|
     |
     |
|
|
|
|
International Summit on Environmental AssessmentQuebec City June 12-14, 1994 FINAL REPORT December 1994 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1994 PREFACE Environmental assessment (EA) has, after 25 years, “come of age.” Good practices have been widely adopted. Laws, procedures and methods have evolved and have been strengthened. But what now? Has EA realized its potential as a tool for supporting decision-makers? What of the call of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 for EA to support the goal of sustainable development? In considering the future of EA, we knew that managers of EA systems worldwide shared our commitment to making EA an effective tool for decision makers. What was missing was an opportunity to share our experiences, learn from one another, and find common ground for action. The result was a decision to organize the First International Summit on Environmental Assessment, in Quebec City, Canada, bringing together senior officials responsible for managing EA systems in various countries and international organizations. We were not disappointed. Indeed, thanks to the Summit and the connections and momentum it has created, we are even more optimistic than ever about the role EA can play in supporting environmental decision-making and in responding to the challenges of sustainable development. On behalf of all Summit participants, we are pleased to present this report on the Summit's discussions and recommendations. We trust that EA managers, practitioners, researchers and decision-makers will find it a useful record of what we believe will stand as a path breaking meeting on the future of EA. Summit Co-chairpersons, Michel Dorais President Richard Roberts Past President TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The Challenge for EA Managers. Strengthening Existing EA Systems. New Dimensions Future Cooperation An Agenda for Action FIGURES 1 Framework for EA Systems 2 Agenda for Action APPENDICES A List of Participants B Discussion Note C Documents Provided at the Summit INTRODUCTION Over the past 25 years, environmental assessment (EA) has evolved significantly as a process for promoting the consideration of environmental factors in planning and decision-making. Advances have been made in legislation, policies, procedures and methodologies. In countries around the world, EA managers and practitioners have gained extensive experience and knowledge. Now, in an era of rapid political and economic changes and global environmental changes, EA is under pressure to be more effective and responsive. The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, for example, called for environment and sustainable development considerations to be better integrated into planning and decision-making at all levels. Efforts are underway worldwide to find ways of strengthening EA so that it can respond successfully to these new challenges. A major two-year International EA Effectiveness Study, launched by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office of Canada (FEARO) in collaboration with the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), is reviewing the status of EA practices in countries around the world. In June 1994, the first International Summit on EA, held in Quebec City, Canada, brought together senior officials from 25 national EA agencies and six international organizations responsible for managing EA systems. The objectives of the Summit were to
This report presents a summary of the discussions and recommendations of the Summit.
THE CHALLENGE FOR EA MANAGERS Typical EA systems consist of three levels: decision-makers, managers and practitioners and the public (Figure 1). But these systems do not operate in a vacuum. Each is grounded in the unique context of the social, cultural and political values of that country. In looking at the future of EA as a decision-making tool, EA managers must recognize the pivotal role they play in the overall EA system. In effect, they are the bridge between the decision-making level and the technical and public participation level. Managers must recognize that each level has different, and often conflicting, expectations and perspectives. Decision-makers see a process that sometimes takes too long, that seems to cost too much, that appears unnecessarily complicated, and that in the end, does not always give them the kind of information they need to make a sound Managers and Practitioners see a process where the results of their work are not always taken into account in the final decisions, and where they do not always have the time and resources to do an adequate job. Members of the public see a process that may exclude them from participating in decisions that affect their lives and communities, or that may provide massive volumes of complex scientific data but few straightforward explanations. The challenge of Rio and Agenda 21, as it relates to the integration of environmental factors in decision-making, is aimed primarily at the EA manager. The manager must make the system work, must make it relevant, and must bridge the worlds of decision-makers, practitioners and the public. Central to this challenge, however, is that EA managers must develop and administer processes and practices that incorporate the basic principles of effective EA systems while acting within the constraints and context of the social, cultural and political values of their country. As EA managers focus on this challenge, one of their most important resources may well be the ideas and experiences of their colleagues in other countries and organizations around the world.
STRENGTHENING EXISTING EA SYSTEMS Summit participants agreed that special efforts were needed to ensure that EA remains a vital tool for decision-makers. In particular, EA administrators and managers have opportunities to strengthen the credibility of EA processes by developing highly effective approaches that inform and empower the public while bringing a greater measure of certainty to proponents. Administrative Capacity One of the most important challenges to EA managers is to bring a greater sense of clarity and simplicity to the process. EA has developed a reputation as being “heavy-handed” and needs to be made more accessible and understandable. Effective EA processes begin with a broader policy vision of principles and values, and provide clear guidelines and time frames. This need for simplicity also extends to making EA reports and other documents useful in terms of language, format and the highlighting of information. In addressing administrative capacity, many countries are unlikely to resort to more regulations. Rather, simple and effective approaches might include building greater public awareness, facilitating participant funding and promoting the use of mediation. A basic question remains as to whether EA processes are more effective as stand-alone systems, or integrated with broader decision-making systems. Stand-alone processes may have been necessary early on in many countries in order to establish their presence. In the post Earth Summit era, however, EA is challenged to consider complex economic, social, and ecological issues, and stand-alone systems may be too easily marginalized. In their place, EA administrators must develop effective ways to link EA into other planning and decision-making processes. Responses to this challenge will reflect the prevailing political cultures and regulatory regimes in different countries. In the end, EA should be seen as only one of the tools available to support sustainable development. EA may need to be used more consistently with other environmental management tools and policies, such as economic instruments and environmental and natural resource accounting. Procedures There are differences in opinion between those countries that favour flexible systems with various approaches to incorporating environmental factors in decision-making, and those countries that favour a more uniform international EA system. As a result, sharing and translating the experiences and perspectives of the different EA approaches in solving common problems and challenges is extremely important. In terms of strengthening specific EA procedures, a disciplined approach to scoping may be a critical step in making EA a more effective tool for decision-making. Resources required to ensure efficient scoping should be considered an investment in ensuring a more efficient and cost effective process appropriate to the scale of the project. Public participation is critical to an effective scoping effort. However, in attempting to streamline the scoping process, EA managers could also leave themselves open to criticism of “holding back” data and information
NEW DIMENSIONS Summit participants recognized that there is an inherent trade-off between strengthening existing systems and responding to the challenges of the new dimensions of EA. There may be dangers, for example, in moving into new areas while neglecting the weaknesses in existing approaches. Strategic EA Strategic EA is a relatively new concept. It involves the application of EA principles to decisions at program and policy levels, rather than to decisions on specific projects. The term “strategic EA” has been applied to a range of assessments - sectoral, regional, and policy. Such a blanket definition may hide real differences and difficulties. On the one hand, the application of EA to sectoral and regional levels has proven effective in reducing the costs and amount of work required in project-level EAs, and in some cases even eliminating the need for an EA for such projects. However, there is no consensus that EA should or can be applied as easily to policy or program proposals. By their very nature, policy decisions are based on intangible, political factors, and may not be easily accommodated into the relatively rigorous analytical process of EA. As well, there may be a danger in “pulling EA in too many directions”. Some developing countries, for example, may need to strengthen their processes for handling project EAs before taking on regional or policy EAs. The tools and techniques of policy EA are not well developed. The goal is not to do an EA of policy, but rather to ensure that the environmental considerations of policies are taken into account in an integrated way. In this light, a new term - such as “environmental appraisal” or “environmental test” - might help clarify the conceptual differences. There is also the question of who should pay for strategic EAs. While the costs of project EAs can be more readily recovered from proponents, there is no clearly identifiable proponent for a strategic EA. Finally, it is clear that public participation must play an important role in strategic EA. By engaging a wide range of interests, strategic EAs can build greater awareness of and enthusiasm for the principles for environmental sustainability. Environmental Sustainability EA may be one of the most effective tools available to decision-makers in support of environmental sustainability. Projects could be assessed on the basis of their support for or compatibility with long term policy goals and with reference to sustainability principles and indicators. By considering sustainability questions, EA managers are going beyond the traditional definitions of the environment. This, in turn, brings them into contact with new sectors of society. Conventional EA concepts and approaches may not be well understood or appropriate for these groups.
Capacity-building A major challenge to EA is to strengthen the capacities of individuals, institutions, and countries to conduct and participate in EAs. Capacity-building should be seen as a broader or more holistic approach than training. It must seek to strengthen the relationships among various elements of environmental decision-making. That is, capacity-building must address institutional development, information needs, monitoring and follow-up procedures, policy development, laws and regulations, economic tools and education.
The following definition of EA capacity-building, developed by Summit participants, captures this holistic approach: “the development of an appropriate organizational structure, with adequate and trained interdisciplinary staff and adequate resources to design and manage an EA system. Capacity-building also includes the development of
This means that capacity-building efforts need to move beyond the traditional focus of training EA practitioners. Greater attention should be given to helping organizations outside the environmental sphere, such as those involved in making decisions on trade, health and national security policies, to integrate environmental considerations into their decision-making processes. As well, capacity-building efforts must not be restricted to developing countries, but must address the needs of countries in transition and highly industrialized countries. The lack of institutions capable of meeting these wide-ranging EA capacity-building needs is a significant concern. There are well regarded EA centres of excellence, but they tend to be relatively isolated, and there appear to be few opportunities to build on their collective expertise and information. As well, no one centre of excellence can offer the full spectrum of expertise needed to effectively build a country's EA capacity.
FUTURE COOPERATION Participants were unanimous in endorsing greater coordination and collaboration among EA managers to build on the momentum of the Summit. EA managers worldwide need a better means of knowing what is happening or about to happen in the management of other EA systems. This would facilitate the coordination of activities and the ability to learn from other experiences. Options for following up on the Summit range from continuing the current ad hoc communications among managers to establishing more formal links, possibly in conjunction with the cooperative work of the EA Effectiveness Study. Future cooperative efforts must take into account the priorities and capacities of participating countries and organizations, and be developed within existing institutions to the fullest extent possible. For example, an international centre could serve as a clearing house for the exchange of management practices and as a source of information on international expertise for many countries. However, more flexible and decentralized approaches to sharing information may be more effective in encouraging smaller organizations and countries to participate in cooperative efforts among EA managers. Finally, information and communication technologies can play an increasingly powerful role in developing better communication and closer coordination among EA managers in countries and organizations.
AN AGENDA FOR ACTION Participants agreed to action in three interrelated areas (Figure 2):
FEARO (Canada) agreed to coordinate immediate follow-up activity on the action items. International EA Effectiveness Study The Summit strongly endorsed completion of the Study. There was an agreement that the Study should still aim to complete its work by the end of 1995. Initial results should be reported at the 15th Annual IAIA conference in June 1995 in South Africa. Study organizers sought and received expressions of interest from countries and international organizations in participating in and contributing to the study. There also was support for establishing a small international steering/advisory committee to provide direction and oversee the completion of the study. A detailed workplan outlining the activities required to complete the study will be developed. Participants emphasized that care will need to be taken in applying the recommendations of the study in a variety of settings and under a variety of laws, regulations and decision-making processes. They noted that common problems may be solved in different ways from one country to another, and suggested that the presentation of the results of the study should reflect this variability. International EA Manager's Network Summit participants took steps to formalize the establishment of an international network for EA managers to provide greater opportunities for networking and exchanges. The network could
Membership in the network would be through focal points established by national agencies and international organizations involved in managing EA systems. These, in turn, would be responsible for linking the international network with appropriate domestic or regional networks. FEARO (Canada) agreed to follow up on developing the network concept by preparing and distributing to Summit participants a discussion paper outlining proposals for the objectives, organizational structure and activities of the network. Several other participants offered to carry on the work of the network, possibly by helping to support a secretariat.
Capacity-building Summit participants agreed to actively coordinate their capacity-building efforts. They recognized the potential for the EA Effectiveness Study and the International Network of EA Managers to support the on-going work on capacity-building by such organizations as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). UNEP offered to establish a working group on EA training, in cooperation with other UN agencies. Several Summit participants expressed support for the initiative and agreed to participate in the working group. Participants also agreed to actively explore the potential for emerging information and communication technologies to support capacity-building efforts. Looking ahead Summit participants emphasized that the three action items are strongly interrelated and reinforcing. The Effectiveness Study will provide a process for continuous learning, as well as a series of valuable information products for the EA Managers' Network and for various capacity-building initiatives. Moreover, the process by which the Study has been developed and will proceed can help build the working relationships and contacts among EA managers that can be of benefit to both the network and capacity-building efforts. The EA Managers' Network, in turn, should help broaden distribution of the results of the Effectiveness Study and strengthen follow-up on its conclusions and recommendations. It will also serve as a fundamental resource for future capacity-building initiatives. Capacity-building efforts will not only use the network for information sharing and skills development, but provide a wide range of opportunities to enrich participation in and support for the network. Finally, participants endorsed the concept of regular Summit meetings of EA managers, either on an annual or biennial basis. APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS CO-CHAIRS Mr. Michel Dorais Mr. Richard Roberts COUNTRIES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AUSTRALIA Mr. Barry Carbon Mr. John Ashe CAMBODIA Mr. Mok Mareth CHINA Mr. Zhigi Qiao Mr. Xinmin Li Ms. Bing Li DENMARK Mr. Henrik Wulff Dr. Bo Elling FINLAND Dr. Markku Nurmi FRANCE Mr. Jean Lafont Ms. Monique Turlin GERMANY Dr. Heinrich Freiherr von Lersner HONG KONG Mr. Robert J.S. Law INDIA Dr. Gopal K. Pandey Mr. R.H. Khwaja INDONESIA Mr. Paul L. Coutrier ISRAEL Ms. Valerie Brachya Ms. Bina Bar-On ITALY Mr. Giancarlo Boeri JAPAN Mr. Teruo Saito Mr. Hideyuki Mori MOROCCO Mr. Jaâfar Boulejiouch THE NETHERLANDS Mr. Jan Jaap de Boer Ms. Yvonne de Vries Mr. Jules J. Scholten NORWAY Mr. Stig Roar Husby Dr. Arne Tesli POLAND Mr. Bernard Blaszczyk Mrs. Jolanta Rawska-Olejniczak RUSSIA Mr. Vladimir N. Lopatin Dr. Anatoli A. Iskra SPAIN Mr. Emilio Herranz Garcia SWEDEN Mr. Tord Céwe UNITED KINGDOM Mr. John Zetter UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr. Ray Clark Mr. William Dickerson VIETNAM Dr. Pham Khoi Nguyen Mrs. Chu Thi Sang ZIMBABWE Mr. Irvin Kunene Mr. Shem Chaibva Dr. John A. Boyle EARTH COUNCIL Ms. Mary MacDonald INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Dr. Barry Dalal-Clayton INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE Mr. Mike Cockerell Mr. Paddy Gresham UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Ms. Susan Becker A/Prof. Lex Brown UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM Mr. Hussein Abaza THE WORLD BANK Mr. Robert Goodland HOST COUNTRY - CANADA Mr. Patrice LeBlanc Mr. André Harvey Mr. Jean Pronovost Mr. Bertrand Tétreault Mr. Barry Sadler MEMBERS OF SECRETARIAT Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office Ms. Ginette Doré Mr. Gordon Harris Ms. Chantal Sirois APPENDIX B “EVALUATING PRACTICE TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE” DISCUSSION NOTE 1. INTRODUCTION Canada's Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) in cooperation with the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) is hosting an International Summit on Environmental Assessment, June 12-14, 1994 in Quebec City, Canada. This note is to facilitate discussion at the Summit. It is organised into four parts: 1) rationale, objectives and background of the Summit; 2) key themes and questions on which participants are asked to focus; 3) the process for sequencing and structuring discussion; and 4) options for follow-up on the results of discussion. To further support and focus the discussion, countries and international organisation participating on the Summit are encouraged to prepare a short (3-5 pages) paper on the issues. This should prove useful in Summit reporting. 2. RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND The rationale for holding the Summit rests on two pillars: i) the opportunity to mark 25 years of experience in applying environmental assessment (EA); and ii) the need for senior officials to meet and discuss the strategic challenges involved in the management of EA systems and processes. The objectives established for the Summit are twofold: i) to exchange information and views on current issues, emerging trends and future directions in EA as well as major initiatives that are underway; and ii) to consider practical options for improving and strengthening EA systems and processes. During the last quarter-century, EA has been widely adopted and undergone considerable evolution in laws, procedures and methods. This process is now applied, formally and informally, in more than 50 countries around the world, and by many international agencies. New expectations and added demands are being placed on EA, notably by the agreement reached at the Earth Summit (e.g. Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Convention on Biological Diversity). While significant advances have been made over the last twenty-five years, there is still much more to do in order that the full potential of EA in contributing to informed decision making is realized. The Summit is organised as a policy forum, bringing together for the first time, heads and senior officials from national agencies and international organisations with a major role and responsibility for administering EA systems and processes. Summit participants will be uniquely qualified to address the strategic challenges involved in organizing and overseeing EA systems, managing the process to facilitate informed decision making, and advising on institutional reforms that respond to new demands such as the sustainability agenda. The agenda for the Summit is based on preliminary results from the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, and incorporates wide consultation with many of the countries and international organisations that will take part in the Summit. Under existing bilateral agreements, workshops and meetings were held with Australia, New Zealand, China, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and the United States. Other international seminars directly contributing to the effectiveness study were held by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), World Resources Institute (WRI), and Centre for Environmental Management and Planning (CEMP), Aberdeen. A brief overview of the results of the study will be presented at the Summit. 3. THEMES AND QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION At the Summit, it is proposed to organise the discussion around three themes: 1. strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of existing EA systems and processes; 2. responding to new requirements and directions, such as the application of EA at the policy level; and 3. promoting mechanisms for cooperation in such areas as exchange of the information, system and process development, and capacity building. 3.1. STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING EXISTING EA SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES The areas selected for attention under this theme are the following: 1. improving the contribution of EA to decision making; and 2. capitalizing on immediate opportunities for making cost-effective improvements to existing EA systems and processes. 3.1.1. The role of EA in decision-making varies among institutional systems. Some EA systems serve as decision-making processes (e.g. for project approvals). Many, however, provide information and recommendations on which decisions are taken by politicians and others. In both instances, criticisms are made about the timeliness of EA in relation to business and political windows for decisions as well as the utility of environmental impact statements (EISs) and EA reports for clarifying the consequences and alternatives associated with development proposals, and the trade offs involved in striking a balance between environmental, social and economic considerations. These issues become especially important in the context of sustainable development. What lessons - successes and constraints - can be drawn from experience with integrating EA and decision making in different systems and institutions? How might the problems identified be resolved in the short versus the long term? Which approaches show particular promise for communicating the results and benefits of EA to decision makers and other constituencies? How can heads and senior officials of EA agencies make a difference here? 3.1.2. Several immediate opportunities for making cost-effective changes to EA systems and processes have been identified as part of the EA Effectiveness Study. Such changes could include the following: i) improved coordination of efforts to assist countries and agencies to build capacity to develop, administer and manage EA systems and processes; and ii) enhanced means of exchanging information and experiences among officials responsible for EA systems and processes. iii) clear principles, guidelines and codes of good practice for more effective screening, scoping, review of the quality of EISs and reports and follow-up and monitoring; and iv) improved harmonization of EA requirements among/between countries and international organizations. In addition, public participation consistently emerges as the single, most important systemic issue of process strengthening, and so needs to be reflected in and balanced with technical analysis. What lessons - successes and constraints - can be drawn from dealing with these issues under different institutions, systems and processes? How might the problems identified be resolved best in the short versus the long term? Which other aspects of EA systems and processes also show promise of immediate returns on the time and effort invested? How can heads and senior officials of EA agencies make a difference here? 3.2. NEW REQUIREMENTS AND DIRECTIONS Two areas have been selected for attention: 1. whether and how EA should address cumulative effects and large scale issues of sustainability, climate change, biodiversity, acid rain, desertification, etc; and 2. whether and how EA should be applied at higher levels of decision making - to policies, programmes and plans. These issues are interrelated, and response to one may well be contingent on what is done on the other. 3.2.1. In many systems, EA is applied largely at the project level. This means, among other things, that there are difficulties in addressing and dealing with cumulative effects - which are now expressed at ecosystem, bio-regional and global levels. Following the Earth Summit, further demands are being made for EA processes to incorporate sustainability principles and criteria, and to include issues such as protection of biodiversity within their scope of review. Some agencies are investigating the framework, analytical tools and information base that are available or may be needed to support consideration of biodiversity or global change in EA, and the levels of analysis and decision-making at which such an approach may be applied. The expansion in scope of coverage, however, begs a number of questions about the capability and effectiveness of existing EA systems and processes to adequately address these issues, and carries potential implications for the credibility of EA. What experiences and perspectives are available to date regarding the use of EA to address cumulative effects and large scale issues of sustainability, climate change, biodiversity and so on? How does past progress in considering cumulative effects help in this regard? What changes are being made or contemplated to incorporate cumulative effects and large scale issues of sustainability, climate change, biodiversity and so on into EA? Which other policy and planning systems might be used singly or in combination with EA to cover off large scale issues. 3.2.2. One option for dealing with the above-mentioned issues is to apply EA to policies, plans and programmes, as well as projects. This approach allows EA to get at the source rather than just the symptoms (impacts) of problems. It also affords the opportunity for developing tiered EA systems in which policy or programme review could help focus and streamline project impact analysis. The application of EA as these strategic levels of decision-making is being undertaken already in a number of countries and others are studying its introduction. To date, there is still considerable discussion about the political and institutional constraints on applying EA at the policy and programme levels, and the value and practicality of employing the frameworks and processes developed for project EA at a strategic level. What experiences and perspectives are available, to-date, regarding the application of EA to policies, plans, and programmes? How are different countries and agencies introducing a strategic approach? Which legal and institutional arrangement appear to show promise (e.g. formal versus informal)? To what extent are aspects of the existing system (e.g. guidelines, procedures and methods) applicable to EA of policies, plans and programmes? 3.3. MECHANISMS FOR COOPERATION Under this theme, there are two matters for discussion: i) what, in general, may be done by participating countries and international organizations about the challenges identified at the Summit; and ii) whether, in particular, the participants see any value in continuing their dialogue in the future in a similar forum or in other ways. In this context, it should be noted that many formal and informal mechanisms are in place already for countries, organizations and individuals to cooperate on EA, on information exchange, on system and process development, and on institution and capacity building. For example, these include national centres of excellence (e.g. established in the European Community), bilateral and multilateral meetings (e.g. Canada and Netherlands, the Nordic Countries EA Working Group), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans- boundary Context and the world wide membership of IAIA. The question is whether and how these arrangements need to be supplemented to support the effective application of EA, including dealing with the issues raised at the Summit. Specific direction is also invited on the continuation and focus of the International Study of EA Effectiveness. Obviously, the answers may vary significantly for industrial and developing countries. Further support and practical assistance is considered necessary to establish appropriate institutional arrangements and technical capacities. This applies to many developing countries, and corresponds with the World Bank's view that the success of EA as a means to ensure that development projects are environmentally sound and sustainable depends in large measure on local capability in the institutions of borrowing countries. What lessons (successes and constraints) may be drawn from recent experiences and initiatives with international cooperation on EA issues? Which approaches appear to show promise for information exchange, system and process development, training and capacity building, etc? How does the international study on EA effectiveness fit into this picture? Should an EA Summit or similar forum be held again? 4. FORMAT OF DISCUSSION The discussion will be organized in a “round table” format. To the extent possible, an informal exchange will be encouraged, with participants speaking on issues briefly and bluntly. There will be no detailed record of proceedings. However, the organisers hope to be able to state in a brief report where consensus on issues exists and where it does not. The Summit will begin on the evening of June 12, 1994 with an orientation session. This session will include a brief overview of the results of the International Study of the Effectiveness of EA and a review of the challenge and objectives of the Summit. It will provide an opportunity to review and fine tune the agenda. Discussion over the following two days will consist of three sessions dealing with one of the three themes outlined above. The discussion will be led by the Summit co-chairs. Subsequently, each session will begin with a short introduction to and perspective on the issues from a participating country or international organization. 5. PRODUCTS AND OUTPUTS At this stage, the organizers foresee three possible products from the Summit: i) a short report on the results of discussion, including an agenda for action that sets out what should be done to address the issues reviewed at the Summit; ii) a follow-up program that would be designed to move forward on the “Agenda for Action”. This would be dependent on the interest and willingness of participants at the Summit to move forward with such an initiative. The afternoon of June 12 is set aside and available for participants to review this option; and iii) a presentation by Michel Dorais, the Summit co-chair, to the plenary session of the IAIA ‘94 Conference outlining the results of the Summit and a challenge statement to conference participants. APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AT THE INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Au, Elvis W.K., Baldwin, Peter J., Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong; “Application of the EIA Process in Hong Kong - Toward a more Effective and Formal System”. Australia, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council; June 1994. “A National Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia”. Brachya, Valerie and Marinov, Uri, Ministry of the Environment, Israel; May 1994. “Operation of the EIA System in Israel, Compared to some other EIA Systems”. Brazil, Brazilian Chapter, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA); June 1994. “The Effectiveness of the Environmental Assessment (EA) in Brazil, Preliminary Report”. Carbon, Barry; Australia, June 1994. “An Australian Perspective on Environmental Impact Assessment”. Chaibva, Shem, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Zimbabwe; June 1994. “Environmental Impact Assessment in Zimbabwe - Past, Present and Future”. Coutrier, Paul, Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL), Indonesia; June 1994. “Improvement of Environmental Assessment in Indonesia”. Dalal-Clayton, Barry, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), United Kingdom; . “Some Basic Principles for More Effective Environmental Assessment”. de Boer, Jan Jaap, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands; June 1994. “E.I.A. and effectivity - Experiences in the Netherlands”. France, Ministère de l'environnement; June 1994; “Évaluation de la pratique pour un meilleur rendement : contribution de la France”. France, Ministère de l'environnement; “Étude d'impact sur l'environnement - Législation, Décrets et Circulaire d'application”. France, Ministère de l'environnement; June 1994; “L'évaluation environnementale des politiques et programmes en France”. Goodland, Robert, The World Bank, United States; June 1994. “Priorities in Environmental Assessment”. Goodland, Robert and Edmundson, Valerie, The World Bank, United States; “Environmental Assessment and Development”. An IAIA-World Bank Symposium. Goodland, Robert, The World Bank, United States; . “Proceedings - EA Technical Workshop for Mutlilateral Financial Institutions”. Gresham, Paddy, International Union for the Conservaion of Nature, The World Conservation Union, Switzerland; June 1994. “Issues for the Future of Environmental Assessment”. India, Ministry of Environment and Forests; 1994. “The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994”. India, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board; “Towards a Cleaner Environment...”. Indonesia, BAPEDAL Environmental Impact Management Agency with Environmental Management Development in Indonesia (EMDI); 1993. “Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 51 of 1993 - Regarding Environmental Impact Assessment”. Indonesia, BAPEDAL Environmental Impact Management Agency with Environmental Management Development in Indonesia (EMDI); 1993. “Revised Government Regulation Concerning EIA Process -Highlights of PP51/1993 of Indonesia”. Indonesia, BAPEDAL Environmental Impact Management Agency with Environmental Management Development in Indonesia (EMDI); 1992. “A Guide to Environmental Assessment in Indonesia”. Iskra, Dr. A.A., All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute of Chemical Technology; June 1994. “Environmental Safety, Principles and Criteria for the Assessment of Dangerous Facilities”. Japan, Planning and Coordination Bureau, Environment Agency; 1994. “Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in Japan”. Japan, National Survey on the Natural Environment, Environment Agency; January 1994. “Aspects of Nature”. Lopatin, Vladimir N., Natural Resources Russian Federation, Russia; “Environmental Assessment and Review in Russia”. Lutgen, Guy; Cabinet du Ministre, Ministère de l'environnement, des Ressources naturelles et de l'Agriculture; Belgium, 1994. “Étude d'incidences sur l'environnement”. Nguyen, Pham Khoi and Thi Sang, Chu, National Environmental Agency, Vietnam; June 1994. “An Outline of EIA and its perspective in Vietnam”. Nurmi, Markku, Ministry of the Environment, Finland; June 1994. “Environmental Impact Assessment in Finland”. Pandey, G.K., Ministry of Environment and Forests, India; June, 1994. “Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Projects in India”. Rotenberg, Ruth, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, United States; . “A Decade's Experience in Implementing a Land-Use Environmental Impact Assessment System in Israel in View of the American and European Experience”. Saito, Teruo, Environment Agency, Japan; June 1994. “Environmental Impact Assessment in Japan”. Scholten, Jules J. and van Eck, Marja, with contributions of colleagues, The Netherlands; . “Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands”. Tétreault, Bertrand; Québec, June 1994. “Évaluation de la pratique pour un meilleur rendement”. Synthèse des positions du Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnment (BAPE), Québec. The Netherlands, The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; June 1994. “The Netherlands, Country Status Report on EIA”. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United States; 1994. “Capacity 21”. United Kingdom, Department of the Environment; January 1994. “Sustainable Development - The UK Strategy”. United Kingdom, Department of the Environment; November 1992. “Removal of Crown Exemption from Planning Law”. A Consultation Paper. United Kingdom, Department of the Environment; March 1994.”Environmental Assessment: Amendment of Regulations”. Wulff, Henrik, Ministry of the Environment, Denmark; June, 1994. “The Procedure of EIA on Project in Denmark”. Zhiqi, Qiao and Xinmin, Li, National Environment Protection Agency, People's Republic of China; May, 1994. “The Practice and Development of Chineese EIA” |
|
