The relationship between human health and the human environment has been recognized from time immemorial. This tenet of medicine can be traced back to Hippocrates, who taught his pupils to “attend to the airs, waters, and places” if they sought to understand the sources of health and diseases in their patients (Lloyd 1983).

This ancient view of the link between human health and the environment has persisted. The degree of a society’s acceptance of this link has been influenced by three factors: development of a scientific understanding of the human body; increased capacity to cure individual illnesses; and the evolution of parallel scientific, religious and cultural concepts.

Environmental factors as a cause of health or diseases of entire classes of people were given increased attention during the Industrial Revolution. The trend has continued to this day, assisted by the development of the environmental sciences and of techniques for determining causality and assessing risks.

It was in the workplace that causal links between health and the environment were first clearly established. It was also in the workplace that the consequences of the increase in the amount and variety of contaminants resulting from the diversification of industrial processes were first felt. Yet these contaminants cannot be confined to the occupational environment. Once released, their pathway may become difficult to follow or trace, but it inevitably ends in nature: environmental toxins are present in the soil, water and air of even the most remote environments. Human health, in turn, is affected by the pollution of the natural environment, whether of local, national or transboundary origin. Along with other types of environmental degradation, which cause worldwide depletion of natural resources, this accords a planetary dimension to the interaction between environmental conditions and public health.

The conclusion is inescapable that the quality of the work environment and of the natural environment are inextricably linked. Lasting solutions to either of these problems can be successful only if both are tackled in tandem.

Environmental Law: A Means to an End

The formulation of policies to maintain and improve both the natural and the work environment is a prerequisite to successful environmental management. Policies, however, remain a dead letter unless they are implemented. Such implementation is only achievable through the translation of policy principles into rules of law. From this perspective, law is at the service of policy, giving it concreteness and a degree of permanency through appropriate legislation.

Legislation, in turn, is a framework structure which is useful only if implemented and enforced. Implementation and enforcement are dependent on the political and social contexts in which they take place; if they are not backed by the public, they are likely to remain inefficient.

Therefore, enactment, implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation are, to a large extent, dependent on understanding and acceptance of the rules established by those to whom these rules are addressed—hence the importance of disseminating environmental information and knowledge to the public at large, as well as to specific target groups.

The Role of Environmental Law: Prevention and Cure

The role of law in the environmental field, as in many other fields, is twofold: first, to create rules and conditions which are conducive to the control or prevention of damage to the environment or human health; and, second, to offer remedies for situations where damage has occurred in spite of these rules and conditions.

Prevention through command techniques

Land use controls

The regulation of land use is a major element of environmental law, and a prerequisite to the control and guidance of land development and the utilization of natural resources. The issue is usually whether a particular environment may be put to another use, it being understood that non-use is also a type of land use.

Land use controls allow siting human activities where they are best located (or least damaging), and also subject contemplated activities to restrictions. These two goals are usually achieved by establishing a requirement for prior authorization.

Prior authorization

Prior authorization is a generic term for any form of permission (e.g., licence, permit) which must be obtained from a regulatory authority before certain activities may be undertaken.

The first step is to determine by law those private and public sector activities which are subject to prior authorization. Several approaches are possible and are not mutually exclusive:

Controls of sources. When a category of sources of environmental harm is clearly identifiable, it is usually subject to prior authorization as such (e.g., all classes of industrial facilities and motor vehicles).

Controls of substances. When a particular substance or class of substances is identified as potentially harmful to the environment, the use or release of these substances may be made subject to prior authorization.

Media-oriented controls, and integrated pollution control. Media-oriented controls are those which are directed at protecting a specific component of the environment (air, water, soil). Such controls may lead to shifting environmental harm from one medium to another, and thus fail to reduce (or may even increase) the overall degree of environmental harm. This has led to the development of coordinated prior authorization systems, whereby all pollution from one source and all recipient media are considered before one single, all-embracing authorization is granted.

Environmental standards

Environmental standards are maximum permissible limits which may be imposed directly by a law, or indirectly as conditions to obtain an authorization. These limits may be related either to the effects or the causes of environmental harm:

• Effect-related standards are those which take the target as a baseline. They include: 
• (1) biological standards, (2) exposure standards and (3) environmental quality standards.
• Cause-related standards are those which take the cause of the possible environmental harm as a baseline. They include: (1) emission standards, (2) product standards and (3) process or operating standards.

A variety of factors, including the nature of the pollutant, the recipient media and the state of the art, determine which type of standard is most appropriate. Other considerations also play an important role: standard-setting provides a means to achieve a balance between what is environmentally desirable in a particular place at a particular point in time, and the socioeconomic feasibility of achieving a specific environmental goal.

It goes without saying that the stricter the standards are, the higher production costs become. Therefore, differing standards in different locations within a state or between states play an important role in determining competitive market advantages or disadvantages, and may constitute non-tariff barriers to trade—hence the desirability of seeking harmonization at the regional or global level.

Prevention through incentives and disincentives

Controls voluntarily submitted to may be used as flanking measures or as alternatives to command techniques. They usually consist of setting recommended (rather than compulsory) values, and of providing economic incentives or disincentives to achieve them.

The purpose of an incentive (e.g., accelerated depreciation allowance, tax benefit, subsidy) is to reward and, therefore, to generate, a specific environmentally friendly conduct or activity. Thus, instead of trying to achieve a certain emission level by the stick, the carrot of economic benefit is offered.

The purpose of a disincentive (e.g., fees, such as effluent or emission charge, tax or levy) is to induce environmentally friendly conduct so as to avoid paying the fee in question.

There are also other ways of inducing adherence to recommended values, for instance, through the creation of eco-label award schemes, or providing marketing advantages where consumers are sensitized to environmental concerns.

These so-called voluntary approaches are often referred to as alternatives to “legal” controls, forgetting that incentives and disincentives also have to be established by law!

Cure through sanctions or remedies

Sanctions imposed by the regulatory agency

In cases where environmental management measures may be prescribed by the regulatory agency (e.g., through a prior authorization mechanism), legal regimes usually also provide the agency with enforcement powers. A variety of techniques are available, ranging from the imposition of monetary sanctions (e.g., per day) until compliance with the requirement, to execution of the measures required (e.g., building filters) at the cost of the addressee, and finally to closure of the facility for non-compliance with administrative requirements, etc.

Each legal system provides for ways in which these measures may be challenged by those to whom they are applied. Equally important is to provide the possibility for other interested parties (e.g., NGOs representing the public interest) to challenge the decisions of the regulatory agency. In the latter case, it is not only the action of the administration which should be eligible for challenge, but also its inaction.

Penal sanctions

Legislation prescribing a certain environmental norm or conduct usually indicates that disregarding the established rules, whether intentionally or not, constitutes an offence, and determines the type of penal sanctions which are to be applied to each case. Penal sanctions may be monetary (fines) or, in serious cases, may entail incarceration, or a combination of both. Penal sanctions for environmental offences depend upon the penal system of each country. Thus, sanctions are often imposed in reference to the main body of criminal law in a particular country (e.g., a penal code), which may also include a chapter on environmental offences. Penal sanctions can be triggered by the administration or by an aggrieved party.

The legislation of many countries has been criticized for failing to declare certain environmental misconducts as penal offences, or for providing overly mild penalties for environmental offences. It has often been observed that if the quantum of the sanctions is less than the cost of internalizing environmental management measures, the culprits are likely to deliberately prefer the risk of a penal sanction, especially if this sanction may be only a fine. This is especially true when there is an enforcement deficit—that is, when the enforcement of environmental norms is lax or lenient, as is often the case.

