Search

Environmental assessment (EA) is now institutionalized in over 100 countries but is widely criticized by practitioners and analysts for failing to convince decision-makers. Environmental sustainability is still not placed high on the list of criteria influencing project and programme approvals. This paper suggests that the failure of EA reflects the politically contested domain of EA. A framework for the analysis of public participation in EA based on the study of contentious politics is introduced. Public participation is a crucially important condition for influencing decision makers to pursue sustainability objectives, but the effectiveness of public participation is conditional upon characteristics of the coalitions created by diverse stakeholders. The importance of coalitions between local stakeholders and intellectuals is highlighted and exemplified through four cases in the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa and Taiwan where public participation in EA processes is associated with the blockage of large-scale development projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of natural justice comprises certain legal principles that, taken together, constitute procedural fairness in administrative decision-making. It is closely aligned to the notion of public participation, a key element of most environmental impact assessment (EIA) throughout the world. But is natural justice the same as public participation, and if not, what are the differences between them? We review a number of international EIA procedures and legal cases, and find that the concept of natural justice appears to be a 'grey area' of EIA which is not explicitly addressed in many jurisdictions. More advanced systems of impact assessment generally provide for a high level of public participation, thereby facilitating both transparency and accountability; however, this is not the same as natural justice. We conclude that while institutional arrangements for EIA may have a bearing on the nature and level of public participation that is appropriate, natural justice should never be compromised, and EIA regimes should specifically address the need for natural justice when new information arises which may be significant in the decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]