Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment ...cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/niap___review_of_best_practices.pdf · Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislation

Review of

Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislation in the South Asia Region and in Countries outside the Region

The designation of geographical entities in this book and the presentation of the material do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,territory or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Published by:IUCN Pakistan (National Impact Assessment Programme)

Copyright:© 2014 Government of Pakistan and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislation in the South Asia Region and inCountries Outside the Region was prepared under the National Impact Assessment Programme (NIAP), ajoint initiative of the Government of Pakistan and IUCN Pakistan, with the financial support of theEmbassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EKN).

Citation is encouraged. Reproduction and/or translation of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from IUCN Pakistan, provided thesource is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes isprohibited without prior written permission from IUCN Pakistan.

The opinions expressed in this document do not constitute an endorsement by the EKN.

Citation:Moore, Patricia F. 2014. Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SouthAsia Region and in Countries outside the Region. Islamabad: IUCN Pakistan. 34 pp.

ISBN 978-969-643-006-3

Author:Patricia F. Moore

Technical Support:Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)

Facilitation:Ahmad SaeedArfa Zaheer Azmat

Design:Hasan Ruvi Zaman

Cover Photographs:IUCN Sri Lanka, IUCN Bangladesh and IUCN Pakistan

Printed by:Elite Publishers (Pvt) Limited

Available from:IUCN PakistanNational Impact Assessment ProgrammeHouse No. 2, Street 83Embassy Road, G-6/4, IslamabadTel: +92 (51) 2271027-34Fax: +92 (51) 2271017www.niap.pk

IntroductionInternational agreementsInternational standards

010203

04

05

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. ScreeningB. ScopingC. Examination of alternativesD. Impact analysisE. Mitigation and impact managementF. Evaluating significanceG. Preparing environmental assessment report and documenting public concernsH. Review of environmental assessment reportI. Decision-makingJ. Follow-up

A. ScreeningB. ScopingC. Examination of alternativesD. Impact analysisE. Mitigation and impact managementF. Evaluating significanceG. Preparing environmental assessment report and documenting public concernsH. Review of environmental assessment reportI. Decision-makingJ. Follow-up

A. ScreeningB. ScopingC. Examination of alternativesD. Impact analysisE. Mitigation and impact managementF. Evaluation of significanceG. Preparation of report, including documenting public concernsH. Review of reportI. Decision-makingJ. Follow-up

11

2

3344444555

556777889101012

12121212121313131414

15

18

25

31

32

32

Table 1. International Standards

Table 2. SAARC Countries

Table 3. Non-SAARC Countries

Annex 1 List of SAARC Member Countries’ Laws and Regulations Reviewed

Annex 2 List of Laws and Regulations of Non-SAARC Countries Reviewed

Annex 3 Other References

Acronyms

EIA in the laws and regulations of other countries

Recommendations

Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislationin the South Asia Region and in Countries outside the Region

Cover photo credits: IUCN Bhutan, IUCN Bangladesh, IUCN Sri Lanka and IUCN Pakistan.

ADB Asian Development Bank

NIAP National Impact Assessment Program

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EIS Environmental impact statement

EMP Environmental management plan

ESMS Environmental and Social Management System (IFC)

IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment

IEE Initial environmental examination

IFC International Finance Corporation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

NSW New South Wales, Australia

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

UN United Nations

ACRONYMS


1

The Government of Pakistan and IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature are jointly implementing the National Impact Assessment Program (NIAP) which aims to contribute to sustainable development in Pakistan by strengthening the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. One of the outputs under the NIAP is the review and revision of Pakistan’s existing EIA legal framework to increase its effectiveness and to improve implementation and enforcement of EIA in the country. The purpose of this study was to review laws and regulations in the South Asia region and in selected countries outside the region for best practices and make recommendations for measures to incorporate in the draft of revised IEE/EIA Review Regulations and their Schedules.

This review is a desk study of the following:

• multilateral environmental agreements that govern some aspect of environmental assessment, including those to which Pakistan is a Party (Section 02);

• international principles and standards for environmental assessment (Section 03, Table 1);

• applicable national laws and regulations in all Member States of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (Section 04, Table 2, Annex 1);

• applicable national laws and regulations and selected sub-national laws and regulations in selected non-SAARC countries (Section 04, Table 3, Annex 2).

Pakistan is a Party to five multilateral environmental agreements that contain obligations related to environmental impact assessment (EIA):

• the Convention on Biological Diversity obligates Parties to introduce appropriate procedures requiring environmental impact assessment of proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and, where appropriate, allow

for public participation in such procedures (Article 14.1.(a))1;

• the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, requires Parties to take climate change considerations into account in impact assessments (Article 1.(f))2;

• the Law of the Sea requires Parties, when they have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, to assess the potential effects of those activities on the marine environment and to communicate the results of the assessments to the appropriate international bodies (Article 206)3;

• the London Dumping Convention requires assessment of the expected environmental impacts of dumping waste at sea (Articles 12-15)4;

• the Cartagena Protocol does not require EIA but requires risk assessments of the possible adverse effects of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health (Article 15)5.

There is one international agreement that governs only EIA – the 1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.6 It is referred to as the Espoo Convention because it was signed in Espoo, Finland. Currently, Pakistan cannot be a Party because the Espoo Convention is open only to the 56 countries that are member States of the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Europe. The first amendment to the Convention would allow any UN member country to become a Party, but that amendment is not yet in force. The Espoo Convention primarily deals with notification, coordination and cooperation between Parties when one Party identifies a project in its jurisdiction that has potential transboundary environmental impact. The Convention includes a list of activities to which it applies (Appendix I) and the minimum content for EIA of a project with potential transboundary environmental impact (Appendix II). The minimum content in Appendix II includes four requirements found in current international environmental safeguard standards (see Section 03 and Table 1):

01 Introduction

02 International agreements

1Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention Text. https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/2United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Text of the Convention [in English]. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publi-cations_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf3Law of the Sea. Full text. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/un-clos/closindx.htm4Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.Access to the text of the Convention requires cost-free registration: www.docs.imo.org5Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.Text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/

6Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. Authentic Text [English]. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legal-texts/conventiontextenglish.pdf


for public participation in such procedures (Article 14.1.(a))1;

• the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, requires Parties to take climate change considerations into account in impact assessments (Article 1.(f))2;

• the Law of the Sea requires Parties, when they have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, to assess the potential effects of those activities on the marine environment and to communicate the results of the assessments to the appropriate international bodies (Article 206)3;

• the London Dumping Convention requires assessment of the expected environmental impacts of dumping waste at sea (Articles 12-15)4;

• the Cartagena Protocol does not require EIA but requires risk assessments of the possible adverse effects of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health (Article 15)5.

