand and explain why scoping is necessary in EIA;
 Know how to undertake scoping, including knowledge of different methods and approaches;
and
 Be able to articulate the scoping process to stakeholders.

62
5-2 Purpose of scoping
Scoping is a critical, early step in the preparation of an EIA. The scoping process identifies the issues
that are likely to be of most importance during the EIA and eliminates those that are of little concern.
Typically, this process concludes with the establishment of Terms of Reference for the preparation of
an EIA. In this way, scoping ensures that EIA studies are focused on the significant effects and time
and money are not wasted on unnecessary investigations.

Scoping refers to the early, open and interactive process of determining the major issues and impacts
that will be important in decision-making on the proposal, and need to be addressed in an EIA. The
requirements and procedures established for this purpose differ from country to country. In many EIA
systems, the involvement of the public, as well as the competent authority and other responsible
government agencies, is an integral part of the scoping process. Public input helps to ensure that
important issues are not overlooked when preparing Terms of Reference and/or initiating the EIA
study.
The purpose of scoping is to identify:
 the important issues to be considered in an EIA;
 the appropriate time and space boundaries of the EIA study;
 the information necessary for decision-making; and
 The significant effects and factors to be studied in detail.
In addition, the scoping process can be used to help define the feasible alternatives to a proposed
action. Not all EIA systems make provision for the generation or review of alternatives during scoping.
These may follow, instead, from the issues that are identified as important. However, consideration of
alternatives during scoping is becoming accepted internationally, as an EIA good practice.

Typically, scoping begins after the completion of the screening process. However, these stages may
overlap to some degree. Essentially, scoping takes forward the preliminary determination of
significance made in screening to the next stage of resolution determining which issues and impacts
are significant and require further study. In doing so, the scoping process places limits on the
information to be gathered and analysed in an EIA and focuses the approach to be taken.

Scoping is completed when the detailed studies required in the EIA have been specified often this
involves preparing Terms of Reference (ToR) or an equivalent document. This document sets out what
the EIA is to cover, the type of information to be submitted and the depth of analysis that is required. It
provides guidance to the proponent on how the study should be conducted and managed. Experience
63
shows that the ToR should be a flexible document. The terms may need alteration as further
information becomes available, and new issues emerge or others are reduced in importance.

Scoping provides the foundations for an effective and efficient EIA process. When systematically
carried out, scoping highlights the issues that matter and results in Terms of Reference for an EIA that
provide clear direction to the proponent on what is required. This increases the likelihood of an
adequately prepared EIA report. It helps to avoid the problem of unfocused, voluminous reports and
the attendant delay while their deficiencies are addressed and corrected. Scoping thereby helps to make
sure that resources are targeted on collecting the information necessary for decision-making and not
wasted on undertaking excessive analysis.
The scoping process itself can vary in scope, complexity and time taken. A comprehensive approach to
scoping may be needed for large-scale proposals, which have a range of impacts that are potentially
significant. In other cases, scoping will be a more limited and restricted exercise. Depending on the
circumstances, the scoping process can be tailored to include some or all of the aims listed below.

Key objectives of scoping are to:

 inform the public about the proposal;
 identify the main stakeholders and their concerns and values;
 define the reasonable and practical alternatives to the proposal;
 focus the important issues and significant impacts to be addressed by an EIA;
 define the boundaries for an EIA in time, space and subject matter;
 set requirements for the collection of baseline and other information; and
 establish the Terms of Reference for an EIA study.

Guiding principles for carrying out the scoping process include the following:
 recognise scoping is a process rather than a discrete activity or event;
 design the scoping process for each proposal, taking into account the environment and people
affected;
 start scoping as soon as you have sufficient information available;
 prepare an information package or circular explaining the proposal and the process;
 specify the role and contribution of the stakeholders and the public;
 take a systematic approach but implement flexibly;
 document the results to guide preparation of an EIA; and
 respond to new information and further issues raised by stakeholders.
64
The elements of scoping differ to some degree with the EIA requirements established by different
countries and international agencies. A comprehensive scoping process will include all or a
combination of the following functions:
 identify the range of community and scientific concerns about a proposed project or action;
 evaluate these concerns to identify the significant issues (and to eliminate those issues which
are not important); and
 organize and prioritise these issues to focus the information that is critical for decision making,
and that will be studied in detail in the next phase of EIA.

5-3 APPROACHES TO SCOPING

A systematic and transparent approach should be taken to sifting and paring down the concerns, issues
and impacts. This can be undertaken in three steps:
1. Compile a long list of concerns from the information available and the inputs of stakeholders.
No attempt should be made at this stage to exclude or pre-judge concerns.

2. Derive a short list of key issues and problem areas based on their potential significance and
likely importance for decision-making on the proposal. This phase involves evaluating the
issues against selected criteria; for example, differentiating serious risks or threats from effects
that can be mitigated (see Section 6 Impact Analysis and Section 7 Mitigation and Impact
Management for further information).

3. Classify and order the key issues into impact categories by reference to policy objectives and
scientific concepts, such as emission levels that may exceed health or environmental standards.
Such a synthesis or aggregation provides a coherent framework for drafting the Terms of
Reference for the EIA study.
The table below contains an indicative list of activities to be carried out when scoping in accordance
with this approach. The list begins with getting ready by preparing a profile of the scope under key
headings and using this as a basis for informal consultations with key stakeholders. Once this round of
discussion has occurred, the three steps described above take place with iterations between them.
Finally, the Terms of Reference are established, with provision for adjustment and feedback as and
when necessary during the EIA process.

In practice, the first phase of scoping opening out the list of concerns and issues is much easier to
achieve than the next two. With few exceptions, most EIA systems experience difficulties in narrowing
down and focusing on the issues that matter. This imposes certain limitations when preparing Terms of

65
Reference, with potential knock on effects on the next stage of work on the EIA study. Ultimately, it is
the responsibility of the proponent or competent authority to bring the scoping process to a conclusion.
Indicative list of scoping activities
Activity Items
Getting ready 1. Prepare a preliminary or outline scope with headings such as:
 objectives and description of the proposal
 the policy context and environmental setting
 data and information sources, constraints etc.
 alternatives to the proposal
 concerns, issues and effects identified to date
 provision for public involvement
 timetable for scoping, EIA and decision making
2. Develop the outline scope by informal consultation and by assembling available information, identifying
information gaps, etc.
3. Make the provisional scope and supporting information available to the public. 
Undertaking scoping 4. Draw up a long list of the range of issues and concerns. 
5. Evaluate their relative importance and significance to derive a short list of key issues. 
6. Organise the key issues into the impact categories to be studied. 
Completion and 7. Amend the outline scope to progressively incorporate the information from each stage.
continuity 8. Establish the Terms of Reference for the EIA, including information requirements, study guidelines,
methodology and protocols for revising work.
9. Monitor progress against the ToR, making adjustments as needed and provide feedback to stakeholders and
the public.

Depending upon the EIA system, responsibility for scoping may lie with the proponent, with the
competent authority, or with the EIA agency or an independent body set up for the purpose. In many
cases, some form of guidance will be given on the conduct of scoping, the procedures to be followed
and the methods that can be used to undertake the consultative and technical components of this
activity. For specific proposals, it may be possible to draw upon previous experience, represented by
existing scoping documentation for a similar proposal, or generic or sector guidelines and checklists.
None of these aids, however, replace the need for designing a scoping process for each proposal and its
likely consequences.

A custom-tailored scoping process will include an overview or profile of the proposal, the environment
and community that is likely to be affected, the possible alternatives, the range of potential impacts,
and the ways these may be mitigated or managed. In addition, the following should be addressed:
 geographical area(s) and the time-frame(s) for impact analysis;
 the policy and institutional frameworks under which the EIA will be conducted;
 existing information sources, gaps and constraints on methodology;
 the scheduling of the EIA study, and the allocation of resources and responsibilities; and
 the relationship to the decision-making process – including modification of design and
selection of alternatives – as well as final approval of the proposal.

66
The use of impact models or cause-effect frameworks may be helpful during scoping of large-scale
proposals, which have a wide range of potentially complex effects on the environment. But they can
also have value in other cases where it is sometimes easy to overlook long-term and secondary impacts
of proposals. For example, waste discharged into the air or waterways can extend a long way beyond
the boundaries of a project, and heavy metals can bio-accumulate in species and food chains. The
identification of such potential impacts can be assisted by a systematic consideration of the various
phases of the project life cycle, from construction through operation to decommissioning.

A proposed plan for public involvement in the EIA process (including the scoping phase) should be
prepared. Early consideration should be given to the means of informing and involving the people who
are likely to be directly affected by or interested in a proposal. A first step is to draw up a list of
participants who should be involved in scoping. Both the overall approach to scoping and the
mechanisms for consultation need to take into account local values, traditions and culture (see Section
3 Public Involvement).

5-4 Scoping methods

The following public involvement methods are used in the conduct of scoping:
 notification/invitation for public comment and written submissions;
 consultation with the various stakeholders;
 public and community meetings; and
 Issues workshops and facilitated discussion.

Although scoping is a distinct, early process within EIA, the significant effects continue to be re-
interpreted throughout an EIA study, the decision-making process and project implementation and
monitoring. Unforeseen issues that require further consideration may arise in any of these phases. The
work undertaken for an EIA study on a particular issue (the impact of toxic effluent on aquatic species
and human health, for example) may uncover further questions, some of which may become
contentious. In some cases, earlier guidance may need to be revisited, for example relating to data
collection and analysis or the criteria used to interpret the significance of effects. Ultimately there are
no right answers to these questions, just a succession of judgements that try to balance the available
resources for the study (both time and money) with the legitimate concerns of the participants.
Possible roles in scoping of the various stakeholders in the EIA process
Stakeholders Possible Roles
Proponent/competent Know most about the proposal, and have a strongly developed view about the factors that will influence the
authority site selection and other aspects of decision making. It is common for the proponent or the competent
authority to have responsibility for scoping. The scoping process helps them to recognize the perspective of
others, to consider alternatives and concerns of those affected, and to make changes to the proposal, which

67
Possible roles in scoping of the various stakeholders in the EIA process
Stakeholders Possible Roles
will address these inputs.
Generally establish and oversee statutory or procedural requirements for scoping. The requirements for
scoping may cover the matters to be addressed, the people to be consulted, and the form of consultation.
EIA administering body
The administering body may issue Terms of Reference for the EIA, and/or review and approve the EIA
report submitted by the proponent, checking it against the agreed scope.
Contribute relevant information about specific issues and matters within their jurisdiction. This information
may include specific legislative requirements, policy objectives, and standards, technical knowledge and
Other responsible agencies expertise, and experience with similar projects or local conditions. Certain agencies other than the
competent authority also may have the role of providing licences, permits, approvals or leases. Knowledge
of these requirements is essential at the scoping stage.
May act directly for the agencies involved or for the proponent as consultants retained for the EIA work, or
EIA practitioners and
they may function in an advisory or review capacity on behalf of scientific, NGO or professional bodies.
experts
Their involvement can be of particular value in providing specialist knowledge.
Have a major role in identifying concerns and issues and providing local knowledge and information. Their
views should be taken into account in choosing between alternatives, in deciding on the importance of
People affected by the
issues, and in identifying mitigating measures, compensation provisions and management plans. Affected
proposal
communities may need help in understanding the proposal, its alternatives, and their likely effects, and in
organising and articulating their concerns to those involved in the EIA process.
will also provide information and views that are relevant to scoping. This grouping includes those indirectly
Wider community affected by the proposal, and local, national and sometimes international NGOs and interest groups. Further
information on undertaking a dialogue with stakeholders can be found in Section 3 – Public Involvement.

By involving the public, scoping helps to build confidence in the EIA process. Often, the scoping
process is the first major point of contact with the stakeholders who are affected by or interested in the
proposal and the alternatives. It provides an important opportunity to inform them about the proposal
and the EIA process, to understand their concerns and to set out the role and contribution of public
involvement in decision-making. Experience indicates that where scoping responds to stakeholder and
public inputs, even though it cannot always accommodate them, there is likely to be increased
acceptance of the EIA and decision making processes.
5-5 Alternatives and tiering
The consideration of alternatives to a proposal is a requirement of many EIA systems. It lies at the
heart of the EIA process and methodology. During the scoping process, alternatives to a proposal can
be generated or refined, either directly or by reference to the key issues identified. A comparison of
alternatives will help to determine the best method of achieving project objectives while minimising
environmental impacts or, more creatively, indicate the most environmentally friendly or best
practicable environmental option.

Often, however, the consideration of alternatives is a superficial rather than a meaningful exercise.
This is particularly true of private sector proposals, where the requirement to analyse alternatives is
less than for comparable public sector proposals. It is also true of all proposals that are submitted to
EIA when planning is nearly complete and the components and location are fixed already. This

68
practice is becoming less and less acceptable as EIA matures and as sustainability issues and
cumulative effects take on greater importance.

The consideration of alternatives is likely to be most useful when the EIA is undertaken early in the
project cycle. Depending on timing, the type and range of alternatives open to consideration might
include:
 demand alternatives (e.g. using energy more efficiently rather than building more generating
capacity);
 input or supply alternatives (e.g. where a mix of energy sources permits);
 activity alternatives (e.g. providing public transport rather than increasing road capacity);
 location alternatives, either for the entire proposal or for components (e.g. the location of a dam
and/or irrigation channels);
 process alternatives (e.g. use of waste-minimising or energy-efficient technology); and
 scheduling alternatives (e.g. for airport and transport operations, reservoir drawdown).

The World Bank recommends a tiered approach to the analysis of alternatives, which broadly
corresponds to the headings above. It is designed to bring environmental considerations into all stages
of development planning. This approach, ideally, begins with strategic environmental assessment
(SEA) to analyse broad alternatives within a sector (such as power) or for a region. When this
framework is not in place, as is frequently the case, the key alternatives are examined as part of a
project-specific EIA. An application of the tiered approach in this context is illustrated further in case
study of the Nam Theun II Hydroelectric Dam in the EIA Wiki.

In many cases, a fully tiered approach may not be possible. Certain alternatives will have been
foreclosed by earlier stages of decision-making. However, some alternatives may remain open and a
preliminary scan can help to identify them. Normally, a retroactive analysis of alternatives is not
considered to be good practice unless circumstances warrant; for example a proposal may be well
advanced but have a potentially significant impact on the environment or involve the relocation of
large numbers of people.

The development of feasible alternatives, to meet the overall objectives of the proposal calls for certain
types of information and knowledge. During this process, for example, reference may be made to:
available technology, policy objectives, social attitudes, environmental and site constraints and project
economics, as demonstrated in the case study of the Ghazi-Barotha Hydropower Project in the EIA
69
Wiki. It is important to make sure that the alternatives chosen for comparison with a proposal can be
implemented cost-effectively. Stakeholder input can be helpful in the generation and analysis of viable
alternatives, but this needs to be used selectively. For example, the affected communities would have a
minimal role in the review of demand and supplyside alternatives to the Nam Theun II project, but a
primary one in assessing the environmental and social suitability of location alternatives.
The range of alternatives selected for analysis routinely includes the no action alternative. The relative
impact of each alternative is compared against the baseline environment (with versus without project)
to select a preferred alternative, including taking no action (which may not correspond exactly to
maintaining baseline conditions because changes result from other actions).

In many EIA studies, the preferred alternative will be the most closely examined, and may be the only
alternative to be considered in detail. However, it is not uncommon for several alternatives to be
investigated at the same level of detail during the impact analysis and evaluation phases, prior to
selecting from among them

5-6 EIA Terms of Reference

In concluding the scoping process, the preparation of Terms of Reference (ToR) for an EIA is an
important task. Alternatively, or as a supplement to ToR, a formal scoping report may be issued
(especially useful if the issues and/or process are controversial). In some EIA systems, the proponent
prepares a more informal document to summarise the conclusions of scoping and the approach to be
taken by an EIA study. The test for Terms of Reference (or its equivalent) lies in its usefulness to and
robustness in successive stages of the EIA process.

A number of international agencies have issued sample or framework Terms of Reference, including
the OECD Development Assistance Committee (pdf link) and the World Bank (in the EIA Wiki)
These and other generic documents outline the types of information to be included in a ToR or
equivalent document. When reviewing these, it is important to remember that Terms of Reference
provide guidance and direction to the proponent. The document should be comprehensive yet as
concise as possible. Many of the 2 components listed below will occupy a paragraph or less.
Terms of Reference for a full EIA can refer to some or all of the following items:
 purpose and application of the Terms of Reference;
 statement of need for and objectives of the proposal;
 project background and description;
 study area or impact zone(s) (e.g. the affected environment and community);
70
  applicable policy and institutional considerations;
 EIA requirements and decision-making particulars;
 provisions for public involvement;
 alternatives to be examined;
 the impacts and issues to be studied;
 the studies to be carried out (e.g. approach, time & space boundaries);
 the requirements for mitigation and monitoring;
 the information and data to be included in the EIA report;
 the timeframe for completion of the EIA process; and
 the means for making changes to the ToR if necessary.

The Terms of Reference can also contain various matters relating to EIA project management.
Alternatively, these may be contained in a separate brief or specification drawn up by the proponent
for the study team. The following particulars might be included:
 the proposed study schedule;
 the resources and estimated budget for the study;
 the activities and responsibilities of the study team;
 the expected outputs or deliverables from the study team; and
 the basis on which variations to the working brief will be negotiated.

5-7 Summary
You have now completed Section 5 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Understand and explain why scoping is necessary in EIA;
 Know how to undertake scoping, including knowledge of different methods and approaches;
and
 Be able to articulate the scoping process to stakeholders.

71
 CHAPTER SIX
IMPACT ANALYSIS

6-1 Implications of the widening environment and sustainability agenda

Early EIAs focused only or primarily on impacts on the natural or biophysical environment (such as
effects on air and water quality, flora and fauna, noise levels, climate and hydrological systems).
However, over time, increased consideration has been given to social, health and economic impacts.
This trend has been driven partly by public involvement in the EIA process. It is reflected by the
evolving definition of the term environment in EIA legislation, guidance and practice.
In many EIA systems, a broad definition of environment is adopted. This can include effects on:
 human health and safety;
 flora, fauna, ecosystems and biological diversity;

72
  soil, water, air, climate and landscape;
 use of land, natural resources and raw materials;
 protected areas and designated sites of scientific, historical and cultural significance;
 heritage, recreation and amenity assets; and
 Livelihood, lifestyle and well being of those affected by a proposal.
Depending on the EIA system, some or all of these impacts may require analysis and evaluation.
Often, however, health, social and other nonbiophysical impacts are either not considered or are
inadequately addressed. An alternative approach is to undertake separate, but parallel, assessments of
social, health and other impacts when they are considered to be particularly important for decision-
making and not adequately addressed by EIA or other similar processes (such as risk assessment). The
preferable approach is to undertake an integrated analysis.

