Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
17
Environmental impact assessment
John Blunden
EIA systems, only six of which were successfully
operational (Ebisemiju 1993).
Sometimes there is a single well-defined
catalyst for action in the decision to adopt EIA, as
was the situation in Austria in the mid-1980s
when Hainburg, the proposed site of a hydro-
electric power plant on the Danube, became a
symbol of environmental and citizens' activism
(Davy 1995). Elsewhere, the process has been more
incremental, especially where member states of a
federation are concerned. This was certainly the
case in Australia (Wood 1993). But always the
concept of EIA has evolved in response to real
needs, and wherever it is used it is in real-world
situations. It is not an intellectual exercise practised
by academics, nor is EIA designed to provide a
passive record of environmental change. Its sole
objective is that of making available environmental
information on which informed decision making
may take place in relation to projects both public
and private (Beattie 1995).
EIA has had a number of definitions in the last
three decades, many of which are founded on the
objectives and experience of their authors,
whether they be institutions, government agencies
or individual researchers conducting an
examination of the practice of EIA, and whether
they be located in the developed or developing
countries (Sankoh 1996). However, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in
1992 accepted a simple definition of EIA from an
authoritative source (Clark
et al
. 1980) that has
widespread currency (Table 17.1). The UNDP has
also usefully summarised what it sees as the
INTRODUCTION—THE BASICS OF
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The process of environmental impact assessment
(EIA) was introduced for the first time in the
United States in 1969 under the National
Environmental Policy Act for all major federal
activities. Since then, there has been an
everwidening acceptance, particularly by the
industrialised nations of the world, of the view
that environmental effects likely to be caused by a
proposed development are material considerations
within any planning decision-making process. The
influence of the US federal measures led to the
rapid incorporation of EIA into state and local
statutes across that country and then by the
government of Canada in 1973. Many other
developed countries followed including, Australia
at commonwealth level (1974), Japan (1984) and
New Zealand (1991). Although a number of its
member countries, such as France and Ireland, had
embraced EIAs as early as 1976, followed by the
Netherlands (1981), the Council of
Environmental Ministers of the European
Communities did not adopt a Directive on EIAs
for certain types of development until 1985. Their
implementation became mandatory in 1988
(Montz and Dixon 1993; Sanchez 1993; Geraghty
1996). As for developing countries, while many of
the 121 sovereign states that might be so
categorised had, by the 1990s, at least considered
EIA legislation, only nineteen had put in place the
necessary administrative, institutional and
procedural frameworks for the implementation of
