206 • Practice

Box 9.1

An overview of EIA
The following observations describe EIA:
● It is a proactive assessment, and should be initiated pre-project/programme/
policy, before development decisions are made. In-project/programme/policy
and post-project/programme/policy assessments are common. While these may
not allow much problem avoidance, they can advise on problem mitigation,
gather data, feed into future impact assessment, improve damage control and
the exploitation of unexpected benefits.
● It is a systematic evaluation of all significant environmental (including social
and economic) consequences that an action is likely to have upon the environ-
ment.
● It is a process leading to a statement to guide decision-makers.
● It is a structured, systematic, comprehensive approach.
● It is a learning process and means to find the optimum development path.
● It is a process by which information is collected and assessed to determine
whether it is wise to proceed with a proposed development.
● It is an activity designed to identify and predict the impacts of an action on
the biogeophysical environment and on human health and well-being, and to
interpret and communicate information about such impacts.
● It is a process which forces (or should force) developers to reconsider proposals.
● It is a process which has the potential to increase developers’ accountability to
the public.
● It usually involves initial screening and scoping (to determine what is to be
subjected to EIA, and to decide what form the assessment should take).
● It should be subject to an independent, objective review of results.
● It should publish a clear statement of identified impacts with an indication of
their significance (especially if any are irreversible).
● It should include a declaration of possible alternative development options,
including nil-development, and their likely impacts.
● Ideally there should be public participation in EIA (it is often partial or avoided).
● There should be effective integration of EIA into the planning/legal process.
Source: Part-based on Barrow (1997: Box 1.1, p. 3)

other approaches. Impact may be defined as the difference between a forecast of the
future with a development occurring and a forecast without the development (see
[Link] – accessed June 2005).
Identifying consequences of a proposed activity is common sense, rather than a revo-
lutionary idea. However, for much of history it has not been adequately conducted in
the planning and management approach adopted. Impact assessment has been evolv-
ing for over quarter of a century, but it is still imperfect and is often misapplied
or misused. The field has been dominated by EIA; however, there are a number of
approaches running parallel, and sometimes overlapping, with broadly similar goals,
frequently exchanging information, techniques and methods. These include social impact
assessment (SIA) (see below), hazard assessment, risk assessment, technology impact
 Assessment, prediction, forecasting • 207

1111
2 Box 9.2
3
41
5 The figure below illustrates the typical step-wise EIA
6 process
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50
11111
208 • Practice

Screening (phase 0) is concerned with deciding which developments require an EIA. This
should prevent unnecessary assessment, yet ensure that there is no escape when assess-
ment is needed (in practice that is difficult). Screening may not be mandatory in some
countries. Note that the term ‘environmental assessment’ is used for screening in the USA,
but in the UK has been applied to EIA. In the USA if environmental assessment/screening
(also called initial environmental evaluation) indicates no need to proceed to a full EIA,
a statement of Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued publicly, allowing
time for objection/appeal before a final decision is arrived at.

Scoping (phase 1) overlaps phase 0 and should help determine the terms of reference for
an EIA, the approach, timetable, limits of study, tactics, staffing and so on. By this stage
the EIA should consider alternative developments. In practice, a decision as to how to
proceed may already have been made by a developer.

Identification, measurement and evaluation of impacts (phase 2) may proceed with or

Checking findings (phase 3) may follow a public review and/or may involve an inde-
pendent third party to ensure objectivity. A statement, report, chart or presentation is
usually released – effectively the product of an EIA; this is termed the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and is what the decision makers, environmental managers (and
perhaps the public) have to interpret.

Decision on proposal (phase 4): in practice, where a development has already been
decided on or is even under way, corrective measures can be perfected. It is a way of
passing on hindsight knowledge to planners in the future. The EIS may not be clear or
easy to use: some countries require irreversible, dangerous and costly impacts to be clearly
shown. It also useful if alternatives and potential benefits are indicated. The environ-
mental manager must be able to read the EIS and identify gaps, weaknesses, limitations.
An EIA must not be allowed to give a false sense of security.

Implementation (phase 5): this is where an environmental manager is especially active.

Monitoring and audit (phase 6): in practice this is often omitted or is poorly done. If
planning and management are to improve, efforts should be made to assess whether the
EIA worked well. It is also important to continue monitoring to catch unexpected devel-
opments. Efforts to assess EIA are generally termed Post-EIA audits. An EIA can easily
be a snapshot view, and ongoing monitoring or repeat EIA can help counter that.
Note: the idealised steps or phases 0 to 6.

Source: Redrawn from various sources by the author