Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries

Abstract

This paper categorizes and reviews different approaches to environmental impact assessment (EIA) system evaluation. It then describes the application of Wood's (1995) 'ideal' EIA system evaluation criteria to the Republic of Maldives. Few of the criteria are actually met. Is the Maldivian EIA system therefore fundamentally flawed or deficient? Field observations suggest that this is not so and, while many improvements can be made, the system is quite locally appropriate. It is concluded that there are a number of factors contributing to the positive development of the Maldavian EIA system, and these should be added on to Wood's list as supplementary criteria appropriate to small developing countries. HE IMPORTANCE OF EIA in the mix of environmental policy instruments is now i nternationally accepted. It has only been in the last ten years or so, however, that the development of 'formal' EIA systems (those given legal or administrative backing) has accele rated. This rapid growth has been predominantly in the developing world, where multilateral and bilateral donors and development agencies have supported the formalization of EIA systems.Clearly we now have much experience in the design of EIA systems at the national level. As a consequence we have a better understanding of how to compare and evaluate EIA systems, so as to strengthen and improve them.The purpose of this paper is to apply a set of EIA system evaluation criteria to an existing impact assessment administrative process in a small developing country (the Republic of Maldives), as a method of review leading to administrative reform. It begins with a brief discussion focused on choosing an appropriate set of EIA system evaluation criteria. It then moves on to outline the historical development of the Maldivian EIA system.The next section applies the chosen set of EIA system evaluation criteria to the Maldives EIA process and analyses the outcomes of the evaluation. The paper concludes by suggesting a range of EIA system evaluation criteria that might be appropriate for small developing countries.

The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding

“…These are based on earlier work by Wood (1995), who developed a list of 14 evaluation criteria for a comparative assessment of eight EIA systems in western countries. These criteria have been adapted by Glasson and Salvador (2000), Annendale (2001) and Ahmad and Wood (2002). These authors consider this list of criteria as an ideal typical and ambitious EIA system, and this is in accordance with the starting point for the development of our model.…”

“…In an evaluation study for east and southern African countries, Kakonge (1996) shows that a study of the context provides for a better understanding of the causes of ineffective EIA. Cherp (2001), Annendale (2001) and Espinoza and Alzina (2001) mentioned the importance of studying the context in which the EIA system functions to understand its strengths and weaknesses. Cherp (2001) also provides criteria to evaluate the context of an EIA system.…”

“…Kakonge (1996), Cherp (2001), Annendale (2001) and Mao and Hills (2002) have identified context factors that influence the development and performance of EIA systems, such as the political system, the socioeconomic situation, the state of the environment and the institutional/legal framework. These factors are elaborated in Table 3.…”

Environmental capacity-building in a transitional economy: the emergence of EIA capacity in Viet Nam

“…A review of recent analyses of EIA progress in a series of developing countries, including Brazil (Glasson and Salvador, 2000), Chile (de la Maza, 2001), China (Mao and Hills, 2002), Ghana (AppiahOpoku, 2001), Lesotho (Mokhehle and Diab, 2001), Maldives (Annandale, 2001), South Africa (Duthie, 2001) and Sri Lanka (Zubair, 2001) reveal many of the same problems experienced by Viet Nam.…”

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Visegrad Group countries

“…The study began with an analysis of the theoretical basis of formation of EIA worldwide and in particular the relevant provisions in the EU and in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, as well as the existing studies and research papers in the field (Bohatkiewicz, 2007;Briggs and Hudson, 2013;Engel 2009;Gałaś et al, 2013;Gałaś, 2014;Pavličková, 2012;Pavličková and Kozová, 2009;Runhaar et al, 2013;Tamásová, 2013;Zvijáková et al, 2014). When selecting evaluation criteria, different approaches to the assessment of EIA were analysed (Sadler, 1996;Annandale, 2001;Wood, 1995Wood, , 1999Wood, , 2003Hollick, 1986;Gibson, 1993;Ortolano et al, 1987;Lee et al, 1994;Lee, 1995). Evaluations of the EIA system in the EU countries were also carried out (Barker and Wood, 1999;Cherp, 2001, Report, 2009, GHK, 2010; in two continents: South America and Europe (Glasson and Salvador, 2000); in the Middle East and North Africa (Ahmad and Wood, 2002;El-Fadl and El-Fadel, 2004) and in developing countries Georgia, Ghana and Yemen (Kolhoff et al, 2013).…”