• Cumulative impacts None of the ESIAs studied adequately described and assessed the cumulative impacts: for example, those resulting from developments directly associated with the port development or from other developments in the region. In many cases, this absence is attributable to lack of knowledge of anticipated developments and to limited government capacity and (strategic) planning schemes. • Indirect impacts Most of the ESIAs assessed indirect impacts inadequately, even though these may be large. Examples include the effects of the management of waste (or wastewater) on drinking water quality, of pollution on wildlife, of displacement of people and of the influx of workers. • An accountable Environmental and Social Management Plan Such a plan was missing in a significant proportion of the ESIAs, with the result that these ESIAs lack information – for example, on the effectiveness of measures, on which measures can be taken versus the measures that will be taken, and on when measures are scheduled. • Climate change Neither the potential effects of climate change nor the need for mitigation or adaptation were dealt with rigorously in the sample of ESIAs. This finding is surprising given that port infrastructure may be sensitive to sea level rise and to changes in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events. • Sediment dynamics Most ESIAs provided insufficient information on changes in sediment dynamics, even though this is a key impact of port development. Changed dynamics may greatly affect coastal erosion or accretion and thus other socioeconomic developments. It will also change ecosystems, habitats and the abundance and diversity of species. • Impacts on workers The impacts of the project on workers, such as on their working conditions and housing, were poorly described in all the ESIAs. In general, no risk assessments had been made with regard to occupational health and safety and basic human rights. 22 The NCEA’s Views and Experiences 2018
25 Online Touch Home