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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Understanding EIA scoping in practice: A pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness

Despite widespread recognition of the need to consider IA effectiveness in terms of practice, the literature is dominated by normative approaches that do little to advance understanding of the causal process that lead to particular outcomes. Focusing upon EIA scoping in England, we examine notions of effectiveness directly from the perspective of key practitioner communities. The ‘received view’ of scoping asserts that effectiveness is constrained by a failure to narrow the assessment focus. Using an alternative, pragmatist interpretation (inspired by American philosophical pragmatism) we analyse the understandings and actions of professional practitioner communities. We find that risk management ‘ends-in-view’ shape the interpretation of the purpose of scoping and hence effective practice. Amongst EIA consultants the ends-in-view emphasise managing the risk of project delays, whilst planning officers seek to minimise the risk of legal challenge, and statutory consultees aim to provide advice that is proportionate to potential environmental risks. Practitioner ends-in-view shape the scoping approaches employed and the opportunities for knowledge formulation and ‘learning in action’. Whilst practitioners demonstrate pragmatism in managing uncertainty and there is some awareness of potential power-play, we find that knowledge formation and learning is predominately instrumental and incremental. Instrumental in serving to refine technical details (rather than co-constructed, drawing on multiple rationalities and types of understanding), and incremental in that over time practitioners learn that the most effective way to achieve their ends-in-view is to include impacts — resulting in a broad, precautionary scoping outcome. Finally, we conclude with reflections on future research directions and the implications for practice given forthcoming changes to the regulatory framework.     

Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why,who and how?

Even a cursory glance at the literature on environmental impact assessment (EIA) reveals that public participation is being considered as an integral part of the assessment procedure. Public participation in EIA is commonly deemed to foster democratic policy-making and to render EIA more effective. Yet a closer look at the literature unveils that, beyond this general assertion, opinions of the precise meaning, objectives and adequate representation of public participation in EIA considerably diverge. Against this background, in this article we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic debate on public participation in EIA concerning its meaning, objectives and adequate level of inclusiveness. In so doing, we hope to stimulate a more focused debate on the subject, which is key to advancing the research agenda. Furthermore, this paper may serve as a starting point for practitioners involved in defining the role of public participation in EIA practice.     

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.     

UK and Italian EIA systems: A comparative study on management practice and performance in the construction industry

This study evaluates and contrasts the management practice and the performance that characterise Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in Italy and in the UK. The methodology relies on the investigation of six carefully selected case studies, critically reviewed by referring to EIA and project design information, as well as collecting the opinion of key project participants. The study focuses on the construction industry and on specific key sectors like infrastructure for transport and renewable energy and commercial and tourism development. A main term of reference for the analyses has been established by critically reviewing international literature so as to outline common good practice, requirements for the enhancement of sustainability principles and typically incurred drawbacks. The proposed approach enhances transfer of knowledge and of experiences between the analyzed contexts and allows the provision of guidelines for practitioners. Distinctive differences between the UK and the Italian EIA systems have been detected for pivotal phases and elements of EIA, like screening, scoping, analysis of alternatives and of potential impacts, definition of mitigation strategies, review, decision making, public participation and follow up.     

Planning theories and environmental impact assessment

The limited and sporadic interaction between EIA and planning theory has meant that EIA has largely failed to benefit from planning theory insights and lessons. Obstacles and dilemmas already encountered and addressed in planning theory are still hampering EIA theory building and practice. An overview of the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of five major planning theories—rationalism, pragmatism, socio-ecological idealism (SEI), political-economic mobilization (PEM), and communications and collaboration (CC) is presented in an effort to ameliorate this problem. EIA parallels to each planning theory and lessons for EIA are identified. Also addressed are the application of planning theories to different context types, overlaps, interconnections and middle ground concepts among theories, the integration of values, ethics, and postmodern perspectives and the potential to construct composite theories.     

