The impact assessment we want

Abstract

The impact assessment (IA) we want seeks to balance the ‘productive harmony’ between people and nature by enhancing the quality of life while maintaining the integrity of natural systems. Its focus centers on ‘sustainable futures’ as the goal of integrated IA.

Keywords::

• impact assessment
• sustainable futures
• integration
• focus

Focus

In response to the call for strengthening impact assessment (IA) set out by Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014), we emphasize the importance of harmonization, by which we mean seeking an appropriate balance between people and nature. With respect to our focus, we propose a variation on the theme of last year's Rio+20 conference, ‘The Future We Want’ (United Nations 2012), namely, ‘sustainable futures.’ This goal was anticipated in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the ‘Earth Summit’) and its report, Agenda 21. Twenty years on, that message is all the more pertinent and urgent.

‘Sustainable development’ was the operative phrase that emerged from the 1992 Rio event to become the organizing principle for the United Nations system and its blueprint for the twenty-first century. A verbal gesture to reconcile the apparent and real differences existing between them, the phrase often appears as ‘equitable’ or now ‘inclusive and sustainable development.’

In discussions of sustainable development, an overriding question is: sustain what, how, and for whom? Surely that cannot be a prescription for permanent poverty or perpetuating the exclusion of marginal and vulnerable peoples. In these circumstances, the priority must be to attain greater equity and parity of the disadvantaged by means of ‘sustainable growth.’

Achieving this goal demands the conception and application of ‘transformative’ policies and actions. IA practitioners should not only anticipate future problems and possibilities, they should also create and facilitate opportunities for participation by all interested and affected parties in envisioning desirable futures and designing viable alternatives for securing and sustaining ‘the future we want.’

Integration

Regarding ‘integration,’ a prior question is what contents and formats we have to integrate in the first place. IA can be defined as ‘the foreknowledge of consequences’ and its purpose stated as ‘developing local and global capacity to anticipate, plan, and manage the consequences of change so as to enhance the quality of life for all.’

On this understanding, what IA practitioners have to integrate is the substance of that knowledge and its application – the unity of theory and practice – in achieving equitable and sustainable futures. Some dimensions and proportions of that integration are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Assessment levels, scales, schedules, and sectors (Wolf 2000).

Levels	Scales	Schedules	Sectors
Policy	Global	Future conditions	Multisectoral
Program	National	Existing conditions	Environmental
Project	Regional	Baseline conditions	Social
Product/process	Local	Impact history	Economic

In a comprehensive assessment, IA practitioners scan across all these assessment levels, scales, schedules, and sectors and consider the interrelations and interactions among their categories.

‘Levels’ of assessment identify the objects to be assessed and, correspondingly, the type of assessment employed, for instance, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) at the policy level and life cycle assessment at the product/process level. ‘Scales’ indicate where in the spatial hierarchy ‘from local to global’ the assessment is located; ‘schedules’ refers to the time horizon and ‘sectors’ to the substantive focus of the assessment.

Since impact situations are typically multidimensional, the challenge of integration is compounded by an impressive array of ‘multiples’: publics, perspectives, purposes, functions, criteria, disciplines, methods, and media, as well as levels, scales, and sectors. At the same time, this diversity enables IA practitioners to combine their resources in devising suitable methods for anticipatory research, design, and development.

It is the IA practitioner's responsibility to manage this complexity by adopting approaches and practices that are both inclusive and incisive. IA theory can direct the assessment process toward strategic entry points and interventions. IA methodology can ground this theory in the reality of impact situations. Effective use of both requires the support of a conducive institutional environment and skilled IA practitioners.

The Korean EIA System and Sustainable Society

How might IA assist in the realization of sustainable futures? The Korean experience may offer a basis for reflection. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Korea arose in the 1970s to mitigate environmental damage from development policies, programs, and projects and it continues to evolve down to the present. In 1971 the revised Pollution Control Act introduced the concept of prior mitigation measures; EIA was formally enacted in 1977 with the revision of the Environmental Conservation Act; and formal environmental impact statement preparation was mandated in 1981.

Although EIA in Korea has improved markedly over the past three decades, by enlarging the range of EIA projects, instituting public participation, environmental monitoring, the introduction of SEA, and other measures, there remains ample room for further improvement (Kim 2004).

EIA was strengthened by inclusion of the innovative prior environmental review system (PERS) in the 1990 Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and broadened in the EIA Act of 1993, in 1999 with the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disaster, etc., and again in the EIA Act in 2009.

Though the 1999 Act was intended to relieve problems of expense and timeliness, it created separate EIA procedures for sectoral applications such as traffic IA, disaster IA, and demographic IA, and with overlapping jurisdictions conducting these assessments, further problems of efficiency and integration arise for practice.

These difficulties are illustrated in the Chunsungsan Tunnel phase of the Korean High-speed Railway Project. Located in an area of high scenic and cultural value, it commenced only after a long controversy. A formal EIA was completed in 1994, but 5 years later, biodiversity studies conducted in the area discovered the presence of high value wetlands, habitat for the endangered clawed salamander. Construction was halted but later resumed after a ruling by the country's supreme court (Lee 2005; Koo & Lee 2008).

The Chunsungsan Tunnel episode was something of a ‘worst case,’ of uncertain knowledge of the impact situation and highly contested views over the preferred alternative (Douglas & Wildavsky 1983). Such problems were addressed in the 2012 EIA Act by integrating PERS and EIA as a means of controlling development pressures and preventing habitat destruction (Kim & Shin 2013).

In any case, this experience suggests a constructive role for IA practitioners in mediating environmental conflicts by involving the interested and affected parties throughout the assessment process. Situations such as this are likely to arise with increasing frequency in the future as competition for resources – if not outright ‘resource wars’ – intensifies.

The theme of the 10th Anniversary meeting of the Korean Society of EIA (KSEIA) in 2002 was ‘Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable Society,’ a topic revisited at the 2013 meeting. In fact, both Korean society and KSEIA are strategically – indeed, uniquely – positioned to spearhead a global transition to sustainability.

Through its ‘green growth’ initiatives, Korea has taken a lead in this effort, and in bridging the gaps between developed and developing countries. It is our contention that IA applications can contribute to this process by improving the planning process, values clarification, meaningful public involvement, and conflict mediation, among other things.

Conclusion

The Rio+20 conference report, ‘The Future We Want,’ (http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/) underscores ‘the need to further mainstream sustainable development at all levels integrating economic, social and environmental aspects and recognizing their interlinkages, so as to achieve sustainable development in all its dimensions.’

Comprehensive assessment is inherently integrative. Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014) have argued that IA can be strengthened through increased integration around the goal of sustainable development; we agree, but more specifically for us, a critical way to enhance IA practice would be to focus on sustainable futures. By focusing on sustainable futures, the IA we want can assist in attaining this crucial goal. By emphasizing sustainable development and societal assessment, integrated IA applications can advance global efforts toward this end.