BIODIVERSITY,
OTHER DIVERSITIES AND THE CASE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Paper presented at
IAIA '98
Christchurch New Zealand
18th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment
(IAIA)
by Jean-Pierre REVÉRET*, Lee DORAN**, Linda GHANIMÉ***
* Institut des Sciences de l'environnement, UQAM and Association Québécoise
pour l'Évaluation d'Impacts (AQÉI), Montréal, Québec,
Canada
** Ecological Services Group, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*** Gali environnement and Association Québécoise pour l'Évaluation
d'Impacts (AQÉI), Magog, Québec, Canada
Avec l'appui d'Environnement Canada
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity is a global issue. From the rainforests of the tropics to
the productive oases in the High Arctic deserts; from the coral reefs
of tropical seas to the over-exploited fisheries of the continental shelves;
from the agricultural monocultures around the planet to the laboratories
of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies: biodiversity is a global
concern. The issues and actors thus engaged are nearly as disparate as
the varieties and levels of biodiversity itself.
In 1992, some of those concerns were recognized when the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed at the United Nations Conference
on the Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The Convention's overall objectives are to:
- conserve biological diversity;
- use biological resources sustainably; and
- distribute benefits from the use of biodiversity fairly and equitably.
Canada was the first signatory of the Convention. And since then, 173
nations have ratified the CBD, making it the environment-related Convention
that has been ratified by the largest number of countries on the planet
to date.
Environmental impact assessment was included in the Convention as an important
mechanism to contribute to its overall objectives. Specifically, Article
14 of the Convention encourages Contracting Parties, on projects that
are likely to affect biodiversity adversely, to carry out environmental
impact assessments (including public participation, as appropriate) with
a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects. Signatories are also urged
to introduce appropriate arrangements to ensure that environmental consequences
of their programs and policies are taken into account.
How to take biodiversity into account in EIAs, then, can be approached
from various perspectives. It can be seen as a major challenge or as a
minor adjustment to an existing practice. In this paper, we introduce
the concept of biodiversity and provide some background on the origins
and practice of EA. Then, we review the Canadian experience in both EA
practice and biodiversity issues. Finally, we conclude with a look to
the future and consider where the debate and the action might head, in
furthering the conservation of biodiversity through the EA process.
COMPONENTS OF THE BIODIVERSITY CONCEPT
Biological diversity began as a scientific concept. Its origins are biological
and ecological, and its meanings are both specific and precise. In the
CBD, biodiversity:
means the variability among living organisms from all sources including,
inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.
Clearly, the CBD recognized the levels, or hierarchy, of biological diversity
to be conserved. The convention notes explicitly that biodiversity needs
to be considered at three levels at least:
- the gene and genome;
- species and communities; and
- ecosystems and habitats.
But biodiversity also has a political dimension. In the political realm,
before having a meaning, a concept has an origin in a community that is
its advocate. Politicians, diplomats and negotiators react first to that
origin and advocacy - and only secondarily, to the concept's content.
From that perspective, the concept of biodiversity is both a scientific
concept and a political compromise. As a result, it is also highly dynamic
(Potvin et al 1996).
Interpreting the concept of biodiversity determines the definition of
the problem , the range of possible solutions, as well as helping to identify
the relevant actors.
Depending upon whether the definition of biodiversity is linked with agricultural
production, environmental protection, ownership and rights to development
of pharmaceuticals, or some other aspect of international trade, for example,
determines the institutional stage upon which it will be debated (FAO,
CBD-UNEP, WTO etc). In each such venue, the relations between the participating
nation states will differ.
The concept of biodiversity as enshrined in the CBD also reflects a political
compromise. In the Convention, it has been defined in very broad terms
in order to accommodate differing interests. The three levels identified
there, from genes to ecosystems, reflect a bargaining process rooted in
the interdependence of the objectives of conservation, sustainable use,
and fair and equitable sharing of benefits. The explicit mention in the
CBD of the genetic aspects allowed countries from the South to amend the
agenda suggested by the North. In the process, the definition of the problem
of conservation was broadened to include the question of sovereignty over
natural resources, as well as that of the control and transfer of the
applicable technologies.
Biodiversity, therefore, has a strong economic component. As soon as the
concept was forged, a new source of value appeared, and, with it the desire
to have access to, and control over, it. The development of molecular
biology and of biotechnologies contributed to the recent economic interest
in or value of biodiversity. Although less of an issue than in the tropical
areas, the long history of the exploitation of natural resources from
fisheries to furs to forests has been central to many economies, including
those of Quebec and Canada, for centuries.
This whole question of the economic evaluation and control of biodiversity
resources is of course central in the North-South debate - between those
who have the resource and those who have the financial, technical and
scientific capacity to transform the resource potential into an economically
valuable commodity. This economic dimension is at the core of the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits objective of the CBD.
Depending on one's perspective, then, one aspect or another of biodiversity
will be more determining. Therefore, integrating biodiversities into EA
does not occur in a vacuum or in a neutral, objective setting. It is not
just a technical exercise. What actually happens in the real world where
projects are being built, plans and programs are being implemented and
policies are being promulgated and implemented and changed and developed,
is the outcome of a series of interactions between diversities of actors.
We act through groups, or organizations, and our acting groups belong
to various spheres (scientific, political, administrative, professional,
etc.). This is the political dimension to biodiversity a dimension which
can not be ignored as we attempt to accomplish the actual conservation
of biodiversity out in the real world.
INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY INTO EA: THE ACTORS
Noting the political and advocacy context of all biodiversity discussions
mentioned early in this paper, we wondered if it might not help, even
at the expense of some slight caricature to explore this dimension of
the problem further. We thought it might be useful if this diversity of
subtexts and unstated assumptions held by each of the communities participating
in the biodiversity debate were made explicit, put on the table for discussion,
exposed to the light of day for the benefit of all - and all, in a spirit
of collegiality and cooperation.
Let us introduce, then, the communities at interest that came to our minds
(with apologies to those we missed but please speak up !):
The Impact Assessment Community:
Do not touch our tool box! We have been working on it for nearly 30 years,
now. It is not perfect, I know, but it can handle any issue you want.
Tell us your problem and we'll fix it for you. Trust us, we're the environment
doctors.
It took us quite some time to even recognize and even longer to integrate
the social and cultural implications of projects into our tool box. But
we did it. And now, we can integrate whatever you want biodiversity included.
The problem if there is one is not with us. It is mostly with the scientists,
with those discipline specialists who cannot tell us exactly what we have
to take into account and how. So do your exercises and come back when
you are ready.
We also have a problem and this is a problem in that much of the world
ignores us. We do all our studies and assessments and draw our conclusions
and make our recommendations, and mostly, the world goes on without us.
The NGO/Conservationist Community (with a special clin d'oeil at IUCN):
The CBD, which is almost our creation gives our cause for biodiversity
protection and conservation the political strength it needed.
We attended the Sustainable Development school and we learned our lessons
well, there. The message we want to send is that we have learned how to
balance environmental protection against economic development.
As for biodiversity, it is not just another variable to take into account.
The genetic and species and ecosystem diversity that is the biology of
the planet is more fundamental than that. It needs special attention,
perhaps even special processes.
In fact, we are eager to understand our fellow actors better not least
the Impact Assessment Group, and of course, the private sector, as well.
We have already made some progress are well along, in fact in our understanding
of and coming to a meeting of the minds with the Development Facilitation
Community.
The Development Facilitation Community:
We are the money bags for development. We hold the purse strings or at
least we have for fifty years or so, ever since the end of the second
World War. We are creatures of the institutions set up then, including
the United Nations, the World Bank Group (and the International Monetary
Fund). We link closely with national governments in the developed world
and their creations such as OECD (although we pretend we're not that close
to them). Together, through bi- and multi-lateral links and institutions,
we have controlled development on the planet for half a century now with
our money.
We have spent most of our lives funding large development projects that
have often had significant, mostly negative and largely undocumented,
still effects on ecosystems, cultures and peoples around the world. In
the past few years, though we have got a new religion, too. We are also
on the sustainable development bandwagon, now. We are the champions of
the integration of environment and economics, now. We are saying that
we are quite open to environmental NGO's and the private sector even if
they shake us in the process.
Governments of the Planet's Nation States:
We are in charge here (at least nominally, as we keep saying we are).
For more than 200 years now, we have been the highest legitimate level
of social organization on the planet. We evolved to our present state
through a period of social revolutions in a few nations (mostly European).
Those social revolutions were spawned to some extent, at least, by the
Industrial Revolution which had begun in those same nations just before.
We took our views on (and models of) the nation state around the planet,
then, during an era of colonization the likes of which had never been
seen previously, and likely, can never occur again, here. Certain of us
were largely in charge of setting up the end of the Second World War institutions
that have set the global agenda for development for the past half century
(see Development Facilitation Community, above).
Within our own countries and increasingly across national borders through
global treaties and regional trade and other agreements we still have
nominal control over the development agenda and environmental and social
assessments. In fact, of course, the recent global round of cost-cutting
and down-sizing has reduced our effective powers (e.g, through lack of
regulatory enforcement capabilities and resources) to the point where
we actually rely on a large measure of self-regulation to assure compliance
with our environmental requirements, at least. These changes have happened
so recently and so quickly, that the effectiveness of that approach is
still to be evaluated. Another experiment proceeds apace.
The Scientific Community:
What a bunch of garbage! You guys just prostitute our science, generate
reams and reams of grey literature of questionable use, little accuracy
and no precision and you get big bucks for it to boot (well, relative
to us)!
I've never yet read an EA that got the science of my specialty right.
So, how in the world can I trust what you say about other disciplines?
Not to mention the way you put it all together and pretend it's a synthesis
. All this talk of ecosystems and ecological pathways and mechanisms is
just so much undergraduate pap (or is it New Age junk science ?). Please
! We are scores of years, at least, away from understanding these systems
in any practical way that is, to a level where we might actually manage
them (whatever that means). And of course, even that is true only if the
chaos theorists turn out to be essentially incorrect.
I've worked on a couple of these big EA studies as a specialist advisor,
and I'll tell you Well, let's just say, Never again.
The Private Sector Community:
Thank you all.
We appreciate your indulgence in putting us last on your list of communities,
but we are not offended. We all know who is really in charge, here and
now.
Socialism is dead. History has ended. The Cold War is over. The private
sector is the only coherent, organized global community left, anymore.
We are almost the only ones with a long term perspective. We have the
organizational, managerial and economic skills to coordinate all of humankind's
real activities, now. We do it in the interest of our shareholders, first;
our managers, second; our employees, third; and all the rest of you, then.
Without us there is no development. Bi- and multi-lateral aid (despite
the hubris of the Development Facilitation Community ) is drying up and
will soon be gone altogether. It is not included on our budget agenda.
Fear not, however, for we have also attended the New School of Sustainable
Development. We are much more sophisticated this time around. We are not
robber barons and loose cannon. Our rhetoric is polished and we can talk
the talk with the best of you.
But we are not homogeneous, either. The whole point of our system is to
compete with one another. And if some of us have to go down with one or
another's ship, as a result, so be it. That's the way the system works.
Come, join us. We know the way and we will show you, too...
Those are the actors. Now we can see that beyond all the strictly scientific
debate about the integration of biodiversity in EA, the dynamic that will
take place between these diverse groups of actors will be one of the determining
factors in the success of our attempts, together, to conserve the planet's
biodiversity, sustainably, while sharing its benefits equitably and fairly.
THE PRACTICE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
Environmental assessment, or environmental impact assessment, originated
in 1969 when the United States Congress passed the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The purposes of that Act are to promote efforts which
will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere. It
directs US federal agencies to utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will ensure that present unquantified environmental values
may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic
and technical considerations.
As Sadler (1996) has noted, Most, if not all definitions of EA, statements
of aim and elaborations of principle follow from this nuclear idea. Specifically
the preparation of an environmental impact statement was intended to be
an explicit action forcing mechanism to implement the law, to change agency
behavior, and to carry the use of interdisciplinary science into the heart
of public policy making (Caldwell, 1982).
Today, nearly thirty years later, more than 100 countries are estimated
to have national EA systems. Taking account of other jurisdictions, as
well, the number of EA regimes on the planet can probably be rounded out
to about 200 (Sadler, 1996).
In Canada, the Federal government has used various levels of EA process
since 1974 to predict the likely environmental effects of project proposals
requiring a federal involvement or decision. In 1992, after nation-wide
consultations that began in 1987 and comprehensive parliamentary review,
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act received royal assent. The Act
was proclaimed on January 19, 1995.
The Act's objectives are to:
- ensure environmental effects are considered before action is taken;
- encourage actions that promote sustainable development;
- ensure that no significant adverse environmental effects result from
projects involving the federal government; and
- ensure public participation in the EA process.
As a process, EA has evolved considerably since it first was promulgated
it, too has been dynamic and evolving. In the early days, its practitioners
defined some basic, standard methodologies for doing EIA's; carried out
voluminous and ill-focused baseline studies with a highly academic bent;
focused on individual projects and sites alone; considered largely, if
not exclusively, biophysical disciplines and effects; and involved the
public and agencies by mostly one-way communications such as sending out
newsletters. The experts had all the answers.
Today, the process of EA is considerably different. There are a variety
of highly sophisticated, often computer-based techniques, methodologies
and models for carrying out assessments. EA reports aim to be much more
focused, accessible and useful to readers. Cumulative effects and regional,
sectoral, national, continental and global levels of impact are being
considered (with more or less success). Social, economic and cultural
effects are now taken into account and contribute to balance the positive
and negative impacts of projects in planning and decision-making. There
is now a much better job of interacting in both directions with involved
and affected parties, including regulatory agencies, NGO's and local peoples.
Consultation is more substantive, now, and it results in better projects.
We are not there yet, but if one of the original goals of NEPA really
was to carry the use of interdisciplinary science into the heart of public
policy making, then we certainly are moving in that direction.
Recently, that process has picked up speed. Now the hierarchy of instruments
and processes for public policy clearly and explicitly includes EA processes.
Figure 1 (modified from Sadler, 1996) shows the levels of this hierarchy.
In sum, they are:
- Projects (at the bottom of the pyramid; where we came in nearly 30 years
ago with the original environmental impact
studies);
- Plans and Programs (in the middle; where we went in the late 70's and
80's; regional plans and ecosystem scales creep
into our thinking and work);
- Policies (where we landed in the 90's; strategies and policies at the
level of the nation state, now; thinking globally, as
well (UNCED at Rio), now; global issues climate change, biodiversity,
international waters, etc emerge
Accompanying this process, we have seen an accompanying:
- extended scope of EA to include a greater range
of impacts, at larger scales, to higher levels of decision making,
earlier in the development process;
- an integrated approach that combines many of the elements
in Figure 1 both formally and informally; and
- sustainability orientation is taking hold, in the
wake of Rio and Agenda 21.
INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY INTO EA: CANADIAN APPROACHES
In November 1992, soon after it was signed, Canadian federal, provincial
and territorial ministers of Parks, Wildlife, Environment and Forestry
departments began a process to implement the Convention on Biological
Diversity in Canada.
One result was the development of a Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. In
May 1995, the federal Cabinet approved the Strategy. All Canadian jurisdictions
are now committed to its implementation to the extent their resources
allow. The Strategy reinforces the commitment to the conduct of environmental
assessments that address biological diversity at the species, population,
ecosystem and genetic levels.
Both at the Federal and Provincial level (Quebec) the link between the
CBD requirements and EIA practice is made in the Canadian and Quebec Biodiversity
Strategy.
The Canadian Strategy's fundamental objectives are to:
- conserve biodiversity on a national and global scale;
- promote the sustainable use of biological resources;
- improve our knowledge of ecosystems and our management capabilities;
and
- develop incentives and legislation to support the conservation of biodiversity.
In addition, the Strategy outlines strategic directions for EAs and mitigation
to preserve biodiversity. Some of those directions are as follows:
- Use EAs to determine the potential effects of development on ecosystems,
species and genetic resources and
recommend appropriate ways of avoiding or reducing these effects to acceptable
levels
- Continue to examine and develop ways of harmonizing EAs nationally and
internationally, where appropriate.
- Enhance efforts to identify and eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels,
the cumulative environmental effects resulting
from human activities on ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. This
includes developing early warning indicators
and working towards incorporating cumulative environmental effects into
relevant national and international agreements.
Throughout the document the underlying tone is that assessing biodiversity
is very often done implicitly if not explicitly due to the definitions
of 'environment' that are being used. As an example, in the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, biodiversity is implicit in the Purpose of the Act to
promote sustainable development:
Environment, the components of the Earth and includes:
- Land water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere
- All organic and inorganic matter and living organisms
- And the interacting natural systems that include the above components
Quebec played an active role in the preparation of the Canadian strategy
and then designed in 1996 its own biodiversity strategy and an associated
Action Plan. These tasks were undertaken because the CBD had put biodiversity
on the agenda. This theme or concept, although explicitly covered, was
in fact absent from official documents until 1992 even if protection of
natural resources and conservation were important themes covered by a
well developed legislation (Quebec, Ministere de l'environnement, 1993).
In a critical analysis of these documents, L. Gaudreau, representative
of the Quebec Government, stated that there is a big gap between the quality
of the legislation available in this area and the practice. He also mentioned
that few of the 400 actions mentioned in the Action Plan were actually
new. He considered that, from an administrative point of view, the elaboration
of the Strategy and the Action Plan, over a period of 2 years, was a stimulating
exercise of awareness raising and capacity building for representatives
of many Departments who had not felt much concerned by biodiversity issues
previously or who considered that everything had already been done in
this domain. (Beauchamp 1998, page 67).
In May 1996, Environment Canada prepared A Guide on Biodiversity and Environmental
Assessment. The Guide was designed to highlight the importance of biodiversity
in Canadian EA practice and to assist practitioners in incorporating biodiversity
concerns into their EA work. Its specific objectives are to:
- summarize responsibilities under the Biodiversity Convention and Strategy;
- provide guidance to EA practitioners on biodiversity considerations;
and
- emphasize that biodiversity is a cornerstone of good EA practice.
Two key strategies were highlighted for consideration in preventing further
loss to Canada's biodiversity. They are:
- promoting the sustainable use of natural resources and
- advocating activities that conserve species, habitat and ecosystems.
In addition, Environment Canada has specific responsibilities and programs
related to biodiversity, including the management and conservation of
migratory birds, and in cooperation with the provinces and territories,
other wildlife, habitat and ecosystems of national and international concern,
including endangered species.
Significantly, the introduction of the Guide to Biodiversity and Impact
Assessment (Canada 1996, page 1) suggests that Consideration of Biodiversity
is a reasonable offshoot of a normal [EA] practice not a completely new
challenge .
Environment Canada, in attempting to guide practitioners in the application
of EA to biodiversity issues, has suggested specific actions for consideration,
as well. Overall, and consistent with its support of CBD, Canada views
environmental assessment as an important decision-making process in efforts
to protect biodiversity. The effects or probable impacts of proposed projects,
programs and policies on biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic
level should be determined through EA.
The guiding principles that Environment Canada suggests when assessing
the potential effects of a proposal on biodiversity include:
- ensure no significant loss of ecosystem or habitat diversity, species,
populations or genetic diversity;
- protect, preserve, and when necessary, restore the integrity of Canada's
ecosystems;
- ensure that the use of biological resources is sustainable;
- ensure that the time and space boundaries for environmental assessment
provide a scale appropriate to the biodiversity
concerns;
- use valued ecosystem components and indicators to focus the environmental
assessment;
- emphasize an ecosystem approach in the analysis that considers ecological
functions;
- examine cumulative effects of the proposal along with other activities
in the area/region;
- use local/traditional ecological knowledge as appropriate;
- apply the 'precautionary' principle;
- monitor impacts on biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic
levels;
- use the EA process to derive a better understanding of biodiversity;
and
- encourage the use of alternative EA approaches (such as regional, sectoral,
national, continental or global assessments)
as necessary to ensure that biodiversity issues are addressed at appropriate
scales.
INTEGRATING
BIODIVERSITY INTO EA: SOME CHALLENGES
So, beginnings have been made. But we also start to get some indication
of how far we have yet to go.
As part of Sadler's (1996) study, for example, a survey of 20 jurisdictions
(18 countries and 2 international organizations) sought to determine the
state of EA in their jurisdictions. On biodiversity, about two-thirds
of the respondents recognized that biodiversity effects should be within
the scope of EA considerations. On the more specific query of whether
biodiversity (and sustainability, it turns out) were addressed in procedural
and technical guidelines for EA, only 5 (or one-quarter) of the respondents
answered yes.
What, then, does all this mean for the EA practitioner?
The levels of detail (not to mention the geographic scales) for incorporating
biodiversity into EA practice become intimidating, at best, overwhelming
at worst. EA practitioners have developed and made current practice the
use of models to simulate dispersion of air pollutants and modifications
to hydrological regimes in their project assessments. They still struggle
with predictions of changes on biological components of ecosystems and
the links between them and the other physical, chemical and social components
of the system. When effects on biological components are predicted, practitioners
struggle, still, to determine the significance of such an effect on biodiversity.
This is one major area where EA practitioners need to work closely both
with ecological scientists and the conservation community.
In the absence of specific information or precise details, the simple
avoidance of critical areas, rare populations, sensitive marshlands, wetland
or other important natural habitat areas has probably been most effective,
so far, in protecting biodiversity. This concept of prevention, or avoidance,
can go a long way in the absence of the detailed information needed to
provide the certainty required to defend such a decision scientifically.
Overall, the process of protecting biodiversity through EA practice has
been more effective and helped make better decisions because of the opportunity
to confront, compare and integrate different points of view. Traditionally,
issues of conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity have been
dealt with in environmental assessment in two ways: action related assessments
(the left side of the pyramid on Figure 1) or resource assessments (the
right side of the pyramid).
In the action-related assessments, traditionally applied at the project-specific
level but increasingly considered in assessing programs and policies,
there is a specific action proposed and a decision to be made about this
proposal. EA identifies how this proposed action will affect biological
diversity either directly or indirectly by modifying physical, chemical
or biotic components, and proposes measures to ensure that these modifications
are acceptable or compensated. This has been the realm of EA practitioners.
In the resource assessment approach, EA assesses our environmental resources
including our biodiversity capital, identifies species ranges, species
requiring protection, critical habitats and develops programs and regulations
to protect certain species and their habitats, national policies and international
conventions. The pathways to specific actions are not always clear.
In a perfect world, we would have carried out resource assessment, established
what is sustainable, set priorities, determined constraints, developed
environmental policies and adjusted our sectoral policies, programs and
projects accordingly. In practice, what we manage to do in resource assessment
often begins at a scale that leaves us with general concepts, orientations,
or approaches that we have difficulty applying in specific assessments
of individual development proposals.
The information required for both assessing impacts and assessing our
resource base, with respect to species, habitats, communities, which we
now include under the umbrella term of biodiversity has unfortunately
not evolved much. After more than two decades of practice, we still struggle
with the lack of knowledge on indicators, thresholds, and carrying capacity.
In project, program and policy assessment, we have an opportunity to carry
out a quality control on our development proposals, and make a linkage
to specific corrective actions which we do not (or very rarely) do in
our resource assessments. In resource assessments we have an opportunity
to draw a more complete and global picture of the resource which we do
not (or very rarely) do in project assessments. Because we need to do
both, project assessments will most often lead to initiatives to examine
the way we manage our resources. We need to continue to do both better.
In thinking globally and acting locally, perhaps a focus on regional scales
would make it easier to determine the most wanted and badly needed conservation
and sustainable use scenarios and development proposals. Overall, we consider
the question of scale (establishing the impact zone and the ecosystem
context) as one of the most crucial challenges facing EA practitioners
incorporating biodiversity. Analysis at the project level tends to be
developed at a scale that does not encompass the larger ecosystems where
the project takes place. A number of approaches have been suggested for
dealing with this issue, including regional environmental assessment (REA)
and sectoral assessments. One problem is the question of responsibility
for carrying out such assessment processes. If it is clearly identified
as a distinct tool from project-specific EIA, the existing legislation
in most cases does not call for it. If it should be carried out by some
national or regional structure or body, then who should pay for it ?
One way of carrying out EIA so that it takes this notion of scale into
account, is to make sure, when biodiversity issues appear at the scoping
stage, that the scale at which the study is conducted encompasses that
of the ecosystems or collection of ecosystems potentially impacted. That
the impact zone and the level of detail does not have to be the same for
all variables that have to be studied is already recognized in common
EA practice. This flexible way of working also allows for a better consideration
of cumulative impacts.
EA FOR SUSTAINABILITY ?
One significant challenge to EA practice, these days, is assuring its
clear and consistent application to sustainability questions and issues.
