Comparative practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 310

The situation in Africa is changing rapidly, with many countries having recently
instituted EIA regulations. This development has been brought about by a range of
initiatives including the 1995 African Ministerial Conference on Environment that
committed African environment ministers to formalize the use of EIA; an EIA
stakeholders meeting in Nairobi in 1998; development of the Capacity Enhancement for
EIA in Africa programme in 1999; and the establishment of the Capacity Development
and Linkages for EIA in Africa (CLEIAA) in 2000, which has improved collaboration
between African countries to build up EIA capacity.
On the other hand, EIA in Africa is still beset by a lack of trained personnel, cost,
concern that EIA might hold back economic development and lack of political will
(Kakonge 1999). Even where EIA legislation exists, this does not mean that it is put into
practice, is carried out well, involves the public or is enforced (Okaru & Barannik 1996).
As such, while some African countries such as Benin, the Seychelles and Tunisia have
good regulations and considerable EIA practice, others such as Burundi and Guinea-
Bissau are on the far left of Figure 10.2 (d'Almeida 2001).
All countries in South and Central America have some form of legal system for
environmental protection, including at least aspects of EIA. These systems vary widely,
reflecting the countries' diverse political and economic systems: average income in some
South American countries is more than ten times that in others. However, in general, the
development of EIA in South America has been hampered by political instability,
inefficient bureaucracy, economic stagnation and external debt (Brito & Verocai 1999).
This may be changing recently, but EIA in South America is often still carried out
centrally, with little or no public participation, and often after a project has already been
authorized (Glasson & Salvador 2000).
Environmental impact assessment in Asia also varies widely, from no legislation (e.g.
Cambodia), through to extensive experience with robust EIA regulation set within the
context of SEA (e.g. Hong Kong). EIA regulations were established in many Asian
countries in the late 1980s, and EIA is practised in all countries of the region through the
requirements of donor institutions. On the other hand, Briffett (1999) suggests that many
Asian EIAs are of poor quality, with poor scoping and impact prediction, and limited
public participation. This is due in part to the perception that EIA may retard economic
growth—symbolized by the wish, in some countries, to expose large buildings and
infrastructure projects to show off the country's wealth (Briffett 1999).
The Countries in Transition have just gone through 15 years of enormous change
associated with the move from centrally planned to market systems. This has included, in
many cases, a move from publicly to privately owned enterprises. Many of these
countries' economies are based on heavy industry, with concomitant high use of energy
and resources. Many went through an economic crisis in the 1990s.
Of the countries in transition, the Central and Eastern European countries (including
Turkey) are aiming towards EU accession and are moving to harmonize their EIA
legislation with European Directives 85/337 and 97/11: Poland is an example of this. The
Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union all have similar systems, based on
the “state ecological expertise/review system” developed under the former Soviet Union.
The countries of South East Europe—Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Yugoslavia
and Macedonia—have relatively undeveloped EIA systems, but are starting to harmonize
their EIA legislation with that of the EU (Rzeszot 1999, World Bank 2002).