Browse all documents

Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This report analyzes the decisions made by Estonian environmental supervisors (the Ministry of the Environment and the Environmental Board) regarding the approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) programs and reports between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. The study evaluates whether these decisions align with the requirements set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act (KeHJS).

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The Ministry of the Environment and the Environmental Board act as supervisors for EIA and SEA processes, with the Ministry specifically handling cases involving the Government, the Ministry itself, or cross-border impacts.
  • Analysis of 139 documents shows that supervisors often provide general approvals without specifically documenting whether the information in EIA programs and reports is sufficient or relevant, as required by law.
  • Supervisors are generally lenient regarding procedural errors, often concluding that failures to follow notification or publication deadlines do not significantly affect the final results of the assessment.
  • The Environmental Board demonstrates more variability in the structure of its decision letters compared to the Ministry, likely due to a larger number of officials across six regional offices and a central office preparing the drafts.
  • Environmental requirements and monitoring measures are typically based directly on the recommendations provided within the EIA or SEA reports, rather than being independently determined by the supervisor.
  • The majority of analyzed documents (79%) were approved after a single review, though some complex reports required up to three formal reviews.
  • Proposed legislative changes to the KeHJS aim to abolish the 'supervisor' institution, transferring the responsibility for checking the compliance of programs and reports to the final decision-maker (the permit issuer).

Cite the original document

APA
Peterson, K. (n.d.). Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4561.pdf
Chicago
Peterson, Kaja. Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel. Stockholm Environment Institute, n.d. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4561.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Peterson |first1=Kaja |title=Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4561.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{petersonndjrelvalvaja, author = {Peterson, Kaja}, title = {{Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4561.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated