Abstract
This paper demonstrates the judicial and organisational obstacles to environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up in Finland, and that attitudes and lack of knowledge have a role in the degradation of EIA follow-up in general. An overview is presented of the present Finnish legislation and practices concerning EIA follow-up in road projects. These are illustrated by a case study representing the ‘best practice’ in Finland so far. One of the main conclusions is that follow-up is not perceived as an essential part of EIA. Neither is it recognised as a tool to control the quality of EIA and to improve future assessments. In fact, EIA follow-up is not even required at the project level in the relevant Finnish legislation. Socio-economic impacts are often regarded as complicated, laborious and expensive to monitor at the project level. However, proponents and other key players might find follow-up useful if the subject was regulated and promoted properly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
