GOOD PRACTICES in National Systems for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment A LITERATURE REVIEW JUNE 2022 Environmental and Social Framework Implementation Support Unit, Operations Policy and Country Services (OPSIS) Environmental and International Law Unit, Legal Vice Presidency (LEGEN) © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 TELEPHONE: 202-473-1000 INTERNET: www.worldbank.org The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immuni- ties of the World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Please cite the work as follows: “Peter Chapman, Brian Kamau Ndirangu, and Remi Moncel, 2022. Good Practices in National Systems for Environmental and Social Impact Assessments: A Literature Review. © World Bank” Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; E-MAIL: pubrights@worldbank.org. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................................ iv Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................................... vi Findings.............................................................................................................................................................................................. viii Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Objective and Scope........................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Methodology........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2. Core Principles of National Systems for ESIA......................................................................................... 5 2.1. Principles for Environmental Impact Assessment.....................................................................................................6 2.2. Principles for Social Impact Assessment.....................................................................................................................9 Chapter 3. Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA....................................................................................... 12 3.1. Legal Frameworks for National Systems for ESIA.................................................................................................. 13 Legal Obligations for ESIA.............................................................................................................................................. 13 Regulation of ESIA in National Frameworks............................................................................................................. 14 3.2. Institutional Functions of National Systems for ESIA............................................................................................ 15 Screening............................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Scoping and Preliminary Assessment........................................................................................................................ 20 The ESIA Report and Management Plan.................................................................................................................... 21 Review, Decision Making and Licensing......................................................................................................................22 Adaptive Management....................................................................................................................................................23 Follow-up, Monitoring and Auditing.............................................................................................................................25 3.3. Effective Financing of National System for ESIA Functions.................................................................................27 Chapter 4. Select Design Features of National Systems for ESIA..................................................................... 30 4.1. Accounting for Social Impacts in National Systems for ESIA.............................................................................. 31 4.2. Effective Public Participation in National Systems for ESIA............................................................................... 39 4.3. Expertise, Independence and Accountability within National Systems for ESIA............................................45 4.4. National Systems for ESIA Effectiveness and Political Economy Analysis....................................................... 47 4.5. Incorporating Transboundary Impacts into National Systems for ESIA.......................................................... 48 4.6. Incorporating the Mitigation Hierarchy into National Systems for ESIA......................................................... 50 4.7. Emerging Risks and Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 51 Chapter 5. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................................55 5.1. Findings on Scope and Nature of National Systems for ESIA.............................................................................. 56 Findings on Principles and Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA....................................................... 56 Findings on Select Design Features of National Systems for ESIA.................................................................... 58 5.2. Recommendations for the World Bank Group......................................................................................................... 60 Strengthening a Systems Approach to National Systems for ESIA.................................................................. 60 THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT i Improving Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA........................................................................................... 61 Accounting for Emerging Risks and Practices in National ESIA Systems.......................................................... 6 2 References..................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Annex I. Comparison of International Principles for Environmental Impact Assessment.....................70 Annex II. Select Resources and Sources of Expertise...............................................................................................75 2.1. Documents.........................................................................................................................................................................75 2.2. Organizations and Platforms........................................................................................................................................75 THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ii Figures Figure 1. Illustrative National System for ESIA..................................................................................................................... vii Figure 2. From Values to Principles of Good Practice.............................................................................................................6 Figure 3. National EIA System Functions and Process......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Phases of Social Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................32 Figure 5. Complementary EIA and SIA Activities and Outputs in New South Wales...................................................37 Tables Table 1. Findings on Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA................................................................................. ix Table 2. Findings on Select Design Features of National Systems for ESIA................................................................... x Table 3. Recommendations for the World Bank Group....................................................................................................... xi Table 4. Analysis of International EIA Principles.................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5. IAIA International Principles for SIA..........................................................................................................................8 Table 6. Core Functions of National Systems for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment......................... 15 Table 7. IAIA Basic Principles for Public Participation....................................................................................................... 38 Table 8. IAIA Operational Principles for Public Participation.......................................................................................... 39 Boxes Box 1. Screening in Mozambique.............................................................................................................................................. 18 Box 2. Project Design Change Through Screening in Denmark........................................................................................ 18 Box 3. Alternative Project Design at the Scoping Phase in South Africa..................................................................... 20 Box 4. What Does an Effective ESMP include?..................................................................................................................... 21 Box 5. EC’s Decision-Making Guidance...................................................................................................................................23 Box 6. Good Practice in Government Monitoring of Agricultural Projects....................................................................25 Box 7. Third-Party Monitoring and the ESF..........................................................................................................................26 Box 8. Funding Models Influence Independence and Effectiveness.................................................................................27 Box 9. Land Acquisition Under the World Bank ESF...........................................................................................................34 Box 10. Integrating Social Impact Assessment into Regulatory EIA in Australia........................................................ 36 Box 11. Participation at the Screening Phase in Nigeria..................................................................................................... 41 Box 12. Opportunities for Participation at the Scoping Phase in Indonesia................................................................... 41 Box 13. Public Hearings for EIA Review in Ghana...................................................................................................................42 Box 14. Supporting Public Participation in Canada............................................................................................................. 43 Box 15. Independent EIA Review in the Netherlands.............................................................................................................45 Box 16. Transboundary Assessment of the Rogun Hydropower Project in Tajikistan.................................................49 Box 17. Incorporating the Mitigation Hierarchy into EIA in the Pacific........................................................................... 50 Box 18. Shrinking Civic Space Within EIA in Austria............................................................................................................ 50 Box 19. EC Climate Review in EIA...............................................................................................................................................52 THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT iii Acknowledgments This Literature Review was prepared by the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework Imple- mentation Support Unit and the Environmental and International Law Practice Group of the Legal Vice Presidency. It was authored by Peter Chapman (Con- sultant, World Bank), with Brian Kamau Ndirangu (Environmental Analyst and Task Team Leader), and Remi Moncel (Senior Counsel) overseeing and con- tributing to the design and content. Overall guidance was provided by Julia Bucknall (Senior Adviser, Office of the Regional Vice-President Eastern and Southern Africa), Maninder Gill (Director, Environmental and Social Standards and Chief Environmental and Social Standards Officer), Victor Mosoti (Chief Counsel, Envi- ronmental and International Law Practice Group), and Chaohua Zhang (Lead Social Development Specialist). The team is grateful to the following peer reviewers for their constructive comments: Pilar Clemente-Fernan- dez and Xiaoxin Shi from the World Bank, Alexander Indorf and Carlos Arias from the International Finance Corporation, and Frank Vanclay from the University of Groningen, Netherlands. The team also received valuable contributions from Vincent Roquet, Christina Leb, Siobhan McInerney-Lankford, and Maria Vizeu Pinheiro from the World Bank, and the South Asia team of the Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy Global Practice of the World Bank. The team also appreciates the environmental and social impact assessment experts who made time to share their insights. Special thanks to Angel Li for research and editing assistance, Demetra Aposporos for copyedit- ing services, Sylvia Silver for the graphic design, and Sophia Cox for administrative assistance. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ASA Advisory Services and Analytics (World Bank) CCDR Country Climate Development Report CEA Country Environmental Analysis (World Bank) CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CSA Country Social Analysis (World Bank) DPF Development Policy Financing (World Bank) EC European Commission ECA Europe and Central Asia (World Bank region) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ELAW Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide EMP Environmental Management Plan ESF Environmental and Social Framework (World Bank) OPSIS Environmental and Social Framework Implementation Support Unit, Operations Policy and Country Services (World Bank) ESCP Environmental and Social Commitment Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESS Environmental and Social Standards (World Bank) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FOEE Friends of the Earth Europe FPIC Free, prior and informed consent GRS Grievance Redress Service (World Bank) IAAC Impact Assessment Agency of Canada IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IDB Inter-American Development Bank IEMA Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (United Kingdom) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFC International Finance Corporation IPF Investment Project Financing (World Bank) IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development LEGEN Environmental and International Law Unit, Legal Vice Presidency (World Bank) MITADER Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development (Mozambique) NCEA Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment ODI Overseas Development Institute (United Kingdom) OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PforR Program-for-Results PRI Principles for Responsible Investment SAIEA The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment SCD Systematic Country Diagnostic (World Bank) SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SIA Social Impact Assessment SIMP Social Impact Management Plan SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme TOR Terms of Reference TPM Third-party monitoring UN United Nations UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNECE United National Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNGP United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights WDR World Development Report (World Bank) WJP World Justice Project THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT v Executive Summary Askolds Berovskis/Adobe Stock Executive Summary National systems for environmental and social The objectives of this Literature Review are to identify impact assessment (ESIA) are designed to improve trends, findings and gaps in global literature focused on the environmental and social performance of proj- national systems for ESIA. The Review analyzes global ects and support countries’ sustainable development ESIA literature in an effort to inform the World Bank’s strategies. National governments deploy a broad set response to Borrower country requests for assistance in of strategies, institutions, laws, regulations and proce- strengthening national systems for ESIA, provide input dures to assess, avoid, mitigate and manage the envi- to broader World Bank country strategies and identify ronmental and social impact of government policies priority areas for future World Bank engagement. The and public or private investment. Within this broader Review concludes with recommendations for how the ecosystem, national systems for ESIA help predict and World Bank Group can support Borrower countries, in manage social and environmental impacts. The World partnership with civil society, proponents and the public, Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) in efforts to strengthen national systems for ESIA. requires Borrower countries to implement Bank-fi- nanced projects in accordance with the Environmental This Review focuses on literature related to national and Social Standards (ESSs), including an assessment systems for ESIA as opposed to individual ESIA of the project’s environmental and social risks and reports. A national system for ESIA is defined by the impacts. (See, e.g., World Bank 2017, ESS1, para. 14). Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assess- In addition, the ESF states that the World Bank sup- ment (NCEA) as (i) the regulatory environment, (ii) the ports efforts to strengthen, and, as appropriate, utilize capacity of organizations within that environment and Borrower countries’ environmental and social systems (iii) the quality of a set of core functions necessary for in the context of Bank-financed projects. (World Bank effective ESIA. (NCEA 2017, 1). In this way, national 2017, Policy, paras. 23-29). Similarly, the International systems extend beyond a single ESIA report or process1 Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards envision and encompass both the assessment of environmental private sector ESIA processes that align with national and social impacts as well as the implementation of ESIA systems. (IFC 2012, PS1, para. 6). The use of ESIA processes to manage and monitor these impacts. by multilateral development banks like the members of Figure 1, below, visualizes how national systems for the World Bank Group has catalyzed the expansion of ESIA are rooted in goals and principles and involve national ESIA systems and nearly every country now a range of relevant actors and standards which are utilizes national systems for ESIA. (UNEP 2018, 19). incorporated into the scope of this review. Figure 1. Illustrative National System for ESIA Goals: Effectively identify, avoid, minimize, reduce or mitigate the environmental and social risks of projects. Principles: predictable, purposive, practical and relevant, adaptive and flexible, comprehensive, integrated, participatory, transparent, capable and credible, efficient and cost effective and accountable. Core functions: screening, scoping and preliminary assessment, impact assessment, mitigation and management, the impact assessment report and management plan, review, decision making and licensing, adaptive management and monitoring and auditing. Government institutions: executive , environmental ministry, finance ministry, planning ministry, sectoral ministries, judiciary, ombudspersons, grievance mechanisms, among others. Relevant stakeholders: project proponents, project-affected people, indigenous peoples and historically under served traditional local communities, civil society organizations, financiers, among others. Relevant standards: International law, national laws and regulations, multilateral development bank standards (e.g., World Bank Environmental and Social Framework and IFC Performance Standards), industry standards (e.g., Equator Principles) and guidelines (e.g., Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure), among others. 1 The World Bank ESF defines ESIA as “an instrument to identify and assess the potential environmental and social impacts of a proposed project, evaluate alternatives, and design appropriate mitigation, management, and monitoring measures.” (World Bank 2017, ESS1, Annex 1; emphasis added). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT vii The primary audience for this Review is World These select design features analyzed in Chapter 4 Bank Group teams that are supporting Borrower are: i) accounting for social impacts in national sys- countries to strengthen national ESIA systems. A tems for ESIA; ii) strengthening public participation; secondary audience consists of government officials, iii) improving effectiveness and political economy civil society representatives and other stakeholders considerations; iv) strengthening expertise, indepen- interested in effective national ESIA systems. This dence and accountability; v) assessing transboundary Review intends to complement and inform the range impacts; vi) incorporating the mitigation hierarchy into of World Bank Group tools and analytical services national ESIA systems; and vii) managing emerging available to Borrower countries to strengthen their risks and impacts such as climate change and civic capacity to manage environmental and social risks, space. Chapter 5, the conclusion, summarizes findings including Country Environmental Analyses, Overview and makes recommendations for possible next steps Assessments, ESF Gap Analyses, Environmental and for the World Bank Group, Borrower country and civil Social Framework Assessments, Country Systems society efforts to strengthen national ESIA systems. Framework Assessments and Project-level Capacity Assessments, among others. Findings The Review focuses on academic and grey litera- The Review finds significant consensus on the core ture focused on ESIA . It reviews documentation and principles and functions of national ESIA systems. analysis from United Nations bodies, government Over the last 30 years, the environmental impact agencies, industry groups, academic institutions and assessment field has coalesced around key principles civil society organizations. It identified relevant liter- that should inform ESIA, including adaptive, participa- ature through keyword searches in digital libraries of tory and accountable assessment and management academic journals, books and primary sources. The of impacts and risks. Similarly, the literature consis- Review examines syntheses and comparative anal- tently describes the core functions of ESIA systems yses as opposed to country-specific practices. A small as screening and scoping, impact assessment, ESIA number of experts from the academic, multilateral review, and decision making and monitoring (among and non-government sectors were interviewed to sup- other functions), with some acknowledged differences plement the Review. This methodology has limitations in approach and emphasis. in both scope and approach, which are discussed in the Introduction. The Literature Review also finds areas of divergence, including the ways in which literature recommends The Review focuses on goals and principles, core accounting for social impacts in national systems, ESIA system functions, and select design features of effectively and adaptively managing risks, and national systems for ESIA . An Introduction describes enabling the meaningful participation of project-af- the scope and methodology of this Literature Review. fected communities. For example, some literature Chapter 2 analyzes literature investigating the goals suggests that social risks should be managed through and core principles that underpin effective national national ESIA systems whereas other literature sug- systems for ESIA. Chapter 3 explores the core func- gests that social risk presents particularities that are tions of national ESIA systems including: screening; better addressed through separate, complementary scoping; the ESIA report; review, decision-making and strategies. Other literature critiques ESIA systems licensing; adaptive management; and follow-up, moni- as being too focused on a regulatory decision in the toring and auditing. It also reviews literature analyzing form of a project’s ESIA approval and not sufficiently legal frameworks and public financing strategies focused on adaptive management and implementa- for national ESIA systems. Chapter 4 explores seven tion monitoring. Finally, while there is general agree- design features of national ESIA systems identified ment that public participation in ESIA processes is by the Literature Review team. These design features important, there is significant divergence around were identified based on consultations with envi- what it should entail; literature identifies a wide spec- ronmental and social experts within the World Bank trum of activities to enable meaningful participation, and reflect the salient issues and challenges from including capacity building and independent support the World Bank’s past engagements with Borrower to project-affected communities. countries to strengthen their national ESIA systems. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT viii This review also finds gaps in national ESIA systems ernance and effectiveness remains relatively sparse. literature. Literature tends to place emphasis on the Relatedly, there is a gap in literature focused on mech- technical aspects of ESIA, for example methods for anisms to finance effective, efficient and independent the ESIA report, and comparatively less emphasis on national ESIA systems. assessing the effectiveness of national systems. The literature recommends that national systems for ESIA Table 1 and Table 2 summarize key findings on core should be rooted in countries’ broader governance functions of national systems for ESIA and the ESIA and decision-making structures. However, literature system design features identified by the World Bank focused on the strategies and approaches policy- team. makers can take to concretely strengthen ESIA gov- Table 1. Findings on Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA FUNCTION FINDINGS • Screening advances proportionality by prioritizing ESIA resources for projects with potential for significant impacts. Screening • Effective screening may deliver cost-effective environmental and social mitigation measures, including deciding when a full ESIA is not needed. • Screening is unevenly utilized across national systems. • Participatory scoping processes help clarify goals and ensure that resources spent on the ESIA Scoping and process are targeted towards priorities agreed upon by stakeholders, including government preliminary agencies and affected communities. assessment • Scoping and preliminary assessment present an important opportunity to strengthen ESIA coor- dination among government agencies and other stakeholders. • The ESIA report should anticipate impacts, recommend project alternatives and/or mitigation The ESIA report strategies and propose ways to monitor and address impacts. and management • At this phase, national systems for ESIA should require legally enforceable social and environ- plan mental management plans, but enforceable management plans are not utilized consistently across countries. • The ESIA system should promote coordinated and independent review and approval of ESIA reports and projects; granting sectoral ministries sole approval authority without effective coor- dination with environmental agencies may trigger actual or perceived conflicts of interest. • Some national systems use a multi-stakeholder mechanism, composed of different government agencies and other stakeholders, to review ESIA reports while others rely on an inter-govern- Review, decision mental committee or a single agency for review; a multi-stakeholder review mechanism can help ensure adequate social, environmental and other sources of expertise at the review phase. making and • Some systems conduct only a procedural review of reports (i.e., whether the process outlined licensing in the ESIA legislation was followed), whereas others require a review of the substance of the report as well as the acceptability of anticipated impacts (i.e., whether the proposal adequately responds to the science and public inputs). • Final decision-making authority varies but is most effective when the criteria for final decision are established, project approval conditions, requirements and expected timelines are clearly spelled out, and decisions are publicly available. • Adaptive management is a critical strategy for effective and ongoing implementation of national systems for ESIA. Adaptive • A stronger legal basis is needed for adaptive management to ensure the proponent implements management the agreed-upon ESIA approval conditions. • Adaptive management is a multi-stakeholder effort and the regulator, project proponent, affected communities, and public all have roles to play. Follow-up, • The follow-up, monitoring and auditing of compliance with the license/approval conditions are identified as key shortcomings of many ESIA systems. monitoring and • Transparency and public participation are key elements of effective monitoring and auditing, auditing with third-party or external auditing and monitoring as an important external tool. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ix Table 2. Findings on Select Design Features of National Systems for ESIA DESIGN FEATURE FINDINGS • Social impacts related to a planned project may start to occur before a traditional ESIA pro- cess begins. • National systems for ESIA increasingly account for both social and environmental risks; some systems pursue an integrated assessment of both types of risks, whereas others consider them in parallel assessments with varying degrees of coordination. Social Impacts • Some national ESIA systems predate the rise in awareness of certain social concerns and issues, such as project-related gender-based violence, and thus may be insufficiently tailored to those concerns. • Social practitioners place particular emphasis on community agency and the sufficiency of consultations in project planning and implementation. • Stakeholder participation within ESIA systems is critical; definitions, approaches and require- ments, however, differ across national systems. Effective • Emerging good practice includes national systems and proponents offering communities Participation capacity building and dedicated funding for active participation within ESIA processes. • Civil society and community groups are key partners in realizing effective and meaningful participation. • National ESIA systems provide options to strengthen the competent, independent and accountable review and monitoring of projects. Expertise, • The certification of environmental and social consultants and firms can be an important strategy to uphold basic professional standards. Independence and • Relatively little literature explores how to finance core ESIA system functions in a way that is Accountability efficient and promotes independence and accountability. • Transparency is essential for maintaining accountability, including the public dissemination of documentation from national ESIA systems. • Relatively little literature documents the extent to which national systems for ESIA influence project-related decision making and ongoing implementation. Effectiveness • There is also sparse literature assessing how national systems for ESIA best connect with broader efforts to improve governance or enhance business and investment activities. • Procedures to account for transboundary impacts are increasingly recognized as an important Transboundary element of effective national ESIA systems. Impacts • Transboundary ESIA entails unique challenges, including applying minimum standards found in regional agreements. Mitigation • While a number of national ESIA systems are working to incorporate the mitigation hierarchy, Hierarchy it remains infrequently integrated into most national systems. • National ESIA systems are increasingly being called upon to integrate new perspectives and Emerging Risks emerging dimensions of environmental and social risks and impacts, including civic space, climate change and new technologies. Recommendations Efforts to strengthen national systems for ESIA The Literature Review offers recommendations for should rely on inclusive and participatory processes. how the World Bank Group can support Borrower The identification of strategies to strengthen national countries’ efforts to strengthen national systems for systems should be informed by the World Bank ESIA . The Review provides recommendations focused Group’s ongoing engagement with Borrower countries, on additional areas for research, the development of civil society, academia and the private sector. The knowledge products and technical, operational and insights of this Review would be strengthened by more financial assistance to Borrower countries to help in-depth analyses of specific country experiences, strengthen their national systems for ESIA. including around the topics highlighted in Table 3. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT x As summarized in Table 3, the Review identifies Practices in National ESIA Systems. As the introduc- possible additional engagements by the World tion and methodology explain, further engagement is Bank Group across three themes: i) Strengthening needed with World Bank teams, Borrower countries, a Systems Approach to National Systems for ESIA, and broader constituencies to prioritize among these ii) Improving Core Functions of National Systems engagement options. for ESIA and iii) Accounting for Emerging Risks and Table 3. Recommendations for the World Bank Group ILLUSTRATIVE POINTS THEMES POSSIBLE WORLD BANK GROUP ENGAGEMENTS OF ENTRY 1. Strengthening a Systems Approach to National Systems for ESIA Support efforts to comprehensively assess national ESIA system Systematic Country performance to identify priorities for system strengthening, Diagnostic (SCD), Country including calculating costs of delays and inefficiencies as well as Environmental and Social benefits of effective, efficient and participatory assessments. Analysis (CEA/CSA) and Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) Improve analysis of national ESIA systems through World Bank SCD, CEA/CSA, ASA, analytical work and financing instruments, including documenting Country Partnership the role of effective national ESIA systems in enhancing business Frameworks (CPFs), National Systems and investment activities and achieving environmental and social Overview Assessments, Analysis policy goals. Country Climate Development Reports (CCDRs), Investment Project Financing (IPF), Development Policy Financing (DPF) and Program-for-Results (PforR) Advance empirical research assessing core factors that impact ASA the performance of national systems for ESIA, in partnership with academia and civil society. Develop internal publication for World Bank teams clarifying interna- ASA tional, regional and national legal bases for national ESIA systems. Legal frameworks Document concrete strategies to strengthen the legal basis and ASA, IPF, DPF, PforR enforcement of select national system principles and functions, including proportionality, meaningful participation, adaptive management and monitoring. Research and document public financing strategies that improve ASA independence within national ESIA systems. Support interested Borrower countries in efforts to pursue public IPF, PforR and DPFs financial management reforms to strengthen national ESIA systems and improve effectiveness. Financing and Political Economy Research linkages between national ESIA system effectiveness and ASA business regulations. Launch new interdisciplinary research, including political economy ASA analyses, to understand how to effectively and independently finance ESIA systems and integrate ESIA systems into broader systems of governance. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT xi ILLUSTRATIVE POINTS THEMES POSSIBLE WORLD BANK GROUP ENGAGEMENTS OF ENTRY Research the role, relation and coordination of national, international, ASA industry and civil society standards for national ESIA systems. Develop publications on ways to strengthen overall ESIA system ASA performance as part of Overview Assessments and the use of all or Standards and part of a Borrower’s environmental and social framework under the System Alignment ESF. Convene a working group with other multilateral development banks ASA to coordinate research and capacity building initiatives related to national ESIA systems. 2. Improving Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA Document good practices for adaptive management in national ESIA ASA systems, including strengthening financing for adaptive manage- ment and incorporating adaptive management commitments into binding licensing conditions. Document good practices for monitoring in national ESIA systems, ASA including strengthening independent financing for monitoring, Adaptive incorporating monitoring commitments into licensing conditions, Management and improving monitoring coordination, and expanding community and Monitoring third-party monitoring models to strengthen supervision. Support Borrower countries interested in strengthening the IPF, DPF, PforR supervision, monitoring and adaptive management functions of their national ESIA systems, including through licensing conditions, financing mechanisms, coordination and community and third-party monitoring measures. Analyze and document select country experiences in coordinating ASA and/or integrating social and environmental aspects in ESIA systems. Support Borrower country efforts to operationalize social and envi- ASA, IPF, PforR and DPFs ronmental coordination or integration, including through guidelines Social and for institutional mechanisms to strengthen sectoral collaboration as Environmental well as good practice examples of key operational levers, including Coordination terms of refence, tender documents, and budget tools. Strengthen internal World Bank coordination among safeguards, ASA legal, environmental, social, governance, and public financial management teams to provide integrated client support for national systems for ESIA. Research and document good practices and recent innovations in ASA public participation within national systems for ESIA, including civil society partnership models, community capacity building and strategies to provide independent legal and technical assistance to Public communities to support effective public participation in national Participation ESIA systems. Also document and analyze costs of weak public participation. Support interested Borrower countries in their efforts to strengthen IPF, PforR, DPFs public participation in national ESIA systems, including through the above strategies. 3. Accounting for Emerging Risks and Practices in National ESIA Systems Research and document strategies to integrate climate change ASA, CCDRs analyses into national ESIA systems and use national ESIA systems to advance national and international climate change goals. Climate Impacts Support operational programs for Borrower countries looking to IPF, PforR and DPFs integrate mitigation hierarchy, cumulative impacts and broader climate change analyses into ESIA systems. Research recent innovations and deployment of new technologies in ASA national systems for ESIA. New Technologies Support operational programs for Borrower countries to integrate IPF, PforR and DPFs new technologies into national ESIA systems. Research the issues that were beyond the scope of the Review, such ASA Other Areas as the links between national systems for ESIA and corruption, social inclusion and civic space, governance, procurement and benefit sharing. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT xii Chapter 1 Suebsiri/Adobe Stock Chapter 1: Introduction Nearly all countries have developed national systems 2018, Article 7, paras. 