Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 297

precautionary approach; the need for such an approach was also strengthened by
ongoing delays in the designation of offshore areas of conservation interest under the
EU Habitats Directive. Other uncertainties included doubts about whether the impacts
of smaller wind farms (from the first round of licensing) could necessarily be
extrapolated to larger wind farms further offshore.
• Limited consultation with certain stakeholders. According to some respondents, the
SEA had involved only limited consultation with certain stakeholders—e.g. fisheries
and recreational boating interests. This lack of consultation, again partly linked to the
tight timescale for the exercise, helped to explain some of the data weaknesses on
certain issues in the SEA.
• Insufficient attention to cumulative and indirect effects. It was considered that
insufficient attention was given to the impact of related onshore development in the
SEA, such as transmission connections. This concern echoes the issues highlighted in
the first case study in Section 9.2. More attention also needed to be devoted to
cumulative impacts in the environmental report. There was no indication in the report
of the carrying capacity of each of the strategic areas, and it was therefore difficult to
assess the significance of the cumulative impacts arising under the two development
scenarios.
• Overlaps with project-level EIA. There was some disagreement over the level of detail
needed in the SEA, and which issues could be left to project-level EIA for individual
sites. For example, bird distribution data was considered to be one area in which
survey data could reasonably be collected at a more strategic level.
• Responsibility for future SEA studies. Some respondents requested clarification about
who would be responsible for progressing further studies arising from the SEA,
including additional data collection to fill existing data gaps and ongoing monitoring.
Arrangements for the sharing of such data were felt to be important.
9.8.6 Conclusions
This case study of SEA was undertaken voluntarily, prior to the implementation of the
EU SEA Directive. It provides an example of how SEA can be applied, within the
context of a new, rapidly developing industry. The UK Government's commitment to
large-scale development of offshore wind energy to meet international obligations to
reduce CO 2 emissions dictated a tight timescale for this SEA. However, the resulting
limitations in baseline data, and restricted timescale for stakeholder consultation and
feedback, were identified as particular weaknesses in this case.
9.9 Pre-assessment of the impact of refugees in Guinea
9.9.1 Introduction
This case study of a UNEP EIA of refugee camps in Guinea, West Africa highlights
several issues. First, although the UNEP calls it an “impact pre-assessment” (in this case
because it is only a partial assessment, more like a scoping document), it is really a post-
assessment: many impacts had already happened by the time of the assessment. The