Impact assessment for desirable futures: perspectives from East Asia

ABSTRACT

This contribution to the Special Issue on Impact Assessment for the 21^st Century invites readers to consider how recent East Asian developments concerning impact assessment (IA) may shape future IA policy and practice. It discusses the role that IA is playing and will continue to play in the rapid socio-economic development of the East Asian region. This letter surveys the region’s current IA foci from a culturally sensitive lens, paying particular attention to South Korea, China and Japan. It suggests what the region’s future focus and contributions to IA for ‘desirable futures’ are likely to be, based on current practice. Three central factors in the future of IA in the 21^st century are prevalent from an East Asian vantage point: the influence of culture, the centrality of policymaking and the increase in public participation.

KEYWORDS:

• East Asia
• China
• Korea
• Japan
• impact assessment
• policy

Introduction

At the turn of the century the late Charlie Wolf, one of impact assessment’s leading thinkers and champions, argued that 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”’ (Kim and Wolf 2014, p. 19). This article places attention on certain ‘interested and affected parties’ participating in a dialogue about IA futures by focusing on recent experiences and perspectives from the East Asian region, especially South Korea, China and Japan. The discussion builds on the earlier work of Kim and Wolf (2014) to consider questions that maintain their relevance to the role that IA can play in ‘desirable futures’; ones characterized by social and environmental justice, reduced inequality and intergenerational sustainability. Such guiding questions include: Where will impact assessment be in the coming decades? How do we get there? Is it about better predictions? Better use of new technologies? Improved engagement of communities?

Looking to IA’s future, looking East

A global community of IA practitioners, researchers and policymakers considered these and other tenacious questions in Brisbane, Australia at the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) 2019 Annual Conference. Presentations concerning East Asia represented the spectrum of IA concerns, including analyzing resettlement risks related to Chinese underground coal mines (Wang et al. 2019), environmental management of Hong Kong’s freshwater crabs (Stanton and Leven 2019), Japanese corporations’ and universities’ use of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to guide activities (Saito et al. 2019; Uchida and Hashimoto 2019), and household recycling practices (Zhuo and Yan 2019). Together, IAIA19 delegates sparked an ongoing debate about exactly how the next generation of IA will come about, and in what forms.

Considerations about how IA may support desirable futures are perhaps nowhere more important than throughout the East Asian region, especially in the major economies of South Korea, China and Japan.¹ The World Bank, for instance, recently declared that China’s economy is achieving ‘the fastest growing expansion by a major economy in history’ (World Bank 2019) By 2030, 66 per cent of the global middle class will live in the broader Asian region, accounting for 59 per cent of total global consumption, up from 28 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively, since 2009 (Pezzini 2012).

The growth of East and South Asian (especially India) economies is so substantial some badge the 21^st century ‘the Asian Century’ (Bice et al. 2017). Whatever its moniker, it is already clear that this century will be one of rapid changes and innovations concentrated largely in East Asia. Impacts, trade, finance, and communication are today globalized and centres of power are shifting east (Mahbubani 2008). The issues arising from the East Asian region present exceptional opportunities for poverty reduction, environmental conservation, renewable energy innovation and socio-cultural exchange. But regional issues also represent challenges and threats, including North Korea’s alleged development of atomic weapons, the spread of hog cholera and concerns for human rights and social equality in certain places. Here, IA is making in-roads into both policy and practice to support development occurring at an unprecedented rate and scale.

This contribution to the Special Issue invites readers to shift their perspectives towards one that will shape the future of IA but which remains relatively marginal to mainstream debates; how the rapid development of East Asia may stimulate IA policies and practices shaped by particular regional pasts and perspectives. What are the key insights and contributions that East Asian perspectives offer to IA’s future? Three central considerations that will inform achievement of desirable futures via IA are presented in the following sections: the influence of culture, the centrality of policymaking and the increase in public participation.

Cultural roots matter

For IA the ‘(re)awakening’ currently underway in the East Asian region must be understood not only from global economic and political perspectives but also from cultural and philosophical viewpoints. Indeed, understanding the connection between traditional Asian philosophies (e.g. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism) and IA is fundamental to understanding both the changes occurring and the future influences they may bring to IA. Studies bear this out; cultural values influence national attitudes towards environmental management and eco-efficiency (Halkos and Tzeremes 2013), human rights (Donnelly 2007), indigenous knowledge and populations (O’Faircheallaigh 2017), and impact management (Kim 2004a).

Han civilization countries, including Korea, Japan, and China, provide good examples of the intertwining of cultural roots with policy and public management of environmental, social and economic impacts. Here, policy is deeply shaped by notions of primarily Confucian and Buddhist philosophies of ‘familism’ and commitment to achieving harmony (Berman 2010). In many modern-day East Asian countries, these cultural roots are combined with unique interpretations of Weberian bureaucracy (Tao 2018) and local adaptations of Western models of issues-management and decision-making (Drechsler 2018), including that related to IA. Such cultural roots have long shaped how environmental and social impacts are understood and managed throughout East Asia, and they will continue to do so into the future. It is important, therefore, that such considerations are valued and incorporated into any deliberations about what a future of IA may look like.

Policymaking is central

After the United States’ 1969 introduction of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) East Asian countries developed their own impact assessment systems and methods. While there is not space or capacity for a full review of those changes here, a few illustrative examples prove instructive and indicate the continued centrality of policymaking to the influence and effectiveness of IA in the region. Effectiveness is of particular concern for the future of IA in the broader Asian region. A recent study from Thailand, for instance, demonstrates that IA is only partially effective, a situation that directly and negatively affects the legitimacy of the practice (Chanchitpricha and Bond 2019). Meanwhile in Mongolia, a study of EIA effectiveness reveals substantial gaps between EIA policy intentions and implementation (Byambaa and De Vries 2019). While a full-scale debate on IA effectiveness is beyond the scope of this discussion, it is important to note that challenges to IA effectiveness seen in other regions are also apparent in Asia (see, for example the recent IAPA Special Issue on IA effectiveness, Fischer and Montaño 2019).

NEPA founder Lynton Caldwell (1988) himself emphasized that the success of an Act relies on public administration and policy decision-making. ‘Protecting the quality of the environment depends on the will of the President and the leadership of Congress,’ he wrote. In East Asia, concerns that various forms of government should be involved in leading IA are echoed. But IA (particularly non-environmental IA) remains guided mostly by sets of informal rules (Kim 2004a). Here, Douglas and Wildavsky’s (1982) longstanding warning about the challenges to IA based on uncertain knowledge and the consequent contestation of assessment results remain salient. Legislation and rule-based integration of social, health, human rights, gender, strategic environmental and other IA types are still under development in many East Asian countries (see, for example, Masuzawa et al. 2019; Gota and Tanaka 2018, in relation to Japan).

In Korea, for instance, IA policy is strongly connected to public awareness. The simultaneous and progressive development of IA policy, influenced by media and social network services, created a Korean IA system that prizes public participation, environmental monitoring and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) (Kim and Wolf 2014). The Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (KSEIA) recently argued that future IA in Korea needs to write requirements for preliminary feasibility studies into policy, alongside tiered government budget allocations to reduce budget waste and better formalize IA requirements, in response to this situation (KSoEIA, 2019).

Similarly, in Japan impact assessment policies, plans and programs retain room for development. Japan currently has no requirements for full scale SEA at a country level, and Japanese IA practitioners and researchers also report a need for development of locally applicable SEA approaches. Recently, for example, Japanese researchers critiqued the limited and somewhat misunderstood use of ‘tiering’ in SEA – the focus on more specific issues at each more localized level of environmental impact statement – as compared to the United States (Gota and Tanaka 2018).

China, meanwhile, is grappling with its rapid national economic development and the creation of more stringent EIA-related policies largely via an Environmental Protection Agency that is only about a decade old (Suwanteep et al. 2016). Although China’s EIA legislation makes allowance for public participation during the draft environmental impact statement and pre-EIA approval stage (Suwanteep et al. 2016) public and non-government agency capacity to influence assessments remains limited (Tang et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2017). Future IA policymaking in China, therefore is expected to consider how public participation is possible within a political system built on top-down, hierarchical decision-making.

