Dear readers,
Welcome to issue 5 of 2019. We just received news that our impact factor (released June 2019) has increased from 1.213 to 1.915, the highest obtained by IAPA to date. This is a great achievement which is down to the quality of the papers published in IAPA. So well done to all authors!
Do we need impact assessment (IA) evolution or revolution? This was the question discussed at this year’s IAIA conference in Brisbane, Australia. And whilst the answer to this simple question is – inevitably – rather complex, what most participants probably did agree on is that change is needed in order to be able to effectively meet the substantial challenges we are facing at the end of the second decade of the 21st century. Considering the extent of those challenges (including biodiversity loss, climate change, rising inequality, human health issues and others), there can be no ‘business as usual’. Whilst – by and large – there appears to be nothing wrong with the way IA is approached conceptually, commitment to implementation of IA results needs to be strengthened, and conditions that enable IA effectiveness need to improve. What this means in practice has been discussed for many years (see e.g. Morrison-Saunders and Fischer Citation2006 or Fischer Citation2005) and a lot of evidence has been created (see e.g. IAPA’s last double issue 2019 3 + 4 on SEA effectiveness; Therivel and Gonzalez Citation2019; or Arts et al. Citation2012, as well as Montaño and Fischer Citation2019). What is currently widely missing, though, is the political will to act upon empirical evidence and recommendations provided.
One interesting (new?) development is litigation for planned projects on the basis of being at odds with e.g. national climate change mitigation targets. This was discussed at an event on ‘SEA and spatial planning’ in May in Vienna for some Austrian cases (attended by about 200 participants; see https://www.umweltdachverband.at/assets/Uploads/SUPRPL-Einladung-20190514.pdf). Potential incompatibility with national climate change targets is also part of a recent court case brought forward for a planned new motorway project in Northern Germany (A39), with a final decision by the Federal Administrative Court expected in in July 2019. This is a project which provides a rich research ground not just with regards to the potential role of climate change in project decision making, but also on persistent problems with planned projects that have significant negative environmental effects. Here, the associated public participation exercise for a 20 km stretch of the project (which overall is about 90 km long) resulted in over 2,000 complaints by the public. However, every single one of them was dismissed by the responsible road authority. Still, the authority commented on the pending court case, stating that they are confident the court will conclude with a favourable judgement in support of the motorway, as ‘they have done everything correctly’ (which, considering the number of public concerns raised and their complete dismissal suggests a somewhat unique understanding of the purpose of public decision making). In this context, what is of key importance is that the project has a very low benefit-cost ratio (which is already close to costs outweighing benefits of the project). Any additional costs incurred by necessary mitigation measures will render the project unviable. I will report on the outcomes of this case in my next editorial.
This issue of IAPA consists of six full papers, a letter to the editor and two book reviews. In the first paper, Lindsay Luke and Bram Noble report on the ‘consideration and influence of climate change in environmental assessment: an analysis of British Columbia’s liquid natural gas sector’. This is followed by Cathy Baldwin and Patrick Rawstorne’s paper on ‘public understanding of risk in health impact assessment: a psychosocial approach’. Next, Pradeep Kumar Mishra is asking the question whether ‘impact assessment meet[s] stakeholder expectation’ providing a ‘case study of POSCO project in Odisha’. This is followed by Liven Fernando Martinez, Javier Toro and Carmelo J. Leon, introducing ‘a complex network approach to Environmental Impact Assessment’. In the fifth contribution, Aka Rathi looks at the ‘development of environmental management program in Environmental Impact Assessment reports and evaluation of its robustness’, reflecting on an Indian case-study. The final paper, by Anne Caroline Malvestio and Marcelo Montano, is looking at ‘how flexible Strategic Environmental Assessment may be’, drawing ‘lessons from a non-regulated SEA system’. In the letter to the editor, Alvaro Enriquez-de-Salamanca is reflecting on ‘environmental assessment [as] a third division subject at the university’. The book reviews by Alan Bond and Alberto Fonseco are on A. J. MacKinnon, P. N Duinker and T R Walker’s ‘The Application of Science in Environmental Impact Assessment’ and on Angus Morrison-Saunders’ ‘Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment’.
Enjoy reading!
References
- Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance – a comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14(4): 1250025-1-40.
- Fischer TB. 2005. Having an impact? – Context elements for effective SEA application in transport policy, plan and programme making. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 7(3):407–432.
- Montaño M, Fischer TB. 2019. Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 37(2):97–106.
- Morrison-Saunders A, Fischer TB. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? - A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 8(1):19–39.
- Therivel R, Gonzalez A. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 37(3+4):181–187.