I’m writing this editorial in week 5 of ‘lock-down’, – whilst trying to combine home office for two with home-schooling and childcare. I’m fully aware, though, that this is currently a very privileged situation to be in. Most countries globally are currently fighting to contain the spread of COVID-19 to something (remotely . . .) manageable (for their respective health systems), trying to keep the number of associated deaths as low as possible. Formost – likeme – these are unprecedented times. Whilst – for the time being – most countries are (luckily) successful in managing to keep essential and basic services running whilst prioritizing the protection of human lives, the big question for most of us is ‘what next’ when infections are reduced to levels where the spread of the virus is seen to be ‘under control’, i.e. if, on average, each virus-hit person infects fewer than one other person (something already achieved by some countries). How should we go about reinventing our economies in order to avoid further negative destabilisation of societies and reduce socioeconomic damages whilst trying to avoid further waves of infection? Also, how can we avoid a situation where the damages from lock-downs could be greater than the damage done by the virus itself? I’m thinking in particular of those health impacts that are numerous and varied, including those that are mental health related (e.g. anxiety and fear of the virus itself, as well as existential threats due to economic hardship and depression), along with -issues, such as domestic violence, people avoiding going to hospitals for other necessary treatment for fear of infection and others. In addition to the challenges we currently face, a myriad of other challenges is now ahead of us. Some of them will be related to repairing damage, whilst others revolve around the question of how we can make our societies more resilient to pandemics and disasters. In this context, it would be a grave error simply going back to ‘business as usual’ or using predictable reflexes, such as reducing environmental standards in order to achieve quicker economic (growth) recovery, with potentially serious long-term damages. Whilst there are no easy answers, crises usually also provide for opportunities to making things better. Some of our economic practices are inherently non-resilient and unsustainable. ‘Just in time’ production processes, for example, lead to materials being in transit, rather than being in stock. In a COVID-19 world this decreases resilience of economies – and societies. Also, more regional produce is likely to mean greater resilience than if most food produce comes out of a complex chain of production processes that involve lengthy transportation through e.g. numerous countries. Issues are clearly complex, though, and there are no simple answers. Also, contexts differ and what is right for one country may not be right for others, based on e.g. cultural and other differences. This is where we, the impact assessment (IA) community, can help our respective societies. IA inherently aims at not just focusing on the obvious, direct effects, but also on impacts that are indirect and / or hidden. Future strategies that are fed and influenced by an IA philosophy are therefore highly likely to be more sustainable, leading to greater resilience. IA can help a lot in improving preparedness for pandemics. It appears that those countries particularly hard hit had either reduced or (more or less) abolished their pandemic preparedness strategies over recent years or had created ‘just-in-time healthcare’ systems. This is similar to what has been observed with regards to preparedness for disasters, for which there is a growing IA literature (see e.g. Kelly 2002; Olshansky and Chang 2009; Liu and Duan 2010; Tajima et al. 2014; Nijenhuis and Wahlstrom 2014). Whilst a scopus search of ‘impact assessment’ and ‘pandemic’ resulted in 31 hits on 22 April 2020, none of the associated publications deal with ‘impact assessment’ as understood by the community which IAPA represents. There is, therefore, a lot of space for activity and action! Subsequently, eight papers are presented to you in this issue of IAPA, including by authors from Canada, Japan, South Africa, the UK, Switzerland, Ghana, Mozambique, the Netherlands and Brazil. Issues covered include climate change, EIA, HIA, sustainable road planning, and SEA. Furthermore, practices covered are from Canada, Indonesia (two papers), South Africa, Wales, the Netherlands, Brazil and the African continent. In the first paper, Katja Hetmanchuk of Concordia University, Canada, considers the intention and implementation of climate change mitigation in Canadian environmental assessment. Reflecting on 15 projects across five Canadian jurisdictions she finds ‘that welldeveloped intentions by EA authorities did not necessarily result in proponents following guidelines for [climate change mitigation . . .] consideration in their EISs due to the absence of regulation or clearly defined policies’. In the second paper, Ali Rahmat Kurniawan, Takehiko Murayama and Shigeo Nishikizawa from IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 2020, VOL. 38, NO. 3, 179–180 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1761115

中文翻译：

---

社论

我在“锁定”的第5周写这篇社论，同时试图将两个家庭办公室与家庭教育和育儿相结合。不过，我完全知道，目前这是一个非常特殊的情况。全球大多数国家/地区目前都在努力遏制COVID-19的传播，以（对于各自的卫生系统）（可以远程……）控制。 ，以尽量减少相关的死亡人数。最重要的是，这是前所未有的时期。尽管目前（幸运的是）大多数国家在成功地维持基本服务和基本服务运行同时优先保护人类生命方面取得了成功，但对于我们大多数人来说，最大的问题是，当感染减少到病毒的传播被视为“受到控制”，即，如果平均而言，每个感染病毒的人感染的病毒少于另一个人（某些国家已经实现了这一目标）。我们应该如何重塑我们的经济，以避免社会进一步的负面动荡，减少社会经济损失，同时努力避免进一步的感染浪潮？另外，如何避免锁定所造成的损害大于病毒本身造成的损害？我特别想到的是对健康的影响是多种多样的，包括与心理健康有关的影响（例如，对病毒本身的焦虑和恐惧，以及由于经济困难和抑郁而引起的生存威胁）以及问题。例如家庭暴力，人们因害怕感染和其他原因而避免去医院接受其他必要的治疗。除了我们当前面临的挑战之外，我们还面临着无数其他挑战。其中一些与修复损害有关，而另一些与我们如何使我们的社会更能抵御流行病和灾难的问题有关。在这种情况下，仅回到“一切照旧”或使用可预测的反应（例如降低环境标准以实现更快的经济（增长）恢复以及潜在的严重长期损害）将是一个严重的错误。尽管没有简单的答案，但危机通常也提供了使事情变得更好的机会。我们的某些经济惯例本质上是非弹性的和不可持续的。例如，“及时”生产流程导致物料在运输中而不是在库存中。在COVID-19世界中，这降低了经济体和社会的弹性。而且，与大多数食品来自复杂的生产过程链相比，更多的区域产品可能意味着更大的复原力，而复杂的生产过程涉及通过多个国家进行长时间运输。但是，问题显然很复杂，没有简单的答案。同样，背景不同，基于文化和其他差异，一国的权利可能对另一国的权利不正确。在这里，我们，影响评估（IA）社区可以为我们各自的社会提供帮助。IA的内在目标不仅在于关注显而易见的直接影响，而且还在于间接和/或隐藏的影响。因此，受IA理念影响和影响的未来策略很有可能更具可持续性，从而带来更大的弹性。IA可以帮助改善流行病的准备。那些受到严重打击的国家似乎近年来减少了（或（或或多或少））大流行的防备策略，或者建立了“及时医疗”系统。这与在备灾方面观察到的情况相似，IA的文献也越来越多（参见例如Kelly 2002； Olshansky和Chang 2009； Liu和Duan 2010； Tajima等人2014； Nijenhuis和Wahlstrom 2014）。 。到2020年4月22日，对“影响评估”和“大流行”进行了广泛的搜索，结果有31个点击，但IAPA代表社区所理解的相关出版物均未涉及“影响评估”。因此，活动和行动的空间很大！后来，本期IAPA向您介绍了八篇论文，其中包括来自加拿大，日本，南非，英国，瑞士，加纳，莫桑比克，荷兰和巴西的作者。涉及的问题包括气候变化，EIA，HIA，可持续道路规划和SEA。此外，涉及的做法来自加拿大，印度尼西亚（两篇论文），南非，威尔士，荷兰，巴西和非洲大陆。在第一篇论文中，加拿大康考迪亚大学的Katja Hetmanchuk考虑了加拿大环境评估中缓解气候变化的意图和实施。在对加拿大五个司法管辖区的15个项目进行反思时，她发现“ EA机构的良好发展意图并不一定会导致拥护者遵循[缓解气候变化的准则。。。]由于缺乏法规或没有明确定义的政策而在其EIS中进行考虑”。在第二篇论文中，《影响评估和项目评估2020》（VOL）的Ali Rahmat Kurniawan，Murayama Takehiko Murayama和Shigeo Nishikizawa。38号 3，179–180 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1761115