ISSUED BY
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
PLEASE NOTE: This document is intended as an information source and cannot
take the place of legal advice in a specific situation governed by legislation.
The document is not a guideline document, but serves as a reference and supportive
text. This document will not take the place of official guidelines and regulations
published by DEAT.
ENQUIRIES AND COMMENTS
All enquiries and comments should be addressed to:
The Director: Environmental Impact Management
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
REFERENCING
When referencing this document, it should be cited as follows:
DEAT (2002) Screening, Information Series 4, Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.
This document is one of a series of overview information reports on the concepts
of, and approaches to integrated environmental management (IEM). IEM is a key
instrument of South Africa's National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
South Africa's NEMA promotes the integrated environmental management of activities
that may have a significant effect (positive or negative) on the environment.
IEM provides the overarching framework for the integration of environmental
assessment and management principles into environmental decision-making. It
includes the use of several environmental assessment and management tools that
are appropriate for the various levels of decisionmaking.
The aim of this document series is to provide general information on techniques,
tools and processes for environmental assessment and management. The material
in this document draws upon experience and knowledge from South African practitioners
and authorities, and published literature on international best practice. This
document is aimed at a broad readership, which includes government authorities
(who are responsible for reviewing and commenting on environmental reports
and interacting in environmental processes), environmental professionals (who
undertake or are involved in environmental assessments as part of their professional
practice), academics (who are interested and active in the environmental assessment
field from a research, teaching and training perspective), non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and interested persons. It is hoped that this document
will also be of interest to practitioners, government authorities and academics
from around the world.
This document has been designed for use in South Africa and it cannot reflect
all the specific requirements, practices and procedures of environmental assessment
in other countries.
This series of documents is not meant to encompass every possible concept,
consideration, issue or process in the range of environmental assessment and
management tools. Proper use of this series of documents is as a generic reference,
with the understanding that it will be revised and supplemented by detailed
guideline documents.
This document has been prepared by the CSIR. Workshops were held at CSIR in
Stellenbosch and Pretoria, where the collective knowledge of a number of CSIR
scientists and EIA practitioners were captured. The production of this document
would not have been possible without the valuable comments received from Pete
Ashton, Patrick Morant and Alex Weaver. Opinions expressed and conclusions
arrived at are those of the authors and are not necessarily the official view
of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Any misrepresentation
of views or errors of fact are solely those of the authors. All sources used
have been acknowledged by means of complete references.
Principal Author: Frauke Münster
and Alex Weaver
Project Managers: Mark Gordon (DEAT) and Nigel Rossouw
(CSIR)
Editorial Review: DEAT: Wynand Fourie, Johan Benade and
Danie Smit CSIR: Patrick Morant and Michelle Audouin
Peer Review: Sean O'Beirne (SE Solutions, Pty, Ltd.)
Over the past decade there has been considerable international debate regarding
the limitations and weaknesses of environmental impact assessment (EIA). There
has been a sharp focus on the use and practice of science in EIAs. A number
of international studies have highlighted concerns surrounding the technical
quality of EIA in general and specifically the inaccuracy of impact predictions.
This document focuses on the specialist study phase of the EIA process. The
aim is to provide an overview of the debate on the weaknesses, gaps and problem
areas of specialist studies in EIA. Approaches to improve the scientific and
technical quality of EIA specialist studies are suggested for environmental
practitioners and specialists.
Identified areas of weaknesses in EIA specialist studies include:
baseline studies;
impact prediction and assessment;
impact mitigation;
post-EIA impact monitoring; and
specialist study reporting.
This document provides guidance to the EIA practitioner in the following areas:
Drafting and clarifying the terms of reference.
Outlining the desired specialist study approach.
Specialist reporting requirements.
Choosing the appropriate specialists.
Ensuring interdisciplinary interaction between specialists.
Independent peer review and choosing the right reviewer.
This document provides guidance to the specialist in the following areas:
Defining the scope of work.
Establishing baseline environmental conditions.
Field surveys and data collection.
Identifying and predicting potential impacts.
Prescribing mitigation measures.
Implementing monitoring requirements.
Deficiencies in the scientific quality of EIA can be attributed to the following
constraints:
Insufficient budget and time.
Deficient terms of reference.
Limited date.
Technical difficulties associated with impact predictions.
Frequent design changes and withholding information.
Political interference or pressure.
The challenge for science under these conditions is to remain scientifically
credible by ensuring that reference is made to all existing and accessible
scientific information (e.g. data and comparable studies), basing conclusions
on logical and rational premises and clearly stating all limitations to the
study. One of the tests that should be used is a peer review process by which
other knowledgeable and experienced scientists are invited to comment on the
scientific studies. The role of science in EIA is not necessarily to be comprehensive,
but to describe the status of the environment and predict human impacts as
accurately as possible. The challenge to science in EIA is to be problemfocused,
interdisciplinary and self-critical.
Over the past decade there has been considerable international debate regarding
the limitations and weaknesses of environmental impact assessment (EIA). The
International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment (Sadler,
1996) provided an overview of the global status of environmental assessment
tools. The study also provided recommendations on ways to improve the effectiveness
of EIA practice. This document focuses on the specialist study phase of the
EIA process. The aim is to provide an overview of the current practice and
quality of scientific studies in EIA.
It is important to note that not all EIAs have specialist studies. The requirement
to undertake specialist studies depends on the outcome of the scoping process.
For example, if all the issues that are raised during scoping can be addressed
with the available information, then it may not be necessary to proceed through
the full EIA process. The issues raised in the scoping phase of an EIA, which
cannot be effectively addressed with the currently available information, form
the basis for the terms of reference of specialist studies. These specialist
studies are commissioned to provide the information necessary to respond to
the key issues associated with the proposed project. Specialists are appointed
to analyze the current situation and assess the various impacts in terms of
their anticipated magnitude. The aim of the specialist study phase is to provide
information on the positive and negative impacts associated with the project
alternatives. The studies also present recommendations for mitigation actions
that may either enhance potential benefits or minimize harmful effects. EIA
is a process designed to facilitate and improve decisionmaking on development
projects.
The role of the specialist in the EIA process is to (1) address issues raised
during scoping and (2) provide sufficient information that can be used by decision-makers.
In most countries, especially in developing countries, there is no established
decision-making frameworks or criteria. Specialists thus have a critical role
to play in ensuring that decision-makers have sufficient information to make
rational and informed decisions.
EIA practitioners draw on inputs from a range of traditional scientific disciplines
(e.g. social sciences, earth sciences and life sciences). The main benefit
of using science in this manner in EIA is that the interdisciplinary nature
of the process provides an effective way of translating good theory into good
practice. Interdisciplinarity is the open information exchange and linkages
between various scientific disciplines. However, scientific interdisciplinarity
in EIA is not just a matter of integrating scientific results in an environmental
report. More importantly, it is the basis for applying scientific knowledge
in innovative and fresh ways to identify, define, interpret, analyze and solve
environmental problems.
Traditionally science has advanced through experimentation, observation, verification
and replication of broad principles, theories, laws and hypotheses. These are
normally statements of interpretation that apply to a broad array of circumstances,
and are subject to continual scrutiny through experimentation, observation,
verification and replication. This scientific experimentation provides an historical
and comprehensive record of results. However, EIAs are normally conducted under
conditions of data shortage and short time schedules. There is often neither
the historical record or comprehensiveness of monitoring to form a reliable
picture of the status of the environment.
The demand for EIA has propelled scientists into what at times seems a murky
world of forecasting (i.e. predicting future impacts or likely scenarios).
Imprecision in predicting the response of both the natural and human environment
to change stems from the complexity and interconnectedness of the various environmental
elements (i.e. the biophysical, social and economic environment). Currently
there is no single universally acknowledged body of theory or method that can
be applied to the analysis and evaluation of predicted impacts in EIA. One
of the limitations of science in EIAs is thus that, in order to understand
the natural and social environment and to predict impacts, scientists have
to reduce complex systems to simple models or representations of reality.
A number of South African EIA practitioners (for example, Weaver, et al.,
1998; Hill, 2000; O'Beirne, 2001) believe that some of the weaknesses associated
with local EIA practice include (1) undertaking EIAs to ensure that the interests
of the project proponent are protected and that the project is approved at
minimal additional cost to the project proponent, (2) applying the least possible
effort in order to satisfy minimum regulatory requirements, resulting in the
associated "rubber stamping" process, (3) making the decision to proceed with
a particular project before the EIA has been completed or has even commenced,
(4) poor scientific quality and (5) deficient mitigation measures, a lack of
monitoring and follow-up. These limitations in South African practice are not
unique and have been shown by Hickie and Wade (1998) and Warnken and Buckley
(1998) to be an international challenge.
Concerns regarding the scientific and technical quality of EIAs were first
raised in the USA about 25 years ago (Eberhardt, 1976) and there has been considerable
debate on the topic since then. The past decade has seen the publication of
several international studies and papers with the aim of addressing these concerns,
e.g. Best Practice Environmental Management in Mining by the Australian Environmental
Protection Agency (1995), The International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental
Assessment by Sadler (1996) and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment
Best Practice by The International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA)
(1999). It is interesting to note that the weaknesses of EIA identified decades
ago (Eberhardt, 1976; Beanlands and Duinker, 1984) are still prevalent in current
EIA practices. Although greater rigour of science in EIA is desirable, various
factors and pressures contribute to studies that do not adequately address
questions and concerns raised during the scoping process.
Scientific content, including the precision and accuracy of predicted environmental
impacts, is an area that has been audited in several countries. The findings
of national audits conducted during the past 15 years in the UK, Canada, USA
and Australia have ranged from high levels of precision and accuracy (Sadler,
1996) to less satisfactory outcomes (Bisset, 1985; Culhane, 1987; Henderson,
1987; Buckley, 1991; Sadler, 1996; Thompson, Treweek and Thurling, 1997; Wood
et al., 2000), and include situations where EIA falls a long way short of the
most basic scientific standards (Buckley, 1998). While these and other audits
highlight various weaknesses, gaps and problem areas associated with EIA processes
and practices, this document highlights problem areas specific to the scientific
quality of EIA specialist studies.
This document has been written for a wide audience. The objective is that
it will serve as an initial reference text. The aim is to provide an introductory
information source to government authorities, environmental practitioners,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, project proponents, academics,
students and other interested and affected parties (I an APs).
The focus of this document is on the specialist study phase of the EIA process.
The aim is to provide an overview of the debate on the weaknesses, gaps and
problem areas of specialist studies in EIA. Approaches to improve the scientific
and technical quality of EIA specialist studies are suggested for environmental
practitioners and specialists. This document does not provide guidelines on
the practical requirements of the specialist report. Best practice in an ideal
EIA process or situation is outlined.
Most of the criticism on the quality of science in EIAs focuses on the accuracy
of impact prediction. However, most specialist study reports contain remarkably
few testable predictions. As an exercise in applied science, EIA falls a long
way short of the most basic standards (Warnken and Buckley, 1998). Key weaknesses
associated with the technical and scientific quality of EIA specialist studies
can be grouped into the following five areas:
Lack of, or poor field surveys and associated data collection.
Failure to describe limitations or constraints on survey methodology.
Insufficient or inadequate data.
Vague generalizations with no indication of the relative importance of
a particular component.
Largely descriptive, with little quantitative information to enable accurate
impact prediction.
2. Impact prediction and assessment:
Vague, descriptive, subjective and ambiguous impact predictions that are
not quantified.
Impact predictions often based on expert opinion through discussions and
seldom through more systematic methods.
No details of the criteria used to identify and evaluate impact significance.
Failure to evaluate impacts according to established criteria.
Technical difficulties associated with making accurate impact predictions.
Failure to consider all impacts, including indirect and cumulative impacts.
Failure to consider all phases of the proposed project (construction,
operational and decommissioning phases).
3. Impact mitigation:
Insufficient information provided on recommended mitigation measures.
Little indication of the practicality, reliability and potential effectiveness
of the mitigation measures.
Measures recommended that don't address identified impacts.
Lack of consideration of possibilities for enhancement of project benefits.
4. Post EIA impact monitoring:
Requirements are generally vague and poorly designed or omitted.
5. Specialist study reporting:
Lack of clarity.
Poor interpretation of results.
Failure to reference sources of data and other information.
Poor presentation of information.
While the above-mentioned weaknesses relate primarily to the technical aspects
of EIA, limitations in the process include the following:
Lack of practical experience of certain specialists in identifying and
predicting impacts.
Appointing a specialist with inappropriate experience (i.e. a scientist
in academia versus a specialist with extensive practical experience).
Budgetary and time constraints.
Poorly defined terms of reference.
Frequent project design changes by the project proponent throughout the
EIA process.
Confidential project information important to the specialist studies being
withheld by project proponents.
Political interference or pressure.
Lack of consistent specialist reporting structures leading to problems
in integration.
Inadequate communication between the project proponent, the authorities
and the specialists.
A particular weakness is the delay in the transfer of information and new
skills from the research community to practitioners. This results in a skills
and information gap between the research community and those conducting and
reviewing EIAs (Warnken and Buckley, 1998).
There are also few or no co-ordinated efforts or programmes to consolidate,
supplement and share the information from EIAs in different industry sectors.
The benefits of sharing information and having access to EIA documentation
include (1) being able to identify issues readily and (2) being able to improve
on previous practice from similar projects. Therefore the knowledge gained
from (1) determining and predicting characteristic impacts of specific industries
and (2) the success of mitigation measures is not captured and disseminated
to practitioners and authorities. Improving the quality of EIAs is therefore
being inhibited by the lack of knowledge management and information-sharing.
The focus of this section is on the measures and approaches that can be used
by the EIA practitioner when commissioning and coordinating specialist studies.
From an EIA practitioner's perspective, the following areas are important for
promoting and improving the quality of specialist studies:
Drafting and clarifying the specialist terms of reference.
Outlining the desired specialist study approach.
Specialist reporting requirements.
Choosing the right specialists.
Ensuring interdisciplinary interaction between specialists.
Independent peer review and choosing the right reviewer.
This section contains information adapted from the following sources: O'Riordan
(1995), RSPB (1995), Therivel and Morris (1995), Treweek (1996), Hickie and
Wade (1998), Le Maitre and Gelderblom (1998), Warnken and Buckley (1998), Weaver
et al. (1998), Byron (2000), Byron et al. (2000), Wood et al. (2000) and Slootweg
and Kolhoff (2001).
1 Drafting and clarifying the specialist terms of reference
Well-written and comprehensive terms of reference for specialist studies play
an important role in ensuring that they are focused and provide the answers
to questions raised during the scoping process. Poor terms of reference are
often a result of a lack of understanding by the project proponent and/or consultant
of exactly what is required for an informed decision to be made regarding a
particular project proposal. The onus is on the EIA practitioner to communicate
the key issues to the specialist and not assume shared knowledge. It is, however,
important to ensure that the specialists know what is required of them without
being too prescriptive about exactly what to do or how to go about it. It is
also important to ensure that all interdependencies, interactions and information-sharing
requirements between specialist studies are identified and specified in the
terms of reference.
An approach the EIA practitioner can follow to improve the quality of terms
of reference is outlined below:
Draft the specialists' terms of reference to cover the key issues identified
during the scoping process and specify explicitly any issues/points that
must be excluded from the study.
Appoint independent peer reviewers.
Revise the specialists' terms of reference in consultation with the peer
reviewers.
Appoint the individual specialists.
Convene a workshop with all the specialists required for the EIA to clarify
the terms of reference and determine the level and areas of specialist interaction
and overlap.
Present the final terms of reference for the specialist studies to the
peer reviewers.
Apart from ensuring that the specialists are aware of what is expected of
them, the terms of reference could include requirements such as:
the use of recognized survey and data collection methods;
the use of a scientific approach to provide an objective and reliable
assessment of environmental impacts;
the application of specific and consistent impact description and assessment
criteria;
the use of peer review and interdisciplinary consultation in the prediction
and assessment of impacts; and
the prescription of relevant, effective and affordable mitigation and
monitoring requirements.
It is important that the terms of reference clarify and define the proposed
project's particular scale and area of influence (e.g. site only, local, regional,
national and international), and then calibrate those areas relevant to the
EIA. This will ensure that the specialists investigate the range of impacts
relevant to the different scales. For example, potential project impacts may
be direct, whereas local, regional and greater scale impacts may be indirect,
cumulative and/or secondary.
The manner in which the specialists will be required to deal with uncertainty
and the lack of data should be understood clearly by all parties. The provision
of an agreed set of definitions, terms and requirements to the specialists
should assist in ensuring consistency.
2 Outlining the desired approach in the terms of reference
While in most cases the terms of reference do not prescribe particular study
methods, they should clearly indicate what the EIA practitioner expects from
the specialists and how this information should be communicated and presented.
To overcome many of the weaknesses, gaps and problem areas in specialist studies,
the following should be included in their terms of reference:
Outline the study approach and identify assumptions and sources of information.
Perform a gap analysis to determine what information is available and
what additional information needs to be collected.
Describe the affected environment and determine the status quo.
Indicate exactly how much of a particular resource or community (human
or biological) will be affected, how intensely, and for what duration.
Perform a sensitivity or vulnerability analysis.
Identify current and future sources of risk associated with the proposed
project during construction, operation and decommissioning.
Quantify and give a full factual description of current and predicted
impacts, including cumulative and indirect impacts (as well as "error margins" on
these estimates).
Assess and evaluate potential impacts on the area of influence according
to the prescribed parameters and characteristics, including magnitude, spatial
scale, timing, duration, reversibility/irreversibility, probability, significance
and acceptability.
Identify and assess alternative project options, including the "no-go"
option, equally so that they can be compared objectively.
Propose and explain mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts, and enhancement
measures, according to the prescribed format, giving detailed prescriptions
for their implementation and methods to assess their likely success.
Summarize the residual impacts after mitigation.
Provide a detailed monitoring programme for mitigation measures and project
implementation activities, explaining what should be monitored, when, how,
how often and by whom.
3 Specialist reporting requirements
While a systematic and scientific approach is vital for specialist investigations,
the findings need to be conveyed to the authorities and I an APs in easily
understandable, nontechnical language. The contents of specialist reports are
often not suited to public reporting and it is the responsibility of the EIA
practitioner to integrate the specialist information into the environmental
impact report, so that it is more accessible to authorities and I an APs. The
original specialist study report should, however, be available as a stand-alone
report for reference, should further detailed information be needed.
The EIA practitioner can save time and effort by providing the specialist
scientist with a standard document template of the prescribed reporting format,
style and layout details, including requirements for headings, impact tables,
figures and graphs. Using the template will ensure that the specialists provide
the necessary information, report their findings in a consistent manner and
that their reports can be integrated effectively into the overall environmental
impact report.
The following reporting requirements can be included in the specialists' terms
of reference:
Production of a non-technical executive summary (the executive summary
should be a summary with executable actions).
An indication of the methods used (surveys, sampling), as well as the
timing, extent and duration of each activity undertaken in the study.
Use of generic criteria to evaluate impact magnitude and significance
.
Provision of impact mitigation requirements for inclusion in the project's
environmental management plan according to the prescribed criteria.
The inclusion of maps, figures, tables and graphs to improve readability,
accessibility and interpretation of the findings.
The inclusion of a full reference list and identification of all sources
of information (research papers, existing data and personal communications).
In addition to standard reporting requirements, the EIA can benefit from the
provision of the following by the specialist scientist:
A statement indicating whether the level of study was appropriate to the
likely significance and impacts (and if not, why).
A description of the limitations and constraints associated with the study
methodology.
An indication of what wasn't done, but could have improved the study,
had there been sufficient time and/or funding.
A statement on how uncertainty was dealt with.
Fully explaining and putting the component's data units in perspective.
For example, 5 ml in 5 X 103m3 is equivalent in scale to a teaspoon of water
in a swimming pool.
4 Choosing the right specialist
The levels of knowledge, expertise and competence of the specialist scientist
have a strong influence on the findings of the EIA. It is therefore important
to ensure that the most appropriate people are chosen to do the required studies.
Particular credentials to look for in a specialist include:
demonstrated competence and a proven track record in the specialist topic
(CV should include a list of peer reviewed publications and contract reports);
appropriate academic and specialist qualifications; and
professional membership of a recognized professional body.
A specialist's personal attributes and personality are as important as his/her
technical credentials. Ideally, the chosen specialist should have good people
skills and the ability to communicate and interact as a team player with other
specialists. Having chosen the specialists, it is advisable that they confirm
in writing that they are able to meet their terms of reference according to
the specified requirements and within the agreed time and budget allocation.
5 Ensuring interdisciplinary interaction between specialists
Individual specialist studies are typically undertaken separately and usually
provide discrete pieces of information, often fragmented in terms of spatial
and temporal scales. The pieces of information can also be fragmented in terms
of how questions are addressed. In large complex EIAs the sharing and sequencing
of information is crucial. This is particularly important in those EIAs where
a single question may need to be addressed by the provision of information
from more than one specialist study. The terms of reference for the different
studies must, therefore, be drafted to ensure that their data and findings
can be integrated.
Most, if not all, project impacts are directly or indirectly related to one
another and the need for collaboration between specialists in the design, planning,
execution and reporting of their studies should be emphasized in their terms
of reference. This can be achieved by convening specialist workshops as part
of the specialist study phase in the EIA process. Co-ordinated specialist field
visits also serve as a method for improving integration by sharing ideas.
Convening a specialist workshop as soon as the specialists have been appointed
will help to:
introduce the specialists to each other and clarify their respective areas
of work;
clarify the individual terms of reference and identify those where overlaps
occur and where sharing of information is necessary;
explain the prescribed impact identification, assessment and reporting
requirements;
obtain agreement on the identified issues, linkages and information;
identify impact interactions, including indirect and cumulative impacts;
identify gaps in the areas that need to be studied;
align the individual specialist studies (in terms of timing and information
provision);
facilitate improvement in study effectiveness and efficiency; and
encourage interdisciplinary interaction.
Providing each of the specialists with a copy of the scoping report will help
to promote a better understanding of the need for interdisciplinarity. A second
workshop is advisable once the specialists have completed their studies, so
that they can report on their findings, and identify overlaps, linkages and
potential gaps in information. There are substantial benefits to facilitating
interdisciplinary interaction between specialists throughout the specialist
study phase. These include saving time, cost and effort by preventing duplication
or overlaps. There are also benefits in shifting the emphasis from considering
discrete impacts caused by the project's individual activities towards determining
the total impact on resources, society and the economy.
A matrix represents the simplest method for identifying interactions between
specialist studies.
Table 1 provides an example of the level of interaction between studies.
6 Independent peer review and choosing the right reviewer
It is advisable that all specialist studies are reviewed to ensure scientific
quality. Specialists should be obliged to respond to and address the reviewer's
comments. There should be prior agreement on the review process for specialist
studies in the event that the specialist does not meet his/her terms of reference.
It is advisable that all parties agree to the terms of reference and that these
form part of the legal contract between the EIA practitioner and the specialist.
Choosing the right reviewer is as important as using the right specialist.
The reviewer and specialist should complement each other in terms of their
expertise. Appointing a peer reviewer to comment on the terms of reference
before appointing and commissioning the specialist can benefit the study. The
involvement of the reviewer early in the specialist study phase ensures that
the specialist's terms of reference are sufficiently detailed and correctly
focused.
A good review process is particularly valuable for the decision-making authorities,
because it provides them with independent expert scientific comments and verification
of the study. Other benefits include the following:
Where appropriate, it helps to define and clarify the specialist terms
of reference.
It is an opportunity for reviewing the specialist's proposed approach
to the study.
The process ensures that the specialist has covered all the issues and
topics in an appropriate manner, and at an appropriate level of detail.
It provides quality assurance to ensure that the specialist study is of
a suitably high professional standard.
The following aspects are considered important for ensuring that specialist
studies are credible and of a high quality:
Defining the scope of work.
Establishing baseline environmental conditions.
Field surveys and data collection.
Identifying and predicting potential impacts.
Prescribing mitigation measures and their implications.
Implementing monitoring requirements.
This section contains information adapted from the following sources: Beanlands
and Duinker (1984), Hart et al. (1984), Institute for Environmental Assessment
(1995), RSPB (1995), Therivel and Morris (1995), Sadler (1996), Buckley (1998),
Hickie and Wade (1998), Weaver et al. (1998), Byron (2000) and Byron et al.
(2000).
1 Defining the scope of work
Once the specialists have received their terms of reference, it is important
to define the scope of the individual studies, so that the specialists can
focus on the key issues and questions to be addressed. While each specialist
should strive to use the best practicable science, methodological overkill
has important repercussions on the efficiency and effectiveness of a study
(Sadler, 1996). Scientists may tend to focus on their area of specialization
and in the process neglect to address the key issues identified during the
scoping phase.
Distributing the scoping report to the specialists should assist them in identifying
and confirming the key issues and prevent them from duplicating effort where
relevant information (such as background information on the receiving environment)
may already be contained in the scoping report.
Frequently insufficient data exist from which to make a judgement about the
nature and extent of impacts. The specialist needs to determine just how much
data will be required to supplement existing information and assess whether
a significant impact will occur. This can be accomplished through a combination
of:
consultation with the independent peer reviewer;
interdisciplinary specialist workshops;
collecting existing data on the area to be affected and then performing
a gap analysis to determine what information is available and what information
is still required;
visiting the project site and its surrounds; and
consulting with national, provincial and/or local government departments,
as well as professional, statutory and voluntary organizations.
Consultation with the peer reviewer, other specialists, government departments
and other organizations is recommended to assist the specialist to:
identify existing data to assist in defining the baseline conditions;
identify specific interdependencies between specialists in terms of information
needs and formats;
identify key issues and help define likely significant impacts; and
avoid duplication of previous studies and assess the validity of field
data.
It is advisable for consultation to take place between the specialists and
key I an APs, who possess particular insights and relevant indigenous knowledge
that may improve and add to the understanding of the affected environment.
2 Establishing baseline environmental conditions
Establishing the baseline environmental conditions is essential for describing
the receiving environment, the status quo and for identifying and predicting
potential impacts. It is therefore important that the baseline environmental
data that are collected are relevant and able to address the questions raised
during the scoping phase.
If time and funding allows, it is advisable that the process of environmental
baseline investigations include the following tasks:
An appropriate combination and balance of desktop studies, field surveys,
site information collection and technical consultation.
Consideration of all available documentary records, research papers and
other relevant information.
Use of recognized survey and analysis techniques.
Identification and provision of appropriate (preferably quantitative)
descriptions of the baseline environmental conditions.
Identification of key environmental features that may enhance, constrain
or limit the direction and rate of environmental change.
Explanation of links, interactions and dependencies between environmental
components.
Verification of desktop and other information by systematic field surveys.
Acknowledgement of the implications of gaps and limitations in information
and data.
A prediction of change can only be as effective as the baseline information
from which it is derived. It is thus important that the specialist puts the
proposed project in perspective by comparing the current environmental state
with the potential future state. The specialist must also indicate and emphasize
where the baseline conditions may change due to natural extreme events or cyclical
environmental processes. If these are beyond the influence of the proposed
project, the specialist should indicate how these need to be taken into account
in the project design or through other mitigation measures.
3 Field surveys and data collection
Field surveys and data collection form an integral part of the specialist
study phase. Surveys for biophysical studies often require (1) the establishment
of baseline environmental conditions, (2) an investigation of the importance
and sensitivity of the project site and its receiving environment and (3) consideration
of the potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures.
This section provides a guide to the specialist in planning and executing
survey and data collection to meet EIA requirements:
conducting new surveys;
data types; and
good survey practices.
Conducting new surveys
New survey data should provide sufficient information for (1) informed decisions
regarding the value of the receiving environment, (2) the prediction of potential
changes resulting from the proposed project and (3) a baseline for monitoring
the project during and after construction.
Data types
Sources of data include maps, aerial photographs, actual or modelled data,
species, population, community and ecosystem data for biological studies, and
comparative data. An explanation should be provided where historical and/or
comparative data would have been expected, but were not used, or where seasonal
data could not be obtained.
