A more thorough and independent review of EIA on a comparative, technical basis would be a most useful step. In particular, it would be helpful if in several countries a common study could be made which would 更彻底的和独立的审查环境影响评价制度的比较,技术基础是最有用的步骤。特别是,这将是有益的,如果在几个国家共同研究可以将作出(i)compare projects which have gone through EIA before and afterwards: how was project design modified and why? (我)比较的项目,已通过环境影响评估之前和之后:如何是工程设计修改,为什么?(ii)examine those which were exempted because of insignificant impacts: ask whether that assessment is correct? Has it had impacts which are serious and could have been minimized? (二)审查那些被免除因为微不足道的影响:评估,问是否是正确的?有它的影响是严重的,可能已被减少到最低限度?(iii)compare and contrast similar projects in different jurisdictions in terms of (i) and (ii).(三)比较和对比的类似的项目在不同的法域条件(一)和(二)。
一个更全面、独立审查环境影响评价在比较、技术基础将是最有益的步骤。特别是,它将是有帮助的,如果在多个国家共同的研究可能会让这将
(我)比较项目经历了EIA之前和之后:工程设计修改,为什么?
(二)检查而被免除因为无足轻重的影响:问是否这个评价是正确的吗?已经出现了严重影响,就可以最小化?
(三)比较和对比不同辖区内的类似项目的角度
一个更全面、独立审查环境影响评价在比较、技术基础将是最有益的步骤。特别是,它将是有帮助的,如果在多个国家共同的研究可能会让这将
(我)比较项目经历了EIA之前和之后:工程设计修改,为什么?
(二)检查而被免除因为无足轻重的影响:问是否这个评价是正确的吗?已经出现了严重影响,就可以最小化?
(三)比较和对比不同辖区内的类似项目的角度(我);(微光)。