© SE Solutions 2010 WHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FAILS Sean O’Beirne Sustainable Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd

© SE Solutions 2010

WHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FAILS

Sean O’BeirneSustainable

Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd


WHERE ARE WE?

Over 40 years of EIA - enactment of the U.S. National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970;

Environmental Conservation Act 1989; 1997 Regulations 1182 and 1183 – EIA formalised; National Environmental Management Act 1998; NEMA Regulations 2006; Amended in 2010; 15 years of formalised EIA in South Africa (and at

least 20 years of unregulated EIA before that);

What has happened – what has that achieved ?


Rank Country Code PD PGR GOV GNI NFL HBC MC FER WTP THR CO2 aENV1 Brazil BRA 166 114 95 159 1 3 30 3 8 4 4 4.52 USA USA 156 139 20 167 21 211.5 3 1 2 9 1 5.93 China CHN 64 149 129 166 216 36 1 1 6 2 6.74 Indonesia IDN 74 118 153 153 2 183 6 6 7 3 3 75 Japan JPN 23 188 30 165 73 5 4 17 5 23.5 6 10.86 Mexico MEX 131 115 93 156 9 211.5 17 13 17 1 12 13.67 India IND 21 90 106 164 214 137 8 2 3 8 8 13.78 Russia RUS 194 202 141 158 12 125 7 18 4 26 5 13.99 Australia AUS 209 127 11 152 10 7 47 9 31 11.5 18 15.2

10 Peru PER 168 111 120 119 27 30 2 46 49 7 27 18.311 Argentina ARG 181 134 121 149 19 11 21 23 22 16 31 19.612 Canada CAN 204 141 10 155 133.5 6 19 7 16 71 10 19.813 Malaysia MYS 102 60 71 131 39 170 16 22 24 10 9 24.314 Myanmar MMR 111 132 197 4 18 22 113 102 25 14 25.215 Ukraine UKR 103 208 137 141 201 1 39 36 11 90 25.616 Thailand THA 71 145 90 148 28 211.5 9 11 20 29 26.417 Philippines PHL 36 70 122 144 22 168 12 27 21 11.5 33 26.618 France FRA 79 172 24 161 210 26 4 9 116.5 16 26.719 South Africa ZAF 147 93 72 147 63 43 25 28 19 31 17 29.420 Colombia COL 146 102 138 139 43 162 64 30 30 2 32 30.7

WHERE ARE WE? (cont.)

Population density (PD), population growth rate (PGR), governance quality (GOV), Gross National Income (GNI), natural forest loss (NFL), natural habitat conversion (HBC), marine captures (MC), fertilizer use (FER), water pollution (WTP), threatened species (THR), and carbon emissions (CO2).(Bradshaw CJA, Giam X, Sodhi NS (2010) Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440).


Descriptors

Population density (PD) rank; Population growth rate (PGR) rank; Governance quality (GOV) rank; Gross National Income (GNI) rank; Natural forest loss (NFL) rank; Natural habitat conversion (HBC) rank; Marine captures (MC) rank; Fertilizer use (FER) rank; Water pollution (WTP) rank; Threatened species (THR) rank; and, Carbon emissions (CO2) rank.


WHY DOES EIA FAIL? Principles - is EIA a business or a service to society?; Competence – how much do we really know?; Tools – are we able to make the correct predictions?; Identity – are EIAs really there to make people happy

– they certainly think so ?; Bureaucracy – have EIAs become the fly reports of

environmental protection ?; Role - do EIAs assess or justify developments?; Stature – is EIA really the mechanism to address our

failing (flailing) environment ?; and, What of sustainable development in all of this? General.


PRINCIPLES Why do practitioners do EIAs?

To make a living - EIA is a business. Difficult things to tell clients:

Your project is fatally flawed; Your royalty payments are too low; The economic merits of your project are questionable; There is no rationale for your project; Your technology is defunct; Your project will use too much water; The property you purchased is in the wrong place; You must employ more people; and, You are dishonest and unethical.


PRINCIPLES (cont.) But surely there are checks and balances?

Yes – we have requirements for independence; Why the independence requirements are futile:

He who pays the piper...... Independence does not guarantee an unbiased

assessment in the same way that a lack of independence does not guarantee bias;

Technically as an EAP I cannot have any kind of investment – not even a pension - because the argument can always be made that the project for which I did an EIA improved the financial performance of say Anglo or BHP Billiton or some such.


COMPETENCE - PRACTITIONERS Everyone can do EIA regardless of training – and believe

me everyone does; Generalists masquerade as specialists – Frylinck court

ruling; Being a specialist does not mean that you can effectively

assess a particular impact; Practitioners compelled to define mitigation – may not

be the best people to do so; Major disagreements even amongst good specialists –

e.g. how best to effect rehabilitation; Description versus assessment – Wordsworth versus

Einstein; and, General paucity of good environmental information.


