Transformation towards a sustainable world – the pivotal role of impact assessments

Dear readers,

Much has been written in the professional literature on what is required in order to realize a sustainable transformation of societies and economies. In this context, more recently, particular attention has been paid to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; see, e.g. Kørnøv et al. 2020). The 17 SDGs work in different dimensions that, according to Sachs et al. (2019) can be expressed through the following six ‘modules’; ‘(1) education, gender and inequality; (2) health, well-being and demography; (3) energy decarbonization and sustainable industry; (4) sustainable food, land, water and oceans; (5) sustainable cities and communities; and (6) digital revolution for sustainable development’ (Sachs et al. 2019, abstract). Whilst all dimensions/modules are interlinked, some of the linkages are weaker whereas others are stronger. This is particularly true with regard to the operationalization of goals through policies and associated plans, programmes and projects. Whilst e.g. energy programmes may have a narrow focus on particular energy development options (and may thus mainly focus on module (3)), regional spatial strategies are likely going to touch on all of the above six modules (Fischer 2003). Furthermore, whereas SDGs are usually linked with targets and associated actions of implementation, there is a tendency to look at goals in isolation and the necessity to deal with possible trade-offs between different goals is (too) often ignored (Fischer 2020). In this context, integration has been portrayed as ‘the key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals’ (Stafford-Smith et al. 2017, title). Importantly, there is a presumption that given suitable implementation instruments (more recently, the potential role of taxonomies of sustainable investment has been critically discussed in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal – IAPA; see Dusík and Bond 2022; Fischer 2022), implementation of all goals is possible. However, this is an unrealistic expectation (Bowen et al. 2017), as trade-offs will always need to be dealt with in policy, plan, programme and project making.

The pivotal role impact assessments (IAs) play for enabling operationalisation of SDGs and sustainable development, in particular by making trade-offs transparent, is unfortunately frequently ignored. Examples abound, including statements such as ‘we lack clear models for organizing […] discussions and consultation processes’ and ‘Sophisticated tools are needed to design pathways [.] for Transformations’ (Sachs et al. 2019, p812). However, IA approaches are (and have already been for some time) providing for such models and tools (see, e.g. Morrison-Saunders et al. 2015; Geneletti 2016; Fischer and González, 2021; Fonseca 2022). In this context, suggestions that ‘new and improved tools are needed’ (Sachs et al. 2019, p812) without mentioning IA and not considering what is already available is highly problematic, as this will just contribute to further delays in the transformation towards sustainable societies and economies due to attempts to reinvent the wheel with arising solutions that – as past examples have shown – routinely look remarkably similar to what we already have, amongst which in the IA field (see, e.g. Fischer 2007). This is an important reason for why, despite the existence of 1,000s of scientific studies looking at the SDGs (Biermann et al, 2022), their ‘impact has been largely discursive, affecting the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development [and that] more profound normative and institutional impact, from legislative action to changing resource allocation, remains rare’ (ibid, abstract). An important task of those advocating IA over the next decade will therefore need to be the generation of empirical evidence for how IA approaches help to achieve sustainable outcomes. Whilst there is some evidence available (e.g. Fischer and Retief, 2021; Van Eck and Scholten, 1997; Dipper 1998; Wende 2002; IEMA 2011; Jones and Fischer 2016; Rega et al. 2018), overall this remains pitifully limited. Hopefully, readers of this journal see this as an invitation for further work and for providing proof for the usefulness of IA.

Subsequently, in this issue of IAPA, you find seven papers, written by a total of 29 authors. The first paper from Canada deals with issues of environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up in mining projects, elaborating on the problems generated by the deferral of important issues to post approval discussions. The second paper from South Africa discusses the recently introduced GIS-based EIA screening tool here, an instrument of EIA simplification, and provides for a critical reflection of some initial applications. The third paper from Brazil discusses problems with the application of social licenses to operate and in the fourth paper from Wales, health implications of challenges associated with climate change, COVID-19 and Brexit are assessed. The fifth paper from Mexico looks at the challenges associated with implementing strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in the country and the sixth paper reflects on experiences with applying visual impact analyses to wind and solar energy infrastructures in Canada. The seventh and final paper (also from Canada) reflects on alternative approaches to cumulative environmental assessment (CEA).

Enjoy Reading!