Introduction and principles - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 8

1.3.2 An aid to the formulation of development actions
Many developers no doubt see EIA as another set of hurdles to jump before they can
proceed with their various activities; the process can be seen as yet another costly and
time-consuming activity in the permission process. However, EIA can be of great benefit
to them, since it can provide a framework for considering location and design issues and
environmental issues in parallel. It can be an aid to the formulation of development
actions, indicating areas where a project can be modified to minimize or eliminate
altogether its adverse impacts on the environment. The consideration of environmental
impacts early in the planning life of a development can lead to environmentally sensitive
development; to improved relations between the developer, the planning authority and the
local communities; to a smoother planning permission process; and sometimes, as argued
by developers such as British Gas, to a worthwhile financial return on the extra
expenditure incurred (Breakell & Glasson 1981). O'Riordan (1990) links such concepts
of negotiation and redesign to the important environmental themes of “green
consumerism” and “green capitalism”. The emergence of a growing demand by
consumers for goods that do no environmental damage, plus a growing market for clean
technologies, is generating a response from developers. EIA can be the signal to the
developer of potential conflict; wise developers may use the process to negotiate “green
gain” solutions, which may eliminate or offset negative environmental impacts, reduce
local opposition and avoid costly public inquiries.
1.3.3
An instrument for sustainable development
Underlying such immediate purposes is of course the central and ultimate role of EIA as
one of the instruments to achieve sustainable development: development that does not
cost the Earth! Existing environmentally harmful developments have to be managed as
best as they can. In extreme cases, they may be closed down, but they can still leave
residual environmental problems for decades to come. How much better it would be to
mitigate the harmful effects in advance, at the planning stage, or in some cases avoid the
particular development altogether. Prevention is better than cure.
Economic development and social development must be placed in their environmental
contexts. Boulding (1966) vividly portrays the dichotomy between the “throughput
economy” and the “spaceship economy” (Figure 1.2). The economic goal of increased
gross national product (GNP), using more inputs to produce more goods and services,
contains the seeds of its own destruction. Increased output brings with it not only goods
and services but also more waste products. Increased inputs demand more resources. The
natural environment is the “sink” for the wastes and the “source” for the resources.
Environmental pollution and the depletion of resources are invariably the ancillaries to
economic development.