SCOPE 5 - Environmental Impact Assessment

2	What are the Administrative Procedures?

 

	2.1 INTRODUCTION
	2.2 F ACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DESIGNING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
	2.3 SEQUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING/DECISION-MAKING
	2.4 THE PLAYERS

 2.1 INTRODUCTION 

Attention is directed in this chapter to the administrative procedures required to support the EIA process. The general framework to be described is applicable to wide range of national laws, policies, and social customs, although most detailed experience comes from North America. The procedures can be utilized in their simplest form but may be expanded according to the number of trained specialist locally available for undertaking EIAs. 

The details are shown schematically in Figure 2.1. (See Section 2.3.) The relationships between the various 'players' and their 'roles' vary from country to country but the 'cast of players' must be designated. Those involved may include: the decision-maker, assessor, project proponent, assessment reviewer, central and local government agencies, the public at large, special interest groups, expert advisors, governments in adjacent jurisdictions, the legislative branch of government, and the judiciary (see Section 2.4). Examples of administrative procedures in different countries are given in Appendix 2. 

2.2 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DESIGNING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

A number of administrative questions should be considered when establishing an EIA process. 

1. In this text we speak of the decision-maker in the sense that a single point of authority or responsibility exists at which the decision is made. The decision may be: (a) to proceed; (b) not to proceed; (c) to refer back the proposal for modification; or (d) to transfer responsibility for making a decision to a higher or to a lower level of responsibility. Clearly, however, there must be a decision-making process with well-defined terms of reference at the management level where the proposal is being considered. 
2. Related to (a) is the fact that decisions are often 'shaped' rather than 'made' or 'taken'. Everyone involved in policy formulation, planning, and impact assessment studies as well as in public hearings, reviews, and legislative and media debates is in fact playing a part in shaping the decision. The final responsibility, of course, rests with a responsible person (or group) whose signature appears on the relevant document. This emphasizes that EIAs should not be considered only at the time of presentation of an impact statement to a decision-maker. Rather, environmental considerations should be included throughout the entire planning process.
3. Environmental assessment should be a continuing activity not only prior to the decision point but also afterwards. Predictions, particularly of ecological and sociological factors, are somewhat uncertain; what then should be done if environmental behaviour begins to diverge significantly from its predicted states? This difficult question is considered in Chapter 4 (Section 4.6), in which the recommendation of Holling (1978) is supported that an EIA should be considered as an adaptive process, with review and updating of the EIA document periodically (perhaps every two years) after the project/action has been completed. This recommendation has not yet been implemented. 
4. One defect in the way that EIAs tend to be carried out is that they are oriented to specific projects or proposals. There is often no mechanism for examination of many projects in aggregate. Thus it is possible, indeed likely, that the impacts of an array of proposals would be found individually acceptable although their effects, when taken together, would not. 
   Thus it seems desirable to develop the concept of impact assessment at the programme or policy level. Emphasis on the single-project approach may be applying the right tools and the right questions at the wrong time. For example, before deciding whether to build an oil-fired generating station at a particular place, the broader question of whether to develop additional hydroelectric or nuclear sources of power throughout a country should be explored. Broadly based assessments of this type may identify alternatives that are not only environmentally desirable but are also economically attractive. Industry would support such an approach. Solomon (1977), for example, makes the point that the kind of EIA required to make a policy decision is different from that required to make an individual project decision. Re suggests that the former should be undertaken by appropriate government agencies, who should use EIAs to produce well-formulated environmental policies within which industry can operate. The EIA submitted by a company considering the production of natural gas in the Arctic, for example, would then examine only the environmental impacts of producing gas at the designated gas field. Sometimes at public hearings, there is criticism directed towards environmental policy (a government responsibility) as well as towards the project (a responsibility of the proponent). 
5. An important question that needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction is whether EIAs should be undertaken by the proponents (whether they be in the public or in the private sector), by an independent body, or by a small team drawn from proponents, environmental scientists, and representatives of those with whom decisions rest*. Because of the wide diversity of socio-economic systems around the world, no general recommendation on this question can be given. 
6. EIAs need to be reviewed by an independent body for relevance, completeness, and objectivity. The reviewer may be a government department or separate body. But whatever mechanism is chosen, the objective is to ensure compliance, with the spirit as well as the fine print of the law, with established procedures and guidelines, including appropriate timetables.
7. The review process could include study by specialists on the staff of the review authority, study by other designated experts, or both. Public participation is often desirable, as the perceptions of specialists may differ markedly from those of the public. Ways in which this might be accomplished include: 
   

   The appointment of private citizens to the review authority;  The establishment of regional planning committees to include members of the public; The canvassing of elected representatives; Public hearings;  Seminars or workshops.

