Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process of evaluating the likely environmental

impacts of any large proposed project or development, taking into account inter-related socio-
economic, cultural and human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse.

UNEP defines Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a tool used to identify the
environmental, social and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making. It aims to
predict environmental impacts at an early stage in project planning and design, find ways and
means to reduce adverse impacts, shape projects to suit the local environment and present the
predictions and options to decision-makers. By using EIA both environmental and economic
benefits can be achieved, such as reduced cost and time of project implementation and
design, avoided treatment/clean-up costs and impacts of laws and regulations.

Although legislation and practice vary around the world, the fundamental components of an
EIA would necessarily involve the following 6 stages in order:

1. Screening to determine which projects or developments require a full or partial impact

assessment study;

2. Scoping to identify which potential impacts are relevant to assess (based on legislative
requirements, international conventions, expert knowledge and public involvement), to
identify alternative solutions that avoid, mitigate or compensate adverse impacts on
biodiversity (including the option of not proceeding with the development, finding
alternative designs or sites which avoid the impacts, incorporating safeguards in the
design of the project, or providing compensation for adverse impacts), and finally to
derive terms of reference for the impact assessment;

3. Baseline assessment and evaluation of impacts and development of alternatives,

to predict and identify the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or
development, including the detailed elaboration of alternatives. This involves a detailed
study of the plant and animal species present and the geology of the area, together with
cultural, religious and socio-economic effects. You cannot predict impacts if you dont
have knowledge of what exists there before the project begins;

4. Environmental impact statement (EIS). Identification of possible consequences;

5. Mitigation. Decision made on whether to approve the project or not, and under what
conditions. Mitigation means that it has been considered how to reduce all negative
effects as much as possible, and could include redesigning the project;

6. Monitoring, compliance, enforcement and environmental auditing. Monitor whether

the predicted impacts and proposed mitigation measures occur as defined in the EMP.
Verify the compliance of proponent with the EMP, to ensure that unpredicted impacts or
failed mitigation measures are identified and addressed in a timely fashion.
Good points about EIAs

EIAs are now being implemented around the world

They began as legislation in the US in the 1970s (enforced by the US EPA) and have now
been adopted by many countries in Europe, Asia and Oceania (but unfortunately not Latin
America which have their own weaker building regulations)

They take into consideration the needs of all local people, not just the developer

They allow development to occur relatively sustainably

By having an integrated approach to development, EIAs prevent the piecemeal destruction of
habitats

Bad points about EIAs

The advice of an EIA may be ignored by the developer
The ability of planning bodies, local councils or local governments is different around the world.
Many authorities susceptible to bribery or corruption and do a poor job with the IA.
Many developers simply hide projects from the authorities, in many cases because they may
be suspicious or angry about local officials interfering with what they can build on their own
land.

Not all impacts may have been identified in the baseline study
The baseline study may have been carried out by unqualified officials. Remember often a
complex mixture of biological, physical, chemical, geological and socio-economic factors must
be identified. A good team of professionals and academics is needed to spot all of these.

Difficult to enforce monitoring and review

Many authorities want to avoid unpleasant confrontations with developers and local
constituents. Monitors may be susceptible to bribery and corruption. It is very expensive and
time-consuming to monitor projects, especially if many of them are going on at the same time.

Please add more points to this list