Reflections on IAIA 2024 annual conference

This year was my first IAIA Conference as an editor of IAPA and with 1,109 attendees from 85 countries, 130 sessions, 488 presentations/speakers and 26 posters, the conference was also one of the biggest we have ever had! But it is not just about numbers, it is about the involvement, discussions, partnerships, collaborations, motivations and friendships that are created when a like-minded community of this size comes together to discuss ‘Impact Assessment for a Just Transformation’. I was especially impressed with the thoughtfulness with which the conference symbol of the butterfly was developed, depicting how nature teaches us about transformation – from caterpillar to butterfly! Furthermore, the symbol hinted on the importance of biodiversity in this transformation, as the butterfly ‘is the only Irish insect protected under the European Habitats Directive’.

There were several highlights personally for me from the conference, some of which I would like to share here. As mentioned in my editorial from issue 41 (6) I wanted to invite editors from other journals as well for cross-fertilization of ideas. I am very pleased to report back that during the ‘meet the editor’ session, I was joined by editors from three other journals along with eminent scholars and practitioners from the environment sector which led to invigorating discussions about the challenges and opportunities of maintaining quality publications. Perhaps, I can elaborate this in a later editorial. This cross-fertilization of ideas was further reflected in the discussions we had across several sessions, emphasising on the value of pushing ourselves outside of our comfort zones. Some of the key messages emerging from the various sessions include:

• meaningful and inclusive community engagement;

• early consideration of impacts in the planning process;

• collaboration and joint thinking in decision-making by relevant stakeholders;

• importance of quality data to inform decision-making;

• connecting the different scales and tiers of decision-making;

• learning from the experience with effective follow-up;

• keeping the full picture in view from project to strategic levels.

Personally, the message from the conference which resonated deeply with me was to be open and not defensive about the future. Yes, it is uncertain and there are things we don’t understand. But just like the caterpillar, we need to evolve and transform and be receptive to the potential of what lies ahead. This spirit is reflected in the theme for next year’s conference titled as ‘Impact Assessment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’. I am pleased to say that IAPA has aligned with next year’s conference theme in announcing a special issue on ‘Artificial Intelligence’ which is currently being advertised. If you are interested to contribute, please get in touch with Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer, Gesa Geißler or myself.

In this issue, I present to you seven full research articles. In the first paper from Denmark, the authors explore how Sustainable Development Goals can be integrated with an EIA tender, using the case of the construction of a new metro in Copenhagen. The next paper from South Africa uses visitor surveys as a supporting tool for EIA follow-up within the protected area of Nombolo Mdhluli Conference Centre development in the Kruger National Park. The focus of the third paper is on the development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) effectiveness key performance indicators (KPIs) for Ireland. The authors of the fourth paper argue for an epistemology of change-making (changeology) to make the EIA process fit-for-purpose and in doing so reflect upon the case study of England’s EIA system. The fifth paper is from Botswana where the authors investigate the Environmental Assessment (EA) simplification interventions in the country to suggest that these efforts are eroding EA benefits and accordingly recommendations are provided. Our next paper is a comparative study based on documentary case studies from Brazil and the United Kingdom, whereby the authors use an analytical framework to benchmark examples of tiering of biodiversity objectives. Finally, the authors in the seventh paper of this issue identify and promote 17 qualitative methods that are available for use in contemporary and future (next-generation) Impact Assessment processes.

Enjoy reading!