Guidance notoneia (1)
- 1. 1 | P a g e Environmental Impact Assessment Introduction The main focus of this Guidance Note is the use of EIA as a policy tool available to policy makers for effective pollution management.1 EIA facilitates pollution management through its link to environmental standards by identifying if the This guidance note was prepared by Helena Naber (Environmental Economist, ENV), with significant contribution from Ernesto Sánchez-Triana (Lead Environmental Specialist, SASDI) and Santiago Enriquez (Consultant, SASDI), and contribution from Francisco Giner de Los Rios (Consultant). Peer reviewers included Harvey Himberg (Consultant, OCPQC) and Hocine Chalal (Regional Safeguards Adviser, MNACS). Additional comments and contributions were received from Maged Hamed (Senior Environmental Specialist, MNSSD), as well as Carmen Bernardo-Garcia (Junior Professional Officer, SASDI), Giovanni Bo (Consultant, LEGEN); Nicole Maywah (Consultant, SASDI); Olga Puntus (Consultant, CESAD), Rafael Hernandez (Consultant, ENV), Raffaella Marinucci (Consultant, CESI), and Zhengfang Shi (Environmental Specialist, CES-IFC). Editorial assistance was provided by Stan Wanat (Consultant), Juliette Guantai (Program Assistant) and James Cantrell (Communication Analyst). The task team leaders for this product are Kulsum Ahmed (Lead Environment Specialist, ENV) and Helena Naber (Environmental Economist, ENV). The product was prepared under the guidance of the following World Bank Group management: James Warren Evans / Mary Barton-Dock (Directors, Environment Department, World Bank), Bilal Rahill (Senior Manager, IFC), and Frank Lysy / Ravi Vish (Director, MIGA). 1 Environmental Assessment (EA) is a main tool for the World Bank to ensure environmental and social sustainability. This Guidance Note however does not address the use of EA by the World Bank but rather discusses EA as a tool that may be used by government stakeholders for effective pollution management. For guidance on the World Bank’s environmental assessment policy, please refer to Safeguard Policies on the World Bank site: http://go.worldbank.org/WTA1ODE7T0 and to IFC performance standards: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EnvSocStand ards proposed investment or development project satisfies applicable environmental standards or needs, and mitigating impacts to comply with standards. Furthermore, EIA enhances public participation and engages stakeholders to inform decision makers of different views. Additionally, EIA, in conjunction with monitoring tools and recourse mechanisms, allows the gathering of information on environmental quality and provides a venue for expression and discussion of diverging opinions. This Guidance Note does not discuss the technical aspects of preparing an environmental assessment, since numerous resources and good practices are available on preparing an EIA. Instead, this Note focuses on the broader use of EIA as a policy instrument within the range of policy instruments discussed in this toolkit, and which are available to different stakeholders for pollution management. Description and Application of Environmental Impact Assessment The environmental assessment process would usually, according to the various international approaches currently implemented, incorporate the following main stages: screening to determine applicability and level of detail of an EIA; scoping during which issues that should be taken into consideration are identified and the terms of reference for the EIA are completed; preparation of the environmental assessment report, including identification of impacts, evaluation of alternatives, and design of mitigation measures; and the preparation of the environmental management plan,
- 2. 2 | P a g e which is usually part of the environmental assessment report, but can be a stand-alone piece for simple projects. Public participation and disclosure are important attributes of the EIA process in many countries. The United States was the first country in the world to introduce environmental assessment as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 as a tool that would lead to implementation of NEPA policies. The environmental assessment process had two major purposes: ensure that decision makers are making informed choices regarding impacts on the environment and open the process to citizen involvement (CEQ 2007). Over the past 40 years, EIA entered the fabric of environmental governance in over 100 countries worldwide (Glasson and others 2005). EIA also became an important instrument for environmental sustainability for multi-lateral development agencies, including the World Bank. The Bank introduced EIA – as one of its ten environmental, social, and legal safeguard policies – to identify, avoid, and mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts associated with Bank lending operations (World Bank 1999). Even though most EIA systems follow the steps of the generic EIA, there are substantive and procedural emphasis differences: Nature of EIA. A country‟s legal system and its political, administrative, and cultural context play an important role in shaping that country‟s EIA system, and account for differences in EIA systems among countries. As a result, the use of EIA as a tool varies among countries from its consideration as an administrative process that helps incorporate environmental and social concerns of different stakeholders into the decision-making of authorities. Underlying the value of EIA is the view that environmental decision-making processes are strengthened when the responsible authority can systematically incorporate the views and opinions of all relevant stakeholders regarding the decision at hand – as is the case in the U.S. (CEQ 2007). An alternative vision of EIA considers this instrument as an environmental management tool that helps control the environmental impacts of a broad range of projects, such as in Brazil where authorities often establish design and operational