EIA and EMS integration: not wasting the opportunity

Abstract

Environmental tools such as environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental management systems (EMS) can be applied to ensure that major projects are constructed and operated using an approach that enables effective environmental protection. Previous research has shown that these tools are frequently applied in isolation at different stages of the project life cycle. The extent of EIA/EMS integration amongst nine of the biggest UK waste management companies was investigated through semi-structured interviews with environmental staff and thematic analysis of their responses. The research found that partial integration of EIA and EMS is widespread. Companies recognised a range of potential benefits to more closely integrating their processes such as system efficiencies, data availability and recognition from the regulator. However, significant barriers to further integration were identified in the form of cost, company structure and the size of the organisation. In a context where the regulation of the waste industry is increasingly aligned towards a risk-based approach, there is a new opportunity to use EIA outputs in an enhanced EMS. More generally, companies should seek to maintain continuity of personnel across the project life cycle and structure their environmental functions so that EIA and EMS staff can work more closely. This would help ensure that the greatest benefit is derived from both tools.

Towards an effective environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the industrial sector of Bahrain, Arabian Gulf

“…It has been proposed that linkage between EMS and EIA enables a more comprehensive approach to environmental management where shortcomings in the EIA process can be addressed by the EMS process and vice versa. Additionally, EMS can fulfil the role of EIA follow-up (Hollands & Palframan, 2014). The framework represents clearly that mitigation measures should be translated into management plans, which are prepared at the stage of EIA and enforced at the stage of execution.…”

“…Although the energy aspects were not translated to management plans, this reflects an area of improvement, where adopting EnMS is an effective measure to properly improve energy management and enhance the conservation of energy within industrial premises (Dorr, Wahren, & Bauernhansl, 2013). EnMS ISO 50001 is an internationally recognized system implementing measures for effective energy management and conservation of energy within such industrial premises (Ates & Durakbasa, 2012;Dorr et al, 2013;Dzene, Polikarpova, Zogla, & Rosa, 2015;Hollands & Palframan, 2014;Jovanovic & Filipovic, 2016). In general, an EnMS should consist of energy policy with strategic and operational energy goals by evaluating the progress and taking corrective actions towards these goals.…”

“…Alignment between environmental tools such as EIA and EMS with a project cycle can contribute positively to the practice of EIA and preserve the integrity of the environment (Brent & Petrick, 2007;Brown & Hill, 1995;Hollands & Palframan, 2014;Ridgway, 1999).…”

Comparative analysis of enabling legislation for EIA follow-up in Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan (and Aqaba)

“…An added value of this inter-linkage is that EMS can serve to inform on whether the impacts predicted during the EIA actually occurred. It can also help identify and manage any impacts that had not been previously predicted, improving knowledge for future EIAs for similar activities (Hollands & Palframan 2014).…”

Distilling and Applying Criteria for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up

“…Despite being an essential component of best practice EIA (IAIA and IEA, 1999) there has been frequent criticism that micro level EIA follow-up is largely neglected or poorly developed in formal practice (Sadler 1996;Wood et al, 2000;Runhaar et al, 2013); it was even described by Hollands and Palframan (2014) as the 'missing link' (p.43) in EIA. We note that, conversely, there is a long tradition of academic EIA follow-up studies at the project level that audit the accuracy and impact outcomes for predictions made in the preapproval stages of EIA (e.g., Bisset, 1984;Culhane, 1985;Culhane et al, 1987;Bailey et al, 1992;Wood et al, 2000;Noble and Storey, 2005;Jalava et al, 2015) and/or compliance with and subsequent performance of mitigation measures proposed by proponents or imposed on them through conditions of approval (e.g.…”