Bahr Dar University, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Science,

Department of Natural Resources Management

Course Material for Environmental Impact Assessment

Compiled by: Belayneh Ayele (PhD)

November, 2011

1
 Table of Content

Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Environment and Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 What is Environmental impact assessment? ......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 History of EIA and the concept of sustainable development ................................................................................. 9
1.4 Constraints for Implementing Environmental Assessment Procedures in Developing Countries ......................... 12
2. Policy, social, institutional and legal aspects of EIA ................................................................................................ 14
2.1.1 Environmental Policy of Ethiopian (EPE) ................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Legal framework for EIA .................................................................................................................................. 14
2.4.1 Legal Acts in Ethiopia ................................................................................................................................ 15
3. EIA process ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
3.1. Guiding principles of EIA ................................................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Basic steps of EIA Process ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Screening ................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.3 Impact Analysis (Impact identification, prediction and Evaluation) ............................................................. 35
3.3.4 Impact mitigation and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) ................................................................. 61
4. EIA reporting .......................................................................................................................................................... 70
5. EIA review ............................................................................................................................................................. 73
6. Decision making in EIA .......................................................................................................................................... 82
7. EIA monitoring and Environmental Auditing .......................................................................................................... 84
7.1. EIA monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ 84
7.2. Environmental Auditing ................................................................................................................................... 85
8. Public participation for EIA................................................................................................................................. 89
9. References .......................................................................................................................................................... 98

2
1. Introduction
1.1 Environment and Environmental Impacts
Environment is the totality of the surrounding biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere and the
dynamic interactions inherent in these components. According to ISO 14001, Environment can be defined as’
Surrounds which an organization operates, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, human
and inter relation’. The two main categories of the environment are biotic and abiotic environments. The
abiotic environment can further be classified into atmosphere (air), lithosphere (Soil), and hydrosphere
(Water). The biotic environment is called Biosphere.(plants, animals and micro organisms). The abiotic
environment component includes components such as physical factors and physico chemical substances
(light, heat, wind, moisture, tide, solar energy, pH, soil, topography, minerals etc.). The biotic and abiotic
components constantly affect each other and cannot be isolated from each other (figure). Man as an architect
of the natural environment creates some manmade environment including social, economical, political and
cultural environments. As a result, attributable to its wider context, the study of our environment requires a
highly interdisciplinary approach integrating both natural and social sciences

The environment has never been constant and static. It has always been changing, sometimes slowly and
sometimes rapidly or drastically. Thus like other organisms, man is also affected by his environment and
these changes in environment may benefit or harm the man or other organisms living in it. Many species on
earth could not cope up with changing environment, as a result of which they have since vanished and many
are on the brink of vanishing.

The food we eat, the clean air we breathe, the water we drink, in general everything important for the
sustenance of life comes from our environment. The environment is the ultimate source for basic needs of
human beings. Human being by utilizing environmental resources, releases energy and waste products which
haves detrimental impacts. Environmental impacts associated with socio-economic development harm or
improve the environment in one way or another. As a result, environmental impacts associated with any
economic, social, political and cultural practices has to be studies systematically as the carrying and buffering
capacity of the environment is limited.

Our understanding of the connections between human life and other elements of nature is limited. We also
have the power to destroy the natural systems that sustain us. Our capacity for destruction is illustrated
through the deterioration of the ozone layer, through the extinction of species, and through mass deforestation
and desertification. In many parts of the world, economic development projects directed at improving levels
of material comfort have had unintended detrimental effects on people and natural resources. Water, land, and
air have been degraded to the point where they can no longer sustain existing levels of development and
quality of life. With inadequate environmental planning, human activities have resulted in the disruption of
social and communal harmony, the loss of human livelihood and life, the introduction of new diseases, and
the destruction of renewable resources. These and other consequences can negate the positive benefits of
economic development. Economic development in developing countries has been focused on immediate
economic gains environmental protection has not been a priority because the economic losses from
environmental degradation often occur long after the economic benefits of development have been realized.

3
Figure 1: Illustration of Relationships between the air, water, and earth environments

4
Figure 2: General Diagram showing exchanges between the atmosphere, geosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and anthrosphere

Figure 3: Interactions in Environmental Systems

5
Environmental impact is any change to the environment or its component that may affect human health or
safety, biophysical conditions, or cultural heritage, other physical structure with positive or negative
consequences. The environmental impacts of a project are that resultant changes/alteration in natural,
environmental parameters like physical (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere), biological or biosphere
(plants, animals and microorganisms) and man-made parameters like social, legal, political, economic and
cultural parameters. An impact has both spatial and temporal components and can be described as the change
in an environmental parameter, over a specified period and within a defined area, resulting from a particular
activity compared with the situation which would have occurred had the activity not been initiated.

Impacts are distinguished as direct (primary) and indirect (secondary, tertiary and higher order). Some
impacts are a direct consequence of a particular activity. Other impacts however occur as a result of changes
in a chain of environmental parameters. An impact that may in itself not be significant but the combination of
one or more impacts that can have a greater effect than the sum of the individual impacts is called cumulative
impact. The major environmental problems which continue to incite human concern are varied. Over
population, soil erosion, depletion of natural resources, poverty, loss of bio diversity, pollution of the
environment and many more. All these problems of the environment are mainly due to the anthropogenic
activities which are dangerous both to the earth and to our selves.

1.2 What is Environmental impact assessment?

Past development planning processes don’t take adequate account of the detrimental impacts of economic development
activities on the environment. The need for the systematic study of impacts of development projects and the
inclusion of management practices led to the advent of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes. The
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the
process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant
effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made. An EIA may
also be defined as a formal process to predict the environmental impacts of human development activities
and to plan appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects and to augment positive effects.
EIA is a planning tool which is used, together with the project feasibility study, to ensure that the project plan
is the optimal economic-cum-environmental plan, that is, that the plan is environmentally as well as
economically sound and thus represents the best approach to planning for development projects in order that
continuing economic development will be sustainable. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that
decision makers consider the ensuing environmental impacts to decide whether or not to proceed with the
project.
Specifically, an EIA:

Identifies the sources of impacts from the project activities and recognizes the environmental
components which are critical to the change or the impacts;

Predicts the likely environmental impacts of projects on the identified environmental components
either using quantitative, qualitative, semi-quantitative, or hybrid methods;

Finds ways to reduce unacceptable impacts and enhance the positive contributions of the project by
recommending mitigation measures or by exploring a change in the capacity, technology, or design or
even by evaluating alternative sites;

Presents to decision makers and other concerned agencies the results of impact identification,
prediction, and assessment with options of suggested measures of mitigation and monitoring.

One of the purposes of EIA is to ensure that both public and private enterprises consider the environmental
effects of the decisions they make with regard to implementation of the project or programs.

6
In general the benefits of EIA include:

• Better environmental planning and design of a proposal. Carrying out an EIA entails an analysis of
alternatives in the design and location of projects. This can result in the selection of an improved
technology, which lowers waste outputs or an environmentally optimum location for a project. A well-
designed project can minimise risks and impacts on the environment and people, and thereby avoid
associated costs of remedial treatment or compensation for damage.
• Ensuring compliance with environmental standards. Compliance with environmental standards
reduces damage to the environment and disruption to communities. It also avoids the likelihood of
penalties, fines and loss of trust and credibility.
• Savings in capital and operating costs. EIA can avoid the undue costs of unanticipated impacts. These
can escalate if environmental problems have not been considered from the start of proposal design and
require rectification later. An ‘anticipate and avoid’ approach is much cheaper than ‘react and cure’ .
Generally, changes which must be made late in the project cycle are the most expensive.
• Reduced time and costs of approvals of development applications (Avoid latter plan adaptaion). If all
environmental concerns have been taken into account properly before submission for project approval,
then it is unlikely that delays will occur as a result of decision-makers asking for additional
information or alterations to mitigation measures. Increased project acceptance by the public.
• Reduce health cost
• Increase project acceptance

The EIA is intended neither to disrupt nor to impede economic development. A project plan which is
economic-cum-environmental will have a higher benefit/cost ratio than a plan which is not responsive to
environmental needs, especially when long-term as well as short-term effects are considered. Thus, EIA
provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the environment may be improved as part of the
development process (a win – win Opportunity). It provides an opportunity for mitigation measures to be
incorporated to minimize problems. It enables monitoring programs to be established to assess future impacts
and provide data on which managers can take informed decisions to avoid environmental damage.

EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers that harmonizes engineering and other economic
activities with the environment. Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential part of
development planning and management. It should become as familiar and important as economic analysis in
project evaluation. The aim of any EIA should be to facilitate sustainable development. Beneficial
environmental effects are maximized while adverse effects are ameliorated or avoided to the greatest extent
possible. EIA will help select and design projects, programs or plans with long term viability and therefore
improve cost effectiveness and societal acceptance. A key output of the EIA should be an action plan to be
followed during implementation of the project and after implementation during the monitoring phase.

Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development but this view is gradually
disappearing. It can, however, be a useful constraint to unsustainable development. It is now well understood
that environment and development are complementary and interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring
that the two are mutually reinforcing. The costs of EIA preparation and any delays will be more than covered
by savings accruing from modifications.

Clearly, an EIA will not resolve all problems. There will be trade-offs between economic development and
environmental protection as in all development activities. However, without an objective EIA, informed
decision making would be impossible. Understanding the concept and methodologies of EIA assist
professionals from various disciplines and backgrounds (government officials, consultants, and planners) to
incorporate environmental considerations into planning, designing, implementing and regulating development
programs, plans and projects, thus leading to sustainable projects.
7
The aims and objectives of EIA can be divided into two categories. The immediate aim of EIA is to inform
the process of decision-making by identifying the potentially significant environmental effects and risks of
development proposals. The ultimate (long term) aim of EIA is to promote sustainable development by
ensuring that development proposals do not undermine critical resource and ecological functions or the well
being, lifestyle and livelihood of the communities and peoples who depend on them.

Misconceptions about EIA

• EIA is anti- development. EIAs rarely lead to the cancellation of a project. EIA provides the decision
maker with environmental information, just as economic feasibility provides economic information i.e.
they don’t mandate decisions. An EIA can show a project to be environmentally unsound, just as an
economic study may show a project to be economically unsound. Few rational observers would
condemn economic analysis for this reason.
• EIA is too expensive or a waste of money. The median estimate for EIA cost is on the order of one-
half to one percent of a project’s construction cost. In Thailand, for instance, suggested allowances for
EIA costs are from 0.1% to 1.1%, with higher percentage for smaller projects(less than $1 million
US). The cost savings in improving project design and avoided environmental impacts is often many
times this amount. In the long-run, not doing an EIA can turn out to be far more expensive.
• EIA is ineffective. A common criticism of EIS are that they are carried out too late to affect decisions,
and often simply justify decisions already taken. EIAs conducted too late to affect decisions, and often
simply justify decisions already taken. EIAs conducted too late in the decision process or as mere
formalities are ineffective and a waste of human resources, time and money. Well-timed EIAs,
however, do have major benefits.

Although many proponents complain that EIA causes excessive delays in projects, many of these are caused
by poor administration of the process rather than by the process itself. These occur when:

• the EIA is commenced too late in the project cycle;

• the terms of reference are poorly drafted;.
• the EIA is not managed to a schedule;
• the technical and consultative components of EIA are inadequate; and
• the EIA report is incomplete or deficient as a basis for decision making.

Similar considerations apply to the timeframe for the EIA process. Most projects merely require screening and
might take only an hour or two of work. Where further EIA work is necessary, the time taken can range from
a few days or weeks, for a small irrigation or a minor infrastructure project, to two years or more for a large
dam or a major infrastructure project. Generally speaking, the costs and time involved in EIA should decrease
as experience is gained with the process and there is a better understanding of the impacts associated with
different types of projects and the use of appropriate methods. Over a longer timeframe, the availability of
baseline data should also increase.

All participants in the EIA process are ‘stakeholders’ who pursue particular interests and hold different views
and preferences. Full public involvement, open to all affected and interested parties, provides the best means
of ensuring the EIA process is fair and credible. It allows decision-makers and participants themselves to gain
an understanding of the diversity and balance of opinion on the issues at stake. The final decision can then be
made in a fully informed and transparent manner, having regard to all the facts and the views by stakeholders
and the public at large.

8
1.3 History of EIA and the concept of sustainable development

Often regarded with suspicion as an unnecessary impediment to legitimate developmental objectives and
progress, EIA took a decade to be acknowledged as a tool that could actually produce projects superior both in
quality and value. The first formal process to assess environmental impacts was conducted in the US in the
early 1979s, in response to rising to public concern over environmental deterioration. The passage of the US
national Environmental policy ACT of 1969 (NEPA) mandated the EIA process for all projects involving
federal actions, including the issuance of permits, licenses, and financial assistances. NEPA was intended to
provide full and fair discussion of the significant environmental impacts of a planned action and to inform
decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives , which would avoid or minimize adverse
impacts, or enhance the quality of the human environment.

In the year following NEPA, a number of states and municipalities in the U.S enacted environmental policy
act mandating similar EIA requirements at local levels. As a result, an EIA in form is likely to be required by
decree for many developments or development projects in the United States. In the 1970’s, following concern
over pesticide deaths in Pakistan associated with a USAID funded activity, environmental groups claimed
USID over its lack of compliance with NEPA. Regulation 216 and the environmental review procedure were
formulated to address these concerns.

In the past several years, an increasing number of countries and multinational institutions have enacted laws
and directives establishing EIA requirements for project reviews. In 1985, the European Economic
Community issued a directive establishing minimum requirements for EIA in all member countries. The
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) adopted goals and principles of EIA in 1987. In 1991, twenty
six nations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe signed a Convention on EA in a
Transboundary Context, requiring all signatory nations to establish EIA procedures for transboundary
impacts.

Increasing emphasis on EIA is also being observed by official aid agencies and the international banking
community. In 1971, the World Bank established an environmental section to analyse environmental
reconnaissance of hydro projects because of the importance of environmental management. In 1989, The
World Bank issued an operational directive requiring EIAs for certain categories of projects. Most multilateral
development banks have now followed (or led) the World Bank in incorporating EIA procedures in to their
lending practices. Some national credit agencies have also adopted EIA requirements.

A number of bilateral agencies also have prescribed guidelines for environmental assessments of projects for
which they provide financial assistance. Table 1.2 lists the guidelines adopted by some of these agencies.
Tracing the environmental movement from its origin in the 1960s to the present day appears to be a fitting
backdrop on which to weave the evolution of the process of EIA. In essence, it appears that as the
understanding of the environment and its multidimensional interdependent nature matured, so did the size and
scope of environmental legislation.

Two major observations may be made from Table 1.1. Firstly, more countries introduced EIA in the 1980s
and 1990s than in the 1970s and 1980s. This indicates a widespread acceptance of EIA. Secondly, EIA has
been introduced fairly early in some of the developing countries, such as Malaysia and the Philippines. The
philosophical birth of the environmental movement in the 1960s has grown into the concrete laws and
regulations of the 1990s, which today has encompassed both the developed and developing world. A trend of
moving EIA from project level to plans and policies may also be observed.

9
Table 1: EIA legislation in various countries worldwide

Table 2: EIA guidelines in bilateral agencies

Sustainable development is a key concept that has gained increasing international acceptance during the last
two decades. A milestone in this process was the ‘Brundtland’ report, which defined sustainable development
as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’’ (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),
1987). Five years later, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Earth Summit,
established a number of international agreements, declarations and commitments (see table below). Agenda
21, the global action plan for sustainable development, emphasises the importance of integrated environment
and development decision-making and promotes the use of EIA and other policy instruments for this purpose.

10
Table 3: Four cornerstones of the Earth Summit

Cornerstone Summary
The Rio Declaration on A set of principles which provide guidance on achieving sustainable
Environment and Development development
Framework Convention on An internationally treaty to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the
Climate Change atmosphere.
Convention on Biological An international convention with three objectives: the conservation of
Diversity biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the equitable
sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
Agenda 21 A global program of action for achieving sustainable development to
which countries are ‘’politically committed’’ rather than legally
obligated

Sustainable development is an evolving concept, which is continually being redefined and reinterpreted. The
starting point for most people is the Brundtland definition (described above), which also can be formally
stated as twin principles of intra- and inter-generational equity. In practice, these principles mean improving
the welfare of the world’s poor and maintaining the development opportunities for the generations that follow.

Despite the fact that sustainable development is considered to be the solution for maintaining economic
growth while protecting our environment, Goodland (1991) presents very convincing arguments and
undeniable evidence to conclude that the limits of growth, in which the earth functions as a source of inputs
and sink for waste products, have been reached and that options for ensuring sustainability in future are
running out. Evidence for this conclusion includes:
(a) over 80 per cent of the earth's net primary productivity is already being consumed to meet humans' food
and other needs while population is still increasing,
(b) global warming owing to increasing levels of carbon dioxide is already producing adverse climatic effects
that threaten humans and various ecosystems,
(c) ozone depletion is taking place owing to increasing levels of greenhouse gases (methane, CFCs, and
nitrous oxide), which are eating up the protective ozone layer with adverse consequences for humans and
other living things,
(d) land degradation and loss of soil fertility and productivity make it difficult to produce enough food, feed,
and fiber for rising populations of humans and animals, and
(e) Biodiversity has been lost with increasing deforestation, especially in species-rich tropical ecosystems,
with loss of species estimated at 500 per annum.

Whatever arguments are articulated, reducing the burden of environmental impacts is necessary if
development is to become sustainable. These impacts are more complex, larger in scale and further reaching
in their potential consequences than thirty years ago when EIA was first introduced. As a result, EIA has
become of ever increasing importance as a tool for development decision-making. This role is formally
recognized in Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: ‘‘Environmental impact
assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have
a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national
authority’’.

In practice, EIA is applied primarily to prevent or minimise the adverse effects of major development
proposals, such as power stations, dams and reservoirs, industrial complexes, etc. It is also used as a planning
tool to promote sustainable development by integrating environmental considerations into a wide range of
proposed actions. Most notably, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies and plans focuses on
the highest levels of decision making, when better account can be taken of the environment in considering
11
development alternatives and options. More limited forms of EIA can be used to ensure that smaller scale
projects, conform to appropriate environmental standards or site and design criteria. Such projects include
dredging activities, road realignment and upgrading, and housing subdivisions.

1.4 Constraints for Implementing Environmental Assessment Procedures in Developing

Countries

1. The legal, administrative, institutional, and procedural frameworks for EIA often constrain the
implementation of EIA in developing countries. Many EIA agencies are subsidiary units of an
environmental ministry or agency. The relatively low status of these agencies in the bureaucracy
makes it difficult for them to have sufficient influence to ensure effective implementation of the EIA
process.
2. Highly trained technically competent people are required to operate and manage an EIA process. Even
ideal institutional arrangements will be ineffective if human resources are inadequate. Many people
are trained in physical and engineering sciences; however, few of these people have any training in
environmental protection. Consequently, there is a shortage of qualified environmental engineers,
ecologists and socio-economists in many countries. Many EIA teams especially in developing
countries lack critical expertise in most relevant disciplines — creating a large barrier to the
implementation of an effective EIA process.
3. Failure to review the EIA within the defined timeframe is treated as a de facto authorization to the
permitting agency to issue a permit. The tight time schedules apply to all private sector projects
regardless of project size or complexity. The time pressures are regarded by the private sector as an
important safeguard against project delays. The pressure on the EIA Division to quickly review the
detailed EIA reports means that only one team member has time to conduct a thorough review. The
quality of the review thus depends on the experience and expertise of the reviewer.
4. In making general observations about EIA in many developing countries 1) the EIA process is seen as
a bureaucratic requirement needed to obtain project approval; 2) political interference determines the
outcomes of some environmental reviews; 3) questionable practices by public servants serve to
discredit the process; and 4) the treatment of projects in environmentally critical areas is less than
satisfactory. All four of these are common to many developing countries. The view that EIA is simply
another bureaucratic requirement to obtain project approval is widespread. In many countries, there is
a process for environmental review of project proposals, but the people responsible often lack the
necessary skills to effectively carry out the reviews. Unfortunately, the goals of the EIA process are
not always well understood by decision makers, project proponents, and in some cases, the EIA
administrative agency staff. This leads to political interference and indiscretion on the part of EIA
agency staff.
5. Except for the limited amount, public participation is largely absent from the practice of EIA in most
developing countries. There are many political, institutional, and economic reasons that prevent the
development of public participation programs that are characteristic of the EIA process in developed
countries. In some countries the government is unwilling to have any form of public debate or scrutiny
of its development policy. In other countries, while there are no formal prohibitions, there are no
mandatory requirements for public participation. In most countries, affected interest groups do not
have sufficient resources to participate effectively in the EIA process. Restricting the ranges of issues
and interests reinforces the tendency for EIA to remain a bureaucratic requirement.

12
6. The quality of EIA reports is highly variable. Similarly, the scientific and technical information upon
which environmental assessment decisions are being made is often inadequate. a recent review of
EIAs submitted to the donors banks were evaluated for both their compliance to the Bank’s prescribed
format and the substance of the information provided. The results revealed that EIAs were generally
weak in: 1) assessment of ecological impacts; 2) analysis of alternatives; 3) economic analysis of
environmental impacts; and 4) public participation. Finally, the environmental management plans
proposed for implementation of the recommendations of the EIA report were usually inadequate both
in terms of the institutional arrangements proposed and the funding allocated.
7. There are very real constraints on the availability of environmental information to be used in an EIA
report. Time and budgets often do not allow for extensive new data collection and there is considerable
reliance on existing and secondary data. In spite of this, most EIAs provide considerable background
information on the environment. The problem is that they often provide little else. Where they are
most obviously lacking is in the assessment or prediction of impacts and in the provision of details of
appropriate mitigation measures.

13
2. Policy, social, institutional and legal aspects of EIA
2.1.1 Environmental Policy of Ethiopian (EPE)

Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE), which was adopted in April 1997, supports Constitutional Rights
through its guiding principles including ensuring:

 environmental sustainability, (minimize degrading and polluting impacts on ecological and life support
systems),
 wise use and management of renewable and non-renewable resources,
 public involvement and empowerment, full environmental and social costs or benefits foregone or lost,
and
 The integrated implementation of cross sectoral and sectoral federal, regional and local policies shall be
seen as a prerequisite to achieving the objectives of this Policy on the Environment.

The EPE has also provides Sectoral Environmental Policies and Cross-sectoral Environmental Policies.
Environmental Impact Assessment policies are included in the latter. The EIA policies are to ensure that:

A. To ensure that environmental impact assessments consider not only physical and biological impacts
but also address social, socio-economic, political and cultural conditions;
B. To ensure that public private sector development programs and projects recognize any environment
impact early and incorporate their containment into the development design process;
C. To recognize that public consultation is an integral part of EIA and ensure that EIA procedures make
provision for both an independent review and public comment before consideration by decision
makers;
D. To ensure that an environmental impact statement always includes mitigation plans for environmental
management problems and contingency plans in case of accidents;
E. To ensure that, at specified intervals during project implementation, environmental audit regarding
monitoring, inspection and record keeping take place for activities where these has been required by
the environmental Impact Statement;
F. To ensure that preliminary and full EIAs are under taken by the relevant sectoral ministries or
departments, if in the public sector, and by developer, if in the private sector;
G. To create by law an EIA process which requires appropriate environmental impact statements and
environmental audits for private and state development projects;
H. To establish the necessary institutional framework and determine the linkages of its parts for
undertaking, coordinating and approving EIAs and the subsequent system of environmental audits
required to ensure compliance with conditionalties;
I. To develop sectoral technical guidelines in EIAs and environmental audits;
J. To ensure that social , socioeconomic, political and cultural conditions are considered in
environmental impact assessment procedures and included in sectoral guidelines;
K. To develop EIA and environmental audit capacity and capability in the Environmental Protection
Authority, sectoral ministries and agencies as well as in the regions.

2.4 Legal framework for EIA

Environmental policy without appropriate legislation will be ineffective as, in turn, will be legislation without
enforcement. In many developing countries legislation on environmental issues has been in existence for
many years. For example, laws exist in most countries for the prevention of water pollution. Much of the
14
existing legislation or regulations have not been considered "environmental". Recently, much specific new
environmental legislation has been enacted. This may be as a response to major disasters, or may result from
government policy, public pressure or the general increased international awareness of the environmental
dangers that now exist in the world. Relevant water and land law as well as environmental protection
legislation needs stating, understanding and analysing as part of an EIA.

New legislation may include a statutory (constitutional) requirement for an EIA to be done in a prescribed
manner for specific development activities. When carrying out an EIA it is thus essential to be fully aware of
the statutory requirements and the legal responsibilities of the concerned institutions. These are best given as
an annex to the terms of reference. The legal requirements of the country must be satisfied. New laws can
impose an enormous burden on the responsible agencies. The statutory requirement to carry out an EIA for
specific projects will, for example, require expert staff to carry out the study, as well as officials to review the
EIA and approve the project.

Laws designating what projects require EIA should, ideally, limit the statutory requirements to prevent EIA
merely becoming a hurdle in the approval process. This will prevent large volumes of work being carried out
for little purpose. Most legislation lists projects for which EIA is a discretionary requirement. The
discretionary authority is usually the same body that approves an EIA. This arrangement allows limited
resources to be allocated most effectively. However, it is essential that the discretionary authority is publicly
accountable.

When external financial support is required it will also be necessary to satisfy the obligations of the donor
organization. Most major donors now require an EIA for projects relating to irrigation and drainage. Chapter 6
gives details of publications outlining the requirements of the main donors.

The function of environmental legislation can vary. It is not easy to give a precise definition of when an EIA
is needed. Therefore the statutory requirement for an EIA is not particularly well suited to law. On the other
hand many of the most important environmental hazards are easily addressed by law. For example, it is
straightforward to set legal limits for pollution, flow levels, compensation etc: here the problem is one of
enforcement. It is normal for an EIA to assess the acceptability or severity of impacts in relation to legal limits
and standards. However, it is important to highlight cases where existing standards are insufficiently stringent
to prevent adverse impacts and to recommend acceptable standards. Enforcement problems can be partially
addressed by changing institutional structures.

Laws relating to irrigated lands are complex and according to an FAO study of five African countries they are
not generally applied (FAO, 1992). There are conflicts between modern and customary laws: the former tend
to be given prominence although the latter are usually strong locally. Traditional and customary rights have
often developed in very different historical and political contexts and can vary greatly over a short distance.
They may also be mainly oral and imprecise. Local participation in the preparation of the EIA will help to
understand important customary rights and highlight possible weaknesses in any proposed development.

2.4.1 Legal Acts in Ethiopia

The proclamation No1/1995 to pronounce the coming into effect of the constitution of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia (issued on 21, August 1995) gave very good columns, which consider environmental
issues. The same is done the Amhara National Regional State in the Regional Constitution Declared on
Gazette No-2; 22, June 1995. These legislations have shown up the recognition of environmental rights and
obligations in line with regional/country development.
Article 43, 44 and 92 of the Federal Constitution state the following people’s environmental concerns.
15
• Article 43: The Right to Development
1. The peoples of Ethiopia as a whole and each Nation, Nationality and people in Ethiopia in particular have
the right to improve living standards and to sustainable development.
2. Nations have the right to participate in national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect
to policies and projects affecting their community
3. All international Agreements and relations concluded, established or conducted by the state shall protect
and ensure Ethiopia’s right to sustainable development.
4. The basic aim of development activities shall be to enhance the capacity of citizens for development and to
meet basic needs.

• Article,44 : Environment Rights

1. All persons have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
2. All persons who have been displaced or whose livelihoods have been adversely affected as a result of state
programs have the right to commensurate monetary or alternative means of compensation, including
relocation with adequate state assistance.

• Article, 92: Environmental Objective

1. Government shall endeavor to ensure that all Ethiopians live in a clean and healthy environment
2. The design and implementation of programs and projects of development shall not damage or destroy the
Environment.
3. People have the right to full consultation and the expression of views in the planning and implementation
of environmental policies and projects that affect them directly
4. Government and citizens shall have the due to protect the environment
"Environmental Protection organs Establishment proclamation No.295/2002" has stipulate the need to
establish a system that enables to foster coordinated but differentiated responsibilities among environmental
protection agencies at federal and regional levels. The proclamation has also requires the establishment of
Sectoral and Regional Environmental Units and Agencies, respectively.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation (Proc. No. 299/2002) Has made it mandatory that
development projects or public instruments (policies, Programs, Plans) have to subject to EIA/EA scrutiny. It
means that EA is a legal requirement. The proclamation has also defined the jurisdictions at Federal and
Regional environmental agencies. Moreover, includes several provisions including incentives and punitive
measures. This proclamation is a backbone to harmonizing and integrating environmental, economic,
cultural, and social considerations into a decision making process in a manner that promotes sustainable
development.

The "Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation No. 300/2002" is promulgated with a view to
eliminate or, when not possible to mitigate pollution as an undesirable consequence of social and economic
development activities. This proclamation is one of the basic legal documents need to be observed as
corresponding to effective EIA administration.

16
3. EIA process
The particular components, stages and activities of an EIA process will depend upon the requirements of the
country or donor. However, most EIA processes have a common structure (see flow chart below) and the
application of the main stages is a basic standard of good practice. Typically, the EIA process begins with
screening to ensure time and resources are directed at the proposals that matter environmentally. It should end
with some form of follow up on the implementation of the decisions and actions taken as a result of an EIA
report.

Figure 4: Generalized EIA Process Flowchart

17
Clearly speaking EIA is part of a project planning process. EIA report is attached as part of the project plan
before the inception of the project. The EIA study and project planning processe
processes are parallel activities as
indicated in figure 5.. The aim of EIA is to balance the environmental interest in the larger scheme of
development issues and concerns. The primary objective of EIA is to ensure that potential problems are
foreseen and addressedd at an early stage in the project's planning and design.

Figure 5: EIA and Parallel Project planning activities

18
3.1. Guiding principles of EIA

The basic principles that underline the objective of EIA are:

• Early application: proactive consideration and integration of environmental concerns at the earliest
stage of the conceptualization of the projects, programs or policies.
• Participation: appropriate and timely access and opportunity to the process for all interested and
affected parties (IAP). The key issue of this principle is ensuring public participation in the process of
EIA whereby involvement of all the stakeholders in the project is ensured. Another equally important
point to be considered is selectivity when involving people in the EIA process. Generally, three
categories of participants are needed to carry out an EIA:

Those appointed to manage and undertake the EIA process (usually a coordinator and a staff of
experts);

Those who can contribute with facts, ideas, or concerns to the study, including scientists,
economists, engineers, policy makers, and representatives of interested or affected groups;

Those who have direct authority to permit, control, or alter the projects, that is, the decision
makers - including, for example, the developer, aid agency or investors, competent authorities,
regulators, and politicians.
• Issues based: the focus of an EA is on the resolution of major issues of significant impacts. It is
important that an EIA should not try to cover too many topics in too much detail. At the beginning,
the scope of the EIA should be focused on only the most likely and most serious of the possible
environmental impacts. Large verbose, complex reports are unnecessary, and can be counter-
productive, as the findings from the EIA may not be in a form readily accessible and immediately
useful to decision makers and project planners. When mitigation measures are being suggested, the
focus of the study should be only on workable, acceptable solutions to the problems. Finally, the
conclusions of the EIA should be communicated in a concise form, preferably including a summary of
information relevant to the needs of decision makers. Supporting data should be provided separately.
This activity of focusing on the significant issues typically constitutes the scoping exercise of the EIA
process.
• Alternatives: all feasible options to a project, policies, programs or its components like site,
processes, products, raw materials, designs etc including the “no project” option should be considered.
• Accountability: this in particular focuses on answerability of proponent consultant and environmental
agencies for their respective roles and responsibilities pertinent to the activities they had
• Flexibility: the assessment process should be able to adapt to deal efficiently with changing
circumstances and decision making situations.
• Credibility: assessment and reviews are under taken with professionalism and objectivity
• Time and cost effectiveness: the assessment process, its outcomes and decision taking will ensure
environmental protection at the least cost and within reasonable time to society and developer alike.
• Transparency: all assessment decisions, and their basis, should be open and accessibility to the
public.
• Supportive: the review and decision making process should enhance and support sustainable
development and environmentally friendly investment efforts.
• Conservation based: the EIA/EA process should strive to promote conservation based development.
• Practicality: the information and out puts provided by the assessment process are readily usable in the
decision making and planning.

19
 • Link information to decisions about the project: An EIA should be organized so that it directly
supports the decisions that need to be taken about the proposed project. It should start early enough to
provide information to improve basic designs and should progress through the several stages of project
planning. The central idea of this principle is that it is essential to integrate the process of EIA into the
project cycle by incorporating it right from the project-planning stage. EIA should be handled
concurrently and in an integrated way in the project cycle. In a typical sequence:

when the project owner first introduce the project concept, they consider likely environmental
issues;

when the developer is looking for sites or routes, environmental considerations are used to aid
the selection process;

when the developer and investors are assessing the project's feasibility, EIA should be initiated
to help in anticipating any concerns or problems;

when engineers are designing the project, the EIA identifies certain standards for the design to
meet;

when a permit is requested, a complete EIA report is submitted, and published for general
comment;

When the developer implements the project, monitoring or other measures provided for in the
EIA are undertaken.
• Present clear options for the mitigation of impacts and for sound environmental management: To
help decision makers, the EIA must be designed so as to present clear choices on the planning and
implementation of the project, and it should make clear the likely results of each option. This principle
thus focuses on the evolution of the environmental management plan as well as a post-project monitoring
plan. For instance,
To mitigate adverse impacts, the EIA could propose:

pollution control technology or design features;

the reduction, treatment, and/or disposal of wastes;

Compensation or concessions to affected groups.
To enhance environmental compatibility, the EIA could suggest:

several alternative sites;

changes to the project's design and operation (e.g., clean technology);

limitations to its initial size or growth;

Separate programs which contribute in a positive way to local resources or to the quality of
the environment.

To ensure that the implementation of an approved project is environmentally sound, the EIA may prescribe:

monitoring programs or periodic impact reviews;

Contingency plans for regulatory action;

Involvement of the local community in later decisions.
• Provide information in a form useful to the decision makers: The objective of an EIA is to ensure that
environmental problems are foreseen and addressed by decision makers. To achieve this objective,
information should be presented to decision makers in terms and formats that are immediately meaningful.

Briefly present hard facts and predictions about impacts, comments on the reliability of this
information, and summarize the consequences of each of the proposed options.

Write in the terminology and vocabulary that is used by the decision makers and the
community affected by the project.

Present the essential findings in a concise document, supported by separate background
materials where necessary.

Make the document easy to use and provide information visually whenever possible.

20
3.3 Basic steps of EIA Process

3.3.1 Screening

Screening is the first key decision of the EIA process. The purpose of screening is to determine whether a
proposal requires an EIA or not and the level at which the assessment should occur. It is intended to ensure
that the form or level of any EIA review is commensurate with the importance of the issues raised by a
proposal. The conduct of screening thus involves making a preliminary determination of the expected impact
of a proposal on the environment and of its relative significance. A certain level of basic information about the
proposal and its location is required for this purpose. The time taken to complete the screening process will
depend upon the type of proposal, the environmental setting and the degree of experience or understanding of
its potential effects. Most proposals can be screened very quickly (in an hour or less) but some will take
longer and a few will require an extended screening or initial assessment. Similarly, the majority of proposals
may have few or no impacts and will be screened out of the EIA process. A smaller number of proposals will
require further assessment. Only a limited number of proposals, usually major projects, will warrant a full EIA
because they are known or considered to have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment; for
example, on human health and safety, rare or endangered species, protected areas, fragile or valued
ecosystems, biological diversity, air and water quality, or the lifestyle and livelihood of local communities.

The screening process can have one of the three outcomes:

• No EIA is required;
• EIA required
o a full and comprehensive EIA is required;
o a more limited EIA is required (often called preliminary or initial assessment); or
• Further study is necessary to determine the level of EIA required (often called an initial environmental
examination or evaluation [IEE]).

The Initial Environmental Examination /IEE/

In some EIA systems, an IEE is required when the potential environmental impacts of a proposal cannot be
established by the application of standard screening procedures. Typically, an IEE is a relatively low-cost
analysis that makes use of information already available. It is carried out using EIA procedures and methods,
which are scaled to purpose. For example, key issues can be identified by a rapid scoping exercise, based on
consultation with local people and agencies. A site or area visit should take place to survey the current
situation and obtain baseline information. Simple methods, such as a checklist or matrix, are used in impact
identification and often focus on appropriate mitigation measures. Depending on its findings, the IEE report
can be used either as a scoping document when a proposal is referred to a full EIA or to support
environmentally sound planning and design when a proposal does not require further review.

An IEE is a preliminary EIA study that:

• describes the proposal and the environmental setting;

• considers alternatives to improve the environmental benefits;
• addresses the concerns of the local community;
• identifies the potential environmental effects;
• identifies measures to mitigate adverse impacts; and
• describes, as necessary, environmental monitoring and management plans.

21
IEE is a process of further inquiry into the environmental impact assessment. There is, however, a fairly thin
dividing line between a full EIA /scoping/ and an IEE when it comes to identification and gradation of the
impact issue. A full EIA /Scoping/, however, lays an emphasis on the identification of issues and on the
boundaries of the analysis. IEE focuses on the assessment of impacts and identification of obvious mitigation
measures. This is generally done by conducting baseline information and by collecting any available
secondary data. The issues are assessed by carrying out a prediction exercise by using informal judgment,
the opinion of experts, or in some occasions by using screening level mathematical models.

Any issues emerging from the IEE requiring further study are also identified and if a detailed EIA is required
then the terms of reference to conduct the study are also prepared.

The IEE study thus results in the following:

• a brief description of the expected or predicted environmental changes due to the project;
• measures or procedures that could be implemented to avoid or reduce the impacts on the
environment;
• examination of alternatives, including the proposed action and no action;
• Additional study requirements, regulatory requirements, and other coordination requirements for
the detailed EIA, if required.

Alternatives should be feasible and substantially different from each other. Sometimes alternatives are made
up and used to place the preferred alternative in a favourable perspective. A comparison of alternatives, done
at the IEE level, should answer several questions.

a. How will the proposal change the environment? This is to identify the environmental consequences of
the proposal, in comparison with the existing state of the environment.
b. How serious are these changes for the environment? This is to compare the impacts to environmental
standards and objectives.
c. How can serious impacts be prevented? This is to compare the different possible solutions for the
proposal, choose the best alternative, and present the arguments for it.

The following criteria can be used to check the selection of alternatives. Alternatives should:

• be feasible in practice (sense of reality);

• meet the objectives of the initiator, provided they are not defined too narrowly (problem solving
capacity);
• Be sufficiently different (discriminating potential).

In the EIA process up to this stage, scoping identifies the significant environmental issues emerging from the
project, while through the activity of IEE a preliminary study of the assessment of the various impacts is
conducted. In addition, obvious mitigation measures are identified to meet regulatory requirements and any
residual issues requiring further detailed study are identified.

A Detailed /Full/ EIA

The next tier involves detailed EIA. The study is broadly conducted along the lines of IEE, although in a more
detailed manner. In the detailed EIA, all significant issues are examined once again in the formal framework

22
of identification, prediction, and assessment, and all issues previously dealt in the IEE level are reassessed for
adequacy. New issues, if any, are identified because of:
(a) Increased understanding of issues due to IEE;
(b) Project modifications; and
(c) Suggested mitigation measures.

An IEE often leads to either new information on the projects and its activities or the presence of a critical
environmental component. This can lead to issues not identified earlier. An exercise of IEE may ask for
project modifications. These modifications would then need a scoping exercise (note the iterative nature of
EIA) and in this process new significant issues may be identified. In some cases, the mitigation measures
themselves may require checks and balances as these are generally proposed in isolation at the IEE level. For
example, for the mitigation of dust-laden emissions from an industry, a Venturi scrubber may be suggested. It
becomes necessary then to ensure that the water (solvent) required for the purpose of scrubbing is shown in
the overall water balance and that the scrubbed water is included in the overall effluent volume.

In the case of an industry discharging its effluents on a coastal area, an outfall into the sea may be suggested
as mitigation. This measure can, however, lead to impacts during construction (e.g., noise and debris leading
to disturbance to the marine ecosystem) as well as during operation (e.g., causing obstruction in the navigation
pathways of the local fishermen). These issues arising out of the mitigations themselves need to be addressed
in detailed EIA. In detailed EIA, a systems approach is used in the identification of the significant issues.

The next step in detailed EIA is to classify issues which can be understood by available information and those
which require additional information and inference. This leads to identification of the necessary surveys,
prediction and assessment exercises, and appropriate mitigation measures. The final recommendations in the
detailed EIA extend beyond the mitigation measures to include the necessary institutional set up for the
support of the overall environmental management system.

3.3.1.1 Criteria for the determination of the need for, and level of, EIA

Screening criteria is used for the determination of the need for, and level of, environmental impact
assessment. The following is adapted from criteria developed by the Australian and New Zealand
Environmental and Conservation Council (ANZECC), 1996a. The most important criteria to be considered
are:

• Character of the receiving environment (the sensitivity of the project location),

• Potential impact of proposal,
• Resilience of natural and human environments to cope with change,
• Confidence of prediction of impacts and
• Degree of public interest.
• Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) as it provides:

information about the proposal

describes the proposal and examine alternatives

identifies and addresses the concerns of the community

mitigates adverse effects and enhances potential benefits

23
Character of the receiving environment

Consider:

• Is it, or is it likely to be, part of the conservation estate or subject to treaty?

• Is it an existing or potential environmentally significant area?
• Is it vulnerable to major natural or induced hazards?
• Is it a special purpose area?
• Is it an area where human communities are vulnerable?
• Does it involve a renewable or a non-renewable resource?
• Is it a degraded area, subject to significant risk levels, or a potentially contaminated site?

NOTE: Off-site (out of area) as well as on-site (local) characteristics should be considered, where relevant.

Potential impact of proposal

Consider:

• Will implementation or construction, operation and/or decommissioning of the proposal have the
potential to cause significant changes to the receiving environment (on-site or off-site, transboundary,
short term or long term)?
• Could implementation of the proposal give rise to health impacts or unsafe conditions?
• Will the proposal significantly divert resources to the detriment of other natural and human
communities?

NOTE: This should include consideration of the magnitude of the impacts, their spatial extent, the duration
and the intensity of change, the total life cycle and whether and how the impacts are manageable.

Resilience of natural and human environments to cope with change

Consider:

• Can the receiving environment absorb the level of impact predicted without suffering irreversible
change?
• What are the implications of the proposal for bio-diversity?
• Can land uses at and around the site be sustained?
• Can sustainable uses of the site be achieved beyond the life of the proposal?
• Are contingency or emergency plans proposed or in place to deal with accidental events?

NOTE: Cumulative as well as individual impacts should be considered in the context of sustainability.

Confidence of prediction of impacts

Consider:

• What level of knowledge do we have on the resilience of a given significant ecosystem?

• Is the proposal sufficiently detailed and understood to enable the impacts to be established?
• Is the level and nature of change to the natural human environment sufficiently understood to allow
the impact of the proposal to be predicted and managed?

24
 • Is it practicable to monitor the predicted effects?
• Are present community values on land use and resource use known or likely to change?

Presence of planning, policy framework and other decision-making processes

Consider:

• Is the proposal consistent with existing policy frameworks?

• Do other approval processes exist to adequately assess and manage proposal impacts?
• What legislation, standard codes or guidelines are available to properly monitor and control operations
and the types or quantity of the impacts?

Degree of public interest

Consider:

• Is the proposal controversial or could it lead to controversy or concern in the community?

• Will the amenity, values or lifestyle of the community be adversely affected?
• Will large numbers of people require relocation?
• Will the proposal result in inequities between sectors of the community?

3.3.1.2 Screening approaches

Different approaches to screening have been adopted by different agencies and governments in the world. For
a project, generally decision whether to recommend IEE or a full EIA is made according to its type, location,
sensitivity, scale, the nature and magnitude of its potential impact, and the availability of cost-effective
mitigation measures. Screening criteria can be derived from one or a combination of the following methods:

a) Checklists: are lists of project types that must be subjected to different levels of environmental
assessment. Check lists tend to be the most widely used and effective screening method. Countries and
organizations that use such checklist type approaches include: the World Bank: the European Union, the
European Development Bank and the African Development Bank. Checklists of Environmentally Critical
Projects /ECP/requiring EIA include the following and Projects defined as ECP require an EIA based on type,
regardless of location.
• Heavy industries: non-ferrous metal industries, iron and steel mills, petroleum and petrochemical
industries, smelting plants.
• Resource extractive industries: major mining and quarrying projects, forestry projects, fishery projects.
• Infrastructure projects: major dams, major power plants, major reclamation projects, major roads and
bridges.

b) Sensitive area criteria: focuses on areas that are environmentally sensitive. Projects that require an
EIA are those located in environmentally critical areas, regardless of type. Environmentally Critical Areas
/ECA/ are:
 national parks, protected areas, watershed reserves, wildlife reserves, and sanctuaries;
 potential tourist spots;
 habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous wildlife (flora and
fauna);
 areas of unique historical, archaeological, or scientific interest; or
 areas traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;
25
  areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities;
 areas with critical slopes;
 wetlands,
 prime agricultural lands;
 recharge areas of aquifers;
 water bodies and etc

c) Preliminary assessments are undertaken when more information is required to determine a screening
decision. Preliminary assessments are low- cost environmental evaluations which make use of information
that is already available.

d) Exclusion lists according to these all proposals are subject to EIA unless it can be shown that they
should not be. Usually, a number of small insignificant projects are given exemption from EIA based on
project type or size. This approach is used by the United States of America and elsewhere.

Different countries and donors use different criteria for screening project. The prominent ones are the criteria
used by the World Bank, the European Union and EPA. Other screening guidelines like for example the one
set by Africa Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank is can followed depending on the
requirement. Each nations also have their own guidelines on how to screen projects for the undertaking of
EIA.

The World Bank lists three categories of projects in relation to EIA: Category A (environmental analysis is
normally required as the project may have adverse and significant environmental impact) Category B (limited
environmental analysis is appropriate, as the project may have specific environmental impact) and Category
C (environmental analysis is normally unnecessary) as indicated in the following table.

Table 4: Environmental screening - World Bank classification

Environmental screening - World Bank classification

Category Scope of impacts
Category A For projects likely to have significant
adverse environmental impacts that are
serious (i.e., irreversible, affect
vulnerable ethnic minorities, involve
involuntary resettlement, or affect
cultural heritage sites), diverse, or
unprecedented, or that affect an area
broader than the sites of facilities
subject to physical works. A full EIA
is required.
Projects or components
• dams and reservoirs forestry and production projects;
• industrial plants (large scale);
• irrigation, drainage, and flood control (large scale);
• land clearance and levelling (large scale);
• mineral development (including oil and gas);
• port and harbour development;
• reclamation and new land development;
• resettlement and new land development;
• river basin development;
• thermal and hydropower development;
• manufacture, transportation, and use of pesticides;
and other hazardous and/or toxic materials

Category B For projects likely to have adverse • agro-industries;

environmental impacts that are less
significant than those of Category A
projects, meaning that few if any of the
impacts are likely to be irreversible,
that they are site-specific, and that
mitigation measures can be designed
more readily than for Category A
• electrical transmission;
• aquaculture and drainage (small-scale);
• irrigation and drainage (small-scale);
• renewable energy;
• rural electrification;
• tourism;
• rural water supply and sanitation;
26
 projects. Normally, a limited EIA will • watershed projects (management or rehabilitation);
be undertaken to identify suitable and rehabilitation, maintenance, and upgrading
mitigation and management measures, projects (small-scale).
and incorporate them into the project.
Category C For projects that are likely to have None
minimal or no adverse environmental
impacts. No EIA is required.
Source: World Bank (1993)

The EPA (the American Environmental Protection Authority) has three schedules:
• Schedule 1: projects which may have adverse and significant environmental impacts, and may
therefore, require full EIA (see Annex 1)
• Schedule 2: projects whose type, scale or other relevant characteristics have potential to cause some
significant environmental impacts but not likely to warrant an environmental impact study (see Annex
1)
• Schedule 3: projects which would have no impact and does not require environmental impacts (see
Annex 1)
• Schedule 4: all projects in environmentally sensitive areas should be treated as equivalent to schedule
1 activity of the nature of the project.

In conditions where either of the screening criteria (World Bank, EU or EPA or national) is not applicable to
screen some projects, a case-by-case screening is carried out. A case-by-case screening is carried out when the
significance of the potential environmental impact of a proposal is unclear or uncertain. This process typically
applies to proposals that fall just below or close to the thresholds established for listed projects. In addition,
non-borderline proposals may be subject to screening if they are located in sensitive areas or there is a
potential for cumulative effects in combination with other current and foreseeable activities. The specific
criteria for case-by-case screening differ from country to country. Typically, however, they are based on a
number of common factors related to the consideration of the significance of environmental impacts. These
include the location of proposals, environmental sensitivity and any likely health and social effects on the
local population. In this context, reference may be made to the screening criteria listed in the European
Directive, which apply to the selection of listed projects for which EIA is not mandatory. These criteria may
be adapted to wider use in case-by-case screening. A proposal can be tested for significance by taking account
of:

• location near to protected or designated areas or within landscapes of special heritage value;
• existing land use(s) and commitments;
• the relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources;
• the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to wetlands, coastal
zones, mountain and forest areas; and
• areas in which the environmental quality standards laid down in law have been exceeded already.

Using the emphasised aspects above, consideration can be given to sustainability criteria when carrying out
case-by-case screening. However, this approach demands considerable information about the environment,
which is unlikely to be available at a relatively early stage in project development. In these circumstances,
only a qualified determination of the environmental significance of a proposal may be possible and screening
decisions must be open to change if new information indicates the advisability of reclassification.

27
3.3.2 Scoping

Scoping is a critical, early step in the preparation of an EIA. The scoping process identifies the issues that are
likely to be of most importance during the EIA and eliminates those that are of little concern. Typically, this
process concludes with the establishment of Terms of Reference (ToR) for the preparation of an EIA. In this
way, scoping ensures that EIA studies are focused on the significant effects and time and money are not
wasted on unnecessary investigations.

Scoping is the process of identifying the key environmental issues and is perhaps the most important step in
an EIA. Several groups, particularly decision makers, the local population and the scientific community, who
have an interest in the project should be considered, and scoping is designed to canvass their views. Scoping
occurs early in the project cycle at the same time as outline planning and pre-feasibility studies

Scoping refers to the early, open and interactive process of determining the major issues and impacts that will
be important in decision-making on the proposal, and need to be addressed in an EIA. The requirements and
procedures established for this purpose differ from country to country. In many EIA systems, the involvement
of the public, as well as the competent authority and other responsible government agencies, is an integral part
of the scoping process. Public input helps to ensure that important issues are not overlooked when preparing
Terms of Reference and/or initiating the EIA study.

Scoping is important for two reasons. First, so that problems can be pinpointed early allowing mitigating
design changes to be made before expensive detailed work is carried out. Second, to ensure that detailed
prediction work is only carried out for important issues. It is not the purpose of an EIA to carry out exhaustive
studies on all environmental impacts for all projects. If key issues are identified and a full scale EIA
considered necessary then the scoping should include terms of reference for these further studies

A major activity of scoping is to identify key interest groups, both governmental and non-governmental, and
to establish good lines of communication. People who are affected by the project need to hear about it as soon
as possible. Their knowledge and perspectives may have a major bearing on the focus of the EIA. Rapid rural
appraisal techniques provide a means of assessing the needs and views of the affected population.

The purpose of scoping is to identify:

• the important problems and issues of the project;

• the appropriate temporal, spatial and institutional boundaries of the project and its impact;
• the likely data (information) necessary for the study; and
• the significant positive and negative impacts and factors to be studied in detail.

In addition, the scoping process can be used to help define the feasible alternatives to a proposed action. Not
all EIA systems make provision for the generation or review of alternatives during scoping. These may
follow, instead, from the issues that are identified as important. However, consideration of alternatives during
scoping is becoming accepted internationally, as an EIA good practice.

Typically, scoping begins after the completion of the screening process. However, these stages may overlap to
some degree. Essentially, scoping takes forward the preliminary determination of significance made in
screening to the next stage of resolution determining which issues and impacts are significant and require
further study. In doing so, the scoping process places limits on the information to be gathered and analysed in
an EIA and focuses the approach to be taken.

28
Scoping is completed when the detailed studies required in the EIA have been specified often this involves
preparing Terms of Reference or an equivalent document. This document sets out what the EIA is to cover,
the type of information to be submitted and the depth of analysis that is required. It provides guidance to the
proponent on how the study should be conducted and managed. Experience shows that the ToR should be a
flexible document. The terms may need alteration as further information becomes available, and new issues
emerge or others are reduced in importance.

Scoping provides the foundations for an effective and efficient EIA process. When systematically carried out,
scoping highlights the issues that matter and results in Terms of Reference for an EIA that provide clear
direction to the proponent on what is required. This increases the likelihood of an adequately prepared EIA
report. It helps to avoid the problem of unfocused, voluminous reports and the attendant delay while their
deficiencies are addressed and corrected. Scoping thereby helps to make sure that resources are targeted on
collecting the information necessary for decision-making and not wasted on undertaking excessive analysis.

The scoping process itself can vary in scope, complexity and time taken. A comprehensive approach to
scoping may be needed for large-scale proposals, which have a range of impacts that are potentially
significant. In other cases, scoping will be a more limited and restricted exercise.

More specifically the role (Key objectives) of scoping in the EIA Process is to:

• inform the public about the proposal;

• identify the main stakeholders and their concerns and values;
• define the reasonable and practical alternatives to the proposal;
• focus the important issues and significant impacts to be addressed by an EIA;
• define the boundaries for an EIA in time, space and subject matter;
• Identifies assessment methods;
• Identify baseline and other information needs
• establish the Terms of Reference for an EIA study.

Guiding principles for carrying out the scoping process include the following:

• recognise scoping is a process rather than a discrete activity or event;

• design the scoping process for each proposal, taking into account the environment and people affected;
• start scoping as soon as you have sufficient information available;
• prepare an information package or circular explaining the proposal and the process;
• specify the role and contribution of the stakeholders and the public;
• take a systematic approach but implement flexibly;
• document the results to guide preparation of an EIA; and
• respond to new information and further issues raised by stakeholders.

A comprehensive scoping process will include all or a combination of the following functions:

• identify the range of community and scientific concerns about a proposed project or action;
• evaluate these concerns to identify the significant issues (and to eliminate those issues which are not
important); and
• organize and prioritise these issues to focus the information that is critical for decision making, and
that will be studied in detail in the next phase of EIA.

29
In the absence of appropriate scoping, the following problems occur:

• EIA reports and impact statements become voluminous, detailed, and exhaustive documents with
unnecessary comprehensive data;
• Significant or important issues are not identified during the EIA, in other cases, issues are identified
late in the review process, resulting in the need for costly revisions;
• Time and money is wasted in assessing irrelevant and/or insignificant issues; and
• Content and presentation of reports may follow a sectoral or professional bias reflected the
background of those undertaking the EIA study.

3.3.2.1 Basic steps in Scoping

1. Develop a communication plan (decide who to talk to and when).

2. Assemble information that will be the starting point of discussion.
3. Make the information available to stakeholders and seek their views.
4. Identify issues people are concerned about.
5. Undertake a technical review of the issues, potential impacts, and concerns.
6. Consider project alternatives (including no project option).
7. Synthesis and group issues and alternatives.
8. Develop a strategy for addressing issues and involving stakeholders
9. Prepare terms of reference for further EIA studies.
In scoping boundaries have to be defined: there are three types of boundaries to be considered in an EIA
study: Spatial, temporal and institutional.

• Spatial boundaries: These indicate whether impacts are likely to occur at a local, regional, national
or international level.
• Temporal boundaries: These refer to project lifespan and the reversibility of impacts. For example,
impacts may be short-lived or long-term.(at commissioning, production decommissioning, etc)
• Institutional boundaries: These may be determined from political boundaries, acts and regulations,
and ministerial or departmental mandates

Assessment of Project alternatives during scoping

In developing and preparing a project it is the part of the normal planning process to consider different
alternatives, or options, which will achieve the projects objective. It is also important to include a
consideration of what would happen without the project. It is only if we have this information we can
determine what the impacts of our project will be. This extends to the environmental assessment of project
alternatives, the impacts of different alternatives are unlikely to have the same set, or degree, or impacts.
Different project alternatives have varying characteristics, but they can usually be placed in to one, or a
combination, of six categories listed below:

30
 • demand alternatives (e.g. using energy more efficiently rather than building more generating
capacity);
• activity alternatives ( e.g. providing public transport rather than increasing road capacity);
• location alternative, either for the entire proposal or for components ( e.g. the location of a processing
plant for a mine, or the location of tourist lodges with in different zones of a national park);
• process alternatives( e.g. the reuse of process water in an industry plant , waste minimizing or energy
efficient technology, different mining methods);
• scheduling alternatives( where a number of measures might play a part in an overall program, but the
order they are scheduled will contribute to the effectiveness of the end result); and
• input alternatives ( e.g. raw materials, energy sources – such as replacing diesel oil with low sulfur
fuel oil)

Assessment of alternatives should take place as early as possible. Ideally, different alternatives should be
assessed as part of initial scoping exercises. This should identify which alternatives require further assessment
as part of the main impact assessment study. The without project option (the no project option) alternative
should be used as a base line case against which to measure the relative performance of other alternatives. In
this case the relative impacts of the other alternatives are expressed as changes to the base case. If, overall, all
the alternatives were judged to have unacceptable performance, the decision might be to adopt more of them,
and stay with the status quo i.e. no project.

Not all alternatives will be investigated in the same level of detail. It is common to undertake a preliminary
analysis of a wide set of alternatives to decide which ones should be taken forward for further consideration,
and which ones should be discarded. Matrices help to choose between alternatives by consensus. One method
is to make pair-wise comparisons. It provides a simple way for a group of people to compare a large number
of options and reduce them to a few choices. First a matrix is drawn with all options listed both horizontally
and vertically. Each option is then compared with every other one and a score of 1 assigned to the preferred
option or 0.5 to both options if no preference is agreed. An example of such a matrix is given in the following
Table. As can be seen, Z is the preferred option.

Table 5: Example of pair-wise comparison

Compare alternative With alternative Sum
W X Y Z
W - 0 0 0.5 0.5
X 1 - 1 0 2
Y 1 0 - 0 1
Z 0.5 1 1 - 2.5

A number of methods have been developed to compare impacts by applying values to them. The relative
importance of impacts, e.g. wetlands loss versus rare species loss, or the relative importance of criteria, e.g.
economic vulnerability versus probability of occurrence, will depend on the local environment and priorities.
Ranking, and therefore implicitly value, can be determined by using the pair-wise comparison technique
described above, except that, rather than comparing options, criteria are compared instead. This can enable a
series of weightings to be developed which will be entirely site-specific and dependent upon the subjective
choices of those participating in the group which develops the weightings. A simple example would be to
31
develop weightings for environment
environmental
al versus economic acceptability. Thus, in the example illustrated in
Figure 6 weightings would have to be developed to determine the preference for either option B or option C.
Is more weight to be given to environmental or economic criteria? The final choice
ch of either option B or
option C will depend on the 'weighting' chosen.

Figure 6: weightings for environmental versus economic acceptability

The following public involvement methods are used in the conduct of scoping:

• notification/invitation
ication/invitation for public comment and written submissions;
• consultation with the various stakeholders;
• public and community meetings; and
• issues workshops and facilitated discussion.

By involving the public, scoping helps to build confidence in the EIA process. Often, the scoping process is
the first major point of contact with the stakeholders who are affected by or interested in the proposal and the
alternatives. It provides an important opportunity to inform them about the proposal and the EIA process,
pr to
understand their concerns and to set out the role and contribution of public involvement in decision-making.
decision
Experience indicates that where scoping responds to stakeholder and public inputs, even though it cannot
always accommodate them, there iiss likely to be increased acceptance of the EIA and decision making
processes.

32
EIA Terms of Reference- a final output of scoping
Usually government bodies do not employ sufficient staff to carry out EIAs. It is more cost effective to ask
specialist consultants (local or foreign), universities or research institutions to carry out environmental
assessments. In this case terms of reference (TOR) will have to be prepared by the project executing agency.
In concluding the scoping process, the preparation of ToR for an EIA is an important task. As for any
technical design or feasibility study, the terms of reference for the study will determine its ultimate value.

There are no universal formats for terms of reference which will be suitable for every study. However, there
are general rules which should be observed when preparing TOR for the EIA of specific projects for example
irrigation and drainage proposals. The study should ensure that the consultants focus on the major issues and
the most serious likely impacts. The opportunities for enhancing any positive benefits from the project should
also be highlighted. The study should identify the relevant natural resources, the eco-system and the
population likely to be affected. Direct and indirect impacts must be identified and any particularly vulnerable
groups or species highlighted. In some instances views will be subjective and the consultants should give an
indication of the degree of risk or confidence and the assumptions on which conclusions have been drawn. In
most cases the output required will be a report examining the existing environment, the impacts of the
proposed project on the environment and the affects of the environment on the project, both positive and
negative, the mitigating measures to be taken and any actions needed. Interim reports, for example of baseline
studies, should be phased to be of maximum value to parallel technical and economic studies.

The timing of the study is important. Scoping prior to a full EIA will enable the major issues to be identified.
The terms of reference for the full EIA can then be better focused. The study should be carried out early
enough in the project cycle to enable recommendations to be incorporated into the project design. The
requirements stated in the TOR will determine the length of time needed for the study, the geographical
boundary of the EIA, its cost and the type of expertise required. Baseline data collection, if needed, can be
time consuming and will have a major impact on the cost and time needed for the study. If considerable data
exists, for example a good record of water quality information and hydrological statistics, the EIA may be
possible without further primary data collection. If data are scarce, time must be allowed for field
measurement and analysis.

Prior to writing the TOR the following questions should be asked:

Is the study for an environmental scoping, a full EIA or other type of study? Before preparing the TOR
the purpose must be clear.

Is the study to be for a site specific project or a regional or sectoral program? The breadth of the study
needs to be well defined.

Will the EIA team be required to collect baseline data or does this already exist? The depth of the
study and the type and quality of information already available or needed must be known.

Who will use the final report? Different end users will often require different information. Readers
may not be technical experts and careful thought should be given to the presentation of complex
information.

What output is required from the EIA study? Is an Environmental Action Plan to be prepared? A draft
contents page for the final report as an annex to the TOR will give some guidance to the team carrying
out the study.

Is the team responsible for all issues or are other organizations (universities, government departments)
responsible for some environmental studies? The TOR should clearly delimit responsibilities and give
information on other work being done. If it is a requirement that the team liaise or work with other

33
 organizations, including NGOs, then this should be stated. Unabridged/complete versions of the sub-
contracted studies should be made available to the appraising authority for reference.

What types of experts are needed in the team and for how long? An approximate estimate is needed to
prepare a budget for the study and to estimate the time period. However, the TOR should not be too
rigid on the number and type of expertise to be provided as there should be some flexibility for the
team to decide on the most appropriate methodology and additional staffing.

Contents of the TOR

The TOR should commence with a brief description of the program or project. This should include a plan of
the area that will be affected either indirectly or directly. Basic data should be given on existing and proposed
area and area characteristics. The institutions that are involved in the proposal should also be given. An
overview of the local environment should follow the general description. This will include socio-economic
information, land use, land tenure, water use in the area and any particular aspect of the flora and fauna. If
other studies have been completed a list of available reports should be given. A brief description should be
given of the most important institutions, including those responsible for the EIA, the project executing agency
and future managers. This should be presented in the form of an organogram. A description of the work to be
undertaken should give a general set of requirements for determining the potential impacts of, and impacts on,
the proposed project. The TOR should require the consultants to cover the following points:

Terms of Reference for a full EIA has to cover some or all of the following items:

• purpose and application of the Terms of Reference;

• statement of need for and objectives of the proposal;
• project background and description;
• study area or impact zone(s) (e.g. the affected environment and community);
• applicable policy and institutional considerations;
• EIA requirements and decision-making particulars;
• provisions for public involvement;
• alternatives to be examined;
• the impacts and issues to be studied;
• the studies to be carried out (e.g. approach, time & space boundaries);
• the requirements for mitigation and monitoring;
• the information and data to be included in the EIA report;
• the timeframe for completion of the EIA process; and
• the means for making changes to the ToR if necessary.

The TOR should give an indication of the team considered necessary for the study. For example in the
irrigation and drainage project, depending on the scope of the study this may include one or several of the
following: an irrigation specialist, drainage specialist, rural sociologist, terrestrial ecologist (of various
specializations), aquatic ecologist/fisheries expert, hydrologist, agronomist, soil chemist or physicist,
economist and epidemiologist. However, as mentioned earlier the team should not be rigidly imposed on the
consultant.

The expected date of commencement and time limit should be given. An environmental screening can be done
quickly as part of the general project identification. In most cases scoping can be done in one to three months
using checklists or other techniques assuming adequate data is readily available. Up to 12 months is needed
for a full EIA for a medium or large scale project although this could be longer if the project is complex or
considerable primary data have to be collected or field measurement undertaken.

34
The budget limit should be given in the TOR. The type of experts, and whether foreign or local, and the
duration of their inputs will usually be the deciding cost factors although a large field survey or measurement
program with laboratory analysis could significantly increase costs.

Any assistance to be provided by the Client should be clearly stated in the TOR. Reporting requirements
should be clearly stated. An annex giving a draft table of contents for the final report (the Environmental
Impact Statement) is helpful as this will standardize presentation and ensure all aspects are covered by the
Consultants.

3.3.3 Impact Analysis (Impact identification, prediction and Evaluation)

3.3.3.1 Impact identification

Environmental impact is the change in an environmental parameter, over a specific period and within a
defined area resulting from a particular activity compared with the situation, which would have occurred, had
the activity not been initiated. The following are the major types of impacts.
1. Primary and secondary impacts
2. Short – term and long -term impacts
3. Reversible and irreversible impacts
Distinguishing impact based on their type is important:
 to manage the environmental impacts
 to assess the significance of impacts
 to minimize adverse impacts
 for consideration of the alternatives

Impact identification is a process designated to ensure that all potentially significant impacts are identified
and taken in to account in the EIA process. Having established the range of impacts associated with a
development project, it is then necessary to predict their potential magnitude and evaluate their significance.
Some impacts will be greater than others and some will be more significant than others. The aim of impact
identification is to ensuring that all potentially significant environmental impacts (adverse or favorable) are
identified and taken into account in the EIA process. Over time, a number of EIA methodologies and tools
have been developed for use in impact identification. Some are also useful for scoping and/or presenting the
results of the EIA or assigning significance. In practice, relatively simple methodologies and tools are applied
to impact identification (as compared to more complex, data-demanding methods which may be used in
impact prediction). Experience indicates these simple methods are of proven value for undertaking a
systematic approach to impact identification.

The most common formal methods used for impact identification are:

• Ad-hoc approach
• Delphi approach
• checklists;
• matrices;
• networks or impact trees;
• overlays and geographic information systems (GIS); and

35
 a) Ad-hoc approach/expert opinion

Ad- hoc method is a simple approach to identify the total impacts of a project and would consider each
environmental area. In this method, each environmental area e.g. air, water etc, are taken separately. The ad
hoc method involves assembling a team of specialist to identify impacts in their area expertise i.e. expert
opinion. Expert opinion on the impact of any activity can be sought by
 meeting with (panel discussion), or
 writing to the experts and asking their answers to specific questions.
 compiling, analyzing and reporting the already published or otherwise known opinion of experts. This
form of collection and collection of expert opinion is also termed as content analysis or literature
survey or plain survey.

When the expert opinion is sought to be taken by calling a meeting /panel discussions of the experts there
can be the following additional pitfalls.
a. Halo effect
b. Decibel effect
c. Vanity effect
a. Halo effects:-those experts who are relatively more senior or eminent may cast a ‘ halo effect’ on their
junior or less eminent counter parts causing the later to adopt the views of the former as ‘consensus’ even if,
otherwise, there would have been dissent.

b. Decibel effect: - among a set of experts there are always some who exceptionally vociferous and assertive
as also some who are exceptionally soft-spoken and quite. In a meeting the clamorous one tend to air their
views forcefully and repeatedly, getting them adopted as ‘consensus’ even if the views of the milder
members may be different or more valuable.
c. Vanity effects: - often experts tend to cling to the views they might have expressed before, or at the start, of
the meeting even after realizing their flaws. They are either too vain to admit that they were wrong or fear a
loss of face.
The advantage of expert opinion data gathering techniques is its speed and inexpensiveness. For these
reasons expert opinion has been, and continues to be, very extensively used in EIA. The limitation is that it is
inherent subjectivity and biasness.
These limitations may not come only in the form of the opinion of the expert but also in the choice of expert
by the convener (of a meeting) or the compiler (of published opinion). A convener of an expert meeting may
pick and choose experts known to be leaning towards view point desired by the convener. A compiler can
similarly pick and choose opinions that confirm to his/her own bias.

b. Delphi approach

Delphi is a method of collecting opinions, from different expertise by building different methods to minimize
the various negative attribute of other opinion gathering methods (mentioned earlier). This method can avoid
halo, decibel and vanity effects and handle large number of opinion givers than panels or brainstorming
session can.

Procedure
1. A structured, formal and detailed questionnaire is given to the participants by mail or in person.
2. The organizer of the Delphi then collects, analyses, combines and averages the responses and
represents them medians.
3. Questionnaire for second round are given with modification if necessary.

36
 4. The averaged response of 1st questionnaire is provided to the participants (where the participants may
be asked to respond to scaled objective item.)
5. After scrutinizing 2nd round, respondents may be asked to justify the response
6. Further interactions are continued, if necessary
7. Convergence of opinion emerges (NOT BY FORCE)
Limitations
 There is pressure towards convergence and this may suppress other valid perspectives.
 The role of the Delphi coordinator is crucial and subjective biases may be introduced through this
route.
 Lack of item clarity or the common interpretation of scales and feedback may lead to invalid results.
 Delphi is time consuming and if the questionnaires are long, one may tend to fill them in a casual
manner.

C. Checklists

Checklists methods are developed from list of environmental features or activities that should be investigated
for possible /potential impacts. Checklists are an advance on ad hoc methods in that they list biophysical,
social and economic components, which are likely to be affected by a development, in more detail. It
combines a list of potential impact areas that need to be considered in the EIA processes with an assessment
of often qualitative of the individual impacts. EPA (Environmental Protection Authorities) may provide such
checklist and guidelines for different projects that all items deemed important by the authority are given due
consideration. This approach has been followed by a number of public agencies since it ensures that the entire
list of areas prescribed by the agency is considered in the assessment processes. For example, there may be
specific checklists for specific projects. Checklists can vary in complexity and purpose, from a simple
checklist to a structured methodology or system that also assigns significance by scaling and weighting the
impacts. Both simple and descriptive checklists can be improved and adapted to suit local conditions as
experience with their use is gained.

Checklists are “one dimensional” lists of potential impacts which tell whether an impact will occur or not. It
includes extensive data collection sheets. The collected data can then be used to answer a series of questions
to identify major impacts and to identify shortages of data. It identifies impacts based on a set of questions to
be answered. Some of the questions may concern indirect impacts and possible mitigation measures. They
may also provide a scale for classifying estimated impacts; from highly adverse to highly beneficial.

Checklists provide a systematized means of identifying impacts. They also have been developed for
application to particular types of projects and categories of impacts (such as dams or road building). Sectoral
checklists often are useful when proponents specialise in one particular area of development. However,
checklists are not as effective in identifying higher order impacts or the inter-relationships between impacts,
and therefore, when using them, consider whether impacts other than those listed may be important. The
following is an example of a questionnaire checklist.

37
Table 6: Example of checklist.

Questions to be considered Yes/no Which characteristics Is likely to be

of the project could significant?
affect the environment? Why?
Will the project lead to risks of contamination of water
environment
• River
• Lake
• Water quality,etc.
Will the project affect the air environment
• Air pollution
• Climate change, etc.
Will the project result in land use change such as
• Forestry
• Grazing
• Residential, etc
Is there a risk of long-term build up of pollutants in the
environment from these sources? etc.

Table 7: The following is an example of an EIA checklist based on rural and urban water supply and sanitation projects.

Indicative list of scoping activities

Additiona
Aspects of Ye N
Checklist Questions l Data
EIA s o
Needs
Sources of 1. Require the acquisition or conversion of significant areas of land for
Impacts reservoir/treatment works etc. (e.g. > 50 ha rural, > 5 ha urban)?
2. Result in significant quantities of eroded material, effluent or solid wastes?
3. Require significant accommodation or service amenities to support the
workforce during construction (eg > 100 manual workers)?
Receptors 4. Flood or otherwise affect areas which support conservation worthy
of Impacts terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, flora or fauna (eg protected areas, wilderness
areas, forest reserves, critical habitats, endangered species); or that contain
sites of historical or cultural importance?
5. Flood or otherwise affect areas which will affect the livelihoods of local
people (eg require population resettlement; affect local industry, agriculture,
livestock or fish stocks; reduce the availability of natural resource goods and
services)?
6. Involve siting sanitation treatment facilities close to human settlements
(particularly where locations are susceptible to flooding)?
7. Affect sources of water extraction?
Environme 8. Cause a noticeable permanent or seasonal reduction in the volume of ground
ntal or surface water supply?
Impacts 9. Present a significant pollution risk through liquid or solid wastes to humans,
sources of water extraction, conservation worthy aquatic ecosystems and
species, or commercial fish stocks?
10. Change the local hydrology of surface water-bodies (eg. streams, rivers,
lakes) such that conservation-worthy or commercially significant fish stocks
38
 are affected?
11. Increase the risk of diseases in areas of high population density (eg.
onchocerciasis, filariasis, malaria, hepatitis, gastrointestinal diseases)?
12. Induce secondary development, eg along access roads, or in the form of
entrepreneurial services for construction and operational activities?
Mitigation 13. Be likely to require mitigation measures that may result in the project
Measures being financially or socially unacceptable?

Advantage of checklist method

 easy to understand and use
 It promotes thinking about the array of impacts in a systematic way and allows concise summarization
of effects.
 It is the simplest assessment methodologies (simple ranking and weighting)
Limitations
 Checklists do not usually include direct cause-effect links to project activities
 do not distinguish between direct and indirect impacts
 Checklist may be too general or incomplete
 They do not illustrate interactions between effects
 The same effect may be registered in several places under heading that overlap in content (double
counting)
 The number of categories to be reviewed can be immense thus destructing attention from the more
significant impacts.
 The identification of effects is qualitative/subjective

D. Matrices

A matrix is a grid-like table that is used to identify the interaction between project activities, which are
displayed along one axis, and environmental characteristics, which are displayed along the other axis. Using
the table, environment-activity interactions can be noted in the appropriate cells or intersecting points in the
grid. Entries are made in the cells to highlight impact severity (magnitude of impacts) or other features related
to the nature of the impact, for instance:

• ticks or symbols can identify impact type (such as direct, indirect, cumulative) pictorially;
• numbers or a range of dot sizes can indicate scale; or
• descriptive comments can be made.

There are four common types of matrices. These are:

Simple matrix:

Simple matrix methods are basically generalized checklists where usually one dimension of a matrix is a list
of environmental, social, and economic factors likely to be affected by a project. The other dimension is a list
of actions associated with development activities (e.g. construction, operation, decommissioning, buildings,
access road, etc.). Impacts are identified by placing a cross in the appropriate cell or marking cells
representing a likely impact resulting from the interaction of a facet of the development with environmental
features. Table below shows an example of a simple matrix.

39
Table 8: part of a simple matrix

Environmental component Project activities

Clearing Excavation Construction Operation Transportation
Soil and geology x x
Flora x x
Fauna x x
Air quality x
Water quality x x x
Population density x x
Employment x x
Traffic x x x x
Housing x
Community structure, etc. x x

Magnitude matrix

A magnitude matrix is defined as the degree, or expensiveness or scale of impact (How large an area, how
severely affected). Magnitude matrices go beyond the mere identification of impacts by describing them
according to their magnitude, importance and/or time frame (e.g. short, medium or long-term). Table below is
an example of a magnitude matrix.

Table 9: Part of a magnitude matrix

Environmental Project action

component Clearing Excavation Construction Operation Transportation
Soil and geology •
Flora • O
Fauna O O
Air quality O •
Water quality . . O • O
Population density O
Employment • O .
Traffic • O O
Housing O
Community structure, etc.
•= large negative impact, O=large positive impact, .= small negative impact and o= small positive
impact

Leopold matrix

Although there are many variants of the matrix approach, an early best known interaction matrix method is
the Leopold et al., developed in 1971. Leopold interaction matrix is a comprehensive matrix, which has 88
environmental characteristics along the top axis and 100 project actions in the left hand column. In each
appropriate cell, two numbers are recorded. Potential impacts are marked with a diagonal line in the
40
appropriate cell and a numerical value can be assigned to indicate their magnitude and significance
(importance). Table…below shows sample matrix. The number in the top left-hand corner represents the
impact’s magnitude, from ten to one, with 10 representing a large magnitude and one, a small magnitude.
That in the bottom right-hand corner represents the impact’s significance, from 10 (very significant) to 1
(insignificant); there is no negative significance. This distinction between magnitude and significance is
important: an impact could be large but insignificant, or small but significant.

Table 10: sample matrix.

Proposed action Deforestation Land use change Mining

Soil 5 2 6 3 9 3
Environme

component

Water 1 7 5 3 6 1
Land 5 2 6 3 2 1
ntal

Vegetation 6 3 7 4 6 4

Advantage
The Leopold matrix is easily understood, can be applied to a wide range of developments, and is reasonably
comprehensive for first-order, direct impacts.
Disadvantages
 It cannot reveal indirect effects of developments.
 It gives no indication whether the data on which these values are based are qualitative or quantitative;
 it does not specify the probability of an impact occurring;
 it excludes details of the techniques used to predict impacts; and the scoring system is inherently
subjective and open to bias.

Weighted matrices

Weighted matrices were developed in an attempt to respond to some of the above problems. Importance
weightings are assigned to environmental components, and sometimes to project components. The impact of
the project (component) on the environmental component is then assessed and multiplied by the appropriate
weighting(s), to obtain a total for the project. Table…below shows a small weighted matrix that compares
three alternative project sites.
Steps
1. List down all environmental components which are likely to be affected by the intended project
2. Each environmental component is assigned an importance weighting (a), relative to other
environmental components.
3. The magnitude (c) of the impact of each project on each environmental component is then assessed on
a scale 0-10, and multiplied by (a) to obtain a weighted impact (a×c).
For instance, site A has an impact of 3 out of 10 on air quality, which is multiplied by 21 to give the weighted
impact, 63. For each site, the weighted impacts can then be added up to give a project total. The site with the
lowest total, in this site B, is the least environmentally harmful. However, the evaluation procedure depends
heavily on the weightings and impact scales assigned.

41
Table 11: a weighted matrix: alternative project site

Environmental Alternative sites

component (a) Site A Site B Site C
(c) (axc) (c) (axc) (c) (axc)
Air quality 21 3 63 5 105 3 63
Water quality 42 6 252 2 84 5 210
Noise 9 5 45 7 63 9 81
Ecosystem 28 5 140 4 112 3 84
Total 100 500 364 438
a= relative weighting of environmental component (100)
c= impact of project at particular site on environmental component (0-10)

E. Networks or impact trees

A network diagram is a technique for illustrating how impacts are related and what the consequences of
impacts are. Network methods illustrate the multiple links between project activities and environmental
characteristics. It also recognizes the interactive nature of environment components. Environmental sub-
systems are interconnected and any impact on one of the subsystems effects several other subsystems. That is
why a ‘primary’ impact may lead to ‘secondary’, ‘tertiary’ and higher order impacts. Therefore, it takes an
ecological approach for identifying the secondary, tertiary and higher order impacts. Impact identification
using networks involves following the effects of development through changes in the environmental
parameters in the model. Environmental impacts can result either directly from a development action or
indirectly through induced changes in environmental conditions. A change in environmental conditions may
result in several different types of impact. This method should lead to the identification of remedial measures
and monitoring schemes. Either diagrams or tables are used to show the logical consequences of a certain
action of a given project.
Procedure
 Start with a project activity and identify the types of impacts which would initially occur.
 Select each impact and identify the impacts which may be induced as a result. This process is repeated
until all possible impacts have been identified. Sketching results in ‘impact tree’ (see Fig…and…below).

Figure 7: Impact trees

42
Table 12: Example of network analysis showing the impact of a policy to utilize groundwater by subsidizing tube wells. Where: STW=
Shallow tube wells; DTW= Deep tube wells

Primary Secondary Tertiary Quaternary Mitigation

impacts impacts impacts impacts
Lowering of Loss of income & Use of poorer quality Increased health risks 1. Ensure that the new DTW
groundwater in water from domestic water either hold domestic water
dry season hand pumps locally or feed into distributary
system Note: affected group are
poorer people
Income diverted to Decreased income &
buy water time
Travel to distant Reduced quality of life
source
Loss of income & Income diverted to Decreased income & 1. Deepen STW
water from shallow buy water time leading to possible
tube wells for food shortage
irrigation Crop failure Reduced quality of life 2. Ensure new DTWs supply
STWs in dry season
Abandonment of land & 3. Provide compensation from
migration DTW taxation
Drawdown of surface Decreased fish Loss of protein intake 1. Artificially stock water bodies
water bodies capture/fish Loss of income for 2. Recharge water bodies from
mortality fishermen DTW
Note: Fishermen are already
poorer than farmers in general
Loss of wetland Loss of wetland
flora/fauna migratory
birds, fish spawning
areas
Loss of wetland products 1. Restrict DTW development in
vulnerable areas Note Landless
& Rural poor are greatest users
of wetlands
Reduced navigation Increased transport costs 1. Increase navigation depth by
possibilities dredging
Agricultural Increased fertilizer Groundwater Polluted drinking water 1. Control fertilizer use
intensification contamination by by nitrate causes various 2. Educate users of groundwater
nitrate illness, particularly in as well as fertilizer users babies
babies
Eutrophication of Increased weeds in 1. Remove and control weeds
surface water due to channels & surface water 2. Educate about dangers of algal
runoff bodies, algal blooms blooms
Increased pesticide Groundwater More expensive 1. Regulate pesticide use
use contamination alternative for drinking
water must be found
Poisoning of fish & Reduction in fish catches 2. Encourage rainwater storage
shrimp & protein availability
Reduced income for 3 Encourage integrated pest
fishermen management
Bioaccumulation of 4 Subsidize non-persistent
pesticide in man pesticides
5. Tax undesirable pesticides
6. Educate pesticide users & fish
eaters

43
Advantage

• link action to impact

• useful in simplified form for checking for higher order impacts of proposed development
• handles direct and indirect impacts

Disadvantage
 It does not establish the magnitude or significance of interrelationships between environmental
components, or the extent of change.
 It requires considerable knowledge of the environment.
 can become very complex if used beyond simplified version

F. Overlay and GIS

Overlays provide a technique for illustrating the geographical extent of different environmental impacts. Each
overlay is a map of a single impact. For example, salt affected areas, deforested areas, etc can be analyzed and
clearly demonstrated to non experts. The original technique used transparencies which is somewhat
cumbersome. However, the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can make this technique
particularly suitable for comparing options, pinpointing sensitive zones and proposing different areas or
methods of land management.

The overlay approach to impact assessment involves the use of a series of transparencies to identify, predict,
assign relative significance to, and communicate impacts in a geographical reference frame larger in scale
than a localized action would require. The approach has been employed for selecting highway corridors, for
evaluating development options in coastal areas, and in numerous other applications like identifying optimum
corridors for developments such as electricity lines, grazing land, for comparisons between alternatives, and
for assessing large regional developments.

This method is easily adaptable for use with a computer programmed to perform the tasks of aggregating the
predicted impacts for each geographical subdivision and of searching for the areas least affected. Automated
procedures are also available for selecting sequences of unit areas for routing highways, pipelines, and other
corridors. The computer method is more flexible, and has an advantage whenever the reviewer suggests that
the system of weights be changed.

The overlay approach can accommodate both qualitative and quantitative data. The weakness of the overlay
approach is that it is only moderately comprehensive, because there is no mechanism that requires
consideration of all potential impacts. When using overlays, the burden of ensuring comprehensiveness is
largely on the analyst. Also, the approach is selective because there is a limit to the number of transparencies
that can be viewed together. Finally, extreme impacts with small probabilities of occurrence are not
considered. However, a skilled assessor may make indications in a footnote or on a supplementary map.

Advantages:

• easy to understand
• focus and display spatial impacts
• good siting tool
44
 • excellent for impact identification and spatial analysis
• good for ‘experimenting’

Disadvantages:

• can be cumbersome
• poorly suited to address impact duration or probability
• heavy reliance on knowledge and data
• often complex and expensive

3.3.3.2 Impact prediction

The characteristics of environmental impacts vary. Typical parameters to be taken into account in impact
prediction and decision-making include:

• nature (positive, negative, direct, indirect, cumulative);

• magnitude (severe, moderate, low);
• extent/location (area/volume covered, distribution);
• timing (during construction, operation, decommissioning, immediate, delayed, rate of change);
• duration (short term, long term, intermittent, continuous);
• reversibility/irreversibility;
• likelihood (probability, uncertainty or confidence in the prediction); and
• significance (local, regional, global).

Nature

The most obvious impacts are those that are directly related to the proposal, and can be connected (in space
and time) to the action that caused them. Typical examples of direct impacts are: loss of wetlands caused by
agricultural drainage; destruction of habitat caused by forest clearance; relocation of households caused by
reservoir impoundment; increased air particulate emissions caused by operation of a new power station, etc.
Indirect or secondary impacts are changes that are usually less obvious, occurring later in time or further away
from the impact source. Examples of these types of impacts are: the spread of malaria as a result of drainage
schemes that increase standing water and thereby create new vector habitat; bio-accumulation and bio-
magnification of contaminants in the food chain through take up of agricultural pesticides; and anxiety, stress
and community disruption associated with increased traffic volumes and noise caused by road development.

Cumulative effects, typically, result from the incremental impact of an action when combined with impacts
from projects and actions that have been undertaken recently or will be carried out in the near or foreseeable
future. These impacts may be individually minor but collectively significant because of their spatial
concentration or frequency in time. Cumulative effects can accumulate either incrementally (or additively) or
interactively (synergistically), such that the overall effect is larger than the sum of the parts.

Magnitude

Estimating the magnitude of the impact is of primary importance. Typically, it is expressed in terms of
relative severity, such as major, moderate or low. Severity, as opposed to size, also takes account of other
aspects of impact magnitude, notably whether or not an impact is reversible and the likely rate of recovery.

45
Extent/location

The spatial extent or zone of impact influence can be predicted for site-specific versus regional occurrences.
Depending on the type of impact, the variation in magnitude will need to be estimated; for example,
alterations to range or pattern of species or dispersion of air and water pollution plumes. This is much easier
for direct impacts but can be attempted for other types of impacts.

Timing

Impacts arising from all of the stages of the life cycle of the project should be considered (i.e. during
construction, operation and decommissioning). Some impacts will occur immediately, while others may be
delayed, sometimes by many years. These impact characteristics should be noted in the EIA report.

Duration

Some impacts may be short-term, such as the noise arising from the operation of equipment during
construction. Others may be long-term, such as the inundation of land during the building of a reservoir.
Certain impacts such as blasting may be intermittent, whereas others, such as electromagnetic fields caused by
power lines, may be continuous. Impact magnitude and duration classifications can be cross-referenced; for
example, major but short term (less than one year), low but persistent (more than 20 years).

Significance

The evaluation of significance at this stage of EIA will depend on the characteristics of the predicted impact
and its potential importance for decision-making. Significance is usually attributed in terms of an existing
standard or criteria of permissible change, for example as specified in a standard, policy objective or plan.
This concept is discussed further later in this topic.

Methods for predicting the characteristics of impacts include:

• best estimate - professional judgment;

• quantitative mathematical models;
• experiments and physical models; and
• Case studies as analogues or points of reference.

Professional judgement

As noted earlier, all methods of analysis involve professional judgement and the use of advanced tools and
models will require expert knowledge. Sole reliance on best estimate professional judgement may be
unavoidable when there is a lack of data to support more rigorous analyses or there is a lack of predictive
methodology (as in the analysis of certain social impacts).

Examples include the prediction of the effect of a water supply proposal on:

• the activities of women or community interaction; and

• the loss of a communal place or sacred site.

Such predictions should be made by specialists, who are familiar with the type of proposal, the geographic
region and/or similar cases that are analogous to the situation. Where professional judgement is used without

46
also employing other methods, the judgement and values of the specialist concerned may be open to
challenge. Peer review and the use of agreed concepts and frameworks can be useful to corroborate findings.

Quantitative mathematical models

Quantitative models express cause-effect relationships as mathematical functions, derived from deterministic
or probabilistic relationships. A number of such models are used in EIA to predict certain types of impacts,
for example, on air, water, soil and habitat. More complex computer-based simulations are data demanding
and often their use in EIA requires certain simplifying assumptions to be made.

The choice and use of quantitative models for impact prediction should be suited to the particular cause-effect
relationship being studied; for example, transport and fate of oil spills, sediment loadings and fish growth and
pesticide pollution of groundwater aquifers. Attention also needs to be given to the consistency, reliability and
adaptability of models. Usually operational changes are made to the input conditions for the model to see how
the outputs are affected. For instance, differences in air pollution can be calculated by changing the height of a
stack or the rate of output of emissions.

Examples of the use of quantitative models include:

• air dispersion models to predict emissions and pollution concentrations at various locations resulting
from the operation of a coal-fired power plant;
• hydrological models to predict changes in the flow regime of rivers resulting from the construction of
a reservoir; and
• ecological models to predict changes in aquatic biota (e.g. benthos, fish) resulting from discharge of
toxic substances.

Although traditionally this type of analysis has been carried out for physical impacts, there is increasing use of
mathematical models to analyse biological, social/demographic and economic impacts.

When interpreting the results of quantitative mathematical models it should be remembered that all models are
simplifications of the real world. They require the specialist to make a number of assumptions in both their
development and their use. If these assumptions are inappropriate then there can be significant implications
for the accuracy and usefulness of the output data. EIA project managers should ask all specialists carrying
out mathematical analyses to clearly state the assumptions inherent in the use of their models, together with
any qualifications to be placed on the results.

Experiments and physical models

Experiments and scale models can be used to test and analyse the effects of project-related activities and the
effectiveness of proposed mitigation techniques. These methods have not been used extensively in impact
prediction. However, they can be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the impact and the resources
available, and providing certain cautions are remembered. When using the results of experiments or models,
note that unpredicted outcomes can occur when the data are scaled up to life size.

Experiments can be undertaken directly in the field or under laboratory conditions. Examples of their use
include:

• the exposure of fish in a laboratory to concentrations of pollutants to determine mortality levels; and
• field trials of the effectiveness of different methods of erosion control.

47
Physical models can be built to predict the behaviour and effect of the actual project on the environment. For
example, a physical model could be used to simulate changes to patterns of sand or sediment deposition
resulting from port and harbour works.

Case studies

Reviewing case studies of projects in similar environments can inform and assist impact prediction and
analysis. Comparisons will be especially helpful if impact monitoring and auditing data are available.
Otherwise, the results obtained by a comparable use of EIA methodology should be consulted. Sometimes,
relevant case material will not be readily accessible or available. In that event, there is a large body of general
information on the impact footprints of major types of projects, such as dams, roads, airports and power
stations. However, this should be read with care as to its source and provenance.

Uncertainty is a pervasive issue at all stages of the EIA process but is especially important for impact
prediction. Put simply, uncertainty is a state of relative knowledge or ignorance. Where cause-effect
relationships are known and understood, however imperfectly, impacts can be forecast (or at least described).
Certain impacts are unknown until they occur; for example, ozone depletion caused by release of CFCs and
inter-species transmission of the human variant of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow
disease.

Sources of uncertainty in impact prediction include:

• scientific uncertainty - limited understanding of an ecosystem (or community) and the processes that
govern change;
• data uncertainty - restrictions introduced by incomplete or non-comparable information, or by
insufficient measurement techniques; and
• policy uncertainty - unclear or disputed objectives, standards or guidelines for managing potential
hazards and effects.

There are a number of approaches that can be used to address uncertainty in impact prediction, including:

• best and worst case prediction to illustrate the spread of uncertainty;

• attaching confidence limits to impact predictions; and
• sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of small changes in impact magnitude.

The relationship between impact, size and severity may not be linear. Small changes in impact magnitude may
cause larger than expected increases or decreases in the severity of environmental change. Where necessary,
an assessment should be made of the effect that small changes in the magnitude of the impact (say less than
10 per cent) have on the environment, particularly if significant or valued resources are potentially affected.
This is referred to as a sensitivity analysis.

A broader range of impacts and interrelationships are now routinely integrated into EIA. These include the
social, economic and health aspects of environmental change. In comparison to biophysical impacts, less
experience has been gained in analysing these and other non-biophysical impacts.

48
 Prediction and assessment of impacts on the environment
5.2.1. Prediction and assessment of impacts on the air environment

In this section we will try to addresses the basic concepts of and a methodological approach for conducting a
scientifically based analysis of the potential air quality impacts of proposed projects and activities. The most important
projects that exhibit air quality impacts are construction and operation of Fossil fuel-fired power plants, Petroleum
refineries, Petrochemical operations, Iron and still miles, Hazardous waste incinerators, Major highways or freeways
and air ports, Dams, Waterways, Industrial parks, Highway, etc. These activities cause emission of particulate and
gaseous air pollutants. The basic steps associated with prediction of changes in air quality and assessments of the
impact of these changes are as follows:
Step 1: Identification of air pollutants
The first step associated with prediction and assessment of air quality impact involves identification of the types1 and
quantities of air pollutants emitted from construction and operation of the proposed development project. The
suggested approach is use of emission factor information organized according to project type or activity. Emission
factor (EF) is defined as the statistical average of the rate at which a pollutant is released into the atmosphere as a result
of some activity, such as production, by industry or combustion, divided by the activity. It relates the types and
quantities of pollutants emitted to indicators such as production capacity, quantity of fuel burned or vehicles miles
traveled by an automobile. These facts are used to calculate the total quantity of air pollution anticipated from the given
activity. This information is basic to the prediction of the mesoscale air quality impact of the alternatives for a proposed
action. For conventional air pollutants (such as CO, HC, NOx, CO2) EF information should be readily available.
Table 13: Pollution emission factors for passenger vehicles

Transport mode Carbon dioxide Organic Carbon Nitrogen oxides Sulfur

(pounds/passenger- compounds monoxide g/pm dioxide g/pm
mile) g/pm g/pm
Truck (gasoline) 1.55 3.2 27.46 2.05 0.23
-single 0.81 1.68 14.45 1.08 0.12
-average
Car 1.12 2.57 20.36 1.61 0.14
-single 0.68 1.51 11.98 0.95 0.08
-average
Bus(diesel) 0.39 0.25 1.21 1.81 negligible
Transit
Rail 0.43 1.12 0.6 0.9 0.51
-diesel 0.26 negligible 0.05 1.1 2.07
-electric
Aircraft 0.57 0.5 0.52 1.08 0.08
Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0
Walk 0 0 0 0 0
g/pm = grams/passenger-mile

1
The two major classes of gaseous air pollutants are inorganic gases and organic vapors. Examples of widely occurring inorganic
gases include: SO2, NOx, CO, hydrogen sulfide; and organic vapors include hydrocarbons, alcholes, ketones, and esters.
Particulate air pollutants are any dispersed matter, solid or liquid, in which the individual aggregates are larger than single small
molecules (about 0.0002 mm in diameter) but smaller than about 500mm.

49
Step 2: Description of existing AIR quality level : The second step in the process is to assemble information on
existing air quality level in the area of the project, particularly for those air pollutants
anticipated to be emitted from the construction and operational phase of the project. Air quality information should
compile from the following sources:
 Environmental protection authority
 Meteorological service agency
It is important to gather information on the general characteristics of the area with regard to air pollution dispersion.
This information will be useful in evaluating the mesoscale impact of the proposed action. There are several useful
parameters for this step, including mixing height, inversion height, annual wind speeds, high air pollution potential
advisories, and episode days.

The first general indicator of air pollution dispersion potential is mixing height, which can be defined as the vertical
distance available above the earth’s surface at a given location and at a given time period for the mixing of the
pollutant. The mixing heights vary daily, seasonally, and topographically (such information can be obtained from the
Meteorological Service Agency). Inversion occurs when temperature increases with the height above the earth’s
surface. Inversions typically are present during the night of early morning hours due to the heating, and cooling pattern
at the earth’s surface. One of the characteristics of inversion is that they are often accompanied by wind speeds less
than 7 mi/hr; thus they often represent time periods when there is limited horizontal and vertical dispersion. The
maximum inversion height is about 500m above the earth’s surface.
Step 3: Assemblage of basic meteorological data
Information that is associated with general air pollution dispersion potential, but is more relevant to specific
calculations of micro scale impact, includes monthly records of precipitation, temperature, wind speed and direction,
solar radiation relative humidity and other items. The information is generally presented for the most recent 30 years
period for those stations that have been collecting information for that length of time. Graphical presentation of
monthly, seasonal, or annual patterns of various parameters should be considered.
Step 4: Presentation of air quality standards
One of the major points of concern in assessment of air quality impacts is the question of whether air quality standards
will be exceeded. Two types of standards are relevant; ambient air standards and emission standards. Ambient air
quality standards apply to the general ambient atmosphere, whereas emission standards refer to pollutant materials that
can be emitted from a source into the ambient atmosphere.
Step 6: Impact prediction
Air quality prediction can be done based on mass balance approach. This approach will necessitate the development
of inventory representing a mass balance of the total air pollutant emission from all sources for proposed project or
activity entering in to the atmosphere during the project phase. The best approach is meso-scale calculation. This
approach involves calculation of estimated annual quantity of air pollutants that would be emitted from the construction
and operational phases of each alternative for the proposed action. This calculation can be done based on emission
factors and information regarding the size or type of activity. The calculated quantities of air pollutants should then be
compared with the regional or local emission inventory information, and percentage increases should be calculated
based on the proposed action. It requires the consideration of increase in existing inventory for one/more pollutants as
a result of activity. It should be done for significant air pollutants.
Let us see the following example.

How can we predict air pollutant/s which emit from vehicular movement/ mobile emissions?

This can be done as follows. Mobile emissions are generated due to the movement of vehicles in the project area. They
are the functions of factors as vehicle trips, average vehicle speed, mileage covered. The mobile emissions, expressed
as grams/day, quantified as:

50
Mobile emissions = Pollution emission factor g/mile* usage rate (i.e) vehicle miles traveled per day* average number
of vehicles per dwelling unit* number of dwelling unit.

Average number of vehicles per dwelling unit is estimated by random survey (40-50 dwelling units).

What pollutants could be there? The most dominants pollutants are CO2, CO, SOx, NOx, Hc and particulates. Let us
take CO.

AxB xC E
Pollution emission factor (PEF) for CO:- PEF Co
=
D
x
F

Where: A= weight fraction of carbon in the fuel

B= combustion factor

C= fraction of carbon that converts to CO

D= number of miles per liter of fuel

E= molecular weight of CO

F= atomic weight of carbon

Let A=80%, B=90%, C=3% and D=25 miles: E and F are 28 and 12 respectively.

0.8 x 0.9 x 0.03 28

Then PEF Co
=
25
x
12

= 20.16*10-4g/mile

Let the usage rate be 100 mile/day. Number of vehicles per dwelling be 0.33 and number of dwellings be
4,500.Therefore total Co released = 20.16*10-4 * 100 * 0.33 * 4500 = 299.376 g/day

5.2.2. Prediction and assessment of impacts on biological environment

Basic steps for prediction and assessment
Projects that can cause terrestrial habitat loss are the following:
a. land conversion to industrial and residential land use
b. land conversion to agricultural use
c. land conversion to transportation use
d. timbering practices
e. grazing practices
f. mining practices
g. water management practices
h. military, recreational and other activities, etc.
These causal activities contribute to the degradation and loss of ecological values, including
 animal and plant species;
 ecosystem structure (abundance-biomass, community composition, species richness, species diversity, trophic
organization and spatial structure); and

51
  ecosystem function (energy flow, nutrient cycling and water retention).
The following are very important to identify the biological impacts of a project.
Step 1: Description of biological setting
The first step in the process of prediction and assessment of impacts on the biological environment involves the
preparation of an adequate description of the environmental setting from the biological perspective. One of the first
considerations is to define the general community2 types and to describe types in accordance with their geographical
distribution.

The second part of this step is to develop species descriptions for each community type. To do so we can use list of
species as it provides both the scientific and the common names of flora and fauna within the study area. The most
effective way to present species information is to organize the data by community type and where possible, provide
quantitative information indicating the population density of the particular species. If population density information
is unavailable, the likelihood of occurrence denote that the species can be indicated as ranging from common to
occasional to rare. Common occurrence denotes that the species occurs in many localities within the community type
in large numbers. Occasional denotes occurrences in several localities in small numbers, and rare denotes highly
localized occurrences that are restricted by scarcity of habitat or low numbers.

Step 2: Identification of rare and endangered species

One of the critical aspects of environmental impact assessment is the potential impact of any activity on any rare and
endangered plant and animal species within the area of interest should be investigated. Information on rare and
endangered species can be obtained from responsible agency such as wildlife and park development bureau.

To identify endangered or threatened species we can follow the following procedures:

a. determine whether any endangered, threatened, rare or protected species is within the project or activity boundary
and study area.
b. assemble pertinent information on any such listed, proposed and candidate species. Examples of pertinent
information include the species
 breeding and nesting requirement
 life cycle features and
 other unique requirement that may be of importance in considering the impacts of alternatives.
c. review information on why the species is included on the federal or state list or why it is being proposed or
considered as a candidate species.
d. if the listed species has had a critical habitat type identified, then develop information on the location and condition
of such habitat in the study area.
e. determine whether or not the proposed project will have an effect on each listed candidate plant and animal species or
on each critical, habitat in the study area. (If negative effects are anticipated identity and evaluate approximate
impact).
Step 3. Assessment of relevant laws, regulation, or criteria related to biological resources and protection of
habitat or species.
The primary sources of information on pertinent legislation, regulations, criteria or guidelines related to the biological
environment include:
 environmental protection agency(EPA/EPLAUB)
 key federal legislations
 local agencies or conservation groups
 natural resources minister

2
All organisms in a given area interacting with the abiotic environment.
52
Procurement of this information will facilitate the evaluation of base line conditions and the data obtained can serve as
a basis for impact significance determination. Most of the biological-environment legislation, regulations, criteria or
guidelines are qualitative in terms of specific requirement. This is in contract to the substantive areas of air quality,
surface and environmental quality, soil quality and environmental noise. Therefore sound professional judgment must
be exercised in applying the qualitative requirements for the biological environment in this step.
Step 4. Impact predication activities: using analogies (case studies), physical modeling and mathematical
modeling and based on professional judgment.
The most technical demanding step in addressing the biological environment is the predication of the impacts of the
project-activity, and various alternatives, on the biological environment. Several options are available for impact
prediction-approaches including. However the most widely applicable method is habitat-based methods or model
approaches. Habitat-based methods have been used to describe the biological environment setting; these can also form
the basis for impact prediction. The usage of habitat-based methods does require predication of changes in acreage as
well as changes in several habitat parameters. The ability to accurately predict over long periods of time is
questionable.

Many Projects (and activates) can cause undesirable impacts on terrestrial or aquatic ecosystem. Examples of such
impacts include:
 habitat degradation through overgrazing practices
 wetland drainage for agricultural, industrial or urban development practices;
 habitat loss, with attendant consequences on fish and wildlife because of excessive deforestation practices;
 changes in habitat and associated fish and wildlife species due to the construction and operation of hydropower
projects;
 loss of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species as result or timber harvesting, recreational
developments, and or military training activities;
 multiple aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem effects from acid rain formed as a consequence of SO2 emissions
from coal-fired power plants; and
 potential toxic effects to plants and or animals as a result of air-or water pollutant discharges or of waste
disposal activities of industries and municipalities.

5.2.3. Prediction and assessment of impacts on Socio-Economic Environment

Social environment is people surroundings: human being and their products, their property, their groups, their
influence, their heritage. There is no single social environment; there are many. Each event be it the construction of a
major facility, a reservoir of power project, proposed legislation, etc., as long as it is at a different place-has its own
social environment, its own surroundings. Many major impacts associated with certain proposed actions are
evidenced by changes in socio-economic factors in the project area and surrounding region. Socio-economic changes
may be beneficial or detrimental. This section is addressed to the data needs and associated technology for predicting
and assessing impacts of proposed actions on the socio-economic environment.

Basic steps associated with prediction of changes in the socio-economic environment and assessments of the impact of
these changes are as follows:
Step 1: Description of Socio-economic environmental setting.
The first step is to assemble pertinent data and information that will enable description of the environmental setting in
terms of various selected socio-economic factors (see Table 9).

53
Table 14: Examples of Socio-Economic Factors and Their Potential Changes Resulting from Project Implementation

Factors Potential changes

General characteristics and trends in population Increase or decrease population
Population density Increase or decrease
Migrational trends Increase or decrease in migrational trends
Population characteristics such as distributions by age, sex, ethnic Increase or decrease in various population distribution;
groups, educational level and family size. people relocations
Natural increase Increase or decrease
Distinct settlements of ethnic groups or deprived economic/ minority Disruption of settlement patterns; people relocations
groups.

Economic history or activity Increase or decrease in economic patterns

Employment and unemployment patterns including occupational
distribution and location and availability of work force
Income levels and trends
Land-use patterns and controls
Land values
Housing characteristics including types of housing and occupancy
levels and age and condition of housing.
Health and social services including health manpower, law
enforcement, fire protection, water supply, waste-water treatment
facilities, solid waste collection and disposal, and utilities
Public and private educational resources including junior college and
universities.
Transportation systems in study area, including highway, road, air and
waterway.
Increase or decrease in overall employment or
unemployment levels and change in occupational
distribution
Increase or decrease income levels
Change in land usage mayor may not be in compliance
with existing land use plans.
Increase or decrease in land values
Changes in types of housing and occupancy levels
Changes in demand on health and social services
Changes in demand on educational resources
Changes in demand on transportation systems and
availability

Community attitudes and lifestyles, including history of area voting Change in attitudes and life styles
patterns

Community cohesion, including organized community groups Disruption of cohesions

Tourism and recreational opportunities in study area Increase or decrease in tourism and recreational potential

Religious patterns and characteristics in study area Disruption of religious patterns and characteristics
Areas of unique significance such as cemeteries or religious camps Disruption of unique areas

Step2: Identification of critical socio-economic factors

The purpose of this step is to identify any socio-economic factors that represent critical items relative to the
human environment. Examples of critical items include locations where water and waste-water treatment
plants are operated in excess of design capacity or where existing school systems are overcrowded.
Step 3: prediction of changes in socio-economic factors
The primary purpose of Step 3 is to quantitatively predict, or at least qualitatively describe, changes in socio-
economic factors outlined in Step 1. Particular attention should be addressed to critical factors identified in
Step 2. Anticipated changes in socio-economic factors should be developed for the various alternatives under
consideration, including the no-action alternative. The changes in the social impact are predicted for the
without project situation (no action alternative) as well as for each of the alternatives. Changes may be
54
examined on local housing, schools, hospitals, local government operations, etc. Economic impact of a
project may be examined on conditions (income, employment) or structure (output by sector, employment by
sector) per capita income; total personal income, etc. Accessibility to various transportation systems within
the study area is also addressed. Attention is also given to the quality and quantity of transportation facilities
such as roads and highways, railroads and airports.
Step 4: Discussions of Implications of Changes
The final step in predication and assessment of impacts on the socio-economic environment is a discussion of
the implications of the changes for each of the socio-economic factors, considering both without-and with-
project conditions. Changes could be presented relative to percentages differences based on current
conditions or relative to current standards for certain socio-economic factors. Particular attentions should be
paid to socio-economic factors identified as critical items in Step 2 above. In addition, socio-economic factors
that will become marginal or critical as a result of the implementation of the selected alternative should be
discussed.

5.2.4. Prediction and assessment of impacts on cultural environment

Cultural resources are becoming more important with the growing realization that our environment and
civilization are the products of history. Some of the cultural resources are nonrenewable, and this feature in
itself is one reason that these resources are important. Basic steps associated with prediction of changes in the
cultural environment and assessment of the impact of these changes is as follows:

Step 1: Identification of known cultural resources

The first step in prediction and assessment of impacts on cultural resources consists of identifying known
resources in the area of interest. These sources should include historical and archeological sites, areas of
ecological, scientific, or geological significance; and areas of ethnic importance. Information on known
historical and archeological sites can be obtained from state historic preservation officers and National
Register of Historic Places, Archeological resources etc. Local resources of importance to ethnic groups, such
as burial grounds and cemeteries or areas of unique religious importance, can be identified through contact
with local government officials as well as organized groups in the area of interest or having responsibility
therein.

Step 2: Identification of Potential Cultural Resources

Potential historic sites and potential cultural resources of ecological, scientific, or geological interest or of
ethnic importance can be identified through contact with the historic preservation officer, as well as state and
local historical commissions, societies, clubs, local government organizations, ethnic groups, and professional
societies. in the area of interest can be determined through contact with etc. In order to identify previously
unknown archeological resources in the area of interest, a preliminary reconnaissance is necessary.

Step3: Determine significance of known and potential cultural resources relative to local, regional and national
concerns.
Every archeological site is of importance to our understanding of human history. Other cultural resources are
important from past as well as future historical perspectives. However, not every cultural resource can be
preserved or carefully and completely excavated. Decisions must often be made with regard to which sites
should be preserved, which sites should be investigated, and the nature and intensity of investigation.

55
5.2.5. Prediction and assessment of impacts on water environment

Step 1: Identification of Water Pollutants

The first step in prediction and assessment of water quality impacts involves identification of types and
quantities of water pollutants emitted from construction and operation of a development project. One
approach for identifying water pollutants is to review EIS prepared for similar projects. Another approach is
to calculate the amount of waste generated3.

Generation of sewage

Sewage generated = cubic meter sewage per capita* average number of people per dwelling unit * number of
dwelling units.
Assume per capita sewage generated be 80% of water use/per capita and the per capita use be, say 175
liters/day. Then
 per capita sewage generated = 175*0.8 =140 liters/day
 number of people per dwelling unit = 4.7 and
 number of dwelling units = 4500
Therefore total sewage generated =140*4.7*4500
= 296.1 * 104 liters per day
Step 2 : Description or Existing Water Quantity and Quality Levels

The second step involves assembling information on existing water quantity and quality levels in the
area of the project, particularly focusing on quality parameters related to anticipated water pollutants to be
emitted from construction and operational phases of the project. Sources of water quality information
include relevant city, water resources bureau, etc.
Since water quality standards vary with the beneficial uses assigned for particular streams or stream
segments, it may be necessary to evaluate existing water quality relative to various standards.
Step 3: Unique Pollution Problems
The primary purpose of this step is to identify any unique pollution problems that have occurred in the
project area. This is necessary in order to adequately describe the environmental setting, to indicate a
familiarity with the area, and to focus on environmentally sensitive parameters. Examples of unique pollution
problems that should be identified included fish kills, excessive algal growth, and thermal discharges causing
stratified flow. Many sources can be used to obtain information on unique pollution problems.

Step 4: Description of Groundwater Quantity and Quality

This particular step may not be required for all project types, but for alternatives that have potential for
groundwater impact, this is a necessary step. The basic purpose is to determine the depth to the groundwater
table in the area and to identify the direction of groundwater from the area should be enumerated, as well as
historical trends in groundwater depletion for quality deterioration.
Step 5: summary of meteorological information
Meteorological data are required in order to predict and assess air quality impacts associated with proposed
actions. In addition certain climatological factors such as precipitation, evaporation, and air temperature are

3
It is defined as the amount of a pollutant which is released to a drainage area or watercourse as a result of
some activity, such as land clearing or production by industry, etc.

56
important in terms of predicting and assessing water quality impact.
Step 6: water quality standards
List the water quality standards for different uses.

5.2.6. Quantifying analyzing solid waste generation

Solid waste = solid waste per capita* average number of people per dwelling unit* number of dwelling unit.
Let us say
• per capita waste generated is 470 gms /day
• number of people /dwelling be say 4.7
• Number of dwelling be, say, 4,500
• Therefore solid waste generated is = 0.47*4.7* 4500= 9940.5 kg/day

3.3.3.3 Impact Evaluation

An impact evaluation is a stage that follows from prediction and involves an assessment of the relative
significance of the impacts. Once the impacts have been identified and predicted, they are evaluated to
determine their significance. As noted earlier, the attribution of significance begins early, during screening
and scoping, and extends throughout the EIA process. There is a gradually ‘narrowing cone of resolution’ on
questions of impact significance as more complete information becomes available. Following impact
identification and prediction, impact evaluation is the formal stage at which a test of significance is made.

A systematic process should be followed in evaluating significance, distinguishing between as predicted and
residual impacts. Step one involves evaluating the significance of ‘as predicted’ impacts to define the
requirements for mitigation and other remedial actions. Step two involves evaluating the significance of the
‘residual’ impacts, i.e. after mitigation measures are taken into account. This test is the critical measure of
whether or not a proposal is likely to cause significant impacts. It is determined by the joint consideration of
its characteristics (magnitude, extent, duration etc.) and the importance (or value) that is attached to the
resource losses, environmental deterioration or alternative uses which are foregone (see the figure below).

Figure 8: calculating impact significance

Impact evaluation methods

Impact evaluation methods include: comparison, cost benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria/multi-attribute
methods, etc.
1. Comparison
The most formal evaluation method is the comparison of likely impacts against legal requirements and
standards (e.g. air quality standards, building regulations etc). Of course, for some type of impacts including
socio-economics, there are no clear–cut standard. Socio-economic impacts provide a good example of
fuzziness in assessment, where the line between being significant or not significant extends over a range of
values which build on perceptions as much as facts. Socio-economic impacts can raise in particular the

57
distributional dimensions to evaluation, who wins and who loses. Beyond the use of standards and legal
requirements, all assessments of significance either implicitly or explicitly apply weights to the various
impacts (i.e. some are assessed as more important than others). The social effects of resource allocation
decisions are too extensive to allow the decision to emerge from some opaque procedure free of over
political.
2. Cost -benefit analysis and input-output methods
Cost-benefit analysis is an impact evaluation method that seeks to apply monetary values to costs and benefit.
The basic principle of CBA is to measure the cost and benefit in monetary terms as money is the common
measures of value; and monetary values are best understood by the community and decision makers. CBA
methods seek to treat environmental impacts in monetary terms as if the environment was a machine in which
some monetary inputs (environmental costs) result in some monetary outputs (material benefits).

CBA has several stages: project definition, the identification and enumeration of costs and benefits,
evaluation of costs and benefits, and the discounting and presentation of results. If the benefit-to-cost ratio
comes out greater than one the activity causing environmental impact may be declared acceptable. In other
words, if the net social benefit minus cost is positive, then there may be a presumption in favor of a project.
However, the final outcome may not always be that clear. The presentation of results should distinguish
between tangible and intangible costs and benefits, as relevant, allowing the decision makers consider the
trade-off involved in the choice.
Cost benefit analysis has excited both advocates and opponents. It does have many problems, including
identifying, enumerating and monetizing intangibles. Many environmental impacts fall in to the tangible
category, for example the loss of a rare species, the urbanization of a rural landscape and the saving of a
human life. The incompatibility of monetary and non-monetary units makes decision making problematic.
For several types of impacts one has no idea of the costs such as extinction of certain species; extreme human
sufferings such as death cannot be compensated by any amount of profit.

Another problem is the choice of discount rate: for example, should a very low rate be used to prevent the
rapid erosion of future costs and benefits in the analysis? The choice of rate has profound implications for the
evaluation of resources for future generations, there is also the underlying and fundamental problem of the
use of the single evaluation criterion of money, and the assumption that one birr is worth the same to any
person, whether a tramp or a millionaire, a resident of a rich commuter belt or of a poor and remote rural
community. CBA also ignores distribution effects and aggregates costs and benefits to estimate the change in
the welfare of the society as a whole. Supporters say that such problems of ascertaining sign and importance
exist with all EIA methodologies.

Impact evaluation is a difficult and contestable exercise, which cuts across the fluid boundary between facts
and values and between EIA and decision-making. First, a technical judgement must be made of the extent to
which mitigation will reduce as predicted impacts. Second, a subjective value must be placed on the
significance of residual impacts, using criteria and tests. Finally, the attribution of significance usually will
influence final approval and condition setting; for example by indicating whether or not the impact of a
proposal is acceptable or not.

Evaluation of significance should take place against a framework of criteria and measures established for the
purpose. These may be defined in EIA legislation and procedure; for example, by definition of what
constitutes an environmental impact and guidance on how to determine significance. Often specified criteria
are listed to aid such evaluation; for example, environmental standards and thresholds, protected and sensitive
areas, valued ecological functions and components and resource and land use capabilities. Where this EIA

58
guidance is not available, it can be developed separately by adapting criteria and measures that are relevant to
local circumstances and the type of proposals reviewed.

EIA guidelines related to significance fall into two main categories:

• Emissions based, comprising standards for air and water quality, noise etc.
• Environmental quality based, comprising significance criteria for valued ecosystem components or
similar attributes.

Emissions based standards will be jurisdiction specific (although certain standards may be internationally
recognised) and provide an objective, technical means of determining significance; for example the
anticipated residual impacts either do or do not exceed the relevant standard. However, reliance on standards
suffers from certain deficiencies and limitations. The relevant technical standard may be the subject of
disagreement or public concern (e.g. blood lead levels, traffic noise levels, electromagnetic field strengths). In
many cases, an appropriate technical standard will not be available for the evaluation of significance (e.g.
ecological, social and visual impacts).

Environmental quality based criteria or thresholds are qualitative, broadly drawn and require interpretation. In
this context, impact evaluation is a subjective exercise, linking scientific criteria to social preferences (as
discovered through public involvement or SIA methods) and relating them to the environment and community
affected. Some of the impact identification techniques discussed earlier in this topic have built in scales or
weightings (and hence values) based on prior experience. When applying them, the criteria should be
modified to take account of local value systems and traditional practices.

Additionally, some countries and international agencies have established environmental sustainability criteria
and environmental acceptability rules against which evaluation can be conducted. For example, the World
Bank input and output guidelines are meant to ensure that each project does not exceed the regenerative and
assimilative capacities of the receiving environment (see the box below). In practice, as the Bank
acknowledges, there is considerable difficulty in applying these guidelines and it has augmented them with
other environmental and social safeguards. Rules for environmental acceptability and their relationship to
significance thresholds based on Western Australian experience are described in the companion box below.

Table 15: World Bank guidelines for environmental sustainability

Environmental Aspects of Bank Work, (OMS 2.36), para 9(a) states:

“The Bank endeavours to ensure that each project affecting renewable natural resources (e.g., as a
sink for residues or as a source of raw materials) does not exceed the regenerative capacities of the
environment.”
Output Guide
Waste emissions from a project should be within the assimilative capacity of the local environment to
absorb without unacceptable degradation of its future waste absorptive capacity or other important
services.
Input Guide
Harvest rates of renewable resource inputs should be within regenerative capacity of the natural
system that generates them; depletion rates of non-renewable resource inputs should be equal to the
rate at which renewable substitutes are developed by human invention and investment.
Source: Wold Bank 1991

Key reference points for evaluating significance include:

59
 • environmental standards, guidelines and objectives;
• level of public concern (particularly over health and safety);
• scientific and professional evidence for:
o loss/disruption of valued resource stocks and ecological functions;
o negative impact on social values, quality of life and livelihood; and
o foreclosure of land and resource use opportunities.

A test of significance can be applied by asking three questions:

• Are there residual environmental impacts?

• If yes, are these likely to be significant or not?
• If yes, are these significant effects likely to occur e.g. are the probability high, moderate or low?

Criteria to evaluate whether or not adverse impacts are significant include:

• environmental loss and deterioration;

• social impacts resulting directly or indirectly from environmental change;
• non-conformity with environmental standards, objectives and guidelines; and
• likelihood and acceptability of risk.

Criteria to evaluate adverse impacts on natural resources, ecological functions or designated areas include:

• reductions in species diversity;

• depletion or fragmentation on plant and animal habitat;
• loss of threatened, rare or endangered species;
• impairment of ecological integrity, resilience or health e.g.
o disruption of food chains;
o decline in species population;
o alterations in predator-prey relationships.

Criteria to evaluate the significance of adverse social impacts that result from biophysical changes include:

• threats to human health and safety e.g. from release of persistent and/or toxic chemicals;
• decline in commercially valuable or locally important species or resources e.g. fish, forests and
farmland;
• loss of areas or environmental components that have cultural, recreational or aesthetic value;
• displacement of people e.g. by dams and reservoirs;
• disruption of communities by influx of a workforce e.g. during project construction; and
• pressures on services, transportation and infrastructure.

Environmental standards, objectives and targets to evaluate significance include:

• prescribed limits on waste/emission discharges and/or concentrations;

• ambient air and water quality standards established by law or regulations;
• environmental objectives and targets contained in policy and strategy; and
• approved or statutory plans that protect areas or allocate, zone or regulate the use of land and natural
resources.

60
 3.3.4 Impact mitigation and Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

Mitigation is a critical component of the EIA process. It aims to prevent adverse impacts from happening and
to keep those that do occur within an acceptable level. Opportunities for impact mitigation will occur
throughout the project cycle.

The objectives of mitigation are to:

• find better alternatives and ways of doing things;

• enhance the environmental and social benefits of a proposal;
• avoid, minimise or remedy adverse impacts; and
• ensure that residual adverse impacts are kept within acceptable levels.

Early links should be established between the EIA and project design teams to identify mitigation
opportunities and incorporate them into consideration of alternatives and design options. In practice,
mitigation is emphasised in the EIA process once the extent of the potential impact of a proposal is reasonably
well understood. This typically takes place following impact identification and prediction, and recommended
measures for mitigation will be an important part of the EIA report. Usually, these measures will be
incorporated into the terms and conditions of project approval and implemented during the impact
management stage of the EIA process.

The objectives of impact management are to:

• ensure that mitigation measures are implemented;

• establish systems and procedures for this purpose;
• monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and
• take any necessary action when unforeseen impacts occur.

The elements of mitigation are organised into a hierarchy of actions:

• first, avoid adverse impacts as far as possible by use of preventative measures;

• second, minimise or reduce adverse impacts to as low as practicable levels; and
• third, remedy or compensate for adverse residual impacts, which are unavoidable and cannot be
reduced further.

Key principles for the application of mitigation consistent with the above framework include the following:

• give preference to avoid and prevent measures;

• consider feasible alternatives to the proposal and identify the best practicable environmental option;
• identify customised measures to minimise each of the main impacts predicted;
• ensure they are appropriate, environmentally sound and cost-effective; and
• use compensation or remedial measures as a last resort.

EIA good practice in mitigation requires a relevant technical understanding of the issues and the measures that
work in the circumstances.

