Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

4.1 IMPACT PREDICTION, EVALUATION AND

MITIGATION

EIA is all about prediction and is needed at the earliest stages

when the project, including alternatives, is being planned and
designed, and this continues through to mitigation, monitoring and
auditing. Evaluation follows from prediction and involves an
assessment of the relative significance of the impacts. The
methods of evaluation range from intuitive to the analytical, from
qualitative to quantitative, and from formal to informal. Cost benefit
analysis, monetary valuation techniques, and multi-criteria/multi-
attribute methods, with their scoring and weighting systems,
provide a number of ways for the evaluation issues. Mitigation of
significant adverse effects involves the measures to avoid, reduc

1
Environment Management
remedy or compensate for the various impacts associated with
projects. We will discuss these in Subsections 4.2.1 to 4.2.3, respectively.

4.1.1 Prediction

Environmental impact is any alteration of environmental conditions

or creation of a new set of environmental conditions – adverse or
beneficial – caused or induced by the project under consideration.
The impact depends on the nature, scale and location of the
proposed activity, and it includes the effect on the natural resource
base (i.e., the quality of air, water, noise, biological) and socio-
economic components of the environment which determine the
cost of environmental management.

The impacts can be classified as primary, which can be attributed

directly to the project, and secondary, which are indirect changes
and typically include the changed patterns of socio-economic
activities likely to be stimulated or induced by the proposed
activity.

A EIA, partly answers the question: What will happen as a result

of the project? But, if a preliminary assessment is carried out, it
will broadly review the project‟s effects. Also, scoping helps the
decision-makers identify the most important issues. Taking these
findings into account and after collecting the baseline
environmental data, the full EIA study formally identifies such of
the impacts as are to be assessed in detail. The methods used at
the identification phase of the study include the following:

(i) Compile a candidate list of key impacts such as changes in

air quality, noise levels, wildlife habitats, species diversity,
landscape views, social and cultural systems, settlement

2
 Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

patterns and employment levels. This data is drawn from as

many EIA studies carried out on similar projects as possible.

(ii) Name all the project‟s sources of impacts (e.g., smoke

emissions, water consumption, construction jobs) using
checklists or questionnaires and then list possible receptors
in the environment (e.g., crops, communities using the same
water for drinking, migrant labourers) by surveying the
existing environment and consulting with interested parties.
Where the sources affect the receptors, a potential impact is
suspected.

After identifying the environmental components likely to be

impacted by the proposed activities the next logical step is impact
prediction, which answers the question: What will be the extent of
the changes? Prediction scientifically characterises the impact‟s
causes and effects, and its secondary and synergistic
consequences for the environment and the local community. It
follows an impact within a single environmental parameter (e.g., a
toxic liquid effluent) into its subsequent effects in many disciplines
(e.g., reduced water quality, adverse impacts on fisheries,
economic effects on fishing villages and resulting socio-cultural
changes). Prediction draws on the physical, biological, socio-
economic and anthropological data and techniques. In quantifying
impacts, it may employ various tools such as mathematical
models, photomontages, physical models, socio-cultural models,
economic models, experiments, expert judgement, etc.

To prevent unnecessary expenses, the sophistication of the

prediction methods used should be kept in proportion to the scope
of the EIA. For instance, a complex mathematical model of
atmospheric dispersion should not be used, if only a small amount
of relatively harmless pollutant is emitted. Simpler models are
available and are sufficient for the purpose. Also, it is

3
Environment Management

unnecessary to undertake expensive analysis, if they are not

required by the decision-makers for whom the EIA is being done.

All prediction techniques, by their nature, involve some degree of

uncertainty. So, along with each attempt to quantify an impact, the
study team should also quantify the prediction‟s uncertainty in
terms of probabilities or margins of error.

One of the criticisms against EIA is that it does not give the
prominence the social and cultural impacts deserve in describing
the extent of changes expected to result from a major
development project. Socio-cultural impacts should be integrated
into every discussion of physical/biological change.
Below is the case that highlights the prediction techniques in brief

4
 Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

In order to choose impact predictive techniques consider:

Appropriateness‟
Production of required results
Replicability, freedom from analytical bias
Consistency, allows comparison between studies
Models considered for prediction include
Extrapolative: where prediction is based on past data, trend
analysis.
Normative: establish desired outcome and work backwards
Retail impact models using gravity models principles
21 models for Phosphorous retention in lakes
Few methods recommended are
Analogue models
Mass balances
Field and lab experiments
Physical images, computer graphics
Statistical models
TOC, Leopold,
Networks - good on indirect impacts
Overlays - good for spatial impacts
Advantages of these models
These encourage definition of assumptions and use of statistical
probabilities
These models are also useful when there are simple calculations,
complex links and when impacts are time dependent.

4.1.2 Evaluation

This step evaluates the predicted adverse impacts to determine

whether they are significant enough to warrant mitigation. In other
words, evaluation attempts to find an answer for the question: Do
the changes matter? The judgement of can be based on one or
more of the following:

Comparison with laws, regulations or accepted standards.

Consultation with the relevant decision-makers.

Reference to pre-set criteria such as protected sites, features

or species.

Consistency with government policy objectives.

Acceptability to the local community or the general public.

5
Environment Management

How to estimate significance of an impact?

Step 1: Assign consequence to each

Consequence Ranking
environmental impact
category

Catastrophic 5

Major 4

Moderate 3

Minor 2

Negligible 1

None 0

Positive +

Step 2: Assign Likelihood

Category Ranking Definition

Certain 5 The activity will occur under normal operational conditions.
Very 4 Very likely to occur under normal operating conditions
Likely
Likely 3 Likely to occur at some time under normal operating
conditions
Unlikely 2 Unlikely to but may occur at some time during normal
operating conditions
Very 1 Very unlikely to occur under normal operating conditions,
Unlikely but may occur under exceptional circumstances.

Step 3: Predict significance of environmental impact

Criteria for significance

Consequence x Significance
Magnitude of likelihood of impact Likelihood
Spatial and temporal extent >16 Critical
Likely recovery 9-16 High
Value of effected environment 6-8 Medium
Level of public concern 2-5 Low
Political repercussions <2 Negligible

In this way significance can be judged and impact can be

evaluated.

The scaling-weighting technique

Scaling of the effects addresses issues of magnitude and is based

on a numerical system in which the highest number represents a
very good effect and the lowest number represents a very adverse

6
 Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

effect. The mid-point indicates an average effect, or a neutral one.

Scaling can be used either alone to determine some composite
score for magnitude or with a weighting scheme to incorporate
considerations of importance or significance. With weighting,
values are assigned to elements of the environment (or of a
proposal) based on their relative importance or significance. The
end result can be either a total score or a group of scores
representing various sectors of the environment.

There are several methods that incorporate some means of

scaling the effects and weighting the relative importance of
various elements, thus resulting in a mathematical means of
combining magnitude and significance for an overall evaluation of
the project impact. Technically, these methods fall into the
category of checklists, but, in reality, they go far beyond what
checklists provide.

A combination of scaling and weighting is particularly useful

because it combines measures of magnitude and significance in a
highly organised format, and, therefore, is valuable for analysing
alternatives. This technique incorporates a large amount of data
that may not otherwise be readily comparable. Thus, it provides a
means of synthesising a great deal of information while still
retaining measures of magnitude and significance.

Judgement is inherent in this approach, particularly when weights

or significance are assigned to individual components or
elements. However, for objective evaluation, it is necessary to
define significance very carefully. In addition, when scaling the
effects, it is necessary to be explicit about what the values mean.
Scaling works best when the scales relate to real, measurable
changes, as in water quality or employment levels. Given
appropriately detailed documentation, the scaling and weighting
values decided upon by different people should not vary much. An

7
Environment Management

example of a scaling-weighting technique for site selection is

given in Figure 4.1, below:

Figure 4.1
Scaling-Weighting Technique: Example of an Overlay

Source: Dixon and Montz, 1993

Cost-benefit analysis

The scope of approaches such as financial-appraisal, cost-

minimisation and cost-effectiveness methods, is limited as they
consider only a subsection of the relevant population or only a
subsection of the full range of consequences of a plan or project.
For example, financial appraisal is limited to a narrow concern,
usually of the developer, with the stream of financial costs and
returns associated with an investment. Cost effectiveness involves
selecting an option that achieves a goal at the least cost. The cost
effectiveness approach is more problematic where there are a

8
 Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

number of goals and where some actions achieve certain goals

more fully than others.

