Improving the effectiveness of project assessment - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 339

useful tool for increasing access to information on projects, and for advancing the
protection of the physical environment in particular. They have been keen to develop EIA
processes and procedures; see, for example, the reports by CPRE (1991, 1992). Many
developers are less enthusiastic about changes in the regulations, but would welcome
clarification on ambiguities—especially on whether EIAs are needed in the first place for
their particular projects. For facilitators (consultants, lawyers, etc.), EIA has been a
welcome boon; their interest in longer and wider procedures, involving more of their
services, is clear.
Other participants in the process in the UK, such as the IEMA, the Association of
carrying out ground-breaking studies into topics such as best-practice guidelines, the use
of monetary valuation in EIA and approaches to types of impact study. In addition,
Environmental Consultants, academics and some environmental consultancies, are the
production of over 600 EISs a year in the UK is generating a considerable body of
expertise, innovative approaches and comparative studies. EISs are also becoming
increasingly reviewed, and it is hoped that bad practice will be exposed and reduced.
Training in EIA skills is also developing.
11.3 Possible changes in the EIA process: the future agenda
11.3.1 An overview of possible changes
In the important International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment for
the IAIA, Sadler (1996) provided a summary of “best case” and “worst case” EA
performance (Box 11.1). He also provides a five-part agenda for action:
• “Going back to basics” involves building on well-established procedures, by providing,
for example, more good-practice guidance, explicit periods for the process and the
removal of duplication.
• “Upgrading EIA processes and activities” involves, in particular, better quality control,
public involvement and addressing the issue of cumulative effects.
• “Extending SEA as an integral part of policy making” includes the development of
methods, and extended applications.
• “Sharpening EA as a sustainability instrument” includes incorporating relevant
sustainability indicators, the consideration of capacities, dealing with risks and
uncertainty and linking EIA with other forms of assessment and other policy
instruments, such as environmental accounting.
• “New opportunities and challenges” covers issues such as the transboundary
management of common property resources (e.g. the Antarctic), global change and the
decommissioning or replacement of major infrastructure items.
A pragmatic approach to change could subdivide the future agenda into proposals to
improve EIA procedures, usually sooner and maybe more easily than proposals to widen
the scope of EIA, which are likely to come later and will probably be more difficult to
implement.
Improvements to project EIA cover some of the changes introduced by the amended
EC Directive, including developments in approaches to screening, the mandatory