Ana Cravo

IST 2010

EIA BEST PRACTICE IN PORTUGAL: MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO

SUSTAINABILITY

Ana Cravo and Maria do Rosrio Partidrio

Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1 1111 Lisbon, Portugal
ana.cravo@ist.utl.pt; mrp@civil.ist.utl.pt

Abstract
This paper describes an innovative method for determining the contributions to sustainability in EIA practice, using
examples of best practice of EIA in Portugal. In the literature, the lack of works that study and focus this issue is
enormous. Gibson et al. (2005) criteria for sustainability assessment were adopted to create a Sustainability
Assessment tool to evaluate case studies of EIA best practice. The application of this tool is sub-divided in two main
parts: in the first part the local economic, social and environmental contextual characteristics are analyzed to allow
the interpretation of the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria. In the second part, the EIA documentation of each case study
is assessed against a framework of subcriteria derived from the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria. The results
demonstrated that the Portuguese EIA has achieved remarkable contributions to sustainability. These contributions
do not represent yet the full potential that they could achieve but are already quite meaningful. The research
developed intended to be a contribution to fulfill the gaps in the literature concerning the real contribution of EIA to
sustainability, particularly in relation to the situation in Portugal, while it also reveals and reinforces EIA as an
important tool for sustainability.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; sustainability; Portugal; best practice

1. Introduction
EIA is one of the best assessment tools used and applied all over the world. Formally it consists in the amount of the
activities and procedures that allow the decision making to take into consideration the environmental impacts of a
determined project before it has been approved. The advantages of EIA are far more important than just the
improvement in the project conception and the allowing the decision making to be more informed and participated.
Indeed, its own definition, its purpose and the principles that guide EIA are perfectly matching the core concern of
sustainable development: to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future needs. This role of EIA is
discussed in several published works.
Several authors like Weaver et al. (2008) and Cashmore et al. (2007) have indentified the contributions of EIA to
sustainability: the improvement of knowledge by the technical and scientific knowledge achieved in the fieldworks,

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

actualization of outdated information, the conception of more efficient projects, improving governance by
detecting flaws and gaps in the legislation and, the last, the values and attitude changing by increasing the public in
the project. But, even if these benefits and contributions to sustainability are known, few investigations have been
done to study and verify these outcomes in their full range. This is why it is necessary to start a work that seeks to
identify all the contributions of EIA and relate them to practical outcomes. Such an investigation could be also very
important to the Portuguese reality, where the lack of works is enormous. The knowledge gain by such a work
would corroborate the contributions identified so far in the literature and eventually identify news paths of EIA
contributions to sustainability.
With the previous information in mind, this article was performed as a master thesis on Environmental Engineering
and its main purpose is to analyze how the EIA can, and has been, contributing to sustainability in Portugal. Working
on EIA best cases, we pretend to analyze their contributions to sustainability and the lost opportunities in this path.
In order to achieve these, it was developed an analytic framework tool that applied to EIA best practice case studies
would allow identifying its best contributions to sustainability based on the work of Gibson et al. (2005). The article
concludes with an examination of the results and final conclusions.

2. Literature review
As the concept of sustainability had become spread worldwide, assessing the contributions of plans, programs or
measures to achieve sustainability has recently garnered more interest. The family of tools with this purpose was
named Sustainability Assessment and it was born from the work performed on EIA and SEA studies. Under the
definition of Sustainability Assessment is it possible to find a wide variety of concepts in the literature: Integrated
Assessment, 3-E Impact Assessment, Extended Impact Assessment, Assessment for sustainability, etc, etc.
The majority of these concepts reinforce the idea of triple-bottom line perspective, where the social, economic and
environmental issues are addressed separately in order to achieve sustainability. Nonetheless, despite the success
of this simples idea, some authors have abandoned this perspective because of its reductionist and simplified
approach considers sustainability as separated in different boxes, neglecting the connections between the boxes
and not truly describing real problems. Assessing sustainability should be based on an approach that is able to
consider all the linkages and sustainability should be expressed as a status that can be achieved through
fundamental requirements instead of triple-bottom goals. Gibson (2001) defends that this approach highlights the
interconnections between the boxes of triple-bottom lines connections avoiding conflicts and trade-offs between
them. Despite the increasing attention to the last perspective, until today, there hasnt been found a standard of
sustainability requirements (or principles, as they are usually called) that could be used without warnings. The worst
difficulty to build such a sustainability reference basis is that this set of principles should take into account the
complex interconnections of sustainability, integrating the local context characteristics.
Gibson et al. (2005) created their own model, divided in eight simple criteria (presented on Box 1). According to
them the generic assessment criteria not only cover all core sustainability requirements, but force thinking across
the boundaries between the three usual pillar categories, and draw explicit attention to the concerns most
commonly ignored or marginalized in conventional decision-making (Gibson 2001). Several other authors use this
set of criteria in their work such as Hacking & Guthrie 2007, Weaver et al. 2008, Morrison-Saunders & Hodgson
2009 and Winfield et al. 2010. It can be considered one of the best new concepts of sustainability assessment.

