Contents - Previous - Next
Chapter 3: EIA process
Prediction and mitigation
Management and monitoring
Final report - Environmental impact statement
The EIA process makes sure that environmental issues are raised when a project or plan is first discussed and that all concerns are addressed as a project gains momentum through to implementation. Recommendations made by the EIA may necessitate the redesign of some project components, require further studies, suggest changes which alter the economic viability of the project or cause a delay in project implementation. To be of most benefit it is essential that an environmental assessment is carried out to determine significant impacts early in the project cycle so that recommendations can be built into the design and cost-benefit analysis without causing major delays or increased design costs. To be effective once implementation has commenced, the EIA should lead to a mechanism whereby adequate monitoring is undertaken to realize environmental management. An important output from the EIA process should be the delineation of enabling mechanisms for such effective management.
The way in which an EIA is carried out is not rigid: it is a process comprising a series of steps. These steps are outlined below and the techniques more commonly used in EIA are described in some detail in the section Techniques. The main steps in the EIA process are:
prediction and mitigation
management and monitoring
Figure 1 shows a general flow diagram of the EIA process, how it fits in with parallel technical and economic studies and the role of public participation. In some cases, such as small-scale irrigation schemes, the transition from identification through to detailed design may be rapid and some steps in the EIA procedure may be omitted.
Screening often results in a categorization of the project and from this a decision is made on whether or not a full EIA is to be carried out.
Scoping is the process of determining which are the most critical issues to study and will involve community participation to some degree. It is at this early stage that EIA can most strongly influence the outline proposal.
Detailed prediction and mitigation studies follow scoping and are carried out in parallel with feasibility studies.
The main output report is called an Environmental Impact Statement, and contains a detailed plan for managing and monitoring environmental impacts both during and after implementation.
Finally, an audit of the EIA process is carried out some time after implementation. The audit serves a useful feedback and learning function.
FIGURE 1 Flow diagram of the EIA process and parallel studies
An EIA team for an irrigation and drainage study is likely to be composed of some or all of the following: a team leader; a hydrologist; an irrigation/drainage engineer; a fisheries biologist/ecologist; an agronomist/pesticide expert; a soil conservation expert; a biological/environmental scientist; an economist, a social scientist and a health scientist (preferably a epidemiologist). The final structure of the team will vary depending on the project. Specialists may also be required for fieldwork, laboratory testing, library research, data processing, surveys and modelling. The team leader will require significant management skill to co-ordinate the work of a team with diverse skills and knowledge.
There will be a large number of people involved in EIA apart from the full-time team members. These people will be based in a wide range of organizations, such as the project proposing and authorizing bodies, regulatory authorities and various interest groups. Such personnel would be located in various agencies and also in the private sector; a considerable number will need specific EIA training.
The length of the EIA will obviously depend on the programme, plan or project under review. However, the process usually lasts from between 6 and 18 months from preparation through to review. It will normally be approximately the same length as the feasibility study of which it should form an integral part. It is essential that the EIA team and the team carrying out the feasibility study work together and not in isolation from each other. This often provides the only opportunity for design changes to be made and mitigation measures to be incorporated in the project design.
The cost of the study will vary considerably and only very general estimates can be given here. Typically, costs vary from between 0.1 and 0.3 percent of the total project cost for large projects over US$ 100 million and from 0.2 to 0.5 percent for projects less than US$ 100 million. For small projects the cost could increase to between 1 and 3 percent of the project cost.
Screening is the process of deciding on whether an EIA is required. This may be determined by size (eg greater than a predetermined surface area of irrigated land that would be affected, more than a certain percentage or flow to be diverted or more than a certain capital expenditure). Alternatively it may be based on site-specific information. For example, the repair of a recently destroyed diversion structure is unlikely to require an EIA whilst a major new headwork structure may. Guidelines for whether or not an EIA is required will be country specific depending on the laws or norms in operation. Legislation often specifies the criteria for screening and full EIA. All major donors screen projects presented for financing to decide whether an EIA is required.
The output from the screening process is often a document called an Initial Environmental Examination or Evaluation (IEE). The main conclusion will be a classification of the project according to its likely environmental sensitivity. This will determine whether an EIA is needed and if so to what detail.
Scoping occurs early in the project cycle at the same time as outline planning and pre-feasibility studies. Scoping is the process of identifying the key environmental issues and is perhaps the most important step in an EIA. Several groups, particularly decision makers, the local population and the scientific community, have an interest in helping to deliberate the issues which should be considered, and scoping is designed to canvass their views, (Wathern 1988).
Scoping is important for two reasons. First, so that problems can be pinpointed early allowing mitigating design changes to be made before expensive detailed work is carried out. Second, to ensure that detailed prediction work is only carried out for important issues. It is not the purpose of an EIA to carry out exhaustive studies on all environmental impacts for all projects. If key issues are identified and a full scale EIA considered necessary then the scoping should include terms of reference for these further studies.
At this stage the option exists for cancelling or drastically revising the project should major environmental problems be identified. Equally it may be the end of the EIA process should the impacts be found to be insignificant. Once this stage has passed, the opportunity for major changes to the project is restricted.
Before the scoping exercise can be fully started, the remit of the study needs to be defined and agreed by the relevant parties. These will vary depending on the institutional structure. At a minimum, those who should contribute to determining the remit will include those who decide whether a policy or project is implemented, those carrying out the EIA (or responsible for having it carried out by others) and those carrying out parallel engineering and economic studies relating to the proposal. Chapter 5 gives details on preparing terms of reference for an EIA. A critical issue to determine is the breadth of the study. For example, if a proposed project is to increase the area of irrigated agriculture in a region by 10%, is the remit of the EIA to study the proposal only or also to consider options that would have the same effect on production?
A major activity of scoping is to identify key interest groups, both governmental and non-governmental, and to establish good lines of communication. People who are affected by the project need to hear about it as soon as possible. Their knowledge and perspectives may have a major bearing on the focus of the EIA. Rapid rural appraisal techniques provide a means of assessing the needs and views of the affected population.
The main EIA techniques used in scoping are baseline studies, checklists, matrices and network diagrams. These techniques collect and present knowledge and information in a straightforward way so that logical decisions can be made about which impacts are most significant. Risk and uncertainty are discussed further in the section Managing uncertainty.
Prediction and mitigation
Once the scoping exercise is complete and the major impacts to be studied have been identified, prediction work can start. This stage forms the central part of an EIA. Several major options are likely to have been proposed either at the scoping stage or before and each option may require separate prediction studies. Realistic and affordable mitigating measures cannot be proposed without first estimating the scope of the impacts, which should be in monetary terms wherever possible. It then becomes important to quantify the impact of the suggested improvements by further prediction work. Clearly, options need to be discarded as soon as their unsuitability can be proved or alternatives shown to be superior in environmental or economic terms, or both. It is also important to test the "without project" scenario.
An important outcome of this stage will be recommendations for mitigating measures. This would be contained in the Environmental Impact Statement. Clearly the aim will be to introduce measures which minimize any identified adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts. Formal and informal communication links need to be established with teams carrying out feasibility studies so that their work can take proposals into account. Similarly, feasibility studies may indicate that some options are technically or economically unacceptable and thus environmental prediction work for these options will not be required.
Many mitigating measures do not define physical changes but require management or institutional changes or additional investment, such as for health services. Mitigating measures may also be procedural changes, for example, the introduction of, or increase in, irrigation service fees to promote efficiency and water conservation. Table 6 in Chapter 4 describes the most common adverse impacts associated with irrigation and drainage schemes and some appropriate mitigating measures.
By the time prediction and mitigation are undertaken, the project preparation will be advanced and a decision will most likely have been made to proceed with the project. Considerable expenditure may have already been made and budgets allocated for the implementation of the project. Major changes could be disruptive to project processing and only accepted if prediction shows that impacts will be considerably worse than originally identified at the scoping stage. For example, an acceptable measure might be to alter the mode of operation of a reservoir to protect downstream fisheries, but a measure proposing an alternative to dam construction could be highly contentious at this stage. To avoid conflict it is important that the EIA process commences early in the project cycle.
This phase of an EIA will require good management of a wide range of technical specialists with particular emphasis on:
interpretation of predictions, with and without mitigating measures;
assessment of comparisons.
