Environmental impact assessmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Environmental law

 

Pollution Control and Remediation

Air

Hazardous Substances

Waste

Water

Resource Conservation and Management

Fisheries

Forests

Historic Sites

Minerals

Oil & Gas

Parks

Species

Water

Planning, Land Use and Infrastructure

Impact Review

Municipal Planning

Land use

Transportation Infrastructure

Energy Infrastructure

Environmental justice

Related Topics

Administrative law

Bankruptcy law

Energy law

Insurance law

International law

v • d • e

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the possible impact—positive or negative—that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the natural, social and economic aspects.

The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the ensuing environmental impacts when deciding whether to proceed with a project. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made."[1]

After an EIA, the precautionary and polluter pays principles may be applied to prevent, limit, or require strict liability or insurance coverage to a project, based on its likely harms. Environmental impact assessments are sometimes controversial.

Contents

[hide]

1 Application o 1.1 Australia o 1.2 Canada o 1.3 China o 1.4 India o 1.5 Nepal o 1.6 EU

1.6.1 The Netherlands o 1.7 New Zealand o 1.8 Sri Lanka o 1.9 United States

2 Transboundary application 3 Annexed projects 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links

[edit] Application

[edit] Australia

At the federal level, EIA provisions are contained within the EPBC Act (the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). At the State [ie provincial] level, each jurisdiction has EIA provisions typically contained in land use planning law. For example in New South Wales (NSW), EIA is performed under either Part 3A, Part 4 or Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, depending on the type of development. Overlap between federal and state requirements is addressed via bilateral agreements or one off accreditation of state processes, as provided for in the EPBC Act.

[edit] Canada

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) is the legal basis for the federal environmental assessment (EA) process. CEAA came into force in 1995. Legislative amendments were introduced in 2001 and came into force on October 30, 2003. EA is defined as a planning tool to identify, understand, assess and mitigate, where possible, the environmental effects of a project. Under the CEAA, all federal government departments and agencies are required to undertake an EA for projects relating to a physical work and for any proposed physical activity listed in the Inclusion List Regulations where it exercises one or more of the following CEAA triggers:

Proposes or undertakes a project Grants money or any other form of financial assistance to a project Grants an interest in the land to enable a project to be carried out Exercises a regulatory duty in relation to a project, such as issuing a permit or license that

is included in the Law List Regulations.

If a federal government department or agency exercises one or more of the above-mentioned triggers, it becomes a Responsible Authority (RA) under CEAA. As an RA, the federal department or agency in question must ensure that an EA is carried out in accordance with the

CEAA and must consider the EA findings before a decision is made that could allow the project to proceed.

[edit] China

The Environmental Impact Assessment Law (EIA Law) requires an environmental impact assessment to be completed prior to project construction. However, if a developer completely ignores this requirement and builds a project without submitting an environmental impact statement, the only penalty is that the environmental protection bureau (EPB) may require the developer to do a make-up environmental assessment. If the developer does not complete this make-up assessment within the designated time, only then is the EPB authorized to fine the developer. Even so, the possible fine is capped at a maximum of about US$25,000, a fraction of the overall cost of most major projects. The lack of more stringent enforcement mechanisms has resulted in a significant percentage of projects not completing legally required environmental impact assessments prior to construction.[2]

China's State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) used the legislation to halt 30 projects in 2004, including three hydro-power plants under the Three Gorges Project Company. Although one month later (Note as a point of reference, that the typical EIA for a major project in the USA takes one to two years.), most of the 30 halted projects resumed their construction, reportedly having passed the environmental assessment, the fact that these key projects' construction was ever suspended was notable.

A joint investigation by SEPA and the Ministry of Land and Resources in 2004 showed that 30-40% of the mining construction projects went through the procedure of environment impact assessment as required, while in some areas only 6-7% did so. This partly explains why China has witnessed so many mining accidents in recent years.

SEPA alone cannot guarantee the full enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, observed Professor Wang Canfa, director of the centre to help environmental victims at China University of Political Science and Law. In fact, according to Wang, the rate of China's environmental laws and regulations that are actually enforced is estimated to be barely 10%.[3]

[edit] India

The Ministry of Environment and Forests of India have been in a great effort in Environmental Impact Assessment in India. The main laws in nation are Water Act(1974), The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972), The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981) and The Environment (Protection) Act (1986). The responsible body for this is Central Pollution Control Board. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies need a significant amount of primary and secondary environmental data. The primary data are those which need to be collected in the field to define the status of environment (like air quality data, water quality data etc.). The secondary data are those data which have been collected over the years and can be used to understand the existing environmental scenario of the study area. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies are conducted over a short period of time and therefore the understanding the environmental trends based on few months of primary data has its own

limitations. Ideally, the primary data has to be considered along with the secondary data for complete understanding of the existing environmental status of the area. In many EIA studies, the secondary data needs could be as high as 80% of the total data requirement. EIC is the repository of one stop secondary data source for environmental impact assessment in India.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) experience in India indicates that the lack of timely availability of reliable and authentic environmental data has been a major bottle neck in achieving the full benefits of EIA. The environment being a multi-disciplinary subject, a multitude of agencies is involved in collection of environmental data. However, there is no single organization in India which tracks the data available amongst these agencies and makes it available in one place, in a form and manner required by practitioners in the field of environmental impact assessment in India. Further, the environmental data is not available in value added forms that can enhance the quality of the EIA. This in turn adversely affects the time and efforts required for conducting the environmental impact assessments (EIAs) by project proponents and also timely environmental clearances by the regulators. With this background, Environmental Information Centre (EIC) has been set up to serve as a professionally managed clearing house of environmental information that can be used by MoEF, project proponents, consultants, NGOs and other stakeholders involved in the process of environmental impact assessment in India. EIC caters to the need of creating and disseminating of organised environmental data for various developmental initiatives all over the country.

EIC stores data in GIS format and makes it available to all environmental impact assessment studies and to EIA stakeholders in a cost effective and timely manner.

[edit] Nepal

In Nepal, EIA was started in early 1980s, particularly in the donor-assisted projects. In 1982, Nepal established the Environment Impact Study Project (EISP) under the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation to initiate activities for the formulation of necessary policies and laws and create public awareness and the environmental matters. The Constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 1990; Water Resource Act, 1992; Electricity Act, 1992; Electricity Regulation, 1993 and Hydropower Development Policy, 1992 emphasized on the protection of the existing environment and stated that no significant adverse environmental impact in terms of physical, biological, social, economic and cultural aspects should occur due to any development project. The government of Nepal introduced the National Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (NEIAG) in 1993.These guideline provided a general methodology for conducting an EIA study but there was no approval process and legal requirement of an EIA study.

Progresses were made in the Environmental protection issue during the 8th five year plan (1992–1997). The following development in Environmental protection were achieved during that time:

Formulation of Environmental Protection Act 1992 Establishment of Ministry of Population and Environment Development of National Environmental Policies and Action Plan, EIA guidelines

developed Consideration of environmental concerns in hydropower projects

Development of industrial, irrigation and agricultural policies that undertook environmental concerns

Prior to EIA, IEE should be done.

[edit] EU

The European Union has established a mix of mandatory and discretionary procedures to assess environmental impacts.[4] European Union Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments (known as the EIA Directive) [5] was first introduced in 1985 and was amended in 1997. The directive was amended again in 2003, following EU signature of the 1998 Aarhus Convention. In 2001, the issue was enlarged to the assessment of plans and programmes by the so called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC), which is now in force.[4] Under the EU directive, an EIA must provide certain information to comply.[6] There are seven key areas that are required:

1. Description of the project o Description of actual project and site descriptiono Break the project down into its key components, ie construction, operations,

decommissioningo For each component list all of the sources of environmental disturbanceo For each component all the inputs and outputs must be listed, eg, air pollution,

noise, hydrology2. Alternatives that have been considered

o Examine alternatives that have been consideredo Example: in a biomass power station, will the fuel be sourced locally or

nationally?3. Description of the environment

o List of all aspects of the environment that may be affected by the developmento Example: populations, fauna, flora, air, soil, water, humans, landscape, cultural

heritageo This section is best carried out with the help of local experts, eg the RSPB in the

UK4. Description of the significant effects on the environment

o The word significant is crucial here as the definition can varyo 'Significant' needs to be definedo The most frequent method used here is use of the Leopold matrixo The matrix is a tool used in the systematic examination of potential interactionso Example: in a windfarm development a significant impact may be collisions with

birds5. Mitigation

o This is where EIA is most usefulo Once section 4 has been completed it will be obvious where the impacts will be

greatesto Using this information ways to avoid negative impacts should be developedo Best working with the developer with this section as they know the project best

o Using the windfarm example again construction could be out of bird nesting seasons

6. Non-technical summary (EIS) o The EIA will be in the public domain and be used in the decision making processo It is important that the information is available to the publico This section is a summary that does not include jargon or complicated diagramso It should be understood by the informed lay-person

7. Lack of know-how/technical difficulties o This section is to advise any areas of weakness in knowledgeo It can be used to focus areas of future researcho Some developers see the EIA as a starting block for poor environmental

management

[edit] The Netherlands

EIA was implemented in Dutch legislation on september 1st 1987. The categories of projects that require an EIA are summarised in Dutch legislation, the Wet milieubeheer. The use of thresholds for activities makes sure that EIA is obligatory for those activities that may have considerable impacts on the environment.

For projects and plans that fit these criteria, a EIA report is required. The EIA report defines a.o. the proposed initiative, it makes clear the impact of that initiative on the environment and compares this with the impact of possible alternatives with less a negative impact.[7]

[edit] New Zealand

In New Zealand, EIA is usually referred to as Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The first use of EIA's dates back to a Cabinet minute passed in 1974 called Environmental Protection and Enhancement Procedures. This had no legal force and only related to the activities of government departments. When the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, an EIA was required as part of a resource consent application. Section 88 of the Act specifies that the AEE must include "such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment". While there is no duty to consult any person when making a resource consent application (Sections 36A and Schedule 4), proof of consultation is almost certain to be required by local councils when making a decision about whether or not to publicly notifiy the consent application under Section 93.

[edit] Sri Lanka

Environmental Impact Assessments

One popular approach to assist in smart growth in democratic countries is for law-makers to require prospective developers to prepare environmental impact assessments of their plans as a condition for state and/or local governments to go for Environmental Impact Assessments

These reports often indicate how significant impacts generated by the development will be mitigated - the cost of which is usually paid by the developer. These assessments are frequently controversial. Conservationists, neighborhood advocacy groups and NIMBYs are often skeptical about such impact reports, even when they are prepared by independent agencies and subsequently approved by the decision makers rather than the promoters. Conversely, developers will sometimes strongly resist being required to implement the mitigation measures required by the local government as they may be quite costly.

These assessments are frequently controversial. Conservationists, neighborhood advocacy groups and NIMBYs are often skeptical about such impact reports, even when they are prepared by independent agencies and subsequently approved by the decision makers rather than the promoters. Conversely, developers will sometimes strongly resist being required to implement the mitigation measures required by the local government as they may be quite costly.

The importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment as an effective tool for the purpose of integrating environmental considerations with development planning is highly recognized in Sri Lanka. The application of this technique is considered as a means of ensuring that the likely effects of new development projects on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before development is allowed to proceed. The importance of this management tool to foresee potential environmental impacts and problems caused by proposed projects and its use as a mean to make project more suitable to the environment are highly appreciated.

[edit] United States

Main article: Environmental impact statement

Under United States environmental law an Environmental Assessment (EA) is compiled to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and originated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1969. Certain actions of federal agencies must be preceded by an EA or EIS. Contrary to a widespread misconception, NEPA does not prohibit the federal government or its licensees/permittees from harming the environment, nor does it specify any penalty if the EA or EIS turns out to be inaccurate, intentionally or otherwise. NEPA requires that plausible statements as to the prospective impacts be disclosed in advance. The purpose of NEPA process is to ensure that the decision maker is fully informed of the environmental aspects and consequences prior to making the final decision.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is an environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether a federal action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The release of an Environmental Assessment results in either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Environmental Assessment is a concise public document for which a federal agency is responsible that serves to:

1. briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI

2. aid an agency, compliance with the act when no EIS is necessary3. facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary

The Environmental Assessment includes brief discussions of the need for the proposals of alternatives as required by Seciond 102(2)(E), of the environmental impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives, as well as a listing of agencies and persons consulted. The agency must approve an EA before it is made available to the public. The EA is made public through notices of availability by local, state, or regional clearing houses, newspapers, etc.

There is a 30 day review period required for an Environmental Assessment, and the document is made available for public commentary.

Usually, an agency will release either a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) or a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for comment. Interested parties and the general public have the opportunity to comment on the draft, after which the agency will approve the " Final Environmental Assessment" (Final EA) or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Commenting on the Draft EA is typically done in writing, submitted to the lead agency as defined in the Notice of Availability. Draft EIS's require public hearings, so comments can be made in person, as well as in writing. Occasionally, the agency will later release a "Supplemental Environmental Assessment " (Supplemental EA) or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), especially if the project parameters or environmental conditions or effects change substantially after the issuance of the Final EA or FEIS.

The adequacy of an EIS can be challenged in federal court. Major proposed projects have been blocked because of an agency's failure to prepare an acceptable EIS. One prominent example was the Westway landfill and highway development in and along the Hudson River in New York City [8] . Another prominent case involved the Sierra Club suing the Nevada Department of Transportation over its denial of Sierra Club's request to issue a supplemental EIS addressing air emissions of particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants in the case of widening US Highway 95 through Las Vegas.[9] The case reached the 9th Circuit Court of the United States, which led to construction on the highway being halted until the court's final decision. The case was settled prior to the court's final decision.

Several US state governments that have adopted "little NEPA's," i.e., state laws imposing EIS requirements for particular state actions and some of those state laws refer to the required environmental impact studies as Environmental Impact Reports or Environmental Impact Assessments.[10] For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The structure of a generic Environmental Assessment is as follows:

1. Summary2. Introduction

o Structure

o Backgroundo Purpose and Need for Actiono Proposed Actiono Decision Frameworko Public Involvemento Issues

3. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action o Alternativeso Mitigation Common to All Alternativeso Comparison of Alternatives

4. Environmental Consequences5. Consultation and Coordination

These variety of state requirements are yielding voluminous data not just upon impacts of individual projects, but also to elucidate scientific areas that had not been sufficiently researched. For example, in a seemingly routine Environmental Impact Report for the city of Monterey, California, information came to light that led to the official federal endangered species listing of Hickman's potentilla, a rare coastal wildflower.

[edit] Transboundary application

Environmental threats do not respect national borders. European governments realized that to avert this danger, they must notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that might have adverse environmental impact across borders. The UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context was negotiated to provide an international legal framework for transboundary EIA.[11]

[edit] Annexed projects

All projects are either classified as Annex 1 or Annex 2 projects. Those lying in Annex 1 are large scale developments such as motorways, chemical works, bridges, powerstations etc. These always require an EIA under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85,337,EEC). Annex 2 projects are smaller in scale such as small installments, and maintenance works. These do not require an EIA [12]

[edit] See also

Sustainable development portal

Environmental good Environmental impact design Environmental impact statement Environmental indicator Equator Principles

Healthy development measurement tool Leopold matrix Natural landscape Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Social Impact Assessment Strategic Environmental Assessment

[edit] References

1. ̂ "Principle of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice." International Association for Impact Assessment. 1999.

2. ̂ Wang, Alex (2007-02-05). "Environmental protection in China: the role of law". http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/745-Environmental-protection-in-China-the-role-of-law.

3. ̂ Gu, Lin (2005-09-29). "China Improves Enforcement of Environmental Laws". China Features. http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/Features/t214565.htm.

4. ^ a b Watson, Michael (November 13–15, 2003). "Environmental Impact Assessment and European Community Law". XIV International Conference "Danube-River of Cooperation". http://www.members.tripod.com/~danubedita/library/2003watson2.htm.

5. ̂ Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (1985-06-27) from Eur-Lex

6. ̂ Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2001-06-27) from Eur-Lex

7. ̂ List of criteria for EIA/SEA8. ̂ Court decision in Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers9. ̂ Ritter, John (2003-06-03). "Lawsuit pits risks and roads". USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-06-vegas-highway-usat_x.htm.10. ̂ Sive,D. & Chertok,M., "Little NEPAs" and Environmental Impact Assessment

Procedures11. ̂ Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo,

1991)12. ̂ (Donald McArthur, 2009)]

[edit] Further reading

Petts, J. (ed), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Vol 1 & 2, Blackwell, Oxford ISBN 0-632-04772-0

Environmental Impact Assessment Review (1980 - ), Elsevier Glasson, J; Therivel, R; Chadwick A, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment,

(2005) Routledge, London Carroll, B. and Turpin T. Environmental impact assessment handbook, second edition

(2009) Thomas Telford Ltd, ISBN 978-0-7277-3509-6 Hanna, k; Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation" (2009)Second

edition, Oxford

[edit] External links

European Commission - EIA website European Commission - IA TOOLS website on Impact Assessment Tools Environmental Impact Assessment at the University of Sydney International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment UNU Open Educational Resource on EIA: A Course Module, Wiki and Instructional

Guide Environmental Impact Review Legal Updates

[hide] v • d • e

Topics related to environmental technologyEnvironmental impact assessment · Environmental design · Sustainable development

PollutionIndustrial ecology · Solid waste treatment · Waste management  · Air pollution (control · dispersion modeling) · Water (Wastewater treatment · Agricultural wastewater treatment · Industrial wastewater treatment · Water purification)

Renewable energy

Alternative energy · Energy development · Energy recovery · Energy efficiency · Renewable energy (development) · Sustainable energy · Fuel (Alternative fuel · Biofuel · Hydrogen technologies) · Transportation (Electric vehicle · Hybrid vehicle)

ConservationBirth control · Permaculture · Conservation ethic · Recycling · Ecoforestry · Conservation biology · Environmental preservation · Remediation · Green computing · Building (Green · Natural · Sustainable architecture)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment"Categories: Environmental economics | Environmental law | Impact assessment | Technology assessment

Environmental impact designFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

This article does not cite any references or sources.Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

The theory and practice of Environmental impact assessment developed from the appreciation that development projects can have negative impacts - externalities which harm the environment. This led to the enactment of the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Environmental impact design is concerned with modifications to the design of development projects to achieve positive impacts - externalities which benefit the environment and raise the stock of public goods. Examples of positive impacts include:

Habitat creation as a result of afforestation projects Coastal management projects which contribute to ecological and recreational objectives flood defense projects which create greenways public open space projects which contribute to surface water management objectives bridge designs which enhance the landscape and contribute to non-transportation

objectives

[edit] See also

Environmental impact assessment Landscape planning

This design-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_design"Categories: Environment | Design | Design stubs

Environmental indicatorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Environmental indicators are simple measures that tell us what is happening in the environment. Since the environment is very complex, indicators provide a more practical and economical way to track the state of the environment than if we attempted to record every possible variable in the environment. For example, concentrations of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the atmosphere, tracked over time, is a good indicator with respect to the environmental issue of stratospheric ozone depletion..

Contents

[hide]

1 Definitions and use 2 Audience 3 Indicator systems and communicating them 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Definitions and use

Environmental indicators have been defined in different ways but common themes exist.

“An environmental indicator is a numerical value that helps provide insight into the state of the environment or human health. Indicators are developed based on quantitative measurements or statistics of environmental condition that are tracked over time. Environmental indicators can be developed and used at a wide variety of geographic scales, from local to regional to national levels.” [1]

“A parameter or a value derived from parameters that describe the state of the environment and its impact on human beings, ecosystems and materials, the pressures on the environment, the driving forces and the responses steering that system. An indicator has gone through a selection and/or aggregation process to enable it to steer action.” [2]

Environmental indicator criteria and frameworks have been used to help in their selection and presentation.

It can be considered, for example, that there are major subsets of environmental indicators in-line with the Pressure-State-Response model developed by the OECD. One subset of environmental indicators is the collection of ecological indicators which can include physical, biological and chemical measures such as atmospheric temperature, the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere or the number of breeding bird pairs in an area. These are also referred to as “state” indicators as their focus is on the state of the environment or conditions in the environment. A second subset is the collection of indicators that measure human activities or anthropogenic pressures, such as greenhouse gas emissions. These are also referred to as “pressure” indicators. Finally, there are indicators, such as the number of people serviced by sewage treatment, which track societal responses to environmental issues.

Environmental indicators, in turn, should be considered as a subset of sustainable development indicators which are meant to track the overall sustainability of a society with respect to its environmental, social and economic integrity and health.

A common framework spearheaded by the European Environment Agency [3] is the “DPSIR” or “drivers, pressures, state, impact, response” framework. Drivers and pressures are indicators of the human activities and resulting pressures on the environment in the form of pollution or land-use change, for example. State and impact indicators are the resulting conditions in the environment and the implications for the health of ecosystems and humans. The response indicators measure the reaction of human society to the environmental issue. Criteria tend to focus on three key areas – scientific credibility, policy/social relevance and practical monitoring and data requirements.

An example of an environmental indicator: Trend in global temperature anomalies of the last 150 years as an indicator of climate change

Environmental indicators are used by governments, non-government organizations, community groups and research institutions to see if environmental objectives are being met, to communicate the state of the environment to the general public and decision makers and as a diagnostic tool through detecting trends in the environment.

Environmental indicators can be measured and reported at different scales. For example, a town may track air quality along with water quality and count the number of rare species of birds to estimate the health of the environment in their area. Indicators are developed for specific ecosystems, such as the Great-Lakes in North America.[4] National governments use environmental indicators to show status and trends with respect to environmental issues of importance to their citizens.[5][6] Others have attempted to monitor and assess the state of the planet using indicators.[7]

[edit] Audience

The type of indicators selected or developed should be partially based on who will be using the information from the indicators. There are generally three possible audiences to consider, each with different information needs. These audiences are: 1) technical experts and science advisors, 2) policy-makers, decision makers and resource managers, and 3) general public and media.

The technical experts and scientists will be interested in detailed and complex indicators. These indicators should have scientific validity, sensitivity, responsiveness and have data available on past conditions. The audience that includes policy-makers and resource managers will be concerned with using indicators that are directly related to evaluating policies and objectives. They require their indicators to be sensitive, responsive and have historical data available like the technical audience, but they are also looking for indicators that are cost-effective and have meaning for public awareness. Finally, the general public responds to indicators that have clear and simple messages and are meaningful to them, such as the UV index and the air quality index.[8][9]

[edit] Indicator systems and communicating them

Individual indicators are designed to translate complex information in a concise and easily understood manner in order to represent a particular phenomenon (e.g. ambient air quality). In contrast, indicator systems (or collections of indicators), when seen as a whole are meant to provide an assessment of the full environment domain or a major subset of it (e.g. forests).

Some indicator systems have evolved to include many indicators and require a certain level of knowledge and expertise in various disciplines to fully grasp. A number of methods have been devised in the recent past to boil down this information and allow for rapid consumption by those who do not have the time or the expertise to analyse the full set of indicators. In general these methods can be categorized as numerical aggregation (e.g. indices), short selections of indicators (e.g. core set or headline indicators), short visual assessments (e.g. arrows, traffic signals), and compelling presentations (e.g. maps or the dashboard of sustainability). Many prominent environmental indicator systems have adjusted their indicator systems to include or report solely on a limited “indicator set” (e.g. the OECD’s “Key Environmental Indicators” and the “Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators”)

[edit] See also

Environment (systems) Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators State of the environment Environmental accounting Sustainability measurement Ecological indicator

[edit] Notes

1. ̂ "EPA Environmental Indicators Gateway,". USEPA. http://www.epa.gov/igateway/whatIndicator.html. Retrieved 2010-06-16.

2. ̂ "Environmental Terminology and Discovery Service (ETDS)" (Information-base). European Environment Agency. http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/search_html. Retrieved 2010-06-17.

3. ̂ Smeets, Edith; Rob Weterings (1999). "Environmental indicators:Typology and overview" (PDF). European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25. Retrieved 2009-03-16.

4. ̂ "State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights" (PDF). Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-13.

5. ̂ "Environmental Indicators Gateway US EPA". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/indicators/. Retrieved 2009-03-16.

6. ̂ Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators7. ̂ "UNEP-GEO". United Nations Environment Programme. 2009.

http://www.unep.org/geo/. Retrieved 2009-03-16.8. ̂ Ditor, M., O'Farrell, D., Bond, W., Engeland, J. (2001). "Guidelines for the

development of sustainability indicators". Environment Canada and Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation. http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/scip/guidelines.cfm.[dead

link]

9. ̂ Rice, J.C. & Rochet, M-J. (2005). "A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management". ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 516–527. doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003.

[edit] References

This section has no content.You can help Wikipedia by introducing information to it. (July 2010)

[edit] External links

U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators The Canadian Sustainability Indicators Network (CSIN) Indicator page of the European Commission's DG Environment Indicators about Europe's Environment Fraser Institute 's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) - has an academic article devoted to

its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505–515

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Earth Trends

Equator PrinciplesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

The Equator Principles (EPs) are a voluntary set of standards for determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing.

Project financing, a method of funding in which the lender looks primarily to the revenues generated by a single project both as the source of repayment and as security for the exposure, plays an important role in financing development throughout the world (See http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs118.pdf). Project financiers may encounter social and environmental issues that are both complex and challenging, particularly with respect to projects in the emerging markets.

The Equator Principles in full can be found at http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/Equator_Principles.pdf

Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) commit to not providing loans to projects where the borrower will not or is unable to comply with their respective social and environmental policies and procedures that implement the EPs.

The Equator Principles were developed by private sector banks – led by Citigroup, ABN AMRO, Barclays and WestLB – and were launched in June 2003. The banks chose to model the Equator Principles on the environmental standards of the World Bank and the social policies of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). 67 financial institutions (October 2009) have adopted the Equator Principles, which have become the de facto standard for banks and investors on how to assess major development projects around the world. In July 2006, the Equator Principles were revised, increasing their scope and strengthening their processes.

The Equator Principles represent a significant industry-wide initiative. They were drafted by the banks in consultation with the IFC, project sponsors, project engineers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While they have generally been well received, some project sponsors have said they go too far, while some NGOs say they do not go far enough.

Contents

[hide]

1 The Principles o 1.1 Scope o 1.2 Principle 1: Review and Categorisation o 1.3 Principle 2: Social and Environmental Assessment o 1.4 Principle 3: Applicable Social and Environmental Standards o 1.5 Principle 4: Action Plan and Management System o 1.6 Principle 5: Consultation and Disclosure o 1.7 Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism o 1.8 Principle 7: Independent Review o 1.9 Principle 8: Covenants o 1.10 Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting o 1.11 Principle 10: EPFI Reporting

2 Revised Equator Principles Launched in 2006 3 Annual Disclosure Reports 4 Institutions which have adopted the Equator Principles 5 Criticism of the Principles 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit] The Principles

See the link http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/Equator_Principles.pdf for the complete Equator Principles. EPFIs will only provide loans to projects that conform to Principles 1-9 below:

[edit] Scope

The Principles apply to all new project financings globally with total project capital costs of US$10 million or more, and across all industry sectors. In addition, while the Principles are not intended to be applied retroactively, we will apply them to all project financings covering expansion or upgrade of an existing facility where changes in scale or scope may create significant environmental and/or social impacts, or significantly change the nature or degree of an existing impact.

The Principles also extend to project finance advisory activities. In these cases, EPFIs commit to make the client aware of the content, application and benefits of applying the Principles to the anticipated project, and request that the client communicate to the EPFI its intention to adhere to the requirements of the Principles when subsequently seeking financing.

[edit] Principle 1: Review and Categorisation

The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the IFC. Projects are classified, relating to social or environmental impacts, in Category A (significant impacts), Category B (limited impacts) and Category C (minimal or no impacts).

[edit] Principle 2: Social and Environmental Assessment

For all medium or high risk projects (Category A and B projects), sponsors complete an Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key environmental and social issues.

[edit] Principle 3: Applicable Social and Environmental Standards

The Environmental Assessment report addresses baseline environmental and social conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, applicable international treaties and agreements, sustainable development and use of renewable natural resources, protection of human health, cultural properties, and biodiversity, including endangered species and sensitive ecosystems, use of dangerous substances, major hazards, occupational health and safety, fire prevention and life safety, socio-economic impacts, land acquisition and land use, involuntary resettlement, impacts on indigenous peoples and communities, cumulative impacts of existing projects, the proposed project, and anticipated future projects, participation of affected parties in the design, review and implementation of the project, consideration of feasible environmentally and socially preferable alternatives, efficient production, delivery and use of energy, pollution prevention and waste minimization, pollution controls (liquid effluents and air emissions) and solid and chemical waste management.

[edit] Principle 4: Action Plan and Management System

Based on the Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with their clients on how they mitigate, monitor and manage those risks through a 'Social Environmental Management Plan'.

[edit] Principle 5: Consultation and Disclosure

For risky projects, the borrower consults with stakeholders (NGOs and project affected groups) and provides them with information on the risks of the project. The borrower has to consult the project affected communities in a structured and culturally appropriate manner. The process will ensure free, prior and informed consultation for affected communities.

[edit] Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism

The borrower will establish a grievance mechanism as part of the management system.

[edit] Principle 7: Independent Review

For the Assessment, Assessment Plan and consultation process.

[edit] Principle 8: Covenants

Incorporation of covenants linked to compliance. Compliance with the plan is required in the covenant. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective action, which if unsuccessful, could ultimately result in the bank cancelling the loan and demanding immediate repayment.

[edit] Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting

Over the life of the loan, in Category A and, if necessary in Category B, an independent expert is consulted.

[edit] Principle 10: EPFI Reporting

Each EPFI commits to report publicly at least annually about its Equator Principles implementation processes and experience.

[edit] Revised Equator Principles Launched in 2006

On 6 July 2006, the Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) announced the launch of the final revised Equator Principles. The revised principles reflect revisions to the IFC's Performance Standards, upon which the Equator Principles are in part based.[1]

The Equator Principles apply globally and to all sectors and have been revised in the following ways:

The Principles apply to all project financings with capital costs above USD 10 million. This threshold was lowered from USD 50 million.

The Principles now also apply to project finance advisory activities. The revised Principles now specifically cover upgrades or expansions of existing projects

where the additional environmental or social impacts are significant. The approach in applying the Principles to countries with existing high standards for

environmental and social issues has been streamlined. Each EPFI is now required to report on the progress and performance of Equator

Principles' implementation on an annual basis. Stronger and better social and environmental standards, including more robust public

consultation standards.

NGOs welcomed the revisions but remained cautious, arguing that the EPs still suffered from fundamental governance and accountability problems. They want the EP banks to adopt more robust governance and implementation systems, such as a procedure for dealing with "free riders" and a regular reporting requirement.[2]

[edit] Annual Disclosure Reports

The Equator Principles website has a disclosure section which provides information on how the EP signatories are progressing with their annual disclosure reports, a requirement of Principle 10.[3]

The progress made by the 67 EP signatories on the October 2009 was as follows:

52 - Reported 12 - In the 1st year grace period 3 - No information made available

[edit] Institutions which have adopted the Equator Principles

See the Equator Principles website for the up to date list of adopting institutions http://www.equator-principles.com

[edit] Criticism of the Principles

NGOs have generally welcomed the Principles, but some have expressed concerns over their integrity.

One of these is that the Principles will not make a real difference. They argue the case of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which in 2004 was financed by eight Equator Principles' banks and the IFC despite an NGO assessment which alleged 127 breaches of the Principles. The banks and IFC said they were confident that the Equator Principles were followed, and said an independent consultant had confirmed this assessment.[4][5][6]

Another expressed concern was that the banks might lobby IFC to weaken its standards on which the Principles are based. The banks point out that IFC revised and strengthened its policies in 2006 and that the banks correspondingly strengthened the Equator Principles in the same year. Other criticisms include alleged lack of enforcement and accountability, free-riders, and that the scope of the principles is limited to project finance only.[7] Several banks have sought to address these concerns by publishing summaries of their Equator Principles screening, including the number of projects they turned down for noncompliance.

Some NGOs say that one of the adopting banks, ABN AMRO, is the most climate-unfriendly bank in the Netherlands, with estimated annual indirect CO2-emissions of almost 250 million tonnes in 2005 from industries to which it provides financial services. NGOs say this is just over the annual CO2-emissions of the Netherlands and almost 1% of the total annual worldwide CO2-emissions. ABN AMRO defends its environmental record and has announced steps to reduce its direct emissions, but some NGOs say it is the indirect emissions through their clients that make global banks such important targets in climate change.[8]

[edit] See also

Corporate social responsibility Ethical investing Ethical banking Global warming Income redistribution Socially responsible investing Social security Special purpose entity Universal health care

[edit] References

1. ̂ New Equator Principles Released Today! «   Risky Business 2. ̂ B a n k T r a c k - private finance   : a public interest 3. ̂ Equator Principles Signatories: Progress with Disclosure «   Risky Business 4. ̂ BTC Project is the First Major Test of the Equator Principles5. ̂ www.abnamro.com/com/about/data/abnamro_btcpipeline.pdf6. ̂ www.ifc.org/ifcext/btc.nsf/Content/MultistakeholderForumMeetingsReport7. ̂ [1][dead link]

8. ̂ http://www.milieudefensie.nl/klimaat/publicaties/rapporten/bankenklimaatrapport (page 11)

[edit] External links

www.equator-principles.com Official website of the Equator Principles. www.BankTrack.org NGO website with fact sheet on the Equator Principles and critical

comments. www.BankTrack.org BankTrack comments on revised Equator Principles, July 7, 2006. [2] Equator Principles website discussion of the BTC project criticism. [3] ABN AMRO report on its application of the Equator Principles to the BTC pipeline

project. [4] IFC rebuttal of NGO criticism of its environmental and social assessment of the BTC

pipeline project.

[5] Healthy development measurement toolFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (January 2009)

The Healthy Development Measurement Tool (HDMT), developed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health , provides an approach for evaluating land use planning and urban development with regards to the achievement of human health needs. The HDMT provides a set of baseline data on community health metrics for San Francisco and development targets to assess the extent to which urban development projects and plans can improve community health. The HDMT also provides a range of policy and design strategies that can advance health conditions and resources via the development process.

Contents

[hide]

1 Background 2 Land Use and Health 3 ENCHIA Process 4 Components 5 Flowchart 6 Examples of Application 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Background

In the San Francisco Bay Area, between the mid- and late- 1990’s, the bustling information economy brought multitudes of young people to the Bay Area and Silicon Valley’s technology-inspired new economy.[1] Housing was notoriously difficult to find, with vacancy rates at less than 2%.[2] During this period, average rents increased by 30% and the cost to buy increased dramatically. Although the economic recession triggered by the dot-com bubble brought the City’s vacancy rates to pre-boom levels, the Bay Area continued to encounter pressure for new housing development due to extraordinary levels of unmet demand and its high profitability. This phenomenon occurred elsewhere in California and throughout the country, in both urban and suburban settings.

[edit] Land Use and Health

Historically, health inequities were associated with differences in health behaviors and health care access and utilization. Today, however, many believe that these inequities result from differences in access to the social, economic and environmental resources necessary for health. Increasingly, inter-disciplinary research demonstrates that the root causes of disease and illness, as well as strategies to improve health and well-being are dependent on community design, land use, and transportation.[3][4] Changes in societal conditions can affect many individuals simultaneously, and have broad and diverse impacts on multiple health outcomes.The value of this Tool is that it focuses on broadening the range of social, economic, and environmental resources needed for health on a population level. It does so by recognizing a range of resources needed for optimal health at the societal level and identifying measurable and actionable ways to meet those needs through urban development. It combines quantitative analysis of health indicators with a qualitative assessment of whether plans and projects meet Tool development targets.SFDPH has recognized that it has a legitimate agency interest in integrating health considerations into land use decision-making. While SFDPH does not have formal decision-making authority regarding land use and development decisions, a number of drivers brought SFDPH to understand that it has a potentially important role. Drivers include:

Community organizations’ struggles to limit the negative impacts of development in their communities

Local experience among SFDPH staff that environmental health outcomes were associated with land use and transportation decisions

National public health research that “the built environment” was associated with chronic health outcomes

An international movement to develop tools and methods for HIA’s of public policy

The first driver for SFDPH to be involved in land use was that community groups were struggling with the pace of development in their neighborhoods. In addition, they were dissatisfied with the responsiveness of the Planning Department to address neighborhood needs and concerns, including displacement of existing residents and jobs, and an overall lack of infrastructure to support a complete neighborhood. Many groups called for community planning processes and specifically community, social, and economic impact assessments of land use changes to be conducted as part of or complementary to the environmental impact report required by CEQA.[5]

The second driver was that SFDPH increasingly recognized that environmental health and justice issues in San Francisco had roots in land use and transportation planning decisions. For example, SFDPH environmental health inspectors frequently observed that families lived in housing conditions that caused a variety of health outcomes such as asthma and lead poisoning. However, because of the high costs associated with improving these conditions, landlords often would not take action. In addition, the high cost of housing made it difficult or families to leave their homes and find new places to live.

Cumulatively, SFDPH also observed the disproportionate share of unwanted land uses (such as power plants, sewage treatment facilities, substandard public housing, and poor public infrastructure) in places like Bayview/Hunters Point as contributing to significant disparities in life expectancy for residents. Finally, SFDPH also witnessed residential development in historically industrial areas generating noise, traffic emissions, and pedestrian hazards for residents and workers in these areas.

Third, on a national scale, the public health and urban planning communities were increasingly calling attention to the connections between the built environment (that is, land use, transportation systems, and community design) and health, particularly focusing on the contribution of the land use patterns (for example, sprawl) to physical inactivity, pedestrian safety, and air quality. Findings illustrated that urban design and land use regulations could accomplish the complementary goals of preventing illness and ensuring environmental quality. For example, creating higher density, mixed-use developments closer to transit and job centers would enhance public safety, prevent motor-vehicle injuries, increase access to goods and services, encourage walking or bicycling, reduce air pollution, and limit global warming.

Finally, on an international scale, public health practitioners were also developing methods and tools for Health Impact Assessment. The goal of HIA was to bring to light information on how diverse public policy decisions might affect health as well as the social and environmental resources required for good health. While HIA was novel in the United States, it presented a potential way to gain consideration more pro-actively of both root causes of poor health and community needs in the land use development process.

By 2001, SFDPH had already begun using HIA methods to increase the inclusion of health considerations in policy-making. In a study examining the health impacts of increasing the City’s living wage, SFDPH found that adoption of an increased living wage would result in decreases in the risk of premature death by 5% for adults 24–44 years of age in households whose current income was around $20,000. For the offspring of these workers, a living wage would result in an increase of a quarter of a year of completed education, a 34% increase in the odds of high school completion, and a 22% decrease in the risk of early childbirth.SFDPH also conducted exploratory workshops with community members on the health impacts of housing subsidies, farmers’ markets, and green schoolyards. In 2002, SFDPH began using HIA more specifically in local land use planning, policy making, and project review. For example, SFDPH conducted HIAs of:

Carpet policy in public housing; Housing displacement at Trinity Plaza; and Spear / Folsom condominium towers at Rincon Hill.

[edit] ENCHIA Process

In response to development pressures, many communities called on public health officials to evaluate the ensuing health impacts and to advocate for healthy environments.[6] For this reason, the San Francisco Department of Public Health initiated the ENCHIA to analyze how development affects social determinants of health within several San Francisco neighborhoods.The HDMT was created through collaboration among development stakeholders and public agencies in San Francisco as a result of the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment (ENCHIA). The ENCHIA process was guided by the principles of “health impact assessment” and designed to act on growing scientific understanding that optimal health cannot be achieved by improving health services or individual behavior change alone, but requires advancing healthful neighborhood conditions. Such conditions include: * Adequate housing * Access to public transit * Schools, parks and public spaces * Safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists * Meaningful and productive employment * Unpolluted air, soil, and water * Cooperation, trust, and civic participationFacilitated and staffed by SFDPH, the eighteen-month ENCHIA process was guided by a multi-stakeholder Community Council of over twenty diverse organizations including:

Community planning and design Economic and neighborhood development Environmental justice Homeless Open space Housing Transportation Bicycle Food systems Child care and childhood development advocates Low-wage and union workers Non-profit and private developers Property-owners Architects Small businesses

[edit] Components

Voluntary not regulatory approach This Tool is not a new form of environmental regulation or a set of enforceable standards. The Tool does not mandate the achievement of specific development targets. Similar to tools like LEED, this Tool is intended to encourage voluntary efforts to improve health-oriented development.

HDMT provides a systematic assessment approach to simultaneously consider effects of development on six overarching domains:

Environmental stewardship Sustainable and safe transportation Social cohesion Adequate and healthy housing Public infrastructure/access to goods and services Healthy economy

These six elements are divided into 27 objectives, which themselves are further divided into 107 measurable indicators. Most indicators are paired with specific, actionable development targets, usually as a benchmark and/or minimum. As of November 1, 2007, fourteen of these indicators are in process.

The San Francisco Planning Department has received and reviewed the HDMT and other ENCHIA products and has committed to using the indicators and development criteria, where possible, in screening the content of its Eastern Neighborhood plans.

This Tool comprises a set of metrics to evaluate the extent to which urban development is meeting the needs of human health. Measurable indicators and development targets provide information about both the positive and negative ways in which health is impacted by a proposed development project and focuses attention on ways that development can improve population health. By providing measures and criteria for development, it allows those involved in policy- and decision-making to make more informed choices between trade-offs. As a result, the Tool may provide an additional means to support greater transparency in development processes.

[edit] Flowchart

This diagram depicts the relationship of many of the Tool's components.

[edit] Examples of Application

Thus far, SFDPH has applied the HDMT to evaluate San Francisco's Eastern neighborhoods. Pilot applications for smaller geographical areas are ongoing.

[edit] See also

Built Environment Health Impact Assessment Environmental Health Pedestrian-friendly Traffic calming Affordable housing Gentrification Geographic information system

[edit] References

1. ̂ Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment (ENCHIA) Home Page2. ̂ Housing Vacancies and Homeownership - Annual 2005: table 6a3. ̂ www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148#randt4. ̂ www.naccho.org/topics/hpdp/land_use_planning/LUP_Toolbox.cfm5. ̂ ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html6. ̂ Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment (ENCHIA) Home Page

Farhang, Lili and Bhatia, Rajiv (2007) (PDF). Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment. Final Report. San Francisco Department of Public Health. http://dphwww.sfdph.org/phes/ENCHIA.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-02.

[edit] External links

Healthy Development Measurement Tool Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability UC Berkeley Health Impact Group

[Categories: Public Health | Environmental Health | Built Environment]

tor Principles and IFC Performance Standards in Mining.

Leopold matrix From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available. (November 2006)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links , or by improving the article's layout. (December 2009)

The Leopold matrix is a qualitative environmental impact assessment method pioneered in 1971. It is used to identify the potential impact of a project on the environment. The system consists of a matrix with columns representing the various activities of the

project, and rows representing the various environmental factors to be considered. The intersections are filled in to indicate the magnitude (from -10 to +10) and the importance (from 1 to 10) of the impact of each activity on each environmental factor.

Measurements of magnitude and importance tend to be related, but do not necessarily directly correlate. Magnitude can be meas, in terms of how much area is affected by the development and how badly, but importance is a more subjective measurement. While a proposed development may have a large impact in terms of magnitude, the effects it causes may not actually significantly effect the environment as a whole. The example given by Leopold is of a stream that significantly alters the erosion patterns in a specific area, which will have a significant magnitude, but may not be important, provided the stream in question is swift moving and transports large amounts of soil anyway. In this case, an impact of significant magnitude may not actually be important to the environment in question.

This environment-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Category:Environmental scienceFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Environmental science is the science of the interactions between the physical, chemical, and biological components of the environment, but with particular attention to the effects of humans on the natural environment.

Subcategories

This category has the following 11 subcategories, out of 11 total.

A

[×] Air dispersion modeling (70 P)

[+] Atmospheric sciences (6 C, 23 P)

C

[+] Environmental chemistry (3 C, 63 P)

E cont.

[×] Environmental science software (10 P)

[+] Environmental ethics (1 C, 32 P)

M

[×] Environmental microbiology (30 P)

S cont.

[+] Environmental soil science (2 C, 101 P)

T

[+] Toxicology (20 C, 206 P)

W

E

[×] Environmental science journals (19 P)

S

[×] Environmental scientists (4 P)

[+] Water pollution (6 C, 156 P)

Pages in category "Environmental science"

The following 109 pages are in this category, out of 109 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

Environmental science Glossary of

environmental science

A

Abiotic component Altitude Latitude

Theory Anoxic event Aquatic biomonitoring Arctic ecology Association of

Environmental Professionals

B

BioSand Filter Bioassay Biochemical oxygen

demand Bioclimatology Biodiversity Biological monitoring

working party Biological integrity Biometeorology Bioreporter Biosurvey Biotic index Black carbon British Oceanographic

E

Ecological energetics Ecological forecasting Economics and energy Ecotechnology Effluent Environmental

engineering Environmental

engineering science Environmental

Science, SVN3E Environmental

Vulnerability Index Environmental analysis Environmental

archaeology Environmental

biotechnology Environmental data

rescue Environmental

degradation Environmental geology Environmental impact

statement Environmental

informatics Environmental

planning Science, technology,

society and

M cont.

