The contents and scope of environmental impact statements: how do they evolve over time?

Figures & data

Table 1 A summary of previous research on EIS quality.

Author	Sample	Country	Period	Methods
Lee and Brown (1992)	83 EISs/different sectors	UK	1988–1991	Lee and Colley package
Lee and Dancey (1993)	40 EISs/different sectors	Ireland	1988–1992	Lee and Colley package
Glasson et al. (1997)	50 EISs/different sectors	UK	1988–1996	Pairs of EISs – matching type of project, location and other characteristics – in two periods, to make a comparative review
Bojórquez-Tapia and García (1998)	33 EISs/highway projects	Mexico	1989–1994	A set of criteria developed for purpose resulting in a score for each EIS
Wende (2002)	145 EISs/different sectors	Germany	1990–1997	Statistical analysis of 11 variables
Cashmore et al. (2002)	72 EISs/different sectors	Greece	1990–1999	Lee and Colley package
Gray and Edwards-Jones (2003)	89 EISs/forest sector	UK	1988–1998	Lee and Colley package
Canelas et al. (2005)	46 EISs/different sectors	Spain and Portugal	1998–2003	European Commission EIS review guidance
Carrasco et al. (2006)	43 EISs/highway projects	United States	1980–1999	Measuring a ‘completion index‘ to quantify the amount of information included in an EIS
Gontier et al. (2006)	38 EISs/different sectors	Sweden, France, UK and Ireland	1999–2003	Analysis of contents pertaining to biodiversity
Pinho et al. (2007)	13 EISs/small hydro projects	Portugal	1990–2003	A set of 12 review criteria and 43 subcriteria, resulting in a score for each document
Sandham and Pretorius (2008)	28 EISs/different sectors	South Africa	Not specified	A modified version of the Lee and Colley package
Jalava et al. (2010)	15 EISs/incineration plants	Finland	Not specified	Comparing ratings assigned by consultants and public officials, according to the European Commission EIS review guidance
Kabir and Momtaz (2012)	30 EISs/different sectors	Bangladesh	Not specified	Lee and Colley package
Sandham et al. (2013)		South Africa	before and after 2006	A modified version of the Lee and Colley package

Table 2 Cases selected for review.

Serial number	Year of completion	Short description of the project's main features and location	Profile of project proponent
1	1987	A granite quarry in São Paulo metropolitan area producing aggregates	A Brazilian company from the construction sector
2	1989	A phosphate rock mine, an ore concentration plant, a tailings dam and a chemical fertilizer plant in a rural area in Santa Catarina State	A Brazilian company from the industrial sector
3	1990	A limestone mine in Minas Gerais; three new open pits near an existing lime plant	The biggest cement manufacturer in Brazil
4	1993	Expansion of a small quartzite mine in an environmental protection zone in Minas Gerais State	A multinational company from the glass manufacturing sector
5	1998	A sandstone mine and treatment plant for glassmaking in São Paulo State	Another multinational company from the glass manufacturing sector
6	2002	A set of small bauxite mines and stockyard in a rural area in São Paulo State	One of the biggest world aluminium producers
7	2006	A second EIS for project 3, which had not been implemented and was proposed again with modifications	A joint venture of two multinational corporations
8	2007	A new phosphate rock pit adjacent to an existing mine in Minas Gerais State	A multinational corporation
9	2010	A phosphate rock mine, an ore concentration plant, two tailings dams, a water dam and ancillary facilities in Tocantins State	A junior mining company incorporated in Canada and operating only in Brazil

Table 3 Projects’ complexity and their description in the EISs.

Serial number	Level of complexity	Annual mine output (tons/year)	No. of pages of project description	No. of plans and drawings
1	II	320,000	15	5
2	IV	∼5,000,000	82	24
3	I	300,000	31	12
4	I	∼10,000	19	20
5	III	1,600,000	39	11
6	I	135,000	20	2
7	IV	∼5,500,000	93	50
8	I	3,625,000	86	23
9	IV	∼3,000,000	123	103

Table 4 Selected contents of baseline studies.

Theme^a	No. of pages/no. of maps
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1 – Geology, geomorphology, soils	9/1	18/6	10/2	8/2	11/2	12/5	23/7	17/5	103/6
2 – Speleology	–	–	8/6	–	–	–	–	–	10/5
3 – Climate	25/1	1	3	–	3	3	7/1	4	18/1
4 – Hydrology, hydrogeology	6/1	22	–	–	12/2	4	13/5	8/1	12/1
5 – Air quality	–	–	–	–	3	5	1	7/1	9
6 – Water quality	–	5	10/1	13/1	34	10	5/2	6/1	55/2
7 – Noise and vibrations	–	–	–	–	1	5	11/2	15/2	6
8 – Terrestrial ecosystems – flora	4	28/1	9	23/1	12/1	16/2	31/1	23/2	72/5
9 – Terrestrial ecosystems – fauna	4	30/1	15	12	22/1	61	98	89	109/1
10 – Cave fauna		2	6	–	–		–	–	62
11 – Aquatic ecosystems^b	–	30	22	–	17	–	–	–	35
12 – Social environment	80	50/1	14	8/1	20/2	14/1	43/2	25	54/1
13 – Archaeology^c	–	–/1	5	–	–	–	–	–	139
Total no. of pages	128	184	102	64	135	130	232	194	553
Total no. of maps	3	9	9	5	8	8	20	12	22
No. of fauna survey surveys	n.a.	1	2	2	2	5	2	1–4^d	2
No. of days of fauna survey effort	n.a.	6	10	12	8	n.a.	12	1–6^e	20
Professionals in the technical team	9	15	10	10	18	15	31	18	23
Notes:
^a EISs do not have the same structure of baseline description; adaptations were made in order to fit baseline chapters or items into the categories of the table.
^b Aquatic ecosystems include descriptions of fish, benthic and plankton communities.
^c Archaeology often featured as part of the human environment description.
^d Different number of surveys for different faunal groups.
^e Field survey effort varies according to faunal group.

Table 5 Selected features of mitigation proposed in the EISs.

Serial number	Level of complexity	No. of mitigation programmes	Includes offsets?	Includes capacity building?
1	II	n.a.	No	No
2	IV		No	No
3	I	11	No	No
4	I	11	No	No
5	III	16	No	No
6	I	12	Yes	No
7	IV	41	Yes	Yes
8	I	38	Yes	Yes
9	IV	37	Yes	Yes

Table 6 Perception of government staff and consultants about the evolution of EISs – number of responses.

Compared with past practice, more recent EISs prepared for mining projects feature		TA	PA	N	PD	TD
1. More detailed baseline	Regulator	2	1
	Consultant	2	1
2. More topics or themes in the baseline	Regulator	3
	Consultant	2	1
3. Alternative analysis and comparison	Regulator		2			1
	Consultant		2	1
4. More consistent impact analysis methods and approaches	Regulator		2	1
	Consultant	3
5. More detailed mitigation and management programmes	Regulator		2			1
	Consultant	3
6. Broader mitigation and management programmes (dealing with more issues)	Regulator	1	1		1
	Consultant	2	1
7. A demonstration of effectiveness of the proposed mitigation	Regulator		1			2
	Consultant		3
8. Impacts of mine decommissioning and closure	Regulator				1	2
	Consultant		2	1
TA, Totally agree; PA, partially agree; N, sees no change or does not know; PD, partially disagree; TD, totally disagree.

Lee , N and Brown , D . 1992 . Quality control in environmental assessment . Project Appraisal , 7 ( 1 ) : 41 – 45 .

 Google Scholar

Lee , N and Dancey , R . 1993 . The quality of environmental impact statements in Ireland and the United Kingdom: a comparative analysis . Project Appraisal , 8 ( 1 ) : 31 – 36 .

 Google Scholar

Glasson , J , Therivel , R , Weston , J , Wilson , E and Frost , R . 1997 . EIA – learning from experience: changes in the quality of environmental impact statements for UK planning projects . J. Environ. Planning Mgmt , 40 ( 4 ) : 451 – 464 .

 Google Scholar

Bojórquez-Tapia , LA and García , O . 1998 . An approach for evaluating EIAs – deficiencies of EIA in Mexico . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 18 : 217 – 240 .

 Google Scholar

Wende , W . 2002 . Evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of environmental impact assessment in the Federal Republic of Germany . Impact Assess. Project Appraisal , 20 ( 2 ) : 93 – 99 .

 Google Scholar

Cashmore , M , Christophilopoulos , E and Cobb , D . 2002 . An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece . J. Environ. Assess. Policy Mgmt , 4 ( 4 ) : 371 – 395 .

 Google Scholar

Gray , I and Edwards-Jones , G . 2003 . A review of environmental statements in the British forest sector . Impact Assess. Project Appraisal , 21 ( 4 ) : 303 – 312 .

 Google Scholar

Canelas , L , Almansa , P , Merchan , M and Cifuentes , P . 2005 . Quality of environmental impact statements in Portugal and Spain . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 25 : 217 – 225 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carrasco , LE , Blank , G and Sills , EO . 2006 . Characterizing environmental impact statements for road projects in North Carolina, USA . Impact Assess. Project Appraisal , 24 ( 1 ) : 65 – 76 .

 Google Scholar

Gontier , M , Balfors , B and Mörtberg , U . 2006 . Biodiversity in environmental assessment – current practice and tools for prediction . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 26 : 268 – 286 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pinho , P , Maia , R and Monterroso , A . 2007 . The quality of Portuguese environmental impact studies: the case of small hydropower projects . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 27 : 189 – 205 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sandham , LA and Pretorius , HM . 2008 . A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 28 : 229 – 240 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jalava , K , Pasanen , S , Saalasti , M and Kuitunen , M . 2010 . Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinion of EIA professionals . Impact Assess. Project Appraisal , 28 ( 1 ) : 15 – 27 .

 Google Scholar

Kabir , SMZ and Momtaz , S . 2012 . The quality of environmental impact statement and environmental impact assessment practice in Bangladesh . Impact Assess. Project Appraisal , 30 ( 2 ) : 94 – 98 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sandham , LA , van Heerden , AJ , Jones , CE , Retief , FP and Morrison-Saunders , AN . 2013 . Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 38 : 155 – 162 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar