24(2004)283–318
www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
EIAmodelsandcapacitybuildinginVietNam:ananalysisofdevelopmentaidprograms
BrentDoberstein*
DepartmentofGeography,FacultyofEnvironmentalStudies,UniversityofWaterloo,
200UniversityAve.,Waterloo,Ontario,CanadaReceived1April2003;receivedinrevisedform1August2003;accepted1September2003
Abstract
Therehasbeenadecidedlackofempiricalresearchexaminingdevelopmentaidagenciesas‘agentsofchange’inenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)systemsindevelopingcountries,particularlyresearchexaminingthemodelofenvironmentalplanningpracticepromotedbyaidagenciesaspartofcapacitybuilding.ThispaperbrieflytracesaconceptualframeworkofEIA,thenintroducestheconceptof‘‘EIAcapacitybuilding’’.UsingVietNamasacasestudy,thepaperthenoutlinestheempiricalresultsoftheresearch,focusingontheextenttowhichaidagencycapacity-buildingprogramspromotedaTechnicalvs.PlanningModelofEIAandonthecoherenceofcapacity-buildingeffortsacrossallaidprograms.Adiscussionfollows,whereresearchresultsareinterpretedwithintheVietnamesecontext,andimplicationsofresearchresultsareidentifiedforthreemaingroupsofactors.ThepaperconcludesbycallingfordevelopmentaidagenciestoreconceptualiseEIAcapacitybuildingasanopportunitytotransformdevelopingcountries’developmentplanningprocesses.D2003ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Keywords:Environmentalimpactassessmentmodels;Developingcountries;Capacitybuilding;VietNam;Developmentaid
1.Introduction
VietNam,likemanyotherdevelopingcountries,hasrecentlyintroducedenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)asacomponentofthecountry’s
*Tel.:+1-519-888-4567x3384;fax:+1-519-746-0658.
E-mailaddress:bdoberst@fes.uwaterloo.ca(B.Doberstein).0195-9255/$–seefrontmatterD2003ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2003.09.001
284B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
Table1
SummaryofEIAmodeldifferences:Technicalvs.PlanningmodelsofEIA
TechnicalModel
1.IntendedroleforEIAindevelopmentplanning2.Scaleofassessmentactivities3.Epistemologicalbasis
Technicalproduct(EIAreport)usedasaninputtotechnocraticplanning.Microscale:(projects).
PlanningModel
Asastimulusforconsultativeand
participatorypolitical/planningprocess
Macroscale$microscale(policies,regionaland
cumulativeassessments,projects).Multipleperspectives
(i.e.,indigenousknowledge,valuesandopinions
co-existwithscientificallyderivedknowledge)Accuratepredictionofcomplexsystembehaviourisimpossible:uncertainty,precautionandadaptationarecentralorganisingfeaturesofEIAandeventualdevelopments.
Continuingplanningprocessemphasisingexperimentation,adaptation,monitoring,learningandredesignShareddecisionmaking,
publicinvolvement,delegatedauthorityorself-determinationbeginningattheearliest
possiblestagesandcontinuingthroughoutthelifeoftheEIAprocess.
Multipletheories:rationalplanning,mixedscanning,
transactiveandadvocacyplanning
Scientificallyderivedobjective‘knowledge’andquantitativedata
4.CertaintyofknowledgeinEIA
Predictivecapacityallowstherationalselectionofthe’best’ofaseriesof
alternativeprojects
5.TimingandlengthofEIAactivities
Discrete,‘‘one-shot’’partoftheoverallprojectcycle.
Persuasion,educationandconsultationasashort-termcomponentneartheendofEIAstudies.
6.Typeandlevel
ofpublicinvolvement
7.TheoreticalbasisofmodelRationalcomprehensiveplanning
developmentplanningprocess.Althoughinuseonanadhocbasissince1984,EIAhasonlybeenalegalrequirementintheformalprocessofdevelopmentplanningsince1994withtheintroductionofthecountry’sNationalLawonEnvironmentalProtection(NLEP).1Previously(Doberstein,2003),IdescribehowVietNaminitiallyadoptedalimited,technicalmodelofEIA(seeTable1)followingtheintroductionoftheNLEP.Thiswasdue,inpart,toa‘demonstrationeffect’wherebyVietNamemulatedtheEIAproceduresofotherdevelopedand
ForamoredetaileddiscussionofthehistoryofEIAinVietnam,seeDoberstein,B.Environmentalcapacitybuildinginatransitionaleconomy:VietNam’sexperiencewithenvironmentalimpactassessment.In:ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal,March,2003.
1B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318285
developingcountries,butwasalsoduetoaninitiallackofcapacitytoimplementmoresophisticatedorcomprehensivemodels.Sincethattime,amultitudeofdevelopmentaidprogramshaveattemptedtohelptheVietnamesegovernmentbuildthecapacityneededtoimplementEIA.EIAcapacity-buildingprogramscarriedoutbyaidagencieshaverangedfromshort-termandtightlyfocussedprograms(e.g.,a6-monthUNEP/IUCNinitiativedesignedtocreatea700-pageVietnamese-languageEIAguidebook)tomulti-milliondollarprogramsspanningmanyyearsandinvolvingmanydifferentactors.
Thislackofcapacityisseeninmost,ifnotall,developingcountrieswhenEIAisfirstintroduced,andaidagencieshaverespondedbydesigningandfundingmanyEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsworldwideoverthelast15years.Althoughsuchprogramsmay,infact,transformdevelopingcountries’EIAprocessesovertime(i.e.,towardmoresophisticatedandcomprehensivemodels),therehasbeensurprisinglylittleempiricalresearchcriticallyexaminingtheapproaches,programcontentandoverall‘model’orformofEIApromotedbyaidagencies.
EmpiricalstudiesonEIAindevelopingcountrieshavepredominantlydocu-mentedtheprocessofEIAimplementation(LuzdelaMaza,2001;MokhehleandDiab,2001),capacitysuccessesand/ordeficiencieswithassociated‘actionplans’toaddressthese(Annandale,2001;Duthie,2001;GlassonandSalador,2000;Zubair,2001),impactsonacountry’splanningprocess(MaoandHills,2002)orbarrierstotheadoptionofEIA(Lim,1985;Henry,1990;Ricksonetal.,1990;LeonenandSantiago,1993;SmithandvanderWansem,1995).SuchstudiesoftenneglecttoanalysecriticallythemodelofEIAbeingimplementedinaparticularcountryorregion(onerecentexceptionisAppiah-Opoku,2001),assumingeitherthatEIAisagenericprocessorthatanyformofEIAwillcontributepositivelytodevelopmentplanningandsustainabledevelopment.Therehasbeenadecidedlackofempiricalresearchexaminingaidagenciesas‘agentsofchange’inthedevelopmentplanningprocessesofdevelopingcountriesandevenfewerexamplesofresearchexaminingthemodelofenvironmentalplanningpracticebeingpromotedbyaidagencies.Thus,thisresearchdescribedinthispaperextendscurrentknowledgeonthecontributionaidagencieshavemadeinconstructingenvironmentalplanningcapacityandtransformingenvironmentalplanningprocessesindevelopingcountries.
Theresearchwasguidedbyonemainresearchquestion:Inwhatmanner,andtowhatextent,doEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsconductedbydevelopmentaidagenciescontributetowardgreaterorlesseracceptanceofa‘‘planningmodelofEIA’’(afterBoothroydandRees,1984)inVietNamandotherdevelopingcountries?Briefly,aplanningmodelofEIA:
involvesconsultativeandparticipatoryapproaches;
addressesalllevelsofdevelopmentproposals(notjustprojects);
incorporatesmultipleformsofknowledgeandinformation(i.e.,indigenousknowledgeandpublicopinionco-existwithscientificallyderived‘objective’knowledge);
286
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
favoursuncertainty,precautionandadaptation(andassumesaccuratepredictionofecosystemresponsetodisturbanceisimpossible);
promotesEIAasacontinuingplanningprocessofexperimentation,adaptation,monitoring,learningandredesign;
includeswide-rangingpublicparticipationthroughouttheEIAprocess;andinvolvesablendofnormativeplanningtheories(includingrationalcomprehensiveplanning,mixedscanning,transactiveplanningandadvocacyplanning).Theresearchwascarriedoutinordertoassessthemodel(s)ofEIApromotedbyaidagenciesworkinginVietNam,andtodeterminetheextenttowhichcapacity-buildinginterventionsmightcontributetofutureemergenceofaplanningmodelofEIA.
Thispaperbrieflytracestheconceptualframeworkusedthroughouttheresearch.Itthenintroducestheconceptof‘‘EIAcapacitybuilding’’.Thepaperthenoutlinestheempiricalresultsoftheresearch,focusingontheextenttowhichaidagencycapacity-buildingprogramspromotedaTechnicalvs.PlanningModelofEIA,andonthecoherenceofcapacity-buildingeffortsacrossallaidprograms.Adiscussionfollows,whereresearchresultsareinterpretedwithintheVietnamesecontext,andimplicationsofresearchresultsareidentifiedforthreemaingroupsofactors.Thepaperconcludesbycallingfordevelopmentaidagenciestorecon-ceptualiseEIAcapacitybuildingasanopportunitytotransformdevelopingcountries’developmentplanningprocesses.
2.Background:EIAmodelsandcapacitybuilding
EIAisnotastandardisedenvironmentalplanningprocessamenabletocookie-cutterreplicationindifferentcountries.Inthecontextofdevelopingcountries,EIAisgenerallyacceptedbymostcommentatorsasabeneficialplanningprocedure2,yet,themostappropriatemodelofEIAremainsanhotlydebated
2FourmainbenefitsfromtheuseofanyformofEIAaregenerallyrecognised:
1.EIAenhancesresourceuseefficiency,through‘‘internalizationofenvironmentalexternalities’’(GoodlandandDaly,1992,p.70).
2.EIAtranslatessustainabilityprinciplesintostrategyandaction(Holtz,1990;SadlerandJacobs,1990;George,1999).
3.EIAcontrolsand/orstimulatesdevelopmentinvestment:thepresenceorabsenceofenvironmentalpoliciesandcontrolsareasignificantfactorinthesiting,levelandnatureofprivatesectordevelopmentinvestment(Baker,1987;Biswas,1993;LeonenandSantiago,1993).
4.EIAfosterssociallearning(ReesandBoothroyd,1987;Bartlett,1989;Caldwell,1989b;Boothroyd,1995;Webleretal.,1995)bysensitising,educatingandraisingawarenessaboutunintendednegativeenvironmentalandsocialimpactsofdevelopmentamongbureaucrats,politicalleaders,developmentproponentsandthegeneralpublic.
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318287
issueintheacademicliterature.Significantdisagreementexistsamongacademicsandpractitionersoverwhatconstitutesthe‘bestpractice’inEIAfordevelopingcountries.Fortheresearchoutlinedinthispaper,twoopposingconceptualmodelsofEIA,theTechnicalModelandPlanningModel,respectively,weredistilledfromawiderangeofacademicsourcescommentingonEIAingeneralanditsuseinthespecificcontextofdevelopingcountries.Thesemodelsformedtheconceptualbackbonefortheresearchandarebrieflydescribedinthefollowingsections.
Seventhemes,listedinTable1,compriseaconceptualframeworkthatusefullydescribesanddefinestwoopposingmodelsofEIA,aframeworkthatwasusedthroughouttheresearchtocharacteriseVietnameseandaidagencyapproachestoEIA.EachoftheseventhemesmaybeplacedonacontinuuminwhichtheTechnicalandPlanningmodelsrepresenttheextremesorcontinuumendpoints,yet,inmostcases,neitherextremewouldbeexpectedtoexistinitsentirety.Thus,mostcountries’EIAprocesseswouldtendtoexhibitamixtureoftechnicalmodelandplanningmodelattributes,witheachoftheseventhemesfallingsomewherealongacontinuumbetweenafull‘technical’or‘planning’model.
2.1.ThetechnicalmodelofEIA
EnvironmentalimpactassessmentemergedoutoftheUnitedStateswhereitwasfirstrecognisedthatdevelopmentplanningproceduresfailedtoaccountforadverseenvironmentalexternalitiesofdevelopment.Thus,theso-called‘rational/comprehensive’styleofplanningtheninvoguewasrecognisedasbeingless-than-comprehensiveinpractice,castingtherationalityofdecisionsintodoubt(House,1976;Rodgers,1976;Hundloeetal.,1990;Smith,1993;OrtolanoandShepherd,1995;VanclayandBronstein,1995).AspartoftheUSNationalEnvironmentalProtectionAct(US-NEPA)of1969,EIAwascastasanaction-forcingmechanismbywhichgovernmentagenciescould‘‘ascertaintheprobableenvironmentalconsequencesoftheiractions’’(Caldwell,1989a,p.10),andthesecouldbe‘‘modifiedorredirected’’towardmorebenignalter-natives.ThebasicpurposeofEIAunderUS-NEPAwasto‘‘broadenandstrengthentheroleofforesightingovernmentalplanninganddecisionmaking’’(Caldwell,1989b,p.7).Assessmentwastobeconductedprimarilythroughthe‘‘dataandinterpretationsderivedfromscience’’andwould,asasecondarybenefit,systematise‘‘publicplanninginademocraticsociety’’(Caldwell,1989a,p.26).
