Quality in EIA

Question 1

What are the criticisms of EIA?

Answer 1

• Slows development process
• too expensive: 0.01-1% of capital cost (depending on the type of project and its location); and an impact management plan may add from 1-15% to the capital cost
• It still isn’t based on evidence or good science
• it doesn’t help achieve sustainable development
• elements like mitigation just buy consent
• policy projects will go ahead anyway with permission from SoS (e.g. HS2)
• or not e.g. terrestrial

Question 2

Benefits of EIA

Answer 2

• It does involve the public
• It does consider alternatives
• Environmentally damaging developments can be improved or halted
• Preventing environmental damage saves money, improves health, manages resources better etc- and these benefits are not always easily accounted for
• It does at least provide a systematic framework for all major developments to be scrutinised in public, via production of an environmental statement
• The same ideas can be applied to policy (SEA)
• 191 (out of 193) countries have some form of EIA

Question 3

What is the bigger picture?

Answer 3

• The precautionary principle
• Ecological limits
• Intra and inter-generational equity
• Partnerships and Participation
• Accountability and Transparency
• Strategic Issues and Cumulative Effects

“After 40 years, it seems reasonable to say that EIA is now universally recognized as a key instrument for environmental management, firmly embedded in domestic and international environmental law”

Question 4

The Environmental Statement and Quality

Answer 4

High Quality ES————> informed decision making and conditions setting

Lower Quality ES———> Lack of quality technical input to the decision making process

Question 5

Key phases in EIA

Answer 5

• scoping
• determination of significance
• review of environmental statements
• follow-up and monitoring

Question 6

Describe scoping

Answer 6

Scoping has become accepted as good practise, but is still not always formally carried out

Question 7

Describe determination of significance

Answer 7

Determination of significance itself remains mostly difficult subjective and still developing as a discipline within EIA.

To be truly effective the findings should feed back into the project plans & inform mitigation and monitoring

Question 8

Describe review of environmental statements

Answer 8

This offers great opportunities for quality control, particularly if the review takes place prior to decision-

· UK review is carried out by the LPA and statutory consultees (with potential problems) or independently afterwards

Netherlands Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment was set up to do this differently..

Question 9

The Netherlands Experience

Answer 9

• Set up to conduct statutory review of all ESs by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment
• all reports made public
• reviews quality and adequacy for decision making
• notes concerns raised by the public during EIA

-no value judgement on the project itself
Could ask for revisions, additional data or could make changes itself if requested by the government

Original brief was to oversee quality in EIA in the Netherlands

Review of environmental statements pre-decision, with right to intervene

Question 10

Summarise the quality

Answer 10

1999-2001 the Review Commission found that 40% of EISs were inadequate

2009: ‘important shortcomings’ identified in 56% EISs reviewed (of 182 reports) :
-73% nature
-34% alternatives
-29% noise
-26% air quality
(and ‘premature conclusions’ regarding no impact on Natura 2000 sites frequently found)

Question 11

How did the mission change?

Answer 11

Mission changed from national review to role as international review body- building capacity, providing support
Role now is mostly limited to work in developing countries:

supporting the preparation of the guidelines or terms of reference (ToR) for EIA or SEA

review EIAs of controversial and complex projects only

SEA on regional plans and programmes, and on national development plans and poverty reduction strategies.

Question 12

What is the Cartagena Port Access Canal?

Answer 12

NCEA requested to review the EIA of the project by the Colombian government

The project is an access canal to a port , through a tropical coral reef and mangrove ecosystem

Question 13

What were the expected impacts?

Answer 13

• removal of vegetation (including mangroves)
• Removal and transplantation of coral reefs
• sediment dispersion in the Cartagena Bay, potentially affecting marine ecosystems
• tourism and fisheries
• change of coastal morphology

Question 14

What were the recmmendendations?

Answer 14

Compliance of the proposed activity with legislation and regulations was not clear
Some elements incomplete:
-results of a recent sediment sampling campaign, and consequences on water quality in and around the project area were not incorporated in the EIA report;
-The same holds true for the findings of the study was ongoing with regard to coral relocation and restoration of mangrove areas and sea grass beds

The hydraulic modelling may be flawed and needed further expert review

The EIA report was not presented in such a way that it facilitates decision making; the information is partly too detailed, sometimes irrelevant and there is insufficient emphasis on the real significant impacts.
The monitoring programme is insufficiently detailed and should not only address the project implementation phase, but also the project’s operational phase.
The process of stakeholder involvement was not yet completed, nor have all the relevant stakeholders been involved.

Question 15

Describe follow up and monitoring

Answer 15

• are conditions being met?

- is mitigation effective or even appropriate?

Question 16

What is a case study of mitigation? (Whiter and Hudson)

Answer 16

In a sample of 40 EISs, only 4% of were satisfactory for mitigation, particularly on monitoring

Commitments often vague, e.g.:
‘It is recommended that work is undertaken outside of the breeding season to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.’

