Download Document

Impact Assessment
and Onshore Pipelines
Imogen Crawford
Proposition
• EIA as it stands is not effective
• EIA doomed to failure in some
legal systems
Qualified:
• EIA as it relates to Construction of Onshore Pipelines
• Not necessarily the same in other contexts
Onshore Pipelines
•
•
•
•
•
Cross country for 100’s of Kilometres
Approx 50m wide cleared strip
Many different habitats
Seasonal constraints - hibernation, salmon run
Habitat fragmentation and barrier to species
movement
• Barrier to stock movement
• Social impacts – traffic, camps in traditional
villages
Onshore Pipelines
• Tight control difficult with many work
fronts and equipment movement
• Pipelaying is fast moving and multifaceted
• BUT – it can be put back together:
• Reinstatement starts at the beginning
Environmental Impact Assessment
essential but………
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EIAs are written at early conceptual stage
Purpose - for the approval process
Of necessity, generic in scope
Often with no/minimal field visit
A ‘one off’ piece of work
Package of specialist reports, not synthesised
Produced by ‘experts’, so not critically
reviewed by other parties
Environmental Impact Assessment
..falling short
• A ‘finshed’ piece of work
• Disconnected from Construction phase
• Often stalls at this point, now legal requirement
satisfied
Unless…
• A company’s Environmental Management System
continues the concept as a process
Or
• It is driven on by stakeholder interest, like Lending
Banks
Environmental Impact Assessment
in the real world
Next stage is a process and the most exciting….
Identification – Mitigation – Monitoring – Review
It is:
• Job specific
• Location specific
• Participatory, involving other, non environmental
professionals
• Dynamic, ongoing and integrated process
• A Training tool for Environmental Awareness
Impact Register
ACTIVITY/
SOURCE
RoW land
clearance and
trench
excavation
IMPACT
Destruction of existing ecology for length and
width of RoW.
Vegetation cover removed
Watercourses disrupted
Potential to impact on unrecorded sensitive
locations/species (eg rare species,
archaeological sites)
Habitat fragmentation. Impassable corridor
created for some species. Bat flight paths
disrupted, exposure for small animals and
increased predation.
Wetland degradation. Change in surface water
chemistry.
Barrier to traditional migratory routes.
Noise and disturbance impact on hibernating
animals.
Disruption to local land management, herding
routes, access to fields.
Open trench a hazard for animals and people
Increased dust and emissions into virgin areas
Disturbance from people and vehicles through
lifetime of project.
Previously isolated areas opened up for
hunting, poaching, tree cutting
RECEPTOR
A W L W R
i a a i e
r t n l s
e d d o
r
l u
i r
f c
e e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
PREVENTION, CONTROL AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Design and Pre-Condition
Careful route selection imperative. Line walking to
conduct baseline surveys and final tweaking of route
essential prior to RoW preparation. Establish location of
sensitive areas and design appropriate mitigation
measures. Reduce footprint as much as possible.
Hardware
Fences as extra protection for adjacent sensitive
locations and information signs.
Temporary erosion control measures and watercourse
protection.
Trench open minimal time.
Management
Provision and implementation of detailed documentation
and Procedures which establish the required mitigation
measures.
Behaviour
Strict adherence and implementation on site to
Procedures and awareness of wildlife sensitivities,
especially during critical phases – nesting/ hibernating.
Awareness training given regularly. No encroachment off
RoW.
Offsets
Explore potential for habitat creation and compensatory
planting schemes.
RESIDUAL IMPACT AND RISK
RoW ecology changed permanently in
forest areas as no tree planting allowed
over pipe.
Change in land use need not necessarily
be detrimental as pasture and forest edge
can be more biodiverse than forest.
Negligible impact for farmers after
reinstatement.
Negligible landform change if ground
stabilisation achieved during
reinstatement
RECEPTOR
A W L W R
i a a i e
r t n l s
e d d o
r
l u
i r
f c
e e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Legislative Context
• EIA developed within European legal system
• Integrated Environmental Management
• Ease of process implementation dependant on
legal context
Legislative Context
In natural environment context
eg English Law is:
• Focussed on damage avoidance
• Choice of mitigation measures at the time of impact
• Uses the concept of IEM and ‘Best Practice’
eg Russian Law is:
• Based on compensatory system, pre-supposes damage
• Prescriptive, rigid and and
• Set limits and payments rather than preventive
mitigation
• Mitigation likely to be inappropriate, but locked into
the Permit/License to operate
Legislative Context
In Russia EIA is impossible to
implement
• Command and control ethos
• Compensation for damage pre-paid
• Inflexible and rigid mind set
• Generic approach, denying the specific
And of course,
• Compensation system – suits
large companies
Discussion Points
• Has the EIA stalled in practice?
• Does the success of an EIA
process depend on its legislative
context?