Homework 7

Jukka Hirvonen & Sami Rissanen

Object of homework 7 Object of homework was to familiarize existing written

material and participate to structured discussion.

Aim was to learn, how to develop and use valid arguments and comments toward statements and how to attack and defend others arguments as well as own arguments.

Another aim was to jump into a role of a stakeholder or other related participant and try to think what they would have to say.

Material is based on EIA –directive’s content and it’s revision.

Environmental impact assessment directive EIA –directive is a guideline for EIA to be used

for method to reduce or competely prevent negative environmental impacts of certain listed private and public projects. These projects can be t.ex power plants, railroads or landfill areas etc. that are considered to have remarkable impacts on environment.

By collecting all necessary project related data, using experts knowledge and hearing all related participants, the EIA is done during planning, before decision making. This way there is a change to affect outcome and consider alternative approaches that reduce negative environmental impacts.

EIA –directive revision Currently there is a revision of EIA –directive going

on.

Revision’s aim is to improve quality of EIA’s and develop EIA to corrspond better for climate change and impoverish of natures diversity. Another aim is toward better consolidation for environmental impact assessments required in EIA and other EU legislation and to simplify decision making procedures.

Improvements for participation process and accredited decision making are seen as examples to improve EIA directive.

Structured discussion In specific EIA-directive discussion page there

was four original statements that are attacked, defended or commented in discussion box for each statement.

Statements were: 1. EIA directive works mostly very well, 2. The participation process required in the EIA directive is useless, 3. The current proposal does not leave enough flexibility to member states and 4. Accredited quality controllers will not improve the EIA process.

Structured discussion, statements In overall, discussion was able to produce

concluded resolutions and views to each statement.

As for main statement ”1. EIA directive works mostly very well” the current resolution is that directive works moderately well and it’s general objectives have been achieved and environmental impacts are taken more and more account. Still, continuous improvements need to be done to make EIA cover all essential environmental problems and that it’s quality and implementation in each member state is valid.

Structured discussion, statements ”2. The participation process required in the

EIA directive is useless.”

Current resolution is that for average layman, minor groups and citizens it is good platform to express opinions and concerns. However improvements are needed to ensure that public participation has actual impact on EIA process. Another problem is that public awareness for chance to influence decision making is small and currently EIA is uncapable for activating big part of citizens.

Structured discussion, statements ”3. The current proposal does not leave

enough flexibility to member states.”

Current resolution is that proposal as it is now, leaves possibly too much flexibility since the member states can freely interpret it by their own legislation and set thresholds and criterias where environmental effects are significant. Possible uniform criteria could make EIA more valid and similar in each member state.

Structured discussion, statements ”4. Accredited quality controllers will not

improve the EIA process.”

Current resolution is that accrediation can improve EIA process quality by meeting the standards and regulations set by their special education and knowledge basis and it could equalise EIA process in member states. But to ensure this, there are experts with many different backgrounds and that accreditation doesn’t narrow average citizens and other groups chances to participate and to have impact in decision making.

Structured discussion in overall Discussion seems to work rather well and

participants expressed their opinions, defended and attacked toward main statements and arguments by each other.

Expressed arguments are rational and are based on information gained by EIA –directive and it’s revision materials so resolutions seem reasonable and justified.

Most arguments were directly linked to statement but there were also defending, attacking and commenting of other participants argumentation.

Structured discussion in overall Actual branches in on-going discussion are absent

and there is only few quotes from other material to back up argumentation. Argumentation was usually expressing own opinions about statements.

Hardly any stakeholders roles were used and tried to argument statements in their point of view.

Structured discussion seems to be valid method in different processes where many participants with different background and knowledge basis can participate for producing reasonable resolutions.

Thank you.