Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106508Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Biodiversity protection is examined in relation to environmental ethics.

  • Sustainability is conceptualised from an environmental ethics perspective.

  • Anthropocentrism prevails in political decision-making.

  • EIA is constrained by the political context.

  • EIA will not prevent incremental biodiversity loss.

Abstract

As a globally mandated decision-support tool, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has the potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, which is increasingly under threat because of human activities. Concern over its ability to do this, however, has led to the addition of trade-off rules, Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA), and biodiversity offsets. But given that EIA is set in a political decision-making context, what is reasonable to expect of EIA? In this paper we seek to explore what level of biodiversity protection we can expect EIA to support (and therefore whether these additions are worthwhile). Our point of departure is that EIA supports its political context and associated societal goals, and those goals typically (explicitly or implicitly) reflect some form of sustainable development. Given that the appropriate level of biodiversity protection is a moral consideration, we take an environmental ethics perspective to explain how different levels of protection are associated with different ethical positions on a spectrum from anthropocentrism (where only humans have intrinsic rights) through to ecocentrism (where all individuals of all species have intrinsic rights). We then investigate how different sustainable development discourses, one economic (on a spectrum from weak to strong sustainability) and one ecological (on a spectrum from shallow to deep ecology) map against the environmental ethics spectrum. We find that the economic discourse on sustainable development, which tends to prevail in political decision-making, is heavily anthropocentric, whereas an ecological discourse has some potential to deliver ecocentrism, but only where a deep ecology interpretation is adopted. We then show that the practise of EIA (with or without the addition of other approaches) maps against, and is bounded by, an economic discourse on sustainable development. The reality is, therefore, that EIA can do no more than contribute to delaying incremental biodiversity loss. If EIA were legislated to protect biodiversity using a deep ecology discourse, then only brownfield development would be possible.

Introduction

Researchers are clear that global biodiversity loss is already severe, and that significant loss is forecast to continue into the future because of human development (Dirzo and Raven, 2003; Pereira et al., 2010; Cardinale et al., 2012; Hooper et al., 2012; Sandbrook et al., 2019). This makes biodiversity protection associated with new development proposals an imperative. To address the ongoing implications of development, Governments have committed to delivering sustainable development which, as a concept, assumes that biodiversity protection is compatible with development (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992).

Conservation is defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2020) as “the protection, care, management and maintenance of ecosystems, habitats, wildlife species and populations, within or outside of their natural environments, in order to safeguard the natural conditions for their long-term permanence” (International Union for Conservation of Nature, undated, p.18). Given that biodiversity was defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992) as incorporating genetic, species and ecosystem levels of ecological organisation (Pimm et al., 2014), it is clear that references to conservation usually mean the conservation of biodiversity. Approaches exist for measuring biodiversity in line with these different metrics (for example, see Weitzman (1998) for a focus on genetic diversity, Wauchope et al. (2019) for a focus on each of taxa/species, regional protection, and protection by designation, and the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council of the European Communities, 1992) for an ecosystem protection approach). Thus it is possible to evaluate the success of conservation efforts, and this success will exist on a spectrum from extinction of species through to no further loss of genetic diversity, species, or ecosystem services. Whilst biodiversity increase is also possible (and does occur in certain cases), our focus is the extent to which EIA can be expected to stem the tide of global biodiversity loss, and therefore the focus is on the protection element of conservation (by which we mean no further development-created loss of biodiversity) rather than any enhancement.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a decision-support tool that was first established in the USA in 1969, and is now legislated in every country in the world (Morgan, 2012; Yang, 2019). EIA was specifically associated with sustainable development in the Rio Earth Summit (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992) given that the conservation consequences of development decisions need to be understood by decision-makers before consent can be given.