There is one international agreement that governs only EIA – the 1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.6 It is referred to as the Espoo Convention because it was signed in Espoo, Finland. Currently, Pakistan cannot be a Party because the Espoo Convention is open only to the 56 countries that are member States of the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Europe. The first amendment to the Convention would allow any UN member country to become a Party, but that amendment is not yet in force. The Espoo Convention primarily deals with notification, coordination and cooperation between Parties when one Party identifies a project in its jurisdiction that has potential transboundary environmental impact. The Convention includes a list of activities to which it applies (Appendix I) and the minimum content for EIA of a project with potential transboundary environmental impact (Appendix II). The minimum content in Appendix II includes four requirements found in current international environmental safeguard standards (see Section 03 and Table 1):

2

• a description of reasonable technical and location alternatives, including the ‘no-project’ alternative;

• a description of potential impacts;

• a description of mitigation measures; and

• an outline for monitoring and management programmes.

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in 1999 identified 10 best practice operating principles for EIA:

1. Screening to determine whether or not a proposal should be subject to EIA and, if so, at what level of detail;

2. Scoping to identify the issues and impacts that are likely to be important and to establish terms of reference for EIA;

3. Examination of alternatives to establish the preferred or most environmentally sound and benign option for achieving proposal objectives;

4. Impact analysis to identify and predict the likely environmental, social and other related effects of the proposal;

5. Mitigation and impact management to establish the measures that are necessary to avoid, minimize or offset predicted adverse impacts and, where appropriate, to incorporate these into an environmental management plan or system;

6. Evaluation of significance to determine the relative importance and acceptability of residual impacts (i.e., impacts that cannot be mitigated);

7. Preparation of environmental impact statement (EIS) or report to document clearly and impartially impacts of the proposal, the proposed measures for mitigation, the significance of effects, and the concerns of the interested public and the communities affected by the proposal;

8. Review of the EIS to determine whether the report meets its terms of reference, provides a satisfactory assessment of the proposal(s) and contains the information required for decision making;

9. Decision making to approve or reject the proposal and to establish the terms and conditions for its implementation;

10. Follow up to ensure that the terms and conditions of approval are met; to monitor the impacts of development and the effectiveness of mitigation measures; to strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation measures; and, where required, to undertake environmental audit and process evaluation to optimize environmental management.

The IAIA recommends that “the EIA process should be applied:

• As early as possible in decision making and throughout the life cycle of the proposed activity;

• To all development proposals that may cause potentially significant effects;

• To biophysical impacts and relevant socio-economic factors, including health, culture, gender, lifestyle, age, and cumulative effects consistent with the concept and principles of sustainable development;

• To provide for the involvement and input of communities and industries affected by a proposal, as well as the interested public; and

• In accordance with internationally agreed measures and activities.”7

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) have each issued and periodically updated policies or guidelines that deal with EIA. ADB in 1997 published an EIA manual for its Developing Member Countries8 and issued its Safeguard Policy Statement in 2009. The World Bank first issued the environmental assessment section of its Operational Manual in 1999 and most recently updated it in 2013. IFC, which is part of the World Bank Group, adopted its Sustainability Framework in 2006 and most recently updated it in 2012.

03 International standards

7International Association for Impact Assessment. 1999. Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. January. http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Prin-ciples%20of%20IA_web.pdf8Asian Development Bank. 1997. Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries in Asia. Manila: ADB. http://www.adb.org/documents/books/environment_impact/env_impact.pdf


8. Review of the EIS to determine whether the report meets its terms of reference, provides a satisfactory assessment of the proposal(s) and contains the information required for decision making;

9. Decision making to approve or reject the proposal and to establish the terms and conditions for its implementation;

10. Follow up to ensure that the terms and conditions of approval are met; to monitor the impacts of development and the effectiveness of mitigation measures; to strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation measures; and, where required, to undertake environmental audit and process evaluation to optimize environmental management.

The IAIA recommends that “the EIA process should be applied:

• As early as possible in decision making and throughout the life cycle of the proposed activity;

• To all development proposals that may cause potentially significant effects;

• To biophysical impacts and relevant socio-economic factors, including health, culture, gender, lifestyle, age, and cumulative effects consistent with the concept and principles of sustainable development;

• To provide for the involvement and input of communities and industries affected by a proposal, as well as the interested public; and

• In accordance with internationally agreed measures and activities.”7

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) have each issued and periodically updated policies or guidelines that deal with EIA. ADB in 1997 published an EIA manual for its Developing Member Countries8 and issued its Safeguard Policy Statement in 2009. The World Bank first issued the environmental assessment section of its Operational Manual in 1999 and most recently updated it in 2013. IFC, which is part of the World Bank Group, adopted its Sustainability Framework in 2006 and most recently updated it in 2012.

3

• ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy Statement has three components: environmental safeguards; involuntary resettlement safeguards; and indigenous peoples safeguards.9 The environmental safeguards component lists 11 policy principles. Each environmental safeguard policy principle contains two or more elements related to the content of EIA and how to conduct it.

• The environmental assessment section of the World Bank’s Operational Manual provides for a range of environmental assessment instruments that can satisfy the World Bank’s requirements and provides guidance on how to use them with each of the types of projects the World Bank funds. The annexes to the section define terms, specify the contents of an environmental assessment report for a project with potential significant adverse environmental impacts, and specify the contents of an environmental management plan (EMP).10

• IFC’s Sustainability Framework consists of the Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability, eight Performance Standards with accompanying Guidance Notes, and the Access to Information Policy. Performance Standard 1 deals with assessment and management of environmental and social risks and impacts.11

The IAIA best practice operating principles for EIA, ADB’s environmental safeguards policy principles, IFC’s performance standard, and the environmental assessment chapter of the World Bank’s Operational Manual are not international agreements and are not legally binding. In the case of IAIA, the operating principles are guidance from an international association of environmental assessment professionals. In the case of ADB, World Bank, and IFC, the principles, operating instructions and standard, respectively, are applied to clients that receive funding from those institutions for activities that require environmental assessment. If a country already includes these international principles and standards in its domestic legislation, it would not be necessary for the lending institution to impose them as conditions of a loan.

This review grouped the ADB, World Bank, and IFC policy principles and standards according to the IAIA best practice operating principles for EIA (Table 1). Of a consolidated total of 74 principles and standards, approximately half are common to two, or all three, institutions. Thirteen principles and standards are common to all three institutions. Each institution expresses its principles and standards in its own way. Because ADB has the most comprehensive range of principles, the comparison in Table 1 uses ADB’s terminology as the basis for stating the common principles. Principles that are specific to one institution are stated as that institution states them. A brief description of how these three international institutions guide their clients to implement the IAIA best practice operating principles for EIA follows.

A. Screening

The concept of screening is common to all three institutions, although IFC does not state in its Performance Standard that screening is required.

• ADB and World Bank call for screening to determine the extent and type of environmental assessment and for involving stakeholders and initiating consultations as early as possible in the assessment process.

• IFC Performance Standard does not mention screening, but the Guidance Note discusses it in the context of identifying risks and impacts.

B. Scoping

All three institutions provide for scoping. Two aspects of scoping are common to all three institutions.

• ADB, World Bank and IFC all require identifying impacts in a project’s area of influence and assessing transboundary and global impacts. ADB and World Bank explicitly call for identifying physical impacts; IFC implies that physical impacts should be assessed.

• ADB and World Bank explicitly call for broadly identifying socio-economic impacts. IFC does this implicitly and in a more limited way by requiring assessment of indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services on which community livelihoods depend.

• ADB and World Bank call for identifying impacts on physical cultural resources.

9Asian Development Bank. 2009. Safeguard Policy Statement. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/-files/pub/2009/Safeguard-Policy-Statement-June2009.pdf 10World Bank. 2013. Operational Manual OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. April. BP 4.01 provides detail on internal World Bank procedures for implementing OP 4.01. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLI-CIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064724~menuPK:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html11International Finance Corporation. 2012. Performance Standard 1 Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/con-nect/3be1a68049a78dc8b7e4f7a8c6a8312a/PS1_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERESIFC Guidance Note 1 on Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts provides more detail for IFC clients on the rationale for each component of the Performance Standard and how to implement it. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/b29a4600498009cfa7f-cf7336b93d75f/Updated_GN1-2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES


This review grouped the ADB, World Bank, and IFC policy principles and standards according to the IAIA best practice operating principles for EIA (Table 1). Of a consolidated total of 74 principles and standards, approximately half are common to two, or all three, institutions. Thirteen principles and standards are common to all three institutions. Each institution expresses its principles and standards in its own way. Because ADB has the most comprehensive range of principles, the comparison in Table 1 uses ADB’s terminology as the basis for stating the common principles. Principles that are specific to one institution are stated as that institution states them. A brief description of how these three international institutions guide their clients to implement the IAIA best practice operating principles for EIA follows.

A. Screening

The concept of screening is common to all three institutions, although IFC does not state in its Performance Standard that screening is required.

• ADB and World Bank call for screening to determine the extent and type of environmental assessment and for involving stakeholders and initiating consultations as early as possible in the assessment process.

• IFC Performance Standard does not mention screening, but the Guidance Note discusses it in the context of identifying risks and impacts.

B. Scoping

All three institutions provide for scoping. Two aspects of scoping are common to all three institutions.

• ADB, World Bank and IFC all require identifying impacts in a project’s area of influence and assessing transboundary and global impacts. ADB and World Bank explicitly call for identifying physical impacts; IFC implies that physical impacts should be assessed.

• ADB and World Bank explicitly call for broadly identifying socio-economic impacts. IFC does this implicitly and in a more limited way by requiring assessment of indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services on which community livelihoods depend.

• ADB and World Bank call for identifying impacts on physical cultural resources.

4

• ADB and IFC call for identifying indirect as well as direct impacts and cumulative impacts.

• ADB requires identifying biological impacts. IFC also calls for identifying impacts on biological resources, but only in the context of indirect impacts that affect community livelihoods.

• ADB requires identifying induced impacts, but does not define how induced impacts differ from direct and indirect impacts.

• World Bank requires that natural and social impacts be assessed in an integrated way.

• IFC calls for identifying unplanned but predictable impacts and for identifying disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and implementing differentiated measures so that adverse impacts do not fall disproportionately on them.

C. Examination of alternatives

All three institutions require that environmental assessment consider alternatives.

• ADB and World Bank require that the ‘no-project’ alternative be considered.

• ADB specifically requires documenting the rationale for selecting the particular alternative proposed.

D. Impact analysis

The international institutions do not have detailed principles or standards on impact analysis.

• ADB is the only institution that provides guidance on impact analysis. That guidance is limited to specifying that the precautionary approach should be used with respect to renewable natural resources.

• World Bank and IFC do not provide guidance on impact analysis.

E. Mitigation and impact management

All three institutions specifically require avoiding pollution and mitigating any discharges or emissions of pollutants that cannot be avoided.

• ADB and IFC call for avoiding adverse impacts generally and for offsetting those that cannot be avoided.

• ADB and World Bank call for mitigating adverse impacts generally and for enhancing positive impacts.

• ADB requires additional measures to minimize or control waste generation and release of hazardous materials and to avoid the use of hazardous materials that are subject to international bans or phase-outs.

F. Evaluating significance

The international institutions do not have detailed principles or standards on evaluating the significance of environmental impacts.

• ADB is the only one of the three institutions that provides guidance on evaluating significance. That guidance focuses on whether and how to proceed with a proposed project when critical habitats, natural habitats, and protected areas are involved.

G. Preparing environmental assessment report and documenting public concerns

All three institutions call for meaningful consultation with people who will be affected by a proposed project.

• ADB and IFC require ensuring women’s participation in consultations and establishing a mechanism to deal with grievances.

• IFC requires clients to develop and implement a stakeholder engagement plan that is scaled to the proposed project’s risks and impacts.

• World Bank calls for consulting project-affected groups and local NGOs throughout project implementation.

• ADB calls for using field-based surveys that employ qualified and experienced experts during environmental assessment.

All three institutions require a form of EMP – IFC’s term is ‘Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)’ – and specify that it must include mitigation measures, institutional arrangements, capacity development and training measures, cost estimates, and monitoring requirements.


5

• ADB and World Bank explicitly require that an EMP contain an implementation schedule.

• ADB and IFC require that an EMP contain performance indicators.

• IFC requires that an ESMS include measures for emergency preparedness and response. ADB does not require such measures as part of an EMP, but does require them during project implementation.

• ADB requires that an EMP must include reporting requirements and that environmental management planning generally must consider the polluter pays principle.

• World Bank and IFC call for consultation with project-affected groups to continue throughout project implementation.

H. Review of environmental assessment report

• ADB and World Bank require disclosing a draft environmental assessment report in an accessible place, in a form and language that is understandable to affected people, and in a timely manner before it is appraised.

• ADB also requires disclosing the final environmental assessment.

• IFC simply requires disclosing relevant project information and does not specify that a draft ESMS must be disclosed.

I. Decision-making

The international institutions do not specify how decisions should be made.

• ADB does provide for ensuring that stakeholder views and concerns are made known to and understood by decision makers and taken into account.

J. Follow-up

All three institutions call – explicitly or implicitly – for implementing the EMP, monitoring its implementation, documenting/reporting on the results of monitoring, and disclosing the monitoring reports.

• IFC calls specifically for providing progress reports to communities that a project affects.

• ADB calls for nine additional follow-up measures that include applying cleaner and more efficient technologies, managing pesticides, conserving physical cultural resources, and providing workers with safe and healthy working conditions.

This study reviewed the laws and, where applicable, regulations of all SAARC Member States. See Annex 1 for a list of the legal instruments reviewed. In the cases of Pakistan and India, the two federated States, this review considered only the national-level laws and/or regulations. This review considered only legally-binding instruments and did not include non-binding guidelines. See Table 2. Afghanistan is the only SAARC country whose law requires that international best practice be used for EIA.

This review considered the laws and regulations of three federated States outside South Asia – Australia, Brazil and Canada – and New Zealand, a unitary State whose implementation of EIA has been cited as an example of good practice. Table 3 gives an overview of national-level legal instruments only in these countries. This review also examined the law and/or regulations in one state of each federated State. Where a state’s law or regulations contain requirements that are different from those under national law, the text that follows discusses those differences.

A. Screening

The legal instruments of all countries require some form of screening, but not all specifically call for screening as early as possible in the environmental assessment process. Only two of the eight SAARC countries require involving/consulting stakeholders early in the process. Three of the four non-SAARC countries reviewed require early stakeholder involvement.


04 EIA in the laws & regulations of SAARC and Non-SAARC Countries

• IFC calls specifically for providing progress reports to communities that a project affects.

• ADB calls for nine additional follow-up measures that include applying cleaner and more efficient technologies, managing pesticides, conserving physical cultural resources, and providing workers with safe and healthy working conditions.

This study reviewed the laws and, where applicable, regulations of all SAARC Member States. See Annex 1 for a list of the legal instruments reviewed. In the cases of Pakistan and India, the two federated States, this review considered only the national-level laws and/or regulations. This review considered only legally-binding instruments and did not include non-binding guidelines. See Table 2. Afghanistan is the only SAARC country whose law requires that international best practice be used for EIA.

This review considered the laws and regulations of three federated States outside South Asia – Australia, Brazil and Canada – and New Zealand, a unitary State whose implementation of EIA has been cited as an example of good practice. Table 3 gives an overview of national-level legal instruments only in these countries. This review also examined the law and/or regulations in one state of each federated State. Where a state’s law or regulations contain requirements that are different from those under national law, the text that follows discusses those differences.

A. Screening

The legal instruments of all countries require some form of screening, but not all specifically call for screening as early as possible in the environmental assessment process. Only two of the eight SAARC countries require involving/consulting stakeholders early in the process. Three of the four non-SAARC countries reviewed require early stakeholder involvement.

6

SAARC countries

• All SAARC countries require screening to determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment.

• Five countries require screening as early as possible.

• Only Afghanistan and Nepal require involving/consulting stakeholders early in the process.

Non-SAARC countries

• Australia and Brazil specifically require screening as early as possible in the assessment process.

• Australia, Canada and New Zealand screen to determine the appropriate extent and scope of environmental assessment.

• Australia, Canada and New Zealand require involving stakeholders/initiating consultation as early as possible. In Canada, provincial law in British Columbia does not specifically require involving stakeholders at this stage.

B. Scoping

Nepal and Brazil are the countries that most comprehensively list the issues to be considered in an environmental assessment and are the only countries that require assessing impact in a project’s area of influence. Maldives is the only country reviewed that requires assessing impact on climate. Although all three international institutions specify assessing transboundary impacts, no country requires it.

SAARC countries

• Nepal’s legal requirements for scoping are more comprehensive than those of any other SAARC country.

• Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal require identifying indirect as well as direct impacts. India requires identifying indirect impacts only on birds.

• Bhutan, India and Nepal require identifying cumulative impacts.

• India, Maldives and Nepal require identifying physical impacts, but India requires this only for construction projects.

• India and Nepal require identifying biological impacts.

• India and Maldives require identifying impacts on physical cultural resources.

• Only Nepal requires identifying impacts in a project’s area of influence.

• Only India requires identifying disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

• Only Maldives requires considering impacts on climate.

• Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka do not specify any scoping requirements in their Rules or Regulations, respectively.

• Afghanistan does not set out scoping requirements in its law, but the national Mining Regulations require identifying cumulative and socio-economic impacts.

• No SAARC country requires identifying transboundary impacts.

Non-SAARC countries

• Federal law in Brazil and Canada stipulates that the responsible authorities determine the scope of environmental assessment.

• In Australia, the Minister must select one of five assessment approaches, including initial environmental examination (IEE) and EIA. Australia’s federal legal instruments require identifying affected parties and communities and do not stipulate any other scoping issue. State law in New South Wales (NSW), however, lists four scoping issues: impacts on the natural environment, social and economic impacts, impacts on the built environment, and impacts on the locality.

• Brazil and Canada are the only two of the non-SAARC countries that require identifying cumulative impacts.

• Brazil’s federal legal instruments specify six scoping issues: indirect as well as direct impacts, cumulative impacts, physical impacts, biological impacts, socio-economic impacts, and impacts in a project’s area of influence.


7

• Canada’s federal legal instruments require identifying cumulative impacts and do not stipulate any other scoping issue. Provincial law in British Columbia requires full or partial assessments of environmental, economic, social, heritage or health impacts.

• New Zealand’s law requires identifying affected persons and assessing physical impacts, biological impacts, socio-economic impacts, and impacts on physical cultural resources, as well as considering natural and social aspects in an integrated way.

• New Zealand requires assessing impact on any protected traditional right. In Canada, the authority has discretion to take traditional knowledge into account.

• None of the non-SAARC countries’ legal instruments require assessing transboundary or global impacts, including climate change.


Only half of the SAARC countries require examination of alternatives as part of EIA, but all of the non-SAARC countries do. Australia, Brazil and only two SAARC countries require consideration of the ‘no project’ alternative. Pakistan does not require examination of alternatives. Schedule IV of the IEE/EIA Regulations stipulates that the environmental assessment report must simply answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question of whether alternatives were considered.

SAARC countries

• Bhutan, India, Maldives and Nepal specify that environmental assessment must examine alternatives.

• Bhutan and Maldives also require considering the ‘no project’ alternative.

• India and Maldives specifically require documenting the rationale for selecting the alternative proposed.

Non-SAARC countries

• All of the non-SAARC countries reviewed require examining alternatives.

• Only Australia and Brazil require considering the ‘no project’ alternative and documenting the rationale for selecting the particular alternative proposed.

• State and provincial legal instruments in Australia, Brazil and Canada do not require examining alternatives.

D. Impact analysis

As with the international institutions, most countries reviewed do not prescribe in their legal instruments how impact analysis is to be done. India is the only country reviewed that includes in a legal instrument a list of impacts to be considered. Afghanistan, Bhutan and Canada are the only countries reviewed whose legal instruments governing EIA require applying a precautionary approach.

SAARC countries

• All SAARC countries require impact analysis either explicitly or implicitly. • Only India provides a list of types of environmental impacts that must be considered.

• Afghanistan’s and Bhutan’s laws governing EIA require applying a precautionary approach.

Non-SAARC countries

• All non-SAARC countries require impact analysis.

