Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring

This 2019 report, commissioned by the Estonian Ministry of the Environment and conducted by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Tallinn and the Environmental Law Centre (KÕK), evaluates the effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/KMH) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA/KSH) processes in Estonia. Based on 78 questionnaires and five focus group discussions, the study identifies systemic strengths, such as the licensing of lead experts, and critical bottlenecks, including conflicting perceptions of the expert's role, prolonged procedural durations, and challenges in establishing realistic alternatives.

• There is a fundamental conflict regarding the role of the EIA expert: while interest groups and decision-makers expect the expert to be a balancer of interests and a seeker of compromise, experts view themselves as consultants acting in the interests of the developer.
• The licensing system for EIA lead experts is widely viewed as a strength, providing quality assurance for developers and decision-makers and motivating experts to maintain high standards.
• EIA procedures are frequently perceived as excessively long and inefficient; 39% of respondents reported that some processes can take 3 years or more.
• A significant bottleneck in the EIA process is the time-consuming requirement to obtain and address positions from all relevant agencies before the report is made public.
• Decision-makers are often reluctant to make unpopular decisions based on EIA results due to political pressure or a desire to avoid court disputes, leading them to expect experts to resolve value conflicts within the report itself.
• The formulation, analysis, and prioritization of alternatives are cited as major challenges in both EIA and SEA, with a tendency for assessments to be reactive to the developer's vision rather than proactive.
• There is strong support for making Natura 2000 assessments more flexible, specifically allowing them to be conducted as separate procedures when a full EIA or SEA is not required.
• In SEA processes, there is a discrepancy between legal requirements and decision-maker expectations; local governments often expect SEAs to include socio-economic impact assessments, which are not the primary focus of environmental experts.
• The funding model for SEAs is generally considered objective and reasonable when funded by the state or local government, whereas the direct financial link between developers and experts in EIA and detailed planning SEAs is viewed with more skepticism.
• Public participation is no longer seen as a major obstacle; instead, there is a noted shift toward social media (Facebook, Twitter) as a primary venue for active community discussion and feedback.

APA

-1, Peterson, K., & Vahtrus, S. (2019). Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/kmh-uuringu-aruanne-12-12-2019.pdf

Chicago

-1, Kaja Peterson, and Siim Vahtrus. Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2019. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/kmh-uuringu-aruanne-12-12-2019.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=-1 |last2=Peterson |first2=Kaja |last3=Vahtrus |first3=Siim |title=Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2019 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/kmh-uuringu-aruanne-12-12-2019.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{12019keskkonnamju, author = {-1 and Peterson, Kaja and Vahtrus, Siim}, title = {{Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2019}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/kmh-uuringu-aruanne-12-12-2019.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }