Distilling and Applying Criteria for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up

Follow-up is an essential component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if the success of EIA in improving the sustainability of a project once implemented is to be determined. This paper aims to establish universally-applicable criteria for EIA follow-up to evaluate project performance once assessed and underway. A suite of 24 criteria is derived from EIA follow-up best practice principles published by the International Association for Impact Assessment. The criteria are categorized according to the five dimensions of EIA follow-up: monitoring, evaluation, management, communication and governance. Posed as questions, the criteria support qualitative assessments of EIA follow-up performance for a project. Through application of the criteria to a case study currently under construction (the Shell Cove Marina project in eastern Australia), we found they provided an effective basis for a document review process delivering a short but informative account of the follow-up performance of the case study. The more robust evaluation of some of the criteria, particularly in the governance category, would require supplementary techniques such as interviews.

[1]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions — findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference , 2001 .

[2]  C. O’faircheallaigh.  Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making , 2010 .

[3]  Robert B. Gibson,et al.  Implementing next generation assessment: A case example of a global challenge , 2018, Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

[4]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up , 2001 .

[5]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  International principles for best practice EIA follow-up , 2005 .

[6]  Markku Kuitunen,et al.  The rationale for and practice of EIA follow-up: an analysis of Finnish road projects , 2015 .

[7]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers , 2015 .

[8]  D. B. Dalal-Clayton,et al.  A methodology for reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessments in development cooperation , 2017 .

[9]  A. G. Colombo,et al.  Contents and Phases of an EIA Study , 1992 .

[10]  Kirsten Benkendorff,et al.  The need for more stringent requirements in Environmental Impact Assessment: Shell Cove Marina case study , 1999 .

[11]  D. Annandale.  Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries , 2001 .

[12]  R. Hollands,et al.  EIA and EMS integration: not wasting the opportunity , 2014 .

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

[14]  John Glasson,et al.  Better monitoring for better impact management: the local socio-economic impacts of constructing Sizewell B nuclear power station , 2005 .

[15]  Jan-Albert Wessels.  Factors that influence the independence of EIA follow-up verifiers: a developing country perspective , 2013 .

[16]  Kaja Peterson,et al.  Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers , 2010 .

[17]  Karl I. Gjerstad,et al.  Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency , 2006 .

[18]  Alan Bond,et al.  Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes , 2013 .

[19]  Bram F. Noble,et al.  Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA , 2005 .

[20]  T. Fischer,et al.  Reviewing design stage of environmental impact assessment follow-up: looking at the open cast coal mines in India , 2009 .

[21]  A. Bond,et al.  Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case , 2018 .

[22]  D. Fournier.  Establishing Evaluative Conclusions: A Distinction Between General and Working Logic , 1995 .

[23]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Exploring the EIA/Environmental Management Relationship , 1999 .

[24]  Valerie Hobbs,et al.  Environmental auditing: Artificial waterway developments in Western Australia , 1992 .

[25]  Carys Jones,et al.  Auditing the Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Planning Projects , 2000 .

[26]  Reima Petäjäjärvi.  Follow-up of socio-economic aspects in a road project in Finland , 2005 .

[27]  R. Marshall.  Application of mitigation and its resolution within environmental impact assessment: an industrial perspective , 2001 .

[28]  Jos Arts,et al.  Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis , 2013 .

[29]  J. Arts,et al.  SEA follow-up Exploring the concept of strategic environmental assessment follow-up , 2005 .

[30]  L. A. Sandham,et al.  Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa , 2013 .