FromthesefewstatementscanbeseentherootsofatechnicalmodelofEIA(afterBoothroydandRees,1984,p.1).Underthismodel,EIAwasfirstconceivedofasatechnicalproduct,usingscientifictechniquesandskilledtechnicianstopredict,preferablythroughquantitativemeans,theenvironmentalandsocialimpactsofaproposeddevelopmentproject.Tothisday,‘‘depictionsoftheEIAplanningprocessgenerallyparalleltherational(technical)planning
288B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
process’’(Lawrence,2000,p.610).ThedevelopmentofEIAunderUS-NEPAisusefullyseenasacontext-andtime-specificresponsetoproblemsidentifiedwithinonecountry’sdevelopmentplanningcontext,namely,theUnitedStatesinthelate1960s.OutofthiscontextemergedanapproachtoEIAinfluencedbyreductionistandlinearcause–effectthinking,technologyassessment,riskassessmentandcost–benefitanalysis,risingpublicenvironmentalawarenessandactivism,thewordingoftheUSConstitutionandtheUStendencytorelyonlitigationtodeterminethemeaningoflaws.IntheyearsleadinguptotheemergenceofUS-NEPA,governmenthadbecomestaffedwithanever-expand-ingrangeoftechnicalexpertsadvisingdecisionmakersonincreasinglycomplexdevelopmentschemes.Thepredominantattitudeaboutdevelopmentplanningwasthatitwaslargelyatechnicalexercise,requiringtechnicalexpertisetoprovidetechnicalsolutions(McAllister,1990).Althoughthelate1960ssawabacklashtothisformofplanningandariseincallsforcitizeninvolvement,technocraticplanningapproachesnonethelessheldthedominantpositionwithintheUSsocietyandheavilyinfluencedtheformofEIAthatemergedunderUS-NEPA.
AlthoughEIAemergedoutofthespecificpolitical,legal,bureaucraticanddevelopmentalcontextoftheUnitedStatescircathelate1960s,thesamebasictechnicalmodelwasusedbyahostofindustrialisednations,statesandprovincesastheyrushedto‘‘expresstheirimitativeapproval’’(ReesandDavis,1978,p.601).Morerecently,EIAhasspreadtodevelopingcountries,oftenusingthesamebasictechnicalmodeleventhoughthesecountries’planningenvironments,culturesandevenphysicalenvironmentsareradicallydifferent.
2.2.TheplanningmodelofEIA
Theresearchwasborneoutofsuggestionsfromenvironmentalimpactassessmentliteraturethat,particularlyataconceptual/theoreticallevel,aPlan-ningModel3ofEIAshowsgreaterpromiseforpromotingsustainabledevelop-mentindevelopingcountriesthandoestheTechnicalModelcounterpart.Aswiththetechnicalmodel,theplanningmodelofEIAhasbeenreferredtointheliteratureunderavarietyoflabelsthatinformaninitialdescriptionofitscharacteristics.Ithasbeenreferredtoas:the‘‘radical’’approach(Rees,1979;Rees,1985);the‘‘process’’(d’Amore,1981)or‘‘planningprocess’’approach(BoothroydandRees,1984);the‘‘jointventure/co-operative’’approach(Connor,1981);the‘‘political’’approach(Cunningham,1984,Craig,1990inGagnonetal.,1993);the‘‘participatory’’(Jiggins,1995)or‘‘participative’’(Roberts,1995)
Theuseoftheterm‘planningmodel’doesnotimplythatthetechnicalmodelisentirelyunlinkedtoplanningprocesses,merelythattheformercontributesmorebroadlyandoveralongerperiodoftimethanatechnicalmodel.
3B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318289
approach;andthe‘‘community’’approachtoEIA(Roberts,1995).Althoughnoneoftheselabelsareperfect,the‘planningapproach/model’labelarguablybestcapturesthespiritofanapproachtoEIA,whichintegrateswithalllevelsofacountry’sdevelopmentplanningprocessandinvolvesthepublictoasignificantextent.
Inbrief,theplanningmodelstructuresEIAasaparticipatoryandvalue-ladenplanningprocesslinkedtolargerpoliticalplanninganddecision-makingpro-cesses,embracinguncertaintyratherthanpredictionasanorganisingfeature.Aswell,theplanningmodelincorporatesmultiplewaysofknowingaboutenviron-mentalandsocialimpactsandtakestheoreticalguidancefromseveralplanningtheories,includingrationalcomprehensivetheory,mixedscanningtheory,advocacytheoryandtransactivetheory.Theplanningmodelisseenintheliteratureasprovidingthegeneralbenefitsofusinganyformofenvironmentalimpactassessment(e.g.,increasingresourceuseefficiency,sociallearning)whilealsoprovidingadditionalsocialequityandecologicalbenefitsnotprovidedbythetechnicalmodel.UsingthefirsttwocriteriaoutlinedinTable1asexamples,thesebenefitsinclude:
BenefitsrelatingtoEIA’sroleintheplanningprocesses:
Offersabroaderandmoreproactiveframeworkwithwhichtoassesslong-termcumulativeeffectsofdevelopment.
Providesastructuredframeworkbywhichtoencourageandmanagepublicinvolvement.
Allowsforbroadersocietalinputindecisionmakingaboutenvironmentalandsocialsystems.
Benefitsrelatingtoscale(ofassessmentactivities):
Facilitates‘tiered’assessment(higher-orderpolicy,programandregionalassessmentsprovidecontext,structureandbackgroundforlower-orderplanandproject-levelassessments).
Precludeswastefulassessmentactivityattheprojectlevel.Oncehigher-orderassessmentsarecomplete,highlydamagingpolicies,plansandprogramsareeliminated/redesignedbeforeassociatedprojectsareconceived(i.e.,developmentprojectsemergefromawebofsupportivepolicies,plansandprograms:mostwouldneverreachtheproposalstagewithoutsuchsupportand,thus,theplanningmodelplacesemphasisonassessmentofthehigher-orderinitiatives).
Byfocusingonlevelshigherthanindividualprojects,allowsforagreaterunderstandingofthecumulativeeffectsofdevelopmentactivities.However,todate,therehasbeenlittleempiricalevidencetosuggestthatthismessagehasbeeninfluentialwhendevelopingcountriesfirstimplementEIAprocesses.Followingtheexamplefirstsetbydevelopedcountries,mostdevel-opingcountrieshaveadoptedaformofEIA,whichmostcloselymatchesatechnicalratherthanplanningmodel.Initiallyatleast,developingcountries
290B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
practiceEIAalmostexclusivelyatprojectlevels,publicparticipationisusuallyweakornon-existent,knowledgedeemedusefulintheEIAprocessisusuallythatofquantitativescience,andaccurateconsiderationoftheuncertaintiesinherentintheEIAprocessisalmostneverfactoredintotheEIAprocessordevelopmentplanningdecisionslinkedtoEIA’sresults.VietNamisnoexceptiontothisgeneralisedobservation.
TheTechnicalandPlanningmodelsofEIArepresentverydifferentnormativeconceptionsofimpactassessment.Thishasstrongimplicationsuponwhatisconsideredtobethe‘appropriate’subjectmatterofEIA,theprocessesusedtocarryouttheassessmentprocess,andtheindividualsdeemedimportantenoughtoinvolveinimpactassessment.ThisalsohasstrongimplicationsonhowEIAcapacitybuildingiscarriedoutindevelopingcountries.2.3.EIAcapacitybuilding
Developingcountriesworldwide,underpressurefromdevelopmentaidagenciesandwantingtomimicWesternapproachestodevelopment(Appiah-Opoku,1994b),havebeguntoenacttheirownformalEIArequirements.Intheearly1980s,a‘‘combinationofpressureandassistance’’fromforeignaidstartedtoproducetheexpectedresults:Developingcountries,particularlyinAsiaandLatinAmerica,begantoadoptEIAwithintheirdevelopmentplanningandregulatoryframeworks(Wandesforde-SmithandMoreira,1985,p.224).4In1991,Ebisemiju(1993,p.248)documented19developingcountrieswithformalEIAsystems,andby1995,OrtolanoandShepherd(1995,p.3)estimatedthatmorethanhalfthecountriesintheworldemployedEIAonatleastanadhocbasis.Forthemostpart,developingcountries:‘‘...havenothadtodefineforthemselvestheproblemsforwhichEIAispresumablythesolution;aidagenciesandothershavedonethisforthem’’(Wandesforde-SmithandMoreira,1985,p.224).Mostcommonly,atechnicalmodelofEIA,bearingstrongresemblancetoUS-NEPAapproaches,hasbeentransferredtodevelopingcountriesand‘‘ithasnotseemedimportant...toconfrontthequestionofwhatittakes,apartfromwillandcommitmentonthepartofthoseatthetopofthesystem,tomakeEIAworkinthedevelopingworld’’(Wandesforde-SmithandMoreira,1985,p.225).
Onceadoptedindevelopingcountries,EIAusuallyoccupiesamarginalisedandineffectiveposition,anddevelopmentaidagencieshaverespondedwithEIAcapacitybuildingasanewdevelopmentmandate(Malik,1995;Robinson,
OtherssuggestthatLatinAmericancountrieshavebeenslowtoadoptEIA.Robinson(1992),inaninternationalreviewofEIA,notedthatmanyLatinAmericancountries(aswellassomeintheMiddleEastandAfrica)hadnotadoptedEIA.Thiscontradictoryanalysisislikelytheresultofdefinitionalissues(e.g.,AreCentralAmericancountriesincludedorexcludedunderbothauthors’‘LatinAmerica’designations?AreEIAsystemsjudgedtobepresentbybothauthorsifnotformallylegislated?).
4B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318291
1992;Simonis,1990;WorldBank,1992).Capacitybuildingwasanextremelypopularfocusofinternationalaidagencyworkinthe1990s,perhapssecondonlytosustainabledevelopmentasastatedgoalofdevelopmentaid,andreceiveditsgreatestboostfollowingthe1992UNRioconferenceandthesubsequentreleaseoftheAgenda21report.Thatreportdefinedcapacitybuildingastheprocessofstrengtheningacountry’s‘‘human,scientific,technological,organisational,institutionalandresourcecapabilities’’,particu-larlyasthisrelatesto‘‘crucialquestionsrelatedtopolicychoicesandmodesofimplementationamongdevelopmentoptions,basedonanunderstandingofenvironmentalpotentialsandlimits’’(UNCED,1992,p.37.1).Armedwiththecapacity-buildingmandate,developmentaidagencieshaveprovidedsignificantfinancialandtechnicalEIAcapacity-buildingassistancetodevelopingcountriesandhavepreparedahostofEIAguidelinesforusebothinternallyandasacapacity-buildingframeworkfordevelopingcountries(see,forexample,UNEP,1988;UN-ESCAP,1990;WorldBank,1991a,b,c,AsianDevelopmentBank,1993).
3.Researchmethod
Acountry-specific,comparativecasestudyapproachwasusedtoexamineboththemodelofEIAfirstadoptedinVietNam,andthemodel(s)ofEIApromotedbydevelopmentaidagencycapacity-buildingprograms.VietNamwasselectedasacountrycasestudybecauseitwasintheformativestagesofadoptingEIAandgovernmentofficialsbothrecognisedtheneedtostrengthenEIAcapacitiesandexpressedconsiderableofficialsupportforEIAinavarietyofpolicydocumentsandinternationalfora.
InordertoassesstheconceptualunderpinningsofforeignaidagencyEIAcapacity-buildingprograms,nineseparateprograms,operatingentirelywithinVietNambetween1994and2001,wereexamined.ResearchwascarriedoutinthreeseparatetripstoVietNamtotalingaperiodof10monthsoffieldresearch:a2-monthpreliminarytriptoHanoifromDecember1994toJanuary1995,andtwosubsequentintensiveresearchtripsfromOctober1997toMarch1998(Hanoi),andfromJune1998toAugust1998(HanoiandHoChiMinhCity).Cross-caseanalyseswereconductedinordertodistillpatterns,processesandoutcomescommontothecasesstudied.Thiscross-caseanalysiswasusefulinrevealingtheextenttowhichsimilarmodelsofEIAwerepromotedbydevelopmentaidagenciesandindeterminingwhetheraplanningmodelofEIAwasappliedthroughthecapacity-buildingactionsofdevelopmentaidagencies.
Avarietyofdatasourceswereusedasthebasisoftheresearch.Mostresearchdatawerederivedfromunstandardisedkeyinformantinterviews(n=64)conductedwithexpatriate(n=41)orVietnamese(n=23)developmentaidagency,VietnamesegovernmentorNGOstaffduringaseriesofthreevisits
292B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
toVietNaminthemidandlate1990s.MostkeyinformantswerelocatedinHanoi(n=49),reflectingitsimportanceasthecentreofgovernment,asiteofnumerousacademicinstitutionsinvolvedinEIAandthecentrefordevelop-mentaidactivityinVietNam.OtherkeyinformantinterviewswerecarriedoutwithindividualsbasedinHoChiMinhCity(n=4)orcountriesotherthanVietNam(n=11).Interviewdatawereaugmentedbysecondarysources(books,journals,newspaperandmagazinearticles,websitesand,especially,unpub-lished‘greyliterature’),manyofwhichwerehousedinlibraries,officesandpersonalcollectionsinHaNoi,VietNam.Lastly,directobservation(partici-pantobservation)ofdevelopmentprojectsandcapacity-buildingactivitiesprovedtobeafertilesourceofadditionalkeyinformantinterviewquestionsanddataonprogramactivities.Contentanalysiswascarriedoutondevelop-mentaidagencyprogramdocuments(n=16,includingprogramdesigndocu-ments,activityreports,workshopreportsand/orpost-projectassessments)producedbythenineEIAcapacity-buildingprograms.Ineachofthe16documents,commentarypertainingtothemodelofEIAbeingpromotedbyEIAcapacity-buildingprojectswasidentifiedandanalysed.Documentsrangedinlengthfrom8pagestoover700pages.5EachsentenceofEIA-relatedcommentarywasconsideredtobeasingle‘recordingunit’forcontentanalysispurposes.3.1.Casestudies
TheEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsexaminedrangedfromcentralgovern-ment-levelprogramscarriedoutlargelybyforeignconsultants,toinitiativesfundedbyaidagenciesbutcarriedoutalmostentirelybyVietnamesenationalsthroughVietnameseacademicinstitutes.Programsincludedintheresearch(listedchronologicallybyyearofinitiation)were:
1994:Canada’sInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre(IDRC)‘‘VietNam/CanadaSustainableEconomicDevelopment(VISED)’’project.
1995:AsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)‘‘VietNam:strengtheningenviron-mentalplanningandEIAcapabilities’’project.
1995:UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),‘‘Capacity21-PhaseI,Strengtheningnationalcapacitiestointegratetheenvironmentintoinvestmentdecisions’’.
1996:CanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency’s(CIDA)‘‘Vietnam–Canadaenvironmentalprogramme(VCEP)’’.
1996:CanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency’s(CIDA)‘‘PolicyImplementationAssistanceProject(PIAP)’’.
CommentarywhichdidnotpertaintoEIAmodelswasexcluded,reducingthe700+-pagedocumentto131pagesofanalysedtext.
5B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
293
1997:EuropeanUnion(EU)projecton‘‘CapacityBuildingforEnvironmentalManagementinVietnam’’.
1997:UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)/InternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN)‘‘RegionalworkshoponcapacitybuildinginEIAandthetriallingoftheUNEPEIAresourcemanual’’.
1998:NetherlandsEmbassy‘‘EIACapabilityStrengtheningProgramme’’.1998:UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)‘‘Capacity21-PhaseII’’.Someoftheprograms(i.e.,thoseprogramsalreadyfinishedbythetimeresearchbegan)wereassessedfromanhistoricalperspectiveandothersfromacontemporaryor‘inprocess’perspective(i.e.,thoseprogramsstillinoperationduringtheresearch).Thelatterallowedawiderrangeofinquiry,includingdirectinterviewswithactivelyengageddevelopmentaidpersonnelandtheirVietnam-esecounterparts.ComparisonwithpreviouslycompletedprogramsprovidedanunderstandingofhowaidprogramminghaschangedovertheshorthistoryofEIAinVietNam.
Theseprogramsemployedawiderangeofimplementingagencies,imple-mentationstylesandVietnamesecounterpartagencies(i.e.,twoprogramswerestaffedbyUNemployees,fourprogramswerestaffedbyhiredconsultants,twoprogramswerestaffedbyacademicconsultantsandoneprogramwasstaffedbymembersofaninternationalNGOandindependentacademicconsultants).
4.Results:WhatformofEIAwaspromotedbycapacity-buildingprogramsinVietNam?
Usingtheseven-partframeworkoutlinedinTable1,eachprogramwasanalysedtodeterminetheformofEIApromoted,andresultscomparedacrossallnineprograms.Table2displaystheresultsofcontentanalysiscarriedoutoneachof16documentsissuedbytheninecapacity-buildingprograms.
Basedonthecontentanalysis,keyinformantinterviewsandparticipantobservation,eachprogramwasthengivenanoverall‘ranking’onthecontinuumfrom‘strongtechnicalmodel’to‘strongplanningmodel’(seeFig.1).Programsrangedfroma‘strongtechnicalmodel’toa‘moderateplanningmodel’.4.1.MixedmessagesintherecommendedroleforEIA
Ingeneral,therewaswidevariationinhowEIAcapacity-buildingprogramspromotedtheroleofEIAintheVietnamesedevelopmentplanningprocess,resultinginamixedmessagebeingdeliveredtoVietnamesecounterparts.Atoneextreme,theAsianDevelopmentBankprojectindicatedEIAshouldfunctionpredominantlyinaroleconformingtotheTechnicalModelofEIA:EIAshouldbeusedasa‘technicaltool’togeneratescientificinformationaboutbiophysical
Table2
ContentanalysisofaidagencydocumentsCapacity-buildingprogram!
ADBEU
IDRCNetherlandsCIDA:UNDP-1UNDP-2UNEP/IUCNCIDA:VCEP[%within[%within[%withinEmbassyPIAP[%within[%within[%within[%withintheme(n)]
theme(n)]
theme(n)]
[%within[%withintheme(n)]theme(n)]theme(n)]theme(n)]
theme(n)]
theme(n)]
Documentanalysed!(finalrpt)(inception)(workshop)(SEA)(curriculum)(inception)(final)
(casestudy)(workshop)(multilevel)(sectoral)
(inception)(manual)
(workshop)(hydro)
(inception)
ThemesmentionedindocumentRoleofEIA
TechnicalModelthemes90%(28)92%(11)38%(5)39%(7)47%(8)55%(6)91%(20)63%(5)33%(2)20%(3)33%(6)84%(53)60%(80)75%(6)81%(72)83%(10)
(e.g.,scientificinput,technicaltool,
biophysicalimpacts)PlanningModelthemes10%(3)8%(1)62%(8)61%(11)53%(9)45%(5)9%(2)38%(3)67%(4)80%(12)67%(12)16%(10)40%(54)25%(2)19%(17)17%(2)
(e.g.,participatory/politicalprocess,alltypesofimpacts)ScaleofassessmentTechnicalModel90%(36)100%(6)35%(11)32%(9)50%(8)57%(8)60%(27)100%(15)100%(5)42%(8)60%(15)35%(15)70%(100)40%(2)86%(32)71%(5)themes(projects)PlanningModelthemes10%(4)
65%(20)68%(19)50%(8)43%(6)
40%(18)
58%(11)40%(10)65%(28)30%(42)60%(3)
14%(5)29%(2)
(policies,programs,regions,plans,cumulativeeffects)Knowledgebase
TechnicalModelthemes86%(6)100%(5)100%(2)100%(3)77%(10)100%(5)100%(11)60%(3)100%(3)100%(4)49%(32)67%(2)82%(27)
(e.g.,scientific,
objective,quantitative)PlanningModelthemes14%(1)23%(3)40%(2)51%(33)33%(1)18%(6)
(e.g.,multipleknowledgeforms,subjective)CertaintyofknowledgeTechnicalModelthemes88%(7)75%(3)100%(2)20%(1)55%(6)70%(7)88%(7)100%(2)67%(2)100%(3)61%(39)100%(1)88%(22)75%(3)
(e.g.,predictiveaccuracy,selectionof‘best’alternative)
294B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318PlanningModelthemes13%(1)25%(1)80%(4)45%(5)30%(3)13%(1)100%(1)100%(1)33%(1)39%(25)12%(3)25%(1)
(e.g.,uncertainty,precautionary/adaptiveplanning)TimingandlengthofEIATechnicalModelthemes33%(2)100%(1)100%(2)
42%(5)(‘one-shot’studies)PlanningModelthemes67%(4)100%(6)
100%(1)
100%(3)100%(3)
100%(3)100%(6)100%(8)100%(3)100%(19)
58%(7)
(e.g.,long-term,multistageorcontinuousprocess)Publicinvolvement(typeandtiming)
TechnicalModelthemes89%(17)25%(1)50%(1)33%(2)60%(3)50%(1)50%(1)29%(2)63%(10)52%(37)50%(1)88%(15)50%(1)
(e.g.,education$consultation,atEIAreviewstage)PlanningModelthemes12%(2)75%(3)50%(1)67%(4)40%(2)50%(1)50%(1)71%(5)38%(6)48%(34)50%(1)12%(2)50%(1)
(e.g.,participationto
self-determination,ongoing)Planningtheory
TechnicalModelthemes100%(7)100%(1)40%(2)100%(5)75%(3)
100%(3)100%(7)100%(2)100%(1)40%(2)
25%(2)64%(7)71%(17)82%(14)100%(2)(e.g.,rationalplanningtheory)PlanningModelthemes
60%(3)
25%(1)
60%(3)
75%(6)36%(4)
29%(7)
18%(3)
(e.g.,mixoftheories:rational,transactive,advocacy)Overallevaluation
1
1
33322224434322
1=StrongTechnicalModel.2=ModerateTechnicalModel.3=MixedPlanningandTechnical.4=ModeratePlanningModel.5=StrongPlanningModel.
Boldfiguresarethemostfrequentlymentionedwithinaparticulartheme.Forexample,89%ofallreferencesto‘Publicinvolvement’intheADBfinalreportmentionedformsassociatedwithaTechnicalModel,i.e.,limitedpublicinvolvement(education,persuasionorconsultation),oroccurringonlyattheEIAreview/appraisalstage.
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318295296B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
Fig.1.EIAmodelspromotedbycapacity-buildingprogramsinVietNam.
impactsofprojects,andthisinformationshouldthenbefedintotheexistingdevelopmentplanningprocesstositalongsidetechnicalandeconomicfeasibilitystudies(Hagler-Bailly,1996).InoneADBprojectdocument,over90%ofallreferencestotheappropriateroleforEIAinVietNamconformedtothetechnicalmodel.Attheotherextreme,theUNDPCapacity21(PhaseI)projectpromotedtheroleofEIAaslargelyfollowingPlanningModeltenets:EIAshouldactasamechanismforincreasedpublicinvolvement,tocontributetoandreformpoliticalprocessesinplanningandtoensurethatallpotentialimpacts(i.e.,notjustbiophysical)areexamined.InthetwoUNDPCapacity21(PhaseI)projectdocumentsanalysed(MPI/UNDP,1997a,b),80%and67%ofreferencestotheappropriateroleofEIAinVietNamconformedtoaPlanningModel.
Mostcommonly,capacity-buildingprogramspromotedtheassessmentofmainlybiophysical,ratherthansocial6oreconomic,impactsofdevelopmentproposals.Asanexampleofthis(seeBox1),theCIDA-fundedVietNam–CanadaEnvironmentalprojectproducedsectoralEIAguidelinesforhydropowerprojectsinVietNam(ESSA/SNCLavalin,1997).Theresultingdocumentwassystematicallylackinginpromotingassessmentofnon-biophysicalimpactsinhydropowerEIAstudies(suchasimpactsoncommunitycohesion,individuallivelihoodsorethnicminorityculturaltraditions),andassessmentofbiophysical
Assessmentofsocialimpacts,underaPlanningModel,isunderstoodtoincludeawiderangeofthemesincludinghealthimpacts,differentialimpactsonmenandwomen(genderanalysis),impactsoncommunitystructuresandcohesion,employment/livelihoodsandaccesstobasicnecessities.
6B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318297
impactswasmentionedfivetimesmorefrequentlythannon-biophysicalimpacts.AlthoughmanyfuturehydropowerprojectswilllikelybelocatedinuplandsregionsofVietNam,nomentionwasmadeofthespecialneedtoassessimpactsontheethnicminoritieswhoresideinsuchregions.Suchabiastowardthepromotionof‘biophysicalimpactassessment’wascommontooverhalf(n=9of16)oftheEIAcapacity-buildingprojectdocumentsanalysed.
Box1:Capacity-BuildingActions:EIAGuidelinesforHydropowerProjectsVietNamplanstobuild22hydropowerplantsoverthenext7yearstomeetthecountry’sexpandingenergyneeds(UNDP,2002).ThelargestoftheseistheSonLahydroschemeinNorthernVietNam.ThemaindamwillbelocatedalongtheDariverwatershedupstreamfromthefurthestextentoftheexistingHoaBinhdamreservoir,andwillbe215minheight.TheschemeisVietNam’slargest-everhydroplant,withupto2400MWofgeneratingcapacity,andisexpectedtocostoverUS$2.2billion(VoiceofVietnam,2002).Whencompletedin2013,thedamwillboostthecountry’spowerproductionbyover25%.TheVietnamesegovernmentestimatesthatbetween80,000(VoiceofVietnam,2002)and100,000(VietNamNews,2002)ethnicminorityandKinhmajoritypeopleswillbedisplacedbythedamandreservoir.Becausetheprojectwilllikelybefundedinpartbymultilateraldevelopmentbanks,EIAstudiesconductedfortheprojectmustbeofaninternationallyacceptedstandard.In1997,theVietnamesegovernmentrequestedtwoEIAcapacity-buildingprograms(theCIDA-VCEPandEUprograms)preparegenericguidelinesforhydroEIAs:TheseguidelineswouldthenbeavailableforconsultationbytheVietnamesegovernmentandEIAconsultantsontheSonLahydroproject.AreviewoftheCIDA-fundedVietNam–CanadaEnvironmentProgrammedrafthydroguidelines(ESSA/SNCLavalin,1997)revealedthefollowingweaknesses:(A)(B)(C)Ethnicminorities,althoughthedominantgroupinmostuplandshydropowersites,didnotmeritspecialmentionintheEIAguidelines.Indigenousknowledge,apotentiallyusefuladditiontoEIAstudiesinVietNam’suplandsregions,wasaminorcomponentofsuggestedenvironmentaldatasources.GuidelinesonthepublicinvolvementcomponentoftheEIAprocesswerelacking.Nosuggestionsweregivenastohowtoinvolveethnicminorities(whomaybeilliterateintheVietnameselanguageandwhomaynothaveaccesstolocationswherepublicinvolvementistraditionallysolicited),norhowtostructureasignificantandwell-timedpublicinvolvementprocess.Overall,theguidelineswerestrongestinsuggestinghowbiophysicalaspectsofanEIAweretobecarriedout,andweakestinsocialimpactandpublicinvolvementaspects.However,thequalityofsuchEIAguidelinesmaybeofsecondaryimportancetotherolecurrentlyascribedtoEIAwithinVietNam’spoliticalanddevelopmentplanningprocess.SinceapprovalfortheprojecthasbeengiveninadvanceofEIAstudies,EIAwillservealimitedrole,mitigatingonlytheworstimpactsoftheproposedprojectratherthanfundamentallychallengingthesiting,designorneedfortheproject.FiveyearsbeforetheVietnameseNationalAssemblyapprovedtheproject,aseniorHanoi-basedexpatriateresearcherlinkedtoanenvironmentalresearchcentrepredictedthisoutcome,statingthedam‘‘willgoahead’’regardlessofthequalityoroutcomeofEIAstudiesyettobeundertaken(KeyInformant#3,1998).Thebestproofofthis,accordingtotheresearcher,wastheVietnameseGovernment’sefforttorelocatethesoontobefloodedprovincialcapitalofLaiChautoDienBien,effortsthatbeganlonginadvanceofformalapprovalorEIAstudies.298B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
4.2.Relianceonproject-levelEIA,butstrategic-levelinterestemergingAlthoughsomecapacity-buildingprogramsinVietNampromotedanalmostexclusivelyproject-specificformofEIA(e.g.,twoPIAPprogramdocumentsreferexclusivelytoproject-levelassessment,andintwoAsianDevelopmentBankdocuments,100%and90%ofreferencesrefertoproject-levelassessment),manyprogramshaveshownanemerginginterestincapacitybuildingtoconduct‘‘higherorder’’strategicassessment(i.e.,plans,programs,areas/regions,cumu-lativeeffectsandpolicies).Inananalysisof16documentsdescribingEIAcapacity-buildingprograms,project-levelEIAwasmentionedmorefrequently(60%)thanstrategiclevelsofassessment(40%).However,oneEIAcapacity-buildingprojectsponsoredbytheEUpromotedstrategicenvironmentalassess-ment(SEA)asoneofitsmainprojectobjectives(EUProject,1997;Nierynck,1998).WhenSEAwasincludedincapacity-buildingprogramming,itwasgenerallypromotedasacomplementary,ratherthanalternative,approachtoEIA.Thisobservationisseenasaconfirmationthatsomecapacity-buildingprogramsinVietNamarepromotingEIAasapplicabletoalllevels,fromthepolicyleveldownwardsthroughprograms,regionsandcumulativeeffectsassessmentandtotheindividualprojectlevel.
