Environmental impact assessments should include rigorous scientific peer review

Abstract

Twenty USA states or jurisdictions and 125 nations have modeled national environmental policies after the National Environmental Policy Act. That act mandates that federal agencies initiate environmental impact statements (EISs) when substantive environmental or human health consequences are likely because of an agency action related to proposed development projects. The science used to inform the EIS process, however, does not require independent scientific peer review (ISPR) in the USA or most other nations. But ISPR is needed for governments to accurately inform the EIS decision-making and public reporting processes. Instead, science is routinely manipulated during EIS reviews to generate expedient project outcomes with substantially negative ecological, political, and long-term economic consequences. We provide four examples of EISs that lack ISPR, as well as four examples where reviews by independent scientists were helpful to improve agency decisions. We also recommend that independent scientists (no affiliation with the project proponents or agencies overseeing projects) be used to help assess potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, as well as offer appropriate risk assessments, study designs, and monitoring timeframes. We conclude that nations should convene formal reviews using independent scientists as a form of peer review in the EIS process.