Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Clive George EIA Centre, University of Manchester

The potential of environmental assessment as a sustainability instrument has long been recognized, but the criteria against which development proposals traditionally are judged are not necessarily criteria for sustainable development. Meanwhile, Agenda 21 identified the need for indicators of sustainable development for use in decision-making, but those that have been developed are not easy to apply in project level environmental assessment. These problems are addressed by returning to the fundamental principles of sustainable development and relating them to the principles of environmental assessment. In this way, 18 criteria have been derived, all of which must be satisfied if a development proposal is to be classified as sustainable development. These criteria have been tested against a number of actual environmental assessments to identify the likely consequences for project approval.  1999 Elsevier Science Inc.

Introduction For sustainable development to be more than just a popular description for any desirable goal, it must be defined with some precision. If the concept is to become a practical reality, it should be possible to test whether a development is sustainable development. This requirement was recognized in Agenda 21 (Quarrie 1992), which observed that “indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decisionmaking at all levels.” The potential contribution of environmental assessment to sustainable development was recognized even earlier (Jacobs and Sadler 1989), soon after publication of the Brundtland report (WCED 1987). However, the development of indicators has resulted in considerable Address requests for reprints to: Clive George, EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: Clive. [email protected] ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1999;19:175–200  1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/99/$–see front matter PII S0195-9255(98)00038-9

176

CLIVE GEORGE

complexity, which has made it difficult to derive suitable criteria for environmental assessment. In this article, a simpler approach is presented, which rests on the basic principles of sustainable development and then links them to those of environmental assessment. Sustainable Development Indicators Much of the effort on sustainable development indicators has been devoted to retrospective analysis of past development, generally carried out at the level of a country, city, or other administrative or ecological area (Moldan and Billharz 1997). Similar analyses also have been carried out proactively in the strategic environmental assessment of development policies and plans (Therivel and Partidario 1996). In both cases, the aim is to test whether policies or plans have led to, or are likely to lead to, sustainable development, and, if necessary to amend them. Only limited progress has been made in applying such indicators at the more immediate level of testing whether individual development activities are sustainable development activities, at the point when they are approved (Dalal-Clayton 1992; Sadler 1996). Many of the indicators that have been devised for use at the strategic level of policies or plans are based, directly or indirectly (Mitchell 1996), on the definition of sustainable development proposed by the World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Program, and the World Wide Fund for Nature in their report “Caring for the Earth” (IUCN/UNEP/ WWF 1991). This defines sustainable development as: improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. The use of this definition is logical, but it presents difficulties. In order to test against it, criteria or indicators are devised for improvements in quality of life and for staying within environmental carrying capacities. Both parts of the assessment can be carried out either through aggregated indices [often related to environmentally adjusted Net Domestic Product (Bartelmus 1997)] or through a comprehensive set of individual indicators (Bossel 1997; LGMB 1994). Whether the assessment is undertaken in aggregate or in detail, an attempt must be made to capture every contributing factor. Every significant aspect of the environment has to be considered, and every important component of quality of life. When the assessment is done in aggregate, any tradeoffs between individual aspects or components are hidden. A deterioration in quality of life for some social groups may not become apparent, and potentially unsustainable environmental effects may go undetected. This shortcoming can be overcome partially if the assessment is done in detail, through individual indicators for each of the relevant components. This may reveal that some components of quality of life have improved

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

177

for some people, whereas others have deteriorated. Similarly, some environmental effects may have relaxed pressures on carrying capacity, whereas others may have increased them. However, although such effects may be revealed, the assessment does not show whether they are acceptable. Any specific adverse impact on either the environment or quality of life may or may not be acceptable to the people affected, in the short- or long-term future, depending on whether those people feel, or will feel, that they have benefited overall. Hence, unless every single indicator is positive, for every social group, it becomes impossible to ascertain whether sustainable development actually has been achieved. The assessment serves only to indicate progress towards or away from individual aspects of sustainable development, as defined through the various components selected for inclusion in the indicator set. Because the selection of indicators aims to be comprehensive for both environmental conservation and quality of life, the assessment tends to lose its focus. The indicators generally cover every aspect of pollution control, waste management, nature conservation, resource depletion, social welfare, health, education, employment opportunities, standards of living, etc.—in short, a compendium of all the components of traditional development goals and conventional political debate. The factors that distinguish sustainable development from traditional development then tend to be submerged under a sea of age-old problems that are made no more readily soluble by bearing the label of sustainable development. Unless these distinguishing factors are given special attention, the fundamental issues of sustainable development, as defined at the Stockholm and Rio conferences on the global environment and global development, easily can be pushed to one side. The Fundamental Principles of Sustainable Development In environmental assessment, all of these difficulties can be avoided by focusing the assessment on the basic principles of sustainable development, instead of the myriad of individual factors that contribute to it. The IUCN/UNEP/WWF definition is an alternative wording of the more widely used definition of sustainable development derived from the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. This is development that: meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The principle of intergenerational equity stated in this much quoted extract encapsulates one of the main themes of the Brundtland report (WCED 1987) and may be regarded as one of the fundamental pillars of the sustainable development concept. A second main theme of the report

178

CLIVE GEORGE

TABLE 1. The Twin Pillars of Sustainable Development Intergenerational equity a necessary condition for sustainability Intragenerational equity a necessary condition for development

is not so clearly stated in the extract used as a definition, but it may be regarded as a second fundamental pillar. This is the principle of equity within development itself, or intragenerational equity. Both principles are combined in the revised definition of sustainable development embedded in Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations 1992): to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” Between them, the principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity offer a complete definition of the sustainable development concept as it emerged from the Stockholm conference, and as it was developed and refined by Brundtland and Rio (Table 1). Inter-generational equity is a necessary condition for sustainability. Intra-generational equity is a necessary condition for development, in the form which was envisaged by the conferences and the commission. Development that is not intra-generationally equitable is perfectly feasible, and indeed commonplace. It also can be made sustainable, despite carrying capacity limits, simply by restricting the numbers of people who benefit from it. However, that was not the form of development envisaged by Stockholm, or Brundtland or Rio. The problem they addressed was that of making development both sustainable and equitable at the same time, in the face of global environmental constraints. At first glance, the IUCN/UNEP/WWF definition of sustainable development is more meaningful than Brundtland’s or Rio’s. It defines both development (improving the quality of human life) and sustainability (living within the environment’s carrying capacity), in terms that are more immediately understandable than the Rio and WCED equivalents. However, in doing so the definition becomes little more than a statement of the obvious. That the goal of development is to improve the quality of human life is not in dispute, nor is the need to stay within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. More importantly, the definition loses sight of the fundamental problems of achieving its eminently desirable objectives. Furthermore, indicators that take up this reworded definition and attempt to define the meaning of quality of life are in danger of usurping the authority of the people whose life it is. If development passes the test of equity, it can be left to those people themselves to decide what is important for their quality of life and what constitutes an improvement in it. Every develop-

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

179

ment improves someone’s quality of life, even if it is only the developer’s. Intragenerational equity therefore is the only test needed of whether the development is true development, in Rio’s terms. This is particularly relevant in environmental assessment, where public participation processes allow people to decide quality of life issues for themselves. Meanwhile, although the concept of carrying capacity introduced by the IUCN/UNEP/WWF definition addresses environmental considerations directly, it tends to be less useful than the principle of intergenerational equity that it replaces. This is because carrying capacity is often even more difficult to measure than equity; “we usually only discover its limits after we have exceeded them” (Harrison 1992). In the 200 years since Thomas Malthus introduced the concept, the capacity of ecosystems to support human life has changed dramatically, as a result of changing technology. Carrying capacity continues to change just as rapidly, with the advent and take-up of some technologies that increase it and others that decrease it. It is a moving target, which can be useful for planning development activities, particularly when they involve choices between relevant technologies. Where it is measurable, it can be useful as a way of interpreting the principle of intergeneration equity. However, its variability makes it rather less useful as a general test for sustainable development. The Brundtland report’s principle of intergenerational equity itself embraces environmental conservation even more strongly than carrying capacity. Implicit in it is the understanding that whatever the carrying capacities of ecosystems might be, they should not be exceeded. It is also implicit that even when carrying capacity cannot be defined readily or is in no immediate danger of being exceeded, the environment should be conserved anyway, to the extent that future generations will want it to be conserved. If it is judged that future generations will appreciate a cathedral more than they will the scrubland on which it is to be built, then the development will pass the intergenerational test. However, if it is judged that future generations will rue a loss of diverse natural habitat, or the species that might depend on it, or their own livelihoods that might depend on it, then any development that destroys even the smallest fragment of it will not pass the test. Because of the environmental and quality-of-life factors implicit in them, the twin principles of intergenerational equity and intragenerational equity may be regarded as necessary and sufficient conditions for sustainable development, as defined by the Rio conference. Although several other principles have a role to play in their interpretation, criteria for sustainable development can be based on those two principles alone. Environmental Impact Assessment At the project level, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a readymade tool for applying sustainable development criteria. This is recognized

180

CLIVE GEORGE

in Rio’s Principle 17, which specifically calls for EIA to be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. However, as originally introduced in the US and subsequently developed elsewhere, environmental assessment predates the sustainable development concept and does not automatically include its goals. Its own goals, as a tool for local or national development planning, are closely related, but not identical. Unless sustainable development criteria are included specifically among those used in the assessment, EIA is not necessarily a tool for sustainable development. However, such criteria can, if desired, be incorporated quite easily. Introducing Sustainable Development Criteria into EIA Using the Rio definition, only two tests are needed for whether or not a proposed development is sustainable development: is it equitable for future generations, and is it equitable for the present generation? These are very general questions, however, and they need a certain amount of expansion to clarify what is equitable. To expand on the principle of intergenerational equity, it is helpful to re-state it as the principle of conservation of capital. If the capital, natural or humanmade, that future generations inherit is no less than the current capital stock, then development is equitable intergenerationally. The distinction that then must be drawn between conservation of natural and/or human-made capital (strong and weak sustainability) provides useful insight into the decisions that must be made through environmental assessment. Much of the remaining expansion that is needed can, and should, come from the other principles of the Rio Declaration. If EIA is to be used as a test for sustainable development, as defined at Rio, it should test whether each of the relevant principles of the Declaration is upheld. As well as being clear commitments by all the signatory governments, these provide Rio’s primary interpretation of the equity principles. Further expansion also might be obtained from Agenda 21, but the analysis presented here stops short of that level of detail. Table 2 presents a set of criteria that has been developed in this way, by expanding on the two equity principles. It has been derived specifically for developments in industrial countries, but can be amended for those in developing countries. It is intended primarily for use at the project level of EIA, but similar criteria may be derived for use in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans, or programs. For a proposed development to be classified as sustainable development, it must satisfy all of the criteria given in the table. In Table 2, the principle of intragenerational equity is considered at three levels: local or national (criteria 1 to 4), transnational (criterion 5), and global (criteria 13 to 18). The principle of intergenerational equity is consid-

181

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 2. Assessment Criteria for Sustainable Development in Industrial

Countries Principles

Criteria

Intragenerational equity (local/national)

1 Have all groups or individuals affected by the project been identified, and have the impacts on them been assessed, using a full social impact assessment where appropriate? 2 Will the EIA report be published and made readily available to all members of the public? 3 Will all members of the public have the opportunity to comment on the proposals, and will their views be taken into account before a decision is made? 4 If indigenous people or other minority groups are affected, have suitable provisions been made for their participation in project decisions? Intragenerational equity 5 Have transboundary impacts been properly assessed where (transnational) appropriate, with the participation of the affected public? Intergenerational equity 6 Have any potentially critical ecosystem factors that may be (preliminary) affected been identified? 7 Has the risk of serious or irreversible damage arising from any such impact been satisfactorily assessed, using risk assessment techniques if appropriate? Intergenerational equity 8 If the risk of serious or irreversible damage is significant, or (strong sustainability) if the project adds to a risk that is already significant, will the impact be fully mitigated, in kind, such that there will be zero adverse residual impact? Intergenerational equity 9 Have any specific groups or individuals adversely affected (weak sustainability) by an impact expressed satisfaction with the compensation offered, or has any dispute been satisfactorily arbitrated? 10 Has the natural capital that the project will convert into other forms of capital been identified? 11 Has an appropriate socio-economic appraisal been carried out? 12 Does this socio-economic appraisal demonstrate that total capital will be conserved? Inter- and intragenera13 Have all potential global impacts been considered? tional equity (global) Biodiversity

Greenhouse gases

Other global impacts

14 Does the assessment quantify any natural habitat that will be lost which is important for species conservation? 15 Is an equivalent area set aside for replacement/regeneration? 16 Has a satisfactory justification been made for the habitat area lost through the project, as a proportion of the total area of this type of habitat, in such a way that the overall rate of loss will not exceed the equilibrium regeneration rate? 17 If the project produces greenhouse gas emissions, is it shown to make an appropriate contribution to reducing emissions in accordance with the Kyoto agreement? 18 Has a satisfactory justification been made for any other global impact, in terms of a compensating global benefit that is globally acceptable?

