диссертация (1169188), страница 97

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 97)

Now, after the collapse of the USSR that is not the case. Moreover,with the ice melting and big changes having occurred in the Arctic naturalenvironment, collecting of scientific data has become even harder.A comparative analysis of the legal acts, both domestic and international, oninformation to be taken into account during an EIA, shows several categoriescommon for all of them. These include describing the existing state of naturalenvironment (on multiple parameters):-projection of changes to occur during planned activities;-projection of changes for the socio-economic conditions in the region;-planning of measures to mitigate negative effects.At first glance, consideration of these parameters may ensure timelyresponse to negative changes triggered by such activities.

But in reality, it is not so.The problem of collection and assessment of information and monitoring in an EIAcontext is at the centre of attention of scholars, including lawyers. It has beenespecially acutely felt in the context of strategic evaluation of plans andprogrammes, whose importance is not growing. This is quite easy to explain, sincethe cumulative effect of the anthropogenic impact by its scale and long-termconsequences often goes beyond a particular project and, accordingly, cannot becalculated within the legal framework set for the EIA procedure.An analysis of lacunae in the regulation of EIA, including the strategicassessment of impact of the activities, as well as monitoring in the Arctic is thefocus of the work “Strategic Environmental Assessment and Monitoring: Key586Olsvig S., op cit., P.

256.429Arctic Gaps and Bridging Pathways.”587 Its authors (Juan Azcarate, Borit Bolfors,Arvid Bring, Georgia Destouni) note that all Arctic states in principle practice EIA,but its implementation substantially differs. A vital element of EIA is monitoring,which is, in particular, envisaged in EU law. However, the authors observe,monitoring in fact is scarcely rewarding. As an example, they discuss the situationwith Arctic water resources. Their condition strongly affects not only naturalconditions, but the social sphere as well. Despite this, their monitoring isimperfect: observations, scholars remark, are not conducted even for the chemicalcomposition of water which is drastically changing as a result of anthropogenicinfluence.Scholars see the solution of the issue of collection and analysis of data onchanges of the environment differently.

For instance, Cherp, Partidario and Artssuggest introducing post-project assessment and management,588 i.e. conductingmonitoring and making relevant adjustments into management after the projectends. Lundberg, Balfors and others propose, in particular, combining monitoringwith the assessment procedure. Specifically, they are talking about plans fortransportation infrastructure.589 Wallgren and his co-authors see the solution inincorporating monitoring into the process of drafting plans and programmes,590while other specialists are looking into the option of engaging into the EIA-relatedmonitoring of businesses and other interested parties.591 Academics note that in theArctic, where natural and, then, social conditions are rapidly changing, strategicassessment would be relevant.

But despite numerous proposals, in practice, in the587Iopscience.iop.org588Cherp A., Partidario M.R. and Arts J. From formulation to implementation: strengthening SEA through followup Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Ed. by S. Barry, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T.B. Fischer, M.R.Partidario and R. Verheem.

London: Earthscan, 2011.589Lundberg K., Balfors B., Folkeson L. and Nilsson M. SEA monitoring in Swedish regional transportinfrastructure plans—improvement opportunities identified in practical experience. // Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.2010. Vol. 30. P. 400–6.590Wallgren O., Nilsson N., Jonsson D.K. and Wiklund H. Confronting SEA with real planning: the case of followup in regional plans and programmes in Sweden // J. Environ. Assess.

Policy Manag. 2011. Vol. 13. P. 229–50.591Gacheciladze-Bozhesku M. Towards improving strategic environmental assessment follow-up throughstakeholder participation: a case of the Pasquia–Porcupine forest management plan, Saskatchewan, Canada J.Environ. Plann. Manag. 2012. Vol. 55. P. 1058–74.430Arctic, EIA of specific projects, despite the inadequacies discussed above, remainspredominant.The issue of collection of information on natural processes has anotheraspect. These are vague, incoherent requirements to the monitoring itself, pointedout, in particular, by Partidario.592 Thus, in Canada, for example (just like in othercountries – Germany, England, which have nothing to do with the Arctic, but theirpractice of monitoring still presents interest), monitoring is not aimed at detectingunforeseen changes, new phenomena, which would be crucial for the Arctic.

Thisobvious loophole in regulation is emphasized by Hanusch, Glasson,593 and otherauthors.594 Moreover, monitoring may be limited to the control of measures setforth in the project, while completely ignoring real changes.595The third problem already partially discussed above is the lack ofinformation. Monitoring for EIA purposes is based on the existing observationsystem, but that does not supply data for assessing plans and programmes, that is,for strategic assessment, which is exactly needed in the Arctic, as mentionedbefore.

The same problem was identified in Canada in the forestry sector:inconsistency of the real industry and the governmental monitoring system.596The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a TransboundaryContext that has a special protocol on strategic assessment, does not solve theissues, since, as it is noted in publications, it leaves the latter to the discretion ofstates.597592Partidario M.R. and Fischer T.B. Follow-up in current SEA understanding Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIAand SEA Follow-Up. Ed. by A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts. London: Earthscan, 2004.593Hanusch M.

and Glasson J. Much ado about SEA/SA monitoring: the performance of English regional spatialstrategies, and some German comparisons. // Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008. Vol. 28, P. 601–17.594Gacheciladze M., Noble B.F. and Bitter B.W. Following up in strategic environmental assessment: a case studyof 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan.

// Canada Impact Assess. Project Appraisal. 2009. Vol. 27,P. 45–56.595Wallgren O., Nilsson N., Jonsson D.K. and Wiklund H. Confronting SEA with real planning: the case of followup in regional plans and programmes in Sweden // J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2011. Vol. 13. P. 229–50.596Gacheciladze M., Noble B.F. and Bitter B.W. Following up in strategic environmental assessment: a case studyof 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan. // Canada Impact Assess.

Project Appraisal. 2009. Vol. 27,P. 45–56.597Hilden M. and Furman E.R. Assessment across borders Stumbling blocks and options in the practicalimplementation of the Espoo Convention. // Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2001. Vol. 21. P. 537–51.431Unfortunately, even with the perfect EIA, strategic assessment andmonitoring system, negative changes in the Arctic due to human activities can beprevented only partially. This is to no little extent due to the Arctic catchmentbasin covering vast expanses going far beyond its boundaries. This basin includessome European and Asian water resources too. The lack of an adequate system formonitoring the state of water resources in Eastern Europe and Central Asia has aserious negative impact on the Arctic region, as noted, in particular, in the SecondAssessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters.598A big contribution to the development of the EIA and monitoring system ismade by the Arctic Council, the intergovernmental organ of the Arctic States asalready noted above.

The Council currently runs the Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Program launched in 1991, which concentrates efforts on coordinatingmonitoring and strategic assessment.The Arctic Council initiated an assessment of impact of climate change inthe Arctic. The Report prepared based on integrated scientific research drawsattention to ten principal aspects:1.Arctic climate is currently becoming warmer very rapidly and evengreater changes of natural conditions can be anticipated based on that.2.Arctic warming and its effects have global pertinence.3.Arctic vegetation zones will likely change causing further large-scalechanges.4.The diversity and habitats of fauna will change.5.Many coastal communities and sites will be more exposed to storms.6.Reduced ice sheet in the sea is likely to result in an intensification ofnavigation and will expand opportunities for using natural resources.7.Increased soil temperature will cause destruction of buildings,transportation routes, and other infrastructure.598UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) 2011 Second Assessment of Transboundary Rivers,LakesandGroundwatersLastaccessedatwww.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/assessment/English/ECE Second Assessment En.pdf on 26 November 2012.4328.Indigenous communities will face great economic and culturalchanges.9.Increased UV radiation will affect people, plants and animals.10.Interaction of these numerous factors will affect people andecosystems.599In detail, the scope of these sections is covered by a number of scholarlypublications, for instance, one by Robert Corell, specifically on EIA in theArctic.600 However, even based on the above list of areas for research, one can seethe obvious difficulties of projecting the consequences of any large-scale activityin the Arctic.Essentially, the above initiative of the Arctic Council was the first step ofthat international organisation towards interdisciplinary studies of the nature of thechanging Arctic.

Характеристики

Список файлов диссертации