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

Box 1 - Integrative generic criteria for sustainability assessments (from Gibson et al. 2005)
1. Socio-ecological system integrity Build human-ecological relations to establish and maintain the longterm integrity of socio-biophysical systems and protect the irreplaceable life support functions upon which
human as well as ecological well-being depends.
2. Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity Ensure that everyone and every community has enough for a
decent life and that everyone has opportunities to seek improvements in ways that do not compromise future
generations possibilities for sufficiency and opportunity
3. Intragenerational equity Ensure that sufficiency and effective choices for all are pursued in ways that
reduce dangerous gaps in sufficiency and opportunity (and health, security, social recognition, political
influence, etc.) between the rich and the poor.
4. Intergenerational equity Favour present options and actions that are most likely to preserve or enhance
the opportunities and capabilities of future generations to live sustainably.
5. Resource maintenance and efficiency Provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihood for all
while reducing threats to the long-term integrity of socio-ecological systems by reducing extractive damage,
avoiding waste and cutting overall material and energy use per unit of benefit.
6. Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance Build the capacity, motivation and habitual
inclination of individuals, communities and other collective decision-making bodies to apply sustainability
requirements through more open and better informed deliberations, greater attention to fostering reciprocal
awareness and collective responsibility and more integrated use of administrative, market, customary and
personal decision-making practices.
7. Precaution and adaptation Respect uncertainty, avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or
irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, plan to learn, design for surprise, and manage for
adaptation.
8. Immediate and long-term integration Apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually
supportive benefits and multiple gains.

EIA is a well-established environmental management tool with the purpose to inform previously the decisionmaking about the positive and negative consequences of an action, considering its more viable alternative and the
measures to mitigate the negative impacts of that action (Partidrio & Jesus, 2003). As a consequent of EIA, the final
decision-making about a project has to pay attention to the environmental issues beyond the economic and social
issues. When considering that according to Sheate et al. (2001) the essential pre-requisite for moving towards
sustainability is to effectively integrate the environment into the decision-making, it is easy to recognize that EIA
has a great potential to achieve this. There are also another EIA characteristics that can increase its partnership with
sustainability. Several authors like Weaver et al. (2008) and Cashmore et al. (2007) have identified the contributions
of EIA to sustainability: the improvement of knowledge by the technical and scientific knowledge achieved in the
fieldworks, actualization of outdated information, the conception of more efficient projects, increasing governance
by detecting flaws and gaps in the legislation and, the last, the values and attitude changing by raising public
awareness of projects. But, even if these benefits and contributions to sustainability are known, few investigations
have been made to study and verify these outcomes in their full range.
In the case of Portugal, the connection between EIA and sustainability is present in the Portuguese EIA legislation as
EIA is described as one privileged way of promoting sustainable development. Applied since 1990, EIA was one of
the most important environmental management tools used in the development of projects in Portugal. Authors like
Jesus & Coutinho (2008) have contributed to spread the importance of EIA in this country through their work in the
Portuguese Association of Environmental Impacts (the local representative of IAIA International Association On

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

Impact Assessment). One of their last work pretended to determine the best EIA practices in Portugal, contributing
to reinforcing the belief in its importance. Using a set of six basic criteria, they pretended to identify case studies
that reveal any of the criteria and thus can be classified as EIA best pratice. The nine case studies obtained showed
that there is a big potential in Portugal for EIA best practice. Nonetheless, the importance of this work has indirectly
importance on sustainability field study as it is possible to notice that the set of criteria chosen by the authors is
convergence with the IAIA Best Practice Principles (the principal set of principles of worldwide EIA) and, surprisingly,
Gibson et al. (2005) criteria, as shown in the Table 1.
Table 1 Convergence between the Jesus & Coutinho (2008) criteria, IAIA Best Practice Principles and
Gibson et al. (2005) criteria
Jesus & Coutinho
(2008) criteria
a. Resources savings
b. Prevention of
conflicts
c. Avoid the
construction of
environmental harmful
projects
d. Adoption of the
alternative solution
e. Triple-bottom Line
Benefits

IAIA Best practice principles (IAIA 1999)

Gibson et al. (2005) criteria

Practical; Cost-effective; Efficient; Adaptive.

Resource maintenance and efficiency

Purposive; Practical; Relevant; Focused;

Adaptive; Integrated

Precaution and adaptation

Purposive; Practical; Relevant; Focused;

Transparent; Systematic.

Socio-ecological system integrity;

Precaution and adaptation

Rigorous; Practical; Relevant; Focused;

Adaptive; Transparent; Systematic.

Precaution and adaptation; Socioecological system integrity; Resource

maintenance and efficiency

Integrated.

Immediate and long-term integration

With this table it is possible to notice the relation between EIA (and its best practice) and the contribution to
sustainability, as previously reported. This aspect was not an intended purpose of Jesus & Coutinho (2008) when
they created their set of criteria, which reinforces even better this linkage.

3. Methodology: Sustainability Assessment Tool

In order to achieve the main purpose of this work, it was created a methodological tool that could be applied to
multiple case studies. The Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT), as it was named, consists in a structured framework
of evaluation of the sustainability outcomes of EIA cases. It is divided in two evaluation segments, with different
purposes but based in the same origin the sustainability criteria.
So, the first and the most important step in the designing of the SAT is the choice of a set of sustainability criteria
that is able to be a fundamental basis for sustainability assessment foundation. We chose the eight criteria of
Gibson et al. (2005) as they are one of the most comprehensive and integrative of the interrelations within
sustainability (refusing the triple bottom line conception). Because of this, they are one of the most used and
referred in the literature concerning the Sustainability Assessment. These are the evaluation basis of the SAT and
because of that its main core (Box 1). The next step in the SAT consists in adapting the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria
so that they fit the case studies and therefore becoming able to be to evaluate them. There are two procedures:

1. To define the full potential that each Gibson et al. (2005) criteria has in the proper case study, it is necessary to
understand the full range of challenges and opportunities that local sustainability requires. So background data

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

on the geographical, economical, environmental and social features of each case study were collected using
documental research.

2. In order to determine the practical application of each one of the Gibson et al. (2005) criterion in each case
study, it was built a framework consisting of each Gibson et al. (2005) criterion translated in several simple
questions (named subcriteria) that covered all the sustainability requirements (Table 2). This framework was
meant to be applied to all the EIA documents of each case study through their content analysis.

Table 2 Gibson et al. 2005 criteria and the subcriteria adopted in the Sustainability Assessment Tool Framework
Gibson et al. (2005) criteria and subcriteria created from them
1.1 The ecosystem goods and services utilized by the local communities are protected?
1.2 The project values the services of ecosystems degraded/unimproved by the local
communities?
1.Socioecological
system integrity

1.3 The project stimulates the local communities to produce wealth from the natural
resources without its degradation?
1.4 The ecosystem resilience is considered when defining conservation measures to the
affected ecosystem?
1.5 The local ecosystem will be in a better situation after the project conclusion comparing to
the time of beginning of the project?
2.1 The project doesnt affect irremediably the health of local communities?
2.2 The project will create directly or indirectly stable jobs to the local communities?
2.3 The feeling of security is increased?

2.Livelihood
sufficiency and
opportunity

3.Intrageneratio
nal equity

2.4 The project will increase the social cohesion of local communities?
(Morrison-Saunders & Hodgson 2009)
2.5 The project supports the cultural and artistic development of the local communities?
(ENDS 2007)
2.6 The project creates new opportunities in the communities?
2.7 By the end of the project could it be granted that the minimum livelihood resources will
be available to the local communities?
3.1 The project allows equal opportunities to create wealth between upper and lower income
segments of the population? (Winfield et al. 2010)
3.2 The benefits and opportunities generated by the project are equally distributed in the
local communities? (Winfield et al. 2010)
3.3 The gaps in the access to opportunities among genders, age groups, regions, and
indigenous/non indigenous people are reduced? (Winfield et al. 2010)

4.Intergerational
equity

4.1 Is the project needed more now than it might be in the future?
(Gibson 2006 b)
4.2 The construction of the project in the present will have effects on the ability of the
populations to deal with new future possibilities and problems?
(Gibson 2006 b)
4.3 The project will improve the options for future generations?
(Winfield et al. 2010)
4.4 The environmental benefits and burdens will be equally distributed in the future?
(Winfield et al. 2010)
4.5 By the end of the project, the future generations of the affected communities will be in a
better situation (social, environmental and economical) than they would be without the
project? (Gibson 2006 b)
5.1 The impacts of raw materials extraction will be avoided?

5. Resource
maintenance and
efficiency

5.2 The waste generated is avoided, valued and/or recycled?

5.3 The project has features that increase its energy efficiency and autonomy? (Winfield et al.
2010)

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

5.4 The project will be reducing the materials, energy and ecosystem services demands?
(Winfield et al. 2010)
5.5 The project uses local raw materials and products?

6. Socioecological civility
and democratic
governance

5.6 The use of resources doesnt affect its future utilization?

6.1 The local communities have an active participation in the definition of solutions to the
project problems?
6.2 The project increases the conscience of the local communities towards their biophysical
environment and their role as protectors of those systems?
6.3 The traditional empirical knowledge is used in the project? (IAIA 1999)
6.4 The local communities have any special role in the EIA follow-up measures of the project?

7.Precaution and
adaptation

7.1 The uncertain questions, difficulties and technical or knowledge gaps are considerate in
the project?
7.2 The project will avoid and/or reduced uncertain but possibly significant damages (e.g.
climate change impacts, health damages, etc.)?
(Winfield et al. 2010)
7.3 The project develops a perspective of Plan to Learn in the areas where the knowledge is
smaller?
7.4 The project has the ability to adapt to changing circumstances including externally
generated ones (e.g. environmental change, economic recession or growth, structural
economic change affecting electricity demand, political risks, policy shifts, geopolitical
events)? (Winfield et al. 2010)
7.5 The project implements an adaptive management?

8.Immediate and
long-term
integration

All the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria were applied in the project?

To measure the application of each subcriterion, and therefore the projects contribution to sustainability, it is used
an alphabetic scale (from A to C) where the A level means a great performance and C a mean performance of the
project to apply the sustainability efforts, based on the EIA information previously analyzed. For the last Gibson et
al. (2005) criterion, it is used a numeric system which measure the amount of criteria achieved in the project. This
system counts the A and B levels achieved in the subcriteria performance and weighted this value with trade-off
factors because of the different distribution of subcriteria in each criterion. The best value is seven (because there
are seven criteria apart from the eight criterion) and the worst is zero.
4. Case studies
In this paper we chose to use as a source of case studies the work of Jesus & Coutinho (2008). This work provides a
group of nine case studies which show the best EIA practices in Portugal. As said previously, these case studies are
examples of EIA Portuguese best practice and therefore fit the purposes of this article. From that group it was
chosen to analyze the first four cases, presented on the Table 3:

Table 3 Characteristics of case studies

Case study 1 Serra de
Wind Farm
Development
characteristics

Wind farm
contains 24
turbines

Bornes

that
wind

Case study 2 Paiva River

captation

Case study 3 -

Case study 4 -

water

Railway connection
to the Aveiro sea
port

Videmonte
Farm

Wind

Water supply system

with a dam

Platform that allows

freight transport from
cargo ships to railway

Wind
farm
contains 16
turbines

that
wind

Ana Cravo

Location

Serra de
Bragana

Notable
environmental
constrains
EIA
best
practice
description

Bornes,

IST 2010

Paiva River (Oporto

and Aveiro)

Aveiro

Videmonte, Guarda

Special
Protection
Area, Special Area of
Conservation

Special
Area
Conservation

of

Special
Protection
Area, Special Area of
Conservation

Natural Park, Special

Area of Conservation

The EIA final decision

about this project
demanded to search
for a new solution
for
the
electric
connection
that
would avoid crossing
the local protected
areas.
This
was
accomplished, with
economic benefits
(shorter path and
therefore,
shorter
costs)
and
environmental
protection.

The EIS of this project

didnt justify the
importance of the
project
when
considering
the
enormous
environmental
impacts, leading to a
negative
final
decision. So, the EIA
of
this
project
avoided
the
construction of a
project with high
environmental
impacts and not
properly developed.

The conflicts between

this
project
and
already
existent
infrastructures
detected in the early
stages of the EIA lead
to a later project
alteration. The next
project
accommodated and
solved this conflict.

The
public
consultation during
the EIA process of a
Wind farm located
next to this project
detected the conflicts
between Wind farms
and paragliding. So
the EIA process of
Videmonte
Wind
farm addressed this
conflict, saving the
local practice of this
sport.

5. Results
The application of the SAT, as it was previously described, produced an important amount of results which are
meaningful to the purpose of this paper. The results obtained in the first part of the SAT, which pretended to
analyze the local characteristics and understand how the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria could be applied in that
context are presented on Table 4 in the Annexes. Next we will analyze the final results of this investigation.
5.1 Contributions to sustainability
Table 5 in the annexes provides the positive results obtained with the SAT application to the case studies. These
outcomes resulted from the subcriteria that were classified as an A level of contribution and considered somehow
the local characteristics described in the first step of the SAT and were thus considered to be notable aspects to
sustainability. As it was said previously, the eight Gibson et al. (2005) criteria application analysis had a different
way of analysis: it was used a numeric system. This last result was presented on Table 6 in the annexes.

It is possible to notice that all the case studies integrated, at least, three of the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria. For
cases 1 and 4, one outcome had contributed to two Gibson et al. (2005) criteria due to its wide integration of
sustainability aspects.

About the first Gibson et al. (2005) criterion, Socio-ecological system integrity, it can be classified as having one of
the most difficult applications through EIA. Contributing to the maintenance of relations between the natural
systems and the local people can be a tough task for the owner of a project due to several reasons. Because EIA
doesnt require this consideration (its main focus is on avoiding and minimizing environmental impacts and not to
deal with their relation with local people), in order to apply it, the owner have to consider an approach extra-EIA,
meaning that it would be more expensive and time-consuming than an ordinary EIA. Also the direct gains to the
project owner through this consideration are hard to measure directly and, even if this preoccupation is

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

concretized, not all the people know how to differentiate the real sustainability concern from green-washing or
corporative publicity if they are not properly informed. These reasons could explain why only two of the case
studies (case 1 and 4, the wind farm projects) had demonstrated some preoccupation through local socio-ecological
systems. These contributions have to analyzed knowing that they came due to external obligations (the EIA final
decision on the case 1 and the public hearing on case 2) and, for both of them, the Portuguese legislation about
wind farms profits sharing with local entities. Either way, these contributions are meaningful and optimistic.

For the second, third and fourth sustainability criteria, the outcomes are more positive. This happens because they
are mainly related to the social concern, paying attention to the local people needs, livelihood conditions, creation
of opportunities for present and future generations, etc. This social considerations are part of the EIA process
(compulsory on the Portuguese legislation) and, usually, they are well accepted by people and thus well valued.
Analyzing the case studies outcomes, we can see that all of them considered social aspects but only few have
present a solid approach: cases 1 and 4. These wind farms projects created new financial opportunities to the local
people (by the new incomes from the local resources). On the other hand there is the Paiva River project (case 2)
where the high environmental impacts will not guarantee that future generations have enough local resources
(even if its one of the projects with high variety and quantity of social measures). The worst performance is on the
number 3 case where the social preoccupations are not enough when considering the high population density.
One interesting fact related to this social concern is that during the EIS document analysis phase, it was noted that
the description of the rural case study areas (cases 1, 3 and 4) tended to be very pessimist, reinforcing the idea that
the rural populations were small, spread, mainly with old inhabitants and they would disappear in a few years.
Therefore it was not necessary a special concern on the future of these populations. Nonetheless, in the
sustainability dimension step, when it was consulted more information on the local characteristics, it was noted
that this facts on the EIS were not precise. In fact, even if the rural areas were in a high risk of deserfication, these
populations are generally very united and strong social bonds. For instance, in the case of Videmonte wind farm
there is a local small traditional dancing group that has of the few local inhabitants! So the project perspective
should be more realistic and avoid dramatizing the social scenario, creating new opportunities to these people.

The Resource maintenance and efficiency criteria can be considered one of the most basic concerns present on the
EIA process. The preoccupation of creating a project that doesnt harm the local livelihood matches almost the main
purpose of EIA. Apart from the environmental and social benefits, it also has benefits to the project owner such as
the decrease of the owner environmental responsibilities (fewer impacts, less obligations) and a smaller economic
long-tem burden as it often requires the use of brand new technologies. The majority of the case studies showed
some considerations of this type as clean technology in the wind farms and the reduction of greenhouse gases in
the case 3.

The sixth criterion, Socio-ecological civility and democratic governance, strengthened the idea of the importance
to connect people to the project and vice-versa. Two of the case studies were able to achieve this, creating special
measures to increase the populations awareness about the project. But one of the biggest difficulties that the case
studies faced to achieve this was that this communication process needs to be effective, taking into consideration
the local characteristics and not imposing a standard method. For instance, on case 3 (Videmonte wind farm) it was
created a public attendance office on the construction site which was never used (even if local people reported

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

orally some complains to the construction supervisor) this measure was too formal and didnt take into account
the rural characteristics (and therefore their preference to more informal communication systems).

About the seventh criterion related to the Prevention and Precaution, it is fundamental to achieve sustainability as
there are always uncertain aspects that could affect the projects future and therefore need to be analyzed. Without
this approach, sustainability can be compromised. Because of this importance, it is normal that this preoccupation is
present on the EIA, as it is compulsory (on the Portuguese legislation) to be studied and presented on the EIS. Even
so, only one project defined a notable contribution, related to avoid the birds mortality increasing due to the
construction of the electric connection of the wind farm (case 1).

Finally, the eight criterion of Gibson et al. (2005) requires the application of all the previous criteria. Looking to
Table 6, it is possible to see that both the wind farms cases had the best performance meaning that they applied a
wide approach to apply all the criteria at once. This result also provides a remarkable fact when compared to the
number of notable contributions to sustainability: therefore, it is possible to realize that the better the application
of all the subcriteria (meaning fewer points on the eight criteria system) the higher the number of notable
contributions to sustainability. This fact means that this is the way to guide a project towards sustainability:
applying all the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria at once. The results provided by the eight criterion lead us to the
analysis of the more negative aspects of the case studies, known as lost opportunities.
5.2 Lost opportunities
There are some aspects that none of the case studies was able to consider, and these subcriteria are therefore the
biggest challenges to overtake in the future. They are: subcriterion 1.4 (study of the resilience of the natural
systems), 6.3 (use of traditional knowledge), 7.1 (consideration of uncertain questions), 7.3 (adoption of the Plan to
Learn approach), 7.4 (consider an adaptation to changing circumstances) and 7.5 (applying an adaptive
management).

The resilience of the ecosystems is an important study matter to be consider in order to achieve more efficient and
relevant environmental compensation measures, so that it could improve the project performance to minimize
impacts. Unfortunately none of the cases considered this as it requires extra-ordinary studies and therefore its
seen as a time and money consuming effort. For the use of traditional knowledge it should be expected at first to be
fully applied in these case studies since it is one aspect present on the IAIA Best Practice Principles (IAIA 1999) on its
Interdisciplinary principle. As the case studies are EIA best practice, it should be expected but unfortunately this was
not what the result showed. Apart from this, this concern is strengthened by the rural characteristics of three of the
case studies, hence where the empirical and traditional information is more available and, at the same time, more
threatened by the desertification. The use of this knowledge could be crucial for the right management of local
ecosystems, contributing to their sustainability (Pereira et al., 2009). Finally, the Prevention and Precaution aspects
were neglected by all the case studies, with negative consequences (as it was said last chapter).

6. Conclusions and future work

This work had the purpose to study and determine the contribution of EIA best practice to sustainability, in the case
of Portugal.

10

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

The review of the literature in the areas of concern EIA and Sustainability Assessment showed that there is still a
lot of work to be done about the (empirical) verification of the contributions that EIA can bring to sustainability,
especially in case of Portugal. We verified that the convergence between the assessment criteria of the success
cases in Portuguese EIA by Jesus & Coutinho (2008), the best practice principles by IAIA (1999) and Gibson et al.
(2005) criteria showed that the success cases of Jesus & Coutinho (2008) are cases of EIA best practice and also
their contribution to sustainability can be assessed using Gibson et al. (2005) criteria. Therefore, this last set of
criteria was considered to be the assessment reference in the methodology of sustainability assessment. The
application of the Sustainability Assessment Tool built based on these criteria to four Portuguese case studies
(examples of EIA best practice) was able to produce impressive results.
On the first place, we concluded that the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria have an excellent application in the
sustainability assessment through EIA. Their brief, short, wide and simple content allowed to design a group of
subcriteria (based on these criteria) that worked as an assessment tool truly functional and practical and totally
suitable to EIA. About the practical outcomes, the case studies showed better consideration of the social issues
(criteria 2, 3 and 4) and the maintenance of local natural resources. In fact, none of the cases was able to achieve all
the Gibson et al. (2005) criteria at once, demonstrating special concerns to some aspects but neglecting others.
Even so, it was concluded that the best way to achieve more contributions to sustainability is to try to apply all the
criteria at once because this approach is more effective. Finally, the results showed that some aspects as ecosystem
resilience, use of traditional knowledge and precaution and adaptive approach are still neglected by all case studies.
These are the weaknesses of the projects as they aim to contribute to sustainability.
Despite the better or worse perfection on the results obtained, there are some positive facts to conclude: this work
decreases the gaps detected on the literature about the real contribution to sustainability and also it is an
innovative perspective nationally and worldwide. Therefore, the methodological approach followed in this article is
a marking contribution to spread and reinforcing the believe on EIA as an important tool in the search of
sustainability. This work allows to trace new paths to the sustainable world.
Therefore it was possible to realize that applying EIA best practice is an importance path to the effective
contribution to sustainability. The approach that all the EIA practitioners should take is to demand the excellence
practices of EIA (for instance considering the IAIA best practice principles) and, by that, can increase the project
towards sustainability. Betting on EIA best practice is a win-win relation, with multiple gains.
Future work should focus on the weaknesses of this article. On the first place, obtaining all the subcriteria based on
the Gibson et al. (2005) work was a subjective process based on the perception of the author of these criteria. It is
recognized that some aspects could be omitted and so improving this step can be helpful and pertinent. About the
case studies, it is useful to achieve more and better results by extending this work to other case studies analyzed by
Jesus & Coutinho (2008). On the other hand, each case study is worth an individual and deep investigation on each
one, with more detailed studies. For instance, field works that analyze new local opportunities and study the time
evolution of the project and its contribution to sustainability.

