The importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment process for delivering sustainable development
This blog is formed from work I undertook as part of an MSc in Environmental Management from the University of Derby from 2016-2019. This website serves as a repository for this work.
The following work was written in 2017
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is defined by the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2009) as
“the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social and other relevant effects of development proposals, prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made”.
EIA is one of a range of tools planners can use to assess the environmental impact of a proposed development (Glasson, et al., 2012) (Morris & Therivel, 2009). This essay will outline the history and advancement of EIA principles, review the role of sustainable development in the evolution of European EIA directives, assess the effectiveness of this approach in controlling the environmental effects of developments, and finally consider the importance of the role EIA plays in the delivery of sustainable development goals.
EIA was first developed in the USA in the 1960s (Glasson, et al., 2012). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 introduced into legislation the role of EIA when assessing the suitability of a development (US Senate, 2000). In 1985, the European Economic Community (EEC) introduced directive 85/337/EEC, establishing the importance of EIA in the planning process (EU, 2017) (Glasson, et al., 2012).
The 1997 UN Espoo Convention cemented EIA as an important early step in the planning process (UNECE, 1991). It also highlighted the importance of transboundary impacts as part of the assessment (UNECE, 1991). The European Community (EC) issued directive 97/11/EC in response (EU, 1985). The UN Aarhus Convention of 2001 established the role of public participation in the planning process (UNECE, 1998). Directive 2003/35/EC established protocols for public participation (EU, 2003).
The latest amendment to European Union (EU) EIA policy is 2014/52/EU (EU, 2014). This directive aims to simplify the EIA process in member states (EU, 2014), (Glasson, et al., 2012), as well as to improve the transparency of the process (Morris & Therivel, 2009). This most recent amendment builds on the developments of the past and commands member states to require EIA for a defined list of developments - Annex I. States can choose to require EIA in the case of projects listed in Annex II (EU, 2014). Annex II developments are considered to have a lesser environmental impact, though location and duration of the development must be considered (Glasson, et al., 2012). The member states are to implement the directive through national legislation (EU, 2014).
In the case of the UK, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 is an example of transposed regulations (HMSO, 2017).
In 1987, the UN released the The Brundtland Report (UNWCDE, 1987), which defined sustainable development (SD) as
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
SD is often referred as to having three pillars: economic, social and environmental (UN, 2015). In 1992, at the Rio World Summit, the UN Agenda 21 policy was adopted (UN, 1992). It stated that SD;
“should build upon and harmonize the various sectoral economic, social, and environmental policies and plans that are operating in the country.” (UN, 1992)
Agenda 21 however failed to set a target date for countries to have SD policies in place (ESDN, 2017). SD was however alluded to in the 1997 EU Treaty of Amsterdam where it is stated;
“[the EU is] determined to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection”. (EU, 1997)
The lack of binding progress on SD was addressed at the UN Rio+5 summit in 1997, where 2002 was agreed as the date by which SD policies should be in place (UN, 1997). In 2001 the EU released its Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) (EU, 2001), with the aim of building upon the spirit of the Brundtland Report and the commitments of the Rio summits and Agenda 21 (ESDN, 2017). The EU SDS called for the environment to be considered at every level of decision-making in the EU (EU, 2001).
In 2012, at the UN Rio+20 summit, the EU renewed its commitment to SD (EU, 2017 (2)) and in 2015 signed up to the 2030 Agenda; A political declaration, set of goals, targets, implementation methods and a framework for review (EU, 2017 (2)). 2014/52/EU makes reference to the Rio+20 summit, but only insofar as land degradation is concerned (EU, 2014). The EU’s EIA approach is considered by some to favour environmental sustainability over the other pillars (Vanderhaegen & Muro, 2005). This hierarchy is exemplified in the assertion that environmental unsustainability precludes economic or social sustainability (EU, 2016)
The effectiveness of EIA as a tool for sustainable development is much debated. (Jha-Thakur & Fischer, 2016) note that since its introduction, the EIA process has evolved, as the knowledge and experience of practitioners has developed. This is described previously by (Jha-Thakur, et al., 2009) as a measurable increase in the effectiveness of the EIA process. Pölönen, et al. (2011) however, criticise the Finnish EIA process’ lack of clear sustainable development objectives. The Finnish regulations are transcribed from the EU directive; Bell & Morse (2008) & Gibson, et al. (2005) echo this criticism in the context of the UK.
