Environmental Impact Assessment Review

24 (2004) 643 – 660

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

EIA systems in Nigeria: evolution, current

practice and shortcomings
Olusegun A. Ogunba*
Department of Estate Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Received 1 February 2003; accepted 1 October 2003
Available online 10 May 2004

Abstract

Amidst mounting criticism of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) carried out in

Nigeria under the three independent EIA systems—the EIA Decree 86 (1992), the Town and
Country Planning Decree 88 (1992) and the Petroleum Act (1969)—the paper traces the
evolution of Nigeria’s systems and appraises current practice and shortcomings. The path of
development of the systems was traced within the framework of Gibson’s model of EIA
evolution [Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais., 20 (3) 2002, 151 – 159], while current practice and
shortcomings were explored in random interview surveys of consultant firms, approval
authorities and the academia. It was seen that Gibson’s four-stage model is not exactly
representative of the Nigerian situation, and a more appropriate six-stage model was
developed. It was also established that the current practices of the three EIA systems were at
different stages of evolution: one of the EIA schemes (the Town and Country Planning
Decree) has not evolved satisfactorily, while the other two EIA systems have produced
intricate legislations and guidelines, but fall short of first-rate practice. The other discovery
was that the simultaneous use of three independent systems creates unnecessary duplication
of EIA preparation with considerable time and money costs. The paper advises that Nigeria
can make substantial progress along the evolutionary path through a correction of observed
system shortcomings and a merger of the three systems.
D 2004 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords: EIA systems; EIA evolution; EIA shortcomings

* Corresponding author. GSM: +234-80-34014739.

E-mail address: segogunba@yahoo.co.uk (O.A. Ogunba).

0195-9255/$ – see front matter D 2004 Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2003.10.019
644 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

1. Introduction

In many countries of the developing world, Environmental Impact Assessment

systems are still at the initial stages of evolution. The evolution of the up-and-
coming systems has not resulted in concepts and practice that possess wide-ranging
similarity with systems operated in the more developed countries. In Nigeria for
instance, one observes multiplicity in the amount of EIA legislations. In the UK and
the US, one law governs EIAs for national projects. Conversely, in Nigeria, three
distinct national EIA systems govern nationally funded projects. Disparities also
exist in the manner of operation of the EIA systems. For example, unlike what
obtains in US and UK practice, there is in the Nigerian experiment, the use of both
multi-disciplinary and uni-disciplinary assessors. Indeed, the uni-disciplinary
approach of one of the Nigerian EIA systems is explicitly supported in the enabling
decree (Decree 88).
In these and other ways, it appears that the evolutions of some Nigerian systems
are not resulting in replicas of the earlier established systems (such as the US NEPA
Act of 1969). The existence of points of difference between Nigerian systems and
the more conventional EIA systems gives rise to concern as to whether the Nigerian
EIA experiments are satisfactorily evolving towards best EIA practice. There is, for
that reason, a need for papers that investigate the development of the Nigerian
systems, their possible current inadequacies, and how best the emerging systems
can advance. The aim of the paper is to trace the evolution of EIS systems in Nigeria
and discuss its current shortcomings in the light of fundamental characteristics of
‘good’ EIA systems. It is noted that such critical reviews have been undertaken in
developed countries such as Ireland and the UK (Skeham, 1993; Wood, 1995, etc.),
among others.

2. Literature review

EIA systems have been developing all over the world since the late 1960s when
EIA was first given legal status through the 1969 United States National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA required EIAs for federally funded or supported
projects in the US that were likely to have environmental effects, and has become
an important model for other EIA systems internationally. Many state level EIA
systems have been established in the USA in addition to NEPA. Indeed, 16 of the
USA’s 50 states have so-called ‘‘little NEPAs’’ for actions that require state funding
or permission (Glasson et al., 1999). Since the enactment of NEPA, EIA systems
have been established in various forms throughout the world beginning with more
developed countries such as Canada (1973), Australia (1974), W. Germany (1975)
and France (1976). The approval of a European Directive on EIA in 1985 made
mandatory the enactment of EIA legislation in many European countries, as for
example UK’s Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental effects)
Regulations 1988. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, EIAs were also
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 645

enacted in the former Union countries in the early to mid-nineties. The early 1990s
also saw a large growth in EIA systems in Africa (such as in Nigeria) and also in
South America (Sadler, 1996; Glasson et al., 1999).
In assessing EIA systems to determine what constitutes a ‘good’ system, Weston
(1997) argues against international comparisons. He appraised the UK EIA system
and declined to categorize it as inefficient relative to the US system, despite critical
reviews of authors such as Wood (1995). To support this position, he reasoned that
the adoption of EIA in the UK was actually considered in that country as a
superfluous addition to an already highly developed Town Planning system. EIA
was only taken up under compulsion of European Union directives. The so-called
deficiencies of the UK EIA system as noted by Wood (1995) were a reflection of
reluctance, in the UK, to replace or duplicate efficient provisions in the existing UK
Town Planning system with US EIA provisions that were not necessarily better. It
would be wrong to classify the UK system as inefficient for not incorporating all the
provisions of the US NEPA. The corollary of Weston’s arguments is that it might
not be wise to compare systems operated in Nigeria with those of the US and UK,
for the reason that origins, legislations and operating environments are dissimilar.
Consequently, it appears better to approach the appraisal of Nigerian EIA
systems from the viewpoint of how well it has progressed along a path of evolution.
The model proposed by Gibson (2002), based on his studies in Canada, is
particularly relevant to such an appraisal, and it is possible to evaluate the
development and structure of individual Nigerian EIA systems against this model
to evaluate how well the systems are progressing towards the best possible concept
and practice.
Gibson (2002) modeled the transition of EIA systems in Canada into four
basic stages of evolution. The stages postulated are as follows:

 Stage 1: Reactive pollution control through measures responding to

identified local problems (usually air, water, or soil pollution), with
solutions considered to be technical matters to be addressed through closed
negotiation of abatement requirements between government officials and
the polluters
 Stage 2: Proactive impact identification and mitigation through impact
assessment and project approval/licensing, still focused on biophysical
concerns (though now integrating consideration of various receptors) and
still treated as a largely technical issue with no serious public role (but
perhaps expert review)
 Stage 3: Integration of broader environmental considerations in project
selection and planning through environmental processes with
 consideration of socioeconomic as well as biophysical effects
 obligatory examination of alternatives, aiming to identify the best options
environmentally as well as economically, and
 public reviews (that reveal expert conflicts and uncertainties, and consequently
the significance of public choice).
646 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

 Stage 4: Integrated planning and decision making for sustainability, addressing

policies and programmes as well as projects, cumulative and global effects,
with review and decision processes
 devoted to empowering the public,
 recognizing uncertainties and favouring precaution, diversity, adaptability, and
so on, expecting positive steps towards sustainability (Gibson, 2002).

Gibson observed that transition from one stage to another comes about by
means of concerted effort, often in the face of stiff resistance, but he noted that
the transition consistently brought about a more mandatory, participative and
comprehensive EIA system. Specifically, he observed that EIA systems mature in
nine aspects to become:

 earlier in planning beginning with purposes and broad alternatives;

 more open and participative, not just proponents, government officials and
technical experts;
 more comprehensive, not just biophysical environment, not just local effects,
not just capital projects, not just single undertakings;
 more mandatory (gradual conversion of policy-based to law-based processes);
 more closely monitored (by the courts, informed civil society bodies and
government auditors);
 more widely applied (through law at various levels, but also in land-use
planning, through voluntary corporate initiatives, and so on);
 more integrative (considering systemic effects rather than just individual
impacts);
 more ambitious (overall sustainability rather than just individually ‘accept-
able’ undertakings); and
 more humble (recognizing and addressing uncertainties, applying precaution).

Other writers have pointed out additional procedural features or indicators

towards which EIA systems mature. One such feature considered as essential in
the EIA process, by writers such as Wood (op. cit.), and Frost (1997) is that a
good EIA system should develop towards inculcating post decision and imple-
mentation monitoring and audit provisions, that is, follow up checks sequel to
development consent, to assess accuracy of impact predictions and ensure
improvement in environmental design of projects. Abracosa and Ortolano
(1987) and Kakonge and Imevbore (1993) point out another indicator-provision
of adequate powers of enforcement to EIA agencies. They made a link between
the need for institutional frameworks and the powers of agencies to fully enforce
regulations and perform reviews of EIAs.
The Commission of European Communities (1992), Bulleid (1997), Alo
(1999) and others consider that a practical examination of alternatives to the
project in the assessment is central to any good EIA system, and it is noted that
in reality, few EIA applicants are able to offer an alternative site, let alone a
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 647

different technical solution. Skeham (1993), West et al. (1993) and others argue
that the use of experienced EIA consultants is a fundamental aspect towards
which EIA systems should evolve, and they observed a correlation between EIA
quality and the experience of consultants and planning authorities. Kakonge and
Imevbore (1993) develop the issue of experience further by arguing that it is not
just experience in personal terms which hinders good quality impact assess-
ments, but the knowledge and data that is built with experience. Weston (1997),
Bulleid (1997) and others point out that the provision of technical guidance on
the content of Environmental Statements is another fundamental feature towards
which EIA systems should evolve, since it leads to standardization of contents.
Lee-Wright (1997) emphasizes the use of qualified multidisciplinary staff as
another component of a good EIA system. She insists that EIA is team activity,
and it is ‘‘almost impossible to envisage circumstances where the range of issues
could be adequately addressed by a single individual’’. Alo (1999) argues that
for any good EIA system, EIA assessors and agencies must possess substantial
analytical capabilities for fieldwork, laboratory testing, research, data processing
and predictive modeling. Andrews et al. (1977), Read (1997), Beanlands and
Duinker (1982), Westman (1985), the DoE Draft Guidance (1994) submit that
EIA systems should mature towards inculcating an early consideration of
scoping, that is, an early decision on what are the likely significant impacts
of a project/action. While there is substantial agreement that scoping is
important, there is nevertheless considerable discussion as to just what is
significant.
The movement of transition towards EIA maturity is often gradual and fraught
with problems. Nevertheless, the movement is generally positive, and this is
apparent if one takes a closer look at the transition of Nigerian EIA systems from
the reactive pollution control of the 1960s up till the relatively advanced
environmental assessment of the present time.

3. The evolution of environmental impact systems in Nigeria

As stated earlier, Gibson (2002) has modeled the transition of EIA systems
into four basic stages of evolution. The Nigerian evolutionary process shows
some adherence to Gibson’s model, though the following discussion would show
that this is not always the case.
An analysis of papers by Dan-Habu (1996), Okorodudu-Fabura (1988) and
Isichei (2000) shows that the initial focus of environmental awareness and
legislation in Nigeria was on the petroleum industry. The initial belief in the
country was that only the petroleum sector required close environmental
monitoring. Environment legislations came in the form of pollution reduction
measures that reacted to local problems within the petroleum industry. Several
industry regulations—under the authority of the Petroleum Act, 1969—were
promulgated to regulate the exploration of petroleum in Nigeria, and control
648 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

pollution. The regulations were more reactive than proactive and bear a
resemblance to the first of the Canadian EIA evolutionary stages noted by
Gibson (2002).
Outside of the petroleum industry, however, there were as yet no environ-
mental regulatory institutions or legislations. Environmental awareness was
nonetheless gradually building up, largely owing to the country’s participation
in international environment conferences. Nigeria was one of the 114 govern-
ments represented at the historic United Nations 1972 Stockholm Conference,
which addressed problems of the human environment. As an aftermath of this
Conference, an Urban Development and Environment Division was created in
the Federal Ministry of Economic Development in 1975. Moreover, in the
1981 –1986 Five-Year Development Plan, there was a provision that ‘‘feasi-
bility and viability studies for all projects, both private and public should be
accompanied by environmental impact assessments’’ (Okorodudu-Fabura,
1988). This provision was not, however, accompanied by any formalized
environmental legislation.
Nigeria also participated in the May 1982 10th Anniversary of the Stockholm
Conference, which reaffirmed participants’ commitment to the protection and
enhancement of the quality of the human environment. In April 1982, Nigeria
hosted the 69th Inter-Parliamentary Union Spring Meetings at which the
Committee on Education, Culture and Environment adopted a draft resolution
on the ‘State of the World Environment Ten Years after the UN Conference on the
Human Environment’ and the steps to be taken for improvement including the
fields of national and international legislation. Participation in such international
conferences served to build awareness, policy and preliminary institutions.
The above build-ups to full-blown EIA (outside of the petroleum sector) in the
1970s and early 1980s find no place in Gibson’s four-stage model. This is
possibly because Canada did not have much of a build-up stage; they adopted
EIAs very soon after the US in 1973. A build-up stage is nevertheless an
important part of the EIA evolutionary process in Nigeria and possibly in many
countries of Africa. For widespread applicability, it would be helpful if Gibson’s
ideas can be updated to include a build-up stage following what he (Gibson)
describes as stage 1.
Sequel to the build-up of awareness came the formalization of Nigeria’s
environmental policies. This was jump-started only after the Koko incident in
1987. The Koko incident was an incident involving dumping of toxic waste in
Koko, a southern Nigerian village, by an Italian ship. This caught the country
unprepared, as it had neither effective environmental legislation nor environment
controlling body to manage the incident effectively. As a reaction to the Koko
incident, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) was established
under Decree 58 of December 30, 1988. The next year, FEPA published its
National Policy on the Environment. Then, the National Council on the
Environment at its meeting in 1990 recognized EIA as an indispensable
prerequisite for the effective implementation of the National Policy on the
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 649

Environment, and directed that EIA be made mandatory for all development
projects with effect from March 1991. The body also made environmental
auditing mandatory for all existing industries and urged FEPA to establish
guidelines and procedures for operation all over the country.
At this time (1991), the environmental regulations operated in the petroleum
industry were maturing from reactive control measures to a proactive EIA
system, that is, from the first to the second stage described by Gibson in his
paper. This was occasioned by the release of Environmental Guidelines and
Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGAS) in 1991. In 1992, in
response to the realization that all sectors of the economy required EIAs, two
distinct legislations emerged (in addition to that already operating in the
petroleum industry), adding up to three separate Environmental Impact Assess-
ment systems in the country. The two newer EIA systems, which made a first
appearance in 1992 by legislation, involved a jump over stage 1 into stage 2. The
jump was occasioned by the exigent situation (the Koko incident and interna-
tional pressure) as well as the fact that the country was able to produce EIA
legislations which were learnt from 20 years of evolution in countries such as the
US and Canada.
The budding of three different EIA systems in 1992 is a matter that would
generate some curiosity. An explanation is derivable from the process of
evolution of the different systems. As earlier stated, the country’s first EIA
system (that in the petroleum industry) evolved out of guidelines, standards and
procedures for petroleum industry environmental control since the late 1960s.
Over a period of 20 years, the EIA system in this industry evolved (in a manner
quite in keeping with Gibson’s model) into what that author describes as stage 2.
By contrast, the Town Planning EIA system promulgated into law in 1992 was
not the result of a long evolutionary process and did not pass through Gibson’s
first stage; it was more or less jump-started by legislation and bears resemblance
to the UK EIA system which was compulsorily created by an EU directive in
1988. Prior to the promulgation of the enabling decree, the urban and regional
planners had operated various regulations for development control, which were
usually derived from the UK Town Planning system. When under compulsion
from the EU, the UK enacted its Town and Country Planning Regulations 1988
(which covers development activities, and specifies town planners as the
principal environment assessors); Nigeria also developed a similar legislation
in 1992. The third EIA system (the EIA Decree no. 86) was also jump-started into
Gibson’s stage 2 by legislation in 1992. This system more or less follows the
pattern of the US NEPA Act.
The result was three independent systems: one for the petroleum sector
(governed by the Directorate of Petroleum Resources, DPR), another for the
urban and regional planner’s development control (governed by local government
councils and the town planning divisions of the State Ministries of Lands), and
yet another which attempts to span all sectors (governed by the FEPA). By 1992
all the three systems had in one form or the other advanced legislations
650 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

