Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): A neo-Gramscian perspective

Abstract

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a mandatory decision-support tool in every country of the world, developed 50 years ago to ensure the consideration of the environmental consequences of development decisions prior to approval decisions being made. Specifically, the aim of developing an EIA system was to make decision-making affecting the environment more accountable, through the use of objective scientific evidence. It remains the project decision-support tool of choice despite considerable research efforts failing to provide convincing evidence that it achieves this aim. Here we explain this apparent paradox by arguing that EIA supports neoliberal agendas by facilitating economic development. We present arguments based on a neo-Gramscian perspective that explains how apparent advances in the practice of EIA are sanctioned because they actually maintain the political nature of the EIA system, which continues to undermine attempts to use evidence objectively. We use a narratives of change approach to support this perspective. We conclude that EIA can only make decision-making more accountable if strategies to depoliticise it are employed, including emphasising substantive outcomes.

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

“…Commentators from a political science perspective question the analytical validity of ‘political will’ and instead draw attention to the ways that ‘interest groups’ present causes so they become politically acceptable [ 90 ]. It is also recognized that EIAs can be influenced by vested interests [ 46 , 91 ]. They are subject to political and economic forces, and are nested within complex political decisions and processes [ 92 ], and their content is tied to broader legislative requirements as well as policy and political decision making and additional approvals processes with stakeholders with conflicting agenda [ 93 ].…”

Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment report quality in South African national parks

“…Originally conceived as an instrument to protect and conserve the biophysical environment, its mandate has since been broadened in many countries to also include the promotion of sustainable development more broadly (Cilliers et al 2020). Today over 200 countries have some form of mandatory impact assessment system (Bond et al 2020;Yang 2019). The overall aim of EIA is to inform decision-making by pro-actively considering and predicting consequences of actions on the environment before decisions are made (International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute of Environmental Assessment [IAIA] 1999).…”

Does foreign direct investment promote environmental efficiency in developing economies? Evidence from Economic Community of West African States

“…Empirical literature on environment is quite extensive with a number of studies on various environmental issues such as efficiency (Castellano, Ferretti, Musella, & Risitano, 2020;Gao & Zhang, 2013), infrastructure (Sun, Tariq, Kong, Khan, & Geng, 2018), impact assessment (Bond et al, 2019;Mubanga & Kwarteng, 2020;Ulibarri, Scott, & Perez-Figueroa, 2019;Yao, He, & Bao, 2020), regulation and governance (Chung, 2014;Dong, Tian, & Ye, 2020;Hao, Deng, Lu, & Chen, 2018;Rahnama & Aghdam, 2018;Zhang, Liu, Sun, & Wang, 2020) and direct pollution (Demena & Afesorgbor, 2020;Xu et al, 2019;Zheng & Sheng, 2017). Due to the large body of literature in this area, this study focuses on existing studies linking environmental related issues to FDI, both at single country and multicountry levels (Table 1).…”