An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: Towards criteria for Chinese practice

The importance of improving the effectiveness of Plan EIA and SEA-type evaluations in China cannot be overstated: at a time when the country's economy is being boosted by a stimulus package worth over RMB 400 trillion – largely for infrastructure – the pressure on China's already strained environment and resource base is bound to increase. The aim is to propose the criteria for plan EIA's effectiveness to raise the awareness of the need to strengthen the performance of the assessment and maximize its potential benefits. The authors first review critically the discourse on the effectiveness of the impact assessment, identifying three dimensions: substantive, procedural and incremental. The resulting conceptual framework allows them to interpret the weaknesses of the Chinese discourse on the effectiveness and of the practice of the Plan EIA to date. The result is the identification of a clear gap, both in terms of the breadth of the concept, and in terms of the quality of the existing criteria, which tend to be very generic to the point of inapplicability. The analysis also reveals a need for transitioning from formal models of the Plan EIA to more strategic approaches, in a gradual manner that is consistent with context-specificities. The proposal of a set of preliminary criteria for effectiveness is therefore structured on three levels. This framework is meant to input into the ongoing debate on how to improve the practice of PEIA and the SEA-type evaluations in China, and provide ideas for a government strategy aimed at maximizing the positive impact of PEIAs on planning, as well as on the context of application.     

Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: Discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development

There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of impact assessment tools, which matters both because of the threat to future practice of the tools which are frequently perceived to be ineffective, and because of the disillusionment that can ensue, and controversy generated, amongst stakeholders in a decision context where opportunities for meaningful debate have not been provided. In this article we regard debate about the meaning of effectiveness in impact assessment as an inevitable consequence of increased participation in environmental decision-making, and therefore frame effectiveness based on an inclusive democracy role to mean the extent to which impact assessment can accommodate civil society discourse. Our aim is to investigate effectiveness based on this framing by looking at one type of impact assessment – environmental impact assessment (EIA) – in two controversial project proposals: the HS2 rail network in England; and the A4DS motorway in the Netherlands. Documentary analysis and interviews held with key civil society stakeholders have been deployed to identify discourses that were mobilised in the cases. EIA was found to be able to accommodate only one out of four discourses that were identified; for the other three it did not provide the space for the arguments that characterised opposition. The conclusion in relation to debate on framings of effectiveness is that EIA will not be considered effective by the majority of stakeholders. EIA was established to support decision-making through a better understanding of impacts, so its ineffectiveness is unsurprising when its role is perceived to be broader. However, there remains a need to map discourses in different decision contexts and to analyse the extent to which the range of discourses are accommodated throughout the decision process, and the role of impact assessment in those processes, before recommendations can be made to either improve impact assessment effectiveness, or whether it is simply perceptions of effectiveness that need to be improved.     

Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating the environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning processes

Integration of environmental assessment tools has long been promoted as best practice with the potential to bring environmental benefits. In this research, we set out to evaluate the effectiveness of integration of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and mine closure planning using a simple effectiveness criteria framework, applied to current regulatory provisions and practices in Western Australia. The effectiveness criteria for the integration of EIA and mine closure planning, compiled from existing reviews of integration and effectiveness concepts in the impact assessment literature, considers procedural, transactive, substantive effectiveness and overall process legitimacy. Data analysis consisted of a literature review, examination of regulatory and guidance material and interviews with 12 experienced EIA and/or mine closure practitioners with an industry or regulatory focus. The results provide strong, positive examples of procedural, transactive and substantive effectiveness due to the integrated framework. These include behavioural changes, improved knowledge and learning and better provision for closure at an early stage of mine planning. A trajectory of improvement was noted by everybody interviewed. However, a key driver for effectiveness is the enthusiasm of key facilitations, and tension exists due to the different motivations of the two lead regulatory agencies which poses a challenge for the integrated framework. While it can reasonably be argued that the effectiveness of early mine closure planning cannot yet be realised, due to a paucity of completely closed mines in Australia this study nevertheless demonstrates clear benefits and opportunities result from early stage integration of EIA with mine closure planning.     

The needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA theory,methods and effectiveness: What are they and does EIA address them?

The aim of this article is to examine the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA theory, methods and effectiveness based on literature review by applying Retief (2010)’s framework. The article intends to identify these needs and analyse whether EIA addresses them sufficiently and appropriately. Retief (2010)’s framework defines theory, methods (quality) and effectiveness as three main interrelated themes of environmental assessment. Our review was guided by these three themes and moreover, using nomadic pastoralism as a test case, we attempted to expand this broad framework into a four-step approach that can be used to systematically examine EIA literature. The approach first adopts the Retief (2010)’s framework and secondly, identifies issues of nomadic-pastoral land use which matter the most with respect to Retief (2010)’s themes. The next step selected 156 articles for literature review considering the issues identified previously and the fourth step examined the selected articles using a concept-centric review and a content analysis. Nomadic-pastoral land users need EIA theory to incorporate irrational logic and complex and unpredictable socio-ecological features of nomadic-pastoral land use. Decisions made based on the rational decision-making model in EIA cannot sufficiently incorporate the needs of nomadic-pastoral land use due to uncertainties associated with rational decision-making and different power, values and interests of stakeholders in pasture land resources. Furthermore, the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA methods are related to impact pathways and dynamic character of land use. EIA methods systematically address impact pathways. However, the current EIA methods primarily focus on static land use, and do not address sufficiently and appropriately dynamic nature of land use. For nomadic-pastoral land users, maintaining land quality in nomadic pastoralism and participation in EIA are the most important issues with respect to effectiveness of EIA. However, empirical data are needed to examine whether these needs are addressed in EIA. Nevertheless, the current frameworks for evaluation of effectiveness of EIA are sufficient for assessment of EIA's capacity for addressing the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users. Further studies should aim at incorporating the nature of socio-ecological interaction and dynamics into EIA theories and developing suitable models on herding mobility and strategy for impact prediction in EIA.     

Testing an ex-ante framework for the evaluation of impact assessment laws: Lessons from Canada and Brazil

Scholars have been increasingly investigating legislative changes in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, most of the existing evaluation frameworks have been applied to ex-post scenarios, after EIA laws and respective policies and regulations had been implemented for some time. This article has a twofold objective: first, to propose an ex-ante framework for the evaluation of proposed EIA laws and, second, to test the application of the framework to bills C-69 and PL-3729, which target federal-level EIA reform in Canada and Brazil, respectively. The proposed framework is meant to indicate the extent to which proposed legislative changes meet 50 good practice criteria, thus providing a more balanced and transparent account of the issues that should be addressed effectively in the legislative process and in future regulations and guidelines. Results indicate very contrasting scope and potential effects of proposed legislative changes in the two countries. Brazil's bill is essentially intended to integrate existing regulations into a law that would make EIA faster, simpler and less frequent. Canada's bill, recently approved by Parliament, includes a new Impact Assessment Act that is expected to deliver more comprehensive and credible assessments. The ex-ante framework, by exposing how close or distant proposed EIA regimes are from good practices, can be particularly helpful in lawmaking and regulatory design. The article finally discusses limitations and highlights future avenues of research.     

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.     

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.     

Public participation modes in China's environmental impact assessment process: An analytical framework based on participation extent and conflict level

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) serves as a gatekeeper to prevent environmental pollution, and public participation is a legal requirement in the EIA process that ensures people's awareness of activities that may jeopardize the environment. Recently, with the elevated awareness of environmental protection and increasing environmental sensitivity, EIA has evolved as a means for the public to show their attitudes towards environmental issues. More frequently, public protests against not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) facilities have become a significant challenge in the government's decision-making process. Government officials and EIA practitioners continue to look for a more effective way of public participation and aim to establish a platform that can involve related stakeholders. However, current research on public participation is limited to individual case studies or lacks a systematic approach to analysing diversified modes of public participation, which may differentiate levels of acceptance by the government in the EIA process and consequently lead to different effects. Therefore, from the perspectives of the participation extent and conflict level, this paper aims to establish an integrated framework to categorize different public participation patterns in EIA practices and to analyse their characteristics, such as preferences and the action logic arising from different stakeholders, including the government and public. The paper concludes that collaborative public participation is a possible way to strengthen the effectiveness of public involvement within the Chinese context.     

Methodological pluralism in environmental impact prediction and significance evaluation: A case for standardization?

At the core of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process is the identification, prediction and evaluation of impacts, activities that are profoundly marked by case-specific differences and methodological pluralism. Despite difficulties, policy-makers are occasionally attracted to the idea of standardizing EIA methods. The objective of this study was to understand the merits of standardizing methods for impact prediction and significance evaluations, using Brazil as the empirical context. Based on a content analysis of 49 EIA reports, a survey with 126 practitioners, and a critical evaluation of two standardization initiatives, the study shows that, while generally perceived as beneficial, the standardization of EIA methods is likely to remain a rather challenging task in the foreseeable future. The high degrees of discretion taking place in the selection and implementation of impact prediction and significance evaluations are to a large extent a consequence of the difficulty of finding terminology, metrics, criteria, thresholds, boundaries, and values across different settings. Current standardization initiatives in Brazil are targeting some of the easiest methodological issues related to terminology and process. While relevant to administrative efficiency and process predictability, such issues represent a small piece of the complex puzzle of EIA effectiveness. Findings signal the need for clearer policy priorities, capacity building, and more applied research about the actual, long-term effects of standardization initiatives.     

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.     

Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: Principles,approaches and research directions

Increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years on transitioning strategic environmental assessment (SEA) away from its environmental impact assessment (EIA) roots. Scholars have argued the need to conceptualize SEA as a process designed to facilitate strategic thinking, thus enabling transitions toward sustainability. The practice of SEA, however, remains deeply rooted in the EIA tradition and scholars and practitioners often appear divided on the nature and purpose of SEA. This paper revisits the strategic principles of SEA and conceptualizes SEA as a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional assessment process. It is suggested that SEA can be conceptualized as series of approaches operating along a spectrum from less to more strategic – from impact assessment-based to strategy-based – with each approach to SEA differentiated by the specific objectives of SEA application and the extent to which strategic principles are reflected in its design and implementation. Advancing the effectiveness of SEA requires a continued research agenda focused on improving the traditional SEA approach, as a tool to assess the impacts of policies, plans and programs (PPPs). Realizing the full potential of SEA, however, requires a new research agenda — one focused on the development and testing of a deliberative governance approach to SEA that can facilitate strategic innovations in PPP formulation and drive transitions in short-term policy and initiatives based on longer-term thinking.     

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.     

Improving the effectiveness of planning EIA (PEIA) in China: Integrating planning and assessment during the preparation of Shenzhen's Master Urban Plan

The enactment and implementation of the 2003 EIA Law in China institutionalised the role of plan environmental impact assessment (PEIA). While the philosophy, methodology and mechanisms of PEIA have gradually permeated through the various levels of government with a positive effect on the process and outcome of urban planning, only a few cities in China have so far carried out PEIA as a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)-type procedure. One such case is the southern city of Shenzhen. During the past three decades, Shenzhen has grown from a small town to a large and booming city as China has successfully and rapidly developed its economy by adopting the “reform and open door” policy. In response to the challenges arising from the generally divergent processes of rapid urbanisation, economic transformation and environment protection, Shenzhen has incrementally adopted the SEA concept in developing the city's Master Urban Plan. As such, this paper reviews the effectiveness of PEIA in three ways:

• •as a tool and process for achieving more sustainable and strategic planning;
• •to determine the level of integration of SEA within the planning system; and,
• •its effectiveness vis-à-vis implementation.

The implementation of PEIA within Shenzhen's Master Urban Plan offers important insights into the emergence of innovative practices in undertaking PEIA as well as theoretical contributions to the field, especially in exploring the relationship between PEIA and SEA and highlighting the central role of local governing institutions in SEA development.     

Reflecting on,and revising,international best practice principles for EIA follow-up

Follow-up is a vital component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), being essential for understanding assessment outcomes. Long-standing international best practice principles for EIA follow-up are reviewed, and revisions proposed, based on workshops with academics and practitioners, literature review and self-reflection. The proposed revision of EIA follow-up principles will feature an introduction with a simple definition and explanation of objectives for follow-up, and 15 principles. The revised principles address: objective; context; early establishment; project life-cycle; transparency; accessibility; accountability; performance criteria provision; enforcement; learning; adaptive environmental management; flexible or adaptive approach; tiering; cumulative effects and overall performance evaluation. Through publishing this proposal, it is hoped to simultaneously inform or inspire EIA practitioners to enhance their own follow-up knowledge and practices, and to seek input for further refinements that might lead to a revised set of international best practice principles for EIA follow-up.     

The art of underperforming SEA – Symptomatic narratives from Germany

SEA spread around the world as has SEA effectiveness research. International SEA evaluations show mixed findings on SEA effectiveness. In this article, the quality and procedural effectiveness of SEA in Germany is analysed pursuing the hypothesis that SEA is influenced by planning and administrative traditions that tend to counteract to more ambitious SEA approaches. Three SEA case studies were analysed according to a set of criteria and indicators based on international research outcomes involving SEA integration into decision-making, scoping, selection and assessment of alternatives, cumulative effects assessment, tiering, public participation, and monitoring. The analysis draws on documents analysis and interviews with representatives from responsible agencies and involved SEA consultancies.The analysis shows that SEA is facilitating informed decision-making as the responsible agencies used the SEA, the interaction with consultancies, and the participation processes as a source of information. However, the case studies show various degrees of SEA quality in Germany based on the evaluated criteria and indicators. Results demonstrate that procedural effectiveness is limited. Unclear legal regulations, an expert-based planning approach instead of a collaborative approach, and organisational constraints limit the SEA quality. Furthermore, SEA performance is highly influenced by administrations' legalistic tradition, the expert-based planning culture, the home-grown planning system, and the bounded importance of SEA consultancies in the era of staff cuts and under-resourced agencies. Thus, the recommendations aim to strengthen a more collaborative planning approach, to build SEA capacity within SEA responsible agencies, and to clarify SEA regulations.The overall question for SEA evaluation research and practice may be how more collaborative planning approaches can effectively be implemented in planning and SEA practice through institutional learning.     

Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA

The role of relationships between regulators and consultants engaged in environmental impact assessment (EIA) is explored. A Partnering Agreement between Western Australian regulators and consultants gave rise to a survey and interviews with representatives of these EIA practitioners to understand levels of cooperation between them and ways to improve EIA practice locally. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative responses are presented with an emphasis on practitioner comments reproduced in their own words and ‘voice’. The results suggest that while relationships are strained because of staff resources and levels of expertise brought about by a major resource boom in recent years, there is a great desire for cooperation and collaboration. Greater clarification and understanding of each stakeholder's purpose and role in the EIA process along with opportunities for EIA practitioners to interact, communicate and socialise are identified as positive ways forward. The value of establishing the relatively simple Partnering Agreement approach is demonstrated and is put forward as something that practitioners internationally might equally benefit from as a means of improving the effectiveness of EIA practice.     

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.     

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.     

Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal

Biodiversity, soil, water, air, climate, landscape and other components are typically analyzed in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) when looking for the effects of a given project on the biological and ecological components of the environment. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) tends to follow the same general pattern, when looking for the environmental effects of plans and programs. In both cases, ecosystem services are often not explicitly considered. We developed a framework to analyze environmental assessment (EA) practice and infer about ecosystem services based on existing evidence from EIA and SEA reports and supporting information. Our framework addresses the relations between ecosystem services and the environmental factors assessed in EIA and SEA, considering the relevant conceptual frameworks such as the ES cascade model and the DPSIR framework applied to ES provision. We base our proposals on results from a preliminary meta-analysis of recent EIA and SEA reports from several types of plans and projects in Portugal, in which implicit assessments of ES were clearly predominant. We discuss the implications of those results and the opportunities to infer about ecosystem services, and conclude on the need for more dedicated and explicit efforts to ecosystem services assessment in EIA and SEA.