Improving the effectiveness of project assessment - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 340

consideration of alternatives and a strong encouragement to undertake scoping at an early
stage in the project development cycle. There is also more support for transparent
procedures, and encouragement for consultation, for the explanation and publication of
decisions and for the inclusion of cumulative impacts and risk assessment. There may be
a case for further changes in the legal basis of project EIA, especially in the
Box 11.1 Summary of international best- and worst-case EA
performances
Best-case performance
The EA process:
• facilitates informed decision-making by providing clear, well-structured, dispassionate
analysis of the effects and consequences of proposed actions;
• assists the selection of alternatives, including the selection of the best practicable or
most environmentally friendly option;
• influences both project selection and policy design by screening out environmentally
unsound proposals, as well as modifying feasible action;
• encompasses all relevant issues and factors, including cumulative effects, social impacts
and health risks;
• directs (not dictates) formal approvals, including the establishment of terms and
conditions of implementation and follow-up;
• results in the satisfactory prediction of the adverse effects of proposed actions and their
mitigation using conventional and customized techniques; and
• serves as an adaptive, organizational learning process in which the lessons experienced
are fed back into policy, institutional and project designs.
Worst-Case performance
The EA process:
• is inconsistently applied to development proposals with many sectors and classes of
activity omitted;
• operates as a “stand alone” process, poorly related to the project cycle and approval
process and consequently is of marginal influence;
• has a non-existent or weak follow-up process, lacking surveillance and enforcement of
terms and conditions, effects monitoring, etc.;
• does not consider cumulative effects or social, health and risk factors;
• makes little or no reference to the public, or consultation is perfunctory, substandard
and takes no account of the specific requirements of affected groups;
• results in EA reports that are voluminous, poorly organized and descriptive technical
documents;
• provides information that is unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making;
• is inefficient, time consuming and costly in relation to theebenefits delivered; and
• understates and insufficiently mitigates environmental impacts and loses credibility.