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.     

An experiential approach to improving the integration of knowledge during EIA in transport planning

The integration of knowledge from stakeholders and the public at large is seen as one of the biggest process-related barriers during the scoping phase of EIA application in transport planning. While the academic literature offers abundant analyses, discussions and suggestions how to overcome this problem, the proposed solutions are yet to be adequately tested in practice. In order to address this gap, we test the effectiveness of a set of interventions and trigger mechanisms for improving different aspects of knowledge integration. The interventions are tested in an experiential study with two sequential cases, representing “close-to-real-life” conditions, in the context of two cities in Andalusia, Spain. In general terms, the participants perceived that the integration of knowledge improved during the simulation of the EIA scoping phase. Certain shortcomings were also discussed, fundamentally related to how the time spent during the scoping phase was crucial to lead an effective learning process between the involved people. The study concludes with a reflection on the effectiveness of the tested interventions according to similarities and differences obtained from the two experiential case studies, as well as with a discussion of the potential to generate new knowledge through the use of experiential studies in EIA practice.     

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.     

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.     

An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: Towards criteria for Chinese practice

The importance of improving the effectiveness of Plan EIA and SEA-type evaluations in China cannot be overstated: at a time when the country's economy is being boosted by a stimulus package worth over RMB 400 trillion – largely for infrastructure – the pressure on China's already strained environment and resource base is bound to increase. The aim is to propose the criteria for plan EIA's effectiveness to raise the awareness of the need to strengthen the performance of the assessment and maximize its potential benefits. The authors first review critically the discourse on the effectiveness of the impact assessment, identifying three dimensions: substantive, procedural and incremental. The resulting conceptual framework allows them to interpret the weaknesses of the Chinese discourse on the effectiveness and of the practice of the Plan EIA to date. The result is the identification of a clear gap, both in terms of the breadth of the concept, and in terms of the quality of the existing criteria, which tend to be very generic to the point of inapplicability. The analysis also reveals a need for transitioning from formal models of the Plan EIA to more strategic approaches, in a gradual manner that is consistent with context-specificities. The proposal of a set of preliminary criteria for effectiveness is therefore structured on three levels. This framework is meant to input into the ongoing debate on how to improve the practice of PEIA and the SEA-type evaluations in China, and provide ideas for a government strategy aimed at maximizing the positive impact of PEIAs on planning, as well as on the context of application.     

Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating the environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning processes

Integration of environmental assessment tools has long been promoted as best practice with the potential to bring environmental benefits. In this research, we set out to evaluate the effectiveness of integration of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and mine closure planning using a simple effectiveness criteria framework, applied to current regulatory provisions and practices in Western Australia. The effectiveness criteria for the integration of EIA and mine closure planning, compiled from existing reviews of integration and effectiveness concepts in the impact assessment literature, considers procedural, transactive, substantive effectiveness and overall process legitimacy. Data analysis consisted of a literature review, examination of regulatory and guidance material and interviews with 12 experienced EIA and/or mine closure practitioners with an industry or regulatory focus. The results provide strong, positive examples of procedural, transactive and substantive effectiveness due to the integrated framework. These include behavioural changes, improved knowledge and learning and better provision for closure at an early stage of mine planning. A trajectory of improvement was noted by everybody interviewed. However, a key driver for effectiveness is the enthusiasm of key facilitations, and tension exists due to the different motivations of the two lead regulatory agencies which poses a challenge for the integrated framework. While it can reasonably be argued that the effectiveness of early mine closure planning cannot yet be realised, due to a paucity of completely closed mines in Australia this study nevertheless demonstrates clear benefits and opportunities result from early stage integration of EIA with mine closure planning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: Towards criteria for Chinese practice

