Comparative practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 308

Montenegro R* 1997

Poland R 1990

Romania R 1996

Russia R 1993

Serbia R 1992

Slovakia R 2000

Slovenia R 1996

Tajikistan R 1994

Turkey R 1997

Turkmenistan R 1995

Ukraine R 1995

Uzbekistan R pre-1995

G=guideline; R=regulation;
*=partial

However, EIA practice is not even across different countries worldwide. Figure 10.1
summarizes the evolution of EIA in a typical country: it begins with an initial limited
number of EIAs carried out on an ad hoc basis in response to public concerns, donor
requirements or industries based in a country with EIA requirements carrying out EIAs

Box 10.1 Some references on EIA systems worldwide
General: Angelsen et al. (1994), Beanlands (1994), CEAA (2003),
Goodland & Edmundson (1994), Lee & George (2000), Netherlands
Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment (1999), Roe et al.
(1995), Wood (2003); publications by the OECD, ODA, UNEP and the
World Bank; and articles in e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review and Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
North America: Clark & Richards (1999), Wood (2003)
Western Europe: CEC (2003), Wood (2003)
Australia, New Zealand: Dixon & Fookes (1995), Harvey (1998),
Morgan (1995), Thomas (1998), Wood (2003)
Asia: Briffett (1999), Welles (1995)
Central and Eastern Europe: Regional Environmental Centre for
Central and Eastern Europe (2003), Rzeszot (1999), World Bank (2002)
South America: Brito & Verocai (1999), Chico (1995)
Africa and Middle East: CLEIAA (2003), d'Almeida (2001), Goodland
et al. (1996), Kakonge (1999), Okaru & Barannik (1996)