Editorial

Dear readers,

Welcome to the first issue of 2020. It is now 50 years since environmental impact assessment (EIA) first became legally required in the US, based on NEPA. Since then impact assessment has developed continuously, spreading around the world and taking various shapes and forms, including, next to EIA and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) also e.g. social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA), sustainability appraisal (SA) and others. But even after 50 years of EIA, there are still challenges with regards to its effectiveness. However, considering this is a support tool in often politically charged situations, this is not surprising. Furthermore, comparing the performance of IA with that of other decision support tools, such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), it is clear that it isn’t performing that badly. Analysing EIA practices in a range of European countries, Fischer (2009) found that 10% of assessments exerted a major impact on project decisions, 30% a more moderate impact, 30% a small impact and 20% no impact. Regarding the overall correctness of predictions made in SEA, it appears that over the years we have also seen improvement. Thus, whilst in 1988, Bisset and Tomlinson identified 95% of all EIS predictions as either incorrect, unsure, unverifiable or non-quantifiable, Dipper et al. (1998) found that ‘only’ 55% fell into this category. Also, of those predictions that were auditable, nearly three -quarters were accurate. Whilst this trend appears to have continued (Phylip-Jones and Fischer 2013), there is currently still a lack of empirical evidence. CBA, on the other hand, tends to systematically underestimate costs (Flyvbjerg et al. 2010) and overestimate benefits, thus making it notoriously faulty.

It therefore doesn’t really come as a surprise that a majority of the participants of the final plenary at IAIA19 in Brisbane thought that further evolution of IA was needed, rather than a revolution. IA instruments themselves have evolved substantially and EIA and SEA are increasingly covering other than biophysical aspects, including in particular social and health issues. In this context, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) SEA protocol to the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context is explicitly mentioning health whenever reference is made to the environment. Here, the UNECE in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are currently developing guidelines on health in SEA. These will apply to the signatory parties of the Protocol. Furthermore, many development banks and organisations now routinely apply environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA). However, when integrating different aspects that may pull in different directions, experience has shown that caution is required in order for bio-physical aspects not being systematically traded off for e.g. economic related social or health issues (Morrison-Saunders and Fischer 2006).

This issue of IAPA brings to you 7 full papers, a letter and a book review. In the first paper, Gardenio Diogo Pimentel Da Silva, Alessandra Magrini and David Alves Castelo Branco from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, introduce a multicriteria proposal for large-scale solar photovoltaic impact assessment. Next, Ariane Dilay, Alan P. Diduck and Kirit Patel from the University of Winnipeg, Canada, are looking at environmental justice in India: a case study of EIA, community engagement and public interest litigation. In the third paper, Delmarie Fischer, Paul Lochner and Harold Annegarn from University of Johannesburg and North West University, South Africa, provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in South Africa to facilitate renewable energy planning and improved decision-making Next, Bayarmaa Byambaa and Walter T. de Vries from the Technical University of Munich, Germany, evaluate the effectiveness of the EIA process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. In the fifth paper, Steve Bonnell of Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada, looks at Project EA scoping in an SEA context with a focus on offshore oil and gas exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is followed by Mehreen Khan, Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry, Sajid Rashid Ahmad and Samia Saif of the University of Punjab and Lahore School of Economics. They look at the role of and the challenges faced by non-governmental organizations in the EIA process in Punjab, Pakistan. Finally, Leandri Kruger, Luke. A. Sandham and Dewald Van Niekerk of North West University, South Africa, explore improved SIA through DRA integration and in this context draw lessons from a South African legislative comparison. The ensuing letter by Chris Joseph of Swift Creek Consulting, Canada looks at problems and resolutions in GHG impact assessment. Finally, the book review by Neil Andrew Cochrane of the University of Strathclyde, UK is on John Glasson and Riki Therivel’s fifth edition of ‘Introduction to Environmental impacts Assessment’.

Enjoy reading!