182

CLIVE GEORGE

ered in each of its two main forms, strong sustainability (criterion 8) and weak sustainability (criteria 9 to 12). Two additional criteria are included (criteria 6 and 7) to provide a preliminary test for whether the assessment has properly determined whether strong or weak sustainability should apply. The first 12 criteria would themselves be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the two equity principles, if established EIA practice interpreted the word “public” to include the global public. However, because EIA’s participation and mitigation processes normally apply only to local, national, and, where appropriate, transnational issues, global impacts need to be covered separately through criteria 13 to 18. Criteria 1 to 3: Intra Generational Equity, Social Impact Assessment, and Public Participation One of EIA’s established mechanisms for implementing the principle of intragenerational equity is mitigation of adverse impacts by the developer. If carried out satisfactorily, this complies with one of the Rio Declaration’s other closely related principles, the polluter pays principle (Principle 16). However, satisfactory implementation depends on the assessment of impact significance, and with it the assessment of whether or not the proposed mitigation is adequate. To ensure intragenerational equity, it is necessary to identify all impacts that may be significant to any of the people affected and ensure that any necessary mitigation is satisfactory for all of them (criterion 1). Where the issues are complex, this may entail a full social impact assessment, techniques for which are well established (Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment 1994; Vanclay and Bronstein 1995). However, Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the participation principle, requires that the results of such an assessment, and indeed the whole of the environmental assessment, be subjected to the views of the public. Through publication of the EIA report, public comment on it, public hearings, public inquiries, and all the normal democratic processes that steer decision-makers, the public can then make its own decisions on what is equitable (criteria 2 and 3). Provided that these processes are working effectively and that the rest of the EIA process is working effectively in alerting the public to all potentially significant impacts, there is no need for separate indicators of all the various components of quality of life, or for any aggregating mechanism for weighing one against another. The public does all of that. Criterion 4: Equity for Minorities One aspect of intragenerational equity for which existing processes are not as strong as they might be is in dealing with the interests of minority groups. EIA is strongly dependent on normal democratic processes to steer

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

183

decision-makers, which means that it reflects the interests of the electoral majority. This can result in decisions that are not equitable for minority groups, if their voice is not powerful enough to influence the opinions of the majority. A prime example of such groups is indigenous peoples. The need to make special provisions for their participation (criterion 4) is identified in Rio’s Principle 22 and is part of established EIA practice. The World Bank procedures, for example, require social impact assessments and a high degree of public participation in any project that affects indigenous peoples (World Bank 1993). In applying all of these first four criteria for intragenerational equity, it is necessary also to ensure that Rio’s Principle 20 is implemented (“women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their participation is therefore essential . . .”). Criterion 5: Transboundary Impacts Another area where existing processes do not necessarily provide a good test for intragenerational equity is in relation to international and global impacts. Under Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, “states have . . . the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Global impacts are particularly important for sustainable development and are considered in some depth later. Principle 19 of the Declaration deals specifically with more localized transboundary impacts between individual countries. Intragenerational equity requires that such impacts be fully assessed, with the participation of the public in the affected country (criterion 5). In Europe, this is covered by the Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context (UNECE 1991), which was ratified in 1997. Criteria 6 and 7: Intergenerational Equity and the Conservation of Capital To some extent, public participation in decision-making caters to intergenerational as well as intragenerational equity. Most people have a high degree of concern for the well-being of their own offspring and future generations of their own descendants. If intragenerational equity is achieved, it will automatically become intergenerational, provided people are aware of development’s likely effects on future generations and are in a position to make rational decisions about them. The purpose of including criteria for sustainable development in the assessment is to clarify the decisions that have to be made. This clarification can be obtained by re-stating the principle of intergenerational equity as the principle of conservation of capital, which leads to the supporting concepts of strong and weak sustainability (Pearce et al. 1989). Under strong sustainability, natural capital is itself conserved.

184

CLIVE GEORGE

Under weak sustainability, natural capital may be converted into some other form, provided the total value of capital passed on to future generations does not decrease. Various gradations of strong and weak sustainability have been identified (Pearce et al. 1993), ranging from the very strong to the very weak. In applying the principle of conservation of capital, it also may prove helpful to expand the analysis to distinguish between natural capital that is critical, constant, or tradeable, or further still to take account of the specific qualities, attributes, and characteristics of the various assets in question (CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants 1997). However, the more basic concepts of strong and weak sustainability may be taken as a starting point. To test for the conservation of capital at this basic level, two questions must be answered. First, when should natural capital itself be conserved (strong sustainabilility), and when may it be converted into some other form (weak sustainability)? Second, when weak sustainability is sufficient, how should natural capital be valued in relation to the economic or social capital that will replace it?

Strong Sustainability and the Precautionary Principle The first of these questions may be answered through Rio’s precautionary principle (Principle 15), which states that: where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Although the term “cost-effective” somewhat dilutes Rio’s statement of the principle, its implication is that the strong sustainability condition should apply whenever there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. If there is no such threat, then the weak sustainability condition may be applied instead. To make the decision on which condition to apply, it is necessary to identify any potentially critical ecosystem factors that may be affected (criterion 6) and to assess the risk of serious or irreversible damage arising from any impact on them (criterion 7). For some types of development these may be particularly difficult tasks, but various techniques for addressing them within EA already exist (Carpenter 1995; Gabocy and Ross 1998). Where a high degree of uncertainty remains, the precautionary principle requires that strong sustainability be given preference. Criterion 8: The Strong Sustainability Condition for Intergenerational Equity If the strong sustainability condition applies, the impact must be fully mitigated, in kind, to the extent that the residual adverse unmitigated impact must be zero (criterion 8). This is implied by Principle 15, which

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

185

says that degradation should be prevented. Any non-zero adverse impact is unacceptable, no matter how small. An impact cannot be judged as insignificant unless there is insignificant risk of serious or irreversible damage, in which case the strong sustainability condition would not apply. Methods of fully mitigating an impact in kind are briefly discussed below, in the context of global biodiversity. Criteria 9 to 12: The Weak Sustainability Condition for Intergenerational Equity

The Valuation of Natural Capital When the precautionary principle allows the weak sustainability condition to apply, an answer must be found to the second question raised above, of how natural capital should be valued in relation to economic or social capital. This may be answered differently according to whether the benefit derived from the natural capital accrues to the public as a whole or a broad social group (e.g., clean air), or to specific groups or individual people (e.g., farmland or land occupied by indigenous peoples). In many cases there are two or more benefits, one accruing to the general public (the biodiverisity of a forest) and another to individuals or specific groups (the livelihood of the people living in the forest). In such cases, both benefits have to be valued. Whoever benefits from the natural capital, the purpose of placing a value on it is to ensure that when it is converted into some other form, there is no loss of capital passed on to future generations. However, a distinction needs to be drawn between conserving the capital and valuing it. Conservation relates specifically to the interests of future generations. Valuation is a value judgment that can only be made by the present generation. It is quite possible that future generations will place different social or economic values on environmental factors, and quite impossible to predict what those differences might be. The assumption has to be made that human values will remain unchanged. These human values include the principle of intragenerational equity, which has a major role to play in the valuation of environmental factors on behalf of future generations.

Negotiated Values and Environmental Rights When it is specific groups or individuals who benefit from the natural capital that is to be converted, the principle of intragenerational equity and the polluter pays principle demand that those people are satisfied with whatever transaction takes place in the conversion (criterion 9). The polluter must actually pay, and must pay the polluted. For the transaction to be equitable, the polluted must have substantial rights over the environment from which they draw benefit. The value of the environmental good is then whatever the people who benefit from it are willing to accept in return for its loss. If the polluter is not willing to pay that amount, the project should not go

186

CLIVE GEORGE

ahead, and the polluted will receive no payment, in money or in kind. The value of an environmental effect is then determined by direct negotiation between polluter and polluted. To the extent that society as a whole has granted people rights over their own environment, it is they who have the final say in what its value is, to them, and what its value will be to their own descendants. Any value to present and future generations of society as a whole is additional.

Environmental Economics Environmental economics offers numerous techniques for placing an economic value on environmental effects (Winpenny 1991), based on generalized market transactions that may be real (e.g., the health costs of pollution) or imaginary (e.g., market research into what people might be willing to pay for an environmental benefit or accept for its loss, if the benefit were actually traded). These techniques are particularly useful in macro-economic decision-making, for example in setting the levels of pollution taxes or conservation subsidies. At the micro-economic level of an individual development project, however, if the polluter pays principle is implemented, transactions should be taking place that are real and specific. The analysis of generalized or imaginary transactions should be unnecessary. In such cases, environmental economics serves only to offer guidance to the polluted on what the pollution or other environmental loss is likely to cost them, so that they know how much to demand in their negotiations. Social impact assessment often can be more useful in this respect than economics, but either technique can be called upon in EIA whenever it is appropriate. When the benefit derived from the natural capital accrues to the public as a whole, the polluter pays principle and the principle of intra-generational equity again apply. The public as a whole must draw at least as much benefit from the replacement capital as it did from the original natural capital. In some cases the natural capital is actually sold to the developer, and so its value is defined by what the public (through their elected representatives) is prepared to accept for it. In other cases there is no such transaction through which the natural capital might be valued in economic or other terms. Instead, the public as a whole must make its own judgment on the relative values of environmental, social, and economic factors.

Weak Sustainability and the Integration of Environmental, Social, and Economic Appraisal This highlights a potential weakness in current EIA processes. Although EIA systems vary from country to country (Lee and George 1999), they tend to address the environmental issues of development in isolation from social and economic factors (Kirkpatrick and Lee 1997). When the strong sustainability condition applies, this presents little problem, because the

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

187

assessment of whether or not natural capital is conserved is exclusively an environmental matter. EIA systems that issue an “environmental permit” for a proposed development, as a precondition for its subsequent approval or rejection on socio-economic grounds, can test for strong sustainability quite satisfactorily. However, applying the weak sustainability condition requires some form of integrated assessment, so that environmental factors may be weighed against social and economic ones. This is linked closely to Agenda 21’s Chapter 8, which promotes the integration of environment and development in policy-making and planning decisions. The public would normally make its value judgment through the processes of public participation in decision-making, as discussed above. Therefore, when the weak sustainability condition is being applied, the decision-making process must embrace social, economic, and environmental considerations together. This is somewhat more straightforward in EIA systems where there is a single decision-making body responsible for all aspects (such as in the UK). Even then, however, application of the weak sustainability condition requires a clear identification of the natural capital that will be converted (criterion 10) and a demonstration that its equivalent value will be conserved.

Weak Sustainability and the Valuation of Mineral Reserves A typical example is the extraction of mineral reserves, such as oil. Leaving aside any other impacts of the extraction or consumption processes, which must be assessed separately, the oil itself is unlikely to affect any critical ecosystem factors. The strong sustainability condition is therefore unnecessary, and the weak sustainability condition may be applied instead. The capital value of the unexploited oil (or other reserve) is, in this case, purely economic and is the amount that can be obtained by selling the extraction rights. This is determined by the actual transaction that takes place when the extraction rights are sold. Some analyses have attempted to value reserves such as oil using the strong sustainability condition, on the assumption that future generations will value oil for oil’s sake, or energy for energy’s sake (von Amsberg 1994). This entails estimating what the value of the reserve might be to future generations, on the basis of predicted changes in extraction costs and the predicted costs of energy from future alternative sources. An appropriate discount rate must then be chosen through which to discount the future value back to a present value. However, the usefulness of this type of analysis is highly questionable, because the present value it sets out to calculate is already known. It is the market price that has been established by the oil industry’s own economists, carrying out exactly the same calculations, using all the best available data, in the real world of real markets, real discount rates, and real exchange values. Provided no critical ecosystem factors are involved, intergenerational equity requires only that total capital

188

CLIVE GEORGE

be conserved, as valued now, so that future generations subsequently can invest the capital as they see fit. They will be in a far better position than the present generation to decide what to invest the capital in, and when, for their own purposes, which may or may not include energy production. The only requirement for sustainability is that the total capital value be conserved. The importance of the weak sustainability test is highlighted by examples of it having been ignored. Research into the relative growth rates of countries that are rich and are poor in exportable natural resources shows an inverse correlation (Sachs and Warner 1995). This has been referred to as the “Dutch disease,” after Holland’s poor economic performance following its natural gas discoveries of the 1950s. In such cases, rapid initial development has very quickly proved to be unsustainable, because the weak sustainability condition was not applied. Total capital was not conserved. The income obtained from selling off the natural capital was frittered away on importing luxury goods and other forms of current expenditure, instead of being invested in other forms of capital. Many resource-rich developing countries with abysmal development performance and impoverished populations have suffered from exactly that problem. The UK had a similar experience in its oil boom of the 1980s, but did get somewhat closer to applying the weak sustainability condition. Although much of the income from extraction rights disappeared in imports for immediate consumption, a great deal of it was invested in the acquisition of overseas properties, commodity rights or companies, or the country’s own capital base. Distinguishing between what is current expenditure and what is a sound capital investment entails difficult economic decisions, which lie well beyond the remit of environmental assessment itself. To apply the weak sustainability condition, EIA must be integrated with social and economic appraisal. However, EIA itself can be used to perform the integration, by testing for whether a socio-economic appraisal has been done (criterion 11), and whether it demonstrates that total capital is conserved (criterion 12).

Criterion 13: Globally Sustainable Development and the Assessment of Global Impacts

The Global Nature of Sustainable Development To be valid as a test for sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland report and the Rio conference, the principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity must be applied across all people affected by the development. When the environmental impacts of the proposed project are strictly local, this means just the local community. When they are national, it must include the entire public in the country. When they are global, it must include the whole world’s population. The first 12 criteria in Table 2 provide a reasonably complete framework for interpreting the principles of intergenera-

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

189

TABLE 3. The Global Nature of Sustainable Development “. . . the industrial countries came to Rio to solve the issues of climate, forests and endangered species . . .” Richard Sandbrook Rio 1992 “. . . of all the pollutants we face, the worst is poverty. We want more development.” Indhira Ghandi Stockholm 1972 “We came to see that a new development path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future.” World Commission on Environment and Development Our Common Future 1987

tional and intragenerational equity in environmental assessment, wherever the affected public does not extend beyond the local or national communities, or other individual countries subject to transboundary impacts. However, the participation and mitigation processes of established EIA practice, through which the principles are applied, do not normally extend to the global public. Applying the equity principles globally may be regarded as the most important test for sustainable development. As noted in relation to the extraction of mineral reserves, there are many examples of development that has not been sustainable nationally. Many more examples can be quoted of development that has not been sustainable locally. However, those are essentially national or local problems. Sustainable development is primarily a global issue (Table 3). Very often, global impacts are not even considered in environmental assessments (George 1997; McCold and Holman 1995). Criterion 13 is therefore the starting point for applying the equity principles globally.

Global Impacts and Strong Sustainability The two environmental impacts of greatest concern for sustainability are climate change and loss of biological diversity. In both cases, environmental damage is threatened that is serious and irreversible, and so the strong sustainability condition should apply. When applied in full, this means that no loss of natural capital is permissible. Any development that increases the concentration of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will fail this test. So will any development that reduces the area of a natural habitat which is important for species conservation. Any less stringent approach is unsustainable. The strict application of the strong sustainability condition would put a stop to many development projects both in industrial and developing countries. In many cases, particularly in developing countries, this would put a stop to

190

CLIVE GEORGE

development itself. Any conversion of natural forests or other species-rich habitats to other uses would be halted. Power stations burning fossil fuels, or roads for petroleum fueled cars, would not be able to be built anywhere in the world. It is quite clear that none of these activities is sustainable indefinitely. If they are not halted now, they will have to be halted at some point in the future, when climate change is so great as to pose an immediate major threat, or so many species have been lost that natural, agricultural and human resistance to pests and diseases is beginning to collapse. If the activities are not halted immediately, and if major ecological damage is to be avoided, the questions must be asked: when they will be halted and what development activities of this nature will be permissible in the meantime?

Time-limited Weak Sustainability The carrying capacity concept offers the possibility of postponing action to halt global environmental degradation until the capacity is in immediate danger of being exceeded. Some clearance of natural forests may be permitted, and some developments that will discharge greenhouse gases may be allowed, for a limited period. Although the strong sustainability condition should ideally be applied, intergenerational equity still can be achieved by applying the weak sustainability condition instead, for a limited time only. However, any such development still must pass the test for intragenerational equity, and to do so it must be consistent with Rio’s Principle 7, under which “the developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment. . . .” Criteria 14 to 16: Biodiversity and Loss of Natural Habitat For habitat loss, the problem arises primarily in developing countries. Industrial countries already have converted a major proportion of their speciesrich habitats to intensive human use. Equity requires that there be no barrier to developing countries doing the same as industrial ones. This requirement can be implemented in various ways, depending on how much habitat can be lost globally without major risk and what approach is taken by industrial countries. The simplest approach is to assume that industrial countries should go no further in their own destruction of natural habitat. For them, the criterion then is zero habitat loss. The corresponding criterion for developing countries is a loss of natural habitat up to that already experienced by industrial countries, but no further (measured for example as a proportion of total land area). This would permit very considerable continued clearance. If the associated risk is considered too great, a greater land area would need to be set aside for conservation. Equity then requires either that industrial countries increase the proportion of their land area devoted to natural habitat or that they offer

