See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260288621

An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Vietnam:

The gap between theory and practice

Article  in  Environmental Impact Assessment Review · March 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.008

CITATIONS READS

55 4,573

3 authors, including:

Miguel Pedrono
Cirad - La recherche agronomique pour le développement
50 PUBLICATIONS   607 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

African Swine Fever, the Sus scrofa evolutionary genomic response View project

Seed dispersal of Madagascar's baobabs species View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miguel Pedrono on 24 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Vietnam: The gap

between theory and practice
Alison Clausen a,⁎, Hoang Hoa Vu b, Miguel Pedrono c
a
WWF Madagascar and Western Indian Ocean Programme Office, BP 738, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar
b
Water Resources University, Hanoi, Vietnam
c
CIRAD, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vietnam has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and has achieved significant socio-economic
Received 29 July 2009 development in recent years. However this growth is placing increased pressure on an already depleted
Received in revised form 4 April 2010 natural environment. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is recognised by the Government and
Accepted 13 April 2010
international organizations as an important tool in the management of the impacts of future development on
Available online 21 May 2010
the country's natural resource base. The Government's commitment to EIA has been demonstrated through
Keywords:
the development and adoption of the Law on Environment Protection (Revised) in 2005 which sets out
Environmental impact assessment the requirements for EIA and which represents a major step in the development of a robust legislative
Vietnam framework for EIA in Vietnam. The Law on Environment Protection (Revised) 2005 has now been
Developing countries operational for several years and we have undertaken an evaluation of the resulting EIA system in Vietnam.
We argue that while significant improvements have been achieved in the EIA policy framework, an
important gap remains between EIA theory and practice. We contend that the basis of the current EIA
legislation is strong and that future developments of the EIA system in Vietnam should focus on improving
capacity of EIA practitioners rather than further substantial legislative change. Such improvements would
allow the Vietnamese EIA system to emerge as an effective and efficient tool for environmental management
in Vietnam and as a model EIA framework for other developing countries.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction recognition that environmental issues are an integral component of

In the last decade Vietnam has had one of the fastest growing
economies in the world and has achieved remarkable progress in
poverty reduction and social development (World Bank, 2009).
Despite a recent slowdown in economic growth due to the global
economic crisis, the Government of Vietnam has an avowed
commitment to the ongoing industrialisation and modernisation of
the economy. However, in this densely populated, predominantly
rural, country of approximately 80 million people, which is already
suffering from lack of arable land and environmental degradation,
continued rapid economic growth is likely to increase pressures on an
already strained natural environment.
Despite a history of development in which the Government's
primary aim was to foster economic growth without real consideration
of environmental issues (O'Rourke, 2002), there is now increasing
⁎ Corresponding author. BP 738, Antananarivo (101), Madagascar. Tel.: +261 34 49
888 05.
E-mail addresses: aliclausen@protocol.com.au (A. Clausen),
hoanghoavu@yahoo.com (H.H. Vu), pedrono@cirad.fr (M. Pedrono).
national development (MONRE, 2004). Government, international
donors and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
have embraced environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a means of
identifying and managing the effects of economic development on
the natural environment. Significant financial and human resources
have been invested in the development and implementation of EIA
policy and practice in Vietnam over the last decade.
In the early 2000s the Vietnamese EIA policy framework
underwent significant reform culminating in the adoption of the
Law on Environment Protection (Revised) 2005 (the LEP 2005). The
LEP 2005 was developed to address many of the recognised
shortcomings of the previous legislative framework, the Law on
Environment Protection 1993 (the LEP 1993). The LEP 2005 has now
been operational for several years and we take this opportunity to
present a critical analysis of current EIA policy and practice in
Vietnam. We argue that while significant improvements have been
achieved in the policy framework, a critical gap remains between EIA
theory and practice in Vietnam. We provide recommendations
to allow the continual evolution of Vietnamese EIA policy and practice
to respond to ongoing pressures from economic development and
human population growth, and ensure effective functioning of the EIA
system into the future.

