When is a mitigation measure no longer a mitigation?

The EIA process is a structured approach designed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. It encompasses several stages: 

1. Screening – to determine whether a project requires an EIA. 
   This stage involves reviewing the project description and making a preliminary assessment of the expected impact of the proposal and its relative significance. 
   
   
2. Scoping – to identify key issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIA. 
   This stage involves engaging with stakeholders, including the public and regulatory agencies, to outline the scope of the assessment and establish specific concerns.
   
   
3. Impact assessment – to analyse potential environmental impacts.
   Activities in this stage involve:

• Baseline studies: Collecting data on existing environmental conditions.
• Impact prediction: Assessing how the project may affect air, water, biodiversity and socioeconomic conditions.
• Mitigation measures: Proposing strategies to avoid, minimise or offset negative impacts. 

In theory, the EIA process dictates that mitigation measures should only be considered after the project's impacts have been predicted and assessed. This allows for an objective evaluation of potential impacts without the influence of pre-existing mitigation strategies.  

However, in practice, mitigation measures are often incorporated into the project design from the outset, following industry standards to manage well-documented impacts and secure project approval. Because the impacts are assessed with mitigation measures already in place, this can complicate the EIA process, making it difficult to evaluate raw, unmitigated impacts. 

The theoretical approach to the EIA process focuses resources on issues that have been proven to be controlled through standard mitigations. Companies now have environmental mitigation measures baked into the design stage of their projects, and projects would not proceed without them. By strictly following the theoretical EIA process, it detracts from addressing significant impacts that require more critical thinking and creative solutions.  

Current industry standard practice runs into this problem when designs are not finalised or there are uncertainties around the ability to quantify impacts, as regulators are reluctant to hold these risks. 

Consider a hypothetical case study of a coastal development project with both onshore and marine components. The project is in the early stages of design, with no contractor or constructor appointed and no schedule or methodology finalised. Key quantities, such as earthworks volumes, are unknown. The project faces multiple uncertainties, including the risk of interacting with acid sulphate soils. 

Standard processes for managing acid sulphate soils are well-documented and have been proven to be effective over decades. However, in the absence of a finalised design and quantifiable impacts, standard mitigation measures cannot be relied upon to conclude that a significant impact is unlikely to occur, as there is a higher degree of uncertainty about avoiding or reducing impacts with these measures. 

The EIA process reverts to assessing raw, unmitigated impacts, where there is limited benefit apart from meeting baseline compliance with regulations. Time and resources would be better spent focusing on significant impacts, devising novel and more impactful mitigation measures.

To realign the theoretical EIA process with how companies currently utilise it, EIA professionals can argue for the integration of standard practices as part of the formalised EIA process with these action steps:

• Describe well-known mitigation measures: Clearly outline well-established mitigation measures and their effectiveness through robust monitoring and reporting of results. This documentation will help justify their inclusion as part of the earlier stages of impact assessment.
• Utilise industry case studies: Build on the knowledge of previous similar assessments and the success of mitigation measures or their side effects. Case studies serve as valuable references to demonstrate the reliability and value of standard practices.
• Focus on significant impacts: Redirect resources towards developing effective mitigation measures for non-standard, significant impacts. This approach gives critical issues the attention they deserve, leading to stronger environmental outcomes.

By implementing these steps, EIA professionals can bridge the gap between theory and practice, bolstering the EIA process to address significant environmental impacts while proactively leveraging well-established mitigation measures. 

The EIA process plays a crucial role in safeguarding the environment and communities affected by proposed projects. However, the current practice of integrating mitigation measures into project design from the outset complicates the assessment of raw impacts.  

In order to realign the theoretical process with practical applications  three actions are suggested:  

• Question the inability to consider standard, well-establish practices as part of the action 
• Work on describing well known established mitigation to demonstrate effectiveness (robust monitoring)
• Build on knowledge of previous similar assessment and the success of mitigation measures or their side effects into (robust industry case studies)

Together, these can ultimately lead to more efficient assessments and better environmental outcomes.