EIA can only be effective if it is consistently implemented. While the types of project requiring EIA are dictated in 2014/52/EU, both the lack of a definition of SD and clear guidelines on the methodology of the EIA process hamper the consistent implementation of EIA across the EU (Morrison-Saunders & Therivel, 2005). Developers need to consider not only environmental impacts, but also economic benefits and social considerations in order to evaluate the sustainability of a planned project (Morrison-Saunders & Therivel, 2005).
Developers and LAs need to have a clearer idea as to how the environmental impact assessed through EIA corresponds with the economic and social aspect, assessed through other tools, such as LCA, RA and CBA (Morgan, 2012) (Morrison-Saunders, et al., 2014). While 2014/52/EU asserts environmental factors taking precedence, there is a need to give clearer guidance on how each sustainability pillar is to be weighted. A lack of methodology for weighting the different aspects leaves the process open to the influence of local powers that may favour one aspect of SD but neglect other factors that should be considered equally (Jha-Thakur & Fischer, 2016).
The difficulty in weighting the three pillars, already a challenge in the UK, is further exacerbated when viewed across the entire EU. In countries with a weaker economy (e.g. Eastern and Southern Europe), economic prosperity could weigh more in comparison to environmental issues in order to assure social equity in a poorer society (Morrison-Saunders, et al., 2014).
In the EU context, transboundary aspects are important in ensuring that not only local effects, but also wider consequences of a planned project are considered and projected. If EIA is inconsistently applied across the EU, countries with weaker EIA principles would be more attractive to polluting industries, thus skewing the SD balance. Social equity becomes ever more important as EU freedom of movement principles would allow people adversely affected by a project to theoretically move away to escape its impacts (Pölönen, et al., 2011).
The amendments to 2014/52/EU have aimed to formalise regulations regarding methodologies and the submission criteria (Morgan, 2012) (EU, 2014), though without a standard EU EIA method, the results and quality of EIA will likely continue to vary across the continent (Morrison-Saunders, et al., 2014).
The EU has itself recognised the negative effects of the variation in implementation (Glasson, et al., 2012). An EU report (2009) studying the effectiveness of the EIA directive, recommended a clearer focus on public participation and its definition, thereby addressing a key principle of SD. This report calls for public involvement and thus fulfils a key principle of sustainable development; however, the lack of methodological clarity of the process as outlined above makes it harder to succinctly inform a non-expert public that is less informed about the impacts of a proposed project (Jha-Thakur & Fischer, 2016).
Lack of methodology is a key issue, as it impacts negatively on key SD principles. Many experts argue that SD has always been a key aim of EIA (Morris & Therivel, 2009) (Glasson, et al., 2012) (Petts, 1999); However, there is a debate surrounding the further integration of SD as an outspoken goal into EIA legislation (Morrison-Saunders & Therivel, 2005). The fact there is a debate surrounding the clear inclusion of SD as an aim of EIA supports the argument that the connection between EIA and SD should be more firmly linked.
EIA is a key tool in addressing one of the three pillars of SD; however, it does not address the other two pillars in greater detail, although aspects of these are included (e.g. the social equity aspect by involving the public in decision-making). Further clarity as to the methodology of the process will hopefully elucidate how the different pillars of SD, as measured and assessed by additional tools as mentioned earlier, are related, and how the findings for each aspect can be harmonised to aid smooth decision-making by developers and LAs.
As an EU-wide tool, its importance lies in professing a clear commitment for all member states to SD, something that is not self-evident in countries with a weaker economy, where often environmental considerations are less important than economic aspects. However, when transboundary issues are considered, it is necessary to balance all SD pillars in ways that allow for social and economic prosperity across the disparity of member states.