6-2 Impact Identification

A logical and systematic approach needs to be taken to impact identification. The aim is to take
account of all of the important environmental/project impacts and interactions, making sure that
indirect and cumulative effects, which may be potentially significant, are not inadvertently omitted.
This process begins during screening and continues through scoping, which identifies the key issues
and classifies them into impact categories for further study. In the next phase, the likely impacts are
analysed in greater detail in accordance with terms of reference specifically established for this
purpose (see Section 5 Scoping).

Over time, a number of EIA methodologies and tools have been developed for use in impact
identification. Some are also useful for scoping and/or presenting the results of the EIA or assigning
significance, as discussed in the relevant Sections. In practice, relatively simple methodologies and
tools are applied to impact identification (as compared to more complex, data-demanding methods
which may be used in impact prediction). Experience indicates these simple methods are of proven
value for undertaking a systematic approach to impact identification.
The most common formal methods used for impact identification are:
 checklists;
 matrices;
 networks;
 overlays and geographic information systems (GIS);
 expert systems; and
 professional judgment
73
Checklists
Checklists annotate the environmental features or factors that need to be addressed when identifying
the impacts of projects and activities. They can vary in complexity and purpose, from a simple
checklist to a structured methodology or system that also assigns significance by scaling and weighting
the impacts (such as the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System). Both simple and descriptive
checklists can be improved and adapted to suit local conditions as experience with their use is gained.
Checklists provide a systematized means of identifying impacts. They also have been developed for
application to particular types of projects and categories of impacts (such as dams or road building).
Sectoral checklists often are useful when proponents specialise in one particular area of development.
However, checklists are not as effective in identifying higher order impacts or the inter-relationships
between impacts, and therefore, when using them, consider whether impacts other than those listed
may be important. An example of a sector-based checklist can be found at Sectoral Checklist in the
EIA Wiki.

Matrices
A matrix is a grid-like table that is used to identify the interaction between project activities, which are
displayed along one axis, and environmental characteristics, which are displayed along the other axis.
Using the table, environment-activity interactions can be noted in the appropriate cells or intersecting
points in the grid. Entries are made in the cells to highlight impact severity or other features related to
the nature of the impact, for instance:
 ticks or symbols can identify impact type (such as direct, indirect, cumulative) pictorially;
 numbers or a range of dot sizes can indicate scale; or
 Descriptive comments can be made.
An early, well-known example is the Leopold interaction matrix. This is a comprehensive matrix,
which has 88 environmental characteristics along the top axis and 100 project actions in the left hand
column. Potential impacts are marked with a diagonal line in the appropriate cell and a numerical value
can be assigned to indicate their magnitude and importance. Use of the Leopold matrix is less common
than its adaptation to develop other, less complex matrices. An example can be found at Assessment
Matrix in the EIA Wiki.

6-3 Impact Analysis/Prediction

Once all the important impacts have been identified, their potential size and characteristics can be
predicted. Impact prediction or forecasting is a technical exercise. It utilises physical, biological, socio-
74
economic and cultural data to estimate the likely characteristics and parameters of impacts (e.g.
magnitude, spatial occurrence etc.). A range of methods and techniques may be employed. These can
be a continuum from simple methods for impact identification (described earlier) to advanced methods,
often involving the application of mathematical models. Examples of commonly used impact
prediction tools are given in the table below.
Main advantages and disadvantages of impact identification methods
Method Advantages Disadvantages
 do not distinguish between direct and
 easy to understand and use indirect impacts
Checklists  good for site selection and priority setting  do not link action and impact
 simple ranking and weighting  the process of incorporating values can be
controversial
 difficult to distinguish direct and indirect
 link action to impact impacts
Matrices
 good method for displaying EIA results  have potential for double-counting of
impacts
 link action to impact
 useful in simplified form for checking for  can become very complex if used beyond
Networks
second order impacts simplified version
 handles direct and indirect impacts
 easy to understand  can be cumbersome
Overlays  focus and display spatial impacts  poorly suited to address impact duration or
 good siting tool probability
 excellent for impact identification and
GIS and computer expert  heavy reliance on knowledge and data
spatial analysis
systems  often complex and expensive
 good for ‘experimenting’

In many cases, this work will need to be carried out by specialists in the disciplines involved or in the
application of models and techniques. However, the sophistication of prediction methods used should
be in proportion to the scope of the EIA and relevant to the importance of the particular impact.
Specialists may become involved in research and methodology that is of interest to them rather than
directly related to the impact of the proposal. This can be avoided by making sure the programme of
research and data collection is focused on addressing the concerns outlined in the terms of reference.
Where possible, impacts should be predicted quantitatively. This makes comparison among
alternatives and with baseline conditions easier and facilitates impact monitoring and auditing later in
the EIA process. If quantification is difficult, then it is important to use methods that allow the impacts
to be estimated and compared systematically. Rating techniques, for example, can be used to assist
impact estimation (as well as assign values) where there is insufficient data, a high level of uncertainty
and/or limited time and money (all common in many EIAs). The results of qualitative analysis should
be communicated clearly, for example in the form of a range of graded dot sizes presented in a table.

75
Quantification means using numbers to indicate the impact. In most societies numbers have come to be
important ways of communicating. The precision they infer gives the impression that they are true, or
at least as accurate as possible. However, when dealing with the bio-physical environment and social
issues there are still many situations where our understanding of causes and effects (our models) are
not perfect representations of what happens in all situations. So our models are likely to provide
incomplete (possibly false) information. Yet the numbers that these models produce give the
impression of accuracy.

It cannot be the responsibility of the EIA developers to conduct the research, development and testing
of models to ensure they are perfect. But it is their responsibility to be aware of any possible
inaccuracies, and to estimate the uncertainty created in the models’ results. It is also their
responsibility to ensure that these uncertainties are clear to anyone reading the EIA reports.
Sometimes there are few or no alternatives to qualitative description, as is in the case of scenic quality,
amenity, sense of place or other landscape characteristics. Wherever possible, description should be
based on some type of classification and the impacts summarised in appropriate form, for example,
maps, cross-sections and/or photomontages.

In most cases, an multi-disciplinary team will conduct the EIA study. The terms of reference will
dictate the composition of the team and the knowledge base and skills required. When organising
different specialists to address a common task or problem, it is important for the study manager to
establish a clear process of communication with, and amongst, them. This should extend to
communication with those responsible for overall project management, as it is often possible for
design changes to be incorporated to reduce environmental impacts well before the production of the
EIA report. This can result in savings of money and time to the proposal in the long run.

Impact predictions are made against a baseline established by the existing environment (or by its future
state). Known as baseline studies, the collection of data on relevant biophysical, social and economic
aspects provides a reference point against which the characteristics and parameters of impact related
changes are analysed and evaluated. In many cases, it is likely that the current baseline conditions will
still exist when a project is implemented. However, certain projects have long lead times. In these
cases, predictions may need to be made about the future state of the environment (the baseline
condition for the no-development option).
When establishing a baseline, information is gathered on:
 current environmental conditions;
76
  current and expected trends;
 effects of proposals already being implemented; and
 Effects of other foreseeable proposals.

In practice, assembling baseline information can be time consuming and expensive. There can be
difficulties in collecting appropriate and sufficient information. For example, there may be unforeseen
circumstances in which the collection of data cannot be completed as required by the Terms of
Reference. In such cases, the EIA team may have to revise the study strategy and/or use their
judgement to make predictions. When this occurs it should be indicated in the EIA report with a short
explanation of the reasons.

Specialized knowledge is usually required to oversee, and, where necessary, set limits on the collection
of data required for impact analysis and monitoring. EIA project managers also need to ensure that
time and effort is not spent on unnecessary data collection or that excessive space in the EIA report is
not occupied by a description of baseline conditions. For example, the baseline chapter or section
could be limited to not more than ten per cent of the total number of pages in the report. This issue is
discussed further in Section 8 Reporting.

77
An impact or effect can be described as the change in an environmental parameter, which results from
a particular activity or intervention. The change is the difference between the environmental parameter
with the project compared to that without the project (as represented pictorially in the figure above). It
is predicted or measured over a specified period and within a defined area.
6-4 Characteristics of environmental impacts
The characteristics of environmental impacts vary. Typical parameters to be taken into account in
impact prediction and decision-making include:
 nature (positive, negative, direct, indirect, cumulative);
 magnitude (severe, moderate, low);
 extent/location (area/volume covered, distribution);
 timing (during construction, operation, decommissioning, immediate, delayed, rate of change);
 duration (short term, long term, intermittent, continuous);
 reversibility/irreversibility;
 likelihood (probability, uncertainty or confidence in the prediction); and
 Significance (local, regional, global).

Nature
The most obvious impacts are those that are directly related to the proposal, and can be connected (in
space and time) to the action that caused them. Typical examples of direct impacts are: loss of
wetlands caused by agricultural drainage; destruction of habitat caused by forest clearance; relocation
of households caused by reservoir impoundment; increased air particulate emissions caused by
operation of a new power station, etc. Indirect or secondary impacts are changes that are usually less
obvious, occurring later in time or further away from the impact source. Examples of these types of
impacts are: the spread of malaria as a result of drainage schemes that increase standing water and
thereby create new vector habitat; bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of contaminants in the food
chain through take up of agricultural pesticides; and anxiety, stress and community disruption
associated with increased traffic volumes and noise caused by road development.
Cumulative effects, typically, result from the incremental impact of an action when combined with
impacts from projects and actions that have been undertaken recently or will be carried out in the near
or foreseeable future. These impacts may be individually minor but collectively significant because of
their spatial concentration or frequency in time. Cumulative effects can accumulate either
incrementally (or additively) or interactively (synergistically), such that the overall effect is larger than
the sum of the parts.
78
Magnitude
Estimating the magnitude of the impact is of primary importance. Typically, it is expressed in terms of
relative severity, such as major, moderate or low. Severity, as opposed to size, also takes account of
other aspects of impact magnitude, notably whether or not an impact is reversible and the likely rate of
recovery.

Extent/location
The spatial extent or zone of impact influence can be predicted for site-specific versus regional
occurrences. Depending on the type of impact, the variation in magnitude will need to be estimated; for
example, alterations to range or pattern of species or dispersion of air and water pollution plumes. This
is much easier for direct impacts but can be attempted for other types of impacts.

Timing
Impacts arising from all of the stages of the life cycle of the project should be considered (i.e. during
construction, operation and decommissioning). Some impacts will occur immediately, while others
may be delayed, sometimes by many years. These impact characteristics should be noted in the EIA
report.

Duration
Some impacts may be short-term, such as the noise arising from the operation of equipment during
construction. Others may be long-term, such as the inundation of land during the building of a
reservoir. Certain impacts such as blasting may be intermittent, whereas others, such as
electromagnetic fields caused by power lines, may be continuous. Impact magnitude and duration
classifications can be cross-referenced; for example, major but short term (less than one year), low but
persistent (more than 20 years).

Significance
The evaluation of significance at this stage of EIA will depend on the characteristics of the predicted
impact and its potential importance for decision-making. Significance is usually attributed in terms of
an existing standard or criteria of permissible change, for example as specified in a standard, policy
objective or plan. This concept is discussed further later in this topic.
Impact characteristic summary table
Impact Characteristic
Impact Type Air quality Health Etc.
Adapted from The World Bank (1995)
nature

79
Impact characteristic summary table
Impact Characteristic
Impact Type Air quality Health Etc.
magnitude
extent/location
timing
duration
reversibility
likelihood (risk)
significance

Presentation of impact results

When preparing the EIA report a systematic format should be used to present information about
impacts to decision-makers. The organisation and display of information is an integral part of certain
predictive methodologies, such as the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System. In other cases, this
framework may need to be designed separately. One possible format is an impact characteristic
summary table above. Finally, reference should be made to the confidence limits in impact data, in
probabilistic terms for quantitative judgements (e.g. 95 per cent) or in relative terms for qualitative
judgements (reasonably high, best estimate, etc.).
Methods for predicting the characteristics of impacts include:
 best estimate professional judgement;
 quantitative mathematical models;
 experiments and physical models; and
 case studies as analogues or points of reference.

These are discussed in general below. Specific examples of the use of predictive techniques can be
found in the references listed at the end of this topic.

Professional judgement
As noted earlier, all methods of analysis involve professional judgement and the use of advanced tools
and models will require expert knowledge. Sole reliance on ‘best estimate’ professional
judgement may be unavoidable when there is a lack of data to support more rigorous analyses or there
is a lack of predictive methodology (as in the analysis of certain social impacts).
Examples include the prediction of the effect of a water supply proposal on:
 the activities of women or community interaction; and
 the loss of a communal place or sacred site.

80
Such predictions should be made by specialists, who are familiar with the type of proposal, the
geographic region and/or similar cases that are analogous to the situation. Where professional
judgement is used without also employing other methods, the judgement and values of the specialist
concerned may be open to challenge. Peer review and the use of agreed concepts and frameworks can
be useful to corroborate findings.

Quantitative mathematical models

Quantitative models express cause-effect relationships as mathematical functions, derived from
deterministic or probabilistic relationships. A number of such models are used in EIA to predict certain
types of impacts, for example, on air, water, soil and habitat. More complex computer-based
simulations are data demanding and often their use in EIA requires certain simplifying assumptions to
be made.

The choice and use of quantitative models for impact prediction should be suited to the particular
cause-effect relationship being studied; for example, transport and fate of oil spills, sediment loadings
and fish growth and pesticide pollution of groundwater aquifers. Attention also needs to be given to the
consistency, reliability and adaptability of models. Usually operational changes are made to the input
conditions for the model to see how the outputs are affected. For instance, differences in air pollution
can be calculated by changing the height of a stack or the rate of output of emissions.
Examples of the use of quantitative models include:
 air dispersion models to predict emissions and pollution concentrations at various locations
resulting from the operation of a coal-fired power plant;
 hydrological models to predict changes in the flow regime of rivers resulting from the
construction of a reservoir; and
 Ecological models to predict changes in aquatic biota (e.g. benthos, fish) resulting from
discharge of toxic substances.
Although traditionally this type of analysis has been carried out for physical impacts, there is
increasing use of mathematical models to analyse biological, social/demographic and economic
impacts.
When interpreting the results of quantitative mathematical models it should be remembered that all
models are simplifications of the real world. They require the specialist to make a number of
assumptions in both their development and their use. If these assumptions are inappropriate then there
can be significant implications for the accuracy and usefulness of the output data. EIA project

81
managers should ask all specialists carrying out mathematical analyses to clearly state the assumptions
inherent in the use of their models, together with any qualifications to be placed on the results.

Experiments and physical models

Experiments and scale models can be used to test and analyse the effects of project-related activities
and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation techniques. These methods have not been used
extensively in impact prediction. However, they can be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the
impact and the resources available, and providing certain cautions are remembered. When using the
results of experiments or models, note that unpredicted outcomes can occur when the data are scaled
up to life size.

Experiments can be undertaken directly in the field or under laboratory conditions. Examples of their
use include:
 the exposure of fish in a laboratory to concentrations of pollutants to determine mortality
levels; and
 field trials of the effectiveness of different methods of erosion control.
Physical models can be built to predict the behaviour and effect of the actual project on the
environment. For example, a physical model could be used to simulate changes to patterns of sand or
sediment deposition resulting from port and harbour works.

Case studies
Reviewing case studies of projects in similar environments can inform and assist impact prediction and
analysis. Comparisons will be especially helpful if impact monitoring and auditing data are available.
Otherwise, the results obtained by a comparable use of EIA methodology should be consulted.
Sometimes, relevant case material will not be readily accessible or available. In that event, there is a
large body of general information on the impact footprints of major types of projects, such as dams,
roads, airports and power stations. However, this should be read with care as to its source and
provenance.
Uncertainty is a pervasive issue at all stages of the EIA process but is especially important for impact
prediction. Put simply, uncertainty is a state of relative knowledge or ignorance. Where cause-effect
relationships are known and understood, however imperfectly, impacts can be forecast (or at least
described). Certain impacts are unknown until they occur; for example, ozone depletion caused by
82
release of CFCs and inter-species transmission of the human variant of Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease.
Sources of uncertainty in impact prediction include:
 scientific uncertainty limited understanding of an ecosystem (or community) and the processes
that govern change;
 data uncertainty restrictions introduced by incomplete or noncomparable information, or by
insufficient measurement techniques; and
 policy uncertainty unclear or disputed objectives, standards or guidelines for managing
potential hazards and effects.
There are a number of approaches that can be used to address uncertainty in impact prediction,
including:
 best and worst case prediction to illustrate the spread of uncertainty;
 attaching confidence limits to impact predictions; and
 sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of small changes in impact magnitude.
The relationship between impact, size and severity may not be linear. Small changes in impact
magnitude may cause larger than expected increases or decreases in the severity of environmental
change. Where necessary, an assessment should be made of the effect that small changes in the
magnitude of the impact (say less than 10 per cent) have on the environment, particularly if significant
or valued resources are potentially affected. This is referred to as a sensitivity analysis.
A broader range of impacts and interrelationships are now routinely integrated into EIA. These include
the social, economic and health aspects of environmental change. In comparison to biophysical
impacts, less experience has been gained in analysing these and other non-biophysical impacts.
6-5 Social Impact Assessment
People are an integral part of the environment. Human activity alters the biophysical environment and,
in turn, these impacts are translated into social effects. In many EIA systems the immediate and direct
social impacts of a proposal always should be analysed as an integral component of an EIA.
Social impacts include changes that affect individuals, groups, communities and populations as well as
the interactions between them. They are alterations in the way people live, work, play, relate to each
other and organise their communities and institutions to meet their needs and guide their collective
actions, as well as changes in their characteristic values, beliefs, norms, traditions and perceptions of
quality of life and well being.
Social impacts can be divided into four main types:

83
  demographic impacts such as changes in population numbers and characteristics (such as sex
ratio, age structure, in-and-out migration rates and resultant demand for social services, hospital
beds, school places, housing etc);
 cultural impacts including changes to shared customs, traditions and value systems (e.g.
language, dress, religious beliefs and rituals) archaeological, historical and cultural artifacts and
to structures and environmental features with religious or ritual significance;
 community impacts including changes in social structures, organisations and relationships and
their accompanying effect on cohesion, stability, identity and provision of services; and
 socio-psychological impacts including changes to individual quality of life and well being,
sense of security or belonging and perceptions of amenity or hazard.