Liability for damages

Each legal system’s rules applying to liability for damage naturally also apply to health and environmental damage. This usually means that compensation is due either in kind or specie only when the damage proves to have been caused directly by the fault of one or more originators.

In the environmental field, the difficulties in applying these principles are numerous, and have led to the enactment of sui generis environmental liability laws in an increasing number of countries. This has made it possible to provide for liability without fault, and, therefore, to allow for compensation independently of the circumstances which caused the damage. In such cases, however, a certain monetary ceiling is usually set with a view to permitting eligibility for insurance coverage, which may also be made compulsory by law.

These special regimes also attempt to better provide redress in cases of damage to the environment per se (ecological damage as opposed to economic damage), usually requiring the restoration of the environment to the status quo ante whenever the nature of the damage permits. In such a scenario, monetary damages are in order only if restoration is impossible.

Access to remedies

Not everyone may take action to generate sanctions or obtain remedies. These may traditionally be triggered only by the administration, or a physical or legal person directly affected by a certain situation. In cases where it is the environment that is affected, this is usually insufficient, since much environmental damage is not directly linked to individual human interests. Therefore, it is important for legal systems to grant “representatives” of the public interest the right to sue the administration for failure to act or for insufficient action, or to sue individuals or enterprises for breaking the law or causing damage to the environment. There are various ways in which this can be achieved: designated non-governmental organizations may be given this right; the legal system may provide for class action or citizens’ suits, etc. The right to sue in defence of the public interest, rather than only to defend a proprietary interest, is one of the most important elements of modern environmental legislation.

Conclusion

Good environmental legislation is a prerequisite to achieve and maintain the desired levels of quality in the natural, as well as in the work environment.

What “good” environmental legislation is, might be difficult to define. Some wish to see a decline in command and control methods, and their replacement by softer incitation techniques but, in practice, there is no standard formula to decide what the ingredients of the law should be. What is important, however, is to make legislation relevant to the particular situation of the country concerned, adapting available principles, methods and techniques to the needs, capacities and legal traditions of each country.

This is all the more true at a time when large numbers of developing nations and nations with economies in transition seek to equip themselves with “good” environmental legislation, or to retrofit legislation already in place. In striving towards this goal, however, legislation which is successful in a particular legal, economic and social context, frequently that of an industrialized country, is still too often imported as a model in countries and legal systems for which it is totally inappropriate.

“Particularizing” legislation is, therefore, perhaps the most important element in achieving the goal of effective environmental legislation.

Back

The publicity surrounding the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which took place in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, confirmed the central place that global environmental concerns over issues such as global warming and loss of biological diversity have on the world political agenda. In fact, in the twenty years between the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment and the 1992 UNCED there has been not only a major increase in awareness of the threats to the environment from human activities on both a local and global scale, but also a massive increase in the number of international legal instruments governing environmental issues. (There are large numbers of collections of environmental treaties: see, e.g., Burhenne 1974a, 1974b,1974c; Hohmann 1992; Molitor 1991. For a contemporary qualitative assessment see Sand 1992.)

It will be recalled that the two main sources of international law (as defined by the 1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice) are international conventions and international customary law (Article 38(1) of the Statute). International customary law derives from state practice repeated over time in the belief that it represents legal obligation. Although it is possible for new rules of custom to emerge relatively swiftly, the speed with which awareness of global environmental problems has reached the international political agenda has meant that customary law has tended to take second place to treaty or conventional law in the evolution of legal norms. Although certain basic principles, such as the equitable utilization of shared resources (Lac Lanoux Arbitration 1957) or the obligation not to allow activities which damage the environment of neighbouring states (Trail Smelter Arbitration 1939, 1941) can be attributed to judicial decisions derived from customary law, treaties have without doubt been the main method by which the international community has responded to the need to regulate activities which threaten the environment. Another important aspect of international environmental regulation is the development of “soft law”: non-binding instruments which lay down guidelines or desiderata for future action, or through which states commit themselves politically to meeting certain objectives. These soft law instruments sometimes develop into formal legal instruments or become linked to binding instruments as, for example, through decisions of the parties to a Convention. (On the significance of soft law in relation to international environmental law see Freestone 1994.) Many of the collections of international environmental law documents cited above include soft law instruments.

This article will give a brief overview of the main international environmental conventions. Although such a review inevitably concentrates on the main global conventions, the significant and growing web of regional and bilateral agreements should also be borne in mind. (For a systematic exposition of the whole body of international environmental law, see Kiss and Shelton 1991; Birnie and Boyle 1992. See also Churchill and Freestone 1991.)

Pre-Stockholm

Prior to the 1972 Stockholm Conference the majority of environmental conventions related to the conservation of wildlife. Of historical interest only are the very early bird protection conventions (e.g., the 1902 Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture; see further Lyster 1985). More significant in the longer term are the general nature conservation conventions, although the 1946 Washington Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (and its 1956 Protocol) is particularly noteworthy in this period—over time it has of course changed its focus from exploitation to conservation. A pioneering convention in conservation terms was the 1968 African Convention on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Algiers, which despite its comprehensive and innovative approach to conservation made the mistake of many other conventions in not establishing an administrative structure to oversee its supervision. Also notable and considerably more successful is the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, which establishes a network of protected wetland areas in the territories of member states.

Other noteworthy developments in this period are the first global Oil Pollution Conventions. The 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL) (amended 1962 and 1969) broke new ground by developing a regulatory framework for the carriage of oil by sea, but the first conventions to provide for emergency action and for compensation for oil pollution damage were developed directly in response to the world’s first major oil-tanker casualty—the wreck of the Liberian oil tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of southwest England in 1967. The 1969 International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Damage authorized emergency action by coastal states outside territorial waters, and its fellows, the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of Brussels, provided a basis for compensation claims against the owners and operators of oil tankers supplemented by an international compensation fund. (Note also the significant industry voluntary compensation schemes such as TOVALOP and CRISTAL; see further Abecassis and Jarashow 1985.)

From Stockholm to Rio

The years 1972 to 1992 witnessed an astonishing increase in the number and variety of international environmental law instruments. Much of this activity is directly attributable to the Stockholm Conference. Not only did the famous Conference Declaration (Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972) lay down certain principles, the majority of which were de lege ferenda (i.e., they stated what the law ought to be rather than what it was), but it also developed a 109-point Environmental Action Plan and a Resolution recommending institutional and financial implementation by the UN. The result of these recommendations was the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established by UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGA 1972) and based eventually in Nairobi. UNEP was directly responsible for the sponsoring of a number of key global environmental treaties and for the development of the important Regional Seas Programme, which has resulted in a network of some eight regional framework conventions protecting the marine environment, each with protocols developed to meet the special requirements of the region. A number of new regional programmes are still in the pipeline.

In order to provide an overview of the large number of environmental conventions developed during this period, they are divided into a number of groups: nature conservation; protection of the marine environment; and regulation of transboundary environmental impacts.

Conservation of nature and natural resources

This period saw the conclusion of a number of nature conservation treaties both at a global and regional level. At the global level, particularly noteworthy are the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the 1973 Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. At a regional level the large number of treaties include the 1974 Nordic Convention on the Protection of the Environment, the 1976 Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention, in Burhenne 1974a) and the 1979 Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (European Treaty Series). Note also the 1979 EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979), now amended and supplemented by Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (OJ 1992), the 1979 Convention for the Conservation and Management of the Vicuna and the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (reproduced in Kiss and Shelton 1991). (Also of note are the treaties relating to the Antarctic—an area of global commons outside the jurisdiction of any state: the 1980 Canberra Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the 1988 Wellington Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities and the 1991 Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on Environmental Protection, signed in Madrid.)

