Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive first entered into force in the United States in 1969, and began to be implemented in many other countries by 1990. The first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive in Turkey was published on February 7, 1993, under the Environmental Law No. 2872. The EIA Directive was revised seven times on June 23, 1997, June 6, 2002, December 16, 2003, July 17, 2008, October 3, 2013, and November 25, 2014. Several amendments were made during this process. The first EIA Directive dated 1993 was narrow in scope and its procedure was long, while the amendments in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2014 widened the scope of the EIA, and shortened the EIA assessment procedures. In this study, the amendments to the Turkish EIA Directive were analysed, and their effect on the number of EIA decisions made was addressed. It was concluded that the uncertainties in EIA procedures were removed, procedures were shortened, and as a result, the number of EIA decisions increased thanks to the revisions made in line with harmonisation with European Union (EU) acquis.     

Environmental impact assessment (EIA): an overlooked instrument for sustainable development in Pakistan

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a policy tool used for evaluating a project proposal from physical and socioeconomic environmental perspectives. Its aim is to reduce the impact of development on environment, hence, ensuring environmental sustainability. It is mandatory to submit an Environmental Impact Statement before starting a mega project as required by Environmental Protection Act of 1997 and Environmental Policy of Pakistan. Public consultation plays a key role in an EIA system, identifying the likely aspects and impacts of a development activity. This aspect has been ignored in effective enactment of environmental legislation in Pakistan. Sufficient legislative instruments are there to support EIA system in the country but the agencies responsible for the enforcement of environmental regulations have failed to do so. The current research gives an insight into the actual status of EIA system in Pakistan along with the feedback of EIA specialists and university teachers of the concerned departments. A new index has been devised on the basis of questionnaire response to work out the overall performance of EIA system in Pakistan or any other country. The weaknesses and deficiencies of each EIA stage have been worked out for Pakistan and elaborated with the help of the controversial Zero point Interchange Project in the capital city of Pakistan.     

Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law with the European Union (EU) EIA Directive

In this paper, we first review the development of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in the past 30 years. Then we compare the framework and operational procedures of China’s new EIA law with those of the EU EIA Directive. We also compare public participation, as well as sanctions and control in the two EIA systems. In addition, we identify where the processes in both EIA systems are similar or different from one another. By comparison, we noted that there are at least three obvious weaknesses in China’s EIA system: (1) the application of new models for EIA legislation; (2) the improvement of EIA guidance and education; and (3) the enhancement of public participation in EIA process. Our study indicates that these three major shortcomings should be overcome and improved in China’s EIA system, when compared with the EU EIA system.     

The environmental impact assessment in Chile: Overview,improvements, and comparisons

In this study, we carried out a comparative analysis of the Chilean Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system using evaluation criteria compared against three countries to allow for an objective evaluation within the growing demand of society for a more creditable and trustable EIA system.A total of 18 evaluation criteria were selected from the literature, and four new criteria for comparing EIA systems were proposed. The Chilean EIA system was compared to that of Brazil, Spain, and Canada using the following four evaluation criteria categories: EIA Legislation (four criteria), EIA Administration (four criteria), EIA Process (eleven criteria), and After EIA (three criteria). A Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster Analysis for assessing similarity among the EIA systems of Chile, Canada, and Spain was performed: the similarity being 88%. A Principal Component Analysis shows that only 13 of the selected 22 criteria contribute to the variability of the selected EIA systems. The main strengths of the Chilean EIA system are the existence of Specialized Environmental Courts for the resolution of disputes and Appeal options before execution. The identified weaknesses are an EIA system with high centralization at the national level, the absence of consideration of project alternatives, no requirement for scoping, and that the process of Strategic Environmental Assessment is not binding.Modifications to the Environmental Impact Assessment System Regulation are proposed by authors as feasible improvements particularly in relation to, Decentralization of the EIA system, Alternatives for design, Scoping incorporation, Register of reviewers of baseline information, and the public information process and post-evaluation.The method used seeks out to serve as guidance for countries with similar environmental and social contexts, as well as environmental legislation improvement needs.     

A comparative evaluation of the environmental impact assessment legislation of South Africa and Zambia

This study evaluates the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation of South Africa and Zambia against the modified criteria developed by Wood (1995) to determine the extent to which they follow “good practices” and incorporate emerging environmental issues into EIA. We modified the criteria of Wood due to new environmental issues that have emerged since their formulation. Some of these issues are in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). National Environmental Acts and EIA Regulations for the two countries were reviewed to evaluate the current legislation. We also used telephone interviews to gather additional information that was not in the documents. As a fundamental component of the EIA system, the legislation needs to be clear, concise and inclusive of all the major environmental issues that affect the performance of the EIA system. Literature reveals that the performance of the Zambian EIA system is generally low compared with that of some African countries such as South Africa and Ghana; especially in terms of the quality of EIA reports and substantive environmental protection. Therefore, we hypothesised that the Zambian legislation does not follow the good practice hence the low EIA system performance. Results, however, showed that the two countries are almost on a par in terms of meeting the criteria used in this study. Hence there is more to be done to improve the quality of both countries' EIA legislation. Nevertheless, compared with the previous evaluations by Wood (1999) and Harrison (2005), the results show that there is considerable improvement in the quality of the South African EIA legislation following a series of amendments.     

Consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in EIA practice — Perspectives of actors in Austria and Germany

Current political discussions and developments indicate the importance and urgency of incorporating climate change considerations into EIA processes. The recent revision of the EU Directive 2014/52/EU on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requires changes in the EIA practice of the EU member states. This paper investigates the extent to which the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can contribute to an early consideration of climate change consequences in planning processes. In particular the roles of different actors in order to incorporate climate change impacts and adaptation into project planning subject to EIA at the appropriate levels are a core topic. Semi-structured expert interviews were carried out with representatives of the main infrastructure companies and institutions responsible in these sectors in Austria, which have to carry out EIA regularly. In a second step expert interviews were conducted with EIA assessors and EIA authorities in Austria and Germany, in order to examine the extent to which climate-based changes are already considered in EIA processes. This paper aims to discuss the different perspectives in the current EIA practice with regard to integrating climate change impacts as well as barriers and solutions identified by the groups of actors involved, namely project developers, environmental competent authorities and consultants (EIA assessors/practitioners). The interviews show that different groups of actors consider the topic to different degrees. Downscaling of climate change scenarios is in this context both, a critical issue with regards to availability of data and costs. Furthermore, assistance for the interpretation of relevant impacts, to be deducted from climate change scenarios, on the specific environmental issues in the area is needed. The main barriers identified by the EIA experts therefore include a lack of data as well as general uncertainty as to how far climate change should be considered in the process without reliable data but in the presence of knowledge about possible consequences at an abstract level. A joint strategy on how to cope with uncertain prognoses about main impacts on environmental issues for areas without reliable data requires a discussion and cooperation between EIA consultants and environmental authorities.     

Role of and challenges to environmental impact assessment proponents in Pakistan

This study identified the role of and challenges faced by Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) proponents in Punjab, Pakistan. Expected roles of proponents in EIA were taken from regulations, legislation and guidelines. The comments of consultants, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) regarding the role played by proponents were extracted from literature and used for evaluation. To identify the challenges of proponents in each step of the EIA, 40 semi-structured interviews were conducted with private and government proponents in Punjab. Oftentimes, projects start prior to obtaining an environmental approval. Proper scoping is seldom conducted. Stakeholder involvement in EIA is limited. Proponents sometimes do not share complete project information with consultants, which compromises the report quality and timely decision making. Moreover, some proponents attempt to influence the review and decision making and do not ensure compliance to approval conditions except for few multinationals. The key challenge highlighted by proponents was the discrimination on part of the EPA between private and government projects. Other challenges included lack of professionalism of some consultants and delayed and non-transparent decision making. Although regional in scope, the results of the study hold importance for EIA systems worldwide particularly in countries with similar economic systems who are facing a trade-off between economic growth and environmental sustainability.     

Large-scale renewable energy project barriers: Environmental impact assessment streamlining efforts in Japan and the EU

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures have been identified as a major barrier to renewable energy (RE) development with regards to large-scale projects (LS-RE). However EIA laws have also been neglected by many decision-makers who have been underestimating its impact on RE development and the stifling potential they possess. As a consequence, apart from acknowledging the shortcomings of the systems currently in place, few governments momentarily have concrete plans to reform their EIA laws. By looking at recent EIA streamlining efforts in two industrialized regions that underwent major transformations in their energy sectors, this paper attempts to assess how such reform efforts can act as a means to support the balancing of environmental protection and climate change mitigation with socio-economic challenges. Thereby this paper fills this intellectual void by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese EIA law by contrasting it with the recently revised EIA Directive of the European Union (EU). This enables the identification of the regulatory provisions that impact RE development the most and the determination of how structured EIA law reforms would affect domestic RE project development. The main focus lies on the evaluation of regulatory streamlining efforts in the Japanese and EU contexts through the application of a mixed-methods approach, consisting of in-depth literary and legal reviews, followed by a comparative analysis and a series of semi-structured interviews. Highlighting several legal inconsistencies in combination with the views of EIA professionals, academics and law- and policymakers, allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of what streamlining elements of the reformed EU EIA Directive and the proposed Japanese EIA framework modifications could either promote or stifle further RE deployment.     

