Empirical evidence for EIA effectiveness

Initially, during the early years of EIA application, many EIA advocates were convinced that EIA was indeed able to protect the environment and lead to better decisions. Wandesforde-Smith and Kerbavaz (1988, p.162), for example, stated that: “At the US federal level, impact assessment works. We know it works to influence project selection and design and to mitigate

environmental impacts”

Subsequently, EIA became subjected to much criticism, in particular in the second half of the 1990s and the first few years of the 2000s. This was connected with the so-called ‘post-modern’ turn in decision-making and planning. Those propagating it did not believe that an instrument based on a rational framework was able to influence decisions. This, they argued could only be achieved through discourse. However, studies evaluating EIA at the time found that while there clearly were problems, overall EIA clearly did have an impact on decision-making and was making decisions more environmentally sustainable. One example is shown in Table 13.1, looking at various aspects that are said to contribute to EIA as a successful policy instrument, following work by Sadler (2004).

Table 13.1: Current performance of aspects that contribute to making EIA a successful policy instrument

Aspect Evaluated Score / rating

Test 1: Wide adoption and use B+

Test 2: Record of process innovation or improvement B

Test 3: Inclusion of new areas and aspects A-

Test 4: Added value to decision-making and condition setting C+ Test 5: Effective means of achieving environmental protection C- Evaluation scale:

A = The feature is represented fully and completely

B = The feature is represented well but there are minor qualifications C = The feature is represented but there are a number of reservations D = The feature is not represented well

E = The feature is represented only minimally or incipiently Source: Sadler, 2004

Another study by Wood (2003) compared the influence of EIA reports on decisions for seven countries (See: Table 13.2). He found that in all countries there were regulatory requirements for the EIA report to be considered in decision- making and that in practice six of the seven countries could demonstrate partial influence. Wood concluded that although all countries had differing mechanisms for trying to make sure EIA gets considered, decision makers often try to circumvent them, based on other political or social agendas. Quite a few other studies confirmed his results, establishing an overall moderate impact of EIA only (Wood and Jones, 1997; Cashmore et al., 2004; Christensen et al., 2005; Jay et al., 2007).

In 1990, the Dutch Evaluation Committee (in Sadler 1996) found that early (i.e. pre-1990) EC Directive based EIAs had only a negligible or at

best small influence on project development, if compared with the time and money spent on them. However, it also found that just over half (52%) of the EIAs had led to concrete

modifications of the project and that 68% had influenced the parties involved in the project making process.

Papoulias and Nelson (1996) conducted a survey of EU member states’ competent authorities’ opinions on the effectiveness of EIA. They found that overall, EIA was perceived as being effective. Furthermore, they established that overall, EIA was perceived as having an overall positive cost- benefit ratio, i.e. EIA was value for money in terms of leading to changes in underlying projects. Ten Heuvelhof and Nauta (1997) found that EIAs in the Netherlands had a great impact, suggesting that 79% of Dutch EIAs showed high direct Criterion question: Must the findings of the EIA report and the review be a central determinant of the decision on the action?

Jurisdiction Criterion met? Comment

United States Partially Consideration in and explanation of, decision and disclosure of environmental effects mandatory. In practice, EIS often influences decisions

United Kingdom Partially Environmental information is a material consideration but not necessarily a central determinant. Practice varies.

The Netherlands Partially Explanation of way environmental impacts considered in decision- making mandatory. In practice, EIA generally influences decisions. Canada Partially Findings of self-directed assessment influence minister’s decision:

reason must be given by relevant authority when cabinet disagrees with recommendations of public review report

Australia Partially Environment Australia’s assessment report based on EIA report must be taken into account in determining Environmental Minister’s decision on approval.

New Zealand Partially Act makes EIA central to decision but, in practice, EIA is sometimes not given appropriate weight. Practice improving.

South Africa No Environmental authorisation must be based on scoping report or environmental impact report but decision sometimes narrowly based on nature conservation matters, not on full range of EIR issues. Refusals rare.

Source: Retief, 2008, based on Wood, 2003

benefits. Furthermore, they specified that even when taking into account the time and financial efforts required to produce an EIA, 69% of them would still have a beneficial impact. They identified three reasons for their findings: (1) the process-bound nature of EIA; (2) the possibility of considering EIA as part of the negotiation arena; and (3) the presence of the EIA Committee and its role in the process.