Therewasexplicitrecognitionbystaffofsomecapacity-buildingprogramsthattheirchoiceofVietnamese‘counterpart’constrainedtheabilityofdevelop-mentaidagenciestopromotehigher-orderEIAofplans,programsandpolicies.ThePIAPproject,forexample,workedwithintheMinistryofTransportandCommunications(MTC)wheretherewasnotraditionofor‘‘willingness’’forpolicy-levelassessment(Informant#49,1998).TheMTCworkswithinastandardframeworkofproject-by-projectplanningandoperations,and,thus,forreasonsofexpediencyandefficiency,thePIAPprojectstaffadoptedtheprojectlevelforallEIAcapacity-buildingactivities(seeBox2).Overthelongerterm,however,successesinimplementingEIAattheproject-levelwereseenbyPIAPstaffasprovidingatoeholdforfurtherreforms.Thus,strategicassessmentwasviewedasadesirablebutfutureEIAcapacity-buildinggoal(Informant#49,1998).
Box2:CounterpartContextAffectsCapacityBuilding:PIAPandMTCCIDA’sPolicyImplementationAssistanceProject(PIAP)workedwiththeVietNam’sMinistryofTransportandCommunications(MTC).SinceStandardMTCplanningprocessesweretofollowaproject-by-projectapproachtotransportationplanning,and,thus,CIDA-PIAP’sEIAcapacity-buildingapproachfocussedonEIAattheprojectlevel,leavingthepromotionofhigher-orderEIAforthefuture.WhenthePIAPprojectfirststartedin1996,therewasahighlevelofresistancewithinMTCtotheideathatenvironmentalandsocialconcernsshouldbeaddressedasastandardpartoftransportationprojectdesignandplanning,sincethiswasseentobethemandateoftheMinistryofScience,TechnologyandEnvironment(MOSTE),nowtheMinistryofNaturalResourcesandEnvironment(MNRE).AcceptancecamemorerapidlywhenseniormembersofMTCrealisedcreationofanin-houseEnvironmentalManagementUnit,andapplicationofbasicEIAB.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318299
asastandardpartoftransportationprojectplanning,wouldresultinsignificantgainstoministryplanningautonomy.AlthoughMNREwouldstillultimatelyreviewEIAsconductedforMTCprojects,theministrywouldbelesslikelytorejectoutrightMTCprojectswhichhadalreadyconsideredormitigatedsomeimpacts.DevelopmentofEIAcapacityproceededatafasterpacefollowinggeneralacceptanceoftheneedforEIAinMTCprojects.TheMTChassincedeveloped,withmanyinputsfromPIAPstaff,itsownEIAguidelinesor‘‘standards’’fortransportationprojectsandnegotiatedwithMOSTEtohavetheseadoptedasanationalstandard.TheMTCalsoreachedanagreementwithMOSTEthatsmall-scaleprojectswouldbeinternallyassessedthroughthein-houseenvironmentalunit.ThisreducedMOSTE’sEIAappraisalburdenandallowedittofocusonEIAoflargerprojects.MTCstaffwereexposedtoaseriesofEIAtrainingcourses,practicalcasestudiesandfollow-uptrainingsessionsrelatedtoEIAoverthefirst3yearsofthePIAPproject.Inonetrainingsession,MTCstaffwereexposedtoa1-dayrefreshercourseonEIA,followedbyaseconddayoffield-basedpracticalcasestudiesinvolvingthreealternativeroutingsofaproposedsix-lanehighwayproject.Staffvisitedvillageswhichwouldbeimpacted,studiedtheproposedroutings,andcarriedoutpracticalexercisesinmitigatingtheimpactsofeachalternativerouting(FieldNotes,1998).However,additionalEIAcapacitybuildingisstillneededforMTC.Asrecentlyas1999,MTCconductedseparateEIAsforeachofthefiveprojects(adeepwaterport,abridge,anairportexpansionproject,anexportprocessingzoneprojectandasix-lanehighwayconnectingallprojects)eventhoughthesewerelinkedspatially,temporallyandfunctionally.Comprehensivesocialimpactassessment(SIA)isstillnotgenerallyincorporatedintoMTCprojectdesign:Initialplanningforthesix-lanehighwayprojectcalledfortheobliterationofaseriesofruralvillagessimplybecausetheywerelocatedonrockyoutcrops,whichMTCengineersviewedasidealrawmaterialsforthehighwaysubstrate.Thus,althoughPIAPhasledtogreaterEIAcapacitieswithinMTC,muchremainstobedoneincomingyears,andperhaps,subsequentphasesoftheCIDAproject.Whenstrategicassessmentwaspromotedbycapacity-buildingprograms,awiderangeofnon-projectlevelswererepresented.ProjectdocumentsfortheIDRCandVCEPprojectsrevealedreferencestoeitherregionalorcumulativeeffectsassessment(IDRC,1993;ESSA/SNCLavalin,1996).Otherprojects,suchastheUNEP/IUCNproject,theEUprojectandPhasesIandIIoftheUNDPCapacity21projectspromotedthefullrangeofnon-projectassessment(i.e.,plans,programs,regions,cumulativeeffectsandpolicyassessment).TheUNDPCapacity21project(PhaseI)specifiedindetailtheneedforMOSTEtodevelopEIAguidelineswhichtheentirerangeofVietNam’ssectoralandlineministriescouldusetoassesstheirown‘‘sectoraldevelopmentplanning’’and‘‘sectoralmasterplans’’(MPI/UNDP,1997a,p.30).ThesecondphaseoftheUNDPprojectemployedareawideassessmentthroughaseriesofpilotprojectsdesignedtodemonstratetoVietnamesestaffintheMinistryofPlanningandInvestment(MPI)howtoincorporateenvironmentalconsiderationsintore-gionalplanning(UNDP,1998).AdditionalinformationaboutCapacity21strategicassessmentactivitiesisdiscussedinBox3.OfallformsofSEApromotedbycapacity-buildingprograms,cumulativeeffectsassessmentisleast
300B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
represented:Over30%(5of16)ofaidagencydocumentsfailedtomentioncumulativeeffectsassessmentatall,whileanother25%(4of16)mentioneditonlyonce.
Box3:ExtendingEIACapacityBeyondEnvironmentalInstitutionsOnesuccessinEIAcapacitybuildinginVietNamhasbeenamoveawayfromexclusiveconcentrationontheEnvironmentMinistryandacademicenvironmentaltraininginstitutionstowardmainstreamdevelopmentplanninginstitutionssuchastheMinistryofPlanningandInvestment(MPI)andMTC(seeBox2).MPIisthemostinfluentialandpowerfulofVietNam’sgovernmentalministries,evaluatingover1000majorinvestmentproposalsperyear.As‘‘thekeyintegratorofinvestment’’(Informant#59,1998),MPIisinthemainstreamofdevelopmentplanning,projectdesignanddecisionmaking.UntiltheinceptionoftheUNDPCapacity21(PhaseI)project,MPI’sevaluationcriteriafordevelopmentsrestedalmostentirelyupon:(1)thetechnicalnature/feasibilityoftheproject;and(2)proposedinvestmentcapital.Untilrecently,environmentalconsiderationswerenotpartofMPI’sprojectappraisalprocess.TheCapacity21projectrecognisedthatMPIwasinanexcellentpositiontoincorporateenvironmentalimpactandenvironmentalplanningconcernsatanearly,projectdesignphaseofthedevelopmentplanningcycle.Throughoutbothphasesoftheproject,awarenesswasraisedwithinMPIoftheneedtoincorporateenvironmentalconsiderationswithdevelopmentplanning.InadditiontotrainingprogramsforMPIstaff,theUNDPprojectadoptedaparticipatoryapproachindevelopingMPI-specific‘EnvironmentalScreeningGuidelines’(MPI/UNDP,1998)tobeusedindeterminingpotentialenvironmentalimpactsforallmajorMPIinvestmentprojects.ExamplesofscreeningguidelineswereobtainedfromtheAsianDevelopmentBank,WorldBankandtheEuropeanUnion,andthenaseriesoflargeprojectsinoperationinVietNam(includingtheHoaBinhdamandtheMyThuanbridgeproject)wereusedastrainingcasestudies,withMPIstaffdetermininghowimpactsoftheseprojectscouldhavebeenreducedthroughdesignchanges.Followingtheseactivities,theUNDPprojectfacilitatedthedevelopmentofMPI-specificenvironmentalguidelinesbyMPIstaff,andweresubsequentlyusedtobothhelpMPIdesignless-damaginginvestmentprojects,andassistMOSTEincarryingoutitsmandatetoensureproposeddevelopmentshaveundergoneanenvironmentalreview.ThisapproachemergedsincecapacitytoadministerVietNam’sEIAprocesswassolowMPIoften‘‘takesdecisionstoapproveprojectswithoutaskingNEA/MOSTEforanEIA’’(Informant#51,1998).AnotheraspectofcapacitybuildingpushedrecentlybytheUNDPCapacity21project(PhaseII)isstrategicenvironmentalassessment,mainlyattheregionalandpolicylevels.Thishasbeenadopted,inpart,asameansbywhichMPIcanavoidoverlappingwiththeEnvironmentMinistry’smainareaofresponsibility,theenvironmentalassessmentofprojects.Threeareawideassessments,involvingongoingenvironmentalproblemsinasilkproductionregion,anindustrialzoneandaperi-urbanareaofHalongCity,wereusedbyUNDPconsultantstodemonstratetoMPIhowtoincorporateenvironmentalconsiderationsintoregionalplanning.OneVietnameseparticipantintheprojectreflectedthatSEAwasofgreatimportanceinMPI’sfuturebecause‘‘onceprojectshavebeendecideduponthereisnotmuchroomtochange...EIAmustmoveupstreamindecisionmakingtohaveamorepositiveandprofoundeffect’’(Informant#62,1998).ThroughinitialtraininginEIAatprojectlevels,theCapacity21projecthasgainedafootholdandbeguntostimulatethinkinginMPIaboutincorporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsintodevelopmentplanningprocessesatregionalandpolicylevels.B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318301
4.3.Scientificknowledge:theonlybaseforEIAcapacitybuilding
OftheseventhemesdifferentiatingtheTechnicalandPlanningmodelsofEIA,theexpectedknowledgebaseforEIApracticeprovedtobetheleastcontentiousforcapacity-buildingpractitionersinVietNam.ThedominantknowledgebaseuponwhichEIAisexpectedtorestislargelyagreedtobethatofscienceandquantitativedatagatheringmethods.Thisviewisthentranslatedintocapacity-buildingactivitiesdesignedtomakeVietnameseEIApracticemore‘‘scientifi-callyreliable’’(EUProject,1997,p.1).Only1of16documentsanalysed(UNEP/IUCNtrainingmanual)stronglysupportedtheuseofaPlanningModelapproach(i.e.,amultitudeofknowledgeformsastheknowledgebaseofEIA,includingscientificfactsandknowledge,indigenousknowledge,andpublicvaluesandopinions).Inmanycases,scientificknowledgeandquantitativeapproachesweretheonlyformsofknowledgedeemedvalidforEIAapplications(6of16documentsmentionedscientific/quantitativeformsofknowledge100%ofthetime).
WhenPlanningModelattributesrelatedtotheknowledgebaseofEIAwerementioned,mostoften,thisinvolvedtheinclusionofsocietalvaluesandopinioninpublicinvolvementphasesoftheEIAcycle.Generally,capacity-buildingprojectdocumentsacknowledgedthevalueofincorporatingpublicopinions,althoughmostcommonly,thiswasunderstoodtocomeintheformoffeedbackoncompletedEIAstudiesratherthanasavaluedformofknowledgeusefulinthedatagatheringphasesofEIA(e.g.,usefulknowledgeaboutecologicalorsocialsystems,orthepotentialimpactsofdevelopmentonsuchsystems).LittlementionwasmadeofthevalueofincludingTEKand/orcustomarycommuni-ty-levelecologicalandsocialknowledgeinEIAstudies.Twokeyinformantscommentedthatsuchalackwas,inpart,duetotherecognitionbycapacity-buildingstaffthatsuchformsofknowledgearenotacceptedasvalidbyVietnamesetechnocraticplanners,whofeelthatpeoplewhoexhibittraditionalknowledgeare‘backward’(Informant#3,1998;Informant#48,1998)andtheirknowledgeirrelevanttomodernEIA.4.4.AnassumptionofcertaintyinEIA
AnotherthemedifferentiatingtheTechnicalandPlanningmodelsofEIAisthetreatmentofknowledgecertaintyanduncertaintyintheEIAprocess.Whencapacity-buildingprogramdocumentswereanalysedforthistheme,75%(12of16)ofdocumentsshowedagreaterlevelofsupportforTechnicalModelattributes(i.e.,CertaintyofEIApredictionsisassumed).Formostcapacity-buildingprograms,EIAwaspromotedtoVietnamesecounterpartsasaprocesswhichwouldleadtoaccuratepredictionsofimpact,andwhichwouldallowtheselectionofthe‘leastdamaging’ofaseriesofprojectalternativesorprojectdesigns.NodocumentanalysedfeaturedasignificantlevelofdiscussionaboutuncertaintyinEIA,chaoticsystemsresponsestoperturbation,development
302B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
planninginthefaceofuncertainimpactsorecological/societalresponses,orphased‘adaptive’implementationofdevelopmentsinthefaceofuncertainty.ThisrepresentsalargegapinEIAcapacity-buildingprogramming,particularlyassomeVietnamesevoicedconcernthatmostEIAreportssubmittedforgovern-mentalreview‘‘havenodiscussionofuncertaintyorriskassessment’’(Informant#59,1998).
WhenPlanningModelthemesrelatingtouncertaintydidemerge,thesewerelargelyconfinedtostatementsabouttheneedtomonitorpost-constructionimpactsinorderto‘‘periodicallyreviewandalterimpactmanagementplans’’(UNEP,1996p.587).Althoughuncertainty,adaptiveplanningorprecautionaryapproachesindevelopmentplanningwerementionedatleastonceinthemajorityofcapacity-buildingprogramdocuments(11of16documents),onlytheUNEP/IUCNandIDRCprojectsindicatedtheseasanythingbutaminorfeatureofcapacity-buildingactivities(IDRC,1993;UNEP,1996).Nonetheless,therela-tivelystrongandconsistentsupportamongaidagenciesforlong-termmonitor-ing,andinsomecases,projectadjustmentorredesign,demonstratedthataidprogramspromotedatleastamarginalaspectofuncertaintyinEIA.4.5.Promotionoflonger-termormulti-phaseEIA
Amongmanyofthecapacity-buildingprograms,therewasstrongsupportforpromotionofEIAwhichgoesbeyondtheTechnicalModel’s‘one-shot’(singularandshortterm)studiessofrequentlycriticisedinEIAliterature(see,forexample,JonesandGrieg,1985;Rees,1985;McDonaldandBrown,1995).Of16capacity-buildingprogramdocumentsanalysed,only2(13%)demonstratedstrongsupportforone-shotstudies(i.e.,theADBandCIDA-PIAPprograms).However,inbothofthesecases,post-constructionmonitoringwasalsoindicatedasanimportantcomponenttoEIA,promotingthemessagetoVietnameseplannersthateventhemostbasicformsofEIArequiresomemeasureoffollow-up.Themessagethatpost-constructionmonitoringandfollow-upisanimportantcomponentofEIAwasmentionedfrequentlybyVietnamesepartic-ipantsincapacity-buildingworkshops(FieldNotes,1998).
Mostcommonly,aidprogramspromotedthePlanningModelidealthatEIAshouldgobeyondsingularandshorttermstudiesby:carryingoutEIAoverlonger-termstudyperiods;carryingoutaseriesofstudiesthroughoutthelifetimeofthedevelopment;and/orpracticingEIAasanessentiallycontinuousprocessofimpactassessment,monitoringand,insomecases,adaptiveplanningandre-design.Asbutoneexampleofthis,theUNEP/IUCNcapacity-buildingprogramEIATrainingResourceManualpromotedtheconceptthatEIAshouldbecarriedout‘‘throughouttheprojectcycle,beginningasearlyaspossibleintheconceptdesignphase’’(UNEP,1996,p.73)andcontinuinglongenoughtoprovideformonitoring,management,auditandevaluationthatcanleadto‘‘improvementsinprojectre-design’’(UNEP,1996,p.74).Variationsofthismessagewerefoundinthemajorityofaidagencydocumentsanalysed,andinabroadrangeofkey
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318303
informantinterviewswithaidprogramaffiliates(Informant#47,1998;Informant#60,1998;Informant#61,1998;Informant#63,1998).
4.6.Publicinvolvementandsocialimpactassessment:muchtalk,littleactionForeignaidprojectsfollowtherequeststhatoriginatefromtheVietnameseside,sobecause(socialimpactassessment)isnotaVietnamesepriority,itisnotanaidpriority.(Informant#59,1998)
AlthoughEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsgenerallyrecognisedthepotentialimportanceofpublicinvolvementandsocialaspectsinEIA,onetrendwasclear:Fewcapacity-buildingprogramsdesignedcapacity-buildingactivitiesaroundtheseelements.Thiswasrecognisedasearlyas1995whenoneseniorUNDPofficialobserved‘‘EIAcapacitybuilding(inVietNam)hasstartedwithoutthissocialfactor’’(Informant#29,1995).However,thisearlyrecognitiondidnotappeartosparkaresponsefromaidprograms(Informant#59,1998;Informant#62,1998).
Bothpublicinvolvementandsocialimpactassessment(SIA)themesweretoucheduponinmostprogramsfeaturingcapacity-buildingshortcoursesandtrainingsessions,yet,thesetopicsweregenerallyminorcomponentsofoverallcoursecontent.TheNetherlandsEmbassyEIA-CSPprojectconductedEIAtrainingovera25-dayperiodinvolving66discretetrainingthemes/sessions,yet,SIAwasnotmentioned,and‘publicinvolvement’comprisedjust1ofthe66sessions(HaskoningConsultingEngineersandArchitects,1998,pp.13–16).Similarly,theCIDA-VCEPHumanResourcesStrategyandTrainingPlan(ESSATechnologies,1996,pp.17–19)identifiedatotalof24one-totwo-weektrainingcoursesorsingle-dayworkshopstobedeliveredovertheprojectlifetimetonationalandprovincialgovernmentEIAstaff.However,duringthistime,onlytwoseminarsaddressingSIAandpublicparticipationwereplanned,andtheexpecteddurationofeachseminarwasjust1day.Athirdexampleofthelackofcapacity-buildingactionrelatedtopublicinvolvementwasseenintheUNEP/IUCNproject.Followingthedistributionoftheproject’sEIAtrainingmanualtoVietnamesecounterparts,feedbackwassolicitedonmeanstostrengthenthemanual:theVietnameseparticipantsidentifiedtheneedtostrengthencontentandtrainingonpublicparticipation(FieldNotes,1997:UNEP/IUCN,1997).AnotableexceptiontothisgeneraltendencywastheIDRCcapacity-buildingprojectwhichdevotedapproximately10%oftrainingcoursecontacthourstoSIAandpublicinvolvementthemes(IDRC,1994,p.12),thehighestleveldocumentedamongcapacity-buildingtrainingcourses.
ThelackofprogramactivityfocussedonbuildingVietnamesecapacitiesinSIAandpublicinvolvementisfurtherseenbyexaminingthechoiceofVietnamesecounterpartsincapacity-buildingprograms:Mostcounterpartswereselectedfromenvironmental,hardscience,planningorconstruction/engineeringinstitutions.Therewasadecidedlackofattentionpaidbydevelopmentaid
304B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
agenciestowardinvolvingpersonnelfrom‘social’ministries,socialsciencedepartmentsofuniversitiesorsociallyorientedVietnameseNGOs7inEIAcapacity-buildingprograms.Bywayofexample,invitedVietnameseguestsfortheopeningworkshopoftheNetherlandsEmbassyEIAcapacity-buildingprojectincludedapproximately25individualsfromenvironmental,technologyorconstructioninstitutesoragencies,whileonly3individualsrepresentingsociallythemedinstitutes(e.g.,MinistryofLabourProtectionandtheInstituteofSocietyandEconomy)wereinvited(FieldNotes,1998).Inpart,thisreflectsthedisproportionatelyhighernumbersof‘technically’vs.‘socially’themedViet-nameseagencies,institutesandministries.However,ifcapacity-buildingpro-gramsareintentonupgradingsocialimpactassessmentcapacities,itmaybenecessaryto,atleastintheshortterm,‘oversample’fromsociallythemedinstitutesand‘undersample’fromthosethatare‘technically’themed.Althoughcapacity-buildingprogramsgenerallymentionedtheneedforincreasedpublicinvolvementandsocialimpactconcernsintheVietnameseEIAprocess,theyusuallyfailedtoinvolvethosewiththemostappropriatesocialbackground.Theformofpublicinvolvementpromotedbydevelopmentaidagenciesvariedsignificantlyfromprogramtoprogram,oftenresultinginacontradictorymessagebeingdeliveredacrosstherangeofVietnamesecounterparts.Although81%(n=13of16)ofaidagencydocumentsanalysedmentionedpublicinvolvementasanintegralpartofEIA,31%(n=5)demonstratedgreatersupportfortechnicalmodelformsofinvolvement(i.e.,limitedeffortstoeducatethepublicaboutaproject’simpacts,persuadingthepublicoftheproject’sbenefitsorconsultingthepublicforinputattheEIAreviewstage).Only19%(n=3)ofdocumentsdemonstratedgreatersupportforPlanningModelforms(e.g.,participationinimpactstudies,shareddecisionmakingaboutprojectattributesorlocation,ordelegationofpartialdecision-makingauthoritytopotentiallyaffectedpublics).Theremaining38%(n=5)ofaidprogramsmentioningpublicinvolvementadopteda‘shopping-list’approachwherebythefullrangeofTechnicalandPlanningModelapproacheswerepromotedequallyforconsiderationbyViet-namesecounterparts.Whileitwascommonforcapacity-buildingprogramstopromotepublicinvolvementatthescopingandEIAreviewstages,onlytwodevelopmentaidprograms(UNEP/IUCNandUNDPPhaseII)wereexplicitinpromotingpublicinvolvementthroughoutallstagesoftheEIAprocess.Thus,someVietnamesecounterpartswereencouragedtopracticegreatlylimitedformsofpublicinvolvement(e.g.,formal,writtenpubliccommentaryonlyattheEIAreviewstage),whileotherswereencouragedtoexploreafullerrangeofoptions(e.g.,participatorytechniquesofenvironmentalandsocialdatagathering,anddelegationofpartialauthorityoverprojectdesignorlocationaldecisions).
ThesearemoreaccuratelytermedGONGOs(governmentalnon-governmentalorganisations),sincenoVietnameseNGOsaretrulyautonomousfromtheVietnamesegovernment(Kaosa-ardetal.,1995).
7B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318305
4.7.RelianceonrationalcomprehensiveplanningtheoryasanEIAbasisAnalysisoftheplanningtheoryunderpinningEIAcapacitybuildingisofinterestsincethistheoreticalbasedetermines,guidesandinfluencesbothwhatisdoneincapacitybuilding,andwhatisnotdone.Forthemajorityofcapacity-buildingprojectsinVietNam,rationalcomprehensiveplanningtheoryunder-pinnedthemodelofEIApromoted,withlittleattentionpaidtotheincorporationofalternativeplanningtheories.Whenaidagencydocumentswereanalysed,75%(12of16)containedmorefrequentreferencestoplanningtheorycorrespondingtotheTechnicalModel.Mostcapacity-buildingprojectspromotedaformofEIAwhich,throughcomprehensive,scientificandpredictivestudies,wouldbecapableofidentifyingthe‘leastdamaging’ofaseriesofprojectalternatives,anapproachconsistentwiththeusualinterpretationofrationalcomprehensiveplanningtheory(see,forexample,Hudson,1979).Furthermore,mostcapacity-buildingprojectsexplicitlypromotedtheconceptthatEIAstudyteamsshouldbecomprisedoftechnicalenvironmentalexperts,ratherthanindividualswithskillsinpublicinvolvement,advocacyorwithknowledgeaboutwiderenvironmentalandsocialpolicygoals.Fromtheseobservations,TechnicalModeltenetsarejudgedtobedominantforthisareaofanalysis.
However,twocapacity-buildingprojects,thefirstandsecondphasesoftheUNDPCapacity21project,advocatedEIAapproacheswithatheorybasemoreconsistentwiththePlanningModel.Althoughtheseprojectscontinuedtorelyonrationalcomprehensiveplanningtheoryformanycapacity-buildingactivities,theyalsoadvocatedtheuseofmixedscanningtheory8andtransactiveplanning.Forexample,thebroadgoalof‘‘environmentalsustainability’’wastransformedintoguidingprinciplesforthedesignandassessmentofdevelopmentprojectsandregionaldevelopmentplans(UNDP,1998,p.12)andcapacitybuildingwasbasedontheseprinciples.Suchaneffortconformstomixedscanningtheory,inthatthe‘rational’planningofindividualprojectsorregionalplansisconstrainedandguidedbylonger-termandlarger-scalesustainabilityconsiderations.ThesecondphaseoftheUNDPprojectalsofeaturedpilotprojectsdesignedtobuildVietnamesecapacitiestocarryoutenvironmentallysustainabledevelopmentonaregionalscale.IncarryingoutpilotprojectswiththeirVietnamesecounterparts,theUNDPadoptedastrategyofholding‘‘interactivepublicmeetingsandparticipatoryappraisalexercises’’(UNDP,1998,p.III-34)withindividualsmostlikelytobeaffectedbychangesinthedevelopmentalpatternsofeachregion.Inusingface-to-facemeetingswiththeaffectedpublicasameanstocarryoutprojectactivities,capacitybuildingundertheUNDPprojectwasjudgedtohaveincorporatedtransactiveplanning.
Mixedscanningsuggeststhatlong-termdevelopmentplanninggoals(e.g.,‘sustainabledevelopment’)canprovidealong-termframeworkorgoal,withinwhichindividualimpactassessmentswouldbegaugedandtested.
8306B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
Asmentionedearlier,manycapacity-buildingprojectsadvocatedmulti-stageorcontinuousEIAratherthanthelinearapproachexpectedunderrationalcomprehensiveplanningtheory.Althoughmostcapacity-buildingprojectspro-motedrationalcomprehensiveplanningapproachesintheearlierstagesofEIA(i.e.,indeterminingthe‘leastdamaging’alternative),mostalsopromotedtheuseoffollow-upstudies,monitoringandprojectre-designtoreduceimpactsevenfurther.Thus,theEIAprocessadvocatedbymostcapacity-buildingprogramsfollowsamodifiedformofrationalcomprehensiveplanningtheory,whereadjustmentsandunanticipatedimpactsareincorporatedintolongtermdevelop-mentplanningandmanagement.
5.Discussion/implications
5.1.Structuralbarrierstointroductionofaplanningmodel
Assuggestedearlier,VietNam’sexistingcultural,political/institutionalanddevelopmentplanningcontext(seeBox2forexample)haspreventedfulleradoptionofaplanningmodelofEIA.Henry(1990)veryusefullysuggestedthatacountry’sdevelopmentplanningcontextcanbeviewedasasetofstructuralbarrierslimitingthetypeandamountofchangethatcanbeeffectedbytheintroductionofplanningproceduressuchasEIAandSIA(emphasisadded).TheVietnamesegovernmentinitiallyadoptedatechnicalmodelofEIAduetotheshort-termneedonthepartofgovernmentforanEIAprocesswhich,withoutfundamentalrestructuringorprohibitivefinancialcommitments,couldbeassim-ilatedeasilyintoexistingplanningprocesses.However,atechnicalmodelnowpersists,inpart,becauseofthethreatafullplanningmodelposestoexistingplanninganddecision-makingpower.
Inparticular,effortstopromotegreaterpublicparticipationhavebeenresistedbymanyindividualsatalllevels,manyofwhomhaveavestedinterestinthestatusquo.SuchabarrierreachesfarbeyondVietNam’sborderstomuchofthedevelopingworld.Ricksonetal.(1990,p.235)observedthatinmany,ifnotmost,developingcountries‘‘publicparticipationandinvolvementisunaccept-able’’.Structuralbarrierstoparticipatoryplanningareentrenchedinpresent-dayVietnamesesociety,andthechangesrequired(e.g.,changestoexistingpowerholdersandplanningstructures)toimplementafullplanningmodelofEIAhavenotyetbeenaddressedbyaidagencyprograms.
AnotherstructuralbarriertotheimplementationofaplanningmodelofEIAinVietNamrelatestowhatisconsideredrelevantor‘legitimate’knowledgeintheEIAprocess.MostVietnamesecurrentlyinvolvedinEIAhavebeeneducatedinthehardsciences,engineeringoreconomicdisciplines,andthusvaluethescientificknowledgebaseuponwhichthesedisciplinesrestmorehighlythanalternativeformsofknowledge.Epistemologicalrigidityisthusastructuralbarriertothefulladoptionofaplanningmodel.However,thisisfurther
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318307
compoundedbyEIAcapacity-buildingprogramswhichfailtopromoteotherformsofusefulknowledgeorcarryoutsupportingcapacity-buildingactivities.Unlessfuturecapacity-buildingprogramsattempttosensitisegovernmentoffi-cialsandEIApractitionerstothevalueofknowledgeformsfeaturedin‘soft-science’disciplines(e.g.,traditionalecologicalknowledge,publicopinion),alternativestoscientificknowledgewillcontinuetobeoverlookedinVietNamandafullplanningmodelwillnotbeimplemented.
Structuralbarrierssuchastheseextendfarbeyondtheagenciesandinstitu-tionsinvolvedinenvironmentalimpactassessment,and,inVietNam,theylikelyaffectdevelopmentandcapacity-buildingeffortsinotherareas(e.g.,ruraldevelopment,forestryandfisheriesdevelopment).ResearchbyBoyle(1998)demonstratedthatstructuralbarrierstoparticipatoryplanningandEIAwerewidespreadinAsiandevelopingcountries,thus,capacitybuildingintheEIAspherealoneisunlikelytoresultinsignificantsystem-widechange.Suchbarriersarelikelytopersistifaddressedsolelybysmall-scaleEIAcapacity-buildingprograms.DevelopmentaidagenciesworkinginVietNamwouldbemorelikelytoachievesuccessacrossabroadrangeofdevelopmentthemesifcross-cuttingstructuralbarrierswereidentified,andcapacity-buildingapproachesadoptedforallprogramsinaparticularcountry.
Themainimplicationsoftheresearchhavebeengroupedintothreemaincategories:(1)implicationsfortheVietNamgovernment;(2)academicimpli-cations;and(3)implicationsfordevelopmentaidagencies.5.2.ImplicationsfortheVietNamgovernment
TheresearchhasthepotentialtoassisttheVietnamesegovernmentbyclarifyingwaysinwhichdevelopmentaidprogramscanstrengthenenvironmen-talplanningcapacitiesandbystimulatingdiscussionaboutthereformofexistingenvironmentalplanningprocesses.ItislikelytobeofparticularusetoMNRE’sEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentdivision,andtoinstitutionsinvolvedinthewiderdevelopmentplanningprocess,especiallyinthecomingyearsastheEIAsystemisextendedtofurtherinteractwithVietNam’svariousnational,regionalandprovincialplanningbodies.
Firstly,theresearchhasrevealedthatalthoughEIAhasthepotentialtomakeastrongcontributiontosustainabledevelopmentgoals(e.g.,VietNam’sUNCED,1992policystatementonsustainabledevelopment),strongerandmoreexplicitlinksshouldbemadebetweenthesegoalsandtheoutputsofanEIAprocess.ManyquestionsremainaboutthemostappropriateformofEIAtoadoptinthecountryandtherelativeweightEIAoutputsshouldhaveinoveralldevelopmentplanningdecisionmaking.Itissuggestedherethat,asoneofthemyriadsupportingconditionsforsustainabledevelopment,VietNam’sEIAprocesscouldberedesignedsoasharmonisewithandsupporttheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentgoals.Developmentaidagencies,aspartoftheircapacity-buildingmandate,shouldplayaleadroleindemonstratingwaysin
308B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
whichtheEIAprocesscanbestsupportVietNam’sdriveforsustainabledevelopment.OnepromisingapproachwouldbeforaidagenciestodiscusswithVietnamesecounterpartsinMNREandMPIthedevelopmentofsustainabledevelopmentindicators,whichwouldbeappliedtodevelopmentproposalsattheEIAreviewstageandwhichwouldformabaselineconditionforproposalapproval,mitigation,redesignorrejection.Thisapproachcouldlaterbeexpandedtoincludethedevelopmentofsustainabledevelopmentguidelinesforuseinproject/programdesignandplanning,implementationandmonitoring.
AsecondpolicyimplicationoftheresearchfortheVietNamgovernmentistheimmediateneedtoextendtheEIAprocess‘upstream’tolevelshigherthanthatofthesingleproject,andforaidagenciestotakealeadroleinassistingwiththisprocess.ExistingVietnameseEIAregulationsstipulatethataformofregionalEIAshouldbecarriedforareamasterplans,andprovincialandurbandevelopmentplans(BinnieandPartners,1994;SRV/UNDP,1995).Thus,appropriatelegislationandhigh-levelrecognitionofthevalueof‘upstreaming’EIAisalreadyinplaceandcanguideinitialefforts.TheVietnamesegovernmentcouldalsoexaminethepossibilityofmovingbeyondregionalEIA,tostrategicpolicy-andprogram-levelEIA,asafurtherextensionofthisupstreamingprocess.Again,capacity-buildingprogramscouldplayaroleindiscussionsabouthowbesttoeaseintostrategicenvironmentalassessment.AlthoughtheVietnamesegovernmentisunlikelytoallowahighlevelofinvolvementbyforeignersindebatesaboutthescrutinyofinternaldevelopmentpolicies,developmentaidagenciescouldnonethelessbeinvolvedinpromotingthestrategicenvironmentalassessment(SEA)concept,discussingtheoptionsforoperationalisingSEAandassistingwiththeexpansionofVietnameseSEAcapacities.
AthirdpolicyimplicationstemsfromobservationsaboutsuccessfulEIAcapacitybuildinginvolvingnon-environmentalministries,includingMTCandMPI:TheVietnamesegovernmentshouldconsiderfurtherEIAdecentralisationandcapacitybuildingacrossthefullrangeoflineministries.Developmentaidagencieswouldbeexpectedtoplayastrongroleinsuchaprogram,particularlynowthattwosuccessfulexamplescanserveascasestudiesforotherlineministries.SuchanapproachwouldsimultaneouslyassistMNREinmanagingtheworkloadassociatedwiththeEIAprocessandstimulatingthedesignofsectoraldevelopmentprojectsandpolicieswithfewernegativeimpacts.OneapproachjudgedtobeasuccessinEIAcapacitybuildingwithbothMPIandMTCwasthecreationofin-house‘environmentalmanagementunits’:Thisshouldbeconsideredasareplicableprocessacrossalllineministries.Byextendingenvironmentalcapacitybuildingtoabroaderrangeoflineministries,andreducingfurtherthenumberofdevelopmentswhichavoidanyformofenvironmentalscrutiny,VietNamismorelikelytoachieveitssustainabledevelopmentgoals.
OnefinalimplicationoftheresearchfortheVietnamesegovernmentistheneedtoconsiderculturallyacceptablewaysofincreasingthelevelofattention
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318309
paidtosocialconcernsinVietNam’sEIAprocess,primarilythroughheightenedattentiontosocialimpactassessmentandpublicinvolvement.AlthoughmanyauthorshavedocumentedthedifficultiesofintegratingsocialaspectsintotheEIAsystemsofdevelopingcountries(Henry,1990;Ricksonetal.,1990;Boyle,1998;FrancisandJacobs,1999),suchdifficultiesmaybereducedifVietnameseplannerstakechargeofandmodifytheprocessuntilitismoreacceptabletoVietnamesesociety.Perhapsmostimportantly,inbuildingthecapacitytocarryoutsuccessfulsocialimpactassessmentorpublicinvolvement,itiscrucialthatVietnameseministries,academicinstitutionsandmassorganisationswitha‘social’mandatebecomemorecentrallyinvolvedintheEIAprocessandEIAcapacity-buildingprograms.TheVietnamesegovernmentcouldbeginsuchaprocessbyrequestingaidagencysupportforaprogramdedicatedsolelytothetopicofcapacitybuildingforsocialaspectsoftheEIAprocess.Initially,suchaprogramcouldaimto:stimulatediscussionaboutculturallyappropriatemeansofincludingsocialconcerns(e.g.,throughtheinputofsocialscienceresearchers);identifyinstitutionswithexistingsocialimpactcapacitiesandthoserequiringfurtherstrengthening;andcreateandimplementaframeworkguidingalong-termprogramofcapacitybuilding.
5.3.Implicationsfordevelopmentaidagencies
Theresearch,duetoitsbasisinempiricalstudy,hasdirectimplicationsfordevelopmentaidagenciesinvolvedinenvironmentalcapacitybuildingindevelopingcountries.Todate,mostdiscussionsofEIAcapacitybuildinghavebeenbasedontheoreticalandconceptualconjectureratherthanempiricalstudies.Foraidagencies,themostimportantfindingsare:
ThesustainabledevelopmentrhetoricespousedbyaidagencieswasnotfullyreflectedintheactionsofEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsinVietNam.SocialaspectsofEIAwereaddressedonlymarginally.
AidagenciescontinuetopromoteatechnicalformofEIAwhichhaslimitedpowertoaffectVietnamesedevelopmentplanningortoinducesustainabledevelopment.
ThemodelofEIApromotedbyaidagenciesdidnotlinkwithsustainabilityindicatorsandisunlikelytocontributegreatlytoachievementofVietNam’ssustainabledevelopmentgoals.
StructuralbarrierswilllikelypreventadoptionofafullplanningmodelofEIAunlesscapacity-buildingprogramsalsoattempttoreformthewiderdevelop-mentplanningprocessinwhichEIAishoused.
Withtheirbroadinternationalperspectiveandthebenefitofexposuretoalmost30yearsofinternationalEIApractice,developmentaidagencieshavethepotentialtoplayaleadroleinhelpingdevelopingcountriesto‘learnfrompastmistakes’,andassistinmovingEIAbeyondnarrowtechnicalandproject-
310B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
specificapplications,toonewhichreachesalllevelsofdevelopmentplanning,andwhichcontributescentrallytotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentgoals.Inshort,aidagenciesarepotentiallypowerfulagentsofchangeindevelopingcountries,andarewellplacedtohelpimplementaplanningmodelofEIA.
