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.     

Stakeholder perceptions of Environmental Management Plans as an environmental protection tool for major developments in the UK

Insufficient implementation and the lack of legislative requirements for follow-up measures following the approval of projects are consistently highlighted as major shortcomings of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Although adopted over 15 years ago by the World Bank, Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) were only semi-formalised in the UK in 2008 and arguably provide a continuous link or ‘bridge’ between the EIA process pre-consent and an Environmental Management System (EMS) post-consent. Drawing on twenty-one semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and thematic analysis of their responses, and a broad-scale practitioner survey, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of EMPs as an environmental protection tool across the project lifecycle for major developments. The findings revealed a mixed picture of EMP effectiveness in practice, with EMPs only partially fulfilling a bridging role between EIA and EMS. There is no ‘gold standard’ terminology for EMPs, all having slightly different uses, thus presenting different focuses to different stakeholders and further enhancing variation in practice. For many stakeholders, the effectiveness was simply not known, due to the lack of communication and follow-up that still exists. EMP–EMS linkages were shown to be effective from the developer's perspective when a single organisation has involvement across all project phases, though weaknesses occur when multiple parties are involved. Among other stakeholders, knowledge varied significantly; whilst some were in agreement that the linkages worked, many were unaware of the connections and thought of them as two quite separate tools. Stakeholders advocated for the need to make EMPs a legal requirement; for improved communication between stakeholders during EMP implementation and increased documentation of project outcomes; and for EMPs to be consistently written by environmental professionals. Furthermore, weak links in the current process may be improved by providing detailed guidance for organisations on the potential for EMP–EMS linkages, with the additional aim of encouraging stakeholders to broaden their current specialist knowledge on environmental protection tools.     

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.     

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 (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.     

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.     

Simplified environmental impact assessment processes: Review and implementation proposals

There is a widespread tendency to streamline EIA, a confusing concept, which in practice usually means shortening processes to speed up project licensing, facilitating investment. It is reasonable for developers seek processes quick, simple and inexpensive, but it is also the obligation of governments to ensure that approved projects are environmentally suitable. Not all projects subject to EIA have the same impacts, so the existence of two processes, simplified and ordinary, seems reasonable. The aim of this paper is to analyse the implementation of simplified EIA processes, discussing its benefits and drawbacks. To do this, we have analysed 55 EIA processes from 25 jurisdictions, discussing its benefits and drawbacks and selecting effective and well-established formulas for simplified EIA. In most of the analysed cases, simplified EIA is achieved by reducing public participation, one of the pillars of EIA. It seems to be a chain reaction: ordinary EIA processes have been “streamlined” by removing formal scoping, giving rise in practice to simplified processes. As a result, simplified processes have been ultra-simplified, eliminating public participation, turning them, at best, into screening stages. Simplification must ensure a proper EIA, and not merely a shortening of deadlines.     

Experiences of voluntary early participation in Environmental Impact Assessments in Chilean mining

Citizen participation should ideally occur as early as possible in a project, especially throughout the course of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study. In Chile, participation occurs after the EIA study has been completed and presented to authorities for evaluation. However, voluntary early participation has become an extended practice in large mining projects for financial and conflict-reduction reasons. The purpose of this study was to explore a variety of these early participation processes happening in large mining projects from 2001 to 2010 and analyze how well these practices measured up to standards and objectives defined in the EIA and participation literature. Beyond the legal implications of such practice, we sought to understand the role of this voluntary procedure within the EIA process and citizen engagement in projects. We found a wide range of objectives, approaches and results, primarily driven to facilitate approval and implementation of the ten projects analyzed. The underlying objective of voluntary participation processes analyzed (whether it seeks to inform, to note or to engage), determined the information presented, participants included, area of influence considered, time devoted to the process and influence of the information collected on EIA and project mitigation measures. Few of the principles for best practice in the literature were present in the ten projects examined. Moreover, given the voluntary and unregulated nature of these processes, purposes and outcomes were often mixed-up with the Indigenous Consultation required under ILO provision 169, or Corporate Social Responsibility programs. This finally revealed that contrary to expectations, an unregulated and early voluntary participation is not having a clear impact in the definition of projects mitigation measures, participants are at risk of being unsatisfied with the resulting agreements and moreover, it does not assure projects implementation or the avoidance of socio-environmental conflict.     

