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.     

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.     

To what extent are threatened plant species considered in impact assessment decision-making? Insights from southeastern Brazil

The world's declining plant biodiversity depends on the efficacy of many policy tools, including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). While scholars have long been trying to understand how biodiversity information affects EIA decision-making, very few studies have addressed the specific challenges associated with threatened plant species. Based on content analysis of 83 EIA processes that proposed vegetation removals in the southeastern Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, this study evaluated the extent to which threatened plant species were considered in decision-making. The study found that the developers of 31 projects (37% of the 83 analyzed EIA projects) disclosed the occurrence of threatened plant species in the potentially affected areas. The detailed content analysis of their respective Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review reports revealed that the majority of the identified impacts and respective compensation programs targeted tree habits, and under a variety of rationales. Developers' proposed compensation rates of impacted tree species varied from 1:1 to 50:1. The reviewing process reported issues related mostly to the baseline conditions. Overall, the study found that EIA, in Minas Gerais state, has been functioning mainly as a diagnostic and compensation tool for the removal of tree species. The study calls for improvements in existing legislation and the development of technical guidance and capacity-building programs for EIA stakeholders.     

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.     

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.     

Monitoring: The missing piece: A critique of NEPA monitoring

The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 heralded in an era of more robust attention to environmental impacts resulting from larger scale federal projects. The number of other countries that have adopted NEPA's framework is evidence of the appeal of this type of environmental legislation. Mandates to review environmental impacts, identify alternatives, and provide mitigation plans before commencement of the project are at the heart of NEPA. Such project reviews have resulted in the development of a vast number of reports and large volumes of project-specific data that potentially can be used to better understand the components and processes of the natural environment and provide guidance for improved and efficient environmental protection. However, the environmental assessment (EA) or the more robust and intensive environmental impact statement (EIS) that are required for most major projects more frequently than not are developed to satisfy the procedural aspects of the NEPA legislation while they fail to provide the needed guidance for improved decision-making. While NEPA legislation recommends monitoring of project activities, this activity is not mandated, and in those situations where it has been incorporated, the monitoring showed that the EIS was inaccurate in direction and/or magnitude of the impact. Many reviews of NEPA have suggested that monitoring all project phases, from the design through the decommissioning, should be incorporated. Information gathered though a well-developed monitoring program can be managed in databases and benefit not only the specific project but would provide guidance how to better design and implement future activities designed to protect and enhance the natural environment.     

Biodiversity and bird surveys in Finnish environmental impact assessments and follow-up monitoring

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that are applied in the planning phases of large land-use and construction projects are aimed at aiding decision-making and mitigating significant environmental impacts. In light of the global biodiversity crisis, conducting high-quality biodiversity impact assessments is important, as biodiversity information, among other factors, has the potential to influence how projects will be implemented in the end. We investigated the biodiversity and bird surveys conducted and the number of bird species of conservation concern in peat extraction and wind farm projects to which an EIA was applied to in 1995–2016 in Finland and compared whether these factors differed between the project types and between implemented and unimplemented projects. We also studied the availability of follow-up monitoring data of biodiversity impacts within the two project types. The number of nationally threatened breeding birds was significantly lower in implemented than in unimplemented peat extraction projects. The overall probability of being implemented was significantly negatively associated with the year the EIA began for both project types. All permitted peat extraction projects and 22% of wind farm projects conducted post-construction biodiversity monitoring; however, only some projects enabled before-after comparisons. Our results are in line with earlier findings that demonstrate the difficulty of showing the direct impacts of biodiversity information on EIA decision-making and to what extent it is related to project approval or rejection. The role of follow-up monitoring in the EIA and project development could also be strengthened.     

Land take and the effectiveness of project screening in Environmental Impact Assessment: Findings from an empirical study

Land take is emerging as a global environmental concern, and is particularly critical in intensively developed and land-scarce regions. This paper seeks to understand the effectiveness of the screening stage of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in addressing land take. Screening is the stage where a decision is made as to whether an EIA is required for a project. In many jurisdictions, screening results in three pathways: full EIA directly, preliminary EIA only, or preliminary EIA followed by full EIA. We compared the land take of 217 projects triggering the different pathways in a study region in Italy over a 15-year time interval. Land take was quantified by overlaying the footprint of the projects with a land cover map.The results show that while more attention was given to projects with larger land take impacts overall, the cumulative land take from smaller projects not triggering full EIA was considerable (40% of overall land take). The case-by-case examination conducted through the preliminary EIA was found to work better for some project types (ski areas and small urban development), than for others (quarries). Our findings lead us to advocate improvements in current screening procedures to ensure that the land take impacts are quantified and made explicit in preliminary EIA reports. Our evidence-based approach to determining land take in EIA provides a compelling basis for understanding ways to improve EIA policies, guidance and practice.     

The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems: A case study in France

While the development of maritime economic activity is increasingly encouraged, the consideration of its impacts constitutes a real challenge. The limitations of the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy have been widely discussed in scientific literature, yet data on marine biodiversity offset practices remains scarce. In this study, we investigated the use of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) as suitable instruments to achieve the No Net Loss objective. Drawing on a French approach developed for the initial assessment of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, we examined the pressures and impacts related to various marine development projects and the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in limiting these. An analysis of 55 recent French environmental impact studies showed that only 7% of the proposed measures had the aim of offsetting predicted degradation of sites of remarkable biodiversity. This can be partly explained by the lack of a clear definition of ‘significant impact’, which varies greatly depending on what is impacted, in turn allowing socio-economic activities to benefit more easily from offset. Furthermore, offsetting does not always constitute the final step of the mitigation hierarchy, highlighting the need to reinforce avoidance and reduction steps. Although we acknowledge the role of EIA in mitigating the negative impacts of development projects, synergies with other European marine environmental policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Maritime Spatial Planning directive (MSP) should be developed in order to improve current practices.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating the use of Social Impact Assessment in the context of agricultural development projects in Iran

The utilisation of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in Iran is analysed in terms of its policy context and its application in practice. Five case studies where SIA was employed in conjunction with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for agricultural development projects are evaluated. In addition, the performance of the policy context is assessed. This research revealed that there are legal and institutional constraints to the effective functioning of SIA in Iran, and that there are deficiencies in the operating guidelines. There were serious problems associated with the way SIA was undertaken in all five case studies. Recommendations to improve the policy framework for the conduct of SIA are made. The recommendations advocate for a higher profile of SIA within legislation, for social issues to have greater emphasis in official guidelines for the conduct of EIA and SIA, and for a range of measures to increase the professionalism of SIA practice.     

A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector

The oil and gas sector is a key driver of the offshore economy. Yet, it is also associated with a number of unwanted environmental impacts which potentially threaten the long term economic and environmental viability of marine ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can potentially make a significant contribution to the identification and management of adverse impacts through the promotion of evidence based decision making. However, the extent to which EIA has been embraced by key stakeholders is poorly understood. On this basis, this paper provides an initial evaluation of EIA performance within the oil and gas sector. The methodology adopted for the paper consisted of the structured review of 35 Environmental Statements (ESs) along with interviews with regulators, operators, consultants and advisory bodies. The findings reveal a mixed picture of EIA performance with a significant number of ESs falling short of satisfactory quality and a tendency for the process to be driven by compliance rather than best practice.     

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.