stipulating proactive pollution control with measures including impact assess-

ment, mitigation and project approval. Consequently at this point, all three
systems came into the second of the stages of EIA evolutionary transition
described by Gibson (2002).
Sequel to 1992, FEPA issued procedural guidelines in 1995, while the DPR
updated its guidelines in 1999. To date, no common procedural guidelines have
yet been issued to regulate EIA practice for the urban and regional planners.
The manner in which Nigeria’s systems have developed (jump-starts rather than
gradual development from reactive to proactive measures) suggests that some
modification of Gibson’s model would perhaps offer a truer picture of
evolution in Nigeria. A modification of Gibson’s model considered appropriate
for the peculiarities of the Nigerian situation is suggested in Section 8 of this
paper.

4. Methodology

The empirical sections of this study evaluate current EIA practice and
shortcomings. The study is set in the southwest of Nigeria, specifically Lagos
metropolis (the former capital of Nigeria and the largest city in West Africa), with
a population of about 6 million people. Lagos metropolis is the main economic
center of the country. The metropolis was chosen as the study area because it is
one area where all the three EIA systems operate concurrently. Data collection
was in March 2002.
The study adopted an interview approach to data collection on the three EIA
systems. The subjects of interview under each system were first, EIA consultant
firms, and second, the statutory receiving authorities. Initial questioning evalu-
ated the socioeconomic background of all the interviewees (EIA consultant firms
and the statutory receiving authorities). This showed that respondents were
invariably university graduates in basic, agricultural or environmental sciences.
Further questions investigated the adherence of the three EIA systems to criteria
identified in the Literature review.
A total of 46 respondents were interviewed. With regard to EIAs conducted
under Decree 88, interviews were conducted on random samples of firms of 10
Estate Surveyors and 10 Town Planners (these are the two professions designated
as impact assessors under Decree 88), as well as an officer of the Town Planning
Department of the Ministry of Lands (the statutory receiving authority under
Decree 88). As for EIAs conducted under the Petroleum Act, interviews focused
on 10 registered EIA consultant firms as well as an officer of the statutory
receiving authority—the Department of Petroleum Resources. Interviews for
EIAs conducted under Decree 86 likewise focused on 10 registered consultant
firms as well as an officer of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency in the
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (the statutory receiving author-
ity). To obtain some degree of academic perspective, three members of the
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 651

academia involved in teaching/research of EIAs were interviewed in the Faculties

of Science, Agriculture and Environmental Management, respectively, of a major
Nigerian University (Obafemi Awolowo University at Ile-Ife).

5. The results

The 46 respondents replied to questions designed to assess current practice

and shortcomings of EIA practice under the three EIA systems using indicators
identified in the review of literature. The responses, which were averaged, are
discussed in the Table 1 and elaborated on in the discussion that follows. The
tabulated responses are ranked on a three-point scale with 0 representing the
lowest score and 2 the highest score. A ‘‘0’’ score refers to an absence of statutory
provisions concerning that criteria, whilst a ‘‘1’’ score refers to the presence of
provisions either statutorily or in guidelines, but inadequacy in implementation.
A score of 2 refers to the presence of both statutory provisions/guidelines as well
as ample practice implementation on that criterion.

