Premier Sponsors


IAIA19 Session Chair Reports

 

  • Shaking up biodiversity offset concepts

     

    Day: 4
    Date: 2 May 2019
    Time: 14.30-16.00 PM

    Session Chair(s):
    Jane Mogina 
    Lucie N'Guessan
    Ginnie King
    Guy Dutson

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No, more radical changes need to be made to improve Offset implementation. 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Improve definitions so practitioners are comparing apples with apples rather than apples woth oranges. Accounting methods do not give sufficient flexibility to reality on the ground. Offsets tend to be punitive rather then collaborative.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    More realistic conservation action rather than patchey offset areas because regulation requires/encourages box ticking exercises.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Continue to collaborate to improve offsets. Ensure that offset areas have conservation and biodiversity value.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Improve regiulation to giove practitioners more flexibility. Structure regulation to ensure offets have conservation value.


  • 111a and 111b International Progress in Regional Impact Assessment

     

    Day: Wed
    Date: May 1
    Time: 2:30 and 4:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Dr. Jill Blakley 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    This was not a theme in the session

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Integrated approach to procurement and project approval. 

    Regional cumulative effects assessment for marine shipping.

    Dimenions of food security considered in regional strategic environmental assessment. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Not a theme in this session.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Look to regional scale assessments for information and guidance at the project level. 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Regional scale assessment can help with energy transition plans (coal). Integrate Indigenous nations into process design for marine cumulative effects assessment. Use impact assessment to suppoer development of Green Infrastructure networks.


  • 127, Health Assessment Types and needfd

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: May 1
    Time: 11 am

    Session Chair(s):
    Geetha Ramesh 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Evolution

     

    Yes evolution will do it.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    More transparent and share information 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Don’t think so


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Enhance networking and sharing work


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Understand the current needs engage before developing policies


  • 25 Theme Forum Session: 'Going Digital'

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 9.00 am

    Session Chair(s):
    Paul Eijssen 
    Jos Arts
    Bart Barten

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    What does a shift to a digital way of working mean? In this Theme Forum session we explored what’s possible now in working digitally. There’s a clear drive for digital reporting, but also opportunities in developing alternative proposals; involving stakeholders and linking of data or BIM.

    This will certainly be enough for IA to continu to evolve. 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    By 'Going Digital' and present information in a visual way as much as possible, and by moving away of the piles of paper and written text, information will be much more trnsparant and accessible for many people including the decision makers. This will make IA a more valuable instrument. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A digital way of working is the change that is needed. It helps to align IA with the many developments in fields where digitization is taking place. 


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Going digital does not mean turn your hard copy EIS (or EES) into a pdf and put it online. Make sure that you move away from the lengthy texts and use visual information where possible.

    Be sure that the information is objective and can be validated. Don't come up with marketing brochure.

    Be aware of the power of social media. It can help in informing the public but it can also become a threath to your project. 

    Make sure that the digital information that is published will stay the same so that if in court at a later stage it is clear that the information has stayed the same.

    Going digital means for all stakeholder going through a digital transition. It will take time to build up experience for all parties involved. It would be great if authorities can (aslo) take a lead in this transition. 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Digitization is happing everywhere nowadays. Digitization is happing everywhere nowadays. Don't be reluctant in taking part in this transition.


  • Addressing health and social equity through impact assessment

     

    Day: Monday
    Date: 29/4/2019
    Time: 3:00pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Ben Harris-Roxas 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    • Measuring inequalities, or differences between groups and vulnerable receptors, is foundational to IA.
    • There was debate about whether IA can make judgements about fairness or justice as part of the assessment process. The discussion led to the conclusion that even the act of describing differences is political - what differences are identified, articulated and acted upon is an explicitly political act.
    • Health and social impact assessments can contribute to available public information in developing countries, where existing data on health and social formation/dynamics are often extremely limited.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Tensions remain about how differential impacts are identified. In essence, which population sub-groups and criteria for assessment of differential impacts are used. This suggests that a radically different approach to considering anc conceptualising equity may be required.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Unclear from the session, but it was clear that we need to move beyond seeing IA as a technocratic process to one that recognises that even technical analyses are based on values and political decisions that have implications for equity.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A more sophisticated engagement with the politics and political science that underpins IA's use is required but is rarely articulated or recognised.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Analyses of differential impacts and vulnerable receptors should be more prominent parts of all IAs. More explicit descriptions of the values, assumptions and decision-making contexts in which IAs are conducted are required in all IAs.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Not directly covered in session


  • Asian S3EA

     

    Day: 30 April
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 14:30-18:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Kiichiro Hayashi 
    Jong-Gwan Jung
    Myungjin Kim
    Takehiko Murayama

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

     - objective; achievement of IA for sustainable development

     - direction; role of IA for sustainable development

     - result; degree of achievement for happiness of the people and living beings

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

     - It is not enough, IA should evolve continuously with trial and error.

    - A new and integrated IA are necessary.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

     - The principle is the earlier is the better, system and methodology should develop and apply in project and policy decision making process.

    - Spatial data accumulation will be useful for early decision making.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

     - We need to make social consensus to commit stakeholders support to secure the revolution.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

     - They need capacity building through IAIA network.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Asian S3EA

     

    Day: 30 April
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 14:30-18:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Kiichiro Hayashi 
    Jong-Gwan Jung
    Myungjin Kim
    Takehiko Murayama

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

     - objective; achievement of IA for sustainable development

     - direction; role of IA for sustainable development

     - result; degree of achievement for happiness of the people and living beings

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

     - It is not enough, IA should evolve continuously with trial and error.

    - A new and integrated IA are necessary.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

     - The principle is the earlier is the better, system and methodology should develop and apply in project and policy decision making process.

    - Spatial data accumulation will be useful for early decision making.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

     - We need to make social consensus to commit stakeholders support to secure the revolution.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

     - They need capacity building through IAIA network.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Can the ecosystem service concept improve the outcome for impact assessment?

     

    Day: 1
    Date: 29 April 2019
    Time: 15:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Martina Girvan 
    Ed Cooper


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Not if it doesnt evolve fast enough. It was clear that the community have the skills to undertake ecosystem impact assessment but that there are not enough practitioners taking this forward.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The IA community should not wait for policy makers to evolve, but should take the lead, developing guidance with different levels of granularity for different project sizes. We can also highlight the benefits to projects and clients from using incorporating ES into IA from identifying early opportunities, maximising effiiciencies and using this as a stakeholder engagement tool to demonstrate the impacts and dependancies and share benefits fairly.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    We need accessible data (national and international) centrally stored which practitioners can help with by submitting ALL data to the appropriate bodies. We also need to collaborate more with industry, academia, NGO's and local communities and publish case studies both successes and failures and follow up monitoring.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Start doing this now, even if at a high level.  Share data, publish case studies and collaborate with academia and local communities as well as the regular stakeholders. There is some great existing guidance such as the World Resources Institute's Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment  (Landsberg, F., Stickler M. , Henninger, N., Treweek, J. (2013) http://www.wri.org/publication/weaving-ecosystem-services-into-impact-assessment. They also have excel spreadhsheets available for a quick scan assessment.  There are also many publications available on metrics, providng the mitigation hierarchy is first fully implemented, see Bull et al., (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172  There are also many other metric approaches and tools emerging https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/resources/guidance-and-tools/tools/tool-assessor  and Defra http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192.  By publishing case studies we can compile standard methodology and evidence to help practitioners and industry alike undertand the process and the benefits.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Request that ES be considered in IA as standard. Seek to have an awareness of the process. Ask these questions of industry and practitioners and share local knowledge freely.


  • Charles or Che? Choose your champion for the future of IA

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 09:00-10:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Tanya Burdett 
    Megan Jones
    Jack Krohn

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Audience split into two camps of similar size, so no consensus.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Both camps identified some surprisingly similar priority actions, so maybe it's more about change towards improvement rather than evolution or revolution.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Better focus on merits rather than procedure. Early engagement with IA to influence proponent decision-making. Improve (or introduce) follow-up.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Strive for best possible outcomes, not just acceptable impacts. Better scoping.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Accreditation/certification of IA practitioners and reviewers. Establish/strengthen strategic context.


  • China’s EIA Process – reshape, challenges and opportunities

     

    Day: two half days
    Date: 30 April and 1 May
    Time: 16:30-18:00 and 11:00-12:30

    Session Chair(s):
    LING Jiang; U Clara 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    China’s EIA system continues to evolve with a series of reform measures. With the systematic implementation of permit system and the deep implementation of SEA by drawing “three lines and one list” (that is, red line of Ecological protection, bottom line of environmental quality, upper line of resource utilization, and negative list of environmental access)”and improving of EIA guidelines, the life cycle impact of project and policy can be better taken into account

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Keep good faith and pay attentions to newly published technical outlines and permit requirements.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    By better combination of EIA and environmental permit and the involvement of the public, the life-cycle impact can be better dealt with.


  • Collaboration between Engineers and Environmental Practitioners

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 11am

    Session Chair(s):
    Jacqui Hex 
    Adriaan Oosthuizen


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    It was believed that, in terms of this session title, it will suffice for the industry to continue to evolve

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Collaboration, open dialogue and learning to communicate in a language that is understandable to all is key to success. One should learn the engineering terminology in order to ensure environmental issues are taken into consideration. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    N/A


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Collaborate at an early stage, EIA might be too late

    Learn to speak to the engineer using their terminology 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Nothing specific discussed here


  • Community Engagement: from project, policy and IA perspectives

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 2.30-4

    Session Chair(s):
    Alex Blood 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Long term discussion on meaningful participation does not seem to have influences projects, regulators, politicians oir others to design or legislate robust, longer term and more meaningful dialogue styles of participation.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    IA is not constrained to approvals of projects. A great practical example of IA and participation was provided to resolve community and livestock farming tensions and used it to develop a dispute resolution process involving all parties rather than courts or just one party within the issues framing.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Bold legislation and policy is needed for early, meaningful two way dialogue on projects


  • Community Engagement: from project, policy and IA perspectives

     

    Day: WednesdaY
    Date: 1 mAY 2019
    Time: 4.30-6

    Session Chair(s):
    Alex Blood 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes, though the pace of evolution is the thing!

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    - an interesting point was raised for a project where a Public Test of Support for the siting of a facility is required prior to construction. This is in addition to long term inter-generational consultation and participation in futue impact assessment, siting and other considerations. A decision to leave could be made from this test evenup on until construction commencing! Significant demonstration of the need for  'willing community' to host a facility, and the effort that would be required to maintain the participation process to that point., How, to conduct the Public Test of Support is unknown at this time.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    - PLanning how to exit a community you have engaged with on contentious issues is as important as how you will engage with them whilst you are active. A project decision or no go decision being made but an active engagement process to discuss and inform is often overlooked. Tensions that may arisen during consultatoin within community  can become worse if an exit strategy or participation strategy is not considered upon decisions to not develop and not choose a site.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    - Understanding the sense of community belonging or connection within urban communities is important as lack of connection or sense of belonging can significantly negatively impact the success of municipal or regional government policy success. This may vary between cultural groups, home owner types et c etc. Excellent practical example provided of waste management program in Japan during this session.

    -


  • Community Engagement: from project, policy and IA perspectives

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 11

    Session Chair(s):
    Alex Blood 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    - Empowering communities ( through a 'trainer' ) for them to undertake their own IAs as part of their own plans or decision making that may not involve regutators. May have application to NGO funded project application, and is adaptive.

    - Peace and conflict based impact assessment has potential but requires significanlty more consideration and planning to ensure any process enhances potential for positive outcomes, rather than detracting from existing issues

    - Changing use of consultation - engagement - participation to "dialogue" which autimatically removes perceptions of directional communication, leaves sense of time as a long term proposition for evolution of relationships

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    - Rapid Evolution on some areas rather than revolution may deliver better outcomes

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    still high variance on project level or policy views on various IA areas. the 4 different nation presentations showed there is not one way to address this. Even strong legal definition will rely on proponent will or approach to ensure diverse IA matters fully addressed.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • country experiences with evolution in the energy sector and IA requirements

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 14.30

    Session Chair(s):
    A.Dalfelt 
    P.Croal


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    distinguish between willingness to pay, and willingness to accept. These two concepts, while two sides of the same coin, can be far apart in reality

    IAIA needs to have a clear message to decision makers and proponents - no-one really knows what we are trying to achieve. One crisp, clear, substantive message

     

     

     

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    It (the succinct message) is essential for evolution. IAIAs current mission/vision is not very inspiring

    One of the best things IAIA could do, is develop a global EAP certification system - provide some leadership instead of flip-flopping on this issue

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    we need to work more closely with the business community, that already understands risk. IA is all about identifying riska, but we dont have a good alliance with professionals who manage billions of dollars of risk

    We must appreciate and support indigenous peoples. They have helped improve the state of the environment


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    The most important thing is to keep the most important thing, the most important thing

    Produce information in an accessible format - no more massive reports filled with jargon

    Provide decision makers with options, not just no or yes

    We (IA practitioners) are a valuable asset with unique skills


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Developments in EIA Practice in the Pacific Islands

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30/4/2019
    Time: 11:00am - 12:30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Easter Galuvao 
    David Palandro


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    There is a need for IA to continue to evolve to keep up with the increasing number of infrastructure developments including extractive activities that are taking place in the Pacific islands.Stregnthening individual, systemic and instituional capacities are critical to this evolutionary process.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Communication, information sharing and advocacy were highlighted from the presentations as key aspects of the EIA process which needs to be strengthened to ensure project proponents as well as policy and deision makers are well informed and clearly understand EIA requirements particularly the value and benefits of doing EIA.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Empowering local communities and key stakeholders particularly the affected communities so they can have a strong voice in the EIA planning and decision making process.

     

     

     


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Must have a good understanding of local and national context.

    Build the capacity of local consultants so they have the right skill sets required for undertaking an EIA which could be thorough the transfer of technical knowledge from international experts to local counterparts.

     


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Review and update national policies and legislations to address current challenges and emerging issues.

    Build capacities of key stakeholders including local communities and the private sector so they can actively engage in the EIA process.


  • Digital impact assessment. Two consecutive seminars.

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30.04
    Time: 1100 And 1430

    Session Chair(s):
    Martin Budd 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    Frozen EIA.  One off projects which end and data is lost when should be used cumulatively and regionally going forward

    reaching all people and groups during consultation.  No one size fits all but can be done especially with digitisarion

    we are digitising, it’s inevitable.  But can digitisation end the Volumous reporting?

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Absolutely.  IA continues to evolve all the time.  Amazing what people are achieving from all corners of the globe.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Continuing to use SEA at the policy level. 

    Regulators asking for data and findings and then gathering them together in one model or one location to keep learning and testing.  Share, collaborate and keep understanding the nature of impacts both singularly and collectively.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    No more paper reporting


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Digital Technologies for Social Impact assessment and resettlement planning

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 16:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Tulsi Bisht 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    IA has been evolving for some time now, probably there is a need to have some revolutionary chages especially with the use of digital technologies and social media.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    impact assessment at times becomes a mere formality. It needs to be impressed upon the project and policy decision makers how social and environmental impact assessment is necessary for sustainability and also to meet the wider developmental goals of achieving regional/national prosperity. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Impact analysis would really need to be translated into pracitce. It should not remain confined to the documents. digital technologies and social media can play an important role.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Be as independent and truthful as you can be while practicing IA.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    IA and concomitant measures or safeguards are essential to achieve overall developmental objectives at regional/country level. Otherwisem, deveoplemental initiatives will remian skewed and inequitable.


  • Disaster Risk Reduction and Community Resilience I, II and III

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 1100-1800

    Session Chair(s):
    C. Kelly 
    Angelo Jonas (not responsible for Chair comments)


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    1. The nature of disasters and conflict is evolving.

    2. Revolution can be a disaster and be based on or give rise to different types of conflict.

    3. Resilient communities evolve to address hazards which they face.

     

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    More systematic and predictable application of environmental rule-of-law.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Destructive of the current order with a new order evolving out of the revolutionary chaos.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    1. Advocate for the affected.

    2. Remember that disasters and conflict are a normal part of society, but which offen occur with a warning which is only apparent in hind sight.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Anticipate disasters and conflict.


  • Early planning in impact assessment in Canada and other countries

     

    Day: 1
    Date: 29 April 2019
    Time: 15:00-16:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Lisa Walls 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    It is essential for IA to continue to adapt, improve and evolve. But IA by nature is controversial. In order to be effective, the IA system needs stable support. The most likely way to achieve this support is through incremental change. There can still be periods of rapid change, but overall an evolutionary approach is more likely to gain the political, business and public support needed to build on and improve current apporaches.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Early, inclusive and meaningful public engagement will help ensure identification of key issues of concern so that the impact assessment phase can focus on the issues of greatest importance in a project-specific context, resulting in stronger, evidence-based analysis to inform project decision making.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Good proponents already do early planning; this is not revolutionary. However, making early planning a mandatory part of the impact assessment process will help ensure that it is done consistently.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    An important aspect or outcome of early planning is relationship buidling. Relationships are foundational to an effective IA process.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Economic Impact Assessment

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30/04/2019
    Time: 11-12.30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Galina Williams  



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    1) The role of Economic Impact Assessment needs to be re-assessed (evolve) to move away from simplistic exercise used to approve the projects and more towards comprehensive cost benefit analysis (using inputs from social, environmental and other Impact Assessments)

    2) The Impact Assessment needs to start from identifying regional (country)development goals first, followed by choosing the best (from society point of view) projects which fit those development goals

    3) The social cost of carbon needs to be included in the economic impact assessment (where appropriate)

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    It needs to be a paradigm shift from more growth to sustainabille development 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes, using comprehensive economic impact assessment to sieve the desired projects which help to achieve sustainable development 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    IA needs to be commissioned by government (not proponents) to be independent without the conflict of interest.

    Communities need to have a higher weight in decision making.

