How impact assessment has developed
|
Feature |
1970s |
2000s |
Advantages |
Disciplines involved |
Bio-physical only |
Social added |
Integrated approach sought |
Study area & objectives |
Focused on project and its footprints |
Includes regional scale, cumulative effects |
Provides context of development and sustainability |
and its footprints |
cumulative effects |
and sustainability |
|
EA process |
Within technical team only |
Includes wide range of stakeholders |
More open & accessible |
Study focus |
Data collection & analysis (front-end) |
Management of impacts (back-end) |
|
Public consultation |
Nominal |
Substantive & central |
Helps define & prioritise issues |
Disclosure of documents |
Limited |
Widespread, increasingly web-based; focus on local disclosures as well (not necessarily web based if done in a culturally appropriate manner) |
Much greater access to information for all parties |
Transparency of process |
Very limited |
Much more open |
Clear, concise communications sought |
Impacts identified |
All the ‘negatives’ |
‘Positives’ as well as negatives |
More balanced perspective on project implications |
Management and Action Plans |
Nominal |
Major focus |
With objective of minimising negative and optimising positive impacts |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory approach |
Command & control |
Increasingly contract-based |
Private sector involvement formalises and difines obligations of parties in detail |
|
|
|
|
Monitoring & follow-up |
Very limited |
Much more required on regular basis |
Trend towards making monitoring reports publicly available |
|
|
|
|
Documentation summary |
Highly technical & jargon-laden |
Clear, concise & highly graphic summary |
Aims to communicate clearly with wide of stakeholders |