SEGH Articles

Health in Impact Assessment: primer published

02 July 2017
The changes to the EIA directive as recast in April this year (2017) brings human health very firmly into consideration. Any project which is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact assessment) is required to evaluate the impact from the project on human and population health.

The changes to the EIA directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/52/oj)  as recast in April this year (2017) brings  human health very firmly into consideration. Any project which is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact assessment) is required to evaluate the impact  from the project on human and population health.  Projects may range from major infrastructure projects, such as new railways and airport runways, waste incinerators, industrial scale agricultural activities, to applications for fracking, open cast mines, amongst others.

 

In order to move the consideration of human and population health central stage within the process of impact assessment, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) has worked with Ben Cave Associates, and the Faculty of Public Health, to produce a primer which is intended to spark discussion across all professionals. Impact assessment requires the input of many different specialists; it is hoped that all of them will become engaged in this debate.

Although Health Impact Assessment  (HIA) has been carried out successfully for many projects, evaluation of human and population health has sadly been missing from many projects. It is worth remembering that the impacts can be both positive and negative. Getting the balance right is imperative. Impacts may derive from release of contaminants during the construction phase, through to contamination of water, release of proposed use of chemicals of concern, or equally may be the health benefits of the construction of a new health care facility, with release of dust and noise during the construction phase, but with a longer term overall benefit. Likewise, the disruption and impact from construction of a railway may be negative, but a shift in mode of transport away from the car in developed nations brings about improved air quality, and in developing nations provides transport which may previously have been absent, improving quality of life, not least of which may be access to healthcare facilities, or the ability to transport perishable goods to market in a timely manner. It should not be assumed that a HIA will try to get in the way of development, but rather that it will look at appropriate outcomes.

 

Balancing the various impacts is context sensitive. The geology and geography of the land to be developed will vary.  For example, water availability, permeability of rocks, or fragility of habitats, will vary, depending upon the location of a project, as will a wide number of other considerations. Identifying these issues correctly and evaluating health impacts is imperative.

The directive also requires adherence to the principle of resource efficiency. A move away from mining for new materials for production, to a requirement for re-use of materials, helps to decrease the impact on many communities, as well as the land itself. The directive requires a move towards sustainability.

Health Impact Assessment takes into account not only the ‘hard’ environmental impacts, but also the less visible ones, such as social cohesion, engagement with hard to reach communities, loss of amenity as well as impact on employment.

The EIA directive does not explicitly ask for a full  HIA to be carried out. However, in order for meaningful evaluation of human and population health to be taken into account, engagement needs to be early, and cross sectoral, as well as competent. HIA can do this. The primer does not argue for full HIAs to be undertaken, simply that human and population health is evaluated in a timely and competent manner.

As an organisation which promotes consideration of health from many directions, the research which SEGH members undertake can often be influential in the decision –making which Impact Assessment needs to undertake. Personally, I have often quoted pieces of research which have been presented at SEGH conferences. Although HIA professionals work with a good evidence base, sometimes it is necessary to err on the side of caution. Extending our evidence base is imperative. One of the stated aims of SEGH is the sharing of knowledge. Using that knowledge wisely for the good of others is the outcome we should seek.

Although the  IEMA primer is intended to be used initially in the UK, the questions which we pose are legitimate in other countries too. (Like SEGH, IEMA is an international organisation.)  Early intervention and engagement can ensure best outcomes for all concerned, driving best practice, and improving the health outcomes of   wider communities.

 The pdf is free to download from IEMA.  (https://www.iema.net/assets/newbuild/documents/IEMA%20Primer%20on%20Health%20in%20UK%20EIA%20Doc%20V11.pdf) Hard copies are available from IEMA, but the cost of these is £25.00.

Please feel free to use this within your various communities.


By Gillian Gibson, Gibson Consulting and Training

Keep up to date

Submit Content

Members can keep in touch with their colleagues through short news and events articles of interest to the SEGH community.

Science in the News

Latest on-line papers from the SEGH journal: Environmental Geochemistry and Health

  • The society for environmental Geochemistry and health (SEGH): a retrospect 2019-02-22
  • Air quality and PM 10 -associated poly-aromatic hydrocarbons around the railway traffic area: statistical and air mass trajectory approaches 2019-02-19

    Abstract

    Diesel engine railway traffic causes atmosphere pollution due to the exhaust emission which may be harmful to the passengers as well as workers. In this study, the air quality and PM10 concentrations were evaluated around a railway station in Northeast India where trains are operated with diesel engines. The gaseous pollutant (e.g. SO2, NO2, and NH3) was collected and measured by using ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy. The advanced level characterizations of the PM10 samples were carried out by using ion chromatography, Fourier-transform infrared, X-ray diffraction, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry , X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, field-emission scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy techniques to know their possible environmental contaminants. High-performance liquid chromatography technique was used to determine the concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to estimate the possible atmospheric pollution level caused by the rail traffic in the enclosure. The average PM10 concentration was found to be 262.11 µg m−3 (maximum 24 hour) which indicates poor air quality (AQI category) around the rail traffic. The statistical and air mass trajectory analysis was also done to know their mutual correlation and source apportionment. This study will modify traditional studies where only models are used to simulate the origins.

  • The geochemistry of geophagic material consumed in Onangama Village, Northern Namibia: a potential health hazard for pregnant women in the area 2019-02-18

    Abstract

    Ingestion of geophagic materials might affect human health and induce diseases by different ways. The purpose of this study is to determine the geochemical composition of geophagic material consumed especially by pregnant women in Onangama Village, Northern Namibia and to assess its possible health effects. X-ray fluorescence and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry were used in order to determine the major, and trace elements as well as anions concentrations of the consumed material. The geochemical analysis revealed high concentrations of aluminium (Al), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), sodium (Na), and silica (Si); and trace elements including arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni) and vanadium (V) as well as sulphate (SO42−), nitrate (NO3), and nitrite (NO2) anions comparing to the recommended daily allowance for pregnant women. The pH for some of the studied samples is alkaline, which might increase the gastrointestinal tract pH (pH < 2) and cause a decrease in the bioavailability of elements. The calculated health risk index (HRI > 1) revealed that Al and Mn might be a potential risk for human consumption. Based on the results obtained from the geochemical analysis, the consumption of the studied material might present a potential health risk to pregnant women including concomitant detrimental maternal and foetal effects.