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

191

developing countries sufficient incentive to dissuade them from destroying theirs. Agenda 21’s Chapter 15 encourages restoration of damaged ecosystems as well as conservation, but no firm requirement has been established. The World Bank’s Global Environment Facility is a step towards implementing the latter approach—paying developing countries to shoulder the burden—but it is as yet far too small to have major effect (Pearce and Moran 1994). Currently, the most stringent criterion that reasonably can be applied is that industrial countries will not reduce their own areas of natural habitat any further, whereas corresponding losses remain permissible in other countries. In industrial countries, this results in a criterion of zero loss of natural habitat, for any habitat type that has been identified as important for species conservation. This is equivalent to applying the strong sustainability condition locally or nationally, as part of a time-limited weak sustainability condition applied globally. Without this criterion for sustainable development, current EIA practice often permits a small loss a habitat, even for habitat types that have been identified as important for biodiversity conservation. The argument generally is put forward that the area lost through the project is a small enough proportion of the national or regional total as to have insignificant effect on any species. As a result, many small losses accumulate. In the UK, for example, one of the most precious habitats is ancient woodland; its total area fell by a factor of two in the 50 years between 1942 and 1992 (Barrow 1995). If it were feasible to calculate the carrying capacities of such habitats for all species, it might be possible to demonstrate that an additional factor of two reduction would pose insignificant risk, or an additional factor of ten, and to permit continued losses until this carrying capacity limit were reached. However, the science is not yet that well developed, and until it is, the precautionary principle implies quite unequivocally that additional losses are not acceptable. Additionally, until loss of ecologically sensitive habitat in industrial countries is checked, there can be little prospect of checking it in developing countries. In industrial countries, therefore, the strong sustainability condition must be applied rigorously. No loss of ecologically important habitat can be regarded as insignificant, and none is permissible, no matter how small. This does not mean that a road can never be built through an area of ancient woodland or other precious habitat. What it does mean is that any area lost must be replaced, by an equivalent area supporting the same diversity of species (criteria 14 and 15). If a national or local plan is in place for habitat regeneration this may suffice, but otherwise the developer will have to make the necessary provisions as part of the project proposal. In applying these two criteria, fragmentation and other effects on the quality of habitat must be taken into account. Also, provision must be made for the time it takes for diversity to establish itself. For example, Britain’s

192

CLIVE GEORGE

ancient woodland is defined as having been in existence since 1600. However, even if it were to take 400 years for the diversity to be established in full, a sustainable equilibrium can be maintained. An additional criterion must be applied to ensure that the total rate of loss does not exceed the equilibrium rate of regeneration (for a 400-year regeneration time, the rate of loss must not exceed a quarter of a percent per annum). Unless this criterion is embedded in national and regional land-use plans, it is incumbent on the developer to justify whatever proportion of the national annual allowance will be taken up by his development (criterion 16). Simple techniques for doing this have been devised, based on the capital value of the development (George 1997). Criteria for developing countries will be similar to those derived above, but based on a time-limited reduction in total habitat area. More sophisticated techniques for characterizing and conserving natural capital have been prepared for the UK environmental agencies (CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants 1997). These may be used to expand on the simple criteria derived above. However, in applying either the simple criteria or more sophisticated ones, it should be borne in mind that they will still result in major global environmental degradation, as a result of developing countries reducing their areas of natural habitat to industrial country levels. The criteria are true sustainable development criteria only to the extent that the associated risk is globally acceptable. In developing countries, more stringent criteria can, if desired, be applied through EIA as well as other means. In industrial countries, anything more stringent requires either habitat restoration or payments to developing countries, both of which are beyond EIA’s remit. Conservation of the existing habitat is as far as EIA can go. Criterion 17: Greenhouse Gas Emissions A framework for considering climate change issues at each stage of the environmental assessment process has been devised by the Canadian Global Change Program (Shillington et al. 1997). This recognizes that all emissions are important cumulatively, no matter how small, and bases the assessment on a country’s binding commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (as agreed at Rio and subsequently revised at Kyoto). These commitments are in effect an interpretation of sustainable development’s equity principles, applied globally. Equity considerations for climate change are similar to those for biodiversity loss, except that in this case industrial countries are still contributing to the increasing effect. As with biodiverisity, equity requires that there be no barrier to developing countries doing the same as industrial ones. In this case however, it has already been accepted that industrial countries must reduce their impact. Of the various greenhouse gases, the most important is carbon dioxide, because of global reliance on fossil fuels for energy production. Equity re-

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

193

quires that developing countries may increase their per capita carbon dioxide emissions to whatever level industrial countries reduce theirs to. As a result, stabilization of the atmospheric concentration requires a reduction of emissions by industrial countries of at least a factor of four, and more probably a factor of eight or more, depending on population growth rates (Brown 1996). The magnitude of the climate change that will actually occur depends on how rapidly this reduction is achieved, or, in other words, what time limit is placed on weak sustainability. At the 1997 Kyoto conference (ENDS 1997), powerful arguments were put forward that extremely serious damage will occur if the rate of reduction is no faster than was agreed at the conference. At the very least, however, development proposals should be tested against the Kyoto criteria (criterion 17). For the European Union, this is a reduction to 8% below 1990 levels by the period 2008–2012. If no such test is applied, there is a likelihood that even Kyoto’s limited objective will not be achieved. This was the case in many countries for the Rio Climate Convention’s even less ambitious target. If EIA is to be used as a tool for sustainable development, every energyrelated project must be tested against the greenhouse gas criterion. If a suitable national energy plan has been developed in compliance with the target, which distributes the target among the various energy-related economic sectors, and lays down ground rules for the approval of individual developments, the project proposal can be tested against that plan. If not, the reduction target must be applied equally across all sectors and all projects. For electricity generation, for example, in the absence of a national plan defining otherwise, Kyoto requires that total emissions form the sector be reduced by 8% in about 12 years. In the absence of an appropriate national plan, this criterion must be applied to each individual project. In industrial countries, most power generation projects are for replacement capacity rather than new capacity. With a typical power station life of 30 to 40 years, about one-third of the total capacity will be replaced in the 12-year period. On the assumption that total electricity demand will remain constant, this means that each new power station must be restricted to 24% lower emissions per megawatt hour than the current average. This simple criterion should be amended to take account of forecast changes in total capacity, arising from economic growth and the offsetting effect of energy efficiency savings. Historically, these have tended to cancel each other out. The criterion may be amended to take account of any offset arrangement associated with the project, such as tree planting schemes or traded emission credits. Any transport project would need to demonstrate a similar reduction. Improvements in vehicle efficiency would need to be taken into account, as well as economic growth. Except where these combined factors can be shown to reduce emissions, any new road would fail the sustainability test unless it creates an overall reduction in traffic, or unless it is part of an overall plan that is demonstrated to reduce emissions. As a first approximation, the

