Oct 7, 2014 - Environmental degradation frequently plays a key role in the occurrence ... between environmental degradation and disaster events has led to ...
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol. 16, No. 3 (September 2014) 1401003 (5 pages) © Imperial College Press DOI: 10.1142/S1464333214010030
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2014.16. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 54.210.20.124 on 09/22/15. For personal use only.
EDITORIAL DISASTER AND RISK MANAGEMENT: THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Published 7 October 2014
Environmental degradation frequently plays a key role in the occurrence as well as severity of disaster events. For example, deforestation can increase the risk of landslides and flash floods. Also, wetland depletion can increase the risk posed by storm surges and tsunamis to coastal communities. Recognising this relationship between environmental degradation and disaster events has led to environmental management instruments being seen as a key tool for reducing disaster risk. In this context, over recent years, environmental assessment (EA) has gained much attention as a particularly suitable instrument for disaster and risk management, including both, environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects (Fischer and Nadeem, 2014) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes (Fischer, 2007). EA can help reduce the negative impacts of development action on the environment (Arts et al., 2013) and in doing so can help prevent the underlying causes of disaster risk. However, the role it is already playing in this context can be strengthened. Benson (2009) and Gore and Fischer (2014) suggested that this may include: (1) Incorporating explicit disaster risk considerations into development planning through EA, for example, by explicitly considering how deforestation associated with a proposed development project could reconfigure landslide or flood risk in a locality. (2) Preventing disaster recurrence and promoting sustainability by fully integrating EA into activities in the post-disaster period. Frequently, this is a time when EA considerations are sidelined in order to hasten disaster response or recovery interventions. To date, the use of EA for reducing disaster risk has neither been widely researched nor widely implemented in practice, despite its potential to act as a 1401003-1
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2014.16. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 54.210.20.124 on 09/22/15. For personal use only.
Editorial
cost-effective instrument for reducing risks by avoiding or mitigating environmental degradation (Fischer, 2009). However, its benefits have been recognised by many organisations active in disaster management (Randall and Jowett, 2010). This special issue of JEAPM includes eight papers on the role of EA in disaster and risk management, representing authors and approaches from Japan, the UK, China, Bangladesh and the UN. The idea for this special issue was developed during a UK-Japan workshop which was held in Tokyo in November/December 2012 on the integration between EA and disaster management, funded by the UK ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and the Japanese JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). This brought together 24 researchers and practitioners in the EA and disaster management fields (workshop proceedings here: http://www.nishikiz.depe.titech.ac.jp/JPUK2012/english/). Together, they explored the potential role that environmental assessment can play in disaster risk reduction. The first paper by Tajima (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan), Gore and Fischer (both University of Liverpool, UK) sets the context for the special issue. Here, the authors looks at the various ways by which policy integration of environmental assessment (EA) and disaster management can be achieved. The main reference point is the disaster management cycle, which consists of the elements “preparedness”, “response”, “recovery” and “mitigation”. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the authors identify 16 papers which to date have included elements of integrating EA and disaster management. Based on the existing evidence, benefits and challenges for integration are then discussed in terms of three perspectives; “integrating explicit disaster risk considerations into EA tools”, “developing accelerated EA procedures” and “integrating EA techniques into the pre-disaster planning of post-disaster actions”. The authors conclude that whilst EA can be beneficial for disaster management, there are a number of potential pitfalls, including e.g. dealing with uncertainties and shortcomings of existing EA practices. There is currently an evident lack of research in the area which needs to be addressed in order to start dealing with remaining challenges. In the second paper, Durning (Oxford Brookes University, UK) discusses the benefits of coupling environmental assessment (EA) and environmental management (EM) to aid disaster risk reduction and management. Both instruments complement each other, with EA’s main role being one of preparedness and EM’s one of managing actual impacts. A problem for coupling the two in a systematic way is that currently, whilst there are normally some formal requirements for EA in most countries globally, there are usually none for the production of systems or plans of EM. The author stresses the key role adaptive management should be 1401003-2
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2014.16. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 54.210.20.124 on 09/22/15. For personal use only.
