while further enquires are made and more data obtained. Unfortunately this pro-
crastination and uncertainty spurs the advocates for a proposal to take up posi-
tions of conviction in favour of a project at the hunch stage – unconfused by too
many facts!
A next-level dilemma raises the spectre of an often phoney ‘sci-
entism’ emanating from impact methodologies. Kelman’s (1981)
criticism, embracing cost-benefit analyses, establishes the main
point of concern, that the ‘conceptual framework is highly con-
troversial in the discipline from which it arose – moral philoso-
phy (and, to my way of thinking, economics!)’. The planning
practitioner has a custodial responsibility to guard against giving
pseudo-professional support for a procedure which aligns with
questionable outcomes; like more pollution for the poor and
inarticulate, and lesspollution for the wealthy and well advised.
Expressed more forcibly, risk assessments are frequently biased, project defensive,
and ethically questionable (refer also to the chapter 1, box 1.4: Ethical canon). A
moral difficulty arises in project situations where an adviser knowsintuitively in
his or her own mind that the outcome of the burdens-to-benefits distribution
pattern is adverse; for example, that a project owner’s benefit will be outweighed
by the longer-term community costs of clean-up and environmental restoration.^12A clear-to-proceed ‘initial evaluation’ leads to ‘core analysis’. An important
side consideration at this stage is the extent to which a project is ‘export’ or ‘res-
identiary’ in character, because export projects (for example tourism in an
ecologically fragile environment) may shift the level of risk tolerance from ‘unac-
ceptable’ to ‘tolerable’ in the competitive context of trade and balance of pay-
ments. This can be put into perspective depending on responses to questions of
these kinds.A What is the nature, form, function and purpose of the proposal? This calls into
need all manner of information about capital and infrastructure, ‘point source’
and ‘non-point source’ pollution, physical resource demands, waste disposal
arrangements, skilled and unskilled labour requirements, and a listing of
preference-ranked options (for example: alternative sites, restoration plans,
mitigation proposals).
B What are the potential outcomes from a preliminary impact assessment, some-
times described as an Initial Evaluation? This assembles the likely adverse eco-
nomic, social and environmental outcomes, together with preference-ranked
indicators for handling adverse effects. There is no logic in pile-driving a core
analysis which is counter-indicated by an unsupportive initial evaluation.
C Separate from, but accessory to core analysis, are project feasibility appraisals
which look at technological feasibility (particularly for waste disposal,
resource provisioning, and energy supply); skilled and non-skilled labour
availability (engaging an employment assessment checklist); administrative
co-support; public and political endorsement; and last but not least, long-term
viability. A corollary involves getting an answer to the question ‘Is there
another, better, way or option?’142 Practice
A foundation reading is
the Scott, MacArthur,
Newbery treatise Project
Appraisal in Practice
(1976), which connected
with an earlier OECD
manual prepared by
Little and Mirrless
(Industrial Project Analysis
for Developing Countries),
1968.