What Is Wrong with the Alternatives Analysis in EIA Today?

What is wrong with the "alternatives analysis" in EIA today?

Introduction

The environmental situation in the US and the means to handle that, together with the public concern for the environment, was driving factors behind the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act – NEPA of 1969 1. The special action forcing clause section 102, within NEPA, sets the requirements for making decisions about federal activities, which might have a significant impact on the environment. It regulates both the requirement for the environmental impact statement – the EIS – and the procedure for performing the document. This instrument, internationally called Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA – was later implemented in federal states and many other countries legal system and adopted by international organisations.

The discussion in the US was early about what really was the point of requiring an EIA, if it was all right for an agency to later decide contrary to what was the most sensible decision from an environmental point of view. These discussions actually circled around NEPAs requirement to include investigation of “alternatives to the proposed action”. The requirement to evaluate alternatives has been seen as the backbone of the EIA. As time has passed, the purpose of assessing alternatives seems to have been lost. It has been replaced by a focus on a post hoc analysis of a decision already made in order to promote the proposed activity, despitealternative assessmentbeing a mandatory requirement in both national and international legislation.

This paper focuses the requirements for assessing alternatives within EIA, how this requirement is fulfilled in practice, why alternatives analysis has become one of the most abused parts of the EIA-tool and the significance of alternatives. Our point of departure is strong sustainability.

The significance of alternatives

The general idea behind requirements to assess alternatives is that it will promote better decisions as the decision-makers become aware of alternative ways to achieve the same goals. The underlying purpose (i.e. the objective purpose) is the basis for identifying the very need of the proposed action. If there is a need for an action, assessment of reasonable alternatives to that action clarifies if the proposed action is the most effective. When the courts in the US in the beginning rejected many EIAs, it of course made authorities and exploitation interests insecure. This uncertainty was met by formulating the principle of Rule of Reason and introducing scoping, with bearings on requirements for alternatives and how to limit the EIA.

EIA is about effective resource use, minimizing environmental degradation from a perspective of the wellbeing of future generations. Requirements to assess alternatives are overall proactive. It focuses on solutions, often long term, rather than problems and can thus promote innovative thinking.

There has for a long time been a need for new solutions to old problems, which has called for new approaches – EIA is one of them. Without alternatives, old habits are reinforced, with a risk that proponents limit themselves to activities that old fashioned, in efficient but are well-known to them and within what they consider most profitable.

Furthermore formulation of alternatives is central to the transparency of the EIA-process. Different perspectives can be discussed and clarified. This is in fact why alternatives can be seen as “a scary business” for proponents. The participation of an engaged public ensure the contribution of new perspectives and an overall increased knowledge. This will give all a better understanding, which can lead to fewer misunderstandings and conflicts 4.

Despite an insufficient assessment of alternatives in most EIA-processes, there are, however, a few examples where the assessment of alternatives has contributed to the improvement of the project.

The goal of sustainable development implies that there is a need for new approaches and new ways of thinking. This is underpinned not least by WCED5 and in the Rio Declaration 6. This means that there is a need for new solutions for old problems, and need for new approaches to old, existing and future needs. Without alternatives, old habits are reinforced and there is a risk that proponents only seeks solutions that are well-known and within what is most profitable for them.

All of this boils down to that the assessment of alternatives enables the “higher goal” of EIA, which is the well being of future generations. An EIA is not made in order to fulfil the proponent subjective goal, unless that coincides with the “higher” goal.

Alternatives in EIA practice

From an international point of view the legal requirements to assess alternatives to the proposed action varies. However in many countries it is clearly stated that it is a must. The burden of proof principle makes the proponent responsible for proving that the proposed action is the most appropriate one in relation to other comparable alternatives, also those outside the proponent’s sphere, and that there is a need for the purpose of the proposed activity.

In practise there is a range of deviations, since the focus in EIA documents is on the proponent’s project design. This range of abuses is of three types. First, no alternative besides the proponent’s alternative. Secondly, the presented alternatives are not “true” alternatives. They are not meaningful alternatives oralternatives limited purely to the proponent’s scope. The third type of alternative assessment contains alternatives that are almost possible to balance and they open up for some benefits of avoiding and minimizing impacts.

In general, mitigating measures dominate and the no action/zero alternative is seldom treated in a meaningful way. This shows that proponents have poor understanding of the function of or how to present alternatives.

There is no corporate interest to assess alternatives. This in combination with weak enforcement, weak governments and sometimes weak courts, increase the deficits of the assessments analysis. The public authorities and companies are in partnership in the EIA process, so authorities must therefore accept a greater responsibility. This is resources held at public trust.Decision-makers have the responsibility to the public to ensure that they have the larger concern up front and that they have done what they can.

Alternatives - the most abused part of the EIA-tool

From the above and underpinned by a number of articles it is evident that today´s EIA-practise, at times even denoted “best-practice”, over the years has deviate from the original intended pathway. EIA is, in general, no longer made in an unbiased way. Most prominent in this respect is the widespread acceptance to disregard the legal requirement to investigate “true” alternatives. This tendency has also spilled over to the reluctance to clearly state purpose, underlying purpose, and the need of a proposed activity. There are various explanations for this. Below are a few.

In the 1980s EIA rapidly spread all over the world and in e.g. the European Union enacted the EIA-directive for projects in 1985. Not clearly understanding the legal perspective together with a disregard of for restricting EIA to activities with “significant environmental effect” is one factor.

Another is the connection to the tiering process and different countries rather long history of physical planning. This was reflected in the late 1980s when making EIA on a strategic level – SEA – begun to gain momentum. Using the EIA-tool in physical planning clearly contributed to mix things up. Not considering the difference between e.g. a legally binding plan with a focussed purpose on the one hand, and a comprehensive not legally binding plan on the other hand clearly show this.

A third factor is the overall reluctance, not to say hostility, towards EIA-regulation from the industry. That has had a great influence. This is e.g. reflected in the EUs EIA directive. On a higher level the current EIA-situation reflects different worldviews. To reduce the importance of, or simply disregard requirement of, alternatives mirrors a weak sustainability perspective.

EIA – what is it?

There seems to be a reluctance to give EIA a comprehensive definition. Statements like “our definition” “we use an EIA definition” reveals that EIA can be quite a number of things. IAIA defined Environmental Impact Assessment as:

“The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made.“2

There are a number of reasons for defining EIA in a more precise way, so as to not make it more or less “anything goes”. Foremost because it is a legal requirement and a number of questions must be answered such as: What are its functions? Who will be affected by the requirements for an EIA? When is it to be performed? What is to be included? Who has the right to participate? Etc.

IAIA has arranged conferences since the early 1980s. The focus of the conferences was, in the beginning on how to conduct assessments, which would meet the NEPA requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)3. The motivation for creating IAIA was stated to be the enforcement of sec 102 in NEPA. Here the use of the term enforcement is of importance as it is linked to practice and to how to perform an EIA so as to “fulfil the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations” 1.

In the last twenty years or more, the fundamental legal requirements are no longer in focus. Instead the IAIA conferences now tend to embrace widespread sessions of impact assessments without the original intentions to follow up on the original EIA within NEPA. In this way the holistic approach and fundamentals of EIA are lost. There is no longer a framework or a clear focus and it really is not in line with IAIAs stated values or ethical responsibilities. This trend is underpinned by authors bunching EIA together with other environmental assessment tools without really clarifying or understanding the very significant legal function EIA has.

This situation has in recent years, led to the formulation of something called “orphans sessions”, with the aim to re-introduce and re-emphasise knowledge on the fundamental requirements of EIA. The concepts discussed at these sessions were at first screening, scoping, follow-up and tiering. Later more issues were identified as “orphans”, such as significance, integration, non-technical summaries and alternatives.This concern does not only reflect the absence of these issues at EIA conferences, but also that the fundamentals are neglected in practise as well. Such an attitude also mirrors a weak sustainability perspective.

Final comment

This paper has sought to reinforce the role of practitioners and perhaps IAIA as an organization in the meaningful practice of the alternatives analysis in EIA. In other words, what can we do to make the alternatives analysis count in project decision making? One way is to advocate for some simple tools as "best practice." One of the most basic tools is a table, arguably needed for every EIA analysis that compares and contrasts environmental and social impacts for a range of alternatives across resource categories. This may sound quite basic, but it is astonishing how often this tool is absent from the EIA. But since without having done an alternatives analysis, the table cannot be populated, it becomes quite clear when "the emperor wears no clothes".

Alternatives assessment is one function of EIA that needs to be improved for a more meaningful analysis in EIA practice. However, other functions of EIA also suffer of neglect. We invite all members in the IAIA organization to promote their use and let us do our part to "make alternatives count."

References

1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(Public Law 91–190)[accessed 2015Feb15].Available from:

2. International Association for Impact Assessment, Institute ofEnvironmental Assessment. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practice; [accessed 2014Sep22].Available from:

3. IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment), 2013.Annual report; [accessed 2015Feb15].Available from:

4. Carlman, I. 1992. Att acceptera eller inte acceptera: om intressemotsättningar och oenighet vid miljöpåverkande energiverksamheter [To accept or not accept: about conflicts of interest and disagreements in energy activities with environmental impact],Åmyra, Sweden: Åmyra Förlag.

5. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987.Our common future.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

6. United NationsGeneral Assembly. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Annex I Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,[accessed 2015Feb15].Available from:

1