The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system - What works, what doesn't, and what could be improved?

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 120-128

  Pölönen, Ismo ^a   Hokkanen, Pekka ^b   Jalava, Kimmo ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^b Centre for Economic Development   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Effectiveness; EIA legislation; Environmental impact assessment; Environmental policy instruments; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EFFECTIVENESS; EIA LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FINLAND; FINNISH; HIGH QUALITY; KEY CONSTRAINTS; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; PARTICIPATORY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; REGIONAL AUTHORITIES;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; INSTRUMENTS; PUBLIC POLICY; RATING; RESEARCH;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PUBLIC SERVICE;

FINLAND;

EID: 78651421520     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Arts J. EIA follow-up. On the role of ex post evaluation in environmental impact assessment 1998, Geo Press, Groningen.
2. Bartlett R., Kurian P.A. The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Polit 1999, 27(4):415-433.
3. Bell S., Morse S. Sustainability indicators. Sustainability indicators. Measuring the immeasurable 2008, Earthscan, London. 2nd ed.
4. Bunge T. Court actions relating to EIA in road construction in Germany. In: Environmental law network international, editor. International environmental impact assessment. London: Cameron May; 1997, 64-75.
5. Cashman L. Environmental impact assessment. A major instrument in environmental integration. Europe and the environment. Legal essays in honour of Ludwig Krämer 2004, 63-90. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen. M. Onida (Ed.).
6. Cashmore M., Gwilliam R., Morgan R., Cobb D., Bond A. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2004, 22:295-310.
7. Cashmore M., Bond A., Cobb D. The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. J Environ Manage 2008, 88:1233-1248.
8. Cashmore M., Richardson T., Hilding-Ryedvik T., Emmelin L. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30(6):371-379.
9. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/33/EEC as amended 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive 2003, Commission.
10. COM(80) 313 final. Proposal for a council directive concerning the assessment of the environmental effects of certain public and private projects.
11. Deelstra Y., Nooteboom S.G., Kohlmann H.R., van den Berg J., Innanen S. Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in the Netherlands. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2003, 23:517-541.
12. Duffy P. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries: the orphans of environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2004, 22:175-176.
13. Elling B. Modernity and communicative reflection in environmental assessment. Planning for sustainable development - the practice and potential of environmental assessment. Nordregio R2004:2 2004, 53-67. Nordregio, Stockholm. T. Hilding-Rydevik, À.H. Theodórsdóttir (Eds.).
14. Elling B. Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms?. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2009, 27:121-131.
15. Espoo Convention Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context 1991.
16. Gibson R.B. Sustainability assessment. Criteria and processes 2005, Earthscan, London UK.
17. Heinma K., Põder T. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment system in Estonia. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30:272-277.
18. Hilding-Rydevik T. Environmental assessment. Effectiveness, quality and success. Trans-national practices. Systems thinking in policy making 2006, 77-94. Nordregio, Stockholm. Å. Mariussen, Å. Uhlin (Eds.).
19. Hokkanen P. Kansalaisosallistuminen ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyssä. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1285 2007, Tampere University Press, Tampere.
20. Hokkanen P., Pölönen I. Kansalaisosallistuminen YVA-menettelyn seulontavaiheessa - tarkastelukohteena YVA-lainsäädännön uudistus. Oikeus 2006, 4:558-573.
21. Jalava K., Pasanen S., Saalasti M., Kuitunen M. Quality of environmental impact assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2010, 28:15-27.
22. Jay S., Jones C., Slinn P., Wood C. Environmental impact assessment. Retrospect and prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007, 27:287-300.
23. Karkkainen B.C. Towards a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing government's environmental performance. Columbia Law Rev 2002, 102:903-972.
24. KM 1982:46. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointi. Ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnin kehittämistä selvittäneen työryhmän mietintö.
25. Kloepfer M. Umweltrecht. 3. Auflage 2004, Beck Juristischer Verlag, München.
26. Krämer L. EC environmental law 2000, Sweet & Maxwell, London. Fourth ed.
27. Käyhkö U., Pölönen I., Grönlund E. YVA-menettelyn soveltaminen yksittäistapauksissa. Soveltamisratkaisujen laatu ja yhtenäisyys 1994-2006. Suomen ympäristö 2007, Suomen ympäristö 18.
28. Meyerholt U. Das Prinzip Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung - europäischer Schrittmacher für das Umweltrecht. Umwelt - Arbeit - Bildung 2003, 43-62. BIS-Verlag, Oldenburg. J. Klusmeyer, U. Meyerholt, P. Wengelowski (Eds.).
29. Mickwitz P. A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments. Evaluation 2003, 4:415-436.
30. Morrison-Saunders A., Bailey M. Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009, 29:284-294.
31. Marshall R., Arts J., Morrison-Saunders A. International principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact assessment and project appraisal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2005, 23:175-181.
32. Määttä T. Osallistuminen ja vuorovaikutus ympäristöoikeudessa. Kansanvalta. Joensuun yliopiston oikeustieteellisiä julkaisuja 1 2002, 36-67. Joensuun yliopisto, Joensuu. T. Miettinen (Ed.).
33. Parkinson J. Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Pol Stud 2003, 1:180-196.
34. Petts J. Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning from waste policies, plans and projects. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2003, 3:269-293.
35. Pölönen I. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettely. Tutkimus YVA-menettelyn oikeudellisesta asemasta ja kehittämistarpeista ympäristöllisen vaikuttavuuden näkökulmasta 2007, 280. Suomalaisen Lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja A-sarja, Jyväskylä, N:o.
36. Pölönen I., Koivurova T. Rajat ylittävä ympäristövaikutusten arviointi - vaihtoehtotarkastelun riittävyys ja suhde lupapäätöksentekoon. Lakimies 2009, 3:371-393.
37. Ross W.A., Morrison-Saunders A., Marshall R., Sánchez L.E., Weston J., Au E., Morgan R.K., Fuggle R., Sadler B. Common sense in environmental impact assessment: it is not as common as it should be (with responses and a riposte). Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2006, 24:3-22.
38. Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance. Final report. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. International Association for Impact Assessment 1996.
39. de Sadeleer N. Environmental principles. From political slogans to legal rules 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
40. Sager T. A planning theory perspective on the EIA. EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries. Nordregio R2001:6 2001, 197-222. Nordregio, Stockholm. T. Hilding-Rydevik (Ed.).
41. Sairinen R. Regulatory reform of Finnish environmental policy. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications A27 2000, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.
42. Similä J. Regulating industrial pollution. The case of Finland. Helsingin yliopiston oikeustieteellisen tiedekunnan julkaisuja 2007, Helsingin yliopisto, Helsinki.
43. Sinclair J.A., Diduck A. Public participation in Canadian environmental assessment: enduring challenges and future directions. Environmental impact assessment. Practice and participation 2005, 53-74. Oxford University Press, Oxford. K. Hanna (Ed.).
44. Sparwasser R., Engel R., Voβkuhle A. Umweltrecht 2003, Mütler Verlag, Heidelberg.
45. Steinemann A. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2001, 21:3-21.
46. Tripp J., Alley N. Streamlining NEPA's environmental review process: suggestion for agency reform. NY Univ Environ Law J 2003, 12:75-110.
47. Turtiainen M. YVA:n laadun arvioiminen ja laadun kehittyminen. Ympäristö - Ja Terveys - Lehti 2001, 6:60-65.
48. Wilkins H. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2003, 4:401-414.
49. Wood C. Environmental impact assessment. A comparative review 2003, Pearson, Harlow. 2nd ed.
50. Yang T. Public law in the United States. Public environmental law in the European Union and the United States 2002, 517-561. Kluwer Law International, The Hague. R.J.G.H. Seerden, M.A. Heldeweg, K.R. Deketelaere (Eds.).
51. Yost N.C. NEPA's promise - partially fullfilled. Environ Law 1990, 20:533-549.
52. Yost N.C., Widman G. The "action-forcing" requirements of NEPA and ongoing actions of the federal government. Environ Law Report 2004, 5:10435-10442.
53. Ympäristölupajärjestelmän ja - hallinnon uudistaminen. Keventämisprojektin (I) loppuraportti. Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 6/2008 2008, Ympäristöministeriö.
54. C-72/95, Kraaijeveld [1996], p. I-05403.
55. C-227/01, Comission vs. Spain [2004], p. I-08253.
56. C-2/07, Abraham [2008] p. I-01197.
57. C-156/07, Salvatore Aiello [2008], p. I-05215.
58. SAC 2005:25.
59. SAC 2005:27.
60. SAC 2005:70.
61. SAC 18.6.2003 t. 1519.
62. SAC 3.3.2004 t. 419.
63. Kleppe v. Sierra Club 427, U.S. 390 (1976).
64. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natl. Resources Defence Council, Inc., 435, U.S. 558 (1978).
65. Styckder's Bay Neigborhood Council, Inc. V. Karlen, 444, U.S. 223 (1980).