Talk:Environmental impact assessment directive: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 40: Line 40:
{{attack invalid|# |The application of the directive might work mostly well, but the content of it and the framework it gives are not concrete and detailed enough to make a significant change.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 17:27, 29 January 2013 (EET)}}
{{attack invalid|# |The application of the directive might work mostly well, but the content of it and the framework it gives are not concrete and detailed enough to make a significant change.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 17:27, 29 January 2013 (EET)}}
:{{attack|# |It seems that most member states that have adopted EIA-directive see that use of directive has been efficient and it has improved considering and identifying environmental impacts regarding projects, t.ex. big buildings, roads etc. despite the shortages of directive  |--[[User:Jukka Hirvonen|Jukka Hirvonen]] 22:25, 29 January 2013 (EET)}}
:{{attack|# |It seems that most member states that have adopted EIA-directive see that use of directive has been efficient and it has improved considering and identifying environmental impacts regarding projects, t.ex. big buildings, roads etc. despite the shortages of directive  |--[[User:Jukka Hirvonen|Jukka Hirvonen]] 22:25, 29 January 2013 (EET)}}
::{{defend|# |Especially in Finland the EIA improves the assessment of planned projects, because before the implementation of the EIA no holistic approach was used in the assessment. Sector-based legislation prevented to consider environmental impacts holistically. (Pölönen, Hokkanen, Jalava: The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system - What works, what doesn´t, and what could be imporved?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2001), 120-128)|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 14:41, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}


}}
}}

Revision as of 12:41, 6 February 2013

⇤--#: . : Stakeholder participation is very necessary in decision making to facilitate recognition of policies affecrting the public,though it might have it's own demerit --Johnagyemang 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)==EIA directive works mostly very well==

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: EIA directive works mostly very well

Closing statement: Not accepted. At best, it works rather well. It has a few known problems.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

⇤--#: . EIA directive does not work mostly very well, because it has not significantly changed after 25 years of application, despite the policy, legal and technical context has evolved considerably. --Salla 14:15, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It is true that in these years the context has evolved, but we can say that the Directive works mostly very well because the objectives have generally been achieved. The principles of environmental assessment have been integrated into the national EIA systems and all MS have established comprehensive regulatory frameworks and implement the EIA in a way which is in line with the Directive’s requirements. Environmental considerations are now taken into account in the decision-making process, which has become more transparent. Obviously, the development of the directive is an evolving process, there are a lot of challenges that should be considered, but the Directive indicates also areas where improvements are needed, presenting exactly possible recommendations for actions and this can be considered a very good START POINT of change. --Stefania 20:55, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It seems that there is problems and flaws regarding participating of above mentioned participants, t.ex timeframes for participation and hearing and availability of necessary data for making knowledge based opinions and to be heard during EIA procedure, these things need improvements and detailing. --Jukka Hirvonen 22:33, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . EIA directive can work better when its content has updated to concern current environmental challenges, like climate change. --Salla 14:28, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . EIA directive is constantly "under construction" based on suggestions made to improve it, new improvements also cover climate change and improverishment of natures diversity. --Jukka Hirvonen 11:41, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . It works rather well because EIA directive has increased and enhanced knowledge concerning environment in planning and decision making. In addition, citizens, organizations and authorities have enhanced opportunities to participate planning projects.(Jantunen J ja Hokkanen P. YVA-lainsäädännön toimivuusarviointi. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn toimivuus ja kehittämistarpeet. 2010. Suomen ympäristö 18,2010 --Juho Kutvonen 23:08, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)[1]