    Perceived benefits from the projects need to be scrutinized- eg given capital intensity of some projects - meaning that the income impacts are minimal - is profit staying in the region or at the very least in the country? In other words, does the project really create benefits to the communities?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Demand that a more comprehensive economic impact assessment is used. That it is done in conjunction with other IAs.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    1) determine a long term development goals

    2) identity the range of projects that can help to achieve those goals 

    3) use a synergy of IAs not a bunch of unrelated IAs

    4) utilize the breadth and depth of economics to choose the most socially desirable projects


  • Evolution of ESIA practice in Asia Pacific developing economies (II)

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 2 May 2019
    Time: 2.30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Emma Waterhouse / Tara Halliday 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In some jursidaticitons yes, others maybe not. especially where the evolutionary approach is still not delivering good EIA practice. 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Need good government institutions, with political will to consider inmpact assessment earlier in the project or planning process. Use SEA effectively!

    Need better coorindaiton in government so whole of project issues are considered early enough

    Need systems to effectively repsond to and manage unexpected impacts after projects are operating.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Some examples of revolutionary change were put forward by speakers including:

    - fast tracked EIA at very start of a project planning process

    - online submissions and assessments

    - increased use of independent review of EIAs (international and national specialists)

    - community led engagement on projects, increased inouts from local government including on review committees 

    - better integration of climate change, natural hazard aspects into EIA using robust data management systems

    - central data respoistories eg as held by SPREP for the Pacific Island states

    must look at better ways to capture the quality aspects of environmental aspects (not just quantitative measures)


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    See above but also

    - to work collaboratively with decision makers and look for opporutnities to build capacity in government institutions through the EIA process.

    - carefully plan participatory processes and make sure are as localised as possible. Use local language and stagger activities so communities are able to 'digest' information.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    - Consider the value of independent peer repview (national and internaitonal pariticpants)

    - Consider how to build capacity using a range of tools including on the job training and coaching, further education and consultants/independent review. 

    - Consider formalised processes for identifying and addressing unforeseen issues once projects are in operation.

     


  • Evolution of ESIA practice in Asia-Pacific developing economies (I)

     

    Day: 4
    Date: 2 May 2019
    Time: 11:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Tara Halliday 
    Emma Waterhouse


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In some countries in the Asia Pacific region continual evolution of ESIA regulatory frameworks and strengthening of capacity will be enough. In other country contexts step changes - 'revolutions' are requried. 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Key points raised in the session related to this question were:

    - More robust regulatory frameworks are required.

    - Strong capacity within regulators is required, and independent peer review processes for ESIAs should be considered as ways to help address this.

    - ESIAs need to be conducted with the participatory stakeholder engagement model and ensure assessment of a number of alternatives

    - Adequate resources must be put into baseline and assessment work.

     

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Bipartisan agreement to harmonise country regulatory frameworks with the IFC PS/World Bank ES Framework etc.

    Provision for independent review processes


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    The IFI standards should be adhered to and used to plug any gaps in host country legislation. Practioners should start these conversations with proponents.

     


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Bipartisan agreement to harmonise country regulatory frameworks with the IFC PS/World Bank ES Framework etc.

    Provision for independent review processes

    Ensure that stakeholder engagement is undertaken in a particpatory manner consistent with IFI standards.


  • Evolution or revolution? The strategic value of SIA in regional development

     

    Day: 3
    Date: 1st May
    Time: 11.00-12.30 / 14.30-16.00

    Session Chair(s):
    Angelo Jonas Imperiale 
    Frank Vanclay


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Participants were asked to contribute to the conference theme by writing down their thoughts on a flip chart, which was kindly provided by the IAIA organization. From this, it emerged that evolution is needed in IA practice and thinking to enhance the understanding and assessment of the social dimensions of development in every IA, since SIA already exists and it is part of the IAs family. However, as reported by participants on the flip chart, this evoked evolution towards better integrating and strengthening social impact assessment philosophy and process in the assessment of impacts, pass through revolution in several fields of IA which were outlined by participants on the flip chart, and which we describe below.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Revolutionising IA paradigm from managing the impacts to reducing the risks of development can contribute to fully enable the strategic potential of IA to assess development planning towards better achieving SDGs, and bring IA back at the core of the current debate on sustainable development. This shift in paradigm should be accompanied by a change in how IA perceive its institutional, social and cultural role. Read below for further explanations.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    As outlined by the participants on the flip chart, revolution in impact assessment's paradigm is needed from assessing impacts to assessing risks and benefits of regional development and better include SDGs in development planning. SIA can contribute to this shift in paradigm but it is still limited at the project level. Its potential in regional development planning as a philosophy and process that can enhance social development outcomes at the local level is still under-estimated/ under-invesitgated. A revolution in the way IA perceive its mandated science-based approach is needed so to make the IA's knowledge production process a transformative and co-produced process which should include the social scientific analysis of the social issues and be built together with local communities and be more transdisciplinary, not just techno-scientific. Finally, revolution has been emphasised in impact assessment regulations to better link IA to SDGs and enable transformative knowledge co-production.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Fossil Energy vs Renewable Energy: A roleplay of impact scenarios

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30
    Time: 16.30

    Session Chair(s):
    B.Walmsley 
    P.Tarr


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    This was a role-play workshop, using a fictitious case study. So there were no papers nor specific messages.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    N/A

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    N/A

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    N/A


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Practitioners need to be truly independent of the proponent. In practice they seldom are


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    As above


  • Harnessing offsets to achieve conservation goals

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 11:00-12:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Jeremy Simmonds 
    Martine Maron


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No. The talks in our session point towards a revolution in the practice in biodiversity offsetting, underpinned by a shift in the way compensatory policy is designed and implemented. We described the tools and guidance for how this can be done.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Our session presented the concept of target-based ecological compensation, as a framework, and as currently implemented around the world - this involves linking ecological compensation for unavoidable losses from projects to the achievement of a nation's biodiversity conservation goals.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    We propose that target-based ecological compensation - linking compensation for unavoidable losses from projects to the achievement of a nation's biodiversity conservation goals - represents a step foward in the world of offsetting, and addresses many of the challenges of current practice. It provides certainty to developers on their obligations, and clarity on the outcomes of compensation for biodiversity.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Continue to implement current best practice, and adopt changes such as target-based ecological compensation.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Embrace the concept of target-based ecological compensation - implement it into policy - to provide clarity and certainty to all stakeholders including developers and the public about what compensation needs to be provided for project losses, and what this compensation is intended to achieve.


  • How to be truly independent? Mechanisms for independence in IA

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 9:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Rob Verheem 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes, in the sense that we have always known that independence of IA practitioners, quality review mechanisms and process facilitators is crucial for the credibility and thus effectiveness of IA. So a paradigm shift is not needed, and hence we cannot speak of a needed revolution. But we do need to take the issue of independence more seriously. Making IA more independent for many countries will feel as a revolution, because currently some powerful stakeholders try to avoid it.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes, in the sense of ‘better than currently’. See above. Currently independence of crucial elements of the IA process is not safeguarded enough, often leading to insufficient quality and credibility of assessments. Although there are inspiring examples already operating in practice in a number of countries, such as Canada, Hong Kong and Netherlands, as were presented during the theme forum. In striving for independence it is not necessary, possibly impossible and probably counterproductive to try to achieve ‘100%’ independence. But the independence should be sufficiently strong to achieve credibility in the eyes of all relevant stake- and rightholders.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Be aware that just calling yourself independent is not enough to be (perceived as) independent in practice. For this it is necessary to build in sufficient ‘building blocks’ into the set up of organisations, and the finance mechanisms and the way of operation of individuals and organisations.

    For impact assessment practitioners the following building blocks were discussed:

    Set up:

    legislation requiring IA practitioners to be independent of government and proponent

    certification of practitioners to ensure they are qualified, experienced and follow a code of conduct

    Financing mechanisms: still to be discussed

    < >

    Be objective - assess both positive and negative impacts

    Stick to area of expertise

    Have no bias

    Follow a thorough and transparent process (public participation)

    Be committed to recommending the mitigation hierarchy


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Integrate independent quality review bodies into the country IA system, and secure their independence through including a convincing set of independence building blocks in the set up, the financing and the operation of these bodies. In this consider the following building blocks:

    Set up:

    Non commercial body

    Non governmental body

    Body has legal status

    Have independence in the statutes of the body

    Body is neutral/impartial as the project or plan for which the IA is done

    Body is incentives driven to be independent

    Financing mechanisms:

    No financial relationship with proponent

    No financial relationship with government

    Tariffs established by government

    Payment upfront (i.e. before the appraisal starts)

    < >

    Independence of experts used in the review is verified

    Body is fully transparent in its operation (e.g. through publications on its website)

    Body is fully autonomous (e.g. in choosing its methods and benchmarks, and determining content and publication of its advice)


  • IA is only good when it is effective

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 02 May 2019
    Time: 11.00-12.30

    Session Chair(s):
    Alan Bond 
    Ben Cave


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Opinions were mixed. Soe speakers espoused comtinual improvement and/or better ways of assessing impacts, both of which are evolutionary. However, another speaker argued that a more revolutionary change was needed to enforce subtantive outcomes rather than process.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    There was an interesting presentation on a clearer and more considered approach for assessing impact significance, where significance was derived from sensitivity and magnitude, both of which were divided into clear measures. This goes beyond current practice and, for sensitivity in particular, appeared a far more considered way of ensuring sensitivity was properly covered.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    An argument was made that there needs to be a legal obligation to achieve environmental goals rather than just present better information. 