• Canada is the only non-SAARC country whose legal instruments governing EIA require applying a precautionary approach.

E. Mitigation and impact management

Fewer than half of all the SAARC and non-SAARC countries reviewed require avoiding adverse impacts, but most of the countries do require minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts. None of the countries reviewed requires offsetting adverse impacts or enhancing positive impacts, as ADB and World Bank do.

SAARC countries

• Bhutan, India, Maldives and Nepal require avoiding adverse impacts where possible, but India requires this only in the context of water management.


8

• Bangladesh and Sri Lanka do not require minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts; all of the other SAARC countries do.

• No country requires offsetting adverse impacts.

• Bhutan, India, Maldives and Nepal require environmental assessment to identify positive impacts, but do not require enhancing positive impacts.

Non-SAARC countries

• Only Australia explicitly requires avoiding adverse impacts.

• All non-SAARC countries require minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts.

• New Zealand requires assessing risks of hazardous substances if an activity will use or generate them.

• No country requires offsetting adverse impacts or enhancing positive impacts.

F. Evaluating significance

None of the countries reviewed explicitly require evaluating significance in the sense that IAIA expresses it – determining the relative importance and acceptability of impacts that cannot be mitigated. Of the SAARC countries, only India and Nepal require considering the degree of risk a proposed project would cause. All non-SAARC countries explicitly require evaluating the significance of the environmental impacts of a project, but do not specifically require evaluating the acceptability of impacts that cannot be mitigated.

SAARC countries • India and Nepal require consideration of the degree of risk presented by a proposed project by including the requirement in the respective Appendix or Schedule that sets out the content of EIA.

• Sri Lanka specifies that the Minister may issue an Order that development, and planning for development, may not take place in a specific area that has been previously notified as a protected area.

Non-SAARC countries

• All countries require evaluating the relative significance of environmental effects.

• In Australia, NSW will not approve applications for development consent in an environmentally sensitive area of State significance, or a sensitive coastal location, or in any area prohibited under an environmental planning instrument.

G. Preparing environmental assessment report and documenting public concerns

Half of the SAARC countries and all of the non-SAARC countries specify the minimum required content of an EIA report. Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan’s mining sector, Australia, and Canada require an EMP or an equivalent document. The other SAARC and non-SAARC countries require that monitoring mechanisms be specified in the EIA report or incorporate monitoring requirements into their environmental clearances.

Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Canada have the most expansive requirements for public participation in the EIA process. Canada requires its environment agency to establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public in the environmental assessment of designated projects. No other non-SAARC or SAARC country supports public participation in environmental assessment to this extent.

Neither SAARC nor non-SAARC countries specifically provide for women’s participation in the EIA process nor does any country require setting up a grievance redress mechanism.

Brazil’s federal regulations stipulate that EIA must be carried out by a multi-disciplinary team that is completely independent of the project proponent and which must be responsible for the technical content of the EIA report. Acre State in Brazil stipulates that each member of a team that carries out EIA must be registered with the state environment institute. No other non-SAARC country reviewed has such a requirement, nor does any SAARC country.


9

SAARC countries

Four countries stipulate the minimum required content of an environmental assessment report in their laws or regulations.

• Bhutan, India, Maldives and Nepal specify the minimum required content of an environmental assessment report in their law or regulations. India’s specifications are the most comprehensive.

• Bangladesh, India and Pakistan require EMPs, as does Afghanistan’s mining sector.

• Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal incorporate the international standards for an EMP into, respectively, an environmental clearance, environmental decision statement, and environmental assessment report.

• Afghanistan’s and Bhutan’s laws governing EIA require applying the polluter pays principle.

Four countries make public participation in the EIA process mandatory. No country specifically provides for women’s participation. No country requires setting up a grievance redress mechanism.

• Afghanistan stipulates that potentially affected persons must be allowed to participate at all stages of the EIA process.

• India and Nepal require public consultation during the EIA process and require making the draft EIA available for public comment.

• Pakistan requires making the draft EIA available for public comment.

• Bhutan and Maldives provide that public consultation is at the discretion of the government authority.

Non-SAARC Countries

All countries stipulate the minimum required content of an environmental assessment report in their laws or regulations.

• Australia requires that an EIA report include an outline of an EMP.

• Canada requires a ‘follow-up program’, which has the same purpose as an EMP, and that environmental assessment must evaluate the quality of the follow-up program.

• Brazil requires a monitoring program as part of the EIA report.

• New Zealand stipulates that the EIA report must specify who will be responsible for monitoring and how it will be carried out, if monitoring is required.

The laws governing EIA in Australia and Canada make public participation in the EIA process mandatory. No country specifically provides for women’s participation. No country requires setting up a grievance redress mechanism.

• In Australia, inviting comments on draft environmental assessment reports is the responsibility of the project proponent and the EIA report must describe any consultation.

• In Canada, the Agency must post draft EIA reports on its website and notify the public to invite comments.

• New Zealand focuses public participation in the EIA process at the time an application is filed, rather than on the draft report. New Zealand’s law specifically provides for making a draft report public only in cases in which the Minister has referred an EIA to a board of inquiry.

• Brazil’s legal instruments are silent on the issue of public participation in the EIA process.

H. Review of environmental assessment report

Procedures and deadlines for reviewing environmental assessment reports vary in all countries reviewed, but all except Bangladesh have some provision for public input at one or more stages of the process. None of the SAARC countries require that the form and language of an EIA report must be understandable to affected people. Only three of the SAARC and non-SAARC countries reviewed require making a final EIA report public – Afghanistan, Australia and Canada.

SAARC countries

Hagler Bailly produced a detailed report12 that provides an overview of EIA review practices in SAARC countries and goes into detail on the steps in the process in each country. This review focuses on comparing SAARC countries’ laws and regulations with international standards.


12Hagler Bailly Pakistan. 2013. Review Mechanism for Environmental Assessment ReportsFinal Report submitted to National Impact Assessment Programme. 29 October. Unpublished.

10

• Bangladesh is the only country that does not require making a draft environmental assessment report public before appraising it and making a decision.

• India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka specifically require making the draft EIA report publicly available in a timely manner prior to appraisal.

• Pakistan requires the EMP to be submitted after the EIA is approved and does not provide for making the EMP available for public comments before approving it.

• Only Afghanistan requires making the final EIA report public.

• Bhutan, Maldives, and Sri Lanka require publicizing the decision on an EIA, but not the final report.

• Maldives and Pakistan have general requirements for making information on proposed projects available to the public.

Non-SAARC countries

• Australia, Brazil and Canada require disclosing a draft EIA report. In Australia, the draft includes an outline of an EMP. In Canada, the draft includes the follow-up program. In Brazil, the draft includes the monitoring program. New Zealand does not require disclosing a draft report unless it is prepared by a board of inquiry (see Section 3.G).

• Brazil and Canada specifically require disclosing the draft in a timely matter.

• Only Brazil requires disclosing the draft in an accessible place and in an understandable form and language.

• Australia and Canada require disclosing the final EIA report as well.

I. Decision-making

All SAARC and non-SAARC countries have relatively detailed provisions governing how decisions concerning environmental assessment must be made, which vary according to the administrative system of each country.

SAARC countries

Hagler Bailly produced a detailed report that provides an overview of EIA review practices in SAARC countries and

goes into detail on the steps in the decision-making process in each country. International standards and principles do not prescribe how countries should make decisions, except to specify that a country should ensure that stakeholder views and concerns are made known to, and are understood by, decision-makers and taken into account.

• Bhutan, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka require that public comments be taken into account in making a decision on an environmental assessment report.

• Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Pakistan specify that decision-makers may stipulate conditions for approval.

• Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives allow appeals against decisions based on environmental assessment.

Non-SAARC Countries

• Only Australia provides that the proponent must take public comments into account in finalizing the EIA report, but does not specifically require decision-makers to consider public comments in reaching a decision.

• Australia, Canada and New Zealand specifically provide that decision-makers may attach conditions to the approval of an EIA report.

• Only New Zealand and NSW in Australia specifically allow appeals.

J. Follow-up

All SAARC and non-SAARC countries except for Bangladesh require follow-up monitoring. Legal responsibility for monitoring varies among SAARC countries. Non-SAARC countries do not assign responsibility for monitoring. No SAARC or non-SAARC country requires disclosing a monitoring report.

SAARC countries

• All countries except Bangladesh require follow-up monitoring. Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal – which do not require EMPs – require compliance monitoring and inspection of the project operation.


11

• Afghanistan’s mining sector and India provide for monitoring by the project proponent/operator.

• Under separate Rules, Pakistan provides for industries to self-monitor and report to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

• Sri Lanka specifies that the government project approving agency must prepare the monitoring plan and that administering it is the responsibility of the government agency.

• India and Maldives specifically require documenting monitoring results.

• No SAARC country requires disclosing monitoring reports.

Non-SAARC Countries

• Australia, Brazil and Canada require follow-up monitoring in all cases.

• New Zealand requires follow-up monitoring only when the scale and significance of an activity’s effect indicate that it is necessary.

• Australia does not specifically allocate responsibility for implementing an EMP, but does stipulate that State and local governments and a proponent may be responsible for mitigation measures.

• Brazil does not specify responsibility for monitoring.

• Canada does not specify responsibility for the follow-up program.

• New Zealand stipulates that the environmental assessment report must specify who is responsible for monitoring, if it is required.

• No country specifically requires documenting monitoring results or disclosing monitoring reports.


12

It is recommended that Pakistan consider all of the international principles and standards as it drafts the revised IEE/EIA Regulations.

A. Screening

It is recommended that Pakistan include all of the international principles on screening:

• Screen as early as possible.

• Determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment (Pakistan already requires this).

• Involve stakeholders/initiate consultations as early as possible.

B. Scoping

1. It is recommended that Pakistan include the following international principles and standards on scoping:

• Identify disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

• Identify indirect as well as direct impacts.

• Identify cumulative impacts.

• Identify physical impacts.

• Identify biological impacts.

• Identify socioeconomic impacts, including on livelihood, environmental health and safety, and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, and gender issues.

• Identify impacts on physical cultural resources.

• Identify impacts in the context of the project’s area of influence.

• Identify potential climate change impacts.

• Consider natural and social aspects in an integrated way.

2. Pakistan may consider whether and how to include assessment of potential trans-boundary impacts and global impacts other than climate change.

boundary impacts and global impacts other than climate change.


It is recommended that Pakistan include all of the international principles on examining alternatives:

• Examine alternatives to the project’s location, design, technology, and components and their potential environmental and social impacts.

• Document the rationale for selecting the particular alternative proposed.

• Consider the ‘no project’ alternative.

D. Impact analysis

It is recommended that Pakistan specifically require applying a precautionary approach to environmental assessment, particularly since none of the provincial environmental acts adopted to date reference that principle.

E. Mitigation and impact management.

1. It is recommended that Pakistan include the following international principles and standards related to mitigation and impact management:

• Avoid adverse impacts where possible.

• Where avoidance is not possible, minimize and/or mitigate adverse impacts (Pakistan already does this).

• Avoid pollution, or, when avoidance is not possible, minimize or control the intensity or load of pollutant emissions and discharges.

• Offset adverse impacts.

• Enhance positive impacts.

2. Pakistan may consider whether and how to include provisions on the following:

• When avoidance is not possible, minimize or control waste generation.


05 Recommendations

13

• When avoidance is not possible, minimize or control release of hazardous materials from their production, transportation, handling, and storage.

• Avoid the use of hazardous materials subject to international bans or phase-outs.

F. Evaluation of significance

1. It is recommended that Pakistan include the international principle that requires determining the relative importance and acceptability of impacts that cannot be mitigated.

2. It is also recommended that Pakistan include provisions requiring special consideration during environmental assessment of any proposed activity that would take place in or within the area of influence of:

• a national park, wildlife sanctuary, or other protected area;

• the habitat of any scheduled species; and

• any ecosystem that provides essential ecosystem services, including but not limited to wetlands and mangrove forests.

G. Preparation of report, including documenting public concerns

1. It is recommended that Pakistan include the following international principles and standards related to preparing environmental assessment reports and ensuring public participation in the process:

• Carry out meaningful consultation with stakeholders, affected people, and concerned non-governmental organizations and facilitate their informed participation, which Pakistan already does.

• Ensure women’s participation in consultation.

2. It is recommended that Pakistan specifically require applying the polluter pays principle in the context of environmental management planning, particularly since none of the provincial environmental acts adopted to date reference that principle and since existing rules govern only industrial polluters.

3. In addition to the measures that Pakistan already requires in an EMP, it is recommended that Pakistan include the following:

• institutional or organizational arrangements.• capacity development and training measures.• implementation schedule.• cost estimates.• performance indicators.• emergency preparedness and response.

4. Pakistan may consider whether and how to include provisions on the following:

• Using field-based surveys that employ qualified and experienced experts during environmental assessment.

• Continuing consultation with project-affected groups throughout project implementation.

• Establishing a grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of affected people’s concerns and grievances regarding a project’s environmental performance.

H. Review of report

1. In addition to disclosing a draft environmental assessment report in a timely manner prior to appraisal, which Pakistan already does, it is recommended that Pakistan require that the draft EMP be disclosed together with the draft EIA.

2. It is also recommended that Pakistan include the following international principles and standards related to reviewing an environmental assessment report:

• Disclose a draft environmental assessment in an accessible place.

• Disclose a draft environmental assessment in a form and language(s) understandable to affected people and other stakeholders.

• Disclose the final environmental assessment, and its updates if any, to affected people and other stakeholders.


14

I. Decision-making

No recommendations on decision-making on the basis of international principles and standards.

J. Follow-up

In addition to post-approval monitoring, which Pakistan already requires, it is recommended that Pakistan include the following international principles and standards related to follow-up after an EIA has been approved:

• Document monitoring results, including the development and implementation of corrective actions.

• Disclose monitoring reports, particularly to affected people in the area of influence of a project.


15


TABLE 1 - INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

TABLE 1IAIA Operating Principles of EIA

ADB WORLD BANK

IFC

Screening – determine whether or not a proposal should be subject to EIA and, if so, at what level

Scoping – identify issues and impacts

Examination of alternatives

Impact analysis – identify and predict likely effects of the project

Mitigation and impact management

1. Screen as early as possible

2. Determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment

3. Involve stakeholders/initiate consultations as early as possible

1. Identify indirect as well as direct impacts

3. Identify cumulative impacts

4. Identify induced impacts

5. Identify physical impacts

6. Identify biological impacts

9. Identify impacts on physical cultural resources

10. Consider natural and social aspects in an integrated way

11. Identify impacts in the context of the project’s area of influence

12. Identify unplanned but predictable impacts

13. Assess potential trans-boundary impacts

14. Assess potential global impacts, including climate change

2. Document the rationale for selecting the particular alternative proposed

1. Avoid adverse impacts where possible

2. Avoid pollution, or, when avoidance is not possible, minimize or control the intensity or load of pollutant emissions and discharges

3. Where avoidance is not possible, minimize and/or mitigate adverse impacts

3. Consider the ‘no project’ alternative

1. Examine alternatives to the project’s location, design, technology, and components and their potential environmental and social impacts

1. Use a precautionary approach to the use, development, and management of renewable natural resources

7. Identify socioeconomic impacts, including on livelihood, environmental health and safety, vulnerable groups, and gender issues

8. Identify disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and implement differentiated measures so that adverse impacts do not fall disproportionately on them

2. Identify indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services on which Affected Communities' livelihoods are dependent

16



ADB WORLD BANK

IFC


4. When avoidance is not possible, minimize or control waste generation

5. When avoidance is not possible, minimize or control release of hazardous materials from their production, transportation, handling, and storage

1. Do not implement project activities in areas of critical habitats, unless there are no measurable adverse impacts on the critical habitat that could impair its ability to function

8. Enhance positive impacts

2. Do not implement project activities in areas of critical habitats, unless there is no reduction in the population of any recognized endangered or critically endangered species

3. Do not implement project activities in areas of critical habitats, unless any lesser impacts are mitigated

6. In an area of natural habitats, there must be no significant conversion or degradation, unless the overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmental costs

7. If a project is located within a legally protected area, there must be no significant conversion or degradation, unless any conversion or degradation is appropriately mitigated

Preparation of report, including documenting public concerns

1. Develop & implement a Stakeholder Engagement Plan that is scaled to the project risks & impacts

2. Carry out meaningful consultation with stakeholders, affected people, and concerned non-governmental organizations and facilitate their informed participation

4. Use field-based surveys that employ qualified and experienced experts during environmental assessment

9. proposed monitoring requirements

8. proposed mitigation measures

10. proposed reporting requirements

11. institutional or organizational arrangements

12. capacity development and training measures

13. implementation schedule

5. Establish a grievance redress mechanism to receive and facilitate resolution of the affected people’s concerns and grievances regarding the project’s environmental performance

3. Ensure women’s participation in consultation

6. Consider the polluter pays principle in environmental management planning

7. Prepare an environmental management plan (EMP) that includes:

4. If a project is located within a legally protected area, implement additional programs to promote and enhance the conservation aims of the protected area

5. In an area of natural habitats, there must be no significant conversion or degradation, unless alternatives are not available

Evaluation of significance – determine the relative importance and acceptability of impacts that cannotbe mitigated

6. Avoid the use of hazardous materials subject to international bans or phase-outs

7. Offset adverse impacts

IFC

17



ADB WORLD BANK

14. Cost estimates

15. Performance indicators

1. Disclose a draft environmental assessment including the EMP, where applicable

2. Disclose a draft environmental assessment in a timely manner prior to appraisal

3. Disclose a draft environmental assessment in an accessible place

6. Disclose relevant project information

Decision making

Follow up

1. Ensure that stakeholder views and concerns are made known to and understood by decision makers and taken into account

2. Monitor effectiveness of EMP

6. Provide for the use of “chance find” procedures that include a pre-approved management and conservation approach for materials that may be discovered during project implementation

7. Apply pollution prevention and control technologies and practices consistent with international good practices

8. Adopt cleaner production processes

9. Adopt good energy efficiency practices

10. Purchase, use, and manage pesticides based on integrated pest management approaches

11. Reduce reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides

14. Conserve physical cultural resources and avoid destroying or damaging them

12. Provide workers with safe and healthy working conditions and prevent accidents, injuries and disease

13. Establish preventive and emergency preparedness and response measures to avoid, and where avoidance is not possible, to minimize, adverse impacts and risks to the health and safety of local communities

3. Document monitoring results, including the development and implementation of corrective actions

1. Implement the EMP

4. Disclose monitoring reports

5. Provide periodic reports to the Affected Communities that describe progress with implementation of the project Action Plans

4. Disclose a draft environmental assessment in a form and language(s) understandable to affected people and other stakeholders

5. Disclose the final environmental assessment, and its updates if any, to affected people and other stakeholders

Review of report

16. Emergency preparedness and response

17. Continuing consultation with project-affected groups throughout project implementation

18


TABLE 2: SAARC COUNTRIES

Table 2IAIA Operating Principles of EIA &Asian Development Bank, WorldBank, International FinanceCorporation principles and standards

Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Nepal Pakistan SriLanka



2. Determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment3. Involve stakeholders/initiate consultations as early as possible

Scoping – identify issues and impacts



Onlyin the

contextof

avifauna

Onlyfor

constr-uction

projects


(MiningRegulations)

(MiningRegulations)




7. Identify socioeconomic impacts, including on livelihood, environmental health and safety, and vulnerable groups, and gender issues

8. Identify disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

19





ClimateChange

Onlyin the

contextof watermanag-ement

EA muststate

whetheralternative

siteswere

considered










Impact analysis

1. Identify and predict likely effects of a project





20





Identifypositiveimpacts









Evaluation of significance

1. Determine the relative importance and acceptability of impacts that cannot be mitigated






21





Ministermay orderthat only

theenvironment

agencyhas

authorityrelated toplanning

anddevelopment

within aspecifiedprotected

area



1. Develop and implement a Stakeholder Engagement Plan that is scaled to the project risks and impacts






Atgovernmentdiscretion

Atgovernmentdiscretion

7. Prepare an environmental management plan (EMP) that includes: (Mining

Regulations)Required for2 categoriesof projects

22




Preparinga

monitoringplan is

theproject

approvalagency’s

responsibility

9. proposed monitoring requirements




Review of report

1. Disclose a draft environmental assessment including the EMP, where applicable Submit draft

EMP afterEIA is

approved


(MiningRegulations)

(MiningRegulations)

Required for2 categoriesof projects

Environmentalclearancespecifiesmitigationmeasures

Environmental clearance specifies

monitoring requirements

EnvironmentalDecision

Statementincludes

mitigationmeasures


Statementincludes

environmentalmonitoringprogram

(MiningRegulations)

Environmentalclearancespecifiesreporting

requirements

Reporting ismandatory;


Statementstipulateshow oftento report


14. cost estimates

15. performance indicators

16. emergency preparedness and response

17. continuing consultation with project-affected groups throughout project implementation


23







Disclosedecision

Disclosedecision

Disclosedecision



Decision making

Follow-up


Compliancemonitoring

andinspection

Comp-liancemonit-oring

Monitorproject

implementation

Inspectprior to

approval& monitor

after approval




(MiningRegulations)


6. Provide for the use of “chance find” procedures that include a pre- approved management and conservation approach for materials that may be discovered during project implementation

24







10. Purchase, use, and manage pesticides based on integrated pest management approaches




12. Provide workers with safe and healthy working conditions and prevent accidents, injuries, and disease

25


Table 3IAIA Operating Principles of EIA & Asian Development Bank, WorldBank, International FinanceCorporation principles and standards

Australia Brazil Canada New Zealand


Screening

2. Determine the appropriate extent and type of environmental assessment

Scoping






Minister selectsassessmentapproach

TABLE 3: NON-SAARC COUNTRIES

Federated States Unitary State

3. Involve stakeholders/initiate consultations as early as possible

Responsibleauthority

determinesscope

Responsibleauthority

determinesscope


7. Identify socioeconomic impacts, including on livelihood, environmental health and safety, vulnerable groups, and gender issues

8. Identify disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

Identify affectedparties and

communities

Identify affectedpersons







26







Impact analysis




1. Identify and predict likely effects of the project










1. Determine the relative importance and acceptability of impacts that cannot be mitigated

Evaluation of significance

27













1. Develop and implement a Stakeholder Engagement Plan that is scaled to the project risks and impacts


Describe anyconsultation

Public hearings atdiscretion of authority

or on request


28








7. Prepare an environmental management plan (EMP) that includes:



Monitoringprogram

Follow up program


9. proposed monitoring requirements Describe in EA reportwho will monitor & how



14. cost estimates

15. performance indicators

16. emergency preparedness and response

17. continuing consultation with project-affected groups throughout project implementation

Review of report

1. Disclose a draft environmental assessment including the EMP



29







Decision making – terms and conditions

Follow up



Monitoringprogram

Compliancemonitoring and

inspection








6. Provide for the use of “chance find” procedures that include a pre- approved management and conservation approach for materials that may be discovered during project implementation

30







12. Provide workers with safe and healthy working conditions and prevent accidents, injuries, and disease


10. Purchase, use, and manag pesticides based on integrated pest management approaches


ANNEX 1LIST OF SAARC MEMBER COUNTRIES’ LAWS & REGULATIONS REVIEWED

Afghanistan• Environment Law 2007• Mining Regulations 2010

Bangladesh• Environment Conservation Rules 1997

Bhutan• Environmental Assessment Act 2000 • Environmental Clearance of Projects Regulation 2001• National Environment Protection Act 2007

India• EIA Notification 2006

Maldives• Environmental Protection and Preservation Act 1993• Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2007 (the 2012 EIA Regulations appear to be available only in Dhivehi)

Nepal• Environment Protection Act 1997• Environment Protection Rules 1997

Pakistan• Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997• Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000• Balochistan Environmental Protection Act 2012• Punjab Environmental Protection (Amendment) Act 2012• Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014• National Environmental Quality Standards (Self-Monitoring and Reporting by Industry) Rule 2001

Sri Lanka• National Environmental Act 1980, amended 1988• National Environmental (Procedure for approval of projects) Regulations 1993

31


32


ANNEX 1LIST OF SAARC MEMBER COUNTRIES’ LAWS & REGULATIONS REVIEWED

Afghanistan• Environment Law 2007• Mining Regulations 2010

Bangladesh• Environment Conservation Rules 1997

Bhutan• Environmental Assessment Act 2000 • Environmental Clearance of Projects Regulation 2001• National Environment Protection Act 2007

India• EIA Notification 2006

Maldives• Environmental Protection and Preservation Act 1993• Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2007 (the 2012 EIA Regulations appear to be available only in Dhivehi)

Nepal• Environment Protection Act 1997• Environment Protection Rules 1997

Pakistan• Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997• Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000• Balochistan Environmental Protection Act 2012• Punjab Environmental Protection (Amendment) Act 2012• Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014• National Environmental Quality Standards (Self-Monitoring and Reporting by Industry) Rule 2001

Sri Lanka• National Environmental Act 1980, amended 1988• National Environmental (Procedure for approval of projects) Regulations 1993

ANNEX 2LIST OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF NON-SAARC COUNTRIES REVIEWED

Australia• Australia Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000• New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as of 25 February 2014• New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as of 22 February 2014

Brazil• Brazil National Environmental Policy Law 1981• Brazil National Environment Council Resolution No. 001 1986• Brazil National Environmental Policy Regulations 1990• Acre State Environmental Policy Law 1994

Canada• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, current to 26 November 2013• British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act 2002

New Zealand• New Zealand Resource Management Act 1991, as amended 2013

ANNEX 3OTHER REFERENCES

Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW). Complete EIA Law Comparison Chart. http://eialaws.elaw.org/completeeiaThis online resource will be useful once it is really complete. As it is as of 14 April 2014, many of the internal links either are misleading or do not work at all. For example, clicking on a link titled “List or appendix of project or activity types” in the column “Criteria for Screening” opens a 3-page ‘Country Report’ on EIA in the jurisdiction. Information on the regulatory regime for EIA in the following countries SAARC countries is available as of 14 April 2014: Afghanistan; Nepal; Pakistan and Balochistan; Sri Lanka. The link to Afghanistan’s law was the only link to a SAARC country law or regulation that was functioning on 14 April 2014. The author disagrees with some of the conclusions in the Country Reports for those countries that are posted on this website.

Khadka, R. B. et al. 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment Processes, Methods, and Practices in South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal). Kathmandu: School of Environmental Science and Management.

Hagler Bailly Pakistan. 2013. Review Mechanism for Environmental Assessment Reports Final Report. Submitted to National Impact Assessment Programme. 29 October.

Produced with the financial support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EKN).

Documents

Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment ...cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/niap___review_of_best_practices.pdf · Review of Best Practices in Environmental Assessment Legislation