Improving the effectiveness of project assessment - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 341

( Source: Sadler 1996.)
UK, where the wide array of regulations can cause the fragmentation of the elements of a
project-linked EIA activity, as we revealed in Chapter 9. The methods of assessment
could also benefit from further attention. Uncertainty about the unknown may mean the
EIA process starts too late and results in a lack of integration with the management of a
project's life cycle. The EIA process and the resulting EISs may lack balance, focus on
the more straightforward process of describing the project and its baseline environment
and consider much less the identification, prediction and evaluation of impacts. The
forecasting methods used in EIA are not explained in most cases (see Tables 8.3 and 8.7).
It is to be hoped that there will be advances in the application of concepts and techniques
in operational practice, in the areas of predicting the magnitude of impacts and
determining their importance (including the array of multi-criteria and monetary
evaluation techniques). A good “method statement”, explaining how a study has been
conducted—in terms of techniques, consultation, the relative roles of experts and
others—should be a basic element of any EIS.
Widening the scope of EIA includes, in particular, the development of tiered
assessment through the introduction of SEA (discussed in the next chapter). Another
important extension of the scope of EIA includes “completing the circle” through the
more widespread use of monitoring and auditing. Unfortunately, this vital step in the EIA
process is still not mandatory under the amended EC Directive. More wide-ranging
possibilities include the move to a “whole of environment” approach, with a more
balanced consideration of both biophysical and socio-economic impacts. Such widening
of scope should lead to more integrated EA. There may also be a trend towards what
might be termed “environmental impact design”, with the use of EIA to identify
environmental constraints before the design process is begun.
The following sections discuss possibilities for some of these short- and long-term
proposals, including allowing for cumulative impacts, building in better procedures for
public participation, widening the scope to include socio-economic impacts, embracing
the growing area of health impact assessment, developing integrated EA and moving
towards environmental impact design.
11.3.2 Cumulative impacts
Many projects are individually minor, but collectively may impose a significant impact
on the environment. Activities such as residential development, farming and household
behaviour normally fall outside the scope of conventional EIA. The ecological response
to the collective impact of such activities may be delayed until a threshold is crossed,
when the impact may come to light in sudden and dramatic form (e.g. flooding). Odum
(1982) refers to the “tyranny of small decisions” and the consequences arising from the
continual growth of small developments. While there is no particular consensus on what
constitutes cumulative impacts, the categorization by the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council (CEARC) (Peterson et al. 1987) is widely quoted, and
includes: