KESKKONNAMÕJU HINDAMISE PRAKTIKA JA ASJAOSALISTE OOTUSED 2010

The report identifies significant distrust and dissatisfaction among stakeholders regarding Estonia's environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes. Key issues include the perceived lack of independence of experts hired by developers, the incompetence of decision-makers (local governments), and a general decline in the protection of public interests. The study suggests that the system requires refinement, particularly in integrating SEA with planning processes and increasing the leading role of decision-makers to ensure objectivity and the protection of non-market values.

• A vast majority of stakeholders believe the current EIA/SEA system requires refinement, with 73% stating the system works but needs certain changes and 24% calling for a thorough overhaul.
• The most critical problems in the process are the initial consideration of whether an assessment is necessary and the subsequent motivation of that decision, cited by 61% of respondents.
• Decision-makers are perceived as the most incompetent party in the EIA/KSH process, with over 80% of respondents agreeing they lack necessary competence.
• There is significant concern regarding the independence of experts, as they are hired and paid directly by the developers, leading to perceptions that results are tailored to the developer's interests.
• Stakeholders identify a critical lack of post-assessment monitoring (follow-up), with nearly 90% of respondents viewing the absence of follow-up as a major problem.
• The quality of expert work is viewed as generally low, particularly in Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA/KSH) and Natura 2000 assessments.
• The role of the supervisor (Environmental Board) has shifted from leading the process in the 1990s to becoming a mere controller of documentation compliance.
• Respondents suggest that to restore trust and objectivity, the decision-maker or a supervisor should mediate the contract with the expert, rather than the developer hiring them directly.
• The average cost for a project-based EIA (KMH) is estimated between 100,000 and 150,000 kroons, while a Strategic Environmental Assessment (KSH) is higher, typically between 150,000 and 250,000 kroons.

APA

Peterson, K. (2010). KESKKONNAMÕJU HINDAMISE PRAKTIKA JA ASJAOSALISTE OOTUSED 2010. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4353.pdf

Chicago

Peterson, Kaja. KESKKONNAMÕJU HINDAMISE PRAKTIKA JA ASJAOSALISTE OOTUSED 2010. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2010. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4353.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Peterson |first1=Kaja |title=KESKKONNAMÕJU HINDAMISE PRAKTIKA JA ASJAOSALISTE OOTUSED 2010 |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=April 2010 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4353.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{peterson2010keskkonnamju, author = {Peterson, Kaja}, title = {{KESKKONNAMÕJU HINDAMISE PRAKTIKA JA ASJAOSALISTE OOTUSED 2010}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2010}, month = apr, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4353.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }