Narrow Results

Environmental assessment (EA) is widely used as a means of incorporating environmental considerations into decision-making, primarily at the project level. The scope of EA has been expanded considerably in recent years to include earlier stages of the decision-making process, namely, policies, plans and programmes. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) facilitates a planning approach to addressing the overall, cumulative effects of the projects that occur as a result of these decisions. This paper demonstrates the potential benefits of SEA in the assessment and management of cumulative effects, using a case study of recent hydroelectric development planning in Newfoundland, Canada. It goes on to illustrate how SEA could be used to address potential cumulative effects at the various stages of such a decision-making process. Through the case study, the paper also explores a number of issues in the implementation of such a planning approach.

The paper analyses the political handling of mercury and radioactive waste disposal at the local level, and includes a case study of a Swedish community where there is a conflict concerning a planned deep repository of mercury. The analysis is based on two contrasting lines of planning theory, the trajectory of rational planning and the trajectory of communicative planning. In politics and planning on environmental matters, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a means of involving various actors in consultation. EIA refers both to a document that provides the basis for decisions and a working process, which can be seen as an endeavour to integrate the divergent trajectories of planning. Experiences from mercury and radioactive waste disposal, however, show a bias towards rational planning, giving scientific and technological expertise precedence to define the issue at stake. Likewise, the process of policy implementation shows a course with weak political commitment at the national as well as the local level of government.

There have been a large number of attempts to develop a theory or theories of Environmental Impact Assessment in order to justify its use in environmental decision-making. A review of academic articles demonstrates that these theories are largely drawn from planning theories. Planning theories are themselves a development of sociological theories of decision-making and from one particular strand of sociological theory. In this review of the theories of EIA it is argued that an understanding of wider sociological theory is necessary to fully understand both planning and EIA.

This article deals with the challenge of approaching decision-making processes through strategic environmental assessment (SEA). It is argued that the interaction between policy-making and planning in strategic decision-making processes is a neglected reason for problems with applying SEA, as legislation and guidance on SEA primarily approach either the policy or plan level. To substantiate the argument, the extent of interaction is empirically investigated. Four contemporary decision-making processes in the Danish energy sector are mapped as a series of choices. Fundamental changes with considerable environmental impacts are decided these years, often without preceding SEA processes. The mapping shows a profound interaction between policy-making and planning. In this interaction, public consultation, systematic environmental analyses, and transparency on alternatives are primarily related to choices of planning character. The findings lead to a discussion of the existing SEA guidance that is challenged in terms of adequacy of the guidance to approach the interaction.

In Mexico, the Federal Commission of Electricity (CFE) is the public entity that is responsible for the annual preparation of the national programme of the electricity system development with a 15 year horizon (POISE in Spanish). Besides this national planning process, there are regional plans as well as others regarding the development of hydroelectric and geothermoelectric projects; these plans are essential inputs to prepare the POISE. Another key decision window is the site selection of the projects listed in the Program.

For a few years the Environmental Protection Division of CFE has been promoting the incorporation of SEA into the decision-making processes of the company. Two regional SEAs have been made so far. This paper presents the actions carried out to incorporate SEA into CFE since 2002, as well as the methodologies followed in each of the two cases, and primarily the lessons learned from these experiences.

This statement aims at giving an overview of the research on impact assessment in Sweden. It takes a point of departure at the introduction of impact assessment in 1991 describing the Swedish research until today. Since the introduction of EIA in the Swedish legislation in the 1990s, a large number of PhD dissertations have been dealing with various aspects of impact assessment. An estimation based on the literature search is that about 20 PhD theses, in which the core of the research is related to EIA or SEA, have been produced since 1990. The research follows four main themes: (i) EIA and SEA as a tool for integration of environmental and sustainability aspects in planning and development, (ii) EIA and SEA as a tool for integration of ecological aspects in planning, (iii) research on the basic concepts of EIA and SEA, and (iv) the relationship with other assessment tools for sustainable development.

There is a growing interest in the potential of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) to mainstream ecosystem services (ES) concerns in decision-making. Experiences in this field have begun to emerge, showing the need for comprehensive guidance. This paper addresses this need by proposing a conceptual approach to integrate ES effectively in SEA. The approach is structured in the following four stages, each comprising specific tasks: establish the ES context; determine and assess priority ES; identify alternatives and assess impacts on ES; follow up on ES. The first stage includes the identification and mapping of ES and beneficiaries for the region affected by the strategic action and the identification of links with other strategic actions. The second stage aims at generating detailed information on a limited set of priority ES, which are considered relevant for shaping and informing the development of the strategic action. This requires determining the priority ES, reviewing existing regulations concerning these services and assessing their baseline conditions and trends. In the third stage, possible alternatives to enhance ES, or at least to minimise negative effects on them, are identified and their impacts assessed. Finally, during the fourth stage, the effects on ES are monitored and managed and the overall quality of the SEA process is tested. The paper concludes by discussing how the stages and their tasks require feedback and interactions and how they can contribute to achieve a better inclusion of concerns about ES (and their beneficiaries) into strategic decisions.

In the last decade, the emphasis of regional environmental assessment (EA) has shifted away from simply project approval towards facilitating environmental governance by accommodating heterogeneous stakeholders and emphasising relationship building across diverse institutions. However, there are very few advanced regional EA cases that may be studied to understand how practice has evolved and the implications for regional environmental governance. This paper characterises and assesses the interactions among the members of the Crown of the Continent Managers Partnership (CMP), whereby individuals with planning, policy-making, and EA roles attempted to implement an adaptive approach to regional cumulative effects assessment. Twelve in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders provide data used in the investigation. The analysis demonstrates opportunities for an approach to regional EA that facilitates environmental governance through collective visioning, innovative leadership, learning from failure, and collaborative science and management. Lessons from the CMP are relevant internationally to jurisdictions seeking to implement regional EA via multi-disciplinary, multi-jurisdictional partnerships.

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) provides an opportunity to integrate climate change issues into renewable energy plans to mitigate the effects of climate change. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the extent to which climate change issues are incorporated into SEAs of onshore wind energy plans in Germany and Scotland. To achieve our objective, we employed a modified version of the Lee and Colley review package to analyse SEA reports. The combined results of our analysis show that 49% and approximately 45% of the overall tasks performed in all the review areas in terms of climate change integration in the documents reviewed were considered satisfactory for Germany and Scotland, respectively. In order to effectively consider the climate change impacts in SEAs and to efficiently plan for onshore wind energy development, due consideration should be given to the adoption of diverse methodological approaches and models of climate change.

The use of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to address the environmental and social impacts of mining is common. At Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea, and Century mine in northern Australia, EIA failed to protect the biophysical and social environment of the mines. A detailed historical analysis was conducted to determine the chronology of the development of these projects, all internal and external decision making, and the reasons for this failure. This analysis showed that EIA was poorly timed and poorly integrated with the early phases of the mine developments. Environmental assessment expenditure and activity were concentrated in the development phase of the project and could not address impacts resulting from the earlier exploration and evaluation phases. Approval processes, such as permits and licences, that did occur in the early phases of the life of the mines, had very limited components of environmental appraisal or control. The primacy of development schedules, and the lack of communication between actors in the development of these large-scale projects, prohibited effective assessment and produced EIAs that were in many ways unrelated to the real environmental information needs of the project. In such large-scale projects it is essential to link EIA (and other approval/appraisal hoops) to environmental issues and decisions which occur throughout the continuum of mine development.