Often, local people are not the beneficiaries of proposed development. Rather they bear the brunt of the
adverse impacts. These effects are especially acute in developing countries when projects displace
people whose security and subsistence depends on the land and resources that will be affected. World
Bank environmental and social assessment procedures give particular attention to the impact on
indigenous peoples and other vulnerable ethnic and cultural groups whose lifestyle, value and tenure
systems may be disrupted or lost.

A comprehensive social impact assessment (SIA) will be required in such cases. In other
circumstances, adding a relevant specialist to the EIA team may suffice to address social impacts.
However, it should be emphasised that there is little consensus on the social impacts that should be
included as part of an EIA process. Other than agreeing that the scope is too limited, SIA practitioners
themselves differ on the aspects to be studied and the framework within which they should be
analysed.

Health impacts
Health impacts can be a significant aspect of certain types of development. These impacts can be
beneficial as well as adverse; for example, water infrastructure projects eradicate or drastically reduce
the occurrence of cholera, diarrhea and other gastro-intestinal diseases that are endemic in less
developed countries. However, adverse health impacts can also occur as a result of development
projects, either directly from changes to the biophysical environment (such as exposure to pollutants)
or indirectly as a secondary result of other changes; for example, the creation of habitat conditions
favourable to the spread or intensification of disease vectors, such as mosquitoes (malaria) or water
snails (schistosomiasis).
84
To date, insufficient attention has been given to health impacts in comparison to coverage given to
biophysical or even other social impacts. In many cases, health impact assessment (HIA) is carried out
separately and independently; for example in the chemical, nuclear and other hazardous industries. The
World Health Organisation, the World Bank and other international agencies recommend that, where
necessary and appropriate, HIA should be integrated with the EIA process. Both use similar
information, approach and methods; for example, when identifying the health and environmental
impacts of exposure to air particulate emissions from a proposed power plant.

Examples of health impacts by sector

Psychosocial disorder and loss
Sector Communicable Non communicable Nutrition Injury
of well-being
Dust induced lung
Mining Tuberculosis Crushing Labour migration
disease
Loss of
Agriculture Parasitic infections Pesticide poisoning
subsistence
Poisoning by
Industry Occupational injury Disempowerment
pollutants
Loss of food
Forestry Occupational injury
production
Dams and irrigation Poisoning by Increased food
Water borne diseases Drowning Involuntary displacement
schemes pollutants production
Transportation HIV/Aids Heart disease Traffic injury Noise and induced stress
Electromagnetic
Energy Indoor air pollution Community displacement
radiation

6-6 Evaluation of impact significance

Once the impacts have been analysed, they are evaluated to determine their significance. As noted
earlier, the attribution of significance begins early, during screening and scoping, and extends
throughout the EIA process. There is a gradually ‘narrowing cone of resolution’ on questions of impact
significance as more complete information becomes available. Following impact identification and
prediction, impact evaluation is the formal stage at which a test of significance is made.
A systematic process should be followed in evaluating significance, distinguishing between as
predicted and residual impacts. Step one involves evaluating the significance of ‘as predicted’ impacts
to define the requirements for mitigation and other remedial actions (discussed in Section 7 Mitigation

85
and impact assessment). Step two involves evaluating the significance of the ‘residual’ impacts, i.e.
after mitigation measures are taken into account. This test is the critical measure of whether or not a
proposal is likely to cause significant impacts. It is determined by the joint consideration of its
characteristics (magnitude, extent, duration etc.) and the importance (or value) that is attached to the
resource losses, environmental deterioration or alternative uses which are foregone (see the figure
below).

Impact evaluation is a difficult and contestable exercise, which cuts across the fluid boundary between
facts and values and between EIA and decision-making. First, a technical judgement must be made of
the extent to which mitigation will reduce as predicted impacts. Second, a subjective value must be
placed on the significance of residual impacts, using criteria and tests described below. Finally, the
attribution of significance usually will influence final approval and condition setting; for example by
indicating whether or not the impact of a proposal is acceptable or not.

However, this latter task overlaps with the responsibility of the decision-maker. The environmental
acceptability of a proposal and the terms and conditions to be attached to its implementation must be
weighed against other economic and social factors by the decision-maker. Further information can be
found in Section 10 Decision-making.

Evaluation of significance should take place against a framework of criteria and measures established
for the purpose. These may be defined in EIA legislation and procedure; for example, by definition of
86
what constitutes an environmental impact and guidance on how to determine significance. Often
specified criteria are listed to aid such evaluation; for example, environmental standards and
thresholds, protected and sensitive areas, valued ecological functions and components and resource and
land use capabilities. Where this EIA guidance is not available, it can be developed separately by
adapting criteria and measures that are relevant to local circumstances and the type of proposals
reviewed.

EIA guidelines related to significance fall into two main categories:

 emissions based, comprising standards for air and water quality, noise etc.
 environmental quality based, comprising significance criteria for valued ecosystem components
or similar attributes.
Emissions based standards will be jurisdiction specific (although certain standards may be
internationally recognised) and provide an objective, technical means of determining significance; for
example the anticipated residual impacts either do or do not exceed the relevant standard. However,
reliance on standards suffers from certain deficiencies and limitations. The relevant technical standard
may be the subject of disagreement or public concern (e.g. blood lead levels, traffic noise levels,
electromagnetic field strengths). In many cases, an appropriate technical standard will not be available
for the evaluation of significance (e.g. ecological, social and visual impacts).
Environmental quality based criteria or thresholds are qualitative, broadly drawn and require
interpretation. In this context, impact evaluation is a subjective exercise, linking scientific criteria to
social preferences (as discovered through public involvement or SIA methods) and relating them to the
environment and community affected. Some of the impact identification techniques discussed earlier in
this topic have built in scales or weightings (and hence values) based on prior experience. When
applying them, the criteria should be modified to take account of local value systems and traditional
practices.

Additionally, some countries and international agencies have established environmental sustainability
criteria and environmental acceptability rules against which evaluation can be conducted. For example,
the World Bank input and output guidelines are meant to ensure that each project does not exceed the
regenerative and assimilative capacities of the receiving environment (see the box below). In practice,
as the Bank acknowledges, there is considerable difficulty in applying these guidelines and it has
augmented them with other environmental and social safeguards. Rules for environmental acceptability
and their relationship to significance thresholds based on Western Australian experience are described
in the companion box below.
87
World Bank guidelines for environmental sustainability
Environmental Aspects of Bank Work,
Source: World Bank 1991
(OMS 2.36), para 9(a) states:
“The Bank endeavours to ensure that
each project affecting renewable natural
resources (e.g., as a sink for residues or
as a source of raw materials) does not
exceed the regenerative capacities of the
environment.”
Output Guide
Waste emissions from a project should
be within the assimilative capacity of the
local environment to absorb without
unacceptable degradation of its future
waste absorptive capacity or other
important services.
Input Guide
Harvest rates of renewable resource
inputs should be within regenerative
capacity of the natural system that
generates them; depletion rates of
nonrenewable resource inputs should be
equal to the rate at which renewable
substitutes are developed by human
invention and investment.
Examples of threshold tests for environmental acceptability
Source:
Level of acceptability Potential impact threshold Sippe
1999
Exceeds legal threshold, e.g. quality standard
Increases level of risk to public health and safety above
qualitative or quantitative criteria (e.g. in some jurisdictions an
Unacceptable
increased risk of death of 1 in a million per year
Extinction of biological species, loss of genetic diversity, rare or
endangered species, critical habitat
Conflict with existing environmental policies, land-use plans
Normally unacceptable Loss of populations of commercial biological species
Large-scale loss of productive capacity of renewable resources
May be acceptable only Avoidance of spread of biological disease, pests, feral animals,
with minimization, weeds

88
Examples of threshold tests for environmental acceptability
Source:
Level of acceptability Potential impact threshold Sippe
1999
Taking of rare or endangered species
mitigation, management
Some loss of threatened habitat
Some loss of populations and habitats of non-threatened species
Modification of landscape without downgrading special aesthetic
Normally acceptable values
Emissions demonstrably less than the carrying capacity of the
receiving environment

Aids and principles for evaluating significance

Key reference points for evaluating significance include:
 environmental standards, guidelines and objectives;
 level of public concern (particularly over health and safety);
 scientific and professional evidence for:
o loss/disruption of valued resource stocks and ecological functions;
o negative impact on social values, quality of life and livelihood; and
o foreclosure of land and resource use opportunities.

Guiding principles for determining significance include:

 use procedure and guidance established by the jurisdiction;
 adapt other relevant criteria or identify points of reference from comparable cases;
 assign significance in a rational, defensible way;
 be consistent in the comparison of alternatives; and
 document the reasons for the judgements made.

A test of significance can be applied by asking three questions:

 Are there residual environmental impacts?
 If yes, are these likely to be significant or not?
 If yes, are these significant effects likely to occur e.g. is the probability high, moderate or low?

6-7 Significance Criteria

Criteria to evaluate whether or not adverse impacts are significant include:

89
  environmental loss and deterioration;
 social impacts resulting directly or indirectly from environmental change;
 non-conformity with environmental standards, objectives and guidelines; and
 likelihood and acceptability of risk.
Criteria to evaluate adverse impacts on natural resources, ecological functions or designated areas
include:
 reductions in species diversity;
 depletion or fragmentation on plant and animal habitat;
 loss of threatened, rare or endangered species;
 impairment of ecological integrity, resilience or health e.g.
o disruption of food chains;
o decline in species population;
o alterations in predator-prey relationships.
Criteria to evaluate the significance of adverse social impacts that result from biophysical changes
include:
 threats to human health and safety e.g. from release of persistent and/or toxic chemicals;
 decline in commercially valuable or locally important species or resources e.g. fish, forests and
farmland;
 loss of areas or environmental components that have cultural, recreational or aesthetic value;
 displacement of people e.g. by dams and reservoirs;
 disruption of communities by influx of a workforce e.g. during project construction; and
 pressures on services, transportation and infrastructure.

Environmental standards, objectives and targets to evaluate significance include:

 prescribed limits on waste/emission discharges and/or concentrations;
 ambient air and water quality standards established by law or regulations;
 environmental objectives and targets contained in policy and strategy; and
 approved or statutory plans that protect areas or allocate, zone or regulate the use of land and
natural resources. 

Probability and Acceptance of Risk

90
Risk-based principles may be used to establish rules of thumb for the acceptability of effects. For
example, a statistical threshold of significance may be established to define an acceptable incidence of
disease per million people exposed to a specified hazard (e.g. carcinogenic chemical). This approach is
often controversial. It is important to document why and how the level and acceptability of risk has
been determined.

A risk-based approach can be useful to address the significance of cumulative effects and ecosystem
level changes. Typically, a quantitative risk assessment will not be possible because of lack of
knowledge of the variability of natural systems. However, qualitative rules of thumb may be set for
cumulative loss or change; for example limiting drainage of wetlands to no more than 25 per cent of
the area or some other proportion considered to be significant for maintaining their essential functions
of flow regulation, aquatic and bird habitat etc.

6-8 Summary
You have now completed Section 6 of 11, the largest Section in this Module, Environmental Impact
Assessment. To demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Identify and explain environmental impacts and their appropriate assessment;
 Understand and explain impact assessment principles and methods, including the essential
difference between magnitude and significance;
 Understand the wider context of environmental impact assessment, including links to the
sustainability agenda and social impact assessment; and
 Elucidate the problems of data, certainty and risk in impact analysis and how these can be
managed.

91
 SEVEN
Mitigation & impact management

7-1 Link between EIA process and Mitigation

Mitigation is a critical component of the EIA process. It aims to prevent adverse impacts from
happening and to keep those that do occur within an acceptable level. Opportunities for impact
mitigation will occur throughout the project cycle.
The objectives of mitigation are to:
 find better alternatives and ways of doing things;
 enhance the environmental and social benefits of a proposal;
 avoid, minimise or remedy adverse impacts; and
 Ensure that residual adverse impacts are kept within acceptable levels.

Early links should be established between the EIA and project design teams to identify mitigation
opportunities and incorporate them into consideration of alternatives and design options. In practice,
mitigation is emphasised in the EIA process once the extent of the potential impact of a proposal is
reasonably well understood. This typically takes place following impact identification and prediction,
and recommended measures for mitigation will be an important part of the EIA report. Usually, these
measures will be incorporated into the terms and conditions of project approval and implemented
during the impact management stage of the EIA process.

The objectives of impact management are to:

 ensure that mitigation measures are implemented;
 establish systems and procedures for this purpose;
 monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and
 take any necessary action when unforeseen impacts occur.

The adverse impacts and consequences of a proposal can occur far beyond the site boundaries of a
project. In the past, many of the real costs of development proposals were not accounted for in
economic analyses of project feasibility, particularly in the operational and decommissioning phases of
the project cycle. As a result, these costs were borne by the community affected or the public at large
rather than by the proponent.

92
Stricter requirements are now being imposed on proponents to:
 mitigate impacts through good project design and environmental management;
 provide benefits to the community affected by the proposal;
 prepare plans for managing impacts so these are kept within acceptable levels; and
 make good any residual environmental damage.

The responsibility of proponents to internalise the full environmental costs of development proposals is
now widely accepted. In addition, many proponents have found that good design and impact
management can result in significant savings. This outcome is similar to that found in industries
applying the principles of cleaner production to improve their environmental performance. Like
cleaner production, mitigation measures are more expensive in capital outlay but have been found to be
cost effective over the long run.

The sustainability agenda is placing new demands on proponents with regard to mitigation and impact
management. For example, increasing attention is being given to the principle of no net loss of natural
and social capital. Under the polluter pays principle, the application of this principle could require the
proponent to make restitution for unavoidable residual damages. In this case, mitigation would include
in-kind compensation measures, comprising equivalent, comparable or suitable offsets for all residual
environmental impacts of a proposal.

EIA stage for considering mitigation measures

In the EIA Report the section for mitigation measures is often located after the evaluation section, that
is after the analysis and comparison of alternatives has been reported. This gives the impression that
first a preferred alternative has been selected, then second mitigating measures have been added to the
project. This process may seem to be appropriate, but unless there has been a subsequent review of the
alternatives the chosen one, with mitigation measures, may be a worse option. In particular the
mitigation measures will add costs to the preferred alternative. It could be that in total the cost becomes
greater than a second alternative that had less impact on the environment. In this situation the second
alternative would have been preferable to the one chosen having both less impact and being less cost.

Consequently, the stage for thinking about mitigation measures should be before there has been a
comparison of the alternatives. The point of considering safeguards before comparision is to encourage
the analyst to think about the “extras” that may have to be added onto the basic proposal, before the

93
evaluation of the proposal is undertaken. This will help to ensure that the comparison, or evaluation, of
alternatives is conducted when all the relevant information and costs are included.
A crucial point to remember is that after safeguards are added to a proposal, the alternatives may
become more attractive (eg cheaper).

7-2 Main Elements of Mitigation

In figure 7-2 below, the elements of mitigation are organised into a hierarchy of actions:
 first, avoid adverse impacts as far as possible by use of preventative measures;
 second, minimise or reduce adverse impacts to as low as practicable levels; and
 Third, remedy or compensate for adverse residual impacts, which are unavoidable and cannot
be reduced further.
Key principles for the application of mitigation consistent with the above framework include the
following:
 give preference to avoid and prevent measures;
 consider feasible alternatives to the proposal and identify the best practicable environmental
option;
 identify customised measures to minimise each of the main impacts predicted;
 ensure they are appropriate, environmentally sound and cost-effective; and
 use compensation or remedial measures as a last resort.

EIA good practice in mitigation requires a relevant technical understanding of the issues and the
measures that work in the circumstances.

Mitigation can be carried out by:

 structural measures, such as design or location changes, engineering modifications and
landscape or site treatment; and
 non-structural measures, such as economic incentives, legal, institutional and policy
instruments, provision of community services and training and capacity building.
Structural measures are well established for certain types of projects, such as dams, roads, and oil and
gas exploration and development. In some cases, industry codes of good practice will be available.
However, these need to be applied with regard to the nature and severity of environmental impacts; for
example taking account of nearby protected areas, patterns of wildlife mitigation or constraints
imposed by natural hazards. Other projects involving new technology may require non-standardised or
even untried measures to mitigate the adverse impacts. These need to be given special attention during
impact management.

94
Non-structural measures are used increasingly. They can be applied to reinforce or supplement
structural measures or to address specific impacts. For example, many types of social, community and
health impacts are addressed by non-structural measures and their use is becoming broader.
A three-step process of mitigation can be applied to relate the hierarchy of elements in Figure 1 to the
stages of the EIA process when they are typically applied. Generally, as project design becomes more
detailed, the opportunities for impact avoidance narrow and the concern is to minimise and compensate
for unavoidable impacts. However, these distinctions are not rigid and opportunities for creative
mitigation should be sought at all stages of EIA and project planning.

Step One: Impact avoidance. This step is most effective when applied at an early stage of project
planning. It can be achieved by:
 not undertaking certain projects or elements that could result in adverse impacts;
 avoiding areas that are environmentally sensitive; and
 putting in place preventative measures to stop adverse impacts from occurring, for example,
release of water from a reservoir to maintain a fisheries regime.

Step Two: Impact minimisation. This step is usually taken during impact identification and prediction
to limit or reduce the degree, extent, magnitude, or duration of adverse impacts. It can be achieved by:
 scaling down or relocating the proposal;
 redesigning elements of the project; and
 taking supplementary measures to manage the impacts

95
Step Three: Impact compensation. This step is usually applied to remedy unavoidable residual adverse
impacts. It can be achieved by:
 rehabilitation of the affected site or environment, for example, by habitat enhancement and
restocking fish;
 restoration of the affected site or environment to its previous state or better, as typically
required for mine sites, forestry roads and seismic lines; and
 replacement of the same resource values at another location, for example, by wetland
engineering to provide an equivalent area to that lost to drainage or infill.
7-3 Approaches to Mitigation
Depending on the timing of the project cycle and the nature of impacts, a number of approaches can be
taken to achieve the objectives of mitigation.
These include:
 developing environmentally better alternatives to the proposal;
 making changes to project planning and design;
 carrying out impact monitoring and management; and
 compensating for impacts by
o monetary payment
o in kind measures
o site remediation bonds
o a resettlement plan.
Developing better alternatives
The development of alternatives to a proposed project is part of a comprehensive approach to
mitigation. A broad range of alternatives can be generated at the earliest stages of project planning and
design, when the process is still flexible (see Topic 5 -Scoping). At the later stages of project design, it
is more realistic to identify feasible alternatives to the proposal. For example, impacts may be avoided
or reduced by a reconsideration of the site or design alternatives and identifying the best practicable
environmental option.

Making changes to project planning and design

Early consideration of environmental factors and impacts in project planning and design facilitates
impact avoidance and minimisation. This requires coordination of the engineering, planning and EIA
teams to:
 Address the likely impacts throughout the life cycle of the project, including decommissioning;
and identify the best practicable ways and means of mitigating them.

96
In practice, the elements of mitigation and the measures identified for a proposal will be tailored to the
major impacts and the environment and community affected. A list of potential impacts for an
extensive range of project types and suggested design measures to mitigate them can be found in
Volumes 2 and 3 of the World Bank Environmental Assessment Sourcebook and its various Updates.
For example, almost all development proposals involve disturbance of the land surface. This is usually
extensive for major linear projects (roads, pipelines), dams and reservoirs, and large-scale agriculture,
forestry and housing schemes. Environmental impacts of particular concern can include drainage of
wetlands, conversion of natural areas, or expansion into areas that are vulnerable to natural hazards.
The general considerations to be taken into account when mitigating the environmental impacts of
housing schemes are described in the table below. Specific measures that can be applied in planning
and design of dams and reservoirs to avoid or reduce their impact are identified following the example
provided. Looking ahead, the potential impacts of climate changes may have to be considered in
mitigation planning and design, for example to address increased or reduced precipitation or
inundation or saline influx into coastal areas as a result of a 1m rise in sea level.

Further details of measures for mitigating the impacts of different types of projects are provided at
Mitigation Measures in the EIA Wiki.
Mitigation of large scale housing projects
Source:
adapted
from the
Major adverse impacts Mitigating measure
World
Bank,
1991
 Ensure that due consideration is given to the proper trade-offs between land values for
housing and those of other uses, such as prime farmland, forests or natural habitats of value
Displacement of existing to society as a whole.
land uses  Review existing planning and design standards to ensure that they are suited to local
conditions and not unnecessarily wasteful of land.
 Make any necessary changes, for example by drafting new regulations.
 Ensure that regionally critical environmental sites, such as forested areas, major bodies and
Destruction of wetlands, habitats containing rare and endangered species, etc., are identified and not
environmentally critical threatened by project location.
areas  Identify mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for environmental impacts and
to enhance the environmental and community benefits of the proposal.
A case example of mitigation measures are available at Seco River Dam in the EIA Wiki

Carrying out impact monitoring and management

97
Mitigation measures are implemented as part of impact management. This process is accompanied by
monitoring to check that impacts are as predicted. When unforeseen impacts or problems occur, they
can require corrective action to keep them within acceptable levels, thereby changing the mitigation
measures recommended in an EIA or set out in an environmental management report (described later
in this topic). Further information on monitoring and implementation can be found in Topic 11 –
Implementation and follow up.

In some cases, it may be necessary to establish or strengthen impact management systems to facilitate
the implementation of mitigation measures during project construction and operation. These supporting
actions should be identified as part of the environmental management plan. They can include the
establishment of an environmental management system (EMS) based upon ISO 14000 guidelines for
strengthening particular arrangements for impact management. Any other supporting actions to
implement these measures, such as training and capacity building, should also be specified.

The management of social impacts associated with the influx of a temporary workforce and additional
population will require specific mitigation measures. These include the provision of:
 improved transport, water and sewage infrastructure;
 expanded social and health care services, including measures to target
 specific impacts;
 better support and counseling services to cope with socio-economic
 changes; and
 additional recreational areas and facilities, including full replacement
 of any areas lost to development.

Compensating for impacts

Monetary compensation
Traditionally, compensation has meant payment for loss of land or amenity resulting from a proposal.
This approach can be appropriate in certain circumstances; for example, when private property must be
expropriated to make way for a road or other public infrastructure project, or land owners are paid rent
or lump sum compensation for access to or use of their property to drill for sub-surface resources. In
addition, compensation packages, containing a range of offsets, may be negotiated with affected
communities. These may include a direct monetary payment or a capital investment by the proponent.

Site remediation bonds

98
Recently, attention has also focused on problems of contaminated land and the requirements for site
remediation. Where this is a potential issue, mitigation measures should be directed at both prevention
of contamination and provision for clean up during decommissioning. Because of the time period,
project ownership may change or the proponent may be unable to complete the mitigation plan for
other reasons. As insurance, a bond system can be used to ensure that sufficient funds will be available
for the required mitigation.

Resettlement plans
Special considerations apply to mitigation of proposals that displace or disrupt people. Certain types of
projects, such as reservoirs and irrigation schemes and public works, are known to cause involuntary
resettlement. This is a contentious issue because it involves far more than re-housing people; in
addition, income sources and access to common property resources are likely to be lost.
Almost certainly, a resettlement plan will be required to ensure that no one is worse off than before,
which may not be possible for indigenous people whose culture and lifestyle is tied to a locality. This
plan must include the means for those displaced to reconstruct their economies and communities and
should include an EIA of the receiving areas. Particular attention should be given to indigenous,
minority and vulnerable groups who are most at risk from resettlement.

In kind compensation
When significant or net residual loss or damage to the environment is likely, in kind compensation is
appropriate. As noted earlier, environmental rehabilitation, restoration or replacement have become
standard practices for many proponents. Now, increasing emphasis is given to a broader range of
compensation measures to offset impacts and assure the sustainability of development proposals.
These include impact compensation ‘trading’, such as offsetting CO 2 emissions by planting
forests to sequester carbon.

7-4 Environmental Management Plan and Mitigation Measures

An EIA report contains predictions about the environmental impacts of proposals and
recommendations for their mitigation and management. The report is essentially a discretionary
planning document. Usually, a separate project approval sets the terms and conditions with which the
proponent must comply.

An environmental management plan (EMP), also referred to as an impact management plan, is usually
prepared as part of EIA reporting. It translates recommended mitigation and monitoring measures into
99
specific actions that will be carried out by the proponent. Depending upon particular requirements, the
plan may be included in, or appended to, the EIA report or may be a separate document. The EMP will
need to be adjusted to the terms and conditions specified in any project approval. It will then form the
basis for impact management during project construction and operation.
The main components of an EMP are described in the table below, which reflects practice at the World
Bank. Although there is no standard format, the EMP should contain the following:
 summary of the potential impacts of the proposal;
 description of the recommended mitigation measures;
 statement of their compliance with relevant standards;
 allocation of resources and responsibilities for plan implementation;
 schedule of the actions to be taken;
 programme for surveillance, monitoring and auditing; and
 contingency plan when impacts are greater than expected.
Components of an environmental management plan (EMP)
Source:
World
EMP Component How to address
Bank,
1999
Summary of The predicted adverse environmental and social impacts for which mitigation is required should be identified
impacts and briefly summarised. Cross referencing to the EA report or other documentation is recommended.
Each mitigation measure should be briefly described with reference to the impact to which it relates and the
Description of
conditions under which it is required (for example, continuously or in the event of contingencies). These
mitigation
should be accompanied by, or referenced to, project design and operating procedures which elaborate on the
measures
technical aspects of implementing the various measures.
Description of The monitoring program should clearly indicate the linkages between impacts identified in the EIA report,
monitoring measurement indicators, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the
programme need for corrective actions.
Institutional Responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring should be clearly defined, including arrangements for co-
arrangements ordination between the various actors responsible for mitigation.
Implementation
The timing, frequency and duration of mitigation measure should be specified in an implementation schedule,
schedule and
showing links with overall project implementation. Procedures to provide information on the progress and
reporting
results of mitigation and monitoring measures should also be clearly specified.
procedures
Cost estimates and These should be specified for both the initial investment and recurring expenses for  implementing all
sources of funds measures contained in the EMP, integrated into the total project costs, and factored into loan negotiations.

The EMP should contain commitments that are binding on the proponent. It can be translated into
project documentation and provide the basis for a legal contract that sets out the responsibilities of the
proponent. In turn, the proponent can use the EMP to establish environmental performance standards
and requirements for those carrying out the works or providing supplies. An EMP can also be used to
prepare an environmental management system for the operational phase of the project.
100
Summary and Conclusions
You have now completed Section 7 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Demonstrate your understanding of mitigation concepts and methods in EIA and why it is
necessary;
 Devise appropriate mitigation measures for a range of particular impacts; and
 Appreciate the strengths, weaknesses and appropriateness of different mitigation options and
where they should be used in EIA.

CHAPTER EIGHT

EIA REPORTING
8-1 What is an EIA Report?

101
A number of different names are used for the report that is prepared on the findings of the EIA process.
The generic term EIA report is used here. Other terms commonly used for the same document include
environmental impact statement (EIS) and environmental statement (ES). Further variations may be
introduced by the terminology used in different countries. Despite the different names, EIA reports
have the same basic purpose, approach and structure.

Usually, the proponent is responsible for the preparation of the EIA report. The information contained
in the report should meet the terms of reference established at the scoping stage of the EIA process (see
Scoping section of course). The terms of reference set out the information that is to be submitted to the
decision-making body or responsible authority.

The purpose of the EIA report is to provide a coherent statement of the potential impacts of a proposal
and the measures that can be taken to reduce and remedy them. It contains essential information for:
 the proponent to implement the proposal in an environmentally and socially responsible way;
 the responsible authority to make an informed decision on the proposal, including the terms and
conditions that must be attached to an approval or authorisation; and
 The public to understand the proposal and its likely impacts on people and the environment.

A successful EIA report that meets these aims will be:

 actionable a document that can be applied by the proponent to achieve environmentally sound
planning and design;
 decision-relevant a document that organizes and presents the information necessary for project
authorization and, if applicable, permitting and licensing; and
 user-friendly a document that communicates the technical issues to all parties in a clear and
comprehensible way.

8-2 Typical Elements of an EIA Report

In many countries, the information to be included in an EIA report is specified in legislation, procedure
or guidance. Alternatively, the format may be established by custom or reference to the World Bank
sample outline of an EIA report. Typically, the content of an EIA report will be prepared in accordance
with specific terms of reference established during the scoping process. It may also include additional
issues and other matters that have emerged as a result of EIA studies and need to be taken into account
in decision-making.

102
An EIA report typically includes many or all of the following headings and items:
 executive or non-technical summary (which may be used as a public communication
document);
 statement of the need for, and objectives of, the proposal;
 reference to applicable legislative, regulatory and policy frameworks;
 description of the proposal and how it will be implemented (construction, operation and
decommissioning);
 comparison of the proposal and the alternatives to it (including the no action alternative);
 description of the project setting, including the relationship to other proposals, current land-
uses and relevant policies and plans for the area;
 description of baseline conditions and trends (biophysical, socioeconomic etc), identifying any
changes anticipated prior to project implementation;
 review of the public consultation process, the views and concerns expressed by stakeholders
and the way these have been taken into account;
 consideration of the main impacts (positive and adverse) that are identified as likely to result
from the proposal, their predicted characteristics (e.g. magnitude, occurrence, timing, etc.)
proposed mitigation measures, the residual effects and any uncertainties and limitations of data
and analysis;
 evaluation of the significance of the residual impacts, preferably for each alternative, with an
identification of the best practicable environmental option;
 an environmental management plan that identifies how proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures will be translated into specific actions as part of impact management*; and
 Appendices containing supporting technical information, description of methods used to collect
and analyse data, list of references, etc.
* Note the environmental management plan can be included in or annexed to the report; in some cases
it may be a separate document.

Executive or non-technical summary

The executive summary gives a concise description of the main findings and recommendations. It is
not meant to summarise all of the contents of the EIA report. Instead the focus is on the key
information and options for decision-making. Except for very large proposals, the executive summary
should be kept short, no more than seven pages and preferably less. Often, the executive summary is
the only part of the report that decision makers and most people will read. It can be written for
distribution to the public as an information brochure.
103
An executive summary should describe:
 the proposal and its setting;
 the terms of reference for the EIA;
 the results of public consultation;
 the alternatives considered;
 major impacts and their significance;
 proposed mitigation measures;
 the environmental management plan; and
 Any other critical matters that bear on the decision.

Need and objectives of the proposal

A clear statement of the need for and objectives of the proposal should be given. Typically, need is
substantiated by reference to relevant policies and plans. Reference also can be made to the demands
and issues that the proposal is intended to address, the purpose that will be achieved, and the benefits
that are anticipated.

Legal and policy framework

There is usually a brief description of the legal and policy framework that applies to the proposal being
assessed. Relevant aspects of EIA procedure can be cited, together with any other requirements or
considerations that need to be mentioned. The Terms of Reference for the EIA should be summarised,
explaining the reasons for any variation with them. A copy of the complete Terms of Reference should
be appended where appropriate.

Description of the proposal and its alternatives

A description of the proposal and the alternatives indicates the elements and main activities that will
take place during project construction, operation and decommissioning. This section of the report
draws attention to the major differences between the alternatives, including the no-action alternative. It
can also include information on:
 the project setting and the major on-site and off-site features (e.g. access roads, power and
water supply, etc.);
 resource use, raw material inputs and emission and waste discharges;
 operational characteristics, processes and products;
 the relationship of the technical, economic, social and environmental features of the proposal;
and

104
  comparison of alternatives and options (such as size, location, technology, layout, energy
sources, source of raw materials) within the above context.

The above information is given in only enough detail for impact prediction and mitigation measures to
be understood and appreciated. Wherever appropriate, maps, flow diagrams and other visual aids are
used to summarise information.

Description of the affected environment

A concise description is needed of the biophysical and socio-economic conditions of the affected
environment. Baseline information should include any changes anticipated before the project begins.
Current land use and other proposed development activities within the project area should also be
taken into account. This indicates how the proposal relates to current policies and plans and whether or
not it is consistent with them.

Baseline information is often covered in too much detail in an EIA report. It should provide only the
necessary background and baseline against which to understand impact predictions. Key aspects of the
affected environment that need to be included for this purpose include:
 spatial and temporal boundaries;
 biophysical, land use and socio-economic conditions;
 major trends and anticipated future conditions should the proposal not go ahead; and
 environmentally-sensitive areas and valued resources that may need special protection.

Public consultation and inputs

A concise, yet complete, statement of the nature, scope and results of public consultation is an
important section of the report. These particulars are sometimes overlooked or aspects are
insufficiently described. Depending on the provision made for public consultation, some or all of the
following points can be included:
 identification of the interested and affected public;
 the method(s) used to inform and involve stakeholders;
 analysis of the views and concerns expressed;
 how these have been taken into account; and
 outstanding issues and matters that need to be resolved.
Environmental impacts and their evaluation
This section of the EIA report evaluates the potential positive and adverse impacts for both the
proposal and its alternatives and for each component of the environment identified as important in the
105
terms of reference. Impact characteristics are described as predictions of magnitude, severity,
occurrence, duration, etc. The significance of residual impacts that cannot be mitigated should be
explicitly stated.

Information contained in this section includes:

 prediction of each major impact, its characteristics and likely consequences;
 consideration of their compliance with environmental standards and policy objectives;
 recommended measures for avoiding, minimising and remedying the impact;
 evaluation of significance of the residual impacts (stating the standards or criteria used); and
 limitations associated with impact prediction and evaluation, as indicated by the assumptions
made, gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered.

The section can also indicate how environmental data was gathered, the predictive methods used and
the criteria used to judge significance. It is helpful to present information in summary form to give
readers an overview of the impact characteristics of the proposal and the alternatives to it. One possible
way to do this is to display the information in tables (see below) as suggested in Section 6 – Impact
analysis. Both direct and indirect impacts, including potential cumulative effects, should be
highlighted.
Impact characteristic summary table (prepare for each alternative)
Alternative No. Impact Type
IMPACT
Air quality Health etc.
CHARACTERISTIC
Nature
Magnitude
Extent/location
Timing
Duration
Reversibility
Likelihood (risk)
Significance

Comparative evaluation of alternatives and identification of the environmentally preferred

option
In this section, the proposal and the alternatives are systematically compared in terms of adverse and
beneficial impacts and effectiveness of mitigation measures. As far as possible, the trade-offs should

106
be clarified and a clear basis for choice established. The environmentally preferred option should be
identified and reasons given for the selection made.
Topic 7.1 covered the issue of ensuring that the costs, and other impacts, of mitigation measures
should be taken into account as part of the comparison of alternatives. So at this point of the EIA
Report the evaluation should include information (especially costs) about the mitigation measures for
the main alternatives, so that the evaluation can be conducted on a reasonably consistent basis. This
will help to ensure that the best alternative, across all the environmental and social criteria, is selected.

A comparative evaluation can be undertaken by reference to:

 adverse and beneficial impacts;
 effectiveness of mitigation measures;
 distribution of benefits and costs, locally and regionally; and
 any other opportunities for community and environmental enhancement.

As with the identification and evaluation of the impacts the presentation of the comparison of
alternatives can follow many forms. Evaluation methods have been developed to bring together the
various environmental effects (and impacts) associated with a proposal and its alternatives. The
methods enable comparisons of impacts and alternatives to be made. They also lead directly to an
output which summarises all the environmental impacts and provides the basis for the evaluation of the
proposal (and alternatives) by decision-makers. Methods can be classified into eight main types,
although this is obviously arbitrary and not necessarily consistent for different researchers. The
categories which cover the vast majority of methods are, according to Thomas and Elliott (2005):
1. ad hoc methods
2. checklists
3. matrices
4. overlays
5. systems diagrams
6. networks
7. quantitative or index methods
8. mathematical models
Ad hoc methods are commonly used. A simple form being similar to the following table for a road
proposal:
Assessment Matrix

107
 Source:
Assessment Criteria Alternative 1< Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 RMIT
University
TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Project Total Estimated Cost ($ Million) 103 104 105 115
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.75 1.11 0.86 0.78
Net Present Value (NPV) ($ Million) -18.9 8.2 -10.4 -17.7
IMPACTS
Land Required (ha) 299 265 305 290
No. of Houses Acquired (within right-of-way) 2 6 3 6
Road Safety (reduction in accidents in first year
2.7 3.4 3.0 2.9
of operation)
Business and Tourism + 0 0 0
Agriculture - + 0 0
Social + 0 0 0
Traffic Noise + 0 0 0
Land Use Planning + 0 + 0
Flora and Fauna 0 0 0 +
Exotic Vegetation 0 + + -
Landscape + 0 0 0
Archaeology and Heritage + 0 0 0

In this case qualitative information has been used for the issues that were difficult to measure (business
and tourism, etc). Instead of shading, some other representation could be used (words, descriptions,
dots).
When used, formal methods of analysing alternatives should be briefly described and their assumptions
and limitations noted.