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    To always strive for continuous improvement rather than simple compliance. 

    To have a clear and transparent appraoch for determining sensitivity and magnitude of impacts, assuming that impact will happen rather than examining risk.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    To ensure that context is always considerd in IA (in terms of sensitivity of the environment).

    To ensure that IA is always exected to strive for improvement rather than compliance.


  • Impact Asessment of Project Closure: Meeting the New Expectations

     

    Day: Monday
    Date: 29 April
    Time: 3.00pm

    Session Chair(s):
    David Snashall 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    A revolution is needed to revise the approval process for project closure, particulalrly for the mining industry.  The current systems require approval from multiple agencies, often with differnt objectives which hamper the process

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Nope

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Processes designed specifically for approval of closure.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Clarify and rationalise the processes required for project cloaure including retiring permits and relinquishing land and leases.


  • Impact Assessment and Sustainable Development Goals

     

    Day:
    Date: 2nd May
    Time: 9.00-10.30

    Session Chair(s):
    Maria Rosário Partidario 
    Rob Verheem


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    We need some significant changes in institutional frameworks, and capacity-building to enable IA to use SDG, but also to have SDG using IA - need integrated assessment

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes, using SDG helps to move towards more integrated assessment

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    We have not really got into that discussion


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Develop and learn from case-studies, and learn from case-studies, practitioners must do capacity-building on the SDG within each one context

    Communicate and provide examples, compare different experiences and learn more about corporate initiatives in the countries that are using SDG

    Establish priorities within the SDG, which come first, followed by others; Integrate at strategy level, also at design level and then using SDG for monitoring;

    Adapt to the situation, selection determined by the scope, screen the project integrating all the same type approach to identify which SDG would be the most important;

    Importance of trade-offs between the SDG, important to address at strategic level, measure progress;

    Integration of all SDG, focusing on some but keeping overall context in mind, prioritize the ones that are more relevant to the project, check against what already exists in the context of IA

    Keep SDG to manageable number, monitor progress


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Communicate and provide examples, compare different experiences and learn more about corporate initiatives in the countries that are using SDG

    Establish priorities within the SDG, which come first, followed by others;

    Integrate at strategy level, also at design level and then using SDG for monitoring;

    Adapt to the situation, selection determined by the scope, screen the project integrating all the same type approach to identify which SDG would be the most important;

    Importance of trade-offs between the SDG, important to address at strategic level, measure progress;

    Integration of all SDG, focusing on some but keeping overall context in mind, prioritize the ones that are more relevant to the project, check against what already exists in the context of IA

    Keep SDG to manageable number, monitor progress


  • Impact Assessment and the Social and Cultural Effects of Mine Closure

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 15.00 - 16.30

    Session Chair(s):
    Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh  
    Rebecca Lawrence


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No. Needs to be a fundamental shift so that IA fully incorproates the ecological, social and cultural impacts of mine closure when proposed projects are initially assessed

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes. Project and policy decision making needs to attach much greater weight to the way in which project closure costs are allocated between project operators, on the one hand, and affected landowners and the public. Currently project operators reap the benefits while projects are operating, and avoid many of the costs associated with project closure. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    See above - a fundamental change in the way in which and the poitn at which IA deals with project closure. 


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Incorproate a much more substantial and explicit focus on mine closure into impact assessment at the project approval stage.  


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Insist that in their initial assessment of projects, proponents address in detail the magnitude and nature of project closure costs and how these will be allocated as between the project operator, affected stakeholders, and taxpayers. 


  • Improving Environmental and Social Performance on Construction Projects (1)

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 02 May 2019
    Time: 11:00-12:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Patrick Francis 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In the context of the presentations made by the group, yes. No need for revolutionary approaches was identified.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The general consensus among the panel and audience was that the current systems related to ensuring environmental and social performance, including impact assessment, are taken into account sufficiently. The need is greatest after the assessment is made, and the resulting mitigation and action plans need to be implemented.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Pay attention to recommendations related to EMPs, think ahead about how they can be placed and explained in a contract, implemented by contractor personnel, and followed up on by monitoring/regulatory bodies.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Pay attention to recommendations related to EMPs, think ahead about how they can be placed and explained in a contract, implemented by contractor personnel, and followed up on by monitoring/regulatory bodies.


  • Improving Environmental and Social Performance on Construction Projects (2)

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 02 May 2019
    Time: 14:30-16:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Patrick Francis 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In the context of the presentations made by the group, yes. No need for revolutionary approaches was identified.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The general consensus among the panel and audience was that the current systems related to ensuring environmental and social performance, including impact assessment, are taken into account sufficiently. The need is greatest after the assessment is made, and the resulting mitigation and action plans need to be implemented.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Pay attention to recommendations related to EMPs, think ahead about how they can be placed and explained in a contract, implemented by contractor personnel, and followed up on by monitoring/regulatory bodies.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Pay attention to recommendations related to EMPs, think ahead about how they can be placed and explained in a contract, implemented by contractor personnel, and followed up on by monitoring/regulatory bodies.


  • Institutionalising SIA in Government Decision Making

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 29/04/19
    Time: 4.30

    Session Chair(s):
    Sheridan Coakes 
    Rachel Maas


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In relation to the institutionalisation of SIA in government decision making it was suggested that maybe 'Rapid Evolution' is what was required, rather than revolution.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The introduction of new guidelines at the NSW government level in NSW and QLD within Australia, was considered a positive move in further concreting the role that SIA can play in the major project development space; with representatives from other states outlining the need for a more consistent approach to SIA practice across Australia that is based on the IAIA guidelines and principles and which reflects international practice standards.

    Consideration was given to the institutionalisation of mechanisms/methods for better involving the community not only in assessment programs but monitoring and evaluation processes.

     

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Rather than revolution it was discussed that maybe the climate was right for more 'Rapid Evolution' of SIA in government decision making and consideration of a greater voice for stakeholders in decision making processes.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Understanding the factors that facilitate and inhibit institutionalisation of SIA practice in a government context:

    Drivers for change discussed included:

    - Community pressure and shifting expectations

    - Desire for more clarity and certainty by industry

    - Departmental leadership

    - Precedents

    - Shareholder activism

    - Discussion around social licence

    - Financial institutions demanding SIA

    - improve assessment timeframes

    Factors that may inhibit change:

    - red tape

    - agency resistance to the change - we are already doing it!

    - takes time - unnecessary complication

    - discomfort with perceived non-technical sciences

    - Time pressures

    - concept of significance - differing stakeholder perspectives hard to manage and integrate

    - skills / capacity of consultants to undertake good SIA

    - skills and capacity of agency representatives to assess appropriately


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Need to consider the experience of other states across Australia and international practice to ensure greater alignment and consistency in SIA application. 

    Consider mechanisms for stakeholders to be involved in agreement making and monitoring, not just in assessment processes.


  • Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into the mitigation hierarchy

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 May
    Time: 11:00 - 18:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Laura Sonter 
    Luis Sanchez


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Integrating Indigenous Knowledges and Rights into Impact Assessment

     

    Day: Tues and Wed
    Date: 30 April-1 May
    Time: 11-6pm both days

    Session Chair(s):
    Rebecca Lawrence 
    Jenny WIk
    Anders-Erling Fjällås
    Christina Allard
    Kaisa Raitio

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No. Revolution is needed for Indigenous rights to be secured.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes, make sure that impact assessments are Indigenous led, that there is sufficient funding and capacity in indigenous communities to make them meaningful. There must also be a possibility for indigenous communities to say no to developments in those cases where projects have significant impacts upon their rights and livelihoods. 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    See above. 


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    See above. 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Legislative changes are required to recognise and protect Indigenous rights. 


  • Is the oil and gas industry able to adapt to the renewable energy revolution?

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 2 May
    Time: 09h00

    Session Chair(s):
    P.Tarr 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Definately - the session urged IAIA to be more proactive in reaching out to other risk assessment entities, such as the finance sector that shares our concerns regarding climate change etc.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Full life cycle assessments are needed, especially when considering whether renewables are really that much better environmentally that fossil fuel

    The use of "big data" is an exciting possibility as technology (e.g. satelite images, websites, data avialbility and management) rapidly improves and costs of accessing data become more affordable

    Above technology makes it possible to monitor impacts instantly once a project is underway - this could revolutionise impact management

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Current EA practice is stuck in "old mode" - alwas looking at mitigation and compensation. Needs to be a more forward looking approach, such as assessing a project (or policy, plan and programme) in the context of a desirable future - as articulated by affected communities. So, Environmental Quality Objectives could feature more prominently in IA

    See earlier comments about new or improving technologies


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    As above


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    As above


  • Let’s talk about it: evolution or revolution in IA

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 01/05/19
    Time: 11-12.30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Galina Williams  
    Garry Middle


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Crises leads to revolution. We need to learn from each other (integration, exchange) at the multidisciplinary level.

    economic growth is predominantly measured in GDP which does not take negative externalities into account such as pollution

    We need to focus more on sustainable development goals not just growth

     We need to measure development better

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Achieving some sustainable goals can be at expenses of other goals which is unacceptable. Strategic analysis can help to connect SDGs and projects

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Refocus on SDGs rather than growth 


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    1) Economic theory needs to be revisited 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Focus on long term goals


  • Let’s talk about it: evolution or revolution in IA II

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 01/05/19
    Time: 2.30-4pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Galina Williams  
    Garry Middle


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Accelerated evolution is needed but there are challenges: trust, flexibility and legal certainty among them.

     

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Different stakeholders have different expectations- before doing IA stakeholders expectations needs to be explored.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

     

    reevalute what are the significant impacts (death by 1,000 cuts)


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    More engagement 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Revisit current guidelines re impact significance


  • Let’s talk about it: evolution or revolution in IA II

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 01/05/19
    Time: 4.30-6pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Galina Williams  
    Garry Middle


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Perhaps not

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Many suggestions have been made including outcome based management in order to achieve SD.

    uncertainty, complexity and interdependence are often ignored 

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Strategy lead development (not proponent)

    Change IA instruments to enable addressing the complexity of societal challenges.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    It is important to be seen as trustworthy and ethical 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Broader strategic thinking to achieve SDGs


  • Meeting the marine biodiversity challenge

     

    Day: Monday
    Date: 28/04/2019
    Time: 15:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Neil Cousins 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    The key underlying limiter for addressing marine biodiversity impacts relates to uncertainty. However, many of the processes we use and paradigms we accept drive a process of decision-making that seeks certainty. Delivering effective outcomes is limited by how we manage these issues and form decisions and monitor their effectiveness. This poses a challenge for driving good outcomes for marine biodiversity and the people who are connected to it.

    We agreed as a panel that we need earlier, more strategic, simpler and adaptive approaches. But delivery of advice can be undermined by the underlying limiters that exist. Therefore we need to find a way to meet these challenges and provide solutions. This may require new system-led and value based approaches that decouple decision-making. It also requires new tools and guidance to support how advice is given and received and how to deliver better actions. 

    Part of the solution may be to decouple advice from existing tools (such as EIA) and adoption of new principles (like how offset targets may be defined and project legacies can be built). 

     

     

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    I think that solution may be IA to have a simpler and more focused role; and for the over-reliance on it as a mechanism for engagement with development projects, to form decisions, deliver effective mitigation, and to drive the management of actions to be reduced. IA has an important ongoing role, but perhaps the issue is rather the dependence on it for all things and this mean that it can be the wrong tool for driving the outcomes we we want to see. It needs to be linked more strategically, the scoping step strengthened and the process used to report upon decisions transparently. Indeed, I believe this was always the intention, but it is often not the way it is used or relied upon. 

     

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The above comments relate to this. It needs a paradigm shift and value-led approaches that perhaps shift the mode and timing of decision-making. That may need different tools, but the matters IA addresses are embedded and connect to other aligned project delivery functions - such as design and finance timing.

     

     

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Yes, in part. The changes have to be system-led, but that requires buy-in. IA is a vehicle that is enveloped in accepted project design and funding timeframes and that is unlikely to change. This process of delivery is an established paradigm that is hard to disconnect. The solution is likely to not continually try to improve the IA process - accepting and reinforcing the outcomes we see. The answer is more likely to come from a new system to frame why projects are formed centred on value and legacy approaches; and the IA process can be supplemented by other tools and approaches. IA has a role, but maybe that role has to become more focused; and the way it is used and delivered done differently that is aligned to its intended purpose. Perhaps this is the way to remove the over-reliance on it as a process and the frustrations that arise from the use of it. 

     

     


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Identify and accept the underlying limiters that affect the outcomes and seek to influence these as a priority. If we could all change the mode of engagement of our advice and be consistent in how we seek to drive outcomes; with an emphasis on better early engagement and driving adaptive decisions based on building value and legacy; then we may not only change the IA process, but shift the paradigms and alter the future of the industry and the world we see.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Drive mechanisms that steer developers to deliver better projects from the outset that are framed by goals they want to achieve. The values should follow through. Also, I think that the permit process may need to change so that decisions are reviewed much more strategically and before an IA process commences. It requires an adaptive policy and legislative framework that accepts the underlying limiters and does not delay the incorporation of strong local legacy led outcomes.


  • Name - How do we develop quality SIA practitioners?

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 2/5/19
    Time: 2:30 to 4pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Jeffrey Jacquet 
    Will Rifkin


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Our suite of presentations would suggest that evolution of IAIA would be sufficient if it can enable the SIA community to develop a certification process for SIA practitioners and does so in the coming 12 months.  

    Regulators in several Australian states are asking for certification of SIA practitioners in order to assure that they are receiving high quality reports with credible data,

    a concern that resonates with the criticisms of SIA reports offered during this conference.   The timeframe requirement reflects comments that IAIA has debated certification for nearly 20 years.  

    It also reflects the availability of resources and organisations - within Australia and to some extent internationally - to help that certification process -

    e.g., EIANZ’s certification regime and relevant courses in continuing professional development  offered by IAP2, the Australian Evaluation Society (?), and the Marketing and Social Research Society.  

     

    So, in this regard, evolution is necessary, and noone in this session was calling for revolution,  but needs evolution to be in a timely manner. 



     

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Some in the session argued that certification may make the profession be taken more seriously and give descison makers greater confidence that   the SIA is of high quality because the practioners have met the

    certification standards.  While many in the room also argued that certificcation would cause the quality of evidence that SIA practiioners provide to improve, which also undergird their credibility, and imply not just credibility

    but relevance.  

     

     

     

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Longstanding concern was related to the irrelevance of university training in SIA.  Some argued that solid undergraduate training in a few key disciplines was needed.  

    Others added that that would need to be followed in mid-career by a rigourous credentialing process combined with continuing professional development requirements.  

    A gap remained - what training does a recent graduate receive to turn them from a well prepared prospect into a quality professional? 

     What role might universities play in offering or at least coordinating such training?  Beyond the training itself, what role might universities - or other independent bodies -

    play in coordinating assessment related to certification processes?  

     

    The call for credentialing suggests that there is a need for a certifying authority.  Discussion did not cover what such a certifying authority should look like, how it should be constituted.

    On reflection, one can suggest that a national or international board should involve not just recognised authorities from the SIA profession but also highly regarded figures who represent the clients and stakeholders of SIA.  


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Support a process to develop and engage in formation of credentialing process and certification board and continuing professional development.  

     

    Suggest - and be willing to accommodate - building on relevant offerings of other professions, in terms of professional development courses and credentialing processes, as noted earlier.  

     

    Get over the antipathy toward universities and university training.  University academics may typically lack the depth of experience in SIA that longstanding consultants have. However, they have an opportunity to provide an overview and long-term perspective on cases pursued by different consultancies and can connect the dots to identify emerging paradigms and principles and relevant social theories to explain why events unfold as they do.  


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    For regulators, continue to call for certification of SIA practitioners.  That is a signal to the profession to … ‘professionalise’ in a more visible way, which will help to build its credibility and influence.  


  • Next Generation

     

    Day: 3
    Date: May 1
    Time: 9:00

    Session Chair(s):
    John Sinclair 
    Meinhard Doelle


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No - the clear message at the end of the session was that time is short - and that we need revolutionary change (like in the next 10-15 years).

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Decision making by tribunals independent from politicians - or at least the provious of reasons of why the advice of an indepentent tribunal was not followed.

     

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Our session was all about adopting a package of well known key assessment compenents - something that every IA system would deliver on. There seemed to be agreement about the package - the outstanding question was whether it was enough to engender the change needed for IA to meet its true potential.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    What came out of the session was most clearly related to policy makers - in a question related to whether their was the desire to change the systems/processes that they run.  Clearly there was the feeling change was needed.


  • Operating in emerging countries with high biological and cultural diversity

     

    Day: 2
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 9.00-10.30 AM

    Session Chair(s):
    Jane Mogina 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    In emerging nations the limitations in the basic elements of IA require it to evolve

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Because of the lack of basic elements of IA such as limited regularory frameworks, sheer lack of data, lack of technical capacity, projects have to support host nations to develop these capacity. Sharing of IA experiences enable better decision making

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Chaos! - we we busy discusing basics


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Openly share good practice to support others. There is no one size fits all and it is good to see how other people do things differently. IAIA provides an excellent platform for sharing of information


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    So much work to be done to improve performance in emerging nations. Improving internal technical capacity is a good area to start.


  • Orokohanga: Operationalising Aashukan

     

    Day: Monday
    Date: 29.04.19
    Time: 3.00pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Dr Kepa Morgan 
    Dr Tumanako Fa’aui unable to attend


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    Those attending were not aware of any significant applications of the Aashukan Declaration specifically. There was experience of some policy change that reflected aspects of Aashukan.

    Operationalising the Aashukan principles is still some time away. While Indigenous Peoples’ understandings of the principles has evolved the sharing of power that the principles required is yet to be achieved.

    Changes in power and decision making towards more inclusive approach’s for those that currently hold the power is more likely to require a revolutionary process.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    It is clear that IAIA membership are diverse and that while some evolve at different rates to others, revolutionary change will be necessary in some areas of IA.

    That said, while IAIA can assert a degree of change through it’s influence, it is the holders of power who must ultimately adopt different approaches. For that to happen

    The relationships with Indigenous Peoples must be based on trust and the frameworks need to be intuitive and transparent. When information becomes intuition, 

    knowledge becomes wisdom.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    This is very much reliant on the integrity of local government processes and the opportunity being provided to carry out Mauri assessments effectively. This requires capacity and resources.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Revolutionary change would be evident in decision makers relying on a broader basis of knowing than their own alone.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Seek to secure adoption of the Aashukan Declaration principles and share experiences towards the realisation of processes and outcomes anticipated.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Seek to secure adoption of the Aashukan Declaration principles and share experiences towards the realisation of processes and outcomes anticipated.


  • Putting the Social Back into science: Quality SIA

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 2:30 and 4:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Jane Munday 
    Rachel Maas


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes.    

     

     

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes. There were many suggestions:  e.g., governments and IFIs not taking good practice and contexct into account. Need to take account of future trends, not just work on today's baseline.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Taking the future into account.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Taking scoping into account.

    Taking importance of contextinto account.

    Taking power into account.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Social is still the poor cousin.

    Clear terms of reference, standardised approaches, don't date account of context and people.


  • RE100 – Ethical Initiative in University

     

    Day: 4
    Date: 2 May
    Time: 14:30-16:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Takako Hashimoto 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Fostering mind-set for SDGs (Prof. Harashina called Heart-ware) should be the key.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    For the better world, we have to consider ethical comsumption and generation. 

     


  • Real-world application of the mitigation hierarchy

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 2:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Lucie NGuessan 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    The audience leaned more towards evolution in the context of the application of the mitigation hierarchy.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    This was not discussed in the session

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

     Most felt that revolution was not necessary, instead the onoing, diligent application fo the mitigation hierarchy would lead to improved impact reduction.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Encompassing all aspects of environmental, social and cultural heritage into decision-making when assessing impacts and the application of th emitigation hierarchy. What may work for the environment may not lead to benefits for the communities; what may be effective from a social aspect, may be detrimental to the environment.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Flexibility s needed from policymakers to all for a holistic assessment of benefits from various aspects of environment, social, and cultural heritage mangement.


  • Rethinking social license: Where to from here?

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 11am

    Session Chair(s):
    Tom Measham 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    The focus of the session was on social licence as a concept which has been characterised by 'rapid evolution' which has been constructive overall.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The term social licence remains useful despite the contested nature of the term which has attracted considerable critique. The meaning of the term remains hard to pin down, but you know when you have it and when you don't. The session reflected on several transitions: from social licence of single projects to whole industries, and the expansion of usage to virtually all sectors in the economy. The session reflected on the utility of different terms - social performance being a popular alternative. Though relevant and useful, the session reiterated that these terms are unlikely to displace the use of social licence, partly because its meaning continues to evolve in new ways. The session identied strong interest in exploring a 'values-based approach to social licence' to complement a risk based approach.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    For social licence as a concept and term, evolution has been effective. Rapid evolution towards a values based approach to social licence has promise.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    There are now new and novel ways of measuring social licence which hold much potential for practitioners.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    There are now new and novel ways of measuring social licence which hold much potential for practitioners.


  • SEA: Scope and level of detail

     

    Day: monday + tuesday
    Date: 29 april, 30 april
    Time: 15.00, 11.00

    Session Chair(s):
    Gosewien van Eck 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    SEA for a national or regional strategic vision is a useful instrument for highlighting the impact of different strategic policy choices, but there is still a lot to learn on SEA. SEA’s come in a big variety concerning scale, activities, content, etc. There is no ideal form of SEA. There shouldn’t be a uniform form. But a step in evolving is to develop a tool/system aiming at continuing assessment of current and future Sas (Monitoring and replication) around the world.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    The use of SEA is expanding, but in most case it is voluntary. Therefor the link with the decision making proces (when and how) is not always clear. Identify clear entry points of the SEA in the relevant policy-making and planning processes.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Not only doing things right, but doing the right things. Not only doing SEA, but start with strategic planning.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    The terms of reference (TOR) are very important to manage the expectations concerning the research, the process, the stakeholders, etc. Be thorough!

    Include into SEA:

    • Environmental sustainability

    • Low carbon impact

    • Climate change

     


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    • Integrate SEA to support policy making and planning.

    • Using SEA to support the action plan


  • Securing socio-economic development through unorthodox impact assessment

     

    Day: 4
    Date: 2 May
    Time: 09h30 - 11h00

    Session Chair(s):
    Tim Hart 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    No.  IA has a well-secured niche in a regulatory context. If it wishes to pursue relevance and influence beyond this context change is required.  This is especially true in the context of this session - IA as a catalyst and foundation for socio-economic development.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Absolutely.  Many examples from this session:

    • Using IA to fully understand the development drivers and context in which projects and policies are situated
    • Producing management plans and policy measures that both respond to IA findings and that are puposefully designed to achieve what they recommend - plans and policy measures that are not inclusive, cooperative, responsive to social and political realities, and are not institutionally and enviromentally sustainable are unlikely to do so
    • Growing the presence and application of IA tools in other decision making environments - for example (again from this session) international development funding, non-corporate entrepreneurs and enterprises
    • Responding to new opportunities to inform and drive project and policy decision making - especially in a citizen active and digitally empowered environment
    • Advocating the use of IA beyond project and policy design - extending through implementation and evaluation

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    • Revolutions typically occur where there is a critical level of demand for change and a passionate group of revolutionaries willing to drive the change.  Real revolution in IA will likely require both
    • In the context of socio-economic developent the revolution lies less in the IA tools, and more in the application thereof.  In this context there is a real need for a systematic exploration of of the wide diversity of development-oriented applications


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    • Do not confine your skills and experience to highly-regulated and uncreative processes.  Look for contexts and opportunities to promote outcomes (in the case of this session development outcomes)


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    • Similar to above.  Do not see impact assessment practitioners only as a source of regulatory approval.  Their skills, expertise and tools can help to plan, implement and monitor grounded and effective plans and policies (demonstrated in this session)


  • Seeing the forest for the trees - are offsets the panacea?

     

    Day: 3
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 9 am

    Session Chair(s):
    Mervyn Mason 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    Rethinking the mitigation heirachy in practice.

    Ensuring sufficient data and knowledge are collected at an appropriate time to inform meaningful assessment.  Less reliance on models to attempt to predict offset requirements.

    Strict offsets are reasonably practical in a regulated, developed society, but are impractical in less regulated developing socities.  There is a need for different, alternative approaches.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes - we need to rethink the end-point of the mitigation heirarchy, that is, offsets, as being an impact mitigation measure in itself.  More thought is required around the concep to no net loss, and is it really practical. 

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    By not making the assessment of offsets based on metrics that cannot encompass all the uncertainties involved with ecosystems and biodiversity science.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Move away from offsets as an end result.  What that could be is open to debate, but we know offsets are not always feasible.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Be less prescriptive in the metrics for offset requirements, and be more insightful in regard to ecological uncertainty.


  • Session 105 / Environmental sustainability in large mining projects in developing regions

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30/04/19
    Time: 14:30-16:00 and 16:30-18:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Leandro Jardim Arruda 
    Lucio Cadaval Bede


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Evolving is constantly necessary, but with all probability might not be enough to keep pace with the IA needs, in particular in face of technological advances relating information management.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    International best practices / performance standards must permeate local IA approaches and licensing processes, so that no key IA principle is overlooked.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A Revolution is some times necessary to shake inertness from existing impact assessment processes. In the case of “environmental sustainability in large mining projects in developing regions” session we saw perhaps rather more on innovation and creativity than on revolution. The revolutionary bit behind most case studies seemed to be intrinsically related to the proponents’ (e.g., service providers, regulators) willingness to improve existing processes, rather than the proposition of radically new approaches at it. Making a substantial difference/improvement in the local context can also be revolutionary in a way.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Think ESIA processes critically. Do not settle around established procedures – there is Always room for value-adding, science-based improvements. During the scope definition, it’s necessary to understand the project activities and its connection with the social-environment aspects, the assessments objectives. Seek the best practices, listen to the stakeholder (communities, authorities, clients, etc), aply the best technical writing, follow the avoid-mitigate-compensate concept, understand what and why we have to monitor.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Shaking up biodiversity offset concepts

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 2 May
    Time: 2:30 pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Jane Mogina 
    Ginny King
    Lucie N'Guessan
    Guy Dutson

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Depending on the geographical context, a revolution might be necesary, or an evolution away from stringent, inflexible offset concepts is needed.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    n/a

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A revolutionary change in offset concepts might be a complete move away from the way they are currently being applied, including a move away from the "punitive" mindset often associated with offsets when large corportation are involved to a more positive mindset that pays closer attention to ecological integrity and benefits to the communities to continue to rely more directly on biodiversity in their cultural setting.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    The discussion about the viability/feasibility of offsets needs to continue. The discussion of how offset concepts can allow for more flexibility is essential to maintain as many practitioners have experienced a multitiude of challenges associated withe implementation of offsets.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Policy makers need to allow more flexibility in the difinitions and applications of offsets. A suggestion was made to shift away from the word "offset" itself and to utilize a different framework that can lead to more positive achievements on the ground.


