Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice in Slovakia is about 20 years old. EIA was first introduced in Slovakia based on the Environment Law of 1992. The practice in EIA started developing shortly after the Law No. 127/1994 Coll. came into force. The first group of experts was certified as being EIA/strategic environmental assessment (SEA) professionally qualified persons. During 20 years, the numbers of EIA procedures were performed and number of EIA practitioners has considerably increased. Many discussions arise about EIA procedure effectiveness and quality in Slovakia. The task of this study has been to investigate EIA system applications in Slovakia and evaluate its effectiveness. In this paper, the views of professionally qualified persons are examined closely, using a questionnaire survey. Data from the questionnaires are analysed to find information relating to current EIA/SEA and EIA/SEA practice and the future for EIA. The objective of this study was to assess the potential for improving the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia, and finally the recommendations for improvement are presented. The results of this research suggest that the use of new legislation should be extended in Slovakia in order to improve EIA effectiveness.

Keywords::

• environmental impact assessment
• effectiveness
• questionnaire survey

1. Introduction

Since joining the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2000, and the European Union (EU) in 2004, Slovakia has made major strides in protecting the environment and enhancing the quality of life of its people. Despite growing at the fastest rate among OECD countries from 2000 to 2008, Slovakia managed to stabilize or reduce emissions of a range of pollutants. Positioned at the heart of Europe, it has actively pursued environmental cooperation with its neighbours, particularly for the protection of wetlands. However, much remains to be done. The energy consumed, and pollution produced, to generate each unit of gross domestic product (GDP) is among the highest in the OECD, and Slovakia has paid a high price for a series of floods in recent years.

Slovakia was severely hit by the global economic and financial crisis: GDP fell by about 5% in 2009. Although the economy rebounded quickly, driven by strong external demand, it is still vulnerable to fluctuations in economic activity in its trading partners. To boost living standards durably, Slovakia must raise the productivity and competitiveness of its economy. At the same time, it needs to reinvigorate its environmental institutions after a period of change and instability. Fully integrating environment into its strategy for economic and social development would be the best way to address these twin challenges in a coherent way (OECD 2011).

All development proposals must be screened to identify potential environmental impacts. In some cases, like for example roads or infrastructure projects, detailed environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must be prepared (European Commission 2012). EIA is a key tool to assess the potential environmental impacts of a project before implementation and identify measures to mitigate negative and enhance positive impacts (European Commission 2007).

1.1 EIA in Slovakia

In Slovakia, the assessment has been carried out since 1994 when the Act No. 127/1994 Coll. of the National Council of the Slovakia on EIA came into force. In order to provide for the full harmonization of the Slovak legislation in the field of EIA with the legislation of the EU, the Act No. 391/2000 Coll. amending the Act No. 127/1994 Coll. of the National Council of the Slovakia on EIA was adopted in 2000. This Act regulates in detail the process of impact assessment of constructions, installations and other activities on the environment. It simplifies substantially the impact assessment of draft principal development conceptions, territorial planning documentations and generally binding legal regulations (strategic environmental assessment – SEA). In 2005, a new EIA Act of Law No. 24/2006 was approved. This Act regulates the procedure for the expert and public assessment of expected environmental impacts of strategic documents before their approval and proposed activities before the decision on their location or their permission under special provisions (Figure 1). The 2006 EIA Law introduced no major changes in EIA procedures but it tightened certain procedural time limits and better delineated EIA responsibilities between the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and the regional and district environment offices. It also harmonized the Slovak EIA legislation with EU directives and put preconditions on the accession of Slovakia to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). The adoption of the 2006 EIA Law provided a firm basis for assessing forthcoming projects to be financed from EU Structural and Cohesion Funds (OECD 2011).

Figure 1 Main steps of EIA process in Slovakia.

The number of EIA procedures was low (30–70 per year) until 2000, but increased to around 200 in 2001 after the scope of projects subject to EIA was extended. Greater involvement by sub-national environmental bodies after 2000 was also a factor. The number of EIAs increased further during the review period, reaching nearly 900 cases in 2008 (MoE 2010). Documentation from the assessment process is available to the public in electronic form on the MfE website. The complete documentation from 20 years of experience with EIA is archived in the EIA Documentation Centre at the Slovak Environmental Agency in Banská Bystrica. Figure 2 summarizes the number of completed assessments of the proposed activities (EIA) in Slovakia in 1994–2012 and Table 1 presents outcomes of the EIA process in 2011.

Figure 2 Number of completed assessments of proposed activities (EIA) in Slovakia in 1994–2012. Source: MoE (2013).

Table 1 Outcomes of the EIA process in 2011.

MfE SR level
Number of assessed buildings and activities – EIA	161
Number of final positions issued – EIA	161
Number of statements on activities change	154
Environmental authorities level
Number of assessed buildings and activities – EIA	476
Number of decisions and final positions issued – EIA	398
Number of statements on activities change	107

Note: MoE (2012).

Non-government organizations (NGOs) have criticized EIA procedures in Slovakia for insufficient consideration of alternative options, short consultation periods, limited access to the reasons underlying decisions and failure to carry out EIAs, including after initial screening (Justice and Environment 2009).

In 2009, amendments to the EIA Law clarified the screening procedures for activities below thresholds and revised the procedures for authorization of activities subject to EIA. In 2010, as a result of an infringement procedure started by the European Commission, the Law was amended again, with a new definition of ‘public concerned’ being adopted. The new definition includes environmental NGOs that actively participate in EIA procedure, ad hoc public initiatives (by two or more people) and individuals (natural persons) who actively participate in EIA procedure and can prove their interest in the activity concerned. The changes allow persons fulfilling these conditions to become parties to the relevant decision-making procedures, and to have access to related court proceedings. The new Law is very much in the spirit of the Aarhus Convention (OECD 2011). At present, Law No. 408/2011 Coll., amending and supplementing Law No. 24/2006 Coll. on the assessment of environmental influences, has been effective since 1t December 2011. The issue of EIA effectiveness is not only in Slovakia an overarching theme of research ever since this decision tool was first enacted.

1.2 EIA effectiveness

The discussions about EIA effectiveness have covered a range of issues including an assessment of the effectiveness of the EIA process, practice, performance and outcome, particularly in influencing best practices at macro (system levels) and micro (individual application levels) (Cashmore et al. 2009). According to Cashmore et al. (2004), concern about EIA practices has resulted in the progressive development of a substantial body of research on the issue of effectiveness. It is widely acknowledged that EIA legislation and practices rarely conform to idealized models of the process. However, this does not mean that the concept of effectiveness includes both substantive (i.e. whether it achieves its purposes) and procedural (i.e. whether it is undertaken according to established expectations) criteria. Research effort has focused overwhelmingly on the procedural criterion, even though the substantive criterion is the ultimate test of effectiveness.

Bond et al. (2012) develop an alternative framework for evaluation of impact assessment effectiveness based on six categories: procedural (related to required stages), substantive (related to outcomes), transactive (related to efficiency), normative (related to normative interpretations), knowledge and learning (acknowledging that all stakeholders do and should learn through impact assessment practice) and pluralism (recognizing there are different views associated with what effectiveness means within each category). Such a framework is unlikely to be the last word on evaluating effectiveness, although it moves the debate on by acknowledging that evaluation of what is achieved will always be based on what the observer wants impact assessment to achieve and different observers are likely to have different views on this (Pope et al. 2013).

Morgan (2012) provides a closer inspection of a number of such national evaluations that reveal two key points. First, any evaluation of EIA effectiveness is only meaningful when made in the socio-economic, political and cultural context of the country or countries concerned. This is well illustrated by the comparison of EIA in Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda (Marara et al. 2011) in which shortcomings in the EIA system in Rwanda can be attributed to weaker institutional structures, and a comparative lack of local capacity to work with EIA. Similarly, evaluations of EIA in member states of the EU must always be interpreted within the political and institutional contexts of that grouping, and the overarching framework of the EIA Directive (Wood 2003). Second, views on effectiveness depend on one's understanding of the nature and purpose of EIA, a point made by Elling (2009). It is interesting, for example, to contrast the technical, engineering perspective of Kruopienė et al. (2009), who laments the politicization of EIA in Lithuania, and calls for much stronger recognition for the role of experts in the process, with the characterization of EIA in the Philippines by Bravante and Holden (2009).

Retief (2010) presents a conceptual framework identifying three main areas of debate in impact assessment and highlighting that effectiveness (what we are achieving) is strongly linked to both theoretical grounding (what is EIA?) and quality (how to conduct EIA).

Cashmore et al. (2004) speak of ‘the interminable issue of effectiveness’, and the effectiveness of impact assessment practice certainly continues to receive considerable attention, including in the impact assessment and project appraisal special edition on the state of the art of impact assessment. Morgan (2012) provides an overview of the status of thinking about impact assessment effectiveness, particularly as it relates to theory. And, as Adelle and Weiland (2012) remind us, evaluations of effectiveness depend entirely on the perceived purpose of impact assessment processes and the mechanisms by which they work, a point also made by Jay et al. (2007).

The overall effectiveness of the EIA depends on many aspects but among these the quality of the EIA report is of particular importance (Lee et al. 1999). There are many reasons behind the poor quality of EIA reports, but one major cause stems from the simple fact that too many EIA reports are prepared with limited environmental information and data. As noted by the World Bank (2012), ‘the need for vast numbers of EIAs coupled with an absence of baseline environmental data resulted in mass production of EIAs of poor quality and little value.’ In this context, we can refer to the recent South African conference on the topic ‘Ten Years of EIA in South Africa’, which was specifically designed to review the effectiveness of EIAs and whether or not they are worth in the investment (Komen 2011).

Interestingly, Harmer (2005) notes that, even in the UK, the effectiveness of EIA follow-up needs to be revisited. According to Harmer's study, the EIA consultants whom she interviewed confirmed that there were sufficient controls elsewhere to ensure that follow-up was performed and there was therefore no need to spend time and more money on gathering new data. Thus, Harmer concludes that in order to lend credibility to the follow-up of the EIA system, the follow-up process should be made mandatory. In a similar vein, a workshop of African experts on the effectiveness of the EIA process, organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa along with other organizations, also concluded that the responsibility should rest not only with the regulatory body but also with the private sector, working as a team (IUCN et al. 2007).

As observed by Morrison-Saunders et al. (2007), monitoring and evaluating the impacts of a project are ‘essential for determining the outcomes of EIA. By incorporating feedback into the EIA process, follow-up enables learning from experience to occur. It can and should occur in any EIA system to prevent EIA being just a pro forma exercise’ (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2007). The report on the African Experts Workshop on Effectiveness of EIA Systems 2007 also explains that ‘effective and efficient follow-up requires the capability to easily verify environmental management conditions’ (IUCN et al. 2007). For this reason, an effective follow-up process requires a certain level of skill and capacity, which can really only be obtained through experience. Thus, follow-up not only boosts the effectiveness of current projects but also ensures the heightened effectiveness of future projects in that they have the added value of learning and skill development.

According to the above-mentioned report on the African experts workshop on EIA effectiveness (IUCN et al. 2007), the capacity-building problem cuts across the entire Africa region and, to address it, the experts recommend that EIA practitioners and experts should be accredited in consultation between the government and the private sector. The information provided by experienced and seasoned EIA experts should be referred by the government and regional bodies or organizations.

Zhang et al. (2013) contributes to the critical review of the literature on EIA implementation and effectiveness by cumulating mainly empirical findings in an implementation theoretical perspective.

The effectiveness of EIA is being widely discussed. Some countries, such as Denmark, Great Britain, Australia, Finland, Lithuania, Netherlands, India, Estonia, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana and South Africa have carried out detailed studies on the effectiveness of EIA and named the problems to be solved (Simpson 2001; Ahammed & Nixon 2006; Christensen 2006; Pölönen 2006; Kruopienė et al. 2008; Heinma & Põder 2010; Toro et al. 2010; Pölönen et al. 2011; Panigrahi & Amirapu 2012; Campion & Essel 2013; Runhaar et al. 2013). Different authors relate EIA effectiveness either to the quality of EIA reports and EIA procedural implementation (Bailey 1997; Baker & Woods 1999; Harmer 2005; Pinho et al. 2006), or to the role of EIA in development planning (Sadler 1996; Hickie & Wade 1998; Hacking & Guthrie 2008; Kolhoff et al. 2013). Sadler (1996) identified four aspects of effectiveness: the quality of the reports, the effect on decision-making, the effectiveness of prediction and management of the impacts and monitoring and post-auditing.

Evaluations of effectiveness must be based on unambiguous statements of the research teams' interpretation of the purposes of EIA and the meaning of effectiveness, a practice which has not been undertaken in the majority of research studies (Cashmore et al. 2004).

No similar studies have been published in Slovakia. It is therefore of primary importance to evaluate the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia, to identify weak points and to present recommendations for improvement.

