eia.ppt

Introduction to Environmental
Impact Assessment
Dr.P. Venkateswara Rao

Fundamental Approach to
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
BASIC CONCEPTS OF EIA :
• EIA is an activity designed to identify and predict the
impact of a project on bio-geo-physico-chemical
environment and on human health so as to
recommend appropriate legislative measures,
programs, and operational procedures to minimize
the impact.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF EIA
• EIA is an exercise to be carried out before any
project or major activity is undertaken to
ensure that it will not in any away harm the
environment on a short-term or long-term
basis.
• Any developmental activity requires EIA to be
done before executed to know the effect of a
proposed development on the environment.

EIA: Purpose
• To provide information for decision-making on
the environmental consequences of proposed
actions;
and
• To promote environmentally sound and
sustainable development through the
identification of appropriate enhancement
and mitigation measures.

Sustainable development
‘development that meets the needs of today’s
generation without compromising those of
future generations’

Why EIA is important
• 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.

Why EIA is important
• In practice, EIA is applied primarily to prevent
or minimise the adverse effects of major
development proposals, such as a power
station, dams and reservoirs, industrial
complexes, etc.
• This process is also used as a planning tool to
promote sustainable development by
integrating environmental considerations into
a wide range of proposed actions.

What are the aims and objectives of EIA?
The aims and objectives of EIA can be divided into two
categories.
• The immediate aim and ultimate (long term) aim
• 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.

Immediate objectives of EIA are
To
• improve the environmental design of the
proposal;
• ensure that resources are used appropriately and
efficiently;
• identify appropriate measures for mitigating the
potential impacts of the proposal; and
• facilitate informed decision making, including
setting the environmental terms and conditions
for implementing the proposal.

Long term objectives of EIA are
To:
• protect human health and safety;
• avoid irreversible changes and serious damage
to the environment;
• safeguard valued resources, natural areas and
ecosystem components;
and
• enhance the social aspects of the proposal.

Limitations of EIA
• EIA is also a way of ensuring that environmental factors are
considered in decision-making process along with the
traditional economic and technical factors.
• Importantly EIA requires the scientific (technical) and value
issues to be dealt with in a single assessment process.
• This helps in the proper consideration of all advantages and
disadvantages of a proposal.
• Environmental considerations may, therefore, be set aside in
favour of what are felt to be more important considerations.
• Alternatively, predicted adverse effects on the environment
might lead to strict conditions being imposed to avoid these
effects or remedy any adverse effects, or perhaps lead to the
complete abandonment of a proposal.

Limitations of EIA
• However, it is most important to recognise that EIA
cannot be regarded as a means of introducing an
environmental “veto” power into administrative
decision-making processes.
• Decisions that are unsatisfactory from an
environmental point of view can still be made, but
with full knowledge of the environmental
consequences.
• The final decision about a proposal depends upon
the likely severity of the adverse effects, balanced
against other expected benefits.

Limitations of EIA
• In other words, EIA is an administrative process that identifies
the potential environmental effects of undertaking a proposal,
and presents these environmental effects alongside the other
advantages and disadvantages of the proposal to the decision-
makers.
• In the vast majority of EIA procedures this means that the
outcome of the EIA process provides advice to the decision-
makers – it does not provide a final decision.
• So, by itself, the EIA procedures cannot be expected to stop a
proposal – although this is an outcome that some members of
the general community and environment groups may expect.

Principles of EIA administration and practice
• EIA is one of a number of policy tools that are used to evaluate
project proposals.
• It is also a relatively recent development when compared to use of
economic appraisal methods.
• A number of factors led to the introduction of EIA in different
countries, including public concern about the quality of the
environment and the increasing effects of new technologies and
ever-larger development schemes.
• In addition, then available economic appraisal techniques, such as
benefit cost analysis, did not take account of the environmental and
social impacts of major projects.
• Today, EIA is applied in more than 100 countries, and by all
development banks and most international aid agencies.
• EIA has also evolved significantly, driven by improvements in law,
procedure and methodology.

• To date, EIA has been applied primarily at the
project-level.
• This ‘first generation’ process is now complemented
by SEA (Sustainable Environmental Assessment) of
policies, plans and programmes, and both EIA and
SEA are being adapted to bring a greater measure of
‘sustainability assurance’ to development decision
making.
• These trends have brought new perspectives on
what constitutes EIA good practice and effective
performance.

Three core values on which the EIA process is based:
• Integrity– the EIA process should meet
internationally accepted requirements and standards
of practice;
• Utility– the EIA process should provide the
information which is sufficient and relevant for
decision-making; and
• Sustainability– the EIA process should result in the
implementation of environmental safeguards which
are sufficient to mitigate serious adverse effects and
avoid irreversible loss of resource and ecosystem
functions.

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
• 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.

EIA practice and outcomes
• screens out environmentally unsound projects;
• modifies the design of feasible proposals to reduce their
environmental impact;
• identifies the best practicable environmental option;
• predicts the significant adverse effects of proposals with
reasonable accuracy;
• identifies mitigation measures that work successfully to avoid,
reduce and offset major impacts;
• influences decision making and approvals and the
implementation of terms and conditions; and
• results in environmental gains and benefits relative to other
options.

Deficiencies of EIA practice
• Technical shortcomings, expressed by the poor quality of many EIA
reports. The accuracy of impact predictions, the utility of mitigation and
management measures, and the relevance of reports for decision-making
often fall short of internationally accepted standards.
• Procedural limitations, including inconsistencies in process administration
and guidance. Time delays and costs of applying EA remain a serious
concern for project proponents. Affected communities are more
concerned with the lack of quality control of EIA studies or enforcement of
mitigation measures.
• Structural issues, stemming from the application of EIA as a separate
process, unrelated to the project cycle or the larger context of decision
making.
• In order to be effective, EIA requires a coherent policy-planning
framework and systematic follow up procedures.

Costs and benefits of EIA
• Although there are costs associated with undertaking EIA,
experience has shown that the potential savings over the life
of a project can repay the investment many times over.
• The savings can be economic (e.g. identification of least cost
alternative) as well as environmental (e.g. impact reduction,
maintaining other resource use opportunities).
• Generally the earlier EIA process is introduced in the project
cycle, the greater the potential returns.
• When EIA is integrated into the project preparation phase,
environmental design considerations can be introduced in the
first place rather than the proposal having to be modified
later.

Benefits
• The benefits of EIA can be direct, such as the
improved design or location of a project, or indirect,
such as better quality EIA work or raised
environmental awareness of the personnel involved
in the project.
• In these cases, there will be with flow-on effects in
their future work. As mentioned above, these
potential gains from EIA increase the earlier the
process is applied in the design process.

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. 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.

Costs
• It can be difficult to determine the exact costs of an EIA
because major projects typically require a large number of
investigations and reports, often for closely related purposes
(e.g. engineering feasibility studies of hydrology and surface
materials).
• The World Bank notes that the cost of preparing an EIA rarely
exceeds one per cent of the project costs and this percentage
can be reduced further if local personnel are used to do most
of the work.
• For Bank projects, the relative cost of an EIA typically ranges
from only 0.06 per cent to 0.10 per cent of total project costs.
• The total cost of an EIA might range from a few thousand
dollars for a very small project, to over a million dollars for a
large and complex project, which has a significant
environmental impact and requires extensive data collection
and analysis.

Costs
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.

eia.ppt

More Related Content

eia.ppt