Sustainable development, the brainchild of the Brundtland Commission of
the late 1980's, aims for development that meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
Somewhat more technically, Sadler (1996) calls for sustainability assurance
in EA practice that ensures as far as possible, that the full costs of
development proposals are identified, mitigated, compensated or offset,
consistent with the maintenance of source and sink functions of natural
systems.
Sadler also notes that the EA process, as presently institutionalized,
is generally used to minimize and mitigate impacts. He characterizes the
approach as the preventive principle. Its aims are limited to avoiding
reasonably known or predictable environmental impacts and risks.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
By contrast, the precautionary principle has the overall objective of
maintaining natural capital under conditions of uncertainty (where outcomes
cannot be predicted with confidence or assigned a probability of occurrence)
.
One version of the precautionary principle was enshrined in the Rio Declaration
on the Environment and Develop which said, in Principle 15:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall
be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Searching for ways and means to bring EA more explicitly into the sustainability
era, Sadler (1996) suggests that a closer linkage of the bottom-up and
top-down approaches to EA would be useful. Sadler also notes, however,
that this will prove to be easier said than done, which will itself likely
prove to be an understatement. He also suggests, prudently, that we need
to recognize that the future is likely to be non-linear and that an adaptive
approach would prove a useful adjunct to the precautionary principle (after
IJC, 1987, who suggested a similar strategy with respect to climate change
implications for the Great Lakes of North America).
For issues involving change at the global level, Sadler suggests we focus
on:
- regional impacts
- impacts of development proposals on global change; and
- impacts
of the mitigation measures proposed (to ensure we don't trade one form
of damage for another).
Sadler also
proposes a quick start agenda for what he calls global change issues.
By quick start he appears to mean building on what we have, our existing
processes, and getting on with it, quickly.
His overall quick start for global change issues goes like this:
- take the UN conventions as policy references and legal commitments;
develop guidance and interpretation for EA as an
implementing mechanism; use existing methods and procedures to the fullest
extent possible; and build more integrative
approaches.
- He urges us to recognize and address the specific, different challenges
of each global change issue. That is, biodiversity
is different from climate change is different from global forestry is
different from international marine issues although at
various levels they do interact and link, one to another.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, we find that EA process and practice accommodates biodiversity
issues quite well. Only modest changes in emphasis, approach and scope
are required. Indeed, through issues such as habitat protection and rare
and endangered species, biodiversity concerns have been implicit in EA
practice since its earliest days. No new or supplemental process to EA
is required to accomplish the objectives of the CBD.
On the other hand, the recent evolution of EA process especially in the
direction of sustainability is recognized to be in its early stages, still.
Incorporation of the precautionary principle into traditional EA practice
is expected to go a long way towards advancing that objective.
This paper has also highlighted some of the other challenges of bringing
biodiversity concerns clearly and explicitly into EA practice. They include
the more direct and explicit application of the whole range of EA processes,
as needed. In addition, the various processes and levels of analysis and
management need to be more closely coordinated and integrated with one
another. We have highlighted the question of the scale of problem definition,
scoping and analysis as central.
Finally, we have suggested that the political dimensions of biodiversity
issues may prove to be both amongst the most intractable and challenging
that we shall face in the end. Our somewhat whimsical parody of a number
of the involved communities and their interests and perceptions suggests
to us both the magnitude of the challenges to come, and perhaps, useful
avenues for dialogue, discussion and exploration. Once that dialogue is
seriously engaged and broadly pursed, many of the technical advances achieved
by the practice of EA can begin to be applied. Then EA can continue to
be used to carry the use of interdisciplinary science into the heart of
public policy making.
REFERENCES
Beauchamp, 1996 La traduction politique de la convention sur la biodiversité:
un exercice complexe in La biodiversité: tout conserver ou tout
exploiter p 61-73. De Boeck Université
Canada, A guide on Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment, prepared
jointly with the Biodiversity Convention Office 351 St Joseph Boulevard
Hull, Quebec, April 1996.
Potvin C. et al. La biodiversité Interface vol 17 No 6 Nov. Déc.
1996 58-59
Sadler, Barry, 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating
Practice to Improve Performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
and International Association for Impact Assessment. Final report.
Québec (1993). L'état de l'environnement au Québec.
Ministère de l'environnement, Guérin, Montréal.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
