www.miningengineeringmagazine.

com "tntng engineering AUGUST 2012 #$

echnicaI Fapers
Comparing EIA and ESHIA
for evaluating mining projects
!" $%&% '()*+,--
Abstract The environmental impact assessment (ElAj is the accepted method for evaluating
proposed mining and other industrial projects to obtain regulatory approval and to help
companies plan for responsible development. Another increasingly common evaluation system
for proposed projects is the environmental, social and health impact assessment (ESHlAj. An
ESHlA differs from an ElA for its generally more comprehensive and inclusive approach to
evaluating potential impacts, such as on public health, and other features such as an ecosystem
services approach to assessing biophysical and community impacts. An ESHlA may also be
required by certain lenders for fnancing major projects. ln this paper, ElA standards for the
province of Alberta, Canada are discussed and compared to ESHlA. lt concludes with several
recommendations for consideration.
!"#"#$ &#$"#''("#$, 2012, vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 87-92.
Offcial publication of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, lnc.
Intreductien
Mining today involves much more
than technical, regulatory and share-
holder requirements for extracting
mineral resources safely, legally and
protably. The mining sector must also
meet mounting societal concerns over
the pace of industrial development and
the potential for devastating social and
environmental consequences. As many
mining companies have painfully dis-
covered in pursuing challenging, and
at times conicting, goals related to ob-
taining societal approval and ensuring
protability, the social license to oper-
ate is not a given; it must be earned.
That is no easy task when so much can
go wrong.
More than ever, the extractive in-
dustry is under the public microscope,
with global headlines in recent years
fresh in peoples minds. One crisis with
an intensely human face was the 2010
Copiap mining accident in Chiles
Atacama Desert, which trapped 33 men
700 m (2,300 ft) underground for a re-
cord 69 days before their rescue. On the
ecological side, in the Alberta oil sands,
Syncrude was ned a $3-million penalty
for the deaths of 1,600 ducks in one of
its tailings pond on April 28, 2008; mak-
ing matters worse, another 230 ducks
were killed after landing in Shell and
Suncor oil sands ponds on Oct. 25, 2010.
Hard lessons have also been learned
from the negative fallout of the 2010
British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.
1
These and many other examples
over the past few decades have focused
global attention on the extractive indus-
try for their potential environmental
and human impacts, both negative and
positive. The spotlight is not going away
anytime soon. Public expectations are
forcing governments to enact stricter
regulatory permitting procedures over
mining activities, from exploration to
closure and post-closure phases. Gov-
ernments, supported by multilateral
and bilateral agencies, have developed
social and environmental guidelines to
regulate the mining sector. Nonprofit
agencies and industry associations such
as the International Council on Min-
ing and Metals (ICMM) and the Pros-
pectors and Developers Association of
Canada (PDAC) have also been leading
the charge on developing standards for
mining.
Few would dispute that the funda-
mental regulatory tool for proposed
mining development is the environ-
mental impact assessment (EIA). From
its early beginnings to its development
over the past three or four decades, the
EIA has become increasingly exacting,
paralleling the development and ex-
pansion of international and national
standards. Generally accompanied by
environmental and social management
plans, the EIA has undeniably become
the essential regulatory document re-
quired of new mines by governments
worldwide.
While the EIA process has gone far
$%&% '()*+,--. /,/!,0 1'&. (2
2,3(40 *4325-)63). &37(043/,3)6-
$,2450*,2 '6368,/,3). 96-860". :;%
<6=,0 35/!,0 ><?@@?ABA% C0(8(36-
/6352*0(=) 25!/()),D E,*,/!,0
FA@@% $,7(2,D /6352*0(=) 6**,=),D
G40 =5!-(*6)(43 :=0(- FA@F% E(2*522(43
4G )+(2 =,,0?0,7(,H,D 63D 6==047,D
=6=,0 (2 (37(),D 63D /52) !,
25!/()),D )4 1'& <5!-(*6)(432 !"
I47% JA. FA@F%
1
Also known as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill or the Macondo Blowout, BPs Deepwater Horizon
oil rig exploded 1,500 m (5,000 ft) below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, killed 11
men working on the platform and injured 17 others, as well as spilling 4.9 million barrels into the Gulf
of Mexico before being capped on July 15, 2010.
## AUGUST 2012 "tntng engineering www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
to alleviate potential negative environmental and social im-
pacts, in some countries these assessments and plans are not
enforced, since national governments and local authorities
often lack adequate capacity. Moreover, the EIA permitting
process is being questioned as a result of rising skepticism
that the mining industry is prepared to prevent and miti-
gate the potential for crisis. Dark clouds in the horizon have
appeared as a consequence of the aforementioned BP oil
disaster and other worrisome events. The EIA process itself
is being critiqued as unable to meet its promise of ensuring
compliance with regulatory and corporate standards. For
example, one study in northern Canada found that the EIA
process is less than ideal for four reasons: 1) Followup pro-
grams do not adequately harness [EIA] recommendations;
2) mistrust is felt among many stakeholders; 3) certain stake-
holder groups are discouraged from participating because of
inadequate capacity; and 4) benets are not adequately dealt
with, thereby precluding the attainment of lasting positive
outcomes for all parties (Galbraith et al., 2007).
Mining companies are not limited to the regulatory
requirements of EIAs as mandated by governments. New
or strengthened policies, laws, guidelines and other norms
as they apply to mining activities are shifting the goalposts.
Increased regulation has expanded the potential for legal,
nancial, reputational and other risks and liabilities. More
generally, the role of international companies is being re-
dened as civil society expects the mining sector to accept
broader responsibilities for managing impacts of their ac-
tivities on those communities and environments with which
they affect and interact. In short, a wide range of social issues
such as human rights, community development, public health,
governance and even corruption have become increasingly
signicant.
Perhaps greater than any other EIA requirement, the
need for stakeholder engagement has seen increased ex-
pectations from governments and lending institutions. For
example, stakeholder engagement is often expected to be
initiated early in the EIA process, as well as throughout and
even post-EIA. The early identication of potential impacts
with the input of stakeholders and communities has great-
ly improved the quality of post-approval project decision-
making. However, improving opportunities for stakeholder
engagement may still not be enough to satisfy regulators and
the public.
In response to some perceived shortfalls in the regulatory
EIA, the environmental, social and health impact assessment
(ESHIA) has been generating interest in North America, al-
though it has been applied in other regions for several years.
The ESHIA is now being touted by some as superior to the
EIAs for proposed mining and other industrial develop-
ments.
This paper examines some benets and challenges of car-
rying out ESHIAs as compared to EIAs. Some background is
rst provided on EIA and ESHIA. These two approaches are
then compared in the section that follows, with the province
of Alberta, Canada serving as an example. The paper con-
cludes with some recommendations on lessons learned for
carrying out an ESHIA or an EIA, and how, in reality, they
may not be too far apart.
veIutien ef the envirenmentaI impact assessment
Environmental impact assessment (EIA). The term en-
vironmental impact assessment (EIA) has become accepted
in the modern lexicon as a regulatory requirement for large-
scale industrial development, including proposed new or
expanded mines, pipelines, gas plants, airports, highways, etc.
The EIA process was legislated in the United States through
its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. It
has since evolved and has been increasingly adopted in many
countries around the world. EIA is the term most often used
by national and subnational (state or province) governments
and is understood to include environmental, social and health
factors. Standard EIA practices include the application of
accepted methodologies to collect and interpret data and
determine the level of signicance depending upon estab-
lished criteria for the project. Mitigation measures are often
standardized, facilitating comparisons across companies, in-
dustries and countries.
EIA in mining has a history extending for more than
30 years. Initially, an EIA was only required in a handful of
highly regulated circumstances. Now it is a rarity to nd a ma-
jor mining project anywhere in the world that is not required,
either by legislation or corporate standards, to undertake an
EIA. They are almost universally accepted, not only as a part
of doing business, but as an integral part of doing business
the right way.
For the North American energy and mining sector, the
EIA was adopted by governments to verify that proposed
projects would satisfy national and regional environmental
standards. Initially, the social and health components did
not receive the same attention that was given to biophysical
disciplines (flora and fauna, surface water, ground water,
air, noise, etc.). In the late 1970s, greater attention began to
be paid to social issues as related to development, but the
focus was still on narrowly defined socioeconomic issues,
often combined in a single chapter of the EIA report. The
importance of social issues continued to grow during the
1980s and 1990s. For example, in their project evaluation
procedures beginning in 1986, the World Bank required that
project proponents address social questions. By the 1990s,
social impact assessments (SIAs) were beginning to be fully
integrated into the EIA process. In 1993, the U.S. Council on
Environmental Quality began to explore ways to formally
incorporate the SIA into the revised EIA regulations (Jones
and Wagner, 2010).
Different regions modify the EIA process in accordance
with their particular legislation, environmental and social
conditions, target audience or stakeholders, and other factors.
To provide an example, in Alberta, Canada, an EIA report
is intended to assist the stakeholders, aboriginal communi-
ties and regulators in understanding the environmental and
socioeconomic consequences of a proposed projects devel-
opment, including preconstruction, construction, operations,
decommissioning and reclamation.
2
The Alberta EIA must
contain sufcient information to allow decision makers to
understand:
2
In Alberta and other parts of Canada, aboriginal people do not consider themselves to be mere stakeholders or the public, but
as political and legal entities with treaty and other rights.
www.miningengineeringmagazine.com "tntng engineering AUGUST 2012 #%
the nature of the project (project description);
the environmental setting in which it would occur;
the effect that the project is expected to have on that
setting;
the mitigation measures the proponent proposes to
minimize negative effects; and
management and monitoring plans the proponent
proposes to manage residual negative effects that
cannot be mitigated (Government of Alberta, 2011).
By and large, these information needs for Alberta EIAs
are applicable to other jurisdictions. The determination of
the signicance of effects, however, varies from project to
project. Impact signicance is generally assessed in terms
of magnitude, extent, duration, frequency and reversibility,
but other criteria may be used and the techniques applied
to these can also vary considerably. The main purpose is to
adequately understand the environmental (and social) con-
sequences of the project.
3

Environmental, social and health impact assessment (ES-
HIA). The ESHIA, introduced in the mid- to late-1990s, was
intended to provide greater treatment to the social and pub-
lic health impact sides of assessment. It was felt that these
components were not receiving adequate attention in EIAs,
and that a more holistic, integrated approach was needed,
rather than the siloed approach of individual components
loosely knit together. Along with the ESHIA, other forms
of impact assessment have emerged in the past 10-20 years,
including biodiversity, human rights, indigenous peoples and
gender impact assessments; these additional assessments
have been subsequently integrated into the ESHIA (Jones
and Wagner, 2010), although they are also often done as
stand alone assessments.
In contrast to the regulatory-driven EIA, an ESHIA
takes a proactive, anticipatory approach toward environment
and society. It is characterized by an integrated, comprehen-
sive and inclusive approach to data collection and analysis. At
least three factors make it stand out from an EIA: 1) health,
2) biodiversity and 3) stakeholder engagement. While cur-
rently most EIAs measure the potential impact on the rst
two factors, although in a limited sense as explained below,
the ESHIA generally goes further by evaluating potential im-
pacts on both individual and public health, and by taking an
ecosystem services approach to assessing biodiversity, physi-
cal, community and other impacts. Moreover, an ESHIA is
often done to demonstrate compliance with international
standards which may be (but are not necessarily) required
for project funding.
Carrying out an ESHIA is not without its challenges. It
requires multidisciplinary teams familiar with both interna-
tional and domestic standards to evaluate environmental,
social and health impacts and risks. Robust analysis and high
business value can be expected when expert environmental
scientists, social scientists and public health professionals
work together in a multidisciplinary manner. This kind of
expertise is often not locally available, and may have to be
imported at a higher cost than local consultants. Financial,
scheduling and other constraints also have to be considered.
The main international instruments regulating ESHIAs
are the Equator Principles and the World Bank International
Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards. Gov-
ernmental agencies or international financial institutions
(IFIs) responsible for furnishing guarantees and insurance of
export credits may review proposals by applicants using these
standards to assess risk and base their nancing decisions.
These IFIs include the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD), Norwegian Guarantee Insti-
tute for Export Credits (GIEK) and Export Development
Canada (EDC). Evaluation requirements generally refer
to international best practice and sustainable development,
with specic requirements on key environmental and social
issues that are mandatory for ESHIAs. These may include
potential alternatives of the planned development, biodiver-
sity protection and conservation, assessment of cumulative
and transboundary impacts, human rights protection, public
and worker health and safety, robust and transparent public
consultation, grievance mechanisms and indigenous peoples
and minorities rights.
While an EIA is commonly used by developed countries
such as the United States, European Union, Canada and
Australia, developers are increasingly selecting an ESHIA
for use in developing nations such as those in Africa, Latin
America and Asia. In these contexts, enforcement of EIA
standards (or the standards themselves) may be lacking or
decient, and as a result international lenders may require a
more holistic approach such as an ESHIA. As discussed later
in this paper, some companies are starting to incorporate
ESHIA in their business practices, no matter where they
operate.
Health impact assessment (HIA). It began to be clear
that a separate type of analysis was needed to ensure the full
gamut of health concerns were taken into account in EIAs.
HIA techniques emerged 20 years ago, but it was not until
the end of the 1990s that government agencies began to issue
formal HIA guidelines (Jones and Wagner, 2010).
The commissioning of in-depth HIA developed in re-
sponse to a failure of EIA to meaningfully account for health
factors. The 1990s began to show changing perceptions of
health and well being, a change in attitudes from treatment-
based health care to a more preventative approach, and re-
alization of the inherent health benets (e.g., in community
investment, stakeholder and government support). Prog-
ress has been slow for companies and regulators alike to
accept HIA in the context of industrial developments. By
2008, only an estimated 6% of HIAs had been conducted
in the developing world (Erlanger et al., 2008). One of the
reasons for this small share is that policies and procedures
for institutionalizing HIA are often weak or nonexistent in
developing countries. But even in developed nations, health
factors to be assessed may be narrowly dened, leaving out,
for example, issues such as communicable and sexually trans-
mitted diseases.
Today, HIA is often done as a stand-alone assessment,
but is also an integral part of an ESHIA. Given that the HIA
is now part of the risk management process of many multi-
national companies (Birley, 2005), it is likely that it will be in-
3
Environment is broadly dened in impact assessments to include social and human dimensions.
%& AUGUST 2012 "tntng engineering www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
creasingly utilized in developing country contexts. Protection
of worker and community health has long been codied in
legislation, occupational health standards and noise regula-
tions, among others, but is often limited to a small number of
relatively easily measurable parameters. HIA has typically
followed the route of using source-receptor, dispersion or
other modeling techniques to demonstrate compliance with
the legislation and corporate standards.
More recently, HIA has seen a transformation with great-
er focus on the potential impacts of projects on overall com-
munity health and welfare, and a commensurate emphasis on
disease epidemiology and prevention. This transformation
has also seen a focus on mitigating communicable diseases.
For example, in accordance with IFC Performance Standard
4: Community Health, Safety and Security, in the section
Community Exposure to Disease, two requirements on
health mitigation measures are outlined (IFC, 2006):
The client will prevent or minimize the potential for
community exposure to waterborne, water-based,
water-related, vector-borne disease and other com-
municable diseases that could result from project
activities; and
The client will prevent or minimize transmission of
communicable diseases that may be associated with
the inux of temporary or permanent project labor.
This transformation has increased the overlap and inter-
dependencies between EIA and HIA methodologies. It has
also created the need for a different kind of health profes-
sional. The skill sets required of them cross the boundaries
of traditional occupational health experts, toxicology experts,
medical physicians and risk specialists.
Arguably, the incorporation of community and public
health in the assessment process has been the differentia-
tor for an ESHIA. It has increasingly become clear that the
EIA process has not adequately addressed health issues.
Such issues may be viewed as too complex and/or costly for
adequate treatment in a full EIA, and causality may be very
difcult to nail down. This varies across EIA requirements in
different countries. Generally speaking, the reluctance to go
beyond a qualitative and often supercial treatment of health
issues still holds true for most EIAs.
Best practices for ESHIA compliance. To obtain funding,
an ESHIA needs to comply with requirements laid out in the
international standards and best practices. A few examples
include the following must dos:
Provide full consideration and analysis of relevant
environmental, socioeconomic and community
health aspects of the proposed development.
Engage in an open and transparent process from
the beginning, including free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC), culturally appropriate information
disclosure, etc.
Fully document a transparent stakeholder dialogue,
including query management procedures and feed-
back throughout project lifetime.
Describe rationale for all alternatives and the chosen
option.
Give due consideration to increasingly relevant la-
bor and human rights issues (e.g., international labor
conventions).
Describe transboundary impacts (if applicable).
Evaluate cumulative impacts (project and nonpro-
ject related).
Provide sufcient integration and feedback loop be-
tween engineering and environmental activities.
Describe contractor supervision and compliance
with agreed ESHIA commitments from construc-
tion through operation into decommissioning and
closure.
A few of these best practices may overlap with many
EIAs, but not always. Having described EIA and ESHIA, we
now compare them in more detail in the following section.
IA and 8IA cemparisen
In the Canadian context, experience has shown that many
proponents of mining and energy projects, and especially
domestic rms with limited operations outside of Canada,
tend to be unfamiliar with ESHIAs. While an ESHIA is not a
mandatory requirement in Alberta, and no evidence exists of
any that have been done to date, this does not prevent a com-
parative approach. Worth noting is that some international
rms have been proposing ESHIAs for their Alberta projects
to meet their own corporate reporting methods.
As discussed above, both EIA and ESHIA are used to
anticipate and plan the manner in which signicant impacts
are mitigated and benets are enhanced during the planning,
construction, operation and decommissioning of a project.
They have some key differences, some of which are noted in
Table 1.
4
It is also worth detailing some of the main aspects
of the Alberta EIA process to put it into context.
Alberta standards for EIA are considered by many to
be onerous in the level and quality of detailed information
required to ensure environmental and social compliance.
Alberta regulations demand extensive quantitative infor-
mation and analysis, which by extension requires technical
proficiency and extensive, specialized and local skills and
knowledge. An Alberta EIA also appears to meet many of
the requirements laid out by the IFC performance standards
and other international guidelines (e.g., Equator Principles).
Still, an Alberta EIA does have some shortfalls. It may
ignore some important health aspects, such as communicable
diseases and any potential for domestic or other forms of vio-
lence. In contrast, IFC guidelines require that the companys
community relations program address and reduce the risk in
the increase in communicable diseases, corruption, trade in
illegal substances such as drugs, alcohol abuse, petty crimes
and other related aspects. IFC performance standards also
require that security staff have received adequate training in
dealing with domestic violence and the use of force.
Alberta requirements also do not require early engage-
ment with communities and other stakeholders, although
they do not prevent the developer from doing so. This is a key
4
Some of these main ESHIA benets have been adapted from McCrea (2007).
www.miningengineeringmagazine.com "tntng engineering AUGUST 2012 %'
point that separates the Alberta EIA from ESHIA, whereby
the latter is much more demanding of stakeholder engage-
ments for the entire project lifecycle.
While Alberta EIA standards also require that biodiver-
sity be assessed, this does not necessarily equate into consid-
eration of a biodiversity offset or the valuation of ecosystem
services. According to the IFC Performance Standards, eco-
system services are the benets that people, including busi-
nesses, derive from ecosystems, which are organized into four
types: 1) provisioning services, which are the products people
obtain from ecosystems; 2) regulating services, which are
the benets people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem
processes; 3) cultural services, which are the nonmaterial
benets people obtain from ecosystems; and 4) supporting
services, which are the natural processes that maintain the
other services. An ESHIA requires consideration of how to
maintain the benets of ecosystem services.
Other key differences include the need to develop a
grievance mechanism (an ESHIA has much stronger require-
ments), needs for certain types of specialists or training, and
additional costs that an ESHIA may incur. This comparison
has informed various recommendations outlined in the fol-
lowing section.
8ecemmendatiens
From this comparative analysis of EIA and ESHIA, sev-
abIe 1
Comparative features of an Alberta ElA vs. generic ESHlA.
!"#$%& '&(")#$ +,' +-.,'
/"#0121&13%4$&
$55)1$40
Takes a pract|ca| and very spec|fc approach to
address|ng a project`s |mpacts |n the prov|nce of
!"#$%&'(
Takes a ho||st|c and comprehens|ve approach
to address|ng a project`s |mpacts. May |mprove
cred|b|||ty and robustness.
6%7$74%73
)"89%)":"7#
Genera||y not requ|red. Proposed deve|opment
|n A|berta |s norma||y funded by the proponent.
Poss|b|e government |ncent|ves negot|ated for some
cap|ta| projects.
May be requ|red to meet 'bankab|e" requ|rements
|n accordance w|th lFO Soc|a| and Env|ronmenta|
Performance Standards and Hea|th, Safety and
Env|ronmenta| (HSE} gu|de||nes.
."$&#0
A|berta regu|at|ons for exposure mode||ng
ca|cu|at|ons requ|re a quant|tat|ve ana|ys|s of the
hea|th |mpacts/r|sks. Pub||c hea|th and safety
requ|rements have some e|ements that fa|| w|th|n
lFO standards (e.g., po||ut|on prevent|on, acc|denta|
|eaks and sp|||s}.
ESHlA fo||ows a broader set of hea|th |ssues wh|ch
|nc|ude potent|a| chem|ca| exposures, traffc-re|ated
|njur|es and pub||c hea|th |ssues (|nfect|ous d|seases,
chron|c d|seases, etc}. May |nc|ude env|ronmenta|
mode||ng data (e.g., pred|cted a|r or no|se po||utant
concentrat|on at a receptor po|nt}.
;%12%<")=%#>
$72 "41=>=#":
=")<%4"=
The A|berta B|od|vers|ty Mon|tor|ng Program
protoco|s shou|d be used wherever poss|b|e to
conduct b|od|vers|ty assessments. B|od|vers|ty
potent|a| rank|ng shou|d be done by comb|n|ng
measures of spec|es r|chness, over|ap |n
spec|es ||sts, s|gn|fcance of |nd|v|dua| spec|es or
assoc|at|ons, un|queness and other appropr|ate
measures. No spec|fc requ|rement for b|od|vers|ty
offsets or ecosystem serv|ces.
Protect|ng and conserv|ng b|od|vers|ty, ma|nta|n|ng
ecosystem serv|ces, and susta|nab|y manag|ng ||v|ng
natura| resources are fundamenta| to susta|nab|e
deve|opment. A b|od|vers|ty offset shou|d be
des|gned and |mp|emented to ach|eve measurab|e
conservat|on outcomes that can reasonab|y be
expected to resu|t |n no net |oss and preferab|y a net
ga|n of b|od|vers|ty. O||ents shou|d m|n|m|ze |mpacts
on ecosystem serv|ces and |mp|ement measures
that |ncrease resource effc|ency of the|r operat|ons.
?17=9&#$#%17
$72 =#$@"01&2")
"73$3":"7#
Oonsu|tat|on w|th stakeho|ders |s requ|red, but done
|n str|ct accordance w|th prov|nc|a| and/or federa|
requ|rements and gu|de||nes. Oonsu|tat|on |s rare|y
done ear|y |n the ElA process.
ESHlA takes a more |ntegrated and ear|y approach
to stakeho|der engagement. Engagement spans not
on|y the ESHlA |tse|f but the ent|re project ||fecyc|e
(exp|orat|on to c|osure}.
A)%"<$74"
:"40$7%=:
No requ|rement for a forma| gr|evance mechan|sm,
but an appropr|ate d|spute reso|ut|on (ADR} |s
estab||shed for Energy Resources Oonservat|on
Board (EROB} hear|ngs. The ADR may be used
when, desp|te efforts made by the affected part|es,
unreso|ved concerns rema|n. Wh||e on|y used at
th|s po|nt |n t|me, the ADR shares s|m||ar|t|es to a
gr|evance mechan|sm for the deve|opment approva|
process for major energy/|ndustr|a| projects |n
!"#$%&'(
lf ongo|ng r|sks or adverse |mpacts are expected on
affected commun|t|es, a gr|evance mechan|sm must
be estab||shed to rece|ve and fac|||tate reso|ut|on of
the affected commun|t|es` concerns and gr|evances
about the c||ent`s env|ronmenta| and soc|a|
performance. lt shou|d address concerns prompt|y
by an understandab|e and transparent process that
|s cu|tura||y appropr|ate and read||y access|b|e to a||
segments of the affected commun|t|es, at no cost
and w|thout retr|but|on.
+B5")#%="
The A|berta ElA process |s we|| understood among
know|edgeab|e, exper|enced |oca| spec|a||sts.
ESHlA standards are current|y not we|| understood
among ElA spec|a||sts |n A|berta.
?1=#
Oost |s we|| known and accepted by |oca| |ndustry.
var|es by sca|e and type of project.
Oou|d be h|gher cost due to enhanc|ng or expand|ng
ElA requ|rements.
%( AUGUST 2012 "tntng engineering www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
eral recommendations can be made, as follows:
Consideration of environmental, social (including
economic and cultural) and health impacts should be
integrated with a more holistic perspective, including
not only externalities (e.g., environmental account-
ing) and cumulative effects but also strategic policy
and planning at a regional level.
Specialists are needed with deep expertise at some of
the frontiers of EIA and ESHIA: biodiversity, eco-
nomic services, climate change, human rights and
social return on investment, to name a few. Training
of EIA and ESHIA professionals should be broad-
ened to emphasize these value-added disciplines
and approaches, including placing more emphasis on
public health and ecosystem services that a project
may potentially affect.
Governments should be encouraged to modify out-
dated EIA requirements to be more in line with
international standards. Greater consideration by
regulatory agencies is needed of biophysical and
community (public) health impacts, given that hu-
man health and social and environmental well-being
are inextricably linked. Companies should work with
government, academic institutions and civic agencies
to discuss and implement needed changes in EIAs.
When deciding on an EIA or an ESHIA process,
look at the issues raised outside of the project scope.
Does the project have global implications that
may affect reputation? In the final analysis, while
stakeholders, local and regional regulators and in-
ternational interests need to be considered, which
assessment approach will be taken is a corporate
decision. Still, the advantages gained by raising the
bar in both local and international contexts should
not be taken lightly; additional costs incurred with
an ESHIA approach may be small in comparison to
branding benets.
Finally, consider a cost-effective hybrid approach to
EIA and ESHIA. One possibility for a given project
include submitting an EIA to meet domestic (re-
gional, national) regulatory requirements, and sub-
mitting an ESHIA to international lenders. Another
option is to hand pick application studies and re-
quirements for an ESHIA, such as health impacts or
ecosystem services, and integrating or adding these
studies into an EIA to show regulatory compliance
while raising the bar for internal and external stake-
holders.
0encIusiens
Several conclusions can be made from this brief analysis
of EIAs and ESHIAs. First, ESHIAs and their equivalent
assessments are increasingly becoming accepted by industry.
The need to meet international standards such as the Equa-
tor Principles and IFC Performance Standards are the driv-
ing force for many mining companies to take on the ESHIA
process, even when not required for project nancing.
Second, ESHIAs may not be better than EIAs or vice-
versa. Both have an important role to play and may be ap-
plied to different contexts or serve different purposes for a
given project. An EIA does not have to be the poor second
cousin to an ESHIA. Many examples of robust EIA regula-
tory requirements exist, some of which are comparable or,
in some cases, may exceed certain aspects of the IFC Perfor-
mance Standards.
Third, the ESHIA is critical to mining companies that
wish to access new opportunities, obtain external nancing,
acquire social and environmental licenses to operate, deliver
sustainable development and enhance company reputation.
As a result of its comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, an
ESHIA may be better placed to accomplish these goals.
Finally, this analysis has provided evidence that EIAs
and ESHIAs are evolving, and many mining companies are
at the forefront of these positive changes. Forward-looking
mining companies recognize that shareholder value and envi-
ronmental and social responsibility are mutually supportive.
They understand that business benets come from following
best environmental and social practices as well as enhanced
accountability and transparency. Underlying this awareness
is the knowledge that environmental and social issues are
vitally decisive in determining whether and at what pace
mining projects can proceed. Critical health, social, cultural
and ecological components of EIAs and ESHIAs are here
to stay.
AcknewIedgments
The author extends his appreciation to Environmental
Resources Management (ERM) for nancial support of this
paper. The reviewers are also thanked for their useful sugges-
tions to improve this paper.
8eferences
Birley, M., 2005, Health impact assessment in multinationals: A case study
of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, Vol. 25, pp. 702713.
Erlanger, T., Krieger, G., Singer, B., and Utzinger, J., 2008, The 6/94 gap in
health impact assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
Vol. 28, pp. 349358.
Galbraith, L., Bradshaw, B., and Rutherford, M.B., 2007, Towards a new
supraregulatory approach to environmental assessment in Northern
Canada, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.
2741.
Government of Alberta, 2011, Environmental Assessment Program: Guide
to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in Alberta,
February 9, 2011. Edmonton, Canada.
IFC (International Finance Corporation), 2006, International Finance Cor-
porations Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sus-
tainability, International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.
Washington, DC.
Jones, M.G., and Wagner, J.W., 2010, Integrated assessment: a tool to ad-
dress multi stakeholder participation, paper presented at the 30th
Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assess-
ment, April 6-11, 2010, Geneva, Switzerland.
McCrea, S., 2010, Effectiveness of HIA with other impact assessments:
ESHIA versus HIA within the oil & gas context, presentation to the
Impact Assessment & Planning Group, Environmental Resources
Management, November 18, 2010.