9 and 17). The World Bank and to assess and manage environmental and social risks other multilateral development institutions have in the context of investment and development. The incorporated environmental and social impact assess- structure, characteristics and effectiveness of these ment and management in their financing procedures, national systems vary. This Literature Review ana- which have also played a significant role in catalyzing lyzes literature focused on national systems for envi- the development of national systems for environ- ronmental and social impact assessment (ESIA), a key mental and social impact assessment, particularly in element of country systems to assess and manage developing countries. (UNEP 2018, 19). environmental and social risks. The goal of the Liter- ature Review is to identify areas of good practices as The World Bank and International Finance Corpora- well as divergences and gaps in the literature focused tion (IFC) require Borrower countries to assess and on ESIA systems. It seeks to inform the World Bank’s manage environmental and social risks and impacts response to Borrower country requests for assistance through a range of tools, including ESIA. For example, in strengthening national systems for ESIA, provide the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Frame- input to broader World Bank country strategies and work (ESF) requires Borrower countries to undertake identify areas for future World Bank engagement. The an environmental and social assessment, defined as Review concludes by offering recommendations for the “process of analysis and planning used by the Bor- how the World Bank can support Borrower countries rower countries to ensure the environmental and social in their efforts to strengthen their national systems impacts and risks of a project are identified, avoided, for ESIA. minimized, reduced or mitigated.” (World Bank 2017, ESS1, Annex 1). Countries use a broad set of institu- National systems to assess and manage environ- tions, laws, regulations, procedures and strategies mental and social risks and impacts are based on a to assess, avoid, mitigate and manage the environ- range of national, regional and global legal frame- mental and social risk of government policies or public works. Beginning with the passage of the National and private investment. Within this constellation, Environmental Policy Act in the United States in the national systems for ESIA are key to anticipating and late 1960s through to the United Nations (UN) Sus- managing environmental and social impacts. tainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, ESIA has emerged as a core feature of national and global This Literature Review focuses on national systems governance. Principle 17 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, for ESIA, which the Netherlands Commission for Envi- for example, recommends that countries conduct ronmental Assessment (NCEA) defines as (i) the regu- environmental impact assessment (EIA) when proj- latory environment, (ii) the capacity of organizations ects “are likely to have a significant adverse impact within that environment and (iii) the quality of a set on the environment.” (Rio Declaration 1992, Principle of core functions necessary for effective ESIA. (NCEA 17). The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human 2017, 1).2 As understood, national systems extend Rights (UNGP) (United Nations 2011) as well as the beyond a single ESIA report or process and encom- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- pass both the assessment of environmental and social ment (OECD) Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises impacts as well as the implementation of processes to (OECD 2011) recommend practices for assessing and manage and monitor these impacts. managing social and environmental risks. The 2018 Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public National systems for ESIA consider and manage Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in both environmental and social risks. The OECD, for Latin America and the Caribbean (the Escazú Agree- example, defines environmental impact assessment ment) similarly calls for the broad dissemination of (EIA) to include both environmental and social dimen- ESIA processes and stakeholder consultations when sions, including health, resettlement and other social development projects and activities have or may have consequences. (OECD 1992, 7). Many national EIA significant environmental impact. (Escazú Agreement frameworks also include social and cultural dimen- 2 The World Bank ESF defines ESIA as “an instrument to identify and assess the potential environmental and social impacts of a proposed project, evaluate alterna- tives, and design appropriate mitigation, management, and monitoring measures.” (World Bank 2017, ESS1, Annex 1, emphasis added). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2 sions within the definition of the “environment.” (UNEP They also focused primarily on a subset of regions and 2004, 52). The ESF includes social and environmental sectors, and some are also dated. perspectives and envisions the consideration of a range of environmental and social risks and impacts The primary audience for this Review is World Bank including: those identified by the Environmental Group teams that are supporting Borrower countries Health and Safety Guidelines, threats to community in strengthening their ESIA systems. This audience safety, those related to climate change and trans- includes World Bank Group management, task team boundary risks or impacts, threats to human secu- leaders, and specialists focused on social and envi- rity, disparate impacts, discrimination, and culture ronmental risk management, policy reform and ana- heritage, among others. (World Bank 2017, e.g. ESS1 lytical services related to national or sectoral ESIA para. 28). The IFC Performance Standards similarly systems. A secondary audience consists of govern- envision coordinated assessment and management of ment officials, civil society and other stakeholders social and environmental impacts. (IFC 2012, 3). Con- interested in effective national ESIA systems. This sequently, the Literature Review uses the term ESIA Review intends to complement and inform the range to refer to the coordinated assessment, management of World Bank Group tools and services to strength and monitoring of social and environmental risks and capacity to manage environmental and social risks, impacts, unless a specific distinction is made among including Country Environmental Analyses, Overview EIA, social impact assessment (SIA), ESIAs and other Assessments, ESF Gap Analyses, Environmental and instruments. Social Framework Assessments, Country Systems Framework Assessments and Project-level Capacity 1.1. Objective and Scope Assessments, among others. The Literature Review seeks to inform World Bank Following the components of a national ESIA system Group and Borrower country strategies to strengthen represented in Figure 2, this Literature Review explores national systems for ESIA. The primary objective of goals and principles, core functions, and select design the Review is to identify trends, findings and gaps features of national systems for ESIA. After this in the global literature focused on national systems introduction, Chapter 2 analyzes literature focused on for ESIA across regions and income levels. Through the goals and core principles that underpin effective broad analysis of literature assessing good practices, national systems for ESIA. Chapter 3 reviews the core the Review seeks to inform strategies to strengthen functions of national ESIA systems, and reviews liter- national ESIA systems. This Review is also relevant to ature analyzing legal frameworks, core assessment World Bank Borrower countries in their implementa- and management functions, and public financing for tion of the ESF in World Bank-financed projects. The national systems. Chapter 4 explores seven design ESF states that the World Bank will support efforts to features of national ESIA systems identified by the strengthen and, as appropriate, utilize Borrower coun- Literature Review team. The Review team identified tries’ environmental and social systems in the context these design features based on consultations with of Bank-financed projects. (World Bank 2017, Policy, environment and social experts within the World para. 2). Similarly, the IFC’s Performance Standards Bank to identify salient issues and challenges from envision ESIA processes that align with national ESIA the World Bank’s past engagements with Borrower systems as well as, when applicable, internationally countries to strengthen national ESIA systems. The recognized standards, certification schemes, or codes design features analyzed are: i) accounting for social of practice. (IFC 2012, PS1, para. 6). This Review seeks impacts in national systems for ESIA, ii) strength- to support World Bank Group efforts to strengthen ening public participation, iii) improving effectiveness national systems for ESIA. The Review does not focus and political economy considerations, iv) strength- specifically on World Bank Group practice and experi- ening expertise, independence and accountability, v) ence in these areas, but instead takes a broader per- assessing transboundary impacts, vi) incorporating spective. Some teams within the World Bank Group the mitigation hierarchy into national ESIA systems have previously studied good practices in project- or and vii) managing emerging risks and impacts such as sector-specific ESIAs or EIAs as well as national sys- climate change and civic space. In conclusion, Chapter tems, but these earlier efforts have predominantly 5 summarizes findings from the Literature Review and focused on environment rather than social aspects. recommends possible next steps for the World Bank THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3 Group, Borrower country and civil society efforts to national and international ESIA laws and regulations strengthen national systems for ESIA. themselves, as well as studies that analyze experi- ences from a single country. While valuable studies 1.2 Methodology analyze individual national ESIA systems, the Liter- ature Review relied on these studies for the limited This Review was conceptualized and overseen by the purpose of documenting noteworthy national system World Bank’s Operations Policy and Country Ser- design features or country practices, rather than to vices ESF Implementation Support Unit (OPSIS) and conduct a comprehensive comparative assessment Environmental and International Law Unit, Legal Vice of national systems and practices. Second, the Lit- Presidency (LEGEN). The OPSIS and LEGEN initially erature Review does not review specialized literature conducted a scoping study of internal World Bank focused on assessing and managing risk in particular literature, which identified a need for this external sectors. Numerous sectors have comprehensive and Literature Review. specialized research and practitioner reflection on the assessment and management of risks. Peer-re- The Review focuses primarily on academic and viewed academic and professional journals have grey literature dealing with national systems for devoted special editions to risk in such sectors as oil, ESIA. It reviews documentation and analysis from gas and mining, hydropower and renewable energy, United Nations bodies, government agencies, agribusiness and transport. Third, this Review also industry groups, academic institutions and civil does not focus on the broader national environmental society organizations. It also identifies secondary and social decision-making frameworks beyond the literature through keyword searches in digital national ESIA system, for example Strategic Environ- libraries of academic journals, books and primary mental and Social Assessment (SESA) and Cumulative sources. This includes searches conducted in Google Impacts Assessments (CIA). Fourth, the Review does Scholar, JSTOR, Elsevier’s Scopus and HeinOnline.3 not appraise specific literature focused on the links Key academic journals and practitioner resources between national systems for ESIA and some other were a focus, including the Environmental Impact key topics relevant for the World Bank Group, including Assessment Review and the Impact Assessment and corruption, new technologies, procurement systems, Project Appraisal journal. The Review seeks to assess benefit sharing agreements, resettlement guidelines, meta-analyses and comparative analyses as opposed or decentralized governance models. Fifth, this Review to country-specific practices and included academic is a desk review with a limited number of interviews. In journals as well as practitioner resources. A small addition, by focusing on the state of current literature, number of experts among academic, multilateral and which analyzes current and past practices, this Review non-government sectors were interviewed to sup- may fail to capture emerging trends that have yet to plement the Review. Annex II lists some of the main consistently appear in literature. Finally, the Review organizations and sources of expertise on national assesses literature available in English. While many of ESIA systems that were incorporated into this Review. the leading impact assessment journals and scholarly sources are available in English, this is undoubtedly a This Review’s methodology is limited by a number limitation. Chapter 5 recommends additional areas of of factors. First, the Review primarily focuses on research and steps to address these scope limitations. comparative secondary sources and largely excludes 3 Key search terms included “environmental impact assessment,” “social impact assessment,” “environmental and social impact assessment,” “EIA,” “ESIA,” “SIA,” as well as “participation,” “integration,” “effective,” “political economy,” “mitigation hierarchy,” “precautionary principle,” “human rights,” and “climate change,” among others. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4 Chapter 2 Adobe Stock Chapter 2. Core Principles of National Systems for ESIA Many studies articulate values and principles that 2.1. Principles for Environmental should guide the assessment and the management Impact Assessment of environmental and social risks and impacts. While efforts to identify such values and principles exist in A 1996 study by the Canadian Environmental Assess- both the EIA and SIA literature, greater attention and ment Agency (CEAA) and the IAIA identified principles refinement seems to have focused on EIA as opposed and values for EIA. The joint CEAA and IAIA study, to SIA. This section summarizes efforts to identify titled the International Study of the Effectiveness principles focused on ESIA, noting commonalities and of Environmental Assessment (Sadler, 1996, herein- divergences between EIAs and SIAs. after the International Effectiveness Study), defines environmental impact assessment as “a process of National systems for ESIA are conceptualized differ- identifying, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating ently across countries and regions. In some countries, the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects ESIA is treated primarily as a permitting tool to autho- of proposed projects and physical activities prior rize or deny a particular project. Other countries take to major decisions and commitments being made.” a broader perspective, viewing them as a process to (International Effectiveness Study 1996, Box 2.2.). inform project design and ongoing decision-making, The study was led by Barry Sadler, a consultant participation and adaptive management. Principles based in Canada who served as the director of IEMA for EIA and SIA generally endorse the more expan- as well as an advisor to the United Nations Environ- sive conceptualization of national systems, defining ment Programme (UNEP). The study relied on national them as an ongoing strategy to enable participation experiences from about a dozen mostly western and adaptively manage risks and impacts. This view countries to synthesize knowledge from the preceding is consistent with the approach taken by the World three decades of environmental impact assessment.4 Bank’s ESF. (World Bank 2017, e.g. Vision). The study proposes a framework of values, guiding principles and operational principles that have influ- Literature describes values and principles as founda- enced ESIA good practices over the following 25 years tional for guiding the decisions of policymakers for and remains routinely cited in ESIA literature. These strengthening national ESIA systems. The Interna- principles relate primarily to the implementation of an tional Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), the effective ESIA process but also offer guidance for the leading global network on impact assessment, defines broader national systems which govern and regulate values as “fundamental, ideal-typical, enduring, state- their use. ments of belief” and principles as “general statements of either a common understanding or an indication as The 1996 International Effectiveness Study identified to a course of action about what ought to be done.” three core values that should guide the EIA process: (Vanclay, 2003a, 8). IAIA and the Institute of Environ- “Integrity—the process will conform with accepted mental Management & Assessment (IEMA) developed standards and principles of good practice; Utility—the the international principles for EIA to “promote the process will provide balanced, credible information effective practice of environmental impact assess- for decision making; and Sustainability—the process ment consistent with the institutional and process will promote environmentally-sound development…” arrangements that are in force in different countries.” (International Effectiveness Study 1996, 20-21). The (IAIA/IEMA Principles, 1.2). In other words, principles report suggests that core values should in turn inform seek to help guide policymakers in making decisions the development of guiding principles, operational that strengthen the practice of impact assessment. principles and functions and good practice as detailed in Figure 3. 4 Including from Australia, Canada, France, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Nations Environment Program. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6 Figure 2. From Values to Principles of Good Practice CORE VALUES GUIDING PRINCIPLES OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES ESIA FUNCTIONS GOOD PRACTICE Source: Adapted from International Study (1996), 20. The International Effectiveness Study identifies Practice (IAIA/IEMA Principles); nine principles in fourteen guiding principles for the “Design and Devel- the 2002 UNEP EIA Training Manual (UNEP Training opment of Effective Environmental Assessment Pro- Principles); nine principles in UNEP’s 2004 Environ- cesses.” The specific guiding principles were primarily mental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environ- drawn from country experiences in Australia, Canada mental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach and New Zealand. (International Effectiveness Study (UNEP Integrated Principles); and the eight principles 1996, 22). The International Effectiveness Study’s embedded in the EC EIA Directive and listed on the EC effort to identify principles also referenced some of EIA Directive Overview webpage. (EC Directive 2014, the preceding efforts to identify core elements of EIA EC 2019). Barry Sadler was involved in the develop- practice, including efforts by the European Commis- ment of the International Effectiveness Study princi- sion (EC), UNEP (UNEP 1987) and the OECD (OECD ples, the IAIA/IEMA Principles, and both UNEP efforts, 1992). The International Effectiveness Study’s opera- so the convergence of these efforts is likely attribut- tional principles, which are tied to the effectiveness of able at least in part to his involvement. specific assessment functions, will be discussed in the context of ESIA system functions in Chapter 4. Efforts to identify EIA principles recommend that social risks and impacts should be addressed alongside The International Effectiveness Study’s fourteen environmental ones. The International Effectiveness guiding principles have proven influential since their Study, for example, recommends the consideration publication. The IAIA/IEMA, UNEP and EC all subse- of not just environmental impacts but also “interre- quently articulated guiding principles that either drew lated socio-economic, cultural and health factors.” on, or were informed by, the International Effective- (International Effectiveness Study, 22). The IAIA/IEMA ness Study. Annex I compares guiding EIA principles Principles and the UNEP Integrated Principles simi- from the 1996 International Effectiveness Study with larly speak to the integration of social issues within subsequent efforts to articulate guiding principles, environmental impact assessment, defining EIA as including: fourteen principles in the 1999 IAIA/IEMA assessment of biophysical, social and other relevant Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best effects. (IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Integrated Princi- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7 ples, 6). These principles suggest that the assessment Different efforts to articulate EIA principles over the and management of social impacts alongside envi- last decades have some important commonalities. ronmental ones can be seen as a core principle of EIA These commonalities can be clustered around 11 practice. This Review explores these dynamics further umbrella principles, as described in Table 4. in Chapter 4.1. Table 4. Analysis of International EIA Principles PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION Predictable The EIA process should have a “clear mandate and provisions,” be “vested in law” with “specific, enforceable requirements,” and be “linked to decision-making.” (The International Effectiveness Study, UNEP Integrated Principles). Purposive EIA should be a tool for “environmental protection,” “sustainable development” and “community well-being.” (The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Princi- ples and UNEP Integrated Principles). The EIA system should include analysis of feasible alterna- tives to the proposed action. (UNEP Integrated Principles). Practical and The EIA process should be focused on “problem solving” and should be a strategy for environ- Relevant mental management that “can be implemented.” (UNEP Integrated Principles, 42, IAIA/IEMA Principles, Part 2.4). The EIA process should provide “sufficient, reliable and usable information for development planning and decision making”. (International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles, UNEP Integrated Principles and EC 2019). Adaptive and Flexible The EIA process should be proportionate to its objectives and likely impacts as well as adaptable to address any proposal and situation. (International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles and the EC 2019). Comprehensive The EIA process should concentrate on the full consideration of all significant environmental effects and key issues. (International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles and UNEP Integrated Principles). Integrated EIA should account for social, economic and biophysical impacts and be carried out in a multi- or inter-disciplinary manner. (The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles and UNEP Integrated Principles). Participatory The EIA process should provide meaningful opportunities for involvement by affected communi- ties and the public. Principles vary on the extent to which affected communities should have the right to shape project design, mitigation strategies and monitoring. (International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles, UNEP Integrated Principles and EC 2019). Transparent EIA systems should be transparent, including open processes, procedures and decisions. (The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles, UNEP Inte- grated Principles and the EC 2019). Capable and credible Expertise should be a core element of effective EIA practice. (The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles and the EC Principles). Expertise should be built through support, guidance and exchange. (The International Effectiveness Study). Efficient and cost EIA systems should seek to provide environmental and social protection at the least cost to effective society while avoiding unnecessary burdens. (The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles UNEP Training Principles, and EC 2019). Accountable EIA actors and decision makers should be held responsible for their actions and decisions. (Inter- national Effectiveness Study, UNEP Integrated Principles, EC 2019). Sources: The International Effectiveness Study, IAIA/IEMA Principles, UNEP Training Principles, UNEP Integrated Principles and EC 2019. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8 Interestingly, while these five efforts speak to fair- social impact assessment have many commonalities ness and objectivity, they do not specifically identify but also diverge in some areas. (Vanclay, 2003b). Pro- “independence” as a standalone EIA principle. This fessor Frank Vanclay, now at the University of Gron- principle does appear among the “characteristics” ingen in the Netherlands and an academic expert in identified for “next generation impact assessment.” SIA, served as a convener for the IAIA group that pub- (CEPA 2021, 13, citing Sinclair et al 2021). The concept lished the International Principles For Social Impact of independence of the EIA process is relevant from Assessment in 2003. These principles built on the IAIA a technical and policy standpoint. Technically, the 1999 EIA principles as well as 1992 Rio Declaration IAIA/IEMA Principles recommend impartiality, stating on Environment and Development and other guiding that the EIA “process should be carried out with pro- principles, including the Precautionary Principle. (Rio fessionalism, rigor, fairness, objectivity, impartiality Declaration, 1992). More recently, the United Nations and balance, and be subject to independent checks Department of Economic and Social Affairs published a and verification.” (IAIA/IEMA Principles). From a policy guidance note on “impact assessment for sustainable standpoint, the EC speaks of accountability, defined development,” which notes that EIA and SIA belong to as “decision makers responsible for their actions and a large “family of impact assessment methods” that, decisions.” (EC 2019). However, these principles do not to varying degrees and depending on jurisdictions, specifically speak of independence of the technical consider environmental and social impacts. (CEPA process or a need to ensure that the implementation 2021, 2, 7-8.) of policy frameworks is free of manipulation. Other resources from IAIA and UNEP do point to independent The IAIA International Principles for Social Impact consultation as a key aspect of different elements Assessment focus specifically on guiding SIA practice of a national EIA system, including responsibility for as well as “the consideration of ‘the social’ in environ- preparing impact assessments as well as decision mental impact assessment generally.” (Vanclay 2003a, making. (UNEP 2018, 43-44; 65-66). Chapter 4.3 1). The IAIA International Principles for Social Impact explores how national assessment systems establish Assessment are organized around i) core values, ii) and maintain independence alongside sufficient exper- fundamental principles for development and iii) prin- tise and accountability. ciples specific to SIA practice. The IAIA International Principles for Social Impact Assessment are rooted in 2.2. Principles for Social Impact international, regional and national legal obligations Assessment and are arguably more values-oriented than the inter- national EIA principles, with frequent references to The IAIA has also developed International Principles equity, democratic process and legally binding human for Social Impact. This effort, and subsequent liter- rights obligations. (Vanclay 2003a, 9). Table 5 provides ature, reveals that principles for environmental and a summary of these international principles. Table 5. IAIA International Principles for SIA PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION Equitable Equity considerations should be a fundamental element of impact assessment and development plan- ning. Predictive Many of the social impacts of planned interventions can be predicted. Adaptive Planned interventions can be modified to reduce their negative social impacts and enhance their pos- itive impacts. Cohesive SIA should be an integral part of the development process, involved in all stages from inception to follow-up audit. Sustainable There should be a focus on socially sustainable development, with SIA contributing to the determina- tion of best development alternative(s) – SIA (and EIA) have more to offer than just being an arbiter between economic benefit and social cost. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9 PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION Generative In all planned interventions and their assessments, avenues should be developed to build the social and human capital of local communities and to strengthen democratic processes. Beneficial In all planned interventions, but especially where there are unavoidable impacts, investigate ways to turn impacted peoples into beneficiaries. Flexible The SIA should give due consideration to the alternatives of any planned intervention, but especially in cases when there are likely to be unavoidable impacts. Mitigative Full consideration should be given to the potential mitigation measures against social and environmental impacts, even where impacted communities may approve of the planned intervention and where they may be regarded as beneficiaries. Contextual Local knowledge and experience and acknowledgment of different local cultural values should be incorporated in any assessment. Fair There should be no use of violence, harassment, intimidation or undue influence in connec- tion with the assessment or implementation of a planned intervention. Inclusive Developmental processes that infringe the human rights of any section of society should not be accepted. Source: Vanclay 2003a. The International Principles for SIA frame the assess- turing national systems for ESIA. However, differences ment and management of social impacts in the overall between SIA and EIA principles also raise questions life cycle of a project. Literature critiques EIA for per- around integration and approach. EIA literature often ceived failures to link to project implementation and describes SIA as an approach that can be integrated provide ongoing management of social and environ- into the definition and implementation of national mental issues. (Ortolano 1995, 13-22). Some critics ESIA systems. Whereas some SIA practitioners have contend that EIA serves primarily as a regulatory deci- critiqued national ESIA systems as a “box ticking” sion of whether and how a project should or should not exercise and have, at times, pointed to the need for proceed as opposed to a strategy for ongoing adaptive parallel processes. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 20). management over the course of project implementa- As this Review will explore further in Chapter 4, the tion. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, iv). The IAIA Interna- World Bank’s ESF envisions coordinated assessment tional Principles for Social Impact Assessment rec- and ongoing management of social and environmental ommend incorporating SIA throughout the life cycle risks and impacts. (World Bank 2017). ESS10, for of a project, seeking to empower communities to help example, requires projects to engage with project-af- conceptualize development in their contexts, debate fected parties and other interested parties throughout project design and alternatives and contribute to deci- the project lifecycle. (World Bank 2017, ESS10). The sions over the course of implementation. (e.g., Vanclay IFC Performance Standards similarly incorporate 2003a, Principles 4, 5 and 8). elements of the SIA principles by requiring “adequate” community engagement “throughout the life of the Principles for environmental and social impact assess- project.” (IFC 2012, 2). ment help inform tradeoffs and decisions for struc- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10 Chapter 3 Askolds Berovskis/Adobe Stock Chapter 3. Core Functions of National Systems for ESIA Literature assesses good practices regarding the core xiv-xv). These dynamics will be explored throughout functions of national systems for ESIA. A mix of qual- this section, including in sections discussing adaptive itative and quantitative research, practitioner reflec- management, monitoring and auditing and financing. tion and evaluation identifies good practices within Capacity and resource constraints have the potential core functions of national ESIA systems. Literature to undermine the full range of functions in a national places greater emphasis on the form and process of assessment system. The attraction and retention of ESIA functions and reports as opposed to the extent talented environmental and social practitioners within to which national ESIA systems manage to deliver on institutions is identified as a challenge. Chapter 4.4 stated objectives. will look at capacity in the context of the political economy of national ESIA systems. Efforts to document effective national ESIA system functions have mostly originated in environmental Transparency and accessibility are described as crit- literature, but literature increasingly includes social ical characteristics of effective national systems for perspectives as well. As described in Chapter 2, the ESIA. Access to information in environmental decision fields of EIA and SIA have emerged both in partnership making was enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration and in parallel. Many national systems incorporate and has been a core feature of ESIA good practice. social issues within environmental assessment, and (Rio Declaration, 1992). The 2018 Escazú Agreement, this section will explore core functions in the context referenced in the Introduction, similarly provides of national systems for ESIA, as opposed to EIA and detailed obligations around access to environmental SIA as separate disciplines. The Review relies on a information. (Escazú Agreement 2018, Article 5). The combination of social, environmental, political and United National Economic Commission for Europe economic literature. (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Jus- The literature identifies capacity and sufficient tice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Conven- resources as essential requirements for all actors tion) has forty-seven Parties, and includes specific within the national ESIA system. Literature consis- requirements on access to environmental informa- tently suggests that weak institutional and orga- tion. (Aarhus Convention 1998, Article 4). These nizational capacity undermines implementation of international and regional decisions have taken root national systems for ESIA. Capacity is understood to in national legal frameworks and practices. In 2018 include governmental capacity within key institutions, UNEP pointed to “an increasing trend” within national capacity of consultants and those involved in the ESIA systems to publish screening decisions, including assessment process, and the capacity of communi- explicitly spelling out whether an ESIA is required and ties and civil society organizations engaged with the what level of review will be used and allow for appeal national ESIA process. UNEP literature speaks of an of this decision. (UNEP 2018, 40). Access to informa- “implementation gap” within national systems where tion allows project design and benefits to be tailored legal requirements routinely fail to be fully complied to the needs of local communities, and it strengthens with. (UNEP 2018, 7). UNEP suggests that the root accountability by providing opportunities for the deci- causes of this implementation gap is “the absence of sion to be debated and challenged. national capacity at all levels of government” as well as within other core actors in a national system for This chapter assesses literature in three areas: i) legal ESIA. (UNEP 2018, 7). A 2005 United Nations Economic frameworks underpinning national systems for ESIA; Commission for Africa study similarly found that ii) core functions of national systems for ESIA; and iii) EIA capacity in many African countries fell short of effective and accountable financing for national sys- what was needed to meaningfully implement existing tems for ESIA. requirements of these national systems. (UNECA 2005, THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 12 3.1. Legal Frameworks for the Convention on Biological Diversity (Convention National Systems for ESIA on Biological Diversity 1992, Article 14). The UNECE’s Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Literature analyses legal frameworks for national Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention), dis- systems for ESIA in two ways. First, literature cussed in detail in section 4.5, establishes obligations explores the range of international, regional and for parties to assess and mitigate transboundary national laws and norms which require countries to environmental impacts. (Espoo Convention 1991). In establish and implement national systems for ESIA. addition, the International Court of Justice has rec- Relevant requirements for ESIA include international ognized as a binding norm of customary international law, national laws and regulations, multilateral and law the duty of States to “undertake an environmental regional development bank standards (e.g. World impact assessment where there is a risk that the pro- Bank Environmental and Social Framework and IFC posed industrial activity may have significant adverse Performance Standards), industry standards (e.g. impact in a transboundary context, in particular, on a Equator Principles) and guidelines (e.g. the Voluntary shared resource.” (ICJ 2010, 83). Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure or VGGT), among others. Second, literature assesses the Emerging international and regional instruments ways in which the functions of a national ESIA system regarding ESIA and public participation have also are most effectively integrated through national legal played an important role in catalyzing the develop- frameworks. This section explores both areas. ment of national systems for ESIA. For example, the EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directive that Legal frameworks for national systems for ESIA help came into force in 1985 has been updated several establish the review justification, assessment, and times since. The EC EIA Directive requires EIA for consultation requirements and approval criteria for projects likely to have significant effects on the envi- proposed projects. While literature and safeguards ronment. (EC 2014). A separate 2014 EC Non-Finan- standards have historically focused on minimizing cial Reporting Directive requires large companies to project-related harm, literature is evolving towards disclose certain information on the way they operate an expectation that ESIA systems should screen out and manage social and environmental challenges. (EC projects that are not adequately justified to maximize 2014b). The Aarhus Convention, referenced above, project benefits. Such a focus can help the govern- establishes a right for those directly affected as ment and the public transparently assess whether well as environmental non-governmental organiza- projects are in the interest of the public. The justifi- tions (NGOs) to participate in environmental decisions. cation of a project’s public purpose can have implica- (Aarhus Convention 1998). The Escazú Agreement tions. For example, some international agreements, similarly affirms the right of participation in environ- including several bilateral investment treaties, as mental decision making in participating Latin Amer- well as national systems, only allow for expropriation ican countries. (Escazú Agreement 2018, Article 7). (or the potential for expropriation) where there is an established public purpose for the proposed project. The ESIA has also become increasingly embedded in (OECD 2004). national law, alongside developments in international and regional instruments. A 2019 article by Professor Legal Obligations for ESIA Tseming Yang of Santa Clara Law School surveyed national legal frameworks in 197 countries and found Multiple sources of law as well as standards encourage that EIA is required in national law in at least 183 states, financial institutions and proponents to screen countries, or ninety-three percent of counties world- and manage the environmental and social risks and wide. (Yang 2019, 527). Professor Yang argues that impacts of projects. Multiple international instru- this widespread acceptance and use of EIA as a tool ments require or encourage State Parties to use ESIA of environmental governance should mean that EIA is or similar assessments. These include the Rio Decla- a principle of international law under the definition of ration (Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 17), the Paris public international law. (Yang 2019, 527). Agreement (Paris Agreement 2015, Article 7.9/c), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Law Multilateral development banks require the use of of the Sea Convention 1982, Articles 204-206) and ESIA for project planning and management. The THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13 World Bank’s ESF requires that the World Bank Regulation of ESIA in and Borrower countries assess and manage envi- National Frameworks ronmental and social risk and benefit in the context of investment project financing. (World Bank 2017, Literature also explores how environmental and social Vision, paras. 2-3). The African Development Bank, impact assessment is effectively incorporated into the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for national policy frameworks. The literature describes Reconstruction and Development, and the European how ESIA requirements are incorporated through a Investment Bank, among others, have developed sim- range of statutes, acts, regulations or guidelines. ilar safeguard policies that require the use of ESIA for (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 43). A UNEP review projects with potentially significant environmental or found that some countries initially incorporated ESIA social impacts. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 48-50). requirements through administrative rulemaking in particular sectors and later evolved to incorporate Industry standards and voluntary guidelines call on them through more comprehensive national legisla- financial institutions and other actors to use ESIA. tive frameworks. (UNEP 2004, 7). Typically, countries Many private sector actors may have their own ESIA incorporate core elements of ESIA into broad legis- requirements alongside those of the national system, lation with more detailed requirements contained in and multiple requirements or standards may apply. implementing regulations. (UNEP 2018, 6). ESIA laws (UNEP 2004, 29). Recent decades have seen the pro- often also detail specific sectoral responsibilities. liferation of multiple standards and requirements for (UNEP 2018, 6). companies. (Vanclay and Hanna 2019, 2). Key stan- dards include the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Several international resources offer comparative anal- Enterprises, the UNGP, Principles for Responsible ysis of legal frameworks for national systems for ESIA. Investment (PRI), the Equator Principles, and the VGG. The NCEA and the Environmental Law Alliance World- (Vanclay and Hanna 2019, 2-5). As an example, the wide (ELAW) each maintain databases of legislation and Equator Principles codify core EIA guidelines for finan- implementing guidelines for many of the world’s EIA and cial institutions. The Equator Principles were launched ESIA systems. (NCEA 2022; ELAW 2022). NCEA’s data- in 2003 and are broadly consistent with the approach base contains country profiles that analyze and provide taken by the IFC Performance Standards. (Glasson valuable snapshots of countries’ ESIA practices. The and Therivel 2019, 48). As of early 2022, 127 financial Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations institutions in 38 countries had adopted the Equator (FAO), International Union for Conservation of Nature Principles (Equator Principles, 2022). According to an and UNEP jointly maintain ECOLEX, a comprehensive analysis by UNEP in 2018, signatories to the Equator global database of environmental laws, that serves as an Principles cover more than two thirds of international important resource of primary source documents. The project finance debt in emerging markets. (UNEP 2018, Development Bank of Southern Africa and the Southern 16). While these standards, principles and guidelines African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) have some key divergences, they are generally under- have produced four editions of a Handbook on Environ- stood to advance a reinforcing set of requirements mental Assessment Legislation in the Southern Africa around the assessment and management of environ- region. (DBSA and SAIEA 2020). These resources are mental and social impacts. (Expert Interview, June 11, valuable for identifying comparative elements of legal 2020). frameworks. The ESF and IFC Performance Standards also contain core environmental and social standards As national systems for ESIA must account for that may serve as an important reference point for multiple legal obligations and standards, the World national systems for ESIA. Bank’s ESF foresees the possibility of a coordinated, “Common Approach” to assessment in a given NCEA and SAIEA have developed important diagnostic project. (World Bank 2017, Policy, para. 9) If multiple tools for assessing ESIA effectiveness including a lenders are supporting a project, they may agree on focus on legal frameworks. NCEA and SAIEA merged a Common Approach, i.e. a jointly agreed upon set of their approaches in 2019 to create the ESY Map Tool. environmental and social standards materially consis- (NCEA 2020; SAIEA 2011). The ESY Map looks at five tent with the objectives of the ESF. (World Bank 2017, dimensions of ESIA: i) process, ii) enabling conditions, Policy, para. 9). iii) capacities, iv) performance and v) context. The tool THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 14 includes numerous questions about the adequacy of the summary of EIA practice, for example, highlights that legal framework including how it incorporates different most countries provide for a right to administrative ESIA functions and whether the legislation clearly sets appeal. (UNEP 2018, 71). A key difference in national out core ESIA principles. (NCEA 2020). NCEA and SAIEA systems is whether the right to appeal concerns both have now used ESY Map tool in multiple countries, substantive and procedural causes. With substantive including with the World Bank in Uganda as well as in appeals, parties can contest evidence and analysis Pakistan, Jordan, Guinea and Tunisia. underlying an ESIA decision, such as the scientific basis for decision-making or the authorities’ interpre- ESIA legislation typically balances a need to be pre- tation of the ESIA legal requirements. With procedural scriptive with discretion while maintaining flexibility. appeal, a party can only challenge whether the estab- The literature suggests that legislative requirements lished process was followed appropriately. Joseph et enhance certainty and can promote effectiveness. But al. surveyed seventy-five ESIA experts practicing in rigidity may also constrain innovation and place undue Canada and found that these experts recommended burdens on institutions, proponents and affected com- that appeals should be permissible for both substan- munities without significant social or environmental tive and procedural causes. (Joseph et al. 2015, 248). benefits. (UNEP 2018, 7). Flexibility within national systems empowers regulators and decision makers Another unresolved dynamic within this right to appeal to interpret regulations for a particular project, geog- is who should have standing to launch an appeal. Some raphy or moment. But excessive institutional discretion countries allow appeals only from those with a direct can also lead to inconsistent processes and confusion. financial or property interest affected by the proposed (UNEP 2018, 7). Excessive discretion may also enable project, while others allow for the proponent or the rent seeking as proponents take advantage of ambigu- general public to appeal. (Joseph et al. 2015, 248). ities and circumvent the intent of assessment require- European courts have taken an expansive view of ments. (World Bank 2002, ii). Literature suggests that the right to appeal, requiring “wide access to justice” national ESIA systems should balance these two reali- and enabling appeal by those directly affected by a ties to implement functions in ways that promote cer- proposed project as well as “environmental protec- tainty while also ensuring flexibility and effectiveness. tion associations” and civil society groups. (Edwards 2013, 528). A final unresolved question with the right The ways in which core functions are allocated within to appeal concerns jurisdiction: depending on the national systems influences system effectiveness. Lit- approach, appeals can be heard by the environmental erature does not point to a uniform good practice for and social assessment decision maker, within the legislation and enabling regulations, but contextual- general court system, or some other specialized body. ly-specific design is critical to effectiveness. The OECD (Joseph et al. 2015, 248). Environment Policy Committee recommends that countries nonetheless establish a “clear scope and pro- 3.2. Institutional Functions of cedures for assessment of the environmental impacts.” National Systems for ESIA (OECD 2020, 4). But effective institutional structures vary by context as they operate within broader gover- The literature identifies core functions within national nance structures in a particular country. An effective systems for ESIA. These typically include: screening; national ESIA system within a federal system, a decen- scoping and preliminary assessment; impact assess- tralized system or a unitary system will look different. ment, mitigation and management; the impact (UNEP 2018, 23-24). National ESIA systems should assessment report and management plan, review; account for these particularized governance features decision making and licensing; adaptive management; that extend beyond ESIA-specific characteristics. Lit- and follow-up, monitoring and auditing. As explained erature suggests that it is critical for impact assess- in the Introduction, this paper takes a broad view of ment and management to be integrated within broader national systems to include not only the assessment planning and decision-making structures. (Interna- phase but also the functions and steps leading up to tional Effectiveness Study 1996, 34-35). and following that assessment in the management of social and environmental impacts in projects. Table 6 Literature also suggests that legal frameworks should describes the substance of functions at each step of a incorporate the right to appeal ESIA decisions. UNEP’s national system for ESIA. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 15 Table 6. Core Functions of National Systems for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment FUNCTION SUBSTANCE Screening is the first step to determine 1) whether a project is likely to cause significant impacts and therefore trigger an EIA or ESIA requirement under the national framework Screening and, 2) if the assessment is required, what standard of scrutiny applies. National systems typically establish levels of scrutiny based on the significance of expected environmental, social and other relevant impacts. This step is important to strengthen proportionality by targeting appropriate review on projects with likely impacts. Scoping and preliminary assessment are used to identify potential project impacts that are likely to be significant. Effective national systems typically establish processes to identify what types of specific impacts should be assessed during this stage. The scoping Scoping and preliminary and preliminary assessment phase typically concludes with the development of terms of assessment reference to guide the assessment. Ambiguity at this stage can undermine the effec- tiveness of the broader national impact assessment system by causing the subsequent phases to either lack focus or fail to sufficiently assess key impacts. Impact assessment identifies and assesses the likely environmental, social and other Impact assessment, impacts of the planned project and select alternatives. Mitigation and management mitigation and management identify tools and approaches to avoid, minimize, offset and monitor the impacts that are expected to occur over the project life cycle. The EIA or ESIA report documents the findings of the assessment and describes proposed mitigation and management measures. The purpose of the report is to explain the likely The ESIA report and manage- impacts of the planned project, proposed measures for mitigation, the significance of ment plan effects, and the concerns of the interested public and the communities affected by the proposal. The report should include an environmental and/or social management plan to establish requirements for mitigating and managing impacts. A review body, established in accordance with legislation, assesses the report to deter- mine whether it fulfills the ESIA legal requirements, such as conformance with the terms of reference (TOR), provision of a meaningful assessment of the planned project, and inclusion of all necessary information required for decision making. Often, the reviewer Review requests proponents to provide additional information to clarify outstanding questions. Good practice suggests that the public and affected communities should play a role at this stage, including to have an opportunity to learn about and make inputs into the proposed project. In accordance with the requirements and criteria spelled out in national legislation, the competent decision maker under the national system approves or rejects the proposal Decision-making and and, as appropriate, conditions authorization on certain implementation terms and licensing conditions. Good practice suggests that environmental and/or social management plans should be legally binding and detail implementation requirements and processes. Once a project is authorized or licensed, effective national impact assessment systems adaptively manage the environmental and social impacts of the project, implementation Adaptive management and sufficiency of mitigation measures. This can include making amendments and adjustments based on actual, as opposed to foreseeable, impacts as well as ongoing communication with stakeholders. Follow-up, monitoring and auditing assess compliance with licensing conditions. Moni- toring is a process by which the project developer conducts ongoing assessment to ensure that no critical impact indicator exceeds levels in the license conditions. Follow-up refers Follow-up, monitoring and to the process by which a regulator ensures that the project complies with established auditing conditions. Monitoring and auditing should account for unanticipated impacts and undertake environmental and social audits to optimize management. National systems establish consequences for non-compliance with licensing terms and conditions. Some national systems require coordinated and joint monitoring. Sources: International Effectiveness Study (1996); IAIA/IEMA (1999); World Bank (2002); Vanclay (2003); IISD (2016); World Bank (2017); UNEP (2018); Glasson and Therivel (2019); SAEIA (2020). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 16 The functions and processes of national EIA systems Figure 3 visualizes monitoring, adaptive management have been helpfully visualized by multiple authors. and auditing as one phase of the national system. An Figure 4, below, produced by UNEP in 2018 helps visu- illustrative process of SIA is described and visualized alize the core functions and processes of an illustra- in Chapter 4.1. tive national EIA system. In contrast to Table 3 above, Figure 3. National EIA System Functions and Process Project Proposal Screening Preliminary No (full) EIA Required Assessment EIA No Significant significant impact impact Scoping and Impact Analysis Public participation* can occure at any stage of the EIA EIA Report Public Participation* process. To date, it mostly takes place at the scoping and review stages. Review/Consultation Resubmit Decision making Redesign Information from each process contributes to Approved (with effective future EIAs Not Approved conditions) Follow-up and Adaptive Management Source: UNEP 2018, 32. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 17 Literature suggests national systems are most effec- This subsection analyzes good practice around the tive when they are holistic and well-coordinated. core functions of national systems: screening; scoping National systems work most effectively when core and preliminary assessment; impact assessment, functions—including those carried out by different mitigation and management; the report and man- institutions—are well coordinated and aligned towards agement plan; review, decision making and licensing; clear decision making and monitoring. (International adaptive management; and monitoring and auditing. Effectiveness Study 1996, 110). A coordinated system does not mean that a single institution must be Screening responsible for all functions of a national ESIA system. Indeed, effective national systems might assess dif- Screening is typically the first phase of a national ferent types of risks, incorporate different levels of assessment system that determines whether an ESIA government, private sector commitments and civil is needed and what level of review is required based society actors as well as different sources and types on foreseeable risks. Screening plays an important of expertise. (UNEP 2004, 29). role in ensuring that the ESIA process is consistent with its objectives, proportionate to likely impacts Literature suggests that coordination challenges are and adaptable to a range of situations. In 2018, UNEP both horizontal and vertical. In Nepal, for example, the suggested that screening should be separate from World Bank Environment Sector Diagnostic identifies scoping but it is inconsistently integrated into national challenges in coordination among federal ministries as systems. The screening phase is most effective when well as coordination between federal and regional enti- requirements for information are clearly established ties. At a federal level, ineffective ministerial coordina- in law and policy. (UNEP 2018, 31). Screening can help tion between the Ministry of Forests and Environment, ensure that projects with likely significant risks are which has responsibility for ESIA review and approval, assessed while excluding projects without reasonably and line ministries was found to undermine mean- foreseeable or serious impacts. The World Bank ESF ingful incorporation of ESIA into project assessment affirms the importance of effective screening and and management. (World Bank 2019, 64). Between requires the analysis of screening capacity within Bor- regions, the Diagnostic warns that coordination chal- rower country systems before country systems can lenges with EIA assessment and approval between the be used to manage risks in World Bank-financed proj- federal and regional government could drive fiscal and ects. (World Bank 2017, Purpose, para. 36). Failing to economic instability. (World Bank 2019, 59). effectively screen projects can overload national sys- tems and may fail to target ESIA resources towards Literature identifies three main approaches to overall projects with the greatest foreseeable impacts. The responsibility for a national ESIA system: (i) central- World Bank environmental team in Europe and Central ized authority, (ii) specialized authority or (iii) sectoral Asia (ECA) suggests that ambiguities in screening can authority. Decentralized models are also increasingly encourage corruption as proponents and government common; each has been shown to effectively manage regulators may negotiate what standards apply. risks in certain circumstances. As defined by UNEP, in (World Bank 2002, ii). a centralized ESIA system, the national environmental ministry or agency has the responsibility for coordi- Literature discusses two approaches to screen proj- nating, implementing and supervising the national ects in national systems based on potential risks: the system. In a specialized ESIA system, a dedicated “threshold” and “case-by-case” approaches. (Glasson national agency is created to coordinate, implement and Therivel 2019, 86). Screening approaches vary sig- and supervise the assessment and management pro- nificantly both between national systems and within cess. In a sectoral ESIA system, sectoral ministries or countries with federal or decentralized governance. agencies have primary responsibility for licensing in (Rocha & Fonseca 2017). The “threshold” approach their area of responsibility, often supported by coor- categorizes projects based on scale and risks of fore- dination from the environment ministry or agency. In seeable impacts and then assesses projects falling addition, federal systems may involve some sharing of into different categories within the established level of national system roles and responsibilities among the scrutiny. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 86). These cate- national government and regional or local government gories could be based, for example, on the combination (UNEP 2018, 30). of the size of the project (a specific hectare threshold), THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 18 likely impacts (tonnage of waste or emissions) or loca- tion and stakeholder engagement “as early as possible tion of projects in sensitive areas (wetlands). (Glasson in the project development process and in a timeframe and Therivel 2019, 86). These are typically spelled that enables meaningful consultations with stake- out in the ESIA legislation and regulations, as is the holders on project design.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, case in Mozambique described in Box 1. A case-by- paras. 6, 13). UNEP similarly highlights participation case approach is bespoke and evaluates a project’s at the screening stage as an important good practice. potential risks against more flexible criteria. (Glasson (UNEP 2018, 34). and Therivel 2019, 86-88). Literature suggests that each approach has strengths and weaknesses. The Literature suggests that effective screening can threshold approach offers more certainty, and links deliver environmental and social mitigation at a com- review with foreseeable risks, but can be inflexible. The paratively low cost. Research has shown that the case-by-case approach offers more flexibility and pre- screening phase, which is far less burdensome than the cision but increases complexity, resource needs and, full scoping and ESIA phases, can catalyze important invariably, timelines. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 87). changes in project design regardless of whether an ESIA is triggered. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 88-89). Box 1. Screening in Mozambique As described in Box 2, researchers in Denmark found that screening can further environmental and social In Mozambique, four categories of projects sustainability goals. This example suggests that establish levels of review scrutiny at the meaningful screening criteria can be an efficient way screening stage. The 2015 Decree on Environ- to influence project design even before triggering a full mental Impact Assessment lists four categories ESIA. of projects and requires the Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development (MITADER) Box 2. Project Design Change Through to conduct project screening and project Screening in Denmark classification. (Mozambique 2015, Annex 1-4). MITADER assesses project complexity and Researchers in Denmark documented how the foreseeable impact and then classifies the screening phase can trigger significant changes project according to four categories (A+, A, B or in projects. Researchers at the Danish Centre for C), with A+ projects likely to have “irreversible” Environmental Assessment at Aalborg Uni- impacts and C minimal impacts. Assessment versity analyzed approximately 100 screening for A+ and A projects entails rigorous scrutiny decisions within the Danish system. They found whereas Category B projects are subjected to a that close to 45% of projects made changes Simplified Environmental Report and Category during the screening phase, with both the C need only comply with General Procedures of proponents and EIA consultants recommending Good Practice in Environmental Management. modifications. While most of these changes (NCEA 2019). were described by the researchers as “minor,” including project location, size and technologies deployed, the authors suggest the changes “will Most national systems primarily screen projects provide significant environmental benefits.” with information provided through self-assessment (Nielsen et al 2005, 43-45). It appears that the by proponents; however, literature points to this as screening phase can do more than determine an important moment for public participation. Many whether a full ESIA is needed. Instead, the national systems have developed forms or templates Danish researchers conclude that screening can for screening requirements. In some jurisdictions, this be “a significant and efficient instrument for is called a project report or environmental impact preventing pollution” in its own right. (Nielsen et statement. (UNEP 2018, 31). Some national systems, al. 2005, 47). including Kenya, Nigeria, and federal projects in Canada, incorporate public consultation from broader constituencies at this stage, including potentially affected communities and multiple government agen- cies. (UNEP 2018, 33-34). The ESF requires participa- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 19 The sequencing of screening and review within Scoping and Preliminary Assessment national systems can be a coordination challenge across multiple branches and levels of government. In Scoping and preliminary assessment concretely iden- China, for example, UNEP found that the 2016 update tify social and environmental risks that are foresee- to the ESIA national system enabled sectoral licensing able and most significant. In many contexts, scoping and environmental assessment to progress in parallel. and preliminary assessment take the form of devel- (UNEP 2018, 21). A sectoral ministry is permitted to oping terms of reference for an ESIA report. Literature approve a license without an EIA while the national finds that scoping can clarify goals and ensure that assessment agency assesses the project in parallel. resources spent on the analysis will be targeted on A report from the International Institute for Sustain- agreed priorities. (UNEP 2004, 47). This in turn helps able Development (IISD) similarly notes a potential for ensure that the report will be narrowly focused and conflicts between environmental and sectoral agen- linked to decision-making needs. (UNEP 2018, 41-2). cies, highlighting the “importance of having the same Scoping is mandatory in some jurisdictions (e.g. Neth- understanding of the role and importance of ESIAs erlands, Canada), but not others (e.g. UK). (Glasson and and related plans in the permitting process.” (IISD Therivel 2019, 89). The ESF, through Environmental 2019, 20). UNEP suggests that getting the sequencing and Social Standard (ESS) 1, incorporates scoping as right—by connecting the ESIA process to permitting an element of ESIA good practice. (World Bank 2017, decisions— is important to promote the effectiveness ESS1 Annex 1, para. 4). of the national ESIA system. (UNEP 2018, 21). The literature is split on the value of different Disagreements may occur at the screening phase. approaches to scoping and preliminary assessment Disagreements in the approach to reviews are practice. As documented in Glasson and Therivel, driven by competing values, for example tensions scoping and preliminary assessment play a vital role between development, alternatives, conservation and as they are “often the first stage of negotiations and tradeoffs. Disagreements at this stage tend to focus consultation between a [proponent] and other inter- on the definition and likelihood of significant impacts ested parties. It is an important step in EIA because it arising between the various stakeholders, including enables the limited resources of the EIA team to be allo- governments, proponents, affected communities and cated to best effect and prevents misunderstanding the broader public. (International Effectiveness Study between parties.” (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 88). 1996, 95). UNEP found that screening decisions, which Others have questioned the utility of this step, arguing establish the standard of review for the ESIA process, that scoping and preliminary assessment are often is the most frequently litigated ESIA function in the EU, too broad, thereby failing to sufficiently focus the ESIA Canada and the United States. (UNEP 2018, 31). Given process and, as a result, amount to an unnecessary that screening establishes the “rules of the game” for hurdle for projects. (IEMA 2011, 4; cited in Glasson and the rest of the EIA or ESIA process, transparent and Therivel 2019). reasoned decision- making at this stage is viewed as increasingly vital. Scoping and preliminary assessment can be an oppor- tunity to strengthen horizontal and vertical coordi- Glasson and Therivel suggest that there are growing nation among relevant ministries. Some jurisdictions concerns about “disproportionate” ESIA, and that require that the competent authority coordinate screening is a key moment to prudently allocate with sectoral ministries during scoping and prelim- national resources for ESIAs. (Glasson and Therivel inary assessment. (UNEP 2018, 42). A 2017 United 2019, 286) The authors define disproportionate EIA as Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and SAIEA the concern that “the EIA process is taking too long, report recommends strengthening sectoral linkages getting too complex and costing too much.” (Glasson throughout the ESIA process, including through a and Therivel 2019, 286). They suggest that more required “integration workshop” at the scoping and effective screening and scoping, as explored below, preliminary assessment phase. This workshop can can help to allocate review resources to projects with bring together relevant sectoral ministries to ensure the greatest foreseeable risks. (Glasson and Therivel social, environmental and other concerns are inte- 2019, 287). grated. (UNDP 2017, 20). SAIEA recommends this is an important strategy for effective integration of social THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 20 and environmental impacts, as explored further in The ESIA Report and Management Chapter 4.1. Plan Public participation at the scoping and preliminary National systems allocate responsibilities for prepa- assessment phase helps ensure public input prior to ration of the ESIA report to different actors. UNEP the ESIA report. Multiple national ESIA systems enable notes that most systems require that ESIA reports be or require the participation of project-affected com- prepared by government-licensed consultants. (UNEP munities at the preliminary assessment phase. (UNEP 2018, 43-44). The ways in which these consultants 2004, 47). Community members should participate are licensed by government can be an important guar- through institutionalized mechanisms, for example antee of their independence, since project proponents working groups and a series of engagements with the typically pay their report preparation fees. These proponent. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 88-89). This dynamics will be explored in Chapter 4.3. The United can help ensure that community-relevant impacts are States is an exception; there, government agencies incorporated into project planning and often provides are themselves often responsible for conducting EIA opportunities to explore potential alternative design. analysis and preparing the report. (UNEP 2018, 43). (UNEP 2018, 42). Box 3 describes how this process is used at the scoping phase in South Africa. National systems incorporate a variety of approaches to predicting impacts and recommending alternative Box 3. Alternative Project Design at the and mitigation strategies. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, Scoping Phase in South Africa 114-5). Defining impacts is arguably the most technical aspect of the ESIA process, which Glasson and Therivel describe as a “black box” where scientific decisions are South Africa’s Department of Environmental made, often without sufficient or meaningful partic- Affairs and Tourism describes alternative ipation. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 143-4). National project design as “one of the most critical systems seek to incorporate alternative designs in dif- elements of the environmental assessment ferent ways. Box 3 summarizes recommendations for process.” (South Africa 2004). The South alternative project design developed by South Africa’s Africa guidance recommends that alternatives Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. should be discussed at the earliest possible stage—including screening and scoping—so Literature recommends that national systems should as to increase the likelihood of modifications typically require an Environmental and Social Manage- or alternatives. The Department of Environ- ment Plan (ESMP) or similar tool as a component of the mental Affairs identifies 11 possible alternatives assessment process. ESMPs, or Environmental Man- including: (i) activity; (ii) location; (iii) process; (iv) agement Plans (EMPs) and Social Impact Management demand; (v) scheduling; (vi) input; (vii) routing; Plans (SIMPs), essentially establish a project’s risk (viii) site layout; (ix9) scale; (x) design alterna- management strategy and outline capacity building tives; as well as (xi) outright rejection of the pro- and community engagement elements. They are posal. (South Africa 2004, 2). The government, tools to ensure that risks and impacts identified in an proponent and affected public must all play a ESIA link to ongoing monitoring and adaptative man- role in developing alternative options, including agement of the project. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, at the scoping phase. (South Africa 2004, 9). 304). The ESMP summarizes likely project impacts, The ultimate goal is “enhancing the environ- as detailed in the impact assessment, and proposes mental benefits of the proposed activity, and or corresponding measures and adaptive management through reducing or avoiding potentially signifi- strategies to account for these impacts. (UNEP 2004, cant negative impacts.” (South Africa 2004, 4). 55-6). Box 4 summarizes ESF guidance on effective ESMPs. A 2018 survey of agricultural investors con- ducted by the World Bank found that 70% of investors conducted ESIAs yet only half developed specific ESMPs; as a result, this appears to be a phase where more focus is warranted. (UNCTAD 2018). ESMPs will be further explored in Chapter 4.1. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 21 Box 4. What does an Effective ESMP rize literature focused on review, decision making and include? licensing. The World Bank’s ESS1 Guidance Note for Literature points to varied good practices in review, Borrower countries provides an outline of decision-making and licensing conditions. Key the core elements of an ESMP. The Guidance institutional considerations at the review and deci- Note describes the purpose of the ESMP as sion-making phase include institutional mechanisms establishing mitigating, monitoring and regu- and criteria for review, authority for final decision latory activities necessary to eliminate, offset making and appeal mechanisms. How systems incor- or reduce a project’s social and environmental porate licensing conditions as part of ongoing moni- impacts. The note recommends that ESMPs toring and adaptive management is emerging as a key include detailed information on i) mitigation, element of effective national ESIA systems. ii) monitoring, iii) capacity development and training, iv) implementation schedule and cost Decisions of whether and how to proceed with a estimates and v) integration of the ESMP within project “present very complex choices among interests project implementation structures. (World Bank and values.” (Dietz and Stern 2008, 7). ESIA decisions 2018a, 22-24). must account for both the technical dimensions of the project as well as the project’s “political, social, cultural, The World Bank’s ESF requires Borrower and economic” dimensions. (Dietz and Stern 2008, countries to undertake ESMPs and other 7-8). A decision about what constitutes a contextually appropriate assessment mitigation measures. appropriate environmental impact must inherently It memorializes those Borrower country com- assess this decision in relation to the forecasted eco- mitments in an Environmental and Social Com- nomic, social or other benefits. Accordingly, literature mitment Plan (ESCP), which forms part of the analyzes review, decision-making and licensing as financing agreement between the World Bank both a technical process but also a process that raises and the Borrower country and is legally binding. questions of societal priorities and strategy. This sec- The ESCP is a core feature of ESS1. (World Bank tion will focus primarily on the technical aspects of 2017, ESS1 paras. 15-17). The ESCP may incor- review and decision making. porate the variety of social and environmental documents, including the ESMP, Environmental National systems typically review ESIA reports in and Social Management Framework, Environ- three different ways. Joseph, Gunton and Rutherford mental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA), surveyed ESIA experts and practitioners involved in Resettlement Policy Framework, Resettlement environmental assessment in Canada on effective Action Plans, and Stakeholder Engagement models of review. (Joseph et al. 2015, 244-5). Joseph Plans, and the timelines specified in those doc- et al. and UNEP describe three common models of uments. (World Bank 2017, ESS10 paras. 13-18). review. (Joseph et al. 2015, 244-5; UNEP 2018, 65-72). • A review body made up of representatives from within and outside government (multi-stake- Review, Decision Making and Licensing holder review); • A review body made up of representatives from Review, decision-making and licensing are closely across relevant government agencies (inter-gov- related. As detailed in Table 4, at the review phase, a ernment review); or review body established in accordance with the rele- • A review body of officials from the government vant legislation assesses the ESIA report following department connected to the project or national established criteria. During the decision-making and ESIA agency (intra-agency review). licensing phase, the national system’s competent These bodies may be established to specifically review decision maker approves or rejects the recommenda- a project or serve as a standing body to review mul- tion from the review body and, as appropriate, grants tiple projects. (Joseph et al. 2015, 244-5). Key ques- environmental and social clearance to proceed with tions associated with these institutional mechanisms the project, which may come with certain implemen- include the “degree of independence from government, tation terms and conditions. This section will summa- efficiency of the process, level of expertise involved, THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 22 authority and resources available, accountability to authority rests with the lead agency, which then has the public, and ‘siloing’ (or fragmentation) of informa- fairly wide discretion to weigh the relevant approval tion and decision-making processes across govern- criteria, if applicable, and either incorporate or disre- ment.” (Joseph et al. 2015, 244). The expert survey gard public comments or ESIA and EIA report findings. by Joseph et al. found that respondents in Canada (UNEP 2018, 69). strongly preferred the multi-stakeholder review approach, with independence being a key element. Established criteria for final decision making appears (Joseph et al. 2015, 244). The UNEP review is less to be a good practice. In general, experts appear to conclusive, instead highlighting how these different prefer that final decision making be made in accor- approaches work in particular contexts. (UNEP 2018, dance with established criteria or a checklist to help 66-69). guide consistent application of regulations. The EC, for example, in 2017, developed a review checklist to The approach to procedural and substantive review of help guide decision makers and encourage predict- reports also varies. Some countries require only proce- ability of decisions. That process is described in Box dural review of reports (i.e. was the process outlined in 5. Joseph et al.’s survey of Canadian experts found the ESIA legislation followed) whereas others require a preference for final decision-making bodies being that the review body also assess the substance of “heavily constrained by explicit and legally binding the report (i.e. does the proposal adequately respond decision-making rules.” (Joseph et al. 2015, 246-7). to the science and participant inputs). (UNEP 2018, Constraints on decision making can help reduce sub- 66). It appears that ESIA literature recommends both jectivity, serve as a check on undue political, industry, procedural and substantive assessment of the report or stakeholder pressure and drive uniform standards findings. A substantive as well as procedural review of project approval. Reducing such discretion arguably can help address shortcomings in the report and is a check on bias in decision makers. (Joseph et al. incorporate specific legally binding conditions in the 2015, 247). project approval license. (UNEP 2018, 66). Adaptive Management Participation of affected groups and the broader public at the review and final decision stage is viewed Adaptive management is viewed as a critical element as essential. Public participation is inconsistent at this of effective implementation of national systems for phase within and across countries. These dynamics ESIA. Ongoing and adaptive management is often will be explored in detail in Chapter 4.2. described as a weak element of national systems. (SAEIA 2020, 18). As the International Effectiveness Final decision-making authority varies across national Study noted in 1996, national EIA systems have typ- systems, but is most effective when project approval ically been viewed as predictive—that is anticipating conditions and requirements are clearly spelled out impacts prior to a project—as opposed to a systemic and decisions are publicly available. Again, the litera- tool for ongoing management of environmental and ture does not point to a single good practice when it social risks over project implementation. (Interna- comes to final decision making. Joseph et al. identify tional Effectiveness Study 1996, 126). The IAIA in key criteria, including “ensuring that the EA process is 2005 devoted a special issue of its journal Impact democratically accountable while ensuring that deci- Assessment and Project Appraisal to post-ESIA fol- sion-makers have sufficient expertise and are unbi- low-up, and in 2007 released seventeen principles ased.” (Joseph et al 2015, 245). The Canadian experts for follow-up, arguing that “EIA has little value unless the authors surveyed recommend that national sys- follow-up is carried out.” (IAIA 2007, building on Mar- tems incorporate an independent final decision-maker shall et al 2005). National systems are increasingly model, where an independent decision body is estab- clarifying responsibilities and incorporating tools for lished by government. (Joseph et al. 2015, 245). This effective management of impacts and enforcement of recommendation is not the most common practice, license conditions. (Joseph et al. 2015, 241). and in most national systems, final decision- making THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 23 Box 5. EC’s Decision-Making Guidance In 2017, the EC produced guidance on the preparation and review of environmental impact assessment reports. This guidance includes a checklist, described as a “flexible tool,” that serves to help proponents know exactly what will be assessed and help responsible institutions to assess ESIAs in uniform ways. The checklist assesses seven dimensions of a proposed project: i) Project Description; ii) Description of the environment likely to be affected by the Project (including Baseline); iii) Description of the Project’s likely significant effects; iv) Alternatives; v) Description of Mitigation and Compensation Measures; vi) Descrip- tion of Monitoring Measures; vii) Quality (presentation, Non-Technical Summary, and quality of experts). (EC 2017). An excerpt from Section 3 is below. SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Review Question What further information Addressed? Adequately is needed? Relevant? No. Impact Assessment Methods 3.33 Have the methods used to predict the effects described and the reasons for their choice, any difficulties encountered, and uncertainties in the results been discussed? 