Editorial

Dear readers,

Welcome to issue number 5 of IAPA in 2020. It’s been six months now since COVID19 was declared a global pandemic and numbers of infections are still rising rapidly globally. In this context, I want to remind you of the call we have for papers for a special issue of IAPA on ‘Pandemics, Planning and Impact Assessment’ . We have extended the deadline and paper submissions are still welcome until the end of September. I would also like to draw your attention to the virtual symposium of IAIA on ‘Our Interconnected World – Impact Assessment, Health and the Environment’ from 5 to 8 October (https://conferences.iaia.org/virtual2020/).

In this issue, you find six ‘full’ papers and one professional practice paper. The first paper from South Africa by DP Cilliers, I Van Staden, C Roos, RC Aberts and FP Retief covers a hugely important topic, namely the ‘benefits of EIA for government as perceived by EIA regulators’. Based on a questionnaire survey, they find that ‘the promotion of sustainable development’ is not seen to be a ‘realistically achievable benefit for EIA’ by regulators. Instead, EIA should aim at refocusing on ‘biophysical impacts and environmental protection’.

In the second paper from Australia, Z Kabir, S Momtaz and R Morgan reflect on the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of the Melbourne Urban Extension Plan. The aim of the paper is to understand the procedural effectiveness of SEA. Whilst they establish that most procedural requirements are confirmed, they also identify shortcomings which include an ‘inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts, socio-economic impacts and the analysis of alternatives at different stages of SEA.’ These are typical problem areas of SEA, as also observed elsewhere in the world.

Next, I Gulakov, F Vanclay and J Arts from The Netherlands ‘explore the potential of environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) to enhance the effectiveness of project contributions to local community development’, looking at a gas project in Russia (Nord Stream 2). Importantly, they suggest that current practice of ESIA ‘is constrained in its ability to contribute to community development outcomes’. Therefore, changes are needed, not just with regards to how this impact assessment tool is conducted, but also to corporate social investment frameworks.

In the fourth paper, C Joseph, T Gunton, D Knowler and S Broadbent, all from Canada, look at the role played by cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as well as economic impact analysis in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Comparing both approaches, they make various suggestions on how to improve them. They conclude that both can play a role in EIA, given certain ground rules are adhered to.

The following paper by N Peletz, K Hanna and B Noble is also from Canada and reports on the key role of indigenous knowledge in guiding and supporting assessment processes. In this context, the focus is on Nunavut, a territory in the Canadian Arctic. Based on focus groups with board members and staff of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, suggestions are developed on how to strengthen existing processes. The authors suggest that the findings are useful for other jurisdictions, too, in particular with regards to indigenous-led impact assessment.

In the sixth paper, T de Oliveira Bredariol reflects on the feasibility of using a set of indicators for ‘the environmental licensing activity of offshore oil and gas production in Brazil’. For this purpose, associated processes from 2012 to 2019 were researched. The author concludes that ‘developing indicators […] is possible and desirable, but depends on a structured, planned and long-term effort. [Furthermore, …] robust databases and standardized reporting protocols’ facilitate the effective use of indicators.

In the final professional practice paper, J Rantlo and G Viljoen from South Africa report on a recent court judgement of Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC versus BP Southern Africa, where the latter was found guilty of having started construction work without the necessary environmental authorisations. Here, the authors reflect on the arguments put forward during the case.

Enjoy reading!