Despite the general wide acceptance of the triple helix and its utilization for impact assessment, the following problems have given rise to this study. They are identifiable short falls.
A formidable partnership among government, industry, and academia, commonly known as the triple helix model, has been identified as a viable approach to mitigating the effects of climate change and advancing carbon capture and hydrogen synthesis. This study reviews the effectiveness of this framework in the impact assessment of such projects. The study examines ten cases around the world namely: the Netherlands (Porthos Carbon Capture and Storage), Canada (Impact Assessment Act), the United States (Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs), Chile (Magallanes Green Hydrogen), Kenya (Lake Turkana Wind Power), South Africa (Renewable Energy Development Zones), Nigeria (Ogoniland remediation), Indonesia (nickel processing and captive coal), Australia (coal mine climate review), and New Zealand (Fast-track Approvals Act). To achieve this, a structured review of court judgements, statutes, official plans, and independent reports was conducted to identify key shortcomings. Codes were assigned to the identified shortcomings, which were categorised as follows: climate considerations falling outside legal triggers; absence of strategic or cumulative assessment; reliance on evidence held by project proponents; scientific advice lacking sufficient influence on decision-making; exclusion of the fourth strand, particularly communities, Indigenous peoples, and holders of local knowledge; political reversals; and financing arrangements operating outside the impact assessment process. The findings indicate that the fourth strand was either absent or weak in nine of the ten cases examined.
Dr. O Okwonna, Lecturer at Chemical Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, currently working on detailed reviews of Triple helix impact of climate change mitigation projects.