An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries—Illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen

Abstract Actors in the field of international development co-operation supporting the development of EIA legislation in developing countries often do not achieve the results envisaged. The performance of EIA in these countries often remains weak. One reason, we assume, is that often those actors support the establishment of overly ambitious EIA legislation that cannot achieve its objectives in the light of constraining contexts. To provide more effective support we need to better understand the enabling and constraining contextual factors that influence the development of EIA legislation and to which support actors should align itself. In this article a new analysis framework for classifying, characterizing and explaining the development of EIA legislation is described, measured in terms of ambition levels. Ambitions are defined as intentions the EIA authorities aim to fulfill, expressed in formal EIA legislation. Three country cases, Yemen, Georgia and Ghana are used to illustrate the usefulness of our framework and as a first test to refine the framework. We have formulated the following five hypotheses that complement and refine our analysis framework. One, EIA legislation may develop multilinearly in terms of ambition levels. Two, ambitions in EIA legislation seem to be influenced to a great extent by the power and capacity of, on the one hand, the environmental authorities supporting EIA and, on the other hand, the sector authorities hindering the development of EIA. Three, the political system is the most important context factor influencing the rules of policy-making and the power of the different actors involved. Four, the importance of context factors on the development of ambitions is dependent on the phase of EIA system development. Five, some ambitions seem to be influenced by particular factors; for instance the ambitions for the object of study seem to be influenced by the level of environmental awareness of the sector ministries and parliament. The analysis framework may also assist actors involved in the development of EIA legislation in setting ambitions for EIA legislation that are feasible within the context in which it will be developed and implemented. Application of a country-specific EIA model would seem to be the preferred model to develop EIA legislation because by taking capacities of actors and context factors as a starting point, it offers more potential to well-performing EIA systems.

[1]  J. Kakonge PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN EIA PROCESS: EXAMPLES FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA , 1996 .

[2]  D. Purnama Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement , 2003 .

[3]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory , 2004 .

[4]  Paula A. Erickson,et al.  practical guide to environmental impact assessment , 1979 .

[5]  C. Wood,et al.  A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia , 2002 .

[6]  Paola Gazzola,et al.  SEA effectiveness criteria—equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy , 2006 .

[7]  Judith Petts,et al.  Handbook of environmental impact assessment , 1999 .

[8]  L. G. Smith,et al.  Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management , 1993 .

[9]  J. Köppel,et al.  DEMOCRACY AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN RUSSIA , 2009 .

[10]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review , 1995 .

[11]  Hussein Abaza,et al.  Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment : towards an integrated approach , 2004 .

[12]  F. Olokesusi Legal and institutional framework of environmental impact assessment in nigeria: an initial assessment , 1998 .

[13]  Seth Appiah-Opoku,et al.  Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: the case of Ghana , 2001 .

[14]  S. Nooteboom Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: A complexity theory perspective , 2007 .

[15]  P. Driessen,et al.  The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding , 2009 .

[16]  Meinhard Doelle,et al.  Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability , 2006 .

[17]  Elizabeth Wilson,et al.  EIA-Learning from Experience: Changes in the Quality of Environmental Impact Statements for UK Planning Projects , 1997 .

[18]  Nick Harvey,et al.  Evaluation of environmental impact assessment procedures and practice in Bangladesh , 2004 .

[19]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality , 2001 .

[20]  S. Carapico Civil Society in Yemen: The Political Economy of Activism in Modern Arabia , 1998 .

[21]  E. Wilson,et al.  Strategic Environmental Assessment , 1992 .

[22]  Eskild Holm Nielsen,et al.  Mission impossible: does environmental impact assessment in Denmark secure a holistic approach to the environment? , 2005 .

[23]  Aleh Cherp,et al.  EA legislation and practice in Central and Eastern Europe and the former USSR: A comparative analysis , 2001 .

[24]  Hens Runhaar,et al.  What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making , 2007 .

[25]  Hens Runhaar,et al.  An analytical framework for capacity development in EIA — The case of Yemen , 2010 .

[26]  Aleg Cherp,et al.  DEALING WITH CONTINUOUS REFORM: TOWARDS ADAPTIVE EA POLICY SYSTEMS IN COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION , 2003 .

[27]  Piety Runhaar,et al.  Promoting system-level learning from project-level lessons. An analysis of donor-driven 'indirect' learning about EIA systems in Ghana and the Maldives , 2012 .