It is important to assess the required level of accuracy of predictions. Mathematical modelling is a valuable technique, but care must be taken to choose models that suit the available data. Because of the level of available knowledge and the complexity of the systems, physical systems are modelled more successfully than ecological systems which in turn are more successfully modelled than social systems. Social studies (including institutional capacity studies) will probably produce output in non-numerical terms. Expert advice, particularly from experts familiar with the locality, can provide quantification of impacts that cannot be modelled. Various techniques are available to remove the bias of individual opinion.
Checklists, matrices, networks diagrams, graphical comparisons and overlays, are all techniques developed to help carry out an EIA and present the results of an EIA in a format useful for comparing options. The main quantifiable methods of comparing options are by applying weightings, to environmental impacts or using economic cost-benefit analysis or a combination of the two. Numerical values, or weightings, can be applied to different environmental impacts to (subjectively) define their relative importance. Assigning economic values to all environmental impacts is not recommended as the issues are obscured by the single, final answer. However, economic techniques, can provide insight into comparative importance where different environmental impacts are to be compared, such as either losing more wetlands or resettling a greater number of people.
When comparing a range of proposals or a variety of mitigation or enhancement activities, a number of characteristics of different impacts need to be highlighted. The relative importance of impacts needs agreeing, usually following a method of reaching a consensus but including economic considerations. The uncertainty in predicting the impact should be clearly noted. Finally, the time frame in which the impact will occur should be indicated, including whether or not the impact is irreversible.
Management and monitoring
The part of the EIS covering monitoring and management is often referred to as the Environmental Action Plan or Environmental Management Plan. This section not only sets out the mitigation measures needed for environmental management, both in the short and long term, but also the institutional requirements for implementation. The term 'institutional' is used here in its broadest context to encompass relationships:
established by law between individuals and government;
between individuals and groups involved in economic transactions;
developed to articulate legal, financial and administrative links among public agencies;
motivated by socio-psychological stimuli among groups and individuals (Craine, 1971).
The above list highlights the breadth of options available for environmental management, namely: changes in law; changes in prices; changes in governmental institutions; and, changes in culture which may be influenced by education and information dissemination. All the management proposals need to be clearly defined and costed. One of the more straightforward and effective changes is to set-up a monitoring programme with clear definition as to which agencies are responsible for data collection, collation, interpretation and implementation of management measures.
The purpose of monitoring is to compare predicted and actual impacts, particularly if the impacts are either very important or the scale of the impact cannot be very accurately predicted. The results of monitoring can be used to manage the environment, particularly to highlight problems early so that action can be taken. The range of parameters requiring monitoring may be broad or narrow and will be dictated by the 'prediction and mitigation' stage of the EIA. Typical areas of concern where monitoring is weak are: water quality, both inflow and outflow; stress in sensitive ecosystems; soil fertility, particularly salinization problems; water related health hazards; equity of water distributions; groundwater levels.
The use of satellite imagery to monitor changes in land use and the 'health' of the land and sea is becoming more common and can prove a cost-effective tool, particularly in areas with poor access. Remotely sensed data have the advantage of not being constrained by political and administrative boundaries. They can be used as one particular overlay in a GIS. However, authorization is needed for their use, which may be linked to national security issues, and may thus be hampered by reluctant governments.
Monitoring should not be seen as an open-ended commitment to collect data. If the need for monitoring ceases, data collection should cease. Conversely, monitoring may reveal the need for more intensive study and the institutional infrastructure must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changing demands. The information obtained from monitoring and management can be extremely useful for future EIAs, making them both more accurate and more efficient.
The Environmental Management Plan needs to not only include clear recommendations for action and the procedures for their implementation but must also define a programme and costs. It must be quite clear exactly how management and mitigation methods are phased with project implementation and when costs will be incurred. Mitigation and management measures will not be adopted unless they can be shown to be practicable and good value for money. The plan should also stipulate that if, during project implementation, major changes are introduced, or if the project is aborted, the EIA procedures will be re-started to evaluate the effect of such actions.