----#: . It's correct that directive has increased knowledge of environmental concern regarding building and infrastructure projects in member states. --Jukka Hirvonen 22:33, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . EIA directive works well but there is a need of amendments in the EIA legislation and Annex I, II, and III to avoid unnecessary burden. --Adnank 17:26, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--#: . The EIA directive works well as it ensures that environmental considerations are upheld early enough in decision making --Adedayo 09:53, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . There is allways individuals who are having single opinions for and against of EIA procedure and it's effectiveness. In overall, seems that EIA is somewhat working despite it's lacks and flaws. However, changes and improvements are presented and done as time goes by, so probably EIA becomes more efficient. --Jukka Hirvonen 22:38, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Always EIA can not satisfy everyone but you must see the big picture of situation and then you can evaluate does EIA work properly. They do have hearings for people whom this EIA concerns and they try to minimize disadvantages. --Kasperi Juntunen (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . the EIA policy and framework are not complete so that it cannot reduce the hazardous wastes well enough that is why they can still enter the environment. --Soroushm 17:41, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . The basis for EIA directive was not based on complete elimination of hazardous waste but to minimise it to non effective dose. We can't therefore conclude it never works knowing fully well there is chance for updating and improvements of the directives --Matthew 13:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . There is a possibility of increase of contamination due to the hazardous wastes --Soroushm 13:20, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . What do you mean by increasing contamination, do you mean that the EIA directive allows more freely hazardous wastes entering to nature? --Jukka Hirvonen 22:07, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--#: . EIA have also framework for hazardous waste waters so I think EIA works also with waste waters and it has improved waste water handling. (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . Projects having hazardous waste and environmental effects are taken into account by selection criteria mentioned in Annex III --Adnank 00:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It works poorly because a highway was built in front of my summer cottage. --Jouni 13:03, 24 January 2013 (EET), an imaginary citizen (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . A single case does not tell anything about the process, unless there is more profound understanding why the outcome was what it was. --Jouni 12:31, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . The application of the directive might work mostly well, but the content of it and the framework it gives are not concrete and detailed enough to make a significant change. --Isabell Rumrich 17:27, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It seems that most member states that have adopted EIA-directive see that use of directive has been efficient and it has improved considering and identifying environmental impacts regarding projects, t.ex. big buildings, roads etc. despite the shortages of directive --Jukka Hirvonen 22:25, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--#: . Especially in Finland the EIA improves the assessment of planned projects, because before the implementation of the EIA no holistic approach was used in the assessment. Sector-based legislation prevented to consider environmental impacts holistically. (Pölönen, Hokkanen, Jalava: The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system - What works, what doesn´t, and what could be imporved?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2001), 120-128) --Isabell Rumrich 14:41, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . ←--#: . participation process is useful but collaboration must be strenthened to ensure that all decisions are considered accordingly. --Johnagyemang 10:45, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) --Johnagyemang 10:45, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)== The participation process required in the EIA directive is useless ==

{{discussion |Statements= The participation process required in the EIA directive is useless |Resolution= Not accepted. Participation process is useful or even critical, but there is a need to improve it. |Argumentation = ⇤--#: . Although there were some limits in participation previously but some changes have been made to increase the public participation so that public can take part in assessment and decision making policies and their ideas or comments are collected to improve the assessment --Soroushm 13:20, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It is not useless since citizens and those whom the project is concerning may propose alternative plans to the planned project. And this might have an effect to the outcome e.g. the planned plant will be built somewhere else. --Juho Kutvonen 13:47, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . This is true. But, in practice, there are several gaps that should be addressed. --Stefania 22:12, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . The required participation process is a good approach, but the public awareness of the chance to influence the decision making is still too small to lead to a broad participation and changes in the content. --Isabell Rumrich 17:30, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It is not useless because when everybody can participate it ensures more transparency in decision-making, and social acceptance. --Salla 14:36, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . How else could there be any kind of possibilities for minor groups and average citizens to have influence on EIA processes outcome, without participating process? Sure the participation doesn't (at least yet) work as efficient as it was meant, but it still gives a chance to people tell their opinions. --Jukka Hirvonen 11:47, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . There have been criticism about participation not leading to changes in the content of an EIA. In other words, participation does not fulfill its potential is collecting and aggregating plurality of views. --Jouni 12:31, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Might be too strong to say that hole participation process is useless, but regarding to ordinary people, small organizations and other "smaller" participants it is hard to see how their opinions are noticed and taken as part of decision making in EIA process. How big and remarkable is the value given to these opinions and can they really make difference in the final outcome of EIA? --Jukka Hirvonen 22:43, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Since the EIA directive only lays down procedural requirement that governments and relevant authorities are not obliged to follow or draw specific conclusions from, participation process in it may be undermined in some respect as the result of the whole process may be ignored --Adedayo 10:09, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Time frame for public consultation is modified in EIA directive which will stimulate more effective decision making and public participation --Adnank 00:20, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . This discussion is about the current system. The properties of the new proposed system can only be used as comments here. --Jouni 16:32, 3 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Stakeholder participation is very necessary in decision making to facilitate recognition of policies affecrting the public,though it might have it's own demerits. --Johnagyemang 10:39, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)==The current proposal does not leave enough flexibility to member states==

⇤--#: . What do you mean here? Are you saying decision should be base on stakeholders participation alone? --Matthew 11:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

{{discussion |Statements= The current proposal does not leave enough flexibility to member states |Resolution= Not accepted. The current proposal does leave enough flexibility. Some people even think that there is too much flexibility. |Argumentation = ⇤--1: . The proposal sets minimum requirements for the EIA of projects throughout the EU, this will leave sufficient flexibility for the member states by giving choice of measures for compliance and their detailed implementation --Adnank 00:37, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--2: . The proposal will improve the provisions regarding the quality of the EIA with the aim of achieving a high level of environmental protection. the new policies will simplify and facilitate the procedures and eliminate the unnecessary actions. as a result the process will be easier for state members --Soroushm 13:37, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--3: . The current proposal leaves maybe even too much flexibility to member states and that has lead to a situation where there is a wide variation in the types and levels of thresholds and criteria set by member states. --Salla 14:44, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Right point. So many levels of criteria set by MS that all the different features could prejudice the legitimacy of the Directive and undermine efforts to establish common screening standards. --Stefania 21:49, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--4: . The current proposal does leave enough flexibility to member states since they are able to determinate whether an EIA is required for a project based on e.g. based on national threshold levels --Juho Kutvonen 19:52, 27 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--5: . The current proposal leaves enough flexibility to member states, because it only refers to 'significant effects' on the environment, without giving a clear definition, when an effect is significant. The member states can decide themselves whether they consider an effect as significant. --Isabell Rumrich 14:04, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--6: . Good point, that's why projects that are concerned to cause significant impact on nature varies greatly among member states. --Jukka Hirvonen 22:53, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--7: . Current proposal leaves enough or even too much choices how to adapt EIA directive to member states own legislation and how to interpret it. Current experiences from EIA show that it is used and interpreted differently among member states and this has lead to point, where project types and amount of them, that are object to EIA process vary greatly between member states. --Jukka Hirvonen 22:50, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . The current proposal leaves too much flexibility on member states due to inefficiencies in the EAI directives which gives members state a sense of taking responsibilities in interpreting EIA directives base on their own perspective and this can therefore determine if EAI will be considered valid or not. --Matthew 12:19, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: The current proposal leaves too much flexibility to member states.

Closing statement: Accepted.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--#: . Argument #3 from the previous discussion. --Jouni 16:32, 3 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Argument #7 from the previous discussion. --Jouni 16:32, 3 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Accredited quality controllers will not improve the EIA process

{{discussion |Statements=Accredited quality controllers will not improve the EIA process |Resolution= Not accepted, if quality controlling does not limit participation and openness. |Argumentation =

