increasing as a result of climate change, and various larger-scale environmental hazards to human population health have begun to appear. Changes in the IA methodology to incorporate climate change need to begin within different jurisdictions and different climate regimes in a consistent way. At the same time regulatory bodies, governments and IFIs need to support and monitor these evaluations and be ready to incorporate them in their assessment and evaluation processes. Revision to and evaluation of IA methodology should include key risk analysts from, for example, real estate, bank and insurance industries to ensure that risk assessment methodologies conform to industry standards.
The IA methodology can be summarized generically into:
- issue scoping,
- selection of valued environmental/socio-economic components and indicators,
- assessment of impacts,
- quantification of significant impacts,
- development of mitigation and effects monitoring plans,
- reporting of residual impacts and conclusions.
Terminology may differ but these basic elements, including the quantification of impacts and determination of significance, are common world-wide. This provides a consistent framework for the evaluation of environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with environmental change.
To date, incorporating climate change into the EIA process has focused on identification of mitigation elements within the project or programme scope and potential effects of climate change on the physical foundation of the project or programme. Since mitigation has been an accepted requirement for policy and project review globally following the general adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, most EIA jurisdictions require some identification of how the project or programme will affect GHG emissions. A number of guides are available to assist in formulation of GHG contributions from various types of projects, with the UK and Australia providing good templates. However, the requirement for adaptation to climate change as a current reality is a more recent issue with less clear guidance, especially for mainstreaming of the issue.
A World Bank View (Burton and Aalst, 1999)1
A highly vulnerable system would be one that is highly sensitive to modest changes in climate, and one for which the ability to adapt is severely constrained. Projects include those where direct impacts of climate change may affect the viability of the project itself, or projects where consideration of climate change should be incorporated to avoid risks. Examples of vulnerable projects include coastal infrastructure, large hydro plants, or agriculture vulnerable to drought. Projects where risk could be reduced include agricultural research designed to increase output or irrigation projects – these projects may not be vulnerable themselves, but can be used to reduce vulnerability of the sector. Education and health projects were excluded, because such a broad definition would include almost all projects.
Climate change issues identified:
- low lying coastal lands periodically inundated by sea water driven inland by cyclonic storms (Bangledesh, Papua New Guinea)
- small size and limited portfolio (Samoa)
- floods and flash floods (Guyana, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe)
- drought (Bangledesh, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe)
- El Niño (Ecuador, Guyana)
- rigid sea defenses (Guyana)
In some cases, climate change is being incorporated in projects, and in other, specific climate change studies have been implemented. However, few sectors and few countries have the capacity to deal with the anticipated extremes in climate.
A follow-up climate change assessment was prepared by Burton and Aalst in 20042
, which emphasize the need for risk management in development practices. A scan of Country Assistance Strategies and project documents reaffirmed their earlier conclusions and suggested that climate risks had yet received due attention. They concluded a coherent system is needed that will consider together both current risks from climate variability and extremes as well as longer-term climate change. The