Search

An essential part of environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the proposal of mitigation measures, whose effectiveness has a decisive influence on the magnitude of the residual impacts of the proposals. However, the effectiveness of mitigation is not always well known, and sometimes it is even used in a manipulative way. This paper presents a sample of effectiveness values for some mitigation measures commonly proposed in EIA reports, based on information from the academic and grey literature. The aim is to show that the effectiveness of mitigation measures can be highly variable, and may even lead to undesirable effects, and to highlight how this can influence the assessment of residual impacts. As examples, climate change mitigation may have undesired effects; revegetation effectiveness is overrated at least in some regions; wildlife protection measures may be over-optimistic; and sometimes there are complaints after the implementation of mitigation measures for odour, noise or vibration because beneficiaries expected greater effectiveness. Overestimating mitigation effectiveness leads to ignoring the mitigation hierarchy and underestimating residual impacts, which may distort decision-making. The effectiveness of mitigation is often site-dependent and species-dependent, so a lot of information is needed. Feedback from environmental follow-up is necessary, and EIA authorities should make an effort to collect and disseminate this information. Academics, practitioners and environmental authorities need to work hand in hand in this regard. • Overestimation of effectiveness lead to underestimation of residual impacts. • Effectiveness of some mitigation measures is sometimes over-optimistic. • Population complaints related to the effectiveness of mitigation are frequent. • Mitigation effectiveness is often site-dependent and species-dependent. • Feedback from environmental follow-up is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process where several stakeholders take part, each with different interests, making bias unavoidable and a major cause of concern, but there is a big difference between inherent stakeholders' bias and manipulation, an illegitimate attempt to alter decisions for spurious interests. Although manipulation has usually been attributed to developers, any stakeholder may try to use it for self-benefit. In this paper we analyse manipulation possibilities, and how they can be used by stakeholders. While bias is unavoidable and should be reduced, understood and managed in EIA, manipulation is unacceptable and must be excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The transport sector is one of the main sources of greenhouse gases, adding in Spain near a quarter of the total national emissions, the majority in road transport. Therefore, road contribution to climate change should be mitigated to achieve the proposed goals in the fight against climate change. Policies and strategies suggest several preventive mitigation options, but have paid little attention to compensatory mitigation. We have conducted a theoretical case study in a Spanish province, Segovia, estimating the carbon dioxide emissions in the road network between 2015 and 2050, and analysing different compensation possibilities through conservation agriculture, agroforestry, afforestation and hedgerow plantation. We have calculated carbon sequestration in the reference period and costs per tonne for each option, estimating the budget range of offsetting road carbon emission, and funding possibilities, especially through fuel taxes. The paper demonstrates that offsetting carbon emissions produced by roads in this area is technically possible and highly desirable, unifying carbon sequestration, biodiversity improvement and rural development. The main challenge is funding, which depends largely on the political will and the awareness of the citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change adaptation reduces adverse effects of climate change but may also have undesirable environmental impacts. However, these impacts are yet poorly defined and analysed in the existing literature. To complement this knowledge-gap, we reviewed the literature to unveil the relationship between climate change adaptation and environmental impact assessment, and the degree to which environmental impacts are included in climate change adaptation theory and practice. Our literature review showed that technical, social and economic perspectives on climate change adaptation receive much more attention than the environmental perspective. The scarce interest on the environmental impacts of adaptation may be attributed to (1) an excessive sectoral approach, with dominance of non-environmental perspectives, (2) greater interest in mitigation and direct climate change impacts rather than in adaptation impacts, (3) a tendency to consider adaptation as inherently good, and (4) subjective/preconceived notions on which measures are good or bad, without a comprehensive assessment. Environmental Assessment (EA) has a long established history as an effective tool to include environment into decision-making, although it does not yet guarantee a proper assessment of adaptation, because it is still possible to postpone or even circumvent the processes of assessing the impacts of climate adaptation. Our results suggest that there is a need to address adaptation proactively by including it in EA, to update current policy frameworks, and to demand robust and reliable evaluation of alternatives. Only through the full EA of adaptation measures can we improve our understanding of the primary and secondary impacts of adaptation to global environmental change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most of the projects subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA) are closely related to climate change, as they contribute to or are affected by it. The growing certainty about climate change and its impacts makes its consideration an essential part of the EIA process, as well as in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). This paper examines how climate change (CC) has been taken into account in EIA in Spain through the analysis of 1713 environmental records of decision (RODs) of projects submitted for EIA. In 2013 Spain approved one of the most advanced laws in terms of CC consideration in environmental assessment, although it had not yet accumulated extensive practice on the issue. This contrasts with the situation of countries like Canada or the USA, which have a significant body of experience without specific legal requirements. Only 14% of the RODs analysed included references to CC, and in more than half of the cases it was a mere citation. Thermal power plants, which are subject to specific GHG regulations, show the highest consideration, while transport infrastructures, which are important contributors to CC, show a very low consideration. Almost all the references are related to their contribution to CC, while consideration of the effects of CC is minimal. The increasingly common incorporation of CC into SEA, should not imply its exclusion from EIA, because both processes have different aims and uses. Including the obligation to consider CC in the EIA regulations is highly desirable, but probably not enough without other measures, such as practical guidance, training and motivational programmes for practitioners and evaluators. But even these actions cannot ensure effective and adequate assessments of CC. Probably more resources should be spent on creating greater awareness in all the agents involved in EIA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a widespread tendency to streamline EIA, a confusing concept, which in practice usually means shortening processes to speed up project licensing, facilitating investment. It is reasonable for developers seek processes quick, simple and inexpensive, but it is also the obligation of governments to ensure that approved projects are environmentally suitable. Not all projects subject to EIA have the same impacts, so the existence of two processes, simplified and ordinary, seems reasonable. The aim of this paper is to analyse the implementation of simplified EIA processes, discussing its benefits and drawbacks. To do this, we have analysed 55 EIA processes from 25 jurisdictions, discussing its benefits and drawbacks and selecting effective and well-established formulas for simplified EIA. In most of the analysed cases, simplified EIA is achieved by reducing public participation, one of the pillars of EIA. It seems to be a chain reaction: ordinary EIA processes have been "streamlined" by removing formal scoping, giving rise in practice to simplified processes. As a result, simplified processes have been ultra-simplified, eliminating public participation, turning them, at best, into screening stages. Simplification must ensure a proper EIA, and not merely a shortening of deadlines. • Ordinary and simplified EIA processes proportional to project's impacts are useful. • Simplified EIA processes should not be done eliminating public participation. • Ordinary EIA processes without formal scoping becomes simplified processes. • EIA stages, such as screening, should not be confused with simplified EIA processes. • EIA simplification should not be a mere reduction of deadlines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. • EIA sometimes is not effective in rejecting projects of dubious justification. • Politicization of EIA agencies should be minimised. • Pre-feasibility studies and scoping may help detect unjustified projects. • Project justification should be included or reinforced in EIA documents. • SEA scope should be increased, and more than one SEA/EIA process allowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]