The aim of this research was to assess the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia. This paper primarily examines the views of professionally qualified persons who work closely with EIA and who therefore have an insight into current EIA practice in Slovakia. The objectives of this research were to examine the current use of EIA in Slovakia, to explore the views of professionally qualified persons, to assess the pros and cons of EIA and to consider the future for EIA in Slovakia. The purpose of EIA effectiveness review is problem solving rather than fault finding (Sadler 1996). It is against this background that the research into the quality of EIA studies undertaken in Slovakia was carried out.

2. Methodology

This research was conducted using an inductive approach which aimed to establish the state of knowledge by empirical, theory-free observations. This means that the data collected were objective and unbiased and, the analysis was intended to generalize from the findings (Bryman 2004). To achieve the aims, a series of methodologies were applied, the first of which involved a broad review of secondary data sources associated with EIA. It was crucial to frame the research within a reference context in order to identify where conclusions had already been reached and also to highlight where the focus of the research was required (i.e. ‘gaps’ in knowledge) (Denscombe 1998; Taylor and Bogdan 1998; May 2001). This allowed for a greater understanding of EIA effectiveness and an assessment of current EIA practice in Slovakia. The information obtained then helped the researchers to put together the questions for a questionnaire-based survey and interviews, which were the main sources of data for the research.

To achieve the aims and objectives, the following procedures were carried out: analysis of scientific literature and theoretical basis of EIA formation; analysis of EIA legislation in the EU and Slovakia; analysis of EIA studies, programmes, reports in Slovakia and other related documents; identification of EIA effectiveness criteria and investigation of EIA system effectiveness in Slovakia; and disclosure of EIA shortcomings in Slovakia and proposals for improvements.

Questionnaires are a commonly used method for research where a relatively large number of respondents are needed (Goodwin 2004). For this study, the questionnaire technique was used as it enabled the researchers to gain information from a large number of subjects and thus make inferences from a wider population (Marshall & Rossman 1999; Silverman 2005). Care needs to be taken when devising a questionnaire in order to maximize the response rate. For example, closed questions with a range of pre-given answers give the impression that the questionnaire is simple to complete and may encourage the respondent to complete the survey, whereas lengthy questionnaires containing many open-ended questions may limit the response rate (Denscombe 1998).

When using this technique, the first factor to consider was who needed to be surveyed in order for the aims of the research to be achieved. In this case, professionally qualified persons who deal specifically with EIA needed to be questioned. Research of professionally qualified persons in Slovakia revealed that over 500 individuals deal with EIA. Further research and consideration of time constraints and activity of professionally qualified persons then enabled a list of 300 potential consultants to be drawn up. All were approached via email and were asked whether they would participate in the survey. A carefully worded letter explaining the research was then sent, and the questionnaire was enclosed for completion.

Analysis of the questionnaires was carried out using a series of simple statistical techniques. For example, common responses to each question were expressed as percentages of the total number of responses, which then allowed for comparisons. In the majority of cases, the results for each question did not add up to 100% due to the respondents selecting more than one option for the same question.

We used ANOVA test for statistical analysis – significance of answers. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica for Windows analysis software (StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA version 10; www.statsoft.com). Statistical significance was defined as p-value  < 0.05.

3. Results and discussions

Analysis of the questionnaire responses highlighted a variety of issues that will be discussed in this section. The analysis begins by discussing the questionnaire response rate. Then, a general description of the respondents is given before the key themes are examined. Out of the 100 questionnaires sent out, 30 were sent back. This is a response rate of 30%, which can be considered successful. Analysis of the questionnaire responses subsequently highlighted a variety of issues.

Thorough discussion of the results and the set of practical measures are provided with references to the international experiences and the international best practices to improve the Slovak EIA system.

3.1 Analysis of the review questionnaire data

The review was summarized in 23 questions:

1. How many years have you worked as a professionally qualified person?

The level of EIA experience acquired by the respondents is: 17% having worked in the EIA area for 0–5 years, 12% for 6–10 years and 71% for 10+ years.

2. Approximately what proportion of your work time is spent on EIA?

The respondents spent different amounts of their work time on EIA (Figure 3); however, there is no correlation between the length of time spent as a professionally qualified person and the proportion of work time spent on EIA.

Figure 3 Proportion of respondents' work time spent on EIA. Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

3. How many EIAs have you been involved with in the last 3 years?

The respondents were asked the number of EIAs in which they had been involved with in the last 3 years. The majority (50%) of the respondents had been involved in more than 16 EIAs and 33% had been involved with 1–5 EIAs in the last 3 years.

4. Which stages of the EIA process are you predominantly involved with?

The majority of respondents are involved with all the stages of the EIA process. For example, over 60% are involved with review and impact statements. Over 95% are involved with plans. Around 17% of the respondents are involved with final records and 39% of the respondents are involved with screening. A total of 11% respondents stated that they were involved with monitoring. Some respondents stated that they focused on different areas, namely: documentation SEA, international projects aimed at assessing the EIA and education in this area, notice of change in the activity and public hearings.

5. When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do you specialize in?

The respondents are involved with a wide range of environmental components when undertaking EIA (Figure 4). Landscape (50%) and ecology (45%) are the most common specialisms. Other specialisms listed by the respondents included geology, waste management and agriculture. Some respondents stated that they specialize in different areas, namely again: geology, waste management and agriculture.

Figure 4 Respondents by specialism. Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

6. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation?

The respondents have experience of EIA preparation in a wide range of industry sectors. Over 28% of respondents have experience in water management and water constructions. Other sectors include mixed use, recreation, food industry, mining, non-ferrous metallurgy, engineering, waste management, chemical processes and production, motorways and expressways, infrastructure and agriculture.

7. According to your current practice, have any feasible alternatives been proposed in the EIA process?

Around 67% of survey participants said that in their current practice feasible alternatives are being proposed in the EIA process. The opposite view was expressed by 33% of respondents; they believe that the alternatives are not properly designed.

8. In your opinion, what is the main purpose of EIA?

Around 78% of the respondents surveyed thought that the main purpose of EIA was to reduce the impact on the environmental (Table 2). This is an encouraging sign of EIA practice in Slovakia, as it demonstrates that many consultants are aware of the theory behind the process. Others stated that public participation in decision-making, as well as professional and public debate to recommend environmentally acceptable solutions are prime EIA purposes. This could also be linked to the greater awareness of EIA, partly due to the growing number of higher education students taking courses in the process. Other main purposes of EIA which the respondents considered were as follows: public participation in decision-making, public debate; professional and public debate with a view to recommending environmentally acceptable solutions.

Table 2 The main purposes of EIA.

EIA purpose	Percentage of responses
Comply with the development of the territory	38
Reduce the impact on the environment	78
Support for decision-making	50
Tool for sustainable development	33
Help the developers	28
Contribute to the design decision	33
Reduce future costs	11
The basis for obtaining a building permit	33
Other	16

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

9. What are the strengths of current EIA practice in Slovakia?

EIA with a good basis in legislation is considered one of the main strengths of current practice in Slovakia, with 50% of the respondents surveyed highlighting it as significant. The strengths according to the respondents are the many instructions, guidelines and teaching guides (11%), sophisticated prediction methodologies (28%), scientifically rigorous approach (5%) and involvement of a variety of components (22%). Other strengths stated by respondents are confrontation of opinions of several experts, including members of the public; general information about upcoming activities; and power scales for assessing the outcome of upcoming authorization of activities.

Anjaneyulu and Manickam (2007) state that EIA is a scientific assessment to be carried out before any project or major activity is undertaken to ensure that it will not harm the environment on a short- or long-term basis. The use of scientific approaches in EIA is relevant to improve effectiveness. A more rigorous scientific approach to EIA can be both useful and credible. All EIA, for example, follow-up monitoring and evaluation programmes or identification, prediction and evaluation of impacts should be based on the sorts of scientific approaches that have been well described by many authors previously (e.g. Beanlands & Duinker 1984; Underwood 1991; Storey 2002; Kiker et al. 2005; Mahiny et al. 2011), irrespective of which components of the environment are being investigated.

10. What are the weaknesses of current EIA practice in Slovakia?

Two of the main weaknesses in current practice in Slovakia indicated by the respondents were subjectivity in impact predictions (45%) and limited control over EIA quality (50%). Other weaknesses that Slovak respondents recognized were subjectivity in decision-making, unnecessary and formal screening procedures for some activities, partial duplication of other proceedings, unnecessarily complicated and time-consuming procedures for simple buildings, and unreasonable public participation.

Subjectivity is often viewed as one of the shortcomings of EIA. Politicized evaluations, narrow boundary setting, data gaps and simplified assumptions are frequently seen as problems in EIA that must be addressed. Wilkins (2003) views subjectivity as one of the positive attributes of the process that should be encouraged in order to promote sustainability and to inspire confidence in EIA. For Slovakian, EIA is necessary to develop an update of criteria and methodological guidelines for assessing the quality of the EIA documentation to assess the effectiveness of the EIA process. Suggested measures to enhance the quality of EIA reports were processed by Wood et al. (1996) or Nadeem and Hameed (2006).

The strengths and weaknesses of current EIA practice are a good indication of where EIA could be extended in order to enhance the role of EIA and improve effectiveness.

11. If you were given the opportunity to improve the effectiveness of EIA, what would be your top priorities?

The main priorities for improving the effectiveness of the EIA process in Slovakia:

• coordinate EIA, SEA and territorial planning documentation;

• simplify the EIA process;

• improve the quality of EIA documentation;

• change the law to eliminate exceptions;

• remove the possibility of subjective decision-making and evaluation;

• tighten control of the correct application of the law in practice and also make its infringement a criminal offence;

• introduce multiple controls, even after the EIA process, and incorporate the results into decision-making mechanisms;

• permit preparation of documentation only by qualified persons;

• introduce independent scrutiny;

• make the process fully electronic and digital.

Suggestions for improvements cover procedural (e.g. the importance of scoping), technical (e.g. the development of improved modelling techniques) and communication issues (e.g. the importance of concise reports and writing as a narrative) (Cashmore et al. 2004).

12. Do you think the EIA process is sufficiently underpinned in the legislation?

Around 38% of respondents think that the EIA process is not sufficiently underpinned by Slovak legislation. Another group of respondents (62%) considered the link between the EIA process and legislation to be sufficient.

According to the Act of Law No. 24/2006 in Slovakia, in the final record from the proposed activity, the competent authority, in addition to the general impact assessment of the proposed activity, shall state whether it recommends or not recommends its implementation, under what conditions, as well as the required scope of its monitoring and evaluation. The authors recommend that the outcome of EIA process should be a binding character.

13. Do you think objectivity is important in predicting the environmental impact in the EIA process?

International Association for Impact Assessment (Senécal et al. 1999) and others have developed guiding principles for EIA/IA. One of which is objectivity. Objectivity in predicting the environmental impact is not important for 22% of respondents. EIA or review: how to reduce subjectivity and increase objectivity is described by Gilpin (1995). Independent verification is an important aspect of practice for ensuring the credibility of an EIA.

14. Are the responsibilities of participating institutions sufficient?

The governments of the developing countries bear the ultimate responsibility for the state of the environment in their respective countries and for the design of the development projects. Around 67% of respondents consider the competence of the parties to be sufficient, and 33% considered the competence of the institutions concerned to be poor.

15. Do you feel current EIA practice is effective at helping decision-makers, helping developers, reducing environmental impacts and contributing to sustainable development?

As part of this research, consultants were asked whether they felt that current practice was effective at helping decision-makers, helping developers and contributing to sustainable development (Table 3). Of the respondents, 50% agreed and 16% strongly agreed that EIA is effective at helping decision-makers. This compares with 45% who agreed or strongly agreed that EIA is effective at helping developers, with 68% who agreed or strongly agreed that EIA is reducing environmental impacts and 40% who agreed or strongly agreed that EIA is effective at contributing to sustainable development.

Table 3 Results of the question: do you feel current EIA practice is effective at the following.

	Strongly agree (%)	Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)	Strongly disagree (%)
Helping decision-makers	16	50	29	5	–
Helping developers	5	40	50	5	–
Reducing environmental impacts	5	63	16	16	–
Contributing to sustainable development	–	40	40	16	4

16. Do you think the public is well informed on the steps of the EIA process?

The public, as citizens of a nation and key stakeholders in development, have the right to know and to be involved in information exchange and decision-making that affect their lives, resources and properties. When the public is well informed and motivated, project development should be relatively trouble-free. The percentages of answers to this question: Yes – 67% and No – 33%. Sharma (2010) discusses the methodology for public hearings, mandatory legal provisions and their importance in the process of hydropower development.

17. How to ensure monitoring application of approved proposed activities?

Monitoring (after-project analysis or follow-up) is integral to the success or failure of a project or programme. In spite of its importance, very little attention is given to the need for follow-up programmes in Slovakia. The survey brought responses to the question: how to ensure the application of monitoring for proposed activities that have been approved. Some of the opinions of the respondents are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Selected comments about monitoring in Slovakia.

Monitoring is still a weakness in the EIA process, but particularly SEA.

Monitoring is particularly unclear, and also monitoring the health impact is difficult.

Monitoring must be carried out systematically, and measuring of real impacts must be compared with the impacts set out in the assessment report.

Monitoring the implementation of the approved proposed activities is provided only in a few cases, or only by the permitting authority.

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

International best-practice principles for EIA follow-up described by Morrison-Saunders et al. (2007) are intended to guide development and capacity building. A good example is the scientifically rigorous biophysical monitoring programme described by Storey (2002) which is appropriate and could be undertaken because it was carried out for a major oilfield development. Similarly, the refined approach of an independent committee (Ross 2002) might be considered rather expensive, but was affordable for the proponent in the context of a major mining operation (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003). Through the identification of ‘best’ practices, including reconsidering the scope of current legislation and specifying follow-up programme goals and objectives, Noble and Macharia (2003) suggest ways in which we might move Canadian Environmental Assessment (EA) forward through a broader and a somewhat more practical approach to obtain feedback on project developments and our EA efforts.

18. Do you think the number of activities presented corresponds exactly or almost exactly to the action?

The percentages of answers to this question: Yes – 78% and No – 22%.

19. Do you think that the methodological guidelines provided for the EIA process are sufficient?

Up to 62% of respondents stated that the given methodological guidelines for the EIA process are not sufficient. This fact is considered as a major deficiency in Slovakian conditions. Various parties to the EIA process in Slovakia admit that there is a sharp need for EIA methodological guidelines in the country, which would take into account country context and experience of the past EIAs and provide guidance on issues such as predicting and managing cumulative impacts, EIA in a transboundary context, and elaborate on the specifics of the assessment of impacts of strategic-level activities, such as policies, plans, programmes, strategies and legislative acts.

20. What methodologies form the basis for the processing of documentation of EIA procedure?

Respondents named the following methods used in the preparation of EIA-based dossiers:

• selection process based on building type and location of territory;

• own experience, including that gained from training procedures;

• scientifically proven and universally accepted methodology by specialization;

• foreign guides (e.g. guides published by the EU, and also American and Canadian guides);

• procedures adapted for the purpose of the plan;

• cooperation with experts;

• model calculations, analogies, verbal description and evaluation of the potential compared with the current state.

There are of course many guidelines and manuals published over the years in the world. An overview of methodical guidelines for EIA in Slovakia was published in Pavličková et al. (2009). In Slovakia, current methodologies must be reviewed and there is necessity to develop new methodologies.

21. Are the input data in processing documentation in EIA procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?

The percentages of answers to this question: Yes – 62% and No – 38%.

The national environment authority must continuously elaborate and update the list of information resources required to be taken in account while elaborating EIA reports.

22. What procedures and methods do you use for identification and assessment of impacts?

For identification and assessment of impacts in the EIA process, the respondents use these procedures and methods:

• selection method according to the type of construction and location of the area;

• judgements of experts, expert systems and matrix expression;

• scientific approaches;

• simple procedures – various checklists, matrices and tests of sustainability.

In Slovakia, practices use methods that are globally famous. Walker and Johnston (1999) or UNEP (2002) suggests methods and tools for identifying and assessing indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as impact interactions. Effective environmental assessment tools – critical reflections on concepts and practice – were published by Emmelin (2006).

23. In your opinion, is current EIA satisfactory? What should be modified/amended in the existing EIA process with a view to improving its effectiveness?

This question brought many interesting responses, some of which are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Selected comments on increasing the effectiveness of the EIA process.

The EIA is now too formal and even unsatisfactory. It is necessary to increase the weight of legislation and, in particular, to change the binding force of recommendations in terms of environmental impact. The second point which significantly impedes and detracts from the EIA process is the linkage between complainants and the person who prepares the assessment report on the evaluation – this is an absurd situation that significantly contributes to subjectivity in EIA.

Quality of documentation is poor and getting worse. Formal procedures are applied for setting up many screening procedures, and many unnecessary screening procedures are performed. Higher demands for quality of judges should be enforced.

It is time for an amendment that would be informed by past experience and would remove some formal but also substantive errors in the applicable laws, conforming to the current technical level (e.g. printing always in digital form, especially for large-scale activities, and particularly in land-use planning documentation for SEA), eliminating the unnecessary strictness of the Law (assessment without limit), clarifying the definition of changes in the proposed activity. To improve the quality of work, it is necessary to formalize the accountability (like in other professions, e.g. designers), the status of the processors or at least the status of reviewers (test, license, stamp and Chamber), and develop at least an indicative price list.

