Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Cleaner Production and Environmental Impact Assessment:a UK perspective

N.N.B. Salvadora, J. Glassonb, J.M. Piperb,*

a Universidade Federal de Sao Carlos, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Rodovia Washington Luis, Km 235, 13.565-905,Sao Carlos SP, Brazil

b Oxford Brookes University, School of Plannning, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

Received 15 March 1999; received in revised form 1 October 1999; accepted 2 November 1999

Abstract

The objective of this work is to discuss the links between Cleaner Production (CP) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)practices, within the perspective of the principal European legislation on these matters, which will become operational in 1999.The discussion is centred on the main opportunities and institutional problems to be faced in bringing these practices together, witha particular emphasis on the EIA practices which have been developed in the UK. A proposed procedure is outlined which bringsCP and EIA practices closer together, establishing a formal link between them so that companies develop preliminary CP proposalswithin the EIA process. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Cleaner Production (CP); Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

1. Cleaner Production and EIA—legislation andpractices

The preventative technological approach towardsenvironmental protection and pollution control started inthe 1970s, at the same time as the introduction ofEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which alsoproposed a preventative approach. Both gained strengthduring the 1980s and both sets of procedures are nowmoving towards a more holistic approach consisting ofstrategic, integrated measures to promote sustainabledevelopment. Examples of this include Cleaner Pro-duction (CP), in the case of the technological prevent-ative process, and Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA), within a wider EIA context.

Cleaner Production and EIA are considered to be twoof the most important processes for environmental pro-tection and should be strengthened as much as possible.They have a number of similar characteristics(principles, objectives, procedures) and formal/legal

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+44 01865-483448.E-mail addresses:nemesio@power.ufscar.br (N.N.B. Salvador),

jglasson@brookes.ac.uk (J. Glasson), jake.piper@brookes.ac.uk(J.M. Piper)

0959-6526/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959-6526 (99)00317-0

links, to the extent that they could be associated or com-bined in practice. This could lead to the significantstrengthening of both processes. New European legis-lation relating to EIA and CP, to become operational in1999, entails some important provisions which will makethese processes more compatible. This will involve tak-ing into account, for each process, all relevant infor-mation, procedures and decisions derived from the otherprocess. The implementation of this legislation rep-resents a great opportunity to establish real and effectivelinks between these processes in practice, using second-ary and complementary regulations.

1.1. Cleaner Production and Integrated PollutionPrevention and Control

At the European level, whilst there is no legislationspecifically concerning CP, the major legislation on Inte-grated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), CouncilDirective 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, encouragesthe adoption of CP practices. Although the term CP iswider than IPPC, including further issues beyond pol-lution control, the two terms are closely related andimplementation of IPPC frequently leads to CP. Othercurrent regulations and procedures, such as Eco-label-

128 N.N.B. Salvador et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132

ling, the Packaging and Eco-Management Audit Scheme,and the ISO-14000 standards, are also considered tohave an impact upon CP practices [1].

IPPC Directive 96/61/EC will become operational inOctober 1999; it proposes a preventative approach andis centred on a permit application system. The integratedapproach will make possible the optimisation of pol-lution prevention and control practices. The main objec-tive of the Directive is the achievement of preventionand control of pollution arising from the activities listedin its Annex I, in order to avoid or reduce emissions tothe air, water and land from those activities. For thispurpose, it is mandatory that those types of activities,which are listed as 56 subclasses in Annex I, shall besubject to the permit application system.

The Directive seeks to harmonise the IPPC permitapplication system with other existing environmentalprotection systems, such as EIA. Article 9 of Directive96/61/EC emphasises the need to take into account therelevant information and conclusions which result fromcompliance with current EIA Directive 85/337/EC,which makes these Directives compatible with eachother and establishes a formal link between them. How-ever, the new EIA Directive (97/11/EC) establishes amuch stronger link between IPPC and EIA, as will beseen below.1

Cleaner Production practices have been adopted vol-untarily in the EC, most commonly as a consequence ofthe implementation of Total Quality Management(TQM) schemes and Environmental Management Sys-tems (EMS). With the advent of the IPPC Directive(96/61/EC), it is expected that more companies willimplement EMS and seek to introduce CP practices, inorder to comply with the requirements of this Directive.Thus, a significant increase and improvement of suchpractices may be expected to occur. In the UK alone,according to the [2], approx. 4300 installations will becovered by the IPPC by the time the Directive isimplemented. Whilst this number is small in the contextof the total number of UK companies, hopefully themajor (potential) polluters will be covered.

1.2. Environmental Impact Assessment

Council Directive 85/337/EC of 27 June 1985, on theassessment of effects of certain public and private pro-jects on the environment, has been the major legislationon EIA in the EU. The Directive requires that activitieslisted in its Annex I shall be subject to mandatory EIA.A further set of activities, listed in Annex II of the Direc-tive, are made subject to EIA on a discretionary basis,

1 Further information and details about IPPC Directive 96/61/ECcan be found in [2].

where Member States consider that their characteristicsso require [3].

Directive 85/337/EC was amended by Council Direc-tive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, which became oper-ational in March 1999 and shall apply to EIA of bothpublic and private projects, excluding projects related tonational defence. The projects or activities to be subjectto EIA are specified in Article 4 of Directive 97/11/EC,and listed in Annexes I and II of this Directive. As in theoriginal Directive (85/337/EC), the 21 activities listed inAnnex I shall be submitted to mandatory EIA in allcases. Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC, though slightlymodified and broadened, is quite similar to the corre-sponding annex of the original Directive, and lists thoseclasses of activities which may be subject to EIA, fol-lowing examination by the competent authorities (i.e. ona discretionary basis). Annex II lists over 80 activity sub-classes in 13 main categories.

Directive 97/11/EC introduces some importantadvances in the EIA process, such as a formal consul-tation opportunity for the developer prior to the EIA,mandatory conisderation of alternatives, more detailedand specific guidance on scoping for EIA and contentof the Environmental Statement (ES), and the emphasisgiven to public participation, risk assessment and cumu-lative impacts. Although there is no formal provision forSEA under this Directive, the requirements for dealingwith indirect and cumulative impacts may result in theintroduction of SEA procedures because the assessmentof indirect and cumulative impacts must be made withinthe development context, taking into account currentPolicies, Plans and Programmes (PPPs).2

Regarding the relationship with IPPC/CP, Article 2 ofDirective 97/11/EC explicitly states that “MembersStates may provide for a single procedure in order tofulfil the requirements of this Directive and the require-ments of Council Directive 96/61/EC” [5]. If MemberStates adopted this approach there would inevitably bea stronger link between EIA and IPPC/CP.3

2. Cleaner Production and EIA in the UK

2.1. EIA in the UK

The implementation of the EIA process in the EU hasinvolved a variety of approaches and institutions in dif-

2 Note that a proposed Directive on SEA—reference Official Jour-nal No. C129, 25/04/97, p.14—was agreed by the Council of Ministersbut no implementation date is yet foreseen. This has subsequently beenupdated by the amended proposal for a Council Directive on the assess-ment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environ-ment, COM(96)511 plus COM(99)73.

3 More information and detailed aspects of EIA Directives85/337/EC and 97/11/EC can be found in [4,6].

129N.N.B. Salvador et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132

ferent countries. In the UK, EIA has been implementedsince the 1980s through secondary legislation involvingregulations and guidance, the most important being theTown and Country Planning (Assessment of Environ-mental Effects) Regulations 1988 (Statutory Instrument1199, DoE, 1989), which constitutes the principal meansof implementation of Directive 85/337/EC [4]. Underthese regulations, EIA is carried out at local level, withinthe planning system, where the Local Planning Authority(LPA) is the competent authority playing the centralinstitutional role. The procedure is outlined in Fig. 1.

The early steps in Fig. 1 correspond to the stage ofstudy ofAlternatives/designin the EIA process. As indi-cated, the developer may choose to submit the planningapplication without an EIA/ES and this may be done as apre-application request, which is a preliminary measure.Alternatively, the developer may decide to submit theplanning application with a voluntary EIA/ES to be ana-lysed by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). In the

Fig. 1. Planning permitting and EIA practices in the UK. Source: [7], based on [4] and [8].

Screeningstage, the LPA checks if there has been anyprevious direction from the Secretary of State (SoS)(steps 3–5). Where such a direction has been given, andthis has been to the effect that no EIA is required, theproject follows the normal planning application pro-cedure (i.e. without an environmental impact assessmenttaking place—step 6). If there has been no directiongiven by the SoS as to the need for EIA, then the LPAwill examine the available data and information in orderto determine whether further data or information isrequired and whether or not an EIA is required (steps7–10). Where EIA is not required, the project followsthe normal planning application procedure, but if EIA isrequired, the process moves to theScopingstage.

Steps 11–13 correspond to the optionalScopingstage[4,8]. The LPA will now issue the direction that the EIAprocedure is to be carried out. In this stage, the mattersto be assessed are discussed and agreed among the inter-ested parties (developer, statutory consultees, competent

130 N.N.B. Salvador et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132

authority), and these may be drawn up as Terms of Ref-erence for the developers’ environmental consultants.The SoS is informed, documents are made available tothe public, and all Statutory Consultees who are requiredto comment are informed (step 11). Note that at thispoint, if the developer disagrees with the LPA’sdecision, s/he may apply for a SoS direction (step 13),which will determine whether or not EIA is required. IfEIA is not required, the SoS so directs and the projectfollows the normal planning application procedure.Where EIA is required, the developer—or his/herenvironmental consultant—carries out the EIA and pre-pares an Environmental Statement (ES) (steps 14 and15—the stage ofEIA/ES preparation).

Steps 16–22 correspond to theReviewstage. Once theEIA is concluded and the ES prepared, the developermakes it public and submits the planning application andthe ES to the LPA for review (steps 16–18). The LPAalso carries out public consultation and consults theStatutory Consultees formally (steps 20–22), beforemaking a decision. The Statutory Consultees are listedin the principal EIA regulations indicated above (DoE,1989), and include: the UK environmental protectionagency, nature and heritage conservation bodies, andbodies responsible for transport and highways,amongst others.

Next, the LPA makes its decision (step 23), based onthe ES review and including the results of consultationof the public and the Statutory Consultees. Should plan-ning permission be refused (step 24), the developer canappeal to the SoS for a final decision (steps 25–28). Onthe other hand, if permission is given to proceed (step29), the project can be implemented (step 30). Steps 23–29 correspond tothe Decision-makingstage, step 30 tothe Implementationstage, and step 31 is theMonitor-ing stage.

During the stage of study ofAlternatives/design(steps1 and 2) or EIA/ES Preparation (steps 14 and 15),developers or companies may study and propose CPpractices to be undertaken in the implementation stage.The EIA process comprises procedures of environmentalimpact prediction, evaluation and mitigation and goodtechnological choices/CP practices may have significantinfluence on the results of such procedures. On the otherhand, it is important to start developing CP assessmentsas soon as possible, in order to achieve greater efficiencyand better results. It would appear that the stages ofAlternatives/designand Preparation represent the bestopportunity to enable this to happen, because they havealways been carried out during an enterprise’s earlyplanning phases. However, there is no legal requirementthat the planning application, with or without EIA,should precede an application. Nor, as stated above, isthere an established link between these processes. Inaddition, EIAs tend to focus predominantly on the miti-

gation of localised environmental impacts, and often donot consider issues such as energy and water efficiency.

2.2. Cleaner Production and Integrated PollutionControl (IPC) in the UK

Many major projects (e.g. energy, chemicals, variousmanufacturing projects) also require statutory consentunder separate pollution control legislation. The conceptof integrated pollution control (IPC) was introduced inPart l of the Environmental Act of 1990, which createda single system of pollution control for major industrialprocesses, covering all emissions—whether to air, wateror land. Processes subject to IPC are divided into PartA and Part B processes. For Part A, the authorisationis issued by the Environmental Agency and deals withreleases of substances to air, water and land; for a Part Bprocess, the authorisation is issued by the relevant localauthority and deals only with releases to air. The appli-cation for an IPC in the UK is normally submitted afterthe separate application for planning permission (withor without an EIA). Conditions are imposed on all IPCauthorisations, specifying for example the limits forreleases and monitoring requirements. All authorisationsare subject to the general condition that “best availabletechniques not entailing excessive cost” (BATNEEC)will be used. In addition, for Part A processes, regardmust be had to the “best practicable environmentaloption” (BPEO) in determining the most appropriateenvironmental route for release or disposal of emissions.