3.34 Where there is uncertainty about the precise details of the Project, and its impact on the environment/climate change have worst-case predictions been described? 3.35 Where there have been difficulties in compiling the data needed to predict or evaluate effects, have these difficulties been acknowledged and their implications for the results been discussed? 3.36 Has the basis for evaluating the significance or Importance of impacts been described clearly? 3.37 Have the impacts been described on the basis that all Mitigation Measures proposed have been implemented i.e. have the residual impacts been described? 3.38 Is the level of treatment of each effect appropriate to its importance for the Development Consent decision? Does the discussion focus on the key issues and avoid irrelevant or unnecessary information? 3.39 Is appropriate emphasis given to the most sever, adverse effects of the Project with lesser emphasis given to less significant effects? Other Questions relevant to Description of Effects Have, with a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, the available results of other relevant assessments under Union or national legislation, in preparing the environmental impact assessment report been taken into account? If so, how was this done? THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 24 Literature increasingly identifies ESMPs and related operate, but seen as conditional on specifications of strategies as key tools to strengthen adaptive man- required mitigation, offsets, monitoring, and reporting agement. IEMA has identified the need for stronger requirements to keep authorization current.” (UNCTAD implementation of environmental and social man- 2018). The ESF embraces an adaptative management agement plans through measures like ESMPs. (IEMA approach by requiring Borrower countries to update the 2016, 2). The 2020 SAEIA review of African ESIA ESCP based on unforeseen circumstances or changes in laws, for example, states that the “lack of rigorous project implementation. (World Bank 2017, Policy, para. requirements and accountability for the preparation 48). Importantly, the ESF requires that any changes and implementation of EMPs is probably the area of be reflected through binding modifications of the ESCP EIA practice that is of greatest concern in the [Sub and the project’s broader management tools. (World Saharan Africa] region.” (SAEIA 2020, 19). These con- Bank 2017, Policy, para. 48). cerns extend beyond Africa, and literature identifies ESMPs and SIMPs as essential for moving ESIA from The regulator, project proponent, the public and a “box ticking” exercise to one that drives adaptive affected communities should have roles in ongoing management that corresponds with the project life management. (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003, 46). cycle. (Expert Interview June 4, 2020). The effective Specific ongoing management conditions should be use of ESMPs will be further explored in more detail in incorporated into the ESIA license, which should create Chapter 4.1. legally binding commitments. (NCEA 2015, 40-41). Knowledge and participation from communities and Literature finds that adaptive management strategies non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is important should be based on the specific category of project and for successful implementation and follow-up. (Morri- the national context. The IAIA seventeen principles for son-Saunders et al. 2003, 54). EIA follow-up recommend that “there is no single ‘right’ way” to design adaptive management in national sys- Follow-up, Monitoring and Auditing tems, however several principles apply; for example, follow-up needs to be “coordinated, clear, with suffi- Follow-up, monitoring and auditing of license com- cient capacity and resources, adaptive and inclusive pliance are identified as shortcomings of national and participatory.” (IAIA 2007). While general, the IAIA systems for ESIA. The regulator should bear the principles do give specific recommendations for the primary responsibility for follow-up and ensuring implementation of effective follow-up mechanisms, effective monitoring and auditing is carried out, but including the need for effective coordination, a sound the public and proponent have key roles to play. (IAIA legal basis, strong capacity, and meaningful public 2007). Coordination among different government and third-party participation. (IAIA 2007). bodies as well as levels of government (e.g., federal and regional) is vital, and multi-disciplinary teams or Literature highlights the need for a stronger legal basis working groups can be an effective strategy. (Morri- for adaptive management. Some literature suggests son-Saunders et al. 2003, 46). In India, the responsible EIA was historically viewed as a project assessment authority has the ability to establish a multisectoral tool as opposed to an ongoing management strategy. environmental monitoring committee when impacts At best, this vision highlighted potential impacts and are likely significant. (UNEP 2018, 74-5). UNEP has developed strategies to address them. At worst, it was found that coordination between relevant government viewed as a bureaucratic hurdle to be overcome and, too agencies is a constraint to effective monitoring, citing often, forgotten. As this vision has shifted, legal frame- an example of permitting decisions not being shared works for adaptative management have lagged. In ECA, with all relevant agencies. (UNEP 2018, 73). for example, the World Bank has found weak or ambig- uous criteria and requirements for EIA follow-up. (World Effective monitoring, management and auditing should Bank 2002, 24). UNEP has similarly found that “legal evolve over the project life cycle. Monitoring should requirements related to follow-up measures” are a con- feed into program implementation and the social and straint to effective EIA follow-up. (UNEP 2018, 73). The environmental management plan should evolve with United Nations Conference on Trade and Development the project. (UNEP 2018, 79). As described in the pre- (UNCTAD) and the World Bank suggest that project vious section, adaptive management is a core principle approval must be viewed not “as blanket licenses to of social impact assessment and should evolve over THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 25 time. (Vanclay 2003a, 6). Unfortunately, this is rarely Literature identifies transparency and public partic- the case with, for example, World Bank and UNCTAD ipation as foundational elements of effective moni- finding that monitoring of agricultural investments toring and auditing. Indeed, the IAIA 2007 principles typically “falls well short” of what is needed. (UNCTAD recommend that “All stakeholders have a right to 2018). Box 6 summarizes key monitoring recommen- feedback on the EIA process. Actions and decisions dations from a World Bank and UNCTAD publication resulting from EIA follow-up should be fair, trans- documenting good practices in agricultural projects. parent and communicated directly to stakeholders.” (IAIA 2007, 2). Joseph et al.’s survey of good practice in Canada similarly recommends that monitoring should Box 6. Good Practice in Government be independent and publicly disclose its findings. Monitoring of Agricultural Projects (Joseph et al. 2015, 241). Recent experi- ence under Canada’s Impact Assessment The UNCTAD–World Bank Knowledge Into Action Note Series Act suggests that “follow-up teams” can recommends good practice for government monitoring of be an important strategy to strengthen agricultural investments, including aspects that connect to participation and catalyze continual ESIA implementation. Drawing on practices from the World improvements in the ESIA process. (IAIA Bank, the FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural Devel- 2020). opment (IFAD) the Note recommends good practices, including: Multiple factors constrain effective • Set clear reporting and monitoring requirements. Reporting and monitoring requirements should be included implementation of follow-up, auditing in the investment contract as a means of contractual and monitoring. Morrison-Saunders et al. enforcement, including potential sanctions for noncom- have documented multiple instances— pliance. They should include targets for key impacts of from Portugal and the Netherlands, the project on sustainable development, such as land use, to Nigeria and Malaysia—where legal job creation, out grower schemes, community develop- reforms seeking to strengthen moni- ment agreements, and social and environmental impacts. toring requirements did not translate Expected benefits to the host country and communities to more effective monitoring. (Mor- need to be enshrined in the contract and then monitored rison-Saunders et al 2003, 45). The to ensure delivery. World Bank has similarly found that • Develop monitoring capacity and systems. Consider- while environmental management plans ation should be given to developing appropriate moni- toring systems and templates as well as the capacity of were used within the national ESIA sys- officials within departments, ministries, and/or agencies tems in 95% of countries they analyzed with appropriate mandates such as the environment, land in Latin America, “most countries rarely management, and community and rural development, at monitor the action’s impacts after the all levels in the administration. This could involve setting corresponding license or permit has been aside a percentage of revenues from the project for funding issued.” (Acerbi et al. 2014, 4-5). The monitoring activities. Capacity includes ensuring that the authors suggest that this is primarily due units responsible are able to access sufficient additional to capacity and resources. A 2020 report resources as new investment approvals are granted. from the Inter-American Development • Conduct impartial physical confirmation. Where appro- Bank (IDB) and World Justice Project priate, officials should undertake physical inspections (WJP) on Environmental Governance through site visits and record outcomes and observations using appropriate systems of data collection and field Indicators for Latin America and the reporting. Caribbean found that despite progress in • Grievance monitoring. Support the establishment of a legal reform, inspections, monitoring and formal grievance redress procedure, and monitor the level evaluation are among the weakest ele- and resolution of grievances, facilitating dispute resolu- ments of environmental rule of law. (IDB tion where appropriate. & WJP, 2020, Figure 2). In Southeast Asia, • Ensure transparency. Consider what information inves- a 2018 comparative review of national tors could make publicly available in order to improve systems found that while many coun- public monitoring of investments. (UNCTAD 2018). tries’ legislation included requirements for follow-up, implementation and revi- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 26 sion of mitigation plans was a significant shortcoming. Box 7. Third-Party Monitoring and the ESF (Swangjang 2018, 39). As national systems focus more on effective follow-up, these systems will need more The World Bank’s ESF explores the use of capacity and resources. (Morrison-Saunders et al 2003, third-party monitoring to strengthen imple- 50). UNEP has found that the capacity of proponents mentation of environmental and social man- and implementing agencies is a key criterion in avoiding agement requirements. The World Bank states adverse social and environmental impacts. (UNEP 2018, that the goal of third-party monitoring (TPM) “is viii). Requiring a “financial guarantee” for budget to be to provide an unbiased perspective on the issue allocated for the implementation of mitigation and fol- and status, and to make recommendations for low-up measures can strengthen implementation, as improvement, where relevant.” The ESF envi- discussed in Chapter 3.3 below. (UNEP 2018, 79). UNEP sions TPM in two circumstances: i) where the and NCEA have identified the use of this approach in World Bank contracts the third-party monitor several jurisdictions. directly to supervise project implementation on behalf of the World Bank and ii) where a govern- Third-party or external auditing and monitoring can ment counterpart or the World Bank supports strengthen national ESIA system implementation. a third-party monitor to supplement their own Third-party monitoring typically refers to one of two capacity for monitoring. In both instances, the activities. First, the proponent may outsource moni- World Bank and the Borrower country can sup- toring responsibilities to an external party that will plement social and environmental expertise and monitor environmental and social aspects of project build important partnerships with civil society implementation. Alternatively, third-party monitoring and community groups. These approaches are can also refer to autonomous monitoring undertaken particularly relevant in high risk or contentious by civil society and the broader public in a way that projects, however, they are not a substitute for complements existing monitoring by the proponent, effective monitoring by the government and financial institution, or government. UNEP states that proponent. third-party monitoring that involves civil society and the public can be crucial for effective implementation. The World Bank ESF Guidance Note on third- (UNEP 2018, 78). UNEP recommends that institu- party monitoring identifies strengths of TPM tionalized structures to follow-up, monitoring and to include i) independent assessment and ver- auditing—for example a permanent environmental ification of information, ii) capacity building monitoring board incorporating Indigenous Peoples’ and technical capacity and iii) building trust representatives—can improve participation and effec- with project-affected communities. The note tiveness over time. (UNEP 2018, 78). With support highlights challenges and limitations to include from the United Kingdom’s development agency, the i) increased costs of third-party monitoring, ii) International Institute for Environment and Develop- potential for bias amongst third-party monitors ment has produced useful guidance for communities and iii) unrealistic expectations of third-party and NGOs for monitoring agricultural and land-based monitors. (World Bank 2018b). investments. (Blackmore 2015). Box 7 describes some of the World Bank’s experience with third-party mon- itoring. 3.3. Effective Financing of National System for ESIA Functions Funding mechanisms influence the effectiveness of national systems for ESIA. This section explores common models of a national system for ESIA financing and assesses literature regarding effective financing strategies. Recent literature is beginning to explore how ensuring sufficient, transparent and accountable financing for ESIA can strengthen overall system effectiveness—from scoping and assessment through to project implementation and monitoring. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 27 Although the ESIA literature is extensive, it has Some literature warns that contradictions and risks of focused only to a limited extent on effective models cooptation are inherent in many national ESIA system for financing system functions. Sadler’s seminal 1996 funding models. Because the proponent is often respon- study, for example, discusses financing ESIA system sible for both commissioning and funding the environ- functions in the context of a recommendation around mental and social assessment, there are both real and cost recovery for near-term trnds. (Sadler 1996, 230). perceived risks of cooptation. (Vanclay 2020, 129). The And the 2018 UNEP study talks about funding ESIA NCEA study similarly notes that affording proponents functions in particular areas, for example around discretion to define scoping and impacts can result in funding activities detailed in license conditions, but findings that are “incomplete, inaccurate or biased” and does not situate ESIA in a country’s broader public too often fail to identify meaningful alternatives. (NCEA financial management system. (UNEP 2018, 79). 2015, 33-36). The NCEA study suggests that core ESIA functions can be led by proponents so long as compe- The Netherlands Commission for Environmental tent ESIA authorities implement effective safeguards Assessment has produced the most comprehensive and supervision. (NCEA 2015, 34). The certification of guide to ESIA funding. NCEA’s guide to Funding Gov- ESIA consultants by the agency responsible for national ernmental Tasks in ESIA and Environmental Approval, ESIA is a common approach to exercising this supervi- produced in 2014, remains an important source of sion. (NCEA 2015). This will be explored in Chapter 4.3. good practice. The guide analyzes principles for cost Policymakers and academics are now asking whether recovery, lays out government resource needs asso- national systems should rethink how the process is ciated with each ESIA function and provides case conducted, suggesting that “it would seem better if the studies from The Netherlands, Colombia, France, regulator would engage a consultant to assess impacts Ghana and Georgia. (NCEA 2015). rather than rely on a consultant directly engaged by the proponent.” (Vanclay 2020, 129). The NCEA guidance assesses principles and approaches and argues that system design must be context spe- Box 8. Funding Models Influence cific. The application of public financing principles boils Independence and Effectiveness down to the question of: “who should bear the burden of paying for environmental safeguards and pollution con- Experimental evaluation in India shows inde- trol measures?” (NCEA 2015, 6). The NCEA publication pendence of funding streams can significantly explores multiple models, including cost recovery (fees impact outcomes. Experimental research and are charged to the proponent for operational, financial randomized evaluation have generally not and environmental costs), the polluter pays principle focused significantly on institutional arrange- (the company should pay for preventing and con- ments for national ESIA systems. A notable trolling social or environmental impact), the beneficiary exception is a study conducted by Esther Duflo pays principle (person using the resource should pay), and colleagues into funding mechanisms for the precautionary principle (with uncertain impacts third-party auditors in Gujarat, India. Most the proponent is required to assess and compensate national systems that use third-party auditing impacts on a regular basis) and the integrity principle to monitor environmental compliance allow for (that government and regulators should not be funded the proponent to select and pay the auditor. directly by proponents). (NCEA 2015, 7-13). The guide Using an experimental design, Duflo and col- outlines criteria for developing financing arrangements leagues tested four strategies, including paying but stops short of an ideal good practice. Identified auditors from a central pool as opposed to pay- criteria include: adequacy, sustainability, and flexibility ment by the proponents, randomizing auditor of the funding source; administrative burden; political assignments, monitoring of audits and the and social viability; transparency and accountability; introduction of incentive-based payments for autonomy of the implementing agency; and the com- accuracy. (Duflo et al. 2013, 3). The combination munity profile. (NCEA 2015, 13-14). The NCEA study of these four strategies were found to result in then provides case studies and practical experiences of dramatic improvements in auditing perfor- how these criteria have been implemented in particular mance including more auditor accuracy and, contexts. ultimately, less pollution. (Duflo et al. 2013). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 28 Literature suggests that funding for essential ESIA implementation functions, such as adaptive man- agement, monitoring and environmental restoration, should be guaranteed. While broad public financial management systems of ESIA are not well covered, literature does appear to suggest that core functions for management, monitoring and restoration may benefit from more defined and transparent funding commitments. The 2018 UNEP report recommends that license conditions, including the ESMP, should specifically spell out financial arrangements to ensure the funding of mitigation and other commitments. (UNEP 2018, 78). The UNEP study cites the positive example of Mongolia, where project proponents must deposit half of the implementation costs for the EMP in a designated bank account to help ensure availability of funds. (UNEP 2018, 79). Lebanon’s ESIA law simi- larly establishes an Environmental Fund that should be used to fund follow-up activities; UNEP’s review found that this provision was unimplemented as of 2018. (UNEP 2018, 80). The 2015 NCEA study explores a number of financing arrangements, including envi- ronmental funds, to finance core environmental tasks, and environmental guarantees and reclamation funds to restore project sites. (NCEA 2015, 77-82). GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 29 Chapter 4 Adobe Stock Chapter 4. Select Design Features of National Systems for ESIA This chapter reviews literature focused on select This section begins with an overview of SIA literature design features of national ESIA systems as identified as it relates to EIA and then turns to the ways in which by the World Bank task team. Based on experiences national systems are accounting for and monitoring working with client countries to strengthen national social impacts. legal frameworks on ESIA, and in anticipation of Bor- rower countries’ interest in using their national sys- Perspectives of Social Impact tems under the World Bank ESF, the World Bank task Assessment team identified specific research questions relating to the design of national ESIA systems. This chapter The field of social impact assessment has grown assesses the state of the literature on how national alongside and within EIA, but there are some key dif- systems for ESIA: ferences. While SIA, like EIA, emerged primarily as a • effectively account for and manage social regulatory tool, it now focuses primarily on ongoing impacts, not just environmental ones; “process of managing a project’s social issues.” (Van- • advance effective participation; clay 2020, 126). Academics and practitioners have • strengthen competent, independent and account- defined SIA as an “iterative, community-focused, and able review and consideration of projects; participatory process that uses diverse forms of data • incorporate political economy analysis to and information to produce values-based assess- strengthen effectiveness; ments and strategies to address the opportunities, • incorporate the mitigation hierarchy; risks, and uncertainties associated with significant • assess and manage transboundary impacts; and development projects and processes.” (Parsons et al. • assess and manage emerging risks and impacts. 2018, 115). SIA is characterized as an adaptive tool used by projects to manage implementation, placing significant emphasis on participation and the agency 4.1. Accounting for Social Impacts in of communities to determine project direction. (Arce- National Systems for ESIA Gomez et al. 2015, 87). Strategies to incorporate SIA into EIA processes are The 2015 Guidance Note from the IAIA helpfully sum- increasingly well documented and assessed. Many marizes the state of the social impact assessment national EIA systems incorporate social impacts, field. The IAIA Guidance Note for assessing and man- and there is significant literature by EIA practitioners aging the social impacts of projects remains the most discussing strategies to incorporate social risks into comprehensive international analysis and guidance national systems. A 2019-2020 review of African on social impact assessment. The Guidance Note EIA systems, for example, found that over half of the relies on many years of practice. (IAIA Guidance Note twenty-six African countries reviewed defined the 2015). In the intervening years, additional literature “environment” as encompassing natural, social and has emerged around strategies to understand and cultural environments. (DBSA and SAEIA 2021, Table account for social impacts, but this Guidance Note 1.2). The 2014 EC EIA Directive similarly incorporates likely remains the most authoritative piece of SIA lit- assessment and management of biophysical factors erature. as well as “population and human health; … material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape,” among Literature emphasizes the need for a comprehensive other elements. (EC 2014, Article 3). Similar literature understanding of types of communities and pop- exists among SIA practitioners. This literature explores ulations that are likely to be affected by a project, the ways in which social impacts can be assessed including vulnerable or disadvantaged groups within and managed through EIA. There are also numerous the community. The IAIA Guidance Note recommends critiques of EIA systems that are described as overly the development of a “community profile” (IAIA Guid- focused on regulatory approval. This literature offers ance Note 2015, 8). Such a community profile is similar recommendations for amended and alternative strat- to the requirements for stakeholder identification egies to better account for and manage social risk. and analysis included in the World Bank’s ESS10 on THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 31 stakeholder engagement. (World Bank 2017, ESS10, Literature also recommends that national systems para. 8). The IAIA Guidance Note further recommends for ESIA focus on potential social and environmental the “assessment of the differing needs, interests, impacts on Indigenous Peoples. The ESF, for example, values and aspirations of the various subgroups of requires World Bank Borrower countries to ensure the affected communities including a gender anal- that Indigenous Peoples, as well as Sub-Saharan ysis.” (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 8). This approach is African Historically Underserved Traditional Local again consistent with the approach taken by ESS10, Communities, are fully consulted about, and have the which states that the “Borrower will identify those opportunity to activity participate in, project design project-affected parties (individuals or groups) who, and the determination of project implementation because of their particular circumstances, may be dis- arrangements, including the opportunity to express advantaged or vulnerable.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, free, prior and informed consent where required. para. 11). (World Bank 2017, ESS7, paras. 11, 24). The 2017 UNDP and SAIEA similarly states that national ESIA systems This focus on vulnerable and disadvantage groups can specifically account for the perspectives of, and dis- yield insights into project-related impacts and con- parate impacts on, Indigenous groups. (UNDP 2017). cerns specific to those populations. The ESF defines Despite this increasing recognition of a need to focus disadvantaged or vulnerable populations broadly as on Indigenous Peoples, the 2018 UNEP review found “those who may be more likely to be adversely affected that national legislation for ESIA systems still rarely by the project impacts and/or more limited than others included specific provisions for Indigenous groups. in their ability to take advantage of a project’s bene- (UNEP 2018, 62). fits.” (World Bank 2017, Glossary). In the context of the ESF, the World Bank identifies a range of potentially Literature on ESIA systems also recommends the relevant groups, populations and topics that warrant assessment of potential impacts on health. The 2017 specific attention, including gender, sexual exploita- UNDP and SAIEA study documents the links between tion and harassment, persons living with disabilities, environmental and social risks. The study states sexual orientation and gender identity, discrimination that the World Health Organization, in 2012, found and racial discrimination. (World Bank 2020c). ESIA that one out of four global deaths was connected to systems are increasingly called upon to assess these living or working in an unhealthy environment. (UNDP kinds of impacts as well, including child labor and 2017, 1). As the complex interlinkages between envi- modern slavery. (World Bank 2018c). ronmental, social and health factors have become better documented, ESIA literature has placed greater A broad range of ESIA system literature suggests emphasis on ensuring effective assessment of health that national systems for ESIA should account for factors. (UNDP 2017) The 2018 UNEP review states gender impacts. (UNWOMEN 2014). UNWOMEN rec- that national systems increasingly require analysis of ommends bringing a gender lens to impact assess- impacts on human health. (UNEP 2018, 45-47; 49). ment, ensuring that women can meaningfully shape decision making. (UNWOMEN 2014, 5). UNEP released Based on this assessment of the characteristics and Guidelines for Assimilating Gender into Integrated patterns of vulnerability, projects should, where pos- Environment Assessments in 2017. (UNEP 2017). sible, provide specific support to vulnerable groups. These Guidelines provide concrete recommendations As will be described in Chapter 4.2, to ensure their to incorporate gender into core functions of the ESIA meaningful participation, disadvantaged or vulner- process, including scoping, assessment, participation able groups require capacity building, facilitation and and monitoring. A 2017 UNDP and SAIEA study sim- independent support. The ESF requires such strate- ilarly describes the need to incorporate gender anal- gies and identifies the need to provide support that ysis and provides concrete recommendations across removes obstacles to meaningful participation for ESIA system functions. (UNDP 2017, 85-87). Gender, disadvantaged or vulnerable populations. (World Bank however, did not feature in the 2018 UNEP EIA review. 2017, ESS10, para. 16). (UNEP 2018). Only through a specific focus on gender will an ESIA system be able to meaningfully account SIA literature notes that social impacts often occur at for the ongoing unequal control of assets, resources different phases of the project life cycle than environ- and access between men and women. mental impacts. National EIA systems typically rely THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 32 on a regulatory licensing cycle extending from scoping Figure 4 in a few ways. SIA places greater emphasis to monitoring and, ultimately, closure. Social impacts, on pre-screening engagement by introducing an iden- however, may occur well beyond this regulatory cycle. tification and exploration step. The incorporation of For example, the IAIA Guidance Note describes how social “options appraisal” seems to place greater emphasis impacts may occur before a project begins and the ESIA on a range of potential project designs as opposed to requirement is triggered. While an ESIA approach might the EIA visualization, which focuses on a particular seek to predict and monitor impacts from the start of project. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 6). Finally, the SIA extraction throughout the life cycle, social impacts may figure specifically highlights the need to integrate begin showing up even as rumors of a potential project analysis and feedback at all phases of a project, from begin: stress and anxiety could emerge or speculative identification through to closure. The EIA visualization land grabbing could start. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, might be characterized as more linear and procedural. 2). The IAIA Guidance Note distinguishes SIA from ESIA by arguing that SIA necessarily focuses on the “active SIA literature places greater emphasis on human management of social issues from the very beginning rights, voice and power than EIA literature. The UNGPs of a project long before reg- ulatory approval is needed.” (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 4). Figure 4. Phases of Social Impact Assessment Social impact assess- Identification/ • Concept review • Social and political issues and risks scoping ment literature critiques Exploration • Manage social issues traditional EIA processes for being too focused on • Options appraisal predicting as opposed to Conceptual • Baseline studies and scoping of social impacts • Manage social issues managing impacts. The IAIA Guidance Note argues that • Select best option SIA should be firmly focused Pre-feasibility • Terms of Reference for SIA • Assessment, mitigation & enhancement on the ongoing management • Manage social issues of impacts. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 1). While ESIA • Social Impact Management Plan Feasibility & • Approvals process literature typically agrees Planning • Optimise solutions that ongoing management • Contractor Social Performance Management is essential, this perspective • Mitigation appears to have greater Construction • Impact management emphasis within special- • Monitoring & Audit ized SIA literature. National Ongoing stakeholder engagement and ESIA systems are critiqued reporting back in forms appropriate and • Mitigation understandable to the stakeholders are Operations • Management for their emphasis on the expected at all phases • Monitoring & Audit ex-ante investigation and mitigation of impacts as opposed to building an Closure • SIA of closure options ongoing platform for imple- Figure 1: SIA can be applied at all phases of the project cycle mentation and dialogue. Source: IAIA Guidance Note (2015), 6. Social impact assessment literature, instead, embraces a broad understanding of how SIA can contribute to which were finalized in 2011, describe the responsi- more effective projects across the project life cycle, as bilities of states and business enterprises to uphold visualized in Figure 5, below. human rights and are an important milestone for SIA practitioners. They affirm that social, environmental, The IAIA Guidance Note visualizes the phases of and human rights impacts are intertwined. (United SIA. The recommended approach diverges from the Nations 2011). The UNGPs have been described as the UNEP visualization of EIA incorporated in Chapter 3, “single most significant recent change” in the field of THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 33 social impact assessment over the last decades. (Van- “social license to operate” within countries and com- clay 2020, 126). The 2015 IAIA Guidance Note states munities. A social license to operate is defined as “level that it is now good practice for all SIA processes to of acceptance or approval of the activities of an orga- incorporate human rights analysis, unless a separate nization by its stakeholders, especially local impacted human rights impact analysis is conducted. (IAIA communities.” (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, v). SIA prac- Guidance Note 2015, 14-5). titioners increasingly explore strategies to deepen their engagement with and responsibility to affected SIA practitioners view Free, Prior, and Informed Con- communities. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 263). In this sent (FPIC) as key to effective ESIA processes, partic- context, SIA practitioners are engaging multiple sites ularly for Indigenous communities. FPIC is a concept of decision-making, often beyond the national ESIA grounded in a legal right to self-determination for system. Ultimately SIA literature appears to be moving Indigenous Peoples, and social practitioners have con- SIA from its origins as a regulatory tool alongside tra- sidered whether this right can and should be extended ditional EIA to a process whereby “communities need beyond Indigenous communities to the ways projects to have more autonomy and decision-making power, engage with all affected groups and peoples. (IAIA including the ability to determine their own future.” Guidance Note 2015, 16). The ESF requires Borrower (Vanclay 2020, 128). Such a vision of inclusive devel- countries to obtain FPIC of the affected Indigenous opment reaches beyond that of traditionally national Peoples and Sub-Saharan African Historically Under- systems for ESIA, at least as initially conceived. served Traditional Local Communities for projects with particularly adverse impacts (adverse impacts on Assessing Social Impacts within land and natural resources; cause relocation or have National ESIA systems significant impacts on cultural heritage) and does not therefore require it for all projects. (World Bank 2017, Despite some substantive and strategic differences, ESS7, paras. 