References
Bell, S. & Morse, S., 2008. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Second Edition ed. London: Earthscan.
CPRE, 1991. The Environmental Assessment Directive Five Years On, London: Council for the Protection of Rural England.
ESDN, 2017. Basics of SD Strategies. [Online]
Available at: http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=basics%20of%20SD%20strategies [Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 1985. [Online]
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31985L0337&from=EN [Accessed 15 June 2017].
EU, 1997. Treaty Of Amsterdam Amending The Treaty On European Union, The Treaties Establishing The European Communities And Certain Related Acts. [Online] Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 2001. Communication From The Commission - A Sustainable Europe for a Better World:A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council). [Online] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0264&from=EN
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 2003. 2003/35/EC. [Online]
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4a80a6c9-cdb3-4e27- a721-d5df1a0535bc.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 2009. Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive Final report, Kongens Lyngby: COWI.
EU, 2014. 2014/52/EU. [Online]
Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0052&from=EN
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 2016. Sustainable development in the European Union A Statistical Glance From The Viewpoint Of The Un Sustainable Development Goals 2016 edition. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7745644/KS-02-16- 996-EN-N.pdf
[Accessed 18 June 2017].
EU, 2017 (2). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. [Online]
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/sustainable- development/SDGs/index_en.htm
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
EU, 2017. Environmental Impact Assessment - EIA. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm [Accessed 15th June 2017].
Gibson, R. B., Hassan, S. & Tansey, J., 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. First Edition ed. Oxford: Earthscan.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A., 2012. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Fourth Edition ed. Oxford: Routledge.
HMSO, 2017. Statutory Instruments 2017 No. Town And Country Planning The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/57714 3/SI-Town_and_Country_Planning.pdf
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
IAIA, 2009. What is IA. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/What_is_IA_web.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2017].
Jha-Thakur, U. & Fischer, T. B., 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA System: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , Volume 61, pp. 19-26.
Jha-Thakur, U. et al., 2009. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment — the significance of learning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Issue 27, pp. 133-144.
Morgan, R. K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23 Feb, 30(1), pp. 5-14.
Morrison-Saunders, A. et al., 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 January.32(1).
Morrison-Saunders, A. & Therivel, R., 2005. Sustainability integration and assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), pp. 281-298.
Morris, P. & Therivel, R., 2009. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. Third Edition ed. Oxford: Routledge.
Pölönen, I., Hokkanen, P. & Jalava, K., 2011. The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system — What works, what doesn't, and what could be improved?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, March, 31(2), pp. 120-128.
Petts, J., 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Vol. 1. Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, methods and potential. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
UN, 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & DevelopmentRio de Janerio, Brazil AGENDA 21. [Online]
Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf [Accessed 16 June 2017].
UN, 1997. Resolution Adopted By The General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/S-19/29)] S/19-2. Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21. [Online]
Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
UN, 2015. Transforming our World. [Online]
Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld [Accessed 16 June 2017].
UNECE, 1991. Convention On Environmentalimpact Assessmentin A Transboundary Context. [Online]
Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/Espoo_Conventio n_authentic_ENG.pdf
[Accessed 16 June 2017].
UNECE, 1998. Convention On Access To Information, Publicparticipation In Decision-Making And Access Tojustice In Environmental Matters. [Online] Available at: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2017].
UNWCDE, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. [Online]
Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf [Accessed June 16 2017].
US Senate, 2000. National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969. [Online] Available at: https://www.epw.senate.gov/nepa69.pdf
[Accessed 15 June 2017].
Vanderhaegen, M. & Muro, E., 2005. Contribution of a European Spacial Data Infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 25, pp. 123-142.
Appendix
List of Abbreviations
Cost Benefit Analysis CBA
European Economic Community EEC
European Community EC
Environmental Impact Assessment EIA
European Sustainable Development Network ESDN
European Union EU
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office HMSO
Local Authority LA Life-cycle assessment LCA
The National Environmental Policy Act NEPA
Risk Assessment RA
Sustainable Development SD
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE
United Nations World Commission on Development and Environment UNWCDE
