Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

environmental opposition ratified opinion (EIA)1. foundation garmentenvironmental Impact legal opinion (EIA) is a procedure that requires developers to follow in order to be granted permission for a cultivation and was offshoot introduced in European Union (EU) in 1985 (Glasson, 1999). The guidelines and requirements of EIA come from a European Directive (85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC). In this turn, developer requires to compile an Environmental Statement (ES) where signifi providet blows and its effect on the environment as a result of a increase argon described including mitigation measures (Lee, 1995). However, there be weaknesses in EIA puzzle out.As a result of EIA weaknesses, Strategic Environmental judging ( sea) was introduced. ocean butt against was first introduced by EU Directive 2001/42/EC which environmental protection and sustainable emergence whitethorn be considered. It vouchs that potential regard of proposed conceptions, policies and comput er programs on the environment argon fetching into consideration so that mitigation and communication mingled with benevolentity and termination-makers argon provided (Benson, 2003). on that pointfore, ocean is under interpreted in the decision- reservation function of a maturement much earlier than EIA.In this section, the differences between EIA and sea as swell as the weaknesses of EIA that led the training of sea in EU Directive in 2001 argon beness discussed.2. Differences between EIA and sea2.1. Differences in provisions between sea and EIA DirectivesTable 1 compact of differences in action for EIA and sea biddinges (Partidrio, 2000).oceanEIANature of actionIt is to a greater extent than strategical and contains visions and concepts in its actionActions towards the construction and operation levelAssessmentInvolved evaluationInvolved only estimationFocus more than critical decision moments (decision windows) along with decision physical processesOnly in be after levelLevel of decisionIt involves policy and provisoOnly consider levelRelation to decisionFacilitatorInvolved evaluator which very much taking into consideration of administrative requirementAlternativesBroader and spatial balance of location, companionable and corporeal strategies, technologies and economics.More specific alternative in construction, operation, locations and formulaScale of tingesmacroscopic involved topical anaesthetic, regional, national and globalMicroscopic mainly involved localScope of impactsSustainability issues, economic and social issues whitethorn be more open than physiological or ecological issuesEnvironmental with a sustainability focus, physical or ecological issues, and also social and economicTime scale and appraise vast to medium destination (after 5 years and then 7 years interval)Medium to short-term (after 5 years then tranquil continuing review).Key info sourcesState of the Environment cogitations, Local schedule 21, statistical selective info, policy and provision instrumentsField work, sample analysis, statistical informationDataMainly descriptive and mixture with quantitativeMore quantifiableRigor of analysis (uncertainty)More uncertainty and less rigor little uncertainty and more rigorAssessment benchmarksSustainability benchmarks (criteria and objectives)Best practice and legal restrictions prevalent perceptionVague/ distantMore reactivePost-evaluationformer(a) strategic actions and offer provisionObjective evidence in relation back with construction and operation2.2 Differences in procedural requirements of the EIA and ocean Directives.Table 2 Summary of the main differences between EIA and ocean Directives in procedural requirements ( Sources from Sheate et al., 2005). symboliseSEAEIAScreeningIt requires cite from the environmental authorities. universality SEA does non need determination and reasons.It requires no consultation.Publicity EIA requires determination and reasons.E nvironmental culture/ newspaper phallus States (MSs) produce to ensure that sufficient attribute and tenderer dialect on alternatives atomic number 18 provided in environmental sketchs (ERs).No quality train requires in EIA and only minimun information shoud be providedConsultationInvolved relevant loties another(prenominal) than MSs such as cosmos and autorities.Involved relevant parties other than MSs such as ordinary and autorities and also consultation provision from Public Participation Directive.Decision-makingAll consultation comments and ER are to be taken into account.Consultation comments and environmental informations are holdd in decision-making.Info on decisionMore specific and detailed requirements. cultivation provision from Public Participation Directive are domore specific in the requirement. observeLong term supervise takeNot require monitoring3. Weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)3.1. Lack of consideration of cumulative impactsEIA p rocess is often facing heavyy in addressing cumulative impacts of a development. The signifi dirty dogt impacts of a development especially issues on biodiversity, human health and cultural heritage are no include in their valuatement (McDonald Brown 1995).For sample in Scotland, several developments of wind farms proposed in close proximity have led to a very complicated EIA process (Glasson, 1999). Each developer need assessing the cumulative impact of landscape and visual finish with those of neighboring sicks (Benson, 2003). The planning process could face a delay delinquent to this issue.3.2. Insufficient semipublic fellowshipPublic interlocking has shown to be deficient in EIA process (Gailus, 1995). In a recent research suggested that this is due to the attitude of the developer that discourages the participation of public in EIA process in the European Community.Due to miss of legislation and extensive for public involvement in Europe in the early 90s to influ ence the decision of a development, the general public is not aware of their rights and ca make mathematical function ofs them not interested in the development involvement (Caddy, 1996).3.3. circumstantial monitoring and auditing processPrevious study has showed that monitoring and auditing issues are settle down weak in EIA. Follow-up process is only performed by developers in a minority of cases (Arts and Nootebloom 1999).Monitoring process enables practioners to have better fellow feeling for forthcoming extension, design and restoration computes (Frost, 1997). However, the river restoration process in joined Kingdom (UK) was hampered by lack of monitoring process in EIA.3.4. myopic consideration of alternativesThe compilation of alternatives appears to be very limited in EIA report (Tesli, 2002). For object lesson in Hungary for radioactive disposal, the report did not provide in details or rather limited in reducing the impacts of the objectify to the human health (Be nson, 2003). It is all important(p) to include various alternatives to allow solutions being taken in a development.3.5. The poor quality of environmental impact recitals and reportsThe reports produced in EIA are often uniformwise complex in term of length and technical which is not comfortably understood by the public and decision makers (Lee, 1995). It is important for ES to be simple as it has to be made available to the public.3.6. The timing of decisionsThe decision-making process in EIA project enters too late where the effectuate of policy and planning critical decisions are not being considered (Lee, 1995). This is due to the absence of arrangingatic impact judgement process where the outcome of it could subsequently influence the project planning and design (Harrop Nixon 1999).4. terminalThere were various weaknesses have been identified in EIA process. Due to these weaknesses, SEA was developed in 2001 under EU Directive to strengthen the environmental sagaciou sness process.5. ReferencesArts, J. and Nootebloom, S. (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment Monitoring andAuditing in Petts, J. (ed.) enchiridion of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 1,Blackwell, Oxford 229-251Benson, J.F. (2003) What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4) 261-266Caddy, J. (1996). Working aggroup on Environmental Studies, European University Institute, Florence. Online http//www.iue.it/WGES/Iss16/caddy.htmAccessed 29/01/2010.Frost, R. (1997) castning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice. Chapter 7 EIA monitoring and audit in Weston, J (ed). Longman, Harlow. pp 141 175.Gailus, J. (1995). Regional Environmental Centre Hungary.Online http//www.rec.org/REC/Bulletin/Bull52/PublPart.htmlAccessed 29/01/2010Glasson, J. (1999) The First 10 Years of the UK EIA System Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, prep Practice and Research, 14 (3) 363-375Glasson, J. Theriv el, R. and Chadwick, A. (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, capital of the unite KingdomHarrop, O. and Nixon, A. (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice, Routledge, LondonLee, N. (1995) Environmental Assessment in the European Union a ordinal anniversary, Project Appraisal, 10 (2) 77-90McDonald, G.T. and Brown, A.L. (1995) Going Beyond Environmental Impact Assessment environmental input to planning and design, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15 483-495Partidrio, M.R., 2000, Elements of an SEA framework improving the added-value of SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 647-663.Sheate, W. Byron, H. Dagg, S. Cooper, L (2005), The Relationship between SEA and EIA Directives Final Report to the European Commission. Imperial College LondonTesli, A. (2002). The use of EIA and SEA relative to the objective of sustainable development, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR). 1. Content of an SEA report as ca ll for by EU DirectiveThe death penalty of plans and programmes (PPs) in which likely significant effects produce by the project on the environment is the appoint requirement in preparation of an SEA report (European fan tan and Council of the European Union, 2001). Figure 1 shows the summary of the limit required by EU Directive (2001/42/EC) in producing SEA reports.Not all projects need to perform SEA process (Barth Fuder, 2002). The plat in Figure 2 shows a set of set of criteria for application to PPs under the EU Directive (2001/42/EC). It specifies whether SEA is required or not according to the Directive.For simplicity, the developments of the PPs and reasonable alternative options of SEA are summarized in five key stages according to the organisation focal point in England (URL 1).1.1. The key five stagesStage A Context, Baseline and Scoping (SEA Directive Annex 1) leave ask to include indicators, objectives and background information for SEA in the plan. The decisi ons of the kitchen range can be decide by the authority including consultation on the statutory environmental bodies (URL 1).Stage BAlternatives