China is also considering how to manage its growing social and environmental impacts internationally. This is especially well-evidenced in its 70-country Belt and Road Initiative (Huang et al. 2017). Here, system enhancement is critical to policy and plan-level applications. Where one country’s actions have considerable cross-border environmental, social, health, human rights and economic impacts, the future of IA in the region becomes transnational (Sinclair et al. 2018). Considerations of exactly how policy to manage such widespread impacts might be achieved – particularly given the diversity of political structures and economic development characterizing contemporary East Asia – are already well underway (Wells-Dang 2015).

Public participation takes different and new forms

Finally, the future of IA throughout East Asia will be shaped by the values and methods of public participation that support the gathering, implementation and dissemination of IA evidence. This particular insight comes with a recognition that IA practitioners do more than anticipate future problems and possibilities. They need also to 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’ (Kim and Wolf 2014).

Technologies including real-time data uploading, web-based data storage and mobile assessment tools will become increasingly useful and used throughout East Asia, especially given the rapid socio-economic and technological developments throughout the region. The benefits of such technologies are already being seen in Korea, where practical evidence concerning ecosystem assessment of IA shows how digital technologies can be successfully applied to development projects and plans. While it will be important to ensure that assessments are not dehumanized through technology, tools like these represent an important evolution in EIA and SEA practice in East Asia.

Digital tools, especially social networking and data sharing, are also likely to improve East Asian publics’ capacities for participation in IA, especially where public opposition is politically discouraged. China’s Three Gorges Dam project offers one recent example of this. Researchers found that usually reserved Chinese citizens leveraged social network sites, including Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) to express their concerns and even outrage about the Three Gorges project’s environmental and social damage (Jiang et al. 2016). While direct application of such interactions in IA appears yet to be studied in China, the technologies hold revolutionary promise for improved public participation and opinion-sharing.

Conclusion: IA’s future in East Asia

The future of impact assessment and its potential to support desirable futures may be nowhere more important than in East Asia. Populations emerging from poverty, growing middle classes, booming infrastructure sectors and increasing transnational projects all signal an era in which the evidence delivered by IA will be central to environmental protection and social advancement. In line with this, it is likely that IA practitioners throughout the region will find ways to increase awareness of the importance of IA to regional and global futures. For example, today hazardous chemicals and fine particulate matter are social issues in Korea, as is the monitoring of PM2.5 particles and reduced air pollution in China.

This article offers a timely reminder of the importance of considering East Asian perspectives and experiences, as IA researchers and practitioners consider the theoretical, methodological and practical future of the field. Integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to IA must be developed, and non-Western perspectives should be better incorporated into this process than in times past. The future of IA policymaking could similarly benefit from broader horizons, with East Asian nations offering current and interesting lessons in ecosystem, social, strategic environmental and human impact assessment. The question of ‘what future’ for impact assessment will only truly be answered when diverse perspectives like those highlighted here are genuinely considered and shared.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank their many colleagues whose informal conversations, conference and meeting presentations, and publications influenced the ideas in this contribution. Myungjin Kim wishes especially to thank the National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER), Korea, the Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (KSEIA) (IAIA Affiliate), and the delegates of the 12th and 13th annual Asia Impact Assessment Conference (AIC18 and AIC19). Sara Bice wishes to thank her colleagues and students at the School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing and the National Research Centre for Resettlement, Hohai University, Nanjing.

Notes

1. We acknowledge the issues inherent in attempting to define or delimit ‘Asia’, ‘East Asia’, or any other Asian region, for that matter. We have discussed the importance of this and of recognizing the heterogeneity of the region in other publications (see, for example, Bice, S., Poole, A. & Sullivan, H. 2017. Public Policy in the’Asian Century’: Concepts, Cases and Futures, Springer.) For discussion purposes here, we focus on the ‘three core states’ of North-East Asia (South Korea, China, Japan) and define East Asia as including South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (KIM, S. S. 2004b. Regionalization and Regionalism in East Asia. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4, 39–67.).