In order to capitalise on the experience and knowledge gained, the last stage of an EIA is to carry out an Environmental Audit some time after completion of the project or implementation of a programme. It will therefore usually be done by a separate team of specialists to that working on the bulk of the EIA. The audit should include an analysis of the technical, procedural and decision-making aspects of the EIA. Technical aspects include: the adequacy of the baseline studies, the accuracy of predictions and the suitability of mitigation measures. Procedural aspects include: the efficiency of the procedure, the fairness of the public involvement measures and the degree of coordination of roles and responsibilities. Decision-making aspects include: the utility of the process for decision making and the implications for development, (adapted from Sadler in Wathern, 1988). The audit will determine whether recommendations and requirements made by the earlier EIA steps were incorporated successfully into project implementation. Lessons learnt and formally described in an audit can greatly assist in future EIAs and build up the expertise and efficiency of the concerned institutions.
Projects or programmes have significant impacts on the local population. Whilst the aim is to improve the well being of the population, a lack of understanding of the people and their society may result in development that has considerable negative consequences. More significantly, there may be divergence between national economic interests and those of the local population. For example, the need to increase local rice production to satisfy increasing consumption in the urban area may differ from the needs as perceived by the local farmers. To allow for this, public participation in the planning process is essential. The EIA provides an ideal forum for checking that the affected public have been adequately consulted and their views taken into account in project preparation.
The level of consultation will vary depending on the type of plan or project. New projects involving resettlement or displacement will require the most extensive public participation. As stated before, the purpose of an EIA is to improve projects and this, to some extent, can only be achieved by involving those people directly or indirectly affected. The value of environmental amenities is not absolute and consensus is one way of establishing values. Public consultation will reveal new information, improve understanding and enable better choices to be made. Without consultation, legitimate issues may not be heard, leading to conflict and unsustainability.
The community should not only be consulted they should be actively involved in environmental matters. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN promotes the concept of Primary Environmental Care whereby farmers, for example, with assistance from extension services, are directly involved in environmental management. The earlier the public are involved, the better. Ideally this will be before a development proposal is fully defined. It is an essential feature of successful scoping, at which stage feedback will have the maximum influence. Openness about uncertainty should be a significant feature of this process. As the EIA progresses, public consultation is likely to be decreased though it is important to disseminate information. The publication of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will normally be accompanied by some sort of public hearing that needs to be chaired by a person with good communication skills. He/she may not be a member of the EIA team.
There are no clear rules about how to involve the public and it is important that the process remains innovative and flexible. In practice, the views of people affected by the plan are likely to be heard through some form of representation rather than directly. It is therefore important to understand how decisions are made locally and what are the methods of communication, including available government extension services. The range of groups outside the formal structure with relevant information are likely to include: technical and scientific societies; Water User Groups; NGOs; experts on local culture; and religious groups. However, it is important to find out which groups are under-represented and which ones are responsible for access to natural resources, namely: grazing, water, fishing and forest products. The views of racial minorities, women, religious minorities, political minorities and lower cast groups are commonly overlooked, (World Bank, 1991).
There has been an enormous increase in the number of environmental NGOs and "Green" pressure groups throughout the world. Such organizations often bring environmental issues to the attention of the local press. However, this should not deter consultation with such organizations as the approach to EIA should be open and positive with the aim of making improvements. Relevant NGOs should be identified and their experience and technical capacity put to good use.
In some countries, open public meetings are the most common technique to enable public participation. However, the sort of open debate engendered at such meetings is often both culturally alien and unacceptable. Alternative techniques must be used. Surveys, workshops, small group meetings and interviews with key groups and individuals are all techniques that may be useful. Tools such as maps, models and posters can help to illustrate points and improve communication. Where resettlement is proposed, extensive public participation must be allowed which will, at a minimum, involve an experienced anthropologist or sociologist who speaks the local language. He/she can expect to spend months, rather than weeks, in the field.
Information dissemination can be achieved using a number of mechanisms including the broadcasting media, in particular newspapers and radio. Posters and leaflets are also useful and need to be distributed widely to such locations as schools, clinics, post offices, community centres, religious buildings, bus stops, shops etc. The EIA process must be seen to be fair.
The public participation/consultation and information dissemination activities need to be planned and budgeted. The social scientist team member should define how and when activities take place and also the strategy: extensive field work is expensive. It is important to note that public participation activities are often reported as a separate section of the final EIA. Where experience of managing community involvement is limited, training is highly recommended. Further reading on public participation can be obtained from: Ahmed L and G K Sammy (1988) and on Rapid Rural Appraisal from Chambers R (1981). Rapid Rural Appraisal techniques may be an appropriate and cost effective method of assessment.
An EIA involves prediction and thus uncertainty is an integral part. There are two types of uncertainty associated with environmental impact assessments: that associated with the process and, that associated with predictions. With the former the uncertainty is whether the most important impacts have been identified or whether recommendations will be acted upon or ignored. For the latter the uncertainty is in the accuracy of the findings. The main types of uncertainty and the ways in which they can be minimized are discussed by de Jongh in Wathern (1988). They can be summarized as follows:
uncertainty of prediction: this is important at the data collection stage and the final certainty will only be resolved once implementation commences. Research can reduce the uncertainty;
uncertainty of values: this reflects the approach taken in the EIA process. Final certainty will be determined at the time decisions are made. Improved communications and extensive negotiations should reduce this uncertainty;
uncertainty of related decision: this affects the decision making element of the EIA process and final certainty will be determined by post evaluation. Improved coordination will reduce uncertainty.
The importance of very wide consultation cannot be overemphasized in minimizing the risk of missing important impacts. The significance of impacts is subjective, but the value judgements required are best arrived at by consensus: public participation and consultation with a wide sector of the community will reduce uncertainty. One commonly recurring theme is the dilemma of whether to place greater value on short-term benefits or long-term problems.
The accuracy of predictions is dependent on a variety of factors such as lack of data or lack of knowledge. It is important not to focus on predictions that are relatively easy to calculate at the expense of impacts that may be far more significant but difficult to analyse. Prediction capabilities are generally good in the physical and chemical sciences, moderate in ecological sciences and poor in social sciences. Surveys are the most wide-spread technique for estimating people's responses and possible future actions.
The results of the EIA should indicate the level of uncertainty with the use of confidence limits and probability analyses wherever possible. Sensitivity analysis similar to that used in economic evaluation, could be used if adequate quantifiable data are available. A range of outcomes can be found by repeating predictions and adjusting key variables.
EIA cannot give a precise picture of the future, much as the Economic Internal Rate of Return cannot give a precise indication of economic success. EIA enables uncertainty to be managed and, as such, is an aid to better decision making. A useful management axiom is to preserve flexibility in the face of uncertainty.
The ICID Check-list
Baseline studies using available data and local knowledge will be required for scoping. Once key issues have been identified, the need for further in-depth studies can be clearly identified and any additional data collection initiated. The ICID Check-list will be found useful to define both coarse information required for scoping and further baseline studies required for prediction and monitoring. Specialists, preferably with local knowledge, will be needed in each key area identified. They will need to define further data collection, to ensure that it is efficient and targeted to answer specific questions, and to quantify impacts. A full year of baseline data is desirable to capture seasonal effects of many environmental phenomena. However, to avoid delay in decision making, short-term data monitoring should be undertaken in parallel with long-term collection to provide conservative estimates of environmental impacts.
The ICID Check-list
A comprehensive and user-friendly checklist is an invaluable aid for several activities of an EIA, particularly scoping and defining baseline studies. "The ICID Environmental Check-List to Identify Environmental Effects of Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control Projects" (Mock and Bolton, 1993) is recommended for use in any irrigation and drainage EIA. The Check-list has been prepared for non-specialists and enables much time-consuming work to be carried out in advance of expert input. It includes extensive data collection sheets. The collected data can then be used to answer a series of questions to identify major impacts and to identify shortages of data. A matrix indicates which data are linked to which questions. Chapter 4 describes the major impacts based on the 8 Check-list topics.
The results sheet from the Check-list is reproduced as Table 1. The very simple layout of the sheet enables an overview of impacts to be presented clearly which is of enormous value for the scoping process. Similarly, data shortages can be readily seen. The process of using the ICID Check-list may be repeated at different stages of an EIA with varying levels of detail. Once scoping has been completed, the results sheet may be modified to omit minor topics and to change the horizontal classification to provide further information about the impacts being assessed. At this point the output from the Check-list can be useful as an input to matrices. The ICID Check-list is also available as a WINDOWS based software package. This enables the rapid production of a report directly from the field study.
Contents - Previous - Next