This dual consent procedure does lead to a number ofEIA and IPC overlaps and conflicts. For example, a pro-ject design (e.g. height of chimney stack) may be modi-fied by IPC from one agreed earlier at the planning stage.Project promoters may be asked to duplicate informationfor the two consent procedures; there may also be over-laps between planning and pollution control authoritiesin the definition and operation of their respectives roles.There have been suggestions by various commentators(e.g. [9–11]) to reduce the problems, including improvedarrangements for formal consultation between LPAs andthe Environment Agency (currently weak), and pro-cedures in which applications for planning permissionand IPC authorisation would be considered together,possibily with a single EIA meeting the requirements ofboth. Planning policy guidance from the UK Departmentof the Environment [12], does urge LPAs to discusspotential polluting developments with the EnvironmentAgency at an earlier stage. The Department also rec-ommends that applications for planning permission andIPC authorisation should be submitted in parallel wherepossible, although it does stop short of recommendingthe submission of a single ES. Such suggestions forreducing EIA and IPC overlaps and conflicts have nowbeen given a further nudge by the evolving Europeanlegislation.

131N.N.B. Salvador et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132

3. Bringing CP and EIA together in the EU

The IPPC permit application system and the EIA pro-cess have several similar procedures (e.g. identificationof environmental effects of the installation, specificationof mitigating measures, provision for public partici-pation, consideration of transboundary effects) and muchof the information required for an ES is the same asthat needed for an IPPC application. Practically all theactivities listed in Annex I of IPPC Directive 96/61/EC(55 of 56) are also listed in Annexes I or II of EIA Direc-tive 97/11/EC—although thresholds are not always thesame, and consequently, they will be subject to both pro-cesses. Directive 96/61/EC also shares some commonissues with the EIA Directives, such as the requirementto take into account a project’s geographical location andlocal environmental conditions as part of the process ofdesigning the technical characteristics of the proposedinstallation.

Further integration of IPPC and EIA proceduresappears to be a sensible way forward. Industrial sectorrepresentatives—United Nations Industrial DevelopmentOrganisation (UNIDO) and World Business Council forSustainable Development (WBCSD)—have expressedthe view that the link between EIA and EMS wouldbring a significant advantage [13,14]. For example, thesimultaneous development of some IPPC and EIA pro-cedures could simplify the tasks facing companies asthey comply with these procedures. As noted by [13],the further integration of EIA results into the EMS ofan installation may be a way to maximise the benefitsof an EIA and achieve CP.

However, in practice, problems may occur in movingdown the integration path and some may be of an insti-tutional nature. The planning system is intended to regu-late the location of developments and to control adverseeffects on the use of land and on the environment [15].It is not an appropriate means of regulating the detailedcharacteristics of potentially polluting activities. LPAsmay lack the necessary technical expertise and appropri-ately trained personnel to deal with the detailed technicalassessments of the narrower range of impacts which arethe concern of IPPC.

One way forward could be for companies which aresubject to both sets of procedures to undertake prelimi-nary assessments of developments in line with IPPC,within the EIA. During the stage of study ofAlternatives/designor EIA/ES Preparation, developerscould study and propose IPPC/CP practices to be under-taken in the implementation stage. Such practices maybe significant for the outcome of the EIA process.

The competent LPAs would examine the proposal andrelated IPPC/CP information, in the ES review stage,without analysing the detailed and specific/technicalaspects involved. Instead, they would check the mainpoints or topics of the proposal, such as:

O the company’s policy and commitment to IPPC/CPpractices, represented by a formal statement;

O the existence of or provision for a work-team forIPPC/CP developments;

O a study and identification of IPPC/CP opportunities;O the company’s goals and proposed scheduling of

activities;O schemes for involvement of company managers and

workers and training programmes;O mechanisms for external communication: public con-

sultation and consumers’ participation in IPPC/CPimplementation;

O an EMS to be implemented;O IPPC/CP tools to be implemented (resources/raw

materials and energy reduction programmes, wasteminimisation programmes, measures toavoid/minimise the use of hazardous or toxic sub-stances, design/redesign of products and services,environmental accounting, monitoring of IPPC/CPpractices, etc.).

This procedure would give LPAs the opportunity tobecome involved with IPPC/CP issues at an early andinfluential stage and to play a more effective role in sti-mulating the adoption and practice of IPPC/CP. Duringthe examination of the proposal, LPAs could consult thepollution control authorities for their advice, and theywould participate in the EIA process as Statutory Con-sultees. The proposal could be discussed with otherStatutory Consultees, with the community and otherinterested parties, during the stage of public consultation.Issues which have arisen during the EIA process couldbe taken into account by companies, together with theLPA’s recommendations, as a basis for modifying theirproposals if and as appropriate. The company’s IPPCapplication and subsequent practices would also bemodified in accordance with these recommendations.

