Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 275

opposition is often dismissed simply as a NIMBY reaction or as being based on
unjustified and irrational fears about potential impacts, particularly in relation to
emissions and associated health risks. This is contrasted with the scientifically based
technical assessments of impact and risk carried out by EIA practitioners. However,
Snary (2002) points out that recent studies indicate that public opposition to such
facilities is often based on a much wider range of considerations, including “concern
about the appropriateness of the waste management option, the trustworthiness of the
waste industry and the perceived fairness of the decision-making process”.
Reflecting this improved understanding of the nature of public opposition, a number of
commentators have called for better communication with the public at all stages of the
waste management facility planning process (ETSU 1996, IWM 1995, Petts 1999). Such
communication can take a variety of forms, ranging from a one-way flow of information
from developer to public, through different levels of consultation and participation (in
which there is a two-way exchange of views between the public and the developer and/or
consenting authority, and the public's views are a legitimate input into the decision-
making process). All of these types of communication are seen to be important
components in the planning and EIA process for incinerators and other waste facilities, as
Snary (2002) explains:
Concerns about health risks require comprehensive information on the
[predicted] emissions and a consultation process through which the
public's views can affect the decision-making process. Concerns about the
ability of the waste industry and regulators to manage risk competently
require participation in a process through which their concerns can be
openly addressed and conditions of competency discussed. Debate
concerning fundamental policy issues and the legitimacy of the waste
planning process [also] requires a public participation process through
which a consensus may be built [at the plan-making stage of the waste
incinerator planning process].
The search for improved methods of public participation is also linked to the growing
social distrust of science and experts noted by a number of commentators (see, for
example, House of Lords 2000, Petts 2003, Weston 2003).
9.5.3 Background to the proposed scheme
Hampshire is a county on the south coast of England, with a population of around 1.6
million. By the end of the 1980s, the county was faced with the problem of increasing
volumes of household waste, set against a background of an ageing stock of incinerator
plants (which failed to meet the latest emission standards) and growing difficulties in
finding new and environmentally acceptable landfill sites. In response, the CC's Waste
Management Plan prepared at the time (1989) advocated an integrated approach to waste
management, supporting recycling and waste minimization initiatives and emphasizing
the need for a reduced reliance on landfill Government financial regimes in operation at
the time (the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation) also provided cost incentives for the
development of energy-from-waste schemes rather than landfill. It was also recognized