environmental and social impact assessment · lane bridges with double-lane structures; improvement...

module: c369 m469 | product: 4593

Environmental and SocialImpact Assessment

Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentCentre for Financial and Management Studies

© SOAS University of LondonFirst published: 2013; Revised: 2016, 2019, 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this module material may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, including photocopying and recording, or in information storage or retrieval systems, without written permission from the Centre for Financial and Management Studies, SOAS University of London.

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Module Introduction and Overview

Contents

1 Introduction to the Module 2

2 The Module Authors 2

3 Study Materials 3

4 Module Overview 5

5 Learning Outcomes 8

6 Glossary 8

7 Assessment 9

References 16

Specimen Examination 17


Centre for Financial and Management Studies 2

1 Introduction to the Module

As you will learn in this module, the intended beneficiaries or investors are not the only audiences to whom it must be demonstrated that a project’s technical, institutional and financial attributes warrant that the project will be worthwhile. The effects a project will have (ie, its impacts) on the environment, nearby communities and wider society must also be investigated so they can be taken into consideration by the decision-makers who determine whether the project should proceed. The most widely used techniques to investigate a project’s environmental and social implications are Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA), or Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). Many governments, project financiers and project developers require ESIA or EIA. Two types of project assessment can be distinguished:

• Ex ante assessment: determining in advance (ie, before it is implemented) whether a project is worthwhile and should proceed and, if so, in what format – this is sometimes called project appraisal or evaluation.

• Ex post assessment: assessing the performance of a project after it has been implemented and completed (ie, retrospectively) – this is sometimes called (environmental) auditing or performance monitoring.

This module covers the ex ante ESIA of projects. It also introduces tools used to support ESIA, ways of improving the effectiveness of ESIA, and ways in which other (non-ESIA) techniques are used to investigate the environmental and social implications of projects and other initiatives.

2 The Module Authors

Theo Hacking is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Cambridge. He spent the early part of his career working in industry and latterly as a consultant in the fields of environmental management, sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. He has specialised in social and environmental impact assessment and has a particular interest in enhancing the effectiveness of impact assessment as a tool for sustainable development. Dr Hacking has a PhD from the University of Cambridge, for his research exploring the sustainability asssessment of mining projects. His initial degrees were BSc Eng (Civil) and MSc Eng (Environmental) from the University of the Witwatersrand. He is an active member of the International Association of Impact Assessment. Ruth Shaw is an independent environmental researcher and data analyst, specialising in the impacts of human developments on aquatic systems. She has a BA in Geography from the University of Cambridge (focusing on physical earth systems), a Master’s in Water Science, Policy and Management from the University of Oxford and a PhD in Environmental Science (freshwater carbon


3 University of London

cycling and how the carbon mass balance of freshwaters is impacted by climate and nutrient loading related to land use and geographical influences) from Oxford Brookes University.

3 Study Materials

This Study Guide is your main learning resource for the module as it directs your study through eight units. Each unit has recommended reading either from the textbook or from supplementary readings which are included in the Module Reader.

Textbook

John Glasson and Riki Therivel (2019) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 5th Edition. Abingdon UK: Routledge.

Module Reader

In addition to the textbook, you will also receive a Module Reader, with articles and examples. You will be guided through all of the readings as you work through the module.

Multimedia

Videos for the relevant unit can be accessed via the Module Study Area on the VLE.

Case Studies

Some exercises in the module will use case studies illustrating the technical and theoretical issues covered in the module. Select two of the following for this purpose: Case Study 1

Environmental impact assessment and environmental and social management system

reports for the Anaklia Port Project, Georgia

The Anaklia Port Project involves the construction of a gateway deep seaport on the Black Sea with berthing for 10,000 ships and capacity for 1.5 million tonnes of dry bulk cargo, at a strategic point on the transport route between China and the South Caucasus (the New Silk Road). Construction will include a breakwater, access channel and turning circle, container terminal, marine coastguard station, infrastructure to connect inland routes and dry bulk storage facilities. The aim is to stimulate the economy in the Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti region, as well as the wider Georgian economy, by reducing the costs of trade. The development consortium aims to build a carbon-neutral port, reducing the carbon footprint of Georgia’s trading activities. To this end, they have conducted an EIA and also prepared a management plan for construction and



subsequent operation of the port facilities (the Environmental and Social Management System). These documents can be found at: http://anakliadevelopment.com/csr/ Case Study 2

Environmental and social assessment for the Kandahar Solar Power Project, Afghanistan

Available from: https://www.adb.org/projects/52229-001/main The Kandahar Solar Power Project hopes to develop, construct, commission and operate a 15.1 MW solar power plant, capable of supplying over 11,000 homes at a conservative estimate. The government of Afghanistan has set the objective of providing 40 per cent of the country’s energy requirements by renewable energy infrastructure by 2032, partly to reduce their energy import bill. This Asian Development Bank-funded project also aims to provide knowledge and skills that will facilitate future developments of the kind (ie, building technical and/or social capital). Possible impacts include noise, waste generation, water use and dust (from construction work). The transmission of energy will be aligned with a national road. Consultation with community stakeholders will need to take account of issues such as equitable access to the energy produced, with particular consideration of access to all benefits for women, and the impact of the construction work on women’s freedom and safety, in the context of local and external social norms and practices. This case study raises important questions around social impacts of development, and the potential to design in positive outcomes. Case Study 3

Environmental impact assessment for the Hummingbird Highway Rehabilitation, Belize

Available from: http://doe.gov.bz/index.php/services/publications/send/15-eia/595-hummingbird-highway-eia-incl-appendixes The project involves upgrading an existing rural highway and rehabilitation of the road to prevent structural damage to the roadbed; replacement of 22 single-lane bridges with double-lane structures; improvement of road cuttings in hilly areas and straightening of some curved sections; various improvements to road safety and junctions and installation of cat’s eyes. The Hummingbird Highway stretches 87.8 km from Dangriga to Belmopan City, where it joins the George Price Highway. Currently its condition is poor, and recent temporary repairs have worsened it in the long term. Its usefulness is further limited by missing sections of road shoulder, lack of speed bumps through settlements, problems with heavy vehicles being slowed at curvy and hilly points and the lack of passing points and effective road markings. The project is being partly funded by the UK DFID and the EU, and the area of influence is being increased from 2 km either side of the highway to 4 km. Because this project is an upgrade of an existing roadway, key impacts are likely to be limited to hydrological impacts and to noise, waste and nuisance impacts during construction, whilst there is potential to mitigate existing flooding impacts and stimulate economic development.



ESIA documents can be a lot of reading; for example, the Hummingbird Highway document is 370 pages long. However, you need not read the whole of each report; we suggest looking at the table of contents, browsing sections that interest you, and searching the document for any terms or issues that interest you or that you do not understand. This approach will give you some context for the theoretical content of the ESIA module and will demonstrate the typical structure of these reports, their scope, how to interpret them and how to write them. For other examples, we suggest browsing specialist journals such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Go to https://apps.webofknowledge.com/ which you will be able to access via the institutional login (UK Federation; SOAS, University of London) using your six-digit SOAS ID and password. Further examples can be found on the World Bank website (www.worldbank.org – search ‘impact assessments’). If you are interested in further examples of EIAs, SIAs and ESIAs for major development, possible further sources include: The International Finance Corporation (IFC) at www.ifc.org/projects (select a Category A or B project); the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency Registry (choose Projects/Companies) at www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/evaluations/, or choose ‘library’ at www.sakhalinenergy.ru/en/.

4 Module Overview

The module is divided into eight units of study, each to be completed within one week.

Unit 1 Introduction to ESIA

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Origins and Variations in Application

1.3 The Purpose of ESIA

1.4 Drivers for ESIA

1.5 The Overall ESIA Process

1.6 Structuring ESIAs

1.7 Success of ESIA

1.8 Social Impact Assessment

1.9 Reflection on SIA

1.10 Conclusion

Unit 2 Laying the Foundations for ESIA

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Screening

2.3 Scoping

2.4 Project Description

2.5 Baseline Description



2.6 Data Collection, Interpretation and Reporting

2.7 Conclusion

Unit 3 Impact Assessment – the ‘Heart’ of ESIA

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Impact Identification and Prediction

3.3 Impact Significance Evaluation

3.4 Social Impacts and Equity

3.5 Conclusion

Unit 4 Impact Management, Reporting and Decision-Making

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Impact Mitigation and Enhancement

4.3 Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring

4.4 Reporting the ESIA

4.5 ESIA and Decision-Making

4.6 Conclusion

Unit 5 ESIA Stakeholder Engagement/Public Consultation

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Stakeholder Engagement: Objectives and Benefits

5.3 Methods of Securing Stakeholder Engagement

5.4 Stakeholder Engagement in Practice

5.5 Conclusion

Unit 6 Improving the Effectiveness of ESIA

6.1 Introduction

6.2 ESIA Planning and Project Management

6.3 Implementation and Follow-up

6.4 Conclusion

Unit 7 Thematic and Specialised Assessment Techniques

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Themed Impact Assessment

7.3 ‘Specialised’ Assessment Techniques

7.4 Conclusion

Unit 8 Strategic and Emerging Forms of Assessment

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Widening the Scope of Impact Assessment

8.3 Emerging Forms of Impact Assessment

8.4 Conclusion

Unit 1 of the module introduces the functions and tools of ESIA. It provides an overview of ESIA’s origins and how it varies in application. It discusses the



purpose and drivers of ESIA, and describes the overall ESIA process, including the structuring of ESIAs. This unit also looks at the success of ESIA and includes a discussion on SIA. Unit 2 explains how the foundation is laid for ESIA via the screening, scoping, project description, and baseline description steps. It discusses the fundamentals of screening, approaches to screening, the purpose of scoping, scoping procedure, identification of alternatives and data collection, interpretation and reporting. Unit 3 is concerned with impact assessment itself. It covers impact identification and prediction and discusses some of the tools available for these activities. It also covers impact significance evaluation, looking at how to judge significance with and without management, significance criteria and methods of judging and presenting significance evaluations. In addition, this unit discusses the distribution of impacts, taking social equity into consideration. Unit 4 deals with the management hierarchy, mitigation of negative impacts (undesirable consequences) and enhancement of positive impacts (benefits), which are key purposes of ESIA, and how mitigation relates to project design. The unit also covers management and monitoring plans, reporting the ESIA and decision-making. Unit 5 focuses on stakeholder engagement (also known as public consultation) in ESIA, covering its aims and benefits, stakeholder identification and analysis, how stakeholder engagement fits with the ESIA process, the nature and extent of involvement in stakeholder engagement, methods for stakeholder engagement, and stakeholder engagement in practice. Unit 6 is concerned with improving the effectiveness of ESIA. It addresses ESIA planning and project management, including a discussion of the ESIA team, the project manager, project scheduling and budgeting. The unit is also concerned with implementation and follow-up, covering monitoring, auditing and the links between ESIA and the Environmental Management System (EMS). Unit 7 discusses other assessment techniques. It introduces thematically focused forms of impact assessment including health impact assessment, mental well-being impact assessment, economic impact assessment, gender impact assessment, and cultural/heritage impact assessment. It also deals with ‘specialised’ assessment techniques – in particular, risk assessment and life cycle assessment. Unit 8 focuses on strategic and emerging forms of impact assessment. It begins by exploring approaches to widening the scope of impact assessments to explore cumulative and strategic impacts. It then examines emerging forms of assessment such as integrated assessment, sustainability assessment and climate impacts assessment.



5 Learning Outcomes

When you have completed your study of this module, you will be able to: • analyse and critically appraise the stages in ESIA processes • synthesise and evaluate the outcomes of an ESIA • critique ESIA in practical applications • critically discuss thematic and specialised assessment approaches • evaluate the contribution of strategic and emerging forms of assessment • critically assess the role of ESIA as a policy and planning tool.

6 Glossary

Biophysical The non-human environment, including living organisms (plants and animals) and non-living matter (eg, water and air).

Cultural/Heritage Impact Assessment

Assessment of impacts on anything that may have aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value. This may encompass the natural environment, buildings, objects and/or less tangible components, such as indigenous knowledge systems or rituals.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

Assessment of impacts due to numerous separate developments which might by themselves be insignificant, but which can interact or combine to cause significant impacts.

Economic Impact Assessment

Assessment of a project’s impacts on the wider economy; these can be direct, indirect, induced or fiscal.

Engagement Process of interacting with stakeholders to improve decisions/outcomes. The level of engagement may increase as follows: to inform, consult, involve, collaborate and/or empower.

Equator Principles Initiative of financial institutions whereby the signatories commit to assessing potential investments in accordance with the IFC’s Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, which include ESIA (The Equator Principles Association, nd)

Health Impact Assessment

A combination of procedures, methods and tools used to judge the potential effects of any policy, programme or project on population health and the distribution of those effects within a population (WHO, nd).

Impact Any change, beneficial or adverse, in the social or biophysical environment as a result of human activity.

Integrated Assessment

Forms of impact assessment that aim to align/combine a number of established assessment techniques (eg, EIA+SIA) and compare or explore interrelationships between themes (eg, biophysical and social).

Life Cycle Assessment

Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle (ISO, 2006).



Mitigation Measures to prevent, eliminate, reduce, minimise, remediate, repair or compensate adverse impacts.

Significance The significance of impacts is typically determined by considering their magnitude, severity, extent, duration and probability. Opposite ends of the spectrum are:

Highly significant impacts: Impacts that are diverse, irreversible and/or unprecedented.

Low significance impacts: Impacts that are generally site-specific, largely reversible, and (in relation to adverse impacts) readily addressed by mitigation.

Social Anything relating to humans and their interactions, including economic, cultural, human rights, health and safety concerns.

Stakeholders Interested or affected parties including: neighbouring communities and businesses; local, regional and national governments (ie, the authorities); employees, contractors, and suppliers; non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs); and media groups.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

A systematic, ongoing process for evaluating, at the earliest possible stage of publicly accountable decision-making, the environmental quality and consequences of alternative visions and development intentions incorporated in policy, planning or programme initiatives, ensuring full integration of relevant biophysical, economic, social and political considerations (Partidário, 1999).

Sustainability Assessment

An assessment process that aims to determine whether or not an initiative will contribute to sustainable development (Pope et al, 2004).

Triple bottom line Term used in business literature, referring to companies expanding their traditional focus on the financial ‘bottom line’ to consider (biophysical) environmental and social performance, ie, people, planet and profit.

Vulnerable individuals or groups

People who are differentially or disproportionately sensitive to change, or in need of change, because they are underrepresented, disadvantaged or lacking in power, influence or capacity. Typical examples are children, the elderly, minority groups, indigenous peoples, women, and people with disabilities.

7 Assessment

Your performance on each module is assessed through two written assignments and one examination. The assignments are written after Unit 4 and Unit 8 of the module session. Please see the VLE for submission deadlines. The examination is taken at a local examination centre in September/October.



Preparing for assignments and exams

There is good advice on preparing for and writing assignments and exams in Chapter 8 of Studying at a Distance by Christine Talbot. We recommend that you follow this advice. The examinations you will sit are designed to evaluate your knowledge and skills in the subjects you have studied; they are not designed to trick you. If you have studied the module thoroughly, you will pass the exam.

Understanding assessment questions

Examination and assignment questions are set to test your knowledge and skills. Sometimes a question will contain more than one part, each part testing a different aspect of your skills and knowledge. You need to spot the key words to know what is being asked of you. Here we categorise the types of things that are asked for in assignments and exams, and the words used. All the examples are from the Centre for Financial and Management Studies’ own examination papers and assignment questions.

Definitions

Some questions mainly require you to show that you have learned some concepts, by setting

out their precise meanings. Such questions are likely to be preliminary and supplemented by

more analytical questions. Generally, ‘Pass’ marks are awarded if the answer only contains

definitions. They will contain words such as:

Describe Contrast

Define Write notes on

Examine Outline

Distinguish between What is meant by

Compare List

Reasoning

Other questions are designed to test your reasoning, by explaining cause and effect.

Convincing explanations generally carry additional marks to basic definitions. These

questions will include words such as:

Interpret

Explain

What conditions influence

What are the consequences of

What are the implications of

Judgement

Others ask you to make a judgement, perhaps of a policy or a course of action. They will

include words like:

Evaluate

Critically examine

Assess



Do you agree that

To what extent does

Calculation

Sometimes you are asked to make a calculation using a specified technique, where the

question begins:

Use indifference curve analysis to

Using any economic model you know

Calculate the standard deviation

Test whether

It is most likely that questions asking you to make a calculation will also ask for an

application or interpretation of the result.

Advice

Other questions ask you to provide advice in a particular situation. This applies to law

questions and to policy papers where advice is required in relation to a policy problem. Your

advice should be based on relevant law, principles and evidence of what actions are likely to

be effective. The questions may begin:

Advise

Provide advice on

Explain how you would advise

Critique

In many cases the question will include the word ‘critically’. This means that you are expected

to look at the question from at least two points of view, offering a critique of each view and

your judgement. You are expected to be critical of what you have read.

The questions may begin:

Critically analyse

Critically consider

Critically assess

Critically discuss the argument that

Examine by argument

Questions that begin with ‘discuss’ are similar; they ask you to examine by argument, to

debate and give reasons for and against a variety of options, for example:

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of

Discuss this statement

Discuss the view that

Discuss the arguments and debates concerning

The grading scheme: Assignments

The assignment questions contain fairly detailed guidance about what is required. All assignments are marked using marking guidelines. When you



receive your grade it is accompanied by comments on your paper, including advice about how you might improve, and clarifications about any matters you may not have understood. These comments are designed to help you master the subject and to improve your skills as you progress through your programme.

Postgraduate assignment marking criteria

The marking criteria for your programme draws upon these minimum core criteria, which are applicable to the assessment of all assignments:

• understanding of the subject • utilisation of proper academic or other style (eg, citation of references, use

of proper legal style for court reports, etc) • relevance of material selected and of the arguments proposed • planning and organisation • logical coherence • critical evaluation • comprehensiveness of research • evidence of synthesis • innovation/creativity/originality.

The language used must be of a sufficient standard to permit assessment of these. The guidelines below reflect the standards of work expected at postgraduate level. All assessed work is marked by your tutor or a member of academic staff, and a sample is then moderated by another member of academic staff. Any assignment may be made available to the external examiner(s).

