Morrison-Saunders, A.

English

Research Repository

Tackling Trade-offs and Offsets in EIA Decision-making for Progress Towards Sustainability   Angus Morrison-Saunders •  North West University, South Africa •  Murdoch University, Australia  a.morrison-saunders@murdoch.edu.au  •  trade-offs are unavoidable – all EIA decisions involve trade-offs   screening/scoping/alternatives/mitigation…  •  2 types of trade-off:    process and substantive •  understanding and managing trade-offs in EIA is vital to reverse current trends towards deepening unsustainability Main Points Why do trade-offs matter? Trends are towards  "deepening unsustainability" (Gibson 2006)  "Jobs vs the environment dilemma" (Glasson 1999) •  environment traded-off for short-term  socio-economic gain  EIA approval decision-making occurs  "behind closed doors" (Sadler 1996)  EIA, sustainability and trade-offs Trade-offs undermine the sustainability potential of EIA  "Sustainability assessment" calls for an explicit examination of trade-offs both during proposal development and at the approval decision point (Morrison-Saunders & Pope in press 2012) Purpose of this presentation  To present:  1.  a conceptual model for understanding trade-offs in EIA decision-making 2.  examples that illustrate effective trade-off management strategies  Substantive positives vs negatives  for competing options/outcomes •  Substitution (offsets/ compensation) in time,  place or kind    Process allocation of resources & attention  TRADE-OFF TYPES [Glasson 1999, Wood 2003, Gibson et al 2005]  Generic EIA process steps 1.  Screening – Decide to take sustainability approach?  2.  Identify desired outcome (decision question) 3.  Scoping – Establish sustainability goals & criteria 4.  Identify alternatives to achieve desired outcome 5.  Impact prediction and evaluation of each alternative  6.  Mitigation – Select & enhance preferred alternative 7.  Approval decision & conditions 8.  Follow-up – Implementation & monitoring Generic EIA process steps 1.  Screening – Decide to take sustainability approach?  2.  Identify desired outcome (decision question) 3.  Scoping – Establish sustainability goals & criteria 4.  Identify alternatives to achieve desired outcome 5.  Impact prediction and evaluation of each alternative  6.  Mitigation – Select & enhance preferred alternative 7.  Approval decision & conditions 8.  Follow-up – Implementation & monitoring  Process decisions          Substantive trade-off outcomes  Screening – Decide to take sustainability approach? Important process decision •  e.g. by proponent or EAP/consultant  May adopt a sustainability approach to EIA even if no regulatory expectation to do so •  e.g. experiences in Canada, Western Australia Identify alternatives to achieve desired outcome •  type of alternatives considered affects potential sustainability outcomes •  e.g. alternative locations of coal fired power station vs •  alternative ways to generate electricity –  coal/solar/wind/hydro/nuclear…  Mitigation (i) – Select & enhance preferred alternative Mitigation choices are trade-off decisions proponent objectives  (e.g. profits/costs)  vs  env. protection Alternatives hierarchy Mitigation  (ii) Offsets involve substitutions of impacted resources in: •  time  – e.g. rehabilitation of mine site •  place – e.g. construct artificial wetland •  kind  – e.g. exchange traditional hunting    for recreational facilities   Residual impact must deliver a net benefit outcome! •  i.e. if EIA for sustainability like for like like for better? thresholds needed (context-specific) [strong sustainability]  Mitigation (iii) – Model for acceptable trade-offs when selecting preferred alternative  Approval decision (i) Trade-offs are particularly obvious at this point  Decision-makers must determine if trade-offs (impacts) are acceptable for community •  i.e. context specific Decision-making trade-off rules can guide process 1.  Net gains: must deliver net sustainability gains 3.  Avoidance of adverse effects: a significant adverse effect only  acceptable if all alternatives are worse 4.  Protection of the future: no displacement of significant adverse impact from present to future 2.  Burden of argument: proponent must justify 5.  Explicit justification: all trade-offs must be explicitly justified (context-specific sustainability criteria) 6.  Open process: stakeholders must be involved in trade-off making  Approval decision (ii) – Gibson trade-off rules (strong sustainability)  1.  Net gains: must deliver net sustainability gains 3.  Avoidance adverse effects: a significant adverse effect only acceptable if all alternatives are worse 4.  Protection of the future: no displacement of significant adverse impact from present to future 2.  Burden of argument: proponent must justify 5.  