Eastern Visayas State University

Tacloban City
College of Engineering
Industrial Engineering Department

A final Output in
Environmental Engineering (Env101)

Submitted By:
Loyola, Ma. Evelyn
Elicot, Fatima Micah
Colete, Carla

Submitted To:
Engr. Almacely B. Plando
 Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is one of the environmental assessment tools

being used worldwide to provide decision-makers and the concerned public with
essential information to plan for environmentally sustainable economic development.
It is a systematic analysis of projects to determine their potential environmental
impacts and the significance. This is also an environmental decision support tools,
which provides information on the likely impacts of development projects to those
who take decision as to whether the project should be authorised. The purpose of EIA,
(Environmental Impact Assessment is to determine the potential environmental,
social, and health effects of a proposed development so that those who take decisions
in developing the project and in authorising the project are informed about likely
consequences of their decisions before they take those decisions and are thereby more
accountable. It is intended to facilitate informed and transparent decision-making
while seeking to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts through the
consideration of alternatives options, sites or processes of such impacts and to
propose measure to mitigate the negative impacts.

EIA is a systematic and integrative process for considering possible impacts prior to a
decision being taken or whether or not a proposal should be given approval to
proceed. (Wood, 2003)
 EIA PROCESS

 Resources

EIA team for an irrigation and drainage study is likely to be composed of some or all
at the following: a team leader, a hydrologist, and irrigation/drainage engineer,
fisheries biologist/ecologist: an agronomist/pesticide expert: a soil conservation
expert: a biological/ environmental scientist an economist, a social scientist and a
 health scientist(epidemiologist). The final structure of the team will vary depending
on the project. Specialist may also be required for fieldwork, laboratory testing,
library research, data processing, surveys and modelling. The team leader will require
significant management skill to coordinate the work of a team with diverse skills and
knowledge. There will be a large number of people involved in EIA apart from the
full-time team members. These people will be based on a wide range of organizations,
such as the project proposing and authorizing bodies, regulatory authorities and
various interest groups. Such personnel would be located in various agencies and also
in the private sector, a considerable number will need specific EIA training. The
length of the EIA will obviously depend on the programme, plan or project under
review. However, the process usually lasts from between 6 and 18 months from
preparation through to review. It will normally be approximately the same length as
the feasibility study of which it should form an integral part. It is essential that the
EIA team and the team carrying out the feasibility study work together and not in
isolation from each other. This often provides the only opportunity for design changes
to be made and mitigation measures to be incorporated in the project design. The cost
of the study will vary considerably and only general estimates can be given here.
Typically, cost vary from between 0.1 to 0.3 percent the total project cost for large
project over US$ 100 million and from 0.2 to 0.5 percent for projects less than US$
100 million. For small projects the cost could increase to between 1 and 3 percent of
the project cost.

 Scoping

Is the process of determining which are the most critical issues to study and will
involve community participation to some degree. It is at this early stage that EIA can
most strongly influence the outline proposal. Before the scoping exercise can be fully
started, the remit of the study needs to be defined and agreed by the relevant parties. It
is important in two reasons; one was that problems can be pinpointed early allowing
mitigating design changes to be made before expensive detailed work is 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 full a scale
EIA considered necessary then the scoping should include terms or reference for these
further studies.
 Screening

The process of deciding on whether an EIA is required, this may be determined by

size including the greater predetermined surface area or irrigated land that would be
affected more than a certain percentage or flow to be diverted or more than a certain
capital expenditure. It may be based on site-specific information. For Example, the
repair of a recently destroyed diversion structure is unlikely to require EIA whilst
major new headwork structure may. Guidelines for whether or not EIA is required
will country’s specific depending on the laws or norm in operation. Legislation often
specifies the criteria for screening and full EIA. All major donors screen projects
presented for financing to decide whether and EIA is required. The output from the
screening process is often a document called an Initial Environment Examination
(IEE). The main conclusion will be a classification of the project according to its
likely environmental sensitivity.

 Prediction and mitigation

Once the scoping exercise is complete and the major impacts to be studied have been
identified, prediction work can start. This stage forms the central part of an EIA. Several
major options are likely to have been proposed either at the scoping stage or before and each
option may require separate prediction studies. Realistic and affordable mitigating measures
cannot be proposed without first estimating the scope of the impacts, which should be in
monetary terms wherever possible. It then becomes important to quantify the impact of the
suggested improvements by further prediction work. Clearly, options need to be discarded as
soon as their unsuitability can be proved or alternatives shown to be superior in
environmental or economic terms, or both. It is also important to test the "without project"
scenario.

An important outcome of this stage will be recommendations for mitigating measures. This
would be contained in the Environmental Impact Statement. Clearly the aim will be to
introduce measures which minimize any identified adverse impacts and enhance positive
impacts. Formal and informal communication links need to be established with teams
carrying out feasibility studies so that their work can take proposals into account. Similarly,
feasibility studies may indicate that some options are technically or economically
unacceptable and thus environmental prediction work for these options will not be required.

Many mitigating measures do not define physical changes but require management or
institutional changes or additional investment, such as for health services. Mitigating
measures may also be procedural changes, for example, the introduction of, or increase in,
irrigation service fees to promote efficiency and water conservation. Table 6 in Chapter 4
describes the most common adverse impacts associated with irrigation and drainage schemes
and some appropriate mitigating measures.

By the time prediction and mitigation are undertaken, the project preparation will be
advanced and a decision will most likely have been made to proceed with the project.
Considerable expenditure may have already been made and budgets allocated for the
implementation of the project. Major changes could be disruptive to project processing and
only accepted if prediction shows that impacts will be considerably worse than originally
identified at the scoping stage. For example, an acceptable measure might be to alter the
mode of operation of a reservoir to protect downstream fisheries, but a measure proposing an
alternative to dam construction could be highly contentious at this stage. To avoid conflict, it
is important that the EIA process commences early in the project cycle.

This phase of an EIA will require good management of a wide range of technical specialists
with particular emphasis on:

• prediction methods;
• interpretation of predictions, with and without mitigating measures;
• assessment of comparisons.

It is important to assess the required level of accuracy of predictions. Mathematical

modelling  is a valuable technique, but care must be taken to choose models that suit the
available data. Because of the level of available knowledge and the complexity of the
systems, physical systems are modelled more successfully than ecological systems which in
turn are more successfully modelled than social systems. Social studies (including
institutional capacity studies) will probably produce output in non-numerical terms. Expert
advice, particularly from experts familiar with the locality, can provide quantification of
impacts that cannot be modelled. Various techniques are available to remove the bias of
individual opinion.

Checklists, matrices, networks diagrams, graphical comparisons and overlays, are all

techniques developed to help carry out an EIA and present the results of an EIA in a format
useful for comparing options. The main quantifiable methods of comparing options are by
applying weightings, to environmental impacts or using economic cost-benefit analysis or a
combination of the two. Numerical values, or weightings, can be applied to different
environmental impacts to (subjectively) define their relative importance. Assigning economic
values to all environmental impacts is not recommended as the issues are obscured by the
single, final answer. However, economic techniques, can provide insight into comparative
importance where different environmental impacts are to be compared, such as either losing
more wetlands or resettling a greater number of people.

When comparing a range of proposals or a variety of mitigation or enhancement activities, a

number of characteristics of different impacts need to be highlighted. The relative importance
of impacts needs agreeing, usually following a method of reaching a consensus but including
economic considerations. The uncertainty in predicting the impact should be clearly noted.
Finally, the time frame in which the impact will occur should be indicated, including whether
or not the impact is irreversible.

 Management and monitoring

The part of the EIS covering monitoring and management is often referred to as
the Environmental Action Plan or Environmental Management Plan. This section 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. The term
'institutional' is used here in its broadest context to encompass relationships:

• established by law between individuals and government;

• between individuals and groups involved in economic transactions;
• developed to articulate legal, financial and administrative links among public agencies;
• motivated by socio-psychological stimuli among groups and individuals (Craine, 1971).
The above list highlights the breadth of options available for environmental management,
namely: changes in law; changes in prices; changes in governmental institutions; and,
changes in culture which may be influenced by education and information dissemination. All
the management proposals need to be clearly defined and costed. One of the more
straightforward and effective changes is to set-up a monitoring programme with clear
definition as to which agencies are responsible for data collection, collation, interpretation
and implementation of management measures.

The purpose of monitoring is to compare predicted and actual impacts, particularly if the
impacts are either very important or the scale of the impact cannot be very accurately
predicted. The results of monitoring can be used to manage the environment, particularly to
highlight problems early so that action can be taken. The range of parameters requiring
monitoring may be broad or narrow and will be dictated by the 'prediction and mitigation'
stage of the EIA. Typical areas of concern where monitoring is weak are: water quality, both
inflow and outflow; stress in sensitive ecosystems; soil fertility, particularly salinization
problems; water related health hazards; equity of water distributions; groundwater levels.

The use of satellite imagery to monitor changes in land use and the 'health' of the land and sea
is becoming more common and can prove a cost-effective tool, particularly in areas with poor
access. Remotely sensed data have the advantage of not being constrained by political and
administrative boundaries. They can be used as one particular overlay in a GIS. However,
authorization is needed for their use, which may be linked to national security issues, and
may thus be hampered by reluctant governments.

Monitoring should not be seen as an open-ended commitment to collect data. If the need for
monitoring ceases, data collection should cease. Conversely, monitoring may reveal the need
for more intensive study and the institutional infrastructure must be sufficiently flexible to
adapt to changing demands. The information obtained from monitoring and management can
be extremely useful for future EIAs, making them both more accurate and more efficient.

The Environmental Management Plan needs to not only include clear recommendations for
action and the procedures for their implementation but must also define a programme 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.

 Auditing

In order to capitalise on the experience and knowledge gained, the last stage of an EIA is to
carry out an Environmental Audit sometime after completion of the project or
implementation of a programme. It will therefore usually be done by a separate team of
specialists to that working on the bulk of the EIA. The audit should include an analysis of the
technical, procedural and decision-making aspects of the EIA. Technical aspects include: the
adequacy of the baseline studies, the accuracy of predictions and the suitability of mitigation
measures. Procedural aspects include: the efficiency of the procedure, the fairness of the
public involvement measures and the degree of coordination of roles and responsibilities.
Decision-making aspects include: the utility of the process for decision making and the
implications for development, (adapted from Sadler in Wathern, 1988). The audit will
determine whether recommendations and requirements made by the earlier EIA steps were
incorporated successfully into project implementation. Lessons learnt and formally described
in an audit can greatly assist in future EIAs and build up the expertise and efficiency of the
concerned institutions.

 Public participation

Projects or programmes have significant impacts on the local population. Whilst the aim is to
improve the well-being of the population, a lack of understanding of the people and their
society may result in development that has considerable negative consequences. More
significantly, there may be divergence between national economic interests and those of the
local population. For example, the need to increase local rice production to satisfy increasing
consumption in the urban area may differ from the needs as perceived by the local farmers.
To allow for this, public participation in the planning process is essential. The EIA provides
an ideal forum for checking that the affected public have been adequately consulted and their
views taken into account in project preparation.

The level of consultation will vary depending on the type of plan or project. New projects
involving resettlement or displacement will require the most extensive public participation.
As stated before, the purpose of an EIA is to improve projects and this, to some extent, can
only be achieved by involving those people directly or indirectly affected. The value of
environmental amenities is not absolute and consensus is one way of establishing values.
Public consultation will reveal new information, improve understanding and enable better
choices to be made. Without consultation, legitimate issues may not be heard, leading to
conflict and unsustainability.

The community should not only be consulted they should be actively involved in
environmental matters. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN
promotes the concept of Primary Environmental Care whereby farmers, for example, with
assistance from extension services, are directly involved in environmental management. The
earlier the public are involved, the better. Ideally this will be before a development proposal
is fully defined. It is an essential feature of successful scoping, at which stage feedback will
have the maximum influence. Openness about uncertainty should be a significant feature of
this process. As the EIA progresses, public consultation is likely to be decreased though it is
important to disseminate information. The publication of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), will normally be accompanied by some sort of public hearing that needs to
be chaired by a person with good communication skills. He/she may not be a member of the
EIA team.

There are no clear rules about how to involve the public and it is important that the process
remains innovative and flexible. In practice, the views of people affected by the plan are
likely to be heard through some form of representation rather than directly. It is therefore
important to understand how decisions are made locally and what are the methods of
communication, including available government extension services. The range of groups
outside the formal structure with relevant information are likely to include: technical and
scientific societies; Water User Groups; NGOs; experts on local culture; and religious groups.
However, it is important to find out which groups are under-represented and which ones are
responsible for access to natural resources, namely: grazing, water, fishing and forest
products. The views of racial minorities, women, religious minorities, political minorities and
lower cast groups are commonly overlooked, (World Bank, 1991).

There has been an enormous increase in the number of environmental NGOs and "Green"
pressure groups throughout the world. Such organizations often bring environmental issues to
the attention of the local press. However, this should not deter consultation with such
organizations as the approach to EIA should be open and positive with the aim of making
improvements. Relevant NGOs should be identified and their experience and technical
capacity put to good use.

In some countries, open public meetings are the most common technique to enable public
participation. However, the sort of open debate engendered at such meetings is often both
culturally alien and unacceptable. Alternative techniques must be used. Surveys, workshops,
small group meetings and interviews with key groups and individuals are all techniques that
may be useful. Tools such as maps, models and posters can help to illustrate points and
improve communication. Where resettlement is proposed, extensive public participation must
be allowed which will, at a minimum, involve an experienced anthropologist or sociologist
who speaks the local language. He/she can expect to spend months, rather than weeks, in the
field.

Information dissemination can be achieved using a number of mechanisms including the

broadcasting media, in particular newspapers and radio. Posters and leaflets are also useful
and need to be distributed widely to such locations as schools, clinics, post offices,
community centres, religious buildings, bus stops, shops etc. The EIA process must be seen
to be fair.

The public participation/consultation and information dissemination activities need to be

planned and budgeted. The social scientist team member should define how and when
activities take place and also the strategy: extensive field work is expensive. It is important to
note that public participation activities are often reported as a separate section of the final
EIA. Where experience of managing community involvement is limited, training is highly
recommended. Further reading on public participation can be obtained from: Ahmed L and G
K Sammy (1988) and on Rapid Rural Appraisal from Chambers R (1981). Rapid Rural
Appraisal techniques may be an appropriate and method of assessment.

 Managing uncertainty

An EIA involves prediction and thus uncertainty is an integral part. There are two types of
uncertainty associated with environmental impact assessments: that associated with the
process and, that associated with predictions. With the former the uncertainty is whether the
most important impacts have been identified or whether recommendations will be acted upon
or ignored. For the latter the uncertainty is in the accuracy of the findings. The main types of
uncertainty and the ways in which they can be minimized are discussed by de Jongh in
Wathern (1988). They can be summarized as follows:

• uncertainty of prediction: this is important at the data collection stage and the final certainty
will only be resolved once implementation commences. Research can reduce the uncertainty;
• uncertainty of values: this reflects the approach taken in the EIA process. Final certainty
will be determined at the time decisions are made. Improved communications and extensive
negotiations should reduce this uncertainty;

• uncertainty of related decision: this affects the decision-making element of the EIA process
and final certainty will be determined by post evaluation. Improved coordination will reduce
uncertainty.

The importance of very wide consultation cannot be overemphasized in minimizing the risk
of missing important impacts. The significance of impacts is subjective, but the value
judgements required are best arrived at by consensus: public participation and consultation
with a wide sector of the community will reduce uncertainty. One commonly recurring theme
is the dilemma of whether to place greater value on short-term benefits or long-term
problems.

The accuracy of predictions is dependent on a variety of factors such as lack of data or lack of
knowledge. It is important not to focus on predictions that are relatively easy to calculate at
the expense of impacts that may be far more significant but difficult to analyse. Prediction
capabilities are generally good in the physical and chemical sciences, moderate in ecological
sciences and poor in social sciences. Surveys are the most wide-spread technique for
estimating people's responses and possible future actions.

The results of the EIA should indicate the level of uncertainty with the use of confidence
limits and probability analyses wherever possible. Sensitivity analysis similar to that used in
economic evaluation, could be used if adequate quantifiable data are available. A range of
outcomes can be found by repeating predictions and adjusting key variables.

EIA cannot give a precise picture of the future, much as the Economic Internal Rate of
Return cannot give a precise indication of economic success. EIA enables uncertainty to be
managed and, as such, is an aid to better decision making. A useful management axiom is to
preserve flexibility in the face of uncertainty.