Progress towards sustainability requires positive steps to meet all of the interdependent core requirements for sustainability – including biophysical system integrity and basic human well-being. Where these essentials are involved trade-offs should be avoided, unless all other options are worse. In environmental assessments, it is useful to identify major trade-offs and minimize them through selection of less bad alternatives or addition of mitigations or offsets. However, the more promising approach starts earlier and encourages planning that avoids invidious trade-offs, including through re-consideration of the initial purposes and alternatives. This paper considers two historical cases of assessments that avoided significant trade-offs through processes that gave mandatory attention to purposes and alternatives, covered the full suite of sustainability considerations, empowered citizen participants and facilitated the bumping of cases up to a more strategic level where broader alternatives offered better trade-off avoidance. These long-advocated assessment design elements are still rarely applied as a full package in existing environmental assessment law and practice. Commitment to trade-off avoidance adds to the reasons for their general adoption.

The world now has decades of experience with impact assessment and most assessment regimes have undergone revision over time. A positive consequence of the debates about these revisions is a rich base of experiential evidence about IA successes and failures, apparent core requirements, best practices and promising innovations. We have been working with the concept of next-generation assessment and associated frameworks for a number of years now and feel that there is a package of essential elements that represent a consolidation of lessons from experience. Here, we present a package of 14 essential elements of next-generation assessment that could serve as a set of globally applicable generic components and a working framework of criteria to inform assessment improvement efforts anywhere. This iteration of the essential elements is based on input from an international audience of IA practitioners, proponents, government representatives, and participants. We conclude that implementation of many of the elements in ways suitably tailored for different jurisdictions would result in an important evolution of assessment toward next-generation approaches.

Calls for systemic transformations have become prevalent throughout sustainability discourse. Increasingly, these calls point towards consciousness expanding practices and interventions, such as mindfulness, to support the development of individual understandings, skills, and capacities that are conducive to more sustainable ways of being and doing. The growing interest in leveraging inner capacities, including mindsets, worldviews, values, and beliefs for sustainability transformations emerges from concerns that conventional approaches are failing to align social and ecological systems towards long-term viability. Interest in these consciousness-driven transformations is spreading, particularly in governments and prominent organisations. Tempering this enthusiasm are concerns that untethered from moral and ethical guidelines as well as caring understanding of local and global prospects for lasting wellbeing, mindfulness programs, workshops, and interventions for inner transformation can inadvertently strengthen unsustainable systems and deepen inequities. Accordingly, this paper presents an exploratory assessment framework to increase understandings of how events focused on interventions for inner transformation align with broad sustainability requirements. Findings from application of the framework should help to elucidate how these offerings can disrupt normative ways of thinking and doing, and in turn, positively influence multi-scalar transformations. Furthermore, use of the assessment process to plan and/or evaluate inner development offerings is anticipated to help strengthen progress towards sustainability and reduce adverse trade-offs that might undermine positive systemic transformations.

Projects that undergo environmental impact assessment (EIA) are rarely rejected. Online registries and anecdotal evidence suggest that authorities approve almost all proposed and assessed projects, though often with mitigation requirements. The objective of this study was: 1) to identify the rules or criteria that reviewers and authorities must observe when considering the acceptance or rejection of projects; and 2) to understand how rare cases of rejection decisions are justified by reviewers. Data were collected through literature and regulatory reviews, and content analysis of review reports related to five Canadian and seven Brazilian rejected projects. Reviewers from Canada and Brazil adopted similar approaches to decision-making based on qualitative reasoning. Rejection recommendations were based on reasons, such as significance of biophysical impacts, sensitivity of locations and community values. The influence of reviewers’ recommendations on final decisions remains unknown. The study highlights practical implications and calls for greater transparency and rigor in EIA decision-making.

To improve decision-making, sustainability-based approaches to assessment of options and undertakings demand that we move beyond narrowly defined considerations to address the full suite of requirements for progress towards sustainability. This paper reports on a sustainability assessment exercise that originally focused on burning agricultural residues, primarily peanut shells, for cooking applications in Senegal. The scope of assessment had to be expanded to address the agricultural and energy systems of Senegal, when closer examination revealed a complex set of energy and agricultural system interactions that could undermine the anticipated positive effects of initiatives centred primarily on peanut residue cookstoves. The case highlights the need to be open to expanding the scope of assessment to address underlying and/or unexpected issues that cannot be addressed appropriately at the project scale. In particular, the case illustrates how the assessment of an energy system may serve as an entry point into a deeper exploration of the context in which the energy system is embedded. The analysis also illustrates a situation in which different paths that may be followed, each with its own degree of uncertainty, path dependence, feasibility, fairness, cultural sensitivity, trade-off acceptability and possibilities for public judgement of overall desirability.