Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
such predictive tools existed or could be developed, they are generally so data intensive that
detailed information on the action to be implemented and intensive studies of the site envi-
ronment were necessary to arrive at any sort of precision. The costs for achieving this, it
soon became apparent, often outweighed the value of the information produced, particularly
since the information turned out to not be particularly reliable for prediction in any case.
The impact assessment task shifted to government engineers. The impact statement
came to be produced as a pragmatic discussion of the likely effects of an action, based on
common sense, professional experience, and logical projections of activities' footprints in
space and time. The sequence of agency reviews and hearings, with subsequent incorpo-
rations of comments and revisions, gradually improved a specific document as all views
were heard and incorporated into the project design. This general tendency has continued
to the present - while much scientific inquiry has been directed at improving the precision
of impact assessments, the basic approach is a feasibility exercise to improve project plan-
ning, decision-making, and management.
Early in the 1970s, private sector consultants began preparing environmental impact
statements. While NEPA applied to government 'actions', there was soon the realization
that some of the most important government actions involved the granting of permits
to private businesses which were given the responsibility of preparing the environmen-
tal impact assessments. Private business engaged consulting engineering firms to do this.
Private consultants in fact proved more suited to the highly irregular demands of conduct-
ing EIAs, and it has become a major niche business for the consulting industry. In a short
time, even government projects came to be largely assessed by private consultants.
The use of consultants in the employ of proponents gave rise to questions of objectivity,
which have never really been resolved. The question always arises, is 'independent con-
sultant' a contradiction in terms? Subjectivity is part of any individual decision-making
or judgment, and a bias in favour of the client may often if not always occur. A bias for or
against an action, however, rarely distorts a professional opinion to a degree where right
becomes wrong, and wrong becomes right, nor is there any environmental assessor who
can claim total objectivity. This dilemma is recognized, and accommodated by EIA guide-
lines and procedures - objectivity is achieved through team work and through the review
and approval process.
The use of consultants in the
employ of proponents gave rise
to questions of objectivity, which
have never really been resolved.
Recent Shift in Emphasis
Difficulties encountered in the assessment of positive or negative, direct or indirect impact
interactions for all five environmental components (air, land, water, biota, and people,
jointly referred to as 'environment' in this text) very early on focused the EIA process into
a simplified technical and scientific discipline. Emphasis was on the more obvious impacts
that could be easily assessed by scientific approaches. Only the biophysical impacts of
proposed actions were considered, such as impacts on air and water, landscape, or flora
and fauna. Over the next 10 years, however, it became apparent that more attention was
required on the less obvious impacts, that is the impacts on social, health, and economic
dimensions of new projects. There was also a realization that, to be effective, the environ-
mental impact assessment process needed to be more proactive and address practical plan-
ning and implementation issues. Emphasis has shifted to include all major stakeholders of
a project in the EIA process, underlining the importance of public disclosure and partici-
pation. The increased attention on relevance and effectiveness resulted in the emergence of
numerous EIA offshoots, such as social impact assessment, cumulative impact assessment,
ecological risk assessment, and biodiversity impact assessment, to name a few.
More attention was required on
the less obvious impacts, that is
the impacts on social, health, and
economic dimensions of new
projects.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search