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.008
 Author's personal copy
A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
2. Description of EIA policy and practice in Vietnam
The historical development of Vietnamese EIA policy and practice
can be categorised into three phases (Doberstein, 2003; Sinh, 2003):
(i) Learning phase pre-1990, typified by Vietnamese efforts to
learn about EIA processes and the potential of EIA as an
environmental management tool.
(ii) Formalisation phase from 1990 to 1994, when the first
elements of a national EIA policy framework were developed
and EIA policy implementation commenced.
(iii) Implementation phase from 1995 to present time, characterised
by ongoing EIA policy implementation, development of capacity
to undertake EIA and refinement of legislation and policy.
The first Vietnamese legislation to address EIA was the LEP 1993,
which was adopted by the National Assembly of Vietnam on 27
December 1993. The LEP 1993 was the result of a three-year
consultation process and was considered a significant break-through
in orienting the Vietnamese Communist Party and the State to
recognise and address environmental effects caused by market
mechanisms (Sinh, 2003). For the first time, a broad regulatory
framework for environmental issues in Vietnam was defined, and
specific requirements for EIA were established. The LEP 1993 was
supported by guiding instruments including Decree 175/CP on
Providing Guidance for the Implementation of the Law on Environ-
mental Protection 1994 and Circular 490/1998/TT-BKHCNMT of
Guidance on Setting Up and Appraising the EIA Report for Investment
Projects 1998.
While hailed as landmark legislation at the time, subsequent
analyses of the LEP 1993 and the outcomes of its implementation
identified significant shortcomings, many of which are common to EIA
in developing countries (e.g. Lo et al., 2000; Obbard et al., 2002; Tan,
2004). These included inadequate scoping of issues and collection of
baseline data, inadequacies in the impact prediction methods used,
virtually non-existent treatment of environmental management
issues, lack of transparency and public participation, poor coordina-
tion and institutional structures for EIA review and appraisal, lack of
technical guidance for proponents, and lack of enforcement and
monitoring of EIA compliance. Shortcomings in the legislation were
compounded by lack of suitably trained and educated personnel to
undertake the preparation and appraisal of EIAs.
A major revision of the LEP 1993 was undertaken in the early
2000s. The process which was led by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment (MONRE), and supported by the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) and a number of international
donors, resulted in wholesale changes to the structure and content of
the LEP 1993. The resulting LEP 2005, which sets out the current EIA
framework in Vietnam, was adopted by the National Assembly on 27
November 2005 and came into force on 1 July 2006. Additional
important components of the EIA system are found in the supporting
regulations to the LEP 2005 described in Table 1.
Table 1
EIA supporting regulations in Vietnam.
Name
Decree 80-2006-ND-CP Providing detailed regulations for implementation of
Law on Environment Protection, 9 August 2006 (‘Decree 80’)
Decree 21-2008-ND-CP Amending and supplementing a number of articles
of the Government Decree 80-2006-ND-CP, 28 February 2008 (‘Decree 21’)
Circular 08/2006/TT-BTNMT Guidance on SEA, EIA and CEPs, 8 September 2006
(‘Circular 08’)
Circular 05/2008/TT-BTNMT Guidance on SEA, EIA and CEPs 8 December 2008
(‘Circular 05’)
137
Fig. 1 illustrates the EIA process as set out under the LEP 2005.
The major modifications of the LEP 2005 when compared to the
LEP 1993 include the definition of requirements for public participa-
tion; increased consideration of environmental management and
monitoring actions; increased clarity on the role of Government
agencies in EIA enforcement and monitoring; a more prescriptive
approach to screening/scoping of EIA documents; clarification of
requirements for smaller projects not subject to a full EIA process;
reorganization of roles of Government agencies in EIA review and
appraisal; and transfer of increased responsibility to provinces and
sector ministries for EIA approval.
The LEP 2005 has been operational for nearly five years. In that
period over 500 EIAs have been prepared and appraised at the national
level; with numerous others carried out at the provincial level.
3. Analysis of Vietnamese EIA policy and practice
A unique set of environmental, economic, political and social
factors influence the application and effectiveness of EIA policy in
each country, and thus a tailored set of evaluation criteria has been
developed to allow a robust evaluation of the Vietnamese EIA system.
The criteria, which are presented in Table 2, have been developed
from a review of literature relating to EIA practice in Vietnam and
other developing countries (Atkinson, 1999; IAIA, 1999; Nadeem and
Hameed, 2008), and the authors' experience with EIA in Vietnam. The
EIA legislative framework in Vietnam operates at two levels: a higher
level which applies to major or sensitive projects at the national or
provincial level, and requires preparation of an EIA report; and a
second lower level which applies to small-scale projects at the local or
district level, and which requires preparation of a simpler Commit-
ment to Environment Protection (CEP) statement. The analysis
contained in the following sections applies solely to the higher level
of environmental assessment.
3.1. EIA is required to be undertaken at a meaningful stage in the project
cycle
EIA is a planning tool that should be used to inform decision
making and to achieve this should be undertaken as early as possible
in the decision-making cycle and continue throughout the lifecycle of
the proposed activity (IAIA, 1999). Often however, EIA is undertaken
too late in the project planning cycle resulting in EIAs that react to
development proposals rather than anticipating them. EIAs carried
out too late in the cycle are often prepared only after irreversible
decisions are taken about the location or technical design of projects
and simply document the potential impacts of the project rather
than influencing re-location, re-design or abandonment of projects
(Alshuwaikhat, 2005; Briffett, 2000).
The LEP 2005 has made improvements to the timing of the EIA
process in the project cycle by requiring EIAs to be prepared at the
time of the project Feasibility Study, at a point at which, in theory, the
Content and status
Establishes the timing of environmental assessments in the project planning cycle, define
the level of environmental assessment for various projects and establish requirements for
appraisal of environmental assessment documents by the Government.
Provides clarification of a number of issues in Decree 80 relating to screening of projects
requiring EIAs, establishment of EIA appraisal committees and consultation requirements.
Original regulation accompanying the LEP 2005 which prescribed the required structure
and content of EIAs and provide further details of requirements for public consultation
activities. Has been superseded by Circular 05.
Contains revised detailed requirements for content and structure of EIAs, public consultation
requirements.
 Author's personal copy

