presentation on a paper of EIA given by Richard K. Morgan. The paper includes the growth of EIA around the world in last 40 years and also includes the effectiveness of EIA.

1. Environment Impact Assessment:
The state of art
Presented by: Tulsi Makwana (P17EN011)
SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

2. Contents
 Introduction.
 Origins and development of EIA.
 EIA and major projects.
 Current issues in EIA.
• Theory and EIA.
• The practice of EIA.
• EIA effectiveness.
2

3. Introduction
 The emergence of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a key component
of environmental management over the last 40 years has coincided with the
increasing recognition of the nature, scale and implications of environmental
change brought about by human actions.
 During that time, EIA has developed and changed, influenced by the changing
needs of decision-makers and the decision-making process, and by the
experience.
 It was more important than ever to scrutinize decisions that might have
significant implications for people and communities, and the systems that
comprise the natural environment, it is useful to take stock of the progress
made in the field, and to reflect on current and future challenges.
3

4. Introduction
 EIA is the process, that emerged from the National environmental Policy Act
1970 (NEPA), USA.
 Used as an umbrella term, captures the essential idea of assessing proposed
actions for their likely implications for all aspects of the environment, before
decisions are made to commit to those actions, and developing appropriate
responses to the issues identified.
4

5. Origins and development of EIA
 NEPA represented the first formal incorporation of the impact assessment
process in a legislative form.
 The Act established an environmental policy to guide the activities of those
Federal agencies whose actions had the power to affect people, communities
and the natural environment in significant ways, and was a response to a rise in
scientific and popular concern about contemporary environmental changes.
 Agencies were required under NEPA to produce a statement of environmental
impacts and release it to the public.
5

6. Origins and development of EIA
 The substantive requirement of NEPA was for a well-founded assessment of
the relevant environmental impacts of proposals, and for these to be used in the
agencies’ decision-making.
 In the international arena, the institutionalization of EIA has progressed
steadily over the last 15–20 years, gaining particular momentum from rising
political recognition of the problems associated environment (climate change).
 EIA is recognized in a large number of international conventions, protocols and
agreements.
6

7. Origins and development of EIA
 In a search carried out in November 2011 on the ECOLEX database (an
environmental law information service jointly operated by UNEP, FAO and
IUCN, 191 of the 193 member nations of the United Nations either have
national legislation or have signed some form of international legal instrument
that refers to the use of EIA.
 After 40 years, it seems reasonable to say that EIA is now universally
recognized as a key instrument for environmental management, firmly
embedded in domestic and international environmental law.
7

8. EIA and major projects
 Unfortunately, not all countries have introduced planning or development
control legislation to require the routine use of EIA for proposed projects.
 This gap was partly addressed by the World Bank group, which developed
Safeguard Policies, including environmental and social assessment procedures,
to guide funding decisions with respect to major projects in developing
countries.
 In1990s, World Bank group’s share of major project funding declined
significantly, it became obvious that the Bank’s Safeguard Policies were in
danger of being marginalized, so many large projects were going ahead
without environmental and social assessment as they were funded from other
sources.
8

9. EIA and major projects
 The solution has been to encourage the other major funders – the private sector
financial institutions and bilateral lending agencies – to adopt similar
requirements for environmental and social assessment when making their own
funding decisions.
 By 2006, 40 institutions had signed up to the Principles, the Principles are
based on the social and environmental performance standards developed by the
IFC, and the environment, health and safety guidelines of the World Bank, and
central to these is EIA.
 For major projects above a certain funding threshold (currently US$10
million), finance institutions must ensure that an impact assessment appropriate
to the scale and nature of the project is provided by the applicant.
9

10. Forms of impact assessment
 Under the umbrella of EIA a number of specific forms have developed since
the 1970s, including social impact 6 R.K. Morgan assessment (SIA), health
impact assessment (HIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA).
 Sustainability assessment (SA), has emerged in recent years, its focus being
more specifically on sustainability criteria in the assessment of policies, plans
or projects.
 Other forms of impact assessment that have emerged in recent years include
regulatory impact assessment (RIA), human rights impact assessment, cultural
impact assessment, post-disaster impact assessment and climate change impact
assessment.
10

11. Current issues in EIA
 These areas of concern are echoed by Retief (2010), who identifies three broad
themes based on a review of the international literature on environmental
assessment:
1) Theoretical grounding: do we have a clear sense of the purpose of EA, and
what it comprises?
2) Quality: what is good practice, how do we judge quality, what guidance do
we provide?
3) Effectiveness: what are we achieving through this process?
11

12. Theory and EIA
 The theoretical foundations of impact assessment have been subject to much
greater attention in recent years.
 Ortolano and Shepherd (1995) touch briefly on the debates surrounding the
nature of EIA, especially the dominance of the technocratic model of impact
assessment and the rise of alternative views that recognize the political realities
of decision-making.
 However, dissatisfaction with the lack of serious detailed analysis and
assessment of EIA as a process gained momentum in the late 1990s.
 Referring to the first 25 years of EIA development, Lawrence (1997, p. 79)
observes that ‘the conceptual foundation of EIA has received limited attention’.
12

13. Theory and EIA
 Important sources of thinking about the theoretical basis of EIA have been the
various theories and models of planning and decision-making.
 Lawrence (2000) examined five planning theories: rationalism, pragmatism,
socio-ecological idealism, political-economic mobilization, and
communications and collaboration
 Leknes (2001) uses a simpler three-fold: categorization of decision-
making approaches: the rational, new institutionalist and negotiation
perspectives.
13