Yet perceived weaknesses with EIA in protecting biodiversity has led to calls for greater inclusion of approaches within EIA to improve biodiversity outcomes; for example: application of trade-off rules within impact assessment (hereafter referred to as “Gibson's trade-off rules” after Gibson et al., 2005; Gibson, 2006); embedding Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA) within EIA (e.g., Baker et al., 2013; Geneletti, 2013; Karjalainen et al., 2013; Hansen et al., 2018); and including biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism within EIA (Rundcrantz and Skärbäck, 2003; BBOP, 2009; de Witt et al., 2019).

But EIA is not a decision-making tool, and its influence on decisions is known to be context dependent (Kolhoff et al., 2009). Therefore the understanding, and political interpretation, of sustainable development in any jurisdiction (or the relationship between development and conservation where sustainable development is not an explicit policy goal) is an important determinant of the effectiveness of its practice (Lyhne et al., 2017).

The extent to which biodiversity should be protected is a value-laden question that relies on moral views on the intrinsic value of biodiversity. As such it requires ethical reasoning to determine intrinsic value (Van Dyke and Lamb, 2020). Given that degrees of protection are ethical considerations, in this paper we map degrees of biodiversity protection against different ethical positions. This then provides a framework for considering the ethical boundaries which constrain the practice of EIA, and therefore explain the level of support provided to different biodiversity outcomes.

Therefore, the aims of this paper are:

  • 1.

    to explore what biodiversity protection means from different environmental ethics perspectives;

  • 2.

    to conceptualise sustainable development from an environmental ethics perspective; and

  • 3.

    to identify the limits of biodiversity protection that EIA can be expected to underpin in a political context where sustainable development is the goal.

To meet these aims, the paper is structured as follows. The next section briefly introduces sustainable development discourses. Section 3 introduces environmental ethics and conceptualises the level of biodiversity protection afforded at points along that spectrum. Section 4 conceptualises the relationship between two discourses on sustainable development and environmental ethics, and shows where EIA (with and without associated approaches) fits into this picture. The final section discusses the implications of the findings, and concludes on the understanding that has been developed about the degree of biodiversity protection that EIA can support, and what the implication would be of changing EIA to better protect biodiversity.

Section snippets

Sustainable development discourses

Sustainable development means different things to different people depending on world-views held (Bell and Morse, 2008; Bond et al., 2010; Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011), leading to different framings, which are termed discourses. Bond and Morrison-Saunders (2009) highlighted some of the sustainable development discourses (defined “as an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to phenomena” (Hajer, 1993, p.45)) that are relevant to a decision-making context

A spectrum of environmental ethics

We define ethics as standards or social norms that guide human conduct after Chirikure (2014) in decision-making associated with EIA. Verhoog (1992) explores environmental ethics by considering the intrinsic value humans place on different species. A key consideration here is the notion of sentience. A sentient species is one “capable of experiencing positive and negative affective states” (Duncan, 2006, p.11); which in more simple terms means they can experience, for example, hunger, fear,

Conceptualisation: mapping sustainable development discourses and EIA onto environmental ethics

If we return to the economic and ecological discourses of sustainable development, it is clear that both shallow ecology and weak sustainability are anthropocentric concepts. Value attributed to species in either case is viewed in the context of the utilitarian value that is afforded to humans by the existence of that species (in that location). Arguably, in some cases, zoocentric ethics could come into play based on the greater affinity felt by human beings for sentient animals. Nevertheless,

Discussion and conclusions: What does environmental ethics tell us about the ability of EIA to assist in the protection of biodiversity?

Our stated aims were:

  • 1.

    to explore what biodiversity protection means from different environmental ethics perspectives;

  • 2.

    to conceptualise sustainable development from an environmental ethics perspective; and

  • 3.

    to identify the limits of biodiversity protection that EIA can be expected to underpin in a political context where sustainable development is the goal.

The level of biodiversity protection has been shown to increase along the environmental ethics spectrum from anthropocentrism through to

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

References (85)

  • K. Drayson et al.

    Ecological mitigation measures in English environmental impact Assessment

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2013)
  • I.J.H. Duncan

    The changing concept of animal sentience

    Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.

    (2006)
  • P. Ekins et al.

    A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2003)
  • D. Geneletti

    Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2006)
  • D. Geneletti

    Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2013)
  • J. Hugé et al.

    Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation

    Environ Sci Policy

    (2017)
  • T.P. Karjalainen et al.

    Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: an analytic–deliberative approach

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2013)
  • I. Lyhne et al.

    Theorising EIA effectiveness: a contribution based on the Danish system

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2017)
  • D. Mebratu

    Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (1998)
  • A. Morrison-Saunders et al.

    Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2013)
  • C. O’Faircheallaigh

    Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2010)
  • E. Primmer et al.

    Institutions for governing biodiversity offsetting: an analysis of rights and responsibilities

    Land Use Policy

    (2019)
  • T. Richardson

    Environmental and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2005)
  • C.L. Spash

    Bulldozing biodiversity: the economics of offsets and trading-in nature

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2015)
  • A.-C. Vaissière et al.

    Biodiversity offsetting: clearing up misunderstandings between conservation and economics to take further action

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2017)
  • G. Wood

    Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’?

    Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.

    (2008)
  • K. Akamani

    Integrating deep ecology and adaptive governance for sustainable development: implications for protected areas management

    Sustainability

    (2020)
  • BBOP

    The Relationship between Biodiversity Offsets and Impact Assessment: A BBOP Resource Paper

    (2009)
  • BBOP

    Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook-Updated. A BBOP Resource Paper

    (2012)
  • S. Bell et al.

    Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?

    (2008)
  • A.J. Bond et al.

    Sustainability appraisal: jack of all trades, master of none?

    Impact Assess. Project Appr.

    (2009)
  • K.A. Brauman et al.

    ecosystem services and river basin management

  • C. Brown

    Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics

    Anim. Cogn.

    (2015)
  • S. Brownlie et al.

    Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss?

    Impact Assess. Project Appr.

    (2013)
  • L.K. Caldwell

    Understanding impact analysis: Technical process, administrative reform, policy principle

  • C. Calvet et al.

    The biodiversity offsetting dilemma: between economic rationales and ecological dynamics

    Sustain. (Switzerland)

    (2015)
  • B.J. Cardinale et al.

    Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity

    Nature

    (2012)
  • S. Chirikure

    Where angels fear to tread: ethics, commercial archaeology, and extractive industries in southern Africa

    Azania

    (2014)
  • Council of the European Communities

    Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

    Off. J. Eur. Communities

    (1992)
  • T. Cuckston

    “seeking an ecologically defensible calculation of net loss/gain of biodiversity”, Accounting

    Audit. Account. J.

    (2019)
  • H.E. Daly

    On Wilfred Beckerman’s critique of sustainable development

    Environ. Values

    (1995)
  • R. De Vreese et al.

    Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept?

    Ecosyst. Services

    (2019)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Exploring the relationship between context and effectiveness in impact assessment

      2022, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      Richardson (2005) draws on planning theory to recommend that storytelling and ethical judgement might be appropriate approaches for dealing with the pluralism inherent in individual values; they act as means of understanding the discursive positions of others, and avoid the presentation in EIA documentation of some discursive positions at the expense of others, thereby alienating those with different values. Bond et al. (2021) argued that IA supports decision making grounded in an anthropocentric ethical position, which will be counter to the views of many conservationists. It points to a need for EIA processes which more clearly communicates the difference of opinions and values that are relevant in a situation, and which allows dialogue over the goals of the process.

    • To what extent are threatened plant species considered in impact assessment decision-making? Insights from southeastern Brazil

      2021, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      EIA has been working mainly as a compensation tool for the removal of tree species. This finding is aligned with the recent essay by Bond, Pope, Morrison-Saunders, and Retief (2021), which argues that EIA can help “… minimise the rate of biodiversity loss in unprotected areas, but cannot prevent it” (p. 6). This study also found that the implementation of mitigation and compensation programs targeting threatened plant species are profoundly based on developers' field evaluations, which are not necessarily audited and verified by the state government.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text