Järelvalvaja otsustused keskkonnamõju hindamise programmi ja aruande heakskiitmisel

The report analyzes 139 decisions from the Estonian Ministry of the Environment and the Environmental Board between 2010 and 2014. It finds that while supervisors generally confirm legal compliance, they often fail to document whether the information provided in EIA and SEA documents is sufficient or appropriate for decision-making. The analysis reveals a lack of consistency in the structure of approval letters and a tendency to overlook procedural errors if they are deemed not to affect the final outcome. The author recommends standardizing the structure of approval decisions and introducing specific control questions to ensure a more rigorous assessment of document quality and public participation.

• The analysis of 139 documents from 2010 to 2014 shows that supervisors often provide general assessments of compliance without evaluating if the information is sufficient or appropriate. For example, the Ministry of the Environment documented whether programs and public disclosures met legal requirements but "ei anna hinnangut, kas see on olnud piisav".
• Supervisors frequently fail to assess whether responses to public objections and suggestions are sufficiently justified, despite legal requirements. The report states that the supervisor "reeglina ei anna hinnangut, kas avalikustamise käigus esitatud küsimustele, vastuväidetele ja ettepanekutele programmis ja aruandes on ekspert piisava põhjalikkusega vastanud".
• Supervisors tend to be lenient regarding procedural errors, often concluding that such breaches do not affect the final results. For instance, the Environmental Board found that failures to notify the public of the start of an SEA process were "informeeriv kui sisuline tegevus" and did not impact the results.
• In practice, supervisors rely heavily on the recommendations provided within the EIA and SEA reports themselves to determine environmental requirements and monitoring measures, which underscores the critical importance of report quality.
• The majority of documents (79%) were approved after a single review, though some complex cases required up to three formal reviews. The report notes that formal decisions for returning documents are fewer than they should be because of "mitteformaalseid kohtumisi ja läbirääkimisi" and email exchanges.
• Proposed legislative changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act (KeHJS) aim to abolish the 'supervisor' institution, transferring the responsibility for checking compliance to the decision-maker (the entity issuing the activity permit or establishing the strategic 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} }