Improving the effectiveness of project assessment - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 338

countries. Indeed, as O'Riordan (1990) noted (see Section 1.4), we should expect EIA to
change in the face of shifting environmental values, politics and managerial capabilities.
This is not to devalue the achievements of EIA to date. As the World Bank (1995) notes,
“Over the past decade, EIA has moved from the fringes of development planning to
become a widely recognised tool for sound project decision making.”
The practice of EIA under the existing systems established in the EU Member States
has also improved rapidly (see Chapter 8). This change can be expected to continue in the
future, as the provisions of the amended Directive 97/11 work through, and further
amendments are introduced. Changes in EIA procedures, like the initial introduction of
EIA regulations, can generate considerable conflict between levels of government:
between federal and state levels, between national and local levels and, in the particular
case of Europe, between the EU and its Member States. They also generate conflict
between the other participants in the process: the developers, the affected parties and the
facilitators (see Figure 3.1).
The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) is generally seen as positive
and proactive with regard to EIA. The CEC welcomed the introduction of common
legislation as reflected in Directive 85/337, the provision of information on projects and
the general spread of good practice, but was concerned about the lack of compatibility of
EIA systems across frontiers, the opaque processes employed, the limited access to the
public and lack of continuity in the process. It pressed hard for amendments to the
Directive, and achieved some of its objectives in the amended Directive. The CEC is
committed to reviewing and updating EIA procedures, which may involve further
changes. An SEA Directive will be implemented from 2004 (see Chapter 12). Other areas
of attention include, for example, cumulative assessment, public participation, economic
valuation and EIA procedures for development aid projects. In contrast with the CEC,
Member States tend to be more defensive and reactive. They are generally concerned in
maintaining “subsidiarity” with regard to activities involving the EU; this has been an
issue with EIA, as reflected in the exchanges between the EC Commissioner for the
Environment and the UK Government in 1991-92 (see Section 6.6). Governments are
also sensitive to increasing controls on economic development in an increasingly
competitive and global economy.
For example, within the UK Government, the DoE (now ODPM) has been concerned
to tidy up ambiguities in the project-based procedures, and to improve guidance and
informal procedures for example, but is wary of new regulations. However, it has
commissioned and produced research reports, for example on an EIA good-practice
guide, on the evaluation and review of environmental information and on mitigation in
EIA. Its response to many of the proposals in the amended Directive also reflect an
acceptance of the value of EIA. Local government in the UK has begun to come to terms
with EIA, and there is evidence that those authorities with considerable experience (e.g.
Essex, Kent, Cheshire) learn fast, apply the regulations and guidance in user-friendly
“customized” formats to help developers and affected parties in their areas, and are
pushing up the standards expected from project proponents (see Essex Planning Officers'
Association 2001).
Pressure groups —exemplified in the UK by the Campaign to Protect Rural England
(CPRE), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Friends of the Earth
(FoE)—and those parties affected by development proposals view project EIA as a very