COMPETENCE - AUTHORITIES

Expected to know everything about everything – why I plan to make my teenage sons authorities;

Many are junior and inexperienced but must review and cast judgement on multiple diverse projects;

Many authorities later become practitioners but not many practitioners become authorities;

Some frightening examples of incompetence and particular problems with RoDs; and,

‘Overworked’ and limited performance management – meeting timings for decisions in regulations.


COMPETENCE – DEVELOPERS

EIA typically perceived as a frustrating, valueless and time-wasting side-show;

Question how many would get done if not regulated; Seldom respect EIA and its purported purpose; Always know better – maybe this is where my kids

should be; Typically drive for simply meeting regulatory

requirements – don’t see EIA as a strategic exercise; Almost always think that it should cost less and take

less time; and, Don’t always relate well to the need for specialists.


TOOLS Assessment tools are limited and there is too much

reliance on personal (albeit scientifically defendable) opinion;

Atmospheric dispersion modelling one of few formalised assessment tools – not without problems;

Human health assessments limited to incremental disease risks, mostly inhalation (fixation);

No assessment of human welfare; No real integration across disciplines; Not clear how to deal with existing baseline condition; Ascription of significance highly problematic and

inconsistent;


TOOLS (cont.) Lots of process prescription but little attention to

methods; Too much latitude to do whatever seems appropriate as

an assessment method; Too much description not enough assessment – e.g.

geological descriptions; Failure to address the ‘so-what’ question; How scientific are EIAs – are they real science or simply

the application of principles that real science has uncovered?; and,

EIAs are in themselves predictive – by definition there will be some (possibly lots) of inaccuracy in that.


Need

Proposed development

Activities

Aspects Receiving environment

Impacts

© SE Solutions 2010Activities Aspects Receiving environment Impacts

Air

Power generation

PM 10

CO 2

SO2

Emiss

ions

Climate change

Temperature change


Natural sources

Air

Carbon cycle

Power generation

PM 10

CO 2

SO2

Emiss

ions

Climate change

Temperature change

Solar cycles

Earth inclination


Natural sources

Air

Carbon cycle

Power generation

PM 10

CO 2

SO2

Emiss

ions

Climate change

Temperature change

Solar cycles

Earth inclination

Precipitation change

Sea temperature change

Ocean circulation change

9-10

3-10


Decant

Surface water flow

Power generation

Ecosystem structure/function

Other users

Basic human needs

Effluent

Surface water quality

Groundwater flow

Groundwater quality

Riperian condition

SB condition

Sedimentation

Rainfall

Evaporation

Geology

Aquifer features

Recharge

Surface water biota

Abstraction

Land-use Water release

Inundation Inundation

Seepage


IDENTITY EIA does not seem to make anyone happy; Huge difference between consultation and participation; Gautrain judgement – judge ruled EIA not required to

make everyone happy – just give everyone a chance to participate ???

People fundamentally object to a development – EIA typically one of few or even only avenue for objection;

In these circumstances will never like the findings regardless of objectivity, scientific merit etc.

People opposed to nuclear power, incineration etc. are never going to accept a finding that says ‘no problem here!’ ;


IDENTITY (cont.) Deep resentment towards EIA as a mechanism for

deciding on proposed developments; Expectation that EIA should find the ‘right way’ of doing

things such as generating power, disposing of hazardous waste etc.

Naive expectations of developers motives – expect that developers should be directed in the ‘right way’ – fails to recognise that EIA an assessment of developments proposed by developers;

Multiple diverse expectations of EIA by multiple diverse stakeholders – can simply never satisfy them all.


BUREAUCRACY What are fly reports? EIAs ostensibly provide for informed decision-makers; Decision-making process highly questionable;

Political interference and motives; Little or no authority over other government

departments – DEA versus DMR or Housing; No fixed strategic decision-making framework; First come first served basis; Very few negative decisions; Process – ‘check box’ mentality – reject applications

because they did not properly consider alternatives; Authorities themselves fail to uphold the law – eg

maintenance of the ecological reserve;


BUREAUCRACY (cont.) Progressive “dumbing down” of the regulations;

Force practitioners to make the decisions; No provision for exemption; Fundamental problem with ‘scheduled activity’

approach – tax law; Progressively reducing the need for thinking in

decision-making; Bureaucracy

Time limits simply not respected; Frightening regulations:

(1) A competent authority must meet timeframes applicable to competent authorities in terms of these Regulations.(2) Where the applicable timeframes contemplated in regulations 24(1)(a), 25(1), 30(1), 34(2) or 35, as the case may be, are not met, those applicable timeframes are automatically extended by 60 days.


BUREAUCRACY (cont.)

Compliance and enforcement of authorisation conditions (and the law for that matter) leaves a great deal to be desired;

Just seems to have lost all semblance of why EIA regulations were introduced in the first place;

A complete and dismal failure to properly regulate and control mining – political power of DMR versus DEA; and,

Seriously question the value of the decisions, the authorisations and the associated conditions that derive from the regulations.