Costs are major issue, e.g. typically £15-20k for great crested newt mitigation

Mitigation often may not deliver (see next slide)

Formal environmental management planning is addressing this issue (see earlier lectures)

Question 17

Describe the state of Lewis et al, 2013 GCN mitigation study

Answer 17

Twelve sites that were subjected to development mitigation in 2004 were studied in 2011-2013
7 had declined (3 to possible extinction)
All showed degrees of isolation, fragmentation and barriers to dispersal
Data reporting was flawed so detailed analysis and modelling was not possible

A favourable conservation status assessment was carried out in relation to four components - range, population, habitat and future prospects:
Four were ‘bad’
Seven ‘inadequate’
One ‘favourable’
Suggestions: improve data collection and management, revise mitigation practice to maintain favourable conservation status, further applied research

Question 18

What are the assessment criteria made about quality?

Answer 18

A: Full provision of information with no gaps or weaknesses.
B: Good provision of information with only very minor weaknesses, which are not of importance to the decision process.
C: Adequate provision of information with any gaps or weaknesses not being vital to the decision process.
D: Weak provision of information with gaps and weaknesses, which will hinder the decision process but require only minor work to complete.
E: Very poor provision of information with major gaps or weaknesses, which would prevent the decision process from proceeding and require major work to complete.
(carried out by four reviewers with cross- checking)

Question 19

What was the progress beyond the EU? (Barker and wood, 1999)

Answer 19

A review carried out of quality of 112 environmental statements across 8 EU countries

Detailed case studies were examined to look at the role of EIA in modifying project proposals & effectiveness of consultation & public participation

Early (1990-1991) and late (1994-1996) ESs were evaluated

A review carried out of quality of 112 environmental statements across 8 EU countries

Detailed case studies were examined to look at the role of EIA in modifying project proposals & effectiveness of consultation & public participation

Early (1990-1991) and late (1994-1996) ESs were evaluated

Big improvements in description of development, local environment and baselines,
Less improvements in identification of impacts (including scoping & methodologies); and in alternatives & mitigation

Big improvements in description of development, local environment and baselines,
Less improvements in identification of impacts (including scoping & methodologies); and in alternatives & mitigation

Big improvements in description of development, local environment and baselines,
Less improvements in identification of impacts (including scoping & methodologies); and in alternatives & mitigation

Question 20

What are the factors influencing quality?

Answer 20

The nature of legal requirements for EIA
The experience of the proponent, the consultant, and the competent authority
The existence of scoping
The length of the EIA report (and the cost of the EIA)
The nature and size of the projects.
These factors, often acting in combination, appear to be important in determining the quality of EISs.

Question 21

(Barker and jones, 2013)- offshore oil and gas

Answer 21

Sampled 35 ESs; 2003-2005
Wells, field developments and pipelines
Applied modified ‘Lee and Colley’ review package

Sampled 35 ESs; 2003-2005
Wells, field developments and pipelines
Applied modified ‘Lee and Colley’ review package

Question 22

What are the barriers to quality?

Answer 22

Budgets

Competitive Tendering

Success fees

Lack of experience or capacity

Lack of multidisciplinary approach

Question 23

What are the biological indicators of Sustainabiliy?

Answer 23

Dibden Bay: mudflats & salt marsh; birds

Great crested newts- mitigation (see above)

Twyford Down M3 extension: grassland plants, butterflies & ants; amenity

Question 24

Operational inficators?

Answer 24

Twyford Down (again)- M3 was operating above capacity as soon as it was opened and traffic levels are projected to keep increasing. Is this a sustainable development?

Question 25

Economic indicators?

Answer 25

Gezhouba Dam (China- completed 1988 on Yangtze):
predicted cost $168 million, actual cost $625 million

Question 26

Describe accreditation at both specialist and co-ordinator level?

Answer 26

at specialist level (e.g. Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management, or IEMA; Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment) or

at co-ordinator level (e.g. accreditation based on ongoing proven quality, independently reviewed)

Question 27

What is the IEMA quality mark?

Answer 27

Allows organisations (both developers and consultancies) that lead the co-ordination of statutory EIAs in the UK to make a commitment to excellence in their EIA activities and have this commitment independently reviewed.

Reviews the organisation, but looks at their work (e.g. environmental statements )

Question 28

what are the IEMA quality mark seven key commitments?

Answer 28

EIA Management –effective project control and management processes to deliver quality in the EIA and the Environmental Statements
• EIA Team Capabilities –regular and relevant continuing professional development.
• EIA Regulatory Compliance –
• EIA Context & Influence –all EIAs are effectively scoped and that we will transparently indicate how the EIA process, and any consultation undertaken, influenced the development proposed and any alternatives considered.
• EIA Content – all assessments include: a robust analysis of the relevant baseline; assessment and transparent evaluation of impact significance; and an effective description of measures designed to monitor and manage significant effects.
• EIA Presentation –Environmental Statements set out environmental information in a transparent and understandable manner.
• Improving EIA practice –EIA by working with IEMA to enhance quality; making appropriate examples of our work available to the wider EIA community.