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.     

Integrating environmental impact assessment with master planning: lessons from the US Army

The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to consider environmental impacts in the early stages of planning and decision-making. Despite this mandate, agencies typically conduct EIA for projects, rather than for earlier and more strategic decisions, such as plans. This research investigated the extent to which a large federal agency, the US Army, has integrated NEPA analyses with master planning for their installations. Using in-depth case studies of 16 installations, we investigated how and why EIA was (or was not) integrated with planning, and identified the factors that promote or impede integration. Typically, integration has been regarded as concurrence, meaning that the EIA and planning processes are conducted together. Results of this research show, however, that integration can occur, even if the NEPA documents and master plans are not concurrently prepared. In this sense, integration can be viewed as the influence of the EIA process on agency planning and decision-making. Results also indicate that regulations are only one factor, and that several other factors influence the extent of integration, such as agency leadership and organizational incentives. Lessons from this study can help improve both the integration and the substantive implementation of EIA.     

Subnational government and EIA in the developing world: Bureaucratic strategy and political change in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil

EIA has been instituted in developing countries in the last decade largely in response to outside pressures. Governments have been quick to initiate reforms rather than jeopardize projects that might be key to national development plans. At the subnational level, most projects are not financed by foreign aid. The application of EIA at this level is often the result of pressure exerted on policy elites by the bureaucracy. This paper describes the reorganization of environmental protection agencies in the state of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. This reorganization provided the setting for a bureaucratic initiative on EIA. The authors also analyze two cases in which EIA was applied unsatisfactorily and comment on the political realites of implementing EIA at the subnational level.     

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.     

EIA and green procurement: Opportunities for strengthening their coordination

EIA plays an important role in enhancing the environmental performance of the construction sector. In recent years, the construction sector has been developing green procurement practices. Green procurement is a process that involves the incorporation of environmental requirements during the procurement of services and products. However, discussion on green procurement is rarely seen during the EIA phase. This paper addresses possible opportunities for improving the coordination between EIA and green procurement within the construction sector. The linking of EIA and green procurement has been postulated in the paper as an aid to strengthen the coordination between project planning and implementation. The paper is based on a literature review and is an outcome of an on-going research project concerning EIA and green procurement. This study indicated that it would be appropriate to introduce green procurement during the pre-decision phase of an EIA. In the present study, the opportunities for integrating green procurement at the stage of EIA are associated with the integration of project planning and EIA. Future research should investigate the mechanism through which the link can be established.     

Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems is contingent on a number of control mechanisms: procedural; judicial; evaluative; public and government agency; professional; and development aid agency. If we assume that procedural and judicial controls are guaranteed in developed EIA systems, then progressing effectiveness towards an acceptable level depends on improving the performance of other control mechanisms over time. These other control mechanisms are either absent, or are typically centrally controlled, requiring public finances; this we argue is an unpopular model in times of greater Government austerity. Here we evaluate a market-based mechanism for improving the performance of evaluative and professional control mechanisms, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments' EIA Quality Mark. We do this by defining dimensions of effectiveness for the purposes of our evaluation, and by identifying international examples of the approaches taken to delivering the other control measures to validate the approach taken in the EIA Quality Mark. We then evaluate the EIA Quality Mark, when used in combination with legal procedures and an active judiciary, against the effectiveness dimensions and use time-series analysis of registrant data to examine its ability to progress practice. We conclude that the EIA Quality Mark has merit as a model for a market-based mechanism, and may prove a more financially palatable approach for delivering effective EIA in mature systems in countries that lack centralised agency oversight. It may, therefore, be of particular interest to some Member States of the European Union for ensuring forthcoming certification requirements stemming from recent amendments to the EIA Directive.     

Suggestions for integrating EIA and economic development in the Caribbean region

Conflicts between economic development and fragile natural resources represent a growing problem among the islands of the Caribbean. Relatively simple methods exist to incorporate environmental impact assessment (EIA) into development planning and review. These methods can save scarce financial resources for island nations, increase their control over the development process, and possibly forestall widespread environmental deterioration and its attendant public cost. Island nations have more power as negotiating partners in the development process than is generally realized. This power can be exercised if EIA is integrated into the national planning process, giving ministries a stronger bargaining position when negotiating with development interests.This paper begins with a discussion of the most prevalent environmental concerns in the region, including oil development, water supply, beach erosion and fisheries depletion, and proceeds to discuss practical solutions to improve local control over economic development and environmental resource management. A hypothetical case study is used to illustrate major obstacles to effective integration of economic development and EIA. Recommendations are included to advance the state-of-the-art of EIA using joint fact-finding, expanding participation in EIA, evaluating cumulative impacts and project alternatives, and conducting post-projecting monitoring.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Revealing EIA process-related barriers in transport projects: The cases of Italy,Portugal, and Spain

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the transport field is increasingly being contested. Apart from technical issues (e.g., impacts measurements), the literature highlights process-related barriers as key obstacles to effective EIA implementation in transport projects (e.g., lack of collaborative work, transparency, etc.). Nevertheless, most academic efforts to date have focused on technical improvements, paying limited attention to the relevance of process-related barriers. To address this shortcoming, the paper aims to explore and compare how EIA is experienced and perceived by professionals in three South-European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Spain), providing additional insights into EIA process-related barriers in transport projects. The findings were obtained through an online survey of 294 professionals, representing two main stakeholder groups: environmental consultants and transport planners. The results reveal four main types of process problems shared in all three countries: (i) EIA timing, (ii) assessment of alternatives, (iii) monitoring system, and (iv) public participation. The highest divergences are seen in Spain, where 42% of identified process-related barriers are shared with the rest of countries, while Italian and Portuguese respondents agree in the perception of 68% of process-related barriers. The main differences between the barriers identified by transport planners and environmental consultants are related to their assessment of the need for more collaborative work between key actors. It is finally discussed the added value of this research to progress towards the homogenization of EIA processes across countries.     

Environmental impact assessment in urban transport planning: Exploring process-related barriers in Spanish practice

The effectiveness of EIA for evaluating transport planning projects is increasingly being questioned by practitioners, institutions and scholars. The academic literature has traditionally focused more on solving content-related problems with EIA (i.e. the measurement of environmental effects) than on process-related issues (i.e. the role of EIA in the planning process and the interaction between key actors). Focusing only on technical improvements is not sufficient for rectifying the effectiveness problems of EIA. In order to address this knowledge gap, the paper explores how EIA is experienced in the Spanish planning context and offers in-depth insight into EIA process-related issues in the field of urban transport planning. From the multitude of involved actors, the research focuses on exploring the perceptions of the two main professional groups: EIA developers and transport planners. Through a web-based survey we assess the importance of process-related barriers to the effective use of EIA in urban transport planning. The analyses revealed process issues based fundamentally on unstructured stakeholders involvement and an inefficient public participation     

The attractive concept of simplicity in environmental impact assessment: Perceptions of outcomes in southeastern Brazil

Pressures are mounting for the simplification of environmental impact assessment (EIA). This phenomenon is drawing increasing scholarly attention, but studies have not gone far beyond speculating what could happen as a result of recently implemented or proposed regulatory changes. This paper takes a more longitudinal look at simplified EIAs. The main objective was to analyze the perceived outcomes of a number of simplified EIA processes, using Brazil as the empirical context. More specifically, this paper aimed at understanding: 1) how simplified EIAs have been conceptualized and implemented in southeastern Brazil; and 2) how developers and civil servants in that region perceive the outcomes of simplified EIAs. This study adopted a sequential mixed method research approach. Data was collected through literature reviews, 261 telephone-based interviews and 10 face-to-face interviews. Degrees of EIA simplification can vary significantly within and across jurisdictions. In any case, simplification is often framed as a win-win solution to EIA ineffectiveness, through which regulatory and procedural changes are made to ease the process, while, at the same time, maintaining or providing better environmental protection. This approach is more frequently applied to potentially low-impact processes. Chi-square tests of the data collected through telephone interviews in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais indicated that developers tend to perceive EIA processes as difficult and slow regardless of how simplified it is. Most civil servants, who were directly involved in the implementation of simplified EIAs in state environmental agencies, argued that simplified EIAs are driven mostly by environmental agencies, as these institutions have long been unable to cope with an ever-increasing load of license applications. Policy outcomes of simplified EIAs in the territory are not sufficiently monitored by state agencies. Civil servants revealed concerns about the potential long term effects of EIA simplification on the ground, as they have had limited resources for audits and inspections.     

The political economy of EIA in Guangzhou

Using Guangzhou (Canton) as an example, this article examines major political economy problems regarding environmental impact assessment (EIA) in China: (1) difficulties for regulatory agencies to impose EIA procedures and requirements on projects that are sponsored or supported by other government agencies; (2) a lack of strong political constituencies that support environmental protection efforts; and (3) conflicts of interest created by regulatory agencies that attempt to finance their operations through providing services to the regulated for fees.     

Methodology for environmental assessment of proposed activity using risk analysis

This study applies a process of detailed assessment to summarize the potential impact of a proposed construction or other activity on the environment before implementation of an investment plan. The aim of the study was to develop a general methodology for analysis and evaluation of environmental issues connected with planned activities and proposed projects (especially buildings and engineering constructions, required implementation of environmental impact assessment process) using a risk analysis method, thus enabling the best option among the proposed activities to be chosen. The methodology was developed for conditions in Slovakia but could be arranged for any other country considering national conditions, requirements, standards and legislative. Application of the developed methodology in environmental impact assessment could create preconditions for more effective implementation of the EIA process. This paper provides a framework for the risk analysis component of the scoping phase within the EIA process. The process outlined in this paper will assist with determination of an estimation of risks to environmental and health of proposed activities.     

Theorising EIA effectiveness: A contribution based on the Danish system

Considerable attention has been given to the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment (EIA) since the 1970s. Relatively few research studies, however, have approached EIA as an instrument of environmental governance, and have explored the mechanisms through which EIA influences the behaviour of actors involved in planning processes. Consequently, theory in this area is underspecified. In this paper we contribute to theory-building by analysing the effectiveness of a unique EIA system: the Danish system. In this system the competent authority, instead of the project proponent, undertakes EIA reporting. Additionally, the public, rather than experts, play a central role in quality control and the Danish EIA community is relatively small which influences community dynamics in particular ways. A nation-wide survey and expert interviews were undertaken in order to examine the views of actors involved in EIA on the effectiveness of this anomalous system. The empirical data are compared with similar studies on governance mechanisms in other countries, especially the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, as well as with earlier evaluations of EIA effectiveness in Denmark. The results indicate that the more extensive role attributed to the competent authority may lead to higher EIA effectiveness when this aligns with their interests; the influence of the public is amplified by a powerful complaints system; and, the size of the EIA community appears to have no substantial influence on EIA effectiveness. We discuss how the research findings might enhance our theoretical understanding of the operation and effectiveness of governance mechanisms in EIA.     

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.     

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.