 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
The method of environmental issue identification suggested here is one which embraces any underlying concerns and this leads to a more focussed and effective management of environmental issues.
Other methods also address stakeholder concerns, but this method is unique in that it helps to distinguish between expectations which require environmental impact reduction and those which require improved communication.
The significance of an environmental issue (or aspect, as this is sometimes referred to) is generally established by plotting the probability and severity of an adverse effect/event onto a risk classification chart such as shown in the following figure.
Environmental risk classification figure
(adopted from the DEFRA Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management)
Mild consequence / low probability risks are generally acceptable, whereas severe consequence / high probability risks are not. Medium risks need to be reduced as far as reasonably possible. This means that it is not the presence of a hazard that is addressed, but the likelihood that such a hazard translates into undesirable effects.
The problem with this way of environmental risk assessment is the lack of agreement about what environmental risks are significant. What is significant to one person may well be insignificant to another. Although guidance exists for risks impacting individuals or groups of human beings, it does not for risks impacting the environment as a whole or any of its non-human components.
To compensate for this lack of definition, I generally apply an additional step in the risk assessment process; i.e. Issue Identification.
The identification of issues provides assurance that any hazard with the potential, or perceived potential, to cause significant harm to humans and/or the environment is identified and addressed. Issue Identification provides focus to the management of environmental issues.
Rather than providing my own definition of significance, I systematically review each aspect against three criteria to determine whether an aspect is an issue. These criteria are selected to reflect the opinions of as broad a range of people as possible.
I derive issue identification criteria from:
These issue identification criteria are described in the following sections
Science informed opinion
Broadly, scientific criteria for risk assessment can be summarized as:
- demonstrable effects in the field;
- evidence from laboratory studies suggesting toxic effects which dispersion modeling indicates could produce effects in the field.
Findings from scientific studies are generally expressed as concentrations of pollutants at which a certain environmental effect is expected to occur. Much occurring environmental impact indicators include: NEC (no effect concentration) and LC50 (the concentration that is lethal to 50% of a certain population of organisms.
In assessing the risk of a hazard, consideration must be given to its extent, magnitude, duration and reversibility, as well as the sensitivity and species rarity of the receiving environment.A lot of work has been done by other organizations in this area, especially relating to the toxicity of individual chemicals. In such work, a comparison is made between the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the expected concentration of the chemical. Safety factors are applied to increase confidence.
It would be devastating if areas of outstanding natural beauty would disappear or if rare animal or plant species would get extinct, and it would be even more devastating if impacts would extent to a regional or even global scale.
I rank risk criteria from science informed opinion as per the following ranking table:
Science informed opinion is particularly useful in cases where an impact is (mainly) caused by a single source; e.g., cuttings piles.
If other risk sources contribute to the problem under assessment, such as is the case in the North Sea where the environment is impacted by a large number of different sources, it is of limited relevance, as environmental science does not discriminate between risk sources. Environmental science can answer whether a desired environmental quality standard is exceeded, but it cannot answer whether a discharge from, for instance, an offshore oil production facility is more or less acceptable than the same discharge from a merchant vessel carrying medical supplies.
The latter is a political decision, which usually translates into industry specific performance standards (see following Section). In risk assessments, I draw on science informed opinion wherever possible, and on performance standards in all other cases.
To accommodate the assessment of cumulative impacts, the ranking table includes a ranking specifically for such impacts, rather than dismissing these by ranking them as low significance.
Performance standards
Relevant performance standards make up the second set of risk assessment criteria.
Performance standards may be associated with current legislation, operating licences, operational consents, guidelines issued by statutory authorities, industry-wide practices and company internal standards. Impacts are deemed significant when these standards are not being met.
Performance standards are particularly useful for assessing the significance of individual contributions to local, regional and global problems that are being caused by the sum of different risk sources (cumulative impacts).
The significance of policy statements and guidance will largely be determined by the specificity of such statements or guidance. Achieving a specified discharge standard, for example, requires a higher level of priority than aligning company activities with non-specific guidance, such as an aspiration for a better environmental quality. This philosophy does not suggest that less specific guidance should not be considered; it simply means that it of lesser significance.
I label any regulatory or legislative obligation as being of high significance.
The matrix in the following ranking table describes the prioritization of regulatory and policy requirements.
Risk perception
In addition to scientific evidence and applicable performance standards, I base any assessment of environmental impacts on the opinions of stakeholders.
An awareness of risk perception issues is very important in environmental management. In general terms, while the formal risk assessment is the process adopted by the scientists and the experts when facing a public health or an environmental problem, risk perception is the process dominating the judgment about such risks for the laymen and the general population.
A number of factors have been identified which influence public perception of risk: many of which are not properly addressed in the formal risk assessment process (Peter Sandman, 1993), e.g.:
- the extent to which the risk is voluntary,
- the novelty of the risk form (dread factor),
- the possibility of catastrophic or irreversible outcomes,
- whether the risk is controllable,
- whether future generations could be affected,
- whether the risk is morally relevant,
- whether the company is trusted.
I place the level of stakeholder concern regarding a hazard into one of three categories. These are defined in the following ranking table.
When appropriate, the passion, power, and interest of individual stakeholders should be considered, including the reason why they have specific concerns.
EMS 1 2 3 4 5 6
