ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a theoretical background for EIA follow-up. It elaborates on concepts introduced in Chapter 1 and builds upon the work of Arts (1998) to examine the relationships between EIA and planning and decision-making in some detail. Box 2.1 defines some important terms used. The chapter first considers the origins of the concepts of EIA and follow-up in terms of seeking to rationalize decision-making and planning. Subsequent discussion explores the tension between the theoretical concepts and complex practice of planning, decision-making and project management, thereby highlighting the limitations of rational planning (i.e. EIA). The chapter ends with an examination of the role of EIA follow-up for fitting EIA better in decision-making and the plan/ project life cycle including implementation and management (Figure 1.1). Key theoretical issues raised in this chapter are consolidated in a practical framework for EIA follow-up in Chapter 3 and in the various case study chapters thereafter. Decision-Making, Policy, Planning and Adaptive Management
The terms ‘planning’, ‘decision-making’ and ‘policy-making’ are closely related (Friend and Jessop, 1969; Lichfield et al, 1975) and in practice are often mixed up or used as synonyms. Some general definitions of these notions follow. ‘Adaptive management’ is also defined as it has many uses and is relevant here for providing the means to operationalize policy and planning decisions.
‘Decision-making’ can be defined very broadly as ‘the process of choice which leads to action’ (Simon, 1957). Here, the term is mainly used to refer to the consent decision made by EIA regulators. However, during the planning process and the project life cycle many other decisions made by regulators, proponents and other parties can be relevant to EIA outcomes (e.g. determining project objectives, screening and scoping, detailed design and activity operation and management). In democratic society decision-making by government is expected to meet specific requirements, especially as it might affect other parties. Governments are expected to consider both (political) interests and (environmental) impacts and to choose the best of various alternatives in a well-considered way. Consequently, public decision-making is strongly related to the concepts of policy and planning.
The term ‘policy’ can be simply described as a course of action, or more elaborately as: ‘a goal or a set of goals (“what ought to be”) to govern the course of action and decision-making (“what is”)’ (Mayda, 1996, p91). Policy consists not only of setting objectives, means and time choices, but it is also an answer to a problem or situation (Healey, 1983). In this respect, not acting (e.g. not making a decision) can also be seen as an element of policy-making.
‘Planning’ is defined by Dror (1963, p330) as: ‘the process of preparing a set of decisions for action in the future, directed at achieving goals by preferable means’. The results of the planning process can be laid down in policy, programmes, plans or other decisions such as environmental permits for projects. Planning involves analysing the past and the present, anticipating the future, designing alternative programmes, implementing a chosen programme and evaluating the results of this process. It represents an attempt to apply scientific method to policy-making (Faludi, 1973).
‘Adaptive environmental assessment and management’ refers to the process pioneered by Holling (1978) and his colleagues in which assessment takes place through a series of workshops and model building. Throughout this book, the term ‘adaptive management’ is used more generally to refer to a flexible approach to EIA and especially to follow-up activities in which changes are made to impact mitigation and project management strategies in response to the findings of monitoring studies (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999). EIA activities should be an ongoing investigation and management of impacts rather than a one-time prediction during the pre-decision stages. It is through adaptive management that policy, planning and decision-making goals are attained in practice. There is also a feedback loop (often implicit) for future goal setting.