⇤--#: . EIA process can be improved by accredited and technically competent experts by preparing or verifying the EIA reports as these experts can guarantee the completeness and sufficient quality of the environmental reports --Adnank 23:39, 2 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Accredited quality controllers may improve the EIA process since after all, they have a special education for the job. This should assure that EIA process in being done with high quality. However, layman should be given a chance to take part in EIA process. Quality controllers´ skills combined with citizens participation could guarantee an effective EIA process. --Juho Kutvonen 20:52, 27 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Last point is very important. Quality controlling doesn’t have to limit participation. On the contrary, we need a right combination in order to guarantee a good process. --Stefania 22:37, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Accredited quality controllers can ensure, that the EIA process is done according the guidelines and that the same standards for health and environmental impacts are used. --Isabell Rumrich 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Accreditation as basis probably could improve directive and quality of EIA process. Accreditation also equalises EIA process to be same among member states and that projects object to EIA are treated same way. Still it must be assured that EIA process stays open and citizens can express their opinions and that these opinions are really noticed and considered in decision making. Without accreditation it is uncertain what is the quality of EIA in each member states and how are these comparable. --Jukka Hirvonen 23:12, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Accredited quality control does not improve the process, because it works against to the aim of openness and it can narrow of perspective. --Salla 14:59, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . It is important that these controllers have different backgrounds so that the perspective of different expert groups and the public are taken into account. The controllers should not limit the the openness due to their limited knowledge or perspective --Isabell Rumrich 17:35, 29 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Hopefully accreditation doesn't narrow the quality control in some straightforward procedure that doesn't try to see all the sides and aspects related to process. At least this accredited organism, commission etc. should get opinions and statements from experts and groups related to current EIA, because they probably have important information which would otherwise be missed. --Jukka Hirvonen 11:53, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . it is possible to have some disadvantages in assessment and participation if socio-economic costs are not taken into account then as a ressult the directive would be less efficient because it affects the decision making process which divided into three problems such as analyses, risk of EIA and screening precedure. that is why they might worsen the process. --Soroushm 13:56, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Your argument is irrelevant unless you show that with accredited quality controllers you would have socio-economic costs better included. --Jouni 16:32, 3 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

{{comment|# | It is important that somebody is supervising the quality of the assessment process. If the supervising is done right way it doesn't limit the discussion about the environmental impacts. |

----#: . But who should supervise this? Who is to decide where is the limit between relevant and in relevant information? There should be proper guidelines for supervising and it is very difficult to do those. (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

YM:n tehtäväksianto STM:lle

14.11.2012 14:47, Kannisto Reetta (STM) kirjoitti:

Hei,

Euroopan komissio on 26.10.2012 antanut Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiiviehdotuksen direktiivin 2011/92/EU muuttamisesta tiettyjen julkisten hankkeiden ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnin osalta.

YM on pyytänyt muiden muassa STM:ä nimeämään edustajan asiantuntijaryhmään valmistelemaan Suomen kantoja ehdotukseen (liite 1).

Jari Keinäsen esitys on, että työryhmän jäseneksi nimettäisiin Mikko Paunio (HTO) ja varajäseneksi Jouni Tuomisto (THL). Teen tämän sisältöisen esityksen kansliapäällikölle.

YM on lisäksi pyytänyt toimittamaan direktiiviehdotusta koskevia kirjallisia kommentteja huomisen 15.11. aikana (liite 2). Mahdolliset kommentit voi toimittaa osoitteeseen lasse.tallskog (ät) ymparisto.fi

Kannanottoja YVAL toimivuusarviointiin liittyen

Ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnissa nykymuodossaan on joitain oleellisia heikkouksia. Nostamme esiin kolme keskeistä asiaa.

