 |
|||||||
| About UNEP | UNEP offices | News centre | Publications | Calendar | Awards | Milestones | UNEP Store |
|
|||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
||
| UNEP>DTIE>IETC | |
|
|
3.7 Step 5: Decide if a consensus decision can be reached This is the final substantive step in the assessment. Normally completion of this step will not require any additional information. Rather, it draws on the findings of the preceding four steps. The aim of this step is to facilitate a consensus regarding the environmental and related performances of the proposed technology intervention. Background Identification and characterisation of environmental impacts is never exact. The complexities of the environmental systems themselves, and especially the interactions related to human activities, impair our ability to specify the environmental consequences of a specific technology intervention. Due to the complex nature of environmental systems this would be the case even if all information was available. That is seldom, if ever, the case. Recognition of the resulting uncertainties is important as it signals to decision makers the relative extent to which they can rely on the guidance provided, and hence make unequivocal and irreversible decisions. Significant uncertainty calls for a more adaptive approach to management, where flexibility is retained and options are kept open until the reduced levels of uncertainty suggest it is appropriate to do otherwise. Thus, an adaptive management approach invokes strategies for reducing uncertainties, to the extent that such efforts are reasonable. Completing Step 5 a. Can a consensus be reached with respect to the performance of the preferred technology? The questions to be answered in this step are designed to identify whether all necessary steps have been completed, at least to the extent that some necessary conclusions can be reached. If there are shortcomings, suggestions are given as to which steps need to be repeated in order to move towards a conclusion. b. Characterise the significant information gaps, and uncertainties that remain The major gaps and uncertainties identified earlier are described. As noted above, this information should be made available to the decision makers and other stakeholders, in order to show the extent to which they can rely on the guidance provided by the assessment. c. Summarise the suitability of the preferred technology and the level of certainty in the assessment This step provides the opportunity to describe the environmental impacts of principal concern and the types of changes in the technology intervention that might result in further reduction of these impacts and hence improved acceptability of the technology. Once again it is appropriate to describe the level of certainty in this aspect of the assessment, with the findings being made available to interested parties, along with any recommendations. Section 2.4 indicates that in some circumstances an EnTA should be followed by a more detailed, rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance of the proposed technology intervention. Factors influencing such a decision may well include existence of large information gaps, high levels of uncertainty, inability to reach a consensus due to the continuing polarization of views amongst stakeholders, and the serious nature of the environmental impacts that have been identified. Any one of these circumstances would indicate the need for a more comprehensive study, such as an environmental impact assessment, an environmental or health risk assessment, a comprehensive economic analysis or a social impact assessment. The nature of the environmental impacts, the measures that may or may not be available to avoid or mitigate these impacts and the gaps and uncertainties should all be considered when making a recommendation as to whether a more comprehensive environmental assessment should be undertaken. The acceptability of the technology being assessed should be indicated and the viability of any alternative technology interventions should be described. Finally, the consensus recommendations regarding the preferred technology, and any viable alternatives, should be provided. Once the Workbook and worksheets are completed, there are several additional steps in the EnTA process that should be considered. Document and present the assessment methods and findings Careful attention should be given as to how, and to whom, the results of the assessment should be communicated. For example, Step 1 identified the principal beneficiaries of the proposed technology intervention and the stakeholders who would carry the burden if the environmental values were not protected. Consultation with interested parties was also used to help identify the goals of the assessment. All these stakeholders will likely have a legitimate interest in receiving and reviewing the results of the assessment. This is in addition to those who will use the assessment findings to guide their decisions regarding implementation of the technology intervention. Different circumstances may call for substantively different ways of reporting the results of the assessment, just as the breadth and depth of the assessment itself is dependent on various circumstances. In light of this, no attempt will be made to give an explicit description of the form, style and content of formal and informal communications arising from the assessment. However, any communication would normally take the following into account:
Follow-up to assessment As noted in Section 2.7, an EnTA is not a one-off action. As new information and understanding comes to light, as the technology cycle evolves, and as values and goals change, there may well be a need to re-evaluate the assessment findings. Follow-up activities should include, but not be limited to the following:
|