194

CLIVE GEORGE

proportion a scheme would be expected to contribute, to the 8% per 12year target, would be that proportion which the scheme represents of the total transport infrastructure budget (George 1997). These criteria will achieve sustainable development only to the extent that the Kyoto targets will achieve sustainable development. More stringent criteria will be necessary, if the risk of seriously damaging climate change is to be reduced below the risk accepted at Kyoto. Criterion 18: Global Impacts and the Conservation of Capital The global criteria discussed above are based on the weak sustainability condition, with a time limit after which strong sustainability must apply. To meet the condition, any natural capital that is lost in that time must be converted into some other form of capital. Because the benefit from the natural capital is global, the benefit accruing from the capital that replaces it must also be global. Some part of the socio-economic gain accruing from the development, equivalent in value to the natural capital that is lost, must benefit the entire world (criterion 18). In the case of greenhouse gas emissions, it may be presumed that these considerations were part of the agreement drawn up at Kyoto. This is not entirely in accordance with the principle of intragenerational equity, under which the polluted should be satisfied with the transaction through which their environment is polluted. Many countries, notably small island states and other low-lying countries, which are liable to lose much of their territory as a result of rising sea levels or disappear altogether, were not entirely satisfied with the Kyoto agreement. However, whatever level of equity is represented by Kyoto, its agreement is the best that can be achieved for the time being. It must be presumed that meeting the Kyoto condition, or others like it, satisfies the principle of intragenerational equity when applied globally. The agreement implies that all countries are sufficiently satisfied with whatever benefit they might receive from each other’s development, to be prepared to accept each other’s pollution. However, it is not valid for any country to override a global sustainable development criterion on its own socio-economic grounds. It is likely that, if global impact criteria were to be applied in environmental assessment, arguments would be put forward to approve projects that fail one or more of the tests, because the project is particularly important to the local or national economy. Such arguments may be valid with respect to local or national impacts, but they can never be valid for global impacts. Any value judgment on the relative values of environmental and social or economic factors must in this case be made globally. For carbon dioxide emissions, the global value judgment has already been made, at Kyoto, and it cannot be changed without again seeking global approval. Local or national approval of any project that fails a global sustainability test must be conditional

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

195

on other projects in the same jurisdiction making up the difference, so that the overall local or national impact still passes the test. Complying with Kyoto or some similar criterion may be deemed to satisfy the principle of intragenerational equity, but the principle of intergenerational equity still has to be complied with. Although the human-made capital created by the conversion of natural capital may remain in local or national ownership, it still must be conserved. For the development to be sustainable development, the profits from logging a rainforest must not be frittered away any more than those from the extraction of oil. The EIA must therefore apply the same tests as discussed above, for whether or not a socio-economic appraisal has been done and whether or not it demonstrates that total capital is conserved. Application of the Criteria: Case Studies For the two equity principles to be satisfied, all of the criteria given in Table 2 must be met. For a development proposal in an industrial country to be classed as sustainable development, it must pass all the tests given in the table. Criteria for developing countries will be the same except for global impacts, which will differ as discussed above. Six projects that are typical of those subject to EIA in the UK have been chosen to evaluate the use of the criteria. For each project, the actual EIA report was examined, to assess whether use of the criteria would have shown the development to be sustainable development. The results are summarized in Table 4. Where the report shows that a criterion is met, a pass is recorded. In many cases the report does not show clearly that the criterion is met, but it is likely that it could be met fairly easily, either by an inexpensive change to the project, or simply by amending the EIA report. This is recorded as a pass with minor change. A failure is recorded when it is considered that a major change would be needed to meet the criterion. Disussion of Case Study Results As they stand, none of the environmental statements examined passes on all criteria. This is not surprising, because the environmental assessments were not carried out or reported with these criteria in mind. Many of the criteria that relate to the equity of development locally or nationally are met for all the projects, as a result of existing public participation processes in the UK environmental assessment system. The existing EA process also gets quite close to meeting the criteria for full mitigation of potentially critical ecological impacts, where appropriate. Minor modifications that would be needed to meet these criteria are unlikely to be difficult or costly. One project came quite close to meeting the criterion for socio-economic appraisal of non-critical ecological impacts, in relation

Assessment of social impacts Publication of EIA report Comment on EIA report Interests of minority groups Transboundary impacts Identification of critical ecosystem factors Assessment of serious or irreversible damage Full mitigation Compensation of individuals or social groups Identification of converted natural capital Socio-economic appraisal Conservation of total capital Consideration of global impacts Quantification of habitat loss Habitat re-creation Justification of habitat loss Compliance with Kyoto agreement Justification of other global impacts Overall result Minor Minor Pass Pass Minor Minor Minor N/A Pass (minor change)

Minor

N/A N/A

N/A

Minor Pass Pass N/A Minor Pass

Case 1

Minor Minor Minor Pass N/A N/A Minor N/A Pass (minor change)

Minor

N/A N/A

N/A

Minor Pass Pass N/A Minor Pass

Case 2

Result

Pass Minor Pass Pass Minor Minor Minor N/A Pass (minor change)

Minor

Minor Pass

Minor

Pass Pass Pass N/A N/A Pass

Case 3

Minor Minor Minor Pass Minor Minor Minor N/A Pass (minor change)

Minor

N/A N/A

Pass

Pass Pass Pass N/A N/A Pass

Case 4

Minor Minor Pass Pass N/A N/A Fail N/A Fail

Pass

N/A Minor

N/A

Pass Pass Pass N/A N/A Pass

Case 5

Minor Minor Fail Pass Pass Minor Fail N/A Fail

Minor

Minor Minor

Pass

Pass Pass Pass N/A Minor Pass

Case 6

Minor 5 pass with minor change; N/A 5 not applicable. Cases: 1 5 combined heat and power plant; 2 5 combined cycle gas turbine power station; 3 5 light rapid transit system; 4 5 municipal waste disposal landfill site; 5 5 motorway section; 6 5 airport extension.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

10.

8. 9.