1. YVA-lain tavoitekuvaus on ympäripyöreä. Huomiota kiinnitetään vain yksittäisiin erillisiin haasteisiin, mikä estää havaitsemasta YVA-menettelyn ja sitä määrittävän YVA-lain laajempia ongelmia. YVA-laissa on varsin ympäripyöreästi kuvattu tavoitteet (YVA-laki 1994/468 1§): "Tämän lain tavoitteena on edistää ympäristövaikutusten arviointia ja yhtenäistä huomioon ottamista suunnittelussa ja päätöksenteossa sekä samalla lisätä kansalaisten tiedonsaantia ja osallistumismahdollisuuksia." YVA-laki siis pyrkii edistämään YVA-menettelyä, josta laissa itsessään säädetään. Tavoite siis ohjaa tarkastelemaan sitä, miten YVA-lailla säädettyä menettelyä on toteutettu ja toteaa YVA-lain ja YVA-menettelyn toimivan varsin hyvin, koska sitä tapahtuu mitä lailla on säädettykin. Tarkastelun kehämäisyys jättää oleellisia kysymyksiä tarkastelun ulkopuolelle, esim. kuinka hyvin YVA-laki edistää ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnin perimmäisiä tarkoituksia kuten kestävää kehitystä, tai onko tarpeen tai järkevää säätää ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnista omana lakinaan?

Niin EU:n YVA-direktiivi kuin Suomen YVA-lakikin ovat hyvin prosessikeskeisiä, eli pikemminkin määrittävät YVA-prosessia ja sen suorittamista kuin sen tarkoitusta tai vaikuttavuutta. Tämä on ollut varsin yleinen suuntaus niin ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnin teorioiden kehityksessä kuin niiden yhteydessä toteutettavien osallistumisprosessien kehityksessä ja toteutuksessakin, mutta se on laajalti todettu rajoittuneeksi ja käytännössä huonosti toimivaksi näkökulmaksi (esim. Cashmore 2004[1], Doelle ja Sinclair 2006[2], O'Faircheallaigh, 2010[3] ja Pope et al. 2004[4]). YVA-lain tavoitemäärittelyn, YVA-menettelyn vaikuttavuuden ja YVA:n vaikuttavuuden mittaamisen haasteita on käsitelty myös EFEIA-projektin tuloksia käsittelevässä artikkelissa (Pölönen et al. 2010[5]).

YVA-lain toimivuutta tulisi arvioida myös vertaamalla lain määrittämän YVA-menettelyn vaikuttavuutta suhteessa ympäristövaikutusten arvioinnin perimmäisiin tarkoituksiin. Tällainen arviointinäkökulma loisi myös paremman viitekehyksen tarkastella YVA-lain ja YVA-menettelyn haasteita ja puuttua niihin. Tällaisia vaikuttavuutta paremmin huomioivia viitekehyksiä on kehitetty ja käytössä esimerkiksi Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön Tekaisu-hankkeessa, jossa kehitetään terveysvaikutusten arviointia.


2. Terveysvaikutusten arvioinnin heikkous on yksi nykymuotoisen YVA-menettelyn tärkeistä haasteista. Ympäristövaikutusten arviointien toteuttajien tieto ja osaaminen ympäristön kautta välittyvien terveysvaikutusten arvioimisen suhteen on usein riittämätöntä. Terveysvaikutusten arviointi saatetaan jättää YVA:ssa kokonaan tekemättä tai se voidaan toteuttaa hyvin pinnallisesti esim. vertaamalla mitattuja tai mallinnettuja pitoisuuksia ohje- tai raja-arvoihin ja toteamalla että terveysvaikutuksia ei ole. Terveysvaikutukset ovat kuitenkin hyvin tärkeitä esim. YVA:ssa tarkasteltavien hankkeiden lupapäätöksiä tehtäessä ja myös kommunikoitaessa hankkeiden ympäristövaikutuksia kansalaisille.

Terveysvaikutusten arvioinnin asemaa tulee vahvistaa YVA-laissa, YVA-menettelyä käsittelevässä ohjeistuksessa, YVA-prosessien valvonnassa sekä YVA-lain ja YVA-menettelyn kehitystyössä. YVA-säädöksiin on tarpeen määritellä riittävän yksityiskohtaisesti, millä periaatteilla terveysvaikutuksia tulee arvioida. Voidaan antaa ohjeita menetelmistä, esim. voidaanko tyytyä vertaamaan altistumista ohjearvoihin, vai tulisiko haittoja arvioida määrällisesti väestötutkimuksiin perustuvien vastefunktioiden avulla.


