Quality in EIA Flashcards
Criticisms of EIA
slows development process
too expensive 0.01-1% of capital cost, impact management plan may add from 1-15 % to the capital cost
still isn’t based on evidence or good science
doesn’t help to achieve SD- mitigation just ‘bug’ consent
policy projects will go ahead anyway with permission from SoS i.e. HS2
Good things about EIA
involved the public
consider alternatives
Environmentally damaging developments can be improved or halted
preventing environmental damage save money improves health, manages resources better etc. not always easily accounted for
does provide systematise framework for all major developments to be scrutinised in public via production of an ES
same ideas can be applied to policy SEA
191 countries out of 193 have some form of EIA
Bigger picture
precautionary principle ecological limits intra and inter generational quit partnership and participation accountability and transparency strategic issues and cumulative effects
ES and quality
high quality ES–> informed decision making and condition setting
Low quality ES–> lack of quality technical input to the decision making process
Key phrases in EIA
scoping- become accepted as good practice by is still not always formally carried out.
determination of significance- mostly difficult subjective and still developing as a discipline with EIA. effective= findings should feed back into the project plan and inform mitigation and monitoring
review of envt statements- quality control, esp if takes place port to decision. Carried out by LPA and stat consultees
follow up and monitoring
Netherlands experience
set up to conduct stat reviews of all ES by Netherlands commission for EIA (NCEA)
all reports made public
reviews quality and adequacy for decision making
notes concerns raised by public during EIA
no value judgement on the project itself
could ask for revisions, additional data or could make changed inself if requested by government
initially = national review
changed to international review body- building capacity, providing support
role linked to work in developing countries, supporting prep of guidelines
review EIAs of controversial and complex projects only
SEA on regional plans and programmes- national development plans and poverty reduction strategies
- i.e. NCEA requested to review EIA- cartagena port access canal, Columbian govt (through tropical coral reef and mangrove ecosystem)
expected impacts: removal of vegetation (incl mangroves)
removal and transplantation of coral reefs
sediment dispersion in the cartagena bay, potentially affecting marine ecosystems
tourism and fisheries
change of coastal geomorphology
Recommendations (NCEA cartagena port)
compliance with legislation and regulation
incomplete elements
hydraulic modelling may be flawed
EIA report was not presented un such a way that facilitates decision making - partly too detailed, sometimes irrelevant
monitoring programme is insufficiently detailed not not only dress project implementation phase but also operational phase
stakeholder invovlement was not yet completed no have all stakeholders been involved.
Mitigation
in a sample of 40 EIS only 4% were satisfactory for mitigation, particularly on monitoring
commitments aften vague
costs are major issue- typically £15-20k for great crested newts mitigation
mitigation often may not deliver
formal envt management planning is addressing the issue
Great Crested Newts mitigation
12 sites that were subejected to development mitigation in 2004 were studies 2011-2013
7 had declies (3 to possible extinction)
all showed degrees of isolation, fragmentation and barriers to dispersal
data reporting was flawed so detailed analysis was modelling was not possible
favourable conservation status assessment: carried out in relation to four components- range population habitat future proespects 4- bad 7- inaqeuqte 1- favourable
suggestions: impeove data collection and management, revise mitigation practive to maintain favourable conservation status, further applied research
Reviews of quality
Lee and Colley- project and envy, impact identification and evolution, alternatives and mitigation and presentation and communication
Assessment of EU
big improvements in description of development, local envy and baselines
less improvements in identification of impacts (including scoping and methodologies) and in alternative mitigation
waste disposal best overal, motorways much improved
extractive industy excellen in Germany, poor in Belgium and Spain
Factors influencing quality
nature of legal requirements for EIA
experience of the proponent, the consultation and competent authority
existence of scoping
length of EIA report (cost of EIA)
nature and size of projects
often acting in combination appear to be important in determining the quality of EISs
Barriers to Quality
Budgets
competitive tendering
success fees
lack of experience or capacity
lack of multidisciplinary approach
Indicators of sustainability
Biological
operational
economic