Marr (1997) examined EIA practice for wastewater treatment plants conducted between the late 1980s and 1993 in the UK and Germany. Her findings of practice in the early days of formal EIA requirements in both countries indicate a rather varied picture regarding the influence of EIA on decision-making. While half of 27 interviewed competent authorities from the UK who expressed an opinion said that EIA had led to modifications in a wastewater treatment project (more than 80% said the EIA-report was an important consideration), only one third of the 34 interviewed German competent authorities shared this opinion (with less than 50% saying that the EIA-report was an important consideration). Marr’s study is particularly useful in terms of raising questions on possible differences between different countries and sectors, but also regarding the importance of considering the overall context within which EIA is applied. Thus, the

comparatively low impact in the German case was found to be connected with the existence of a formal landscape / environmental planning system which had been in existence in Germany since the late 1970s, following requirements formulated in the Federal Nature Conservation Act 1976. This was already fulfilling many of the tasks that EIA is supposed to deliver.

Based on a quality review of 112 EIA reports from eight EU member states i.e. Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Spain, the UK, Belgium, Ireland and Greece, Barker and Wood (1999) concluded that ‘there is no doubt that the EIA process is bringing about modifications to the projects assessed,

although many of the mitigation measures proposed are of minor significance’.

Nitz and Holland (2000) looked at environmental management commitments made within 285 Australian EIA reports. They found that a majority of these contained environmental monitoring and mitigation commitments. More than half of the EIA reports also contained suggestions for corrective actions.

Wende (2001) examined the performance of 125 EIAs in Germany that had been prepared between 1990 and 1997. In this context, he looked at the impacts of these EIAs on ‘spatial modifications in planning decisions’, and compared outcomes with eleven projects which did not include EIA (these ranged from roads and waterways, over shopping and recreational to waste disposal and sewage treatment projects). Importantly, he found that there was a significant difference in the predicted direction i.e. spatial modifications of projects involving EIA.

Christensen et al. (2005) evaluated 36 Danish EIAs. They found that in 90% of these, projects were modified based on EIA. However, they also established that most of these were only minor. Finally, a comment on post-EIA auditing. Auditing allows to establish whether EIA ‘greening’ efforts are based on correct predictions. If predictions turn out to be largely incorrect, then ‘greening’ may be judged as not having been successfully achieved. In this context, it appears that we are witnessing a slow improvement of the situation. Thus, while in 1988, Bisset and Tomlinson identified 95% of all EIS predictions as either incorrect, unsure, unverifiable or non-quantifiable, Dipper et al.(1998) found that ‘only’ 55% fell into this category. Of those predictions that were auditable, nearly three -quarters were accurate. More research in this context is urgently needed. More recently, Phylip-Jones and Fischer (2013) evaluated the application and impact of EIA for

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Reduction in the

number of turbines Change in the wind farm layout specific wind turbine A stipulation of a type or size

Condition on the overall operating life-

time

Condition for site re-

instatement construction activity Restrictions on (hours)

Conditions relating to electrical cable

routing

Number of mitigation measures

UK Onshore Wind Farm EIA UK Offshore Wind Farm EIA German Onshore Wind Farm EIA German Offshore Wind Farm EIA twenty wind farms (ten onshore and ten offshore)

in the UK and Germany. They established a major to moderate impact on the decisions made (Figure 13.3).

They also provided for an overview of the type and extent of measures adopted in wind farm developments based on EIA. This is summarised in Figure 13.4. In all twenty cases conditions

were included on the overall operating lifetime of the wind farm and the site re-instatement after operation. Furthermore, fifteen cases included a reduction in the number of turbines and ten restrictions on construction activity. Further measures considered included changes to wind farm layouts, stipulations of specific wind turbine types or sizes and conditions relating to electrical cable routing.

Figure 13.3: Decision makers’ perceptions on the overall influence of EIA

Source: Phylip-Jones and Fischer, 2013

Figure 13.4: Type and extent of mitigation measures in wind farm EIAs

Source: Phylip-Jones and Fischer, 2013

0 1 2 3

Major Moderate Minor None

Number of respondents

Effect of EIA on decision-making

UK Onshore EIA Decision Makers German Onshore EIA decision makers UK offshore EIA decision makers German Offshore EIA decision makers

N=20 3 5 2 5 1 1 1 4 ₃ 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 5 5 2 1 1