Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally

Abstract

1. Governments around the world rely on environmental impact assessment (EIA) to understand the environmental risks of proposed developments.2. To examine the basis for these appraisals, we examine the output of EIA processes in jurisdictions within seven countries, focusing on scope (spatial and temporal), mitigation actions and whether impacts were identified as 'significant'.3. We find that the number of impacts characterized as significant is generally low.While this finding may indicate that EIA is successful at promoting environmentally sustainable development, it may also indicate that the methods used to assess impact are biased against findings of significance. To explore the methods used, we investigate the EIA process leading to significance determination. 4. We find that EIA reports could be more transparent with regard to the spatial scale they use to assess impacts to wildlife. We also find that few reports on mining projects consider temporal scales that are precautionary with regard to the effects of mines on water resources. Across our sample of reports, we find that few EIAs meaningfully consider the different ways that cumulative impacts can interact. 5. Across countries, we find that proposed mitigation measures are often characterized as effective without transparent justification, and sometimes are described in ways that render the mitigation measure proposal ambiguous.6. Across the reports in our sample, professional judgement is overwhelmingly the determinant of impact significance, with little transparency around the reasoning process involved or input by stakeholders.

Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment

“…When looking at how decisions on significance are reached, commentators have noted a failure to systematically address uncertainty [ 117 , 118 , 119 ]; a failure to recognize the political dimension of significance [ 120 ]; and a bias toward technical or quantitative analysis and positivistic reasoning at the expense of qualitative reasoning, contextual analysis, and the use of public knowledge and perspectives [ 56 , 119 , 121 ]. Singh et al [ 122 ] report how both the reasoning process for determining significance and the level of input by stakeholders is opaque. Sadler [ 123 ] observed a tendency for assessors to shift the responsibility for making judgements on significance to decision makers.…”

Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

“…An independent authority could also help implement other reforms to environmental impact assessment processes that would help reduce science suppression in industry. Reforms could include enforcing scientific rigor, independent peer review of reports, and open, timely publication, and archiving of data, reports, and decisions (Singh, Lerner, & Mach, 2018; Westwood et al., 2019a).…”

Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

“…By reframing consultation as a limited request for Tribes to disclose culturally sensitive information to pipeline developers prior to inevitable construction, regulators further limited Tribal contributions by narrowing the scope of input in ways that do not reflect Indigenous thinking about land, water, or communities. Delayed engagement and scope-limiting are not unique to the ACP, nor are they unique challenges experienced by non-federal Tribes [13,16,[190][191][192]. Still, these forms of procedural narrowing add to the growing list of barriers faced by state-recognized Tribes.…”