138 A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143

Fig. 1. EIA process in Vietnam.

project is still in conceptual mode and subject to modification. The LEP
1993 required an EIA to be prepared at a much later stage in the
project development process; the technical detailed design phase.
However, in reality, the EIA still often occurs too late in the process
and continues to be used as a means to an end rather than a planning
tool. By the time a proposal has reached the stage of preparation of a
Feasibility Study, complex governmental processes have often already
occurred to allocate land and/or financing for project development
and in-principle agreement for development of a particular type in a
particular location has been sought and often received from national
and local authorities. Such processes occur for example at the national
or provincial master planning stage, well before any consideration is
given to environmental considerations. Although the LEP 2005
contains mechanisms for strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
of master plans, the timing of the planning cycle (typically every
5 years) and a lack of expertise in this domain mean that currently
 Author's personal copy
A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
Table 2
Evaluation criteria.
1. EIA is required to be undertaken at a meaningful stage in the project cycle
2. Adequate capacity exists to prepare EIAs
3. Sufficient capacity and independence of EIA decision-making authorities exists
4. Screening of projects is carried out to determine level of EIA required and
satisfactory requirements exist for the scope and content of EIA investigations
and documentation
5. EIAs are required to address all stages of project environmental management
from pre-construction to operation
6. Meaningful public participation and information disclosure is required and is
carried out
7. The results of EIA commitments and appraisal conclusions are enforced and
monitored
8. Mechanisms exist for the assessment of complex projects such as multi-faceted
projects or sector wide investments including consideration of cumulative
impacts
9. EIA policy is harmonised with international EIA requirements and best practice
there are limited mechanisms for integration of environmental
considerations in such plans.
There is often a high degree of reluctance to critically evaluate
alternatives from an environmental point of view or carry out any
significant modifications to project location or design at this stage. An
example of this is found in the Government's decision in early 2009 to
build a 4000 MW nuclear power complex in Ninh Thuan province in
the south of Vietnam in line with Decision No. 01/2006/QD-TTg of the
Government of Vietnam dated January 3, 2006. The site for this
complex has apparently been selected and decisions taken on the
technical specifications and configuration of the works; however, to
date no environmental assessment has been prepared.
3.2. Adequate capacity and skills exist to prepare EIAs
The limited capacity of EIA practitioners is commonly considered to
be a major constraint to the effectiveness of EIA in developing countries
(Kruopienė et al., 2009; Nadeem and Hameed, 2008). Vietnam is no
exception. A relatively small group of Vietnamese EIA practitioners is
responsible for preparing the vast majority of EIAs for major projects.
These practitioners are generally Government staff employed either in
MONRE, related ministries, or related agencies and institutes. The
capacity of these practitioners in some areas is strong; for instance
in the collection or baseline data. However, shortcomings in capacity
and experience remain in areas such as the scoping of issues for
consideration in the EIA, quantitative impact assessment methods,
design and coordination of public participation activities, and develop-
ment of environmental management plans. Shortcomings in university
level education (i.e. focus on theory of EIA with limited practical
experience and use of outdated theories and methodologies), lack of
ongoing professional development opportunities and lack of exposure
to innovative and modern methods of EIA practice compound these
shortcomings.
EIAs prepared by consultants viewed as ‘outsiders’, such as
international consultants or non-Government national consultants, are
often viewed as weak. Approval of such EIAs risks being delayed or
rejected because of an ‘incorrect’ choice of consultant with a perceived
lack of understanding of the Vietnamese system. The status quo is
therefore maintained through the ongoing engagement of a small
network of EIA practitioners; a situation which stifles innovation and the
adoption of new methods and approaches in EIA.
3.3. Sufficient capacity and independence of EIA decision-making
authorities
Appraisal of EIAs is carried out in a two-step process (refer Fig. 1).
The EIA is first submitted to the relevant appraisal authority. The
139
identity of the authority is determined with reference to Decree 80
and Decree 21 but can be one of: (i) MONRE; (ii) DONRE on behalf of
the Provincial Peoples Committee (PPC); (iii) relevant sector line
ministry; or (iv) management board of industrial zone where the
project is located, depending on the scale, type and location of the
project. This agency undertakes a review of the EIA documentation,
and seeks clarification or additional information from the proponent.
When it is satisfied that the EIA meets the legislative requirements, an
EIA appraisal committee is then convened to appraise and decide on
the approval of the EIA.
The effectiveness of the EIA system is challenged by the capacity
and resources within the appraisal network. At the central level, the
MONRE EIA Appraisal Department contains only 12 staff whom in
2008 were responsible for reviewing 174 EIAs for national level
projects across a diverse range of sectors. At the end of 2008, only one
third of these EIAs had been reviewed and sent for appraisal; limited
resources meant that site visits were carried out for only a very small
number of cases.
In line with overall Government policy, the LEP 2005 promotes
increased decentralisation and an expanded role for provincial
authorities, line ministries and management boards of industrial
zones in the review and appraisal of EIAs. The capacity constraints for
EIA review are even more pronounced within these bodies. At the
province level individuals with environmental skills are generally
located within the Department of Natural Resources and Environment
(DONRE). The level of skills exhibited by these individuals varies from
province to province but is generally poor; many come from a land
administration or forestry background and have few, if any, formal
skills in environmental assessment, management and monitoring.
The environmental capacity of line ministries and industrial zone
management boards is generally very weak with few, if any, specialist
environmental staff employed within the majority of the various
sector ministries.
The second step in the appraisal process, consideration of the EIA
by the appraisal committee, is also beset by challenges relating to
the independence of appraisal committees. The LEP 2005 states that
those who participate directly in preparation of EIA reports are not
eligible for membership of an appraisal committee. In practice
however, conflicts of interest exist because of the limited numbers
of suitably qualified personnel at the national level who are available
to prepare and appraise EIA reports. Experts serving on appraisal
committees often have formal or informal links to the organizations
and individuals responsible for preparing the EIA.
At the provincial level the situation related to independence of
appraisal authorities is more severe. The lack of qualified EIA
practitioners means that sub-agencies of DONRE are typically engaged
by DONRE or proponents to prepare EIA reports, while DONRE is
responsible for their appraisal. The potential for conflicts of interest is
high. The LEP 2005 also provides for the appraisal and approval of EIA
reports by line ministries and management boards of industrial zones
for projects that are within their competence of decision and approval.
These provisions eliminate any ‘third-party’ role in the approval of
certain EIAs and threaten to undermine the independence and
transparency of the approval process.
3.4. Screening of projects is carried out to determine level of EIA required
and satisfactory requirements exist for the scope and content of EIA
investigations and documentation
Screening refers to the process to determine whether a project has
the potential to cause significant environmental or social impacts that
necessitate further environmental assessment. With the adoption of
the LEP 2005, the Vietnamese EIA system now contains screening
requirements to identify projects which require an EIA, projects
that require a lower level of environmental assessment and projects
for which no environment assessment is required. The sole criticism
 Author's personal copy
140 A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
of the screening process contained in the LEP 2005 is that the
approach adopted is predominantly prescriptive. Decree 21 contains a
list of projects for which an EIA is required. There is some scope for
subjective screening of projects such as those that can be considered
to be key national works, projects affecting or located in protected
areas and projects which potentially affect river basins, coastal areas
and areas with protected ecology; however, there is no clear guidance
provided on the interpretation or application of these subjective
criteria.
Circular 05 prescribes the required scope of EIA documents. In
theory, the required scope of Vietnamese EIA reports is comprehen-
sive and in keeping with typical expectations of EIA reports. Issues
that are required be covered include: description of the existing
environment; description of the project; environmental impact
scoping and assessment; and environmental mitigation and monitor-
ing including budgetary recommendations.
Notably exclusions from Circular 05 include requirements for:
(i) the detailed consideration of socio-economic impacts including
analysis the outcomes of public consultation; (ii) analysis of project
alternatives; and (iii) consideration of cumulative and strategic
impacts. Such issues are typically afforded equal weight in EIAs that
comply with international best practice and the lack of requirements
for their rigorous treatment in Vietnamese EIAs diminishes the quality
of documents produced under this system.
A large number of technical EIA guidelines exist which have the
potential to assist in the EIA scoping and preparation process.
However, these guidelines are of limited use as they are out of date,
poorly disseminated and utilised and lacking in practical advice on EIA
preparation. Revision of these guidelines is seen as a priority by
MONRE and international agencies (Mai Thanh Dung, pers. comm.).
An important limitation in the application of the scoping
requirements contained in the legislation derives from their overly
prescriptive nature. This leads to EIA format and structure being
perceived as being more important than EIA content during the
appraisal process. Based on the authors' experience, EIAs that contain
all the required information, but which are presented in a format that
differs to a modest degree from the prescribed structure, risk being
rejected by EIA appraisal authorities.
3.5. EIAs are required to address all stages of project environmental