and Assessment (SEA Directive condition 5.1)Authority need to identify reasonable alternatives and assess the effects of the project on the environment. Ways of reducing, preventing and offsets the effects have to be provided as well (URL 1).Stage C Preparing the Environmental ReportDraft plan/programme which includes the information of the effects has to be presented as a key proceeds of SEA process (URL 1).Stage D Consultation (SEA Directive condition 6.2 and Annex 1)The draft plan and environmental report should be pass water together for consultation where a statement are made from the consultation responses in order to produce an evolving plan (URL 1).Stage E Monitoring (SEA Directive Article 10.1)The implementation of the plan where environment effects are produced needs monitoring process. It helps to provide more baseline in formation for future plans (URL 1).2. Difficulties and demarcations in fulfilling these requirementsTable 1 Summary of the difficulties and limitations of SEA reports as required in EU Directive.Requirements issuesDifficulties and limitationsAvailability and access to dataEnvironmental data is often limited and not relevant because it is not collected and stored systematically. The process of data collection requires extensive resources and using these data are difficult because different departments tend to collect different set of data. The quality of cheeseparing data is lacking and this issue has been reported by Member States such as Ger many an(prenominal) and Poland (European Commission, 2009).Best example of this issue is Poland. They are facing difficulties of generating and collection data of affected area because of the implementation of a plan/programme. The up-to-date picture of the environment has to be identified especially in double areas but they indicate that it is very problematic (European Commission, 2009).Sometimes, the coverage areas of SEA are large (including few countries and produces large amount of alternatives (URL 1). This will increase the complexness of data collection and analysis (URL 1).Public ParticipationThe availability of the data for the public is limited. In the UK, documents and information of the plan are not required to be published on their website until ER is finalized according to the draft Regulations (Partidrio, 1996).As a result, public participation is limited as not many public will travel to the plan-makers office to view the documents at a minimum time period for consultation. It is important to set up a website to facilitate the consultation process for the public to participate (Partidrio, 1996). Else, public is oblivious(predicate) that inspection of these documents are available to them and no feedback can be made (Krnv Thissen, 2000).EA at nobleer levels of decision makingAs SEA involves higher levels of decision making, the implementation policy of PPs are adequate to(p) to various departments decisions (Krnv Thissen, 2000). For example, a Local Transport Plan requires policy from Regional Spatial Strategies, Aviation and Transport White document and Sustainable Communities Plan and intend Policy Statements (Brown Thrivel, 2000). Due to these requirements, a complex screening process has to be performed and decisions for PPS are even more very difficult in the assessment (Brown Thrivel, 2000).Deciding on the level of detail of the environmental reportThe details of require information in SEA reports are vary due to lack of accommodation in assessment for the level of abstraction in PPs (European Commission, 2009). According to Member States (Latvia and Germany), the possible impacts of PPs are difficult to be included in SEA reports because of less information of the right scale and level required (European Commission, 2009). Therefore, important information for l ong term PPs is difficult as no usurp spatial scale of information need to be included in the report (European Commission, 2009).Development of assessment methodsAs there are no specific guidelines, strong methodological background and lack of exchange for shell practices, developing an powerful assessment is very challenging (Brown Thrivel, 2000). For example in Operational Programmes objectives, high level plans in a possible assessment do not necessary show the actual physical ground effects although strategic policies are enforced European Commission, 2009).Assessment of impactsAlthough SEA addressing the importance of cumulative impacts, there is no standard and useful assessment methodologies are being developed (Partidrio, 1996). The significant environmental impacts of PPs are difficult to assess and the acknowledgement of these aspects are limited (Partidrio, 1996).Monitoring and enforcement (Including issues of indicators)The assessment of plans is limited because there is no sustainability and environmental criteria developed in the monitoring programme (European Commission, 2009). Therefore, monitoring indicators (local agenda 21 for instance) is being used withal it is difficult for monitoring process as mentioned by Member States like France.Environmental authorities have no proper enforcement tool to ensure that monitoring programme is being performed (European Commission, 2009). For example in the UK, no quality control body is being set up by the government to monitor the efficiency of monitoring process which is a limitation for SEA (Verheem, R. Tonk, J. 2000).Institutional and legal issuesThe supports for SEA process are still insufficient politically (European Commission, 2009). The bureaucratic prerogatives may hinder the effectiveness of SEA performance. As SEA process is relatively new, lack of human resources especially familiar authorities is a major limitation for SEA (European Commission, 2009).3. Comparison between requir ement of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA).In the United Kingdom (UK), SA and SEA are required in planning system and law for governing Plans and Programmes (Smith Sheate 2001). For most Development Plan Documents (DPD) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), both SA and SEA process have to be carried out and include in the Local Development Framework (LDF) in the UK (Smith Sheate 2001). SA was developed to assess the likely economic, social and environmental impacts so proposed PPs can be implemented that leads to sustainable development unlike SEA which was previously described (Lee Kirkpatrick, 2000).The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and European Directive EC/2001/42 require both SA and SEA processes to be performed in any planning (Smith Sheate 2001). It is also requires by the Environmental Assessment Regulations for Plans and Programmes in UK (Smith Sheate 2001). In bow 2, comparison of SA and SEA in terms of UK planning syst em for Government PPs are being summarized.Table 2 Comparison between SA and SEA requirements within the UK planning systemRequirementsStrategic Environmental AssessmentSustainability Appraisals overall aimsThe aim of SEA is to raise the profile of environmental considerations as part of an advocative progression during decision-making process (Krnv Thissen, 2000).In logical argument to SEA, it is use as a support process in decision-making and representing an integrated approach that working towards in all aspects of sustainable development. Therefore, the interests at stake are remained neutral during this process (Minas, 2002).FocusEnvironmental effects (Lee Kirkpatrick, 2000)A affluent range of environmental, social and economic issues (Minas, 2002).Environmental/ Sustainability aspectsIt involves 15 components which is suggested in the 1993 guidance with additional social and economic factors to be considered in 1999 guidance (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).Aspects of biodiversity , human health, cultural factors, water, landscape, population and material assets are considered primarily (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).Report requirementsThere are no formal requirements for SA. In advantageously practice guidance, identification of scoping and impacts stages is recommended (Thrivel, Minas, 2002). The 1999 guidance also recommends that planners should provide and evaluates alternatives. Environmental baseline conditions should be considered as well.It involved extensive requirements of Annex 1 which have previously discussed (Barth Fuder, 2002).methodological analysisAccording to DETR Guide, the appraisal should emphasize on strategic options, alternatives, and policy impact matrices in achieving sustainable development. Therefore, the methodological statement is very brief if examine to SEA (Minas, 2002).In contrast to SA, heavy emphasis is in quad on actually baseline data which set as a benchmark to assess the alternatives performance. It is also requires autho rities to consult the final environmental report from the public on the scope of the assessment (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).TimingThe process is being carried out very early where every stage of the development plan process is considered as an important element (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).In contrast to SA, it is usually being carried out during the preparation of a plan in the first place the submission to the legislative procedure (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).InvolvementThe appraisals are subjected to consultation with alfresco groups such as public consultation during the plan preparation. The appraisal usually made available on the internet where it is being carried out sporadically (Thrivel, Minas, 2002).It is not required to make available on the internet. The consultation can be done during scoping stage by specified environmental authorities. probability has to be given to the public to comment the draft plan (Partidrio, 1996). backing requiredNo formal requirements according to th e guidanceA statement need to be produced by an authority to summarize all the considerations of the plan have been integrated. They need to provide a report of consultees opinion which taken during the consultation process and valid reasons on why the alternatives are being chosen (Partidrio, 1996).4. Success of SEA report in delivering sustainable development objectivesA wide range of processes has been integrated with SEA report. It has shown to be a systematic process where accountable decision making can be achieve due to the earlier evaluating process being taken with strong alternative visions (Wood Dejeddour, 1992). All these have incorporated in SEA policy, planning and program initiatives (PPPs) to ensure sustainable development with full integration of economic, social and political considerations (Partidrio Clarke, 2000).Although SEA shows to be a great tool in project level but the process of SEA is not easily accepted or consider as an effective solution due to its c omplexity (Thrivel Partidrio, 2000). Recent research has shown that SEA produces both great opportunities