8-3 Shortcomings encountered in Preparing EIA Reports

An EIA report should be complete, easily understood, objective, factual and internally consistent.
These objectives are difficult to achieve in a process that involves many contributors working to tight
deadlines. Even so, far too many EIA reports fall short of meeting their basic purpose of providing the
necessary and relevant information for decision-making and clearly communicating key findings to the
public and other interested parties.

Higher standards could be achieved by addressing some of the shortcomings and deficiencies that are
commonly found in EIA reports. The following list was compiled primarily from the experience of the
Netherlands EIA Commission, which is an independent body responsible for the review of EIA
reports.
Shortcomings and Deficiencies of EIA reports and Reporting examples
Source: Netherlands EIA
Shortcoming EIA Reporting Example
Commission
The need for a project An EIA report substantiates the need for offshore exploratory drilling in a
cannot be justified remote and sensitive Arctic Sound primarily in terms of energy security
and economic development. The broader opportunity costs of opening the
108
Shortcomings and Deficiencies of EIA reports and Reporting examples
Source: Netherlands EIA
Shortcoming EIA Reporting Example
Commission
area to development are overlooked.
The objective and
An EIA report on a proposed by-pass road identifies the objective as relieving traffic congestion, failing to
alternatives are too
consider broader transport issues and alternatives.
narrowly stated
The description of the An EIA report describes the proposed construction of an industrial plant but omits information about
proposal does not cover construction of a pipeline and other facilities to transport and handle raw materials and finished products to and
the key features from the plant.
Selection of alternatives
The EIA report on a car racing circuit in a coastal dune landscape only considers alternatives meeting motor
does not take into
sport requirements, visitor ‘needs’ and public safety regulations. It overlooks environmental
account environmental
considerations, such as noise abatement, protection of land surface and dune ecology.
aspects
Key problems affected An EIA report describes the proposed construction of a coal-fired power plant using surface water as cooling
by the proposal are not medium. It does not divulge that the surface water body is already used by other industrial activities for this
described purpose to the limit of its cooling capacity.
Sensitive elements in the
An EIA report for a pipeline project does not indicate that the proposed alignment will dissect certain areas of
affected environment are
ecological value.
overlooked
Environmental target
values and standards are An EIA report for an extension of an airport describes the impacts up to the standard of 25 per cent of people
not properly taken into seriously affected by aircraft noise, whereas the target value aims at 10 per cent of people seriously affected.
account
Alternatives do not
comply with An EIA report for a sanitary landfill indicates that the soil types in the area are very diverse, ranging from sand
environmental and clay to peat. The alternatives do not take into account the large differences in compaction and subsidence
regulations and of these soil types, with subsequent failure of underlining and drainage systems.
standards
Appropriate mitigating An EIA report for a sanitary landfill does not describe a system for collecting methane gas produced in the
measures are not landfill, even though greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate warming and should be capped at current
considered levels.
The alternative offering
the best protection to the
An EIA report for a bridge or seabed tunnel across an estuary does not examine the alternative of a drilled
environment is not
tunnel underneath the estuary, which will have a much lower adverse impact on the environment.
described or
insufficiently described
Serious environmental
impacts or risks are not An EIA report for a sanitary landfill in an area with very variable soil conditions does not describe the
described or are environmental risks and consequences of a possible failure of the underlying sealing and drainage systems.
incorrectly described
Insufficient or outdated
An EIA report on an urban development scheme makes use of a mobility prediction model using national
prediction models are
averages, although local data is available and would permit a more precise prediction to be made.
used
An EIA report for a regional management plan for the disposal of municipal sewage sludge compares various
When comparing alternative methods for disposal. One alternative involves composting the sludge into a low-grade soil additive.
alternatives, incorrect The comparison of the alternatives in the EIA report describes this method as an important form of disposal
conclusions are drawn because it greatly reduces sludge volume. However, no account is taken of the limited potential for use of the
product due to the high heavy metal content of the sludge.

8-4 Guidelines for effective EIA report preparation and production

Usually, EIA reports are the product of a team of consultants and specialists. Most proposals have a
number of different types of potential impacts (biophysical, socio-economic, health, etc) and their
analysis requires a range of expertise. An EIA Project Manager or team leader has responsibility for
forming an interdisciplinary team and managing its work.
109
The EIA report is a statement of the likely impacts of a proposal and how these can be mitigated and
managed. It is a decision document, not a compendium of technical information. As such, the EIA
report should be both rigorous and easily understood. It must effectively communicate the findings to
the public at large, local people affected by the proposal and interest groups, as well as decision-
makers who are the primary users.

As described earlier, the non-technical summary or executive summary is particularly important as the
only section of the EIA report that will be widely read. The precis of significant findings presents the
reporting team with the opportunity to describe complex material in a few pages. It is easy to call for,
but hard to do. Tables, diagrams and caption materials that capture and compare significance impacts
can help. All have their place but none can be effective without the preliminary work of producing a
clear and comprehensive EIA report, which is based on rigorous studies, sound data and consistent
analysis and interpretation.

Distribution of the report

Usually, EIA reports are available to the public and distributed widely. However, the institutional
arrangements for this purpose differ. As a general guide, the EIA report should be accessible to all
those who have an interest in, or are affected by, the proposal. Where public consultation has been
extensive, it can be useful to lodge the EIA report in public institutions and distribute the summary to
all individuals who have registered their names. Other measures may be needed in many developing
countries, particularly where proposals directly affect poor and non-literate communities.

Other forms of presentation

Depending upon the circumstances, other forms of presentation of the findings should be considered.
These include:
 use of local media, radio and television;
 community report back;
 newsletters, information sheets;
 walk-in and storefront displays; and
 feedback through political representatives, local chiefs or other power structures, as
appropriate.
Activity 8B – The Non-Technical Summary/Executive Summary
Please select the most appropriate answer to the following questions:

1. The primary purpose of the NTS is:

110
 a. To act as a developer guide

 b. To act as a layperson guide

 c. To act as an aide memoir

 d. To act as a promotional guide

2. Which of the following may be considered to be technical terms and therefore not used (or
at least explained adequately) in the NTS?

 a. Assessment

 b. Alternatives

 c. dB(A)

 d. kg

3. Which of the following EIA aspects should be included within an NTS?

 a. Assessment methods

 b. Scoping

 c. Impacts on humans

 d. All of the above

4. Which of the following elements should be reported within an NTS which follows best
practice?

 a. Contact address for the developers

 b. Illustration showing residual impacts

 c. Environmental baseline

 d. All of the above

5. Why should the NTS text not make regular references to (or quote from) the main EIA
report or Environmental Statement?

 a. Because this is against the regulations

 b. Because the NTS should be a stand-alone document

 c. Because quotes from the ES may be incorrect

111
 d. Because this is against copyright rules

Activity 8C – EIA Reporting Practice

The following two tasks should be undertaken in a time-constrained environment (spend, say, 20
minutes on each). Write down your responses; do not worry if these are not complete, or if they require
further research later. The purpose is to help you think about best practice EIA Reporting.
1. For an EIA project that you know (or as directed by your tutor) draft a contents list for the EIA
Report and write 2 paragraphs explaining why you chose this structure.
2. Obtain a copy of an EIA Report (or as directed by your tutor) and assess the content and style
according to best practice EIA Reporting. Write down the weaknesses and strengths of the
report.

CHAPTER NINE

REVIEW OF EIA QUALITY

9-1 Role and Purpose of the EIA Review Process

The purpose of review is to assure the completeness and quality of the information gathered in an EIA.
When undertaken as a formal step, it acts as a final check on the quality of the EIA report submitted to
obtain a project authorisation. Often, this process leads to a requirement for additional information on
potential impacts, mitigation measures or other aspects.

Key objectives of EIA review are to:

 assess the adequacy and quality of an EIA report;
 take account of public comment;
 determine if the information is sufficient for a final decision to be made; and
 Identify, as necessary, the deficiencies that must be addressed before the report can be
submitted.
112
In many EIA systems, the review stage is the major opportunity for public involvement. However, the
arrangements for this purpose vary considerably from country to country. They range from notification
of a period for receiving written comments on the EIA report to holding public hearings. Typically, the
latter mechanism is part of an independent review by an EIA panel or inquiry body, which is
considered to be a particularly transparent and rigorous approach.
An interim or prior review of EIA preparation can provide an informal check on the quality of work, to
verify that is satisfactory and meets requirements. Normally, this will carried out by the responsible
authority. However, the proponent can undertake an internal or ‘mock’ review of EIA quality as
part of due diligence or quality assurance. In this way, proponents can ensure their work is of an
appropriate standard before it is subject to external review. This can help to avoid delays associated
with the issuance of deficiency statements or requests for additional information.

9-2 Need for a Systematic Approach

A pre-decision review of the EIA report is a key means of ‘quality control and assurance’ in the
EIA process. It allows an external check on the proponent€™s ‘self-assessment’ of the proposal.
This is a formal procedure in many EIA systems, which may be undertaken by the responsible
authority itself, another government agency or committee or an independent body. Despite significant
differences, their common function is to check that the draft EIA report complies with applicable
requirements and/or is consistent with accepted standards of good practice.

Whatever procedure is followed, a rigorous approach is necessary, given that the central role of EIA
review is to assure the quality of the information prepared. This approach can be based on explicit
guidelines and criteria for review, or if these are not available, draw on EIA principles, objectives and
terms of references. Over time, their systematic application should improve the general standard of
EIA reports by making proponents aware of government or agency expectations.

The elements of EIA review and the aspects considered differ with the arrangements that are in place
in a particular country. A comprehensive review of the adequacy and quality of an EIA report would
address many or all of the following issues:
 Does the report address the Terms of Reference?
 Is the necessary information provided for each major component of the EIA report?
 Is the information correct and technically sound?
 Have the views and concerns of affected and interested parties been taken into account?

113
  Is the statement of the key findings complete and satisfactory, e.g. for significant impacts,
proposed mitigation measures, etc.?
 Is the information clearly presented and understandable by decision makers and the public?
 Is the information relevant and sufficient for the purpose of decision making and condition
setting? The response to the last question is the most significant aspect for review conclusions,
and will largely determine whether or not an EIA can be submitted as is or with minor
revisions.

9-3 Procedural Aspects

Most EIA systems provide for review of the EIA report. However, the procedures established for this
purpose differ considerably, possibly more than for other process elements. The conduct of EIA
reviews is based on both informal and formal arrangements. Marked variations exist in their particular
requirements, forms of public consultation and the roles and responsibilities of lead agencies.

An issue common to all EIA review procedures is how to ensure objectivity. The responsible authority
is widely perceived as having a vested interest in the outcome of review, particularly when it is also the
proponent. Checks and balances are introduced by guidance and review criteria, and the involvement
of the public and outside experts. More arms length, impartial procedures include the use of inter-
agency committees or independent panels or tribunals, which are acknowledged as a reference standard
of good practice for EIA review.

Specific procedures for EIA review that are in place in different countries are shown in the table
below. In general, these can be divided into two main types:
 internal review undertaken by the responsible authority or other government agency, with or
without formal guidelines and procedure; and
 external review undertaken by an independent body, separate from and/or outside government
agencies, with an open and transparent procedure for public comment.
In many cases, internal review is informal and characterised by:
 relatively low operating costs;
 discretionary guidance on the conduct of review;
 lack of transparency on process and factors considered; and
 Absence of documentation on outcomes and results, e.g. advice tendered to decision-makers.
External review procedures are more formal and characterized by:
 higher levels of quality assurance;
 independence from the responsible authority (to varying degrees);
114
  transparent and rigorous process;
 use of guidelines and/or review criteria and methodology;
 documented outcome or statement on the sufficiency or deficiency of an EIA report; and
 separate commission, panel, inter-agency or expert committee or other review body.
Selected examples of EIA review procedures
Source:
Project Example Scholten
(1997)
Environmental agency Australia
Independent panel or mediator Canada (only for major proposals)
Standing commission of independent experts The Netherlands
Standing commission of experts within the government Italy, Poland
Inter-agency committee USA
Planning authority using government guidelines UK, New Zealand

Public consultation
Public input is an integral means of reinforcing objectivity and assuring the quality of information
presented. Many EIA systems provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the
information contained in an EIA report. At a minimum, this requires reasonable time and opportunity
for interested parties to comment. More proactive forms of public and stakeholder involvement are
preferable, especially when there are significant impacts on a local community or people will be
displaced by a proposal. (Further information on public involvement can be found in Section 3 –
Public involvement).

A set period for public review and a formal notification procedure are common. The notification
usually indicates where the EIA report is displayed and how comments are to be received. Typically,
public comments are solicited in writing. However, this approach may exclude many people, including
those who are directly affected by the proposal.

Certain countries make provision for a more extended, open review process, using public hearings and
other means to gain the views of interested and affected parties on the EIA report. These are usually
applied only to large scale and controversial proposals. In other cases less intensive forms of

115
consultation and comment are appropriate. However, in all cases, it is important that these are tailored
to the people who are involved.

9-4 Main Steps in the EIA Review

There are a number of steps can help to achieve good practice in the review of EIA reports. First you
need to establish a framework for the EIA review, including the following steps (and will be covered in
more detail on this page):
 set the scale/depth of the review;
 select reviewer(s);
 use input from public involvement; and
 Identify review criteria and aspects to be considered.
Once you have established this framework for review, you will then need to undertake and report the
review, which involves the following steps (and will be covered in more detail on the next page);
 carrying out the review;
 determine how to remedy any deficiencies; and
 report the findings.

Setting the scale

Two questions should be addressed at the start of a review:
 How much time is available to carry out the review?
 Are the necessary resources available for this purpose?
The answers to these questions will depend mainly on the provision made for review within the EIA
system and the Terms of Reference. The nature of the proposal will determine the speed and intensity
of the review. More controversial projects, or those with more significant effects, typically require
more detailed review. The choice ranges from a quick overview by one person to an in-depth review
by a team of experts assembled to do the job.

Selecting reviewer(s)
The environmental issues and the technical aspects of the proposal will determine the expertise
required by a review team or individual. For example, the review of an EIA report for a proposal for a
solid waste disposal site might include a landfill engineer, a hydro-geologist and an environmental
remediation specialist. Depending on the scale of review, administrative support and technical backup
may be necessary.

116
Using input from public comment
Experience with EIA review in a number of countries has shown that public comment is a critical
ingredient of good practice. The input from the public has proved to be important in checking and
evaluating the quality of the EIA report; for example, with regard to the description of the affected
environment and community, the attribution of significance of residual impacts, the effectiveness of
mitigation measures and the selection of an alternative.

Input may come from a public hearing, or from written comments submitted to the proponent or
government department. From a hearing there will often be a summary of issues provided by the panel
or officers responsible for hearing the submissions. With written comments a summary of key points
will be needed to guide the review of the EIA. In both cases the summary should focus on information
that helps to identify problems with the EIA, contributing to the assessment of impacts, and identifying
ways to reduce impacts.

While it is useful to gauge the strength of public concern about particular issues (such as support for an
alternative) the consultation process should not be seen as an opportunity for people to ‘vote’ on
any one issue.

Identifying the review criteria

A systematic review will be based on specified criteria. These criteria can be identified by reference to
the following questions:
Are terms of reference or other guidelines available for the review?
If not, the first task of the review is to quickly re-scope the main issues and impacts to be addressed in
the EIA report. This can be done with the help of scoping methods (see Section 5 – Scoping).
Are any reviews of EIA reports of comparable proposals in similar settings available?

EIA reports and reviews of comparable proposals in similar settings provide useful points of reference
to check the type of impacts that are considered significant and the information that is necessary for
decision-making. These can be from the country concerned or elsewhere. It is particularly useful to
learn about problems experienced during the implementation and operation of the projects. These can
give insights to the nature of impacts that are likely to occur during implementation and operation.
Which generic review criteria may be useful?
Generic criteria that may help to carry out an EIA review include:
 legal EIA requirements (if any);
117
  relevant environmental standards, guidelines or criteria;
 principles of EIA good practice; and
 Knowledge of the project and its typical impacts and their mitigation.
When is a comprehensive review appropriate?
A comprehensive review of the quality of an EIA report may be necessary in certain circumstances, for
example when there are serious deficiencies in the information assembled. This involves a review of
the conduct of the EIA process. Some or all of the elements and aspects that may require consideration
include:
 performance of scoping;
 accuracy of impact prediction;
 criteria used to evaluate significance;
 comparison of alternatives;
 effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures;
 requirements for monitoring and impact management; and
 modes of public and stakeholder involvement.

In other cases, particular attention could be directed to the executive summary, which is intended to
explain the key findings concisely and in a non-technical manner. This is the only part of the EIA
report that decision-makers and the public are likely to read. A review can indicate if the information
contained in the main body of the report has been communicated simply and accurately.
(Further information on methods for EIA review is given in the next section. A set of criteria to review
the quality of EIA reports and the overall process are provided at Review Framework in the EIA Wiki.)

9-5 carrying out the review

The review can be carried out in three steps:
 Step 1: identifies the deficiencies in the EIA report, using the Terms of Reference, relevant
guidelines and criteria and information from any comparable EIA reports and their reviews.
 Step 2: focuses on any shortcomings in the EIA report and separate crucial deficiencies, which
may directly impede decision-making, from less important ones. If no serious omissions are
found, this should be stated clearly. Remarks about less important deficiencies can be placed in
an appendix.
 Step 3: recommends how, and when, any serious shortcomings are to be remedied to facilitate
informed decision-making and appropriate measures for project implementation.

Determining remedial options

118
Three remedial options are available when an EIA report fails to meet the standards required. These are
scaled to the nature and scope of the inadequacies.
1. The shortcomings of the EIA report are so serious that they require immediate remedy, either a
supplementary or a new EIA report – In this situation, the review should give a clear statement
as to how the additional information can be collected and presented. The review team must
realise that the decision-making will be delayed by some time until a new report or supplement
to the EIA report is completed.
2. The shortcomings are not serious and can be rectified by explanatory material attached to the
report or conditions attached to the approval – This situation has the advantage that decision-
making can proceed as planned without a major delay necessitated by gathering additional
environmental data.
3. The shortcomings are not major but cannot be remedied immediately, either by providing
additional information to the EIA, or in the form of explanations and conditions attached to the
decision, because they require too much time and effort to collect – In this case, the review
could recommend monitoring the shortcomings and uncertainties during the implementation
and operation of the project. Corrective measures should be identified in case impacts turn out
to be worse than expected.

EIA review and the acceptability of the proposal

In some EIA systems, the review stage concerns only the quality and adequacy of the environmental
information in the EIA report. Step three as described above concludes the review. Either a statement
of sufficiency or deficiency is issued, and in the latter case, serious shortcomings are identified and
options to remedy them are described.
A number of countries have review procedures that tender advice on the implications of the findings
for decision-making, or make a recommendation on whether or not the proposal should be approved or
can be justified on environmental grounds.

In this case, an additional step is added to those mentioned above:

 Step 4: Give either a green (go) or red (stop) or yellow light (conditional acceptance) for the
environmental aspects.

This step builds on the previous three steps. It does not address the final decision of whether or not the
proposal is acceptable or should be approved. That requires a political decision, taking into account the
trade-offs among environmental, economic and social factors (see Section 10 – Decision-making).

119
A range of methods can be used to review the adequacy of an EIA report. The methods are generally
the same as those used in impact analysis and include:

General checklists

These can be adapted to review purposes, using compliance with local EIA legislation or guidelines as
the starting point. A range of criteria drawn from the discussion in the section above can then be
incorporated. Sectoral checklists represent a further stage of development to review the technical
adequacy of EIA reports in terms of their coverage of specific types of impacts, mitigation measures
and monitoring requirements. There is more information available at Procedures for Reviewing EIA
Reports in the EIA Wiki.

Project specific checklists and guidelines

These can be based on a general or sectoral checklist, with further adaptations to suit the requirements
of the specific project and its terms of reference.

EIA review frameworks and packages

A number of these are available. The Environmental Statement Review Package developed by the EIA
Centre, University of Manchester is widely referenced and used by non-specialists. It comprises a
seven-part rating scale, directions on its use and a collation sheet for recording findings on EIA
components, such as baseline information, impact prediction and consideration of alternatives. Other
review packages are available and can be adapted for use in cases where guidance and criteria have yet
to be established.

Expert and accredited reviewers

One or more experts can be used to peer review the adequacy of the report. The expert(s) contracted
should be independent from those involved in preparing the EIA report or undertaking studies. In some
countries, EIA experts are accredited or registered as capable of carrying out a study or review.

Public hearings
Public hearings on an EIA report give the highest level of quality assurance. They provide affected and
interested parties with an opportunity to comment extensively on the information and findings. These
benefits are maximised when public hearings are held by an independent EIA panel, commission or

120
other inquiry body. A structured and systematic process can be followed to test the quality of the report
and to integrate technical evidence and public comment.

Comprehensive review of the EIA process

Effectiveness frameworks can be used when a comprehensive review of the EIA process leading to
report preparation is considered necessary (see Review Framework in the EIA Wiki). For example, this
approach may be called for if there are very serious deficiencies with a report and each step needs to be
revisited. Also, effectiveness review can help our understanding of how different EIA components and
activities affect the quality of EIA reports and indicate ways review procedure and criteria themselves
may be strengthened. In this regard, effectiveness review can cover the overall performance of the EIA
process. Further information on this subject can be found in Section 11â€Implementation and follow
up.

9-6 Procedures for Evaluating EIA Reports

A checklists and a flow chart of the steps which may be applied to review the quality of an EIA report
is provided in the EIA Wiki at Procedures for Reviewing EIA Reports. It provides a simple tabular
approach to grading the performance of the report in accordance with the criteria. The materials also
call for a brief report to be written at the end of the review process. However, it is important to conduct
the review as a practical exercise, centered on the requirements that apply and the decision to be made.

Many exercises using EIA frameworks and review packages are conducted as academic exercises,
unrelated to the context and circumstances. A common temptation is to be too negative and to grade
EIA reports on what ideally should have been done, rather than what was asked for or required. The
terms of reference provide the benchmark for critical review. Where they are not available, the review
can follow the steps described earlier, including rapid rescoping and identifying points of reference
from comparable EIAs. In addition, reviewers should consider the constraints under which an EIA has
been undertaken.
For example, an EIA report might not include baseline information because the data was not available
and process deadlines gave insufficient time for the necessary field surveys to be undertaken. Although
not good practice, these realities are part of EIA practice in all countries. They can be particularly
limiting in many developing countries, where environmental monitoring and information systems are
non-existent or poorly developed.

Assignment 4 – Essay/Project
121
Answer EITHER 4A OR 4B.  4A is likely to be particularly relevant for full time /academic students.
4B is an opportunity for part time or students with work experience to conduct research that relates to a
work situation – so that they can show the application of their EIA learning to the practice of EIA.  The
deadline is 4 weeks or as advised by your tutor.

4A. Write a fully referenced 3000 word essay on one of the following (mark clearly on your script
which title you are addressing). 
1. Discuss the procedure, parameters and problems associated with assessing the magnitude and
significance of (a) noise and (b) landscape impacts associated with a proposed project you are
familiar with or your tutor has presented; As EIA project manager how would you overcome
these problems?  Propose a means of ensuring that no unacceptable noise impacts arise as a
result of the project.
2. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the EIA process as currently implemented in
regulations in your country.  Illustrate these by using a proposed project you are familiar with
or your tutor has presented as a case study.  Make proposals for changes to the current
regulations which would overcome the weaknesses you have identified.
3. By comparing the EIA procedures in your country with the international experience (ie the
general theory presented in this Module) identify any weaknesses (max 4) in your country’s
procedures. Then, using the examples of EIA procedures in one or more other countries, briefly
state changes to the current EIA procedures in your country which would overcome the
weaknesses you have identified.

4B. this is a 2000 word project. Relate your assignment to an every-day situation from the following
possibilities:
 An EIA project that your work-place is involved with
 An EIA project that is planned in your local area
 Construction or redevelopment of a road, or public transport facility
 Construction of a new chemical laboratory at a university
 Expansion of part of the operations of a heavy engineering firm on a new (but nearby) site
 Development (or redevelopment/expansion) of a regional shopping centre
 Management of a local government waste management facility

Discuss and agree your choice of what you would like to do, and resources, with your instructor. After
you have selected your topic, following negotiation with your instructor, you are asked to prepare a

122
2000 word max. report. This report will provide a critically thought-through plan for an EIA (related to
the situation you have chosen). You are not to undertake the whole EIA. Rather, you will prepare a
framework that could be given to someone else to complete all the details.  As part of this report you
will: briefly describe the situation to which the EIA applies; discuss why the EIA is needed; identify
the components that will constitute the EIA; discuss the purpose/role of each component (this may
include comments on what would be included); and base your discussion on the literature related to
EIA theory or practice.

9-7 Summary
You have now completed Section 9 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Appreciate the importance of quality and its assessment regarding EIA processes, including
reporting; and
 Demonstrate an understanding of how to conduct quality assessment in an EIA context.

CHAPTER TEN
DECISION MAKING

10-1 Role of the Decision-makers

Inevitably there will be several decision-makers involved in complex, or even relatively simple,
projects. The number and type of decision-makers will depend on the EIA procedures and legislation
operating in the country of the project, and if there are organisations outside the country involved. For
example, the construction of an electricity generating facility using funds loaned by an international
financial organisation is likely to have the following decision-makers:
 the international financial organisation to ensure that the project complies with its own EIA
requirements, that environmental impacts will be acceptable, so that any adverse criticism
about the project will not reflect badly on the organisation;
 the government, or government representatives, such as ministers, who are responsible for
granting permission such as permission to conduct land clearing, import foreign capital, or
relocate people living on the site;

123
  the chief executive officer, or manager of the business proposing to construct the generation
facility.

In addition, there may be other government officials who are required to grant permission for aspects
of the project such as planning permission.
It is important for decision-makers to be aware of their responsibility to implement the EIA process
and use its results to better manage the environmental impacts and risks of a proposal. At a minimum,
decision-makers need to understand:
 the basic concept and purpose of EIA (and SEA);
 EIA requirements, principles and guidelines that are applicable;
 the effectiveness of their implementation and the implications for decision-making;
 limitations that may need to be placed on information and advice contained in an EIA report;
 how EIA process and practice measure up to internationally accepted standards and to those in
place in comparable countries; and
 the issues associated with public consultation in decision-making, including third party and
legal challenges to the authorisation of proposals subject to EIA.

The sustainability agenda places further obligations on decision-makers. In order to meet them,
decision-makers need to have the requisite knowledge and tools to take fuller advantage of EIA as a
sustainability instrument.
Decision-makers should be encouraged to:
 implement the sustainability commitments made at Rio;
 broaden their perspectives of the environment and its values;
 better communicate information and reasons for decisions;
 apply the precautionary principle when addressing the environmental impacts of development
proposals;
 look for improved ways of making trade-offs among environmental, economic and social
factors;
 adopt more open and participatory approaches to decision-making; and
 Use strategic tools to aid decision-making, including SEA for proposed policies and plans and
environmental accounting to gain a realistic measure of macro-economic progress.

The discussion should review the chain of decisions culminating in a final approval of the proposal,
including:
 screening to decide if and at what level EIA should be applied;
124
  scoping to identify the important issues and prepare terms of reference;
 impact analysis focusing attention on the consideration and choice of alternatives;
 mitigation to identify measures to avoid, minimise or compensate for impacts; and
 Review to determine the quality and adequacy of the EIA report as a basis for approval of the
proposal.

At each stage, an implicit or explicit decision will be made on whether or not the proposal is acceptable
and can be justified environmentally. In practice, this is invariably favourable, unless a proposal has a
fatal flaw or proves highly controversial and unacceptable to a large majority of people. This process
of decision-making is iterative, whereby the conclusions reached at each stage narrow down the
choices to be made at the next one. It raises a number of issues about the difference EIA information
actually makes to interim decision-making and final approval of proposals.
What aspects and issues apply to EIA decision-making locally? For example, consider:
 What type of precedent is set by each stage of decision-making for the next one?
 How do the range of options and considerations become narrowed?
 To what extent does momentum build up in favour of approval as the decision-making process
continues?
 What are the circumstances and conditions under which a proposal might not be approved?
 Are the conditions established by the approval and authorisation of a proposal enforced during
the implementation phase?

10-2 EIA as part of the Decision-making Process

EIA is part of a larger process of decision-making to approve a major proposal. This process is shown
in the figure below. It results in a political decision, which is based on information from a number of
different sources and involves making a large number of trade-offs. A balance must be struck between
the benefits and costs; their environmental, economic and social elements must be weighed, and
uncertainties and arguments over the significance of risks and impacts must be addressed.

125
The factors that will be important in the final approval of a proposal include:
 findings of significant impact contained in the EIA report;
 inputs from economic and social appraisals; and
 other external pressures or political inputs to decision-making.
Taking account of the EIA report
The information provided by EIA is based on technical analysis and public involvement. It is a
synthesis of facts and values. How these components are reconciled and documented in the EIA report
can have an important bearing on the potential contribution it makes to decision-making. The
usefulness of the EIA report for decision-making also depends upon the use of good practice at
previous stages in the EIA process.

In many jurisdictions the information of the EIA report and from other sources, like public
submissions, is presented to decision-makers in a summary form. Decision-makers then have the use
of:
 the EIA Report (often called an Environment Impact Statement); and
 The summary report (called an Assessment Report or similar).

This summary report is likely to be compiled by the government representative responsible for the EIA
procedures in the jurisdiction (such as the responsible government minister). It will provide an overall

126
recommendation about the project environmental impacts and about mitigation and ongoing
management measures.

Decision-makers then have the advice about the environmental impacts that comes from the review of
the EIA (the Assessment Report) and other sources of information available to the EIA minister, and
the specific information contained in the EIA report.

At a minimum, decision makers are expected to take account of the information from the EIA process
in final approval and condition setting. With few exceptions, an EIA process does not lead to the
rejection of a proposal even when there are findings of potentially significant impacts (although
retaining this option is important for process credibility). However, the results of the EIA process
usually have a considerable bearing on establishing terms and conditions for project implementation.
When making decisions, those responsible seldom have time to read the EIA report, other than an
executive summary (see Section 8 EIA Reporting). Typically, they rely upon the advice of their
officials, whose views are likely to be shaped by their policy mandates and responsibilities. The
general receptivity of decision-makers to the findings of an EIA report will reflect their confidence in
the EIA process and its perceived acceptance by other parties. In this regard, public trust in the EIA
process, which is built up over time, may carry particular weight.

Relating EIA to other inputs

As the above figure shows, EIA is undertaken together with economic appraisal, engineering
feasibility and other studies. Because of these other inputs, the decision that is made may not be the
environmentally optimal choice. The environmental consequences of the proposal must be balanced
against economic, social and other considerations. These trade-offs form the crux of decision-making,
and, typically, environmental considerations carry less weight than economic factors in the approval of
development proposals. In this regard, an important question, on which opinion varies, is whether EIA
should be a strictly neutral or an advocacy process that argues the case for the environment. The
predominant view is that the role of the EIA practitioner is to:
 provide a clear, objective statement of the environmental impacts and their mitigation;
 bring the feasible alternatives and the environmentally preferred option to the attention of
decision-makers; and, more arguably
 give contestable advice on the environmental acceptability of the proposal (for example,
whether it can be justified in the circumstances).
127
Other inputs
External inputs to the final decision on a proposal often occur through a wider representation of views
and interests. These pressures vary from country to country and project to project. Many large-scale
proposals are controversial and encompass a broad range of issues on which opinion can be sharply
divided. They can become symbols of needed development or of environmental destruction or social
injustice.

The so-called big dam’s debate exemplifies this aspect of decision-making. The largest and most
controversial schemes, represented by the Three Gorges (China) and Sardar Sarovar (India) schemes,
have provoked international debate over the advisability of building them and the adequacy of the EIA
process that was applied. A summary of the issues associated with the Sardar Sarovar Scheme are
available in the EIA Wiki and can be reviewed to see if there are for points of comparison with
projects undertaken locally. Further information can be found in the report of the World Commission
on Dams.

A summary of Information considered important for decision-makers is given in the table below. It
lists the key aspects of EIA reports which decision-makers need to take into account when making
final approvals and setting conditions for project implementation. This listing is generic and should be
reviewed to establish the aspects that are important locally.

Information considered important for decision-makers

Decision-making Adapted from
Important information
stage OECD/DAC (1994)
Project background and the most important environmental
Background
issues involved
Policy Context Basic development issue or problem being addressed (e.g. flooding, water
shortage, etc)
The relationship to environmental policies and plans
Alternatives to the proposal (including the best practicable environmental option
Alternatives
(BPEO) or equivalent designation)
Public involvement Key public views
Concerns of affected communities
Areas of agreement and disagreement
Impact analysis Costs and benefits
Distribution of gains and losses
Mitigation and
Adequacy of proposal measures
monitoring
Conclusion and main economic benefits, significant environmental effects and proposed mitigation
128
Information considered important for decision-makers
Decision-making Adapted from
Important information
stage OECD/DAC (1994)
recommendations measures
The extent to which the proposal conforms to the
principles of sustainable development
Design and operational changes to improve the
environmental acceptability of the project

Activity 10A – Decision-making: Procedural Considerations

Imagine you are an environmental consultant project managing an EIA including production of the
EIA report for a private developer of a proposed new power generation project in your local area.
1. Who is/are likely to be the responsible party(s) reviewing the EIA and making the decision
about whether the project should proceed or not?
2. Write a list of the factors the decision maker(s) will take into account when making the
decision about your EIA and the project and rank your list in order from most important to least
important.

10-3 Responsibility of the Decision-Makers

The responsibility of decision-makers to consider the findings and recommendations of an EIA report
varies from one jurisdiction to another. Normally, there are limited qualifications placed on the
discretion of the decision-maker to approve or reject a proposal. Depending on the arrangements in
place, the decision-maker may have to:
 meet no further requirements;
 take account of information in the EIA report;
 provide written reasons for the decision; or
 Act in accordance with recommendations of an EIA review body, unless these are explicitly
overturned.
129
There can be a number of different outcomes from decision-making:
 the proposal can be approved;
 the proposal can be approved with conditions;
 the proposal can be placed on hold pending further investigation;
 the proposal can be returned for revision and resubmission; and
 The proposal can be rejected outright.

A number of checks and balances are built into EIA processes to help ensure accountability and
transparency. The procedural controls are important for quality assurance of the information contained
in an EIA report. Unless these are in place, the decision-maker may not be in a position to make an
informed choice. In addition, leading EIA systems have established conventions and rules for decision-
making, which provide a further check on accountability. Some or all of the following rules and
conventions for decision-making have been adopted by leading EIA systems (Wood 1995):

 no decision will be taken until the EIA report has been received and considered;
 the findings of the EIA report and review are a major determinant of approval and condition
setting;
 public comment on the EIA report is taken into account in decision-making;
 approvals can be refused or withheld, conditions imposed, or modifications demanded at the
final decision stage;
 the decision is made by a body other than the proponent;
 reasons for the decision and the conditions attached to it are published, and
 There is a public right of appeal against the decision (where procedures have not been followed
or they have been applied unfairly).

The requirement for written reasons for the decision is particularly important. For instance, the US
Record of Decision must contain:
 a statement explaining the decision;
 an explanation of alternatives considered and which of these are environmentally preferable;
 the social, economic and environmental factors considered by the agency in making its
decision;
 an explanation of the mitigation measures adopted and, if practicable, the mitigation methods
that were not adopted, with an explanation of why not; and
130
  a summary of the monitoring and enforcement programme which must be adopted to ensure
that any mitigation measures are implemented (Regulations, Section 1505.2).

Normally, all proposals that are subject to EIA will have conditions attached to their implementation as
part of the final approval. The conditions that are set may follow the mitigation and impact
management measures proposed in the EIA report or vary them, for example by establishing more
stringent requirements. In either case, condition setting is based on impact predictions, which have
varying levels of reliability. As far as possible, the level of confidence or range of uncertainty that is
attached to the information should be specified so decision-makers understand the limitations on
condition setting.

Other topics in the course module consider the means for implementation of the approved conditions
(see Section 7 Mitigation and impact assessment and Section 11 Implementation and follow up). These
include:
 establishing performance standards for meeting the conditions, preferably as part of a legally
binding contract with the proponent;
 requiring the proponent to prepare (or revise) an environmental management plan (EMP) to
incorporate these standards and translate the approved conditions into a schedule of actions;
 incorporating environmental management systems (EMS) to ISO 14000 standards into the
EMP; and
 enforcing compliance with the conditions of approval and performance standards, with
penalties for unwarranted breaches.

Summary
You have now completed Section 10 of 11 in this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To
demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section, check that you are now able to:
 Demonstrate an understanding of EIA decision making and the role of decision makers; and
 Appreciate and explain the responsibilities of EIA decision makers.

131
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLOW UP

11-1 Key Objectives of EIA implementation and follow up

Key objectives of EIA implementation and follow up are to:
 confirm that the conditions of project approval are implemented satisfactorily;
 verify that impacts are within predicted or permitted limits;
 take action to manage unanticipated impacts or other unforeseen changes;
 ensure that environmental benefits are maximised through good practice; and
 learn from experience in order to improve EIA process and practice.

The main components and tools of EIA implementation and follow up include:
 surveillance and supervision to oversee adherence to and implementation of the terms and
conditions of project approval;
 effects or impact monitoring to measure the environmental changes that can be attributed to
project construction and/or operation and check the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
 compliance monitoring to ensure that applicable regulatory standards and requirements are
being met, e.g. for waste discharge and pollutant emissions;

132
  environmental auditing to verify the implementation of terms and conditions, the accuracy of
the EIA predictions, the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and the compliance with
regulatory requirements and standards;
 ex-post evaluation to review the effectiveness and performance of the EIA process as applied
to a specific project; and
 post-project analysis to evaluate the overall results of project development and to draw lessons
for the future.

These components are variously defined and delineated in the institutional arrangements and
procedures established for this purpose by different countries. However, their generic functions are
reasonably well understood. Key terms are described in the accompanying box, and reference is made
to the different types of monitoring, auditing and evaluation that may be undertaken as part of EIA
implementation and follow up. The usage of these tools will vary, depending on terms of project
approval and circumstances (as discussed later).

A conceptual distinction can be drawn between the respective aims of impact management and review
and feedback of experience. In practice, however, these control and learning functions are not clearly
separable. Rather they form part of a continuum of implementation and follow up activities, which are
concerned with optimising environmental protection through good practice at all stages of project
development. This process, when integrated with other environmental management and review tools,
can be extended over the whole life cycle of the project.

Terminology of EIA implementation and follow up

Sources: Au
and Sanvicens
Term Description (1997) and
Sadler (1988,
1998).
Surveillance Surveillance of the implementation of EIA terms and conditions can be undertaken by
and regular or periodic site inspections to check on compliance, observe progress and discuss
supervision issues. Supervision implies a more intensive direction of the environmental performance
of on-site activities, ensuring they are carried out in accordance with the environmental
management plan and/or contract specifications.
Monitoring Monitoring refers to the collection of data through a series of repetitive measurements of

133
Terminology of EIA implementation and follow up
Sources: Au
and Sanvicens
Term Description (1997) and
Sadler (1988,
1998).
environmental parameters (or, more generally, to a process of systematic observation).
The main types of EIA monitoring activities are:
 Baseline monitoring the measurement of environmental parameters during a pre-
project period for the purpose of determining the range of variation of the system
and establishing reference points against which changes can be measured.
 Effects monitoring the measurement of environmental parameters during project
construction and implementation to detect changes which are attributable to the
project.
Compliance monitoring the periodic sampling or continuous measurement of
environmental parameters to ensure that regulatory requirements and standards are being
met.
Auditing Auditing is a term borrowed from accounting to describe a systematic process of
examining, documenting and verifying that EIA procedures and outcomes correspond to
objectives and requirements. This process can be undertaken during and/or after project
construction, and draws upon surveillance reports and monitoring data. The main types of
EIA related audits are:
 Implementation audits to verify that EIA implementation met the conditions of
project approval.
 Impact audits to determine the impact of the project and the accuracy of EIA
predictions.
 Compliance audits to verify that project impacts complied with environmental
standards and regulatory requirements.
Effectiveness or policy audits to check the feasibility of mitigation measures and the
consistency of EIA practice.
Evaluation Ex-post evaluation involves a policy-oriented review of the effectiveness and
performance of the EIA process. It is concerned with the overall balance sheet of an EIA,
looking at what it achieved, which aspects were influential, and how the process could be
improved. The guiding concepts are:

134
Terminology of EIA implementation and follow up
Sources: Au
and Sanvicens
Term Description (1997) and
Sadler (1988,
1998).
 Effectiveness the extent to which the EIA process has achieved its purpose(s).
Depending on how these are defined, an effectiveness review can be conducted
against the terms of reference, the information provided to decision-makers or
principles and criteria of EIA good practice (see Section 1Introduction and
Overview of EIA).
Performance the success of the EIA process as measured by its outcomes and results, e.g.
the environmental benefits achieved or the effectiveness of mitigation in avoiding or
reducing impacts. Surveillance, monitoring and auditing data are necessary for this
purpose.
Post project Usually, a post-project analysis is undertaken once the project has been constructed and
analysis is about to enter the operational phase. The term implies a focus on project specific EIA
experience, e.g. in relation to dams, highways, waste disposal sites or power generation.
In this context, post-project analysis can include aspects of effectiveness and
performance review, using impact and mitigation data from surveillance, monitoring and
auditing.

135
The role and contribution of EIA implementation and follow up are shown in figure above. It
illustrates:
 the relationship of EIA implementation and follow up to other stages of the EIA process;
 the stages at which monitoring, auditing and evaluation are typically undertaken; and
 the results and benefits that can be gained from their use.

The figure also illustrates the importance of early identification of follow up requirements and
measures, beginning at the stage of screening and scoping, and adding to them as new information
becomes available. Increasingly, the preparation of an environmental management plan (EMP)
provides the blueprint for carrying out EIA implementation and follow up (see Section 7 Mitigation
and impact management). An EMP should include a schedule of actions for this purpose, identify
protocols for impact management in the event of unforeseen events and specify the arrangements for
the use of surveillance, monitoring, auditing and other procedures.
11-2 Tools for Environmental Management and Performance Review
The role and contribution of EIA implementation and follow up are shown in the figure below. It
illustrates:
 the relationship of EIA implementation and follow up to other stages of the EIA process;
 the stages at which monitoring, auditing and evaluation are typically undertaken; and

136
  the results and benefits that can be gained from their use.

The figure also illustrates the importance of early identification of follow up requirements and
measures, beginning at the stage of screening and scoping, and adding to them as new information
becomes available. Increasingly, the preparation of an environmental management plan (EMP)
provides the blueprint for carrying out EIA implementation and follow up (see Topic 7 Mitigation and
impact management). An EMP should include a schedule of actions for this purpose, identify protocols
for impact management in the event of unforeseen events and specify the arrangements for the use of
surveillance, monitoring, auditing and other procedures.

EIA implementation and follow up can occur throughout project construction and continue into the
operational phase, becoming part of a larger process of environmental management and performance
review. The tools for this purpose have developed rapidly. In particular, environmental management
systems (EMS) are now widely used by industry and business to manage the impact of their activities
on the environment. The ISO 14000 series provides a framework of EMS principles, guidance and
procedure, including environmental auditing, performance review and life cycle assessment or
analysis. In the table below, these are grouped according to their primary use and purpose.
Some of these tools are still under development, and their use and even terminology varies. Already,
however, there is an increasing recognition of the benefits to be gained by linking EIA preparation and

137
implementation to EMS design and development; for example, initially through the transfer of
information and subsequently through the use of standardised procedures. Looking ahead, EIA and
EMS can be combined with other tools to take an integrated approach to the total environmental
impact of the project cycle, along the lines indicated in the table below.
Tool box for environmental management and performance review
Purpose Examples of available tools
Internalising the environment in policy and SEA, technology assessment, comparative risk
planning assessment
Planning and designing environmentally sound EIA, SIA, risk assessment, environmental benefit
projects cost assessment
EMS (ISO 14000 series), total quality
Environmental management of the impacts of an
environmental management (TQEM), industrial
operating facility or business enterprise
codes of practice
Environmental design, life cycle assessment,
Eco-design of processes and products
cleaner production
Effects and compliance monitoring, site, energy,
Monitoring, audit, and evaluation of performance waste, health and safety audits, and benchmarking
performance

Guiding principles for carrying out the process of EIA implementation and follow up include the
following:
 the project should be carried out in accordance with conditions of
 approval and the commitments made in the EIA report/EMP;
 surveillance and inspection should be a routine elements for this purpose;
 the scope of other follow up activities should be commensurate with the significance of the
potential impacts; and
 monitoring, auditing and evaluation should be undertaken when
o potential impacts are likely to be significant,
o mitigation measures are untried or their outcome is uncertain, and/or
o new aspects of EIA process and practice have been introduced.

138
A comprehensive approach to EIA implementation and follow up would include many or all of the
following steps and elements:
 inspect and check the implementation of terms and conditions of project approval;
 review the environmental implications of any changes that are required;
 monitor the actual effects of project activities on the environment and the community;
 verify compliance with regulatory requirements and applicable standards or criteria;
 take action to reduce or rectify any unanticipated adverse impacts;
 adjust the EMP, project specifications and related schedules as necessary;
 audit the accuracy of the EIA predictions;
 evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures; and
 provide feedback to improve EIA process and practice in the future.

The elements of approach to EIA implementation and follow up differ from country to country. A
variety of arrangements, as well as instruments, are used. In some EIA systems, provision for
monitoring and other follow up activities is made in legislation, although it may apply only to certain
project categories or take place under the permitting and licensing processes of regulatory agencies. In
other cases, EIA follow up is a discretionary process, which is carried out on a project-by-project basis
by administrative, contractual or informal means.

EIA implementation and follow up can be time consuming and expensive, and not all projects warrant
full attention. A disciplined approach should be taken to planning this phase of the EIA process.
Surveillance to oversee EIA implementation and ensure compliance with conditions of approval and
regulatory standards is usually the bare minimum requirement. Other follow up activities should be
determined on the basis of the needs of environmental management and the potential pay off for
improving EIA practice in the future.

The scope of follow up should be determined early in the EIA process. A decision should be made as
part of the screening and scoping process, when requirements are established for baseline studies and
monitoring. In part, these decisions determine what can be done in EIA follow up, for example by
establishing the information that will be available for effects monitoring and audit. Later, the scope of
the EIA follow up programme can be refocused as more detailed information on potential impacts
becomes available.
Key criteria for determining the need for and scope of EIA implementation and follow up include:
 the degree of confidence or uncertainty attached to impact predictions;
139
  the level of risk and damage if unanticipated impacts occur;
 the significance of losses if controls are not properly implemented; and
 the opportunity to gain information that will add value to EIA practice.

Aspects and issues that need to be considered when designing and carrying out an EIA implementation
and follow up programme include:
 What is required? Identify the scope and components of the programme, and, if necessary,
provide a justification and prioritise follow up actions.
 Who will carry out the activities? Indicate the roles and responsibilities of key agencies and
individuals, noting how these will be coordinated and emphasising any research aspects that
may have been added subsequent to the project approval, EMP or other core documents.
 How will the programme be carried out? Specify the resources, expertise and arrangements
necessary to give effect to EIA follow up and to report the results.

11-3 Monitoring
Monitoring is a cornerstone of EIA implementation and follow up. Other components are dependent on
the scope and type of monitoring information that is provided. The primary aim of monitoring is to
provide information that will aid impact management, and, secondarily, to achieve a better
understanding of cause-effect relationships and to improve EIA prediction and mitigation methods.
Both the immediate and long-term benefits from undertaking monitoring as part of EIA are widely
recognised, although not always realised.

Monitoring is used to:

 establish baseline trends and conditions;
 measure the impacts that occur during project construction and operation;
 check their compliance with agreed conditions and standards;
 facilitate impact management, e.g. by warning of unanticipated impacts; and
 determine the accuracy of impact predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
A sound baseline is a critical reference point for the conduct of effects monitoring. In turn, effects
monitoring establishes the basis for corrective action when actual impacts are unanticipated or worse
than predicted. Compliance monitoring, carried out through repetitive or periodic measurement, also
can be used for this purpose. This may suffice as a safety net for certain projects, for example, where
the mitigation measures are well tried and known to be effective. However, compliance monitoring
140
will trigger impact management only if regulatory standards or specified conditions are exceeded and,
on its own, may be insufficient for large-scale, complex projects.

By themselves, compliance and effects monitoring permit only reactive impact management, since
they detect violations or adverse changes after the fact. In this context, it is important to tie the results
of both types of monitoring to predetermined actions (or emergency responses), which are triggered on
a threshold basis. A more proactive, adaptive approach to impact management can be instituted by
combining compliance or effects monitoring with supervision or regular inspection of site clearance,
construction and mitigation activities. The use of the precautionary principle can facilitate early
warning of emerging problems.

The collection of monitoring data is expensive. It needs to be targeted at the information necessary to
manage the impacts that are significant or review the aspects of EIA practice that are of particular
importance. These aspects should be identified as early as practicable in the EIA process to optimise
the contribution of monitoring data to EIA implementation and follow up. Monitoring involves
designing the programme, collecting and analysing the data, establishing their linkage to impact
management, auditing and other components, and interpretation and reporting of data.

The following points need to be agreed as part of the EMP and conditions of project approval:
 major impacts to be monitored;
 objectives of monitoring and data requirements;
 arrangements for the conduct of monitoring;
 use of the information to be collected;
 response to unanticipated or greater than predicted impacts; and
 measures for public reporting and involvement.

Monitoring requirements should focus on the significant impacts predicted in the EIA report, taking
account of:
 the environmental values to be safeguarded;
 the magnitude of each potential impact;
 the risk or probability of each impact occurring;
 the pathways and boundaries of each impact; and
 The confidence in the prediction of each impact.
Monitoring programmes need to be constantly reviewed to make sure that relevant information is being
supplied, and to identify the time at which they can be stopped.
141
Each discipline has established methods for monitoring and data collection. For example, the design of
a programme to monitor the impact of a large-scale project involving discharge of toxic waste or
effluent into a water body may encompass different methods to measure change in water quality, food
chains, fish reproduction, reduction in income from fisheries and its effect on the local community.
Generally, monitoring to detect chemical and physical changes is more straightforward than for
biological effects or ecological relationships. Socio-economic impacts present a special challenge of
measuring changes in collective behaviour and response (see Section 6 Impact analysis).

The general approach to effects monitoring is to compare the pre- and post-project situation, measuring
relevant environmental impacts against baseline conditions. A common issue in all situations is how to
differentiate the change attributable to a project from the variability that characterises all biophysical or
socio-economic systems. In the real world, as opposed to laboratory experiments, cause-effect
relationships are difficult to separate from the interaction of other factors. Eliminating or correcting for
these intervening variables is the key to the design and conduct of a scientifically defensible effects
monitoring programme.

Typically, this problem is addressed by establishing impact and control monitoring stations. The
impact or treatment site is selected to be a receptor of an emission, hazard, event or action from the
project. An example would be a water sampling station downstream from an effluent discharge point.
The control or reference site is located outside the impact zone, but chosen to be representative of the
variability experienced by the impact site. With versus without project comparisons then can be made
to determine the change or impact that is attributable to the project.

Monitoring programmes result in time series data, which can be analysed by:
 assembling the data in tabular or graphic format;
 testing for variations that are statistically valid;
 determining rates and directions of change; and
 checking these are within expected levels and comply with standards (e.g. water quality).

Some relational changes, such as in chemical constituents in water, can be presented graphically.
Longitudinal studies based on numerical data or photographic or descriptive records also provide
relevant information on changes and trends. The figure below is an example of monitoring data. It
depicts the variation in contaminant levels and their relation to seasonal precipitation, including the
effect of an extreme event (drought) on sulphate concentration. Also shown are the independent checks
made by the regulatory agency on a proponents data.

142
Monitoring data needs to be interpreted and reported to a non-scientific audience, including decision
makers, the affected community and the general public. This may be the responsibility of a regulatory
body, monitoring team or multi-stakeholder group, established specifically to bring a broad
understanding and a range of views to EIA implementation and follow up. Where different types and
methods of monitoring have been carried out, the comparability and quality of the data sets may need
to be addressed and reported. Reports should be in plain language and to appropriate technical
standards (see also Section 8 EIA reporting).

Appropriate guidance should be sought when developing an environmental monitoring programme.

Typically, some or all of the following issues will be addressed:
 representative impact and reference sites;
 methods for sampling and collection of data;
 independent checks for quality control and assurance of data;
 basis for statistical interpretation and inference of impacts;
 protocols for the conduct of environmental auditing; and
 mechanisms for reporting data and responding to issues that are raised.

Some elements of an effective environmental monitoring programme are listed in the table below. The
following steps can help to implement these elements:
 define the scope and objectives of monitoring for each impact;

143
  identify the sites for observation, measurement and sampling;
 select the key indicators for direct measurement or observation;
 determine the level of accuracy required in the data;
 consider how the data will be analysed in relation to baseline and other data;
 establish a system for recording, organising and reporting the data;
 specify thresholds of impact acceptability; and
 set requirements for management action if monitoring indicates these are exceeded.

When adapting these to scale and circumstances, those responsible for developing monitoring
programmes should consider the value of simple observation and reporting, particularly by locally
affected parties. Increasing attention is being given to public involvement in the EIA implementation
and follow up. For example, stakeholder or citizen monitoring committees have been used in a number
of cases. The terms of reference can be written into EIA documentation and include building a long-
term relationship with an affected community or group of stakeholders when the project is complex
and controversial.

Effective environmental monitoring programmes

Adapted
from
Monitoring Aspect Approaches
OECD/DAC
(1994)
Sampling A realistic sampling programme (temporal and spatial)
Sampling methods relevant to source and/or type of impact
Data Collection and A targeted approach to data collection
Analysis Comparability of data with baseline and other relevant data
Quality control in measurement and analysis
Systematic record keeping and database organisation
Review Reporting requirements for internal and external checks
Public Consultation Provision for input from and response to third parties
Presentation of results to the public

144
A budget for the monitoring programme needs to be drawn up and the resources and personnel
necessary to carry them out specified. Normally, this will be finalised as part of preparation of the
EMP. Alternatively, this can be undertaken as a separate exercise, as part of detailed project
specifications or incorporated into permitting, licensing or contracting. The latter instruments have
advantages in ensuring compliance and enforcement of monitoring and other follow up requirements,
but they are not in place in all EIA systems. The costs of EIA related monitoring can vary greatly,
depending on the project, the location, the environment affected and the potential significance of the
impacts. Other things being equal, the greater the level of uncertainty about potentially significant
impacts, the higher the cost of monitoring to obtain information that is relevant to impact management
and improved understanding. However, the costs can be offset by the benefits which monitoring
brings. These may include immediate savings gained by timely action to correct unanticipated impacts.