24-33). Many of these potential impacts many national ESIA systems seek to incorporate social and attendant approaches to management suggest issues within the ESIA process. These efforts are often that SIA perspectives are helping to catalyze the evo- informed by literature focused on EIA, ESIA and SIA. lution of good practice around ESIA more generally. This section of the review identifies trends and good practice for incorporating the review and manage- SIA literature increasingly views proponents and com- ment of social issues into national ESIA systems. munities as essential actors, with international insti- tutions and national regulators playing a facilitative Environmental and social impacts are intertwined, role. SIA should be integrated as a “core part of the cor- but responding to social impacts may require porate culture and the workplace culture of projects, broader action. Many studies and policies highlight and just like safety, should be everyone’s business.” the interconnected nature of social and environ- (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 5). Development banks and mental impacts. The IAIA Guidance Note describes private sector actors may have their own ESIA stan- social impacts as “almost anything … so long as it is dards alongside of the national regulatory system and valued by or important to a specific group of people.” multiple requirements or standards may apply within a (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 2). This certainly includes single project. (UNEP 2004, 29). For example, a project social impacts related to environmental changes, for with multiple sources of international finance might example health, well-being or livelihoods. (UNEP 2018, have to account for different standards: the company 4). However, social impacts can also be much broader, may have their own standards, and the national ESIA for example a culture, spiritual or political system system may have another. The World Bank’s ESF or hopes and fears. The IFC Performance Standards accounts for this complexity through the application adopt an interrelated approach to environmental and of the Common Approach introduced in Chapter 3. social assessment, focusing on labor, working con- (World Bank 2017, Policy, para. 9). In light of multiple ditions and health as well as on Indigenous Peoples, standards, the literature suggests there is a need for practices and cultural heritage. (IFC 2012). The ESF coherence and keeping project-affected people at the takes a similar approach. (World Bank 2017). Land-re- center of the process. lated impacts, as explored in Box 9, present complex social and environmental issues. SIA literature also includes a focus on the proponent’s THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 34 Box 9. Land Acquisition Under the impacts within national systems for ESIA. The 2017 World Bank ESF UNDP and SAIEA study found numerous challenges with coordination. The review suggests that while two-thirds of Sub Saharan African countries incor- The World Bank’s ESS5 incorporates specific porate social impacts into their ESIA systems, imple- requirements for Land Acquisition, Restric- mentation mechanisms fail to “include social and/or tions on Land Use and Involuntary Reset- health specialists on their review teams and the levels tlement. Land acquisitions are described as of cooperation with other ministries such as health among the greatest environmental, social or and gender are generally low.” (UNDP 2017, 18). The governance risk factors associated with invest- study provides recommendations for improving insti- ment projects. The ESF states that unmitigated tutional coordination including: physical or economic displacement can lead • Create or activate inter-ministerial committees to “severe economic, social and environmental for the environment; risks.” (World Bank 2017, ESS5, para. 2). ESS5 • Require EIA, SIA and ESIA consultants to have requires the Borrower to demonstrate that joint meetings with environment and social min- “involuntary land acquisition or restrictions on istries at the outset as opposed to one-on-one land use are limited to direct project require- meetings; and ments for clearly specified project purposes • Establish mechanisms for joint monitoring and within a clearly specified period of time.” (World supervision activities with health and social min- Bank 2017, ESS5, para. 11). Borrowers must also istries. consider alternative project designs that avoid The UNDP study also recommends steps that con- or minimize land acquisition and pay particular sultants, proponents, civil society and affected com- attention to gender and poverty impacts. When munities can take to strengthen coordination. (UNDP acquisition or restrictions on use cannot be 2017). The European Public Health Association and avoided, the Borrower must offer affected per- the IAIA are in the process of developing guidance for sons “compensation at replacement cost, and practitioners and stakeholders practicing in the Euro- other assistance as may be necessary to help pean Union to ensure consistent coverage of human them improve or at least restore their standards health in European ESIA. (EPHA and IAIA 2019). This of living or livelihoods.” (World Bank 2017, ESS5, draft document provides guidance for each stage of para. 12). the ESIA system. Many national systems for ESIA seek to analyze and More effective coordination among external actors manage social impacts. EIA regimes in Europe and might also strengthen national systems for ESIA. the United States, for example, have evolved from an One of the experts interviewed suggested that a lack environmental focus in the 1980s to the assessment of coordination between social and environmental of social factors and disparate impacts in recent practice groups within government and multilateral decades. In Europe, the regime includes analysis of development banks could be a constraint on effective landscape impacts; in the U.S. it includes a focus on national integration. (Expert interview, June 9, 2020). environmental justice and cultural heritage. (Glasson This expert cited their recent experience in several and Therivel 2019, 260). In 2017, UNDP and SAIEA African countries where development partners did analyzed Sub Saharan African ESIA systems and not always appear to internally coordinate their own found that forty-four countries in Sub Saharan Africa assessment support, with social and environmental had dedicated ESIA or EIA laws with 27 countries sectors pursuing their own assessment and capacity including social impacts in the scope of their ESIA or building strategies. (Expert interview, June 9, 2020). EIA law. (UNDP 2017, 11). Some social impact literature questions whether a process rooted in existing EIA With environmental agencies typically playing leading regulatory procedures can effectively manage social roles in ESIA processes, literature finds that acquiring impacts on its own. social expertise is a key challenge. Apart from collabo- ration and coordination, as described above, the UNDP Literature suggests that effective institutional coordi- and SAIEA study also identifies technical expertise as nation is essential to identifying and managing social a key constraint in the Sub-Saharan African context. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 35 (UNDP 2017, 18-19). The study provides recommenda- within and alongside traditional national EIA regulatory tions for strengthening capacity, including: systems, including SIMPs, ESMPs and ESCPs, all tools • Integrate social health experts into the agencies introduced in Chapter 3. The IFC and World Bank use responsible for approval and monitoring of ESIAs of ESMPs and ESCPs is an influential example of this (which are typically environmental ministries); approach, and several national systems are embracing and these tools. South Africa introduced requirements • Establish specific multi-disciplinary review for Social and Labour Plans in 2002 and Australia teams for the major projects. introduced requirements of Social Impact Manage- The UNDP study recommends steps that consultants, ment Plans in Queensland (Franks and Vanclay 2013, proponents, civil society and affected communities 43). In 2017, New South Wales in Australia developed can take to strengthen implementation capacity guidelines for SIA in significant mining, petroleum and within national systems. (UNDP 2017). A recent inter- extractive industry development, which is explored in view with staff at SAIEA revealed that this remains a Box 10 and Figure 6. (Parsons et al. 2018, 114). A key key recommendation from their perspective. SAIEA element of an effective and durable management or experts recommended that national ESIA systems commitment plan is supporting affected communities utilize a multi-disciplinary technical committee to in negotiation and development. The IAIA Guidance oversee the ESIA process in an effort to ensure suffi- Note states that “No agreement could be deemed to cient social (and other) capacity on the oversight and have been made in good faith if the local community review team. (Expert Interview, June 9, 2020). did not have competent independent professional advice.” (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 57). Recommendations for Improving Assessment of Social Impacts Coordination between environmental and social impact assessments is necessary to expand effec- The literature suggests that effective incorporation of tiveness. More coordination across institutions may social impact assessment tools requires at least three strengthen assessment and mitigation. Literature elements: a broad consideration of relevant impacts, seems to suggest that national systems could play a process to assess and monitor those impacts, and a more productive role in strengthening how interna- institutional coordination. This sub-section briefly tional and national standards and instruments apply explores each. in particular contexts and with particular invest- ments. Ribot has written about how decentralized National ESIA systems should look broadly at relevant decision making and increasing forums for decision project-related impacts. Social practitioners are con- making around natural resources has not always led cerned with a range of impacts that are broader than to more accountable and participatory processes. traditional environmental impacts.. (EIA 2014, cited in More requirements and participation do not neces- Glasson and Therivel 2019, 260). sarily lead to better and more participatory outcomes. (Ribot 2004, 18-24). In the context of evolving imple- An effective process for ongoing adaptive manage- mentation of national systems alongside industry and ment is a key strategy for managing social impacts. global standards for companies to know, show and Literature suggests that expanded tools to supervise address environmental and social impacts, national and monitor social and environmental impacts might systems can be more effective in coordinating mul- strengthen national ESIA system effectiveness. SIA tiple standards and processes into a participatory and practitioners are exploring a range of tools that sit transparent structure. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 36 Box 10. Integrating Social Impact Assessment into Regulatory EIA in Australia As the field of social impact assessment has Richard Parsons (NSW Department of Planning), grown, there have been few attempts to integrate Jo-Anne Everingham (Centre for Social Responsi- core techniques into national regulatory struc- bility in Mining, The University of Queensland) and tures. Several states and territories in Australia Deanna Kemp (Centre for Social Responsibility in have sought to better account for social impacts Mining, The University of Queensland) authored a over a project life cycle through the implementa- helpful 2018 article for IAIA. (Parsons et al. 2018). tion of SIMPs. Franks and Vanclay have defined In Developing social impact assessment guidelines SIMPs as a set of assessment, management and in a pre-existing policy context, the three authors monitoring tools that seek to “identify the nature describe challenges and lessons from developing and scope of the social impacts that might occur the NSW social impact guidelines. Key findings during implementation and to proactively respond related to i) strategies to support inclusive pro- to change across the lifecycle of developments.” cesses, ii) defining community in the context of (Franks and Vanclay 2013). resource projects in New South Wales, iii) strategies to ensure heterogeneity and a diversity of voices in In 2008, the State of Queensland became the first the process as well as iv) adaptation. (Parsons et al. territory to require a SIMP in addition to the tra- 2018, 117-19). ditional EIA for all mining and petroleum projects. SIMPs were introduced into the TOR for EIAs of The NSW guidelines provide recommendations “environmentally significant” projects and institu- of how to integrate social dimensions into each tional changes within state government to better phase of the NSW EIA process. The guidelines, account for ongoing assessment and management issued by the Department of Planning and Environ- of social impacts. (Franks and Vanclay 2013, 44). ment in 2017, provide an overview of social impacts, The policy put in place a participatory social pro- guidance on community engagement and link to cess, formalizing a partnership between regional project specific resources for proponents to utilize and local government as well as community lead- in their proposed projects. (NSW DPE 2017). Figure ership. (Franks and Vanclay 2013, 44). A change in 5.1, below, is a useful flowchart produced by New state government repealed these guidelines in 2012 South Wales DPE that describes how SIA activities only to see them adapted and reissued in 2013 and and outputs must contribute to different phases of updated in 2018. (Parsons et al. 2018, 115). These EIA. guidelines and subsequent practice were integrated into developments planned in the Galilee and Surat Implementation will be the test. This system is Basins. (Parsons 2018, 115). still new and there does not appear to be literature assessing its effectiveness. Conversations with New South Wales, in 2017, issued its own guid- some practitioners have raised questions around ance on integrating social assessment and implementation, the treatment of Indigenous management into project development and communities and free prior and informed consent implementation. As participants and academics, within the framework. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 37 Figure 5. Complementary EIA and SIA Activities and Outputs in New South Wales ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) PHASE (SIA) ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS SCOPING Applicant identifies matters and impacts Identify and understand the project’s area of social to be assessed durgin preparation of the influence (Section 3.1) environment impact statement (EIS) Apply scoping methodology to identify potential material social impacts and leverl of assessment Applicant prepares Scoping Report required for EIS (Section 3.2 and Appendix A) EIS PREPARATION Engagement with potentially affected people and other interested parties (Section 2) Prepare social baseline documenting conditions and trends without the project, with respect to the matters identified as material during scoping (Section 4 and Appendix B1) Predict changes to the base and trend-line conditions and analyse their impact (Section 4 and Appendix B2) Applicant prepares EIS and Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) Evaluate the significance of the social impacts (Sec- tion 4 and Appendix B3) Develop responses to social impacts and evaluate residual impacts (Section 4 and Appendix B4) Develop a monitoring and management framework (Section 4 and Appendix B5) PUBLIC EXHIBITION Department places EIS on public exhibition RESPONDING TO SUBMISSIONS Applicant prepares a Submissions Report that explains how submissions have been addressed ASSESSMENT Department asseses the project and provides its findings to the consent authority (Section 5.1) DETERMINATION Consent authority decides whether to approve or refuse the project, including conditons of consent if approved (Section 5.2) POST-APPROVAL Department regulates State significan Applicant implements mitigation and enhancement projects to ensure compliance with the measures and monitoring and management frame- conditions of consent work (Section 5.3) Modifying an approved project Applicant SIA may be required as part of the environmental prepares environmentla assessment to assessment where the expected social impages are support modification application expected to be new or different in nature and/or scale Source: NSW DPE (2017), 9. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 38 4.2. Effective Public Participation in IAIA defines “public participation” in impact assess- National Systems for ESIA ment as “the involvement of individuals and groups that are positively or negatively affected by a proposed ESIA literature consistently identifies participation as intervention (e.g., a project, a program, a plan, a policy) a vital element, yet there is little consensus on core subject to a decision-making process or are interested definitions or elements of good practice. An influential in it.” (IAIA 2006, 1). From this definition, IAIA devel- article from 2013 by Glucker and colleagues at the oped three elements of good practice: basic principles, NCEA summarized the state of the field, stating that operating principles and developing guidelines. The there was “widespread consensus” that meaningful following tables summarize these basic and operating public participation promotes effective ESIA systems. principles. Table 7 describes IAIA’s basic principles for (Glucker et al. 2013, 104). Nearly every country’s ESIA public participation. Table 8 describes IAIA’s opera- system includes public participation in some form and tional guidelines. The third element of IAIA good prac- to some extent. (UNEP 2018, 51). But there are dis- tice, developing guidelines, recommends that all actors agreements within national ESIA systems over exactly promote access to information, high-level involvement what participation means, what capacities are needed in participation, creativity and access to justice and for effective participation and how regulators, propo- equity. (IAIA 2006, 3). Borrowing the IAIA 2006 defi- nents, civil society organizations and communities nition of public participation, this review will use the can effectively promote and deliver on participation. term public participation to describe the wide range of activities currently undertaken in ESIA systems. Table 7. IAIA Basic Principles for Public Participation PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION Participation should be grounded in the “social institutions, values, and culture of the communi- Adapted to the ties in the project area” and respect “the historical, cultural, environmental, political and social context backgrounds of the communities.” Informative and The public has a “right to be informed early and in a meaningful way in proposals which may proactive affect their lives or livelihoods.” Adaptive and commu- Communication should respect all groups and be based on “their demographics, knowledge, nicative power, values and interests.” All interests should be represented, with particular attention to mechanisms to defend the Inclusive and equi- interests of “Indigenous Peoples, women, children, elderly and poor people.” Equity with future table generations should be considered. Educative Participation should contribute to a mutual respect of all stakeholders. Participation should promote “cooperation, convergence and consensus- Cooperative building rather than confrontation.” Ultimately participation should be about improving potential projects and ensuring that Imputable community inputs have contributed to decision-making. Source: (IAIA 2006, 2). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 39 Table 8. IAIA Operational Principles for Public Participation PRINCIPLE DESCRIPTION Initiated early and The public and communities “should be involved early (before major decisions are made) and sustained regularly in the [impact assessment] process.” Well planned and Goals, rules and procedures should be understood by all stakeholders and public participation focused on negotiable “should emphasize understanding and respect for the values and interests of participants, and issues focus on negotiable issues relevant to decision making.” Supportive to Public participation should be supported both by transparent access to information and by participants “equitable access to funding or financial assistance” to support informed participation. Participation should center at the “appropriate level of decision-making (e.g., at the policy, plan, Tiered and optimized program or project level) for a proposal.” All potentially affected people “should have access to all relevant information,” in digestible Open and forms and including through “relevant workshops, meetings and hearings related to the IA transparent process.” Participation process should be designed from the needs of affected communities and be based Context-oriented on “social organization of the impacted communities, including the cultural, social, economic and political dimensions.” Participation should be grounded in ethics, professional behavior and moral obligations. A Credible and rigorous neutral facilitator “improves impartiality of the process as well as justice and equity in the right to information.” For formal participation, codes of ethics are encouraged. Source: (IAIA 2006, 2-3). As noted in Chapters 1 and 3, numerous international relevant, understandable and accessible information,” agreements enshrine participation in environmental and consulting with them in a “culturally appropriate decision making as a right. An effort by SAIEA, sup- manner, which is free of manipulation, interference, ported by the World Bank, reviewed these standards coercion, discrimination and intimidation.” (World in detail as they applied to Southern African coun- Bank 2017, ESS10, paras. 6-7.) tries. (SAIEA Calabash Project, undated). The Rio Declaration affirms the right to information, partici- Literature points to different motivations for partici- pation and justice in environmental decision making. pation in national ESIA systems. The ESF incorporates (Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 10). There are now varied elements of good international practice and nearly fifty State parties to the Aarhus Convention, rationales for stakeholder engagement and participa- which established a right for those directly affected tion, stating “effective stakeholder engagement can as well as environmental NGOs to participate in improve the environmental and social sustainability environmental decisions. (Aarhus Convention 1998). of projects, enhance project acceptance, and make a The Escazú Agreement similarly affirms the right of significant contribution to successful project design participation in environmental decision making in and implementation.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. several Latin American countries and guarantees a 1). In 2013, the article by Glucker and colleagues use- safe and enabling environment for those who promote fully summarized rationales for public participation and defend human rights in environmental matters. as “normative,” “substantive” and “instrumental.” (Escazú Agreement 2018, Articles 7 & 9). Under the (Glucker et al. 2013, 106). Normative rationales rely on ESF, the Bank requires Borrowers to “engage with values, like democracy and the belief that those most stakeholders, including communities, groups, or impacted should influence decisions. Substantive individuals affected by proposed projects, and with rationales focus on how harnessing local sources of other interested parties, through information dis- knowledge and enabling experimentation will improve closure, consultation, and informed participation in project performance. Instrumental rationales focus a manner proportionate to the risks to and impacts on legitimacy of decision making and conflict manage- on affected communities.” (World Bank 2017, Policy, ment. (Glucker et al. 2013, 106-9). These are not just para. 53). Borrowers consult stakeholders throughout academic questions; they carry important practical the project life cycle by providing them with “timely, implications for Borrower countries and the World THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 40 Bank Group, including clarifying who should partici- frequently guaranteed in Europe and the North America pate, when and for what purpose. The answers to these than it is in developing countries. (UNEP 2018, 63). In questions will influence the design of an ESIA system’s defining “the public,” in the context of strategic environ- participation procedures as well as the project itself. mental assessment, the UNECE recommends taking a broad definition to include a “wide range of interests, Several efforts have sought to quantify the bene- ensuring a well-balanced and inclusive involvement fits of meaningful consultation and participation. An of the public. Many decisions with an environmental important study by the World Resources Institute in dimension also involve health, social and economic 2007 makes a business case for proponents to share interests, and the corresponding interest groups could information, invest in effective public participation and, be included in the public participation in an equitable ultimately, seek community consent for high-risk proj- way.” (UNECE 2016, 11). UNEP identifies Indigenous ects. (Herz et al. 2007). The study identifies numerous Peoples as a key group that should have participation risks for proponents and governments in failing to seek rights. (UNEP 2018, 63). The ESF seeks to ensure that community consent for projects, including risks associ- Indigenous Peoples and Sub-Saharan African His- ated with interruption of financing, delay or disruption torically Underserved Traditional Local Communities of construction and operations and harms to reputation. “are fully consulted about, and have opportunities to (Herz et al. 2007, 12-15). A 2014 study by several cor- actively participate in, project design and the deter- porate social sustainability experts affirms these argu- mination of project implementation arrangements.” ments and suggests that an “improved understanding (World Bank 2017, ESS7, para. 11). of the relationship between environmental and social risk and project success has the potential to enhance National systems vary in what stages the public is the sustainability outcomes of large-scale development allowed to participate. The ESF requires participation in the extractive industries.” (Bebbington et al. 2014, 6). and stakeholder engagement throughout the project, Participation and community engagement are viewed stating: “Stakeholder engagement is an inclusive pro- as key strategies to address environmental and social cess conducted throughout the project life cycle.” (World risk. The Mekong Partnership for the Environment built Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 2). The ESF specifically requires on these arguments in a publication that makes the the Borrower to support early participation to “gather business case for public participation in the region. initial views on the project proposal and inform project (Mekong Partnership, 2017). The publication states that design.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 22). The UNEP there are four primary reasons proponents should sup- 2018 EIA review provides a comprehensive, if challenging, port strong participation models: “competitive advan- assessment of the state of public participation across tage, risk management, maintaining a social license countries. The report describes significant divergence in to operate; and/or contributing to a country’s [SDGs].” approaches to implementation based on the experiences (Mekong Partnership, 2017, 3). Public participation can of numerous countries5. It notes that direct participa- help maximize both business and social benefits. tion in project meetings and/or discussions on the draft EIA report is often limited to only those groups seen as directly affected by the proposed project. (UNEP 2018, Key Elements of Public Participation 60-61). The broader public and NGOs are sometimes able to participate at other phases, including scoping National ESIA systems define the “public” differently. and final decision making. Literature generally agrees Defining the public is an essential preliminary step as that public participation is important in all phases of it in turn establishes the scope of opportunity to par- the assessment process. Specific participation require- ticipate in national ESIA system functions. There are ments are typically established at the screening stage two constituencies broadly recognized to participate in as the proponent and/or competent authority decide national ESIA systems: i) populations directly affected what process should apply to the proposed project. by the project and ii) non-governmental organizations, (UNEP 2018, 51). In many national systems, public par- advocacy groups and the broader public. (Glasson and ticipation is only allowed or required if a formal ESIA is Therivel 2019, 152). Participation of civil society groups triggered, and participation might not occur under other and NGOs is viewed as important, however it is more processes. (UNEP 2018, 51). 5 Including Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Oman, Peru, and South Africa, among others. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 41 Some national systems only require public participa- Participation at the scoping and preliminary assess- tion during assessment, after the draft report has been ment phase is more common than at the screening developed. (UNEP 2018, 52). This is despite the fact that phase. Participation at the scoping phase can iden- the IAIA, World Bank ESF and other influential sources tify key issues for the report from the perspective of identify clear benefits to early, sustained public partic- affected communities, thereby focusing the review ipation. The IAIA, for example, explains that early par- on their priorities. (UNEP 2018, 53). The UNEP report ticipation “builds trust among participants, gives more states that Peru, Indonesia, Denmark, Kenya and time for [public participation], improves community Oman have incorporated participation at the scoping analysis, improves screening and scoping of the [impact phase. (UNEP 2018, 53-4). Box 12 explores these assessment], increases opportunities to modify the dynamics in Indonesia. proposal in regard to the comments and opinions gath- ered during the [public participation] process, reduces Box 12. Opportunities for Participation at the risk of rumors, and improves the public image of the the Scoping Phase in Indonesia proponent.” (IAIA 2006, 2). Indonesia’s national ESIA system incorpo- Participation at the screening stage is uncommon but rates participation at the scoping phase. recommended. The IAIA principles, World Bank ESF Participation is spelled out in detail within the and UNEP envision public participation at the screening 2009 Regulation of Environmental Permits stage. UNEP says participation at the screening stage of Indonesia as well as the 2012 Guidelines for is ideal. (UNEP 2018, 52). The ESF mandates stake- Community Engagement. The public is given ten holder engagement “as early as possible in the project working days to comment on the announcement development process and in a timeframe that enables of the proposed activity by the proponent. The meaningful consultations with stakeholders on project Guidelines for Community Engagement spell out design.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, paras. 6, 13). Most how the project should be announced, including national ESIA systems, however, mandate participa- translations, type of media and content. (UNEP tion only at the scoping or review stage. (UNEP 2018, 2018, 53-4). The UNEP review notes that the 52-3). Still, many national ESIA systems do require 2012 Guidelines actually shortened the period that proponents or coordinating institutions at least for comment from thirty to ten days and ques- publicly disclose that an application has been filed. tions whether this is sufficient time for mean- (UNEP 2018, 53). Active participation during the ingful public engagement. (UNEP 2018, 54). screening phase corresponds with approaches taken in SIA literature, which notes that social impacts, such as peoples’ fears and aspirations, start well before the Public participation in review, decision-making and official commencement of a project. (IAIA Guidance licensing is common, but it varies in approach and Note 2015, 2). Box 11 explores participation at the substance. Participation at this phase can range from screening phase in Nigeria. disclosure of the ESIA report to robust and shared Box 11. Participation at the Screening Phase in Nigeria Decisions made at the screening phase establish the ways in which the ESIA process will be carried out. The screening phase typically establishes the overall process, including what the level of scrutiny, required assessments and how and what information is to be shared with affected communities. Few national ESIA systems explicitly provide for public participation at the screening stage, with the UNEP review noting only Canada and Nigeria. (UNEP 2018, 52). Within the federal ESIA system in Nigeria, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency must “provide interested members of the public the oppor- tunity to provide input through comments on the project report, which are then put on display relating to the conclusions and recommendations made.” (UNEP 2018, 53). Despite these requirements, the UNEP legislation review study cites two articles analyzing the Nigerian ESIA process which find that the timelines for public comment are often too short and the process too “politicized.” (UNEP 2018, 53). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 42 ownership over decision making. The UNEP 2018 review The literature suggests that mechanisms for public describes five common approaches to participation at participation in monitoring, management and auditing this stage: i) disclosure of ESIA report and the oppor- are relatively weak. The UNEP review states that tunity to comment, ii) provision of a simple, translated public participation in follow-up and monitoring is version of the ESIA report, iii) public meetings and/or rare but beneficial. Recent ESIA laws and regulations hearings to discuss and evaluate the ESIA report, iv) are increasingly incorporating public participation creation of a multi-stakeholder committee, including at the feedback and review stage. (UNEP 2018, 78). affected communities, to review the ESIA report and v) SIA literature more regularly documents the impor- some combination of these approaches. (UNEP 2018, tance of ongoing public participation in management 55). The amount of time given to participate influ- and auditing, which may be an important frontier for ences the effectiveness of the participation provision. national ESIA systems. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015). The (UNEP 2018, 55). The ESF recognizes the importance ESF specifically envisions participation at this phase of of timelines conducive to public participation and the project cycle, stating that the “Borrower will seek requires Borrowers to adopt a timeframe “that enables feedback from stakeholders on the environmental and meaningful consultations with stakeholders on project social performance of the project, and the implemen- design.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 6). With imple- tation of the mitigation measures in the ESCP.” (World mentation arrangements, sometimes proponents are Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 24). The ESF also requires responsible for organizing participation whereas in consultation with project-affected parties if there are other arrangements, the government plays this role. any significant changes to the project design during (UNEP 2018, 55). Requirements for incorporating feed- implementation. (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 25). back at this stage are also varied. Some national sys- tems mandate public hearings, for example in Ghana Some literature points to debates around what institu- as described in Box 13, and feedback in decisions tions should support public participation, including gov- describing “how far comments have or have not been ernment agencies, proponents and NGOs. Hasan studied taken into account.” (UNEP 2018, 56). The ESF adopts projects in Bangladesh and found that NGO-supported this requirement for Borrowers, stating that the “Bor- participation models were more robust than those rower will maintain, and disclose as part of the environ- implemented by the Bangladeshi government. (Hasan mental and social assessment, a documented record of 2018). Lai and Hamilton have assessed the roles of inter- stakeholder engagement, including a description of the mediary actors in strengthening EIA participation. In stakeholders consulted, a summary of the feedback conducting their literature review of effective participa- received and a brief explanation of how the feedback tion and environmental justice, the authors found that was taken into account, or the reasons why it was not.” intermediaries “play a dominant role in environmental (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 9). practices through the choices they make, the interests Box 13. Public Hearings for EIA Review in Ghana Ghana’s national ESIA system incorporates public hearings as a tool for public participation. The Ghana EIA Act of 1994 and Procedures of 1995 require the Environmental Protection Agency to enable public par- ticipation. A public hearing is required when “strong public concerns are raised” and the projects “potential impacts are extensive and far reaching.” (Appah-Sampong 2002, 85). The panel for public hearings must be made up by at least a third local representatives and they are open to the broader community. In the first 3 years of implementation of the act Appah-Sampong found that only 8 of 72 EIS were subject to public hearing. (Appah-Sampong 2002, 86). Writing 10 years later, Bawole criticized participation mechanisms in the oil sector, including the public hearings, as “cosmetic.” (Bawole 2013). Bawole summarizes multiple limitations of the hearing approach including that they occur too late in the process to make fundamental design changes and often occur far from the proposed project site. (Bawole 2013). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 43 they priority[z]e and mobile[z]e, the strategies and Borrower’s stakeholder engagement plan describe platforms they seek to influence, and the other actors “measures that will be used to remove obstacles to they interact with and represent.” (Lai and Hamilton participation” and, when needed, “include differen- 2020, 2). The authors conclude that clarifying and tiated measures to allow the effective participation strengthening the roles of NGO intermediaries could of those identified as disadvantaged or vulnerable.” improve the integrity and accessibility of the EIA pro- (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 16). The 2018 UNEP cess. (Lai and Hamilton 2020, 8-10). study similarly identifies the need to provide support to disadvantaged groups for effective participation Literature views capacity as a key element of effec- in national ESIA processes. (UNEP 2018, 63-4). The tive participation and assesses how national systems IAIA Guidance Note suggests that capacity building, can build the capacity of vulnerable or disadvantaged facilitation and assistance are critical tools for effec- groups to participate. Supporting groups and com- tive participation. When discussing community devel- munities with limited capacities to effectively par- opment agreements, for example, the Guidance Note ticipate in national ESIA processes is described as a suggests that competent independent professional key function of national ESIA systems. The IAIA 2006 advice for communities is essential for a good faith principles on publication participation recommend agreement. (IAIA Guidance Note 2015, 57). The Impact that “Capacity-building, facilitation and assistance Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) provides should [] be provided particularly for groups who funding opportunities to “support individuals, non- don’t have the capacity to participate, and in regions profit organizations and indigenous groups interested where there is no culture of [public participation], or in participating in federal impact assessments and where local culture may inhibit [public participation].” other Agency engagement initiatives and activities,” (IAIA 2006, 2-3). The ESF similarly requires that a which is described in Box 14. (IAAC 2020c). Box 14. Supporting Public Participation in Canada In 2019, the Government of Canada evolve over time. (IAAC 2021). diverse constituencies. (IAAC 2021). passed a new Impact Assessment Act The IAAC emphasizes how timelines The Canadian model offers designated which places considerable emphasis impact meaningful participation. At funding for participation and capacity on public participation. The Act the planning or scoping phase, which building of Indigenous communities. incorporates a vision of public par- occurs within 180 days, the ESIA The Indigenous Capacity Support Pro- ticipation that enables Canadians “to process should identify public concerns, gram, administered by the IAAC, seeks meaningfully participate in each phase identify preferences and perspectives “to enhance meaningful engagement of the impact assessment process.” and define a public participation plan. and leadership of Indigenous peoples in (IAAC 2021). The Act incorporates The public participation plan defines consultations on project assessments.” participation at multiple stages of how and when the public and affected (IAAC 2020a). Core activities include the ESIA process and offers concrete communities will participate in the participation support for specific ESIA support to enable and expand informed remaining stages of the ESIA process. process as well as broader capacity participation. The participation plan will then spell building support. (IAAC 2020d). The out how informed participation is IAAC website details nearly $4.8 Participation models in Canada are implemented in the Impact Statement, million Canadian dollars of awards to grounded in fundamental principles Impact Assessment, Review and indigenous organizations over the first and values. The IAAC articulates Decision Making Phases of the project year of the program. (IAAC 2020b). principles, including: i) participation cycle. (IAAC 2021). is desirable at all phases of the ESIA The Canadian model also offers process, ii) participation should prior- Participation should be enabled designated funding for the effec- itize those most affected by proposed through multiple forms of communica- tive and informed participation of projects, but also enable broader public tion. The IAAC notes that participation affected (non-Indigenous) communi- participation, iii) relevant information should include a range of tools including ties. This dedicated funding stream must be transparently disclosed, iv) in person consultations, online and supports “individuals, non-profit affected and interested parties will interactive tools, social media and plain organizations and Indigenous groups be given timely notice, v) funding will language summary documents. Ulti- interested in participating in federal support the participation of the public mately, the goals of all of these forms impact assessments and other Agency and Indigenous communities, and vi) of communication is to ensure active engagement initiatives and activities.” processes should be adaptive and and meaningful participation from (IAAC 2020c). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 44 Some literature critiques public participation as too some “risk of co-optation” and can raise concerns of time consuming and vague. Some suggest that pro- perceived conflicts of interest from the community. ponents and some industry groups view participation (Vanclay 2020, 129). Indeed, there are examples of as both time consuming and ineffective. Participation environmental assessors publicly promoting and may actually “represent the views of the most vocal advocating for projects they should be objectively and interest groups rather than the general public” or technically assessing. (Laurance 2018). The certifica- those most affected. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 150). tion of expertise has emerged as a strategy to manage In the view of some proponents, this has the poten- these potential conflicts. tial to delay or even undermine projects without clear benefits. The government regulation and certification of environmental and social consultants and firms is Others assert that participation should be conceptual- an increasingly used tool to promote expertise and ized more expansively and meaningfully. As described independence. Certification typically includes some in Section 4.2, SIA practitioners have critiqued EIA combination of specialized training as well as ongoing processes as being too narrow. In assessing key ques- oversight. (UNEP 2018, 43-4). Some countries also tions around public participation, it is important to incorporate criminal liability for false or inaccurate also note the literature that critiques the effective- reports. (UNEP 2018, 44). Impact assessment asso- ness of public participation. (Vanclay 2020). Bond, for ciations, for example IAIA, also have their own pro- example, agrees, arguing that participation in ESIA fessional standards. (IAIA 2010). A 2017 IAIA study, focuses on participation in the regulatory process and updated in 2019, reviewed professional recognition limits opportunities for “genuine empowerment” by schemes for impact assessment and found thirty-nine design. (Bond et al. 2020, 6). different countries use models of accreditation or cer- tification. Thirty-six of the countries reviewed had no 4.3. Expertise, Independence and accreditation standards. (IAIA 2017, 15). In 2014 the Accountability within National EC introduced a requirement where proponents must Systems for ESIA ensure EIA reports are submitted by experts with “sufficient expertise.” (IAIA 2017, 23). This reform is Expertise, independence and accountability have described as a driver of expansion of national certifi- technical and policy dimensions. From industry stan- cation schemes. dards like the Equator Principles to development bank standards like the ESF, expertise, independence and Other systems work to ensure financial independence accountability are found to be important elements of alongside professional competence. The World Bank effective national practice. (World Bank 2017, Policy, Guidance Note on Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) under para. 4). While these themes are assessed throughout the ESF, for example, suggests that because the gov- this Review, this section will briefly summarize ernment typically pays for or conducts monitoring, emerging literature around expertise, independence steps should be taken to ensure that the monitoring and accountability. is insulated from interference. (World Bank 2018b, 13). The Guidance Note recommends steps to assess and National ESIA system expertise is strengthened address conflicts of interest as well as the establish- through multiple strategies. In the context of the ESF, ment of reporting lines to ensure that the third party the World Bank assesses Borrower country capacity can “raise concerns and make recommendations to manage environmental and social risks, including without interference, and that these views can then the Borrower country’s ability to “obtain the necessary be discussed with the Bank and the Borrower.” (World expertise to carry out the environmental and social Bank 2018b, 13). assessment.” (World Bank 2017, Policy, para. 36, note 29). Many national systems seek to guarantee com- ESIA decision makers ultimately should make inde- petent and technically sound assessment through pendent determinations based on economic and social regulation of competence. In most national systems, benefits and costs. Country systems, and societies impact assessments and reports are produced by more broadly, invariably have different values that external experts and consultants, with the proponent influence these decisions. An acceptable social or typically paying these experts directly. This creates environmental cost in one context may be deemed THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 45 unacceptable in another. Experts from the Canadian building community confidence in the integrity of the context have spoken of the need to ensure that “the ESIA process. (Earth Rights 2016, 13). Many jurisdic- EA process is democratically accountable” in order to tions require that decisions formally respond to public reflect the values of the society. (Joseph et al. 2015, input, and this is increasingly seen as an important 245). They recommend a process that is not so much good practice. (UNEP 2018, 69-70). Access to infor- independent but one that is accountable to the public mation laws can contribute to this openness and who collectively should share both the benefits and the Rio Declaration recommends that stakeholders costs. Independence and accountability are related. be afforded “appropriate access to information con- Eliminating bias or interference in decision making is a cerning the environment.” (Rio Declaration 1992, strategy for independence that strengthens account- Principle 10). The ESF reflects these good practices, ability. (Joseph et al. 2015, 245). The use of criteria for requiring disclosure of “sufficient information about decision making discussed in Chapter 3 helps promote the potential risks and impacts of the project” (World independence. Such guidance or requirements can help Bank 2017, Policy, para. 50) as well as “a documented reduce subjectivity and ensure that different project record of stakeholder engagement, including a descrip- decisions face uniform scrutiny. (Joseph et al. 2015, tion of the stakeholders consulted, a summary of the 246-7). Box 15 describes an institutional mechanism feedback received and a brief explanation of how the which seeks to ensure that EIA reports in The Nether- feedback was taken into account, or the reasons why lands are effective and unbiased. it was not.” (World Bank 2017, ESS10, para. 9). Box 15. Independent EIA Review in the A broad right to appeal ESIA decisions as well as a griev- Netherlands ance redress system further strengthens account- ability. UNEP and the survey of Canadian experts both recommend that interested parties should be able to In the Netherlands, the regulatory framework appeal decisions on both substantive and procedural incorporates the independent review of EIAs grounds. (UNEP 2018, 71; Joseph et al. 2015, 248). This for complex projects. In the late 1980s, the can serve as an important check for undue influence. Government of the Netherlands established Accountability is also furthered through effective sys- the NCEA as an independent body to provide tems for grievance redress. The World Bank ESF incor- assistance to competent authorities in reviews porates such accountability strategy through multiple of EIAs. (OECD 2015, 112). NCEA’s role is to com- avenues. Under the ESF, the Bank requires Borrower ment on the scope and quality of the ESIA report countries to “provide a grievance mechanism, process, in effort to support effective and unbiased deci- or procedure to receive and facilitate resolution of sion making by the competent ESIA authority. concerns and grievances of project-affected parties The OECD characterizes this process as effec- arising in connection with the project.” (World Bank tive, noting that the NCEA “exerts significant 2017, Policy, para. 60). In furtherance of the effective- influence through its independence, expertise ness of this mechanism, the ESF further enables com- and transparency. (OECD 2015, 112). plaints of Bank-financed projects to be lodged with “the project grievance mechanism, appropriate local Transparency is essential for accountability. The lit- grievance mechanism, or the World Bank’s corporate erature consistently states that key documentation Grievance Redress Service (GRS).” (World Bank 2017, within national ESIA systems, including decisions, Policy, para. 61). should be made public. This includes not just the decision-making body’s licensing decision, but good Administrative procedure laws can also further the practice also suggests public access to the materials accountability of national ESIA systems. The Rio Dec- on which the decision was based, including scientific laration states that “effective access to judicial and studies, management plans and any additional condi- administrative proceedings” is a key component of tions. (UNEP 2018, 69). UNEP suggests that making participatory and accountable environmental decision decisions and materials available will strengthen both making. (Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 10). Adminis- government monitoring as well as public account- trative procedure laws allow people and organizations ability. (UNEP 2018, 69). Earth Rights, an environ- to seek judicial or administrative review or appeal mental NGO, describes transparency as critical for of decisions made by public administrative bodies, THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 46 including potentially public institutions within the ESIA 4.4. National Systems for ESIA system. These laws vary across national systems but Effectiveness and Political Economy typically enable either review within the agency that Analysis makes ESIA decisions, an administrative or judicial court or both. (ELAW 2010, Chapter 4). Administra- As national ESIA systems have become ubiquitous tive laws generally incorporate three principles: i) the features of environmental and social governance, decisions of public administrative agencies should be practitioners increasingly focused on their effective- informed by “relevant considerations” established by ness. The ESY Map tool, described in Chapter 3, is an law and should not “be influenced by outside informa- important example of a systematized effort to bench- tion or demonstrate bias,” ii) “Discretionary powers mark ESIA performance. must be exercised within the bounds of the legislation that grants the authority,” and iii) people and groups Some academic literature questions whether ESIA sys- impacted by the decision are “entitled to procedural tems actually manage to influence decision making. A fairness.” (ELAW 2010, 90). core purpose of ESIA systems is to inform and influence the decisions of government officials with the respon- Independence and accountability principles are fur- sibility to approve and monitor projects based on the thered through monitoring by multiple constituencies. criteria and considerations spelled out in the national IAIA’s seventeen principles for EIA follow-up referenced ESIA legal framework. In this sense, the ESIA system is in Chapter 3 suggest that there should be multiple effective only to the extent that it actually influences actors involved in monitoring to ensure effective mon- decision makers, project design and implementation itoring with sufficient independence. First, the propo- as intended. Loomis and Dziedzic, researchers based nent should “accept accountability for implementing in Brazil, undertook a 2018 literature review of 64 EIA follow-up.” (IAIA 2007, 3). The regulator should studies interrogating EIA effectiveness. (Loomis and also determine monitoring needs and ensure they are Dziedzic 2018, 29). The authors conclude that “there implemented effectively. At a minimum, the commu- are still no studies that empirically measure the direct nity should be given information about follow-up and influence of EIA on decision-making, especially behav- “direct community participation in follow-up program ioral changes resulting from the preventative nature design and implementation is desirable.” (IAIA 2007, of EIA.” (Loomis and Dziedzic 2018, 34). This review 3). Most monitoring is conducted by the proponent and looked at four dimensions of EIA effectiveness (pro- proponents are typically required to submit reports cedural, substantive, transactive, and normative6), to the regulatory body. (UNEP 2019, 14). Literature is drawing on the work of Bond, Cashmore, and Kolhoff increasingly suggesting that independent monitoring and found that procedural effectiveness is the most has a role to play. An excellent publication from the studied. (Loomis and Dziedzic 2018, 30, referencing Indian research institute Centre for Policy Research Bond et al. 2004, Bond et al. 2020, Kolhoff et al. offers more than a dozen of case studies of how 2018). In 2020, Bond and colleagues offered an even independent, third-party monitoring is confronting starker assessment of ESIA effectiveness literature, non-compliance with environmental licenses to questioning ESIA’s “popularity as a decision tool in the strengthen environmental outcomes for poor commu- absence of convincing evidence that it achieves its nities. (CPR 2019). The Gujarat independent auditing goal of delivering evidence-based, accountable, deci- example, in Box 8 of Chapter 3, also describes how sion-making.” (Bond et al. 2020, 7). independence of third-party auditors may strengthen accuracy and improve outcomes. Significant literature points to institutional capacity as the key constraint for ESIA system effectiveness. UNEP and UNECA argue that capacity limitations have undermined ESIA effectiveness in multiple regions. (UNEP 2018, 7; UNECA 2005, iv). These reports do not 6 The authors define these dimensions as procedural (Policy and institutional infrastructure; Level of adherence to the applicable regulations whether federal, state, or local; Focused on actual practices), substantive (Degree to which EIA mitigates negative environmental impacts; Degree to which EIA affects the decision-making process; Attainment of EIA policy objectives), transactive (Degree to which EIA avoids delays and cost overruns; Clarity of stakeholder roles; Personnel with adequate skills readily available), and normative (Level of wider goal or policy achievements, e.g., sustainable development and a democratic participatory process; Minimizing tradeoffs). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 47 devote much time to the question of how capacity is EIA and ESIA implementation. The paper suggests built or generated, however. The UNEP report argues that a nuanced and strategic analysis of political will that “capacity develops over time and that legislation and state capability, the two identified constraints for EIAs … may serve as a catalyst.” (UNEP 2018, 8). of national systems, might help tailor reforms to the But it does not offer much analysis beyond that. The context. (McCullough 2016, 5). The paper recommends World Bank’s 2017 World Development Report (WDR) a greater focus on broader governance arrangements embraces political economy analysis and has a dif- for ESIA, where the core functions sit and how they ferent perspective of capacity. The 2017 WDR argues are financed. (McCullough 2016, 6). The ODI briefing that “state capacity is largely a function of power; explores different institutional typologies described ruling elites invest in the capacity of governing struc- by Kelsall (dominant-developmental, dominant-pred- tures when it is in their interest to do so.” (World Bank atory, elitist competitive clientelist and inclusive com- 2017b, 203). Despite the 2017 WDR’s focus on gover- petitive clientelist) to propose what types of strate- nance, it does not explore the use of ESIA, EIA or SIA gies will be effective in different contexts. (McCullough as a governance strategy. (World Bank 2017b). This is 2016, 7-9). In conclusion, McCullough suggests that a somewhat surprising omission given the ubiquity of more research should be undertaken to assess how national ESIA systems as a key governance mechanism political economy and political settlement theories to assess, manage, and regulate environmental and can help strengthen ESIA effectiveness. social impacts in development. The World Bank Group’s Doing Business 2020 similarly did not fully consider the The World Bank has explored using institutional, role of national ESIA systems within the assessment of capacity, and political economy assessment in stra- a country’s business regulations. (World Bank 2020). tegic environmental assessment and natural resource governance. In 2011, the World Bank and others offered Some literature calls for a greater focus on the polit- a conceptual model and operational guidance for SEA ical economy of implementation of national systems in Policy and Sector Reform. This analysis specifically for ESIA. McCullough, a former research fellow at the recommended the use of institutional “capacity, and Overseas Development Institute (ODI), explored these political economy assessment” to effectively account dynamics in a 2016 ODI briefing paper. (McCullough for political economy constraints for effective imple- 2016). Researchers in India have also applied polit- mentation. (World Bank 2011, 5). The study details ical economy methods to the ESIA process. These the role of political factors in constraining effective researchers found that while industry groups have environmental governance reform in a number of con- significant power over the ESIA process, ESIA pro- texts. (World Bank 2011, Table 2.3). Drawing on these cesses are also an important site for influence by envi- experiences, the study concludes: “changing organiza- ronmental groups. (Turaga 2016, 1). The ODI briefing tional cultures and navigating the currents of political offers a more comprehensive analysis and reviewed economy in the context of sector reform are major political science literature focused on EIA. It found only challenges that require sensitivity, long-term engage- a few studies grappling with questions of how “politics ment, and a great deal of political skill.” (World Bank works to influence, and in some case prevent, ESIA 2011, 48). The study offers concrete suggestions of findings from having an impact on decision-making how to incorporate a range of perspectives, including in developing countries.” (McCullough 2016, 3). From political science, anthropology, and sociology, into this review, McCullough suggests three weaknesses environmental reform efforts. (World Bank 2011, 49). with the current approach to ESIA: an over reliance on Despite its expertise, it does not appear that the regulatory models borrowed from the United States World Bank has yet adopted similar perspectives to and Western Europe, the privileging of formal institu- these aspects of ESIA reform. tions in the ESIA process, and the treatment of better public participation as a “panacea” to ESIA’s problems. (McCullough 2016, 4-5). 4.5. Incorporating Transboundary Impacts into National Systems for ESIA Political economy tools might help strengthen national ESIA systems. The 2016 ODI briefing paper describes Procedures to account for transboundary impacts how political economy and political settlement theory are increasingly recognized as an essential element might help reconceptualize strategies to strengthen of effective national ESIA systems. Since at least THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 48 the early 1970s, countries have considered how to Other regions have also developed important stan- plan and account for a project’s environmental and dards and guidelines for transboundary ESIA. The social impacts that extend beyond national bor- 1995 Mekong Agreement, for example, established ders. (Schrage and Bonvoisin 2008, 234). In 1987, for requirements for transboundary EIA (MRC 1995), and example, UNEP issued guidelines on EIA recommending the Mekong River Commission is working to establish that when a proposed activity in one country is likely a transboundary EIA regime, including through the to significantly impact another country, the govern- development of draft guidelines. (MRC 2018, UNEP ment should a) provide notice of the proposed activity 2019, 13). The Tehran Convention, focused on the to the potentially affected country, b) transmit rele- Caspian Sea region, together with UNEP, the European vant information about the project and c) enter into Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the consultations, when agreed. (UNEP 1982, Principle Caspian Environment Programme, developed Guide- 12). The State obligation to assess transboundary lines on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans- environmental impacts has subsequently been estab- boundary Context in the Caspian Sea Region in 2004. lished within international law, with the International (UNEP et al. 2004). Since the late 1990s, Central Amer- Court of Justice recognizing the obligation to assess ican governments have, through the Central Amer- significant adverse transboundary impacts under ican Integration System, worked to develop standards customary international law in the Pulp Mills decision for transboundary ESIA. A regional technical com- (Argentina v. Uruguay) of 2010. (ICJ 2010, 83). Partic- mittee on EIA has sought to harmonize key elements ular regions have developed specific approaches to and strengthen how national systems integrate trans- transboundary assessment, including within Europe, boundary considerations (Rojas et al. 2006, 30-33)7. North America, Central America, the Nile Basin and the Mekong River Basin. The ESF similarly requires Transboundary impact assessment has several unique Borrowers to consider transboundary impacts when characteristics. Schrage and Bonvoisin, who have held conducting social and environmental assessment, senior roles in the Espoo Convention secretariat at the stating that Borrowers should consider risks “related UNECE, summarized key characteristics of trans- to climate change and other transboundary or global boundary EIA in a 2008 special issue of the journal risks and impacts.” (World Bank 2017, ESS1, para. 28). of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal on trans- boundary impacts (Schrage and Bonvoisin 2008, 235- Regional approaches to transboundary collaboration 6). While now twelve years old, this article appears vary, but there has been increased attention to trans- to remain the most comprehensive cross-country boundary ESIA following the Pulp Mills decision. Europe assessment of good practices in transboundary ESIA. has a robust framework, with the UNECE’s 1997 Espoo Relying primarily on European experience, Schrage Convention requiring signatories to conduct EIAs for and Bonvoisin identify the following main issues to activities that are “likely to have a significant adverse address in transboundary EIA and ESIA: i) clearly des- environmental impact across boundaries.” (Espoo ignating contact points and coordinating bodies for Convention 1991). UNECE has issued important Guid- transboundary EIA; ii) establishing agreed approaches ance on Public Participation in Environmental Impact on how to share or allocate costs; iii) harmonizing Assessment in a Transboundary Context (UNECE approaches to public participation in transboundary 2006) as well as more recent Guidance on the Appli- EIA as well as addressing language issues; and iv) cation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Pro- establishing common methodological approaches cedure for Large-scale Transboundary Projects. (EU for determining significant impacts. (Schrage and 2013a). In 2019, the UNECE further revised its Guide- Bonvoisin 2008, 235-6). The World Bank also has lines on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans- extensive experience in implementing transboundary boundary Context for Central Asian Countries. The ESIAs, particularly related to hydropower projects as Guidelines are based on relevant regional and interna- described in Box 16. World Bank Operational Policy tional standards and provide step-by-step guidance 7.50 on Projects on International Waterways generally for policymakers responsible for implementing trans- requires Borrowing countries to notify riparian States boundary ESIA in the region. (UNECE 2019). regarding proposed Bank-financed projects on inter- national waterways. (World Bank 2012). However, 7 Note the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment has contributed to this regional effort. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 49 there are few reflections of the World Bank’s experi- 4.6. Incorporating the Mitigation ence within academic and grey literature. Hierarchy into National Systems for ESIA There are also some unique challenges associated with transboundary assessment within national ESIA The mitigation hierarchy is a strategy to manage envi- systems. Schrage and Bonvoisin summarized many of ronmental and social risks and impacts. The World these challenges in their 2008 article. Among other Bank’s ESS1 requires Borrowers to adopt a mitiga- challenges, they highlight: i) difficulties with coordi- tion hierarchy, which is defined by the ESF as steps nation between multiple governments, particularly in to: “Anticipate and avoid risks and impacts; Where decentralized or federal jurisdictions; ii) challenges and avoidance is not possible, minimize or reduce risks and costs associated with language and translation; iii) the impacts to acceptable levels; Once risks and impacts task of ensuring meaningful public access to informa- have been minimized or reduced, mitigate; and Where tion across national borders; iv) limited opportunities significant residual impacts remain, compensate for public participation across borders; v) divergences for or offset them, where technically and financially in requirements at a country level leading to inequity in feasible.” (World Bank 2017, ESS1 para. 6). While lit- participation; and vi) disagreement about who covers erature and social and environmental standards have costs associated with ESIA. (Schrage and Bonvoisin historically focused on minimizing project-related 2008, 235-6). There has been some progress on many harm, literature is evolving towards an expectation of these issues in the years since the Pulp Mills deci- that ESIA systems should screen out projects that are sion (ICJ 2010). New technologies, for example, provide not adequately justified to maximize project benefits opportunities to reduce monetary and transaction and encourage those with positive environmental and costs to strengthen participation across countries. social impacts. Box 16. Transboundary Assessment of the Many national ESIA systems do not fully incorporate Rogun Hydropower Project in Tajikistan the mitigation hierarchy framework. Mitigation should be a central element of an ESIA process. (IISD 2016b, 17). The mitigation hierarchy is also “fully imbedded” The Rogun Hydropower Project in Tajikistan in ESIA practice in some jurisdictions, for example the had expected impacts on water use across United Kingdom. (IEMA 2011, 5). The IAIA Guidance the Amu Darya basin, covering Afghanistan, Note on SIA explicitly recommends the integration of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turk- the mitigation hierarchy framework. (IAIA Guidance menistan and Uzbekistan. As a result the ESIA Note 2015, 53). UNEP states that incorporating the process intentionally sought to incorporate mitigation hierarchy framework into ESIA processes is the perspectives of downstream users into the “increasingly seen as good practice.” (UNEP 2018, 49). formal ESIA process, including through public However, the ways in which elements of mitigation consultations in those countries. (Poyry Energy hierarchy are incorporated into the ESIA process are 2014, 21.2.1). The assessment process included uneven. A 2016 review of Asian ESIA practice found “preliminary consultations on the terms of ref- that impact assessment and the environmental and erence of the assessment studies as well as five social impact monitoring plans were rarely incorpo- formal riparian consultations on interim out- rated the mitigation hierarchy. (Sano 2016, ii). As puts and draft final reports.” (World Bank 2014, described in Box 17, countries in the Pacific appear to 2.1). These in-country consultations took place have incorporated steps of the hierarchy better than with civil society and government in each of the other regions. (SPREP 2018). On balance, however, the potentially affected countries as well as multi- 2018 UNEP review states that the failure to sufficiently country consultations to strengthen dialogue. integrate the mitigation hierarchy framework within On the basis of these consultations and the ESIA national EIA laws represents a “severe shortcoming” process, a draft Environmental and Social Man- of the process. (UNEP 2018, 49). The Business and agement Plan detailed “the mitigation measures Biodiversity Offsets Programme similarly identifies and related monitoring activities that would be deficiencies in the integration of “compensation and needed to meet international norms.” (World offsetting into EIA” as a key limitation for the effective Bank 2014, 3.2.3). use of the mitigation hierarchy. (BBOP 2016, 5). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 50 Box 17. Incorporating the Mitigation of the approach of the mitigation hierarchy. (Glasson Hierarchy into EIA in the Pacific and Therivel 2019, 140). As described in Chapter 3, implementation challenges undermine these plans and by extension effective implementation of the mit- A proposed project by an Australian-owned igation hierarchy framework. company, Avenir Makatea, seeking to con- duct phosphate mining on the Makatea atoll of French Polynesia is incorporating the miti- 4.7. Emerging Risks and Impacts gation hierarchy. In a case study documented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Envi- National ESIA systems are increasingly being called ronment Programme (SPREP), the proposal on to integrate new perspectives and analyze new incorporates ‘avoid, reduce, restore’ steps to sources of risks and impacts. Among the emerging reduce environmental impacts and strengthen areas confronting national systems are civic space, community ownership. (SPREP 2018). SPREP climate change and new technologies. This section will describes how the proposal will 1) avoid explora- explore literature documenting experience with such tion on parts of the resource area with sensitive emergent themes and new approaches. wildlife, 2) reduce impacts by implementing a biosecurity policy to limit invasive species and Civic Space 3) restore areas to allow for stable vegetation. (SPREP 2018, 3). Effective national ESIA systems rely on active partic- ipation of affected groups. Yet in many parts of the world, active participation in environmental and social Development finance can play an important role in governance is becoming more challenging. Closing integrating the mitigation hierarchy framework within civic space impacts how civil society groups can par- national ESIA systems. Writing for the IAIA website, ticipate in national assessment processes and makes Bice, a former president of IAIA noted that the IFC Per- it difficult for decision makers to assess costs and formance Standards should contribute to more wide- benefits in fully informed ways. Box 18 describes how spread application of the mitigation hierarchy. (Bice NGOs have argued that the Government of Austria has 2016). Expanding the application of the ESF is another sought to limit participation of civil society groups in strategy to catalyze adoption in developing countries. the national ESIA system. Restrictions on civil society need not target the ESIA process specifically to hinder The use of offsets within national systems is inconsis- tent, but timing and capacity appear to be key factors. Box 18. Shrinking Civic Space Within EIA in A 2018 article in the Environmental Impact Assessment Austria Review summarizes experiences around biodiversity offsets, stating that there is “a lack of consensus about According to Friends of the Earth Europe when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced (FOEE), the Government of Austria has into the EIA process.” (de Witt et al. 2018, 1). Studying restricted opportunities for civil society groups five projects in South Africa, the authors conclude that to participate in EIA processes. The FOEE case timing and capacity are key factors. While offsets study suggests that a change of government in should be a last resort within the mitigation hierarchy, 2018 brought about changes to the national EIA discussion of them should begin early within the ESIA process. As part of a broader effort to reduce process. (de Witt et al. 2018, 2). Ultimately, capacity participation and the role of NGOs, FOEE sug- is a critical variable, with the authors stating that the gested that the government targeted the ESIA “real issue is therefore less about how and when offsets process. The government initiated requirements are introduced to the EIA process, and more about the that any organization wanting to engage the EIA timing of the involvement of biodiversity specialists in process would need to have at least 100 mem- the EIA process.” (de Witt et al. 2018, 10). bers. Organizations were required to submit lists of the names and addresses of members to Even where the mitigation hierarchy framework is a designated solicitor, which raises concerns of used, effective implementation is challenging. ESMPs, reprisal. (FOEE 2019). SIMPs and analogous tools are key sites for integration THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 51 participation. The 2018 UN Secretary General’s report, Climate Change for example, documented increases in intimidation and reprisals targeting groups working on environmental National systems are increasingly integrating analysis issues. (UNSG 2018, paras. 21-31). Other groups are of climate change dynamics into their ESIA practice. In also targeted, including people with disabilities and 2013, the EC issued comprehensive guidance and rec- lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (or ommendations to EC member states on how to incor- queer) minorities. (UNSG 2018, paras. 27-31). porate climate and biodiversity impacts within existing legal requirement for EIA. (EC 2013). The EC guidance Participation in environmental and social decision followed from a 2009 review by the EC EIA directive making can be the site of criminalization and vio- which concluded that European countries were not lence. In March of 2020, the World Bank affirmed its sufficiently incorporating climate change into their Commitments Against Reprisals, stating that “we do EIA practice. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 268). The EC not tolerate reprisals and retaliation against those guidance builds on guidance from the OECD, which also who share their views about Bank-financed projects.” noted limited application of climate change analysis in (World Bank 2020a). This position is echoed within the national systems for ESIA. (Agrawala 2010). Writing for World Bank’s 2020 Staff Code of Ethics, which states OECD in 2010, Agrawala and co-authors suggested that that “The WBG does not condone retaliation, which is despite the development of numerous risk assessment defined as any form of retribution or threat of retribu- tools in the climate change community, few recommen- tion taken against an individual who engages in one dations and guidelines had been developed specifically of the three following protected activities: reports an for proponents, regulators and communities’ use in allegation of misconduct … [or] cooperates with or pro- project ESIA settings. (Agrawala 2010, 3). Following the vides information in a related investigation…” (World OECD and EC, IEMA, the UK based impact assessment Bank 2020b, 12). National ESIA systems can be sites network, also issued their own guidance in 2015. (IEMA for sharing perspectives. The World Bank has multiple 2015). Integration of climate analysis into ESIA sys- resources and tools to combat reprisals, including the tems offers concrete opportunities to advance climate ESF, as well as related grievance mechanisms and the and biodiversity objectives while also strengthening the Inspection Panel. Good practice within the World Bank reputation and climate resilience of the project, among suggests all of these tools, as well as project-specific other benefits. (EC 2013, 14). engagement, are important to ensure meaningful par- ticipation within national ESIA systems. The World Bank ESF calls climate change “a funda- mental threat to development in our lifetime” and The last decade has also seen expanding use of human seeks to ensure that World Bank-financed projects rights assessment alongside and within environmental “reduce their impact on the climate by choosing alter- and social assessment, particularly for private sector natives with lower carbon emissions.” (World Bank lending. The establishment of the UNGPs in 2011 , 2017, Vision, para. 2). The ESF Policy defines environ- which apply to sovereign countries and private sector mental risks and impacts as including “those related enterprises, marked a shift in how industry considers to climate change.” (World Bank 2017, Policy, para. 4). human rights impacts of its operations. The UNGPs It also requires Borrowers to assess climate change identify a range of potential human rights impacts, all risks and impacts. (World Bank 2017, ESS1, para. 35). of which should be accounted for within project oper- ations. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, 264-270). In 2013, Literature advises that climate change analysis should the global oil and gas industry association for environ- be incorporated throughout the national ESIA process. mental and social issues and The Danish Institute for Box 19, below, describes strategies to incorporate cli- Human Rights co-produced a widely cited report that mate analysis at each stage of the ESIA process devel- took stock of how human rights assessment could be oped by the EC. The 2016 Guidance on Integrating Cli- integrated within environmental and social impact mate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact assessment functions. In 2013 the World Bank pub- Assessment recommends that climate change and bio- lished a literature review, commissioned by the Nordic diversity considerations should be incorporated into Trust Fund, on human rights impact assessments and “plans, programmes and projects implemented across how they are different from other forms of impact the EU.” (EC 2013, 3). The Kenya Climate Change Act assessments. (World Bank 2013, Chapter 4). from 2016 also requires the coordinating institution to THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 52 integrate climate risk and vulnerability assessments manifest over periods of time which are longer than into all impact assessment undertaken by lead agen- project timelines. Project ESIAs have, as a result, cies. (UNEP 2018, 45). struggled to analyze interrelationships between a spe- cific project and longer-term climate factors. (Glasson Climate impact analysis has been challenging to inte- and Therivel 2019, 268). grate into ESIA for a number of reasons. First and fore- most, ESIA processes have been criticized for failing The OECD, EC and IISD studies, which are a few years to adequately capture cumulative impacts. Capturing old, found limited integration of climate analysis into cumulative impacts is challenging in the context of actual project ESIAs. (IISD 2016a). The authors point climate change where a single project is inevitably one to Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, and small contributor to overall changes. (Glasson and Therivel island states from the Caribbean and the Pacific 2019, 268). Others note that climate change impacts (Agrawala 2010, 33), Kenya (UNEP 2018, 45) and the Box 19. EC Climate ELEMENTS OF THE EIA INTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY Review in EIA EIA PROCESS PROCESS ADDRESSED IN THE GUIDANCE …what are the key questions? The EC has issued extensive guidance on Screening strategies to incorporate (where appropriate) • How is the climate projected to change in the future and how will this affect the environment? climate review into EIA . Identifying • Which ecosystem functions and biodiversity assets climate change may be affected? Guidance on Integrating and biodiversity • How will climate change and biodiversity interact with each other and with the other environmental Climate Change and concerns issues to be assessed in the EIA? Section 4.1 Biodiversity into Environ- mental Impact Assessment • What do the environmental trends or scenarios Scoping (including extreme climate situations) look like recommends supporting Analysing the without the project? evolving base- participatory processes line trends • How likely are they? What is driving them? Section 4.2 • Are they likely to reach a critical turning point or and incorporating climate bottom line? analysis at the early stage • Is the proposed development needed? At what scale? of the EIA process. (EU Carrying out Identifying Where? What methods should be used? What is the assessment alternatives timescale? 