Is EIA part of the wind power planning problem?

This research evaluates the importance and effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) within wind farm planning debates, drawing on insights from case studies in Scotland. Despite general public support for renewable energy on the grounds that it is needed to tackle climate change and implement sustainable development, many proposed wind farms encounter significant resistance. The importance of planning issues and (EIA) processes has arguably been overlooked within recent wind farm social acceptability discourse. Through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and textual analysis of EIA documents, the characteristics of EIA are assessed in terms of its perceived purpose and performance. The data show that whilst respondents perceive EIA to be important, they express concerns about bias and about the inability of EIA to address climate change and wind farm decommissioning issues adequately. Furthermore, the research identifies key issues which impede the effectiveness of EIA, and reveals differences between theoretical and practical framings of EIA. The paper questions the assumption that EIA is a universally applicable tool, and argues that its effectiveness should be analysed in the context of specific development sectors. The article concludes by reviewing whether the recently amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) could resolve identified problems within national EIA practice.     

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.     

How does stakeholder involvement affect environmental impact assessment?

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes are grounded on the assumption that producing information about environmental impacts will yield better environmental decisions. Despite the ubiquity of EIA as a policy tool, there is scant evidence of its environmental, social, or economic impacts. Focusing on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared for water and energy-related projects under the US National Environmental Policy Act, this analysis addresses two questions: (1) What is the balance of environmental impacts associated with infrastructure decisions?; and (2) How does the content of stakeholder feedback received during the review phase differ from draft EIS content, and does this correspond to any changes in the final EIS? We demonstrate the use of automated text mining approaches to identify the distribution of impacts, measure the content of public comments, and observe whether values reflected in comments are associated with a shift in emphases between the draft and final EIS. EISs are shown to convey evenly distributed focus across multiple impact areas. However, we observe no substantive change in focal emphasis between draft and final issuances. This calls into question assumptions about the role that public participation plays in bringing new information to light or changing the course of action.     

Evaluating the performance and procedural effectiveness of Namibia's Environmental Impact Assessment system

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Namibia was formally introduced in 2007. However, little EIA related research has been undertaken and the system has not been formally reviewed. This paper evaluates the performance and effectiveness of the EIA system in Namibia. The criteria used for the evaluation were obtained from several sources in the literature and based on legal, administrative, and procedural frameworks. Data were collected through literature review, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews. The study revealed that Namibia has a functional EIA system based on fairly good legislation, institutional arrangements and a well outlined EIA process. Analysis of the legislation and administrative frameworks nevertheless highlighted several weaknesses including a lack of coherence in the legislation and poor implementation. Further weaknesses included a lack of monitoring and enforcement capacity, weak communication and information sharing, inadequate financial and human resources, and inappropriate public consultation approaches. It was found that EIA is slowly being accepted in Namibia and it has a preventative effect on proposed developments. The study recommends an urgent need to complete the ongoing legislative reform to close existing gaps and to improve the performance of the EIA system.     

Environmental management plan (EMP) for Melamchi water supply project, Nepal

More than 1.5 million people live in the Kathmandu valley. The valley is facing an extreme shortage of water supply. At the same time the demand is escalating rapidly. To address this issue of scarcity of water, the government of Nepal has proposed a project of inter-basin transfer of water from Melamchi River located 40 km north-east of the Kathmandu valley. The project will cover two districts and three municipalities and will potentially have significant impacts on the environment. In accordance with the Environmental Protection Regulation of Nepal (1997), the Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) has undergone an EIA during the feasibility study stage of the proposed project. The recommendations contained in the EIA were integrated into the project design for implementation in 2006. This paper summarizes the background of MWSP, the environmental concerns described in the EIA and the status of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed to address environmental compliance and other issues involving participation and support of the local people. This paper also provides some lessons to learn on the modalities of addressing the demands and grievances of the local people concerning environmental management.     

An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries—Illustrated for Georgia,Ghana and Yemen

Actors in the field of international development co-operation supporting the development of EIA legislation in developing countries often do not achieve the results envisaged. The performance of EIA in these countries often remains weak. One reason, we assume, is that often those actors support the establishment of overly ambitious EIA legislation that cannot achieve its objectives in the light of constraining contexts. To provide more effective support we need to better understand the enabling and constraining contextual factors that influence the development of EIA legislation and to which support actors should align itself. In this article a new analysis framework for classifying, characterizing and explaining the development of EIA legislation is described, measured in terms of ambition levels. Ambitions are defined as intentions the EIA authorities aim to fulfill, expressed in formal EIA legislation. Three country cases, Yemen, Georgia and Ghana are used to illustrate the usefulness of our framework and as a first test to refine the framework. We have formulated the following five hypotheses that complement and refine our analysis framework. One, EIA legislation may develop multilinearly in terms of ambition levels. Two, ambitions in EIA legislation seem to be influenced to a great extent by the power and capacity of, on the one hand, the environmental authorities supporting EIA and, on the other hand, the sector authorities hindering the development of EIA. Three, the political system is the most important context factor influencing the rules of policy-making and the power of the different actors involved. Four, the importance of context factors on the development of ambitions is dependent on the phase of EIA system development. Five, some ambitions seem to be influenced by particular factors; for instance the ambitions for the object of study seem to be influenced by the level of environmental awareness of the sector ministries and parliament.The analysis framework may also assist actors involved in the development of EIA legislation in setting ambitions for EIA legislation that are feasible within the context in which it will be developed and implemented. Application of a country-specific EIA model would seem to be the preferred model to develop EIA legislation because by taking capacities of actors and context factors as a starting point, it offers more potential to well-performing EIA systems.     

Going beyond environmental impact assessment: Environmental input to planning and design

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been, and remains for the time being, a very important tool of environmental management — though not always for the reasons one would expect. Major achievements of EIA have been through indirect benefits that have had little recognition to date, particularly the achievements of its stimulative and educative roles. However, EIA is evolving as a planning tool and will continue to do so, and we argue that, in time, we will be able to go beyond EIA as a separate stand alone process. We indicate the requirements for its eventual absorption into project planning and design, and the concomitant need to fully incorporate environmental issues in land use planning to address those matters that cannot be addressed on a project-by-project basis.     

Project justification and EIA: Anything goes?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) incorporates environmental aspects into decision-making, but sometimes it is not effective in rejecting projects with dubious justification, significant impacts and little social utility, especially when they have political support. EIA is expected to achieve sustainable development, but without calling development into question; however, it should be able to ask the question of whether development is really necessary. Although EIA is political, as a part of the decision-making process, politicization must be limited to prevent it from becoming a mere instrument for giving an “environmental veneer” to development. Some measures thar can help avoid unjustified projects are: adopting administrative justice approach to EIA; minimising politicization of EIA agencies; improving transparency in decision-making and proportionality of EIA procedures; carrying out pre-feasibility studies; increasing the scope of SEA; allowing more than one SEA or EIA procedure for the same development throughout the planning process; strengthening the justification of the project in EIA documents; or making the scoping phase mandatory at least for major projects.     

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Marine Risk Assessment with Special Reference to the Osparcom Region: North Sea

This risk assessment on 1,4-dichlorobenzene was carried out for the marine environment, following methodology given in the EU risk assessment Regulation (1488/94) and Guidance Document of the EU New and Existing Substances Regulation (TGD, 1996). Data from analytical monitoring programs in large rivers and estuaries in the North Sea area were collected and evaluated on effects and environmental concentrations. Risk is indicated by the ratio of predicted environmental concentration (PEC) to predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for the marine aquatic environment. In total, 17 data for fish, 9 data for invertebrates and 7 data for algae were evaluated. Acute and chronic toxicity studies were taken into account and appropriate assessment factors used to define a final PNEC value of 20 microg/l. Recent monitoring data indicate that 1,4-dichlorobenzene levels in coastal waters and estuaries are below the determination limit of 0.1 microg/l used in monitoring programs. The worst case value recorded in river water is below 0.45 microg/l. Using these values, calculated PEC/PNEC ratios give safety margins of about 40-200, taking no account of dilution in the sea. Environmental fate and bioaccumulation data indicate that current use of 1,4-dichlorobenzene poses no risk to the aquatic environment.     

Environmental impact assessment: National approaches and international needs

This paper examines the spread and development of ‘environmental impact assessment’ (EIA) since the enactment of the U.S. Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, which established for the first time under any jurisdiction the formal requirement that an EIA be made and that an ‘environmental impact statement’ (EIS) be filed prior to implementation of certain major development projects. The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, we briefly review the forms of EIA introduced in the western industrial countries and contrast these with developments in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, and in the Third World. The approaches to EIA adopted by five countries — the United States, Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Soviet Union — are used to illustrate the types of national approaches that have been followed. In the second part of the paper, we use some questions raised by impact assessments as codified in legislation or regulations at the national level to highlight some of the limitations of impact assessment. Finally, we turn to international impact assessments and describe the modest progress made to date. Key impediments to the development of appropriate conceptual and institutional frameworks and methodologies for international EIAs are noted. In conclusion, we offer some suggestions about needed actions at both the national and international levels.