Strategic Environmental Assessment

Riki Therivel,Elizabeth Wilson,Donna Heaney,Stewart Thompson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134161379
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Öffentliche Raumordnung auf lokaler & regionaler Ebene

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a new approach to environmental assessment, global in scope, which considers the environmental impacts of policies, plans and programmes. It is already in use in a number of countries and is rapidly being adopted by those involved with environmental management and regulation, including governments, official and voluntary sector agencies, academic courses and consultancies. This text defines and analyzes SEA within the overall context of environmental assessment. It introduces and reviews the current state of SEA, evaluates its application in a number of countries with a range of detailed case studies, provides a critique of its techniques and an analysis of its importance for the future.

1:

The changing context of environmental impact assessment

1.1 Introduction

Environmental impact assessment¹ (EIA) is the process of predicting and evaluating an action's impacts on the environment, the conclusions to be used as a tool in decision-making, It aims to prevent environmental degradation by giving decision-makers better information about the consequences that development actions could have on the environment, but can not, of itself, achieve that prevention. Briefly, EIA involves reviewing the existing state of the environment and the characteristics of the proposed action (and possibly alternative actions); predicting the state of the future environment with and without the action (the difference between the two is the action's impact); considering methods for reducing or eliminating any negative impacts; preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) that discusses these points; and, after a decision is made about whether the action should proceed, possibly monitoring the actual impacts of the action. EIA, as an approach to environmental issues, can be characterized as multidisciplinary and predictive. In its most usual manifestation it is closely linked with the planning system.

Early discussions on EIA suggested that it should be applied to the earlier, more strategic, tiers of decision-making – policies, plans, and programmes (referred to generically throughout this book as PPPs) – as well as to individual projects (Montgomery, 1990; Wood, 1988). To date, EIA has primarily been carried out for projects – eg. power stations, industrial installations, housing developments.

Currently, however, the consideration of the environmental impacts of PPPs – commonly known as strategic environmental assessment (SEA) – is once again receiving increased interest. The Netherlands government set up a statutory SEA system in 1987 and is currently strengthening it. The New Zealand authorities have required the preparation of SEAs since late 1991. The European Community's (EC) Directorate General XI produced a proposed directive on SEA in early 1991, and the UK's Department of the Environment has recently recommended procedures resembling those of SEA.

In some instances, SEA is being seen solely as an extension of EIA for projects at an earlier stage in the decision-making process. However, in other instances it is seen as being closely linked to the concept of sustainability; SEA may be the most direct way of making judgements about sustainability operational.

This book discusses the development and current status of SEA worldwide, including its links with sustainability. It provides both a snapshot of the early stages of an exciting new form of policy, and a view of its future possibilities. The book focuses on the UK and EC, but many of its principles apply elsewhere as well. It should help to provide an impetus towards the establishment of powerful, effective SEA systems with close links to sustainability, rather than token ‘green’ policies that have little effect.

The first chapter considers systems of EIA for projects. It reviews some of the factors that limit the effectiveness of EIA in ensuring that development is not environmentally harmful, focusing particularly on EC Directive 85/337 on EIA (CEC, 1985; sections of this are given in Appendix A) and its implementation in the UK. It considers the need for EIA at higher tiers of decision-making, and the possibilities that this would have for making judgements about sustainability operational through SEA. Finally, it summarizes some current trends in the approach to environmental issues and the role of strategic environmental assessment in this.

Chapter 2 introduces principles and issues in SEA. It explains the distinctions and links between policies, plans, programmes and individual projects. SEA is discussed as a form of policy appraisal, and its potential strengths and weaknesses are explored. The chapter raises procedural issues regarding SEA, which are further addressed in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 3 reviews existing systems of SEA, particularly those of California and the Netherlands. It critically discusses the proposed EC directive on SEA and the UK government's recent activities concerning the appraisal of policies and plans. This chapter shows that SEA is feasible, but also points to a number of limitations to the effectiveness of the systems that are currently being tried. Appendix B expands on the good and bad points of some of the systems discussed in this chapter.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 further explore the need for EIA at a more strategic level, using three case studies from the UK. Chapter 4 concerns coastlines; although these are covered in many places by protective designations, existing controls are not adequately preventing environmentally harmful development, or giving decision-making systems the right information with which to do so. Chapter 5 examines the energy sector. The lack of a national plan for energy is a major limitation to the comprehensive consideration of the impacts of energy-related activities. Chapter 6 addresses lowland heath, a rare and vulnerable habitat on which development is currently controlled by a variety of designations and through local authority development plans; again, these designations do not adequately prevent environmentally harmful development. Suggestions are made for the implementation of SEA.

Chapter 7 proposes that SEA in the future could take on a much greater role than simply expanding EIA to more strategic levels. It suggests that SEA could provide a framework for implementing the objective of sustainability, and proposes steps towards achieving this.

Appendix C discusses possible forms of methodology for SEA. It considers the best of the methodologies used in existing SEA systems, and offers thoughts on further application of SEA principles to practical situations.

1.2 The current state of environmental impact assessment

Worldwide spread of EIA

The development of EIA began more than 20 years ago in the United States with the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (US Govt., 1970). After that, EIA regulations were rapidly established in countries such as Canada (1973), Australia (1974), West Germany (1975) and France (1976), and later worldwide. In 1985, EC Directive 85/337 made EIA mandatory in certain circumstances, and more uniform throughout the European Community than previously. EIA is now used in some form or other in most countries of the world.

The emphasis and effectiveness of these systems varies considerably. Many countries have official EIA systems established through regulations; others have non-mandatory EIA guidelines; and in others EIAs are prepared on an ad hoc basis for specific large-scale development projects. In some countries, EIA is performed only by government departments for public sector projects; in others it is performed only by private developers; and in others both the public and private sectors conduct EIAs. EIA has greatly facilitated public participation in the planning process for major projects in many countries, but only minimally if at all in others.

At present, some of the strongest EIA regulations exist in North America and Australia. In Europe, most countries have EIA systems; the EC saw a consistent system of EIA as a way, in the context of environmental policy, of preventing distortions of competition in the common market. EIA regulations and guidelines exist in many countries of South America and Asia, but their effectiveness is often limited by the need to foster economic growth even at the expense of the environment. Africa generally lags behind the other continents in its implementation of EIA: coping with the needs of its rapidly growing population, frequent and often violent changes of government, environmental calamities, and (in places) endemic corruption leaves few resources for preventive environmental management in a continent that nevertheless may need it more than any other (Harrison, 1987). Most of the EIAs in Africa and South America are carried out by development organizations such as the World Bank and US AID (Wathern, 1988).

The divide between more developed countries and less developed countries thus exists in EIA as in other forms of environmental policy. The wealthy industrialized countries are carrying out increasingly detailed EIAs for projects and considering its extension to more strategic levels of decision-making. The poorer nations carry out EIAs when required to do so to get funding, but even then the process is dogged by institutional and financial problems.

Further information on the development and current state of the EIA systems can be found, for instance in Anderson et al. (1984), Bear (1990), and Orloff (1980) for the US; Clark and Herington (1988) and Tomlinson (1986) for the UK; CEC (1991b), EIA Review, Lee and Wood (1984), Roberts and Roberts (1984), Wandesforde-Smith (1980), Wathern (1988) and Wood (1981) for the EC; and Cabrera (1984), Enyedi et al. (1987), O'Riordan and Sewell (1981) and Westman (1985) for other countries.

Constraints on the effectiveness of project EIA

The effectiveness of project EIA is hampered by a number of factors. Many of these are institutional, but technical factors such as the lack of environmental data and the underdevelopment of predictive capabilities also play a part.

The types of projects that tend to be subject to an imposed requirement for EIA are often limited. Projects that are frequently exempted include defence and security-related projects; agricultural and afforestation projects that may be seen as ways of preserving the viability of rural communities or of actually protecting the environment; small-scale projects such as windfarms and golf courses that of themselves may not have a significant environmental impact but that may cumulatively; and projects that are under the remit of uncooperative government agencies or of particularly powerful lobby groups. For instance in Japan a weaker form of EIA is required for power stations than for other forms of development because the powerful Ministry of International Trade and Industry argues that energy production is a matter of national importance and thus should not be impeded (Barrett and Therivel, 1991). EIA was made discretionary for many types of projects in the EC for what appear to be similar reasons.

The information required in an EIA is also often limited. The regulations or guidelines may not require the full range of potential impacts to be addressed: for instance, the UK's EIA system does not require the assessment of noise, ecological impacts, energy consumption or radioactive emissions. Some systems do not require the assessment of a full range of mitigation measures, or of alternative proposals. The latter omission is particularly detrimental; as the US Council on Environmental Quality noted over ten years ago, the consideration of alternatives ‘is the heart of the environmental impact statement’ (USCEQ, 1978).

The objectivity and thoroughness of an EIA is also influenced by the organization that carries out the assessment. In most countries EIAs are prepared by the project proponent, not by the local authority or a neutral government agency. Unless the project proponents feel that they can facilitate the planning approval process by preparing a particularly thorough EIS, they will normally gain little by going beyond the minimum statutory requirements. EIAs in the UK have been shown to cost between 0.000025 and 5 per cent of project costs (Coles et al., 1992); a thorough EIS is a large document and can be very expensive, while a minimal one could be considerably cheaper. The developer also could not be expected to prepare an EIS suggesting that a project's environmental impacts are so great that the project should not go ahead.

The level of public participation in the EIA process can also influence its effectiveness. Determining the views of local residents, and taking account of these views in the development proposal, is likely to improve the effectiveness of the subsequent EIA, but again can be an expensive and lengthy process. Many developers are concerned about making information that is potentially commercially confidential available for public scrutiny, although there is a general trend towards increasing citizen access to environmental information. Collections of environmental impact statements have been set up in many countries, both to improve public participation and as a way of improving the quality of future EIAs (Therivel, 1991).

The decision as to whether or not a project should go ahead is not tied solely to the results of the EIA, since a wide range of socio-political and economic factors must also be taken into account. This can lead to the EIA findings being virtually ignored or overridden by ‘the national interest’ or other factors. In some (mostly developing) countries, it is quite possible that the corruption of local officials overrides any attempt to improve decision-making through the use of EIA, though it must be said that very little literature exists on this subject.

Finally, techniques and procedures for monitoring and auditing of actual environmental impacts are still in their infancy. The predictions made in EIAs are rarely tested against what actually happens when the project is built and operated (Bisset and Tomlinson, 1988; Coles et al., 1992), so impact prediction techniques have had little chance of being improved. The concept of monitoring is universally applauded, but the costs are high and developers have understandably balked at any moves to make monitoring a legal requirement. California has one of the few EIA systems that do require monitoring, but it is also one of the wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

That said, much good EIA practice has evolved in the private sector without being statutorily required, because a thorough assessment of all possible environmental problems, or public contentiousness and pollution liabilities is seen to be desirable for simple commercial operating reasons, quite apart from any others. It is therefore not correct to view EIA as a ‘luxury’ that those with more funds can afford.

Constraints on the effectiveness of project EIA in the EC and UK

The EC and UK provide more specific examples of limitations of project EIA. EC Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects (CEC, 1985) was adopted in 1985, after ten years of discussion and research, and was implemented by most of the individual member states three years later. The directive requires EIA for two lists of projects, which are shown in Appendix A.1. Annex I projects, for which EIA is required unconditionally, include c...