management from pre-construction to operation
With the adoption of the LEP 2005, requirements for the
consideration of all stages of project environmental management
have been established for the first time in Vietnam; an important
advance in EIA policy. Circular 05 specifies requirements for
environmental management issues to be addressed in EIA reports
and requires preparation of an ‘Environmental Management and
Monitoring Program’. This Program is required to document typical
elements of an environmental management plan including budget for
environmental management activities and requirements for institu-
tional arrangements.
Despite this important legislative advance, environmental man-
agement documentation remains weak in practice. This results from a
traditional focus during the appraisal process on other components of
the EIA process, such as baseline data collection, at the expense of
environmental management considerations, together with a lack of
technical expertise on the part of practitioners and appraisal
authorities in terms of the required components and structure of an
effective environmental management plan. The lack of focus on post-
EIA enforcement (refer Section 3.7) also results in less emphasis being
placed on this element of the EIA as it is traditionally subject to low
levels of ongoing scrutiny. For example, the EIA for a recent major
urban transport development project proposed to be developed in
Hanoi included an environmental management plan which consisted
of three to four pages of very general and ambiguous commentary
on the types of mitigation and monitoring actions that should
be implemented. The specific requirements of Circular 08 in relation
to environmental management documentation (which was in force
at that time) were not fulfilled; however the EIA was approved
regardless.
3.6. Meaningful public participation and information disclosure are
required and are carried out
Vietnam has a centrally controlled, one-party political system; the
Vietnamese Communist Party exhibits a highly centralised and
compartmentalised approach to environmental policy development
and implementation (Doberstein, 2003). This approach, which
restricts public participation in environmental decision making,
combined with a generally low awareness of environmental issues
on the part of the general public, means that EIA policy is usually
developed and implemented only in the highest realms of govern-
ment (Le Guoais, 2003).
The inclusion of requirements for public consultation in the LEP
2005, together with the complementary guidance on this issue
provided in Decree 80 and Circular 05, can therefore be hailed as a
major advance in EIA policy in Vietnam. For the first time in Vietnam,
where public participation in environmental issues was traditionally
opposed or avoided, a legal requirement for the involvement of
local communities in the EIA process has been established. Until
this time, communities who wished to voice an opinion on
environmental issues associated with development proposals were
forced to use informal means of complaint such as public demonstra-
tions (O'Rourke, 2004; Tuan and Maclaren, 2005).
Notwithstanding, there are three major shortcomings in current
EIA policy and practice relating to public participation. Firstly,
consultation requirements relate to contact with local authorities,
namely the Commune Peoples Committee and Fatherland Front
through letters and/or meetings. There is no requirement for open
public involvement and no requirement or guidance provided on
more effective consultation methods. While these bodies are
considered by the Government to be representative of communities,
the hierarchical political system in Vietnam ensures they are often
under pressure from higher levels of government to give their
agreement to projects. They therefore do not always accurately reflect
the opinions and concerns of local communities, particularly
disadvantaged or voiceless groups in Vietnamese society such as
landless households or ethnic minority groups that can be the most
significantly affected by projects.
For example, during the preparation of an EIA for a major tourist
resort development in the south of Vietnam, more than 20 landless
families had constructed illegal dwellings on the site. According to
the LEP 2005 there was no requirement for consultation with these
families despite the risk of significant social impacts due to loss of
livelihoods from fishing activities. The only formal consultation
that was required was a letter to the Commune Peoples Committee
who gave their agreement to the project; such agreement may
have been influenced by the fact that the lease of the land to a
developer for the construction of the resort had already been
agreed by the Provincial Peoples Committee some time in advance.
Secondly, requirements for the timing of consultation during the
EIA process are still unclear; the proponent can effectively choose
when to conduct consultation and in many instances this consultation
is carried out a point in the process when it is too late to have any
significant input.
Finally, despite a provision in the LEP 2005 that public involve-
ment is required during EIA appraisal, the requirement for this
involvement is limited to notification following the approval (or
non-approval) of an EIA. There is no mechanism for the appraisal
authority to receive the views of the public on the proposal during its
appraisal.
 Author's personal copy
A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
3.7. The results of EIA commitments and appraisal conclusions are
enforced and monitored
Compliance with the EIA is often poor on the part of project
proponents; either because of changes to the project, poorly prepared
EIA reports or insufficient resources to apply the commitments