However,ifdevelopmentaidagencyrhetoricabouttheneedtostimulatesustainabledevelopmentindevelopingcountriesisanaccuratereflectionofaidgoals,greaterattentiontocapacitybuildingunderaplanningmodelofEIAisrequired.AidagenciesinVietNamhavemissedtheopportunitytopromotefurthersomeoftheaspectsofaplanningmodelwhichhavethestrongestpotentialforeffectingchangesupportiveofsustainabledevelopment.Inpartic-ular,aidagencieshavenotpromotedstrategicenvironmentalassessment(e.g.,regionalenvironmentalassessmentandcumulativeeffectsassessment)toahighdegree,norhavetheymatchedrhetoricaboutsocialandparticipativeaspectsoftheEIAprocesswithactions.OneparticularlyeffectivemeansbywhichtodemonstratetheeffectivenessofaplanningmodelwouldbetoapplysuchanapproachtooneadministrativeregioninVietNamasapilotorcasestudy:AidagencieswouldworktogetherwithVietnamesecounterpartsinalong-termprocess,beginningatstrategiclevelsandworkingdownwardstotheexpressionofregionalplansandprojects.Attheimplementationstagesofsuchaproject,aidagenciescouldemployconceptssuchasadaptiveassessmenttodemonstratetheprocessandbenefitsofcontinuousmonitoring.95.4.Academicimplications
ResearchresultssuggestthecontinuedtransferofamodifiedtechnicalmodelofEIAtoVietNam,andotherdevelopingcountries,islikelytocontinue.AlthoughsomeaspectsofaplanningmodelofEIAwerepromotedbyaidagencies,thecorefeaturesofatechnicalmodelofEIAwerestillmorecommon.AcademicliteraturedocumentingtheworldwideriseofplanningmodelEIApractices(e.g.,cumulativeeffectsassessment,strategicassessment,acceptanceofmultipleformsofknowl-edge,participatoryEIA)isthereforeoverlyoptimisticfordevelopingcountries.Furthermore,thecontinuedpromotionofamodifiedtechnicalmodelofEIAbyaidagenciessuggeststhattheirofficialpronouncements(e.g.,suggestingthat‘par-ticipatoryplanning,‘grassrootsdevelopment’,‘ecologicalsustainability’and‘equityindevelopment’aretheagencies’overallguidingvisionofdevelopment)arenotalwaysadheredtoatthelevelofaidagencyprograms.Thereasonsforthisarecomplex,andinVietNam’scase,includeacombinationofhost-countrystructuralbarriers,desirebyaidagenciestocollaboratewithdevelopingcountriesinsettingaidagendas,andthebiasesandinstitutionalculturesofimplementingagenciesandtheirhostcountrycounterparts.
AsmallerversionofsucharegionalapproachwasadoptedbytheUNDPPhaseIIprojectbutbeganatprojectratherthanstrategiclevels.
9B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318311
OneofthecentralthemesexploredintheacademicliteratureonEIAindevelopingcountrieshasbeenhowestablishedpoliticalandinstitutionalframe-worksfunctionasa‘structuralconstraint’upontheimplementationofEIA(Mayda,1985;ClarkandHerington,1988;GammanandMcCreary,1988;Ricksonetal.,1990).Theresearchsupportsthesecontentions,suggestingthatsuchframeworksdictatetheformofEIAadoptedinaparticulardevelopingcountryanddeterminetheimportanceattachedtoEIAindevelopmentplanningdecisionmaking.This,inturn,hasimportantimplicationsforcapacity-buildingprograms.
Theresearchsuggestscapacitybuildingrestrictedinscopetoindividualministriesorinstitutions(suchasacountry’sMinistryofEnvironment)isnotapromisingmeansbywhichtoeffectfundamentalchangeindevelopmentplanningprocesses,norissuchanapproachapromisingmeansbywhichtointroduceaplanningmodelofEIA.Thus,EIAcapacitybuildingshouldbecarriedoutasbutasub-programofwideraidprogrammingtostimulatesustainabledevelopmentplanningprocessesinacountry.Ifaidagenciesareseriousaboutcontributingtotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment,andaplanningmodelofEIAisfelttobeacontributingfactor,futurecapacity-buildingeffortsmustaddressneededchangestothedevelopmentplanningprocesswithininwhichEIAishoused.Forthefundamentalchangesenvisagedunderaplanningmodel,aidagenciesmustexpandcapacity-buildingeffortstoworkwithawiderrangeofVietnameseinstitutionsresponsiblefordevelopmentplanningdecisions,includingMPI,provincialPeople’sCommittees,potentiallyaffectedregionsorvillages,theVietnameseNationalAssemblyandlineministriesresponsibleforthedesignandimplementationofsectoraldevelopmentprogramsandprojects.AlthoughusefulstepsinthisdirectionhavebeentakeninVietNambytheUNDP/MPICapacity21projects,suchapproachesshouldbewidenedfurtherandotherbilateralandmultilateralaidagenciesassistinginVietNamshouldbeinvolvedinacoordinatedefforttotransformdevelopmentplanninginthecountry.
AlthoughthereisaconvincingandrapidlygrowingacademicliteraturecallingforenvironmentalplanningprocessessuchasEIAtobeexplicitlylinkedtosustainability‘indicators’,suchascarryingcapacities,assimilativecapacities,cumulativeeffectsortheconservationofnaturalcapital(seeRees,1988;GoodlandandDaly,1995;NoorbakhshandRanjan,1999),theresearchindicatesthatsuchanapproachhasnotbeenpromotedbyEIAcapacity-buildingprogramsworkinginVietNam.SuchanapproachwouldfirstrequiretheVietnamesegovernmenttotakefirmdecisionslegitimisingtherole,andpower,ofEIAtoinfluencedecisionsinthedevelopmentplanningprocess.If,forexample,EIAwaspromotedbyaidagenciesasaprocessdeterminingtheacceptabilityofaproposal(basedonwhetheritcontributedtoorreducedsustainability),thiswouldimplythatEIAhaspowerasa‘decision-making’toolinitsownright,arolewhichiscurrentlynotsupportedbytheVietnamesegovernment.Theuseofsuchindicatorswouldalsorequiredecisionstobemadeaboutappropriatespatial
312B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
scalesforplanning:ifsustainabilityisdefinedattheregionalscale,theEIAprocesswouldrecommendtherejectionofthoseproposalspredictedtoreducesustainabilitywithintheregion,whilethesamemightnotbetrueifadifferentscalewaschosen(NoorbakhshandRanjan,1999).Ininitiallychoosingtobuildcapacityforproject-levelEIA,mostcapacity-buildingprogramsoperatinginVietNamhavenotyetaddressedtheecosystem,regionalorcumulativeeffectsscalesthatarethoughttobethestartingpointfortheuseofsustainabilityindicatorsindevelopmentplanning.
Academicresearchintotheinfluence,limitationsanddesigndifferencesofenvironmentalcapacity-buildingprogramsindevelopingcountriesisimportanttoimprovedunderstandingaboutenvironmentalanddevelopmentplanningindevelopingcountries.Althoughtheacademicliteratureislargelybereftofsuchstudies,thefewthathavebeencarriedouttodatehavenotacknowledgedthesignificantconceptualdifferences(oftheformofenvironmentalplanningpromoted)amongaidprograms,andtheresultingconfusionsuch‘mixedmessages’maycausefordevelopingcountrycounterpartsastheystruggletoimplementaworkableandeffectivesystemofenvironmentalplanning.Single-countrystudiesonEIAcapacitybuildingareimportant,allowingtheresearchertoworkatalevelofdetailwhichfacilitatesinsightintostructuralbarriers,historicaleventsandpoliticalprocessesuniquetoaparticularcountry.TheresearchhasrevealedthatEIAandenvironmentalplanningsystemsarenotstatic,andlongitudinalstudieswithinparticularcountriesareneededtodocumenttheprocessofchange.Thereisaneedtoreplicateandextendthisresearchtootherdevelopingcountriesworldwide.
6.Conclusions
Thepreviousdiscussionshighlightthefactthatcapacity-buildingprogramshavebeensuccessfulinpromotingsomeelementscomprisingaplanningmodelofEIA,butalsothatthissuccessisonlypartial.SuccessesincludeprogressinmovingVietnamesethinkingaboutEIAbeyondanexclusivefocusonprojects,stimulatingconcerninVietNamforlonger-termEIAprocessesandmonitoringofimpacts,andraisingawarenessoftheneedtobroadenimpactassessmentbeyondbiophysicalimpacts.Inadditiontoindicatingthatcapacity-buildingeffortshavebeensuccessful,suchprogressisevidencethatdevelopmentaidagencieshavebeguntoreconsiderwhatcomprisesgoodEIApracticeandtoredefinewhatisconsideredthebestEIAplatformuponwhichtobasecapacitybuilding.
TheplanningmodelofEIAdidnotprovidesignificantguidancewhenVietNamfirstdesignedandimplementeditsEIAprocess,andsuchamodelhasnotbeenpromotedstronglybysubsequentdevelopmentaidcapacity-buildingprograms.Intheacademicliterature,beingcriticalofthecontinuedtransferofatechnicalmodeltodevelopingcountries(see,forexample,Tester,1989;
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318313
Appiah-Opoku,1994a;Jiggins,1995;Sankoh,1996)shouldbeanacknowl-edgementthatthetechnicalmodelremainsappealingfordevelopingcountrygovernmentsanddevelopmentaidimplementingagencies.Thisisduemainlytothetechnicalmodel’scomparativeproceduralsimplicity(Lawrence,2000)andabilitytobegraftedontodevelopingcountryplanningprocesseswithoutfundamentalchangebeingrequired.However,akeyissuefortheacademicliteraturetoconfrontisthequestionofhowatechnicalmodelofEIA,oncebuilt,canbeconsciouslytransformedovertimetowardsomethingclosertoaplanningmodel.EIAliteratureondevelopingcountrieshasnotgenerallyacknowledgedthechangingnatureofEIAsystemsovertime,northeprocessesandinfluenceswhichcaneffectpositivechange.10OnceEIAhasbeeninitiatedinacountry(patternedonavariationofatechnicalmodel),capacity-buildingprogramsmaythenattemptto‘pushtheboundaries’indevelopingcountryplanningsystemsand,overtime,transformthesesystemsintosomethingwhichcontributesmoredirectlytotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentgoals.Byselectivelyintroducingaspectsofaplanningmodel,andwideningcapacitybuildingtoaddressthedevelopmentplanningprocesswithinwhichEIAishoused,developmentaidagenciesaremorelikelytoseeaplanningmodelimplementedoverthelongterm.Acknowledgements
TheauthorwishestothanktheVietNamNationalCenterforSocialSciencesandHumanities(NCSSH)forhelpincarryingouttheresearchonwhichthisarticleisbased.FinancialsupportfortheresearchwasprovidedbyIDRCCanada,UniversityofBritishColumbiaCentreforHumanSettlements,SSHRCCanada,theIzaakWaltonKillamTrustandtheCanada–ASEANCentre.References
ADB(AsianDevelopmentBank).EnvironmentalassessmentrequirementsandenvironmentalreviewproceduresoftheAsianDevelopmentBank.Manila:ADBOfficeoftheEnvironment;1993.AnnandaleD.Developingandevaluatingenvironmentalimpactassessmentsystemsforsmalldevel-opingcountries.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal2001;19(3):187–93.
Appiah-OpokuS.ApplyingCanada’senvironmentalimpactassessmentmodeltothethirdworld.PlanCanada.JournalofCanadianInstituteofPlanners1994a;14–7[March].
Appiah-OpokuS.TheoreticalorientationsofenvironmentalassessmentinCanada:applicationtotheThirdWorld.Environments1994b;22(3):103–10.
Appiah-OpokuS.Environmentalimpactassessmentindevelopingcountries:thecaseofGhana.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview2001;21:59–71.
BakerR.AdministrativeInnovationforEnvironmentalManagement.IndianaUniversitySchoolofPublicandEnvironmentalAffairs.OP#16;1987.
10OnerecentexceptionisAnnandale(2001).
314B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
BartlettRV.Impactassessmentasapolicystrategy.In:BartlettRV,editor.PolicyThroughImpactAssessment:InstitutionalizedAnalysisasaPolicyStrategy.NewYork:GreenwoodPress;1989.p.1–4.
BinnieandPartners,SnowyMountainsEngineeringCorporation,AACMInternational,DelftHy-draulics.RedRiverDeltaMasterPlan:EnvironmentalSurvey.BackgroundReportNo.27;1994.BiswasAK.Environmentalassessment:aviewfromtheSouth.ESCAPEnvironmentNews1993;11(4):3–7.
BoothroydP.Policyassessment.In:VanclayF,BronsteinDA,editors.Environmentalandsocialimpactassessment.Toronto:Wiley;1995.p.83–126.
BoothroydP,ReesW.ImpactAssessmentFromPseudo-SciencetoPlanningProcess:AnEducationalResponse.UniversityofBritishColumbia,SchoolofCommunityandRegionalPlanning.DP#3;1984.
BoyleJ.Culturalinfluencesonimplementingenvironmentalimpactassessment:insightsfromThai-land,IndonesiaandMalaysia.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1998;18:95–116.CaldwellLK.Aconstitutionallawfortheenvironment:20yearswithNEPAindicatestheneed.Environment1989a;31(10):6–28.
CaldwellLK.Understandingimpactanalysis:technicalprocess,administrativereform,policyprin-ciple.In:BartlettRV,editor.Policythroughimpactassessment:institutionalizedanalysisasapolicystrategy.NewYork:GreenwoodPress;1989b.p.8–17.
ClarkM,HeringtonJ.Introduction:environmentalissues,planningandthepoliticalprocess.In:ClarkM,HeringtonJ,editors.Theroleofimpactassessmentintheplanningprocess.London:ManshellPublishing;1988.p.1–16.
ConnorDM.InstitutionalrolesinSIA:thecommunity-partnerorpatient?In:TesterFJ,MykesW,editors.1stCanadianSymposiumonSIA.Calgary:DetseligEnterprisesLtd.;1981.p.135–48.d’AmoreLJ.AnoverviewofSIA.In:TesterFJ,MykesW,editors.1stCanadianSymposiumonSIA.Calgary:DetseligEnterprisesLtd.;1981.p.367–73.
DobersteinB.Environmentalcapacity-buildinginatransitionaleconomy:theemergenceofEIAcapacityinVietNam.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal2003;21(1):25–42.
DuthieAG.EIAinSouthAfrica:areviewofprovincialenvironmentalimpactassessmentadministrativecapacityinSouthAfrica.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal2001;19(3):215–22.
EbisemijuFS.Environmentalimpactassessment:makingitworkindevelopingcountries.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement1993;38:247–73.
ESSA/SNCLavalin.VietNam-CanadaEnvironmentProject:RevisedInceptionReport.CIDAProjectNo.975/19045,unpublishedreport,May1996.
ESSA/SNCLavalin.VietNamHydropowerProjectsEIAGuidelines,Hanoi:VCEPProject,June1997.
EUProject(EuropeanUnionProjectVNM/B7-6200/IB/96/05).ProjectBrief-CapacityBuildingforEnvironmentalManagementinVietnam,1997.
FrancisP,JacobsS.InstitutionalizingsocialanalysisattheWorldBank.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1999;19:341–57.
GammanJK,McCrearyST.SuggestionsforintegratingEIAandeconomicdevelopmentintheCaribbeanregion.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1988;8:43–60.
GeorgeC.Testingforsustainabledevelopmentthroughenvironmentalassessment.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1999;19(2):175–200.
GlassonJ,SaladorNNB.EIAinBrazil:aprocedures–practicegap.AcomparativestudywithreferencetotheEuropeanUnion,andespeciallytheUK.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentRe-view2000;20:191–225.
GoodlandR,DalyH.Threestepstowardglobalenvironmentalsustainability(PartII).Development.JournaloftheSocietyforInformationDisplay1992;3:64–71.
GoodlandR,DalyH.Environmentalsustainability.In:VanclayF.,BronsteinD.A.,editors.Environ-mentalandsocialimpactassessment.Toronto:Wiley;1995.p.303–22.
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318315
Hagler-BaillyConsulting.VietNamstrengtheningenvironmentalplanningandEIAcapability:finalreport.Arlington:Hagler-BaillyConsulting;1996.
HaskoningConsultingEngineersandArchitects.VietnamEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentCa-pabilityStrengtheningProgramme—ProgressReportNo.2,F1906.A0/R010-/GB/ADH,June1998.
HenryR.Implementingsocialimpactassessmentindevelopingcountries:acomparativeapproachtothestructuralproblems.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1990;10:91–101.
HoltzS.Environmentalassessmentandsustainabledevelopment:exploringtherelationship.In:JacobsP,SadlerB,editors.Sustainabledevelopmentandenvironmentalassessment:perspectivesonplanningforacommonfuture.Hull:CanadianEnvironmentalAssessmentResearchCouncil;1990.p.93–104.
HouseP.Thequestforcompleteness.Lexington:D.C.HeathandCo.,1976.
HudsonBM.Comparisonofcurrentplanningtheories:counterpartsandcontradictions.JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation1979;387–406[October].
HundloeT,McDonaldGT,WareJ,WilksL.Cost–benefitanalysisandenvironmentalimpactassess-ment.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1990;10:55–68.
IDRC(InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre).ProjectBrief-EnhancingtrainingcapacityforenvironmentalassessmentinVietnam.VISEDsub-project#92-0011-19,1993.
IDRC(InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre).Curriculum.EnhancingTrainingCapacityforEnvironmentalAssessmentinVietnam,VISEDsub-project#92-0011-19,1994.
JigginsJ.Developmentimpactassessment:impactassessmentofaidprojectsinnonwesterncountries.ImpactAssessment1995;13:47–69.
JonesML,GriegLA.Adaptiveenvironmentalassessmentandmanagement:anewapproachtoenvironmentalimpactassessment.In:MaclarenVW,WhitneyJB,editors.NewdirectionsinenvironmentalimpactassessmentinCanada.Toronto:Methuen;1985.p.21–42.
Kaosa-ardM,PednekarSS,ChristensenSR,AksornwongK,RalaAB.NaturalresourcesmanagementinSouthEastAsiaBangkok.Bangkok:ThailandDevelopmentResearchInstitute;1995.
LawrenceDP.Planningtheoriesandenvironmentalimpactassessment.EnvironmentalImpactAssess-mentReview2000;20:607–25.
LeonenMMVF,SantiagoJSS.DisparitiesinEIAsystemsofIndonesia,Malaysia,thePhilippinesandThailand.ASEANEconomicBulletin1993;10(2):166–75.
LimGC.TheoryandpracticeofEIAimplementation:acomparativestudyofthreedevelopingcountries.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1985;5:133–53.
LuzdelaMazaC.NEPA’sinfluenceindevelopingcountries:theChileancase.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview2001;21:169–79.
MalikM.Environmentalproceduresofinternationalorganizations:apreliminaryevaluation.TheEnvironmentalProfessional1995;17:93–102.
MaoW,HillsP.Impactsoftheeconomic–politicalreformonenvironmentalimpactassessmentimplementationinChina.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal2002;20(2):101–11.
MaydaJ.Environmentallegislationindevelopingcountries:someparametersandconstraints.Ecol-ogyLawQuarterly1985;12:997–1024.
McAllisterDM.Evaluationinenvironmentalplanning:assessingenvironmental,social,economic,andpoliticaltrade-offs.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress;1990.
McDonaldGT,BrownL.Goingbeyondenvironmentalimpactassessment:environmentalinputtoplanninganddesign.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1995;15(6):483–95.
MokhehleL,DiabR.Evolutionofenvironmentalimpactassessmentinasmalldevelopingcountry:areviewofLesothocasestudiesfrom1980to1999.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal2001;19(1):9–18.
MPI/UNDP(MinistryofPlanningandInvestment/UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).In-corporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsintosectordevelopmentplanning.Hanoi:UNDP;1997a.
MPI/UNDP(MinistryofPlanningandInvestment/UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).Incor-
316B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
poratingenvironmentalconsiderationsintothedevelopmentplanningsystem:amulti-levelanal-ysis.Hanoi:UNDP;1997b.
MPI/UNDP(MinistryofPlanningandInvestment/UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).Envi-ronmentalscreeningguidelinesforMPIunpublishedreport.HaNoi:UNDP;1998.
Nierynck,E,SEA:environmentaloverviewofthestudyareainQuangNinh,unpublishedreportdistributedatthesecondworkshoponenvironmentalimpactassessment,23January1998,Hanoi:EUProject.
NoorbakhshF,RanjanS.Amodelforsustainabledevelopment:integratingenvironmentalim-pactassessmentandprojectplanning.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal1999;17(4):283–93.
OrtolanoL,ShepherdA.Environmentalimpactassessment.In:VanclayF,BronsteinDA,editors.Environmentalandsocialimpactassessment.Toronto:Wiley;1995.p.3–30.
ReesWE.Environmentalimpactassessment:theproblemsofevaluation.Proceedings-SecondEnvi-ronmentalImpactAssessmentConference.Vancouver,BC:UBCCentreforContinuingEduca-tion;1979.p.83–98.
ReesWE.GovernmentManagementCapability:ABrieftotheBeaufortSeaEnvironmentalAssess-mentPanel.UBCSchoolofCommunityandRegionalPlanning.SND#8,1985.
ReesWE.Aroleforenvironmentalassessmentinachievingsustainabledevelopment.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1988;8:273–91.
ReesWE,BoothroydP.ProcessandStructure:ABackgroundPaperonEARPReform.Ottawa:UnpublishedCEARCbackgroundpaper,1987.
ReesWE,DavisHC.Coastalecosystemplanningandimpactevaluation.In:Coastalzone’78:symposiumontechnical,environmental,socioeconomicandregulatoryaspectsofcoastalzonemanagementvol.II.SanFrancisco:AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers;1978.p.601–20.RicksonRE,BurdgeRJ,HundloeT,McDonaldGT.Institutionalconstraintstoadoptionofsocialimpactassessmentasadecision-makingandplanningtool.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1990;10:233–43.
RobertsR.Publicinvolvement:fromconsultationtoparticipation.In:VanclayF,BronsteinDA,editors.EnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessment.Toronto:JohnWileyandSons;1995.p.221–46.
RobinsonNA.Internationaltrendsinenvironmentalimpactassessment.BostonCollegeEnviron-mentalAffairs1992;19(3):589–621.
RodgersJrJL.Thecomprehensiveplanandenvironmentalmanagement.Environmentalimpactassessment,growthmanagement,andthecomprehensiveplan.Cambridge,MA:BallingerPub-lishing;1976.p.119–48.
SadlerB,JacobsP.Akeytotomorrow:ontherelationshipofenvironmentalassessmentandsustain-abledevelopment.In:JacobsP,SadlerB,editors.Sustainabledevelopmentandenvironmentalassessment:perspectivesonplanningforacommonfuture.Hull:CanadianEnvironmentalAssess-mentResearchCouncil;1990.p.3–31.
SankohOA.Makingenvironmentalimpactassessmentconvincible(sic)todevelopingcountries.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement1996;47:185–9.
SimonisUE.Beyondgrowth:elementsofsustainabledevelopment.Berlin:EditionSigma;1990.SmithLG.Impactassessmentandsustainableresourcemanagement.NewYork:LongmanScientific&Technical;1993.
SmithDB,vanderWansemM.StrengtheningEIAcapacityinAsia:environmentalimpactassess-mentinthePhilippines,IndonesiaandSriLanka.Washington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute;1995.
SRV/UNDP(SocialistRepublicofVietNam/UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).Strengthen-ingnationalcapacitiestointegratetheenvironmentintoinvestmentdecisions.Projectreport:VIE/93/G81.HaNoi:UNDP;1995.
TesterF.Asifpeoplemattermore:rethinkingimpactassessmentandinternationaldevelopment.CanadianDimension1989;23(1):16–7.
B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318317
UNCED(UnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopment).Reportoftheunitednationsconferenceonenvironmentanddevelopment.RiodeJaneiro:UnitedNations;1992[June].
UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).Environmentandinvestments.Capacity21-PhaseIIprojectproposal,project#VIE/97/007.Hanoi:UNDP,1998[April].
UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).UNDPVietNamwebsite.http://www.undp.org.vn/mlist/envirovlc/112002/post84.htm,2002,accessedMarch3,2003.
UNEP.Environmentalimpactassessment:basicproceduresfordevelopingcountries.Bangkok:UN-EP;1988.
UNEP(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme).Environmentalimpactassessmenttrainingresourcemanual.Nairobi:UNEP;1996.
UNEP/IUCN(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme)/(InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNature).RegionalworkshoponcapacitybuildinginEIAandthetriallingoftheUNEPEIAresourcemanual.Unpublishedworkshopagenda,20–24October1997,MinistryofScience,TechnologyandEnvironment,HaNoi,VietNam.
UN-ESCAP(UnitedNations-EconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific)FEnvir-onmentalimpactassessment:guidelinesforindustrialdevelopment.Bangkok:UN-ESCAP;1990.
VanclayF,BronsteinDA.Editor’spreface:thestateoftheartofimpactassessment.In:VanclayF,BronsteinDA,editors.Environmentalandsocialimpactassessment.Toronto:Wiley;1995.p.xi–xiii.
VietNamNews.VietNamNewsWebsite.http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2002-10/23/Stories/17.htm,2002,accessedmar.3,2003.
VoiceofVietnam.UNDPVietNamwebsite,http://www.undp.org.vn/mlist/envirovlc/112002/post84.htm,2002,accessedmar.3,2003.
Wandesforde-SmithG,MoreiraIVD.SubnationalgovernmentandEIAinthedevelopingworld:bureaucraticstrategyandpoliticalchangeinRioDeJaneiro,Brazil.EnvironmentalImpactAssess-mentReview1985;5:23–238.
WeblerT,KastenholzH,RennO.Publicparticipationinimpactassessment:asociallearningper-spective.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview1995;15:443–63.
WorldBank.Environmentalassessmentsourcebook:vol.I.Policies,procedures,andcross-sectoralissues.Washington,DC:TheWorldBank;1991a.
WorldBank.Environmentalassessmentsourcebook:vol.II.Sectoralguidelines.Washington,DC:WorldBank;1991b.
WorldBank.Environmentalassessmentsourcebook:vol.III.Guidelinesforenvironmentalassessmentofenergyandindustryprojects.Washington,DC:WorldBank;1991c.
WorldBank.Naturalresourceandenvironmentalinformationfordecision-making.Washington,DC:TheWorldBank;1992.
ZubairL.ChallengesforenvironmentalimpactassessmentinSriLanka.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview2001;21:469–78.
KeyInformants
InformantInformantInformantInformantInformantInformantInformantInformant
#29,#47,#48,#49,#51,#59,#60,#61,
CountryRepresentative,internationalNGO,11January,1995.ChiefAdvisor,EIAcapacity-buildingproject,10February,1998.
Researcher,universityenvironmentalresearchinstitute,12February,1998.ChiefAdvisor,EIAcapacity-buildingproject,17February,1998.Advisor,EIAcapacity-buildingproject,18and28February,1998.Chairman,nationalenvironmentalresearchprogramme,21July,1998.SocialImpactSpecialist,internationalNGO,28July,1998.
SeniorOfficial,MinistryofPlanningandInvestment,31July,1998.
318B.Doberstein/EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReview24(2004)283–318
Informant#62,Official,MinistryofPlanningandInvestment,4August,1998.Informant#63,SeniorOfficial,MinistryofTransportation,26February,1998.
Dr.DobersteinisanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofGeography,UniversityofWaterloo,Canada.Hespecialisesinresourceandenvironmentalplanningandmanagementindevelopingcountries,particularlyIndonesiaandVietNam.Dr.DobersteinreceivedhisdoctoraldegreefromtheUniversityofBritish’sColumbia’sSchoolofCommunityandRegionalPlanning.
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容