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.     

Analysis of environmental impact assessment (EIA) system in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System, which embodies the ??prevention principle?? of the environmental law, is an important tool for environmental protection. This tool has a private importance for Turkey since it is a developing country, and it entered the Turkish law in 1983 with the Environmental Law. Besides, the EIA Regulation, which shows the application principles, became effective in 1993. Because Turkey is a candidate for European Union (EU), the EIA Regulation has been changed due to the EU compliance procedure, and its latest version became valid in 2008. This study aims to emphasize The EIA system in Turkey to supervise the efficiency of this procedure and point the success level. In the introduction part, general EIA concept, its importance, and some notations are mentioned. Following that, the legislation, which builds the EIA system, has been analyzed starting from the 1982 Turkish Constitution. Then, the legislation rules are explained due to the basic steps of the EIA procedure. In order to shed light upon the application, the EIA final decisions given until today, the results, and their distributions to the industries are assessed. In the final part of the study, a SWOT analysis is made to mention the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats of the EIA system in Turkey.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

EIA: A splintering,exploding discipline with a massive new constituency

After serving 18 years as Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, the author observes that the period 1997–2014, the discipline of EIA: splintered, exploded and saw the rise of the developing-world authors. Publishing has also changed, with shifts from quantity to quality, the rise of open access, and an ever-increasing shortage of reviewers.     

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.     

Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law with the European Union (EU) EIA Directive

In this paper, we first review the development of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in the past 30 years. Then we compare the framework and operational procedures of China’s new EIA law with those of the EU EIA Directive. We also compare public participation, as well as sanctions and control in the two EIA systems. In addition, we identify where the processes in both EIA systems are similar or different from one another. By comparison, we noted that there are at least three obvious weaknesses in China’s EIA system: (1) the application of new models for EIA legislation; (2) the improvement of EIA guidance and education; and (3) the enhancement of public participation in EIA process. Our study indicates that these three major shortcomings should be overcome and improved in China’s EIA system, when compared with the EU EIA system.     

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.     

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.     

EIA training courses organized by the centre for environmental management and planning,University of Aberdeen: An analysis of experience

In 1980, the World Health Organization (Regional Office for Europe) invited The Centre for Environmental Management and Planning (CEMP) to organize a two-week training course on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to provide a comprehensive introduction to EIA with emphasis on methods and techniques for impact identification, prediction and assessment. Not suprisingly the topic of environmental health impact assessment was to be a major focus. Since 1980, the course has been held each year at the University of Aberdeen. An analysis of participation in the course during its first five years yields several impressions about the success of this training effort and the ways in which it might be improved.     

Large-scale renewable energy project barriers: Environmental impact assessment streamlining efforts in Japan and the EU

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures have been identified as a major barrier to renewable energy (RE) development with regards to large-scale projects (LS-RE). However EIA laws have also been neglected by many decision-makers who have been underestimating its impact on RE development and the stifling potential they possess. As a consequence, apart from acknowledging the shortcomings of the systems currently in place, few governments momentarily have concrete plans to reform their EIA laws. By looking at recent EIA streamlining efforts in two industrialized regions that underwent major transformations in their energy sectors, this paper attempts to assess how such reform efforts can act as a means to support the balancing of environmental protection and climate change mitigation with socio-economic challenges. Thereby this paper fills this intellectual void by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese EIA law by contrasting it with the recently revised EIA Directive of the European Union (EU). This enables the identification of the regulatory provisions that impact RE development the most and the determination of how structured EIA law reforms would affect domestic RE project development. The main focus lies on the evaluation of regulatory streamlining efforts in the Japanese and EU contexts through the application of a mixed-methods approach, consisting of in-depth literary and legal reviews, followed by a comparative analysis and a series of semi-structured interviews. Highlighting several legal inconsistencies in combination with the views of EIA professionals, academics and law- and policymakers, allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of what streamlining elements of the reformed EU EIA Directive and the proposed Japanese EIA framework modifications could either promote or stifle further RE deployment.     

The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine environmental impact significance

This paper presents a new methodology for impact assessment—SIAM (Spatial Impact Assessment Methodology)—which is based on the assumption that the importance of environmental impacts is dependent, among other things, on the spatial distribution of the effects and of the affected environment. The information generated by the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in impact identification and prediction stages of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used in the assessment of impact significance by the computation of a set of impact indices. For each environmental component (e.g., air pollution, water resources, biological resources), impact indices are calculated based on the spatial distribution of impacts. A case study of impact evaluation of a proposed highway in Central Portugal illustrates the application of the methodology and shows its capabilities to be adapted to the particular characteristics of a given EIA problem.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

“Ripe for decision”: Tiering in environmental assessment

Tiering of information and decisions from more strategic plans to more specific projects (and sometimes the other way) can streamline plan-making and assessments, and improve decisions at each planning tier. In particular, it can lead to more consistent and comprehensive impact mitigation at the lower tiers. In practice, however, tiering of assessments is carried out only sporadically. This paper reviews the international literature and case studies on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) tiering, and presents the findings of interviews with 14 SEA/EIA experts. It concludes that a conscious and explicit transfer of information from the SEA level, and an explicit receipt of this information at the EIA level are necessary prerequisites for effective tiering. SEAs must be carried out with local actions in mind, in order for mitigation measures to support environmental protection on the ground. Lower-tier decision-makers must also be willing to be bound by decisions by the higher-tier SEA, focusing on implementation of these decisions.     

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.     

A comparative evaluation of the environmental impact assessment legislation of South Africa and Zambia

This study evaluates the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation of South Africa and Zambia against the modified criteria developed by Wood (1995) to determine the extent to which they follow “good practices” and incorporate emerging environmental issues into EIA. We modified the criteria of Wood due to new environmental issues that have emerged since their formulation. Some of these issues are in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). National Environmental Acts and EIA Regulations for the two countries were reviewed to evaluate the current legislation. We also used telephone interviews to gather additional information that was not in the documents. As a fundamental component of the EIA system, the legislation needs to be clear, concise and inclusive of all the major environmental issues that affect the performance of the EIA system. Literature reveals that the performance of the Zambian EIA system is generally low compared with that of some African countries such as South Africa and Ghana; especially in terms of the quality of EIA reports and substantive environmental protection. Therefore, we hypothesised that the Zambian legislation does not follow the good practice hence the low EIA system performance. Results, however, showed that the two countries are almost on a par in terms of meeting the criteria used in this study. Hence there is more to be done to improve the quality of both countries' EIA legislation. Nevertheless, compared with the previous evaluations by Wood (1999) and Harrison (2005), the results show that there is considerable improvement in the quality of the South African EIA legislation following a series of amendments.