contained in the EIA. The LEP 2005 contains requirements for project
proponents to report on compliance with EIA decisions through the
inclusion of requirements for the structure and content of post-EIA
reporting. However, a weakness remains in the legislation in that
proponents are only required to seek confirmation of EIA compliance
at one (undefined) point during the project construction prior to
commencement of project operation, and there is no requirement for
ongoing monitoring and inspection during project operation.
On the part of appraisal authorities, aside from receiving the report
prepared by the proponent on compliance with the EIA, there is often
little “on the ground” inspection or monitoring of compliance by the
appraisal authority due to a lack of resources and technical expertise.
Although the LEP 2005 provides that EIA approving authorities have
the responsibility to organise for post-EIA compliance monitoring, this
is rarely implemented in reality. In 2004, only 62 staff were employed
in the Vietnam Environment Protection Agency which is charged with
the monitoring of EIA compliance. In a country of nearly 80 million
people with a high level of economic growth such resources appear
inadequate.
3.8. Mechanisms exist for the assessment of complex projects such and
multi-faceted projects or sector wide investments including consideration
of cumulative impacts
Complex projects are defined as multi-component or sector wide
projects. Examples include hydropower schemes that may have a large
number of components over a large geographical area or investment
projects involving a large number of items of small-scale rural
infrastructure within a province or group of provinces. Historically
such projects, while relatively common, were dealt with in a piece-
meal fashion in Vietnam meaning that important cumulative effects
were overlooked or inadequately assessed.
The LEP 2005 has attempted to address this issue, most notably
through the adoption of provisions related to SEA. To date, the use of
SEA for complex projects has only occurred to a limited extent as the
role of SEA as defined in the LEP 2005 is strongly linked to the
assessment of strategies and plans. This limitation in the legislation,
together with low capacity of proponents, consultants and appraisal
authorities in relation to SEA means that the use of SEA in the short-
term future for complex projects is likely to remain limited. As such,
the situation whereby the Government requires a number of
individual assessments for the individual components is likely to
prevail at least in the short term. Ongoing support to MONRE from
international donors is expected to assist in increasing capacity in SEA
in the medium to long term.
3.9. EIA policy is harmonised with international EIA requirements and
best practice
Vietnam is still characterised as a developing country. The
economy, while experiencing rapid growth, is still in the early stages
of maturation and much of the capital investment in the country is
still derived from foreign sources such as grants or loans from multi-
lateral or bi-lateral donors, particularly in the environment sector
where international financing has historically outstripped contribu-
tions by the Government (UNDP, 2004). Thus the harmonization of
Vietnamese EIA policy with international requirements is important
because many major projects in Vietnam that are subject to EIA are
funded partially by international loans or grant money and there is
often a second set of EIA requirements from the financing agencies
141
such as the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the Japanese
Bank for International Cooperation or others.
To address this issue the Thematic Group for Environmental
Impact Assessment (TG for EIA) was created under the Vietnamese
Partnership Group on Aid Effectiveness, a collaborative forum of
Government and international development partners, to address
harmonization between the EIA requirements of the Government and
international partners. The TG for EIA, which is jointly chaired by the
Asian Development Bank and MONRE is leading efforts to increase
harmonization between Vietnamese and international requirements
for EIA through implementation of a multi-faceted 5 year workplan
focusing on capacity building and legislative reform activities (Mai
Thanh Dung, pers. comm.). Recent outputs of this process have
included the production of a series of technical guidelines on EIA
practice; although these guidelines are not legally binding.
In the interim a double system exists. For the same project, two
documents are produced, two different approval processes are carried
out, two sets of conditions of approval are developed and two
enforcement and monitoring regimes are implemented.
An example was seen in an EIA for a major thermal power plant
project that required two separate EIA volumes to be prepared. The first,
developed for the international funding agency, was prepared jointly by
large team of international and national consultants. The second volume
was then prepared by a team of Vietnamese consultants involving a
major re-structuring and re-formatting process. Despite the original
document addressing all the legislative requirements of the GOV, the
form was not that traditionally expected by GOV and as such was
unacceptable. This example serves to illustrate a typical phenomenon
involving a focus on form over substance and a lack of flexibility on the
part of the Government regarding the form of EIA documents; such an
approach not only leads to inefficiencies but also to a loss of
opportunities for sharing of experience and introduction of new ideas
and practices to EIA system in Vietnam.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
The evaluation of the Vietnamese EIA framework identifies a
number of strengths and weaknesses that exist in the system, as well
as a number of areas of opportunity for potential improvements.
Failure in EIA in developing countries is often linked more to a lack of
effective implementation – through lack of capacity or political will –
rather than serious imperfections or shortcomings in the EIA process
(Alshuwaikhat, 2005). This holds true in Vietnam, where despite
major improvements to the policy and legislative framework, a
significant gap between theory and practice of EIA remain.
The adoption of the LEP 2005 has resulted in an EIA legislative
framework that is well developed. The most significant legislative
improvements associated with the adoption of the new legislation
relate to the inclusion of requirements for environmental manage-
ment aspects of developments to be addressed in EIAs and for public
consultation to be carried out, albeit in a limited manner. These
inclusions in the LEP 2005 have brought the Vietnamese EIA
legislation into line with international best practice requirements on
two fundamental issues. In addition, the timing of EIA in the project
cycle has been improved, thus allowing EIA to potentially fulfil a
more meaningful role in the project development process. Screening
requirements, although arguably overly prescriptive, now exist and
allow for differentiation to occur between different levels of environ-
mental assessment and there are consistent and detailed require-
ments for the scope and content of environmental assessment
documents. Provisions for SEA have the potential to allow effective
treatment of complex projects.
However, despite these notable advances, weaknesses still exist.
The main deficiencies of the EIA system relate to the capacity available
for its proper implementation. Under resourced and under qualified
Government personnel carry the heavy responsibility of reviewing,
 Author's personal copy
142 A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
appraising and enforcing a large number of EIA documents and the
resulting projects. Vietnamese consultants responsible for the
preparation of the vast majority of EIAs often lack independence
and innovative skills that would allow advancement of the practice of
EIA in Vietnam.
In addition to a sound legislative framework, EIA systems need a
number of key factors to be in place before it can operate effectively
(Briffett, 2000) including the political will to make it succeed;
institutional structures to enforce and control its operation; and
adequate technical expertise amongst EIA practitioners. Major
opportunities for improvements in the Vietnamese EIA system exist
by redressing these implementation and capacity shortcomings.
Strengthening of the skills of EIA professionals and the available
resources, responsible for the preparation, appraisal and enforcement
of EIAs, would have significant benefits and bolster the effectiveness
of the EIA legislative framework. A small number of internationally
funded projects, such as the Vietnam Canada Environment Project
(VCEP), have been implemented in Vietnam and could prove useful
models for future interventions.
Thus rather than focusing on substantive new legislative reform as is
proposed by the Government, we argue that the priority in Vietnam
should be on reinforcement of mechanisms to improve EIA implemen-
tation. Specifically the following actions are recommended to strength-
en the EIA system in Vietnam:
(i) Strengthening of the technical skills of EIA consultants through
training and exposure to innovative and modern methods of
EIA practice to facilitate opening up of the EIA system to new
ideas and methods with specific focus on the areas of quan-
titative impact assessment, environmental management and
public participation/socio-economic analysis;
(ii) Measures to increase the pool of consultants and practitioners
who have the ability to undertake EIAs through an increased
profile of EIA and improved education and training at university
level;
(iii) Capacity building and resource strengthening within national
Government ministries, both MONRE and line ministries, and
within provincial authorities to ensure appropriate institutional
structures and technical expertise exist to allow for critical and
expert review of EIA reports subject to their approval;
(iv) Increased enforcement of requirements for independence of
appraisal authorities;
(v) Improvement and dissemination of technical EIA guidelines to
supplement guidance contained in legislation;
(vi) Strengthening of the mandate and expertise of the monitoring/
inspecting authority together with the post-EIA responsibilities
of the proponent;
(vii) Increased frequency of monitoring and the enforcement of
financial incentives to encourage compliance with the EIA
report, such as the consistent application of Decree No. 81/
2006/ND-CP dated August 9 2006 which provides for financial
penalties for post-EIA non-compliance.
As a secondary priority, refinements and clarifications to the EIA
legislation should be undertaken as follows:
(i) Clarification and expansion of the requirements for public
participation, including a requirement for open public in-
volvement and well defined requirements for timing of such
involvement;
(ii) Improvement of screening criteria for EIAs including clarifica-
tion on the use of subjective criteria;
(iii) Clarification of the use of SEAs for assessment of complex
projects;
(iv) Requirements for consideration of socio-economic issues on an
equal level with natural environmental issues;
(v) Requirements for analysis of alternatives and cumulative
impacts;
(vi) Clarification of the requirements for timing and frequency of
compliance monitoring during construction and operation.
Implementation of these two complementary sets of recommenda-
tions will require the Government to take a lead role in prioritizing EIA as
an important policy tool to guide national socio-economic development
and a continued cooperative effort on the part of international
organizations to support Government efforts. We contend however
that successful implementation of the recommended improvements
will reinforce the inherent strengths of the existing legislative
framework and will provide the potential for the Vietnamese EIA
system to emerge as an effective and efficient tool for environmental
management in Vietnam and as a model EIA framework for other
developing countries.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to officers within the Vietnam Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment for sharing their opinions on the
EIA system in Vietnam and to representatives of several donor
agencies for making documentation available to the authors.
References
Alshuwaikhat H. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental
impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environ Impact Asses Rev
2005;25:307–17.
Atkinson N. Environmental policy and management in Asia: a learning experience. J
Environ Assess Policy Manag 1999;1:81-104.
Briffett C. Environmental impact assessment in Southeast Asia: fact or fiction?
GeoJournal 2000;49:333–8.
Doberstein B. Environmental capacity-building in a transitional economy: the
emergence of EIA capacity in Viet Nam. Impact Assess Project Apprais 2003;21:
25–42.
International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA. Principles of environmental
impact assessment best practice. Fargo: ND: IAIA; 1999.
Kruopienė J, Židonienė S, Dvarionienė J. Current practice and shortcomings of EIA in
Lithuania. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2009;29:305–9.
Le Guoais PJ. Capacity building for EIA: a Review of Training Practices in Developing
Countries. University of East Anglia, UK; 2003.
Lo CWH, Yip PKT, Cheung KC. The regulatory style of environmental governance in China:
the case of EIA regulation in Shanghai. Public Admin Develop 2000;20:305–18.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE. National Strategy for
Environmental Protection until 2010 and Vision until 2020. Hanoi: National
Political Publisher; 2004.
Nadeem O, Hameed R. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment in Pakistan.
Environ Impact Asses Rev 2008;28:562–71.
O'Rourke D. Community driven regulation: balancing development and the environ-
ment in Vietnam. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2004.
O'Rourke D. Motivating a conflicted environmental state: community driven regulation
in Vietnam. In: Mol APJ, Buttel FH, editors. The environmental state under pressure
(research in social problems & public policy), 10. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd;
2002. p. 221–44.
Obbard JP, Lai YC, Briffett C. Environmental assessment in Vietnam: theory and practice.
J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2002;4:267–95.
Sinh BT. The cultural politics of development and environment in Vietnam. In: Kaosa M,
Dore J, editors. Social challenges for the Mekong Region. Chiang Mai, Thailand:
White Lotus Publishing; 2003. p. 371–404.
Tan AKJ. Environmental laws and institutions in Southeast Asia: a review of recent
developments. Singapore Yearbook of International Law 2004;8:177–92.
Tuan NQ, Maclaren VW. Community concerns about landfills: a case study of Hanoi,
Vietnam. J Environ Planning Manage 2005;48:809–31.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). UNDP. Vietnam. Hanoi: UNDP; 2004 to
2004.
World Bank. Taking stock: an update on Vietnam's recent economic developments.
Hanoi: World Bank; 2009.
Alison Clausen WWF Madagascar and Western Indian Ocean Programme Office, BP 738,
Antananarivo (101), Madagascar. Alison Clausen is an environmental impact assessment
and climate change adaptation specialist with a Masters degree in Environmental
Engineering Studies from the University of Sydney and a Masters degree in Applied Science
(Environmental Conservation) from Charles Sturt University. She has over 15 years
experience working as a consultant for donors, non-government organizations and private
clients preparing environmental impact assessments and environmental management
plans with a focus on the transport and energy infrastructure sectors. Previously based in
Vietnam for six years, she continues to work on projects in Madagascar and throughout
Southeast Asia in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.
 Author's personal copy
A. Clausen et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 136–143
Vu Hoang Hoa Water Resources University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Vu Hoang Hoa is a senior
lecturer at the Water Resources University in Hanoi, Vietnam with a focus on
environmental impact assessment. She has over 10 years practical experience working
with the Government of Vietnam and international donors preparing EIAs and
environmental management plans for water resources, transport and tourism
infrastructure projects. She has a Masters degree in Engineering Science from the
University of Melbourne and a PhD in agro-meteorological engineering from The
Odessa Hydro Meteorological Institute, Ukraine.
View publication stats
143
Miguel Pedrono Animal and Integrated Risk Management team, CIRAD, Montpellier,
France. Miguel Pedrono is a Researcher in Conservation Biology; he specialises in
conservation strategies and protected areas management, with emphasis on
conservation prioritization and empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation
investments. He has managed research projects in Vietnam, Madagascar, India and
Central Africa. He received his PhD in Ecology from Paris VI University, France.