Protection of the marine environment

In 1973 the negotiations began of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). The nine years of UNCLOS negotiations culminated in the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), which included in its Part XII a general framework for the regulation of marine environmental issues including vessel and land-based sources of pollution and dumping, as well as laying down certain general duties regarding protection of the marine environment.

At a more detailed level, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) was responsible for the development of two major global conventions: the 1972 London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended in 1978 (MARPOL 1973/78), and a third relating to oil spills entitled the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation in 1990, establishes a global legal framework for collaboration and assistance in response to major oil spills. (Other Maritime Conventions which are not primarily environmental but are of relevance include the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG); the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS); the 1976 ILO Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention (No. 147) and the 1978 Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for Sea Farers).

The 1972 London Convention adopted what has now become a common approach by listing substances (Annex I) which could not be dumped in the ocean; Annex II listed substances which could be dumped only with a permit. The regulatory structure, which requires signatory states to enforce these obligations against any vessels loading in their ports or their flag vessels anywhere in the world, has progressively tightened its regime to the extent that parties have now effectively ended the ocean dumping of industrial waste. The 1973/78 MARPOL Convention replaces the 1954 OILPOL Convention (above) and provides the main regulatory regime for pollution from vessels of all sorts, including oil tankers. MARPOL requires flag states to impose controls on the “operational discharges” of all controlled substances. The MARPOL regime was amended in 1978 so that it would progressively extend its regime over different forms of vessel sources pollution contained in the five Annexes. All the Annexes are now in force covering oil (Annex I), noxious liquid substances (Annex II), packaged waste (Annex III), sewage (Annex IV) and garbage (Annex V). Stricter standards are enforced within Special Areas agreed by the Parties.

At a regional level, the UNEP Regional Seas Programme provides a wide, although not comprehensive, network of marine protection treaties covering: the Mediterranean (Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution, Barcelona, 16 February, 1976; protocols in 1976 (2), 1980 and 1982); Gulf (Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, Kuwait, 24 April 1978; protocols in 1978, 1989 and 1990); West Africa (Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region (Abidjan, 23 March 1981), with a 1981 protocol); South East Pacific (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific (Lima, 12 November 1981); protocols in 1981, 1983 (2) and 1989); Red Sea (Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (Jeddah, 14 February 1982); protocol in 1982); Caribbean (Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, (Cartagena des Indias, 24 March 1983); protocols in 1983 and 1990); East Africa (Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the East African Region (Nairobi, 21 June 1985); 2 protocols in 1985); and the South Pacific (Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region, (Noumea, 24 November 1986); 2 protocols in 1986)—with another six or so in various stages of planning. (For texts of all the above Conventions and their protocols, as well as details of developing programmes, see Sand 1987.) These treaties are supplemented by protocols covering a wide range of issues including regulation of land-based sources of pollution, ocean dumping, pollution from (and decommissioning of) off-shore oil rigs, specially protected areas and protection of wildlife.

Other regional regimes have been developed outside the UNEP framework, notably in the North East Atlantic, where a highly comprehensive network of regional instruments covers regulation of ocean dumping (1972 Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft; protocols in 1983 and 1989), land-based sources of pollution (1974 Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources; protocol in 1986), oil pollution monitoring and cooperation (1983 Bonn Agreement for Co-operation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and other Harmful Substances: Amending Decision 1989), inspection of vessels for safety and protection of the marine environment (1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in Implementing Agreements on Maritime Safety and Protection of the Marine Environment, as well as nature conservation and fisheries. (See generally Freestone and IJlstra 1991. Note also the new 1992 Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, which will replace the Oslo and Paris Conventions; text and analysis in Hey, IJlstra and Nollkaemper 1993.) In the Baltic the 1974 Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area has recently been revised (for text and analysis of 1992 Convention see Ehlers 1993)), and a new Convention developed for the Black Sea Region (1992 Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea; see also 1993 Odessa Ministerial Declaration on the Protection of the Black Sea.)

Transboundary impacts

Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration provided that States had “the responsibility to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction and control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond national jurisdiction”. Although this principle is now widely regarded as having become part of customary international law, the principle grosso modo requires considerable fine tuning to provide the basis for regulation of such activities. Addressing these issues, and largely in response to well publicized crises, international conventions have been developed to address issues such as long-range transboundary air pollution, protection of the ozone layer, notification and cooperation in response to nuclear accidents, transboundary movement of hazardous waste and global climate change.

Long-range transboundary air pollution

Long-range air pollution in Europe was first addressed by the 1979 Geneva Convention (Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution). This, however, was a framework convention whose modestly expressed aims were “to limit and, as far as possible, gradually to reduce and prevent air pollution including long range transboundary pollution”. Substantive progress in regulating emissions of specific substances was made only with the development of the protocols, of which there are now four: the 1984 Geneva Protocol (Geneva Protocol on Long-term Financing of the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollution in Europe) established a network of air quality monitoring stations; the 1985 Helsinki Protocol (on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions) aimed to reduce sulphur emissions by 30% by 1993; the 1988 Sofia Protocol (Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes), now replaced by the Second Sulphur Protocol, Oslo, 1994, provided for a freeze on national emissions of nitrogen oxides at 1987 levels by 1994; and the 1991 Geneva Protocol (Concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes) provided a range of options for emission abatement of volatile organic compounds and fluxes.

Transboundary implications of nuclear accidents

World attention had been brought to the transboundary implications of nuclear accidents after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, but even prior to that, previous conventions had addressed a number of the issues relating to the risks from nuclear devices, including the 1961 Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960), and the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963). Note also the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water. The 1980 Vienna Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material had attempted to establish standards for the protection of nuclear material from a number of threats, including terrorism. In the wake of Chernobyl two further conventions were agreed upon in 1986, on early notification of accidents (Vienna Convention on the Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident) and international cooperation in the event of such accidents (Vienna Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency).

Protection of the ozone layer

The 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer imposes general obligations on each party “in accordance with the means at their disposal and their capabilities” to:

a) cooperate by means of systematic observation, research and information exchange in order to better understand and assess the effects of human activities on the ozone layer and the effects on human health and the environment from modification of the ozone layer; (b) adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures and cooperate in harmonizing appropriate policies to control, limit, reduce or prevent human activities under their jurisdiction or control should it be found that these activities have or are likely to have adverse effects resulting from modification or likely modification of the ozone layer; (c) cooperate in the formulation of agreed measures, procedures and standards for the implementation of the Convention, with a view to the adoption of protocols and annexes; (d) cooperate with competent international bodies to implement effectively the Convention and protocols to which they are party.

The Vienna Convention was supplemented by the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, itself adjusted and amended by the London Meeting of 1990 and most recently by the Copenhagen Meeting of November 1992. Article 2 of the Protocol requires parties to impose controls on ozone-depleting chemicals, namely CFCs, halons, other fully halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1-tri-chloroethane (methyl chloroform).

Article 5 provides an exemption from emissions restrictions for certain developing countries, “to meet (Their) basic domestic needs” for up to ten years, subject to certain provisos set out in Article 5(2) (3). The Protocol also provides for technical and financial cooperation for developing country parties claiming exemption under Article 5. A Multilateral Fund was agreed upon to assist such parties to research and meet their obligations (Article 10). In Copenhagen in November 1992, in the light of the 1991 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, which found that there was new evidence of ozone decreases in both hemispheres at middle and high latitudes, a number of new measures were agreed upon, subject of course to the general regime outlined above; delays under Article 5 are still possible for developing states. All parties were required to cease using halons by 1994, and CFCs, HBFCs, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform by 1996. The use of HCFCs should be frozen by 1996, reduced 90% by 2015 and eliminated by 2030. Methyl bromide, still used as a fruit and grain preservative, was subjected to voluntary controls. Contracting parties agreed to “make every effort” to freeze its use by 1995 at 1991 levels. The overall aim was to stabilize atmospheric chlorine loading by the year 2000 and then reduce it to below critical levels by about 2060.

Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes

Following a series of notorious incidents in which shipments of hazardous waste from developed countries were found in uncontrolled and hazardous conditions in developing countries, the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes was made the subject of international regulation by the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (see also Kummer 1992). This Convention is premised upon the principle of prior informed consent on a state to state basis before the movement of such waste can take place. The Organization of African Unity has however gone further than this with its 1991 Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, which seeks to ban entirely the import of hazardous waste into Africa.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) in a transboundary context

The 1991 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context sets out a framework for neighbourly relations. It extends the EIA concept, developed to date exclusively in the context of national planning laws and procedures, to the transboundary impacts of development projects and related procedures and decisions.

1992 and Post-Rio Conventions

The Rio UNCED prompted, or coincided with, a large number of new global and regional environment conventions, as well as a major declaration of principles for the future in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In addition to the two conventions concluded at Rio—the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diver-sity—new environmental conventions signed in 1992 included those regulating the use of international watercourses as well as the transboundary effects of industrial accidents. At a regional level 1992 saw the Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of the Baltic Sea Area (text and analysis in Ehlers 1993) and the Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution. Note also the 1993 Ministerial Declaration on the Protection of the Black Sea, which advocates a precautionary and holistic approach, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (text and analysis in Hey, IJlstra and Nollkaemper 1993).

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The UNFCCC, signed at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 by some 155 states, is loosely modelled on the 1985 Vienna Convention. As its name suggests, it provides a framework within which more detailed obligations will be negotiated by the means of detailed protocols. The basic objective of the Convention is to achieve

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system ...hin a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. (Article 2)

Two primary duties are imposed on all Parties by Article 4: (a) to develop, periodically update, publish and make available a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases using comparable (and yet to be agreed upon) methodologies; and (b) to formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and regional programmes of measures to mitigate climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change. In addition developed country parties agree to a number of general obligations which will be made specific by more detailed protocols.

For example, to undertake to promote, and cooperate in, the development of technologies; to control, prevent or reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; to promote sustainable development and the conservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs including biomass, forests, oceans and other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems; to cooperate in adaptation to impacts of climate change, by elaboration of plans for integrated coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture and for protection and rehabilitation of areas affected by, inter alia, floods; to promote and cooperate in the exchange of scientific, technological, socioeconomic and legal information relevant to climate, climate change and response strategies; and to promote and cooperate in relevant education, training and public awareness.

The Biological Diversity Convention

The objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, also approved at the 1992 UNCED in Rio de Janeiro, are to conserve biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (Article 1) (for a useful critique, see Boyle 1993). Like the UNFCCC this convention too will be supplemented by protocols, but it establishes general obligations regarding conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, for identification and monitoring of biological diversity, for in situ and ex situ conservation, research and training as well as public education and awareness and EIA of activities likely to affect biodiversity. There are also general provisions relating to access to genetic resources and access to, and transfer of, relevant technology, including biotechnology, as well as international exchange of information and cooperation.

Regulation of the use of international watercourses

The 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes seeks to establish cooperative frameworks for joint monitoring and assessment, common research and development and information exchange between riparian states. It imposes basic duties on such states to prevent control and reduce transboundary impacts on such shared resources, particularly regarding water pollution, through proper management techniques, including EIA and contingency planning as well as through the adoption of low- or non-waste technology and reduction of pollution from point and diffuse sources.

The transboundary effects of industrial accidents

The Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, also signed in Helsinki in March 1992, covers the prevention of, preparedness for and response to industrial accidents capable of having a transboundary effect. The primary obligations are to cooperate and exchange information with other parties. The detailed system of thirteen annexes establishes systems to identify hazardous activities with transboundary implications, for the development of EIA with a transboundary dimension (in accordance with the 1991 Espoo Convention, above) for decisions on siting of potentially hazardous activities. It also provides for emergency preparedness and for access to information for the public as well as the other parties.

Conclusion

As this brief review should have demonstrated, over the last two decades there has been a major change in the attitude of the world community to environmental conservation and management. Part of that change has been a substantial increase in the numbers and the scope of international instruments addressing environmental concerns. The sheer number of instruments has been matched by new principles and institutions. The polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle (Churchill and Freestone 1991; Freestone and Hey 1996) and concern for the rights of future generations (Kiss, in Freestone and Hey 1996) are all reflected in the international conventions reviewed above. The role of the UN Environment Programme and the treaty secretariats established to service and monitor the burgeoning number of treaty regimes lead commentators to suggest that international environmental law, like, for example, the international law of human rights, has emerged as a new discrete branch of international law (Freestone 1994). UNCED played an important role in this, it has established a major agenda—much of which remains unfinished. Detailed protocols are still needed to add substance to the framework of the Climate Change Convention and, arguably, also to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Concern with the environmental impact of fishing in high seas areas led to the conclusion of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks was in 1995. Also held in 1995 was another UN Conference on Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution—now agreed to be the cause of more than 70% of all pollution of the oceans. The environmental dimensions of world trade as well as deforestation and desertification are also issues to be addressed for the future at a global level while progress continues to enhance our awareness of impacts of human activities on world eco-systems. The challenge for this emerging international environmental law is not simply to respond with an increase in the numbers of environmental instruments, but also to enhance their impact and effectiveness.

Back

The term used as the title of this article, environmental impact assessments, has now been increasingly, but not universally, replaced with the term environmental assessments. A quick review of the reason for this change of name will help us define the essential nature of the activity described by these names, and one of the important factors behind opposition or reluctance to using the word impact.

In 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) became law in the United States, establishing environmental policy goals for the federal government, focusing on the need to take environmental factors into account in decision-making. It is, of course, easy to state a policy objective, but it is more difficult to achieve it. To ensure that the Act had “teeth”, legislators incorporated a provision requiring that the Federal government prepare an “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS) for any proposed action “likely to significantly affect the quality of the human environment”. The content of this document was to be considered before a decision was made on whether the proposed action should be initiated. The work done to prepare the EIS became known as environmental impact assessment (EIA), because it involved the identification, prediction and evaluation of the impacts of the proposed federal action.

The word “impact”, in English, unfortunately is not a positive term. An impact is thought to be harmful (almost by definition). Therefore, as the practice of EIA spread beyond the United States to Canada, Europe, Southeast Asia and Australasia, many governments and their advisers wanted to move away from the negative aspects of impact, and so the term environmental assessment (EA) was born. EIA and EA are identical (except in the United States and those few countries which have adopted the US system, where EIA and EA have precise and different meanings). In this article only EIA will be referred to, although it should be remembered that all comments apply equally to EA, and both terms are in use internationally.

In addition to the use of the word impact, the context in which EIA was applied (particularly in the United States and Canada) was also influential on the perceptions of EIA which were (and in some cases still are) common amongst politicians, senior governmental officials and private and public-sector “developers”. In both the United States and Canada, land-use planning was weak and preparation of EISs or EIA reports were often “hijacked” by interested parties and almost became plan-making activities. This encouraged the production of large, multi-volume documents which were time-consuming and expensive to produce and, of course, virtually impossible to read and act upon! Sometimes projects were delayed while all this activity was in progress, causing irritation and financial costs to proponents and investors.

Also, in the first five to six years of its operation, NEPA gave rise to many court cases in which project opponents were able to challenge the adequacy of EISs on technical and sometimes procedural grounds. Again, this caused many delays to projects. However, as experience was gained and guidance was issued that was more clear and strict, the number of cases going to court declined significantly.

Unfortunately, the combined effect of these experiences was to give the distinct impression to many external observers that EIA was a well-intentioned activity which, unfortunately, had gone wrong and ended by being more of an obstacle than a help to development. To many people, it seemed an appropriate, if not entirely necessary, activity for self-indulgent developed countries, but for industrializing nations it was an expensive luxury they could not really afford.

Despite the adverse reaction in some places, globally the spread of EIA has proved irresistible. Starting in 1970 in the United States, EIA extended to Canada, Australia and to Europe. A number of developing countries—for example, the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand—introduced EIA procedures before many Western European countries. Interestingly, the various development banks, such as the World Bank, were amongst the slowest organizations to introduce EIA into their decision-making systems. Indeed, it was only by the late 1980s and early 1990s that the banks and the bilateral aid agencies could be said to have caught up with the rest of the world. There is no sign that the rate at which EIA laws and regulations are being introduced into national decision-making systems is becoming slower. In fact, following the “Earth Summit” held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, EIA has been used increasingly as international agencies and national governments attempt to meet the recommendations made in Rio regarding the need for sustainable development.

What is EIA?

How can we explain the ever-increasing popularity of EIA? What can it do for governments, private and public sector developers, workers, their families and the communities in which they live?

Before EIA, development projects such as highways, hydro-power dams, ports and industrial installations were assessed on technical, economic and, of course, political bases. Such projects have certain economic and social objectives to achieve, and decision-makers involved in issuing permits, licences or other types of authorization were interested in knowing whether the projects would achieve them (putting to one side those projects conceived and built for political purposes such as prestige). This required an economic study (usually cost-benefit analysis) and technical investigations. Unfortunately, these studies did not take account of environmental effects and, as time passed, more and more people became aware of the increasing damage caused to the environment by such development projects. In many cases, the unintended environmental and social impacts led to economic costs; for example, the Kariba Dam in Africa (on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe) resulted in the resettlement of many villages into areas which were not suitable for the traditional agriculture practised by the people. In the resettled areas food became scarce and the government had to initiate emergency food supply operations. Other examples of unexpected “add-on” costs as well as environmental damage led to a growing realization that the traditional project appraisal techniques needed an additional dimension to reduce the chances of unexpected and unwelcome impacts.

The increasing awareness amongst governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and members of the public of the unexpected economic penalties that could arise from major development projects coincided with a parallel growth in global understanding of the importance of the environment. In particular, concern focused on the implications of increasing population growth and the accompanying expansion in economic activities, and whether there might be environmental constraints to such growth. The importance of global biogeochemical and other processes for the maintenance of clean air and water as well as renewable resources such as food and timber were recognized increasingly. As a result, many were convinced that the environment could no longer be seen as a passive and never-ending deliverer of goods and a receiver of human wastes. It had to be seen as an active part of the development process which, if treated badly, could reduce the chances of achieving development objectives. This realization has led to the development and implementation of a number of procedures or practices to incorporate the environment into the development process by considering the extent to which it might be harmed or improved. One such procedure is EIA. The overall aim is to reduce the risk—for homo sapiens in general, and local groups in particular—that environmental damage will result in life-threatening consequences such as famines and floods.

Basically, EIA is a means of identifying, predicting and evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed development action, and its alternatives, before a decision is made to implement it. The aim is to integrate EIA into the standard, pre-feasibility, feasibility, appraisal and design activities which are carried out to test whether a proposal will meet its objectives. By undertaking EIA work in parallel with these studies it should be possible to identify, early, the significant adverse impacts (and those which are beneficial) and to “design out”, as far as possible, the harmful impacts. Additionally, benefits can be enhanced. The outcome of any EIA should be a proposal which, in its location, design and method of construction or operation, is “environmentally friendly” in so far as its environmental implications are acceptable and any environmental deterioration is unlikely to cause difficulties. EIA is, therefore, a preventive tool, and medicine provides an appropriate analogy. In the field of community medicine it is better, and economically cheaper, to prevent illness rather than cure it. In the development process it is better to minimize environmental damage (while still achieving economic objectives) than to fund expensive clean-up or rehabilitation actions after damage has occurred.

Application of EIA

To what types of development activities does EIA apply? There is no standard or correct answer. Each country decides on the type and scale of activities to be subject to EIA; for example, a proposed 10 km road in a small tropical island may cause significant impacts, but a similar road in a large, semi-arid country with a low population density probably would be environmentally neutral. In all countries, EIA is applied to “physical” development projects according to national criteria; in some countries EIA is applied also to development plans, programmes and policies (such as sector development programmes for energy supply and national development plans) which might cause significant environmental impacts. Amongst the countries which apply EIA to these kinds of actions are the United States, the Netherlands and China. However, such countries are the exception to normal practice. Most EIAs are prepared for physical development projects, although there is no doubt that “strategic” EIAs will increase in importance in the future.

What kinds of impacts are analysed in EIAs? Again this varies from country to country, but to a lesser extent than in the case of the types of proposed activities subject to EIA. The usual answer given is “environmental” impacts, to which the inevitable response is likely to be, “Yes, but what is ‘environmental’?” Generally, most EIAs focus on the biophysical environment—that is, impacts on such factors as:

• water quality and quantity
• air quality
• ecosystems and ecological processes
• noise levels.

In some cases no other impacts are considered. However, the limitations of restricting EIA to biophysical impacts have been questioned and, increasingly, more and more EIAs are based on a broad concept of the environment and include, when appropriate, impacts on:

• local communities (“social” impacts)
• local economies
• health and safety
• landscapes
• cultural resources (archaeological or historical sites, environmental features with spiritual significance for local communities, etc.).

There are two reasons which help explain this wider definition of “environmental” impacts. First, it has been found to be socially and politically unacceptable to consider the impacts of a proposal on the biophysical environment and, at the same time, ignore the social, health and economic effects on local communities and inhabitants. This issue has been dominant in developed countries, especially those which have weak land-use planning systems into which social and economic objectives are incorporated.

In developing countries, this factor also exists and is joined by an additional, complementary explanation. The majority of the population in developing countries has a closer and, in many ways, more complex set of direct relationships with their environment than is the case in developed countries. This means that the way that local communities and their members interact with their environment can be changed by environmental, social and economic impacts. For example, in poor localities a major, new project such as a 2,400 MW power station will introduce a source of new labour opportunities and social infrastructure (schools, clinics) to provide for the large workforce needed. Basically, the income injected into the local economy makes the power station locality an island of prosperity in a sea of poverty. This attracts poor people to the area to try to improve their standard of living by trying to obtain a job and to use the new facilities. Not all will be successful. The unsuccessful will try to offer services to those employed, for example, by supplying firewood or charcoal. This will cause environmental stress, often at locations distant from the power station. Such impacts will occur in addition to the impacts caused by the influx of workers and their families who are directly employed at the station site. Thus, the main induced social effect of a project—in-migration—causes environmental impacts. If these socioeconomic implications were not analysed, then EISs would be in danger of failing to achieve one of their main objectives—that is, to identify, predict, evaluate and mitigate biophysical environmental impacts.

Virtually all project-related EIAs focus on the external environment, that is, the environment outside the site boundary. This reflects the history of EIA. As noted above it had its origins in the developed world. In these countries there is a strong legal framework for occupational health protection and it was inappropriate for EIA to focus on the internal, working environment as well as the external environment, as this would be a duplication of effort and misuse of scarce resources.