as well as failures in sustainable development (Sadler, 1998).4.1. Sustainability objectives are included in the integrated process of policy making and planningDuring the design stage of SEA, objectives of sustainability are being considered which provides a greater plan and policy in decision making (Thompson et al., 1995). It gradually delivers its objectives of sustainable development because the use of SEA articulates sustainability goals by enhancing the political action where substantive action can be taken (Partidrio, 1996). As the expectation of internal and external public of its delivery change magnitude, it offers the possibility of bringing better policy towards sustainable development into success. The transition of SEA involved two main stepsInformation gathering and analysis workThe core of strategic decision makingSustainable development consideration is being covered in a broader range where strategic level matters are separated from advisory conventionally-focused (Pezzoli, 1997). Sustainability criteria are used as the key bases to help in strategic decision making on the selection among best options available (Pezzoli, 1997). With these steps being taken, larger context of core policies and programmes in strategic assessment are identified in pursuing the objectives of national sustainability. Therefore, SEA report may be an important instrument in promoting sustainable development when it is to the full integrated (Partidrio, 1996).4.2. Operationalises sustainability principlesIn practical application, the concept of sustainability is very difficult because it faces high complexity and uncertain reality (Pezzoli, 1997). Interconnected generational boundaries and disciplinary of sustainability may further complicates the concept (Marsden, 1998). Therefore, the application of specific context of sustainability and commonly recognize d principles are being clarified by SEA.SEA identified collar key principle of sustainabilityIntegrated pursuit of ecological and socio-economic improvementsUncertainty imposes precautional obligationsPublic choices involvedSEA is a visible confirmation of committedness to sustainability as it offers broader exposure to notions such as natural capital and the precautional principle (Pezzoli, 1997). Therefore, it can be translated into the language of politics of sustainability and functions as a heuristic device (Thrivel et al., 1992). 4.3. Improves analysis of broad public purposes and alternativesWith alternative technologies, modus vivendi choices and better resources, SEA offers better possibility in achieving sustainable development because it has the capability to contemplating these factors that cannot be address at lower levels (Wood Dejeddour, 1992). Therefore, SEA report is the most effective and efficient point in finding alternatives and addressing the needs in pursui ng the objectives of sustainability development (Thrivel et al., 1992). 4.4. Facilitates proper attention to cumulative effectsStrategic level proves to be the best way to deal with increasing number of cumulative impacts. The scope of SEA helps to identifying these impacts because of its space scales (Ortolano Shepherd, 1995 Scott, 1992). As SEA is performed in an early stage, this assessment allows assessors to provide more attention in a wider range of actions in a larger area. It allows them to provide a broader context of cumulative impacts in addressing each of the impacts (Thrivel Partidrio 1996).According to Thrivel Partidrio, unwanted activities as a results of a project can be withdraw before the project stage begins because these cumulative impacts have influence the project decision where SEA has incorporated environmental issues intrinsically during the planning stage. forward detection of these impacts helps to promote sustainable development.4.5. Facilitates grea ter transparency and more effective public participation at the strategic levelWith the extensive involvement of public participation in SEA, it has improved the credibility and accountability of SEA in sustainability where they facilitating external scrutiny of decision (Wood Dejeddour, 1992). It creates increasing pressures in strategic decision making process to overpower bureaucratic fragmentation because in many jurisdictions, bureaucratic disorganisation and wastefulness in citizen has been declining.The expanding role of public provided in SEA allows an intrinsic connection between environmental sustainability and fairness (George, 1999) to promote basic sustainability goals.5. ConclusionThere are many challenges forrard for SEA report. There are many difficulties in producing a good SEA report. Nevertheless, SEA report requirements did show success in achieving sustainable development goals. In order to ensure SEA report success, weaknesses and limitation needs to be cons idered and solution needed in order to overcome it.6. ReferencesBarth, R. Fuder, A. (2002) Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC. Final Report Freiburg, Darmstadt, Berlin.Brown, A L, and Thrivel, R. (2000), Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodology, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 18(3), September, pages 183-189.Environment billet (2004) SEA Good Practice Guidelineswww.environment-agency.gov.uk/seaguidelines. Accessed on 27/01/10.European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_197/l_19720010721en00300037.pdfEuropean Commission (2009) Study concerning the report on the application and