Quality Assurance in the Review Process of the Swedish EIA System

Abstract: By 2050, the world population is projected to exceed nine billion and sustainable development measures are therefore critical. There has been a clear consensus internationally regarding the importance of assessing projects’ environmental impacts as a mean to promote sustainable development. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) system has a fundamental role of being a tool for reaching sustainable development. Therefore, continuously enhancing its quality by evaluating the system is important. This study focused on the quality of the review process in the Swedish EIA system, as it is the last step of quality assurance before the final decision-making. Currently, various authorities are responsible for assessing the quality of the environmental impact statement (EIS), something that can naturally lead to varied review qualities. The purpose of this Master Thesis was to question the quality of the current review process in Sweden’s EIA system and raise awareness as to how it possibly can be improved. An approach to promote consistency in the review process exists in the Dutch EIA system, where a national independent authority built up of experts is set to critically review EISs of complex proposed projects. Objectives of this study were to contribute with research on whether or not Sweden should implement an independent national commission to review the quality of EISs, to identify participants’ views and attitudes regarding the subject and to analyze whether or not it is favorable and possible to change the current system. A comparison with the Dutch review process along with eight semi-structured interviews were completed, and results showed that it is likely that the Swedish review process can improve by implementing a national independent review authority and thus increase the current quality and uniformity. The study also found that it would not lead to any major losses to the current system. By using a national authority, standardized working procedures can be developed and independence can be reached through utilizing impartial reviewers. However, feasible problems include funding regulations and having to modify Swedish EIA legislation. It is also estimated that a national commission would not have sufficient resources to review all incoming EISs, hence, restrictions are required.