Public participation may be of greatest value at the prograrnme/policy level. For EIAs related to specific projects, Fairfax (1978) is in fact of the opinion that the NEPA process in the United States has 'turned environmentalists' efforts away from questioning and redefining agencies' powers and responsibilities and focussed them instead on analyzing documents. This preoccupation has led to a misallocation of the environmental movement's resources'. 

1. Supplementary administrative procedures need to be developed whenever there is a possibility that a proposed action may have an environmental impact on a neighbouring country, due to a shared river or transport of air pollution, for example. No general recommendation can be given here on the institutional arrangements most appropriate to avoid serious confrontations. However, inter-governmental authorities, such as the International Joint Commission established by the United States and Canada, have sometimes been successful in resolving trans-boundary problems.
2. Administrative procedures should include a provision for post-auditing of actions, to ensure compliance with the requirements and to test the validity of the predictions contained in the EIA. This recommendation is related to (c) above but is not quite so innovative. At the very least, environmental monitoring should be undertaken, and the data should be analysed. Post-audits can improve both the administrative arrangements and the scientific content of subsequent impact assessments. 
3. Finally, guidelines concerning administrative procedures should be prepared and made public. 

2.3 SEQUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING/DECISION-MAKING

In Figure 2.1, individual functions in the planning/decision-making process are numbered, 1 through 10. These are not necessarily separate operations in time or place nor are they necessarily performed by separate individuals or institutions. It is emphasized that the detailed way in which the environmental planning system operates depends upon the approach taken within a particular jurisdiction. The diagram is presented mainly to show the relationship of one function to the next, particularly the relationship of the assessment procedure to the overall decision- making process. The focus of this book is on functions 5 to 7, but it is necessary t o consider the entire sequence in order fully to appreciate the linkages and relationships. 

Figure 2.1 EIA as an integral part of the planning and decision-making process

 

Step 1 - Establishment of Goals 

Governments set goals. These goals may be general, e.g., economic development or human welfare, or specific, e.g., a detailed five-year plan. But whatever form they take and whoever sets them, goals establish the framework within which policies, programmes, and actions are implemented. 

If one goal is to ensure that environmental considerations receive adequate attention in the planning and implementation of actions, an EIA procedure is a way in which this can be achieved. 

Steps 2 and 3 - Establishment of Policy and Programme 

As Figure 2.1 indicates, the goal-setting process must be translated into actions via policy and programme activities. It is important to ensure that environmental considerations are raised and taken into account by the decision-maker as early as possible in the planning process and not, almost as an afterthought, just before a final decision is taken (in Step 7). This can be accomplished with a formal EIA of goals, policies, or programmes, in addition to the more usual EIAs of actions.

It should be noted that just as there are a number of feedback paths associated with the EIA process (see Figure 2.1), there should be similar loops built into the planning process, among Steps 1, 2, and 3 (feedback paths not shown in Figure 2.1).

Step 4 - Actions 

Actions may originate in several ways (see Figure 2.1): 

4A:	solely through programmes of the central government;
4B:	through programmes initiated by local levels of government or in the private sector, but supported financial1y through grants or loans from the central government;
4C:	through programmes initiated by local levels of government or in the private sector, but subject to approval or licensing by the central government.

  
Financial support may often come from sources outside the country, through multinational corporations or through international development agencies. 

Classes of actions include (a) engineering schemes such as the construction of pipelines or transportation systems, (b) administrative actions such as the reorganization of governmental services for forest management, and (c) legislative actions such as laws relating to land use or pesticide control. 

By their nature, proposed actions are intended to accomplish the primary mission of the agency involved, or serve the interest of the proposer in same way. In the past, such proposals have been considered by decision-makers on tradition al economic and political grounds, on their contribution to national goals and to the mission of the agency involved. Other factors, such as national security and diplomacy, were important in some cases. Until recently, however, effects on the quality of the environment have rarely been considered systematically. The ey sequence of environmental planning shown in Figure 2.1 (and particularly Steps 5 and 6) ensures that this component will not be overlooked. 

Step 5 - Determination of Significant Impact 

The evaluation of whether a proposal will significantly affect the environment is, in effect, a first screening of the proposal to decide whether or not a detailed EIA will be required, and to ensure that a range of alternatives is examined. This may be a simple judgement by the responsible official or advisory body, or it may be based on a formal document, brief but relevant, prepared by a small group of specialists.

If the responsible person or group decides that a proposed action will not a significantly affect the environment, then a so called negative determination is made (Step 6B) which may involve a public notice or explanation; steps are then taken to proceed with the proposed action. in some cases, an action by its nature or law may be exempt from the assessment process (e.g. an action in the United States to revise water-quality standards or to implement emergency health measures) responsible person a group simply identifies such cases. 

