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.     

Project justification and EIA: Anything goes?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) incorporates environmental aspects into decision-making, but sometimes it is not effective in rejecting projects with dubious justification, significant impacts and little social utility, especially when they have political support. EIA is expected to achieve sustainable development, but without calling development into question; however, it should be able to ask the question of whether development is really necessary. Although EIA is political, as a part of the decision-making process, politicization must be limited to prevent it from becoming a mere instrument for giving an “environmental veneer” to development. Some measures thar can help avoid unjustified projects are: adopting administrative justice approach to EIA; minimising politicization of EIA agencies; improving transparency in decision-making and proportionality of EIA procedures; carrying out pre-feasibility studies; increasing the scope of SEA; allowing more than one SEA or EIA procedure for the same development throughout the planning process; strengthening the justification of the project in EIA documents; or making the scoping phase mandatory at least for major projects.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Iran

EIA in Iran was formally introduced in 1994, but to date little EIA-related research has been undertaken in the country. In this paper, the authors provide an evaluation of the Iranian EIA system, focusing on EIA legislation, administration and process. Data was collected on the basis of a literature review, document analysis and semi-structured interviews. This involved some translation from Persian into English. Evaluation of the findings indicate that Iran has adopted the democratic tools of EIA and SEA, which considering its political context is encouraging. However, currently the Iranian EIA system does suffer from weaknesses such as inadequate screening and scoping, lack of alternative consideration, public participation, EIA implementation and follow-up. The paper proposes some initial recommendations based on international experiences and sets out the direction for future research.     

Beyond 25 years of EIA in India: Retrospection and way forward

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) experience in India dates back since the 70s when it was practiced only as an administrative decision. However, it was not made mandatory until 1994 with the introduction of the EIA Notification under the Environmental Protection Act of 1986. Hence, it's been just over 25 years since EIA was formally introduced in the country and in celebrating this landmark occasion, the paper provides a review of EIA performance in India since its inception. In doing so, it provides a systematic analysis against criteria set by one of the first EIA reviews conducted in the country way back in 1994. The four broad categories of this review include completeness, open and public character, objectivity and verifiability. In conducting the review, the paper consolidates publications on this subject area. This is further complemented with data collected via online survey and interviews with experts in the field. The findings reveal that since its inception days, EIA in India has made significant progress with regards to open and public character. However, this is still in need of further improvements. With regards to the other two criteria of completeness and objectivity, progress is rather limited. However, there has been hardly any improvements made with regards to verifiability of EIA. The new EIA notifications being drafted in the country do not seem to be engaging with the lessons learned over the years. Hence, based on the findings of the review, the paper provides some initial recommendations. In doing so the work further draws comparisons and inspirations from international experiences.     

Understanding the long-term influence of EIA on organisational learning and transformation

This research is an attempt to verify the notion postulated by Robert Bartlett and Lynton Caldwell that the full benefits of environmental impact assessment (EIA) would take decades to be realized. While EIA is intended to directly influence decision-making regarding new development proposals, the process is also expected to lead to organisational learning and transformation over time. Our aim was to examine the influence of EIA on a single Western Australian proponent with sustained experience in the process to understand how EIA is used within the organisation and to seek evidence of transformation of the organisation's purpose and mission. The research reviewed literature in order to identify key influences of EIA on organisations, along with semi-structured staff interviews and document analysis for the case study organisation. Ascertaining causality that involvement in EIA processes influences or effects organisational learning and transformation is a challenge in the face of other societal events. Document analysis and interviewee data indicates that the action-forcing nature of EIA did influence proponent behavior through the creation of internal processes seeking to ensure robust design of new projects that would satisfy environmental protection expectations, without the need to trigger formal EIA. Evidence of EIA values and thinking were apparent within internal documentation, including the evolving mission statement. Our research indicates that participation in the EIA process can positively influence organisational learning and transformation by guiding internal change for decision-making.     

Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive first entered into force in the United States in 1969, and began to be implemented in many other countries by 1990. The first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive in Turkey was published on February 7, 1993, under the Environmental Law No. 2872. The EIA Directive was revised seven times on June 23, 1997, June 6, 2002, December 16, 2003, July 17, 2008, October 3, 2013, and November 25, 2014. Several amendments were made during this process. The first EIA Directive dated 1993 was narrow in scope and its procedure was long, while the amendments in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2014 widened the scope of the EIA, and shortened the EIA assessment procedures. In this study, the amendments to the Turkish EIA Directive were analysed, and their effect on the number of EIA decisions made was addressed. It was concluded that the uncertainties in EIA procedures were removed, procedures were shortened, and as a result, the number of EIA decisions increased thanks to the revisions made in line with harmonisation with European Union (EU) acquis.     

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.     

Integrating environmental impact assessment with master planning: lessons from the US Army

The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to consider environmental impacts in the early stages of planning and decision-making. Despite this mandate, agencies typically conduct EIA for projects, rather than for earlier and more strategic decisions, such as plans. This research investigated the extent to which a large federal agency, the US Army, has integrated NEPA analyses with master planning for their installations. Using in-depth case studies of 16 installations, we investigated how and why EIA was (or was not) integrated with planning, and identified the factors that promote or impede integration. Typically, integration has been regarded as concurrence, meaning that the EIA and planning processes are conducted together. Results of this research show, however, that integration can occur, even if the NEPA documents and master plans are not concurrently prepared. In this sense, integration can be viewed as the influence of the EIA process on agency planning and decision-making. Results also indicate that regulations are only one factor, and that several other factors influence the extent of integration, such as agency leadership and organizational incentives. Lessons from this study can help improve both the integration and the substantive implementation of EIA.     

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

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

Performance of EIA authority and effectiveness of EIA system in Pakistan

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) agencies worldwide face multiple challenges that compromise their performance and in turn EIA procedural effectiveness. The current study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Punjab, Pakistan and the problems it faces whilst implementing EIA and ensuring EIA effectiveness. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data for the study. EPA performance and procedural effectiveness were evaluated using the formal and informal roles of EPA and EIA good practices respectively. They were also linked to regulatory framework, capacities of actors and contextual factors. Study found that EPA and EIA system performance is weak. Consequently, procedural effectiveness is compromised. The main causes include limited capacities of EPA, consultants and proponents; lack of political will; political interference and outdated regulations. A strong political will of the government is required to enhance the capacity of EPA and other actors in terms of motivation or “the will to” and means or “the ability to”. Measures taken by international EIA agencies to improve performance and effectiveness have also been discussed. Based on this study, lessons can be learnt by not only EPA Punjab but also other agencies in Pakistan and international agencies facing similar challenges.     

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.     

Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An integrated Public Participation Index and its application to the case of the New Beijing Airport

In recent years, China's government authorities have devoted increasing attention to the role of public participation processes in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The capacity of these processes to influence decision-making remains widely debated. This paper aims at appraising the institutional rationale informing the implementation of public participation in China's EIA, benchmarking it against three conceptualisations: (1) Normative, based on objectives of empowerment and democratisation; (2) Substantive, where participation is pursued mainly to improve quality of decisions; (3) Instrumental, seeking participation as an instrument to legitimise decision-making processes. The appraisal is carried out by means of a new integrated index (Public Participation Index, PPI), which is applied to a case study representative of latest advancements in EIA public participation practices in China, namely the “New Beijing Airport Project”. Located 46 km south of downtown Beijing, the project was approved in 2014 and it is currently under construction. Results of the PPI application to this case study indicate that, despite progress made in recent years, the implementation of public participation in Chinese EIA still largely responds to an instrumental rationale, with limited capacity for the public to affect decisions.     

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

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

Window on the Pentagon: EIA and defense decision making

Two sources of difficulty complicate tying EIA to decision making at the Department of Defense: the nature of the federal EIA process and the DOD decision-making process. Several steps, focused on each of the problem sources, are suggested that would enable DOD to enhance its existing leadership in doing EIA for its projects.     

Application of network method as a tool for integrating biodiversity values in Environmental Impact Assessment

Highway construction or expansion projects are among major activities of economic development especially in developing countries. However, road development consistently can lead to major damages to the environment, including habitat fragmentation and ecological instabilities and a considerable threat to fauna and flora. At this point, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in road developments is needed to address and evaluate the ecological issues in decision-making. The object of this study is to strengthen the consideration of ecological issues, i.e., biodiversity in the existing EIA tools. This paper regards a network method as a means to make informed planning decisions by the lessons from a case study. The results indicate that network method is well suited to be applied in ecological impacts assessment. However, some limitations such as complexity and time consumed make casual networks unpopular. Also, impact of traffic noise on acoustic communication (wildlife and human) was performed. It has been shown that sound level for human is much higher than admissible standards. Finally, the study expresses some mitigation measures to improve the acquisition for environmental impact assessment process.     

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

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