11

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

References
Cashmore M., Bond, A., Cobb, D. (2007). The Contribution of Environmental Assessment to Sustainable
Development: Toward a Richer Empirical Understanding. Environmental Management 40, pp. 516-530.
Gibson, R. (2001). Sustainability appraisal for sustainability-based environmental assessment decision criteria and
implications
for
determining
significance
in
environmental
assessment.
Available
at:
th
http://www.sustreport.org/downloads/ (Last access on May 15 of 2010)
Gibson, R., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., Whitelaw, G. (2005). Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Processes and
Applications, Earthscan Publications Limited, London, UK.
Hacking T. & Guthrie P. (2007). A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and
Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, pp. 73 -89.
IAIA (1999). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. Available
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf (Last access
nd
September 22 2010)

at:
on

Jesus, J. & Coutinho, M. (2008). EIA in Portugal: a collection of success case studies. IAIA09 Conference
th
Proceedings, 29th Annual Conference of the IAIA, 16 to 22th Of May 2009, Accra, Ghana. Available at:
nd
www.ua.pt/idad/readobject.aspx?obj=13863 (Last access on September 22 2010)
Morrison-Saunders, A. & Hodgson, N. (2009). Applying Sustainability Principles in Practice: Guidance for Assessing
th
Individual Proposals. IAIA09 Conference Proceedings, 29th Annual Conference of the IAIA, 16 to 22th Of May
2009,
Accra,
Ghana.
Available
at:
http://www.iaia.org/iaia09ghana/documents/cs/CS1-4_MorrisonSaunders&Hodgson_Applying_Sustainability_Principles.pdf (Last access on June 21th 2010)
Partidrio. M. R. & Jesus, J. (2003). Fundamentos de Avaliao de Impacte Ambiental, Universidade Aberta, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Sheate, W., Dagg, S., Richardson J., Aschemann R., Palerm J., Steen U. (2001). SEA and Integration of the
Environment into Strategic Decision-Making - Main Executive Summary. Imperial College Consultants (ICON).
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-studies-and-reports/sea_integration_xsum.pdf (Last access
th
on May 6 2010).
Weaver, A., Pope J., Morrison-Saunders A., Lochner P., (2008). Contributing to sustainability as an environmental
impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(2), pp. 91-98
Winfield, M., Gibson, R. B., Markvat, T., Gaudreau, K., Taylor, J. (2010). Implications of sustainability assessment for
electricity system design: the case of the Ontario Power Authoritys integrated power system plan, Energy policy
38, pp. 4115-4126.

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

Table 4 Sustainability dimension of the case studies

Gibson
et
(2005) criteria

Sustainability dimension of each case study

al.

1.Socio-ecological
system integrity

2.Livelihood
sufficiency and
opportunity

Case study 1

Case study 2

Case study 3

Case study 4

Special attention should be paid

to the abandoned local forest,
especially oaks. Increase the
valorization of these systems
through certification of local
products as acorn and oak wood.

Increase agriculture according to its

local shape (terrace in small areas, and
complemented with cattle raising).

Due to the high environmental sensibility,

the local productive systems should be
sustainable managed: the salt extraction,
traditional phishing (called Arte Xvega)
and agriculture.

Other activities as hunting,

mushroom collection and sport
activities as paragliding should be
incentivized.

Keeping the relation between people

and the Paiva river through fishing and
sport activities.

Local activities such as agriculture, cattle

raising, artisanal cheese production and
hunting should be kept and stimulated,
trying to increase their profits.
Abandoned practices should be retaken
like the ones that gave local
communities names: wine production on
Vide entre vinhas (Vide between
vineyards) and restoring the willows on
Salgueirais (Willows) due to the
presence of a river.

- Increase local infrastructures

- Increase local infrastructures

- Increase the transport to closer

cities

- Professional training on local

resources sustainable exploitation.

Increase the opportunities related to the

proximity to the Aveiro mouth, exploring
the local potential and relating the local
populations to this.

Decrease the dependence of local

populations on only one productive
system, complementing them with other
activities.

Recuperate the local forest systems

with oaks and Atlantic bushes.

- Create new jobs apart from

agriculture

Increase the opportunities to young

people.

- Contribute to social bonding

through local group practices

3.Intragenerational
equity

4.
Intergenerational
equity

Discuss and decide the destiny

and way of application of the
local incomes

Support local groups such as traditional

dancing and local activities like river
beaches and paragliding.
All the previous measures

It should be taken measures to guarantee

opportunities to the local people to
develop new professional skills.
All the previous measures

Make sure that local developments

profits are equally applied in order to
beneficiate all the inhabitants.

13

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

5. Resource
maintenance and
efficiency

Coordinating the local development with the local systems

6. Socio-ecological
civility and
democratic
governance
7. Precaution and
adaptation

Local populations need to be informed and have a role on defining local projects, with communication systems properly adequated to them.

Identify risks and areas of less knowledge, communicating these facts to the populations.

Table 5 Notable contributions to sustainability from the case studies

Gibson et al. (2005) criteria

1.Socio-ecological system integrity

2.Livelihood sufficiency and

opportunity

Case study 1

Case study 2

Case study 3 -

Case study 4

Serra de Bornes Wind farm

Paiva River water captation

Railway connection to the Aveiro

sea port

Videmonte Wind farm

The project avoided crossing the

local protected areas, allowing
saving these sensible ecosystems.

Renting unproductive terrains,

used by the wind farm, allows to
create wealth from the local
abandoned
natural resources,
creating new ways to reduce the
dependency of local populations
from agriculture and increase the
local and regional economy.

The project was located to allow

the local practice of paragliding.

The profits from renting the

terrains used by the wind farm
allow creating new ways of income
to the local populations and
contributing to the local and
regional economy.
The project contributes to improve
local
roads,
reduces
social
insecurity, creates cultural and
leisure activities and generates
employment and professional
education to the local population.

The
project
creates
new
opportunities
to
the
local
populations related to employment
(directly and indirectly).

14

Ana Cravo

3.Intragenerational equity

The incomes from the project are

distributed
in
the
local
municipalities entities and land
owners, contributing to the local
development.

4. Intergenerational equity

The project contributes to the

economic (reduction of the
imported energy), social (new ways
of incomes) and environmental
development (saving the local
protected areas), allowing the next
generations to have more options.

5. Resource maintenance and

efficiency

Because the project has brand new

technology, it is energy efficient
and autonomous.

6. Socio-ecological civility and

democratic governance

7. Precaution and adaptation

IST 2010

The benefits of the project

(previously referred) are equally
distributed as all beneficiate from
them.

The incomes to the local

municipality entity and rents to the
land owners support the local
development, beneficiating all the
local inhabitants.

The incomes from the project are

distributed
in
the
local
municipalities entities and land
owners, contributing to the local
development.

The project contributes to the

economic (reduction of the
imported energy), social (new ways
of incomes) and environmental
development
(improving
the
affected environment), allowing
the next generations to have more
options.

The project contributes to the

economic (reduction of the
imported energy), social (new ways
of incomes) and environmental
development (saving the local
protected areas), allowing the next
generations to have more options.

The project contributes to the

reduction on greenhouse gases
emission.

The project contributes to the

reduction on atmospheric gases,
for instance greenhouse gases and
increases the use of brand new
technologies.

Because the project has brand new

technology, it is energy efficient
and autonomous.

It were defined steps to

approximate the local populations
to the project and evolve them in
the decision taking by creating
information centers, stakeholders
meetings and workshops with local
children.

It was created a public attending

office and a workshop to the local
population about the effects on the
electromagnetic fields.

Locating the project away from the

protected areas avoided the risk of
increasing the birds mortality
related to its presence.

Locating the project away from the

protected areas avoided the risk of
increasing the birds mortality
related to its presence.

15

Ana Cravo

IST 2010

th

Table 6 Punctuation performance of the case studies on the 8 Gibson et al. (2005) criterion
Punctuation performance on the

Case study 1

Case study 2

Case study 3

Case study 4

th

8 Gibson et al. (2005) criterion:

Immediate and long-term
integration

0.63

0.41

0.43

0.60