Performance of EIA authority and effectiveness of EIA system in Pakistan

Developing an evaluation approach to consider the influence of country context on environmental impact assessment performance, from a southern African perspective

“…The South African findings indicated that the political and socioeconomic context and the capacity of EIA stakeholders are the main country context indicators that were interconnected with EIA system implementation and enforcement. This is in line with other studies that highlight the relationship between such country context indicators and the EIA system implementation and enforcement (Campion & Essel, 2013;Kahangirwe & Vanclay, 2022;Khan et al, 2020;Kolhoff et al, 2016;Lesirma, 2016;McCullough, 2017;Van den Berg, 2015). According to the evaluation approach results, EIA system implementation and enforcement are challenged by the political and socioeconomic pressure and interference with the EIA administration, insufficient human and financial resources, lack of cooperation with key EIA actors such as the EAPs and relevant competent authorities, and limited capacity of the EIA competent authority officials.…”

“…The second approach to considering EIA system context is the development of conceptual models and/or frameworks for assessing the EIA system performance considering one or more of the contextual factors such as political, socioeconomic, and capacities of EIA actors (Bond et al, 2020;Emmelin, 1998;Khan et al, 2020;Kolhoff et al, 2009Kolhoff et al, , 2013Kolhoff et al, , 2016McCullough, 2017;Van den Berg, 2015). These kinds of studies developed models of EIA system performance analysis that combine the evaluation of EIA legislation, EIA competent authority, and EIA procedural aspects with some country context factors.…”

Environmental Impact Assessment Effectiveness in Public–Private Partnerships: Study on the Colombian Toll Road Program

“…Results also revealed that there is no unique combination for producing high effectiveness in all dimensions of EIA and there are 11 combinations sufficient for producing unidimensional EIA effectiveness. This finding highlights the relevance of analyzing the four EIA effectiveness dimensions rather than unidimensional EIA effectiveness, which remains the most traditional perspective employed for assessing EIA in real projects (Khan et al 2020). Consequently, findings decode the configurational essence of EIA effectiveness against the standardized approach aiming for one size fits all.…”

“…The infrastructure literature shows no consensus regarding the required conditions for achieving EIA effectiveness (Hansen and Wood 2016;Heinma and Põder 2010;Khan et al 2020;Zvijáková et al 2014). Based on the literature review conducted, comprehensive composite conditions for EIA effectiveness were gathered from three main clusters: 1) the role of environmental consultants (Androulidakis and Karakassis 2006;Kågström 2016;Kamijo and Huang 2019;Khan et al 2018;Momtaz and Kabir 2013); 2) project features (Badr et al 2011;Cashmore et al 2002) , and; 3) communities' participation (Bond et al 2018;Chanthy and Grünbühel 2015;Morrison-Saunders and Bailey 2009).…”

“…Despite the pertinence of the comprehensive goals of the EIA process for the protection of the economic, social, and natural environments, there remains a huge gap between these theoretical goals and the real performance of EIA in real projects (Androulidakis and Karakassis 2006;Barker and Wood 1999;Kabir and Momtaz 2012;Khan et al 2020;Lawrence 1997). Moreover, frequently the EIA is restricted to mere documental assessments that are not controlled or monitored effectively, resulting in inaccurate assessments and forecasts often derived from standardized practices limited to accomplish the minimal requirement of the terms of reference for licensing (Caro-Gonzalez et al 2021;Lawrence 1997;Paliwal and Srivastava 2012).…”