Tiering biodiversity issues from strategic environmental assessment to environmental impact assessment: exploring documentary evidence from Brazil and England

References

• Arts J, Kalle H. 2012. Tiering - challenges and recent developments. Paper 32nd Annual Meeting of IAIA; May; Porto.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Tomlinson P, Voogd H. 2011. Planning in tiers? Tiering as a way of linking SEA and EIA. Handb Strateg Environ Assess. 415–436.
   Google Scholar
• Bond AJ, Fischer TB. 2022. Characterising the collaboration between academia and practice in UK environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 97:106899. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2021. Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 86:106508. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownlie S, Treweek J. 2018. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment international best practice principles. Special publication series N 3. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment. accessed 20 Jan 2022. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP3-Biodiversity-Ecosystem-Services.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Carmichael L, Townshend TG, Fischer TB, Lock K, Petrokofsky C, Sheppard A, Sweeting D, Ogilvie F. 2019. Urban planning as an enabler of urban health: challenges and good practice in England following the 2012 planning and public health reforms. Land Use Policy. 84:154–162. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan S, Bauer S, Betsill MM, Biermann F, Boran I, Bridgewater P, Pettorelli N, Bustamente MMC, Deprez A, Dodds F. 2022. The global biodiversity framework needs a robust action agenda. Nat Ecol Evol. 1–2. doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01953-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutinho M, Bynoe M, Pires SM, Leão F, Bento S, Borrego C. 2019. Impact assessment: tiering approaches for sustainable development planning and decision-making of a large infrastructure project. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37(6):460–470. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1578481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming K, Tavares D. 2022. Using strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment to assess ecological connectivity at multiple scales in a national park context. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(6):507–516. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2031553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham CA, Crick HQ, Morecroft MD, Thomas CD, Beale CM. 2021. Translating area-based conservation pledges into efficient biodiversity protection outcomes. Commun Biol. 4(1):1–5. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02590-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Santo EM, Ásgeirsdóttir Á, Barros-Platiau A, Biermann F, Dryzek J, Gonçalves LR, Young O, Mendenhall E, Mitchell R, Nyman E, Scobie M. 2019. Protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: an earth system governance perspective. Earth Syst Governance. 2:100029. doi: 10.1016/j.esg.2019.100029.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz S. 2022. A fabric of life view of the world. Science. 375(6586):1204–1204. doi: 10.1126/science.abp8336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enríquez-de-Salamanca Á. 2023. SEA and EIA: uncertain boundaries in Spain. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(6):506–513. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2273610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Off J Eur Communities. L197:30–37.
   Google Scholar
• Fearnside PM. 2016. Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science. 353(6301):746–748. doi: 10.1126/science.aag0254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidler C, Noble B. 2012. Advancing strategic environmental assessment in the offshore oil and gas sector: lessons from Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 34:12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer TB, Onyango V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30(4):253–263. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.740953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallardo ALCF, Bond A. 2011. Investigating the effectiveness of environmental assessment of land use change: A comparative study of the approaches taken to perennial biomass crop planting in São Paulo and England. Biomass Bioenerg. 35(5):2285–2297. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallardo ALCF, Bond A. 2023. Delivering an analytical framework for evaluating the delivery of biodiversity objectives at strategic and project levels of impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 99:107049. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallardo ALCF, Machado DMM, Kniess CT. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazilian academic research. Ambient soc. 24:24. doi: 10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200022r3vu2021l5ao.
   Google Scholar
• Gallardo ALCF, Rosa JCS, Sánchez LE. 2022. Addressing ecosystem services from plan to project to further tiering in impact assessment: lessons from highway planning in São Paulo, Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 92:106694. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallardo ALCF, Santos CAC, Bond A, Moretto EM, Montaño M, Athayde S. 2022. Translating best practice principles into criteria for evaluating the consideration of biodiversity in SEA practice. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(5):437–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson J, Therivel R. 2019. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• González A, Hochstrasser T, Fry J, Scott P, Grist B, Jones M. 2013. Evaluating Ireland’s IBIA as an approach to improving the quality and effectiveness of biodiversity impact assessment. J Environ Manage. 131:150–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González A, Therivel R. 2022. Raising the game in environmental assessment: insights from tiering practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 92:106695. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez M, Bekessy SA, Gordon A. 2021. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an evaluation of six Australian cases. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 87:106552. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honrado JP, Vieira C, Soares C, Monteiro MB, Marcos B, Pereira HM, Partidário MR. 2013. Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 40:14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jha-Thakur U, Fischer TB. 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA system: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemos CC, Fischer TB, Souza MP. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment in tourism planning—extent of application and quality of documentation. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 35:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longato D, Cortinovis C, Albert C, Geneletti D. 2021. Practical applications of ecosystem services in spatial planning: lessons learned from a systematic literature review. Environ Sci Policy. 119:72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malvestio AC, Montaño M. 2019. From medicine to poison: how flexible strategic environmental assessment may be? Lessons from a non-regulated SEA system. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37(5):437–451. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1574390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandai SS, de Souza MMP. 2021. Guidelines for the analysis of the inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 87:106523. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milner-Gulland EJ, Addison P, Arlidge WN, Baker J, Booth H, Brooks T, Watson JE, Burgass MJ, Ekstrom J, Zu Ermgassen SOSE. 2021. Four steps for the earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth. 4(1):75–87. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011.
   Google Scholar
• Montaño M, Fischer TB. 2019. Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37(2):97–106. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1550185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montaño M, Tshibangu GM, Malvestio AC. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species? Handb Strateg Environ Assess. 363.
   Google Scholar
• Montoya JM, Donohue I, Pimm SL. 2018. Planetary boundaries for biodiversity: implausible science, pernicious policies. Trends Ecol Evol. 33(2):71–73. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sánchez LE, Retief F, Sinclair J, Doelle M, Jones M, Wessels J, Pope J. 2020. Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN sustainable development goals. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(2):113–117. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1677089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadruz VN, Gallardo ALCF, Montaño M, Ramos HR, Ruiz MS. 2018. Identifying the missing link between climate change policies and sectoral/regional planning supported by strategic environmental assessment in emergent economies: lessons from Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 88:46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naeem S, Chazdon R, Duffy JE, Prager C, Worm B. 2016. Biodiversity and human well-being: an essential link for sustainable development. Proc R Soc B. 283(1844):20162091. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen MS, Driscoll PA. 2016. An international review of ex-post project evaluation schemes in the transport sector. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 18(1):1650008. doi: 10.1142/S1464333216500083.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson M, Wiklund H, Finnveden G, Jonsson DK, Lundberg K, Tyskeng S, Wallgren O. 2009. Analytical framework and tool kit for SEA follow-up. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(3):186–199. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet J, João E. 2022. A framework for evaluating enhancement quality as part of the EIA process. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 96:106806. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106806.
   Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 29(1):66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obura DO, Katerere Y, Mayet M, Kaelo D, Msweli S, Mather K, Nantongo P, Louis M, Kramer R, Teferi T. 2021. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science. 373(6556):746–748. doi: 10.1126/science.abh2234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira ID, Montaño M, Souza MMP. 2013. Strategic environmental assessment to improve infrastructure impact assessments in Brazil. J Environ Prot (Irvine, Calif). 4(10):1189–1196. doi: 10.4236/jep.2013.410136.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira RS, Malvestio AC. 2022. The regulation of strategic environmental assessment in Brazil. Sustainability Debate. 13(1):90–90. doi: 10.18472/SustDeb.v13n1.2022.40630.
   Google Scholar
• Partidário M, Monteiro MB, Martins R. 2023. Novel perspectives for multi-actor collaboration in strategic environmental assessment using ST4S. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 99:107023. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2022.107023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Adams WM, Díaz S, Lele S, Mace GM, Turnhout E. 2021. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat Sustain. 4(7):567–572. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phylip-Jones J, Fischer TB. 2015. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto E, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2019. Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 21(2):1950008. doi: 10.1142/S146433321950008X.
   Google Scholar
• Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 41:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popil I. 2011. Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Educ Today. 31(2):204–207. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozas-Vasquez D, Fuerst C, Geneletti D. 2019. Integrating ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment: the role of the cascade model. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 78:106291. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RSPB. 2021. Biodiversity loss: the UK’s global rank for levels of biodiversity loss. [accessed 2023 Feb 3]. https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/projects/48398rspb-biodivesity-intactness-index-summary-report-v5-1-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan K, Danylchuk A, Jordaan A. 2019. Consideration of scales in offshore wind environmental impact assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 75:59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez LE, Silva-Sánchez SS. 2008. Tiering strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment in highway planning in São Paulo, Brazil. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 28(7):515–522. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM. 2015. Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 55:21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therivel R, González A. 2021. “Ripe for decision”: tiering in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 87:106520. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tshibangu GM, Montaño M. 2016. Energy related strategic environmental assessment applied by multilateral development agencies—an analysis based on good practice criteria. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 61:27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tshibangu GM, Montaño M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 37(3–4):334–343. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1603715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilardo C, La Rovere EL. 2018. Multi-project environmental impact assessment: insights from offshore oil and gas development in Brazil. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 36(4):358–370. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1475615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilardo C, La Rovere EL, Evora JEM, Montaño M. 2020. Lost at SEA? Environmental assessment and offshore oil and gas planning in Brazil. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(3):261–268. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1720378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westin FF, dos Santos MA, Martins ID. 2014. Hydropower expansion and analysis of the use of strategic and integrated environmental assessment tools in Brazil. Rene Sust Energy Rev. 37:750–761. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Zhou Y, Yu R, Xu X, Xu M, Li G, Wang W, Yang Y. 2022. China’s biodiversity conservation in the process of implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs). J Cleaner Prod. 338:130595. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar