{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01850328947368421, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024671052631578946, 'mean_word_length': 5.452254641909814, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International Symposium on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Current Status and Future Prospects, held in the Chandris Hotel near Hania Crete, during 10–17 April 1983

This Symposium was organized by the Project Appraisal and Development Control (PADC) Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning Unit of the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. The 79 delegates, including fifteen faculty members, comprised senior officials from government and international agencies, scientific staff, academics, and consultants, from 26 different countries. The opening ceremony was performed by the Mayor of Hania, and the keynote address, by Fotis Chatzimikes, Ministry of National Economy, Athens, stressed the notion that EIA is evolving as a philosophy but, at the same time, is changing in practice to meet varying circumstances and requirements which prevail in different countries. The need for EIA to remain dynamic in its concept and flexible in its application to a wide range of development activities, was referred to on several occasions during the Symposium. Eighteen main and twelve offered papers by authors from as many countries were presented and discussed in panel sessions under the themes of Institutional Aspects of EIA; Judging the Costs and Utility of EIA; Experience of EIA at the Plan/Policy Level; and Transfrontier/ Global Commons Problems. Two days were devoted to presentations and discussions on the importance of identifying recent developments in EIA methods and techniques; the means of improving EIA by undertaking post-development audits; and simulation modelling and experimental management. On the first day, eight working groups were formed to discuss and report on the procedural problems that had been experienced in different countries and the actions proposed to deal with these problems, the essential elements for successful EIA procedure, and the work needed in the second decade of EIA to improve the effectiveness of procedures. Other formal group meetings were held to discuss and exchange experience on topics of common interest identified by the delegates. These included the role of EIA in developing countries, future training needs, and public participation in environmental planning. A poster display by delegates at an informal evening session provided a valuable opportunity to see and discuss experience in the application of EIA in several countries. The range and variety of papers presented, in addition to the formal and informal discussion sessions, resulted in a progressive and lively Symposium, of which only a few highlights will be mentioned in this brief report. An important starting-point was a review of EIA procedures in a number of countries and regions, including USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Indonesia, and the EEC, by participants and faculty members. This served to illustrate the variety of attitudes and actions of different governments, together with the difficulties and limitations encountered in implementing a comprehensive EIA system. In some countries, EIA was receiving 'lip-service' with little or no political or financial commitment or real action. In others, such as the USA and Canada, EIA has become well-established as part of the legislative mechanisms for the prevention and control of environmental degradation. Apart from the World Health Organization and the activities of the EEC, no strong lead for EIA at an international level was apparent. The need for combined action by international bodies in dealing with the growing problems of transfrontier pollution, and the development of EIA procedures to mitigate their environmental effects, was identified as a priority area requiring special consideration. Of continuing concern to both developed and less developed countries was the question of how complex or how simple EIA procedures and resulting outputs should be. An important requisite in understanding the reasons for the divergence or convergence of EIA procedures at an international level was seen to be due appreciation of legislative and administrative processes and how decisions are taken in different countries. While clearly desirable, the convergence of procedures would not automatically result from international dialogue. It was also thought possible that divergence of procedures may occur as a consequence of discussions between countries. A framework for assessing the convergence or divergence of EIA procedures was suggested, including: understanding of the process of decision-making; understanding of the differences between the history of planning and development controls in various countries; and choice of the appropriate level for international action. In the prevailing circumstances, it was felt that it may be easier and simpler to achieve the convergence of procedures at international agency level, rather than at national level.