In many developing countries the opposite situation is often the reality. In such a context, it would seem appropriate for EIAs, particularly for industrial facilities, to consider the impacts on the internal environment. The main focus of considering such impacts as changes in internal air quality and noise levels is the health of workers. There are two other aspects which are important here. First, in poor countries the loss of a breadwinner through illness, injury or death can force the other members of a family to exploit natural resources to maintain income levels. If a number of families are affected then the cumulative impacts may be locally significant. Secondly, the health of family members can be affected, directly, by chemicals brought into the home on the clothes of workers. So there is a direct link between the internal and external environments. The inclusion of the internal environment in EIA has received little attention in the EIA literature and is conspicuous by its absence from EIA laws, regulations and guidelines. However, there is no logical or practical reason why, if local circumstances are appropriate, EIAs should not deal with the important issues of workers’ health and the possible external implications of a deterioration in the physical and mental well-being of workers.

Costs and Benefits of EIAs

Perhaps the most frequent issue raised by those who are either opposed to EIA or are neutral towards it concerns the cost. Preparation of EISs takes time and resources, and, in the end, this means money. It is important, therefore, to consider the economic aspects of EIA.

The main costs of introducing EIA procedures into a country fall on project investors or proponents, and central or local government (depending on the nature of the procedures). In virtually all countries, project investors or proponents pay for preparation of EIAs for their projects. Similarly, initiators (usually government agencies) of sectoral investment strategies and regional development plans pay for their EIAs. Evidence from developed and developing countries indicates that the cost of preparing EISs ranges from 0.1% to 1% of the capital cost of a project. This proportion can increase when mitigating measures recommended in the EISs are taken into account. The cost depends on the type of mitigation recommended. Obviously, resettling 5,000 families in such a way that their standard of living is maintained is a relatively costly exercise. In such cases the costs of the EIS and mitigation measures can rise to 15 to 20% of capital cost. In other cases it may be between 1 and 5%. Such figures may seem to be excessive and to indicate that EIA is a financial burden. There is no doubt that EIA costs money, but in the experience of the author no major projects have been halted because of the costs of EIA preparation, and in only a few cases have projects been made uneconomical because of the costs of necessary mitigating measures.

EIA procedures also impose costs to central or local governments which arise from the staff and other resources which need to be directed to managing the system and processing and reviewing the EISs. Again, the cost depends on the nature of the procedure and how many EISs are produced per year. The author is not aware of any calculations which attempt to provide an average figure for this cost.

To return to our medical analogy, prevention of illness requires a significant up-front investment to ensure future and possibly long-term dispersed benefits in terms of the health of the population, and EIA is no different. The financial benefits can be examined from the perspectives of the proponent as well as those of the government and the wider society. The proponent can benefit in a number of ways:

• prevention of delays in obtaining authorizations
• identification of mitigation measures involving recycling and recovery of components of waste streams
• creation of cleaner working environments
• identification of cheaper alternatives.

Not all of these will operate in all cases, but it is useful to consider the ways in which savings can accrue to the proponent.

In all countries various permits, permissions and authorizations are needed before a project can be implemented and operated. The authorization procedures take time, and this can be extended if there is opposition to a project and no formal mechanism exists by which concerns may be identified, considered and investigated. There seems little doubt that the days of passive populations welcoming all development as signs of inevitable economic and social progress are nearly over. All projects are subject to increasing local, national and international scrutiny—for example, the continuing opposition in India to the Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) complex of dams.

In this context, EIA provides a mechanism for public concerns to be addressed, if not eliminated. Studies in developed countries (such as the UK) have shown the potential for EIA to reduce the likelihood of delays in obtaining authorizations—and time is money! Indeed, a study by British Gas in the late 1970s showed that the average time taken to obtain authorization was shorter with EIA than for similar projects without EIA.

The add-on costs of mitigation have been mentioned, but it is worth considering the opposite situation. For facilities which produce one or more waste streams, the EIA may identify mitigation measures which reduce the waste load by use of recovery or recycling processes. In the former case recovery of a component from a waste stream might enable the proponent to sell it (if a market is available) and cover the costs of the recovery process or even make a profit. Recycling of an element such as water can reduce consumption, thus lowering expenditure on raw material inputs.

If an EIA has focused on the internal environment, then the working conditions should be better than would have been the case without the EIA. A cleaner, safer workplace reduces worker discontent, illness and absences. The overall effect is likely to be a more productive workforce, which again is a financial benefit to the proponent or operator.

Finally, the favoured option selected using solely technical and economic criteria may, in fact, not be the best alternative. In Botswana, a site had been selected for water to be stored before it was transported to Gaborone (the capital). An EIA was implemented and it was found, early in the EIA work, that the environmental impacts would be significantly adverse. During survey work, the EIA team identified an alternative site which they were given permission to include in the EIA. The alternative site comparison showed that the environmental impacts of the second option were much less severe. Technical and economic studies showed that the site met technical and economic criteria. In fact it was found that the second site could meet the original development objectives with less environmental damage and cost 50% less to build (IUCN and Government of the Republic of Botswana, undated). Unsurprisingly, the second option has been implemented, to the benefit not only to the proponent (a parastatal organization) but to the entire tax-paying population of Botswana. Such examples are likely to be uncommon, but do indicate the opportunity provided by EIA work to “test” various development options.

The main benefits of EIA procedures are dispersed amongst the component parts of society, such as government, communities and individuals. By preventing unacceptable environmental deterioration EIA helps to maintain the essential “life processes” upon which all human life and activities depend. This is a long-term and dispersed benefit. In specific instances, EIA can avoid localized environmental damage which would necessitate remedial measures (usually expensive) at a later date. The cost of remedial measures usually falls on local or central government and not the proponent or operator of the installation which caused the damage.

Recent events, especially since the Rio “Earth Summit”, are slowly changing the objectives of development activities. Until recently the objectives of development were to improve economic and social conditions in a specified area. Increasingly, the achievement of “sustainability” criteria or objectives is occupying a central place in the traditional hierarchy of objectives (which still remain relevant). The introduction of sustainability as an important, if not yet primary, objective in the development process will have a profound influence on the future existence of the sterile debate of “jobs versus environment” from which EIA has suffered. This debate had some meaning when environment was on the outside of the development process and looking in. Now the environment is becoming central and the debate is centred on mechanisms of having both jobs and a healthy environment linked in a sustainable manner. EIA still has a crucial and expanding contribution to make as one of the important mechanisms for moving towards, and achieving, sustainability.

Back

The need to safeguard the environment for future generations makes it necessary not only to discuss the emerging environmental problems, but to make progress in identifying strategies that are cost-effective and environmentally sound to solve them and to take actions to enforce the measures that result from such discussion. There is ample evidence that enhancing the state of the environment as well as establishing policies to sustain the environment must take on greater priority within this generation and those that follow. While this belief is commonly held by governments, environmental groups, industry, academics and the general public, there is considerable debate on how to achieve improved environmental conditions without sacrificing current economic benefits. Furthermore, environmental protection has become an issue of great political importance, and ensuring ecological stability has been pushed to the top of many political agendas.

Past and present efforts to protect the environment are to a large extent characterized as single-issue approaches. Each problem has been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. With regard to problems caused by point-source pollution from easily identified emissions, this was an effective way of reducing environmental impacts. Today, the situation is more complex. Much pollution now originates from a large number of non-point sources easily transported from one country to another. Furthermore, each of us contributes to this total environmental pollution load through our daily patterns of living. The different non-point sources are difficult to identify, and the way in which they interact in impacting the environment is not well known.

