Search

Follow-up is often considered to be a weak or even missing element in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Though it is recognized that follow-up practices could provide useful opportunities to learn from projects’ actual consequences, the practice is criticized for not achieving this goal. In this paper, we aim to clarify the relationship between the theoretical rationale for EIA follow-up and the actual practices carried out in a Finnish EIA context. An empirical analysis was performed with follow-up documents. The findings indicate that follow-ups focused on dealing with environmental impacts related to the physical environment, e.g., flora, fauna, and ground and surface waters. Social impacts were monitored less often, though in most of the cases, traffic noise impacts were given special attention. To some extent, various interest groups were involved with follow-up practices, especially by surveying the impacts experienced. The evidence also suggests that EIA predictions were usually successful, whether the actual impacts were negative or positive. It is concluded that more systematic approach to EIA follow-up would enhance the possibilities to protect the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article examines whether and how the practice of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) serves the idea of the precautionary principle. The article provides an empirical examination and description of how uncertainties and risks were dealt with in conclusive outputs of EIAs of chosen example cases of Finnish waste incineration projects. The analysis focuses on the time when several incineration projects were in the planning phase in Finland and the effects of this development were seen as being controversial. The findings of the analysis are evaluated against a legislative and theoretical framework. The challenges and strengths of the practice are identified. The article suggests that EIA as an environmental policy tool can promote the pursuit and the application of the precautionary principle. In addition, uncertainty analysis and risk communication in EIA could benefit from a shift towards more collaborative knowledge-making. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article presents and compares findings of two EIA quality studies conducted in Finland. First a survey was targeted at competent authorities and environmental consultants to investigate their perceptions of the quality of Finnish EIAs. Second, 15 EISs were considered using the European Commission's guidance on review criteria. The results show that the EIA professionals generally consider the quality as good, though they also recognized that the quality varies and suggested certain areas for improvement. In the professionals' opinion the performance of Finnish EIAs could be enhanced, especially with more profound alternative considerations. Based on the results it is also suggested that more efforts should be aimed at increasing the communicativeness of EISs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the 23 March 2018, the most recent developments of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) law were examined by experts in Helsinki. The main theme of the conference was the comparison of the implementation experiences of various countries concerning the reformed EU EIA Directive. The European EIA debate was reflected against experiences in Canada. This paper examines the key points of the conference presentations and the lessons of the event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]