Depending on the nature and severity of the impact, this might involve one or more of the following
measures:
 stopping or modifying the activity causing an excessive impact;
 imposing penalties or prosecution where conditions and standards are breached; and
 scaling up or adding mitigation measures (in situations where this is possible).

Longer-term gains can also accrue from baseline and effects monitoring. For example the data can be
used to establish a reference basis for managing environmental impacts throughout the life of the
project. This information will be particularly helpful to the design of an EMS to address the
environmental aspects and impacts of the operational phase of the project. Wherever possible, the
inputs from monitoring, auditing and other components of EIA implementation and follow up should
be integrated into this framework.
Activity 11A – Implementation Management Planning
For a project you are familiar with (or as advised by your tutor) obtain the EIA report and review the
provisions made for implementation environmental management, performance and monitoring.
What elements are missing from these provisions and what are the potential implications for the
environment and/or stakeholders?

11-4 Environmental Auditing

145
Environmental auditing is a review process similar to that carried out in financial accounting. Both
result in a statement of facts, which certifies that practice is (or is not) in accordance with standard
procedure. In the case of environmental auditing, there is an added level of interpretation, focusing on
the factors of performance. The concern is to identify how the aspects, processes or systems under
review can be improved.

The main techniques for conducting an environmental audit are:

 examination of records and documentation relating to impacts, actions taken to manage them
and aspects of performance;
 interviews with management and line staff to corroborate factual information and probe areas
of concern; and
 site inspection to check that environmental measures and controls are operating as described
and intended.

A distinction can be made between environmental audits conducted as part of EIA and EMS
implementation, respectively. EIA related audits, typically, are ad hoc, project-by-project in approach
and use non-standardised methodology. EMS audits, typically, are conducted in accordance with ISO
14001 guidance and procedures, and oriented toward continuous improvement in managing the
environmental impacts of an organisation, site, process, product, supply chain or input-output balances.
However, both EIA and EMS audits have objectives, elements of approach and information sources in
common.
EIA audits are used to:
 identify the impacts of project implementation;
 verify whether or not the conditions of approval have been implemented;
 test the accuracy of impact predictions;
 check the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and
 improve compliance and performance of EIA practice.

EMS audits include:

 site audits to examine all aspects of environmental management of a facility or operation;
 compliance audits – to ensure an organisation or development meets pertinent legal,
regulatory and voluntary or self imposed standards such as emission limits, discharge permits
and operating licenses; and

146
  sector or issue-specific audits to consider key aspects of environmental management and
performance, such as waste disposal, energy use, cleaner production, health and safety and
supply chains.

Guidance on the conduct of EIA audits emphasises that a well-designed monitoring programme is an
integral element of good practice. The before and after data collected by baseline and effects
monitoring lays down an audit trail, which allows key impacts to be tracked and statistically verified.
The case example in the table below, from Hong Kong, illustrates the results of an EIA audit of a
major project. It emphasises both the use of monitoring and audit to remedy deficiencies in EIA
implementation and the difficulties of gathering evidence to verify their cause.

When selecting projects for a full audit, Hong Kong and international experience indicates that priority
should be given to those:
 with a high level of environmental, social, economic or political impact and visibility;
 that can yield usable results within the existing technical and budgetary constraints; and/or
 most at risk from deficiencies in the EIA implementation and follow up system, such as limited
surveillance capability or lack of authority to enforce mitigation measures.
The case example also underlines some of the difficulties commonly experienced in the conduct of
EIA monitoring and audit, including:
 limited baseline information on variability and causal relationships;
 qualitative and non auditable impact predictions;
 late changes to project design and mitigation (thereby altering the basis on which predictions
are made); and
 Long lead times before certain trends and impacts can be identified, for example, large scale
but infrequent impacts (such as oil spills) or low dose, repetitive effects (such as exposure to
heavy metals).

Other more flexible, less data demanding approaches can be taken in cases where an auditable trail of
monitoring data is unavailable or insufficient. For example, spot audits concentrate on significant
impacts or priority concerns about mitigation measures. These can be undertaken either as a series of
rolling audits or a post-project analysis. An impact-backwards methodology can be used to compare
EIA prediction and mitigation with environmental effects and outcomes. Impacts are verified
iteratively by consultation and field checks and traced backwards to EIA practice (comparable to an
effectiveness or policy audit).

147
Environmental monitoring and audit of the Chek Lap Kok Airport, Hong Kong SARrs
Source:
EIA section Results
Sanvicens 1995.
Background A number of major projects in Hong Kong are the subject to environmental monitoring and audit
(EMA) as part of EIA implementation and follow up. These programmes are carried out to ensure
that the measures recommended in the EIA are actually implemented and appropriate actions are
taken in cases where the impact exceeds the established limit.
Project The Chek Lap Kok Airport was built between 1991 and 1997 at a total cost of US$ 20 billion. It
involved the reclamation of approx. 1250 ha site and facility development and related projects and
infrastructure, including a new town of 20,000 (Tung Chung), and a 34 km high speed rail and
road expressway to the city centre (involving fixed and tunnel water crossings and new terminal
facilities on reclaimed land). Major areas of concern in site construction and operation included air
quality, noise, water quality, waste and ecological damage resulting from dredging, dumping and
reclamation.
EMA An EMA system was instituted to follow up on the implementation of EIA measures. The
programme monitoring component focused on aspects of particular concern, including water quality, air
emissions, noise and dust levels. At the airport reclamation site, the initial water quality monitoring
network was inadequate and had to be relocated to provide a more realistic set of auditing criteria.
The audit component compared actual and predicted impacts, and the effectiveness of
environmental instruments, such as clauses included in licenses, contract specifications and
planning and land lease conditions. The programme was carried out by developing a reference
manual and database, monthly and quarterly reports on compliance and performance, respectively,
and policies and procedures to be followed in the event of breaches and non-compliance.
Summary of The implementation of EIA measures was largely dependent on the environmental awareness of
results the proponent’s resident site staff, and hampered by the lack of legal authority of the regulatory
agency. Impact predictions were reasonably accurate (except for cumulative effects) but there were

148
Environmental monitoring and audit of the Chek Lap Kok Airport, Hong Kong SARrs
Source:
EIA section Results
Sanvicens 1995.
cases where the impact exceeded the worst-case scenario (e.g. mud dumping rates). The audit of
the effectiveness of environmental instruments concluded that not all EIA recommendations were
included in contracts, many specifications were too general, and means of enforcing or inducing
compliance were insufficient. An underlying issue was the variance between the project as
designed and as constructed, compromising many EIA measures and requiring renegotiation of
mitigation.
Key lessons EIA documents must be prepared with the EMA requirements in mind, for example, auditable
predictions and well-defined mitigation measures, with provision for their renegotiation if design
and construction vary. In addition, these measures should be translated into practicable,
enforceable specifications. The regulatory agency should have the necessary legal authorities for
this purpose.

Activity 11B – EMP and Audit Programme

For a project you are familiar with (or as advised by your tutor) write a summary Environmental
Management Plan, incorporating monitoring and audit schedules as necessary, to ensure that the
project will proceed according to the EIA recommendations without unforeseen or unacceptably
significant environmental impacts arising.
Exchange your summary plan with that of a fellow module participant and review each others EMPs
and provide feedback on how the EMP can be improved to ensure predictable environmental outcomes
from the project.

11-5 Evaluation of EIA Effectiveness and Performance

Ex-post evaluation of EIA effectiveness and performance can be undertaken at a number of levels. In
this section, the emphasis is on a before and after review of a specific EIA process, focusing on what
was achieved and which elements of approach contributed to good environmental outcomes. This type
of evaluation can be undertaken as an integral component of EIA implementation and follow up, for
example to identify the results and lessons of the experience and feed them back into policy action.
However, examples of this approach are limited, and fewer still are based on a systematic review of
surveillance, monitoring and auditing data.
149
Other evaluations of aspects of EIA effectiveness and performance that can provide relevant
information include:
 annual or periodic reports on the implementation and performance of EIA systems, e.g. three
year review of World Bank experience;
 national and comparative reviews of the quality of EIA reports, e.g. as undertaken in Australia,
Canada and the USA;
 reviews of the relationship of the EIA process and decision-making; and
 post-project analyses focusing on the results of EIA inputs and activities.

Despite recent progress, however, there is a lack of widely agreed frameworks for conducting reviews
of EIA effectiveness and performance in the above areas. By contrast, in the EMS cycle, review and
reporting are integral procedures for improving environmental performance. In leading companies,
these are combined with monitoring, audit and other tools to address all impacts of their operations. A
review of EIA effectiveness and performance can replicate this approach to document and disseminate
the lessons of experience and build the knowledge base on project-specific impacts.

Typically, the responsibility for EIA implementation and follow up activities will be divided among
different agencies and individuals. For example:
 the competent authority usually oversees the implementation of the terms and conditions of
approval;
 the proponent (often through sub-contractors) normally carries out the scheduled activities,
such as site clearance and preparation, construction and environmental management;
 the environmental or regulatory agency usually inspects mitigation measures, reviews
monitoring data and verifies compliance and effectiveness; and
 the public can have a formal role in environmental monitoring and audit, e.g. where a
stakeholder or community review committee is in place. In other cases, there may be provision
for public disclosure of monitoring and audit reports and opportunities for informal review and
comment.
Summary
You have now completed Section 11 – Implementation and follow-up and all the learning materials for
this Module, Environmental Impact Assessment. To demonstrate the learning outcomes of this Section,
check that you are now able to:
 Demonstrate understanding of the key objectives of EIA implementation and follow up;
150
  Appreciate the role of environmental management and auditing in EIA implementation and
follow up.
You should now check your progress in completing the Assignments for this Module (click the
Assignments tab for information) and check that you have achieved the learning outcomes for the
Module.

APPENDIX A
Definitions
Here we present definitions of some of the main terms commonly used in the field of environmental
impact assessment.
abiotic – Non-living eg. rocks or minerals.
ameliorative measures – see mitigation.
alternative – Apossible course of action, in pace of another that would meet the same purpose and
need of the proposal.
audit – See environmental audit.
baseline studies – Work done to collect and interpret information on the condition/trends of the
existing environment.
benefit-cost-analysis – A method of comparing alternative actions according to the relative costs
incurred (technical, environmental and economic) and the relative benefits gained.  The analysis can
incorporate discounting calculations to take into account the time of value and money.
biodiversity – See biological diversity.

151
biological diversity – the variety of life forms, the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the
genes they contain and the ecosystems they form.  It is usually considered at three levels: genetic
diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity.
biophysical – that part of the environment that does not originate with human activities (e.g.
biological, physical and chemical processes).
biota – all the organisms, including animals, plants, fungi and micor-organisms in a given area.
carrying capacity – the rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that can be sustained
indefinitely in a defined impact region without progressively impairing bioproductivity and ecological
integrity.
coherence in EIA – Aiming to achieve the co-ordination of EIA procedures, guidelines, standards and
criteria by those involved in funding or approving proposals.
compensation – Trade-offs between different parties affected by proposals to the mutual satisfaction
of all concerned.
cost-benefit-analysis – See benefit-cost-analysis.
cumulative effects assessment - the assessment of the impact on the environment which results from
the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions
regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. cumulative impact can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
decision-maker – the person(s) entrusted with the responsibility for allocating resources or granting
approval to a proposal.
development proposals – Consist of a wide range of human activities which provide (a) favourable
conditions for an increase in the transformation of the neutral biophysical environment to provide the
goods and services available to society (e.g. Structural adjustment programs, ‘rolling’ development
plans) and (b) actions which directly produce the goods and services.
discretionary process/decision – A process or decision which the decision-maker is able to base on
personal preference.
ecological processes – Processes which play an essential in maintaining ecosystem integrity.  four
fundamental ecological processes are the cycling of water, the cycling of nutrients, the flow of energy
and biological diversity (as an expression of evolution).
ecosystem – A dynamic complex of plant, animal, fungal and microorganism communities and
associated non-living environment interacting as an ecological unit.
endemic – Restricted to a specified region or locality.

152
environment – There is no generally agreed definition of environment in EIA. Increasingly, it means
the complex web of inter-relationships between abiotic and biotic components which sustain all life on
earth, including the social/health aspects of human group existence.
environmental audit – Process focusing on an existing installation, facility, or activity which involves
a systematic, periodic evaluation of environmental management to objectively review the performance
of an organisation, management and equipment with the aim of safeguarding the environment.
Environmental assessment – See environmental impact assessment.
environmental impact assessment (EIA) – The systematic, reproducible and interdisciplinary
identification, prediction and evaluation, mitigation and management of impacts from a proposed
development and its reasonable alternatives.  sometimes known as environmental assessment.
Environmental impact report/statement – Document in which the results of an EIA are presented to
decision-makers and, usually, the public.
Environmental management – Managing the productive use of natural resources without reducing
their productivity and quality.
Environmental management plan – See impact management plan.
Environmental management system – A system approach for determining, implementing and
reviewing environmental policy through the use of a system which includes organisational structure,
responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources. Often formally carried out to meet the
requirements of the ISO14000 series.
fauna – All of the animals found in a given area.
flora – All of the plants found in a given area.
health impact assessment – Component of EIA which focuses on health impacts of development
actions. Most attention is concentrated on morbidity and mortality, but increasingly, the World Health
Organisation (WHO) definition of health as being a state of ’social, physical and psychological well-
being and not just the absence of disease’ is being used to guide this type of assessment work.
impact management plan – A structured management plan that outlines the mitigation, monitoring
and management requirements arising from an environmental impact assessment.
impact monitoring – Monitoring of environmental/social/health variables, which are expected to
change after a project has been constructed and is operational, to test whether any observed changes
are due to the project alone and not to any other external influences.
initial environmental evaluation/examination – A report containing brief, preliminary evaluation of
the types of impacts that would result from an action. Often used as a screening process to assess
whether or not proposals should undergo full scale EIA.

153
interdisciplinary team – A group of people, from a range of disciplinary backgrounds, working
together to ensure the integrated use of natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in
planning and in decision-making which may have an impact on man’s environment.
level of assessment – See tiering.
Memoranda of understanding – A written agreement between two or more levels of government.
Mitigation – The purposeful implementation of decisions or activities that are designed to reduce the
undesirable impacts of a proposed action on the affected environment.
Monitoring – Activity involving repeated observation, according to a pre-determined schedule, of one
or more elements of the environment to detect their characteristics (status and trends).
‘Moving’ baseline – Existing state of the environment projected into the future assuming no
development proceeds. The projected baseline situation, rather than that existing at the time of EIA
work, is theoretically the one to be compared with the state of the environment predicted in the event
of a development action proceeding.
natural resources – Features that have ecological, economic, recreational, educational or aesthetic
value.
natural resource accounting – Transfromation of data, on environmental features (components and
processes) and renewable/non-renewable resources, into a form that is comparable with data on the
economy.  Incorporation of the environmental data into the standard set of economic accounts (e.g.
gross national product0 used in government policy-making.

NEPA – National environmental Policy Act 1969 of the United States of America.  This Act, which
applied to Federal US agencies, was the first policy to require the preparation of a statement of the
predicted environmental impact of a proposal.  This statement has since become known as the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Precautionary principle – A principle of sustainability that where are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, the lack of full scientific certainty should be used as a reason for postponing measures to
prevent environmental degradation.
Proponent – Organisation (private or public sector) or individual intending to implement a
development proposal.
Proposal – Any project, policy, program, plan or other activity.
Public consultation – See public involvement.
pubic involvement – A range of techniques that can be used to inform, consult or interact with
stakeholders affected by a proposal.

154
resource – Anything that is used directly by people. A renewable resource can renew itself or be
renewed at a constant level. A non-renewable resource is one whose consumption necessarily involves
its depletion.
Risk analysis – Technique used to determine the likelihood or chance of hazardous events occurring
(such as release of a certain quantity of a toxic gas) and the likely consequences. Originally developed
for use in nuclear and chemical industry where certain possible events of low probability, could have
extremely serious results.  Attempts are being made to use concepts from a probabilistic risk analysis
to characterise environmental impacts, whose occurrence and nature are not easy to predict with any
degree of accuracy.
secondary impact – Indirect or induced changes in the environment, population, economic growth and
land use and other environmental effects resulting from these changes in land use, population and
economic growth.  the potential effects of additional changes that are likely to occur later in time or at
a different place as a result of the implementation of a particular action.
Scoping – an early and open activity to identify the impacts that are most likely to be significant and
require investigation during the EIA work.  Can, also, be used to:
 identify alternative project designs/sites to be assessed;
 obtain local knowledge of site and surroundings; and
 prepare a plan for public involvement.
The results of scoping are frequently used to prepare a Terms of Reference for the EIA.
screening – Preliminary activity undertaken to classify proposals according to the level of assessment
that should occur.
social impact assessment – the component of EIA concerned with changes in the structure and
functioning of social orderings.  In particular the changes that a development would create in: social
relationships; community (population, structure, stability etc); people’s quality and way of life;
language; ritual; political/economic processes; attitudes/value.  Can sometimes include health impacts.
stakeholders – those who may be potentially affected by a proposal (e.g. local people, the proponent,
government agencies, NGOs, donors and others.
State of the Environment reports – Reports that provide an assessment of the conditions of the
environment, pressures on the environment and the responses of the environment to those pressures.
strategic environmental assessment - A formal process of systematic analysis of the environmental
effects of the development policies, plans, programmes and other proposed strategic actions. This
process extends the aims and principles of EIA beyond the project level and when major alternatives
are still open.

155
synergistic – By acting together, separate elements produce a greater effect than would be produced if
they acted separately.
tiering – Addressing issues and impacts at the appropriate level of decision-making (e.g. from the
policy to project levels).
Terms of Reference (ToR) – Written requirements governing EIA implementation, consultations to
be held, data to be produced and form/contents of the EIA report. Often produced as an output from
scoping.
transboundary impacts – Any impact, not exclusively of a global nature, within an area under the
jurisdiction of a Party caused by a proposed activity the physical origin of which is situated wholly or
in part within the area under the jurisdiction of another Party.
value judgement - The use of opinion or belief in analysis or decision-making.

156