Table 1
Assessment of Nigerian EIA systems according to indicators of best practice
Criterion Average scores
EIA Decree 86 Town and Country DPR
Planning Decree 88 (Petroleum Act)
Public participation in EIA 1 0 1
decision-making
1 0 1
Post decision and implementation 2 0 2
monitoring and audit provisions
Provision of adequate powers of 1 1 1
enforcement to EIA agencies
Examination of alternatives to the 1 0 1
project in the EIA process
and report
The use of qualified 2 0 2
multidisciplinary staff
Use of experienced EIA 2 0 2
consultants
The provision of technical 2 0 2
guidance on the content of
Environmental Statements
Possession of analytical capabilities 1 0 1
required for fieldwork, laboratory
testing, and research
Possession of analytical capabilities 0 0 0
required for data processing
predictive modeling
652 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

6. Discussion

(a) The degree of public participation in EIA decision-making varies between

the different EIA systems. Public participation is enshrined in the legislated EIA
procedure of the FEPA and DPR systems, but is noticeably absent from the town
planners’ legislation. Even under the FEPA and DPR systems, actual practice of
EIA has not yet evolved into substantial public participation, particularly in rural
areas, where most of the populace are not educated (and are therefore unaware of
EIA provisions). Even in the urban areas, most of the populace are unaware of
their rights of objection to environmentally unfriendly prospective projects in the
21-day public displays of draft EIAs. This is probably due to the way EIA
legislations were jump-started in 1992, without a concurrent educative build-up
of the populace as was probably the case in Canada. Presently, it appears that
much needs to be done to empower the public through educating them on their
rights and stimulating their participation.
(b) Two of Nigeria’s EIA systems (FEPA and the DPR) have specified scoping
as a mandatory stage in their respective procedural guidelines. Under the
guidelines of these systems, it is specified that a team (comprising of personnel
in the proponent organization, other stakeholders and regulators) should usually
carry out scoping. In practice, however, stakeholders are not always present.
Unlike in these two systems, scoping is not a mandatory stage in the practice of
town planning EIAs.
(c) Respondents indicate that two EIA systems (that of FEPA and the DPR)
contain post decision and implementation monitoring and audit provisions in
their respective procedural guidelines (FEPA, 1995; EGAS, 1999), though these
are non-binding regulations. On the other hand, the EIA process of the town
planners does not currently include any provisions for a post approval imple-
mentation monitoring and audit.
(d) Respondents score enforcement powers of EIA enforcement agencies (that
is FEPA, the DPR and the State Ministries of Lands) as high in respect of EIA
enforcement on private sector projects, but as low with regard to enforcing EIA
compliance in the public sector. Public sector EIA enforcement is low because
government agencies do not respect the EIA controlling agencies, regarding them
as on par governmental agencies that should not be allowed to exercise powers
over them. They have consequently continued to refuse the carrying out of EIAs
for their projects, even when significant environmental impacts are apparent.
(e) Responses indicate that procedural guidelines of FEPA and the DPR
require examination of alternatives to the project in the EIA process and report,
but in practice, consultants rarely identify any alternatives. Examination of
alternatives is considered desirable, but is hardly ever included by consultants
in EIAs conducted under the Town and Country Planning Decree.
(f) FEPA and the DPR insist on the use of qualified multidisciplinary
consultant firms, but the Ministries of Lands employ uni-disciplinary firms
(firms of town planners and sometimes estate surveyors) that do not assemble
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 653

multi-disciplinary teams. The operation of the Planning Decree 88 can, in this

regard, be contrasted with the operation of the parent Planning Act in the UK (see
Lee-Wright, 1997), where the planner is seen as an environmental team leader,
rather than as an all-encompassing consultant. Town planners and estate sur-
veyors interviewed agreed that they do not have the requisite broad-based
experience to address the wide range of environmental impacts of many
development projects.
(g) With regard to the use of experienced EIA consultants, responses indicate
that FEPA and DPR make use of a short-listed number of local rather than foreign
consultants. Officials of FEPA and the DPR do not rate some of these consultants
as being very experienced. This position validates the views of Ifeadi and
Orubima (1996) who complain that some of these consultants perform poorly,
but that there is nevertheless a continuing preference for them. All the same, the
opinion of respondents is that the local consultants have continued to gain in
experience in the decade that FEPA and the DPR have been operating EIAs. The
position of consultant experience is noticeably better for EIAs conducted for
FEPA and DPR than for those under the Town and Country Planning Decree 88
where any registered Town and Country Planner, regardless of professional
experience, can carry out EIAs.
(h) The FEPA and the DPR systems have provided technical guidance on the
content of Environmental Statements in the form of procedural guides (that is,
FEPA, 1995; EGAS, 1991,1999), but no comprehensive best practice technical
guides similar to the UK DoE (1994) have yet been provided. On the other hand,
no procedural manuals regulate EIAs conducted by the town planners/estate
surveyors, though each State Environment Ministry provides its individual format
for the drafting of EIAs. The format is almost invariably different from that
operated by the local government councils.
(i) Respondents point out that the possession of analytical capabilities for
fieldwork, laboratory testing, and research varies between the systems. Consul-
tant firms operating under FEPA and DPR with their multi-disciplinary profes-
sionals make use of laboratory testing and research capabilities such as facilities
of nearby universities, though these are sometimes considered inadequate. On the
other hand, firms of town planners and estate surveyors operating under the Town
and Country Planning Decree 88 do not make use of laboratory testing and
research, and this is understandable against the background of their training in
assessment of biological and physical impacts. Town planners and estate
surveyors agree they are lacking in laboratory testing and research abilities,
though they believe they are adequate to assess socioeconomic impacts.
(j) Most EIA consultant firms operating for FEPA and the DPR are aware of
quantitative methods of data processing or predictive modeling but do not
employ them. Some consultant firms operating under the Town and Country
Planning Decree 88 are not even aware of techniques such as overlaying,
networks or the matrix method, and others who are aware do not practice them
for the reason that they were not taught or that other firms do not use them.
654 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

Modeling tools were not employed in impact assessment methodologies. Gen-

erally speaking, the preparation of EIAs in Nigeria, particularly the identification
of negative and positive impacts and their comparison, is invariably qualitative
rather than quantitative.

7. Other shortcomings raised during interviews

Other awkward concerns rose in the course of the interviews. First, there is
unease on the multiplicity of designated authorities for the approval of EIAs in
the country. Most of the respondents agree that there are considerable areas of
overlap between the three EIA systems. A recent attempt by the Minister of the
Environment to bring the Department of Petroleum Resources into the Ministry
of Environment was stoutly opposed by the Department. Prospective permit
seekers strive to satisfy all these bodies with the attendant problems, especially
costs and time of executing reports for two or more of the controlling authorities.
Sometimes, permit seekers simply ignore one of the agencies. An official of a
State Environmental Protection Agency who was interviewed complained that his
agency is rendered superfluous as permit seekers go to obtain approval from the
(rival?) ministry of lands and housing.
Some respondents complain that Nigeria’s efforts at environmental conserva-
tion depend excessively on regulatory powers given to FEPA, the DPR or the
Ministry of Lands. They believe that economic incentives can complement such
regulations to reduce and prevent pollution. In essence, the argument is that profit
should be removed from environmental violators.
Some legal respondents believe that the Environmental Impact Assessment
Decree 86 has flawed legal drafting. An important instance cited is where the
decree allows the President, in Section 15, to exclude projects from Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment where in his opinion the environmental effects
of the projects are likely to be minimal. The expertise of the President in
determining the effect on the environment was questioned, as was the same
section of the decree that allows projects to be excluded from Environmental
Impact Assessment in cases of ‘‘national emergency’’. The drafting of
sections relating to EIA in Decree 88 was also criticized as being brief
and vague, and as not describing powers of enforcement for the competent
authority (the Ministry of Lands).
Other respondents voice concern as to the low degree of advertisement of the
procedural guidelines for environmental impact assessment of FEPA and the
DPR. It is suggested that the guidelines have not been given wide circulation to
enable the public and stakeholders to know the process and procedure involved in
EIA in Nigeria. Consequently, a lot of affected stakeholders do not know of their
rights to public hearings on proposed projects nor of their rights to object to
proposed developments that could affect the sustainability of their health and
livelihood.
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 655

Some respondents believe that FEPA and the DPR are much too centralized
and are consequently under excessive pressure to handle the huge numbers of
EIA applications nationwide. A member of the staff suggests that the Agency is
handicapped by a number of constraints (including shortage of funds and
inadequate manpower), which inhibit its ability to cope with its enormous terms
of reference. Views were put forward that the functions of FEPA should be
distributed amongst state protection agencies with FEPA’s role limited to advisory
and supervisory roles. In other words, FEPA should concentrate on research,
review of EIA standards, the building of regulations, specification of guidelines,
organization of training programmes and creation of public awareness on
environmental matters.

8. Summary and concluding remarks

The assessment of the three Nigerian EIA systems has yielded important
insights and conclusions. A first insight gained pertains to the manner of
evolution of Nigeria’s three EIA systems along the path of the four-stage
transitional movement of EIA evolution put forward by Gibson (2002).
Nigeria’s pioneering EIA system, that of the petroleum industry, evolved
from reactive pollution control measures in the 1960s to proactive EIAs in
the 1990s, thereby moving forward from the first stage (of merely identifying
local problems and prescribing solutions addressed through negotiations), to a
position juxtaposed between the second and third of Gibson’s stages. The
second EIA system (that operated by FEPA) evolved in a hurry by way of a
jump-start into the second stage, and its present position, like that of the
petroleum industry, is a juxtaposition between the second and third stages.
These two systems (FEPA and the DPR) are described as in a juxtaposed
position between stages 2 and 3 because they contain features of both stages;
Gibson’s Canadian model suggests that in stage 2 socioeconomic impacts are
not considered and public participation is not yet taken seriously. The
experience in Nigeria, on the other hand, suggests that these two aspects
(consideration of socioeconomic impacts and public participation) can occur
simultaneously, even if inadequately. Nigeria’s third system (the Town and
Country Planning system) was jump-started in a hurry by legislation into
stage 2, but does not yet contain any of the features of stage 3.
In consideration of the above comments and other comments made earlier, this
paper suggests a modification of Gibson’s model of EIA evolution as being more
appropriate to the rather complex situation in Nigeria. This six-stage model of
transition (see Fig. 1) allows the flexibility of a stage running concurrently with
the next, or a stage being skipped altogether. Such elasticity might hold true for
other African countries as well.
The second insight is that the existence of three systems in Nigeria is the
result of an uncoordinated attempt of Nigerian policy makers to imitate the
656 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

Fig. 1.

dissimilar EIA evolutions of the US and the UK. As earlier stated, the EIA
decree (1992) is patterned after the US NEPA Act, covering all sectors of the
economy, while the Town and Country Planning Decree (1992) is patterned
after the UK Town and Country Planning Regulations 1988, which covers
planning development activities and specifies Town Planners as the principal
environment assessors. The third EIA system, operated under the Petroleum
Act, is an evolution from 1969 petroleum regulations in Nigeria, and
apparently, the petroleum sector is unwilling to relinquish its sector’s
environmental regulatory duties to FEPA. This has resulted in an unnecessary
duplication of the duties of FEPA. The necessity of operating three dissimilar
EIA systems in Nigeria is certainly very questionable, and respondents agree
that the three systems are not mutual complements. On the contrary,
responses in the interviews clearly show that the concurrent use of the three
systems results in applicants having to repeat EIA preparation to satisfy all
systems with the attendant duplication of time and money costs. It is
recommended, in the interests of efficiency, that the country should decide
for only one approach; whether the UK style, the US style or it could
develop its own indigenous style as was suggested in a recent EIA study of
Ghana by Appiah-Opoku (2001). The consideration of indigenous styles in
Nigeria would be a matter for future research. From this paper’s assessment,
however, it appears that the FEPA system (Decree 86) is the most compre-
hensive system, which also best captures the criteria of good EIA systems.
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 657

Whichever style is chosen, it is clear that all three systems have

imperfections, though the degree of imperfection varies from one system to
another. The third insight is that there are marked shortcomings in current
practice, even though the concept, legislation and guidelines of the systems
were more or less copied from very established western EIA systems (for
example, guidelines for FEPA were developed with technical assistance from
UNEP in the form of a consultant seconded to the Agency working with the
EIA secretariat and some Nigerian consultants). Shortcomings are particularly
evident in the EIA system operated by town planners. This system would
require substantial restructuring if it were to evolve in the positive direction
of the other EIA systems. The most important initial steps are first, for
procedural guidelines/practice guides to be formulated along the lines of
internationally defined standards, and second, a multi-disciplinary aspect
should be introduced into consultancy. In the case of the two other systems
operated by FEPA and the DPR, what needs to be done to ensure that
practice matches the sophistication of legislation and guidelines is a stronger
political will in the direction of most excellent practice. For example, the
effectiveness of FEPA and the DPR can be augmented with powers of
economic and political sanctions so that they can enforce compliance even
amongst on par government agencies. Besides, practice guidelines can be
continuously updated with more detailed practice specifications as is done
with the most recent DoE guidelines in the UK.

Appendix A. Provisions of the three EIA systems

A.1. Decree 86 of 1992

Nigeria’s Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) is a parastatal

under the Federal Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning. It oversees
EIAs prepared within the framework of the EIA Decree 86. Decree 86 (which
appears to have been derived from the US NEPA Act) covers all types of
projects, unlike Decree 88 (quite apparently derived from the 1988 UK
Planning Act), which covers only development projects. The Decree runs into
32 pages and is in three parts: general principles, EIA Procedure and FEPA’s
Powers. Section 13 and the Schedule to the Decree contain a list of
Mandatory Study activities relating to 19 vital sectors of the economy. Other
activities require EIA only if their likely environmental effects are considered
significant. Mandatory activities are excluded from EIA if the President or
FEPA considers that their negative environmental effects are likely to be
minimal, or if projects undertaken during national emergencies, or projects
that FEPA considers to be in the interest of public health and safety
FEPA issued procedural guidelines in 1995. These are the vital link
between the Decree 86 and its implementation. The Agency evolved these
658 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

guidelines through technical assistance from UNEP in the form of a

consultant seconded to the Agency working with the EIA secretariat and
some Nigerian consultants. The procedural guidelines indicate the steps to be
followed from the conception of a project to the commissioning as well as
the actors in each stage. The technical activities at each successive stage
include project proposal screening, scoping, EIA study and report, review
decision making/conditions for approval certification, mitigation compliance
monitoring, and environmental auditing (post commissioning). In Annex C
Section 10 of the guidelines is contained the EIA Report Writing Format.

A.2. Petroleum Act 1969

The Petroleum Act 1969 was promulgated to regulate the exploration of

petroleum in Nigeria and to vest derivable revenue in the Nigerian State. The law
does not deal directly with environmental assessments but it is stated in Section 9,
subsection (10) (b) (iii) that the Minister may make regulations in relation to
petroleum operations for the prevention of pollution of watercourses and the
atmosphere. In pursuance of these, the Department of Petroleum Resources
issued in 1981 interim guidelines for the monitoring, handling, treatment and
disposal of effluents, oil spills and chemicals, drilling muds and drill cuttings by
oil industry operators. A comprehensive Environmental Guidelines and Standards
for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGAS) was issued in 1991 and a revised
edition in 1999 (Isichei, 2000). The guidelines (EGAS, 1991,1999) have a
specified format for EIA reports, which is very similar to that issued under
Decree 86.
Part VIII (A) of EGAS lists activities requiring mandatory EIA reports as
seismic operations, oil and gas field developments, laying of crude oil and gas
delivery lines, flowlines and pipelines in excess of 20 km, hydrocarbon process-
ing facilities, construction of product depot with a capacity of 50,000 barrels or
more, construction of waste treatment and disposal facilities, and dredging
activities of about 500 m2.

A.3. Decree 88 of 1982

The Urban and Regional Planning Decree 88 of 1992 provides for planned
development of the towns, cities rural areas and regions. Section 33 of the
decree deals with EIAs to be administered by ‘‘control agencies’’ (usually
State Ministries). As was mentioned earlier, Decree 88 focuses on develop-
ment projects while Decree 86 covers all aspects of the Nigeria Economy
(Olomola, 1996). Decree 88 EIAs are meant to guide in the approval of
otherwise development permits from national/state government departments
responsible for urban/regional planning controls. Section 33 of the Nigerian
Urban and Regional Planning Decree provides as follows: A developer shall
at the time of submitting his application for development submit to an
 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660 659

appropriate Control Department a detailed environmental impact statement for

an application for

1. A residential land in excess of 2 ha, or

2. Permission to build or expand a factory or for the construction of an office
building in excess of four floors or 5000 m2 of lettable space, or
3. Permission for a major recreational development.

No procedural guidelines have been issued as at the date of this research.

References

Abracosa A, Ortolano E. Environmental impact assessment in the Philippines: 1977 – 1985. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review 1987;7(3):293 – 310.
Andrews RNL, Cromwell P, Enk CA, Farnworth EG, Hibbs J, Sharp VL. Substantive guidance for
environmental impact assessment. Washington D.C.: Institute of Ecology; 1977.
Alo B. Environmental impact analysis: policy formulation and implementation in Nigeria. Paper
presented at the FEDEN National Training Session for the 6th Cohort of LEAD Associates in
Nigeria (30th March); 1999.
Appiah-Opoku S. Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: the case of Ghana.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2001;21(3):59 – 71.
Beanlands GE, Duinker PN. Environmental impact assessment in Canada—an ecological contri-
bution. Halifax: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University;
1982.
Bulleid P. Environmental impact assessment. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and Environmental Impact
Assessment in Practice. Addison Wesley Longman; 1997. p. 26 – 41.
Commission of the European Communities, 1992. Report from the commission of the implementation
of directive 85/337/eec. Brussels: CEC.
DoE J. Evaluation of environmental information for planning projects: a good practice guide. London:
HMSO; 1994.
Directorate of Petroleum Resources (DPR) J. Nigeria: environmental guidelines and standards for the
petroleum industry in Nigeria (EGAS). Lagos, Nigeria: Department of Petroleum Resources; 1991.
Directorate of Petroleum Resources (DPR) J. Nigeria: environmental guidelines and standards for the
petroleum industry in Nigeria (EGAS). Lagos, Nigeria: Department of Petroleum Resources; 1999.
Draft Revised Edition.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) J. Nigeria: environmental impact assessment pro-
cedural guidelines. Abuja; 1995.
Frost R. Environmental impact assessment monitoring and audit. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and
Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice. Addison Wesley Longman; 1997.
Gibson RB. From Wreck Cove to Voisey’s Bay: the evolution of federal environmental assessment in
Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2002;20(3):151 – 9 [September].
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. 2nd ed. UCL
Press; 1999.
Ifeadi, C.N., Orbima, I.I., 1996. Critical review of the implementation of environmental impact
assessment in the Nigerian petroleum industry. Mimeograph, 1 – 26.
Isichei AO. Environmental impact assessment and environmental evaluation reports. Paper presented
at the Workshop of the Nigerian Corrosion Association, Warri (27th March); 2000.
Kakonge AO, Imevbore AO. Constraints on implementing environmental impact assessments in
Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1993;13(3):299 – 308.
660 O.A. Ogunba / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 643–660

Lee-Wright M. Taking charge of the environmental team. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and Environ-
mental Impact Assessment in Practice. Addison Wesley Longman; 1997. p. 42 – 59.
Okorodudu-Fabura MT. Law of environmental protection materials and text. Ibadan, Nigeria: Caltop
Publications; 1988.
Read R. Planning authority review. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and Environmental Impact Assess-
ment in Practice. Addison Wesley Longman; 1997.
Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance.
International study on the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Environ-
mental Assessment Agency; 1996.
Skeham DC. EIA in Ireland. Paper Presented at EIA Conference, Bloomsbury Hotel, London (25 – 26
November); 1993.
West C, Bissett R, Snowden R. Developing countries environmental impact assessment. Paper Pre-
sented at EIA Conference, Bloomsbury Hotel, London (November).1993;25 – 6.
Westman WE. Ecological impact assessment planning. London: Wiley; 1985.
Weston J, editor. Planning and environmental impact assessment in practice. Addison Wesley Long-
man; 1997. p. 180 – 7.