Risk management of chemicals and contaminated land – from planning to verification - Environmental Deterioration and Contamination: Problems and their Management - page 292

Authorities and licensing bodies have to measure the balance of the risks and bene-
fits of an existing or a new hazardous product, chemical substance or technology before
making the decision on authorization, restriction or ban of the evaluated hazardous
product or technology. Companies generally aim to balance the use of the environment,
depletion of natural resources and deterioration of the environment with the enhance-
ment of the social environment and human well-being, job creation, education, tax
revenue, spatial planning and development, etc.
About 50 years ago the socio-economic impacts weighed over all of the envi-
ronmental arguments because industrial development and social well-being was
overestimated and the environmental aspect largely underestimated. Planning was
directed to the short term. In addition to the false evaluation due to the lack of knowl-
edge and short-sightedness, the list of possible impacts was incomplete because the
environmental law and, most specifically, the rules and trends of the global ecosystem
were not known properly.
The first step in SEA is the identification of the positive and negative impacts, then
the evaluation or the combinations of options of which the benefit may override the
negative impacts on the environment and humans. The negative impact on the environ-
ment is calculated by the RA procedure and is given as a RCR . The options to control
environmental risk and the risk management and RR alternatives can easily be evalu-
ated from the point of view of human health and the environment, for which adequate
methods are available. Social risks and benefits may be quantified by monetization to
a certain extent but most of them can only be characterized by qualitative tools.
Social factors are crucial in many ERM cases in spite of the fact that many of the
social components cannot be quantitatively characterized or expressed in monetary
units. Nonmonetizable social impacts are as important as monetizable ones, even if
these factors are greatly subjective because they are based on feelings and human, social
and cultural traditions, and are aimed at the preservation of the rural character of the
community. The treatment and consideration of these social and cultural compartments
should be case specific and may cause problems to the decision makers. The assessment
and evaluation of community perception about the environmental management option
requires the use of methods capable of revealing often complex and unpredictable
community values. The solution can be supported by good communication and the
involvement of the local stakeholders in the decision-making process.
The result of an SEA depends to a large extent on the political, economic, social
and cultural context. The balance varies depending on localities, regions, and countries
and often changes over time. Economic benefits are relatively easy to be linked to social
well-being and local development. Economic and social safety and development are
required by people or their advocacy organizations. This expectation is integrated into
the management practice of the companies (local business development, community
social investment, supporting local procurement and outsourcing). The environment is
unable to represent its interest; its representation is overtaken by authorities (in a rather
inflexible way by the application of regulatory tools) and green movements which often
react emotionally. Even if an organization relies on scientific knowledge, the state of
the art is not always satisfactory to make a perfect assessment and a scientifically based
decision.
Impact assessment of environmental management options uses a specific mix of
qualitative and quantitative information, which in particular is true for social impact