The importance of improving the effectiveness of Plan EIA and SEA-type evaluations in China cannot be overstated: at a time when the country's economy is being boosted by a stimulus package worth over RMB 400 trillion – largely for infrastructure – the pressure on China's already strained environment and resource base is bound to increase. The aim is to propose the criteria for plan EIA's effectiveness to raise the awareness of the need to strengthen the performance of the assessment and maximize its potential benefits. The authors first review critically the discourse on the effectiveness of the impact assessment, identifying three dimensions: substantive, procedural and incremental. The resulting conceptual framework allows them to interpret the weaknesses of the Chinese discourse on the effectiveness and of the practice of the Plan EIA to date. The result is the identification of a clear gap, both in terms of the breadth of the concept, and in terms of the quality of the existing criteria, which tend to be very generic to the point of inapplicability. The analysis also reveals a need for transitioning from formal models of the Plan EIA to more strategic approaches, in a gradual manner that is consistent with context-specificities. The proposal of a set of preliminary criteria for effectiveness is therefore structured on three levels. This framework is meant to input into the ongoing debate on how to improve the practice of PEIA and the SEA-type evaluations in China, and provide ideas for a government strategy aimed at maximizing the positive impact of PEIAs on planning, as well as on the context of application.     

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.     

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.     

Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems is contingent on a number of control mechanisms: procedural; judicial; evaluative; public and government agency; professional; and development aid agency. If we assume that procedural and judicial controls are guaranteed in developed EIA systems, then progressing effectiveness towards an acceptable level depends on improving the performance of other control mechanisms over time. These other control mechanisms are either absent, or are typically centrally controlled, requiring public finances; this we argue is an unpopular model in times of greater Government austerity. Here we evaluate a market-based mechanism for improving the performance of evaluative and professional control mechanisms, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments' EIA Quality Mark. We do this by defining dimensions of effectiveness for the purposes of our evaluation, and by identifying international examples of the approaches taken to delivering the other control measures to validate the approach taken in the EIA Quality Mark. We then evaluate the EIA Quality Mark, when used in combination with legal procedures and an active judiciary, against the effectiveness dimensions and use time-series analysis of registrant data to examine its ability to progress practice. We conclude that the EIA Quality Mark has merit as a model for a market-based mechanism, and may prove a more financially palatable approach for delivering effective EIA in mature systems in countries that lack centralised agency oversight. It may, therefore, be of particular interest to some Member States of the European Union for ensuring forthcoming certification requirements stemming from recent amendments to the EIA Directive.     

Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis

Environmental assessment (EA) aims to enhance environmental awareness and to ensure that environmental values are fully considered in decision-making. In the EA arena, different discourses exist on what EA should aim for and how it functions. We hypothesise that these discourses influence its application in practice as well as its effectiveness in terms of achieving the above goals. For instance, actors who consider EA as a hindrance to fast implementation of their projects will probably apply it as a mandatory checklist, whereas actors who believe that EA can help to develop more environmentally sound decisions will use EIA as a tool to design their initiatives. In this paper we explore discourses on EA in The Netherlands and elaborate on their implications for EA effectiveness. Based on an innovative research design comprising an online survey with 443 respondents and 20 supplementary semi-structured interviews we conclude that the dominant discourse is that EA is mainly a legal requirement; EAs are conducted because they have to be conducted, not because actors choose to do so. EA effectiveness however seems reasonably high, as a majority of respondents perceive that it enhances environmental awareness and contributes to environmental protection. However, the ‘legal requirement’ discourse also results in decision-makers seldom going beyond what is prescribed by EA and environmental law. Despite its mandatory character, the predominant attitude towards EA is quite positive. For most respondents, EA is instrumental in providing transparency of decision-making and in minimising the legal risks of not complying with environmental laws. Differences in discourses seldom reflect extreme opposites. The ‘common ground’ regarding EA provides a good basis for working with EA in terms of meeting legal requirements but at the same time does not stimulate creativity in decision-making or optimisation of environmental values. In countries characterised by less consensual political cultures we may expect more extreme discourses on EA, the consequences of which are reflected upon in this paper.     

A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment

This paper examines uncertainty research in Impact Assessment (IA) and the focus of attention of the IA scholarly literature. We do so by first exploring ‘outside’ the IA literature, identifying three main themes of uncertainty research, and then apply these themes to examine the focus of scholarly research on uncertainty ‘inside’ IA. Based on a search of the database Scopus, we identified 134 journal papers published between 1970 and 2013 that address uncertainty in IA, 75% of which were published since 2005. We found that 90% of IA research addressing uncertainty focused on uncertainty in the practice of IA, including uncertainty in impact predictions, models and managing environmental impacts. Notwithstanding early guidance on uncertainty treatment in IA from the 1980s, we found no common, underlying conceptual framework that was guiding research on uncertainty in IA practice. Considerably less attention, only 9% of papers, focused on uncertainty communication, disclosure and decision-making under uncertain conditions, the majority of which focused on the need to disclose uncertainties as opposed to providing guidance on how to do so and effectively use that information to inform decisions. Finally, research focused on theory building for explaining human behavior with respect to uncertainty avoidance constituted only 1% of the IA published literature. We suggest the need for further conceptual framework development for researchers focused on identifying and addressing uncertainty in IA practice; the need for guidance on how best to communicate uncertainties in practice, versus criticizing practitioners for not doing so; research that explores how best to interpret and use disclosures about uncertainty when making decisions about project approvals, and the implications of doing so; and academic theory building and exploring the utility of existing theories to better understand and explain uncertainty avoidance behavior in IA.     

The needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA theory,methods and effectiveness: What are they and does EIA address them?

The aim of this article is to examine the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA theory, methods and effectiveness based on literature review by applying Retief (2010)’s framework. The article intends to identify these needs and analyse whether EIA addresses them sufficiently and appropriately. Retief (2010)’s framework defines theory, methods (quality) and effectiveness as three main interrelated themes of environmental assessment. Our review was guided by these three themes and moreover, using nomadic pastoralism as a test case, we attempted to expand this broad framework into a four-step approach that can be used to systematically examine EIA literature. The approach first adopts the Retief (2010)’s framework and secondly, identifies issues of nomadic-pastoral land use which matter the most with respect to Retief (2010)’s themes. The next step selected 156 articles for literature review considering the issues identified previously and the fourth step examined the selected articles using a concept-centric review and a content analysis. Nomadic-pastoral land users need EIA theory to incorporate irrational logic and complex and unpredictable socio-ecological features of nomadic-pastoral land use. Decisions made based on the rational decision-making model in EIA cannot sufficiently incorporate the needs of nomadic-pastoral land use due to uncertainties associated with rational decision-making and different power, values and interests of stakeholders in pasture land resources. Furthermore, the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users with respect to EIA methods are related to impact pathways and dynamic character of land use. EIA methods systematically address impact pathways. However, the current EIA methods primarily focus on static land use, and do not address sufficiently and appropriately dynamic nature of land use. For nomadic-pastoral land users, maintaining land quality in nomadic pastoralism and participation in EIA are the most important issues with respect to effectiveness of EIA. However, empirical data are needed to examine whether these needs are addressed in EIA. Nevertheless, the current frameworks for evaluation of effectiveness of EIA are sufficient for assessment of EIA's capacity for addressing the needs of nomadic-pastoral land users. Further studies should aim at incorporating the nature of socio-ecological interaction and dynamics into EIA theories and developing suitable models on herding mobility and strategy for impact prediction in 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.     

Current practice and shortcomings of EIA in Lithuania

The paper provides an overview of EIA system applications and assesses its effectiveness in Lithuania. A combination of archival research and quantitative/qualitative analysis was used to identify the main shortcomings of the EIA process in Lithuania: subjectivity in forecasting environmental effects, insufficient consideration of alternatives, politicisation of the process and incompetence of authorities involved. The research revealed that a thorough knowledge of EIA procedures and legal requirements may be a solution to these problems, especially when the stages related to forecasting the effects and evaluating the results are strictly reserved for recognized experts. The work concludes on the suggestions to involve in EIA process relevant authorities and to increase the competence of EIA practitioners.     

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.