Impact significance determination—Pushing the boundaries

Impact significance determination practice tends to be highly variable. Too often insufficient consideration is given to good practice insights. Also, impact significance determinations are frequently narrowly defined addressing, for example, only individual, negative impacts, focusing on bio-physical impacts, and not seeking to integrate either the Precautionary Principle or sustainability.This article seeks to extend the boundaries of impact significance determination practice by providing an overview of good general impact significance practices, together with stakeholder roles and potential methods for addressing significance determination challenges. Relevant thresholds, criteria, contextual considerations and support methods are also highlighted. The analysis is then extended to address how impact significance determination practices change for positive as compared with negative impacts, for cumulative as compared with individual impacts, for socio-economic as compared with bio-physical impacts, when the Precautionary Principle is integrated into the process, and when sustainability contributions drive the EIA process and related impact significance determinations. These refinements can assist EIA practitioners in ensuring that the scope and nature of impact significance determinations reflect the broadened scope of emerging EIA requirements and practices. Suggestions are included for further refining and testing of the proposed changes to impact significance determination practice.     

Theorising EIA effectiveness: A contribution based on the Danish system

Considerable attention has been given to the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment (EIA) since the 1970s. Relatively few research studies, however, have approached EIA as an instrument of environmental governance, and have explored the mechanisms through which EIA influences the behaviour of actors involved in planning processes. Consequently, theory in this area is underspecified. In this paper we contribute to theory-building by analysing the effectiveness of a unique EIA system: the Danish system. In this system the competent authority, instead of the project proponent, undertakes EIA reporting. Additionally, the public, rather than experts, play a central role in quality control and the Danish EIA community is relatively small which influences community dynamics in particular ways. A nation-wide survey and expert interviews were undertaken in order to examine the views of actors involved in EIA on the effectiveness of this anomalous system. The empirical data are compared with similar studies on governance mechanisms in other countries, especially the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, as well as with earlier evaluations of EIA effectiveness in Denmark. The results indicate that the more extensive role attributed to the competent authority may lead to higher EIA effectiveness when this aligns with their interests; the influence of the public is amplified by a powerful complaints system; and, the size of the EIA community appears to have no substantial influence on EIA effectiveness. We discuss how the research findings might enhance our theoretical understanding of the operation and effectiveness of governance mechanisms in EIA.     

Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: How consultants guide quality in environmental assessment

Quality enhancement in environmental assessment tends to be connected to control mechanisms and best-practice guidelines. This paper takes an alternative approach examining quality performance through the lenses of consultants' perceptions of appropriate action, primarily in relation to the scoping phase. The study builds on interviews with Swedish consultants. The interviews are analysed by using a recently published theoretical framework focusing on practitioners' spaces for action. The analysis reveals that quality is highly open for interpretation and that consultants have a strong position for guiding quality performance, partly due to the key knowledge they hold. Their action is strongly guided by how the consultants perceive their responsibility; requiring a balance between maintaining good relationships with their clients through ‘good enough’ performance and maintaining a good professional reputation by undertaking what they themselves perceive as a ‘best’ practice. These findings indicate a need to reconsider the research in this field, promoting a shift of focus away from the dominance of quality enhancement measures and engage with issues of consultants' and other practitioners' perceptions of their responsibility in respect of quality performance.     

Underwater noise modelling for environmental impact assessment

Assessment of underwater noise is increasingly required by regulators of development projects in marine and freshwater habitats, and noise pollution can be a constraining factor in the consenting process. Noise levels arising from the proposed activity are modelled and the potential impact on species of interest within the affected area is then evaluated. Although there is considerable uncertainty in the relationship between noise levels and impacts on aquatic species, the science underlying noise modelling is well understood. Nevertheless, many environmental impact assessments (EIAs) do not reflect best practice, and stakeholders and decision makers in the EIA process are often unfamiliar with the concepts and terminology that are integral to interpreting noise exposure predictions. In this paper, we review the process of underwater noise modelling and explore the factors affecting predictions of noise exposure. Finally, we illustrate the consequences of errors and uncertainties in noise modelling, and discuss future research needs to reduce uncertainty in noise assessments.     

Environmental impact assessment in urban transport planning: Exploring process-related barriers in Spanish practice

The effectiveness of EIA for evaluating transport planning projects is increasingly being questioned by practitioners, institutions and scholars. The academic literature has traditionally focused more on solving content-related problems with EIA (i.e. the measurement of environmental effects) than on process-related issues (i.e. the role of EIA in the planning process and the interaction between key actors). Focusing only on technical improvements is not sufficient for rectifying the effectiveness problems of EIA. In order to address this knowledge gap, the paper explores how EIA is experienced in the Spanish planning context and offers in-depth insight into EIA process-related issues in the field of urban transport planning. From the multitude of involved actors, the research focuses on exploring the perceptions of the two main professional groups: EIA developers and transport planners. Through a web-based survey we assess the importance of process-related barriers to the effective use of EIA in urban transport planning. The analyses revealed process issues based fundamentally on unstructured stakeholders involvement and an inefficient public participation     

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.     

Regulators' perceptions of environmental impact assessment (EIA) benefits in a sustainable development context

The costs of conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are well known. Yet the benefits of EIA are much more intangible, leading to a situation where some question its value as the tool of choice for informing decision makers of the sustainability consequences of their actions. Exponents of EIA have thus called for more research on the benefits of EIA in order to provide better evidence on its costs versus benefits, and therefore its value as a decision-making tool. This paper contributes to this evidence by exploring the perceived potential benefits and perceived realised benefits of EIA from a regulators' perspective in the context of sustainable development. Using South Africa as a case study, one third of all the officials responsible for EIA review and decision-making (referred to in this paper as the “regulator”) were surveyed to identify their perceptions of the benefits of EIA, and their ideas on how to bridge the gap between potential benefits and realised benefits. The paper contributes suggestions for the analysis of benefits in a sustainable development context, and identifies some additional benefits currently missing from the literature. In a South African context, the key potential and realised benefits as perceived by regulators are the protection of biodiversity, public participation, access to information, mitigation of environmental impacts, and legal compliance and enforcement.     

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

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

Consideration of climate change on environmental impact assessment in Spain

Most of the projects subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA) are closely related to climate change, as they contribute to or are affected by it. The growing certainty about climate change and its impacts makes its consideration an essential part of the EIA process, as well as in strategic environmental assessment (SEA).This paper examines how climate change (CC) has been taken into account in EIA in Spain through the analysis of 1713 environmental records of decision (RODs) of projects submitted for EIA. In 2013 Spain approved one of the most advanced laws in terms of CC consideration in environmental assessment, although it had not yet accumulated extensive practice on the issue. This contrasts with the situation of countries like Canada or the USA, which have a significant body of experience without specific legal requirements.Only 14% of the RODs analysed included references to CC, and in more than half of the cases it was a mere citation. Thermal power plants, which are subject to specific GHG regulations, show the highest consideration, while transport infrastructures, which are important contributors to CC, show a very low consideration. Almost all the references are related to their contribution to CC, while consideration of the effects of CC is minimal.The increasingly common incorporation of CC into SEA, should not imply its exclusion from EIA, because both processes have different aims and uses. Including the obligation to consider CC in the EIA regulations is highly desirable, but probably not enough without other measures, such as practical guidance, training and motivational programmes for practitioners and evaluators. But even these actions cannot ensure effective and adequate assessments of CC. Probably more resources should be spent on creating greater awareness in all the agents involved in EIA.     

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.     

Impact significance determination—Designing an approach

The question of how best to go about determining the significance of impacts has, to date, only been addressed in a partial and preliminary way. The assumption tends to be made that it is either only necessary to provide explicit, justified reasons for a judgment about significance and/or to explicitly apply a prescribed procedure—a procedure usually involving the staged application of thresholds and/or criteria. The detailed attributes, strengths and limitations of such approaches and possible alternative approaches have yet to be explored systematically.This article addresses these deficiencies by analyzing the characteristics, specific methods and positive and negative tendencies of three general impact significance determination approaches—the technical approach, the collaborative approach and the reasoned argumentation approach. A range of potential composite approaches are also described. With an enhanced understanding of these approaches, together with potential combinations, EIA practitioners and other EIA participants can be in a better position to select an approach appropriate to their needs, to reinforce the positive tendencies and offset the negative tendencies of the selected approach and to combine the best qualities of more than one approach.