3. YVA:n toteuttamisessa on vaarana tarpeettomasti rajata osallistumista valikoituihin asiantuntijatahoihin. Nämä prosessit ovat lähtökohtaisesti liian suljettuja. YVA-prosessin laadun parantamiseksi edellytettävä akkreditointi toimisi avoimuuden tavoitetta vastaan ja johtaisi näkökulman kapenemiseen ja siten pikemminkin huonompaan kuin parempaan laatuun. YVA on luonteeltaan monitieteellinen, ja se vaatii useiden alojen asiantuntijoita. Esimerkiksi terveysnäkökohtien huomiointi luultavasti huononisi. Avoimemmalla arviointiprosessilla voisi hyvinkin esim. internetiä hyödyntäen osallistaa YVA:sta kiinnostuneet tutkijat ja kansalaiset, esittämään näkemyksensä meneillään olevasta YVAsta jo hyvissä ajoin ja varsin vähäisin lisäresurssein. Ratkaisevaa tässä on ottaa käyttöön sellaisia käytäntöjä, jotka todella mahdollistavat esiin nostettujen näkemysten täysipainoisen huomioimisen osana YVAa.

Tällä hetkellä YVA-prosessi on erillään sekä itse hankkeen suunnittelusta ja toteutuksesta että lupaprosessista. Tämä estää YVAn toimivuutta käytännössä ja rajoittaa niitä ympäristöhyötyjä, joita sillä voisi olla.

Osallistuminen on erillinen prosessi YVAn rinnalla. Se on luonteeltaan järjestettävä tapahtuma eikä olennainen keino kerätä arvioinnin ja itse hankkeen kannalta tärkeää tietoa. Erityisesti, kuulemisissa pitäisi edetä kohti jatkuvaa kommentointi- ja osallistumismahdollisuutta sen sijaan, että osallistumisaikaa rajataan kuten nyt suunnitellaan artiklassa 6. YVAssa tulee pyrkiä avoimempiin arviointiprosesseihin ja kattavampaan merkityksellisten näkökulmien huomioon ottamiseen.

Mitä yllä on sanottu YVA-prosessin avoimuudesta pätee myös tähän YVA-direktiivin valmistelutyöhön.

Suurimmat YVAn haasteet eivät ole teknisessä vaikutusanalyysissä vaan huonossa kyvyssä toisaalta tunnistaa kaikkia niitä tekijöitä, joita yhteiskunnassa pidetään olennaisina ympäristön tai terveyden kannalta, ja toisaalta nähdä mitä käytännöllisiä vaikutuksia ja yhteiskunnallisia merkityksiä YVAn tuloksilla oikeastaan on. Tämän kokonaisuuden ymmärtämiseen tarvitaan laajaa toimijoiden, sidosryhmien, asiantuntijoiden ja päättäjien osallistumista.


Yhteenvetona voi todeta tulevien toimivuusarviointien tarvitsevan

  1. keskittymistä arvioimaan perimmäisten tavoitteiden saavuttamista muodollisten tai välitavoitteiden sijasta,
  2. perusteellisemman arvion terveysvaikutusten arvioinnin roolista,
  3. avoimemman prosessin, jossa lähtökohtaisesti kaikki kiinnostuneet voivat osallistua arviointiin.

Viitteet:

  1. ↑ Cashmore, M. 2004. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(2004) 403-426.
  2. ↑ Doelle, M., Sinclair, A.J. 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(2006) 185-205.
  3. ↑ O'Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2010) 19-27.
  4. ↑ Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(2004) 595-616.
  5. ↑ Pölönen, I., Hokkanen, P., Jalava, K. 2010. The effectiveness of the Finnish EIA system - What works, what doesn't, and what could be improved?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31, 120-128.
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_assessment_directive&oldid=28377"