Editorial
playing in this context and provides for a number of recommendations for successful integration based on a discussion of the existing literature. These include the development of EM actions that are part of EA, the existence of a knowledge broker for knowledge and information sharing, the setting up of communication and feedback loops and a key role of communities for managing impacts. In the third paper, Nijenhuis and Walstrom (both joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit) discuss the use of the co-called “flash EA tool” (FEAT) in developing countries for emergency prevention, preparedness and response. This tool has been developed “in order to allow disaster responders, including assessment and coordination teams, to identify and prioritize locations with an evident risk of technological accidents and corresponding chemical releases”. They evaluate the usefulness of the tool, based on two occasions when it was used, namely (a) after “an ammunitions depot explosion in the Republic of 25 Congo in 2012 and the super-typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in the Philippines in 2013”. They conclude that the tool is indeed useful “to set priorities for field visits, and that it assists environmental experts in their scientific assessment of disaster impacts”. It is instrumental in bridging the gap between response, preparedness and prevention. In the fourth paper, Azechi and Nishikizawa (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan) explore the potential role and challenges of EIA (project environmental impact assessment) as a hazard management tool of sediment-related disasters. They do so by evaluating the overall regulatory framework and by analysing a total of 21 wind farm projects in Japan. There are about 1,200 sediment-related disasters here each year. In the context of wind farm development, slope stability is a key issue for sediment-related disasters and the authors find that re-vegetation is currently the most important mitigation measure used, even though its full effectiveness is not yet proven. The authors conclude that there are three main areas for improving practices, including an overall better identification of potential hazards of sediment related disasters in EIA, long-term monitoring (e.g. of slope stability) through EIA and a general improvement of integration of hazard information in EIA. In the fifth paper, Hayes (University of Liverpool, UK), Barker and Jones (both University of Manchester, UK) reflect on how flood management is currently considered in sustainability appraisal (SA) in England and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in Scotland. Due to limitations with the traditional flood defense approach here, which is based on engineering solutions, there has been an increased interest in recent years in a more systems based approach and into the role of spatial planning. There are three main elements to this, including: (1) management of the whole system, (2) an emphasis on the consideration of risk and and vulnerability, and (3) a focus on resilience and adaptation. Based on an analyis of 1401003-3
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2014.16. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 54.210.20.124 on 09/22/15. For personal use only.
Editorial
two cases from each, England and Scotland, the authors conclude that “there remains a largely untapped potential for assessment tools to broaden the consideration of flood risk to incorporate multiple perspectives, such as whole system management, risk and vulnerability, resilience and adaptation”. In the sixth paper, Swain (Environment Agency of England and Wales) and Therivel (Levett-Therivel, UK) describe potential environmental impacts of civil emergency plans and discuss implications of their exemption from SEA. In this context, for a number of emergency plans, the authors identify and categorise mitigation measures, determining whether these could cause significant environmental impacts and whether SEA would be useful in potentially helping to avoid them. The authors conclude that there are indeed a range of possible impacts. These “could affect the marine environment, surface and ground water quality, localised habitat, historical or cultural features”. Furthermore, they could also “have resource use and wider carbon and energy use implications”. Whilst in principle, SEA could help address those impacts, the authors suggest that further study is needed in order to be able to provide for some more definite recommendations. Next, Younus (Flinders University, Australia) provides for a review of the recent literature on flood research in Bangladesh, focusing on vulnerability to climate change and the country’s ability to adapt. The author suggests that overall the “literature on community-based vulnerability and adaptation, and their processes and assessments in response to hazards under climate change regimes is inadequate”. There is one exception, namely vulnerability of rural communities and their ability to adapt their farming methods, as well as on the economic effects of a failure to adapt to extreme flood events. The author concludes that micro- or community-level vulnerability and adaptation assessments are urgently needed with regards to local river flooding, coastal flooding, flash flooding, and urban flooding in Bangladesh. In the eighth and final paper, Wu, Zhang and Fang (College of the Environment and Ecology, Coastal and Ocean Management Institute, China) introduce and discuss an approach and methodology of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for strategic decision making (SDM). They start by explaining that whilst “(ERA) is a powerful set of technical and analytical instruments for analyzing environmental impacts”, there is currently “no systematic research on the approaches and methods of ERA to support the processes of SDM”. Based on an evaluation of the existing literature, the authors introduce a new approach and methodological system of ERA for SDM and apply it to the Principal Coastal Functional Zoning (PCFZ) in Xiamen Bay, China. Based on this application and the lessons learned, they conclude that their ERA methodology helps to avoid and mitigate against 1401003-4
Editorial
environmental risk post by SDM processes, thus promoting sustainable regional development. This special issue of JEAPM is rounded off with a book review of Evrard’s 2013 “Hydropolitics of Dams: Engineering and Ecosystems” by Jorquera (Imperial College London, UK). Enjoy reading!
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2014.16. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by 54.210.20.124 on 09/22/15. For personal use only.
Thomas Fischer
References Arts, J, H Runhaar, TB Fischer, U Jha-Thakur, F van Laerhoven, P Driessen and V Onyango (2012). The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance — a comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(4), 1250025-1-40. Benson, C (2007). Environmental assessment. In Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction, C Benson and J Twigg (eds), http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1066 toolsformainstreamingDRR.pdf: 79–89. Fischer, TB (2007). Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment — Towards a More Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. Fischer, TB (2009). On the role(s) of (strategic) environmental assessment in “greening” decision making. University of Utrecht, Copernicus Lecture, 2 March. http://www. twoeam-eu.net. Fischer, TB and O Nadeem (2013). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Curriculum for Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan. Pakistan: IUCN. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/ downloads/niap_eia_curriculum_for_hei_pdf. Gore, T and TB Fischer (2014). Uncovering the factors that can support and impede postdisaster EIA practice in developing countries: The case of Aceh Province, Indonesia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.09.001. Randall, J and E Jowett (2010). Green recovery and reconstruction toolkit — Environmental impact assessment tools and techniques. World Wildlife Fund, San Francisco. http://green-recovery.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Module-3-ContentPaper.pdf.
1401003-5