2013b, 9-10). The Guidance and compiling and mitigation • What alternatives would affect the climate less? identifies tasks including: environmental measures Which ones would protect biodiversity and permit information Section 4.3 ecosystems to absorb shocks and disturbances? i) identifying climate • What are the ‘win-win’, ‘no-regret’ or flexible options that would allow for future changes? change and biodiversity concerns, ii) analyzing Assessing • What are the cumulative effects on climate change and biodiversity, taking into account other evolving baseline trends, effects implemented/authorised/planned project and the Providing Section 4.4 iii) identifying alternatives information complexity of climate change and biodiversity issues, as well as other elements to be assessed in the EIA? and mitigation measures, and consultation • What are the assumptions and key uncertainties? 4) assessing effects and 5) adaptive management and monitoring. (EU 2013b, 27). Climate analysis should be Decision- used across core ESIA func- making and development tions as visualized below: consent • How can a project be implemented to adapt to climate change (building in adaptive capacity) to allow for changes in light of lessions learnt? Monitoring and • How will the effects on climate change and Monitoring and biodiversity be monitored? adaptive adaptive • How will the mitigation measures be monitored? management management* How will adaptive management be evaluated? Section 4.5 Source: EU (2013b), 27. *Monitoring is not obligatory under the EIA Directive, but is nevertheless used in some Member States. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 53 EC (EC 2013) as places integrating climate analysis. practices in adaptative management across Glasson and Therivel cite lessons from a review of ten country systems. United Kingdom transport ESIAs, which found that • Benefit-sharing agreements: Documenting recent the ESIAs often discussed vulnerability of the project efforts to obtain the consent of project-affected to climate risks but failed to offer detailed mitigation communities and mutually agree to an impacts and adaptation measures. (Glasson and Therivel 2019, and benefits agreement (or community develop- 268, citing Hands and Hudson 2016). ment agreement). • Corruption: Corruption’s relevance to develop- Other Emerging Issues ment, the risks it poses to projects, and its rela- tion to ESIA systems. National systems for ESIA are increasingly being • Decentralized ESIA arrangements: An examina- asked to utilize new tools and assess new forms of risk. tion of ESIA systems in federal systems, and the New technologies and methodologies, such as remote respective roles of national and subnational gov- sensing and machine learning, have transformational ernment entities. potential for national systems for ESIA. While this • Governance and effectiveness: Further analysis literature review did not include a comprehensive of governance arrangements, political will and assessment of how new technologies might improve state capability could help strengthen ESIA current assessment and management methods, the implementation. IAIA convened discussion on emerging technologies • Independence: Additional analysis of possible and impact evaluation in 2018. (IAIA 2018). Emerging institutional arrangements and factors to max- data protection and privacy requirements, including imize the independence of the ESIA system. the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, may also • Procurement and financing: The role of procure- affect the handling of personal data in the context of ment, contractor arrangements and financing national systems for ESIA. Furthermore, there is an (including staffing and retention) in enhancing emerging debate about the role of ESIA and broader elements of ESIA systems. impact assessment for emerging technologies, • Technology: The potential of new and disruptive including artificial intelligence and machine learning. technologies (e.g. data mining, geographic infor- (Raab 2020; Hsieh 2009). mation systems, drones, modeling and simula- tion, web-based grievance redress mechanisms, In addition to the key design features identified for this technology based governance and economic Review, numerous additional areas are worthy of fur- management systems) to enhance national ESIA ther research and engagement. These topics include: system effectiveness, particularly in the context • Adaptative management: Surveying effective of pandemics and fragile settings. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 54 Chapter 5 Askolds Berovskis/Adobe Stock Chapter 5. Conclusion This Literature Review found extensive common- This Review also finds gaps in the literature focused alities as well as important areas of divergence in on ESIA . ESIA literature tends to place emphasis on academic and practitioner literature focused on the technical aspects of ESIA and comparatively less national systems for ESIA. This concluding chapter emphasis on the overall effectiveness of national begins by assessing the state of the literature systems. The literature broadly recommends that before summarizing key findings from the literature national systems for ESIA should be rooted in coun- regarding principles, core functions, and select design tries’ broader governance and decision-making struc- elements of ESIA systems. This chapter concludes by tures. However, there is relatively sparse literature making recommendations for possible engagement by that assesses the strategies and approaches policy- the World Bank Group to support Borrower countries’ makers can take to concretely strengthen ESIA effec- efforts to strengthen national systems for ESIA. tiveness. Relatedly, there are gaps in the literature on strategies for financing effective and efficient national ESIA systems; the economics of the efficiency or lack 5.1. Findings on Scope and Nature of of efficiency of these systems; and on the ability of National Systems for ESIA ESIA systems to help countries achieve broader goals, such as advancing regulations that enhance business The Review finds significant consensus on the core and investment activities, climate resilience or social principles and functions of national ESIA systems. inclusion. Over the last 30 years, the field of environmental impact assessment has coalesced around a number Findings on Principles and Core of key principles that inform ESIA, including adap- Functions of National Systems for tive, participatory and accountable assessment and ESIA management of impacts. These principles continue to guide efforts to strengthen ESIA systems. Similarly, Extensive literature analyzes principles and core literature describes many of the core functions of ESIA functions of national systems for ESIA . This Review systems as broadly consistent, such as screening, reveals a mix of guidance and findings from multilat- impact assessment, and monitoring, with some eral organizations, practitioner reflections and aca- acknowledged differences in approach and emphasis. demic research. As summarized below, the literature offers insights on the principles (discussed in Chapter Areas of divergence also emerge in the literature, 2), legal frameworks (Chapter 3.1.), functions (Chapter including the ways in which the literature recom- 3.2) and financing (Chapter 3.3.) for national ESIA sys- mends accounting for social impacts, effectively tems. It also reveals several important trends. and adaptively managing risk and enabling the participation of affected communities. Some liter- Principles: Literature identifies core principles for ature suggests that social risks should be incorpo- environmental and social impact assessment that rated through national ESIA systems, whereas some should guide national systems for ESIA . These prin- literature suggests there are particularities in social ciples focus primarily on the values and principles risk that are best assessed and mitigated with com- underpinning the process of ESIA assessment and plementary strategies. Other literature finds ESIA management as opposed to the broader national sys- systems to be overly fixed as a regulatory decision for tems. Nonetheless, the principles identified in the lit- project approval and not sufficiently focused on adap- erature offer important perspective for strengthening tive management and implementation monitoring. national ESIA systems. As summarized in Table 4 Finally, while there is general agreement that public (Chapter 2), these core principles for ESIA recommend participation in ESIA processes is important, there systems that are predictable, practical, participatory, is significant divergence in what it should entail. The transparent and accountable, among other principles. literature identifies a wide spectrum of activities to Principles focused on social impact assessment are enable meaningful participation, including increasing more clearly rooted in international and regional legal transparency, access to information building capacity obligations and are arguably more values-oriented and providing independent support to project-affected than the international EIA principles. They include, for communities. example, references to equity, fairness, and inclusion. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 56 Legal frameworks: Literature explores States’ management. This is an area that SIA literature has obligations to conduct ESIA and analyzes the legal explored more extensively, however, which appears frameworks that govern national systems for to be helping to catalyze further focus on this aspect ESIA . Literature explores the range of international, within ESIA. The World Bank’s ESF places considerable regional and national legal norms that require coun- emphasis on adaptive management tools, including tries to develop and implement national systems for the ESCP, which documents the Borrower’s commit- ESIA. Additionally, literature assesses the ways in ment to develop, implement and update instruments, which national systems are most effectively rooted for example, ESMPs. The IFC Performance Standards in national legal frameworks. Regional or global similarly incorporate adaptive management requiring standards, for example the EC EIA Directive and the engagement “throughout the life of the project.” (IFC UNECE Espoo Convention, set out requirements for 2012, 1). There is increasing agreement that adaptive national ESIA systems. Beyond legal norms, there are management tools and commitments should be inte- additional international resources that offer compar- grated as legal elements of licensing conditions. ative analyses of elements of legal frameworks for national systems for ESIA. The ESY Map Tool is an Follow-up, monitoring and auditing: Literature iden- important new effort to assess key functions and ele- tifies follow-up and monitoring of license compliance ments of national ESIA systems through an inclusive, as major shortcomings of national systems for ESIA. multi-stakeholder process. (NCEA 2019). For example, a World Bank study found that most Latin American countries “rarely monitor the action’s Core functions: Considerable literature focuses on impacts after the corresponding license or permit has the core functions of national systems for ESIA . Core been issued.” (Acerbi et al. 2014, 4-5). A 2020 report functions of a national system for ESIA are typically from IDB and the WJP on Environmental Governance described as including the following: screening; scoping Indicators for Latin America and the Caribbean sim- and preliminary assessment; impact assessment, ilarly states that inspections, monitoring and evalua- mitigation and management; the impact assessment tion are among the weakest elements of environmental report and management plan, review, decision making rule of law. (IDB & WJP 2020, Figure 2). In Southeast and licensing; adaptive management; and follow-up, Asia, a 2018 comparative review of national systems monitoring and auditing. found that while many countries’ legislation included requirements for an EIA follow-up, the implementa- Screening and scoping: Literature suggests that tion and revision of mitigation plans was a significant screening and scoping are essential to identify and shortcoming. (Swangjang 2018, 39). Regulators bear prioritize environmental and social assessment and the primary responsibility for follow-up and ensuring management for projects with potentially signif- effective monitoring and auditing is carried out; how- icant impacts. This is critical for ensuring that the ever, the public, proponent and civil society have key ESIA process is proportionate to a project’s antici- roles to play as well. (IAIA 2007). pated impacts. Failure to effectively screen projects can overload national systems and may fail to allo- Financing national systems: Financing models for cate limited ESIA resources towards projects with national systems for environmental and social potentially significant impacts. Literature suggests impact assessment are relatively understudied. The that effective screening can deliver environmental and NCEA has produced the most comprehensive global social mitigation at a comparatively low cost. guide to ESIA funding. This Guide suggests that the fundamental question for ESIA system financing is Adaptive management: Literature explores how “who should bear the burden of paying for environ- national ESIA systems can better deliver adaptive mental safeguards and pollution control measures?” management and compliance monitoring. Some (NCEA 2015, 6). The NCEA publication explores mul- authors critique ESIA as being too focused on project tiple funding models, including cost recovery (fees are approval (or rejection) as opposed to ongoing, adaptive charged to the proponent for operational, financial and and participatory management of environmental and environmental costs), the polluter pays principle (the social impacts. Within the literature, there is consid- company should pay for preventing and controlling erably less focus on how national systems of ESIA social or environmental impact), the beneficiary pays can concretely deliver better ongoing assessment and principle (person using the resource should pay), the THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 57 precautionary principle (with uncertain impacts the ences described in Box 9 (Chapter 4), as one strategy proponent is required to assess and compensate to better manage social risks. Increasing coordination impacts on a regular basis) and the integrity principle between environmental and social departments within (that government and regulators should not be funded national systems is another recommended approach. directly by proponents). (NCEA 2015, 7-13). Some aca- Project-based management of risk, as currently demic and practitioner literature questions whether utilized by some companies, the Performance Stan- models that enable proponents to directly fund critical dards and ESF, offers another strategy to assess and components of assessment and monitoring presents manage social risks. Whatever approach or combina- inherent conflicts of interest. Literature is increas- tion of approaches is used within a national system, ingly exploring strategies to help ensure that funding the literature generally accepts that social risks may for essential ESIA implementation functions, such as appear outside of a traditional ESIA process and, as adaptive management, monitoring and environmental such, coordination and integrated strategies may be restoration, can be more predictable. needed. Findings on Select Design Features of Adaptive management: Literature recommends National Systems for ESIA strengthening strategies to adaptively manage proj- ects. Monitoring, auditing and adaptive management The Review draws insights from ESIA literature on of ESIA commitments and license conditions are all design features common to World Bank engage- referenced as weak elements of national systems that ments and that promote ESIA system effectiveness. undermine effectiveness. (SAEIA 2020, 18). Literature This Review explores literature that responds to explores the role of ESCPs, ESMPs and other flexible the following aspects: i) how national systems can strategies as key tools to strengthen management of effectively account for and manage social impacts; environmental and social risks and impacts. Literature ii) how national environmental and social systems recommends that the legal basis for adaptive man- can advance effective participation; iii) how national agement tools needs strengthening in many national systems can strengthen competent, independent and systems. The World Bank and UNEP, for example, accountable review and consideration of projects; have both found that weak, ambiguous or voluntary iv) how political economy analysis might improve criteria and requirements are a constraint to effective the effectiveness of national systems for ESIA; v) to follow-up and management. (World Bank 2002, 24; what extent national systems incorporate the miti- UNEP 2018, 73). Effective adaptative management gation hierarchy as envisioned by the ESF; vi) whether should be a shared responsibility, and literature rec- national systems incorporate transboundary impacts ommends that the regulator, project proponent, finan- in practice; and vii) how national systems assess and cier, affected communities and the public all should manage emerging risks and impacts such as climate commit to strengthening adaptive management. change and civic space. Private sector and MDB standards: ESIA literature Social risks and impacts: Most academic and prac- reviews the relationship between national systems titioner resources agree that national systems for ESIA and private sector and multilateral devel- for ESIA should incorporate both social and envi- opment bank standards. Development banks, other ronmental risks and impacts. However, literature international and regional institutions, and private identifies different strategies and approaches. Some sector actors often have their own standards along- EIA-focused practitioner literature suggests that side those of national systems. The World Bank, social risks can be—and often already are—effectively IFC, OECD, UN agencies, other multilateral develop- managed through relatively minor changes in defi- ment banks and regional systems all have developed nition and approach within EIA regulatory systems. environmental and social risk standards. Alongside Others recommend a more comprehensive overhaul of these standards and policy, broad industry commit- approach and strategy. This literature suggests that ments as well as company-specific protocols are also social impacts can occur outside the EIA regulatory increasingly relevant. These international standards, cycle and that there needs to be greater emphasis on principles and guidelines are generally understood to community agency and consent. Literature identifies advance a reinforcing set of national requirements new regulatory SIA models, like the Australian experi- around environmental and social impacts. Some liter- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 58 ature recommends better alignment of national sys- are made by elected officials. (Joseph et al. 2015, 245). tems for ESIA with international standards to improve Literature further suggests that transparency is outcomes. foundational for maintaining accountability. Key doc- umentation within national ESIA systems, including Stakeholder participation: Literature highlights decisions, should be made public. the importance of stakeholder participation within ESIA systems; however, definitions, approaches Political economy and national system effective- and requirements differ across national systems. ness: This Review finds sparse literature assessing Improving stakeholder participation is one of the most how national systems for ESIA best connect with common recommendations for strengthening the per- broader efforts to improve governance. National sys- formance of national systems for ESIA. The ESF and tems for ESIA can be a key site where governments, Performance Standards both focus, for example, on project proponents and affected communities make strategies to enable effective stakeholder consulta- determinations of benefits and costs associated with tions in World Bank Group project financing. The defi- development. Some literature on ESIA effectiveness nition of, and approach to, consultation and participa- does explore how ESIA systems align with broader tion varies considerably in literature. Through ESS10, political decision making; however, in 2018 Loomis and the World Bank “recognizes the importance of open Dziedzic found that there are “no studies that empir- and transparent engagement between the Borrower ically measure the direct influence of EIA on deci- and project stakeholders as an essential element of sion-making, especially behavioral changes resulting good international practice” and details requirements from the preventative nature of EIA.” (Loomis and for engagement throughout the project lifecycle. Dziedzic 2018, 34). Alan Bond, the editor of Environ- (World Bank 2017, ESS10 paras. 1, 6-9). In broader ESIA mental Impact Assessment Review, and colleagues sim- literature, however, participation can mean everything ilarly ask why EIA remains a popular regulatory tool from sharing information with affected communities when there is little empirical evidence that it is “deliv- to ongoing and active participation at each stage of ering evidence-based, accountable, decision-making.” a project, from screening through operation. The lit- (Bond et al. 2020, 7). Some recent literature calls for a erature points to examples of emerging good practice, greater focus on understanding the political economy such as national systems and proponents offering of implementation of national systems for ESIA. Such capacity building and designated funding to commu- efforts could help strengthen the evidence base for nities for active participation within ESIA processes. how national systems for ESIA can influence policy- The extent to which participation or consultation making and deliver the environmental and social bene- includes the ability (or even the guarantee) to influence fits they were designed to achieve. project design and alternatives continues to vary con- siderably. Transboundary risks and impacts: Procedures to account for transboundary impacts are increas- Expertise, independence and accountability: Litera- ingly recognized as an essential element of effec- ture identifies numerous ways for national systems tive national ESIA systems. Regional approaches to for ESIA to strengthen competent, independent and transboundary collaboration vary and there has been accountable review, consideration and monitoring increased attention to transboundary ESIA following of projects. The literature identifies certification of the International Court of Justice’s decision in 2010 environmental and social consultants and firms as (Argentina v. Uruguay) that recognized an obligation an important strategy to uphold basic standards. under customary international law to assess trans- In 2014, for example, the EC required proponents to boundary impacts. (ICJ 2010). Literature suggests ensure that ESIA reports were submitted by experts that transboundary ESIA raises unique challenges and with “sufficient expertise.” (IAIA 2017, 23). Professional several regional systems and agreements have clari- literature suggests that this change is driving expan- fied minimum standards. sion of national certification schemes in Europe. (IAIA 2017, 23). Other literature, for example practitioner Mitigation hierarchy: national ESIA systems are literature from Canada, suggests that competence increasingly being called upon to advance the miti- and accountability are best advanced through demo- gation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy is central cratic accountability, where project approval decisions to the World Bank’s strategy in the ESF; however, lit- THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 59 erature finds that most national ESIA systems have Strengthening a Systems Approach not yet fully integrated the approach of the mitigation to National Systems for ESIA hierarchy. National systems: The World Bank could focus on Emerging risks, including climate change: National strengthening the performance of national sys- ESIA systems are being called upon to integrate new tems for ESIA, alongside project-specific ESIAs perspectives and analyze emerging sources of risks for World Bank–financed projects. The World Bank and impacts. Such risks include climate change, civic could support research on factors that influence the space, new technologies and other areas. The OECD effectiveness of national ESIA systems. This Review and EC recommend, for example, the consideration of found surprisingly little literature that assesses the climate change impacts and resilience within national extent to which national ESIA systems inform the systems for ESIA. Guidance from the EC released in design and implementation of projects to address 2016 is among the most developed recommendations their environmental and social impacts. The World for how to include climate change analysis within Bank Group could expand research and operational national ESIA systems. However, to date literature capacity building initiatives on the broad range of fac- finds that climate change impacts and resilience tors impacting the performance of national systems have been difficult to integrate into ESIA in many con- for ESIA. This could be done in partnership with inter- texts. Similarly, literature explores the importance of ested countries, UNEP, other UN agencies, multilateral securing civic space within effective national systems development banks, NCEA, the academic community, for ESIA. Literature on broader emerging sources of and civil society groups. In turn, relying on these part- risk was outside the scope of this Review, but priority nerships and an expanding evidence base, the World areas for further research are included as part of the Bank could better support Borrower countries and civil recommendations in section 5.2. society partners to conceptualize and implement ESIA system reform, coordination, and capacity building 5.2. Recommendations for the World priorities. Bank Group Legal frameworks: The World Bank could expand This section offers recommendations for how the analysis of and support for legal reforms to World Bank Group can support efforts to strengthen strengthen national ESIA systems. This Review national systems for ESIA . These options, summa- assessed numerous efforts to document good practices rized in Table 3 in the executive summary, are focused in legal frameworks for national systems for ESIA. The on additional areas for research, the development of Review found some weaknesses in the legal framework knowledge products and technical, operational and of national systems, including participation, indepen- financial assistance to Borrower countries to help dent financing, and regulatory and contractual obliga- strengthen their national systems for ESIA. tions for implementation of adaptive management. The World Bank could support efforts to document good In particular, the Review identifies possible addi- practices for legally mandated procedures that effec- tional engagements by the World Bank Group across tively deliver the core elements of national systems for three themes: i) Strengthening a Systems Approach to ESIA. In turn, the World Bank could also assist Borrower National Systems for ESIA, ii) Improving Core Functions countries in ensuring that these legal systems result in of National Systems for ESIA and iii) Accounting for effective implementation and enforcement of some- Emerging Risks and Practices in National ESIA Sys- times overlooked national system functions, including tems. As the introduction and methodology explain, participation, adaptive management, and monitoring. further engagement between World Bank teams, Bor- In the end, legal reforms can help strengthen the basis rower countries and broader constituencies is needed to for participatory, independent, and ongoing adaptive prioritize areas for engagement among these options. management of projects. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 60 Financial models: The World Bank could strengthen ESF, the IFC’s Performance Standards, the World Bank accountable and independent financing of national Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines.8 ESIA systems. This Review found limited analysis of At a micro-level, standards include a range of industry strategies to strengthen the governance of national and civil society standards and Good International systems for ESIA. Accountable and independent Industry Practice.9 financing was found to be a key gap. Additionally, the capacity of regulators as well as the attraction Improving Core Functions of National and retention of qualified environmental and social Systems for ESIA practitioners within governmental institutions are viewed as challenges. The World Bank could leverage Adaptive management and monitoring: The World its expertise in public financial management, polit- Bank could support efforts to further assess good ical economy analysis and governance to identify practices and develop guidance for Borrower coun- reform processes likely to improve the performance of tries on implementing effective adaptive manage- national systems for ESIA. This could include external ment and monitoring within national systems for and internal activities. Externally, the World Bank ESIA . The World Bank could work with Borrower coun- could support country efforts to strengthen ESIA tries to document effective strategies to strengthen system financing and institutional structures. NCEA the supervision and management aspects of national has done important work around public financial ESIA systems. World Bank guidance and capacity management of national ESIA systems, and the World building could explore strategies to strengthen inde- Bank could explore collaboration with NCEA to build pendent financing mechanisms for adaptive manage- on these efforts. Internally, the World Bank could pro- ment and monitoring, incorporate adaptive manage- mote more effective internal coordination among its ment commitments into binding licensing conditions, safeguards, legal, environmental, social, governance, improve federal-state monitoring coordination, and and public financial management teams to provide expand community and third-party monitoring strat- integrated capacity building to Borrower countries egies. A focus on the implementation of adaptive towards enhanced national systems for ESIA. These management and monitoring could help strengthen efforts could serve to deepen understanding of how supervision of agreed-to mitigation measures and financing can strengthen ESIA system independence conditions and ensure that projected project benefits and effectiveness. are realized. Aligning standards: The World Bank could support Social and environmental coordination: The World further research documenting how the different Bank could support research and experimentation environmental and social assessment and manage- to strengthen national ESIA systems’ coordinated ment tools used by international organizations and management of social and environmental impacts. private sector actors can align to support effective The World Bank Group could do so by studying inte- national ESIA systems. This research could assess gration efforts in particular countries or sectors with the ways in which key standards—from national a focus on how coordination or integration could be governments, project proponents, commercial banks, improved. Key research questions might include: What development finance institutions, and civil society— changes could be introduced in ESIA systems tradi- can play complementary roles to improve different tionally focused on environmental impacts in order to aspects of national systems and how these standards meaningfully address social impacts? What institu- might be better coordinated. Standards from a mac- tional arrangements are most effective in strength- ro-level include, for example, the International Orga- ening coordinated or integrated assessment and nization for Standardization 14000 family of envi- management of environmental and social impacts? ronmental management standards, the World Bank’s What forms of external support are most effective 8 Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines (EHSGs) are defined by the ESF as “technical reference documents with general and industry-specific statements of Good International Industry Practice. The EHSGs contain the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing tech- nology at reasonable cost. For complete reference, consult the World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines, http://www .ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ topics_ext_content/ ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/ our+approach/risk+management/ehsguidelines.” (World Bank 2017, Glossary). 9 GIIP is defined by the ESF as “the exercise of professional skill, diligence, prudence, and foresight that would reasonably be expected from skilled and experienced profes- sionals engaged in the same type of undertaking under the same or similar circumstances globally or regionally. The outcome of such exercise should be that the project employs the most appropriate technologies in the project-specific circumstances.” (World Bank 2017, Glossary). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 61 in strengthening social assessment within country Accounting for Emerging Risks and systems? The World Bank, in partnership with Bor- Practices in National ESIA Systems rower countries, could also identify concrete examples for how to operationalize social and environmental Climate risks: The World Bank could strengthen integration. Possible guidance could include guide- assistance to Borrower countries to integrate cli- lines for institutional structures and mechanisms mate change analysis into national ESIA systems. to strengthen sectoral collaboration as well as good In the context of the ESF and the Performance Stan- practice examples of key operational levers, including dards, which align with international good practice terms of reference, tender documents, and budget and require assessment of climate-related risks, the tools, among others. UNDP and SAEIA have produced World Bank could extend additional assistance to Bor- important initial research and guidance on health and rower countries looking to integrate climate change gender on which the World Bank could build. These and cumulative impact analysis into national ESIA efforts could help Borrower countries practically systems. The EC guidance is an important existing improve social and environmental coordination and resource in this regard and could serve as point of integration in their national systems for ESIA. departure for further guidance and operational sup- port. (EC 2013). Meaningful participation: The World Bank could support Borrower country efforts to strengthen New technologies: The World Bank could explore the meaningful participation in national systems for potential for new technologies to strengthen ESIAs ESIA . Most national systems have adopted standards and national ESIA systems. New technologies and around participation, consultation, and civil society methodologies, such as remote sensing and machine engagement, but effective implementation remains a learning, have transformational potential for national challenge. The World Bank could support country-fo- environmental and social impact assessment and cused work to operationalize a coordinated and com- management systems. This Literature Review did prehensive approach to supporting participation in not include a comprehensive assessment of how new national systems for ESIA. Beyond participation in an technologies might impact current assessment and individual project, reforms could establish comprehen- management methods, and there is a need for more sive frameworks for meaningful participation across assessment. The World Bank could document recent the national ESIA system. This Literature Review innovations and adaptations of national systems found that national ESIA systems and proponent for ESIA. Such work might be particularly relevant in consultation platforms are turning to new approaches fragile contexts, where institutional assessment and to strengthen meaningful participation, including monitoring capacity may be weaker. New technologies financing for community and non-governmental can help strengthen assessment and implementation organization capacity building, as well as resources to maximize the ways in which national systems for for legal, social and environmental advisory services ESIA deliver on stated objectives. that support informed community participation, par- ticularly for vulnerable and marginalized groups. The This Literature Review did not assess all areas of World Bank Group could support Borrower country potential World Bank engagement on national sys- efforts to finance and implement some of these tems for ESIA . As the introduction and methodology models and others. describe, consultations among World Bank teams, Borrower countries, and other stakeholders, including civil society and academia, can identify and prioritize additional potential areas of engagement that were largely outside the scope of this Review. Additional engagement areas include the links between national systems for ESIA and corruption, social inclusion and civic space, governance and effectiveness, and pro- curement and benefit sharing agreements, among others. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 62 References Abaza, H.; Bisset, R., and Sadler, B.. (2004). Environmental Cashmore, M. Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., and Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Bond, A. (2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach, Nairobi: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges United Nations Environment Program. (UNEP 2004). in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22:4, Acerbi, M., Sánchez-Triana, E., Enríquez, S., Tiffer- 295-310. (Bond 2004). Sotomayor, R., Gomes Lima, A.L.; Siegmann, K.; Clemente- Fernandez, P.; and Nkrumah, N.E. (2014). EIA systems in Centre for Policy Research. (2019). Making the Law Count: Latin America and the Caribbean, International Association for Environment justice stories on community paralegal work in Impact Assessment presentation, The World Bank. India, Research Report. Agrawala S., Matus Kramer, A., Prudent-Richard, G. and Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), Danish Sainsbury, M. (2010). Incorporating climate change impacts Institute for Human Rights, and Sciences Po Law School and adaptation in Environmental Impact Assessments: Clinic. (2017). A Collaborative Approach to Human Rights Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Environmental Impact Assessments, March 2017. Working Paper No. 24, OECD Publishing. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North Appah-Sampong, Ebenezer. (2002). Public hearing within America, The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), the environmental impact assessment review process, December 20, 2010, http://www.cec.org/files/documents/ Case Study Supplement to the UNEP EIA Training Resource jpac_advice_council/jpac-advice-11-01-en.pdf. Accessed Manual. 85-91. May 26, 2020. Arce-Gomez, A. et al., (2015). Social impact assessments: Development Bank of Southern Africa and the South Developing a consolidated conceptual framework, African Institute for Environmental Assessment. (2020). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50 (2015), Consultation Draft African Environmental Assessment 85–94. Legislation Handbook (4th Edition) https://www.dbsa.org/ african-environmental-assessment-legislation-handbook. Bawole, Nyigmah. (2013). Public Hearing or ‘Hearing Public’? Accessed March 3, 2022. An Evaluation of the Participation of Local Stakeholders in Environmental Impact of Ghana’s Jubilee Oil Fields. de Witt, Marlene; et al. (2018). Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Environmental Management, 51(5). Getting the timing right, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 75 (2019) 1–12. Bebbington, A., Franks, D., Davis, R., Kemp, D., Ali, S., & Scurrah, M. (2014). Conflict translates environmental and Dietz, T. and Stern, P. C. (eds). (2008). Panel on Public social risk into business costs. Proceedings of the National Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Academy of Sciences, 111 (21), 1-6. Making, National Research Council. Bice, S. (2017). Three reasons why the mitigation hierarchy Earth Rights. (2016). Environmental Impact Assessment in matters to impact assessment, https://www.iaia.org/news- the Mekong Region, materials and commentary, report. details.php?ID=62 Edwards, V. 2013. A Review of the Court of Justice’s Blackmore E.; Bugalski N.; Pred D., (2015). Following the Case Law in Relation to Waste and Environmental Impact money: an advocate’s guide to securing accountability in Assessment: 1992-2011 Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 25, agricultural investments. IIED/IDI, London/Asheville. No. 3, pp. 515-530 Bond et al., (2020). “Explaining the political nature of Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW). (2010). environmental impact assessment,” Journal of Cleaner Guidebook for Evaluating Mining Project EIAs Guidebook for Production 244. Evaluating Mining Project EIAs (ELAW 2010). Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW). (2020). EIA Law (2016). Planning policies and projects to achieve a net gain Matrix. https://www.elaw.org/elm. Accessed February 8, 2022. of biodiversity: BBOP Vision, Mission, Goals, Strategy, Plan. 2016. Available at: https://www.forest-trends. Equator Principles, EP Association Members & Reporting, org/wp-content/uploads/imported/final-revised-bbop- https://equator-principles.com/members-reporting/. strategy-20-1-16-pdf.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2022. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 63 European Commission. (2013). Guidance on Integrating World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C. https://www. Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact wri.org/publication/development-without-conflict Assessment. Hsieh, W. (2009). Machine Learning Methods in the European Commission. (2014). Environmental Impact Environmental Sciences: Neural Networks and Kernels. Assessment Directive 2014/52/EU. Cambridge University Press. European Commission. (2014). Non-financial reporting Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Guidance: (NFRD) Directive 2014/95/EU. (EC 2014b). Public Participation under the Impact Assessment Act, April 26, 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/ European Commission. (2017). Environmental Impact impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/ Assessment of Projects Guidance on the preparation of practitioners-guide-impact-assessment-act/guidance- the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Directive public-particaption-impact.htmlt-assessment-act/ 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU). guidance-public-particaption-impact.html.Accessed February 21, 2022. European Commission. (2019). Nature Protection and Environmental Impact Assessment Module 3: Environmental Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Indigenous Capacity Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive – Overview. December Support Program, May 11, 2020 (Updated February 1, 2022), 31, 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/2/ https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/ module_3_2.htm. Accessed May 26, 2020. services/public-participation/funding-programs/indigenous- capacity-support-program.html. Accessed February 21, European Public Health Association (EPHA) and 2022. (IAAC 2020a). International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2019). Consultation Draft: Addressing Human Health in Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2019-2020 Environmental Impact Assessment. Indigenous Capacity Support Program Funding Allocations, May 11, 2020, https://www.canada.ca/en/impact- European Union. (2013a). Guidance on the Application of the assessment-agency/services/public-participation/2019- Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-scale 2020-indigenous-capacity-support-programfunding- Transboundary Projects. allocations.html. Accessed February 21, 2022 (IAAC 2020b). European Union. (2013b). Guidance on integrating climate Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Public Participation: change into environmental impact assessments. Funding Programs, (Updated January 5, 2022) May 15, 2020, https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment- Franks, D. and Vanclay, F., (2013). Social Impact Management agency/services/public-participation/participant-funding- Plans: innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ application-environmental-assessment.html. Accessed Impact Assess Rev. 43:40–48. February 21, 2022 (IAAC 2020c). Friends of the Earth Europe. (2019). Thriving Civic Space for Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Indigenous Capacity Strong European Democracy. Support Program National Program Guidelines (Updated February 17, 2022), June 8, 2020, https://www.canada. Glasson, J., and Therivel, R., (2019). Introduction to ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/public- Environmental Impact Assessment Routledge Natural and participation/guidelines-indigenous-capacity-support- Built Environment series, 5th edition. program.html. Accessed February 21, 2022 (IAAC 2020d). Glucker, A. N., Driessen, P. P.J., Kolhoff, A.; and Runhaar, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). H.A.C.. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact (2006). Public Participation: International Best Practice assessment: why, who and how? Environmental Impact Principles, Special Publication Series No. 4. Assessment Review 43 (2013) 104–111. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Hasan, A.; et al. (2018). Public participation in EIA: A (2007). EIA Follow-up Best Practice. comparative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental organizations, Environmental Impact International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Assessment Review 72 (2018) 12–24. (2010). Guideline Standards for IA Professionals. Herz, S., La Vina, A., and Sohn, J. (2007). Development International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). without conflict: the business case for community consent. (2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 64 and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (IEMA). (2016). Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: (2017; updated 2019). Compendium of National IA Delivering Quality Development. Grantham: IEMA. Professional Recognition Schemes: Individual Environmental Joseph, C., Gunton, T., and Rutherford, M. (2015). Good Impact Assessment (EIA) Practitioners (IAIA 2017). practices for environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:4, 238-254. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2018). A Rapid Tour of Emerging Technologies and Impact Kemp, D., and Vanclay, F. (2013). Human rights and impact Assessment, https://www.iaia.org/webinar-details. assessment: clarifying the connections in practice, Impact php?ID=18. Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31:2, 86-96. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Kolhoff, A. J., Driessen, P. P.J.; Runhaar, H. A.C. (2018). (2020). Webinar on Compliance and Enforcement of Overcoming low EIA performance: A diagnostic tool for the ESIA: Requirements, Commitments and Related Permits, deliberate development of EIA system capacities in low and June 24, 2020, https://www.iaia.org/downloads/ middle income countries, Environmental Impact Assessment EnforcementandComplianceWebinar.pdf. Accessed Review, volume 68, pp. 98-108. November 21, 2020. Lai, J.Y., and Hamilton, A. (2020). For whom do NGOs International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) speak? Accountability and legitimacy in pursuit of just and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment environmental impact assessment, Environmental Impact (IEMA). (1999). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, volume 82, pp.1-14. Assessment Best Practice. Fargo, ND: IAIA. Laurance, W. and Salt, D.. (2018). Opinion: Environmental International Court of Justice. (2010). Pulp Mills on the River Impact Assessments Aren’t Protecting the Environment, Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010. Enisa, https://ensia.com/voices/environmental-impact- assessment/. Accessed February 21, 2022. International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2012). Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Loomis, J. J.; and Dziedzic, M. (2018). Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: A state of the art, Environmental Impact International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Assessment Review 68 (2018) 29-37. (2016). Climate Change Adaptation and EIA (IISD 2016a). McCullough, A. (2016). Advancing the governance of International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). extractives at the local level: Towards politically smart (2016). Environmental Impact Assessment Training Manual, support, Overseas Development Institute Briefing. IISD training resource (IISD 2016b). Mekong Partnership for the Environment. (2017). Making the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Case: Effective Public Participation is Good for Business in the (2019). Legal Framework of Environmental and Social Impact Mekong Region. (Mekong Partnership 2017). Assessment in the Mining Sector. Mekong River Commission. (MRC) (1995). Agreement on the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Justice Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong Project. (2020). Environmental Governance Indicators for River Basin, 5 April 1995. Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB & WJP, 2020). https:// publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/ Mekong River Commission. (MRC) (2018). Guidelines for Environmental-Governance-Indicators-for-Latin-America-- Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the the-Caribbean.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2022. Lower Mekong Basin, Working Document. Vientiane. Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment Morrison-Saunders, A., Baker, J., and Arts, J. (2003). Lessons (IEMA). (2011). The state of environmental impact from practice: towards successful follow-up, Impact assessment practice in the UK. Grantham: IEMA. Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21:1, 43-56. Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA). Mozambique, Government of. (2015). The Decree on (2015). Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Environmental Impact Assessment (54/2015) (Decree Chane Resilience and Adaptation November 2015, IEMA. 2015), http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX- FAOC174566 (in Portuguese, accessed June 20, 2020). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 65 Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment Ortolano, L.; Shepherd, A. (1995). “Environmental Impact (NCEA). (2015). Financing EIA: Funding Governmental Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities.” Impact Tasks in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Assessment, 13:1, 3-30. Environmental Approval. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015. (NCEA). (2017). A Systems Approach to ESIA Effectiveness. Parsons, R., Everingham, J., and Kemp, D. (2018). Developing Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment social impact assessment guidelines in a pre-existing policy (NCEA). (2019). ESY-MAP ESIA Mapping Tool. Available at context. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(2) https://www.eia.nl/en/our-work/capacity-development/ 1-10. esy-map. Accessed March 7, 2022. Raab, C. D. (2020). Information privacy, impact assessment, Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment and the place of ethics. Computer Law & Security Review, (NCEA). (2019). Mozambique ESIA Profile, August 13, 2019, Volume 37, July 2020. https://www.eia.nl/en/countries/mozambique/esia-profile. Accessed June 22, 2020. Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment America and the Caribbean Escazú. (2018). 4 March 2018. (NCEA). (2020). ESIA/SEA Per Country. Available at https:// www.eia.nl/en/countries. Accessed March 7, 2022. Ribot, J. (2004). Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. World Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment Resources Institute: Washington DC. (NCEA). (2020). Unpublished ESY-MAP: A diagnostic tool for assessing the quality of a national Environmental and Social Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Impact Assessment (ESIA) system. Hand-out Detailed Scan. A/CONF.151/26, vol. I, adopted by the United Nations January 2020. Conference on Environment and Development on 14 June 1992. Nielsen, E. H., Christensen, P., and Kørnøv, L. (2005). “EIA Screening in Denmark: A new Regulatory Instrument?” Rocha, C. P. F., and Fonseca, A. (2017). Simulations of Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and EIA screening across jurisdictions: exposing the case Management. Vol. 7, No. 1 (March 2005), pp. 35-49 for harmonic criteria?, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35:3, 214-226. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1992). “Good Practices for Environmental Impact Rojas, G. A., Iza, A. O., and Bonilla, M. C. (2006). Evaluación Assessment of Development Projects.” Paris: OECD de Impacto Ambiental Transfronteriza en Centroamérica. Development Assistance Committee. Guidelines on Lineamientos Generales. UICN-Mesoamérica. Environment and Aid No. 1. Sadler, B. (1996). Environmental Assessment in a Changing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development World: Final Report of the International Study of the (OECD). (2004). “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa: Regulate” in International Investment Law”, OECD Working Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (The Papers on International Investment, 2004/04, OECD International Effectiveness Study). Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/780155872321 Sadler, B. and McCabe, M., eds. (2002). Environmental Impact Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Assessment Training Resource Manual 2nd Edition, Nairobi: (OECD). (2011). Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Sano, D., Matsumoto, I., Urago, A., Takahashi, Y., and Genjida, (OECD). (2015). Environmental Performance Review: The N. (2016). Strengthening EIA in Asia. Institute for Global Netherlands. Environmental Strategies (IGES). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Schrage, W. and Bonvoisin, N. (2008). Transboundary impact (OECD). (2020). Recommendation of the Council on the assessment: frameworks, experiences and challenges, Assessment of Projects, Plans and Programmes with Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26:4, 234-238. Significant Impact on the Environment, OECD/LEGAL/0172. Simpson, N. P. and Basta, C. (2018). Sufficiently capable for THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 66 effective participation in environmental impact assessment? United Nations. (1982). Convention on the Law of the Sea. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70, 57–70. United Nations. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and Sinclair, A.J., Doelle, M. and Gibson, R. (2021). Next generation human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, impact assessment: Exploring they key components. Impact Respect and Remedy” framework. Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40:1. United Nations. (2018). Report of the Secretary-General: South Africa Department of Environmental Affairs and Twentieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right and Tourism. (2004). Criteria for Determining Alternatives in EIA. Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment and Fundamental Freedoms. United Nations. A/73/230. (SAIEA). (2011). Manual for Implementing the EA Barometer for Africa. United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration. 2021. CEPA Strategy Guidance Note on Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development. (SAIEA). (2020). Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC Region, 4th Edition, forthcoming. United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Guidelines on Integrating Health and Gender into Environmental and Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment Social impact Assessments in Sub-Saharan Africa by the (SAIEA). (Undated). Guide to Opportunities for Public Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment. Participation in Environmental Assessment Processes in the Southern Africa Development Community. SAIEA Calabash United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. (2005). Products. https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/2eb50196/ Review of the Application of Environmental Impact files/uploaded/pp_rights.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2022. Assessment in Selected African Countries, UNECA. SPREP, (2018). Using the Mitigation Hierarchy to manage United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 1991. impacts on biodiversity in Pacific Island Countries and Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Territories, Guidance note. Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991). State of New South Wales, Department of Planning and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Environment. (2017). Social impact assessment guideline 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public For State significant mining, petroleum production and Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice extractive industry development, Planning Policy, Strategy in Environmental Matters, United Nations Economic and Governance Division, NSW Department of Planning and Commission for Europe (UNECE). Environment, Sydney NSW 2001. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Swangjang, K. (2018). Comparative review of EIA in the 2006. Guidance on Public Participation in Environmental Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. ECE/ Impact Assessment Review 72 (2018), 33–42. MP.EIA/7. Turaga, R. M. R. (2016). The Politics of Formulation of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation in India: A 2016. Good Practice Recommendations on Public Case Study, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment, United Management Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 2016). Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). UNCTAD; World Bank. (2018). Environmental and Social United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Impact Assessments. Responsible Agricultural Investment 2019. Revised Guidelines on Environmental Impact (RAI) Knowledge Into Action Note, no. 14;. World Bank, Assessment in a Transboundary Context for Central Asian Washington, DC. Countries. UNCTAD; World Bank. (2018). Monitoring Invest- United Nations Environment Programme. (1987). Goals and ments. Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) Knowledge Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Preliminary Into Action Note, no. 9;. World Bank, Washington, DC. Note, Issued on January 16, 1987. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 67 United Nations Environment Programme. (2004). Vanclay, F., and Hanna, P. (2019). Conceptualizing Company Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Response to Community Protest: Principles to Achieve a Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Social License to Operate. Land 8(6), 101. Approach. Vanclay, F. (2020). Reflections on Social Impact Assessment United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Guidelines in the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project for Assimilating Gender into Integrated Environment Appraisal, 38(2), 126-131. Assessments. World Bank. (1996). Environmental Assessment Sourcebook United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Assessing and Update. Washington, D.C. Environmental Impacts: A Global Review of Legislation, UN Environment Law Division and UN Environment World World Bank. (2002). The Legal and Regulatory Framework Conservation Monitoring Centre. for Environmental Impact Assessments: A Study of Select Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations Environment Programme. (2019). Environmental Impact Assessment systems in the World Bank. (2002a). Environmental Impact Assessment Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member Systems in Europe and Central Asia Countries. States. World Bank. (2002b). The Legal and Regulatory Framework United Nations Environmental Programme, Caspian Environ- for Environmental Impact Assessments: A Study of Select ment Programme, Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). (2004). Guidelines on Environmental Impact Assess- World Bank. (2012). OP 7.50 - Projects on International ment in a Transboundary Context in the Caspian Sea Region. Waterways. United Nations Treaties Collection. (2020). World Bank. (2013). Study on Human Rights Impact Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Assessments: A Review of the Literature, Differences with Public Participation and Justice in Environmental other Forms of Assessments and Relevance for Development. Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazu Agreement). Available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ World Bank. (2014). Key Issues for Consideration on the ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII- Proposed Rogun Hydropower Project 18&chapter=27&clang=_en. World Bank. (2017). Environmental and Social Framework UNWOMEN and Publish What You Pay. (2014). Extracting (ESF). equality — a guide. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/ sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/ World Bank. (2017b). World Development Report 2017 Library/Publications/2014/Extracting%20Equality%20-%20 Governance and the Law. A%20Guide-FINAL-30%20October.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2022. World Bank. (2018). Environmental and Social Framework FAQ. Vanclay, F. (2003a). International Principles For Social Impact Assessment, Impact Assessment and Project World Bank. (2018a). Guidance Note for Borrowers: ESS1: Appraisal, 21:1, 5-12. Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impact. Vanclay, F. (2003b). International Principles for Social Impact Assessment: their evolution, Impact Assessment and Project World Bank. (2018b). Environmental & Social Framework Appraisal 21(1): 3-4 March 2003. for IPF Operations Good Practice Note Third Party Monitoring. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ Vanclay, F. with Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I, and Franks, D. en/578001530208566471/Environment-and-Social- (2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing Framework-ESF-Good-Practice-Note-on-Third-Party- and managing the social impacts of projects, International Monitoring-English.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2022. Association for Impact Assessment Guidance Note. (IAIA Guidance Note). The World Bank. (2018c). Guidance Note for Borrowers: ESS2: Labor and Working Conditions. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 68 World Bank. (2019). Nepal Environment Sector Diagnostic: Path to Sustainable Growth Under Federalism. World Bank. (2020). Doing Business, Available at: https:// www.worldbank.org/en/programs/business-enabling- environment/doing-business-legacy. Accessed February 8, 2022. World Bank. (2020a). World Bank Commitments Against Reprisals March 30, 2020, https://www.worldbank.org/en/ projects-operations/environmental-and-social-framework/ brief/world-bank-commitments-against-reprisals. Accessed February 21, 2022. World Bank. (2020b). Code of Ethics, Available at: https:// documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/147281468337279671/wbg-code- of-ethics. Accessed February 21, 2022. (World Bank 2020b). World Bank. (2020c). Environmental and Social Framework Resources, Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/ projects-operations/environmental-and-social-framework/ brief/environmental-and-social-framework-resources. Accessed April 6, 2021. World Bank, University of Gothenburg, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. (2011). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Policy and Sector Reform: Conceptual Model and Operational Guidance. World Bank: Washington DC. Yang, T. (2019). The Emergence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Duty as a Global Legal Norm and General Principle of Law. HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL Vol. 70:525. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 69 Annex I. Comparison of International Principles for Environmental Impact Assessment The International IAIA/IEMA Prin- UNEP Environ- UNEP Environ- EC Impact Study of the Effec- ciples of Environ- mental Impact mental Impact Assessment tiveness of Environ- mental Impact Assessment Assessment (EIA) Directive mental Assessment Assessment 1999 Training Resource and Strategic Principles 1996 Manual Principles Environmental 2002 Assessment Principles 2004 (14 Principles) (14 Principles) (9 Principles) (8 Principles) (9 Principles) Predictability Clear mandate and EIA should be Certainty provisions: vested integrated into – process/ in law, have specific, existing devel- timing agreed in enforceable require- opment planning advance. ments, and prescribe and approval the responsibilities processes so that: and obligations of a. minimum proponents and other disruption is parties. caused to existing institutional Uniform, consistent arrangements; application: automat- and ically applied to all b. maximum proposals and actions effectiveness for with potential envi- EIA is achieved ronmental effects and by identifying the consequences. appropriate “time/ locations” for EIA to be linked to decision-making. Purposive Explicit goals and Purposive - the Purposive – EIA EIA should be objectives: a clear process should inform should meet its aims applied as a tool purpose and dedication decision making and of informing decision to help achieve to achieving environ- result in appropriate making and ensuring sustainable mental protection levels of environmental an appropriate level development and and/or sustainable protection and com- of environmental should include development. munity well-being. protection and an analysis of human health. feasible alter- natives to the proposed action . The process should be applied early in project development at a stage when these alternatives are still practicable. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 70 The International IAIA/IEMA Prin- UNEP Environ- UNEP Environ- EC Impact Study of the Effec- ciples of Environ- mental Impact mental Impact Assessment tiveness of Environ- mental Impact Assessment Assessment (EIA) Directive mental Assessment Assessment 1999 Training Resource and Strategic Principles 1996 Manual Principles Environmental 2002 Assessment Principles 2004 (14 Principles) (14 Principles) (9 Principles) (8 Principles) (9 Principles) Practical and Decision-oriented: Practical - the process Practical – EIA should EIA should be Practicality – Relevant provide sound, tested should result in infor- identify measures applied as a tool information/ practical information mation and outputs for impact mitigation to implement outputs readily that is readily usable in which assist with that work and can be environmental usable in planning and decision problem solving and implemented. management , decision making making. are acceptable to and rather than as and planning. able to be implemented a report to gain Related to condi- by proponents. project approvals. tion-setting: explicitly linked to approvals Relevant - the EIA should be and, as necessary, to process should provide integrated into specified terms and sufficient, reliable and the project life- conditions. usable information for cycle to ensure development planning that environ- Follow-up and and decision making. mental informa- feedback in-built tion is provided at mechanisms: explicit the appropriate measures for checking decision points on compliance with and the correct conditions, monitoring time. There must effects, managing be constant impacts, and auditing interaction and and evaluative perfor- feedback between mance. the EIA team and project designers and the proponent to ensure that design/locational changes can be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible. Adaptive and Appropriate level of Adaptive - the process Adaptive – EIA should Flexibility Flexible assessment scaled to should be adjusted to be adjusted to the – adaptable the degree of environ- the realities, issues realities, issues and to deal effi- mental significance and circumstances circumstances of ciently with and extent of public of the proposals the proposals under any proposal concerns associated under review without review. and decision with a proposal. compromising the situation. integrity of the pro- Flexible, prob- cess, and be iterative, lem-solving approach: incorporating lessons adapted to deal with learned throughout the a range of proposals, proposal’s life cycle. issues, and deci- sion-making situations. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 71 The International IAIA/IEMA Prin- UNEP Environ- UNEP Environ- EC Impact Study of the Effec- ciples of Environ- mental Impact mental Impact Assessment tiveness of Environ- mental Impact Assessment Assessment (EIA) Directive mental Assessment Assessment 1999 Training Resource and Strategic Principles 1996 Manual Principles Environmental 2002 Assessment Principles 2004 (14 Principles) (14 Principles) (9 Principles) (8 Principles) (9 Principles) Focused Relevant scope of Focused - the process Focused – EIA should EIA should be consideration: examine should concentrate on concentrate on signif- applied to all all pertinent environ- significant environ- icant environmental proposed actions mental options to and mental effects and key effects, taking into that are likely to aspects of a proposal, issues; i.e., the matters account the issues have a significant including cumulative that need to be taken that matter. adverse effect on effects, interrelated into account in making the environment socio-economic, decisions. and human cultural and health fac- health . In a social tors, and sustainability Systematic - the context, partic- implications. process should result ular attention in full consideration of should be given to all relevant informa- vulnerable groups, tion on the affected such as Indigenous environment. Peoples, and local communities who depend upon the resource base for their sustenance or lifestyle; Integrated Relevant scope of Interdisciplinary - the EIA should be consideration: examine process should ensure carried out all pertinent environ- that the appropriate in a multi- or mental options to and techniques and inter-disciplinary aspects of a proposal, experts in the relevant manner, using including cumulative bio-physical and best-practicable effects, interrelated socio-economic disci- science. socio-economic, plines are employed, cultural and health fac- including use of EIA should tors, and sustainability traditional knowledge integrate implications. as relevant. information on social, economic Integrated - the and biophysical process should address impacts to the the interrelationships maximum extent of social, economic and possible. An inte- biophysical aspects. grated approach can be applied as part of an EIA study or carried out as part of report preparation and synthesis. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 72 The International IAIA/IEMA Prin- UNEP Environ- UNEP Environ- EC Impact Study of the Effec- ciples of Environ- mental Impact mental Impact Assessment tiveness of Environ- mental Impact Assessment Assessment (EIA) Directive mental Assessment Assessment 1999 Training Resource and Strategic Principles 1996 Manual Principles Environmental 2002 Assessment Principles 2004 (14 Principles) (14 Principles) (9 Principles) (8 Principles) (9 Principles) Participatory Open, facilitative pro- Participative - the Participative – EIA EIA should include Participation cedures: transparent process should provide should provide meaningful – appropriate/ and readily accessible, appropriate opportu- appropriate opportu- opportunities for timely access with a traceable nities to inform and nities to inform and public involve- for interested record of assessment involve the interested involve the interested ment . These parties. decisions and timely and affected publics, and affected publics, should occur opportunities for public and their inputs and and their inputs and throughout the involvement and input concerns should be concerns should be EIA process, using at key stages. addressed explicitly in addressed explicitly. mechanisms that the documentation and are appropriate decision making. to stakeholders. Key stages for involvement include scoping, interim reports (if prepared), draft/final report, decision-making, and post-decision stage. Transparency Open, facilitative pro- Transparent - the pro- Transparent – EIA Transparency cedures: transparent cess should have clear, should be a clear, – open and and readily accessible, easily understood easily understood and accessible with a traceable requirements for EIA open process, with assessment record of assessment content; ensure public early notification decisions. decisions and timely access to information; procedure, access to opportunities for public identify the factors documentation, and involvement and input that are to be taken a public record of at key stages into account in decision decisions taken and making; and acknowl- reasons for them. edge limitations and difficulties. Expertise “Best-practice” Rigorous - the process Rigorous – EIA should Credibility – standards: undertaken should apply “best apply the ‘best undertaken with with professionalism, practicable” science, practicable’ method- professionalism/ objectivity and employing methodol- ologies to address the objectivity. credibility, as identified ogies and techniques impacts and issues by “best-practices” in appropriate to address being investigated. impact science, public the problems being consultation and investigated. Credible – EIA should process administration. be carried out with Credible - the process professionalism, Necessary support should be carried out rigor, fairness, objec- and guidance: requisite with professionalism, tivity, impartiality level of resources and rigor, fairness, objec- and balance. procedural guidance for tivity, impartiality and conducting assess- balance, and be subject ments in accordance to independent checks with requirements, and verification. principles and stan- dards of good practice THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 73 The International IAIA/IEMA Prin- UNEP Environ- UNEP Environ- EC Impact Study of the Effec- ciples of Environ- mental Impact mental Impact Assessment tiveness of Environ- mental Impact Assessment Assessment (EIA) Directive mental Assessment Assessment 1999 Training Resource and Strategic Principles 1996 Manual Principles Environmental 2002 Assessment Principles 2004 (14 Principles) (14 Principles) (9 Principles) (8 Principles) (9 Principles) Efficient and Efficient, predictable Efficient - the process Efficient – EIA should Cost cost effective implementation: should impose the impose the minimum effectiveness – applied in a timely minimum cost burdens cost burden on pro- environmental manner that fosters in terms of time and ponents consistent protection at certainty, minimizes finance on proponents with meeting process the least cost to delay and avoids and participants con- requirements and society unnecessary burdens sistent with meeting objectives. on proponents. accepted requirements and objectives of EIA. Cost-effective out- comes: promote actions Cost-effective - the that ensure environ- process should achieve mental protection at the objectives of EIA least cost to society. within the limits of available information, time, resources and methodology. Accountability Accountability – decision makers responsible for their actions and decisions. THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 74 Annex II. Select Resources and Sources of Expertise As this literature review makes abundantly clear, Frank Vanclay with Ana Maria Esteves, Ilse there are numerous resources to help develop and Aucamp, and Daniel Franks. 2015. Social Impact strengthen implementation of effective national Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing systems for environmental and social impact the social impacts of projects, International Associ- assessment. This section highlights some of the main ation for Impact Assessment Guidance Note. documents and organizations working in this field. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_ Document_IAIA.pdf 2.1. Documents This Guidance Note provides advice to various stakeholders about what is expected in good practice United Nations Environment Programme. 2018. social impact assessment (SIA) and social impact “Assessing Environmental Impacts: A Global Review management processes, especially in relation to of Legislation.” project development. This Guidance Note builds http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/22691 on IAIA’s (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. While the International Princi- The publication provides an overview of the current ples outline the overarching understandings of the status of national legislation and institutional SIA field, including the expected values of the profes- arrangements of relevance to EIAs and SEAs across sion, this document seeks to provide advice on good the globe, as well as emerging issues and trends. practice in the undertaking and appraisal of SIAs and It does this primarily through providing examples the adaptive management of projects to address the from a wide selection of countries of their EIA/SEA social issues. arrangements and in relation to the different steps of the EIA/SEA processes. These steps include: (1) Screening; (2) Scoping and Impact Analysis; (3) 2.2. Organizations and Platforms Review of the EIA/SEA report; (4) Decision-making; (5) Follow-up and Adaptive Management and (6) Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW) Public Participation as a cross-cutting issue. https://www.elaw.org/ The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW) Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford. helps communities speak out for clean air, clean 2015. Good practices for environmental assess- water, and a healthy planet. We are a global alliance ment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, of attorneys, scientists and other advocates collab- 33:4, 238-254. orating across borders to promote grassroots efforts https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14615 to build a sustainable, just future. ELAW produces 517.2015.1063811 the EIA Law Matrix (https://www.elaw.org/elm_old) which enables users to easily access EIA laws and This article develops a set of good practices to regulations, to view summaries of the EIA system for improve environmental assessment. An integrated selected countries, and to make comparisons among list of proposed good practices is developed based on all of the laws included in the database. a literature review of impact assessment research and related fields of study. The practices are then evaluated by surveying experts and practitioners The International Association for Impact Assess- involved in environmental assessment in Canada. ment In all, 74 practices grouped under 22 themes are http://www.iaia.org/ recommended to improve environmental assessment. Key unresolved issues in environmental assessment IAIA is a leading global network on best practice in requiring future research are identified. the use of impact assessment for informed decision making regarding policies, programs, plans and THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 75 projects. Members of IAIA believe that impact assess- The Southern African Institute for Environmental ment is a practical tool for helping meet today’s Assessment needs without compromising the opportunities of https://www.saiea.com/ future generations.  The Southern African Institute for Environmental Institute of Environmental Management & Assess- Assessment provides independent, professional ser- ment vices to authorities and other stakeholders in the field https://www.iema.net/ of impact assessment in Africa. They have significant experience, with UNDP, on integrating health into Institute of Environmental Management & Assess- ESIA in Southern Africa as well as 2003 partnership ment is a professional body for people working in with the Canadian International Development Agency environment and sustainability. IEMA is committed to and World Bank on participatory decision making supporting, encouraging and improving the confi- within EIA (called the Calabash project, https://www. dence and performance, profile and recognition of saiea.com/calabash). sustainability professionals. IEMA provides resources and tools, research and knowledge sharing along with high-quality formal training and qualifications to meet the real world needs of members from their first steps on the career ladder, right to the very top. The Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) http://www.eia.nl/en The NCEA supports environment and sectoral ministries, environmental assessment professionals and non-governmental organizations, to improve their environmental and social assessment practice. The NCEA advises on the quality of the process and content of these assessments, both at project level (environmental and social impact assessment or ESIA) and strategic level (strategic environmental assessment or SEA). NCEA analyzes good practice (https://www.eia.nl/en/our-work/knowledge) and ESIA practice by county (https://www.eia.nl/en/ countries) The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Hub https://www.socialimpactassessment.com/ Developed by two of the leading experts in SIA, the SIA hub seeks to advance excellence in the practice of social impact assessment by providing a web-based portal where the global SIA community of practice can network, access resources, share ideas and promote good practice. SIA hub was established with generous support from the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). THE WORLD BANK GOOD PRACTICES IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 76 Suebsiri/Adobe Stock