Embracing evolutionary change to advance impact assessment (IA)

ABSTRACT

Impact assessment (IA) originated as, and continues to be, an instrument that contributes towards sustainable development. In response to the considerable sustainability challenges facing our planet this article argues for the acceleration of IA’s evolutionary approach through focusing on effective practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Impact assessment
• evolution
• revolution
• sustainable development
• effectiveness

1. Introduction

This article embraces an evolutionary approach to advancing impact assessment (IA). The alternative proposition put forward in Banhalmi-Zakar et al. (2018) for revolution of IA ‘calls for a complete, wide-reaching and radical change that, by definition, typically means overthrowing the existing methodologies (systems) and establishing a new approach’ (p. 507). It would be dangerous to advocate for such radical change noting that Coccia (2018) further characterises revolution with phrases such as ‘internal war’, ‘violent competition’ and the ‘emergence of an obsessive revolutionary mentality’ (p. 289). Such radical change would likely mean loss of control of the process to development forces and vested interests in society who remain resistant to IA. In contrast, evolution represents the ‘gradual development of something, especially from a simple to more complex form’ (Banhalmi-Zakar et al. 2018, p. 507), being ‘associated with a specific directional activity’ (Coccia 2018, p. 290), meaning that it lies predominantly in the control of IA practitioners.

It is clear our world is facing considerable sustainability challenges and that these are arguably accelerating in the face of a series of global megatrends (e.g. Retief et al. 2016). It is understandable that IA practitioners may experience a degree of disappointment when; despite 50 years of continuous and ever-expanding applications of IA, ‘key trends are towards deeper unsustainability’ (Gibson 2013, p. 3). However, the response of the IA community should not be to dismantle the current approach to IA, but instead, be to focus on promoting effective practice in order to accelerate evolution towards sustainable development. In particular, providing worked examples of projects, plans and policies that more beyond compliance to inspire and empower IA practitioners worldwide is warranted.

This paper argues for evolutionary change to IA firstly by presenting evidence for IA’s consistent approach over time to sustainable development. It then describes the simple concept behind IA and its application within complex settings. It concludes by outlining potential solutions to many of the issues raised by revolutionists drawing here on the IA effectiveness literature.

2. A change in approach

The IAIA defines IA as ‘the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action’ (IAIA, 1999). Being forward looking in this way, it seeks to deliver decisions and development that will be sustainable (Partidario 2012). Through the establishment of The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (NEPA) federal agencies were to consider the concept of sustainable development as stated in s.102(2)(c) (iv) ‘The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s [sic] environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity’. A similar concept of sustainable development was also a focus of the United Nations Stockholm Conference (1972), which declared ‘the need for common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment’. Subsequent UN Conferences were more explicitly stating that ‘Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature’ (UN, 1992, Principle 1) and at the Rio+20 UN Conference on sustainable development to ‘renew our commitment to sustainable development and to ensuring the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations’ (UN, 2012), followed up in 2015 with the establishment of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015). These then filtered into financier organisations such as the World Bank. While the intended outcomes of the SDGs are more comprehensive than IA (Hacking 2019), viewed as a whole the SDGs may guide the future direction of the IA community by offering a vision for the future that encourage practitioners to move beyond mere compliance (Morrison-Saunders 2018).

IA has had a consistent approach over time to contribute towards sustainable development (Arts and Morrison-Saunders 2004; Gibson et al. 2005; Jay et al. 2007; Sheate 2009; Bond et al. 2016; Gibson 2017). It has evolved to include a variety of specialist tools focused on particular sub-fields such as the biophysical environment, social and health (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014; Vanclay 2015; Banhalmi-Zakar et al. 2018). Yet, despite the different focus of each IA tool they share ‘common theoretical ground’ (Cashmore and Kørnøv 2013, p. 29) and draw upon the same foundational principles in the quest for sustainable development.

International best practice principles for IA outlined by IAIA and IEA (1999) call for processes and practice that is ‘participative’, ‘credible’, ‘systematic’, ‘transparent’ and ‘accountable’ amongst many others. Taken together they stand for what democratic nations expect from sustainability. These principles have stood the test of time; there is no literature that denounces any of them. The definition of revolution from Banhalmi-Zakar et al. (2018) refers to change in the established approach. This begs the question: What would IA practitioners want to change about the current approach to IA?; e.g. that it not consider future consequences, promote sustainable development or uphold the IAIA’s list of best practice principles?

As a kind of thought experiment, it is worth considering what decision-making may look like post-revolution without these foundations in place; particularly in light of calls by governments to streamline IA in response to concerns over adverse effects to economic development, i.e. costs and delays (Bond et al. 2014; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2015); and, especially given the observation that by and large Governments are averse to embracing the ‘transformative sustainable development intention’ of IA (Morrison-Saunders 2018, p. 29).

Post IAIA19 Conference where the theme of ‘evolution or revolution: where next for impact assessment?’ was an ongoing debate central to the conference, this question remains largely unanswered. Many of the revolutionary examples presented in Banhalmi-Zakar et al. (2018) starter paper do not propose radical changes to the foundations principles of IA but instead highlight recognised challenges and issues with contemporary IA practice, such as an administrative focus of IA and the lack of centrality to decision-making. These issues have solutions that emphasise the importance of the foundational principles extolled earlier, not a change that denounces them. While implementation is a challenge, it calls for evolutionary approaches reinforced by the foundational principles of IA with inspiration and guidance coming from successful examples of practice.

Additional calls for revolution appear to be in response to broader systematic issues that lie outside the current scope and influence of IA. Examples here include the lack of governmental and intergovernmental action on climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018), rising economic inequality within (and between) countries (Oxfam 2019); and an increase in nationalist politics in some countries (Bieber 2018). Although IA is arguably influenced by broader social, economic and political factors that lie outside its ambit, IA is not in itself an instrument for broader social, economic and political revolutions, and nor can it be expected to be. IA is a tool to contribute towards sustainable development. Therefore, we should look at how best it can contribute to this goal.

3. A simple concept applied within a complex setting

The central idea of IA is simply to ‘think before you act’ (2018 p. 4). Yet this simple idea is applied within an increasingly ‘complex socio-cultural setting’ (Cashmore and Kørnøv 2013, p. 19). Both the simple premise and application setting of IA are captured within the key principles. The current socio-cultural setting requires multiple decisions to be made alongside the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders with diverse perspectives on the IA process (Cashmore and Kørnøv 2013). Banhalmi-Zakar et al. (2018) note the additional complexities of the assimilation with project development and focus on broader issues such as ecological and social resilience.

Two things need to be acknowledged here. Firstly, that the setting in which IA is now placed has become more complex since IA was first introduced. And secondly, that changing the existing IA system through revolution will not take away this complexity. Therefore, it is essential that the IA community responds by focussing on promoting effective practice. The particular ways in which effective practice can be achieved requires demonstrating what works, where and for whom. This continues to occur for environmental impact assessment (EIA) via system evaluations, which reflect on EIA practice. Recent evaluations include UK (Jha-Thakur and Fischer 2016); India (Rathi 2017), Myanmar (Aung 2017), Greece (Pediaditi et al. 2018) and Iran (Khosravi et al. 2019). Comparative system evaluations of EIA also continue to occur with the comparison of Netherlands and the UK (Arts et al. 2012) and more recent comparisons of Thailand with China and Japan (Suwanteep et al. 2016) and the comparison amongst the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Swangjang 2018). In relation to strategic environmental assessment (SEA), the recent special issues of IAPA (Vol 37 issues 3–4) provide analysis of practice across Europe and within Canada, Brazil and Thailand (Therivel and González 2019).

Morrison-Saunders and Fischer (2006) suggest possible solutions to integrating sustainability into planning by commencing with sustainability principles (see Gibson 2001; Gibson et al. 2005) in order to develop sustainable behaviours. Such an approach would build upon the foundational international best practice principles of IAIA and IEA (1999) while drawing on aspirational objectives to deliver on the SDG challenges as envisioned by Hacking (2019).

The IA community has strived to include a wide range of sub-fields into IA in order to embrace the diversity of perspectives on sustainable development (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014). Their continued existence applied in varying capacities around the world indicates that the premise of IA is valuable and the instrument itself is worthwhile implementing. What works, where and for whom, will obviously vary depending on the context, i.e. socio-economic, political and cultural (Morgan 2012).

4. Conclusion

Both revolutionists and evolutionists recognise change is necessary to ensure IA is effective into the future. However, the lack of proposed radical change/s to the IA foundational principles indicates little evidence to suggest that IA requires a revolution in order to achieve this desired future. Instead, it is necessary for the IA community to recognise and find ways to work within increasingly complex settings. Aspects of IA that warrant change have been well documented in the IA literature along with multiple solutions. Perhaps the instrument of IA itself remains relatively revolutionary to those development forces and vested interests in society that continue to contest its role. If this is the case, then the challenge for IA practitioners is to pursue and to demonstrate evolutionary change that will advance practice in combination with advocating for the external political change necessary for IA to realise its potential.