EIA is a typical example of a proce

EIA is a typical example of a procedural method. An EIA is in many countries,
also often in Asian countries, legally required in decision-making on
large projects with potential significant environmental impacts (e.g., large
infrastructural works or waste-processing installations). The EIA-procedure
is tailored for evaluation of possible consequences of a proposed project on
a concrete location (EIA), but is now also been applied on a more strategic
level (SEA). EIA and SEA may use various impact characterisation techniques,
though EIA traditionally tends to take these from RA. More recent EIAs and
SEA also increasingly borrow from LCA and its impact characterisation techniques
to include the indirect consequences elsewhere from a project's consumption
of goods and services.
Both EIA and SEA focus on proposed projects and therefore look nearby in
the future. This as in contrast to TA that looks further in the future to consequences
of not yet implemented or even not yet existing innovations. TA does
neither represent a procedural nor an analytical method. TA rather involves a
science-based, interactive and communicative process to support public and
political opinion forming on consequences of new technology or scientific
innovations. The assessment of consequences obviously is an important part
of the process, but may take very different directions and forms depending on
the innovation at stake and the human health and environmental impacts of
interest.
EIA, including SEA, and TA thus borrow from the analytical framework and
techniques in RA and LCA. RA and LCA were traditionally rather complementary
to each other, but their further development increasingly makes place for
overlap. LCA is presently in the process of gradually expanding to include
site-dependent assessment (and incidentally even takes on board site-specific
assessment). Chemical and long-range RA lately expresses interest to take up
LCA elements, e.g. to cover user-aspects of chemicals, and to include other
impact like climate change and acidification for which then impact characterisation
techniques from LCA are used.
Even though the four methods are borrowing from each other, they remain
to differ with respect to their study object and focus. TA studies the consequences
of scientific and technological innovations, while an EIA evaluates
the impact of concrete projects and their possible alternatives. RA concentrates
on the human and ecosystem health effects of chemicals, and LCA is tailored
to draw the performance of product and service systems for a large range of
impacts. The fact that TA and EIA may need to borrow impact characterisation
techniques from RA and LCA implies, as Finnveden and Moberg (2005)
already pointed out and above exemplified for EIA, that the study object and
focus in TA and EIA on a more detailed level may encompass the study object
and focus of an RA or LCA.
Environmental assessments are usually undertaken in the context of
decision-making and the formulation of policies (Finnveden et ah, 2000;
Finnveden and Moberg, 2005). Cooperation of, and a dialogue between the
relevant stakeholders is often indispensable to get decisions effectively implemented.
Dialogue between stakeholders is the core of TA. The relevance of
How TO APPROACH THE ASSESSMENT? 405
stakeholder participation in the assessment is also broadly recognized in the
field of long-range RA, more specifically in integrated assessment as part of
it. Participatory approaches are here being developed and discussed extensively.
While other methods may recognize its importance, they do not specifically
facilitate stakeholder participation. Communication techniques used
in TA and long-range RA may therefore also strongly benefit the other assessment
methods. A useful toolkit of participatory methods was provided