80+ (Distinction). A mark of 80+ will fulfil the following criteria:

• very significant ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment

• very significant ability to evaluate literature and theory critically and make informed judgements

• very high levels of creativity, originality and independence of thought • very significant ability to evaluate critically existing methodologies and

suggest new approaches to current research or professional practice • very significant ability to analyse data critically • outstanding levels of accuracy, technical competence, organisation,

expression.

70–79 (Distinction). A mark in the range 70–79 will fulfil the following criteria:

• significant ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment

• clear evidence of wide and relevant reading, referencing and an engagement with the conceptual issues

• capacity to develop a sophisticated and intelligent argument



• rigorous use and a sophisticated understanding of relevant source materials, balancing appropriately between factual detail and key theoretical issues. Materials are evaluated directly and their assumptions and arguments challenged and/or appraised.

• correct referencing • significant ability to analyse data critically • original thinking and a willingness to take risks.

60–69 (Merit). A mark in the 60–69 range will fulfil the following criteria:

• ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project or coursework assignment

• strong evidence of critical insight and thinking • a detailed understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues

and direct engagement with the relevant literature on the topic • clear evidence of planning and appropriate choice of sources and

methodology with correct referencing • ability to analyse data critically • capacity to develop a focused and clear argument and articulate clearly

and convincingly a sustained train of logical thought.

50–59 (Pass). A mark in the range 50–59 will fulfil the following criteria:

• ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment

• a reasonable understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues involved

• evidence of some knowledge of the literature with correct referencing • ability to analyse data • examples of a clear train of thought or argument • the text is introduced and concludes appropriately.

40–49 (Fail). A Fail will be awarded in cases in which there is:

• limited ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment

• some awareness and understanding of the literature and of factual or theoretical issues, but with little development

• limited ability to analyse data • incomplete referencing • limited ability to present a clear and coherent argument.


• very limited ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment

• failure to develop a coherent argument that relates to the research project or assignment



• no engagement with the relevant literature or demonstrable knowledge of the key issues

• incomplete referencing • clear conceptual or factual errors or misunderstandings • only fragmentary evidence of critical thought or data analysis.


• no demonstrable ability to plan, organise and execute a research project or coursework assignment

• little or no knowledge or understanding related to the research project or assignment

• little or no knowledge of the relevant literature • major errors in referencing • no evidence of critical thought or data analysis • incoherent argument.

The grading scheme: Examinations

The written examinations are ‘unseen’ (ie, you will only see the paper in the exam centre) and written by hand, over a three-hour period. We advise that you practise writing exams in these conditions as part of your examination preparation, as it is not something you would normally do. You are not allowed to take in books or notes to the exam room. This means that you need to revise thoroughly in preparation for each exam. This is especially important if you completed the module in the early part of the year, or in a previous year. Details of the general definitions of what is expected in order to obtain a particular grade are shown below. These guidelines take account of the fact that examination conditions are less conducive to polished work than the conditions in which you write your assignments. Note that as the criteria for each grade rises, they accumulate the elements of the grade below. Assignments awarded better marks will therefore have become comprehensive in their depth of both core skills and advanced skills.

Postgraduate unseen written examinations marking criteria

80+ (Distinction). A mark of 80+ will fulfil the following criteria:

• very significant ability to evaluate literature and theory critically and make informed judgements

• very high levels of creativity, originality and independence of thought • outstanding levels of accuracy, technical competence, organisation,

expression • outstanding ability of synthesis under exam pressure.



70–79 (Distinction). A mark in the 70–79 range will fulfil the following criteria:

• clear evidence of wide and relevant reading and an engagement with the conceptual issues

• develops a sophisticated and intelligent argument • rigorous use and a sophisticated understanding of relevant source

materials, balancing appropriately between factual detail and key theoretical issues

• direct evaluation of materials; their assumptions and arguments challenged and/or appraised

• original thinking and a willingness to take risks • significant ability of synthesis under exam pressure.

60–69 (Merit). A mark in the 60–69 range will fulfil the following criteria:

• strong evidence of critical insight and critical thinking • a detailed understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues

and direct engagement with the relevant literature on the topic • develops a focused and clear argument and articulates clearly and

convincingly a sustained train of logical thought • clear evidence of planning and appropriate choice of sources and

methodology, and ability of synthesis under exam pressure.

50–59 (Pass). A mark in the 50–59 range will fulfil the following criteria:

• a reasonable understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues involved

• evidence of planning and selection from appropriate sources • some demonstrable knowledge of the literature • the text shows, in places, examples of a clear train of thought or argument • the text is introduced and concludes appropriately.

40–49 (Fail). A Fail will be awarded in cases in which:

• there is some awareness and understanding of the factual or theoretical issues, but with little development

• misunderstandings are evident • there is some evidence of planning, although irrelevant/unrelated

material or arguments are included.

20–39 (Fail). A Fail will be awarded in cases which:

• fail to answer the question or to develop an argument that relates to the question set

• do not engage with the relevant literature or demonstrate a knowledge of the key issues

• contain clear conceptual or factual errors or misunderstandings.

0–19 (Fail). A Fail will be awarded in cases which:

• show no knowledge or understanding related to the question set



• show no evidence of critical thought or analysis • contain short answers and incoherent argument.

[2015–16: Learning & Teaching Quality Committee]

Past papers and specimen exam papers

Where possible, a selection of CeFiMS past papers are available on the VLE. However, please note that modules are continuously updated, and past papers may not be a reliable guide to current and future examinations. Instead, the specimen exam paper is designed to be relevant and to reflect the exam that will be set on this module. Your final examination will have the same structure and style as, and the range of questions will be comparable to those in, the specimen exam. The number of questions will be the same, but the wording and the requirements of each question will be different. Good luck on your final examination.

Further information

Online you will find documentation and information on each year’s examination registration and administration process. If you still have questions, both academics and administrators are available to answer queries. The Regulations are also available at www.cefims.ac.uk/regulations/, setting out the rules by which exams are governed.

References

ISO (2006) ISO 14040. Environmental Management – Lifecycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. [Online]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html [Accessed 8 October 2019] World Health Organisation (2019) Health Impact Assessment. [Online]. Available from: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/urban/guidance-tools/en/ [Accessed 8 October 2019]

Partidário M (1999) ‘Strategic environmental assessment: principles and potential’. In J Petts (Ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 60–73. Pope J, D Annandale and A Morrison-Saunders (2004) ‘Conceptualising sustainability assessment’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (6), 595–616. The Equator Principles Association (nd) Homepage. [Online]. Available from: https://equator-principles.com [Accessed 8 October 2019]

DO NOT REMOVE THE QUESTION PAPER FROM THE EXAMINATION HALL

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

CENTRE FOR FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES

MSc Examination Postgraduate Diploma Examination for External Students

91DFMM469 FMM469

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT PUBLIC POLICY PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT


Specimen Examination

This is a specimen examination paper designed to show you the type of examination you will have at the end of the year for the module. The number of questions and the structure of the examination will be the same but the wording and the requirements of each question will be different. Best wishes for success in your final examination. The examination must be completed in THREE hours. Answer THREE questions, selecting at least ONE question from EACH section. The examiners give equal weight to each question; you are advised to distribute your time approximately equally between the three questions.

PLEASE TURN OVER

Specimen Examination


Answer THREE questions, at least ONE from EACH section. Answer all parts of the questions. Section A (Answer at least ONE question from this section)

1. Summarise the origins of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and evaluate its global impact, with reference to both social and biophysical environmental contexts, using examples from more than one continent.

2

a. What is the difference between the screening and scoping steps in ESIA, what is involved in each, and what is the point of conducting both processes? Your answer should clarify their relative objectives and justify conducting both steps separately, assuming resources are limited. (50% of the marks)

b. What is required to conduct and compile an adequate and effective project ‘baseline description’, and why does it matter in the context of the complete ESIA report and process? (50% of the marks)

3. What tools and methods would you use to identify, predict and

evaluate the significance of different types of impacts? Why are these tools appropriate, and what characterises the impacts you would prioritise for mitigation or enhancement?

4

a. Summarise the management hierarchy and how it relates to types and purposes of impact management. (60% of the marks)

b. Describe the typical structure and content of an ESIA report and critically evaluate the importance of each feature to a good ESIA report. (40% of the marks)



Section B (Answer at least ONE question from this section)

5.

a. Contrast the use of stakeholder engagement (or public involvement) in one of your chosen case studies with its potential benefits when conducted as an integral part of ESIA (the ideal case). (60% of the marks)

b. What challenges can arise in the process of stakeholder engagement (or public consultation)? How can they be prevented from the outset, and how might they be overcome when they occur? (40% of the marks)

6. Explore the strengths and weaknesses of measures that are

conducive to improving and ensuring the effectiveness of ESIA, related to implementation and follow-up, monitoring, auditing and EMSs.

7. What distinguishes the thematically focused forms of assessment:

Health Impact Assessment, Economic Impact Assessment, Gender Impact Assessment and Cultural Impact Assessment? Justify their being either conducted separately or integrated within ESIA, as you prefer.

8.

a. For a case study of your choice, explore the potential effects of cumulative impacts in the context of an ineffective Strategic Environmental Assessment process being carried out at the last minute.

(50 per cent of the marks) b. Define the meaning and implications of ‘Integrated

Assessment’, ‘Sustainability Assessment’, and ‘Climate Impacts Assessment’. How do these approaches enhance ESIA? (50 per cent of the marks)

[END OF EXAMINATION]



Contents

Unit Overview 2

1.1 Introduction 3

1.2 Origins and Variations in Application 4

1.3 The Purpose of ESIA 8

1.4 Drivers for ESIA 11

1.5 The Overall ESIA Process 12

1.6 Structuring ESIAs 13

1.7 Success of ESIA 14

1.8 Social Impact Assessment 15

1.9 Reflection on SIA 20

1.10 Conclusion 21

References 22

Appendix A: Social Impacts 25



Unit Overview

Unit 1 provides an overview of the origins of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and how its application varies between projects. The pur-pose and drivers of ESIA are discussed and the overall process described. This includes the functions of ESIAs, the structure and tools used to conduct ESIAs, and consideration of the effectiveness of ESIAs. The unit concludes with a section focusing on Social Impact Assessment (SIA).

Learning outcomes

When you have completed this unit and its reading, you will be able to: • critically discuss the origin, purpose and drivers of ESIA • evaluate the functions, tools used, and procedures involved in conducting

an ESIA • critically discuss the role and scope of SIA in relation to ESIA • synthesise key issues in SIA.

Reading for Unit 1

Textbook

John Glasson and Riki Therivel (2019) Chapter 1 ‘Introduction and principles’, Chapter 8 ‘UK practice’, Chapter 9 ‘EIA practice worldwide’, Chapter 10 ‘EIA impact areas, current and emerging’ and Chapter 11 ‘EIA next steps: the effectiveness and efficiency of the process’. In Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 5th Edition, pp. 3–31, 201–28, 229–56, 259–82, 283–311.

Online

UNEP (2018) ‘Executive Summary’ and sections that interest you. In South Sudan: First State of the Environment and Outlook Report 2018. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, pp. 16–21. Available from: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/south-sudan-first-state-environment-and-outlook-report-2018. Also available on the VLE.

Case Studies

Please select two of the ESIAs from the options given in the Module Introduc-tion and Overview.

Multimedia

The following videos provide a snap overview of the purpose and structure of ESIA, an explanation and critique, and a summary of ESIA steps.

Science Sauce (2017) Environmental Impact Assessments. [Video]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07CjSGsl94



UNESCO-IHE Archive (2010) Environmental Impact Assessment: Useful Tool of Just Another Fashion? [Video]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWUR2x_aGk Exam Race (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment – Analyzing Benefits and Actions. [Video]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fbEVytyJCk

1.1 Introduction

Primarily, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted on major devel-opment proposals such as roads, power stations, dams and industrial projects. Its purpose is to prevent or minimise any adverse effects, and maximise potential positive effects, of the relevant proposal. Limited forms of EIA can also be used to ensure small-scale projects conform to appropriate environmental standards, eg, housing subdivisions or road upgrades. Sometimes policy implementation and large-scale developments have consequences which result in further develop-ments; for example, the creation of new housing may entail extension or expansion of existing highways or transport infrastructure. EIA is therefore closely linked to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which concentrates on decision-making at the policy level ie, regional or governmental policies, programmes and plans (referred to in this module as PPPs). SEA is intended to ensure the environ-ment is taken fully into account when considering high-level development alterna-tives and options. It is considered in detail in Unit 8. Both EIA and SEA are structured approaches for acquiring and assessing information about the environment before making decisions regarding devel-opments or policies. They provide a prognosis for environmental changes resulting from implementing alternative actions. They also give recommenda-tions on the optimal management of such environmental changes for each alternative action. The scope of EIA and SEA has increased over time to incorporate prediction and evaluation of social, economic and health impacts of developments, not just biophysical impacts. This increase in scope results from two main factors: first, the demands of those affected (stakeholders) and secondly, a recognition of social and economic impacts which themselves directly impact the environ-ment. Thus, the scope of study, application, analytical and evaluative methods of EIA and SEA have developed towards the integration of a range of issues relevant to decision-making. The extent of this integration depends partly on how the environment is defined in national legislation and policy. In some jurisdictions and organisations, it has a broad definition incorporating biophysical (‘green’) and social (including cultural and health) dimensions. Elsewhere, its definition may be restricted to the bio-physical. EIA and SEA are important methodologies for promoting sustainable development by integrating environmental and social considerations into project



planning. Their evolution into tools for enhancing environmental and social well-being as part of sustainability assessment is considered in Unit 8.

Videos 1.1 and 1.2 Please watch Videos 1.1 and 1.2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07CjSGsl94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWUR2x_aGk

1.2 Origins and Variations in Application

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the most widely used and successful of many impact assessment techniques. It has been supported by governments and international funding agencies such as the African and Asian Development Banks and the World Bank, which have catalysed its evolution into a fundamen-tal part of development project proposals and plans. For example, Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development emphasises the important role of EIA:

‘Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be un-dertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.’

Source: United Nations (1992)

EIA legislation originated in the USA (US Government, 1969) and has spread globally, in various formats, such that there are now at least 120 countries with EIA legislation.

Development of EIA

The introduction of EIA has been most rapid in some developing countries (eg, South Africa, Chile, Lebanon) compared with the USA and Western Europe (Wood, 2003; Khosravi, Jha-Thakur and Fischer, 2019). In order to incorporate impact assessment, existing planning procedures need to be examined, critiqued and restructured. International aid has often been offered with the proviso that states adopt EIA, but the adoption of such policies does not guarantee their implementation (Wood, 2003; Hasan, Nahiduzzaman and Aldosary, 2018). The evolution of EIA can be divided into four overlapping phases. Its introduc-tion and early development took place in the USA between 1970 and 1975, during which period the mandate and foundations of EIA were established. These were then adopted elsewhere, notably in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Glasson and Therivel, 2019). The second phase in the evolution of EIA (from the mid 70s to early 80s) saw an increase in scope and sophistication. More advanced techniques were developed, such as: risk assessment; guidance on process implementation; consideration of

Science Sauce (2017) Environmental Impact Assessments.

UNESCO-IHE Archive (2010) Environmental Impact Assessment: Useful Tool of Just Another Fashion?



social impacts; public inquiries and reviews. These developments drove innova-tions in leading countries. EIA uptake remained limited but included developing countries such as India, China, Thailand and the Philippines. The third phase of process strengthening and integration took place between the early 1980s and the 1990s. EIA practice and experience were reviewed; scientific and institutional frameworks of EIA were updated; coordination of EIA with other processes (eg, project appraisal, land use planning) was imple-mented. In this third phase of EIA development, ecosystem-level changes and cumulative effects began to be addressed, and monitoring and other follow-up mechanisms started to receive attention. Many more countries adopted EIA. The European Community (European Economic Community, 1985) and the World Bank (1999) respectively established supra-national and international lending requirements. The fourth phase, strategic and sustainability orientation, extends from the early 1990s to the present day. During this period, elements of EIA have been en-shrined in international agreements; there has been a marked increase in inter-national training, capacity-building and networking activities, and sustainabil-ity concepts and criteria are now included in EIA practice. EIA is now applied in most countries. It might be argued that an overlapping fifth phase is now underway, represent-ed by mass expressions of concern about the impacts of human activities on environmental systems and, concurrently, the effect of these impacts on current and future generations. Examples include movements such as Extinction Rebellion (nd) or at a more local level, Parents for Future in the UK (nd) and SustyVibes (nd) in Nigeria, who demand that impacts be identified and pre-vented at the research funding and policy levels, rather than ‘mitigated’ or ‘compensated’ at the developer or business level. The first four trends in EIA process development are identifiable within juris-dictions, but apart from the earliest adopters, countries often vary from their neighbours in terms of the phase and/or timescale of their EIA development. More strategic, sustainability-based approaches are still at a relatively early stage globally.

Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) emerged in the mid 1980s as it became clear that the application of EIA procedures was not consistently required for PPPs across national jurisdictions, and that their implementation PPPs could have significant environmental consequences. As a result, SEAs were implemented for PPPs, initially informally. Subsequently, administrative requirements for SEA have been introduced via amendments to EIA legislation, or new legislation focusing specifically on SEA.



Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

SIA came into use alongside EIA within the US National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, which stipulated the requirement for ‘actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment’ to be assessed (US Government, 1969). Its first application was in the early 1970s, with reference to the construction of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. However, SIA has remained underfunded and neglected relative to EIA, and its status and influence have grown more slowly. This is partly because of continu-ing ambiguities about its legal status, but also because of a wide diversity of SIA methodologies, inadequate data availability (ie, inadequate baseline knowledge) and lack of relevant expertise. SIA has grown in importance in recent years, with a shift in focus from envi-ronmental conservation to sustainable development. Many organisations have developed SIA guidelines (eg, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank) and many countries have enacted EIA legislation whose inclusion of SIA depends on the definition of ‘environment’ used. In some jurisdictions, this is limited to biophysical (natural/green/non-human) issues; elsewhere, it is defined as broadly including social, cultural, economic and health issues. Narrow definitions are generally more common in developed countries and broader definitions in developing countries. There are also intermediate ap-proaches whereby, besides biophysical impacts, the assessment of indirect or adverse social impacts is required; for example, where these are caused by biophysical impacts. In countries where ‘environment’ is defined broadly, EIA = ESIA. (In the pre-scribed textbook, SIA is regarded as being integral to EIA, which is the most rigorous approach.) Because EIA and SIA share objectives and approaches, and there is often no sharp distinction between them, there is an increasing trend towards integration. However, critics of this approach argue that it may cause biophysical concerns to be diluted or overshadowed by social or economic consid-erations, encouraging the ‘trading off’ of environmental protection for economic development. To avoid confusion, hereafter ‘ESIA’ is used to refer to impact assessments covering both social and biophysical issues, unless referring to a narrower impact assessment within a jurisdiction which separates EIA and SIA.

Reading 1.1

Please turn to your textbook and read Chapter 10, Sections 10.4.1 to 10.6.3: ‘Socio-economic

impacts’, pp. 262–79.

Focus your reading on the following questions:

Can adverse social impacts occur without environmental impacts?

What problems can be avoided by including SIA in EIA?

With reference to one of your chosen case studies, what social impacts can you identify? Are there potential social impacts which are not identified or addressed in the relevant assessment documents?

Glasson & Therivel (2019) Chapter 10,

Sections 10.4.1 to

10.6.3: ‘Socio-economic impacts’ in Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.



Make notes with reference to the questions above and establish the coverage of statutory

ESIA in your country of birth or residence. Is it limited to biophysical EIA, is SIA included

separately, or are they integrated (ESIA)?

Asking a government official or local practitioner of ESIA is one way to estab-lish this. You can also look up the definition of ‘environment’ in local legislation as an indicator of the prevailing approach. For instance, in the UAE, Federal Law No. 27 (1999) ‘On The Protection and Development of the Environment’ contains the definition:

‘Environment: The biosphere in which different forms of life are manifested. Such biosphere consists of two elements: A Natural Element: comprises living beings, namely humans, animals and plants, as well as other living beings and natural resources, namely air, water, soil, organic and inorganic substances, in addition to natural systems. An Artificial Element: comprises whatever humans have introduced to the natural environment, namely moveable and immoveable installations, roads, bridges, airports, transportation means, industries, inventions and technologies.’

In contrast, the Kingdom of Tonga Environmental Management Act (2010) defines ‘environment’ thus:

‘“environment” includes all natural and physical resources, the ecology, people and culture of the Kingdom, and the social and economic relationships that exist between these elements …’

These examples suggest that both countries require protection of the biophysical environment, but that in Tonga this includes socio-economic impacts, whereas the UAE does not at first glance state this, and in fact describes infrastructure as part of the ‘artificial’ environment to be protected. Another example is the Cana-dian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) in which ‘environment’ is defined as:

‘The components of the Earth, including (a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).’

The South African National Environmental Management Act (1998) contains the same definition, with the addition of:

‘The physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being.’

Both the Canadian and South African definitions suggest that assessment of impacts on the biophysical environment is required, but the South African definition suggests that the assessment of adverse social impacts caused indi-rectly by biophysical impacts is also required. More detailed analysis of the relevant documents and their interpretation could establish the extent to which direct and indirect social impacts must be assessed, according to ESIA regulations. At this stage, you are required just to gain some indication for your country of birth or residence, rather than to conduct an in-depth analysis of relevant legislation.



1.3 The Purpose of ESIA

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2009) defines ESIA as: ‘The process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action.’

ESIA is predicated on the notion that decision-makers should understand the consequences of their decisions before they act, ie, that it is a decision-aiding process. It provides information to project proponents, developers, local or regional authorities, communities and other stakeholders regarding a project’s biophysi-cal and social consequences, how best to maximise its benefits (positive impacts) and how to mitigate any adverse consequences (negative impacts). ESIA cannot, therefore, simply consist of preparing a report and obtaining approval (where local regulations exist). An impact is any beneficial or adverse change in the social or biophysical envi-ronment as a result of human activity. Impacts can be direct, secondary/indirect, induced, unplanned/non-normal or cumulative (Table 1.1) Assessing direct impacts can be relatively straightforward compared to other types of impacts.

Table 1.1 Types of Impacts

Type Definition Examples

Direct/

Primary

Impacts that result from the direct/primary interactions between some feature of the project and the social and/or biophysical environment. They generally occur at the same time and in the same space as the activity.

Reduced unemployment due to the creation of new jobs.

Indirect/

Secondary

Impacts that follow on from the direct impacts, ie, ‘knock-on effects’. They can occur later in time, or at a different place, from the causal activity, or as a result of a complex pathway.

Reduction in agricultural production due to soil erosion.

Induced Impacts that result from other developments or activities that are encouraged to happen as a consequence of the project.

In-migration of people not directly connected to the project to the project area.

Unplanned/

Non-normal

Impacts that result from unintentional events within the project (eg, breakdowns, failures) or in the external environment affecting the project (eg, natural disaster).

Chemical spillage during transport to the site.

Cumulative Impacts due to numerous separate developments which might be insignificant on their own, but which can interact or combine to cause significant impacts.

Contamination of a water source due to numerous effluent discharges.



Exercise 1.1

Consider a project you’ve worked on, been affected by, or find interesting – for example, new

roads, developments or projects near your home. Write down some of the impacts that you

believe may result from the project. Try to identify at least one biophysical and one social

impact from the definitions in Table 1.1 Are there positive impacts (beneficial changes)? If

not, why do you think the project was still approved?

While ESIAs are conducted to aid decision-making by providing information on the environmental and social consequences of proposed actions, they should also function to promote sustainable development, by identifying appropriate enhancement and mitigation measures. As a concept, sustainable development has gained increasing international traction in recent decades. The Brundtland Report (Brundtland Commission, 1987) describes sustainable development as:

‘Development that meets the needs of today’s generation without compromising those of future generations.’

This can be formally stated in terms of twin equity principles, intragenerational and intergenerational. In practice, these principles mean improving the welfare of the world’s peoples and maintaining opportunities for the generations that follow by not undermining the earth’s ecological systems. The concept of sustainable development is evolving and is continually redefined and reinter-preted. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report (UN, 2018) summarises the interlinkages between sustainability and human well-being, highlighting challenges such as land use/degradation and poverty.

Land use

‘From 1999 to 2013, approximately one fifth of the Earth’s land surface covered by vegetation showed persistent and declining trends in productivity, primarily due to land and water use and management. Up to 24 million square kilometres of land are affected (an area the size of China, India and the United States of America combined), including 19 per cent cropland, 16 per cent forest land, 19 per cent grassland and 28 per cent rangeland.’

Poverty

‘The latest global estimate suggests that 11 per cent of the world population, or 783 million people, lived below the extreme poverty threshold … The proportion of undernourished people worldwide increased from 10.6% in 2015 to 11.0% in 2016.’

This means that 38 million more people became undernourished in a single year. If these trends continue without effective adjustments to policy and technology, the global community and environment are at risk. For development projects to be sustainable, adverse impacts must be minimised and beneficial impacts enhanced; hence the growing importance of ESIA. Consequently, there are short- and long-term goals for ESIA. The short-term goal of any ESIA is to identify appropriate measures to mitigate actual or potential negative impacts of developments, enhance positive impacts,



and inform decision-making around project approval (including setting envi-ronmental and social terms and conditions). The long-term goal of an ESIA is the promotion of sustainable development by ensuring that development does not threaten critical resources, natural areas or ecosystem components, while benefiting communities or society. ESIA must also prevent developments compromising the safety, well-being, lifestyle or livelihood of any community or individual. The priority issues of different locations vary, but they set the context for ESIA. However, serious damage has already been done in most parts of the world; for example, the highest health burden due to environmental problems falls on African countries, which have the world’s most resource-dependent populations. Such environmental problems include soil degradation due to historic introduc-tion of inappropriate land-management practices, low food security, and increas-ing water scarcity in southern Africa and the north and east of the continent. In the Asian and Pacific regions, rapid economic growth, urbanisation and industrialisation have contributed to poverty alleviation, but simultaneously increased pressure on land and water resources, causing widespread environ-mental degradation. High population densities in southern and southeast Asia have brought mega-cities into particular focus in terms of environmental and health concerns. There remains a legacy of industrial pollution and land contamination in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, despite environmental clean-ups and economic restruc-turing. Communities remain at risk of poor health related to high particulate emissions, eg, sulphur dioxide and lead. The Balkans, in particular, bear heavy environmental and social tolls from historic regional conflict. The EU has intro-duced a range of policies to protect natural capital and environmental quality, but it could be argued that limited attention to the social benefits of developments and mitigation of social harms has contributed to political instability that threat-ens their continued implementation and improvement across Europe. In Latin America and the Caribbean, approximately three-quarters of the population live in urban areas. Many cities remain poor, overcrowded, polluted and lacking in basic infrastructure. The destruction of tropical rainforest, with the consequent reduction in carbon sequestration and loss of biodiversity, remains the major environmental issue. In the Middle East, land is vulnerable to deterioration from saline, alkaline and/or nutrient deposition. Groundwater resources are critically over-extracted, and surface waters have been depleted in quantity and quality by development projects upstream. Rapid urbanisation has caused air and water pollution in cities, and water resources are under severe pressure in the whole region.



Reading 1.2

Please now read the UNEP Case Study: ‘South Sudan: First State of Environment and Outlook

Report 2018’, available from https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/south-sudan-

first-state-environment-and-outlook-report-2018. Ensure you read the Executive Summary

and also browse sections of interest to you, reflecting on how this compares with your

country of birth or residence.

When you have finished reading, draw up a list of key environmental and social chal-

lenges facing your country of origin or your country of residence.

1.4 Drivers for ESIA

The increasing use of ESIA has been driven by the following: • Legislative requirements: Impact assessment in some form (eg, EIA, SIA)

may be legally required. Even where SIA is not required, a range of regulations may apply to social issues, such as the impact of development on employment conditions, ambient noise, protection of heritage sites, residential zoning and/or sanitation.

• Financiers’ requirements: Much commercial project finance is provided by institutions that have adopted the Equator Principles (nd). These principles commit financiers to assessing potential investments in accordance with the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, including ESIA (IFC, 2012).

• Stakeholder pressure: Communities, consumers, NGOs, employees, investors and lobbying groups apply increasing scrutiny to the conduct of businesses and government agencies. Developments must be shown to have positive benefits to local communities and wider society; it is no longer enough merely to demonstrate efforts to minimise negative impacts.

• Commitments to sustainable development: Governments and businesses nowadays have publicly-stated commitments to sustainable development. Under scrutiny from stakeholders, they have had to incorporate environmental and social considerations into their planning and decision-making processes.

• Tangible benefits: In helping proponents of development projects to understand the consequences of their activities, ESIA can contribute to cost and/or time savings. This is achieved by: 1) avoiding time spent on conflict resolution; 2) maintaining an informal ‘licence to operate’ from society by benefiting and not disadvantaging host communities; and 3) enhancing brand reputation, which can improve performance, for example through increased customer loyalty.

UNEP (2018) ‘Executive

summary’ and sections

that interest you in South Sudan: First State of Environment and Outlook Report 2018. Available online or on

the VLE.



Video 1.3

Please watch Video 1.3, available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fbEVytyJCk

Reading 1.3

Please now turn to your textbook and read Chapter 8.6: ‘Costs and benefits of EIA’ (based on

the UK context) pp. 217–18. Make notes to help you understand the questions in Section 8.8,

p. 226.

If the benefits of an EIA cannot be quantified, how can one determine whether the costs outweigh the benefits?

Do the benefits outweigh the costs, in your opinion? If they do not, is there a project or context in which you feel that they do?

1.5 The Overall ESIA Process

ESIA usually comprises the steps shown in Figure 1.1. They are presented sequen-tially, but in practice there tend to be many overlaps and iterations. In different jurisdictions, statutory ESIA processes have varying terminology, subdivisions, timing, and sequencing. The discrete steps involved are conducted alongside:

• project planning and design, encompassing technical and financial feasibility appraisal

• stakeholder engagement (explored in Unit 5) • research and data gathering (Unit 5)

Figure 1.1 Steps in a typical ESIA process

Source: Glasson and Therivel (2019)

Screening – is ESIA needed? (see Unit 2.2)

Scoping – what to include (see Unit 2.3)

Project description and alternatives (see Unit 2.4)

Baseline description (see Unit 2.5)

Assessment of impacts (see Unit 3.2 and 3.3)

Impact mitigation and enhancement (see Unit 4.2)

Reporting – the non-technical summary and EIS (see Unit 4.4)

Review and decision-making (see Unit 4.5)

Implementation and monitoring/follow-up (see Unit 6.4)

Data

co

llect

ion a

nd

rese

arc

h (

see

Uni

t 5)

Sta

keho

lder

eng

ag

em

ent

(see

Uni

t 5)

Pro

ject

pla

nnin

g a

nd

desi

gn

Exam Race (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment – Analyzing Benefits and Actions.

Glasson & Therivel

(2019) Chapter 8.6: ‘Costs and benefits of

EIA’ in Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.



Reading 1.4

Please now turn to your textbook and read Chapter 1.2.2 ‘EIA: A process’ (pp. 4–5).

Compare Figure 1.1 above with your textbook Figure 1.1 (p. 4). Although the terminolo-

gy and subdivisions differ, you can observe that the steps are essentially the same.

Look at the example of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contents in your textbook,

Table 1.1 (p. 6). Note how the outputs from the above steps are ultimately reported. This is

revisited in Unit 4.

1.6 Structuring ESIAs

ESIA links human activities to their likely impacts on the social and biophysical environment . Many environmental management models do not explicitly separate out causal mechanisms. However, in the International Standards Organisation (ISO) Environmental Management Systems standards ISO14001 and ISO14004 (EMSs), ‘mechanisms’ causing impacts are referred to as ‘aspects’, illustrated in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Model of activity–aspect–impact linkages

Source: Adapted from Sanchez and Hacking (2002)

The ISO EMSs approach was conceived for the improvement of operational (biophysical) environmental management, and this is predominantly how it has been applied. It can be used to enhance project ESIAs, especially social impact assessment, yet cause–effect relationships can be difficult to isolate when exploring human responses to change. The ISO EMSs approach is further explored in subsequent units which elaborate on the key ESIA steps illustrated in Figure 1.3. You will learn how ESIA results can be summarised by matrices.

Project activitiesCauses

AspectsPressures, mechanisms

ImpactsEffectsChange in conditions/states

Examples

Waste disposal Contaminated seepage Groundwater pollution

Open pit mining Aquifer dewateringEmployment opportunities

Loss of water supplyDevelopment of local skills

Glasson & Therivel

(2019) Chapter 1.2.2

‘EIA: A process’ in Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.



Figure 1.3 Key steps in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Reading 1.5

Please now turn to your textbook and read Section 11.6 ‘Links to project implementation and

adaptive management via EMS and EMPs’ (pp. 303–05)

If you have had previous experience of EMSs, compare your experience with the descrip-

tion in Section 11.6; otherwise, try to assess the practicality of the process described in

Chapter 11.

1.7 Success of ESIA

The benefits of ESIA were identified by a seminal early study which examined its effectiveness worldwide. The study was initiated by the International Asso-ciation for Impact Assessment (IAIA) which is a professional association repre-senting impact assessment practitioners. The list below, adapted from Sadler (1996), shows the benefits identified by the study:

• improved project design/siting • more informed decision-making (with improved opportunities for public

involvement) • more environmentally sensitive decision-making • increased accountability and transparency during the development

process • improved integration of projects in their environmental and social setting • reduced environmental damage • more effective projects in terms of meeting their financial and/or socio-

economic objectives • positive contributions towards achieving sustainability.

Strategic planning

Proposal Screening and scoping

Decision Implementation

▪ Impact management

▪ Design reassessment

EIA audit and post project analysis

Information to an EMS (such as ISO 14000)

Ongoingauditing

terms and conditions of approval

Baseline monitoring

Impact assessment

Monitoring and impact management plan for implementation and operation

Existing data

▪ Surveillance/compliance checking

▪ Baseline effect/compliance monitoring

▪ Proactive activity monitoring/assessment

Glasson & Therivel

(2019) Section 11.6

‘Links to project implementation and

adaptive management

via EMS and EMPs’ in Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment.



Despite widespread agreement on these benefits, it is recognised that they do not occur uniformly or consistently in all countries or organisations. A number of general – but not universal – constraints prevent ESIA from consistently delivering these benefits. Examples of hindrances identified in the Sadler (1996) study include:

• small-scale projects are not included in most ESIAs but may have significant cumulative impacts over time

• difficulties ensuring adequate and useful public involvement • insufficient integration of ESIA work in relation to feasibility and similar

studies at key decision points in the project life cycle, with some major decisions being made even before ESIAs are completed

• inconsistent selection of developments requiring specific ESIA studies • weak procedures for obtaining early agreement on ESIA study scope • inadequate understanding of the relative roles of baseline description and

impact prediction • poor integration of biophysical impacts with social impacts (including

economic and health impacts) • ESIA reports which are difficult for decision-makers and the public to

understand, because of their length and technical complexity • lack of mechanisms to ensure decision-makers consider ESIA reports • weak linkages between project implementation/operation and ESIA

report recommendations on mitigation and monitoring • limited technical and managerial capacity to implement ESIAs in many

countries. Although the study was published in 1996, it is still referenced widely; disap-pointingly, its findings are still considered relevant. As part of the ‘next genera-tion’ of experts in the field, you may be well placed to address these challenges!

Exercise 1.2

Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the ESIA system within your country of birth or

residence. If you do not yet have specific knowledge concerning the ESIA system, then

consider the management of environmental and/or social issues more generally.

Are there cultural values/social structures, economic systems/conditions, education issues, public attitudes, political structures, and/or institutional/technical capacity issues which prevent or constrain effective ESIA?

What is the nature of the challenge(s), and what measures could be taken to improve the situation?

1.8 Social Impact Assessment

The International Association for Impact Assessment defines SIA as: ‘… the process of identifying and managing the social issues of project development, [it] includes the effective engagement of affected communities



in participatory processes of identification, assessment and management of social impacts.’ (Vanclay et al, 2015).

This still includes analysing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of planned policies, programmes, plans and/or projects, and any social changes introduced by these interventions, whether intentional or not. However, the primary purpose of SIA is to promote and enhance equity and sustainability (both biophysical and human). SIA can be best understood as a grouping, within EIA, of the impacts on humans, including impacts on how people and communities interact with their socio-cultural, economic and biophysical surroundings (IAIA, 2003). The key motivations for including social concerns in ESIA include:

• the realisation that a holistic view is required for successful management of the biophysical environment, ie, it cannot be managed independently of social concerns

• the objective of considering non-biophysical areas of concern in decision-making

• the adoption of sustainability as a development goal which, by definition, requires a holistic perspective

• the need to integrate social performance requirements into business. Social, economic and environmental interests may be intertwined, eg, a water resource development initiative which alters the downstream hydrological regime of a river. The resulting changes in water quality and flow may signifi-cantly reduce reedbed areas utilised for basket-making by local communities. Selling these products provides an important source of income and without this resource the community has to find an alternative income source, so they cut down nearby trees to process into charcoal. By exploiting this resource, they contribute to a serious deforestation problem and exacerbate the attendant problems of soil depletion and erosion. This chain of events can be prevented if the socio-economic importance of downstream natural resources is investigated and the likely impacts predicted; either the reedbeds could be protected through controlled discharges, or an alternative economic activity could be facilitated that does not exacerbate environmental degradation. SIA may be a stand-alone undertaking, may be conducted in parallel with EIA, or may be part of an ‘integrated’ ESIA; the debate continues as to whether greater integration or separation is most desirable. In this course, an integrated approach is favoured, because social and biophysical concerns are interconnected. There may be ambiguity between the terms ‘social’ and ‘socio-economic’; ‘social’ may be interpreted to exclude economic impacts, while ‘socio-economic’ may exclude purely cultural impacts. In this unit, ‘social’ is used as the umbrella term to refer to non-biophysical impacts but ‘socio-economic’ is used inter-changeably elsewhere. Table 1.2 summarises the components covered by these terms. A social impact is a beneficial or adverse change to any of the compo-nents listed in Figure 1.2 as a result of a project.



Note that social impacts may indirectly result from biophysical impacts. Fur-thermore, ‘social’ includes not only tangible impacts, such as loss of agricultural land, but also subtle impacts, such as shifts in people’s expectations, demands, values and beliefs. In this unit, all issues impacting humans are considered pertinent to SIA.

Table 1.2 Meanings of terms ‘social’, ‘socio’ and socio-economic’

Terms Components Descriptions

So

cial/

soci

o-e

con

om

ic

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

So

cial

<--

-->

Eco

no

mic

Macroeconomic National/regional economic growth, employment levels, export earnings etc.

Microeconomic Local employment, business activity, earnings and income.

Fiscal Government costs and revenues.

Infrastructure and services

Demand for/availability of infrastructure services and facilities.

Demographics Population size, distribution and composition.

So

cial

(cu

ltu

ral)

Livelihoods Financial or subsistence means whereby people secure a living, ie, the combined resources used and activities undertaken.

Culture/heritage Shared customs and value systems distinguishing a social or ethnic group.

Traditional knowledge, beliefs and practices.

Language or dialect.

Archaeological, historical and cultural artefacts.

Structures/features with religious or spiritual significance.

Aesthetics and sense of justice.

Community/way of life

Social structures, organisations, interaction patterns and relationships.

How people relate to family, friends and cohorts on a daily basis.

Healt

h

Social/ psychological

Sense of place, well-being, security and/or belonging.

Perceptions of amenity or safety.

Fears and aspirations about the future.

Physical and mental health

Absence of communicable and non-communicable diseases, malnutrition, injuries and mental ill-health.

Air and water quality, food availability and quality, exposure to hazards and sanitation adequacy.

Political/governance systems

Human rights

Ability to participate in decisions affecting their lives.

Degree of equity and non-discrimination.

Level of democratisation, absence of corruption etc.

Personal and property rights.

Access to and control of resources.

Respect for civil liberties.

Source: Adapted from Hacking (2006)



There are a number of key differences between the social and biophysical environments, including the following:

• social impacts can vary in desirability, ranging from positive to negative, whereas biophysical impacts are usually negative

• the social environment can react in anticipation of change • besides disturbances that can affect other species (eg, noise), humans are

affected by changes in the distinctly human environment (eg, political leadership).

Appendix A lists possible social impacts, the relevance of which depends on context. Many such impacts are difficult to measure and quantifying them involves analysis of numerous complex interacting variables. It is therefore more practical to rely on basic dimensions of social change as a reference point for defining and mitigating impacts. According to Sadler and McCabe (2002), the key characteristics often correlated with adverse social impacts of develop-ments include:

• demographic change: eg, size and composition of resident population, influx of temporary workforce or new recreational users, disrupting the cohesion of small, stable communities

• economic change: eg, new patterns of employment/income or real estate speculation, marginalising long-term, older residents

• environmental change: eg, land use alterations, natural habitat and hydrological regime change (loss of subsistence or livelihood in resource-dependent communities)

• institutional change: eg, changes to the structure of local government or traditional leadership, zoning by-laws or land tenure with reduced access or loss of control, leading to disempowerment or impoverishment of the established population

• social impacts occurring as a result of the above project-related changes can be grouped into five overlapping categories: • lifestyle impacts on the way people behave and relate to family, friends

and cohorts on a day-to-day basis • cultural impacts on shared customs, obligations, values, language,

religious beliefs and other elements which distinguish a social or ethnic group

• community impacts on infrastructure, services, voluntary organisations, activity networks and social cohesion

• amenity/quality of life impacts on sense of place, aesthetics and heritage, perception of belonging, security and liveability, and aspirations for the future

• health impacts on mental, physical and social well-being, although these aspects are also the subject of health impact assessment (explored in Unit 7 ‘Other Assessment Techniques’).



The IAIA has produced a document entitled ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’ (IAIA Special Publication Series No. 2), which can be found on its website (www.iaia.org) (Vanclay, 2003). This outlines the core values of SIA as follows:

1. There are fundamental human rights that are shared equally across cultures, and by males and females alike.

2. There is a right to have those fundamental human rights protected by the rule of law, with justice applied equally and fairly to all, and available to all.

3. People have a right to live and work in an environment which is conducive to good health and to a good quality of life and which enables the development of human and social potential.

4. Social dimensions of the environment – specifically but not exclusively peace, the quality of social relationships, freedom from fear, and belongingness – are important aspects of people’s health and quality of life.

5. People have a right to be involved in the decision-making about the planned interventions that will affect their lives.

6. Local knowledge and experience are valuable and can be used to enhance planned interventions.

The fundamental principles of development identified by Vanclay (2003) are: 1. Respect for human rights should underpin all actions. 2. Promoting equity and democratisation should be the major driver of

development planning. Impacts on the worst-off members of society should be a major consideration in all assessment.

3. The existence of diversity between cultures, within cultures, and the diversity of stakeholder interests need to be recognised and valued.

4. Decision-making should be just, fair and transparent, and decision-makers should be accountable for their decisions.

5. Development projects should be broadly acceptable to the members of those communities likely to benefit from, or be affected by, the planned intervention.

6. The opinions and views of experts should not be the sole consideration in decisions about planned interventions.

7. The primary focus of all development should be positive outcomes, such as capacity building, empowerment, and the realisation of human and social potential.

8. The term ‘the environment’ should be defined broadly to include social and human dimensions, and in such inclusion, care must be taken to ensure that adequate attention is given to the realm of the social.



The principles specific to SIA practice identified by Vanclay (2003) are: 1. Equity considerations should be a fundamental element of impact

assessment and of development planning. 2. Many of the social impacts of planned interventions can be predicted. 3. Planned interventions can be modified to reduce their negative social

impacts and enhance their positive impacts. 4. SIA should be an integral part of the development process, involved in all

stages from inception to follow-up audit. 5. There should be a focus on socially sustainable development, with SIA

contributing to the determination of best development alternative(s) – SIA and ESIA have more to offer than just being arbiters between economic benefit and social cost.

6. In all planned interventions and their assessments, avenues should be developed to build the social and human capital of local communities and to strengthen democratic processes.

7. In all planned interventions, but especially where there are unavoidable impacts, ways to turn impacted peoples into beneficiaries should be investigated.

8. The SIA must give due consideration to the alternatives of any planned intervention, but especially in cases when there are likely to be unavoidable impacts.

9. Full consideration should be given to the potential mitigation measures of social and environmental impacts, even where impacted communities may approve the planned intervention and where they may be regarded as beneficiaries.

10. Local knowledge and experience and acknowledgment of different local cultural values should be incorporated in any assessment.

11. There should be no use of violence, harassment, intimidation or undue force in connection with the assessment or implementation of a planned intervention.

12. Developmental processes that infringe the human rights of any section of society should not be accepted.

1.9 Reflection on SIA

Frank Vanclay (1999) writes about SIA in the Oxford Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol. 1), addressing the complex issues affecting SIA. These are best expressed as questions to be asked about a project or proposal, to which there are no definitive answers. By the end of the course, you will be better able to provide well-informed answers. Write brief answers to these questions now, and compare them with your views at the end of the course.



Exercise 1.3

Reflect on the questions below, using the adapted discourse provided from Vanclay (1999) as

a model for your approach.

Who has legitimate interests in the community?

How is the ‘affected community’ to be defined and identified?

‘A stable community is one in which the rate of change of members is low. However, pro-jects often bring in newcomers, with different values and behaviours, and attitudes to the project. Should such newcomers to be considered part of the community? They may be sea-sonal inhabitants and may be in a dominant position relative to members of the original community. Examples of such projects include rural re-zoning, rural–urban fringe develop-ment, and tourism.

Where projects of proposals impact on areas of natural beauty or those with cultural or ecological significance, the wider community – the nation and beyond – may be concerned with their protection, whereas local people may require economic opportunities. The needs and rights of future generations should also be considered. Thus, the “community” is not one group, but several potentially overlapping or clashing “publics”.’

Source: adapted from Vanclay (1999)

What should be the role of community participation in the SIA?

‘The extent and validity of local communities’ knowledge and opinions must be considered. There are cases where the public opposes a project, yet independent assessment shows it to be beneficial. Alternatively, a community may favour a project considered by experts to have significant social and/or environmental problems. Public opinion can be manipulated by the media.’


What is the role of community participation in the SIA?

What is the role of compensation in SIA?

What impacts are to be considered?

How should impacts be weighted?

Exercise 1.4

Choose a local development with which you are familiar and identify its potential social

impacts and their causes.

How might the social impacts of the development vary with the project life cycle?

Which of the social impacts you can identify are most important and why?

Are there potential positive social impacts (benefits)?

1.10 Conclusion

The fundamental premise on which ESIA rests is that we should understand the consequences of decisions before acting – ie, it is a decision-aiding process. Prior to deciding whether to proceed with a development proposal, it is appropriate to consider the technical, institutional and financial attributes of the planned development, but also to predict its impacts on the natural environment, local communities and wider society.



As well as the direct consequences, such impacts may be indirect, induced, unplanned and/or cumulative (all of which may apply to the goal of the devel-opment and its positive outcomes as well). EIA and SIA are the most commonly used techniques to evaluating the social and environmental impacts of projects, and although SIA is often argued to be inherently included in EIA, the two together are often termed ESIA, to make this requirement explicit (Morrison-Saunders, 2018) Even when legislation does not specifically demand that social impacts be appraised, the range of regulations in place may apply to social issues, and it is often expected that stakeholders are kept informed of develop-ment impacts. EIA legislation has been introduced in many countries, most commonly for major projects, but in many jurisdictions the definition of ‘environment’ deter-mines the coverage of such legislation in terms of project size. The use of ESIA is not only driven by regulators and legislative bodies; it is often a requirement of a project’s financiers, who may have their own values to promote in terms of environmental and social impacts, may be motivated by commitments to sustainable development and/or tangible benefits of limiting their negative impacts (eg, cost or time savings) and may also be under pressure from commu-nities and other lobbying groups.

References

Brundtland Commission (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. Burdge RJ (2003) ‘Benefiting from the Practice of Social Impact Assessment’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (3), 225–29. Cashmore M (2004) ‘The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (4), 95–310. Equator Principles (nd). Homepage. [Online]. Available from: www.equator-principles.com [Accessed 24 September 2019] European Commission (2001) Case-by-Case Screening: Checklist and Criteria for Evaluating Significance of Potential Impacts. Adapted from European Commission Guidance on EIA Screening. Luxembourg, Germany: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2017) Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects: Guidance on Screening. [Online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-guidelines/screening_checklist.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2019] European Economic Community (1985) ‘Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment’. Luxembourg, Germany: EEC.



Extinction Rebellion (nd) Homepage. [Online]. Available from: https://rebellion.earth/ [Accessed 24 September 2019] Glasson JA and RA Therivel (2019) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. 5th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Hacking T (2006) Assessment for Sustainable Development: Theoretical Framework and Mining Sector Case Studies from Canada, Namibia, and South Africa. [PhD thesis]. University of Cambridge. Hasan MA, KM Nahiduzzaman and AS Aldosary (2018) ‘Public participation in EIA: A comparative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental organizations’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 12–24. IAIA (2009) What Is Impact Assessment? [Online]. Fargo ND, International Association for Impact Assessment. Available from: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/What_is_IA_web.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2019] IFC (2012) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/ - iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en [Accessed 24 September 2019] Khosravi F, U Jha-Thakur and Fischer TB (2019) ‘Enhancing EIA systems in developing countries: A focus on capacity development in the case of Iran’. Science of the Total Environment, 425–32. Morrison-Saunders A. (2018) Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Parents for Future UK (nd) Homepage. [Online]. Available from: https://www.parentsforfuture.org.uk/ [Accessed 24 September 2019] Sadler B (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance: Final report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Quebec, Canada: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment. Sadler B and M McCabe (2002) UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual. Geneva: UNEP. Sánchez LE and T Hacking (2002) ‘An approach to linking environmental impact assessment and environmental management systems’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20 (1), 25–38. SustyVibes (nd). Homepage. [Online]. Available from: https://sustyvibes.com/ [Accessed 24 September 2019] UN (2018) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. New York: United Nations.



United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) Agenda 21, Rio Declaration, Forest Principles. New York: United Nations. United Nations Environment Programme (2003) ‘Case Study 1.1: Environmental impact assessment from a Sudanese perspective’. Studies of EIA Practice in Developing Countries. New York: UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme (2003) ‘Case Study 1.2: State of the Environment in Sudan’. Studies of EIA Practice in Developing Countries. New York: UNEP. Vanclay F (1999) ‘Social impact assessment’. In J Petts (Ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 301–26. Vanclay F (2015) Summary of work on IAIA International Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Vanclay F, AM Esteves, I Aucamp & D Franks (2015) Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. Fargo ND: International Association for Impact Assessment. US Government (1969) ‘National Environment Policy‘. United States Code, 2011 Edition. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title42/html/USCODE-2011-title42-chap55.htm [Accessed 24 September 2019] Vanclay F (2003) ‘Social Impact Assessment International Principles’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1) 5–12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491 [Accessed 24 September 2019] Wood C (2003) ‘Environmental impact assessment in developing countries’. International Development Planning Review, 25 (3), 301–21. World Bank (1996) ‘Analysis of alternatives in environmental assessment’. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update, 17. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAFEPOL/1142947-1116495579739/20507390/Update17AnalysisOfAlternativesInEADecember1996.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2019] World Bank (1999) Operational Manual: OP 4.01 - Environmental Assessment. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank (2011) Operational Manual: OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment. Last updated in February 2011. Washington DC: World Bank.



Appendix A: Social Impacts

Individual and household-level impacts

1. death, death of family member 2. arrest, imprisonment, detention, torture, intimidation or other abuse of

human rights inflicted on individual 3. reduced availability of food and adequate nutrition 4. reduced control over fertility (availability of contraception, and

empowerment) 5. reduced level of health and fertility (ability to conceive) 6. reduced mental health: increased stress, anxiety, alienation, apathy,

depression 7. uncertainty about impacts, development possibilities, and social change 8. actual personal safety, hazard exposure 9. experience of stigmatisation and deviance labelling

10. reduction in perceived quality of life 11. reduction in standard of living, level of affluence 12. worsening of economic situation, level of income property values 13. decreased autonomy, independence, security of livelihood 14. change in status or type of employment, or becoming unemployed 15. decrease in occupational opportunities, potential, diversity, flexibility in

employment 16. moral outrage, blasphemy, religious affront, violation of sacred sites 17. upset (objection/opposition to the project), NIMBY (not in my back yard) 18. dissatisfaction due to failure of a project to achieve heightened

expectations 19. annoyance: dust, noise, strangers, more people 20. disruption to daily living, way of life (having to do things differently) 21. reduction in environmental amenity value 22. perception of community, community cohesion, integration 23. community identification and connection to place (do I belong here?) 24. changed attitude towards local community, level of satisfaction with the

neighbourhood 25. disruption to social networks 26. alteration in family structure and stability (divorce) 27. family violence 28. gender relations within the household 29. changed cultural values 30. changed perceptions about personal health and safety, risk, fear of crime



31. changed leisure opportunities 32. quality of housing 33. homeliness 34. density and crowding 35. aesthetic quality, outlook, visual impacts 36. workload, amount of work necessary to survive/live reasonably

Community and institutional-level impacts

1. death of people in the community 2. violation of human rights, freedom of speech 3. adequacy of physical infrastructure: water supply, sewerage, services and

utilities 4. adequacy of community social infrastructure: health, welfare, education,

libraries, etc 5. adequacy of housing in the community 6. workload of institutions, local government, regulatory bodies 7. cultural integrity: continuation of local culture, tradition, rites 8. rights over, and access to, resources 9. influences on heritage and other sites of archaeological, cultural or

historical significance 10. loss of local language or dialect 11. debasement of culture 12. equity (economic, social, cultural) 13. changed equity/social justice issues in relation to minority or indigenous

groups 14. gender relations in the community 15. economic prosperity 16. dependency/autonomy/diversity/viability of the community 17. unemployment level in the community 18. opportunity costs (loss of other options) 19. actual crime 20. actual violence 21. social tensions, conflict or serious divisions within the community 22. corruption, credibility and integrity of government 23. level of community participation in decision-making 24. social values about heritage and biodiversity


environmental and social impact assessment · lane bridges with double-lane structures; improvement...

Documents