There is much to be said for the interactive approach in which assessor, developer (if not also assessor) environmental scientists (if not assessors), and administrators (who may be reviewers) form a group, iteratively conducting or guiding the assessment, and the adjusting development plans as ideas emerge. 

Step 6 - Environmental Impact Assessement

If a proposed action is believed to have potentially significant impacts on the environment, then an EIA is performed on the proposed action and on feasible alternatives (Step 6A). (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the content of an EIA.) It is at this point that the public (which includes both the general public and special interest groups) may provide input into the process in many countries (Step 10). (See Chapter 6.)

An important potential result of the EIA process is the development of new alternatives that may lessen the environmental impacts. These will be fed back into Step 6, so that an iterative process may eventually allow the project to proceed to Step 8. This approach to an EIA is shown schematically in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 The consideration of alternatives to achieve a goal; an iterative procedure

Step 7- Decision-Making 

After review of the EIA, the decision-maker may decide that the action should proceed (Step 7A) or that it is environmentally unsatisfactory (Step 7B). In the latter case, the proposed action may either be withdrawn, or be modified and fed back again into the EIA process. 

The decision-maker may range from a president or prime minister down to designated official or a committee in a particular department or agency. Whoever he may be, he will wish to make a wise decision, although the task is not easy because of the large number of political, environmental, and other factors which often al1 in conflict with one another. If a penalty is to be paid for preservation of environmental quality and if it is not too great, the decision-maker wi1l probably accept the recommendations of the assessor. If the penalty is large, he may have considerable difficulty in reaching a decision. If such difficulty is encountered, an independent review of the assessment may be helpful. 

The duty of the assessor is not to persuade the decision-maker to cast his vote always on the side of the environment. However, the assessor has a responsibility to bring the environmental issues into focus, providing a significant input into the development of alternative management strategies, and thus into the decision-making process. The assessor should not be surprised or discouraged if economic development, balance of payments, international obligations, or national prestige are overriding considerations on occasion. 

Sometimes the EIA itself will contain conflicting objectives, e.g., the maintenance of water quality at the expense of air quality. The assessor will usually assign a system of weights when he makes his recommendations. However, the various components should be clearly separated in order that the reviewer and the decision-maker may change these weights to accommodate other considerations such as the relative political sensitivities of neighbouring countries to releases of air versus water pollutants. 

Step 8 -Implementation 

Implementation involves several functions: detailed planning, design, construction, and operation. Implementation may be carried out by a designated government agency or by others. In the case of non-governmental implementation, there is still a responsibility within government to ensure compliance with regulations and standards. 

Step 9 -Post-Audit 

The whole implementation process -planning, initiation, and operation ^_ should remain under review to ensure that the designated environmental quality standards are achieved, for example, by continued monitoring of certain features of the environment. Not only may such data be used to verify the predictions made for the selected alternative, but also they may contribute to the improvement of future assessments. The continuing review may improve the goal-setting and decision-making processes by providing information on the environmental effectiveness of each action. 

We recommend that in a few cases at least, reasonably comprehensive post-audits of EIAs be made a year or so after completion of the actions, to determine other accuracy of the pre-assessment process and to advance the scientific basis for impact assessments. To our knowledge, validation has rarely if ever been undertaken, largely because no provision has been made in the budget of any proposed action.

2.4 THE PLAYERS 

The responsibilities of individuals and groups of individuals who participate in the EIA process vary from country to country. In each case, the roles should be explicitly delineated, and the procedure to be followed should be understood by all the players, including the public.

The following comments about the various players in the EIA process may be helpful. 

Decision-maker ^_ can be a head of state, a group of ministers, and elected body, or a single designated individual. 

Assessor ^_ is the person, agency or company having responsibility for preparing the EIA. 

Proponent ^_ can be a government agency or a private firm wishing to initiate the project. 

Reviewer ^_ is the person, agency or board with responsibility for reviewing the EIA and assuring compliance with published guidelines or regulations. 

Other government agencies ^_ are agencies with a special interest in the project. They may be components of the national government services or they may be associated with provinces, states, cities or villages. 

Expert advisors ^_ are persons with the specialized knowledge required to evaluate the proposed action. They may come from within or outside the government service. 

Public at large ^_ includes citizens and the press. 

Special interest groups ^_ includes environmental organizations, labour unions, professional societies, and local associations. 

International ^_ refers to neighbouring countries or intergovernmental bodies, and indicates the need in some cases for consultations with these bodies. 

Appendix 2 gives examples of administrative arrangements at the national level in different countries. These are illustrative, and by no means represent the whole range of possible procedures.

*The responsible person or body is hereafter called the assessor

Back to Table of Contents

The electronic version of this publication has been prepared at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India.