In contrast, a cost-benefit analysis is more comprehensive in

scope. It takes a long view of projects (farther as well as nearer
future) and a wide view (in the sense of allowing for side effects).
It is based in welfare economics, and seeks to include all the
relevant costs and benefits to evaluate the net social benefit of a
project.

A cost-benefit analysis consists of several stages such as project

definition, identification and enumeration of costs and benefits,
evaluation of costs and benefits, discounting and presentation of
results, etc. Note that, some of these stages are similar to those in
EIA. The basic evaluation principle is to measure in monetary
terms – as money is the common measure of value and monetary
values are best understood by the community and decision-
makers – and then to reduce all costs and benefits to the same
capital on annual basis. Future annual flow of costs and benefits
are usually discounted to a net present value. A range of interest
rates may also be used to show the sensitivity of the analysis to
changes. If the net social benefit minus cost is positive, then there
may be a presumption in favour of a project. However, the final
outcome may not be always clear. The presentation of results
should distinguish between tangible and intangible costs and
benefits, as relevant, allowing the decision-maker to consider the
trade-offs involved in the choice of one option or another.

4.1.3 Mitigation

If the answer to the evaluative question (i.e., Do the changes

matter?) is in the affirmative, i.e., the changes do matter, then the
EIA proceeds to find an answer to the question: What can be
done about them? In this phase, the study team formally analyses

9
Environment Management

mitigation and a wide range of measures are advanced to prevent,

reduce, remedy or compensate for each of the adverse impacts
evaluated as significant. Since all mitigation measures cost, it
must be quantified.

The possible mitigation measures include:

Changing project sites, routes, processes, raw materials,

operating methods, disposal routes or locations, timing, or
engineering designs.

Introducing pollution controls, waste treatment, monitoring,

phased implementation, landscaping, personnel training,
special social services or public education.

Offering (as compensation) restoration of damaged resources,

money to affected persons, concessions on other issues, or
off-site programmes to enhance some other aspect of the
environment or quality of life for the community.

Once these measures are compared, and trade-offs between

them weighed, the EIA study team proposes one or more action
plans, usually combining a number of measures. The action plan
may include technical control measures, an integrated
management scheme (for a major project), monitoring,
contingency plans, operating practices, project scheduling, or
even joint-management (with affected groups). The study team
should explicitly analyse the implications of adopting different
alternatives to help make the choices clearer for decision-makers.
Several analytical techniques including the following are available
for this purpose:

Cost/benefit analysis, in which all quantifiable factors are

converted to monetary values and actions are assessed for
their effect on project costs and benefits. (Note, however, that

10
 Unit 4: EIA Documentation and Processes

the unquantifiable and qualitative aspects can be equally

important, and often need to be taken into account in the
decision-making process.)

Explaining what course of action would follow from various

broad value judgements (e.g., that social impacts are more
important than resources).

A simple matrix of environmental parameters versus mitigation

measures, containing brief descriptions of the effects of each
measure.

Pair-wise comparisons, whereby the effects of an action are

briefly compared with the effects of each of the alternative
actions, one pair at a time.

The mitigation plan should be supplemented with an

environmental management plan (EMP) to guide the proponent
towards environmental improvements. The EMP is a crucial input
to monitoring the clearance conditions and, therefore, the details
of monitoring should be included in the EMP.

Having discussed impact prediction, evaluation and mitigation, we

will next explain another important stage of EIA, i.e., impact on
decisions.

11