The increasing environmental problems of more complex and global character will most likely entail great implications for several sectors of society in enforcing remedial actions. To be able to play a role in environmental protection, sound and universal policies must be applied jointly as an additional, multi-issue approach by all those actors taking part in the process—the scientists, trade unions, non-governmental organizations, companies and agencies of authority at the national and governmental levels, as well as the media. Therefore, it is important that all areas of sectoral interest be coordinated in their environmental ambitions, in order to get necessary interactions and responses to proposed solutions. It is likely that there may be a unanimous view with regard to the ultimate objectives of better environmental quality. However, it is equally likely that there may be disagreement about the pace, means and time required to achieve them.

Environmental protection has become a strategic issue of increasing importance for industry and the business sector, both in the siting of plants and in the technical performance of processes and products. Industrialists are increasingly becoming interested in being able to look holistically at the environmental consequences of their operations. Legislation is no longer the sole dimensioning factor following the growing importance of product-related environmental issues. The concepts of environmentally sound product development and environmentally friendly or “green” products are assuming wider acceptance among producers and consumers.

Indeed, this is a great challenge for industry; yet environmental criteria are often not considered at the beginning of the design of a product, when it may be easiest to avoid adverse impacts. Until recently, most environmental impacts were reduced through end-of-pipe controls and process design rather than product design. As a result, many companies spend too much time fixing problems instead of preventing them. A great deal of work, however, is needed to develop a suitable and accepted approach to incorporate environmental impacts into the various production stages and industrial activities—from raw material acquisition and manufacture to product use and final disposal.

The only known concept to deal with all these new complex issues seems to be a life-cycle approach to the problem. Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) have been widely recognized as an environmental management tool for the future, as product-related issues assume a more central role in the public debate. Although LCAs promise to be a valuable tool for programmes on cleaner production strategies and design for the environment, the concept is relatively new and will require future refinement to be accepted as a general tool for environmentally sound process and product development.

The Business Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment

The necessary new approach to environmental protection in the business sector, to look at products and services in their totality, must be linked to development of a common, systematic and structured approach which enables relevant decisions to be made and priorities to be set. Such an approach must be flexible and expandable to cover various decision-making situations in industry as well as new input as science and technology progress. However, it should rest upon some basic principles and issues, for example: problem identification, survey of remedial measures, cost/benefit analysis and final assessment and evaluation (figure 1).

Figure 1. Outline of consecutive steps for setting priorities in decisions on  environmental protection measures in industry

The problem identification ought to highlight different types of environmental problems and their causes. These judgements are multidimensional, taking into account various background conditions. There is indeed a close relationship between the work environment and the external environment. The ambition to safeguard the environment should therefore include two dimensions: to minimize the burden on the external environment following all kinds of human activities, and to promote the welfare of employees in terms of a well-planned and safe work environment.

A survey of potential remedial measures should include all the available practical alternatives for minimizing both pollutant emissions and the use of non-renewable natural resources. The technical solutions should be described, if possible, giving their expected value both in reducing resource use and pollution loads as well as in monetary terms. The cost/benefit analysis aims at producing a priority list by comparing the different identified approaches of remedial measures from the perspectives of product specifications and requirements to be met, economic feasibility and ecological efficiency. However, experience has shown that great difficulties often arise when seeking to express environmental assets in monetary terms.

The assessment and evaluation phase should be regarded as an integral part of the procedure of setting priorities to give the necessary input for the final judgement of the efficiency of the suggested remedial measures. The continuous exercise of assessment and evaluation following any measure that is implemented or enforced will give additional feedback for optimization of a general decision model for environmental priority strategies for product decision. The strategic value of such a model will likely increase in industry when it becomes gradually apparent that environmental priorities might be an equally important part of the future planning procedure for new processes or products. As LCA is a tool for identifying the environmental releases and evaluating the associated impacts caused by a process, product or activity, it will likely serve as the major vehicle for industry in their search for practical and user-friendly decision-making models for environmentally sound product development.

Concept of Life-Cycle Assessment

The concept of LCA is to evaluate the environmental effects associated with any given activity from the initial gathering of raw material from the earth until the point at which all residuals are returned to the earth. Therefore, the concept is often referred to as a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. While the practice of conducting life-cycle studies has existed since the early 1970s, there have been few comprehensive attempts to describe the full procedure in a manner that would facilitate understanding of the overall process, the underlying data requirements, the inherent assumptions and possibilities to make practical use of the methodology. However, since 1992 a number of reports have been published focusing on describing the various parts of a LCA from a theoretical viewpoint (Heijungs 1992; Vigon et al. 1992; Keoleian and Menerey 1993; Canadian Standards Association 1993; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1993). A few practical guides and handbooks have been published taking on the specific perspectives of product designers in making practical use of a complete LCA in environmentally sound product development (Ryding 1996).

LCA has been defined as an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a process, product, activity or service system by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and released to the environment in order to assess the impact of those energy and material uses and releases to the environment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to effect environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the process, product, activity or service system, encompassing extracting and processing raw materials, manu-facturing, transportation and distribution, use, reuse, maint-enance, recycling and final disposal.

The prime objectives of carrying out LCA are to provide as complete a picture as possible of the interactions of an activity with the environment, to contribute to the understanding of the overall and interdependent nature of environmental consequences of human activities and to provide decision-makers with information which identifies opportunities for environmental improvements.

The LCA methodological framework is a stepwise calculation exercise comprising four components: goal definition and scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. As one component of a broader methodology, none of these components alone can be described as an LCA. LCA ought to include all four. In many cases life-cycle studies focus on the inventory analysis and are usually referred to as LCI (life-cycle inventory).

Goal definition and scoping consists of a definition of the purpose and the system of the study—its scope, definition of the functional unit (the measure of performance which the system delivers), and the establishment of a procedure for quality assurance of the results.

When initiating an LCA study, it is of vital importance to clearly define the goal of the study, preferably in terms of a clear and unambiguous statement of the reason for carrying out the LCA, and the intended use of the results. A key consideration is to decide whether the results should be used for in-company applications to improve the environmental performance of an industrial process or a product, or whether the results should be used externally, for example, to influence public policy or consumer purchase choices.

Without setting a clear goal and purpose for the LCA study in advance, the inventory analysis and the impact assessment may be overdone, and the final results may not be properly used for practical decisions. Defining whether the results should focus on environmental loads, a specific environmental problem or a holistic environmental impact assessment will directly clarify whether to conduct an inventory analysis, classification/characterization or a valuation (figure 2). It is important to make all consecutive LCA components “visible” in order to make it easier for any user to choose the level of complexity they wish to use.

Figure 2.  Purposes and completeness of life-cycle assessment

In many general programmes for cleaner production strategies, design for the environment or environmentally sound product development, the principal objective is often to lower the overall environmental impact during a product’s life cycle. To meet these demands it is sometimes necessary to arrive at a highly aggregated form of the environmental impact assessment which in turn emphasizes the need for identifying a general accepted valuation approach for a scoring system to weigh the different environmental effects against each other.

The scope of an LCA defines the system, boundaries, data requirements, assumptions and limitations. The scope should be defined well enough to ensure that the breadth and depth of analysis are compatible with and sufficient to address the stated purpose and all boundaries, and that assumptions are clearly stated, comprehensible and visible. However, as an LCA is an iterative process, it may be advisable in some cases not to permanently fix all aspects included in the scope. The use of sensitivity and error analysis is recommended to make possible the successive testing and validation of the purpose and scope of the LCA study versus the results obtained, in order to make                                                                                                                         corrections and set new assumptions.

Inventory analysis is an objective, data-based process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements, air emissions, waterborne effluents, solid waste and other environmental releases throughout the life cycle of a process, product, activity or service system (figure 3).

Figure 3. Stepwise elements in a life-cycle inventory analysis.

The calculation of inputs and outputs in the inventory analysis refers to the system defined. In many cases, processing operations yield more than one output, and it is important to break down such a complex system into a series of separate sub-processes, each of which produces a single product. During the production of a construction material, pollutant emissions occur in each sub-process, from raw material acquisition to the final product. The total production process may be illustrated by a “process tree” where the stem may be seen as the main chain of flow of materials and energy, whereas the branches may illustrate sub-processes and the leaves the specific figures on pollutant emissions and so on. When added together, these sub-processes have the total characteristics of                                                                                                                         the original single system of co-products.

To estimate the accuracy of the data gained in the inventory analysis, a sensitivity and error analysis is recommended. All data used should therefore be “labelled” with relevant information not only as to reliability but also source, origin and so on, to facilitate future updating and refinement of the data (so-called meta-data). The use of a sensitivity and error analysis will identify the key data of great importance for the outcome of the LCA study that may need further efforts to increase its reliability.

Impact assessment is a technical, qualitative and/or quantitative process to characterize and assess the effects of the environmental loading identified in the inventory component. The assessment should address both ecological and human health considerations, as well as other effects such as habitat modifications and noise pollution. The impact assessment component could be characterized as three consecutive steps—classification, characterization and valuation—all of which interpret the effects of environmental burdens identified in the inventory analysis, on different aggregated levels (figure 4). Classification is the step in which the inventory analyses are grouped together into a number of impact categories; characterization is the step in which analysis and quantification takes place, and, where possible, aggregation of the impacts within the given impact categories is carried out; valuation is the step in which the data of the different specific impact categories are weighted so that they can be compared amongst themselves to arrive at a further interpretation and aggregation of the data of the impact assessment.

Figure 4. Conceptual framework for the successive level of data aggregation in the impact assessment component

In the classification step, the impacts may be grouped in the general protection areas of resource depletion, ecological health and human health. These areas may be further divided into specific impact categories, preferably focusing on the environ-mental process involved, to allow a perspective consistent with current scientific knowledge about these processes.

There are various approaches to characterization—to relate data to no-observable-effect concentrations or to environmental standards, to model both exposure and effects and apply these models in a site-specific way, or to use equivalency factors for the different impact categories. A further approach is to normalize the aggregated data for each impact category to the                                                                                                                         actual magnitude of the impacts in some given area, to increase                                                                                                                     the comparability of the data from the different impact categories.

Valuation, with the aim of further aggregating the data of the impact assessment, is the LCA component that has probably generated the most heated debates. Some approaches, often referred to as decision theory techniques, are claimed to have the potential to make the valuation a rational, explicit method. Valuation principles may rest on scientific, political or societal judgements, and there are currently approaches available that cover all three perspectives. Of special importance is the use of sensitivity and error analysis. The sensitivity analysis enables the identification of those selected valuation criteria that may change the resultant priority between two process or product alternatives because of the uncertainties in the data. The error analysis may be used to indicate the likelihood of one alternative product being more environmentally benign than a competitor product.

Many are of the opinion that valuations have to be based largely on information about social values and preferences. However, no one has yet defined the specific requirements that a reliable and generally accepted valuation method should meet. Figure 5 lists some such specific requirements of potential value. However, it should be clearly emphasized that any valuation system for assessing the “seriousness” of environmental impacts of any human activity must be largely based on subjective value judgements. For such valuations it is probably not possible to establish criteria which are tenable in all situations worldwide.

Figure 5. List of suggested requirements to be met for a LCA valuation method

Interpretation of the results is a systematic evaluation of the needs and opportunities to reduce the environmental burden associated with energy and raw materials use and waste emissions throughout the whole life cycle of a product, process or activity. This assessment may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of improvements, such as changes in product design, raw material use, industrial processing, consumer demands and waste management.

Interpretation of the results is the component of an LCA in which options for reducing the environmental impacts or burdens of the processes or products under study are identified and evaluated. It deals with the identification, evaluation and selection of options for improvements in processes and product design, that is, technical redesign of a process or product to minimize the associated environmental burden while fulfilling the intended function and performance characteristics. It is important to guide the decision-maker regarding the effects of the existing uncertainties in the background data and the criteria used in achieving the results, to decrease the risk of making false conclusions regarding the processes and products under study. Again, a sensitivity and error analysis is needed to gain credibility for the LCA methodology as it provides the decision-maker with information on (1) key parameters and assumptions, which may need to be further considered and refined to strengthen the conclusions, and (2) the statistical significance of the calculated difference in total environmental burden between the process or product alternatives.

The interpretation component has been identified as the part of an LCA that is least documented. However, preliminary results from some large LCA studies carried out as comprehensive efforts by people from academia, consultancy firms and many companies all indicated that, from a general perspective, significant environmental burdens from products seem to be linked to the product use (figure 6). Hence, the potential seems to exist for industry-motivated initiatives to minimize environmental impacts through product development.

Figure 6. Outline of some general experiences of where in the life-cycles of  products the major environmental burdens occur

A study on international experiences of environmentally sound product development based on LCA (Ryding 1994) indicated that promising general applications of LCA seem to be (1) for internal use by corporations to form the basis for providing guidance in long-term strategic planning concerning product design, but also (2) to some extent for use by regulatory agencies and authorities to suit general purposes of societal planning and decision-making. By developing and using LCA information regarding environmental effects that are both “upstream” and “downstream” of the particular activity under scrutiny, a new paradigm may be created for basing decisions in both corporate management and regulatory policy-making.

Conclusion

Knowledge about human threats to the environment seems to grow faster than our ability to solve them. Therefore, decisions in the environmental arena must often be taken with greater uncertainties present than those in other areas. Furthermore, very small safety margins usually exist. Present ecological and technical knowledge is not always sufficient to offer a complete, fool-proof strategy to safeguard the environment. It is not possible to gain full understanding of all ecological responses to environmental stress before taking action. However, the absence of complete, irrefutable scientific evidence should not discourage making decisions about and implementation of pollution abatement programmes. It is not possible to wait until all ecological questions are scientifically substantiated before taking action—the damage that may result through such delays could be irreversible. Hence, the meaning and scope of most problems is already known to a sufficient extent to justify action, and there is, in many cases, sufficient knowledge at hand to initiate effective remedial measures for most environmental problems.

Life-cycle assessment offers a new concept to deal with the future complex environmental issues. However, there are no shortcuts or simple answers to all questions posed. The rapidly emerging adoption of a holistic approach to combat environmental problems will most likely identify a lot of gaps in our knowledge about new aspects that need to be dealt with. Also, available data that may be used are in many cases intended for other purposes. Despite all difficulties, there is no argument for waiting to use LCA until it gets better. It is by no means hard to find difficulties and uncertainties in the present LCA concept, if one wants to use such arguments to justify an unwillingness to conduct an LCA. One has to decide whether it is worthwhile to seek a holistic life-cycle approach to environmental aspects despite all difficulties. The more LCA is used, the more knowledge will be gained about its structure, function and applicability, which will be the best guarantee for a feedback to ensure its successive improvement.

To make use of LCA today may be more a question of will and ambition than of undisputed knowledge. The whole idea of LCA ought to be to make the best use of present scientific and technical knowledge and to make use of the result in an intelligent and humble way. Such an approach will most likely gain credibility.

Back