Abstract

Human evolution puts a strain on biodiversity, which is why the Convention on Biological Diversity, among other international policies, protects it. Impact assessment (IA) instruments are regarded as a valuable tool for assisting in the protection of biodiversity at various levels of decision making, but they are argued to work independently at the policy and plan levels (Strategic Environmental Assessment, SEA) as opposed to the project level (Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA), creating inefficiencies in knowledge transfer that endangers biodiversity protection. The purpose of this paper is to compare biodiversity coverage in SEA and EIA literature in order to better understand the potential for transferring biodiversity knowledge from SEA to EIA (known as tiring).