Can environmental impact assessments alone conserve freshwater fish biota? Review of the Chilean experience

Chile was one of many countries that initiated environmental impact assessments in the 1990s, and has relied on their use for species conservation and territorial planning without the use of larger-scale environmental and ecological planning. The capacity of Chile's environmental impact assessment system (SEIA) to evaluate resident freshwater fishes and the potential impacts of water projects and aquaculture activities – two categories of projects that create direct threats to freshwater fishes – are assessed. Of the 3997 such submissions to the SEIA, only 0.6% conducted any freshwater fish assessment, and only 0.1% conducted any quantitative assessment of expected impacts from the associated project. The small number of assessments was characterized by poor study design, inconsistent sampling methodology, and species misidentification. Traditional assessments failed to include freshwater fish ecology in the general assessment framework. The new strategic environmental evaluation system only underscores the need for vastly improved field sampling protocols and assessment methodologies.     

The political economy of EIA in Guangzhou

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

Fuzzy-based computational intelligence to support screening decision in environmental impact assessment: A complementary tool for a case-by-case project appraisal

Screening is a key stage in environmental impact assessment (EIA), but the most common approach based on policy delineation are inherently arbitrary. On the other hand, a case-by-case approach can be complex, slow, and costly. This paper introduces a computational intelligence based on hybrid fuzzy inference system (h-FIS), combining data-driven and expert knowledge, in order to assess its capability of supporting a case-by-case screening in project appraisal. For empirical research, a dataset with appraisal variables of projects highway was made available by a Brazilian environmental protection agency (EPA). Firstly, using this dataset, multivariate analyses were performed to find criteria (x_i) capable of indicating statistically significant differences among projects, previously screened by EPA experts into three types (simplified, preliminary, and comprehensive) of environmental impact study (EIS). Then, h-FIS was built through machine learning, using the FRBCS·W algorithm, with x_i as input predictors and the type of EIS as the output target. The performances of alternative approaches were compared using cross-validation accuracy tests and the kappa index, with a significance level of 0.05. As a result, the h-FIS achieved accuracy of 92.6% and a kappa index of 0.88, which represented almost perfect agreement between the screening decision provided by the h-FIS and the one performed by the EPA experts. In conclusion, the fuzzy-based computational intelligence was capable of dealing with the complexity involved in screening decision. Therefore h-FIS be considered a promising complementary tool for a case-by-case project appraisal in EIA. For further advances, future research should assess other algorithms, such as genetic fuzzy systems, in order to strengthen the proposed system and make it generally applicable in other projects subject to EIA.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Monitoring Long-Term Ecological Changes Through the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network: Science-Based and Policy Relevant

Ecological monitoring and its associated research programshave often provided answers to various environmental management issues. In the face of changing environmental conditions, ecological monitoring provides decision-makers with reliable information as they grapple with maintaining a sustainable economy and healthy environment. The EcologicalMonitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) is a national ecological monitoring network consisting of (1) about 100 casestudy sites across the country characterized by long-term multi-disciplinary environmental work conducted by a multitudeof agencies (142 partners and counting); (2) a variety of lesscomprehensive yet more extensive monitoring sites; (3) a network where core monitoring variables of ecosystem change aremeasured; and (4) geo-referenced environmental observations. Environment Canada is the co-ordinating partner for the network through the EMAN Co-ordinating Office. EMAN's mission is to focus a scientifically-sound, policy-relevant ecosystem monitoring and research network based on (a) stabilizing a network of case-study sites operated by a varietyof partners, and (b) developing a number of cooperative dispersedmonitoring initiatives in order to deliver unique and needed goods and services. These goods and services include: (1) an efficient and cost-effective early warning system which detects,describes and reports on changes in Canadian ecosystems at a national or ecozone scale; and (2) cross-disciplinary and cross-jurisdictional assessments of ecosystem status, trends and processes. The early warning system and assessments of ecosystem status, trends and processes provide Environment Canada and partner organizations with timely information thatfacilitates increasingly adaptive policies and priority setting. Canadians are also informed of changes and trends occurring in Canadian ecosystems and, as a result, are betterable to make decisions related to conservation and sustainability.     

Follow-up to environmental impact assessment: Learning from the Canadian Government experience

The environmental impact assessment procedure for Canadian federal government projects is briefly described. In the non-legislated Canadian system, follow-up to assessments is one of the major means of encouraging and improving the implementation of environmental impact assessment and the quality of environmental work done around development projects. The results of a study on the status of follow-up in the Canadian Government are presented. Factors that limit and that are conducive to follow-up are discussed. The effectiveness of follow-up depends as much on the circumstances surrounding a project and the concerned parties as on the follow-up techniques used; both of these aspects can be addressed in the planning and management of follow-up and of environmental impact assessment overall. Areas for improving the management of follow-up are identified and discussed: planning of follow-up activities, coordination of concerned parties, generation of clear understandings, information management, resource allocation, and maintenance of credibility. A method for planning follow-up activities for specific projects is presented.     

Reducing the harms associated with risk assessments

Risk assessments are the intellectual products of dedicated public health and environmental professionals. Like many other products, risk assessments carry with them the potential for both good and harm. This paper briefly examines some of the harms to which risk assessments have contributed, and then suggests that the legal “duty to warn” doctrine offers a logical and practical way to reduce some of these harms. The paper suggests concepts that could be incorporated into warnings accompanying every formal risk assessment as routine “boiler plate” addenda, just as other potentially harmful products, such as lawn mowers and cook stoves, are accompanied by warnings. Finally, the paper briefly examines the “Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for Environmental Professionals” (promulgated by the National Association of Environmental Professionals) and shows that the suggested warnings are consistent with recommended practices for environmental professionals.     

Assessing the assessors: Toward “risk aware” courts

This paper examines the ability of the judiciary to provide substantive oversight to agency environmental risk assessments under NEPA. A case study and its legal background are used to show the inability of an agency in one instance to separately estimate and evaluate risk, and the problems encountered by courts reviewing the assessment. Guidelines are suggested to aid agencies in preparation of assessments and to provide courts with a more effective and easy means of review.     

Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004

Since the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the United States has required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rate draft environmental statements (DEISs) for both information adequacy and the impact of the preferred alternative on the environment. In a previous study by Tzoumis and Finegold (2000), these ratings were found to be declining from 1970 to 1997. This current study investigates if that trend continued from 1998 to 2004. In addition, the top producing agencies (the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, Army Corp of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management) are compared for the achievement of DEIS ratings. The results show that when the ratings are disaggregated for these agencies, the results indicate that there continues to be weak performance. The DEISs continue to have insufficient and sometimes inadequate information. Agencies continue to propose projects that have environmental concerns and sometimes objections. The agencies have some similarities in not being able to achieve the highest ratings on a consistent basis over time. However, more disturbing is the profile of agencies that have episodic peaks of achieving the lowest ratings. Conclusions and recommendations are focused on the agencies who submit that DEISs and EPA. One major conclusion is to better track the ratings and make them collectively available for the public. Agencies are encouraged to develop a best management practice in preparing DEISs to promote agency learning.     

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.     

Promoting system-level learning from project-level lessons: An analysis of donor-driven ‘indirect’ learning about EIA systems in Ghana and the Maldives

