Keskkonnamõju hindamise uuring

The study identifies key strengths in the Estonian EIA/SEA system, such as the licensing of lead experts and the role of assessments in highlighting environmental considerations. However, it reveals significant challenges, including conflicting views on the expert's role, lengthy procedures due to bureaucratic coordination, and the reluctance of decision-makers to make unpopular decisions based on assessment results. The report also notes a need for more flexible Natura 2000 assessments and better integration of socio-economic impacts in strategic assessments.

• Stakeholders generally value the role of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in identifying environmental effects and ensuring they are not overlooked during development planning.
• The licensing system for EIA lead experts is viewed positively as it provides quality assurance for developers and decision-makers and motivates experts to maintain high standards.
• There is a fundamental conflict regarding the role of the EIA expert: while experts see themselves as consultants for the developer, interest groups and decision-makers expect them to act as neutral mediators of different interests.
• EIA procedures are often perceived as too long and inefficient, with some cases lasting 3 years or more. This is attributed to the time-consuming process of obtaining positions from various agencies and the reluctance of decision-makers to make unpopular decisions.
• The definition and analysis of alternatives are considered one of the most problematic aspects of both EIA and SEA, often limited to comparing the developer's vision with the current situation.
• 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 Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), there is a recurring expectation from local governments that the assessment should include socio-economic impacts, although this exceeds the legal scope of the SEA and the expertise of environmental experts.
• The funding model for EIA, where the developer pays the expert directly, is generally seen as functional, though some interest groups argue it compromises objectivity.

APA

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

Peterson, Kaja, 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=Peterson |first1=Kaja |last2=Vahtrus |first2=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{peterson2019keskkonnamju, author = {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} }