Pub Date : 2022-02-13DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035650
Rufus Howard
Rufus has been studying and practicing impact assessment across the UK and internationally since 1997. He has authored, edited and contributed to multiple research papers, policy documents, articles, best practice guidance and conferences presentations on the subject of environmental and social risk management and impact assessment. Rufus is the Managing Director of Greenfriars Ltd and provides expert advice on environmental and social impact assessment, his current clients include the Environmental and Social Policy and Risk Department of the International Finance Corporation, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, and the UK Environment Agency.
{"title":"Response to: Environmental assessments and sustainable finance frameworks: will the EU taxonomy change the mindset over the contribution of EIA to sustainable development?","authors":"Rufus Howard","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035650","url":null,"abstract":"Rufus has been studying and practicing impact assessment across the UK and internationally since 1997. He has authored, edited and contributed to multiple research papers, policy documents, articles, best practice guidance and conferences presentations on the subject of environmental and social risk management and impact assessment. Rufus is the Managing Director of Greenfriars Ltd and provides expert advice on environmental and social impact assessment, his current clients include the Environmental and Social Policy and Risk Department of the International Finance Corporation, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, and the UK Environment Agency.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"110 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49081161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-13DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2038961
Cong C. Vu
Following the theme of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in 2019: ‘Evolution or Revolution: where next for Impact Assessment?’, Dusik and Bond (2022) bring the very first discussion to the impact assessment community about the effects of sustainable finance taxonomies. The authors argue that the Taxonomy will establish a revolutionary approach for impact assessment toward sustainable development, because it:
{"title":"Sustainable finance taxonomies: filling the gaps of EIA systems for developing countries","authors":"Cong C. Vu","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2038961","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2038961","url":null,"abstract":"Following the theme of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in 2019: ‘Evolution or Revolution: where next for Impact Assessment?’, Dusik and Bond (2022) bring the very first discussion to the impact assessment community about the effects of sustainable finance taxonomies. The authors argue that the Taxonomy will establish a revolutionary approach for impact assessment toward sustainable development, because it:","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"102 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42328547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-09DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2038533
M. Partidário
Thank you to Jiří Dusík and Alan Bond, authors of the paper, and also to Thomas Fischer and IAPA, for having invited my views and commentary to the paper on the taxonomy of sustainable investments. The paper brings a positive message, of hope for the future of environmental assessment (EA). Dusík and Bond strongly argue that the taxonomy of sustainable investments have ‘a power to significantly influence EIA and SEA systems globally’ and ‘the potential to radically change the environmental outcomes of decision-making’. The authors also argue that these new taxonomy frameworks are able ‘to deliver a change in mindsets’ concerning sustainable development expectations, associated with EA as policy tools, and ‘further strengthen the existing EA systems and allow them to better address environmental sustainability priorities of the 21st century’. I read the paper with great interest, and I agree there is a potential role for EA instruments in contributing to the enhancement of sustainable financing. Sustainable financing taxonomy appears to be a good idea. It seems a good trigger to raise the attention to the role that EA can play to improve the sustainability of projects. But that requires a change in EA dominant mindsets, from being seen by many developers has an instrument to avoid, to become a truly useful instrument to help build sound and sustainable development.
{"title":"Cycles of hope","authors":"M. Partidário","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2038533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2038533","url":null,"abstract":"Thank you to Jiří Dusík and Alan Bond, authors of the paper, and also to Thomas Fischer and IAPA, for having invited my views and commentary to the paper on the taxonomy of sustainable investments. The paper brings a positive message, of hope for the future of environmental assessment (EA). Dusík and Bond strongly argue that the taxonomy of sustainable investments have ‘a power to significantly influence EIA and SEA systems globally’ and ‘the potential to radically change the environmental outcomes of decision-making’. The authors also argue that these new taxonomy frameworks are able ‘to deliver a change in mindsets’ concerning sustainable development expectations, associated with EA as policy tools, and ‘further strengthen the existing EA systems and allow them to better address environmental sustainability priorities of the 21st century’. I read the paper with great interest, and I agree there is a potential role for EA instruments in contributing to the enhancement of sustainable financing. Sustainable financing taxonomy appears to be a good idea. It seems a good trigger to raise the attention to the role that EA can play to improve the sustainability of projects. But that requires a change in EA dominant mindsets, from being seen by many developers has an instrument to avoid, to become a truly useful instrument to help build sound and sustainable development.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"113 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47166884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-04DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2031551
Mårten Karlsson, Ö. Bodin
ABSTRACT The use of quantitative analysis and related metrics has traditionally been unusual for assessment of ecological impacts in urban planning. Since 2010, however, quantitative modelling has been increasingly used in such contexts in Sweden to analyze ecological connectivity. The study reviews and analyses 21 connectivity analysis reports (CAR) based on 17 criteria. Despite the use of quantitative analysis, CARs primarily leverage qualitative aspects of modelling results. Most CARs comply with about 50% of the proposed criteria and close to 90% of the reports fail to address some issues related to modelling transparency and therefore jeopardize an adequate ecological interpretation of the results. The results demonstrate that the primary accomplishment during the last decade is an increase in awareness and acceptance of ecological connectivity among practitioners and decisionmakers. Results point to that an increased use of quantitative methods per se will not deliver more sustainable outcomes, and that an increased use of quantitative methods for ecological impact assessment in urban planning needs to be accompanied by guidelines, standards, and a continuous science – practice knowledge exchange.
{"title":"Ten years of experience with ecological connectivity analysis and urban planning in Sweden","authors":"Mårten Karlsson, Ö. Bodin","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2031551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2031551","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The use of quantitative analysis and related metrics has traditionally been unusual for assessment of ecological impacts in urban planning. Since 2010, however, quantitative modelling has been increasingly used in such contexts in Sweden to analyze ecological connectivity. The study reviews and analyses 21 connectivity analysis reports (CAR) based on 17 criteria. Despite the use of quantitative analysis, CARs primarily leverage qualitative aspects of modelling results. Most CARs comply with about 50% of the proposed criteria and close to 90% of the reports fail to address some issues related to modelling transparency and therefore jeopardize an adequate ecological interpretation of the results. The results demonstrate that the primary accomplishment during the last decade is an increase in awareness and acceptance of ecological connectivity among practitioners and decisionmakers. Results point to that an increased use of quantitative methods per se will not deliver more sustainable outcomes, and that an increased use of quantitative methods for ecological impact assessment in urban planning needs to be accompanied by guidelines, standards, and a continuous science – practice knowledge exchange.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"146 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45342494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-03DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035637
J. Palerm
In this very welcome paper, Jiri Dusik and Alan Bond propose a connection between recent developments on taxonomies for sustainable finance and the wellestablished EIA system. They point out implications from the language used by the taxonomies to avoid greenwashing under the ‘sustainable development’ label. On a second level, they correctly indicate that both instruments can benefit from each other by working together. I briefly examine both of these dimensions. ‘Sustainable Development’ became a widely adopted and popular concept, mainly because it could be moulded to accommodate everyone’s interests. It was certainly more palatable than the soonforgotten concept of eco-development proposed by the Secretary General of the 1972 Stockholm Conference of the Human Environment, which was more critical of unlimited economic growth. When the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development are taken as interchangeable, and when one of these (environment) is in a weaker position given that it is not prominent in the development ‘accounts’ (a privilege reserved to the economic variables), the trade-offs are invariably to the detriment of the environment. Moreover, in the logic of the law of diminishing returns, as the state of the environment is increasingly degraded, the impact of further economic development on the environment is lower. In a way, EIA was meant to be an instrument that would analyse the impacts on the environment, informing a decision-making process that then brought the economic and social players to present their cards, initiating thus the trade-offs game. ‘Strong’ sustainability, where critical natural capital is to be protected at all costs, has remained the exception, and the intimate relationship between a healthy environment and economic and social development, clearly highlighted by the concepts of ecosystem services and of planetary boundaries, remains out of the field of vision of short-term planners and developers. The European Union has been at the forefront of promoting an understanding of sustainability that acknowledges critical natural capital. For example, if a project is likely to significantly affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (the natural sites with the highest level of protection in the EU), it can only be justified on the grounds of ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’; even then, compensatory measures need to be taken if the integrity of the site is compromised. The endless chipping away of the environmental ‘capital’ in favour of economic growth justified by the trade-offs logic appears now as a cynical interpretation of sustainability in the light of the massive evidence of the global environmental and climate change crises we are facing. The jolly free swap of cards (three green ones exchanged for one of the brown ones) needs to stop, and a clear definition of sustainability that responds to the global challenges we are facing is long due. Minimising adverse impacts on the en
{"title":"Sustainable finance strategies are raising the sustainability bar; impact assessment needs to evolve to create a fruitful symbiosis","authors":"J. Palerm","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035637","url":null,"abstract":"In this very welcome paper, Jiri Dusik and Alan Bond propose a connection between recent developments on taxonomies for sustainable finance and the wellestablished EIA system. They point out implications from the language used by the taxonomies to avoid greenwashing under the ‘sustainable development’ label. On a second level, they correctly indicate that both instruments can benefit from each other by working together. I briefly examine both of these dimensions. ‘Sustainable Development’ became a widely adopted and popular concept, mainly because it could be moulded to accommodate everyone’s interests. It was certainly more palatable than the soonforgotten concept of eco-development proposed by the Secretary General of the 1972 Stockholm Conference of the Human Environment, which was more critical of unlimited economic growth. When the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development are taken as interchangeable, and when one of these (environment) is in a weaker position given that it is not prominent in the development ‘accounts’ (a privilege reserved to the economic variables), the trade-offs are invariably to the detriment of the environment. Moreover, in the logic of the law of diminishing returns, as the state of the environment is increasingly degraded, the impact of further economic development on the environment is lower. In a way, EIA was meant to be an instrument that would analyse the impacts on the environment, informing a decision-making process that then brought the economic and social players to present their cards, initiating thus the trade-offs game. ‘Strong’ sustainability, where critical natural capital is to be protected at all costs, has remained the exception, and the intimate relationship between a healthy environment and economic and social development, clearly highlighted by the concepts of ecosystem services and of planetary boundaries, remains out of the field of vision of short-term planners and developers. The European Union has been at the forefront of promoting an understanding of sustainability that acknowledges critical natural capital. For example, if a project is likely to significantly affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (the natural sites with the highest level of protection in the EU), it can only be justified on the grounds of ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’; even then, compensatory measures need to be taken if the integrity of the site is compromised. The endless chipping away of the environmental ‘capital’ in favour of economic growth justified by the trade-offs logic appears now as a cynical interpretation of sustainability in the light of the massive evidence of the global environmental and climate change crises we are facing. The jolly free swap of cards (three green ones exchanged for one of the brown ones) needs to stop, and a clear definition of sustainability that responds to the global challenges we are facing is long due. Minimising adverse impacts on the en","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"116 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46081733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035649
Bryan Robert Jenkins
Dusik and Bond (2022) ask whether the EU Taxonomy will change the mindset over the contribution of EIA to sustainable development. They argue that the EU Taxonomy changes the sustainable development narrative with an emphasis on positive contributions to specific environmental policy objectives and do-nosignificant-harm to any other environmental objectives. They argue that EIA systems would need to evolve to, firstly, allow EIA processes to generate certificates of compliance with EU-Taxonomy-related policy objectives, and secondly, shift beyond adverse impacts and proactively explore positive impacts. In responding to their paper, I strongly endorse their view that the EU Taxonomy for sustainable finance frameworks has the potential to radically improve environmental outcomes and avoid tradeoffs in sustainable development between economic gains and environmental losses. However, while the response sees a role for impact assessment, the response puts forward a broader framework for implementing proactive interventions and their assessment, using the adaptive cycle as the basis for operationalising sustainability.
{"title":"Response to environmental assessments and sustainable finance frameworks","authors":"Bryan Robert Jenkins","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035649","url":null,"abstract":"Dusik and Bond (2022) ask whether the EU Taxonomy will change the mindset over the contribution of EIA to sustainable development. They argue that the EU Taxonomy changes the sustainable development narrative with an emphasis on positive contributions to specific environmental policy objectives and do-nosignificant-harm to any other environmental objectives. They argue that EIA systems would need to evolve to, firstly, allow EIA processes to generate certificates of compliance with EU-Taxonomy-related policy objectives, and secondly, shift beyond adverse impacts and proactively explore positive impacts. In responding to their paper, I strongly endorse their view that the EU Taxonomy for sustainable finance frameworks has the potential to radically improve environmental outcomes and avoid tradeoffs in sustainable development between economic gains and environmental losses. However, while the response sees a role for impact assessment, the response puts forward a broader framework for implementing proactive interventions and their assessment, using the adaptive cycle as the basis for operationalising sustainability.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"105 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43853658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035648
Laura Sims, Julian David Rodriguez-Corcho
ABSTRACT In Latin America, cooperatives have proven to be powerful change agents, strengthening the longer-term sustainability of peasant agriculture to decrease vulnerability. In Colombia, the IMPACT project provided support to cooperatives, like Coocampo, in their development process. IMPACT’s work was guided by a gender equity and empowerment approach to international development. This paper examines learning that resulted from participation in IMPACT’s gender equity strategy, as realized through Coocampo activities. This qualitative case study examines how a critical transformative-learning focussed approach to gender in development, one incorporating women and men as change agents, created a shift towards a more equitable sharing of livelihood income; greater female participation in Coocampo activities and governance; and in some cases, a transformation of participants’ perceptions of their roles as women and men, of themselves, and of their possibilities in life. Scholars call for ways for men and women to work in solidarity towards gender justice. This study contributes by presenting findings where a comprehensive approach was taken to enable gender justice by working towards women’s empowerment and re-defining gender roles, and by working to improve economic security for families in an equitable way.
{"title":"A gender equity and new masculinities approach to development: examining results from a Colombian case study","authors":"Laura Sims, Julian David Rodriguez-Corcho","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035648","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Latin America, cooperatives have proven to be powerful change agents, strengthening the longer-term sustainability of peasant agriculture to decrease vulnerability. In Colombia, the IMPACT project provided support to cooperatives, like Coocampo, in their development process. IMPACT’s work was guided by a gender equity and empowerment approach to international development. This paper examines learning that resulted from participation in IMPACT’s gender equity strategy, as realized through Coocampo activities. This qualitative case study examines how a critical transformative-learning focussed approach to gender in development, one incorporating women and men as change agents, created a shift towards a more equitable sharing of livelihood income; greater female participation in Coocampo activities and governance; and in some cases, a transformation of participants’ perceptions of their roles as women and men, of themselves, and of their possibilities in life. Scholars call for ways for men and women to work in solidarity towards gender justice. This study contributes by presenting findings where a comprehensive approach was taken to enable gender justice by working towards women’s empowerment and re-defining gender roles, and by working to improve economic security for families in an equitable way.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"202 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45723008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2031553
Kate Cumming, D. Tavares
ABSTRACT Ecological connectivity within and across the boundaries of protected areas has become a key theme for conservation practitioners in Canada and internationally in recent years. This paper describes four case studies involving the assessment of ecological connectivity in national parks in Canada. Assessments occurred in three tiers: strategic environmental assessments conducted during management planning processes, an intermediate tier focussed on research and partnering at more refined spatial scales, and project level environmental impact assessments. While improved data, modelling and research on thresholds is needed, the multi-tiered approach facilitated the analysis of information and the collaboration with partners at scales required to conserve ecological connectivity within and across the boundaries of national parks. This work demonstrates practical approaches to conserving ecological connectivity as a response to biodiversity loss and highlights impact assessment in multiple tiers as a solution that is transferable to other sectors.
{"title":"Using strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment to assess ecological connectivity at multiple scales in a national park context","authors":"Kate Cumming, D. Tavares","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2031553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2031553","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ecological connectivity within and across the boundaries of protected areas has become a key theme for conservation practitioners in Canada and internationally in recent years. This paper describes four case studies involving the assessment of ecological connectivity in national parks in Canada. Assessments occurred in three tiers: strategic environmental assessments conducted during management planning processes, an intermediate tier focussed on research and partnering at more refined spatial scales, and project level environmental impact assessments. While improved data, modelling and research on thresholds is needed, the multi-tiered approach facilitated the analysis of information and the collaboration with partners at scales required to conserve ecological connectivity within and across the boundaries of national parks. This work demonstrates practical approaches to conserving ecological connectivity as a response to biodiversity loss and highlights impact assessment in multiple tiers as a solution that is transferable to other sectors.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"507 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47721916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2031552
Ainhoa González
ABSTRACT Monitoring in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is central to determining whether the assessment outcomes and associated mitigation measures have had the desired effect and the environment has been protected on the ground. Despite the critical role this procedural stage plays, and the international attempts to advance practice in this area, monitoring continues to be poorly performed 20 years on from the implementation of the European SEA Directive. Several frameworks and approaches can be found in the academic literature, but many are conceptual and arguably fail to provide pragmatic unsophisticated solutions that are readily implementable in practice. This paper attempts to address this by first outlining common issues reported in the academic literature in the last two decades, then highlighting ongoing issues, as identified in two recent Irish research projects, such as poor definition of monitoring indicators and lack of integration of monitoring commitments into plans/programmes. It then puts forward a set of recommendations intended to foster a practical and sensible approach to kick monitoring into action.
{"title":"Strategic environmental assessment monitoring: the enduring forgotten sibling","authors":"Ainhoa González","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2031552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2031552","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Monitoring in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is central to determining whether the assessment outcomes and associated mitigation measures have had the desired effect and the environment has been protected on the ground. Despite the critical role this procedural stage plays, and the international attempts to advance practice in this area, monitoring continues to be poorly performed 20 years on from the implementation of the European SEA Directive. Several frameworks and approaches can be found in the academic literature, but many are conceptual and arguably fail to provide pragmatic unsophisticated solutions that are readily implementable in practice. This paper attempts to address this by first outlining common issues reported in the academic literature in the last two decades, then highlighting ongoing issues, as identified in two recent Irish research projects, such as poor definition of monitoring indicators and lack of integration of monitoring commitments into plans/programmes. It then puts forward a set of recommendations intended to foster a practical and sensible approach to kick monitoring into action.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"168 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43674168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2033926
T. Fischer
ABSTRACT In this response to Dusík and Bond, I reflect on what taxonomies of sustainable investment will need to be able to deliver in order to add value to our existing efforts towards making development more environmentally sustainable. What support taxonomies should provide for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects, as well as for cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of policies, plans, programmes and projects is discussed. In this context, I focus on the consideration of climate change and biodiversity as important examples. Exploring a (typical) real-life road infrastructure planning case, I depict some of the existing challenges for SEA and EIA as well as CBA. I conclude that if the use of taxonomies leads to CBA which is not corrupted by powerful (industry) interests and which can result in realistic estimations of costs and benefits as well as to SEA and EIA applications whose results that are not traded-off with alleged economic advantages, they would indeed be highly beneficial.
{"title":"Taxonomies of sustainable investment and existing decision support approaches of EIA, SEA and CBA – a silver bullet for sustainable development? A response to Dusík and Bond","authors":"T. Fischer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2033926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2033926","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this response to Dusík and Bond, I reflect on what taxonomies of sustainable investment will need to be able to deliver in order to add value to our existing efforts towards making development more environmentally sustainable. What support taxonomies should provide for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects, as well as for cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of policies, plans, programmes and projects is discussed. In this context, I focus on the consideration of climate change and biodiversity as important examples. Exploring a (typical) real-life road infrastructure planning case, I depict some of the existing challenges for SEA and EIA as well as CBA. I conclude that if the use of taxonomies leads to CBA which is not corrupted by powerful (industry) interests and which can result in realistic estimations of costs and benefits as well as to SEA and EIA applications whose results that are not traded-off with alleged economic advantages, they would indeed be highly beneficial.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"118 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44037832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：