Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent conditions?

Abstract

This study analysed 40 planning applications in the East of England to investigate the practice of translating paper recommendations in the environmental statement (ES) into legal conditions and obligations. A high proportion (50%) of suggested mitigation measures were not translated into planning conditions or obligations. However, a significant number of additional conditions or obligations, not directly based on the ES, were imposed on developers. The research suggests a mismatch between the practice of those producing ESs and the expectations of planning authorities, leading to inefficiency and, possibly, emasculation of environmental impact assessment through a failure to implement mitigation. Several recommendations are made to increase the effectiveness of the implementation and integration of mitigation measures.

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

“…Overall, the number of cases where uncertainties identified in the EIS were not addressed by follow-up, or by any other means, was higher than the number of cases where uncertainties were addressed. The proponent's EIS typically relied on the anticipated success of mitigation measures, on contingency plans, and on follow-up programs that were never discussed in depth with regard to uncertainties À an approach characterized by Tinker et al (2005) as 'paper promises'.…”

EIA and EMS integration: not wasting the opportunity

“…they don't reflect what's actually going to happen over the next couple of years'. Previous studies have identified the frequent time lapses between the EIA and development completion as a potential limit to EIA effectiveness (Tinker et al 2005). Again this concern does not recognise the role that EMS (and indeed EIA follow-on) can play in ensuring EIA outputs are integrated with the EMS.…”

“…Insufficient implementation of mitigation measures has been highlighted as a flaw of EIA (Sánchez & Hacking 2002), and research has found EIA to be successful in some respects (Tinker et al 2005;Jay et al 2007;Obradovic 2011;Bassi et al 2012) but has also questioned its overall effectiveness, particularly when there is no legislation requiring follow-up (Arts 1998;Nitz & Holland 2000;Gallardo & Sánchez 2004;Slinger et al 2005;Morrison-Saunders et al 2007).…”

“…Building on research undertaken by Arts and Nooteboom (1999) and Rondinelli and Vastag (2000), Marshall et al (2005) noted that the costs associated with follow-up could be managed by tailoring the approach according to the needs of each project. Tinker et al (2005) proposed that further research was still needed into cost-effective options for improving practice.…”

“…'Follow up' is used to describe EIA activities including 'monitoring, auditing, ex-post evaluation, post--decision analysis and post-decision management' (Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004). Whilst in most countries like the UK, EIA follow-up is not mandatory and thus has had questionable impact (Tinker et al 2005), Arts (1998) explored the role that follow-up can play, particularly in the context of the Netherlands where it is compulsory. EIA follow-up has been further examined by numerous researchers since (see Arts et al 2001;Morrison-Saunders et al 2001;Marshall 2002Marshall , 2005 Research on the interlinking of EIA and EMS on a case study basis has occurred over a number of industries, such as the Finnish paper industry (Kuisma et al 2001), for pipeline projects (Lien & Colosimo 2008) and industrial estate developments ).…”