61
Mitigation can be carried out by:

• structural measures, such as design or location changes, engineering modifications and landscape or
site treatment; and
• non-structural measures, such as economic incentives, legal, institutional and policy instruments,
provision of community services and training and capacity building.

Structural measures are well established for certain types of projects, such as dams, roads, and oil and gas
exploration and development. In some cases, industry codes of good practice will be available. However,
these need to be applied with regard to the nature and severity of environmental impacts; for example taking
account of nearby protected areas, patterns of wildlife mitigation or constraints imposed by natural hazards.
Other projects involving new technology may require non-standardised or even untried measures to mitigate
the adverse impacts. These need to be given special attention during impact management.

Non-structural measures are used increasingly. They can be applied to reinforce or supplement structural
measures or to address specific impacts. For example, many types of social, community and health impacts
are addressed by non-structural measures and their use is becoming broader.

Figure 9: The elements of mitigation

Depending on the timing of the project cycle and the nature of impacts, a number of approaches can be taken
to achieve the objectives of mitigation.

These include:

• developing environmentally better alternatives to the proposal;

• making changes to project planning and design;
• carrying out impact monitoring and management; and
• compensating for impacts by
o monetary payment
o in kind measures

62
 o site remediation bonds
o a resettlement plan.

An environmental management plan (EMP), also referred to as an impact management plan, is usually
prepared as part of EIA reporting. It translates recommended mitigation and monitoring measures into specific
actions that will be carried out by the proponent. Depending upon particular requirements, the plan may be
included in, or appended to, the EIA report or may be a separate document. The EMP will need to be adjusted
to the terms and conditions specified in any project approval. It will then form the basis for impact
management during project construction and operation.

The main components of an EMP are described in the table below, which reflects practice at the World Bank.
Although there is no standard format, the EMP should contain the following:

• summary of the potential impacts of the proposal;

• description of the recommended mitigation measures;
• statement of their compliance with relevant standards;
• allocation of resources and responsibilities for plan implementation;
• schedule of the actions to be taken;
• programme for surveillance, monitoring and auditing; and
• contingency plan when impacts are greater than expected.

Table 16: Components of an environmental management plan (EMP)

EMP Component How to address

Summary of impacts The predicted adverse environmental and social impacts for which mitigation is required
should be identified and briefly summarised. Cross referencing to the EA report or other
documentation is recommended.
Description of Each mitigation measure should be briefly described with reference to the impact to which it
mitigation measures relates and the conditions under which it is required (for example, continuously or in the event
of contingencies). These should be accompanied by, or referenced to, project design and
operating procedures which elaborate on the technical aspects of implementing the various
measures.
Description of The monitoring program should clearly indicate the linkages between impacts identified in the
monitoring EIA report, measurement indicators, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of
programme thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions.
Institutional Responsibilities for mitigation and monitoring should be clearly defined, including
arrangements arrangements for co-ordination between the various actors responsible for mitigation.
Implementation The timing, frequency and duration of mitigation measure should be specified in an
schedule and implementation schedule, showing links with overall project implementation. Procedures to
reporting procedures provide information on the progress and results of mitigation and monitoring measures should
also be clearly specified.
Cost estimates and These should be specified for both the initial investment and recurring expenses for
sources of funds implementing all measures contained in the EMP, integrated into the total project costs, and
factored into loan negotiations.
Source: World Bank, 1999

The EMP should contain commitments that are binding on the proponent. It can be translated into project
documentation and provide the basis for a legal contract that sets out the responsibilities of the proponent. In
turn, the proponent can use the EMP to establish environmental performance standards and requirements for
those carrying out the works or providing supplies. An EMP can also be used to prepare an environmental
management system for the operational phase of the project.

63
Environmental Action Plan or Environmental Management Plan not only sets out the mitigation measures
needed for environmental management, both in the short and long term, but also the institutional requirements
for implementation. All the management proposals need to be clearly defined and costed. The Environmental
Management Plan needs to not only include clear recommendations for action and the procedures for their
implementation but must also define a program and costs. It must be quite clear exactly how management and
mitigation methods are phased with project implementation and when costs will be incurred. Mitigation and
management measures will not be adopted unless they can be shown to be practicable and good value for
money. The plan should also stipulate that if, during project implementation, major changes are introduced, or
if the project is aborted, the EIA procedures will be re-started to evaluate the effect of such actions.

Mitigation measures for some of the environmental impacts

Table 17: Possible impacts on air quality and their mitigation measures

Possible Impacts Some mitigation measures

1. Depletion of ozone layer and
climatic change due to emission
of some gases (SO2, CO2, NO2,
fluoride, CO, CFCS etc.) to the
atmosphere.
2. Reduction of air quality due to
dust
 control the emission of SOx, NOx, Co and other applicable chemicals by scrubbing
with water or alkaline solutions, incineration or absorption by other catalytic
processes.
 recycle wastes to reduce the amount of pollutants released to the atmosphere
 choose environmentally friendly processes, technologies or raw materials.
 treat effluent gases to reduce the amount of pollutants.
establish treatment plant
 control particular matters by scrubbers, fabric filter collectors or electrostatic
precipitators.
 choice of environmentally friendly processes, technologies or raw materials reduce
the amount and significance of pollutants
 watering of the area form which dust is generated;

Table 18: Summary of possible impacts on flora, fauna and ecosystem and mitigation measures

Possible Impacts Some mitigation measures

1 Loss of flora and fauna
2 Stability and health of an
ecosystem may be affected when
habitat is fragmented.
3 Direct killing of animals like
collisions with vehicles
4 Disturbance of ecosystem
because of extraction of sand,
gravel or rock
5 Exploitation of natural resources
(flora and fauna) because of
immigrants to project area
 locate projects far away from sensitive areas;
 carry out necessary rehabilitation measures when phasing out a project
 plant with native species in vicinity of a project and adjacent areas to wildlife to
provide additional habitats and migration routes/corridors for local animals;
 fence wildlife areas to avoid people interference if possible also establish a legal
protection system/framework;
 at important areas use of tunnels/bridges reduces interference and collision rates
 fencing or plant barriers can reduce the interference of human beings and traffics to
wildlife ;
 take measures, like speed break on roads, to reduce the speed of vehicles where
road crosses protected areas.
 avoid, if possible, the extraction of sand, gravel etc from river bottom/water bodies.
 use alternative site to exploit the resources
 avoid the use of dynamite/explosive in water bodies
 avoid construction materials during breeding seasons in both water and terrestrial
ecosystems
 before the establishment of projects planting appropriate tree species, which can be
used for different purposes, to minimize burden on the sitting natural resources
 use alternative energy resources and construction materials
 use proper waste management technology
64

6 Flora and fauna in wetlands are
affected
7 Introduction of new species or
change of cultivation may cause
for development of pests, diseases
or weeds.
8 Direct or indirect killing of
aquatic and terrestrial animals
spreading of pesticide/insecticide
for different purposes.
9 Contamination or use of polluted
water may affect wild life and
nearby communities to the project
area.
10 Improper use of modern
biotechnology or introduction of
genetically modified varieties to
the region may lead to genetic
erosion
11 Change of the living condition of
fish when its migration route is
blocked by constructions e.g.
dams/reservoirs
12 Water logging may affect the
flora (especially deep rooted
plants) and fauna of the area.
13 Depletion of resources beyond
their
 make clear demarcation between the resource and project area.
 avoid the excessive clearance of vegetation from stream banks
 locate projects as much as far as possible from wetlands
 avoid the releaser or minimize the use of hazardous chemicals in the catchments of
vulnerable wetlands;
 if possible, the project should not modify water flow/course
 use soil and water conservation measures in the catchments to reduce siltation.
 if needed research on invasive exotic species should be carried out in enclosed
areas
 avoid the use of invasive exotic species for landscaping, reforestation or for other
purposes
 control the importation of uncertified seed or germ plasm to the region to avoid
import of plant pests/disease;
 use integrated pest management to avoid mass killing of animals
 the concentration and length of time to chemicals should be to the level of the
standard.
 use appropriate and trained man power for application of chemicals
 avoid the use of very poisonous pesticides in particular, on fields sloping down to
watercourses during rain seasons with heavy precipitation
 apply pesticide, when a number of fauna are at the side. E.g. timing.
 use of chemicals or disposal of wastes in a proper way reduce the impact;
 handling of unused/used poisonous chemicals until they are treated and disposed
properly
 be sure that effluents are treated to the standard before joining water bodies.
 avoid the use of very poisonous pesticides in particular on fields sloping down to
water courses during seasons with heavy precipitation.
 proper disposal of expired chemicals prevents the potential impacts on flora and
fauna.
 proper disposal of wastes reduces siltation and pollution of water
 regulate/control importation of varieties to avoid genetic erosion;
 regulate import of species to avoid the spoiling of the natural means of existence of
existing fauna.
 avoid the use of invasive exotic species for landscaping, reforestation, research or
for other purposes;
 care has to be taken in activities related to modern biotechnology to reduce/avoid
the impacts on indigenous species or genetic erosion;
 design carefully diversion wears, dams/reservoirs etc. to allow aquatic species to
swim against the current;
 use filters not to get away fishes to irrigation canals
 construct ladders so that the fishes jump and migrate against the flow of the water.
 digging of canals to lower the water table
 planting high water consuming species
 minimizing over irrigation
 restrict or limit the optimum amount to be exploited/harvested according to the
management plan done for the specific resource
 use recycling methods
65
Table 19: Possible socio-economic impacts and their mitigation measures
Possible Impacts
1. Lifestyles, travel patterns, health and
social problems like disease, alcohol
abuse and unemployment, etc.
2. Loss of traditional sense of self-identity
because of new settlers
3. Loss of agricultural, forest or grazing
lands by huge amount of waste generated
from the project, for example from mine
tailings.
4. Destruction of resources by fire, which
can be generated from an activity
5. Land use and tenure conflict may occur
when the area is occupied
6. Physical conflict may breakout between
settler and the indigenous people as the
latter try to reclaim their heritage
7. increase competition between indigenous
and the project for existing resources
8. People are exposed to further social and
economic crises when they are resettled
to new area as their original place is
occupied by project
Table 20: Possible impact on cultural heritages and their mitigation measures
Possible Impacts
Historical relics, burial sites and other
objects may be affected when the area is
occupied by projects.
Scenic value or the appearance of
landscape may be impaired because of
different activities for instance massive
excavation of sand etc.
Cultural monuments and archeological
sites may be damaged by different
activities for instance massive excavation
of sand etc.
Subsequent breaching of dams may also
result for local earthquake. Or
Landslides/unsuitability or danger of
Some mitigation measures
 sitting the project far from human settlement area to reduce disruption of
social and cultural way of life; and disturbance, nuisance from noise, dust
etc;
 employing the local people to reduce the number of immigrants
 conduct awareness raising program
 establishment of health centers
 Aware about the project so that it can keep the norms/bylaws of indigenous
people.
 wastes generated from the project have to be properly disposed.
 minimize the amount of wastes released to the area by using alternative
technologies, processes etc.
 giving due attention to blasting and combustible raw materials that generate
fire
 provide fire protective instruments.
 precaution measures as fire proofing instruments have to be used.
 curative measures have to be in place
 compensation may need to be considered for those whose housing, land
resources, welfare or livelihood are directly affected by projects,
 give employment opportunity
 provide short-term support and/or skills or an alternative livelihood to
minimize the effect.
 aware the project so that it can keep the norms/bylaws of indigenous people.
 increase the supply of resources and services.
 use of alternative technologies that efficiently utilize the resources
 preconditions have to be fulfilled for settlers when resettlement is found to
be mandatory;
 conducting awareness raising program on the resettlement program
 involve/participate the community in the whole process of the project
Some mitigation measures
 consider alternative sites for project establishment to avoid the impact
 avoid establishment of projects across or in known cultural, historical sites or
landscapes having scenic value;
 avoid the damages of historical relics, burial sites, other objects, and
landscapes;
 relocate artifacts or ruing from a site when it is mandatory and possible;
 if possible avoid the natural landscape disturbance, if not compensate by
rehabilitation measures;
 involving the indigenous people in the whole process of planning and
implementation of projects
 maintaining or repairing without changing its original design;
 honoring norms and taboos before the implementation of projects
 structural, soil and rock stabilization; control of groundwater levels, vegetative
stabilization, and site surveillance is required;
 daily follow up of sensitive has to be carried out;
66
 rock falling at the faces etc. may lose
scenic values
Spoiling of landscapes or recreational
areas could be occurred when projects
are established in the vicinity area
Change of channeling of waterway may
result in loss of aesthetic value
Loss of scenic value of an area due to
deforestation
 establish projects in relatively stable areas
 appropriate site for waste disposal has to be selected and dispose properly;
 conduct reuse and recycling methods
 water flow modification should not affect the scenic value of
landscape/cultural heritages in downstream areas.
 consider alternative site for project establishment
 take the advantage of natural openings in the existing vegetation; or use bare
areas

Table 21: Possible impacts on water and mitigation measures

Possible Impacts Some mitigation measures

1. Flooding, channel
modification, river canal
siltation
2. Reduction/lowering of
surface or groundwater
table.
3. Excess increment of
nutrients in water bodies
(eutrophication).
 leaving sufficient enough buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation between the site of the
project and water bodies
 use water flow speed reduction measures e.g. soil conservation measures
 plan carefully to avoid the change/modification of the previous channel flow/natural flow of
water.
 locate those water-consuming projects, if possible, in areas where availability of ground or
surface water is not a problem
 choose the most appropriate techniques to minimize the amount of water consumed
 ensure that the utilization of groundwater is within the capacity of natural system to
replenish itself
 re-use the recycled wastewater
 sitting projects far away from susceptible areas to erosion in order to reduce chemical
pollution of water bodies
 carry out soil conservation measures
 leaving sufficient enough buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation between the site of the
projects and water bodies
 avoid direct waste disposal into or near water bodies
 reduce the amount of inlet of both chemical and biological fertilizers to water bodies

4. Pollution of surface and
groundwater through
direct or indirect
addition of toxic
chemicals.
5. Increment of suspended
solids (turbidity) in water
bodies through soil
 sitting projects far away from susceptible areas to erosion in order to reduce chemical
pollution of water bodies
 leaving sufficient buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation between the site of the project and
water bodies
 install silting basins to reduce silt, pollutants and debris from runoff before it is discharged to
adjacent water bodies
 monitoring pipeline systems and impoundments for leaks to reduce contamination of
groundwater. E.g. Preparing waterproof waste water collectors
 monitor sites even after the project has been closed (as necessary)
 reclaiming landscapes where devastating activities have been taken place to reduce water
pollution
 recycling wastes to reduce water pollution
 use treatment techniques especially in industrial activities
 choice of the most appropriate technique, replacing processing equipment
 dispose safely/properly expired toxic chemicals
 sitting projects far away from susceptible areas to erosion in order to reduce siltation,
turbidity and chemical pollution of water bodies
 carry out soil conservation measures

67
 erosion or direct release
of waste from different
activities.
6. Increment of the amount
of silt/sediment in
downstream area
including agricultural
land, reservoirs, etc.
 leaving sufficient enough buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation between the site of the
project and water bodes.
 installing silting basins to reduce silt, pollutants and debris from runoff before it is
discharged to adjacent water bodies
 Minimize the area of ground clearance; provide good vegetative cover or; control the volume
and speed of water flows
 careful design/plan of projects can avoid soil erosion;
 carry out soil conservation measures.
 leaving sufficient enough buffer zones of undisturbed vegetation between the site of the
project and water bodies.

Table 22: Possible impacts on soil and their mitigation measures

Possible impacts Some mitigation measures

1. Soil erosion and loss of  replanting right species of trees, shrubs and grasses in a right time on disturbed areas.
nutrients due to different  minimize the area of ground clearance.
activities  careful design/plan of projects
 carry out soil conservation and or agro-forestry measures.
 reducing harvest removal.
2. Soil compaction due to  using appropriate machineries/mechanization in appropriate time.
mechanization and  planting leguminous plants improve soil structure.
machineries.  improve soil structure by planting species that improve soil structure or by adding
organic matter
3. Salinization due to irrigation  adding organic matter/neutralizing
with saline water.  planting salt tolerant species

4. Soil acidity  reduce the addition of artificial/organic chemical

 adding alkaline substance like lime
 appropriate use/disposal of chemicals

5. Imbalance of biological  appropriate use of wastes/toxic chemicals

activities as a result of
contamination of soil with
toxic chemicals and loss of
organic nutrients due to soil
erosion.
6 Productive topsoil covered by
proposed activities or removal
of productive top soil for
temporary or permanent
purposes
 take any measures that are used to minimize loss of nutrients.
 adding organic mater (green maturing, compost).
 promote cleaner production (preventing/minimizing waste)
 collect and reuse the excavated top soil to form a superficial layer.
 conversions of borrow pits and spoil dumpsites in to scenic lookouts.
 use vertical space than horizontal.

68
Table 23: Possible of noise impacts and their mitigation measures
Possible Impacts
Continuous noise exposure creates
communication problem, behavioral and
health effects,
Vibration can cause detrimental effect on
structures particular to cultural heritage
sites, standing near the project
Noise can cause wild animals to leave
their original habitat that may exposes
them to further danger
Table 24: Possible impacts on human health and safety; and their mitigation measures
Possible Impacts
Transmission of disease between human
and from plants/animals to humans
Fire, explosions, emission of toxic gases,
vapors, dust, emission of toxic liquid,
radiation and their cumulative effects
badly affect human health in and around
the project
Health effects on workers due to fugitive
dust, material handling, and noise,
mechanical or chemical contact can be
occurred.
noise and congestion may be created and
pedestrian hazards could be aggravated
by heavy trucks
Death and injuries to human beings and
damages to property could be happened
in factories, roads etc.
Some mitigation measures
 establish the project far away from noise sensitive areas;
 provide protective measures for workers in the project
 keep the noise at a standard level
 use of noise barriers are among the most common mitigative measures
 install sound dampers in ventilation systems in stationed sources
 enclose machine or use sound barrier walls to reduce the effect of noise
 consider wind direction at the design stage in terms of sources of noise to
minimize its effect;
 reduce noise at the sources to minimize its effect on wildlife and people
living along or around the project;
 establish the project far away from noise sensitive areas (buildings)
 install sound dampers in ventilation systems in stationed sources. Enclose
machine or use sound barrier walls to reduce the effect of noise.
 reduce noise at the sources to minimize its effect on wildlife and people
living along or around the project;
 establish the project far away from noise sensitive areas;
 use of noise barriers are among the most common mitigation measures
 consider wind direction at the design stage in terms of sources of noise to
minimize its effect.
 reduce noise at the sources to minimize its effect on wildlife and people
living along or around the project;
 use alternative technologies that reduce noise
 regulating the sound level to a fairly a constant level
Some mitigation measures
 sanitary or precaution measures can be accomplished through a
comprehensive health awareness campaign
 curative measures should be in place
 establishing projects far away from settlements
 curative measures have to be in place if accidents from different activities
can happen.
 provide fire proofing of structures, safety buffer zones around the plant
boundary, escape routes and others.
 store properly easily flammable/explosive gases or toxic chemicals.
 preventive/protective instruments have to be provided
 prevent accidents through proper design of projects
 train responsible personnel how to properly handle chemicals;
 use protective measure, for example ear/eye masks etc.
 site selection can be taken as preventive measures..
 facility should implement a safety and health program designed to identify,
evaluate, monitor and control health hazards
 site selection can be taken as a preventive measure to minimize risk of
accidents especially in road projects.
69

Extraction of sand or gravel may from
unnecessary pond, which creates suitable
condition for malaria and water vector
borne disease
In mining activities workers are injured
when rocks/soils are collapsed,
 prevent accidents through proper design of projects
 use protective measure, for example ear/eye masks etc.
 Sanitary or precaution measures can be accomplished through a
comprehensive health awareness campaign.
 avoid stagnating water and give consecutive awareness to reduce the
occurrence of malaria and other related diseases.
 proper design has to be done well in such away that rocks doesn’t collapse.
 curative measures have to be in place

4. EIA reporting
The final report of an EIA is often referred to as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition to
summarizing the impacts of the alternatives under study this report must include a section on follow up action
required to enable implementation of proposals and to monitor long-term impacts. The purpose of an EIA is
not to reach a decision but to present the consequences of different choices of actions and to make
recommendations to a decision maker. Recommendations are a crucial part of the Environmental Impact
Statement. The format of the report should preferably follow a standard as recommended by the appropriate
institution or required by legislation. The executive summary of the EIS should only be 2 to 5 pages long and
the main report, excluding appendices should be preferably about 50 pages long and no more than 100. An
exceptionally complex study might require 150 pages.

Experts preparing an EIA must appreciate that the final report will be read by a wide range of people and the
subject matter may be technically complex. Senior administrators and planners may not understand the
importance of technical arguments unless they are presented carefully and clearly. The quality of the
executive summary is particularly important as some decision-makers may only read this part of the report.
The executive summary must include the most important impacts (particularly those that are unavoidable and
irreversible), the key mitigating measures, proposed monitoring and supervision requirements, and the
recommendations of the report.

The main text should maximize the use of visual aids such as maps, drawings, photographs, tables and
diagrams. Matrices, network diagrams, overlays and graphical comparisons should all be included. Each
individual EIA report should ideally be tailored to fit the circumstances of the project. However, it is useful to
follow certain general guidelines to fit together the essential components of the study so as to generate a
coherent advisory report helpful to the decision makers as well as the general public. The main text should
cover the following points according to World Bank (1991):

A description of the program, plan or project including the physical, social and ecological context as
well as the time-scale of the proposals under study. Any major revisions made as a result of the
scoping process should be identified here.

A summary of the EIA methodology, including the limits of the study and the reasons for them.

The policy, legal and administrative framework within which the project is situated.

A summary of the baseline data providing an overall picture of present conditions and physical,
biological and ecological trends. The consequences of the "no-action" option should be described
together with a brief description of other developments taking place and their relationship to the study
proposal. Major elements of the environment described in base line studies include:

 Geology: geological provinces, bed rock formations, history of geological stability or

instability
 Topography: general topography of the region, specific topography of project area.
70
  Soils: soil mapping, soil series properties, constraints to development.
 Ground water resource: nature of water bearing formations, recharge rates, sustainable safe
yields, locations and depths of existing wells, quality.
 Surface water resources: drainage basin and sub basins, named and unnamed water bodies
and water courses, regulatory classification of water bodies, flow regimes, water quality data
and evaluation, identification of existing permitted discharges to surface waters.
 Terrestrial communities: spatial arrangement of vegetative community types, vegetative
species- abundance listings, wildlife species- abundance listings, records of threatened and
endangered plant and animal species.
 Aquatic communities: nature of aquatic habitats, species-abundance listings for aquatic
macro-invertebrate and fish communities, ecological indexing of community data.
 Environmentally sensitive areas: identification of wet lands, floodplains, steep slopes, stands
of mature vegetation, aquifer recharge areas, areas of high water table, areas of rock outcrops,
prime agriculture lands, and mines identification of existing projected areas( e.g. national parks
and forests)
 Air quality: Regional quality and trends, data from local monitoring stations, reported
exceedance of standards.
 Sound level: existing sound level, sources of sound.
 Land use: existing patterns of land use in region, regional planning for future use, and zoning.
 Demography: censused or estimated population, recent trends and projections for future
population.
 Socioeconomics: economic and social structure of communities, tax rates, characteristic types
of development.
 Infrastructural services: nature and status of human services such as policy and fire
protection, hospitals, schools, utilities, sewage, water supply, solid waste disposal.
 Transportation: layout and function of existing road ways, railways, air ports; existing and
projected capacities and demands.
 Cultural resources: location and characterization identified cultural resources (archeological,
historical, cultural land mark), potential for unidentified resources to be presented in project
area.
 Project economics: comparative analysis of proposed alternatives with present work cost-
effective criteria, cost/benefit criteria, or other methods.

A description of the governmental and non-governmental participation during the EIA.

Environmental impacts. The most significant beneficial and adverse environmental impacts associated
with the options studied need to be clearly stated. Impacts need to be quantified wherever possible and
uncertainties in the results need to highlighted, whether due to a lack of knowledge, lack of data or to
critical but indeterminate assumptions such as future policy. The results of economic analyses need to
be presented in the same section. Mitigation and enhancement measures that are proposed may either
be presented together with information on the environmental impacts or as a separate section. Impacts
with no effective mitigation need to be clearly identified as such.

The Environmental Management (Action) Plan (EMP) needs to be presented in two sections. The first
part covers the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, including both costs and training,
and institutional enhancements required to implement them. The second part should cover monitoring
requirements to measure predicted impacts and to determine the success of mitigation measures.
Again, costs and institutional requirements need to be included for each major proposal. A clear
program of implementation should be given. The EMP documents should contain an implementation
plan for each of the selective mitigative protection and enhancement measures. The chapter may be
structured as follows:

71
  objective;
 work plan;
 implementation schedule;
 manpower requirements;
 Budgetary provision for EMP.

This chapter is the most crucial and significant part of the entire EIA report. It is therefore essential
that this chapter be presented with precision and clarity. It might be useful in this case to identify
issues of significance due to the project and specify the corresponding mitigation measures.
Representation of this in a tabular form may be useful.

Recommendations and guidance to the decision maker.

A statement of provision for auditing, who should carry it out and when.

The appendixes should include:

 a glossary of technical terms and units

 a list of the team who prepared the EIA
 records of public meetings and consultations
 a catalogue of information, both data and written material, and their source
 technical information too detailed for the main text.

Table 25: Generalized EIA report criteria

72
5. EIA review
The purpose of review is to assure the completeness and quality of the information gathered in an EIA. When
undertaken as a formal step, it acts as a final check on the quality of the EIA report submitted to obtain a
project authorisation. Often, this process leads to a requirement for additional information on potential
impacts, mitigation measures or other aspects.

Key objectives of EIA review are to:

• assess the adequacy and quality of an EIA report;

• take account of public comment;
• determine if the information is sufficient for a final decision to be made; and
• identify, as necessary, the deficiencies that must be addressed before the report can be submitted.

In many EIA systems, the review stage is the major opportunity for public involvement. However, the
arrangements for this purpose vary considerably from country to country. They range from notification of a
period for receiving written comments on the EIA report to holding public hearings. Typically, the latter
mechanism is part of an independent review by an EIA panel or inquiry body, which is considered to be a
particularly transparent and rigorous approach.

Whatever procedure is followed, a rigorous approach is necessary, given that the central role of EIA review is
to assure the quality of the information prepared. This approach can be based on explicit guidelines and
criteria for review, or if these are not available, draw on EIA principles, objectives and terms of references.
Over time, their systematic application should improve the general standard of EIA reports by making
proponents aware of government or agency expectations.

The elements of EIA review and the aspects considered differ with the arrangements that are in place in a
particular country. A comprehensive review of the adequacy and quality of an EIA report would address many
or all of the following issues:

• Does the report address the Terms of Reference?

• Is the necessary information provided for each major component of the EIA report?
• Is the information correct and technically sound?
• Have the views and concerns of affected and interested parties been taken into account?
• Is the statement of the key findings complete and satisfactory, e.g. for significant impacts, proposed
mitigation measures, etc.?
• Is the information clearly presented and understandable by decision makers and the public?
• Is the information relevant and sufficient for the purpose of decision making and condition setting?
The response to the last question is the most significant aspect for review conclusions, and will largely
determine whether or not an EIA can be submitted as is or with minor revisions.

The conduct of EIA reviews is based on both informal and formal arrangements. Marked variations exist in
their particular requirements, forms of public consultation and the roles and responsibilities of lead agencies.
An issue common to all EIA review procedures is how to ensure objectivity. The responsible authority is
widely perceived as having a vested interest in the outcome of review, particularly when it is also the
proponent. Specific procedures for EIA review that are in place in different countries are shown in the table
below. In general, these can be divided into two main types:

73
 • internal review - undertaken by the responsible authority or other government agency, with or without
formal guidelines and procedure; and
• external review - undertaken by an independent body, separate from and/or outside government
agencies, with an open and transparent procedure for public comment.

In many cases, internal review is informal and characterised by:

• relatively low operating costs;

• discretionary guidance on the conduct of review;
• lack of transparency on process and factors considered; and
• absence of documentation on outcomes and results, e.g. advice tendered to decision-makers.

External review procedures are more formal and characterised by:

• higher levels of quality assurance;

• independence from the responsible authority (to varying degrees);
• transparent and rigorous process;
• use of guidelines and/or review criteria and methodology;
• documented outcome or statement on the sufficiency or deficiency of an EIA report; and
• separate commission, panel, inter-agency or expert committee or other review body.

Table 26: Selected examples of EIA review procedures

Project Example
Environmental agency Australia
Independent panel or mediator Canada (only for major proposals)
Standing commission of independent experts The Netherlands
Standing commission of experts within the government Italy, Poland
Inter-agency committee USA
Planning authority using government guidelines UK, New Zealand
Source: Scholten (1997)

Public consultation as part of EIA review

Public input is an integral means of reinforcing objectivity and assuring the quality of information presented.
Many EIA systems provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the information contained in an
EIA report. At a minimum, this requires reasonable time and opportunity for interested parties to comment.
More proactive forms of public and stakeholder involvement are preferable, especially when there are
significant impacts on a local community or people will be displaced by a proposal. A set period for public
review and a formal notification procedure are common. The notification usually indicates where the EIA
report is displayed and how comments are to be received. Typically, public comments are solicited in writing.
However, this approach may exclude many people, including those who are directly affected by the proposal.

Certain countries make provision for a more extended, open review process, using public hearings and other
means to gain the views of interested and affected parties on the EIA report. These are usually applied only to
large scale and controversial proposals. In other cases less intensive forms of consultation and comment are
appropriate. However, in all cases, it is important that these are tailored to the people who are involved.

74
Main Steps in the EIA Review

There are a number of steps that can help to achieve good practice in the review of EIA reports. First you need
to establish a framework for the EIA review, including the following steps:

• set the scale/depth of the review;

• select reviewer(s);
• use input from public involvement; and
• identify review criteria and aspects to be considered.

Once you have established this framework for review, you will then need to undertake and report the review,
which involves the following steps;

• carrying out the review;

• determine how to remedy any deficiencies; and
• report the findings.

a) Setting the scale

Two questions should be addressed at the start of a review:

• How much time is available to carry out the review?

• Are the necessary resources available for this purpose?

The answers to these questions will depend mainly on the provision made for review within the EIA system
and the Terms of Reference. The nature of the proposal will determine the speed and intensity of the review.
More controversial projects, or those with more significant effects, typically require more detailed review.
The choice ranges from a quick overview by one person to an in-depth review by a team of experts assembled
to do the job.

b) Selecting reviewer(s)

The environmental issues and the technical aspects of the proposal will determine the expertise required by a
review team or individual. For example, the review of an EIA report for a proposal for a solid waste disposal
site might include a landfill engineer, a hydro-geologist and an environmental remediation specialist.
Depending on the scale of review, administrative support and technical backup may be necessary.

c) Using input from public comment

Experience with EIA review in a number of countries has shown that public comment is a critical ingredient
of good practice. The input from the public has proved to be important in checking and evaluating the quality
of the EIA report; for example, with regard to the description of the affected environment and community, the
attribution of significance of residual impacts, the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the selection of an
alternative.

Input may come from a public hearing, or from written comments submitted to the proponent or government
department. From a hearing there will often be a summary of issues provided by the panel or officers
responsible for hearing the submissions. With written comments a summary of key points will be needed to

75
guide the review of the EIA. In both cases the summary should focus on information that helps to identify
problems with the EIA, contributing to the assessment of impacts, and identifying ways to reduce impacts.

While it is useful to gauge the strength of public concern about particular issues (such as support for an
alternative) the consultation process should not be seen as an opportunity for people to vote on any one issue.

d) Identifying the review criteria

A systematic review will be based on specified criteria. These criteria can be identified by reference to the
following questions:

Are terms of reference or other guidelines available for the review?

If not, the first task of the review is to quickly re-scope the main issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIA
report. This can be done with the help of scoping methods.

Are any reviews of EIA reports of comparable proposals in similar settings available?

EIA reports and reviews of comparable proposals in similar settings provide useful points of reference to
check the type of impacts that are considered significant and the information that is necessary for decision-
making. These can be from the country concerned or elsewhere. It is particularly useful to learn about
problems experienced during the implementation and operation of the projects. These can give insights to the
nature of impacts that are likely to occur during implementation and operation.

Which generic review criteria may be useful?

Generic criteria that may help to carry out an EIA review include:

• legal EIA requirements (if any);

• relevant environmental standards, guidelines or criteria;
• principles of EIA good practice; and
• knowledge of the project and its typical impacts and their mitigation.

When is a comprehensive review appropriate?

A comprehensive review of the quality of an EIA report may be necessary in certain circumstances, for
example when there are serious deficiencies in the information assembled. This involves a review of the
conduct of the EIA process. Some or all of the elements and aspects that may require consideration include:

• performance of scoping;
• accuracy of impact prediction;
• criteria used to evaluate significance;
• comparison of alternatives;
• effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures;
• requirements for monitoring and impact management; and
• modes of public and stakeholder involvement.

In other cases, particular attention could be directed to the executive summary, which is intended to explain
the key findings concisely and in a non-technical manner. This is the only part of the EIA report that decision-

76
makers and the public are likely to read. A review can indicate if the information contained in the main body
of the report has been communicated simply and accurately.

Review Framework

This framework for EIA review comprises a list of questions to check that the EIA process was satisfactorily
completed (e.g. in accordance with legal requirements and terms of reference in force) and then consider the
quality of the EIA report.

The following rating scale may be used to answer the following questions in detail.

A. excellent (thoroughly and competently performed)

B. good (minor omissions and deficiencies)
C. satisfactory (some omissions and deficiencies)
D. poor (significant omissions and deficiencies)
E. very poor (fundamental flaws and weaknesses)
F. no opinion (insufficient basis/experience on which to judge)

I. EIA process

Were the following activities completed fully and successfully?

a) Screening — proposal classified correctly as to level and requirement for assessment?

b) Scoping — process completed and resulted in:

i) Priority issues and relevant impacts identified?

ii) Key actors involved?
iii) Reasonable alternatives established?
iv) Terms of reference/study guidelines prepared?

c) Impact analysis — process completed in scope and depth necessary?

i) Affected environment (baseline) conditions described?

ii) Estimation and prediction of main impact categories?, including
+ Indirect and cumulative effects?
+ Other relevant factors
iii) Suitable database and methodologies used?

d) Mitigation — necessary measures or environmental management plan identified?, including

i) Follow up and monitoring arrangements if strategies are untried or impacts uncertain?

ii) Specification of contingency plans or non-standardised operating responses?

e) Significance — residual effects evaluated as to potential severity?, including reference to

77
 i) Their scope, duration and irreversibility?
ii) Relative importance to dependent communities or ecological functions?
iii) Possible compensation or offset mechanisms (also 2d)?
II. Quality of EIA/EIA Report

Is the information included consistent with the terms of reference and the process followed? Specifically is the
information:

1. complete — informed decision can be made?

2. suitable — right type of information included?
3. understandable — easily apprehended by decision maker?
4. reliable — meets established professional and disciplinary standards?
5. defensible — risks and impact are qualified as to proposal uncertainties?
6. actionable — provides clear basis for choice and condition setting?

The review can be carried out in three steps:

• Step 1: identifies the deficiencies in the EIA report, using the Terms of Reference, relevant guidelines
and criteria and information from any comparable EIA reports and their reviews.
• Step 2: focuses on any shortcomings in the EIA report and separate crucial deficiencies, which may
directly impede decision-making, from less important ones. If no serious omissions are found, this
should be stated clearly. Remarks about less important deficiencies can be placed in an appendix.
• Step 3: recommends how, and when, any serious shortcomings are to be remedied to facilitate
informed decision-making and appropriate measures for project implementation.

Determining remedial options

Three remedial options are available when an EIA report fails to meet the standards required. These are scaled
to the nature and scope of the inadequacies.

1. The shortcomings of the EIA report are so serious that they require immediate remedy, either a
supplementary or a new EIA report – In this situation, the review should give a clear statement as to
how the additional information can be collected and presented. The review team must realise that the
decision-making will be delayed by some time until a new report or supplement to the EIA report is
completed.
2. The shortcomings are not serious and can be rectified by explanatory material attached to the report
or conditions attached to the approval – This situation has the advantage that decision-making can
proceed as planned without a major delay necessitated by gathering additional environmental data.
3. The shortcomings are not major but cannot be remedied immediately, either by providing additional
information to the EIA, or in the form of explanations and conditions attached to the decision, because
they require too much time and effort to collect – In this case, the review could recommend monitoring
the shortcomings and uncertainties during the implementation and operation of the project. Corrective
measures should be identified in case impacts turn out to be worse than expected.

A number of countries have review procedures that tender advice on the implications of the findings for
decision-making, or make a recommendation on whether or not the proposal should be approved or can be
justified on environmental grounds.

78
In this case, an additional step is added to those mentioned above:

• Step 4: Give either a green (go) or red (stop) or yellow light (conditional acceptance) for the
environmental aspects.

This step builds on the previous three steps. It does not address the final decision of whether or not the
proposal is acceptable or should be approved. That requires a political decision, taking into account the trade-
offs among environmental, economic and social factors.

A range of methods can be used to review the adequacy of an EIA report. The methods are generally the same
as those used in impact analysis and include:

1) General checklists

These can be adapted to review purposes, using compliance with local EIA legislation or guidelines as the
starting point.

2) Project specific checklists and guidelines

These can be based on a general or sectoral checklist, with further adaptations to suit the requirements of the
specific project and its terms of reference.

3) EIA review frameworks and packages

A number of these are available. The Environmental Statement Review Package developed by the EIA
Centre, University of Manchester is widely referenced and used by non-specialists. It comprises a seven-part
rating scale, directions on its use and a collation sheet for recording findings on EIA components, such as
baseline information, impact prediction and consideration of alternatives. Other review packages are available
and can be adapted for use in cases where guidance and criteria have yet to be established.

4) Expert and accredited reviewers

One or more experts can be used to peer review the adequacy of the report. The expert(s) contracted should be
independent from those involved in preparing the EIA report or undertaking studies. In some countries, EIA
experts are accredited or registered as capable of carrying out a study or review.

5) Public hearings

Public hearings on an EIA report give the highest level of quality assurance. They provide affected and
interested parties with an opportunity to comment extensively on the information and findings. These benefits
are maximised when public hearings are held by an independent EIA panel, commission or other inquiry
body. A structured and systematic process can be followed to test the quality of the report and to integrate
technical evidence and public comment.

6) Comprehensive review of the EIA process

Effectiveness frameworks can be used when a comprehensive review of the EIA process leading to report
preparation is considered necessary. For example, this approach may be called for if there are very serious
deficiencies with a report and each step needs to be revisited. Also, effectiveness review can help our

79
understanding of how different EIA components and activities affect the quality of EIA reports and indicate
ways review procedure and criteria themselves may be strengthened. In this regard, effectiveness review can
cover the overall performance of the EIA process. The following Procedures for Reviewing EIA Reports are
based on the work of Lee & Colley (1990) and Boyle & Mubvami (1995). It is recommended that the
following steps should also be carried out:

• a check for compliance with legal or donor requirements;

• an assessment of the scientific and technical adequacy of the work; and
• a public review of the work.

This review should be able to be carried out by a person who is familiar with the environmental impact
assessment process and the requirements of any local regulations. The review process is outlined on the
flowchart below. There are four review areas, each with a series of review categories. For each review
category, the reviewer is asked to rate the EIA report for its performance in addressing a list of issues. The
reviewer gives each issue a rating between A and F (see table of review criteria for details). The overall rating
for a category is then determined by the reviewer on the basis of the results of the individual ratings, weighted
according to their relative importance by the reviewer. Some issues and categories are essential to the overall
adequacy of the EIA report. If they do not achieve a minimum rating of C the report should be returned to the
proponent for improvement, or, if this is not feasible, other remedial action should be taken as appropriate.
The evaluation of the overall report is determined by the reviewer, based on the ratings of the review
categories, again weighted according to their relative importance. Added to this evaluation should be:

• a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the report;

• any needs for further study;
• any impact monitoring and management required to be undertaken by the proponent or the
government; and
• any terms and conditions that should apply if approval of the proposal is granted.

80
Figure 10: EIA review flow chart

81
6. Decision making in EIA

EIA is part of a larger process of decision-making to approve a major proposal. This process is shown in the
figure below. It results in a political decision, which is based on information from a number of different
sources and involves making a large number of trade-offs. A balance must be struck between the benefits and
costs; their environmental, economic and social elements must be weighed, and uncertainties and arguments
over the significance of risks and impacts must be addressed. In many jurisdictions the information of the EIA
report and from other sources, like public submissions, is presented to decision-makers in a summary form.
Decision-makers then have the use of:

• the EIA Report (often called an Environment Impact Statement); and

• the summary report (called an Assessment Report or similar).

This summary report is likely to be compiled by the government representative responsible for the EIA
procedures in the jurisdiction (such as the responsible government minister). It will provide an overall
recommendation about the project environmental impacts and about mitigation and ongoing management
measures. Decision-makers then have the advice about the environmental impacts that comes from the review
of the EIA (the Assessment Report) and other sources of information available to the EIA minister, and the
specific information contained in the EIA report. At a minimum, decision makers are expected to take account
of the information from the EIA process in final approval and condition setting. With few exceptions, an EIA
process does not lead to the rejection of a proposal even when there are findings of potentially significant
impacts (although retaining this option is important for process credibility). However, the results of the EIA
process usually have a considerable bearing on establishing terms and conditions for project implementation.

When making decisions, those responsible seldom have time to read the EIA report, other than an executive
summary. Typically, they rely upon the advice of their officials, whose views are likely to be shaped by their
policy mandates and responsibilities. The general receptivity of decision-makers to the findings of an EIA
report will reflect their confidence in the EIA process and its perceived acceptance by other parties. In this
regard, public trust in the EIA process, which is built up over time, may carry particular weight.

A summary of Information considered important for decision-makers is given in the table below. It lists the
key aspects of EIA reports which decision-makers need to take into account when making final approvals and
setting conditions for project implementation. This listing is generic and should be reviewed to establish the
aspects that are important locally.

Table 27: Information considered important for decision-makers

Decision-making Important information

stage
Background Project background and the most important environmental issues involved
Policy Context Basic development issue or problem being addressed (e.g. flooding, water shortage,
etc)
The relationship to environmental policies and plans
Alternatives Alternatives to the proposal (including the best practicable environmental option
(BPEO) or equivalent designation)
Public involvement Key public views
Concerns of affected communities
Areas of agreement and disagreement

82
Impact analysis Costs and benefits
Distribution of gains and losses
Mitigation and Adequacy of proposal measures
monitoring
Conclusion and main economic benefits, significant environmental effects and proposed mitigation
recommendations measures
The extent to which the proposal conforms to the principles of sustainable
development
Design and operational changes to improve the environmental acceptability of the
project
Adapted from OECD/DAC (1994)

There can be a number of different outcomes from decision-making:

• the proposal can be approved;

• the proposal can be approved with conditions;
• the proposal can be placed on hold pending further investigation;
• the proposal can be returned for revision and resubmission; and
• the proposal can be rejected outright.

Some or all of the following rules and conventions for decision-making have been adopted by leading EIA
systems (Wood 1995):

• no decision will be taken until the EIA report has been received and considered;
• the findings of the EIA report and review are a major determinant of approval and condition setting;
• public comment on the EIA report is taken into account in decision-making;
• approvals can be refused or withheld, conditions imposed, or modifications demanded at the final
decision stage;
• the decision is made by a body other than the proponent;
• reasons for the decision and the conditions attached to it are published, and
• there is a public right of appeal against the decision (where procedures have not been followed or they
have been applied unfairly).

The requirement for written reasons for the decision is particularly important. For instance, the US Record of
Decision must contain:

• a statement explaining the decision;

• an explanation of alternatives considered and which of these are environmentally preferable;
• the social, economic and environmental factors considered by the agency in making its decision;
• an explanation of the mitigation measures adopted and, if practicable, the mitigation methods that
were not adopted, with an explanation of why not; and
• a summary of the monitoring and enforcement programme which must be adopted to ensure that any
mitigation measures are implemented.

Normally, all proposals that are subject to EIA will have conditions attached to their implementation as part of
the final approval. The conditions that are set may follow the mitigation and impact management measures
proposed in the EIA report or vary them, for example by establishing more stringent requirements. In either
case, condition setting is based on impact predictions, which have varying levels of reliability. As far as

83
possible, the level of confidence or range of uncertainty that is attached to the information should be specified
so decision-makers understand the limitations on condition setting.

7. EIA monitoring and Environmental Auditing

7.1. EIA monitoring

Monitoring can be defined as the continuous assessment of environmental or socio- economic variables by the
systematic collection of specific data in space and time. It can be strictly continuous, e.g. using recording
instruments, but more commonly involves periodic repeated data collection, usually by the same or similar
methods as in baseline surveys.

The primary aim of monitoring is to provide information that will aid impact management, and, secondarily,
to achieve a better understanding of cause-effect relationships and to improve EIA prediction and mitigation
methods. Both the immediate and long-term benefits from undertaking monitoring as part of EIA are widely
recognised, although not always realised.

Monitoring is essential to learn from both successes and failures. For example:
• it is only mechanisms for comparing predicted and actual impacts, and hence to checking whether
mitigations measures have been put in place, testing their effectiveness, and evaluating the
efficiency of the project management program:
• if mitigation measures are amenable to modification, it should still be possible to reduce residual
impacts identified during monitoring
• it can provide information about responses of particular receptors to impacts;
• It is the only means of EIA/EIS evaluation and of identifying mistakes that may be rectified in
future EIAs.
• measure the impacts that occur during project construction and operation;
• check their compliance with agreed conditions and standards;
• facilitate impact management, e.g. by warning of unanticipated impacts; and
• determine the accuracy of impact predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Monitoring in EIA can include:

• Base line monitoring : - monitoring which may be carried out over seasons or years to quantify
ranges of natural variation and /or directions and rates of change, that are relevant to the project impact
prediction and mitigation .this can avoid the frequent criticism that baseline studies are only
‘snapshots’ in time. However, time constraints in EIA usually preclude lengthy survey program, and
assessment of long-term trends normally have to relay on existing data.
• Compliance monitoring: - this is monitoring activity aimed to check that specific conditions and
standards are met, e.g. in relation to emission of pollutants.
• Impact and mitigation monitoring: - which aims to compare predicted and actual (residual) impacts,
and hence to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

The collection of monitoring data is expensive. It needs to be targeted at the information necessary to manage
the impacts that are significant or review the aspects of EIA practice that are of particular importance. These
aspects should be identified as early as practicable in the EIA process to optimise the contribution of
monitoring data to EIA implementation and follow up. Monitoring involves designing the programme,
collecting and analysing the data, establishing their linkage to impact management, auditing and other
84
components, and interpretation and reporting of data. The following points need to be agreed before
conducting monitoring.

• major impacts to be monitored;

• objectives of monitoring and data requirements;
• arrangements for the conduct of monitoring;
• use of the information to be collected;
• response to unanticipated or greater than predicted impacts; and
• measures for public reporting and involvement.

The general approach to effects monitoring is to compare the pre- and post-project situation, measuring
relevant environmental impacts against baseline conditions. A common issue in all situations is how to
differentiate the change attributable to a project from the variability that characterises all biophysical or socio-
economic systems. In the real world, as opposed to laboratory experiments, cause-effect relationships are
difficult to separate from the interaction of other factors. Eliminating or correcting for these intervening
variables is the key to the design and conduct of a scientifically defensible effects monitoring programme.

Monitoring data needs to be interpreted and reported to a non-scientific audience, including decision makers,
the affected community and the general public. This may be the responsibility of a regulatory body,
monitoring team or multi-stakeholder group, established specifically to bring a broad understanding and a
range of views to EIA implementation and follow up. Reports should be in plain language and to appropriate
technical standards.

Some elements of an effective environmental monitoring programme are listed in the table below. The
following steps can help to implement these elements:

• define the scope and objectives of monitoring for each impact;

• identify the sites for observation, measurement and sampling;
• select the key indicators for direct measurement or observation;
• determine the level of accuracy required in the data;
• consider how the data will be analysed in relation to baseline and other data;
• establish a system for recording, organising and reporting the data;
• specify thresholds of impact acceptability; and
• set requirements for management action if monitoring indicates these are exceeded.

7.2. Environmental Auditing

Auditing is a term borrowed from accounting to describe a systematic process of examining, documenting and
verifying that EIA procedures and outcomes correspond to objectives and requirements. This process can be
undertaken during and/or after project construction, and draws upon surveillance reports and monitoring data.

Environmental auditing is a review process similar to that carried out in financial accounting. Both result in a
statement of facts, which certifies that practice is (or is not) in accordance with standard procedure. In the case
of environmental auditing, there is an added level of interpretation, focusing on the factors of performance.
The concern is to identify how the aspects, processes or systems under review can be improved.

The main techniques for conducting an environmental audit are:

85
 • examination of records and documentation relating to impacts, actions taken to manage them and
aspects of performance;
• interviews with management and line staff to corroborate factual information and probe areas of
concern; and
• site inspection to check that environmental measures and controls are operating as described and
intended.

EIA audits are used to:

• identify the impacts of project implementation;

• verify whether or not the conditions of approval have been implemented;
• test the accuracy of impact predictions;
• check the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and
• improve compliance and performance of EIA practice.

Table 28: Few of major environmental auditing and the most common issues to be considered.

Types of Audit Definition Issues to be considered Systems of

approach
Compliance audit It is the verification process whereby Check against that all relevant  Interview
the company established the extent to environmental legislation and  Visual
which it is complying with standards are being considered observation
environmental legislation with  Document
environmental legislation, discharge review
and emission limits, building permit
(standards).

Environmental risk It is the process of conducting an  Assess conditions & working  Interview
audit assessment to identify potential risk procedures  Visual
points in the chain from receipt of raw  Assess the likelihood of an observation
material through the production environmentally damaging  Document
processes to storage and distribution occurrence and the review
consequences of the event.
Reacquisition audit This is commonly undertaken before  Assess contaminated land  Interview
the transfer of ownership from one buildings  Document
individual to another.  Undertake historical survey review
through identifying past and  Visual
current activities observation
 Undertake site assessment  Laboratory
 Undertake sample test testing
Management It is the process of checking the system  Check operations against  Interview
systems audit or procedures against the existing written procedures  Visual
policy and standard and relevance of  Check their continual observation
those standards and procedures for improvement program  Document
ensuring continual improvement in review
environmental performance.

86
The main types of EIA related audits are:

• Implementation audits - to verify that EIA implementation met the conditions of project approval.
• Impact audits - to determine the impact of the project and the accuracy of EIA predictions.
• Compliance audits - to verify that project impacts complied with environmental standards and
regulatory requirements. It is the verification process whereby the company established the extent to
which it is complying with environmental legislation with environmental legislation, discharge and
emission limits, building permit (standards).
• Effectiveness or policy audits - to check the feasibility of mitigation measures and the consistency of
EIA practice. It is the process of checking the system or procedures against the existing policy and
standard and relevance of those standards and procedures for ensuring continual improvement in
environmental performance.

Environmental auditing can be done using methods including: interview, visual observation, document
review, laboratory testing etc. When selecting projects for a full audit, priority should be given to those:

• with a high level of environmental, social, economic or political impact and visibility;
• that can yield usable results within the existing technical and budgetary constraints; and/or
• most at risk from deficiencies in the EIA implementation and follow up system, such as limited
surveillance capability or lack of authority to enforce mitigation measures.

The case example also underlines some of the difficulties commonly experienced in the conduct of EIA
monitoring and audit, including:

• limited baseline information on variability and causal relationships;

• qualitative and non auditable impact predictions;
• late changes to project design and mitigation (thereby altering the basis on which predictions are
made); and
• long lead times before certain trends and impacts can be identified, for example, large scale but
infrequent impacts (such as oil spills) or low dose, repetitive effects (such as exposure to heavy
metals).

Other more flexible, less data demanding approaches can be taken in cases where an auditable trail of
monitoring data is unavailable or insufficient. For example, spot audits concentrate on significant impacts or
priority concerns about mitigation measures. These can be undertaken either as a series of rolling audits or a
post-project analysis. An impact-backwards methodology can be used to compare EIA prediction and
mitigation with environmental effects and outcomes. Impacts are verified iteratively by consultation and field
checks and traced backwards to EIA practice (comparable to an effectiveness or policy audit). The following
table depicts an example of environmental audit report.

87
Table 29: Environmental monitoring and audit of the Chek Lap Kok Airport, Hong Kong SARrs

EIA section Results

Background A number of major projects in Hong Kong are the subject to environmental monitoring and audit
(EMA) as part of EIA implementation and follow up. These programmes are carried out to ensure
that the measures recommended in the EIA are actually implemented and appropriate actions are
taken in cases where the impact exceeds the established limit.
Project The Chek Lap Kok Airport was built between 1991 and 1997 at a total cost of US$ 20 billion. It
involved the reclamation of approx. 1250 ha site and facility development and related projects and
infrastructure, including a new town of 20,000 (Tung Chung), and a 34 km high speed rail and road
expressway to the city centre (involving fixed and tunnel water crossings and new terminal facilities
on reclaimed land). Major areas of concern in site construction and operation included air quality,
noise, water quality, waste and ecological damage resulting from dredging, dumping and
reclamation.
EMA An EMA system was instituted to follow up on the implementation of EIA measures. The
programme monitoring component focused on aspects of particular concern, including water quality, air
emissions, noise and dust levels. At the airport reclamation site, the initial water quality monitoring
network was inadequate and had to be relocated to provide a more realistic set of auditing criteria.
The audit component compared actual and predicted impacts, and the effectiveness of
environmental instruments, such as clauses included in licenses, contract specifications and
planning and land lease conditions. The programme was carried out by developing a reference
manual and database, monthly and quarterly reports on compliance and performance, respectively,
and policies and procedures to be followed in the event of breaches and non-compliance.
Summary of The implementation of EIA measures was largely dependent on the environmental awareness of the
results proponent resident site staff, and hampered by the lack of legal authority of the regulatory agency.
Impact predictions were reasonably accurate (except for cumulative effects) but there were cases
where the impact exceeded the worst-case scenario (e.g. mud dumping rates). The audit of the
effectiveness of environmental instruments concluded that not all EIA recommendations were
included in contracts, many specifications were too general, and means of enforcing or inducing
compliance were insufficient. An underlying issue was the variance between the project as designed
and as constructed, compromising many EIA measures and requiring renegotiation of mitigation.
Key lessons EIA documents must be prepared with the EMA requirements in mind, for example, auditable
predictions and well-defined mitigation measures, with provision for their renegotiation if design
and construction vary. In addition, these measures should be translated into practicable, enforceable
specifications. The regulatory agency should have the necessary legal authorities for this purpose
Source: Sanvicens 1995.

88
8. Public participation for EIA
Public involvement is a fundamental principle of the EIA process. Timely, well planned and appropriately
implemented public involvement programmes will contribute to EIA studies and to the successful design,
implementation, operation and management of proposals. Specifically public involvement is a valuable source
of information on key impacts, potential mitigation measures and the identification and selection of
alternatives. It also ensures the EIA process is open, transparent and robust, characterised by defensible
analysis.

Nearly all EIA systems make provision for some type of public involvement. This term includes public
consultation (or dialogue) and public participation, which is a more interactive and intensive process of
stakeholder engagement. Most EIA processes are undertaken through consultation rather than participation.
At a minimum, public involvement must provide an opportunity for those directly affected by a proposal to
express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental and social impacts.

The purpose of public involvement is to:

• inform the stakeholders about the proposal and its likely effects;
• canvass their inputs, views and concerns; and
• take account of the information and views of the public in the EIA and decision making.

The key objectives of public involvement are to:

• obtain local and traditional knowledge that may be useful for decision-making;
• facilitate consideration of alternatives, mitigation measures and tradeoffs;
• ensure that important impacts are not overlooked and benefits are maximised;
• reduce conflict through the early identification of contentious issues;
• provide an opportunity for the public to influence project design in a positive manner (thereby creating
a sense of ownership of the proposal);
• improve transparency and accountability of decision-making; and
• increase public confidence in the EIA process.

Experience indicates that public involvement in the EIA process can and does meet these aims and objectives.
Many benefits are concrete, such as improvements to project design (see the table below). Other benefits are
intangible and incidental and flow from taking part in the process. For example, as participants see their ideas
are helping to improve proposals, they gain confidence and self-esteem by exchanging ideas and information
with others who have different values and views.

The basic types of public involvement are organised as a ladder of steps of increasing intensity and
interaction.

Information and notification, strictly speaking, are preconditions of meaningful public involvement. On its
own, information disclosure is not a sufficient provision in public involvement for an EIA of a major
proposal. Consultation denotes an exchange of information designed to canvass the views of stakeholders on a
proposal and its impacts. Participation is a more interactive process of engaging the public in addressing the
issues, establishing areas of agreement and disagreement and trying to reach common positions. Negotiation
among stakeholders is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism, which is based on joint fact-
finding, consensus building and mutual accommodation of different interests.

89
In practice, public involvement in EIA largely corresponds to consultation. However, participation will be
appropriate in many circumstances, for example, where a local population is displaced or relocated as a result
of a project. A few countries also make provision for mediation or negotiation facilitated by a neutral third
party. In principle, these approaches to public involvement in EIA are distinctive and relatively separate.
However, they may be used in combination; for example, consultation and participation can be appropriate at
different stages of the same EIA process.

Table 30: Levels and forms of public involvement

Level Form of involvement

Informing One way flow of information from the proponent to the public
Consulting Two way flow of information between the proponent and the public with
opportunities for the public to express views on the proposal
Participating Interactive exchange between the proponent and the public encompassing
shared analysis and agenda setting and the development of understood and
agreed positions on the proposal and its impacts
Negotiating Face to face discussion between the proponent and key stakeholders to build
consensus and reach a mutually acceptable resolution of issues, for example
on a package of impact mitigation and compensation measures.
Adapted from Bass et al (1995)

The range of stakeholders involved in an EIA typically includes:

• the people (individuals, groups and communities) who are affected by the proposal;
• the proponent and other project beneficiaries;
• government agencies;
• NGOs and interest groups; and
• others, such as donors, the private sector, academics etc.

Local people

Individuals or groups in the affected community will want to know what is proposed; what the likely impacts
are; and how their concerns will be understood and taken into account. They will want assurances that their
views will be carefully listened to and considered on their merits. They will want proponents to address their
concerns. They will also have knowledge of the local environment and community that can be tapped and
incorporated into baseline data.

Proponents

Understandably, proponents will wish to shape the proposal to give it the best chance of success. Often, this
involves trying to create public understanding and acceptance of the proposal through the provision of basic
information. More creatively, project design can be improved through using public inputs on alternatives and
mitigation and understanding local knowledge and values.

Government agencies

The government agencies involved in the EIA process will want to have their policy and regulatory
responsibilities addressed in impact analysis and mitigation consideration. For the competent authority, an
effective public involvement programme can mean the proposal may be less likely to become controversial in
90
the later stages of the process. For the responsible EIA agency, the concern will be whether or not the public
involvement process conforms to requirements and procedures.

NGOs/Interest groups

Comments from NGOs can provide a useful policy perspective on a proposal; for example, the relationship of
the proposal to sustainability objectives and strategy. Their views may also be helpful when there are
difficulties with involving local people. However, this surrogate approach should be considered as
exceptional; it cannot substitute for or replace views which should be solicited directly.

Other interested groups

Other interested groups include those who are experts in particular fields and can make a significant
contribution to the EIA study. The advice and knowledge of government agencies and the industry sector
most directly concerned with the proposal should always be sought. However, in many cases, substantive
information about the environmental setting and effects will come from outside sources.

Table 31: The benefits of effective participation for different groups

The proponent The decision-maker Affected communities

Raises the proponent’s Achieves more informed and Provides an opportunity to raise concerns
awareness of the potential accountable decision making and influence the decision-making process
impacts of a proposal on
the environment and the
affected community
Legitimises proposals and Provides increased assurance Provides an opportunity to gain a better
ensures greater acceptance that all issues of legitimate understanding and knowledge about the
and support concern have been addressed environmental impacts and risks that may
arise
Improves public trust and Demonstrates fairness and Increases awareness of how decision-making
confidence transparency, avoiding processes work, who makes decisions and on
accusations of decisions being what basis
made ‘behind closed doors’
Assists by obtaining local Promotes good relations with Empowers people, providing the knowledge
information/data the proponent and third parties that they can influence decision making and
creating a greater sense of social
responsibility
Avoids potentially costly Avoids potentially costly Ensures all relevant issues and concerns are
delays later in the process delays later in the process by dealt with prior to the decision
by resolving conflict early resolving conflict early
Source: Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (1999)

Key principles for public involvement, which are widely agreed, are outlined as:

• inclusive – covers all stakeholders;

• open and transparent – steps and activities are understood;
• relevant – focused on the issues that matter;
• fair – conducted impartially and without bias toward any stakeholder;
• responsive – to stakeholder requirements and inputs; and

91
 • credible – builds confidence and trust.

Scope of involvement

The scope of public involvement and its relationship to the EIA process should be commensurate with the
significance of the environmental and social impacts for local people. Ideally, public involvement should
commence during the preparatory stage of project development and continue throughout the EIA process.
This is particularly important for major projects that affect people’s livelihood and culture. Five main steps at
which public involvement can occur in the EIA process are discussed below.

Screening

For certain categories of proposal, the responsible authority may consult with people likely to be affected in
order to gain a better understanding of the nature and significance of the likely impacts. This information can
assist in determining if an EIA is required and at what level. In addition, the early identification of affected
parties and their concerns provides information that can be incorporated into the scoping stage of EIA and
assists future planning for public involvement.

Scoping

Public involvement is commonly undertaken at the scoping stage. This is critical to ensure that all the
significant issues are identified, local information about the project area is gathered, and alternative ways of
achieving the project objectives are considered. Terms of Reference for an EIA provide a means of
responding to and checking against these inputs. They should also outline any specific requirements for public
involvement in EIA preparation, review, and follow up.

Impact analysis and mitigation

The further involvement of the public in these phases of EIA preparation can help to:

• avoid biases and inaccuracies in analysis;

• identify local values and preferences;
• assist in the consideration of mitigation measures; and
• select a best practicable alternative.

Review of EIA quality

A major opportunity for public involvement occurs when EIA reports are exhibited for comment. However,
making written comments is daunting to all but the educated and literate. Other means of achieving responses
should be provided where proposals are controversial. Public hearings or meetings may be held as part of EIA
review. They can be formal or informal but should be structured in a way which best allows those affected to
have their say. Many people are not comfortable in speaking in public and other or additional mechanisms
may be needed.

Implementation and follow up

The environmental impacts of major projects will be monitored during construction and operational start up,
with corrective action taken where necessary. Local representatives should scrutinise and participate in the
follow up process. This arrangement can assist proponents and approval agencies to respond to problems as

92
they arise. It can also help to promote good relations with local communities that are affected by a
development.

Planning a public involvement programme

Planning by the proponent for a public involvement programme needs to begin early before other EIA work.
Following scoping, the terms of reference for an EIA study should include specifications for the proposed
programme, including its scope, timing, techniques and resources. If there are none, a separate document
should be prepared by the EIA project team with advice and input from an expert (e.g. a social scientist) who
is knowledgeable about the local community and participation techniques.

The plan should describe the means of notifying and informing the public about the proposals and the EIA
process, beginning at an early stage and continuing with updates on the progress of the EIA study and
feedback on community concerns. Specific reference should be made to the ways in which the public will be
engaged, how their inputs (knowledge, values and concerns) will be taken into account and what resources
(people and money) are available to assist their involvement. Wherever possible, meetings and inquiries
should be held within the local community, especially if there are basic constraints on its involvement (see
below).

A systematic approach to planning a public involvement programme typically involves addressing the
following key issues:

• Who should be involved? “ identify the interested and affected public (stakeholders), noting any major
constraints on their involvement.
• What type and scope of public involvement is appropriate? ensure this is commensurate with the
issues and objectives of EIA.
• How should the public be involved? “ identify the techniques which are appropriate for this purpose.
• When and where should opportunities for public involvement be provided “ establish a plan and
schedule in relation to the EIA process and the number, type and distribution of stakeholders.
• How will the results of public involvement be used in the EIA and decision making processes?
“describe the mechanisms for analysing and taking account of public inputs and providing feeding
back to stakeholders.
• What resources are necessary or available to implement the public involvement programme? “relate
the above considerations to budgetary, time and staff requirements.

Some of the underlying factors that may constrain meaningful public involvement include:

• Poverty “involvement means time spent away from income-producing tasks, and favours the wealthy.
• Remote and rural settings “increased or dispersed settlement distances make communication more
difficult and expensive.
• Illiteracy “involvement will not occur if print media is used.
• Local values/culture “behavioural norms or cultural traditions can act as a barrier to public
involvement or exclude those who do not want to disagree publicly with dominant groups.
• Languages “in some countries a number of different languages or dialects may be spoken, making
communication difficult.
• Legal systems “may be in conflict with traditional systems and cause confusion about rights and
responsibilities over resource use and access.
• Interest groups “bring conflicting and divergent views and vested interests.
• Confidentiality “may be important for the proponent, and may weigh against early involvement and
consideration of alternatives.
93
Public involvement techniques

Tools and Techniques

The following is a list of the tools and techniques used in Public Involvement based on their level of public
involvement in the EIA process (Source: International Environmental Management Association, 1999).

Education and Information Provision

The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Education and Information Provision, as
well as a description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.

Table 32: the tools and techniques for Education and Information Provision

Technique Description and Use Advantage Disadvantages

Leaflets/ Used to convey information.
Brochures Care should be taken in
distribution.
Newsletters May involve a series of
publications. Care should be
taken in distribution.
Unstaffed Set up in public areas to
Exhibits/Displays convey information.
Local Newspaper Conveys information about
Article a proposed activity.
National Conveys information about
Newspaper a proposed activity.
Article
Site Visits Provides first hand
experience of an activity
and related issues.
Can reach a wide audience, Information may not be
or be targeted. understood or be
misinterpreted.
Ongoing contact, flexible Not everyone will read a
format, can address newsletter.
changing needs and
audiences.
Can be viewed at a Information may not be
convenient time and at understood or be
leisure. Graphics can help misinterpreted.
visualise proposals.
Potentially cheap form of Circulation may be limited.
publicity. A means of
reaching a local audience.
Potential to reach a very Unless an activity has
large audience. gained a national profile, it
will be of limited interest.
Issues brought to life Difficult to identify a site
through real examples. which replicates all issues.

Information Feedback

The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Information Feedback, as well as a
description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.

94
Table 33: list of the tools and techniques for Information Feedback

Technique Description and Use Advantage Disadvantages

Staffed Set up in public areas to Can be viewed at a Requires a major
Exhibits/Displays convey information. Staff convenient time and at commitment of staff time.
available. leisure. Graphics can help
visualise proposals. Groups
can be targeted.
Staffed telephone Can phone to obtain Easy for people to May not be as good as face-
lines information, ask questions participate and provide to-face discussions. Staff
or make comments about comments. Promotes a may not have knowledge to
proposals or issues feeling of accessibility. respond to all questions.
Internet Used to provide information Potential global audience. Not all parties will have
or invite feedback. On-line Convenient method for access to the Internet.
forums and discussion those with internet access.
groups can be set up.
Public Meetings Used to exchange Can meet with other Can be complex,
information and views. stakeholders. Demonstrates unpredictable and
proponent is willing to meet intimidating. May be
with other interested parties. hijacked by interest groups.
Surveys, Used for obtaining Confidential surveys may Response rate can be poor.
Interviews and information and opinions. result in more candid Responses may not be
Questionnaires May be self-administered, responses. Can identify representative and opinions
conducted face-to-face, by existing knowledge and change.
post or telephone. concerns.

Involvement & Consultation

The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Involvement & Consultation, as well as a
description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.

Table 34: list of the tools and techniques for Involvement & Consultation

Technique Description and Use Advantage Disadvantages

Workshops Used to provide background Provides an open exchange Only a small number of
information, discuss issues in of ideas. Can deal with individuals can participate.
detail and solve problems. complex issues and consider Full range of interests not
issues in-depth. Can be represented.
targeted.
Open-House Location provided, e.g. at a site Can be visited at a Preparation for and staffing
or operational building, for convenient time and at of the open house may
people to visit, learn about a leisure. require considerable time
proposal and provide feedback. and money.

95
Extended Involvement

The following table provides a list of the tools and techniques for Extended Involvement, as well as a
description of their use and their advantages and disadvantages in public involvement.

Table 35: list of the tools and techniques for Extended Involvement

Technique Description and Use Advantage Disadvantages

Community People representing Can consider issues in detail Not all interests may be
Advisory/Liaison particular interests or areas and highlight the decision- represented. Requires on-
Groups of expertise, e.g. community making process and the going commitment from
leaders, meet to discuss complexities involved. participants.
issues.
Citizen Juries Group of citizens brought Can consider issues in detail Not all interests may be
together to consider an and in a relatively short represented. Limited time
issue. Evidence received period of time. may be available for
from expert witnesses. participants to fully consider
Report produced, setting out information received.
the views of the jury.
Visioning Used to develop a shared Develops a common view of Lack of control over the
vision of the future. future needs. outcome. Needs to be used
early in the decision -
making process.

Communication Techniques
The following table provides a list of techniques for communicating with the public, including the
communication characteristics and what public participation objectives they meet.

Table 36: a list of techniques for communicating with the public

Communication Characteristics* Public Participation/ Communication Pubic Information and Participation Objectives
Level of Ability Degree Technique Inform/ Identify Get Feedback Evaluate Resolve
Public to of 2-way Educate Problems/ Ideas/ Conflict/
Contact handle Comm. Values Solve Consensus
Achieved Specific Problems
Interests

2 1 1 Public Hearings X X
2 1 2 Public Meetings X X X
1 2 3 Informal Small Group Meetings X X X X X X
2 1 2 General Public Information Meetings X
1 2 2 Presentation to Community Organization X X X
1 3 3 Information Coordination Seminars X X
1 2 1 Operating Field Offices X X X X
1 3 3 Local Planning Visits X X X
3 1 2 Public Displays X X X
2 1 2 Model Demonstration Projects X X X X
3 1 1 Material for Mass Media X
1 3 2 Response to Public Inquiries X
3 1 1 Press Releases Inviting Comments X X
1 3 1 Letter Requests for Comments X X
1 3 3 Workshops X X X X X
1 3 3 Advisory Committee X X X X
1 3 3 Task Forces X X X
1 3 3 Employment of Community Residents X X X

96
 1 3 3 Community Interest Advocates X X X
1 3 3 Ombudsman or Representative X X X X X
2 3 1 Public Review of Initial Assessment X X X X X X
Decision Document

• Level of participation: 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high.

When selecting public involvement techniques, the following points should be considered:

• the degree of interaction required between participants;

• the extent to which participants are able to influence decisions;
• the stage(s) of the EIA at which public involvement will occur;
• the time available for involvement;
• the likely number of participants and their interests;
• the complexity and controversy of the issues under consideration; and
• the consideration of cultural norms which may influence the content of discussions, for example
relating to gender, religion, etc.

When using public involvement techniques, the following principles can help to achieve a successful
outcome:

• provide sufficient, relevant information in a form that is easily understood by non-experts (without
being simplistic or insulting);
• allow enough time for stakeholders to review, consider and respond to the information and its
implications;
• provide appropriate means and opportunities for them to express their views;
• select venues and time events to encourage maximum attendance and a free exchange of views by all
stakeholders (including those that may feel less confident about expressing their views); and
• respond to all questions, issues raised or comments made by stakeholders. This fosters public
confidence and trust in the EIA process.

Principles which will help minimise conflict, particularly if applied consistently from the earliest stages of the
planning of the proposal, include:

• involving all those likely to be affected, or with a stake in the matter;

• communicating the need for and objectives of the proposal, and how it is planned to achieve them;
• actively listening to the concerns of affected people, and the interests which lie behind them;
• treating people honestly and fairly, establishing trust through a consistency of behaviour;
• being empathetic, putting yourself in the shoes of the other party, and looking at the area of dispute
from their perspective;
• being flexible in the way alternatives are considered, and amending the proposal wherever possible to
better suit the interests of other parties;
• when others interests cannot be accommodated, mitigating impacts to the greatest extent possible and
looking for ways to compensate for loss and damage;
• establishing and maintaining open two-way channels of communication throughout the planning and
implementation phase; and
• acknowledging the concerns and suggestions of others, and providing feed-back on the way these
matters have been addressed.

97
9. References
1. Anjaneyulu, Y. and Manicham, V. (2007). Environmental Impact Assessment (2nd
ed). BSP Publication. India.
2. Anonymous (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Module.
3. Anonymous (1995). The constitution of the federal democratic republic of
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
4. Caldwell, L. (1998). Implementing Policy Through Procedure: Impact Assessment
and the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), Fargo Press, USA.
5. Clark, B. (1984).Environmental Impact Assessment: Scope and Objectives: In
Perspectives on Environmental Impact Assessment. London, UK.
6. Coles,T. et al. (2000). Practical Experience of Environmental Assessment in the
UK. Lincolnshire: Institute of Environmental Assessment.
7. Department Of Environment (1996). Changes in the Quality of Environmental
Impact Statements. London, UK.
8. ELARD (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment, the case of Jubeil. Jubeil.
9. EPA (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guideline (Drafts).
Addis Ababa.
10. Leopold, L. et al., (1971).A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact.
Washington DC, USA.
11. Mcnab, A. (1997). Scoping and Public Participation. In Planning and EIA in
Practices, UK.
12. Parkin,J. (1992). Judging Plans and Projects. London, UK.
13. Peter, M.(2001).Methods Of Environmental Impact Assessment, London, UK.
14. Sorensen, J. (1973). Procedure and Programs to Assist in the Environmental L
15. Impact Assessment Process, University of California.
16. Therive, R. (2004). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London, UK.
17. Wood,C.(2003). Environmental Impact Assessment: Comprehensive Overview, UK.

98