INTRODUCTION

SPECIAL ISSUE:INTEGRATED APPRAISALAND DECISION-MAKING

Colin Kirkpatrick1

Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester

Norman Lee2

Institute for Development Policy and Management, and EIA Centre, Universityof Manchester

“Integration” has become a favored means of increasing the effectivenessof environmental assessment and social and economic appraisal in decision-making in order to promote sustainable development. This applies both toappraisal and decision-making at different stages in the planning cycle(policies, plans, programs, and projects) and in different types of economy(developed, developing, and transitional). “Integration” has many dimen-sions that may need to be distinguished. For example, integration mayrefer to:

• Procedural and organizational arrangements to enable environmentalassessments and social and economic appraisals to be undertaken atsimilar points in time so that they can be simultaneously taken intoconsideration in decision-making,

• Methodological guidelines that encourage different types of appraisal(environmental, social, and economic) to use consistent assumptions,methods, and data and, when combined in an overall appraisal, toavoid gaps and overlaps in their coverage,

1Colin Kirkpatrick is Professor of Development Economics and Director, Institute for DevelopmentPolicy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

2Norman Lee is Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Development Policy and Management, and EIACentre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Address requests for reprints to: Colin Kirkpatrick, Institute for Development Policy and Management,University of Manchester, Crawford House, Precinct Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9GH, UnitedKingdom. E-mail: colin.kirkpatrick@man.ac.uk

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1999;19:227–232 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 0195-9255/99/$–see front matter655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0195-9255(99)00012-8

228 COLIN KIRKPATRICK AND NORMAN LEE

• Arrangements to ensure that frequently neglected impacts (e.g., healthor gender impacts) are assessed and taken into account in overallappraisal and decision-making,

• Provisions to ensure that assessments (environmental, social, and eco-nomic, or combined) are taken into consideration at all key stages ofdecision-making in the planning and project cycle and not only at theformal authorisation stage,

• Measures to ensure that appraisals and decisions taken at one stagein the planning cycle are “tiered” into appraisals and decision-makingat subsequent stages in the cycle.

A number of these different forms of integration are addressed in thisspecial issue, whose origins and content are outlined below.

In May 1996, an international conference on The Integration of Environ-mental Assessment and Socio-Economic Appraisal in the Development Pro-cess, was held in Bradford, jointly organized by the Development andProject Planning Centre (DPPC), University of Bradford, and the EIACentre, University of Manchester. A number of the papers were subse-quently published in a special issue of Project Appraisal (Lee and Kirkpat-rick 1996) and in a book, Sustainable Development in a Developing World(Kirkpatrick and Lee 1997).

In October 1998, a follow-up conference, Impact Assessment in the Devel-opment Process, was held in Manchester, jointly organized by the Institutefor Development Policy and Management (IDPM) and the EIA Centre,University of Manchester and DPPC, University of Bradford.3 There wereapproximately 100 participants from 30 countries. Forty-one papers werepresented. Of these, eight are included in this special issue and a largernumber will be published in book form by Edward Elgar Publishing laterin the year (Lee and Kirkpatrick 1999).

This special issue of the Review commences with a paper by Scholtenand Post (Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment, The Nether-lands), which focuses on two related aspects of integration that are problem-atic in development aid programmes. These are (i) insufficient attentionto thematic policies (concerning environment, culture, equity, gender, etc.)in project design, appraisal, and decision-making, and (ii) the complexityof separate aspect-by-aspect appraisals that have to be processed by hard-pressed project officers. The authors argue for a more comprehensive butintegrated approach to impact assessment, distinguishing different degreesof integration that may be introduced on a step-by-step basis and betweenapproaches that may be more appropriate for project and policy, plan, andprogram (PPP) appraisal.

3The Conference was supported by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UnitedKingdom. However, DFID can accept no responsibility for any information provided on views expressed.

EDITORIAL 229

Bradley (ERM, Ireland) reviews the use of environmental appraisals inthe preparation and implementation of regional development plans fi-nanced by the EU Structural Funds. He traces the development of environ-mental appraisal from the late 1980s, when the environmental dimensionwithin the programming process was extremely weak, to the present daywhen it is more effective and better integrated but still deficient in a numberof respects. He focuses on three main areas for further improvement: (i)strengthening the methodology of ex ante environmental appraisal, aided bythe publication of a new handbook (EC 1999), (ii) improving environmentalmonitoring and ex post evaluation (limited progress to date), and (iii) moreeffective use of designated environmental authorities both in the appraisalof plans and programs and in monitoring the environmental impacts arisingfrom their implementation.

Hedo and Bina (Birdlife International, Spain, and ERM, UK, respec-tively) review the preparation and application of the joint strategic environ-mental assessment (SEA) for a hydrological plan and a regional irrigationplan in the Castilla y Leon region. The paper describes the SEA methodol-ogy that was developed for this purpose within a sustainable developmentframework, incorporating environmental, economic, and social variables.When applied, it led to a number of recommendations for significant modi-fications to the originally proposed plans. A number of general conclusionsare drawn, which indicate how a broader-based form of SEA, which includesboth environmental and socio-economic criteria, can make a positive contri-bution to sustainable development.

Fischer (University of the West of England, UK) analyzes the coverageof environmental and socio-economic impacts in SEAs and related planningdocuments for transport-related PPPs in three regions in Germany, TheNetherlands, and the United Kingdom. He finds the coverage to be highlyvariable and incomplete, differing according to both the type of plan beingprepared and SEA undertaken as well as to its country of origin. Also, inmost cases, there was no attempt to combine or balance environmentaland socio-economic impacts in overall appraisals for use in decision-making.A number of recommendations for follow-up studies are presented.

Annema, van Wee, van Hoek, and van der Waard (RIVM, CPB andAVV, The Netherlands) present a “quick scan” method, which they devel-oped to evaluate investment plans, proposed by the Dutch public authori-ties, for the period 1999–2010. The three-step methodology involved thecombined use of economic, social, and environmental criteria in initiallyassigning each proposed plan to one of three categories: “solid,” “upgrada-ble,” or “weak.” Then, different combinations of investment plans andother policy measures were appraised to establish which package of plansand policy measures was likely to perform best according to the selectedcriteria. The findings indicated that significant changes should be made tothe original investment proposals from the public authorities. The paper

230 COLIN KIRKPATRICK AND NORMAN LEE

concludes with a review of the “quick scan” method, indicating ways inwhich it could be developed further, but also warning that greater detailand further refinements are not necessarily preferable for high-level strate-gic appraisals.

Saunders and Stephens (Environmental Solutions, and InfrastructureDepartment, Victoria, Australia, respectively) review the use made of theenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) process in Victoria, Australia, ina strategic assessment of a proposed integrated ski resort on Mount Sterling.The case study illustrates the value of an assessment that considered a widerange of alternatives and integrated technical, environmental, social, andeconomic analyses within both the environmental impact statement anddecision-making. The assessment process also used a form of environmentaldispute resolution, which was important in helping to resolve what hadbeen a long-running public debate.

Rees (World Bank, Washington, DC) presents the first of two perspec-tives on the integration of environmental and social appraisals into WorldBank practice. He indicates that environmental assessments can contributeto the better selection, design, siting, and implementation of programsand projects where these are initiated early, involve the public, evaluatealternatives, and are supported by effective monitoring and supervision.He shows, on the basis of two reviews of environmental assessment practice,that considerable progress has been made during the 1990s in main-streaming environmental assessment within Bank practice. However, healso acknowledges that much remains to be achieved both “upstream”(through the development of sectoral and regional environmental assess-ments) and ‘downstream’ (through the preparation and more effective useof environmental management plans).

Francis and Jacobs (World Bank, Washington, DC) present a secondperspective relating to the integration of social analysis into World Bankpractice. They demonstrate that, although some progress has been made inthis area, it is considerably less than in the case of environmental assessment(which, in turn, is less firmly entrenched in Bank practice than economicappraisal). Progress has been made in increasing awareness of social issues,introducing social policies in certain areas, operationalizing some socialassessment procedures, and increasing the number of staff with social sci-ence expertise. Crucially, however, a clearly articulated and integratedBank social policy is lacking, and the circumstances in which social analysisshould be required have not yet been codified.