Explicit justification: all trade-offs must be  justified (context-specific sustainability criteria) 6.  Open process: stakeholders must be involved in trade-off making  Substantive test (thresholds) processes for  making trade-offs Approval decision (ii) – Gibson trade-off rules (strong sustainability)  Proponent's EIS – chapter on Gibson's trade-off rules… Approval decision (iii) – Example  South West Yarragadee (Australia)  Proponent:  The Gibson trade–off rules provide the basis for dealing with tensions and conflicts that may be identified in the process of applying a well considered set of sustainability principles.   They can be used to guide the evaluation of the acceptability of a proposal within a sustainability context by examining the acceptability of the inherent trade–offs that would be made in approving the process.  They are therefore an extremely valuable tool to aid sustainability decision-making.  (Strategen 2006, p6-2) Approval decision (iv) – Example  South West Yarragadee (Australia) Regulator:  The Sustainability Panel finds that an evaluation process based on the Gibson rules is sufficient to assess sustainability    (Sustainability Panel, 2007, p13)  Approval decision (v) – Example  South West Yarragadee (Australia) Conclusions: Tackling Trade-offs and Offsets in EIA Decision-making for Progress Towards Sustainability  •  early attention to trade-offs is needed  – i.e. well in advance of EIA approval decision-making •  the nature of alternatives considered determines substantive outcomes •  thresholds are essential to determine acceptable  impacts and mitigation  •  offsets are a form of trade-off – residual impact must deliver a net benefit outcome •  Gibson trade-off rules provide acceptability criteria for substantive trade-offs & process rules for EIA approval decision-making •  trade-offs are unavoidable – all EIA decisions involve trade-offs   screening/scoping/alternatives/mitigation…  •  2 types of trade-off:    process and substantive •  understanding and managing trade-offs in EIA is vital to reverse current trends towards deepening unsustainability Main Points References Gibson R 2006 Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 24(3):170–82. Gibson R, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G 2005 Sustainability assessment criteria, processes and applications. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Glasson J. 1999 Environmental impact assessment — impact on decisions. In: Petts J, (ed). Handbook of EIA Volume 1; EIA: process, methods and potential. Blackwell Science Ltd. pp121–44. Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J (in press 2012) Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment, EIA Review, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.003  Sadler B 1996 International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment, final report, environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 248pp. Strategen 2006 South West Yarragadee water supply development: sustainability evaluation/environmental review and management programme. Volume 1 introduction, sustainability overview, methodology and conclusions. Strategen, report prepared for Water Corporation, Perth, Western Australia, 220pp. Sustainability Panel 2007 Sustainability assessment of the South West Yarragadee water supply development. An independent report commissioned by: State Water Council. Perth, Western Australia: Dept of Premier & Cabinet, 61pp. Wood C 2003 Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd edition. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd. 405pp. Questions…?  Discussion…? THANK YOU! How can we best address trade-offs in EIA to reverse trends towards deepening unsustainability? 

(in press 2012) Conceptualising and managing tradeoffs in sustainability assessment,

Environmental impact assessment — impact on decisions. In: Petts

Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd edition.

South West Yarragadee water supply development: sustainability evaluation/environmental review and management programme. Volume 1 introduction, sustainability overview, methodology and conclusions. Strategen, report prepared for Water Corporation,

Sustainability assessment criteria, processes and applications. London:

Sustainability assessment of the South West Yarragadee water supply development. An independent report commissioned by: State Water Council.

Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach.

Tackling trade-offs and offsets in EIA decision-making for progress towards sustainability

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/10793/

Tackling trade-offs and offsets in EIA decision-making for progress towards sustainability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Repository