In principle, since 1994, EIA and SEA have been partially stabilized. Nevertheless, the current legislation contains even more mistakes and shortcomings, for example: • unnecessarily complicated process for the simple procedure of screening activity, • ill-defined changes in the proposed activities, • inconsistency of interpretation of certain controversial provisions (it might be necessary to provide guidance to the MfE), • partial duplication with other processes (construction law and environmental components), • shortcomings in the SEA procedure, • insufficient capacity of officials in some district offices.

The EIA procedure is not satisfactory and it is necessary to modify the following fields: • assessment of cumulative impacts, • severity assessment results, • monitoring, • assessment only of the impact on the environment and not on other things that often prevail in the assessment (employment, health effects, etc.), • objectification of the criteria and their weighting in the assessment, because it is often influenced to enable an acceptable result to come out for the investor, • obligation to incorporate building authorities into the decision-making in terms of an objective screening process, even if they decide that the activity is to be reassessed.

In comparison with previous periods, the EIA process is already at a higher level, only there is inadequate reflection by the relevant authorities of the conditions specified in the decision of the investigation or proceedings, e.g. in the final disposition of zoning or in the granting of planning permission.

Perhaps, it would be better if the final opinion should be binding (e.g. as in Austria, I think), not just a recommendation.

It is probably satisfactory, but nonetheless it is necessary to remove the formalism, to encourage the participation of experts in preparing documentation and to intensify work with the public.

EIA is often done on peripheral activities and some large investment intentions remain unchecked.

The process is satisfactory, but we already need an amendment to address the details arising from new legislation on the environment, or to bring the process up to date. I recommend: • simplifying the whole process – reviewers should not be paid by investors, • introducing mandatory professional qualifications for the exercise of the professions.

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Research of the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia is limited to the work of a handful of post-graduate students and research institutions. Institutional support at national and regional levels is sorely needed, but this should perhaps be complimented by a strategy that encourages partnerships within the region. These partnerships should be between government departments within a country, between governments of neighbouring countries, and between governments, NGOs, the private sector and academic institutions.

The results and discussion highlight current opinion about the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia. In assessing current EIA and practice in this country, a number of key conclusions were extracted. There is a general feeling among those surveyed that EIA is effective at achieving its main purposes of helping decision-makers, helping developers and contributing to sustainable development.

Statistical significance of answers from questionnaire survey was also evaluated and the results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Statistical significance of answers from questionnaire survey.

Question	p
1.	0.001
2.	0.097
3.	0.001
4.	0.002
5.	0.106
6.	0.001
7.	0.050
8.	0.004
9.	0.003
10.	0.005
11.	0.0014
12.	0.098
13.	0.0014
14.	0.050
15.	0.050
16.	0.050
18.	0.0014
19.	0.098
21.	0.098

A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The results in Table 6 prove the statistical significance of answers marked in bold – specifically 1, 3, 4, 6–11, 13–18. We intend to spread our future research in EIA effectiveness and ask more respondents working in EIA in Slovakia. The next task will be in collaboration with our colleagues to perform the similar research in neighbouring countries – Poland, Czech and Hungary – focused also on the transboundary impact assessment.

4. Conclusions

The study of EIA effectiveness not only showed a number of difficulties and constraints, but has also introduced several proposals to improve the EIA process in Slovakia. The Slovak Republic is a small, land-locked country at the heart of Europe. It is a member of the EU, and should therefore continue in the process of streamlining communication on the matter of harmonization of national EU legislation. In terms of changes in national legislation, it is necessary to review the legislation about EIA in Slovakia for the preparation of new legal instruments (Law, Decree), using the positive experience of the implementation process in Slovakia, as well as from neighbouring countries (mainly the Czech Republic, Austria). In terms of the implementation process of EIA in Slovakia, it is necessary to review the current guidance materials in connection with the development of new techniques and methodologies as well as with the practical experience gained from the process of EIA/SEA in Slovakia and abroad (especially in the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic). It is equally important to develop updated criteria and guidelines for assessing the quality of EIA documentation and the effectiveness of EIA. These suggestions alone could lead to a marked improvement in the proportion of satisfactory EIA in Slovakia.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the support of project VEGA 1/0609/14.

Notes

^1. Email: [email protected]

^2. Email: [email protected]