Data archiving is another important consideration (so that data can be readily
accessed for future use or auditing) and the need for new surveys and additional
data should be co-ordinated between specialists, who should strive to share
data wherever possible. Specialists should also be aware of each other's sampling
methods and the need to inform one another of the sensitivity of the particular
resource under investigation to the sampling methods of the other studies.
For example, a rig used for drilling for groundwater samples can cause extensive
damage to vegetation and its noise may repel sensitive animals and birds.
Good survey practices
Good survey practices are essential to ensure that sufficient high quality
data are generated to make defensible and robust impact predictions. Considerations
of space, time, and survey method and intensity are vital. The establishment
of temporal and spatial boundaries for the EIA is critical to study design
and the interpretation of results. It is important to identify how much, as
well as the intensity, of the spatial scale and extent of a particular resource
may be potentially impacted on or affected by the proposed project.
It is vitally important to ensure that the EIA time frame is of sufficient
duration to enable the specialists to collect suitable and adequate data for
impact prediction purposes. Temporal considerations, particularly survey timing
and duration, have a strong influence on the quality of data collected and
the level of detail and accuracy. An important consideration is ensuring that
surveys are conducted at the most appropriate time and scale as different resources
have different requirements for temporal sampling, e.g. botanical surveys need
to be undertaken during the flowering season.
A snapshot picture is not always sufficient and repeated sampling is particularly
important if the subject being sampled has a high natural variability that
needs to be understood for impact prediction purposes. The specialist report
should clarify this aspect by including a statement as to when surveys were
conducted and the duration of these surveys. The report should also include
an indication of the reliability of the data if surveys were conducted at sub-optimal
or inappropriate times and were of inadequate duration.
Standard methods and techniques for information recording and surveying should
be applied, while acceptable analytical methods must be used (RSPB, 1995).
It is also important that the specialist indicates the degree of sampling effort
and the intensity of the survey applied. This will help the peer reviewer to
determine whether sufficient relevant information has been captured. It is
good survey practice to provide an indication of the levels of precision and
measures of confidence or uncertainty associated with the data presented.
4 Identifying and predicting potential impacts
Environmental management relies to a significant extent on the assumption
that we can predict the environmental impacts of development reliably (Buckley,
1991). Predicting the magnitude of a project's potential impacts and evaluating
their significance is at the core of the EIA process. It requires specialist
technical skills and a thorough understanding of the receiving environment
(George, 2000). This is often hampered by a lack of quantitative information.
Impacts are also rarely known with certainty during the early stages of a project,
particularly when project designs are often modified between approval and commissioning
and again as operations proceed (Buckley, 1991).
Impact assessment is dependent on the type and quality of the information
collected via surveys and other forms of data collection. The specialist needs
to ensure that this information is sufficient for the purposes of evaluating
impact significance and acceptability. Given that the use of qualitative information
and observations is almost inevitable, there is always a measure of subjectivity
in assessing impacts. It is important for the specialist to balance the extent
of qualitative versus quantitative information and if little quantitative data
exist, the specialist must provide extensive reference to literature to support
the judgements made.
It is important to distinguish between impact magnitude and impact significance.
For example, noise levels are likely to have a lower significance in an industrial
than in a residential area. The significance of atmospheric emissions will
vary according to whether the existing air quality is well within ambient standards
or approaching the limits, or whether these standards are already being exceeded
(George, 2000). The following approach can be used as a guide to assist specialists
during the process of impact identification and evaluation:
Determine the potential impacts.
Consider the range of impacts, including indirect, cumulative, secondary,
short-, medium- and long-term, permanent or temporary and positive or negative
effects.
Describe and quantify potential impacts for all phases of the proposed
project (construction, operation, decommissioning).
Assess the significance of impacts likely to arise from the project against
the reference condition (includes natural variation and not just a snapshot),
rather than against the present state revealed by the field surveys.
Evaluate the impacts according to prescribed impact assessment and evaluation
techniques and criteria.
Provide information on impact reversibility and the potential for mitigating
the identified impacts.
Provide details on how uncertainties and limitations in predicting potential
impacts were dealt with.
Explicitly state all assumptions made for assessing potential impacts.
State the predicted post-mitigation significance of impacts, i.e. the
significance of residual impacts after all proposed mitigation measures have
been taken into account.
The different types of techniques for predicting impacts are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2: Techniques for predicting impacts
Source: George (2000)
Impact magnitude is determined by empirical prediction, while impact significance
should ideally involve a process of determining the acceptability of a predicted
impact to society. Making the process of determining the significance of impacts
more explicit and open to comment and public input would be an improvement
of EIA practice. The following generic criteria, which have been drawn from
the published literature and South African practice, can be used to describe
magnitude and significance of impacts in a systematic manner. The criteria
are:
Extent or spatial scale of the impact.
Intensity or severity of the impact.
Duration of the impact.
Mitigatory potential.
Acceptability.
Degree of certainty.
Status of the impact.
Legal requirements.
Describing the impacts in terms of the above criteria provides a consistent
and systematic basis for the comparison and application of judgements. Ratings
should be assigned for each criterion. The significance of impacts of the proposed
project should be assessed both with and without mitigation action. The descriptors
for the ratings are given in Table 3 below.
Specific examples are given below of the type of impact criteria that can
be used and adapted for a variety of contexts and projects.
Table 3: Categories for the rating of impact magnitude and significance
Impact Magnitude
and Significance Rating
High:
Of the highest order possible within the bounds of
impacts that could occur. In the case of adverse impacts, there is
no possible mitigation that could offset the impact, or mitigation
is difficult, expensive, time-consuming or a combination of these.
Social, cultural and economic activities of communities are disrupted
to such an extent that these come to a halt. In the case of beneficial
impacts, the impact is of a substantial order within the bounds of
impacts that could occur.
Medium:
Impact is real, but not substantial in relation to
other impacts that might take effect within the bounds of those that
could occur. In the case of adverse impacts, mitigation is both feasible
and fairly easily possible. Social, cultural and economic activities
of communities are changed, but can be continued (albeit in a different
form). Modification of the project design or alternative action may
be required. In the case of beneficial impacts, other means of achieving
this benefit are about equal in time, cost and effort.
Low:
Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have
little real effect. In the case of adverse impacts, mitigation is either
easily achieved or little will be required, or both. Social, cultural
and economic activities of communities can continue unchanged. In the
case of beneficial impacts, alternative means of achieving this benefit
are likely to be easier, cheaper, more effective and less time-consuming.
No Impact:
Zero impact
Extent or spatial scale of the impact
A description should be provided as to whether impacts are limited in extent
or affect a wide area or group of people. For example, impacts can either be
site-specific, local, regional, national or international.
Table 4: Examples of criteria for rating the extent or spatial scale
of impacts
Rating
High
Widespread.
Far beyond site boundary.
Regional/national/international scale
Medium
Beyond site boundary.
Local area
Low:
Within site boundary
Intensity or severity of the impact
A description should be provided as to whether the intensity of the impact
is high, medium, low or has no impact, in terms of its potential for causing
either negative or positive effects. The study should attempt to quantify the
magnitude of the impacts and outline the rationale used. If country-specific
legal or scientific standards are not available, international standards can
be used as a measure of the intensity of the impact.
Table 5: Examples of criteria for rating the intensity or severity
of impacts.
Rating
High
Disturbance of pristine areas that have important conservation
value. Destruction of rare or endangered species.
Medium
Disturbance of areas that have potential conservation
value or are of use as a resource. Complete change in species occurrence
or variety
Low:
Disturbance of degraded areas that have little conservation
value. Minor change in species occurrence or variety
Duration of the impact
It should be determined whether the duration of the impact will be short term
(0 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years), long term (more than 15 years,
with the impact ceasing after the operational life of the development), or
considered permanent.
Table 6: Examples of criteria for rating the duration of impacts
Rating
High (Long term):
Permanent.
Beyond decommissioning.
Long term (More than 15 years)
Medium (Medium term):
Reversible over time.
Lifespan of the project.
Medium term (5 - 15 years)
Low(Short term):
Quickly reversible.
Less than the project lifespan.
Short term (0 - 5 years)
Mitigatory potential
The potential to mitigate the negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts
should be determined. For each identified impact, mitigation objectives that
would result in a measurable reduction in impact should be provided. If limited
information or expertise exists, estimates based on experience should be made.
For each impact, practical mitigation measures that can affect the significance
rating should be recommended. Management actions that could enhance the condition
of the environment (i.e. potential positive impacts of the proposed project)
should be identified. If no mitigation is considered feasible, this must be
stated and the reasons provided. The rating both with and without mitigation
or enhancement actions should be recorded. Quantifiable standards (performance
criteria) for reviewing or tracking the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
action should be provided where appropriate.
Table 7: Examples of criteria for rating the mitigatory potential
of impacts
Rating
High:
High potential to mitigate negative impacts to the
level of insignificant effects.
Medium:
Potential to mitigate negative impacts. However, the
implementation of mitigation measures may still not prevent some negative
effects.
Low:
Little or no mechanism to mitigate negative impacts.
Acceptability
Criteria and standards that exist for acceptability are either emissions-based
or they relate to the receiving environment (e.g. air quality, water quality
or noise). Establishing the acceptability of a potential impact is as important
as determining its significance. An impact identified as being non-significant
by a specialist may be unacceptable to a particular section of the community.
On the other hand, a significant impact may be acceptable if, for example,
adequate compensation is given. The level of acceptability often depends on
the stakeholders, particularly those directly affected by the proposed project.
Ratings that can be used for acceptability are given below.
Table 8: Examples of criteria for rating the acceptability of impacts
Rating
High (Unacceptable):
Abandon project in part or in its entirety.
Redesign project to remove impact or avoid impact
Medium (Manageable:
With regulatory controls.
With project proponent's commitments.
Low(Acceptable):
No risk to public health
Degree of certainty
A description should be provided of the degree of certainty of the impact
actually occurring as unsure, possible, probable, or definite (impact will
occur regardless of prevention measures). Where relevant, there should be some
cross-reference to key indices derived from a risk analysis study.
Table 9: Examples of criteria for rating the degree of certainty of
impacts
Rating
Definite:
More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Substantial
supportive data exist to verify the assessment.
Probable:
Over 70% sure of a particular fact or of the likelihood
of that impact occurring.
Possible:
Only over 40% sure of a particular fact or of the likelihood
of an impact occurring.
Unsure:
Less than 40% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood
of an impact occurring.
The following additional categories can also be used:
Status of the impact
Specialists should describe whether the impact is positive (a benefit), negative
(a cost) or neutral.
Legal requirements
Specialists should identify and list the specific legal and permit requirements
that could be relevant to the proposed project.
5 Developing mitigation measures
The quantitative accuracy and precision of impact predictions is particularly
important for prescribing mitigation measures. This is critical, especially
for those impacts, pollutants or resources that require the setting of a site-specific
discharge limit or need to be within legislated standards. A common approach
to describing mitigation measures for critical impacts is to specify a range
of targets with corresponding allowable exceeding frequencies (Buckley, 1991)
and an associated monitoring and evaluation plan.
Given that inaccurate impact predictions are frequently made, it may be advisable
that EIAs emphasize the mitigation and monitoring components of the project.
These two aspects are internationally considered to be the weakest areas of
EIA practice. Mitigation measures and monitoring programmes are not enforced
to the extent that they should be. Another factor contributing towards inadequate
information provided on mitigation measures is related to the fact that specific
impacts are not always known and, can thus not be mitigated. Furthermore, specialists
often require considerable design and engineering input to be able to recommend
effective and feasible mitigation measures. This information is often not available
at the stage in the project cycle at which the EIA is undertaken.
It is advisable that mitigation measures should be conceptualized and designed
in collaboration with other specialists and the project engineers. This ensures
that the various mitigation measures are compatible with each other, and that
these measures are incorporated into the project design.
To ensure successful implementation, mitigation measures should be unambiguous
statements of actions and requirements that are practical to execute. Mitigation
measures should be supported by feasible specifications for an environmental
management plan.
The following considerations can guide the specialist scientist to improve
the effectiveness of mitigation measures:
For each positive impact, determine whether it can be further enhanced,
and for identified negative impacts, state whether mitigation measures are
avoidance measures, replacement measures, reduction measures, restoration
measures or compensatory measures (see box below for a summary of the different
types of mitigation).
For each identified impact, provide mitigation objectives (tolerance limits)
that would result in a measurable reduction.
If limited knowledge or expertise exists on such tolerance limits, the
specialist should estimate based on experience.
For each impact, recommend practically attainable mitigation actions that
can measurably affect the significance rating.
Where relevant, mitigation actions should consider enhancement options,
soft engineering solutions or using the construction and operation methods
or processes to reduce environmental effects.
Non-traditional or new innovative techniques should be investigated and
should form part of the considerations for the custom-design of mitigation
measures to particular problems.
Mitigation measures should, where possible, be based on successful case
studies or measures applied successfully in other projects.
Provide a precise description for each recommended mitigation action.
The mitigation actions should be affordable, feasible and achievable with
defined criteria for success.
Mitigation measures for addressing identified impacts should not result
in, or create additional impacts of their own.
If no mitigation is considered feasible, this must be stated and reasons
provided.
The significance rating with and without mitigation measures should be
provided.
The proposed mitigation actions that will be implemented should be provided.
A specified implementation date, time and sequence should be provided.
A clear assessment of the likely success of the proposed measures should
be provided.
The person responsible should be provided for implementing particular
mitigation measures identified.
Quantifiable standards (performance criteria) for reviewing or tracking
the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions should be provided.
Table 10 below summarizes the different approaches to prescribing and designing
mitigation measures.
Table 10: Different categories for prescribing and designing mitigation measures
1. Avoidance:
Mitigation by not carrying out the proposed action
or the unacceptable parts of the proposed action. For example, if the
only area available for a regional airport happens to be an area of
extensive wetlands that would be filled in by construction of the airport,
avoidance of the action would be the only reasonable way to protect
those wetlands.
2. Minimization:
Mitigation by scaling down the magnitude of a project,
reorienting the layout of the project or employing technology that
reduces the factors generating the undesirable environmental impact.
3. Rectification:
Mitigation through the restoration of environments
affected by the action. For example, areas cleared for the installation
of pipelines or power lines can be rehabilitated and then replanted
with native vegetation.
4. Reduction:
Mitigation by taking maintenance steps during the course
of the action. For example, storm water management systems can be designed
to trap sediments from developed areas.
5. Compensation:
Mitigation through the creation, enhancement or acquisition
of environments similar to those affected by an action. This step should
only be considered after all steps above have been completed. As a
last resort, donation of land or money for a regional programme of
habitat creation or enhancement should be considered.
(Source: Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 CFR
1508.20, cited in the US EPA Resource Manual for Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 1998)
Ideally enforcement of mitigation measures would be achieved by ensuring that
the measures are guaranteed by a legally binding agreement or required by authorization
conditions or are an obligation on the part of the project proponent (i.e.
contained within the environmental management plan).
6 Monitoring requirements
Monitoring provides a vital feedback loop to (1) evaluate and verify the predictions
made in the specialist studies, (2) determine the success of mitigation measures
and (3) identify and rectify possible post-project problems (Byron, 2000).
It also provides valuable information that may be used to improve future EIAs,
while helping to improve the scientific rigour of EIA practices in general.
In South Africa, monitoring is seldom required or enforced by legislation.
There are no data or follow-up studies to show the accuracy of impact predictions,
and more importantly, whether or not the prescribed mitigation measures were
successful or even feasible. However, monitoring programmes are usually devised
to monitor compliance rather than to test impact predictions and track the
achievement of the mitigation objectives.
The costs associated with monitoring activities make it important and essential
to maximize the benefits derived from them. The following is recommended to
improve monitoring programmes:
The monitoring programme should be well-structured with clear, accurate
and fully described monitoring requirements and procedures.
It should be properly resourced and expertly undertaken and managed.
It should include all relevant project phases (preconstruction, construction,
operation and decommissioning).
The monitoring programme should enable the assessment of the site-specific
validity of prescribed mitigation measures and should be aimed at systematically
and comprehensively ensuring that all mitigation measures are performing
as expected.
Standard techniques or methods of data collection should be used and made
explicit, so that the data can be used for comparative purposes.
Standard data analysis techniques should be applied.
The monitoring programme should provide information enabling the testing
and comparison of actual impacts with predicted impacts by addressing clearly
defined questions and providing for repeatability and control.
The sampling programme should have appropriate timing and frequency according
to the aspects monitored. Short-term monitoring may not identify important
trends necessary for determining whether or not impact predictions were accurate
and mitigation measures appropriate.
The monitoring programme should have a quality control mechanism for assessing
the data to ensure lack of bias and credibility.
The monitoring programme should be reviewed regularly and linked directly
to effective mechanisms for implementing corrective action promptly.
The results should be communicated to decision-makers and made available
to the public in clear non-technical language.
Monitoring on its own serves no purpose, unless it includes follow-up and
corrective actions. Monitoring results should be made available, so that the
effectiveness and efficiency of predictive methods and mitigation measures
can be improved. Making monitoring results available will enable researchers
to test and verify the impact predictions communicated in the EIA process.
The role of the specialist in the EIA process is twofold:
The specialist has to address the issues raised during scoping.
He/she has to provide sufficient information for decision-making.
Traditional science is a system of study involving hypothesizing, observation
and experimentation, the purpose of which to test and refine explanations of
the phenomena being studied. However, in EIA scientific information is used
to predict anticipated impacts without necessarily having recourse to repeatable
testing and experimentation (i.e. EIAs are not designed to test and refine
explanations). It is for this reason that the impact prediction methods employed
in EIAs have to be rigorous and peer-reviewed. The role of specialists in EIAs
is crucial, because they document and evaluate the magnitude of human impacts
on the environment.
The challenge for specialists under these conditions is to remain scientifically
credible by ensuring that reference is made to all existing and accessible
scientific information (e.g. data and comparable studies), basing conclusions
on logical and rational premises and clearly stating all limitations to the
study. One of the tests that should be used is a peer review process, by which
other knowledgeable and experienced scientists are invited to comment on the
studies. The role of scientific studies in EIAs is not necessarily to be comprehensive,
but to describe the status of the environment and predict human impacts as
accurately as possible. The challenge for specialists in EIA is to be problemfocused,
interdisciplinary and self-critical.
Beanlands, G.E. and Duinker, P.N. (1984) An ecological framework for environmental
impact assessment, Journal of Environmental Management, 18, 267-277.
Bisset, R. (1985) Post-project audits to investigate the accuracy of environmental
impact predictions, Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik, 84, 463-84.
Buckley, R.C. (1991) Auditing the precision and accuracy of environmental
impact predictions in Australia, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
18, 1-23.
Buckley, R.C. (1998) Improving the quality of EISs, In: A. Porter and R. Fittipaldi
(Eds.), Environmental Methods Review, Army Environmental Policy Institute,
The Press Club, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, 41-49.
Byron, H. (2000) Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A Good
Practice Guide for Road Schemes, The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds (RSPB), WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts, Sandy, UK.
Byron, H.J., Treweek, J.R., Sheate, W.R. and Thompson, S. (2000) Road developments
in the UK: An analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements
produced between 1993 and 1997, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
43(1), 71-97.
Culhane, P.J. (1987) The precision and accuracy of US environmental impact
statements, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 8, 217-238.
Eberhardt, L.L. (1976) Quantitative ecology and impact assessment, Journal
of Environmental Management, 4, 27-70.
Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Best Practice Environmental Management
in Mining, Australian Federal Environment Department, Australia.
ESRC and GECP (2000) Risky Choices, Soft Disasters: Environmental Decision
Making Under Uncertainty, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC),
Global Environmental Change Programme (GECP), University of Sussex, Brighton.
George, C. (2000) Environmental prediction and evaluation, In: N. Lee and
C. George (Eds.), Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional
Countries, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, 85-110.
Goodey, B. (1995) Landscape, In: Morris, P. and R. Therivel (Eds.). Methods
of Environmental Impact Assessment. UCL Press, London.
Hart, S.L., Enk, G.A. and Hornick, W.F. (1984). Improving Impact Assessment:
Increasing the Relevance and Utilization of Scientific and Technical Information,
Westview Press, London. page 28
Hickie, D. and Wade, M. (1998) Project of guidelines for improving the effectiveness
of environmental assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
18, 267 - 287.
Hill, R.C. (2000) Integrated Environmental Management Systems in the implementation
of projects, South African Journal of Science, 96, 50-54.
Institute for Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline
Ecological Assessment, E and FN Spon, London.
IAIA (1999) Principles for Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice,
International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo, North Dakota, USA.
Le Maitre, D. and Gelderblom, C. (1998) Biodiversity Impact Assessment: Putting
the Theory into Practice, Paper presented at the International Association
for Impact Assessment (IAIA) '98 Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.
O'Beirne, S. (2001) Reflections on quality in environmental impact assessment
in South Africa, Newsletter of the International Association for Impact Assessment,
South African Affiliate, June 2001, pp 1-3.
O'Riordan, T. (1995) Environmental Science for Environmental Management,
Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, England.
RSPB (1995). Wildlife Impact: The Treatment of Nature Conservation in
Environmental Assessment. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
Sandy, UK.
Sadler, B. (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating
Practice to Improve Performance, Final report of the international study
of the effectiveness of environmental assessment, International Association
for Impact Assessment, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa,
Canada.