ROLE What is the real role of an EIA – is it to assess or justify

development?; Provide a case study of a project in Russia – the

Boguchanskaya Hydropower Project (BHPP) to examine this question;


BHPP

CHINA

MONGOLIA

KAZAKHSTAN

IRAN

Moscow

St. Petersburg

Volgograd Yekaterinburg

Ikurtsk Ulan Ude

Omsk

Perm

Murmansk

Grozny

Krasnoyarsk

Magadan

Vladivostok

Ukhta

Samara

Barnaul


Lake Baikal is the oldest (25 million years) and deepest (1,700 m) lake in the world.

3.15-million-ha Contains 20% of the world's total unfrozen freshwater

reserve. The 'Galapagos of Russia', contains one of the world's

richest and most unusual freshwater faunas Outstanding variety of endemic flora and fauna, which

is of exceptional value to evolutionary science. It is also surrounded by a system of protected areas that

have high scenic and other natural values.

LAKE BAIKAL


Angara River, flows out of Lake Baikal and has a length of some 1 779 km;

The overall Angara basin area is 1,039,000 km²; The biggest single source of flow is Lake Baikal, which

accounts for about 45 % of the total annual flow, and up to 80% of the wintertime flow;

The annual flow of the Angara (average flow rate of 3, 380m3/s);

Three major hydropower dams; and, BHPP is the fourth and a fifth is planned as well.

THE ANGARA RIVER


Irkutsk

BHPP

Bratsk

Ust-Ilimsk


Water surface area: 2,326 km2; Reservoir volume: 58.2 km3 (average flow rate exceeds

the reservoir volume by 1.9 times); Catchment area: 831,000 km2

Average discharge from the BHPP: 107.7 km3

Installed capacity – 3000 MW (9 turbines with a capacity of 333 MW each);

Average annual electricity output – 17.6 billion kW-h; and,

Approx. 4 000 people to be resettled.

THE BHPP



Planning started in 1950s; Construction started in 1980 stopped in 1990 due to

lack of funding; Resettlement process half completed; Villages split in two; Economic destitution; and, State of communities/villages

THE BHPP


Shore line erosion (14%) and peat flotation; Induced seismicity; Loss of terrestrial ecosystems; Microclimate change; Greenhouse gas emissions; Changes in hydrological, ice, and thermal conditions; Changes in hydrochemistry and water quality – anthrax; Changes in hydrobiology; Social impacts on the recipient settlements; Changes in quality of life and lifestyles, local community

disruption and loss of cultural heritage.

SOME IMPACTS


How on earth is an EIA going to deal with all of that?; Do we seriously think that someone is going to say no?; What of the damage done by the 3 other HPPs?; What of downstream impacts of the electricity users?; How do we address the social consequences of the

stopped resettlement process; Who really benefits from the project going ahead?; Олег Дерипаска - Deripaska's total wealth at $14

billion; So where’s the planning?

THE QUESTION(S) IS(ARE) ?


EIA is not a planning tool – time we recognised that (unless you view drawing up a shopping list as planning);

At best an aid to implementation to reduce negative impacts and enhance positives;

At worst there to justify development; Have to influence planning at a much more strategic

level ; May not be achieved through ‘assessment’ Have to identify the political and economic levers that

bring about change and ‘play their game’.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US ?


EIA cannot improve the environment – at best slow the rate at which the environment is being degraded;

Cannot deal with policy issues such as energy mix, hazardous waste disposal, allocation of scarce resources, cross border impacts – repeatedly expected to?

Cannot deal with existing environmental problems – death by a thousand cuts;

Widely perceived as an obstacle to development – not EIA but bureaucracy that is the obstacle ;

Impotence of DEA to go up against development imperatives that face the country.

STATURE


Indeed what of it? Widely expected that EIA must somehow promote SD – smoking mushroom syndrome;

Only thing sustainable about sustainable development is development;

If EIA cannot improve the situation – cannot by definition promote SD;

EIA cannot modify development proposals to the extent needed to truly promote SD;

EIA is failed by principles, competence, tools, identity, bureaucracy, role and stature in promoting SD.

WHAT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (SD)?


Resource use

Water resource protection

Human heath

Socio-economics

Macro-economics

Biodiversity and land potential

THE SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE


Naturalenvironment

Economy

Society

EconomyNatural

environment Society

TWO RENDITIONS OF SD


Burst into tears and think about changing careers ?; All about finding the rightful place for EIA –

entrenching principles, growing competence, expanding tools, establishing identity, reducing bureaucracy and finding other means of supplementing or otherwise overcoming the requirements that EIA simply cannot address;

All about SD – no doubt that EIA has a role to play, but limitations have to be recognized AND accepted;

Have to move away from making EIA the panacea to all environmental ills.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US ?

Documents

© SE Solutions 2010 WHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FAILS Sean O’Beirne Sustainable Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd