Monitoring and auditing: after the decision - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 198

Monitoring programmes should also be adapted to the dynamic nature of the environment
(Holling 1978).
7.3.2 Mandatory or discretionary
Unfortunately, monitoring is not a mandatory step in many EIA procedures, including
those current in the UK. European Commission regulations do not specifically require
monitoring. This omission was recognized in the review of Directive 85/337 (CEC 1993).
The Commission is a strong advocate for the inclusion of a formal monitoring
programme in an EIS, but EU Member States are normally more defensive and reactive.
In consequence, the amended Directive does not include a mandatory monitoring
requirement. 1 However, this has not deterred some Member States. For example, in the
Netherlands the competent authority is required to monitor project implementation, based
on information provided by the developer, and to make the monitoring information
publicly available. If actual impacts exceed those predicted, the competent authority must
take measures to reduce or mitigate these impacts. However, despite such legal
provisions, practice has been limited and little post-EIA monitoring and evaluation has
been carried out. See Arts (1998) for a comprehensive coverage of EIA follow-up in the
Netherlands.
In other Member States, in the absence of mandatory procedures, it is usually difficult
to persuade developers that it is in their interest to have a continuing approach to EIA.
This is particularly the case where the proponent has a one-off project, and has less
interest in learning from experience for application to future projects. Fortunately, we can
turn to some examples of good practice in a few other countries. A brief summary of
monitoring procedures in Canada is included in Chapter 10. In Western Australia (also
see Chapter 10), the environmental consequences of developments are commonly
monitored and reported. If it is shown that conditions are not being met, the government
may take appropriate action. Interestingly, the EIS is called an “environmental review
and management programme” (Morrison-Saunders 1996).
7.3.3 The case of California
The monitoring procedures used in California, for projects subject to the CEQA, are of
particular interest (California Resources Agency 1988). Since January 1989, state and
local agencies in California have been required to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting
programme for mitigation measures and project changes which have been imposed as
conditions to address significant environmental impacts. The aim is to provide a
mechanism which will help to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented in a
timely manner in accordance with the terms of the project's approval. Monitoring refers
to the observation and oversight of mitigation activities at a project site, whereas
reporting refers to the communication of the monitoring results to the agency and public.
If the implementation of a project is to be phased, the mitigation and subsequent
reporting and monitoring may also have to be phased. If monitoring reveals that
mitigation measures are ignored or are not completed, sanctions could be imposed; these
can include, for example, “stop work” orders, fines and restitution. The components of a
monitoring programme would normally include the following: