skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment system in Estonia

Abstract

To be effective, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, first, has to minimize the probability that projects with significant environmental effects are implemented without EIA, and second, minimize the number of EIAs, which do not provide decision makers with essential information, so that the decision is improved as a result of EIA. The objective of this study was to find out how frequently in Estonia the projects implemented without EIA have caused significant environmental effects, and to measure the relative frequency of EIAs that have no influence on decision. An extensive survey with e-mail distributed questionnaires was carried out to reveal information from governmental agencies, local self-governments, and developers. There was no evidence that projects authorized without EIA have had environmental impacts, which could have been mitigated as a result of EIA. In contrast, about half of EIAs did not alter the decision of relevant authorities. This proportion was valid to both mandatory EIAs and those initiated on judgement basis. In our view, the proportion of no-influence EIAs was excessive and indicated the need to reconsider the provisions applying to the projects with a mandatory EIA requirement as well as judgements practice.

Authors:
 [1];  [1]
  1. Institute of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Tallinn University, 25 Narva Road, 10120 Tallinn (Estonia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21364724
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Impact Assessment Review; Journal Volume: 30; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.001; PII: S0195-9255(09)00125-5; Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPERS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; ESTONIA; PROBABILITY; DOCUMENT TYPES; EASTERN EUROPE; EUROPE

Citation Formats

Heinma, Kaupo, E-mail: kaupo@environment.e, and Poder, Tonis, E-mail: tonisp@tlu.e. Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment system in Estonia. United States: N. p., 2010. Web. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.001.
Heinma, Kaupo, E-mail: kaupo@environment.e, & Poder, Tonis, E-mail: tonisp@tlu.e. Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment system in Estonia. United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.001.
Heinma, Kaupo, E-mail: kaupo@environment.e, and Poder, Tonis, E-mail: tonisp@tlu.e. 2010. "Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment system in Estonia". United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.001.
@article{osti_21364724,
title = {Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment system in Estonia},
author = {Heinma, Kaupo, E-mail: kaupo@environment.e and Poder, Tonis, E-mail: tonisp@tlu.e},
abstractNote = {To be effective, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, first, has to minimize the probability that projects with significant environmental effects are implemented without EIA, and second, minimize the number of EIAs, which do not provide decision makers with essential information, so that the decision is improved as a result of EIA. The objective of this study was to find out how frequently in Estonia the projects implemented without EIA have caused significant environmental effects, and to measure the relative frequency of EIAs that have no influence on decision. An extensive survey with e-mail distributed questionnaires was carried out to reveal information from governmental agencies, local self-governments, and developers. There was no evidence that projects authorized without EIA have had environmental impacts, which could have been mitigated as a result of EIA. In contrast, about half of EIAs did not alter the decision of relevant authorities. This proportion was valid to both mandatory EIAs and those initiated on judgement basis. In our view, the proportion of no-influence EIAs was excessive and indicated the need to reconsider the provisions applying to the projects with a mandatory EIA requirement as well as judgements practice.},
doi = {10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.001},
journal = {Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
number = 4,
volume = 30,
place = {United States},
year = 2010,
month = 7
}
  • Authorities in Eastern European countries are looking for best available policy tools from the West, and policy instruments tailored for a Western context are being introduced massively in the former state socialist countries of Europe. This study examines some of the contextual factors that hamper the introduction of modern, Western tools of environmental management within previously state socialist countries. These are highlighted through a comparison of how environmental impact assessment (EIA) is put into practice in Estonia and Norway. Estonia and Norway belong to the same European Baltic-Nordic region, but the two countries have a dramatically different history for mostmore » of this century.« less
  • The degree of effectiveness of environmental impact assessment (EIA) for particular projects is associated with the existence of mechanisms of organizational control. Five dimensions of EIA effectiveness are considered: procedural compliance, completeness of EIA documents, methods to assess impacts, influence on project decisions, and weight given to environmental factors. Six mechanisms of control are introduced and illustrated by programs and projects in several countries. Experience in the Philippines under President Marcos demonstrates that procedural control in the form of EIA regulations, when used without other control mechanisms, will lead at most to token compliance. Judicial control, as practiced in themore » US, yields high procedural compliance. Evaluative control can yield effective EIA, but some systems based on this form of control treat only a small fraction of the major projects proposed. Both control exerted by development assistance organizations and control by professionals have great potential for yielding effective EIA, but that potential has not been fully realized. Control exerted directly by citizens or agencies not otherwise involved in EIA is uncommon, but cases from Taiwan demonstrate that those controls can be significant. An understanding of relationships between control mechanisms and EIA effectiveness is useful in designing EIA policies and programs.« less
  • The number of environmental licence applications for projects affecting Indigenous peoples in Brazil has increased since the implementation of a major infrastructure program (Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento) in 2007. This increase has caused problems for Brazilian agencies involved in environmental licensing procedures (IBAMA, FUNAI and others). We analyze the Brazilian environmental licensing procedure for situations involving Indigenous peoples, Maroons (Quilombolas) or other traditional communities in order to identify potential improvements for Brazil and potentially other countries. Although Brazilian procedures are consistent with international best practice in environmental licensing, in practice social impacts are inadequately addressed, mitigation measures are poorlymore » implemented, and there is a lack of enforcement and compliance. The paper is based on document analysis and interviews with key actors in governmental and non-governmental organizations and Indigenous leaders. We suggest that Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes need to be conducted at the earliest stages of project planning, and that Indigenous peoples should actively participate in impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation processes. In order to achieve a social licence to operate, there needs to be full recognition of traditional knowledge and acceptance of Indigenous values and concepts. We also recommend increased involvement of social experts and mediators as well as improved accountability, enforcement and grievance mechanisms in the licensing process. - Highlights: • The Brazilian environmental licensing system needs to address social impacts better. • Communities need to be consulted at the earliest stage possible. • Indigenous peoples need to be invited to participate in impact assessment teams. • Independent Indigenous committees to monitor implementation of mitigation measures. • Accountability, enforcement and grievance mechanisms need to be improved.« less
  • New environmental regulations in the Czech Republic issued after the political changes in the fall of 1989 also include environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental liability acts. Such laws, however, are in some cases misused, or even abused. The EIA law recognizes a certified person'' who is the only subject to take part in the EIA process either as an author of the EIA report or as a reviewer of it. Even if the assessment procedure is an interdisciplinary team task, professional firms, consulting companies, university departments, scientific and research institutions, or teams are not eligible to apply for themore » certificate. Only a single person is allowed by the act to be certified. This does not allow full competition between teams and firms involved in EIA, promotes corruption, and may exclude from the process some genuinely independent experts whose interest is not focused on EIA but rather on individual environmental issues. The status of a certified person also disqualifies foreign experts for whom the language barrier may be a serious obstacle.« less