The purpose of an EIA is to determine the potential environmental, social, and health effects of a proposed development project so as to prevent or minimize its effects. It is intended to facilitate informed and transparent decision-making while seeking to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts through the consideration of alternative options, sites or processes. Are we managing this tool efficiently?
No and in some cases EIA recommendations are never taken seriously at all
I agree that from my experience, the various types of environmental documents were not always efficient or used effectively. To do the work properly, enough resources have to be applied, and in many cases were in the agency I worked for. But after a time, and many, many analyses of similar project proposals, we should have found better ways to automate analyses into some programmatic model. We did some of this, but probably not enough. The decision makers may also be the one proposing the project or selecting goals, etc. One real benefit in disclosing effects was providing and choosing mitigation measures, which over time, some of these mitigations became standard practices or BMPs, such as streamside protection zones, properly locating and designing roads for the circumstance, requiring erosion controls and protecting wildlife den trees from harvest. So maybe indirectly in some ways, the environmental documents have been effective in increasing awareness of some of the environmental effects of some activities and designing, applying, monitoring and adjusting as needed to reduce effects.
Many of the mitigations add some costs, but generally minor, and lead to long term benefits that are not always considered. One example might be putting in rolling dips into a logging road to reduce erosion and sediment. These dips properly Constructed provide semi-permanent improvement, so the logging road might be used later for fuels management, fire fighting, access for forest crews planting trees, thinning forest, hiking, berry picking, mushroom searching, hunting or firewood access, etc.
Without doubt it is not effective, alone. In most cases, it is not either run nor run properly/seriously.
After all, in Australia the EPBC Act 1999 is only 'read to comply'. A' toothless tiger'. Until human and environmental health is taken seriously what can you expect from the outcomes of most EIA and EIS, particularly were the petroleum industry is involved.
No! It has hardlt any positive impact now. Whatever govt decides they finally go with that.
The general impression from the contributions so far is that, EIAs are either not undertaken or not taken into considerations in projects undertaken within our environments. This obviously have adverse impacts on our environment. Is it that the EIA Experts have not done enough sensitization or decision makers simply are turning death ears to the protection of our environment?
No, because in the USA, the environmental law enforcement is non-existent in terms of a government agency enforcements of the promises made in the documents for projects, are actually followed. The only "enforcement" actions that have been taken, is when citizens themselves pay to go to court and do those enforcement actions. And the "Powers that Be" want to limit the citizen's powers to go to court for the last 40 years we have has our environmental laws in place.
EIAs are essential tools to protect the environment and ensure its sustainability, however these documents we prepare are just kept in shelves and gather dust, in many cases the EMP is not followed at all. From my experience organizations will rather opt to pay a penalty fee than complying with the EMP. In Zimbabwe, for instance, there is lack of political will to ensure the EIA enforcement which is a thing that has made EIAs of no use since mitigations measures in most cases not followed during project operation.
It is hard to generalize on this one, as it varies in each country and probably even also in sectors. For EIA to be effective, there are several elements that need to be in place. This includes being inscribed in law with strong sanctioning options and requirements clearly described, compliance enforcement, qualified EIA consultants available, developer willingness to address ESG issues, Govt. agencies following rules and resistant to corruption, public disclosure/dissemination of draft reports and open consultations, inclusion of binding management and monitoring plans and budgets in concession agreements etc,, and systematic and regular monitoring. If these elements are not present there is risk of greenwashing and waste of time as several of the contributors have mentioned. However, I have worked with this for years in a few countries, and remain optimistic, as it, in many places, is one of the few, if not the only, safeguard tool that is mainstreamed into the system. As such it is there, inscribed in law, and can be improved. Pressure from NGO's etc. may here be really important. One of the most important push factors I have seen so far comes from the financial sector; lenders who follow the equator principles are likely to demand real EIA's and compliance. EIA is interesting, also as problems with the process is not only a developing country phenomenon.
The only two ways EIAs will ever have an impact is if the resource itself has a value equal to or greater than then project itself. Or the other option, is that the resource has a religious sacredness. For example in the mountains above Salalah Oman 2,000 years ago is where the frankincense groves were being harvested to sell to Rome, the resin equal in value to gold--so that resource was worth more than goat and camel-food or to chop down for firewood, so today is the last forest left on the entire Arabian peninsula, only 5 by 30 miles.
Outside of the Salalah forest, is the most barren "Empty Quarter" desert... that nobody even crossed until Bertram Thomas did 87 years ago, and only this year an Italian was the first person to cross unaided. If we do not take the natural world seriously -- and continue to write reports never get implemented, then we will end up with a Mars-like planet looking like the Empty Quarter--and we are already on our way towards that goal with a one billion acre of man-made deserts head start!
The other possibility, is that the local people decide that the resource is sacred.... and then makes rules to protect it under that designation--like the forests in India in the Western Ghats, where you cannot even remove dead wood for firewood--and also the last really intact forest in the whole of India for that reason also.
Image is from https://www.worldtravellerme.com/destinations/middle-east/interview-max-calderan-first-person-empty-quarter-rub-al-khali/
Yes it contributed enough to our environment protection, but the application of these assessments need political initiatives
The process of Environmnetal Impact Assessment (EIA) is intentianaly ignores particulary in the denelopng. Thus, I think it has entered a new type of corroption to the acadmic and contributed enough to thedestruction environment.
- Badges
- Science topic