## 3 Literature Review
### History of EIA: Emergence, Evolution, Implementation
The procedure was continuously improved, but despite this, researchers have shown that there are substantial differences between the practical performances of this process and the results generated by its application [49; 75]. Because of the increased number of amendments, comparing them is a difficult process because each revocation aims to ensure perfection. However, critics have noted that by following these procedures, a negative impact on the national economy could be generated, and that, because of the principles of EIA, sustainability and interdisciplinarity could lead to the expression of national administrations moving the national economy to a sustainable economy [76]. The EIA process has been a recurring research topic since the 1970s and this has contributed to the development of good practices in environmental assessment and policies aimed at strengthening the process [77]. EIA databases do not systematically contain information on all environmental assessment procedures, in many cases being limited to those that follow the full procedure; therefore, it has been impossible to determine the number of projects completed with the EIA procedure in the early stages. Romania's accession to the European Union in 2007 marked a transition characterized by the transposition of the EU environmental acquis into national legislation. This generated the imperative of efficient management of allocated European funds and compliance with the conditions and objectives set by the EU [13]. The literature review reveals that although Romania has made sustained efforts to align with European standards in the field of EIA, it still faces several distinct challenges that differentiate it from other EU Member States. Thus, countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which are characterized by stable economies, have oriented their EIA processes towards sustainable development objectives [78; 79; 80]. Romania is currently a developing European country with an economy associated with driving forces represented mainly by the consumer sector and considerable direct investments, which has led to little attention being paid to environmental issues. The case study of the Rosia Montana mining project illustrates this issue, highlighting the prioritization of economic aspects to the detriment of cultural heritage and environmental and human health impacts. Although Romania has transposed EU directives on EIA into national legislation, there are gaps in the implementation and evaluation process because of insufficient human and technical resources. This situation contrasts with the German model, in which rigorous mechanisms have been put in place to implement EIA procedures and ensure compliance with legal requirements [81]. Romanian institutions responsible for EIA assessment and implementation face financial and human limitations, leading to incomplete environmental assessments. In antithesis, the Finnish system is characterized by adequately funded and staffed environmental institutions, thus ensuring effective EIA implementation. Thus, Romania, in order to achieve its sustainable development goals and optimize the effectiveness of the EIA, needs to implement concrete strategies aimed at strengthening institutional capacity, promoting public participation, transparency in decision-making, and combating corruption. The purpose of the EIA process is to provide decision-makers with an assessment of integrated nature-society systems at the global to local level, in short- and long-termperspectives, to help them determine which actions should or should not be taken in an attempt to make society sustainable. In 2015, a large majority of the world's governments committed to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) proposed by the United Nations (UN), and it became clear that EIA is a relevant mechanism through which the incorporation of SDGs is possible [82], while other researchers go further, stating that SDGs are \"likely to become a central component of future environmental assessments\" [83].