A growing number of low and middle income nations (LMCs) have adopted some sort of system for environmental impact assessment (EIA). However, generally many of these EIA systems are characterised by a low performance in terms of timely information dissemination, monitoring and enforcement after licencing. Donor actors (such as the World Bank) have attempted to contribute to a higher performance of EIA systems in LMCs by intervening at two levels: the project level (e.g. by providing scoping advice or EIS quality review) and the system level (e.g. by advising on EIA legislation or by capacity building). The aims of these interventions are environmental protection in concrete cases and enforcing the institutionalisation of environmental protection, respectively. Learning by actors involved is an important condition for realising these aims. A relatively underexplored form of learning concerns learning at EIA system-level via project level donor interventions. This ‘indirect’ learning potentially results in system changes that better fit the specific context(s) and hence contribute to higher performances. Our exploratory research in Ghana and the Maldives shows that thus far, ‘indirect’ learning only occurs incidentally and that donors play a modest role in promoting it. Barriers to indirect learning are related to the institutional context rather than to individual characteristics. Moreover, ‘indirect’ learning seems to flourish best in large projects where donors achieved a position of influence that they can use to evoke reflection upon system malfunctions. In order to enhance learning at all levels donors should thereby present the outcomes of the intervention elaborately (i.e. discuss the outcomes with a large audience), include practical suggestions about post-EIS activities such as monitoring procedures and enforcement options and stimulate the use of their advisory reports to generate organisational memory and ensure a better information dissemination.     

Assessing benthic community condition in Chesapeake Bay: does the use of different benthic indices matter?

Federal and state environmental agencies conduct several programs to characterize the environmental condition of Chesapeake Bay. These programs use different benthic indices and survey designs, and have produced assessments that differ in the estimate of the extent of benthic community degradation in Chesapeake Bay. Provided that the survey designs are unbiased, differences may exist in the ability of these indices to identify environmental degradation. In this study we compared the results of three indices calculated on the same data, and the assessments of two programs: the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). We examined the level of agreement of index results using site-based measures of agreement, evaluated sampling designs and statistical estimation methods, and tested for significant differences in assessments. Comparison of ratings of individual sites was done within separate categories of water and sediment quality to identify which indices summarize best pollution problems in Chesapeake Bay. The use of different benthic indices by these programs produced assessments that differed significantly in the estimate of degradation. A larger fraction of poor sites was classified as good by the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program’s Virginian Province and MAIA benthic indices compared to the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity, although overall classification efficiencies were similar for all indices. Differences in survey design also contributed to differences in assessments. The relative difference between the indices remained the same when they were applied to an independent dataset, suggesting that the indices can be calibrated to produce consistent results.     

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.     

Coal mining and the resource community cycle: A longitudinal assessment of the social impacts of the Coppabella coal mine

Two social impact assessment (SIA) studies of Central Queensland's Coppabella coal mine were undertaken in 2002–2003 and 2006–2007. As ex post studies of actual change, these provide a reference point for predictive assessments of proposed resource extraction projects at other sites, while the longitudinal element added by the second study illustrates how impacts associated with one mine may vary over time due to changing economic and social conditions. It was found that the traditional coupling of local economic vitality and community development to the life cycle of resource projects—the resource community cycle—was mediated by labour recruitment and social infrastructure policies that reduced the emphasis on localised employment and investment strategies, and by the cumulative impacts of multiple mining projects within relative proximity to each other. The resource community cycle was accelerated and local communities forced to consider ways of attracting secondary investment and/or alternative industries early in the operational life of the Coppabella mine in order to secure significant economic benefits and to guard against the erosion of social capital and the ability to cope with future downturns in the mining sector.     

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

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

The adequacy of training for EIA in the United States of America

The well-established environmental impact assessment requirements in the United States have given rise to a number of training needs within federal and state agencies. Requirements for training vary for EIA project managers, technical specialists, senior managers and others involved in EIA. Information needs about EIA vary also, but include general awareness, procedural knowledge, substantive methodological knowledge and technical knowledge. While EIA training is provided in short courses, on the job, and in universities there remain deficiencies in the training of specialists, senior managers, and others. Proposals are made here to help overcome these. This paper examines the needs and provisions for training in environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the USA federal system and in the system created by the California Environmental Quality Act. The investigation is based on the very limited literature on training, on responses to letters, on the printed material requested from agencies and, most importantly, on the results of a series of interviews of personnel in various federal agencies at central and regional levels, in California, and elsewhere. A recent report by the Environmental Law Institute (1981) furnished invaluable background information on EIA training in the federal agencies. The list of liaison officers printed by the Council on Environmental Quality (1982a) was used to request interviews and information.