Metapattern Microbial biodegradation Microecosystem

N

Nanoscale iron particles Natural heritage Nature Noise regulation Nonpoint source

pollution

O

Onsite sewage facility Over-illumination

P

Permaforestry Pharmaceuticals and

personal care products in the environment

Population equivalent Proba-2

R

Relative species

Data Centre Building Engineering

Physics

C

CAB Direct (database) CalCOFI CALIPSO Carbon Disclosure

Project Cleaner production Comparative

Toxicogenomics Database

Contamination Context theory Core sample Criteria air

contaminants CSRE

D

Data sharing Decision Analytic

Method Double diversion Dual segmented

Langmuir probe

environment education Environmental soil

science

F

Fuel model

G

Global change Groundwater

remediation

H

Hydrology Hypoxia

(environmental)

I

Index of biological integrity

Institute of Air Quality Management

Institution of Environmental Sciences

Integrated assessment modelling

International Year of Biodiversity

J

Janzen-Connell hypothesis

L

Leopold matrix

M

abundance

S

SCICEX Soil Moisture and Ocean

Salinity satellite Soil quality Southern California

Coastal Water Research Project

Syngas fermentation Systems ecology

T

Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy

Triad (environmental science)

Trickling filter Trophic state index

U

University of California, Berkeley College of Natural Resources

W

WEPP Water pollution Water quality Water column Water quality modelling Wildcrafting Wildlife observation World population USC Wrigley Institute

for Environmental Studies

Measurement of biodiversity

MegaFlyover MegaTransect Megha-Tropiques

Mission Mesohabitat

Simulation Model

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_science"Categories: Environment | Earth sciences | Environmental technology

Natural landscapeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Natural landscapes are landscapes beyond cultural influence. "A natural landscape is one that is unaffected by human activity"[1]. A natural landscape is intact when all living and nonliving elements are free to move and change[2]. The nonliving elements distinguish a natural landscape from a wilderness. A wilderness includes areas within which natural processes operate without human interference, but a wilderness must contain life. As implied, a natural landscape may contain either the living or nonliving or both. In his extensive travels in South America, Alexander von Humbolt [3] became the first to conceptualize a natural landscape [1]. Some have described a transition of a pristine landscape state to a humanized landscape state—which includes the human-modified landscape, the primeval landscape, the ancient landscape, the undisturbed wilderness and the managed landscape[4]. The natural landscape is a place under the current control of natural forces and free of the control of people for an extended period of time.

"For here the natural landscape is eloquent of the interplay of forces that have created it. It is spread before us like the pages of an open book...", Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, 1962.

Contents

[hide]

1 History of natural landscape 2 Examples of cultural forces 3 The conflict between cultural forces and the natural landscape 4 See also 5 References

[edit] History of natural landscape

No place on earth is unaffected by people and our culture. However, there is no place on earth that cannot return to natural landscape if abandoned by culture. People are part of biodiversity, but people exert forces on biodiversity, which destroy the natural landscape. Terms such as semi-natural are used to describe landscapes with both cultural and natural features. People have altered landscape to such an extent that few places on earth remain pristine. Being pristine, though, is not a prerequisite for natural landscape designation. Once abandoned by human influences, the landscape is again under the control of natural processes which accommodate interruptions, resulting in a new variant of the natural landscape[5].

[edit] Examples of cultural forces

Cultural forces are those that, intentionally or unintentionally, influence the landscape[6]. Cultural landscapes are places or artifacts currently maintained by people whether directly or indirectly. Examples of cultural disruptions are: fences, roads, trails, species under human management, invasive species introduced by people, extraction or removal of species and objects, vegetation alteration, alterations of animal populations, natural landscaping, buildings, agricultural areas, pollution, paved areas. Areas that may be confused with natural landscape include parks for people, agricultural areas, orchards, maintained views (use of aesthetic judgments), artificial lakes, managed forests, golf courses, nature center trails, back yards, and flower beds.

[edit] The conflict between cultural forces and the natural landscape

For a place to return to the natural landscape, all cultural artifacts attracting people must be removed. Natural landscape is the equilibrium that existed prior to significant human impact. The time necessary for an area to return to the natural landscape depends upon the environment, and it may be termed the period of neglect. Neglect, in this context, means the absence of any management whatsoever. Most people can easily recognize a neglected landscape. Human impact on the natural landscape may result in episodes of extinction of native species, episodes of stalled equilibrium, total species destruction and even the putrification of soil and water.

The case for returning land to the natural landscape has been championed by those who recognize the harm resulting from people’s actions on this planet. Popular movies such as Avatar (2009 film) [2] and Life After People focus on potential natural landscape controls or lack there of. The return of the natural landscape has been opposed by those who wish to groom the natural landscape or simply to demonstrate that the natural landscape has some practical value.

[edit] See also

Cityscapes Cultural landscapes Landscape art

Landscape painting Natural environment Natural landscaping Seascapes Skyscape art Soundscape

[edit] References

1. ̂ What is a natural landscape? SES501 Landscape Ecology and GIS, Keith Ferdinands, Charles Darwin University, July 2004, (1970)

2. ̂ Hugh Irwin, Landscape Connectivity of Unroaded Areas in the Southern Appalachians3. ̂ Chunglin Kwa, Alexander von Humboldt's invention of the natural landscape, The

European Legacy, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 149-162, 20054. ̂ Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape by geographer Thomas R. Vale,

Chapter 1, PP. 1 - 8, Island Press, 20025. ̂ YouTube, Professor James Lovelock, We can't save the planet, BBC NEWS,

2010/03/306. ̂ Holmes Rolston III, Technology versus nature, What is natural, Journal of Philosophy

and Technology, Ends and Means, Vol 2 No.2 Spring 1998, University of Aberdeen, Edinburgh University Press

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_landscape"Categories: Landscape | Conservation biology | Habitats

Phase I Environmental Site AssessmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Level 1 (disambiguation) and Phase 1.

Any piece of real estate can be the subject of a Phase I ESA.

An Environmental Site Assessment is a report prepared for a real estate holding which identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. The analysis, often called

an ESA, typically addresses both the underlying land as well as physical improvements to the property; however, techniques applied in a Phase I ESA never include actual collection of physical samples or chemical analyses of any kind. Scrutiny of the land includes examination of potential soil contamination, groundwater quality, surface water quality and sometimes issues related to hazardous substance uptake by biota. The examination of a site may include: definition of any chemical residues within structures; identification of possible asbestos containing building materials; inventory of hazardous substances stored or used on site; assessment of mold and mildew; and evaluation of other indoor air quality parameters[1]. Contaminated sites are often referred to as "brownfield sites." In severe cases, brownfield sites may be added to the National Priorities List where they will be subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program.

Actual sampling of soil, air, groundwater and/or building materials is typically not conducted during a Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is generally considered the first step in the process of environmental due diligence. This type of study is alternatively called a Level I Environmental Site Assessment. Standards for performing a Phase I site assessment have been promulgated by the US EPA[2] and are based in part on ASTM in Standard E1527-05.[3] If a site is considered contaminated, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment may be conducted, ASTM test E1903, a more detailed investigation involving chemical analysis for hazardous substances and/or petroleum hydrocarbons.[citation needed]

Contents

[hide]

1 History 2 Triggering actions 3 Scope 4 Preparers 5 Examples 6 International context 7 Other report types 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

[edit] History

As early as the 1970s specific property purchasers in the USA undertook studies resembling current Phase I ESAs, to assess risks of ownership of commercial properties which had a high degree of risk from prior toxic chemical use or disposal. Many times these studies were preparatory to understanding the nature of cleanup costs if the property was being considered for redevelopment or change of land use.

Leaking underground storage tanks are one source of hazardous substance liability

In the United States of America demand increased dramatically for this type of study in the 1980s following judicial decisions related to liability of property owners to effect site cleanup. Interpreting the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the U.S. courts have held that a buyer, lessor, or lender may be held responsible for remediation of hazardous substance residues, even if a prior owner caused the contamination; performance of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, according to the courts’ reasoning, creates a safe harbor, known as the 'Innocent Landowner Defense' for such a new purchaser or his lenders.

Joseph Manduke, a hydrogeologist of HTS Environmental Group, of Columbia , Maryland, compiled the first discrete scope of work to address the scope of services required to meet the 'innocent purchaser defense". This included inspector technical qualifications as being degreed scientists and the use of a "Due diligence inquiry checklist". The HTS, checklist and inspector qualifications, and other work was registered with the United States copyright and trademark office in 1988. This was the work that became the basis of the modern ASTM standard.[citation needed]

In 1998 the necessity of performing a Phase I ESA was underscored by congressional action in passing the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1998 [4] . This act requires purchasers of commercial property to perform a Phase I study meeting the specific standard of ASTM E1527: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

The most recent standard is "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries" 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 312[5] which drew heavily from ASTM E1527-05 which has become known as 'All Appropriate Inquiry' (AAI). Previous guidances regarding the ASTM E1527 standard were ASTM E1527-97 and ASTM E1527-00.

Residential property purchasers need only conduct a site inspection and chain of title survey.

[edit] Triggering actions

A variety of actions[6] can cause a Phase I study to be performed for a commercial property, the most common being:

Purchase of real property by a person or entity not previously on title. Contemplation by a new lender to provide a loan on the subject real estate. Partnership buyout or principal redistribution of ownership. Application to a public agency for change of use or other discretionary land use permit. Existing property owner’s desire to understand toxic history of the property. Compulsion by a regulatory agency who suspects toxic conditions on the site. Divestiture of properties

[edit] Scope

Asbestos-containing materials are not typically surveyed or sampled in a Phase I site inspection, but suspect building materials may be noted

Depending upon precise protocols utilized, there are a number of variations in the scope of a Phase I study. The tasks listed here are common to almost all Phase I ESAs:

Performance of an on-site visit to view present conditions (chemical spill residue, die-back of vegetation, etc) ; hazardous substances or petroleum products usage (presence of above ground or underground storage tanks, storage of acids, etc.); and evaluate any likely environmentally hazardous site history.

Evaluation of risks of neighboring properties upon the subject property Review of Federal, State, Local and Tribal Records out to distances specified by the

ASTM 1528 and AAI Standards (ranging from 1/8 to 1 mile depending on the database) Interview of persons knowledgeable regarding the property history (past owners, present

owner, key site manager, present tenants, neighbours). Examine municipal or county planning files to check prior land usage and permits

granted Conduct file searches with public agencies (State water board, fire department, county

health department, etc) having oversight relative to water quality and soil contamination issues.

Examine historic aerial photography of the vicinity. Examine current USGS maps to scrutinize drainage patterns and topography. Examine chain-of-title for Environmental Liens and/or Activity and Land Use

Limitations (AULs).

In most cases, the public file searches, historical research and chain-of-title examinations are outsourced to information services that specialize in such activities. Non-Scope Items in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessments can include visual inspections or records review searches for:

Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) Lead-Based Paint Lead in Drinking Water Mold Radon Wetlands Threatened and Endangered Species Earthquake Hazard Vapor Intrusion

[edit] Preparers

Often a multi-disciplinary approach is taken in compiling all the components of a Phase I study, since skills in chemistry, atmospheric physics, geology, microbiology and even botany are frequently required. Many of the preparers are environmental scientists who have been trained to integrate these diverse disciplines. Many states have professional registrations which are applicable to the preparers of Phase I ESAs; for example, the state of California has a registration entitled "California Registered Environmental Assessor Class I or Class II" [1].

Under ASTM E 1527-05 parameters were set forth as to who is qualified to perform Phase I ESAs. The new parameter defined an Environmental Professional as someone with 1) a current Professional Engineer's or Professional Geologist's license or registration from a state or U.S. territory with 3 years equivalent full-time experience; 2) have a Baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher education in a discipline of engineering or science and 5 years equivalent full-time experience; or 3) have the equivalent of 10 years full-time experience.

A person not meeting one or more of those qualifications may assist in the conduct of a Phase I ESA if the individual is under the supervision or responsible charge of a person meeting the definition of an Environmental Professional when concluding such activities.

Most site assessments are conducted by private companies independent of the owner or potential purchaser of the land.

[edit] Examples

While there are a myriad sites that have been analyzed to date within the United States, the following list will serve as examples of the subject matter:

Auke Bay U.S. Postal Facility, Juneau, Alaska Esso Canada Ltd. Former Bulk Fuels Facility, Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada Dakin Building , Brisbane, California

East Elk Grove Specific Plan, Elk Grove, California Mariners Marsh Park, Staten Island, New York Richmond State Hospital Farm Industrial Park, Wayne County, Indiana Sydney Steel Plant Lands, Sydney, Nova Scotia Weyerhauser Technology Center, Federal Way, Washington

[edit] International context

In Japan, with the passage of the 2003 Soil Contamination Countermeasures Law, there is a strong movement to conduct Phase I studies more routinely. At least one jurisdiction in Canada (Ontario) now requires the completion of a Phase I prior to the transfer of some types of industrial properties. Some parts of Europe began to conduct Phase I studies on selected properties in the 1990s, but still lack the comprehensive attention given to virtually all major real estate transactions in the USA.

In the United Kingdom contaminated land regulation is outlined in the Environment Act 1995. The Environment Agency of England and Wales have produced a set of guidance; CLEA a standardized approach to the assessment of land contamination. A Phase 1 Desktop Study is often required in support of a planning application.[7] In the UK these report must be assembled by a "competent person".

[edit] Other report types

Storage and handling of toxics is assessed for each site within a Phase I study.

There are several other report types that have some resemblance in name or degree of detail to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment:

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is an "intrusive" investigation which collects original samples of soil, groundwater or building materials to analyze for quantitative values of various contaminants[8]. This investigation is normally undertaken when a Phase I ESA determines a likelihood of site contamination. The most frequent substances tested are petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, asbestos and mold.

Phase III Environmental Site Assessment is an investigation involving remediation of a site. Phase III investigations aim to delineate the physical extent of contamination based on

recommendations made in Phase II assessments. Phase III investigations may involve intensive testing, sampling, and monitoring, “fate and transport” studies and other modeling, and the design of feasibility studies for remediation and remedial plans. This study normally involves assessment of alternative cleanup methods, costs and logistics. The associated reportage details the steps taken to perform site cleanup and the follow-up monitoring for residual contaminants.

Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a truncated Phase I ESA, normally omitting one or more work segments such as the site visit or certain of the file searches. When the field visit component is deleted the study is sometimes called a Transaction Screen.

Environmental Assessment has little to do with the subject of hazardous substance liability, but rather is a study preliminary to an Environmental Impact Statement, which identifies environmental impacts of a land development action and analyzes a broad set of parameters including biodiversity, environmental noise, water pollution, air pollution, traffic, geotechnical risks, visual impacts, public safety issues and also hazardous substance issues.

SBA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment means all properties purchased through the United States Small Business Administration's 504 Fixed Asset Financing Program require specific and often higher due diligence requirements than regular Real Estate transactions. Due diligence requirements are determined according to the NAICS codes associated with the prior business use of the property. There are 58 specific NAICS codes that require Phase I Investigations. These include, but are not limited to: Funeral Homes, Dry Cleaners, and Gas Stations. The SBA also requires Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to be performed on any Gas Station that has been in operation for more than 5 years. The additional cost to perform this assessment cannot be included in the amount requested in the loan and adds significant costs to the borrower.

[edit] See also

Environmental remediation Environmental scientist Certified Hazardous Materials Manager

[edit] References

1. ̂ Sara N Martin, Site Assessment and Remediation Handbook, CRC Press (2003)2. ̂ EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries -Final Rule3. ̂ ASTM official site4. ̂ Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1998, U.S. Congress, March 26, 19985. ̂ EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries -Final Rule6. ̂ Thomas M Missimer and Missimer M Missimer, A Lender's Guide to Environmental Liability

Management CRC Press (1996)7. ̂ Desktop Study Reports (Phase 1)8. ̂ Environmental Aspects of Real Estate and Commercial Transactions: From Brownfields to

Green Buildings, American Bar Association, ed. by James B. Witkin (2002)

[edit] External links

ASTM Vapor Intrusion Standards (ASTM E2600-08 Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion) available online

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_I_Environmental_Site_Assessment"Categories: Environmental economics | Environmental law | Legal terms | Property law | Soil contamination

Social impact assessmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (Redirected from Social Impact Assessment)Jump to: navigation, search

Social impact assessment (SIA) is a methodology to review the social effects of infrastructure projects and other development interventions.

Contents

[hide]

1 Definition 2 National SIA frameworks 3 Extending SIA 4 References 5 See also 6 External links 7 Examples

[edit] Definition

The origin of SIA come from the environmental health impact (HIA) model, which first emerged in the 1970s in the U.S, as a way to assess the impacts on society of certain development schemes and projects before they go ahead - for example, new roads, industrial facilities, mines, dams, ports, airports, and other infrastructure projects. It has been incorporated since into the formal planning and approval processes in several countries, in order to categorise and assess how major developments may affect populations, groups, and settlements. SIA is often carried out as part of, or in addition to, Environmental Impact Assessment, but it has not yet been as widely adopted as EIA in formal planning systems, often playing a minor role in combined environmental and social assessments.

As to standard definition "Social impact assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment." (International Association for Impact Assessment)

A substantial academic literature has developed around the techniques and the application of SIA, and it is widely taught and practiced. Major consultancy firms offer SIA expertise (which could be offered to 'developers', governments, or campaign organisations). They, and individual skilled practitioners and academics are often called upon to produce SIA reports, particularly in advance of proposed new infrastructure projects. The academic backgrounds of SIA practitioners are diverse, but may include applied sociology, anthropology, geography, development studies, and planning.

SIA overlaps substantially with the current interest in monitoring and evaluation (M&E). M&E is carried out after a project or development has gone ahead, to assess impacts and to see how well its goals were met. Evaluation is particularly important in the areas of

1. public policy ,2. health and education initiatives, and3. international development projects more generally, whether conducted by governments,

international donors, or NGOs.

In all these sectors, there is a case for conducting SIA and evaluations at different stages. There is a growing concern that projects of all types (from large dams to the work of small rural development NGOs), are efficiently conducted, do not disadvantage local people, and do not generate negative social and environmental impacts.

