Comparative evaluation of environmental impact assessment frameworks in Morocco and the World Bank using structured performance criteria
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.17(1).2026.08
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2026, Issue #1, pp. 94-108
- 5 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Public infrastructure projects can generate complex and potentially irreversible environmental and social effects; hence, the adequacy of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) frameworks is central to safeguarding people and ecosystems. This study provides a structured comparative analysis of Morocco’s EIA framework (Law 12-03 and its reform Law 49-17) and the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), using a 17-criterion performance model to identify key alignments, gaps, and priorities for regulatory reform. A documentary analysis of binding laws, decrees, and official guidance was conducted, and each criterion was rated as met, partially met, not met, or not assessed. The ESF fully meets 15 criteria, partially meets one (climate change), and one criterion (costs and benefits) could not be assessed. Morocco’s framework fully meets 11 criteria, partially meets three, does not meet two, and the costs–benefits criterion could not be assessed. Convergence is observed in core project-level requirements, including the legal basis, scope, standardized reporting, review, mitigation, impact monitoring, and consultation. Remaining gaps in Morocco are concentrated in operational and system-level instruments, notably screening, implementation of strategic assessments, system monitoring, and explicit treatment of ecosystem services; climate change adaptation is also not operationalized in either system. The findings highlight practical implications for both frameworks, while identifying prioritized implementation directions for Morocco, particularly regulatory operationalization and institutional strengthening, to improve alignment with contemporary assessment standards.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)Q58, Q56, K30, K32
-
References37
-
Tables3
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Overall alignment of the World Bank ESF and Morocco’s EIA framework across the 17 performance criteria
-
- Table 1. The 17 criteria used in this study
- Table 2. Grouped comparative results highlighting baseline convergence and structural gap
- Table A1. Criterion-by-criterion evidence matrix for comparing the World Bank ESF and the Moroccan EIA framework
-
- Baker, J., Sheate, W. R., Phillips, P., & Eales, R. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental assessment – Help or hindrance? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 3 13.
- Benfadil, N. (2016). The environmental impact assessments in Morocco: Strengths and weaknesses. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(3), 398-409.
- Berg, M. W. H. van den. (2015). How to improve EIA system performance in low- and middle-income countries? A stepwise approach for identifying context-specific needs (Master’s Thesis). Utrecht University.
- Bhatt, R. P. (2023). Environmental impact assessment system and process in developing countries. Open Journal of Ecology, 13(12), 977 1009.
- Bodansky, D. (1993). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A commentary. Yale Journal of International Law, 18(2), 451 558.
- Dann, P., & Riegner, M. (2019). The World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards and the evolution of global order. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(3), 537 559.
- Dendena, B., & Corsi, S. (2015). The environmental and social impact assessment: A further step towards an integrated assessment process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 965 977.
- Eyong, M. E. (2010). Environmental assessment tools as a framework for decision-making: A comparative study between EIA theory and practice in Cameroon and Sweden (Degree Project SoM EX 2010-41). KTH Architecture and the Built Environment.
- Fuller, K. (1999). Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (vol. 2, pp. 55-82). The University of Birmingham.
- Gibson, R. B., Doelle, M., & Sinclair, A. J. (2015). Fulfilling the promise: Basic components of next generation environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 29.
- Gilardi, F. (2013). Transnational diffusion: Norms, ideas and policies. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (2nd ed., pp. 453 477). SAGE.
- Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J. A., & Gündling, L. (1994). A guide to the convention on biological diversity. IUCH.
- Greig, L. A., & Duinker, P. N. (2011). A proposal for further strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(2), 159 165.
- Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., & Li, T. C. (2014). Effects of project governance structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 815 826.
- Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E. J., & Arts, J. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of impact assessment pertaining to Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian environmental licensing procedure. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 46, 58 67.
- Hipondoka, M. H. T., Dalal-Clayton, D. B., & Van Gils, H. (2016). Lessons learnt from voluntary strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) in Namibia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(3), 199 213.
- Joseph, C., Gunton, T., & Rutherford, M. (2015). Good practices for environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33(4), 238 254.
- Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). Toward a smarter NEPA: Monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Review, 102(4), 903-972.
- Klakegg, O. J., & Haavaldsen, T. (2011). Governance of major public investment projects: In pursuit of relevance and sustainability. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(1), 157 167.
- Kolhoff, A. J., Runhaar, H. A. C., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2009). The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: Towards a better understanding. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), 271 282.
- Mubanga, R. O., & Kwarteng, K. (2020). A comparative evaluation of the environmental impact assessment legislation of South Africa and Zambia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 83, Article 106401.
- Noble, B., & Nwanekezie, K. (2017). Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: Principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 165 173.
- Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321 328.
- Osipova, E., & Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Balancing control and flexibility in joint risk management: Lessons learned from two construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 391 399.
- Patton, M. Q. (2000). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
- Ronchi, S., Geneletti, D., & Cortinovis, C. (2025). Addressing urban climate adaptation through strategic environmental assessment: Progress and perspectives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 115, Article 108042.
- Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Sage.
- Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage.
- Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2017). Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 174 182.
- Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Tang, W., Duffield, C., & Young, D. (2006). Partnering mechanism in construction: An empirical study on the Chinese construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), 217 229.
- Tshibangu, G. M. (2018). An analysis of strategic environmental assessment legislation and regulations in African countries. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 20(01), Article 1850002.
- UNEP. (2018, January 3). Assessing environmental impacts: A global review of legislation. UN Environment.
- Vanclay, F. (2020). Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 126 131.
- Wood, C. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review. Longman Scientific & Technical, Wiley.
- Wood, C. (1999). Comparative evaluation of environmental impact assessment systems. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (vol. 2, pp. 10-34). The University of Birmingham.
- Wood, C. (2002). Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.


