Editorial

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the second issue of IAPA in 2017. By the time this is published, the new European EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) will have come into force in 28 EU member states, nearly 30 years after the first EIA Directive had to be implemented by the then 12 member states. Despite a widely held believe that EIA performance has remained poor, empirical evidence suggests that its impact on decisions has markedly improved over the past three decades, from more minor to generally speaking moderate, and at times even more major impacts on project design (Arts et al. 2012; Phylip-Jones & Fischer 2013; Jha-Thakur & Fischer 2016; Jones & Fischer 2016). What is also clear is that overall, EIA has remained unpopular. Whilst there are various reasons for this, a key cause appears to be unrealistic expectations, on the one hand by those who think EIA should focus mainly on smoothening consent procedures of project proposals, and on the other hand by those who want to see EIA stop certain developments altogether (or, as I overheard a colleague say ‘smash the system’). However, what EIA aims at achieving is firmly located in between these two extreme expectations, namely to make developments more environmentally sustainable whilst helping those putting forward development proposals anticipating potential problems, in particular with regards to local resistance associated with environmental impacts, thus leading to meaningful and environmentally sustainable project proposals.

But back to the new Directive. A key change from prior practice includes the inclusion of ‘human health’ which means something very different from the previously used term ‘human beings’ in that social and mental health aspects will now also have to be considered, next to physical aspects. Other substantive aspects that have found their way into the new directive include ‘Land’, the anticipation of accidents/disasters as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation (Fischer 2016). There are few procedural changes, and whilst it is somewhat disappointing to see that scoping continues to be voluntary only, monitoring provisions have been strengthened. Some unfortunate omissions of the new Directive include a lack of firm requirements for the consideration of alternatives (apart from the ‘zero’ and preferred alternative) and a failure to include ecosystem services. With regards to the overall context within which EIA is happening, an important novelty is the requirement for EIA reports to be prepared by what is termed ‘competent experts’. Whilst this isn’t specified further, it could involve introducing some sort of accreditation (Bond et al. 2017). More country specific information on 15 member states is provided in a range of open access articles, published in UVP report, the journal of the German language IAIA affiliate UVP Gesellschaft (see http://www.uvp.de/de/uvp-report/jg30/jg30h2 and http://www.uvp.de/de/uvp-report/jg30/jg30h3).

This issue of IAPA includes a total of six papers, focusing on six different topics. These range from the impacts of cultural events on networking over the application of a logical framework and project cycle management, automated content analysis, the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation and SEA of direct investment initiatives to social impacts of road traffic.

Enjoy reading! Yours

Thomas B. Fischer
Editor
[email protected]