Assessment across borders: Stumbling blocks and options in the practical implementation of the Espoo Convention

In the 1990s, the obligation to assess transboundary environmental impacts has become part of international law. The UN/ECE Convention on environmental impact assessment (EIA) in a transboundary context, which entered into force in 1997, is one of the key documents. In this study, we show that difficulties with the practical implementation of the Convention arise partly from an incomplete sharing of the concept of EIA, and partly from different material interests on the part of the Parties to the Convention. Attempts to improve the practical implementation should recognize both aspects. Several approaches are thus needed for improving the implementation. Some will help in developing a mutual understanding of impact assessments, whereas others may help in overcoming differences in material interests.     

Integrating Impacts into Adaptation Measures

A mechanism has been established to improve integration of international climate-related programmes. Known as the Climate Agenda it outlines a programme, that in a cost-effective way, responds to national obligations to respond to international agreements as well as their national needs for social and economic development. The paper briefly describes the Climate Agenda and the incorporation within it of studies of climate impact assessments and response strategies to reduce vulnerability. The need for increased emphasis on climate impact assessment and for the development of effective adaptation measures is emphasised following the elaboration of a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). UNEP's efforts to identify national programmes contributing to the Climate Agenda are described.The response from developing countries has, however, been very disappointing, even from countries where we know work is ongoing through funding by GEF or US Country Studies Program and other bilateral programmes. Initial compilation of information available so far shows that many developed countries are putting a lot into the area of impact assessment of not just climate change, but also climate variability. There remain some research gaps, especially in the area of assessment of climate impacts on ecosystems, hydrological systems, etc. Considerable efforts are presently being directed at reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases and in the case of developing countries, most efforts are being directed towards completing national communications and providing baseline data for future studies.The paper refers to early activities by UNEP in cooperation with other international organizations to undertake integrated assessments of the impacts of climate change on important socio-economic sectors and the later incorporation of lessons learned into the IPCC Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Climate Change.Later sections outline the development of a handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies as a practical approach to national assessments and the development of appropriate and cost-effective response to climate change.The initiation of a GEF-funded project to apply the methods contained in the handbook and improve the results based on national studies is also described for both developed and developing countries.Working in collaboration with a team of international experts under the coordination of the Institute of Environmental Studies at Vrije University (Amsterdam), the goal of this ongoing project is to develop a valuable methodological tool that Parties to the UNFCCC may apply to develop national climate change impact and adaptation assessments. Development of these guidelines was linked to a series of country studies in Antigua and Barbuda, Estonia, Cameroon and Pakistan funded under a UNEP/GEF project. The application of the first version of the UNEP Handbook by national study teams in these four countries is making valuable technical and practical contributions and will ensure that the next version of the Handbook will be a more useful tool for experts in developing countries undertaking similar studies in the future. The methods contained in the Handbook are also the basis for similar assessments funded under bilateral development programmes in other countries. These and similar studies elsewhere are coordinated with the UNEP programme and will eventually aim to create reliable and comparable assessments, a compatible set of tools for such purpose and the identification of realistic adaptation options for incorporation into national planning for adapting to climate change. The paper also addresses how climate impact assessment and response strategies are undertaken as part of national enabling activities carried out in co-operation with UNEP.     

Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: An analytic–deliberative approach

Analytic–deliberative techniques have been suggested as a promising approach to ecosystem service (ES) valuation but are still at an experimental stage. This paper contributes to the development of ES valuation in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure by introducing an analytic–deliberative approach to assessing restoration options for a regulated river in Finland. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with a value-focused approach was applied and compared with a desktop application of the ES-focused MCDA approach. We found out that the concept of ES could bring added value to the assessment process by: 1) enabling the framing and valuing especially of provisioning services — final ecosystem services, such as salmon catch in a more understandable way for the stakeholders, and 2) taking into account ecosystem processes and supporting services more precisely. However, some potential dangers of using the ES-based approach could include ES's appearing as a distant mode of thinking to affected groups and other stakeholders, and neglect of the trade-offs between ES and other relevant value and impact categories. Thus, although the ES framework is promising, it should not form a rigid ‘checklist’ way of making assessments but should rather be used to widen perspectives about potential issues in linking ecosystem properties to human benefits and values. It is argued that by combining the ES framework with the interactive MCDA approach, we can form a comprehensive and integrated approach to incorporating ESs into EIA.     

Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period

Based on the samples of 113,468 publications on environmental assessment (EA) from the past 20 years, we used a bibliometric analysis to study the literature in terms of trends of growth, subject categories and journals, international collaboration, geographic distribution of publications, and scientific research issues. By applying thresholds to network centralities, a core group of countries can be distinguished as part of the international collaboration network. A frequently used keywords analysis found that the priority in assessment would gradually change from project environmental impact assessment (EIA) to strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Decision-theoretic approaches (i.e., environmental indicator selection, life cycle assessment, etc.), along with new technologies and methods (i.e., the geographic information system and modeling) have been widely applied in the EA research field over the past 20 years. Hot spots such as “biodiversity” and “climate change” have been emphasized in current EA research, a trend that will likely continue in the future. The h-index has been used to evaluate the research quality among countries all over the world, while the improvement of developing countries' EA systems is becoming a popular research topic. Our study reveals patterns in scientific outputs and academic collaborations and serves as an alternative and innovative way of revealing global research trends in the EA research field.     

International organization and EIA in developing countries

International EIA activity has two origins. First, there is increasing concern over conflict between developmental and environmental interests within the economic development system. Second, EIA appeals to international agencies and governments as a well-defined, internally integrated procedure and planning tool. EIA activities involve political, institutional, and technical motivations and goals for the international bodies and the governments of countries receiving aid. Three criteria may be used to evaluate international EIA from the perspective of policy makers and administrators in the countries: political support, institutional strengthening, and technical capability. This paper reviews the influence of the United Nations system and of some multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies in promoting EIA in developing countries. The extent the nature of the influence donors have on EIA in developing countries is shaped as much by the interests and organizational characteristics of the donors as by the needs and priorities of the recipients.     

The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries —Cases from Georgia and Ghana

In this paper, we aim to better understand the factors that contribute to the substantive performance of EIA systems in low and middle income countries. Substantive performance is defined as the extent to which the EIA process contributes to the EIA objectives for the long term, namely environmental protection or, even more ambitious, sustainable development. We have therefore developed a conceptual model in which we focus on the key actors in the EIA system, the proponent and the EIA authority and their level of ownership as a key capacity to measure their performance, and we distinguish procedural performance and some contextual factors. This conceptual model is then verified and refined for the EIA phase and the EIA follow-up phase (permitting, monitoring and enforcement) by means of 12 case studies from Ghana (four cases) and Georgia (eight cases), both lower–middle income countries. We observe that in most cases the level of substantive performance increases during the EIA phase but drops during the EIA follow-up phase, and as a result only five out of 12 operational cases are in compliance with permit conditions or national environmental standards. We conclude, firstly that ownership of the proponent is the most important factor explaining the level of substantive performance; the higher the proponent's level of ownership the higher the level of substantive performance. The influence of the EIA authority on substantive performance is limited. Secondly, the influence of procedural performance on substantive performance seems less important than expected in the EIA phase but more important during the EIA follow-up phase.In order to improve substantive performance we learned two lessons. Firstly, increasing the proponent's level of ownership seems obvious, but direct change is probably difficult. However, where international finance institutes are involved they can increase ownership. Despite the limited influence of the EIA authority, a proactive strategy of, for example, working together with international finance institutes has a slightly larger influence than a reactive strategy.     

Understanding EIA scoping in practice: A pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness

Despite widespread recognition of the need to consider IA effectiveness in terms of practice, the literature is dominated by normative approaches that do little to advance understanding of the causal process that lead to particular outcomes. Focusing upon EIA scoping in England, we examine notions of effectiveness directly from the perspective of key practitioner communities. The ‘received view’ of scoping asserts that effectiveness is constrained by a failure to narrow the assessment focus. Using an alternative, pragmatist interpretation (inspired by American philosophical pragmatism) we analyse the understandings and actions of professional practitioner communities. We find that risk management ‘ends-in-view’ shape the interpretation of the purpose of scoping and hence effective practice. Amongst EIA consultants the ends-in-view emphasise managing the risk of project delays, whilst planning officers seek to minimise the risk of legal challenge, and statutory consultees aim to provide advice that is proportionate to potential environmental risks. Practitioner ends-in-view shape the scoping approaches employed and the opportunities for knowledge formulation and ‘learning in action’. Whilst practitioners demonstrate pragmatism in managing uncertainty and there is some awareness of potential power-play, we find that knowledge formation and learning is predominately instrumental and incremental. Instrumental in serving to refine technical details (rather than co-constructed, drawing on multiple rationalities and types of understanding), and incremental in that over time practitioners learn that the most effective way to achieve their ends-in-view is to include impacts — resulting in a broad, precautionary scoping outcome. Finally, we conclude with reflections on future research directions and the implications for practice given forthcoming changes to the regulatory framework.     

Current legal regime for environmental impact assessment in areas beyond national jurisdiction and its future approaches

In 2004, the United Nations launched an Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Since then, the topic of governing marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) has been widely discussed by politicians, policy makers and scholars. As one of management tools to protect marine biodiversity in ABNJ, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been widely recognized and accepted by the international community, however, the biggest challenge is how to effectively implement the EIA regime in ABNJ. This paper explores the impacts of anthropogenic activities in ABNJ on marine ecosystems, reviews the existing legal regime for EIA in ABNJ and discusses possible measures to strengthen the implementation of EIA in ABNJ.     

Consideration of climate change on environmental impact assessment in Spain

Most of the projects subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA) are closely related to climate change, as they contribute to or are affected by it. The growing certainty about climate change and its impacts makes its consideration an essential part of the EIA process, as well as in strategic environmental assessment (SEA).This paper examines how climate change (CC) has been taken into account in EIA in Spain through the analysis of 1713 environmental records of decision (RODs) of projects submitted for EIA. In 2013 Spain approved one of the most advanced laws in terms of CC consideration in environmental assessment, although it had not yet accumulated extensive practice on the issue. This contrasts with the situation of countries like Canada or the USA, which have a significant body of experience without specific legal requirements.Only 14% of the RODs analysed included references to CC, and in more than half of the cases it was a mere citation. Thermal power plants, which are subject to specific GHG regulations, show the highest consideration, while transport infrastructures, which are important contributors to CC, show a very low consideration. Almost all the references are related to their contribution to CC, while consideration of the effects of CC is minimal.The increasingly common incorporation of CC into SEA, should not imply its exclusion from EIA, because both processes have different aims and uses. Including the obligation to consider CC in the EIA regulations is highly desirable, but probably not enough without other measures, such as practical guidance, training and motivational programmes for practitioners and evaluators. But even these actions cannot ensure effective and adequate assessments of CC. Probably more resources should be spent on creating greater awareness in all the agents involved in EIA.     

Theory and practice of EIA implementation: A comparative study of three developing countries

This article offers a conceptual framework for analyzing institutional processes and performance outcome of EIA implementation for developing countries. Eight classes of participants in the EIA process are identified: (1) responsible agency; (2) action proponent; (3) preparer; (4) review agency; (5) rule-setting agency; (6) concerned agencies; (7) general public; and (8) licensing agency. Five types of performance outcome are suggested that may follow the introduction of EIA into a national planning system. These include EIA as (1) a fully internalized element of the planning process, (2) a support for a position of advocacy for the environment, (3) a process of adjustment among conflicting goals, (4) a process to remedy prior environmental damage, and (5) a perfunctory endorsement of public or private actions. Using these categories, the EIA system of the Philippines, Korea, and Brazil are analyzed. Three aspects of EIA implementation are compared: national development planning and environmental goals; institutional structure; and performance evaluation. Based on this analysis, the author concludes that while EIA in developing countries is being hampered in its early stages by institutional factors, there are some specific policies that, if adopted by national governments and international aid agencies, would enhance the integration of EIA into the planning and decision-making process and make EIA a more effective tool for environmental protection in the developing world.     

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Visegrad Group countries

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) has created a reference framework for the implementation of the system of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) into the legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, including the countries belonging to the Visegrad Group (V4): Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The Directive was the basis for the introduction of compulsory stages of the EIA process in the V4. The stages were then adapted to national requirements, including thresholds of the qualifying criteria of projects at the screening and scoping stages. The EIA system in the analysed countries has been growing, changing and being modified together with the political and economic changes of the last 30 years. Although all Visegrad Group countries are members of the EU and should harmonize the provisions of the EIA Directive and its amendments, there still exist singularities in each country's national EIA legislation, in terms of complementarities among the V4 countries, access to information resources, protection of natural resources, mitigation of socio-environmental impacts, or transboundary impact assessment. The article compares and evaluates the EIA systems in the four countries, specifies similarities and differences in the implementation of administrative proceedings and points out opportunities to strengthen the system. It presents selected results of a study conducted in 2013 within the framework of the international project “Assessment of the quality of the environment in the V4 Countries” (AQE V4). This paper indicates examples of good practice in the EIA systems and the obtained results are compared regarding the amendments to the current European Union EIA Directive.     

Challenges in meeting international standards in undertaking social impact assessment in Russia

Implementing good practice social impact assessment (SIA) that meets international standards in countries in transition is problematic. We reflect on the challenges faced when undertaking SIA in the Russian Federation. These challenges restrict meaningful SIA processes from being undertaken and limit public participation and the effective community engagement of project-affected local people. Based on the self-reflexive professional experience of two Russian-based social practitioners, and their discursive interactions with two leading academics in environmental and social impact assessment, as well as on in-depth interviews with prominent Russian and international experts, we identified the key challenges that prevent effective SIA from being implemented in Russia: a lack of understanding of the international standards; discrepancy in the determination of the social area of influence between the national requirements and international standards; difficulties in combining national and international impact assessment processes; and a tendency by companies to restrict stakeholder engagement to the minimum. We hope that by having an awareness of these limitations, improvements to SIA practice in Russia and elsewhere will be made.     

Coping with uncertainty in environmental impact assessments: Open techniques

Uncertainty is virtually unavoidable in environmental impact assessments (EIAs). From the literature related to treating and managing uncertainty, we have identified specific techniques for coping with uncertainty in EIAs. Here, we have focused on basic steps in the decision-making process that take place within an EIA setting. More specifically, we have identified uncertainties involved in each decision-making step and discussed the extent to which these can be treated and managed in the context of an activity or project that may have environmental impacts. To further demonstrate the relevance of the techniques identified, we have examined the extent to which the EIA guidelines currently used in Colombia consider and provide guidance on managing the uncertainty involved in these assessments. Some points that should be considered in order to provide greater robustness in impact assessments in Colombia have been identified. These include the management of stakeholder values, the systematic generation of project options, and their associated impacts as well as the associated management actions, and the evaluation of uncertainties and assumptions. We believe that the relevant and specific techniques reported here can be a reference for future evaluations of other EIA guidelines in different countries.     

Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to conserve Indigenous community and biodiversity values

There is increased awareness of the need to balance multiple societal values in land use and development planning. Best practice has promoted the use of landscape-level conservation planning and application of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’, which focuses on avoiding, minimizing or compensating for impacts of development projects. However, environmental impact assessments (EIA) typically focus in a reactive way on single project footprints with an emphasis on environmental values and specifically biodiversity. This separation may miss opportunities to jointly plan for and manage impacts to both environmental and social values. Integrated approaches may have particular benefit in northern Australia, where Indigenous people have native title to as much as 60% of the land area and cultural values are closely linked with natural values. Here, we present a novel framework for integrating biodiversity and cultural values to facilitate use in EIA processes, using the Nyikina Mangala Native Title Determination Area in the Kimberley, Western Australia, as a case study. We demonstrate 1) how social and cultural values can be organized and analyzed spatially to support mitigation planning, 2) how social, cultural, and biodiversity values may reinforce each other to deliver better conservation outcomes and minimize conflict, and 3) how this information, in the hands of Indigenous communities, provides capacity to proactively assess development proposals and negotiate mitigation measures to conserve social, cultural, and biodiversity values following the mitigation hierarchy. Based on values defined through a Healthy Country Planning process, we developed spatial datasets to represent cultural/heritage sites, freshwater features, common native animals and plants represented by biophysical habitat types, and legally-protected threatened and migratory species represented by potential habitat models. Both cultural/heritage sites and threatened species habitat show a strong thematic and spatial link with freshwater features, particularly the Fitzroy River wetlands. We outline some of the challenges and opportunities of this process and its implications for the Northern Australia development agenda.     

Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why,who and how?

Even a cursory glance at the literature on environmental impact assessment (EIA) reveals that public participation is being considered as an integral part of the assessment procedure. Public participation in EIA is commonly deemed to foster democratic policy-making and to render EIA more effective. Yet a closer look at the literature unveils that, beyond this general assertion, opinions of the precise meaning, objectives and adequate representation of public participation in EIA considerably diverge. Against this background, in this article we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic debate on public participation in EIA concerning its meaning, objectives and adequate level of inclusiveness. In so doing, we hope to stimulate a more focused debate on the subject, which is key to advancing the research agenda. Furthermore, this paper may serve as a starting point for practitioners involved in defining the role of public participation in EIA practice.     

Health impact assessment in spatial planning in England –types of application and quality of documentation

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a decision support approach which is applied in various shapes and forms throughout the world. In England, amongst a range of areas of application, HIA is applied in local (spatial) plan making and project development planning. Whilst various authors have reflected on HIA practice in England, the extent of application and its quality has remained unclear. This paper aims at addressing this gap by reporting on the results of a systematic review of HIA in planning. It is found that between 100 and 200 HIAs are likely being produced each year in England. Whilst most assessments are rapid (desk based), there are also examples of comprehensive and intermediate HIAs, where a participatory procedural approach is followed. An important finding is that those HIAs applied within the context of other assessments (integrated impact assessment -IIA, strategic environmental assessment - SEA/ sustainability appraisal -SA and environmental impact assessment – EIA) tend to be of a higher quality than standalone HIAs, mainly because of the existing comprehensive statutory procedural requirements for these other assessments into which HIA can be integrated.     

Adapting social impact assessment to address a project's human rights impacts and risks

We address the weaknesses inherent in the social risk assessments undertaken for business, especially in the extractive industries. In contrast to the conventional approach that considers consequence to the company rather than to impacted communities, conformance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights requires that consequence to affected communities has precedence. In order for social risks to be properly assessed, we consider that: companies need to know and understand the human rights impacts of their activities; contemporary approaches to project impact and risk assessment need to be adapted to consider human rights; and environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) methods need to be adapted to give greater attention to impacts on human rights. Using an example from the mining, oil and gas sector, we provide a method that differentiates social risks from business risks, and we position impact assessment as an instrument that actively facilitates the improved identification, analysis and management of social risks. Practical adaptations to SIA activities and risk assessment processes are provided. Taking human rights impacts into account and using the dimensions of gravity, extent, vulnerability and remediability, we nominate criteria to assess the significance of negative social impacts.     

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA.     

Rethinking human health impact assessment

Most EIA programs around the world require the consideration of human health impacts. Yet relatively few EIA documents adequately address those impacts. This article examines how, why, and to what extent health impacts are analyzed in environmental impact assessments in the U.S. An empirical study of 42 environmental impact statements found that more than half contained no mention of health impacts. In the others, health impacts were analyzed narrowly, if at all, using risk assessment to quantify the carcinogenic potential of a single substance over a single generation. This analytic focus overlooks other significant morbidity and mortality risks, cumulative and intergenerational effects, and broader determinants of health. This article investigates these problems and provides recommendations to improve human health impact assessment, using strategic environmental assessment, qualitative health data, health outcomes in addition to cancer, and a precautionary approach to risk.     

Ecosystem services in environmental assessment — Help or hindrance?

This paper presents a critical analysis of the potential role of ecosystem services within environmental assessment, including both strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA). It identifies some of the common problems with current environmental assessment practice and then explores whether integrating ecosystem services may be able to help address some of these problems. Case studies are included to illustrate different approaches to using ecosystem services within environmental assessment and to highlight how context (e.g. sector, scale, environmental situation) will influence the most appropriate way of integrating ecosystem services into environmental assessment practice. The analysis also reflects on how ecosystem services' potential role may, or may not, differ from previous integrated approaches to environmental assessment and what lessons can be learnt from their development.Two main approaches are recognised from the literature and the case studies to integrating ecosystem services within environmental assessment: firstly a comprehensive approach, where the assessment framework is entirely guided by ecosystem services; and secondly a philosophical approach that applies more of a light-touch ecosystems-thinking mind-set, helping to frame the assessment methodology rather than fundamentally defining it. Inevitably, there are variations between these two extremes, and benefits and criticisms of both.The authors conclude that ecosystem services provides a potentially valuable framing for environmental assessment, but that it requires a pragmatic, context specific consideration of how ecosystem services can be used to help address some of the common problems with current environmental assessment practice. There is also a need to recognise that at times it may just not be appropriate if it does not provide added value.