What are the overall conclusions that can be drawn from these and theother papers that were presented at the 1998 conference? In our view, thefollowing are particularly noteworthy.

• The level of interest in integrated appraisal has grown considerablysince the first conference in 1996. Also, the perception of what the

EDITORIAL 231

integration issue covers has broadened. This is encouraging to theextent that additional facets of the issue are being revealed. However,there are dangers if the integration concept becomes too broad tohandle credibly and effectively. Possibly there is a need to develop atypology of the main constituents of the integration issue, which willmake it easier to submit each component to deeper analysis.

• As shown in this selection of papers, interest in integrated appraisaloften is closely associated with strategic-level appraisal of PPPs andtheir role in promoting sustainable development. A related, growingarea of interest is in the use of integrated appraisal of climate changepolicy issues (Rotmans 1998; Tol and Vellinga 1998; Toth and Hizsnyik1998). This is also an encouraging trend, but it presents a doublechallenge to practitioners: how to develop and use strategic-level formsof environmental, economic, and social assessment, and how to developand use methods and procedures for integrating these. The practicalitiesof doing both of these, and the supporting guidance and training theymay require, deserve careful consideration.

• Many of those interested in the application of integrated appraisal feelmore comfortable in considering its use at the procedural rather thanmethodological level. Our impression is that less progress has beenmade over recent years in developing the methodology of integratedappraisal than in clarifying its procedural requirements. One way ofredressing the balance would be to focus future case study investiga-tions as much on the methods, as on the procedures, of integrated ap-praisal.

• One issue that was debated, but not resolved, at the conference con-cerned the most appropriate “home” for integrated appraisal. Shouldcost-benefit analysis, EIA/SEA, or social impact assessement expandits territory to integrate the other two or should an alternative solutionbe sought? The difficulty is that, so long as there are inconsistenciesbetween the different approaches to appraisal, integration around anyone of them is likely to be problematic. Possibly an important first steptoward integration is to clarify the more important differences andinconsistencies between existing appraisal methods and to determinehow these might be reduced, if not removed.

• Finally, it is important to recall that many of the specialist forms ofappraisal, including EIA, were developed separately because the im-pacts with which they were concerned were being inadequately consid-ered in existing appraisal arrangements. Are those specialisms nowsufficiently mature and well established that they can be reintegratedwithout the old deficiencies reemerging? Alternatively, what are thesafeguards that need to be built into any reintegration schemes toreduce the likelihood that this will happen again? Possibly this alsomerits further study.

232 COLIN KIRKPATRICK AND NORMAN LEE

It is hoped that the contents of these conference papers and the discus-sions they provoke will stimulate a more interdisciplinary, integrated, andinformed approach to economic, social, and environmental appraisal andto its more effective use in decision-making within the development process.

References

EC (European Commission). 1999. A Handbook on Environmental Assessment ofRegional Development Plans and EU Structural Funds Programmes. Preparedon behalf of the European Commission, DG XI (forthcoming).

Kirkpatrick, C., and Lee, N. (eds). 1997. Sustainable Development in a DevelopingWorld: Integrating Socio-Economic Appraisal and Environmental Assessment.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lee, N., and Kirkpatrick, C. (eds). 1996. Special Issue on Environmental Assessmentand Socio-Economic Appraisal in Development. Project Appraisal 11(4).

Lee, N., and Kirkpatrick, C. (eds). 1999. Integrated Appraisal and SustainableDevelopment in a Developing World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (forthcoming).

Rotmans, J. 1998. Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead. Environ-mental Modeling and Assessment 3:155–179.

Tol, R.S.J., and Vellinga, P. 1998. The European Forum on Integrated Environmen-tal Assessment. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3:181–191.

Toth, F.L., and Hizsnyik, E. 1998. Integrated environmental assessment methods:Evolution and applications. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3:193–207.