Angus Morrison-Saunders

Sustainability assessment: the state of the art

Sustainability assessment is a recent framing of impact assessment that places emphasis on delivering positive net sustainability gains now and into the future. It can be directed to any type of decision-making, can take many forms and is fundamentally pluralistic. Drawing mainly on theoretical papers along with the few case study examples published to date (from England, Western Australia, South Africa and Canada), this paper outlines what might be considered state-of-the-art sustainability assessment. Such processes must: (i) address sustainability imperatives with positive progress towards sustainability; (ii) establish a workable concept of sustainability in the context of individual decisions/assessments; (iii) adopt formal mechanisms for managing unavoidable trade-offs in an open, participative and accountable manner; (iv) embrace the pluralistic inevitabilities of sustainability assessment; and (v) engender learning throughout. We postulate that sustainability assessment may be at the beginning of a phase of expansion not seen since environmental impact assessment was adopted worldwide.

What Is Wrong With Eia And Sea Anyway? A Sceptic'S Perspective On Sustainability Assessment

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was initially introduced as an advocacy instrument for the biophysical environment in project decision-making. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) evolved with a similar mission for strategic level proposals. However, recent trends towards more integration, particularly in the context of sustainability assessment (SA) mean that social and economic aspects are now frequently considered on a par with the environment in impact assessment processes. There are indications that this development will ultimately favour trade-offs towards socio-economic benefits, causing adverse environmental impacts. In this paper, we discuss problems connected with these types of integrated assessments. Based on observations of SA processes are actually environmentally unsustainable, we argue that the need for environment focussed EIA and true SEA in planning processes is now greater than ever. We suggest that until power relationships develop in a way that will allow integration in an environmentally sustainable manner, practitioners should not give up the benefits that have arisen from 35 years of EIA practice. We conclude that in our current world, there is nothing wrong with environmental advocacy — lets continue to use EIA and SEA effectively to protect the environment!

International principles for best practice EIA follow-up

This article presents principles for best practice environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up. These are intended to guide development and capacity building amongst EIA practitioners. The article starts by defining EIA follow-up and identifying the principal stakeholders involved. The core values that should underpin EIA follow-up are provided which explain why EIA follow-up should be done. The principles then consider: who should be involved in EIA follow-up; what best practice follow-up entails; and how follow-up can be undertaken. The article ends with some challenges for practitioners. It is hoped that the principles will help in the consolidation of EIA follow-up internationally and encourage further improvement in this field.

Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up

The experiences of practitioners at recent International Association for Impact Assessment workshops on environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up are summarised to distil the ingredients required for success. These are presented in relation to the contextual factors that influence EIA follow-up practice: regulations and institutional arrangements; approaches to, and techniques for, follow-up; resources and capacity to conduct follow-up; and project type. In addition, the role of stakeholders is relevant in attaining successful EIA follow-up. The paper describes the relationships between these contextual factors and the stakeholder groups. It identifies some common barriers to EIA follow-up implementation and concludes with lessons learnt about what makes EIA follow-up successful.

Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus

We suggest that the impact assessment community has lost its way based on our observation that impact assessment is under attack because of a perceived lack of efficiency. Specifically, we contend that the proliferation of different impact assessment types creates separate silos of expertise and feeds arguments for not only a lack of efficiency but also a lack of effectiveness of the process through excessive specialisation and a lack of interdisciplinary practice. We propose that the solution is a return to the basics of impact assessment with a call for increased integration around the goal of sustainable development and focus through better scoping. We rehearse and rebut counter arguments covering silo-based expertise, advocacy, democracy, sustainability understanding and communication. We call on the impact assessment community to rise to the challenge of increasing integration and focus, and to engage in the debate about the means of strengthening impact assessment.

Learning about knowledge management for improving environmental impact assessment in a government agency: The Western Australian experience

How does knowledge management (KM) by a government agency responsible for environmental impact assessment (EIA) potentially contribute to better environmental assessment and management practice? Staff members at government agencies in charge of the EIA process are knowledge workers who perform judgement-oriented tasks highly reliant on individual expertise, but also grounded on the agencys knowledge accumulated over the years. Part of an agencys knowledge can be codified and stored in an organizational memory, but is subject to decay or loss if not properly managed. The EIA agency operating in Western Australia was used as a case study. Its KM initiatives were reviewed, knowledge repositories were identified and staff surveyed to gauge the utilisation and effectiveness of such repositories in enabling them to perform EIA tasks. Key elements of KM are the preparation of substantive guidance and spatial information management. It was found that treatment of cumulative impacts on the environment is very limited and information derived from project follow-up is not properly captured and stored, thus not used to create new knowledge and to improve practice and effectiveness. Other opportunities for improving organizational learning include the use of after-action reviews. The learning about knowledge management in EIA practice gained from Western Australian experience should be of value to agencies worldwide seeking to understand where best to direct their resources for their own knowledge repositories and environmental management practice.

Sustainability assessment : pluralism, practice and progress

Description Sustainability Assessment is an increasingly important tool for informing planning and development decisions across the globe. Required by law in some countries, strongly recommended in others, a comprehensive analysis of why Sustainability Assessment is needed and clarification of the value-laden and political nature of assessments is long overdue. Currently the writing on the subject is limited and comprises, for the most part, guidance documents and completed assessments. This book overcomes these shortcomings by simultaneously providing the knowledge, inspiration and range of assessment tools in decision-making students require to tackle Sustainability Assessment challenges nested within wide-ranging values and sustainability-grounded evidence. The collection details the current state-of-the art in relation to Sustainability Assessment theory and practice, and considers the pluralistic nature of the tool and the implications for achieving sustainable decision-making. The contributors set out the context for Sustainability Assessment and then outline some contested issues which can affect interpretations of whether the decision tool has been effective. Current practice worldwide is assessed against a consistent framework and then solutions to some of the inherent weaknesses and causes of conflict in relation to the perceived sustainability of outcomes are put forward. The book is unique in setting out state-of-the-art in terms of Sustainability Assessment practice by focusing on those countries with developing experience. It also covers emerging factors influencing effectiveness of decision-making tools and evaluates how they affect the performance of Sustainability Assessment. Written by authors among the leading university academics teaching impact assessment courses in the most acclaimed universities worldwide operating in this field, it is ideally suited for the growing numbers of courses in impact assessment education and training.

Applying sustainability assessment models

Three sustainability assessment models are applied to a major Australian resource proposal — the Gorgon gas development. ‘Environmental impact assessment (EIA)-driven integrated assessment’ resulted in significant environmental resources being ‘traded’ for socio-economic benefits. ‘Objectives-led integrated assessment’ seeks to maximise social, economic and environmental objectives set by decision-makers. The Gorgon assessment focused on meeting the proponents strategic objectives, thus missing an opportunity to maximise benefits for the wider community. ‘Assessment for sustainability’ uses sustainability criteria determined by society. The Western Australian Government has recently begun to derive such criteria and the Gorgon proposal would have failed to meet some of them. The actual Gorgon assessment was conducted within a sustainability framework, but the EIA-based approach used did not result in sustainable outcomes. An ‘assessment for sustainability’ approach offers the most promising avenue for future applications.

Sustainability appraisal: Jack of all trades, master of none?

Sustainable development is a commonly quoted goal for decision making and supports a large number of other discourses. Sustainability appraisal has a stated goal of supporting decision making for sustainable development. We suggest that the inherent flexibility of sustainability appraisal facilitates outcomes that often do not adhere to the three goals enshrined in most definitions of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection and enhancement, and the wellbeing of the human population. Current practice is for sustainable development to be disenfranchised through the interpretation of sustainability, whereby the best alternative is good enough even when unsustainable. Practitioners must carefully and transparently review the frameworks applied during sustainability appraisal to ensure that outcomes will meet the three goals, rather than focusing on a discourse that emphasises one or more goals at the expense of the other(s).

Effectiveness of environmental offsets in environmental impact assessment: practitioner perspectives from Western Australia

Environmental offsets are positive mitigation measures implemented during environmental impact assessment (EIA) approvals to compensate for unavoidable negative environmental actions. Through interviews with 29 practitioners experienced with offsets, this study investigated the level of support for environmental offsets in Western Australia, implementation of the mitigation sequence and achievement of ‘net environmental gain’ and ‘like for like’ in practice. In-principle support for the use of offsets was almost unanimous. However, the practical workability of ‘like for like’ was questioned along with claims that offsets failed to deliver net benefits. Greater guidance and follow-up will be necessary if practice is to live up to expectation.