Good governance quality in Namibia’s environmental impact assessment process

References

• Ahmad B, Wood C. 2002. A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey, and Tunisia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):213–234. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00004-5.
   Google Scholar
• Alberts R, Retief F, Arts J, Roos C, Cilliers D, Fischer T. 2022. EIA decision-making and administrative justice: the substance of just decisions. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(4):296–304. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2066445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts J, Runhaar HAC, Fischer TB, Jha-Thakur U, Van Laerhoven F, Driessen PPJ, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 14(4):1250025. doi: 10.1142/S1464333212500251.
   Google Scholar
• Asefa S, Huang W. 2015. The political economy of good governance. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 10.17848/9780880994989
   Google Scholar
• Barannik AD, Capcelea A, Klees R. 2002. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems in Europe and Central Asia countries (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/771381468749086135/Environmental-impact-assessment-EIA-systems-in-Europe-and-Central-Asia-countries.
   Google Scholar
• Barker A, Jones C. 2013. A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bice S, Fischer TB. 2020. Impact assessment for the 21st century – what future? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):89–93. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1731202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Brotherton MC. 2020. Improving environmental management through indigenous people’s involvement. Environ Sci Policy. 103:10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Fundingsland M, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F, Hauptfleisch M. 2020. Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): a neo-gramscian perspective. J Cleaner Prod. 244:118694. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2016. A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: what games are played and what does this tell us about decision-making rationality and legitimacy? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 57:187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Retief F, Cave B, Fundingsland M, Duinker PN, Verheem R, Brown AL. 2018. A contribution to the conceptualization of quality in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 68(1):49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Chanchitpricha C, Bond A. 2013. Conceptualizing the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi CSF, Ruuska I, Jianhua Xu J. 2016. Environmental impact assessment of infrastructure projects: a governance perspective. J Environ Plann Manage. 59(3):393–413. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1013623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elvan OD. 2018. Analysis of environmental impact assessment practices and legislation in Turkey. Environ Sci Policy. 84:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2015. Title VI and environmental justice. Accessed 2022 June 10. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/title-vi-and-environmental-justice.
   Google Scholar
• Hartzenberg T, Kalenga P. 2015. National policies and regional integration in the South African development community (No. 2015/056). WIDER Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Husselmann SE. 2016. Environmental impact assessment in Namibia: the effectiveness of the system and its implementation in practice [ master’s thesis]. University of Cape Town.
   Google Scholar
• Ibeh C, Walmsley B. 2021. The role of impact assessment in achieving the sustainable development goals in Africa. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) 2021 conferenc; 18th -21st May 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Jalava K, Pölönen I, Hokkanen P, Kuitunen M. 2013. The precautionary principle and management of uncertainties in EIAs–analysis of waste incineration cases in Finland. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 31(4):280–290. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2013.821769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan A, Lenschow A. 2010. Environmental policy integration: a state-of-the-art review. Environ Policy Governance. 20(3):147–158. doi: 10.1002/eet.539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaapama P, Blaauw L, Zaaruka B. 2007. Consolidating democratic governance in Southern Africa. Namibia: EISA.
   Google Scholar
• Kakonge J O. 2006. Environmental impact assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: the Gambian experience. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 24(1):57–64. doi: 10.3152/147154606781765291.
   Google Scholar
• Kandetu BV, Ndjoze-Ojo BRK, Mijiga F, Nampila P. 2001. Governance and public participation: a summary of focus group survey findings. Namibia: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Keken Z, Hanušová T, Kulendík J, Wimmerová L, Zítková J, Zdražil V. 2022. Environmental impact assessment–the range of activities covered and the potential of linking to post-project auditing. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 93:106726. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Driessen PPJ, Runhaar HAC. 2013. An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries—illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai JY, Hamilton A. 2020. For whom do NGOs speak? Accountability and legitimacy in pursuit of just environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 82:106374. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marara M, Okello N, Kuhanwa Z, Douven W, Beevers L, Leentvaar J. 2011. The importance of context in delivering effective EIA: case studies from East Africa. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(3):286–296. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuleman L. 2015. Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 33(1):4–15. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.956436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Environmental and Tourism [MET]. 1995. Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy For Sustainable Development And Environmental Conservation. https://www.npc.gov.na/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Namibias-Environmental-Assessment-Policy-For-Sustainable-Development-And-Environmental-Conservation-Jan-1995.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro MB, Partidário M. 2017. Governance in strategic environmental assessment: lessons from the Portuguese practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 65:125–138. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. J Impact Assess Project Apprais. 30(1):5–14. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Bailey J. 2000. Transparency in environment impact assessment decision-making: recent developments in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 18(4):260–270. doi: 10.3152/147154600781767321.
   Google Scholar
• Mounir ZM. 2015. Evaluation of the quality of environmental impact assessment reports using Lee and Colley package in Niger Republic. Mod Appl Sci. 9(1):89–95. doi: 10.5539/mas.v9n1p89.
   Google Scholar
• Mustafa ESI, ESCWA U. 2001. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment in selected ESCWA countries/by El-sayeda I. Beirut: Moustafa.
   Google Scholar
• Nangombe LR. 2021. Evaluation of environmental impact assessments in coastal management: a case of the Erongo region in Namibia [ Doctoral dissertation]. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
   Google Scholar
• National Planning Commission [NPC]. 2015. Policy brief. Population dynamics. Windhoek, Republic of Namibia: Office of the President.
   Google Scholar
• Nshimbi CC, Fioramonti L. 2014. The will to integrate: South Africa’s responses to regional migration from the SADC region. Afr Dev Rev. 26(S1):52–63. doi: 10.1111/1467-8268.12092.
   Google Scholar
• Nuesiri EO. 2016. Accountability of Powerful Actors for Social and Environmental Outcomes. NRGF Conceptual Paper. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and CEESP.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 2016. OECD environmental performance reviews: chile 2016OECD environmental performance reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264252615-en.
   Google Scholar
• Project Management Institute [PMI]. 2017. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 6th ed. Newtown square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of Namibia. 2000. Decentralisation Enabling Act 33 Of 2000. https://www.lac.org.na/laws/annoSTAT/Decentralisation%20Enabling%20Act%2033%20of%202000.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice. About Impact Assess Rev. 61:52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roe B. 2020. Slaying the leviathan: how inconsistent restrictions on state immunity undermine the rule of law. Am U Int’l Rev. 36:105.
   Google Scholar
• Ruppel OC, Ruppel-Schlichting K, Eds. 2011. Environmental law and policy in Namibia. Windhoek: Hanns Seidel Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. Evaluating Practice to Improve PerformanceEnvironmental Assessment in a Changing World. Evaluating practice to improve performance-final report.
   Google Scholar
• Sandham LA, Van Heerden AJ, Jones CE, Retief FP, Morrison-Saunders AN. 2013. Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa. J Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38(1):155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.08.001.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair AJ, Peirson-Smith TJ, Boerchers M. 2017. Environmental assessments in the Internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation. J Mpact Assess Project Apprais. 35(2):148–157. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1251697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sosovele H. 2011. Governance challenges in Tanzania’s environmental impact assessment practice. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 5(2):126–130.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. 2011. Supporting country-led democratic governance assessments, practice note. New York: United Nations publications.
   Google Scholar
• Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sci. 15(3):398–405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A, Dupuy K. 2017. Deciding over nature: corruption and environmental impact assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 65:118–124. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2011. Governance and development. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Yang T. 2018. The emergence of the environmental impact assessment duty as a global legal norm and general principle of law. Hastings LJ. 70:525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar