مجتمع ارزیابی اثرات توسعه پایدار: روش مطالعه موردی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29067||2001||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8064 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : World Development, Volume 29, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 1011–1024
The realization of sustainable development requires the use of different disciplinary approaches to the impact assessment of development proposals, which can give a balanced consideration to the multidimensional nature of sustainable development targets. This need has led to a growing interest in the integration of different methods of appraisal and evaluation into impact assessment methodology and practice. This article contributes to the development of a useable methodology for conducting integrated impact assessment (sometimes called integrated appraisal) by using case study experiences of development proposals. Three case studies, each of which has significant economic, environmental and social dimensions, are examined to see how appraisal was carried out in practice. Their primary purpose is to clarify some of the approaches to integrated appraisal currently in use as a prelude to identifying ways in which practice may be strengthened in the future.
Sustainable development is increasingly accepted as a fundamental objective for public policy and decision-making in different types of economy (developed, developing and transitional) and at different levels of intervention (aggregate, sectoral and project). While there is no consensus on a single, precise definition of sustainable development, there is general agreement, nevertheless, that it encompasses the economic, environmental and social dimensions of the development process as reflected in the UN definition of sustainability: development is a multidimensional undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development (United Nations, 1997). The growing acceptance of sustainable development as an overarching policy goal has stimulated interest in assessing the impact of particular interventions on sustainable development, and has led to the emergence of integrated impact assessment, based on the use of a number of sustainable development principles and indicators, as one method for according the same level of consideration to economic, social and environmental impacts (George, 2000). Concurrent with this recent interest in the integration of different disciplinary perspectives into impact assessment methodology and practice has been the increasing recognition of the role of stakeholder involvement in assessment (World Bank, 1997a; DFID, 1995). The involvement of both the various parties that will be directly and indirectly affected by a particular intervention, and representatives of the business community and civil society, can be seen as an extension of public accountability to stakeholders, and as such has a political and social value itself. The process of consultation with affected parties and other stakeholders can also have instrumental advantages, for example, by drawing on local or specialist knowledge to improve design, or by reducing uncertainty by building political consensus and ownership (Bond, 1998; Hulme & Taylor, 2000). The development of a methodology for conducting integrated impact assessment, and for incorporating stakeholder participation into the assessment process is still at an early stage, and major methodological and practical issues remain to be resolved. What is more familiar is the methodology and application of separate forms of economic, social and environmental assessment at the project level. Cost-benefit analysis, environmental impact assessment and social impact assessment have been practiced for many years and, in the first two cases at least, their methodologies are well established at the project level (see Kirkpatrick & Lee, 1997, Chapter 1 and the references it cites on the scope and methodology of each of these forms of appraisal). But, the application of specialized economic, social and environmental appraisals at the policy, plan and program level (strategic-level appraisal) is much less developed. Economic analysis is the most developed at the strategic level, environmental assessment is much less developed (though growing), and social appraisal is the least developed form of strategic assessment. One way of developing a useable methodology for conducting integrated impact assessments, is to build on case study experience. This paper considers three separate case studies, each of which has significant economic, environmental and social dimensions. The purpose of the analysis is twofold. The primary objective is to explore how appraisal was carried out in practice, the extent to which an integrated approach to assessment was used, and the extent to which this was conditioned by the context in which it was applied. A second objective is to draw some preliminary conclusions from the case studies, as to how a more appropriate and effective integrated appraisal may be realized. The paper consists of five sections. Section 2 provides an overview of integrated appraisal—the different methodologies on which it draws, the current state of knowledge and use, and various issues and problems relevant to its future development and application. Section 3 presents the three case studies, providing a description of each scheme, an account of the appraisal methods and stakeholder participation processes that were used, and an indication of the extent to which some form of integrated appraisal was used. Section 4 provides a comparative analysis of the case studies, and draws together a number of general observations relating to the methodology and practice of integrated appraisal used in the three projects. Section 5 summarizes the principal case study findings and provides a number of recommendations on improving integrated appraisal practice.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This investigation has served two main purposes. The primary aim has been to clarify some of the approaches to integrated appraisal which are currently being used and the main determining influences on these. A secondary aim has been to identify possible ways of strengthening integrated appraisal in the future. The main findings and recommendations are summarized below. Since the investigation was limited to three cases, the conclusions are provisional and need to be tested using a larger sample of appraisals. (a). Case study findings Each of the three cases relates to a relatively large scheme and, in each instance, the appraisal has been carried out at a relatively early stage in the planning cycle, with other important stages of appraisal and decision making to follow. Partly because of its large scale, each scheme has a potentially large number of stakeholders and its political sensitivity, national and international, is likely to be high. In a number of other respects, the three cases are very different. They are located in different countries, and are being processed under different political, regulatory and socioeconomic conditions. The nature of the three schemes is also very different: a large-scale energy project, a substantial program containing nearly 50 smaller-scale community development projects and a countrywide environmental improvement policy initiative. The key stakeholders in each scheme are very different and, equally significant, so are their organizational goals and their approaches to technical appraisals, consultations and decision making. Despite these differences, there are some common features. Each of these three schemes is expected to have economic, social and environmental consequences, although the relative importance of each may differ. Given the early stage in the planning process and the long time scales involved in each case, any estimates of the size of these consequences is subject to a great deal of uncertainty. Logic suggests that some form of integrated appraisal, which incorporates the appraisal of these three types of impact, is likely to be helpful in the planning and decision making which takes place during the planning cycle. More especially, it is likely to be helpful when their likely contribution to sustainable development (with its economic, social and environmental pillars) is being assessed. Yet, is this achievable and to what extent is this being satisfactorily achieved at the present? At one level, each of the three case studies provides an example of economic, social and environmental impacts being considered, and taken into account, alongside stakeholder consultation, in overall appraisal and decision-making. As deeper analysis has revealed, however, the similarities between the three cases probably end there. They are at different points on the continuum between “weak” and “strong” integration but additionally reveal other important methodological differences. —In one case (Manantali), an internal rate of return, based on a cost-benefit analysis, has been estimated but this has not been attempted in the other two cases, where economic appraisal has been handled in a more preliminary manner. —In one case (Manantali), a formal environmental assessment has been undertaken, in another case (acid waters), the assessment of different types of environmental impacts is a prominent part of the overall appraisal but these are only assessed in a preliminary manner, while in the third case (ABGEP) environmental assessment per se is not treated as an explicitly distinguished part of the overall appraisal. —Separate social impact assessments were not undertaken in any of the three cases but, in at least two of these, social impacts were regarded as important but handled in different ways. In the Manantali scheme, a broad range of social impacts was addressed within the EA while, in the ABGEP case, social impacts were central considerations in the linked appraisal-planning process that was in use. In the acid waters study, consideration of some social impacts was subsumed in certain of the evaluation criteria used in the overall appraisal but social impacts were not separately identified and assessed at this stage in the planning cycle. —The approach adopted to the integration of economic, social and environmental impacts in the overall appraisal was very different between the three studies. The acid waters study used an explicitly defined multicriteria methodology which encompassed all types of impact considered relevant to appraisal at this stage in the planning cycle. In the Manantali case, the economic appraisal and environmental (and social) impact assessment proceeded as separate, parallel studies. Their combined use in planning and decision making was handled through the procedures of the key stakeholders, such as the World Bank—an integrated appraisal methodology, as such, was not used. In the ABGEP project, integration within the overall appraisal and its use for planning and decision making were realized through workshops within which key stakeholders participated. —Similarly, the approach adopted to stakeholder involvement and community consultation varied considerably between the three cases. In the ABGEP case, stakeholder involvement, through workshops etc., was central to the whole integrated appraisal-planning process. In the Manantali case, the extent of consultation in the economic appraisal was very limited; and some public consultation formed part of the EA process but it was not extensive. More extensive local and national consultations are envisaged in subsequent stages of the planning and implementation process. In the acid waters case, a limited range of stakeholders played an important role in the Phase 1 appraisal but no public consultations took place at that stage. Greater stakeholder participation and public consultations are envisaged in subsequent stages. It is important to recognize that these major differences in specialized and integrated appraisals do not, in themselves, imply that the integrated appraisals described are deficient. On the contrary, given the different influences on their approaches to appraisal and decision making, it would be surprising (and possibly disturbing) if they were identical. This basic need for diversity in approaches to integrated appraisal has to be taken into consideration when formulating proposals for improving integrated appraisal practice. Among the more important influences, which have led to differences in appraisal approaches between these three cases, are the following: —the nature of the proposed action being appraised (a well-defined large project; a program comprising a considerable number of small projects; a national-level environmental policy); —the historical, institutional and cultural context within which the proposed action is being planned and appraised (a predominantly economic context for appraisal, later widened to include some social and environmental issues; a predominantly community development context, somewhat suspicious of traditional appraisal methodologies; a technically-oriented, multicriteria analysis (MCA) approach to appraisal, mainly involving experts from the principal stakeholders); —the stage in the planning and project cycle at which the appraisal is taking place (all appraisals may be described as occurring at an early stage, with acid waters being at a very early stage, and the Manantali project being “least early” of the three). It is noteworthy, in all three cases, that the appraisal appears to reflect the predominance of one of its components at the inception of the scheme—economic (Manantali), social (ABGEP), or environmental (acid waters). In all three cases, however, the basis for the appraisal (in terms of breadth of coverage, degree of formality and detail, and/or extent of consultation and stakeholder involvement) was likely to change at subsequent stages in the process. (b). Improving integrated impact assessment practice Integrated appraisal is still in its infancy and, understandably, there is considerable scope for its improvement. For reasons already stated, we do not propose a single standardized methodology for universal application. Rather, we consider the choice of method should be sensitive to the nature of the proposed action, the stage in the planning and project cycle at which it is being appraised and the context (institutional, regulatory, cultural) in which the appraisal will take place. We also accept that, for practical reasons, a “step-by-step” approach to the improvement in integrated appraisal (IA) procedures and methodologies may be needed. Our proposals below on choice of IA method are partly based on the analysis of the three case studies and partly on the other IA literature to which reference has also been made in this article. These proposals are preliminary, given the small number of cases which have been investigated. We hope others will be stimulated to undertake additional IA case studies possibly using the Case Study Checklist (covering appraisal context, procedures and methods) which is contained in Appendix A. —Determine the most appropriate overall approach to IA which should be followed, taking into account the nature of the proposed action to be appraised, the stage/s in the planning process at which it is to be appraised and the context (institutional, regulatory, cultural) in which it will be appraised. Clarify whether a “step-by-step” strategy to the full implementation of this approach is to be adopted. —Plan and make explicit, from the beginning, the contributions to be made by different disciplines and their relationships to each other. This should be undertaken within a framework, which covers the economic, social and environmental goals of the proposed action; the assumptions upon which the IA is based; the consistency of the data to be collected; the predictive and other appraisal methods to be used; the scheduling of the appraisal activities to be undertaken and the common procedures to be followed. A balanced and careful approach to the early scoping of the appraisal could be very helpful in developing this IA framework. —Plan the process of participation/consultation with stakeholders, and its relationship to the technical IA studies being undertaken. —Develop effective ways of presenting IA issues and findings to stakeholders, the public and decision makers (e.g., displaying, in simple formats, the extent to which each of the economic, social and environmental goals is likely to be achieved by the proposed action, and the likely benefits and disbenefits which will be experienced by each stakeholder group). —Extend the IA process into the implementation phase of the action, so that the actual economic, social and environmental impacts are monitored, evaluated and managed as part of an IA management system. —IA skill needs should be careful assessed at the outset of the appraisal process, as well as the use to be made of multidisciplinary teams within it. Skill deficiencies should be addressed, in line with the step-by-step strategy, through supporting measures for the preparation of IA guidelines, training courses and institution-strengthening.