 |
|||||||
| About UNEP | UNEP offices | News centre | Publications | Calendar | Awards | Milestones | UNEP Store |
|
|||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
||
| UNEP>DTIE>IETC | |
|
|
3.5 Step 3: Preliminary judgement The assessments in this step make use of the environmental pressures identified in a general way in Step 2, by expressing these pressures in terms of the resulting environmental impacts, and aggregating them for each of the environmental outcome categories, or endpoints. The economic viability of the technology intervention is also considered. Completion of this step requires additional information on the impacts likely to be imposed on valued environmental and related systems and also on indicators of the economic performance of the technology. At the conclusion of this step it should be possible to reach a consensus regarding the significance of the environmental pressures and impacts associated with the technology, and with respect to the overall economic viability of the technology intervention. Background Step 2 involved assessing the pressures the technology intervention might impose on environmental and related systems. The present step considers these general findings in more detail and subsequently produces an overall assessment of the impacts, expressed in terms of the environmental endpoints. A simple assessment is also undertaken in order to provide an indication of the economic viability of the technology intervention. A decision is made as to the sufficiency of information, after consideration of gaps in information and uncertainties in understanding. Completing Step 3 The categories of impacts, and the procedures for assessing the significance of impacts are described in Sections 2.12 and 2.13, respectively. Judgements as to the severity of the impacts can be aided by reference to appropriate environmental legislation, regulations, standards, guidelines and codes of good practice (see Section 2.13). For example, if the pressures, and consequent impacts, are likely to result in non-compliance with such requirements, the impacts should be classified as "moderate" or "large", depending on the extent of non-compliance. Acknowledgement of diverse opinions is essential to the successful conclusion of an assessment. It may be therefore be appropriate to check more than one of the boxes provided when recording the response for a given impact category. This might be done in order to acknowledge both variations in opinion and the existence of uncertainties (see Section 2.2). Uncertainty might be indicated by checking two or more adjacent boxes. A diversity of opinions could also be indicated by entering in each box the percentage of individuals who consider that box reflects the most appropriate response. Step 3 includes assessment of the overall impact of the technology intervention for each endpoint. Again it may be appropriate to check more than one box. In addition to again indicating divergent opinions and or significant uncertainties, such a result may be used to signify that it is inappropriate or impossible to aggregate the separate impacts. In more sophisticated methodologies, such as environmental impact assessment, it is common to use weighting schemes that facilitate aggregation of the impacts for individual impact categories, resulting in an assessment of the overall impact for the given endpoint. Such an approach is not used in EnTA as it is inconsistent with the goal of keeping EnTA practical and simple, and the information requirements within reasonable limits. If the EnTA findings reveal that a more comprehensive and objective assessment is required, consideration can be given to undertaking an environmental, health, social, economic or other more rigorous assessment, as appropriate. a. Assess the impacts on human health and safety that are likely to arise from the pressures identified in Step 2 The pressures on human health and safety that were identified in Step 2 are now described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. Any known adverse impacts on human health and safety are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. b. Assess the local natural environmental impacts likely to arise from the pressures identified in Step 2 The pressures on the local natural environment that were identified in Step 2 are now described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. Any known adverse impacts on the local natural environment are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. c. Assess the global environmental impacts likely to arise from the pressures identified in Step 2 The pressures on the global environment that were identified in Step 2 are now described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. Any known adverse impacts on the global environment are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. d. Assess the impacts on the sustainability of resource use likely to arise from the pressures identified in Step 2 The pressures on the sustainability of resources used that were identified in Step 2 are now described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. Any known adverse impacts on the sustainability of resource use are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. e. Assess the social impacts likely to arise from the pressures identified in Step 2 The pressures on social and cultural systems that were identified in Step 2 are now described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. Any known adverse impacts on social and cultural systems are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. f. Assess the impacts likely to arise from pressures not identified in Step 2 Some specific pressures may not have been identified in Step 2; for example they may relate to endpoints other than those identified in Step 2. In the present step any such pressures should be described in terms of the impacts they are likely to cause. The adverse impacts are characterised as being at one of six levels, first for each impact category and subsequently overall. g. Assess the economic viability of the proposed technology intervention As previously noted, this part of the assessment is designed to prevent the environmental and related damage that may occur if a technology investment fails to meet its goals because of poor economic performance. Two simple economic performance indicators are used to guide the assessment - payback time and internal rate of return. To determine the latter the net present value of the technology investment must also be estimated. These indicators are described in Section 2.14, while worked examples are presented in Annex 3. Generally a payback time of three years or less is preferred. The internal rate of return for the planned technology investment can be compared with current and anticipated interest rates and with the internal rate of return for other technology options and, indeed, other investment opportunities. It is important that any intercomparisons of internal rates of return and of interest rates take into account the complicating factor of risk (see Section 2.14). Assessment of the economic viability of the proposed technology investment should also include consideration of "uninternalized cost elements" - the environmental, social and other externalities described in Section 2.14. As noted there, in an EnTA it is impractical to derive a monetary estimate of these costs; rather, this step simply requires that the external cost elements be identified and described in terms of their relative contribution to the total cost of that stage of the technology investment. External costs include both monetary and non-monetary costs. An example of the former is the additional health care costs incurred by individuals living in a community impacted by air pollution from an industrial plant, where these costs are not paid for by the plant owners or operators. An example of a non-monetary cost is the value individuals place on a landscape that is not degraded due to air and other forms of pollution. Sound environmental management calls for external costs to be internalised as much as possible, thus becoming a cost of production that would be included in the calculation of the payback time and the internal rate of return. The viability of the technology investment may be compromised by unanticipated changes in production costs - such as undesirable fluctuations in raw material, labour and energy costs. Such cost elements should be identified for each stage of the technology life cycle, and an assessment made as to the extent to which they pose a significant threat to the economic viability of the technology investment. Finally, the overall economic viability of the technology investment should be described in qualitative terms, with the assessment based on the economic performance indicators, on the relative size of the uninternalized costs, on the importance of the critical cost elements, and on any other relevant information available to the assessment team. h. Describe information gaps and uncertainties Information gaps that have impeded the assessment of impacts to the outcome endpoints are identified. The associated uncertainties in assessing the impacts should also be described. Provision is made for identifying gaps and uncertainties that are not directly related to any of the outcome categories, or are related to the assessment of the economic viability of the technology intervention. i. Is there sufficient information to characterise and evaluate the environmental pressures and impacts and the overall economic viability of the technology? Step 3 of the assessment concludes with consideration being given to whether it is possible to reach a consensus regarding the extent to which the technology will impact on the environment, and hence its acceptability. If the information gaps and uncertainties in the assessment are such that it is not possible to reach a consensus, measures should be taken to reduce the critical gaps and uncertainties and address any other shortcomings in the approach taken to the assessment. The latter might include improved stakeholder consultation and increased participation of interested parties. Steps 2 and 3 should then be repeated, as appropriate. On the other hand, if the findings, gaps and uncertainties are such that a
consensus is likely be reached, Step 4 of the assessment can begin.
|
