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.     

Internationalization of EIA in a new marine biodiversity agreement under the Law of the Sea Convention: A proposal for a tiered approach to review and decision-making

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is one of the four main elements of the package being negotiated in the Intergovernmental Conference to develop an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ agreement). “Internationalization” of EIA under the agreement, which partly relates to the international community's role in oversight and outcome of the process, remains a contentious issue that requires continued consideration. Less controversial aspects of internationalization in the EIA process are internationalization of consultation and dissemination of information. They are shown to be critical to achieving quality outcomes and encouraging transparency and accountability. This paper addresses a third dimension of internationalization, relating to review and decision-making, which is proving to be the most divisive in the negotiations to date. This aspect of internationalization is fundamental to allowing decisions taken on proposed activities to be seen as legitimate but concerns exist about the bureaucracy and costs that the process may entail, as well as potential interference with sovereign rights of States Parties under UNCLOS. This paper advances a proposal for internationalization of review and decision-making under the BBNJ agreement that attempts to bridge the divide evident going into the 4th session of the Inter-governmental Conference in 2021.     

Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa

Recently, various EIA systems have been subjected to system review processes with a view to improve performance. Many of these reviews resulted in some form of legislative reform. The South African Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations were modified in 2006 with the express intent to improve EIA effectiveness. In order to evaluate to what extent the desired outcome was achieved, the quality of EIA reports produced under the 2006 regulations was investigated for comparative analysis with the preceding regime. A sample of EIA reports from the two legislative regimes was reviewed using an adapted version of a well established method known colloquially as the “Lee and Colley” review package. Despite some improvements in certain aspects, overall report quality has decreased slightly from the 1997 EIA regime. It therefore appears that the modifications to the regulations, often heralded as the solution to improvements in performance have not resulted in improved quality of EIA reports.     

The Australian government's experience with environmental impact assessment

This article reviews the implementation of the Commonwealth government's environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation over its 12-year history. The Whitlam Labor government initially sought to implement the EIA requirement widely. However, resistance by the states and by sections of the bureaucracy combined with the policies of the ensuing Fraser Liberal-National Country Party government to limit implementation. The number of EISs produced has been low, and EIA has not yet been fully accepted as a routine part of government decision making. The article examines the factors that have contributed to this outcome, and proposes some changes to strengthen the EIA process.     

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.     

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.     

Going beyond environmental impact assessment: Environmental input to planning and design

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been, and remains for the time being, a very important tool of environmental management — though not always for the reasons one would expect. Major achievements of EIA have been through indirect benefits that have had little recognition to date, particularly the achievements of its stimulative and educative roles. However, EIA is evolving as a planning tool and will continue to do so, and we argue that, in time, we will be able to go beyond EIA as a separate stand alone process. We indicate the requirements for its eventual absorption into project planning and design, and the concomitant need to fully incorporate environmental issues in land use planning to address those matters that cannot be addressed on a project-by-project basis.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

The attractive concept of simplicity in environmental impact assessment: Perceptions of outcomes in southeastern Brazil

Pressures are mounting for the simplification of environmental impact assessment (EIA). This phenomenon is drawing increasing scholarly attention, but studies have not gone far beyond speculating what could happen as a result of recently implemented or proposed regulatory changes. This paper takes a more longitudinal look at simplified EIAs. The main objective was to analyze the perceived outcomes of a number of simplified EIA processes, using Brazil as the empirical context. More specifically, this paper aimed at understanding: 1) how simplified EIAs have been conceptualized and implemented in southeastern Brazil; and 2) how developers and civil servants in that region perceive the outcomes of simplified EIAs. This study adopted a sequential mixed method research approach. Data was collected through literature reviews, 261 telephone-based interviews and 10 face-to-face interviews. Degrees of EIA simplification can vary significantly within and across jurisdictions. In any case, simplification is often framed as a win-win solution to EIA ineffectiveness, through which regulatory and procedural changes are made to ease the process, while, at the same time, maintaining or providing better environmental protection. This approach is more frequently applied to potentially low-impact processes. Chi-square tests of the data collected through telephone interviews in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais indicated that developers tend to perceive EIA processes as difficult and slow regardless of how simplified it is. Most civil servants, who were directly involved in the implementation of simplified EIAs in state environmental agencies, argued that simplified EIAs are driven mostly by environmental agencies, as these institutions have long been unable to cope with an ever-increasing load of license applications. Policy outcomes of simplified EIAs in the territory are not sufficiently monitored by state agencies. Civil servants revealed concerns about the potential long term effects of EIA simplification on the ground, as they have had limited resources for audits and inspections.     

The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries —Cases from Georgia and Ghana

In this paper, we aim to better understand the factors that contribute to the substantive performance of EIA systems in low and middle income countries. Substantive performance is defined as the extent to which the EIA process contributes to the EIA objectives for the long term, namely environmental protection or, even more ambitious, sustainable development. We have therefore developed a conceptual model in which we focus on the key actors in the EIA system, the proponent and the EIA authority and their level of ownership as a key capacity to measure their performance, and we distinguish procedural performance and some contextual factors. This conceptual model is then verified and refined for the EIA phase and the EIA follow-up phase (permitting, monitoring and enforcement) by means of 12 case studies from Ghana (four cases) and Georgia (eight cases), both lower–middle income countries. We observe that in most cases the level of substantive performance increases during the EIA phase but drops during the EIA follow-up phase, and as a result only five out of 12 operational cases are in compliance with permit conditions or national environmental standards. We conclude, firstly that ownership of the proponent is the most important factor explaining the level of substantive performance; the higher the proponent's level of ownership the higher the level of substantive performance. The influence of the EIA authority on substantive performance is limited. Secondly, the influence of procedural performance on substantive performance seems less important than expected in the EIA phase but more important during the EIA follow-up phase.In order to improve substantive performance we learned two lessons. Firstly, increasing the proponent's level of ownership seems obvious, but direct change is probably difficult. However, where international finance institutes are involved they can increase ownership. Despite the limited influence of the EIA authority, a proactive strategy of, for example, working together with international finance institutes has a slightly larger influence than a reactive strategy.     

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.     

A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been a tool for decision makers since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since that time, few analyses have been performed to verify the quality of information and content within EIAs. High quality information within assessments is vital in order for decision makers, stake holders, and the public to understand the potential impact of proposed actions on the ecosystem and wildlife species. Low quality information has been a major cause for litigation and economic loss. Since 1999, wind energy development has seen an exponential growth with unknown levels of impact on wildlife species, in particular bird and bat species. The purpose of this article is to: (1) develop, validate, and apply a quantitative index to review avian/bat assessment quality for wind energy EIAs; and (2) assess the trends and status of avian/bat assessment quality in a sample of wind energy EIAs.This research presents the development and testing of the Avian and Bat Assessment Quality Index (ABAQI), a new approach to quantify information quality of ecological assessments within wind energy development EIAs in relation to avian and bat species based on review areas and factors derived from 23 state wind/wildlife siting guidance documents. The ABAQI was tested through a review of 49 publicly available EIA documents and validated by identifying high variation in avian and bat assessments quality for wind energy developments. Of all the reviewed EIAs, 66% failed to provide high levels of preconstruction avian and bat survey information, compared to recommended factors from state guidelines. This suggests the need for greater consistency from recommended guidelines by state, and mandatory compliance by EIA preparers to avoid possible habitat and species loss, wind energy development shut down, and future lawsuits.     

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.     

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.