Slootweg, R. and Kolhoff, A. (2001) A Proposed Conceptual and Procedural
Framework for the Integration of Biological Diversity considerations with
National Systems for Impact Assessment, Draft report to IAIA International
by SEVS Consultancy and the Netherlands EIA Commission.
Therivel, R. and P. Morris (1995) Interactions between impacts, In: Morris,
P. and R. Therivel (Eds.) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment,
UCL Press, London, 297-305.
Thompson, S., Treweek, J.R. and Thurling, D.J. (1997) The ecological component
of environmental impact assessment: A critical review of British environmental
statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(2),
157-171.
Treweek, J. (1996) Ecology and environmental impact assessment, Journal
of Applied Ecology, 33, 191-199.
US EPA (1998) Resource Manual for Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities,
Washington, DC.
Warnken, J. and Buckley, R.C. (1998) Scientific quality of tourism environmental
impact assessment, Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 1-8.
Weaver, A., Morant, P., Ashton, P. and Kruger, F. (1998) Strengthening the
Effectiveness of EIA in South Africa, Paper presented at the annual conference
of the South African IAIA Affiliate, Cathedral Peak, KwaZulu-Natal.
Wood, C., Dipper, B. and Jones, C. (2000) Auditing the assessment of the environmental
impacts of planning projects, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
43(1), 23-47.
Those parts of the socio-economic and biophysical environment impacted on
by the development.
Affected public
Groups, organizations, and/or individuals who believe that an action might
affect them.
Alternative proposal
A possible course of action, in place of another, that would meet the same
purpose and need. Alternative proposals can refer to any of the following,
but are not necessarily limited to these:
alternative sites for development
alternative projects for a particular site
alternative site layouts
alternative designs
alternative processes
alternative materials.
In IEM the so-called "no-go" alternative also requires investigation.
Authorities
The national, provincial or local authorities that have a decision-making
role or interest in the proposal or activity. The term includes the lead authority,
as well as other authorities.
Baseline
Conditions that currently exist. Also called "existing conditions".
Baseline information
Information derived from data that:
records the existing elements and trends in the environment; and
records the characteristics of a given project proposal
Decision-maker
The person(s) entrusted with the responsibility for allocating resources or
granting approval to a proposal.
Decision-making
The sequence of steps, actions or procedures that result in decisions, at
any stage of a proposal.
Environment
The surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of:
the land, water and atmosphere of the earth;
micro-organisms, plant and animal life;
any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships
among and between them; and
the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and
conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being. This
includes the economic, cultural, historical, and political circumstances,
conditions and objects that affect the existence and development of an individual,
organism or group.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
The generic term for all forms of environmental assessment for projects, plans,
programmes or policies. This includes methods/tools such as EIA, strategic
environmental assessment, sustainability assessment and risk assessment. ainability
assessment and risk assessment.
Environmental consultant
Individuals or firms that act in an independent and unbiased manner to provide
information for decision-making.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
A public process that is used to identify, predict and assess the potential
environmental impacts of a proposed project on the environment. The EIA is
used to inform decision-making.
Fatal flaw
Any problem, issue or conflict (real or perceived) that could result in proposals
being rejected or modified.
Impact
The positive or negative effects on human well-being and/or the environment.
Integrated Environmental Management (IEM)
A philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that environmental
considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development and
decision-making process. The IEM philosophy (and principles) is interpreted
as applying to the planning, assessment, implementation and management of any
proposal (project, plan, programme or policy) or activity - at local, national
and international level - that has a potentially significant effect on the
environment. Implementation of this philosophy relies on the selection and
application of appropriate tools to a particular proposal or activity. These
may include environmental assessment tools (such as strategic environmental
assessment and risk assessment), environmental management tools (such as monitoring,
auditing and reporting) and decision-making tools (such as multi-criteria decision
support systems or advisory councils).
Interested and Affected Parties (I an APs)
Individuals, communities or groups, other than the proponent or the authorities,
whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity
and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity and its consequences.
These may include local communities, investors, business associations, trade
unions, customers, consumers and environmental interest groups. The principle
that environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should
be independent and unbiased excludes these groups from being considered I an
APs.
Lead authority
The environmental authority at the national, provincial or local level entrusted,
in terms of legislation, with the responsibility of granting approval to a
proposal or allocating resources and for directing or coordinating the assessment
of a proposal that affects a number of authorities.
Mitigate
The implementation of practical measures to reduce adverse impacts or enhance
beneficial impacts of an action.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Voluntary environmental, social, labour or community organizations, charities
or pressure groups.
Proponent
Any individual, government department, authority, industry or association
proposing an activity (e.g. project, programme or policy).
Proposal
The development of a project, plan, programme or policy. Proposals can refer
to new initiatives or extensions and revisions to existing ones.
Public
Ordinary citizens who have diverse cultural, educational, political and socio-economic
characteristics. The public is not a homogeneous and unified group of people
with a set of agreed common interests and aims. There is no single public.
There are a number of publics, some of whom may emerge at any time during the
process, depending on their particular concerns and the issues involved.
Roleplayers
The stakeholders who play a role in the environmental decision-making process.
This role is determined by the level of engagement and the objectives set at
the outset of the process.
Scoping
The process of determining the spatial and temporal boundaries (i.e. extent)
and key issues to be addressed in an environmental assessment. The main purpose
of scoping is to focus the environmental assessment on a manageable number
of important questions. Scoping should also ensure that only significant issues
and reasonable alternatives are examined.
Screening
A decision-making process to determine whether or not a development proposal
requires environmental assessment, and if so, what level of assessment is appropriate.
Screening is initiated during the early stages of the development of a proposal.
Significant/significance
Significance can be differentiated into impact magnitude and impact significance.
Impact magnitude is the measurable change (i.e. intensity, duration and likelihood).
Impact significance is the value placed on the change by different affected
parties (i.e. level of significance and acceptability). It is an anthropocentric
concept, which makes use of value judgements and science-based criteria (i.e.
biophysical, social and economic). Such judgement reflects the political reality
of impact assessment in which significance is translated into public acceptability
of impacts.
Stakeholders
A subgroup of the public whose interests may be positively or negatively affected
by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity
and its consequences. The term therefore includes the proponent, authorities
(both the lead authority and other authorities) and all interested and affected
parties (I an APs). The principle that environmental consultants and stakeholder
engagement practitioners should be independent and unbiased excludes these
groups from being considered stakeholders.
Stakeholder engagement
The process of engagement between stakeholders (the proponent, authorities
and I an APs) during the planning, assessment, implementation and/or management
of proposals or activities. The level of stakeholder engagement varies, depending
on the nature of the proposal or activity and the level of commitment by stakeholders
to the process. Stakeholder engagement can therefore be described by a spectrum
or continuum of increasing levels of engagement in the decisionmaking process.
The term is considered to be more appropriate than the term "public participation".
Stakeholder engagement practitioner
Individuals or firms whose role it is to act as independent, objective facilitators,
mediators, conciliators or arbitrators in the stakeholder engagement process.
The principle of independence and objectivity excludes stakeholder engagement
practitioners from being considered stakeholders.
