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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Environmental impact assessment system in Thailand and its comparison with those in China and Japan

This paper aims to find ways to streamline the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in Thailand to increase its effectiveness by comparative analysis with China and Japan. This study is mainly focused on review, update and comparison of EIA systems between these three countries. It is intended to clarify fundamental information of the EIA systems and characteristics of the key elements of EIA processes (screening, consideration of alternatives, prediction or evaluation of impact, and public participation). Moreover, the number of the EIA projects that have been implemented in all the provinces in Thailand are presented. The results identified the similarities and differences of the EIA processes among the three aforementioned countries. The type of EIA report used in Thailand, unlike those in China and Japan, is an Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), which is concerned with the health and environmental impacts that could occur from the project. In addition, EIA reports in Thailand are made available to the public online and the shortcomings of the process have details of barriers resulting from the projects to help future projects with reconsideration and improvements. In this study, it is pointed out that Thai's EIA system still lacks local EIA authority which needs to be empowered by implementing a set of laws or ordinance.     

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.     

Environmental impact assessment in the association of southeast Asian Nations

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has agreed that environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources are essential for sound economic development. The Environmental Impact Assessment is viewed as an important management tool and an ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment has been working for several years on a model especially adapted to the region and also on case studies of the implementation of EIA. Progress so far has been frustratingly slow due to misunderstanding, a lack of ecological data, inadequate trained manpower and institutional shortcomings for compliance. The author advocates collaboration on an ASEAN model for performing EIA as a means of accelerating acceptance and implementation. The concept of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management is proposed as a prototype.     

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.     

Analysis of environmental impact assessment (EIA) system in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System, which embodies the ??prevention principle?? of the environmental law, is an important tool for environmental protection. This tool has a private importance for Turkey since it is a developing country, and it entered the Turkish law in 1983 with the Environmental Law. Besides, the EIA Regulation, which shows the application principles, became effective in 1993. Because Turkey is a candidate for European Union (EU), the EIA Regulation has been changed due to the EU compliance procedure, and its latest version became valid in 2008. This study aims to emphasize The EIA system in Turkey to supervise the efficiency of this procedure and point the success level. In the introduction part, general EIA concept, its importance, and some notations are mentioned. Following that, the legislation, which builds the EIA system, has been analyzed starting from the 1982 Turkish Constitution. Then, the legislation rules are explained due to the basic steps of the EIA procedure. In order to shed light upon the application, the EIA final decisions given until today, the results, and their distributions to the industries are assessed. In the final part of the study, a SWOT analysis is made to mention the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats of the EIA system in Turkey.     

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.     

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.     

Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment of spatial planning tools: A study on the Italian provinces

After more than a decade from the publication of the European Directive 2001/42/CE (Directive) on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), the design and construction of the interested spatial planning instruments has gone through a variety of changes and integrations in European and in world states. This inhomogeneous panorama can be explained with a pattern of institutional structures that have so far affected the implementation of the Directive. The aim of this paper is to investigate the level of implementation of the Directive in Italy by developing a comparative analysis of the quality of integration of SEA within the design of the spatial coordination plan of a set of Italian provinces. Italian practice is analyzed in the framework of a comparative study of worldwide SEA implementation within spatial and land use planning. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses in SEA implementation at the provincial level and, in particular, the emergence of critical areas of research concerning institutional context, public participation, monitoring, and observatory of the spatial transformations.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

A viewpoint on the approval context of strategic environmental assessments

A reflection on the last report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is provided. It covers the inadequacies of the approval/permitting context of SEA, which appears to be increasingly applied by a significant number of Member States in recent years. A viewpoint is provided on the main deficiencies of such praxis. As a practical defence of the planning context of SEA, the authors propose that the EC should consider a clear recommendation to Member States to cease performing SEA in the approval/permitting context until proper amendments to the SEA Directive are made and implemented.     

The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine environmental impact significance

This paper presents a new methodology for impact assessment—SIAM (Spatial Impact Assessment Methodology)—which is based on the assumption that the importance of environmental impacts is dependent, among other things, on the spatial distribution of the effects and of the affected environment. The information generated by the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in impact identification and prediction stages of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used in the assessment of impact significance by the computation of a set of impact indices. For each environmental component (e.g., air pollution, water resources, biological resources), impact indices are calculated based on the spatial distribution of impacts. A case study of impact evaluation of a proposed highway in Central Portugal illustrates the application of the methodology and shows its capabilities to be adapted to the particular characteristics of a given EIA problem.     

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.