7.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Criterion

TABLE 4. Application of Sustainable Development Criteria to Typical UK Projects

196 CLIVE GEORGE

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

197

to the weak sustainability condition. It is considered that all of the projects could meet this criterion without major cost. With only minor amendments to the EIA report (and not to the project), it is considered that four of the projects would meet the criterion for greenhouse gas emissions. Subject to the other minor changes discussed above, these four projects would be classed as sustainable development projects: combined heat and power plant; combined cycle gas turbine power station; light rapid transit system; and waste disposal landfill. The other two projects fail to meet the criterion for greenhouse gas emissions. These were: motorway section; and airport extension. The two power generation projects are both natural gas fired, and both produce considerably less carbon dioxide per unit of output than the capacity they replace. They are classifiable as sustainable development because, as well as being able to meet the other criteria, they can be shown to meet the requirements of the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. This is unlikely to be the case for the motorway and airport projects, in the absence of a national plan that shows how the emissions arising from such projects are compensated by reductions elsewhere. The municipal waste disposal project would be classifiable as sustainable development under the criteria used. At the strategic level of development policy and planning, the long-term sustainability of landfill disposal would need to be assessed. However, this individual project poses no threat of serious ecological damage that cannot be fully mitigated, and the weak sustainability criterion can be met. Conclusions A set of criteria has been derived for use in environmental assessment, to test whether a development project can be classified as sustainable development. These apply specifically to industrial countries, but similar criteria may be derived for developing countries. On the basis of the six projects chosen for evaluation of these criteria, some tentative conclusions may be drawn: 1. A fuller integration of environmental, social, and economic assessment is necessary to demonstrate clearly that a project can be classed as sustainable development; 2. The existing environmental assessment process as applied in the UK is reasonably effective in testing for sustainable development with respect to impacts that are strictly local or national; 3. The existing environmental assessment process is reasonably effective in containing any further contribution to global biodiversity loss from UK projects and could be made fully effective with little difficulty; 4. Some minor changes to project design and mitigation measures would be necessary to fully meet the sustainable development criteria for

198

CLIVE GEORGE

local and national impacts and global biodiversity, but these are unlikely to be costly; 5. Power generation projects typical of those currently being undertaken in the UK are likely to meet the sustainable development criteria for the global impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as derived from the Kyoto agreement; 6. Many road schemes and airport developments are likely to fail the test for sustainable development, in the absence of a national plan for compensating their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. The criteria represent a true test for sustainable development only to the extent that the assumptions underlying them are valid. In particular, it is assumed that the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is sufficient to prevent any significant threat of serious or irreversible damage; and it is assumed that a loss of natural habitat in developing countries up to that already experienced in industrial countries will not result in any serious loss of global biological diversity. Both assumptions are suspect. Should global agreements emerge that impose tighter constraints, the relevant criteria may be amended accordingly. References Barrow, C.J. 1995. Developing the Environment, Problems and Management. London: Longman. Bartelmus, P. 1997. Measuring sustainability: Data linkage and integration. In Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, B. Moldan and S. Billharz (eds). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Bossel, H. 1997. Finding a comprehensive set of indicators of sustainable development by application of orientation theory. In Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. B. Moldan and S. Billharz (eds). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Brown, L., et al. 1996. State of the World 1996 London: Earthscan. CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants. 1997. Environmental Capital: A New Approach. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. Carpenter, R.A. 1995. Risk assessment. Impact Assessment 13(2):153–187. Dalal-Clayton, B. 1992. Modified EIA and Indicators of Sustainability: First Steps Towards Sustainability Analysis. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. ENDS. 1997. The unfinished climate business after Kyoto. ENDS Report 275:16–20. Gabocy, T., and Ross, T. 1998. Ecological risk assessment: A guideline comparison and review. In A.L. Porter and J. Fittipaldi (eds). Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. Fargo: AEPI/IAIA/The Press Club.

TESTING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

199

George, C. 1997. Assessing global impacts at sector and project levels. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17(4):227–247. Harrison, P. 1992. The Third Revolution: Population, Environment and a Sustainable World. London: Penguin. Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-16. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland. Jacobs, P., and Sadler, B. (eds). 1989. Sustainable Development and Environmental Assessment: Perspectives on Planning for a Common Future. Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Kirkpatrick, C., and Lee, N. (eds). 1997. Sustainable Development in a Developing World: Integrating Environmental Assessment with Socio-Economic Appraisal. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lee, N., and George, C. (eds). 1999. Environmental Assessment in Developing Countries. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. LGMB (Local Government Management Board). 1994. Sustainability Indicators— Guidance to Pilot Authorities. London: Touche Ross & Co. McCold, L., and Holman, J. 1995. Cumulative impacts in environmental assessment: How well are they considered? Environmental Professional 17(1):2–8. Mitchell, G. 1996. Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators. Sustainable Development 4(1):1–11. Moldan, B., and Billharz, S. (eds). 1997. Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. SCOPE 58. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Pearce, D., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan. Pearce, D., et al. 1993. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan. Pearce, D., and Moran, D. 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan. Quarrie, J. (ed). 1992. Earth Summit ’92. London: Regency Press. Sachs, J., and Warner, A. 1995. Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth. Harvard: Harvard Institute for International Development. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Final Report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Shillington, T., Russell, D., and Sadler, B. 1997. Addressing Climate Change through Environmental Assessment: A Preliminary Guide. Ottawa: Canadian Global Change Program. Therivel, R., and Partidario, M.R. (eds). 1996. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

200

CLIVE GEORGE

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1991. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. Geneva: UNECE. United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNCED Report A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1 13 June 1992. Vanclay, F., and Bronstein, D.A. (eds). 1995. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. von Amsberg, J. 1994. The sustainable supply rule for economic evaluation of natural capital depletion. In Environmental Assessment and Development, R. Goodland and V. Edmundson (eds). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Winpenny, J.T. 1991. Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal. London: HMSO. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Bank. 1993. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update No. 5—Public Involvement in Environmental Assessment: Requirements, Opportunities and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Environment Department, The World Bank.

Environmental Statements Examined Bowman Planton Associates. 1995. Craigpark Quarry. Greenways Waste Management, Bristol. Cobham Resource Consultants and Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd. 1993. Manchester Airport Runway 2. Manchester Airport. Rendell Planning. 1994. Ravensthorpe Power Station. ASEA Brown Boveri Energy Development Company Ltd. Rendell Planning and Environment. 1996. Winnington Combined Heat and Power Project. Powergen CHP Ltd. Scott Wilson Resoure Consultants and Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd. 1996. The Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transport System Ashton-under-Lyne Extension. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. Strathclyde Roads, The Strathclyde Greenbelt Company and Ash consulting Group. 1994. M77 Motorway between Floak and Malletsheugh. Scottish Office Industry Department.