A Comparative Study on EIA process in Malaysia, West Australia, New Zealand and Canada

Abstract

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has become an essential tool in promoting sustainable development and environmental protection since it was formally introduced by National Environmental Policy (NEPA) in 1969. The acceptance and application of EIA as a key tool in ensuring green development was overwhelming and has reflected positive feedbacks since its first introduction to the world community. The implementation of the EIA in various countries differs from one another as each country customised their own EIA process to cater their local development. This paper highlights the essentials of Environmental Impact Assessment and the EIA processes that have been adapted in four countries namely, Malaysia, West Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The three developed countries have been chosen because they share the same legal system as Malaysia which is the common law. The objective of this paper is to analyse the differences and the similarities between the EIA processes in the four chosen countries. The analysis was carried out by utilising a comparative study which was achieved via literature review. The comparative study reveals the similarities and differences of each EIA process implemented in the four countries. Conclusively, the four countries possessed few similarities such as each country has their own legal instrument, a governing body responsible in administering their local EIA process and incorporates public participation in the EIA process. However, the Canadian EIA process has a more notable EIA process between the four EIA processes, whereby, it possesses the most elaborate process which involves public participation at every level and takes up to 365 days for the EIA assessment.

Public Participation Assessment for Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia, Canada and New Zealand

“…In consequence to this Act, rising worldwide attention in sustainable development and environmental protection were received when the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) were initiated especially in developed countries (Bhatia & Wernham, 2008;Bhatt & Khanal, 2010;Zhenxing & Hiufeng, 2010). Thus, EIA utilisation as worldwide policy transformation were adopted in over 120 countries for the development's decision-making (Cashmore, 2004;Glasson et al, 2005;Makmor and Ismail, 2014;Zhenxing and Hiufeng, 2010). The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is also known as an intercontinental pre-decision tool that integrates multidisciplinary participators that interact throughout the entire process in enhancing positive impacts and ensuring protection of the environment against the proposed development (Bastmeijer & Koivurova, 2008;Glasson et al, 2005;Peche & Rodríguez, 2009;Phillips, 2011).…”

“…Due to this matter, it has led multiple environmental issues to exist in this nation. According to Makmor and Ismail (2014), the public participation carried out under the First Schedule for EIA in Malaysia is often shallow and insignificant. Briffet et al (2004), Harun & Mazlan (2008), Makmor and Ismail (2016a), Marzuki (2009) and Li et al (2012) have concurred with evidences that shown most of the EIA reports of the First Schedule activities that were submitted and approved by the DOE without public participation.…”

“…Additionally, the public participation administered for EIA are frequently applied late where the decisions have already been decided (Makmor and Ismail, 2016b;Alam, 2014). From a study by Makmor and Ismail (2014), the author concluded that ineffective public participation is also contributed by the attitude of each stakeholder in the process of EIA namely the consultants, the project proponents and also the public. These issues have collectively resulted to an ineffective application of public participation for EIA administered in Malaysia.…”