Editorial

Abstract

Dear Readers, Taxonomies of sustainable investment are recent and promising initiatives, aiming at determining what expenditures can be deemed environmentally sustainable. In this context, the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities has received some close attention in the media over the past few weeks, in particular due to plans to include natural gas and nuclear energy in their classification system of ‘sustainable economic activities’. Whilst it appears ambitious to try and classify certain economic activities into either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ per se (rather than reaching a judgment based on specific circumstances, contexts and impacts), the underlying ‘do no significant harm’ to critical environmental components credo is certainly laudable. The first nine papers in this issue come as a set and revolve around taxonomies of sustainable investment. They are the outcome of an initiative by Jiří Dusík (Integra Consulting Ltd, Czechia) and Alan Bond (University of East Anglia, UK) on whether ‘the EU Taxonomy [will] change the mindset over the contribution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to sustainable development’. Subsequently, in the first paper, these two authors explain the functioning of sustainable finance and possible connections with EIA and elaborate on the potential benefits that might ensue from using taxonomies of sustainable investment, with a particular focus on the EU taxonomy. This is followed by seven critical responses by Roel Slootweg (SevS human and natural environment consultants, The Netherlands), Cong C Vu (VinaCapital Group, Vietnam), Bryan Jenkins (University of Adelaide, Australia), Rufus Howard (Greenfriars and IEMA, UK), Maria Partidário (Instituto Superior Técnico Lisbon, Portugal), Juan Palerm (EuropeAid/DEVCO) and Thomas B Fischer (University of Liverpool, UK). The set of papers is rounded off by a riposte to the seven responses by Dusík and Bond. Four ‘regular’ papers follow these initial nine contributions. In the first, Alan Ehrlich (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Canada) reflects on ‘Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment’. Here, the author extends some of the thinking on how to address area-wide cumulative impacts through, e.g. strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes to an assessment of multiple impacts of single projects. He concludes that impacts need to be considered collectively, and mitigations need to be prescribed ‘that reflect the holistic nature of the impacts on systems’. In the second paper, Mårten Karlsson (Division of Land and Water Resources Stockholm, Sweden) and Örjan Bodin (Stockholm University, Sweden) reflect on ‘Ten years of experience with ecological connectivity analysis and urban planning in Sweden’. They find that the primary accomplishment of the use of this quantitative analysis technique has been an increase in awareness and acceptance of ecological connectivity among practitioners and decisionmakers. In the third contribution, Sergio Moreira (Lisbon University, Portugal), Frank Vanclay (Groningen University, The Netherlands) and Ana Maria Esteves (Community Insights Group, The Netherlands) reflect on a disconnection of the ‘assessment and implementation of development projects’ from ‘relevant concepts in social psychology, especially those relating to understanding the interactions between projects and local communities’. The authors describe eight fallacies and conclude that these should be addressed in practice in development projects and impact assessment. In the fourth and final paper, Ainhoa González (University College Dublin, Ireland) reflects on experiences with SEA monitoring. In the European Union (EU), monitoring continues to be poorly performed. Reflecting on two recent Irish research projects, the author ‘puts forward a set of recommendations intended to foster a practical and sensible approach to kick monitoring into action’. Enjoy reading!