Introduction and principles - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 24

1.6.3 The relative roles of participants in the process
The various “actors” in the EIA process—the developer, the affected parties, the general
public and the regulators at various levels of government—have differential access to the
process, and their influence on the outcome varies. Many would argue that in countries
such as the UK the process is too developer-orientated. The developer or the developer's
consultant carries out the EIA and prepares the EIS, and is unlikely to predict that the
project will be an environmental disaster. Notwithstanding this, developers themselves
are concerned about the potential delays associated with the requirement to submit an
EIS. They are also concerned about cost. Details about costs are difficult to obtain. Clark
(1984) estimates EIA costs of 0.5-2.0 per cent of a project's value. Hart (1984) and
Wathern (1988) suggest figures of a similar order. Estimates by Coles et al. (1992)
suggest a much wider range, from 0.000025 to 5 per cent, for EISs in the UK. The UK
DETR (1997) suggested £35,000 as an appropriate median figure for the cost of
undertaking an EIA under the new regulations.
Procedures for and the practice of public participation in the EIA process vary
between, and sometimes within, countries, from the very comprehensive to the very
partial and largely cosmetic. An important issue is the stages in the EIA process to which
the public should have access. Government roles in the EIA process may be conditioned
by caution at extending systems, by limited experience and expertise in this new and
rapidly developing area, and by resource considerations. A central government may offer
limited guidance on best practice, and make inconsistent decisions. A local government
may find it difficult to handle the scope and complexity of the content of EISs.
1.6.4 The quality of assessments
Many EISs fail to meet even minimum standards. For example, a survey by Jones et al.
(1991) of the EISs published under UK EIA regulations highlighted some shortcomings.
They found that “one-third of the EISs did not appear to contain the required
nontechnical summary, that, in a quarter of the cases, they were judged not to contain the
data needed to assess the likely environmental effects of the development, and that in the
great majority of cases, the more complex, interactive impacts were neglected”. An
update by Glasson et al. (DoE 1996) suggests that although there has been some learning
from experience, many EISs in the UK are still unsatisfactory (see Chapter 8 for further
discussion). Quality may vary between types of project. It may also vary between
countries supposedly operating under the same legislative framework.
1.6.5 Beyond the decision
Many EISs are for one-off projects, and there is little incentive for developers to audit the
quality of the assessment predictions and to monitor impacts as an input to a better
assessment for the next project. EIA up to and no further than the decision on a project is
a very partial linear process, with little opportunity for a cyclical learning process. In
some areas of the world (e.g. California, Western Australia), the monitoring of impacts is
mandatory, and monitoring procedures must be included in an EIS. The extension of such
approaches constitutes another significant current issue in the largely project-based EIA
process.