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.     

Social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement in the Russian Federation: Representativeness,deliberativeness and influence

We analyse two approaches to social impact assessment (SIA) – traditional SIA and participatory SIA – in the context of a large project in the Russian Federation. The key difference between these approaches is the level and depth of stakeholder engagement in the impact assessment process and project. Participatory SIA seeks to observe the three principles of participatory democracy: representativeness, deliberativeness and influence. We identify the requirements for stakeholder engagement in the Russian impact assessment process, and analyse implementation practice by reviewing the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken for the South Stream gas pipeline project, according to national requirements and international best practice (e.g. the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards). We conclude that the Russian process reflects traditional SIA. Its main weaknesses are poor stakeholder identification and planning of engagement activities. The Russian SIA/EIA process is not consistent with the principles of representativeness, deliberativeness and influence and does not enable people to adequately participate in or influence decision-making.     

Incorporating cleaner production analysis into environmental impact assessment in china

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) system was established in 1979 in China. Although EIA was designed as a tool for pollution prevention, in practice it has been based on end-of-pipe (EOP) treatment control since it was first introduced. This approach has ensured an overwhelming focus by enterprises on the use of EOP treatment, rather than pollution prevention, to meet environmental standards, and it has produced a low rate of operation for EOP facilities. The low operation rate for EOP facilities can be traced to the traditional EIA system: it leads project proponents to develop large EOP treatment facilities, but once the main production lines are put into operation, proponents rarely have sufficient funds to operate the treatment facilities. This paper analyzes problems that exist in the EIA system in China, and it describes the Cleaner Production Index and Evaluation System, which is being proposed by environmental authorities in China to evaluate EIA projects based on cleaner production criteria. The paper also suggests how cleaner production analysis can be integrated into the EIA system to improve it.     

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.     

The effectiveness of environmental assessment in Flanders: An analysis of practitioner perspectives

The extent to which Environmental Assessment (EA) contributes to incorporating environmental values and objectives into decision-making (i.e. the effectiveness of EA) has been subject to much research. Still relatively little is known about how the effectiveness of EA is influenced by the specific features of EA systems and their context. International comparative research can shed more light on these relationships. In this paper we report on a survey of EA in Flanders, taking a similar approach as previous surveys in the Netherlands, UK and Denmark. We observe that the effectiveness of the Flemish project-based EA (EIA) is comparable to that in the other countries, whereas the Flemish plan-based EA (SEA) is more influential than the Dutch one (no data on Denmark and UK). As in the other countries, EA in Flanders has an influence on decision-making both before and after the EIA has been completed. According to respondents to the surveys, in all four countries the legal requirement is the main explanatory factor for EA effectiveness. The mechanisms by which EA characteristics and other factors contribute to EA effectiveness seem rather country-specific, however. Rather than trying to isolate the individual influence of factors we encourage more in-depth, qualitative and case-study based follow-up research in order to better understand the complex interplay between factors related to the EA system itself, how it is applied in practice and influenceds from its specific context.     

25 years of the UK EIA System: Strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats

This paper offers a review of the UK EIA system, providing insights into its evolution and reflecting on perceptions of effectiveness of the EIA system. The work adopts a similar approach used by Glasson in 1999, where he provided a review of the first 10 years of EIA in the UK, complimented by a SWOT analysis. In conducting the SWOT analysis, the authors make use of (1) a UK EIA survey which was conducted in 2011; (2) an interactive session organised at a 2013 workshop at the University of Liverpool on 25 years of the EU EIA Directive; and (3) a systematic literature review of publications since 1999. The results indicate that the internal factors (i.e. strengths and weaknesses) of the EIA system have not actually changed much in the last 15 years. Changes are more apparent for the external factors, especially with regards to opportunities. However, EIA may be suffering from a mid-life crisis at this point and a lot may be owing to perceptions towards EIA which may be influenced and inversely related to the length of experience in EIA. This opens up avenues for further research in the area.     

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.