Increasingly, there is also a concern that non-experts and local people participate in the design and implementation of proposed developments or programmes. This can be achieved in the process of doing an SIA, through adopting a participatory and democratic research process. Some SIAs go further than this, to adopt an advocacy role. For example, several SIAs carried out in Queensland, Australia, have been conducted by consultants working for local Aboriginal communities who oppose new mining projects on ancestral land. A rigorous SIA report, showing real consequences of the projects and suggesting ways to mitigate these impacts, gives credibility and provides evidence to take these campaigns to the planning officers or to the courts.

[edit] National SIA frameworks

Australia and New Zealand European countries USA

[edit] Extending SIA

in international development into advocacy into other areas

[edit] References

Barrow, C. J. 2000. Social Impact Assessment: an Introduction. London: Arnold. Becker, H and F Vanclay. 2003. The international handbook of SIA. Cheltenham: E

Elgar. Becker, H. A., 1997. Social impact assessment : method and experience in Europe, North

America and the developing world London : UCL Press Burdge, Rabel J. 2004. The concepts, process and methods of SIA. Middleton, WI: The

Social Ecology Press. ISBN 0-941042-35-9. Burdge, Rabel J. 2004. A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. Middleton,

WI: The Social Ecology Press ISBN 0-941042-17-0. Howitt, Richard 2003. Local and non-specialist participation in impact assessment, in:

C.-Q. Liu, Z. Zhao, T. Xiao and J. Guha, Strategic Management of Environmental and Socio-Economic Issues: A Handbook. Guiyang, China, Guizhou Science and Technology Publishing House, 27-36

Howitt, R. 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice, sustainability and indigenous peoples. London: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, C. and Lee, N., Editors, 1997. Sustainable development in a developing world: Integrating socioeconomic appraisal and environmental assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Mayoux, L & R. Chambers 2005 Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment. Journal of International Development 17(2) 271-298.

Roche, C. 1999. Impact assessment for development agencies. Learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam

Taylor CN, Bryan CH, Goodrich CG. 2004. Social Assessment: theory, process and techniques. Middleton, WI: The Social Ecology Press ISBN 0-941042-37-5.

[edit] See also

Evaluation Environmental Impact Assessment Health Impact Assessment Social Return on Investment Equality Impact Assessment

[edit] External links

Website of Rabel Burdge US Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (PDF) International Principles of SIA (PDF)

Vanclay F: Social Impact Assessment. World Commission on Dams (PDF) International Association for Impact Assessment Wiki - SIA page

[edit] Examples

West-East Gas Pipeline (China) Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (Australia) Murray-Darling Basin: Living Murray project, 2003 (Australia) Stora Enso’s forest plantation project in Guangxi China [1] Lafarge Surma Cement factory, Bangladesh [2] Waste facility, Nowingi, VIC, Australia. [3]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_impact_assessment"Categories: Impact assessment

Strategic Environmental AssessmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a system of incorporating environmental considerations into policies, plans and programmes. It is sometimes referred to as Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment. The specific term Strategic Environmental Assessment relates to European Union policy.

The EU is one of the leading global regions in R & D of renewable energy and environmental protection.

Contents

[hide]

1 History 2 Relationship with Environmental Impact Assessment 3 Aims and Structure of SEA 4 SEA in the European Union

o 4.1 United Kingdom

5 SEA Internationally o 5.1 The pan-European region o 5.2 New Zealand o 5.3 The OECD DAC - SEA in development co-operation

6 See also 7 References 8 External links

o 8.1 Organisations o 8.2 EC projects

[edit] History

European Union Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments (known as the EIA Directive) only applied to certain projects.[1] This was seen as deficient as it only dealt with specific effects at the local level whereas many environmentally damaging decisions had already been made at a more strategic level (for example the fact that new transport infrastructure may generate an increased demand for travel).

The concept of Strategic Assessments originated from regional development / land use planning in the developed world. In 1981 the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department published the Area-wide Impact Assessment Guidebook. In Europe the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context the so called Espoo Convention laid the foundations for the introduction of SEA in 1991. In 2003, the Espoo Convention was supplemented by a Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment.

The European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC required that all member states of the European Union should have ratified the Directive into their own country's law by 21 July 2004.[2]

Countries of the EU started implementing the land use aspects of SEA first, some took longer to adopt the directive than others, but the implementation of the directive can now be seen as completed. Many EU nations have a longer history of strong Environmental Appraisal including Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. The newer member states to the EU have hurried in implementing the directive.

[edit] Relationship with Environmental Impact Assessment

For the most part an SEA is conducted before a corresponding EIA is undertaken. This will mean that information on the environmental impact of a plan will be able to cascade down through the tiers of decision making and be used in an EIA at a later stage. This should reduce the amount of work that needs to be undertaken. A handover procedure is foreseen.

[edit] Aims and Structure of SEA

The SEA Directive only applies to plans and programmes, not policies, although policies within plans are likely to be assessed and SEA can be applied to policies if needed and in the UK certainly, very often is.

The structure of SEA (under the Directive) is based on the following phases:

"Screening", investigation of whether the plan or programme falls under the SEA legislation,

"Scoping", defining the boundaries of investigation, assessment and assumptions required,

"Documentation of the state of the environment", effectively a baseline on which to base judgments,

"Determination of the likely (non-marginal) environmental impacts", usually in terms of Direction of Change rather than firm figures,

Informing and consulting the public, Influencing "Decision taking" based on the assessment and, Monitoring of the effects of plans and programmes after their implementation.

The EU directive also includes other impacts besides the environmental, such as material assets and archaeological sites. In most western European states this has been broadened further to include economic and social aspects of sustainability.

SEA should ensure that plans and programmes take into consideration the environmental effects they cause. If those environmental effects are part of the overall decision taking it is called Strategic Impact Assessment.

[edit] SEA in the European Union

SEA is a legally enforced assessment procedure required by Directive 2001/42/EC (known as the SEA Directive).[2] The SEA Directive aims at introducing systematic assessment of the environmental effects of strategic land use related plans and programs. It typically applies to regional and local, development, waste and transport plans, within the European Union. Some plans, such as finance and budget plans or civil defence plans are exempt from the SEA Directive, it also only applies to plans that are required by law, which interestingly excludes national government's plans and programs, as their plans are 'voluntary', whereas local and regional governments are usually required to prepare theirs.

[edit] United Kingdom

SEA within the UK is complicated by different Regulations, guidance and practice between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In particular the SEA Legislation in Scotland contains an expectation that SEA will apply to strategies as well as plans and programmes. In the UK, SEA is inseparable from the term 'sustainability', and an SEA is expected to be carried out as part of a wider Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which was already a requirement for many types of plan before the SEA directive and includes social, and economic factors in addition to environmental. Essentially an SA is intended to better inform decision makers on the

sustainability aspects of the plan and ensure the full impact of the plan on sustainability is understood.

The United Kingdom in its strategy for sustainable development, A Better Quality of Life (May 1999), explained sustainable development in terms of four objectives. These are:

social progress which recognises the needs of everyone effective protection of the environment prudent use of natural resources maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

These headline objectives are usually used and applied to local situations in order to asses the impact of the plan or program.

[edit] SEA Internationally

[edit] The pan-European region

The Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment was negotiated by the member States of the UNECE (in this instance Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia). It requires ratification by 16 States to come into force. Once in force it will be open to all UN Member States. Besides its potentially broader geographical application (global), the Protocol differs from the corresponding European Union Directive in its non-mandatory application to policies and legislation - not just plans and programmes. The Protocol also places a strong emphasis on the consideration of health, and there are other more subtle differences between the two instruments.

[edit] New Zealand

SEA in New Zealand is part of an integrated planning and assessment process and unlike the US is not used in the manner of Environmental impact assessment. The Resource Management Act has, as a principle objective, the aim of sustainable management. SEA is increasingly being considered for transportation projects. [1]

[edit] The OECD DAC - SEA in development co-operation

Development assistance is increasingly being provided through strategic-level interventions, aimed to make aid more effective. SEA meets the need to ensure environmental considerations are taken into account in this new aid context. Applying SEA to development co-operation provides the environmental evidence to support more informed decision making, and to identify new opportunities by encouraging a systematic and thorough examination of development options.

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Task Team on SEA has developed guidance on how to apply SEA to development co-operation. The document explains the benefits

of using SEA in development co-operation and sets out key steps for its application, based on recent experiences.

[edit] See also

Environmental impact assessment Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Strategic Environmental Assessment (Denmark) (SEA)

[edit] References

1. ̂ Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (1985-06-27) from Eur-Lex

2. ^ a b Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2001-06-27) from Eur-Lex

nssd.net - Strategic Environmental Assessment: A rapidly evolving approach.

[edit] External links

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links or by converting links into footnote references. (August 2010)

[edit] Organisations

International Association for Impact Assessment World Bank European Union United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations University's Open Educational Resource on SEA: Contains a Course

Module, Wiki and Instructional Guide UK government guidance The Strategic Environmental Assessment Task Team Network The OECD DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation Strategic Environmental Assessment Information Service Environmental Protection Agency Ireland SEA Workshop Series Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment

[edit] EC projects

BEACON - Strategic Environmental Assessment of transport plans and programmes

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Environmental_Assessment"

Categories: Impact assessment | Sustainability | Town and country planning in the United Kingdom | Technology assessment