A basic need for integration – bringing focus to the scoping process

Abstract

In response to the lead article in this edition, we have the following observations made mostly on our professional practice. First, good scoping is essential for effective impact assessment (IA) but is rarely done well. Second, interdisciplinary teams are also essential for effective IA and are often used. Third, the use of sustainability as a tool for doing IA is intellectually attractive but may conflict with IA legislation and so should be used only with care.

Keywords::

• impact assessment
• scooping
• interdisciplinarity and sustainability

We largely support the twofold strategy of greater focus on scoping, and greater interdisciplinarity in impact assessment (IA) (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014). Our professional experience and our scholarly background emphasize these features as being essential for good IA but often lacking in current practice.

Scoping in IA

Scoping should focus IAs on the few effects that will influence the decision about the proposed action (Ross et al. 2006). This has been recognized for decades and yet current practice seems to require everything under the sun to be included in IAs. In a very recent discussion, a professional colleague described the latest (Government issued) terms of reference for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) he was responsible for as being completely unfocused, expressing great dissatisfaction (Kennedy A. 2013. Environment and Regulatory Manager, Imperial Oil Resources, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Personal communication, Oct 29). We believe that, if EIA is to be successful, it must focus on the issues of importance to the decision-maker and not try to do everything (Baxter et al. 2001).

Scoping must be carried out involving all stakeholders. Furthermore, effective scoping by those responsible to conduct the IA would facilitate the selection of a team to conduct the focused study.

A key outcome of scoping should include the preparation of a scoping report. The contents should include an introductory section, background information on the potential project, logistics of the scoping process, press releases and announcements, and the process summary. The summary should include composite information related to attendance, oral and written comments, participating interest groups, and the number of comments received on pre-identified or new resource categories or topical concerns. Those categories receiving greater attention should be summarized. The categories eliminated or postponed for further analysis should also be identified along with their accompanying rationale.

Interdisciplinarity in IA

There are relationships within and between biophysical resources, historic and cultural amenities, social issues, and socio-economic and infrastructure conditions in local project study areas as well as surrounding regional areas. These intertwined relationships are not merely theoretical; they have implications regarding analyses of effects and the application of impact mitigation measures. Analyses of impacts on individual valued ecosystem components (VECs) without consideration of holistic perspectives lead to less-than-complete information for decision-making processes. Examples of multiple relationships include:

• Deteriorating water quality affecting aquatic life and fisheries (water quality, fish, and socio-economic).

• Loss of wetlands affecting habitat for migratory birds (vegetation and wildlife).

• Loss of old growth forest reducing habitat for wildlife and loss of cultural heritage for indigenous peoples (vegetation, wildlife, and socio-economic).

• Declining air quality, surface and groundwater quality, local agricultural activities, historic and cultural resources, and local socio-economic conditions from large-scale industrial and mining activities.

In no small part, interdisciplinary study teams should be used because of these linkages. For example, compensating for a loss of old growth forest is challenging. Doing so in such a manner as to create wildlife habitat and leave or restore cultural heritage for indigenous peoples is much more difficult and requires the collaborative efforts of several disciplines working together. A team leader is needed to promote information sharing, collaboration between all members, and joint analyses and discussions. We note that effective scoping is needed to determine team membership.

Cumulative effects assessment and management

Cumulative effects are the effects of the proposed project or action in combination with the effects of other human activities (Canter & Ross 2010). Assessing cumulative effects is routinely required and represents a different type of interdisciplinary team for IA. In assessing a single project, one often uses assessors very familiar with that type of project (e.g. some consultants specialize in mining projects). The requirement to deal with cumulative effects means that, even for a mining project, the cumulative effects may be caused by forest harvesting, petroleum projects, and recreation. This too creates the need for a more diverse team if it is to be effective.

The Canadian Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management (CEAM) process consists of assessing effects over a larger (i.e. ‘regional’) area that may cross jurisdictional boundaries (includes effects due to natural perturbations affecting environmental components and human actions); assessing effects during a longer period of time into the past and future; considering effects on VECs due to interactions with other actions, and not just the effects of the single action under review; including other past, existing, and future (e.g. reasonably foreseeable) actions; and evaluating significance in consideration of other than just local, direct effects (The Cumulative Effects Assessment Working Group and AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd 1999, p. 3). These process challenges emphasize the importance of interdisciplinarity in CEAM studies within IA.

A focal point for integration – sustainable development goals

The authors of the seminal paper for strengthening IA have also proposed that sustainable development be used as the central goal of IAs for the proposed projects (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014). This approach has the advantage of focusing IA on criteria that, according to current literature, align with development approval principles. However, there are also drawbacks. An immediate difficulty is that adopting a widely accepted (by government regulators and the public) definition of sustainable development is challenging. One way of dealing with this difficulty is to develop VEC-related definitions of sustainability. To illustrate, a VEC-related approach was used in a strategic-level IA for modernization of waterway navigation on the Ohio River in the USA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2011). For example, ‘sustainable conditions’ were defined for water quality, mussels, and fish. For each VEC, specific indicators and their associated sustainability conditions were delineated. Information related to each indicator for each VEC was evaluated in relation to its unique sustainability conditions. Then, the overall findings for each VEC were discussed by the interdisciplinary team and representatives of pertinent agencies. Furthermore, historical, existing, and potential future sustainability for each VEC was used to identify and evaluate appropriate mitigation measures.

A key lesson from the Ohio River IA was that defining VEC-related sustainability required interdisciplinary team discussions which highlighted holistic perspectives and discussions, and the integration of VEC-specific data. In addition, consideration of VEC-to-VEC inter-relationships was also incorporated in the study. It was also realized that scientific information provided the basis for assessing sustainability conditions, and, as appropriate, using this information to specify short-term and long-term goals. The interdisciplinary team consisted of an aquatic biologist (team leader), a water resources planner, a land use planner, a terrestrial biologist, a political scientist, and an environmental engineer. Finally, it was realized that focusing on sustainability and sustainable development goals required the study team to go beyond the development of separate silos of information. It forced the integration of information from silos and consideration of multiple near-term and future scenarios and opportunities for environmental improvements. In addition, it was realized that these conceptual approaches could be developed and used for VECs within the bio-physical, cultural, social, and socio-economic environments.

Final thoughts

An emerging concern is that IA legislation is specifying what is required and what can be done. The legislation may or may not enable a broad sustainability approach. Some IA legislation is narrowly focused on biophysical effects and the social and economic aspects of sustainability are neither required nor permitted. In our view, some individuals responsible for conducting IAs think highly of themselves. We know several practitioners who would readily assume the responsibility for making decisions on behalf of the society. However, that is not their mandate and, as impact assessors, they (we) should focus on doing their job (assessing impacts) and doing it well.

In short, we strongly support much improved scoping to strengthen IA. Inter-disciplinary teams are equally essential for good practice. The use of sustainability as a guide to good IA is valuable, but there may be limits on where it can be properly applied.