  • Social Closure and decommissioning lessons from experience and future trends

     

    Day: 3
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 11am

    Session Chair(s):
    Katharine Gotto Walton 
    Roger Coupal


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    The majority of the participants felt that it isn't enough for to evolve IA, but that transition / closure requires a paradigm shift in thinking and approach, ie. IA needs a revolution in order to deliver positive outcomes for society.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Key input during the workshop flagged the need for; early assessment and planning around transition impacts, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, empowerment and leadership including the community, industry and government in the process; take a systems thinking approach into the interconnected range of impacts. The assessment of impacts needs to be iterative as the project. Outcomes of the early undestanding of impacts needs to inform the allocatinon of sufficient funding for the transition process (could include endowments) and supports management approaches including community future visioning which helps avoid dependency upon a particular project (from the outset) and actions that require longer periods of time to deliver benefits such as buiding relevant skills and institutional capacity building. .

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    The revolutionary change needs to focus on considering closure as a transition process to a collectively agreed future for the community. Tools and approaches from different arenas, e.g. regional planning and development, as much as IA, need to be harnessed early to empower and build consensus among all stakeholders (including indigenous values) on what their future will be, what positive legacy wll emerge from a project to support the communities and its region realise their own sustainble future.  This revolutionary change needs to also consider the legacy of abandomed mines - how can these sites transition to provide positive outcomes and opportunities for the environment, people and cultural heritage values?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Bring serious consideration of transition / closure into the IA process from the earlier point of a project's planning. Remeber the interconnected nature of socio-economic and environmental impacts, and ensure that indigenous values are fully integrated into the assessment and management approach.  The IA process for transition will be interative during the life of the project.

    Closure is often a dificult topic especially if a project has not started or is only just underway - reframe as how a project can catalyse local / regional development. This project is one element of a community or region's transition to a sustainable future.  This will help prevent dependency upon the project.

    Build governance structure to support transition - it is vital to change the dynamic in transition planning / implementation through multi-stakeholder forum that facilitates involvment, collaboration and empowerment of key stakeholders (with capacity to engage and govern) to take ownership and leadership of their own future. The governance structure needs to facilitate wider discussion and engagement throughout the process.

    It is vital to identify and maintain capacity and nurture community strengths as early as possible to nurture transition.

    Helping the local communities / region to vision its own future is key

    Assign enough funding based on an understanding of the tasks in hand and set up mechanisms to manage the funding and financial benefits long term. Where funding is set aside there is currently a gap between funds allocated and funds actually required for the task in hand.  Also seek ways to incentivise investment ie. where are teh investment opportunities linked to transition (Sullivan solar farm, Kennecotte land/housing).

    Seek, borrow and share experiences of transition in all its forms including post-industrial regeneration and social development. There is a huge gap in information around past project experience in transition and the quantification of outcomes (positive and negative).


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    The regulatory framework for transition / closure needs to clearly require early deep consideration of transition impacts (negative and positive).  Wider policy needs to incentivise holistic transition planning.

    Funding for transition of a project must be planned for and set aside by the proponent from the outset.

    Funding requirements of project proponents re. transition should align with the realities of the actual costs. Where funds are set aside, there is a clear gap between funds allocated and actual funds required to undertake remediation work. Also in some situations one sector is paying the transition / remediation costs for a much wider group of sectors. 

    Taking this approach will hopefully avoid the issue of abandoned projects with no allocated funding for remediation becoming a drain on government and taxes.

    A way forward needs to be considered by abandoned / stranded mines and facilities.


  • Social Impact Assessment of Vulnerable People

     

    Day:
    Date:
    Time:

    Session Chair(s):
    John Pilgrim 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    The two sessions were held as a combined workshop, with largely the same 30 plus audience and a total of nine paper presenters over the two afternoon sessions, with a break for tea.    It was held against the background of a common purpose in recognising a need for the strengthening of the social science used in the SIA  and its application in the livelihoods retention or restoration of vulnerable people – both ethnic minority groups and others, including communities in urban areas of settled in the rights of way of highways and other linear projects – lacking formal land rights.    The resulting workshop addressed the technical issue of achieving a social science methodology, and particularly the socio-economic household survey which could capture a strengthened and more complete database on the existing livelihoods systems, and thus a more effective basis of livelihoods retention or restoration, of vulnerable people.  

    A model for possible adoption, of a methodology designed to capture household livelihoods portfolios representing the diversity and the cyclical nature of labour use and access to resources of vulnerable households, was distributed to paper presenters prior to the workshop in a report by John Pilgrim on the use of Livelihoods Portfolio Analysis (LPA) in the survey of upland ethnic villages displaced by hydropower development in Attapeu Province in southern Laos in upper tributary catchment areas of the Mekong.   

    The approach was shared in an account of the study of Amerindian ethnic minority communities in Guinea suffering land loss to plantation development, by Bnieo Paulette, who repeated the need for triangulation with agro-ecological background data and analysis of cyclical and seasonal access to and use of natural resources, markets and modern service, taught to her and a generation of pioneer students of rural development by Robert Chambers.  

    Susanna Price set the scene for this discussion of reform and innovation – rather than revolution - in the social sciences used in evolving and changing the procedures and strategies of international finance agencies and in country frameworks and guidelines to address more strongly the livelihoods systems of vulnerable peoples.  She drew attention to some contemporary models which demonstrated negotiated and informed land acquisition and resettlement, including that of the Tina hydroelectric project in the Solomon Islands, which recognised the communal nature of land tenure by ceding benefits in the form of permanent tenure of land leased to developers and rights of shares in project revenues to otherwise vulnerable people.

    Santiago Olmos’s account of displacement in an urban project made a valuable analysis of the application of m.f.i. social impact assessment and of the difficulties encountered and need for innovative approaches in the identification and compensation of traders and service providers in urban renewal.   His presentation demonstrated the need for adaptation in standard procedures and compensation or livelihoods restoration of urban informal and vulnerable households dependent on livelihoods in the informal sector.

    Esther Diffey and Ellen Buswell  gave an enlightening paper on social procurement -an essentially Australian concept – in which statutorily required proportions of project investment are allocated to social enterprises or to the capitalising of small commercial enterprises and to structural and human resource development of vulnerable communities, including indigenous groups, whose land is acquired or whose livelihoods are affected by infrastructural and land use development in their territories.   The paper, which pointed to the opportunity represented by a coming quarter century of infrastructural development scheduled to take place in Australia, to use the mechanism of social procurement in a massive programme of reduction in structurally determined poverty – showing the way for international aid programmes to achieve the integration of vulnerable and ethnic minority groups in national sustainable development.

    In the second session the audience shared in the discussion of five case studies from Uganda and its neighbouring territories, and from China, of oil extraction and hydropower determined displacement of the resettlement and livelihoods restoration of vulnerable rural populations.

    The two sessions ended with a panel question and answer session, enriched by statements from the floor by senior social scientists and teachers from China, Uganda and Guyana.  John Pilgrim recalled to the gathering the report of the IAIA ADB/World Bank Special Symposium at Manila in January 2017, which had called for the strengthening of databases on the livelihoods systems of vulnerable displaced populations in major programmes of land acquisition and infrastructure development.  The discussion from the floor crowned, as the unemotional and experienced Susanna Price expressed it, a fantastic seminar.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Social Impact Assessment of Vulnerable Peoples

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May 2019
    Time: 23,0 to 4.00 and 4.30 to 6.00

    Session Chair(s):
    John Pilgrim and Susanna Price 
    JOHN PILGRIM
    JOHN PILGRIM
    JOHN PILGRIM
    JOHN PILGRIM

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes, so long as it enables innovation and reform.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Yes, by strengthening its association and communication of its symposia and outcomes with the multilateral finance and technical institutions, as at the IAIS ADB/World Bank Manila Special Synposium.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    In recognising and responding to the dominating and constraining nature of investment, land use and related governance and research institutions and of survey and planning approaches based on national and international economic systems and their language, and by using innovative systems to provide support for livelihoods retention and restoration based on much more greatly resourced research and data management in ESIA of indigenous and other vulnerable people, including communities occupying urban areas or rights of way in linear projects who lack formal land rights.    This fundamental fault, primarily in the international finance institution guidelines, including IFC 2019 Handbook on Good Practice and in the policy statement and guidelines of related Bretton Woods institutions, is, by omission, a major cause of suppression of the rights of vulnerable people and of the denial of their access to a relevant role in sustainable development, and thus of an impoverishment which affects their nations and international community as much as it does the affected minority vulnerable community.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Examine and seek means of adoption of strengthened and workable social science methodology which permits the identification and retention of the livelihoods systems of vulnerable, including indigenous, communities.   Provide the same level of recognition and resources to the social science research used in study of livelihoods systems in the ESIA of people affected by major infrastructure, including hydropower development as you do to geophiysical survey of the rock and to the hydrology of the structures on which you are proposing to build.  


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Introduce into the existing guidelines, statutes and protocols of internationally and blaterally financed, and of the growing private commercial funancing, of hydropower and other major infrastructure strenghened methodology and procedures for the identification and safeguarding of livelihoods systems of affected people, and especially of vulnerable people, and for their retention or restoration.   Recognise that this is a technical exercise that demands huamn resource development and adequate investment throughout the development finance and safeguard systems, including those of country frameworks, and invest in a generation of training and research to support this adjustment and strengthening of policy.


  • Social Indicators on SDGs for Industry and University

     

    Day: 4
    Date: 2 May
    Time: 11:00-12:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Takako Hashimoto 
    Shinichiro Tanaka


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    Public Sector and Private Sector can work together to develop Social Indicators as part of Evelution.

    Developing indicators help to increase awareness of SDGs.

    The applicability of research outcomes to real world should be important and considered. 

     

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    PPP (Public/Private Secrtors Partnership) is the key for ensuring impact-assessable matters on project and policy decision making.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):


  • Social License and IA of Energy Transitions

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: 02/05
    Time: 11:00- 12:30

    Session Chair(s):
    Lavinia Poruschi 
    Simone Carr-Cornish
    David Fleming

    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Energy transitions are an excellent context to extend our practice and methods. Depending on the industry and technology in questions, it may be enough for IA to evolve, e.g. gas or solar. However, there may be transitions, like hydrogen, which have different range and types of impacts and challenge us to evolve rapidly.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    A consistent theme in our energy transitions session was that impacts change over time. Therefore, instead of a single point in time assessment have a pre- and post- project implementation. Another consistent theme was that there need to be strong advocates of considering the impacts across industry, government and academia (not just community opposition).

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    Integration and consistency are needed between global and regional sustainability goals and project/industry/community level IA. To do so, energy transitions related IA needs to go beyond assessment of single point in time, to compare different phases in development or consider cumulative and indirect impact.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    IA practitioners are encouraged to be opened to a range of qualitative and quantitative methods which capture not only impacts, but also the relationship between companies and the community and can be very influential in determining progress in managing any impacts.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Start the conversation early! Energy transitions are posing new challenges which have specific issues not yet solved by science and practitioners. Engaging with them early will mean solutions will be tailored to policy makers needs and overall governance capacity will be increased.


  • Solutions for conflicts between wind energy technologies and birds

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 16:30-18:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Jack Krohn 
    Ricardo Tome


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    High quality SEA is important evolution; radar technology is close to revolution.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Better SEA to identify and avoid likely conflicts.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    From radar-assisted shutdown to radar-automated, cambra-initiated, maybe even sound-initiated?


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Keep looking for innovative improvement options.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Recognize that we need to keep driving improvements, not just passively wait for take-up.


  • The Rapidly Evolving Dilemma of Fossil Fuels vs Renewable Energy

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 14.30

    Session Chair(s):
    B.Walmsley 
    P.Tarr


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    Individually-owned renewable energy (solar) units are easy to for homeowners to install, but hard for governments to control (or charge rent on), so many governments prefer fossil-fuel or other State Owned power stations and grid-linked solutions that they are in full control. This means they can maintain a monopoly and generate money for the fiscus

    There are important drivers that are pushing investments towards renewables, including the UNFCC, civil society pressure, private sector seeing opportunities and, in some cases, enlightened governments

    Many countries rely on imported oil and gas for power, making them vulnerable. Investing in renewables could be a better option  

      

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Yes

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    I dont understand this question. Sorry

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A much greater push for renewables, and IA needs to emphasise proper considseration of alternatives


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    as above


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Greater use of SEA where alternatives can be better considered

    create a more conducive policy environment for the shift to renewables

    More pro-actively develop partnerships with IPPs


  • The Recent Reform of Federal EA Law in Canada

     

    Day: Thursday
    Date: May 2
    Time: 11:00

    Session Chair(s):
    John A Sinclair 
    Meinhard Doelle


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Adequate evolution is currently not built into IA law in Canada, and is not likely to be built into the new Act.  The new Act has the potential to evolve into an effective IA process, but there is limited direction in the Act to ensure this.  

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Stronger legislation is needed to ensure IA in Canada becomes an effective tool for sustainability, but depending on the implementation, the goal can be met with the IAA as currently proposed in Bill C-69.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A new approach to legislating IA processes, one that clearly identifies what is expected of all actors, and has continuous improvement built into the legislation.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    All participants in IA have to be vigilant to ensure effective implementation of IA.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    All participants in IA have to be vigilant to ensure effective implementation of IA.


  • Transition from EIA to EMS

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30/04/2019
    Time: 11:00

    Session Chair(s):
    Simon Catchpole 
    Simon Maurice


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    • There is urgency to produce change in the EIA system
    • Revolution is overturning the existing paradigm, but that is too radical
    • Evolutionary, incremental change is too slow, so needs some radical element

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    The consensus is that it is not enough because the necessary change will take too long.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    It is advisable to transition to an outcome- or objective-focussed decisions, rather than task-based decisions. Don’t tell proponents how to do things, get commitments to outcomes.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    It will be linked to the question of urgency in evaluation and approval. Fast-developing economies need fast decisions. However, it is not overturning the philosophy or EIA that has been developed, or the progress that has been acheived.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Need to assure that proponent’s interests are aligned and followed through from design and permitting to implementation.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Get a focus on successful implementation into policy statements and systems.

    Find ways to reduce conflict of interest between those driving permitting and those driving implementation of projects and programs. For instance, involve auditors / expert reviewers to check consistency between permitting and implementation. Also, ensure that EIA is including in bid documents for construction and operation. Get construction and operations people to contribute to the EMP in the EIA. Ensure corporate accountability by sign-off on the EIA.

    Allow citizen groups to hold proponents accountable to EIA commitments, rather that relying on agencies, auditors and corporate executives.


  • Using case studies in teaching Impact Assessment

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April
    Time: 2:30 - 6pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Garry Middle 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    These sessions did not address these theme but were aimed at IA trainers and educators and focused on teaching methods and the use of case studies as a tool to illustrate both practice and theory of IA

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    N/A

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    N/A

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    N/A


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    Practitioners who are working on projects could consider the applicability of the IA carried out for the project and is applicability to teaching of and training in IA.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    There is merit in continuing in having sessions at IAIA that are relevant to teaching of and training in IA.


  • Why Follow-up? Managing the Social Impacts of Transport in Urban Cities

     

    Day: Tuesday
    Date: 30 April 2019
    Time: 1100am-12:30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Lara Mottee 



    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    1. The implementation of Follow-up practice needs a shake-up. Formal follow-up processes are continually failing to be applied internationally.

    2. SIA/Management Practices for infrastructure can draw lessons from the mining sector as way of evolving.

    3. Financial commitment from within governance frameworks is key to a successful revolution.

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Improved EIA Follow-up principles, will contribute to an evolution of Follow-up practice. Looking to practices in other industries (mining sector) will also help improve Follow—up the social impacts of transport, but it may not be enough to manage equitable long-term social outcomes.

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    Including the social impacts and opportunities of transport-infrastructure in integrated strategic planning and assessment for urban areas, to be followed through into project development stages using SIA and subsequent Follow-up.

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    A revolutionary change is needed in governance to support follow-up practices in transport infrastructure development. Without a financial commitment to follow-up, management of long-term social impacts of transport-and accountability for decision-making will continue to fall short.


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    The problem is bigger than the practitioners! They need to keep pushing the need for follow-up during assessments and implementing best practice SIA, but regulators and governance need to be committed to Follow-up.


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    A stronger commitment to follow-up of social impacts of infrastructure projects is needed from regulators/governments.


  • Without health there is nothing: health impact achievements in Asia

     

    Day: Wednesday
    Date: 1 May
    Time: 2.30pm

    Session Chair(s):
    Emma Marsden 
    Filipe Silva


    (a) Three messages on the theme "Evolution or Revolution"

    (I) Will it be enough for IA to continue to evolve?

    Revolution of IA is needed but evolution is the most likely scenario to occur. 

    Quiet revolutions are however taking place on aspects or types of IA, such as health impact assessment, as part of a continuous evolution of the IA process.  

    (II) Is there a better way to ensure that impact-assessable matters are taken into account in project and policy decision making?

    IA is best way provided it is fully integrated into project and policy decision making process at the right stage and not influenced by politicians or proponent.  

    (III) If revolutionary change is needed, what might it look like?

    (i) breaking the nexus between politicians-proponent-IA consultants, as a standard practice across the board, and

    (ii) policy makers better understanding environment-social interlinkages and making better use of IA at the right stage in the prorcess to influence decisions – taking seriously the need to avoid and minimise the impact of policies, plans, prorgams, and projects


    Recommendations for impact assessment practitioners:

    To pay more attention to quality assurance, effectiveness, and communication 


    Recommendations for policy makers and other stakeholders (please specify if possible):

    Policy makers in health sector (including public health authorities) should take up the opportunities that IA provides to influence decisions taken by other sectors and across society – getting serious about primary prevention!