A recent UK Government Consultation Paper on theimplementation of the IPPC Directive [16] does nowindicate that “Any relevant information obtained or con-clusion arrived at pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 ofCouncil Directive 85/337/EC on the assessment of theeffect of certain public and private projects on theenvironment (as amended) in relation to the installationshall be taken into consideration by regulators indetermining the IPPC application”. Whilst this is usefulit is only one element of what is needed for a more inte-grated approach.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

Cleaner Production has been the subject of great inter-est and development over this decade and the implemen-tation of the IPPC process in the EU will certainly con-tribute to increasing and improving CP practices. The

132 N.N.B. Salvador et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 127–132

IPPC and EIA represent important processes for a pre-ventative and integrated approach to the reduction ofenvironmental problems and these processes should bestrengthened as far as possible. Both processes haveapproaches, practices and procedures in common andthere should be scope for better integration. The majorEuropean IPPC and EIA legislation already contains thenecessary provisions for this to happen [17,18].

The better integration of the IPPC and EIA processesmay bring significant benefits to both sets of proceduresand to companies subject to them (e.g. earlier start forIPPC/CP practices, involvement of LPAs with IPPC/CP,more environmental awareness within companies, econ-omic savings, improvement of public participation inIPPC/CP practices, fewer or less severe environmentalimpacts).

It may be possible to combine IPPC and EIA in prac-tice, in such a way as to avoid the overlap of com-petencies and actions which are the responsibilities ofthe pollution control and planning authorities (or otherauthorities responsible for EIA), as well as avoidingother institutional problems. To this effect, it is rec-ommended that the Governments of the EU MemberStates provide strong guidance (or possibly regulations)to promote the inclusion of preliminary IPPC/CP assess-ments or procedures in the EIA process together with arequirement for an IPPC/CP proposal in the ES. Thiswould apply to all those activities which are subject toboth procedures. The categories of such developmentsand the contents of the proposal would be defined andspecified through appropriate guidance to be elaboratedat a later stage, in accordance with the points or topicssuggested in the preceding sections.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable con-tributions of the anonymous referees of this paper.

References

[1] Christiansen K et al. Cleaner technologies in Europe. J CleanerProd 1995;3(1/2):67–70.

[2] UK implementation of EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollutionprevention and control: consultation paper. London: Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions—DETR, 1997.

[3] On the assessment of the effects of certain public and privateprojects on the environment. Official Journal L175 UK: CEC,1985.

[4] Glasson J et al. Introduction to environmental impact assessment.London: UCL Press, 1994.

[5] European Commission, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March1997—Draft. Official Journal no. L073, 14 March 1997.

[6] Glasson J et al. Introduction to environmental impact assessment.2nd ed. London: UCL Press, 1999.

[7] Salvador NNB. Current EIA practices in Brazil compared withthe United Kingdom—Working Paper No 177. Oxford: Schoolof Planning, Oxford Brookes University, 1998.

[8] Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: a comparativereview. London: Longman, 1995.

[9] Petts J, Eduljee G. EIA for waste treatment and disposal facilities.Chichester: Wiley, 1994.

[10] Sheate WR. Making an Impact: A Guide to EIA Law and Policy.London: May, 1994.

[11] UKELA/IEA, Overlaps in the requirement for EIA. Lincoln:IEA, 1993.

[12] DoE, Planning Policy Guidance Note 23; Planning and PollutionControl. London: HMSO, 1994.

[13] Brak T et al. Environmental Assessment: A Business Perspective.Geneve: WBCSD, 1996.

[14] Rigola M. Environmental impact assessment issues with specificreference to industry and developing countries: the UnitedNations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO). In: Pro-ceedings of a Policy Forum, The International Association forImpact Assessment Annual Conference of 1997, New Orleans.1997.

[15] DoE, Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Pollution Control.London: HMSO, 1996.

[16] DETR, UK implementation of EC Directive 96/61 on integratedpollution prevention and control: second consultation paper. Lon-don: Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions—DETR, 1998.

[17] Council Directive 96/11/EC concerning integrated pollution pre-vention and control. Official Journal L257.

[18] DETR, Fourth consultation paper on the implementation of theIPPC directive. London: Department of the Environment, Trans-port and the Regions—DETR, 1999.