14. Theory and EIA
 Bartlett and Kurian (1999) adopt a political science perspective and identify six
models: Information processing, Symbolic politics, Political economy,
Organizational politics, Pluralist politics, Institutionalist politics.
 Common theme is the critique of the rationalist model of planning/decision
making, and the consequent need to explore and develop models that embrace
new thinking about planning and decision making processes (Bartlett and
Kurian 1999).
 After the enactment of the NEPA, EIA came to be seen as one of the important
sources of information that would inform the choice of the best solution when
the decision involved project proposals.
14

15. Theory and EIA
 ‘As a state led process of development management both planning and EIA are
there to serve the interests of capitalism and they do that by trying to provide a
rationalist justification for the outcome of environmental decision-making’
(Weston 2010).
 He suggests the time has come to search for something radically different from
the rationalist-inspired EIA processes.
 The value dimension of the EIA process has to be reflected in the way it is
designed and carried out.
 EIA practitioners should also be more aware of, and sensitive to, the inherent
power relations found in rationalist decision-making processes that can hinder
effective participation and make environmental injustice.
15

16. Practice of EIA
 On the issue of EIA practice, the International Study of the Effectiveness of
Environmental Assessment (Sadler 1996) concluded:
‘Despite the many methodological and administrative advances in EIA over the
past two decades, recent experience in many countries confirms that there is
still considerable scope for strengthening the process. Immediate and cost-
effective measures could help improve the process in four key areas: scoping,
evaluation of significance, review of EA reports, and monitoring and follow-
up.’
 Over the last two decades there have been significant contributions to the
literature on each of the main steps in the classic EIA model.
16

17. Practice of EIA
 However, one area of impact assessment is still comparatively under-
developed: Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA).
 Most legislated EIA processes refer to cumulative effects as one of the
characteristics of proposed activities that need to be considered, but in practice
they are often not addressed or are handled inadequately.
 Reasons for the poor development of CEA: lack of clear understanding of what
is ‘cumulative’ effects, the lack of agreed approaches and methods for carrying
out CEA, and the fact that most jurisdictions place the responsibility of
addressing cumulative effects on project proponents.
17

18. Public participation
 Public participation is now given prominence in EIA writing.
 Three-fold classification of the purposes of public participation in EIA:
1) Obtaining public input into decisions taken separately by decision-makers
2) Providing some degree of public sharing of decision-making
3) Altering the structures and power relationships of decision-making.
18

19. Public participation
 There should be dynamic relationships b/w the three : EIA process, Public
participation and the decision makers.
 Social, political and cultural settings and traditions are important determinants
of the development and practice of these processes.
E.g.: Use of internet as a communication tool.
 Also a serious cultural change of all the parties involved is required in terms of
understanding the real importance of public participation, and therefore to
provide a framework for effectively practicing this right.
19

20. EIA effectiveness
 The final report of the International Study on the Effectiveness of
Environmental Assessment concluded that, while EA had made its mark since
it was introduced 25 years earlier, it would be necessary to maintain the efforts
to improve its performance if it was to make a substantive contribution to the
goal of sustainable development.
 In 2006, an update to the International Study on the Effectiveness of
Environmental Assessment was initiated by the International Association for
Impact Assessment (IAIA).
20

21. EIA effectiveness
 A closer inspection of national evaluations reveals two key points:
1) Any evaluation of EIA effectiveness is only meaningful when made in the
socio-economic, political and cultural context of the country or countries
concerned.
2) Views on effectiveness depend on one’s understanding of the nature and
purpose of EIA.
 The shortcomings of the EIA system are not an oversight, or a result of faulty
judgment, rather, they reflect a policy direction shaped by those with a vested
interest in the continued mismanagement of natural resources.
21

22. Conclusion
1. Strengths:
 The use of EIA at different levels of decision-making is growing significantly.
 There is a well-developed support infrastructure, from professional groupings
(such as the IAIA, and its national affiliates and branches), through to support
units in international agencies (UNEP, World Bank, WHO etc.), and to
national environmental agencies.
 A vibrant community of researchers and practitioners is engaged in learning
about this process, through case studies, and theory-based analyses.
22

23. Conclusion
2. Weakness:
 There is concern in many countries over the poor quality of impact assessment
information.
 Achieving significant change in practice, to improve EIA quality, means
overcoming entrenched professionals and perspectives, which can be very
difficult.
 Therefore, there is a significant gap between the best practice thinking
represented in the research and practice literature and the application of EIA
on the ground.
23

24. Conclusion
3. Threats:
 Governments look to stimulate economic growth and create employment in
response to the current financial crisis, many are promoting a major expansion
of physical infrastructure, encouraging resource development projects, and
generally seeking to speed decision-making about development projects
 The moves taken in some countries to speed up decision-making may weaken
the provisions for environmental protection, including impact assessment.
24

25. Conclusion
4. Opportunities:
 Despite the weaknesses and threats outlined above, we should take comfort
from the degree to which EIA as a concept has been accepted.
 That is, EIA should be integral to project development and design processes,
not left to the final legal step before project implementation.
25

26. References
 Richard K. Morgan (2012), Environmental impact assessment: the state of the
art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. [published online: 23 Feb 2012].
EIA seminarEnvironmental impact assessment the state of the art.pdf
26

27. 27
The city of Cape Town was warned!