conditions through the EIA process (World Bank 2008), or Guatemala (World Bank 2006c) and Nepal (World Bank 2007b), where EIA became the main policy instrument to minimize or mitigate environmental impacts. Such alternative conditions have generated various „models‟ of EIA, such as those proposed by Doberstein (2004) who distills two models of EIA: a „technical model‟ and a „planning model‟, as two extremes of a continuum with systems of most countries exhibiting a mixture of these. He further notes that most developing countries start with a form of EIA that most closely matches the technical model characterized by a focus on the project level, with weak public participation and reliance on quantitative measurement rather than qualitative perceptions. Screening. Prescriptive and standardized approaches are two general methods for screening. They are defined through positive or negative lists in legislation and regulations, and discretionary or customized approaches where indicative guidance is relied upon to determine requirement for EIA on an
- 3. 3 | P a g e individual or case-by-case basis (UNEP 2002). Figure 1 presents a framework for screening (UNEP 2002). Screening tools include positive lists that identify activities that require EIA; negative lists that identify activities that are excluded from EIA requirement; expert judgments; or a combination of lists and expert judgments. Screening could also include analysis of impacts and risks, such as in the United States, where EIA applies to investment activities that can pose significant negative impacts. Scoping. Identifying the scope of an EIA study is an important aspect of the EIA process, and as with other aspects of EIA, countries differ in how scope is identified. In some instances, EIA scope is determined either through formal (for example, Ecuador and U.S.) or informal (such as in Peru) consultations; or defined by the legal framework without providing opportunities for public input (for example, Colombia). Terms of reference for EIA are then prepared based on results of consultations, legal requirements, or based on generic terms of reference. An important factor in determining the scope of an EIA is drawing the boundary of the impacts of the proposed activity issues that are appropriately addressed through the EIA process, and making sure that issues that remain outside of this boundary are addressed by other instruments such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), cumulative impact assessment study, and land use planning. Figure 1. A Framework for Screening (UNEP 2002)
- 4. 4 | P a g e Preparation, Approval, and Supervision. Supervision of the EIA preparation usually falls either on the sectoral agency (for example, Peru, Ecuador, US), or on the environmental agency (for example, Belize), or is a responsibility shared by sectoral and environmental agencies (for example, Argentina). The environment agency‟s role could range from review and provision of comments about the adequacy of the analysis and the impact on the environment, ensuring public participation in the EIA, to the approval of the EIA, including prior approval of the terms of the reference through the screening and scoping stages. Moreover, in many countries, agencies at the local level (provincial / municipal) are responsible for supervising EIA preparation. For example, in Pakistan the federal environmental protection agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over all EIAs, but often delegates its power to provincial EPAs, resulting in provincial authorities having jurisdiction for the vast majority of EIA cases except for those involving federal land, military projects, and trans-border or trans-provincial impacts (World Bank 2006d). Many agencies establish registers for consultants, or technical specialists, or firms that carry out EIA (for example, Bangladesh and Guatemala) and some seek to issue certifications or provide learning courses for EIA practitioners in attempts to improve EIA quality (World Bank 2006a; 2006c; 2006f). Project proponents, together with the consultants often hired by them to prepare EIA, have significant effects on EIAs‟ quality and objectivity. The capacity of EIA practitioners has often been cited as an important factor in the quality of EIAs, alongside resources allocated to EIAs by proponents (Nadeem and Hameed 2008). Public Participation and Public Disclosure. Countries vary widely in the extent to which EIA relies on public participation, ranging from countries where opening the decision-making process to citizen involvement is one of the main purposes of EIA, to countries where public participation and involvement in the EIA process are not required by EIA regulations and rarely practiced. Most countries fall in between, with regulations that require public involvement at various stages of the EIA process (at screening, scoping, EA preparation, and before and after government decisions). A study of the effectiveness of the EIA Directive in the EU (COWI 2009) revealed that two main benefits of the EIA procedure were it ensures that environmental aspects are taken into consideration in the decision- making process, and EIA ensures transparency in environmental decision making. Countries also vary with respect to interagency coordination; legal provisions regarding access to information – for example, the EU directive was modified to accommodate the provisions of Aarhus convention (EC 2009); public hearings; and creation of opportunities to receive public input during various stages of the EIA process. EIA systems vary in terms of how technical the EIA process is perceived to be, from those where it is seen as a technical process left to technical experts, to systems where the EIA process is seen as more participatory with respect to public involvement. Similarly, disclosure of EIA varies between countries where disclosure of EIA is mandatory, to countries where there is no legal requirement for disclosure of
- 5. 5 | P a g e EIA, or where there are legal requirements that are not applied in practice. Prerequisite Factors for Environmental Impact Assessment In designing or modifying the EIA system, it is important to have clarity regarding the purpose of the EIA and what it should and could accomplish within the broader policy framework: whether the need is for a technical report focused on preparation of mitigation measures for the identified impacts, or instead for a tool to open the decision-making process to public involvement. An overall regulatory framework within which the EIA tool is anchored should be established. This framework is an important element in the successful application and use of EIA (UNU 2011). As evidenced by experiences in El Salvador and Guatemala (see below), over-reliance on EIA is better avoided; instead, a mix of tools should be utilized to achieve the goals of environmental management. The organization responsible for preparation and review of EIA needs to have the required capacity for the EIA system‟s intended purpose, to ensure that the public participation and technical aspects are implemented. The required capacity includes knowledge of procedures, analytical work, and technical and social skills. Finally, the availability of baseline data is important in implementing and operating an EIA system (UNEP 2002). Advantages and Limitations of Environmental Impact Assessment Public Discussion and Participation. One major strength and outstanding feature of EIA in many countries is increased public discussion and participation (COWI 2009). However, in practice a number of limitations occur. In some instances where public participation is required by EIA legislation, such participation could be limited in practice. For example, the law in India required that a public hearing is conducted; however, NGOs often considered the public hearing as a staged process that appeared to involve citizens when the decision had already been made. In response, the 2006 EIA notification changed the requirement from public hearing to public consultation in an attempt to force project proponents to proactively seek the views of affected communities. In other instances, where projects are only discussed openly for their potential environmental merits and shortcomings, but not for social or economic ones, public discussion could focus on allegedly environmental problems when there are underlying social or economic reasons for delaying or stopping a project (World Bank 2006e). Over-reliance on EIA to Achieve Environmental Management Objectives. EIA should be used in conjunction with other policy tools and should not be over-emphasized for achieving environmental management objectives. For example, in El Salvador, the National Environment Law (1998) introduced nine instruments of environmental policy including, among others, environmental zoning, environmental
- 6. 6 | P a g e evaluation, environmental information and public participation, and economic and financial incentives. However, the implementation of the environmental policy focused on the EIA, and this led to over- burdening the tool. Further development of other instruments was recommended to complement a comprehensive environmental policy (World Bank 2006b). South Africa, where EIA is applied within the framework of an integrated environmental management system, the Strategic Plan for the Environment Sector has called for developing a broader „toolkit‟ of environmental impact management approaches and instruments in addition to EIA in order to address the issue of over-reliance on EIA (see Tarr 2003). Time-Intensive Process. An effective screening system is important to ensure that the EIA does not become a prerequisite for too many activities, thus limiting the responsible authority‟s ability to adequately assess important projects and weakening the legitimacy of EIA. For example, in Colombia the lack of a screening procedure resulted in an EIA being required for any project, regardless of the intensity and magnitude of its potential impacts, location, the sensitivity of the surrounding area, or public opinion regarding the project. The need for vast numbers of EIAs coupled with an absence of baseline environmental data resulted in mass production of EIAs of poor quality and little value. Lack of screening has led to a situation where the EIA regulations become a hurdle to projects and add little value to the environmental planning and management processes for which they were intended (World Bank 2007a). Similarly, in El Salvador, broad screening procedures have led to a situation where 300–400 EIAs were prepared annually. The number was beyond the capacity of the responsible reviewing authority (MARN), and resulted in a backlog of 2,500 EIAs, and led EIA to becoming a bottleneck to development (World Bank 2006b). Potential for Rent Seeking. Where the EIA is linked to the licensing process, it may become a tool for rent- seeking and could be a source of illegal influence on the responsible authorities. For example, in Bangladesh, the Environment Conservation Act (1995) required environmental clearance for development projects, but it also reserved the right to the government to waive the clearance requirement. This provided the incentive for project proponents to exert influence to avoid this requirement. Because public consultation and public participation were limited, these two forces for were precluded from countering the illegal influence, and they were blocked from providing an incentive for the effective identification and mitigation of potential environmental impacts (World Bank 2006a). Interaction with other Tools and Possible Substitutes EIA is more effective when applied in combination with other policy tools and mechanisms for environmental management, such as environmental regulations, standards, enforcement, and monitoring systems; land use planning; and market-based incentives. In many legal systems, the judiciary provides an important avenue for recourse.
- 7. 7 | P a g e Furthermore, public participation is enhanced through tools that promote access to information, advocacy and participation in decision making, and ability to complain and access to legal recourse. Moreover, in many legal systems, the approval of an EIA is a requirement for environmental licensing, and the two tools are closely linked. In countries where EIA is regarded as an environmental management tool, EIA is often linked to the licensing process, and approval of the EIA is often a prerequisite for granting a license. For example, in Jordan the approval of an EIA is a prerequisite for any and all licenses or permits required prior to construction (World Bank 2010). On the other hand, in the US, EIA is not linked to environmental permitting, but is rather a way to open the decision-making process to public scrutiny. For permitting purposes, the U.S. system relies on other instruments such as zoning plans, and standards and regulations. Many instruments inform the EIA process. For example, SEA extends the application of environmental assessment from projects to policies, plans, and programs, and assesses environmental aspects considering their inter-linkages with social and economic factors. Risk assessment may also feed health-issue considerations into the EIA process for projects requiring thorough examination of risks to human health, and could either proceed separately of EIA or be integrated within the EIA process (Demidova and Cherp 2005). Despite these risks and limitations, EIA remains a useful tool for two reasons. First, it does drive developers of new projects to take environmental impacts and risks into account (partially internalizing the cost). Second, it allows or may allow governments and society to analyze projects in depth. Yet this is an expensive process with regard to both inputs and time. Even when studies are of excellent quality, the process may reach wrong conclusions because EIA takes the project‟s effects into account but seldom are cumulative effects considered. Hence it is important to apply EIA selectively, but also apply it in conjunction with other tools that take cumulative effects into consideration. References and Resources for Environmental Impact Assessment Council on Environmental Quality. 2007. A Citizen‟s Guide to the NEPA – Having Your Voice Heard. Washington, DC: CEQ. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guid e_Dec07.pdf/. COWI. 2009. Study Concerning the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive, by COWI for the European Commission and DG ENV. Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pd f/. Demidova, O., and A. Cherp. 2005. “Risk Assessment for Improved Treatment of Health Considerations in EIA.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (4): 411–29. Doberstein, B. 2004. “EIA Models and Capacity Building in Vietnam: An Analysis of Development Aid Programs.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 283–318. European Commission. 2009. Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive. Report. Brussels. Glasson, J., R. Therivel, and A. Chadwi. 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. New York: Routledge.
- 8. 8 | P a g e This guidance note is part of World Bank Group publication: Getting to Green—A Sourcebook of Pollution Management Policy Tools for Growth and Competitiveness, available online at www.worldbank.org International Finance Corporation, “IFC Sustainability – Environmental and Social Standards,” IFC, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf /Content/EnvSocStandards/. Nadeem, O., and R. Hameed. 2008. “Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment in Pakistan.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 28: 562–71. Sánchez‐ Triana, E., and S. Enriquez. 2007. “A Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impact Analysis Systems in Latin America.” Paper prepared for the Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, “Growth, Conservation and Responsibility,” Seoul, June 3–9. South Africa, Environmental Affairs Department. 2009. Strategic Plan for the Environmental Sector 2009 – 2014. Report. Pretoria. http://www.environment.gov.za/Documen ts/Documents/2011Jan19_1/ 200914_strategicplan.pdf /. Tarr, P. 2003. “EIA in Southern Africa: Summary and Future Focus.” SAIEA. http://www.saiea.com/ saiea- book/Summary1.pdf /. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). 2002. UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual. Geneva: UNEP. United Nations University, “Environmental Impact Assessment Course Module,” UNU, http://eia.unu.edu/course/ ?page_id=173/. Wood, C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. World Bank. 1999. World Bank Safeguards Policies – Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2005. Arab Republic of Egypt: Country Environmental Analysis (1992–2002). Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006a. Bangladesh: Country Environmental Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006b. Republic of El Salvador: Country Environmental Analysis. Improving Environmental Management to Address Trade Liberalization and Infrastructure Expansion. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006c. Guatemala: Country Environmental Analysis – Addressing the Environmental Aspects of Trade and Infrastructure Expansion. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006d. Pakistan Strategic Country Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006e. India – Strengthening Institutions for Sustainable Growth: Country Environmental Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2006f. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and Strategic Environmental Assessment Requirements – Practices and Lessons Learned in East and Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resourc es/EIA&SEA-regional-review.pdf/. ––––––. 2007a. Environmental Priorities and Poverty Reduction: A Country Environmental Analysis for Colombia. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2007b. Nepal Country Environmental Analysis: Strengthening Institutions and Management Systems for Enhanced Environmental Governance. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2008. Environmental Licensing for Hydroelectric Projects in Brazil – A Contribution to the Debate. Summary Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––. 2009. The Philippines: Country Environmental Analysis. Manila: World Bank. ––––––. 2010. Jordan: Country Environmental Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank. ––––––, “Safeguard Policies,” World Bank, http://go.worldbank.org/WTA1ODE7T0/.