Was the Environmental Assessment Adequate? - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 498

strengths and dei ciencies, or more specii cally, to assess its compliance with the Equator
Principles. Most environmental reviews fall into one of the following categories.

Review by Approval Panel
The review of an Environmental Impact Assessment report as part of the environmental
permitting process is one of the main checks built into most national EIA guidelines.
Depending on national legislation the review process is done by (1) environmental gov-
ernment authority (e.g. Canada and most Australian states), (2) inter-agency or inter-
departmental committee (e.g. USA and Indonesia), (3) commission of independent experts
(e.g. Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Australian State of Victoria), (4) commission of
experts within the government, or (5) planning authority using government guidelines.
The purpose of the review is to ensure conformance of the EIA with its Terms of
Reference or other Scoping documentation; with applicable government regulations/
guidelines; to judge the validity of impact predictions; and to check whether expected
negative environmental and social impacts are within acceptable limits. This pre-decision
review is an important quality control step in the EIA process. It determines whether a
report meets the terms of reference, examines required or reasonable alternatives, provides
a satisfactory assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed activity, adequately
deals with mitigation (and, where necessary, follow-up), fairly represents public concerns
and inputs, and provides the information required for decision-making (Sadler 1996).
With certain exceptions, the purpose of the review, which may range from a quick check
to a systematic examination depending on the nature of the EIA, is to verify that the docu-
ment provides an adequate assessment and is sufi cient for the purpose of decision-making.
There are situations where the review panel lacks appropriate expertise and experience. In
such cases the review tends to concentrate on procedures rather than content.

There are situations where the
review panel lacks appropriate
expertise and experience. In
such cases the review tends
to concentrate on procedures
rather than content.

Public Review
Public review and input is accommodated in many EIA systems. At a minimum this requires
sufi cient information and time for the public to comment on the project. International
i nancing institutions promote a more comprehensive and open review process, using public
hearings and providing open access to documentation, for any interested party. The purpose
of the EIA review is to present an opportunity for the public to comment and to involve
stakeholders in environmental assessment (World Bank 1989; IFC 2006). Public review pro-
vides an insight into public perception towards the project. In most cases where there is pub-
lic review, the proponent is required to respond to issues and answer questions raised by the
public. In some systems the i nal EIA document must include a summary of public com-
ments, and the assessment must take these comments into account.

International fi nancing institutions
promote a more comprehensive
and open review process, using
public hearings and providing
open access to documentation,
for any interested party.

Third Party Review
Environmental review by independent experts who have no vested interest in promoting or
opposing the mining project is sometimes required to demonstrate technical accuracy and
completeness of the environmental assessment or to identify any shortcomings. Generally
the focus of the third party review is on the content rather than the procedures of the EIA.

Internal Review by Financial Institutions
International i nancial institutions increasingly conduct an internal environmental and social
review of projects in which they are considering investments. The purpose of the review is
to ensure that the project complies with applicable lender's environmental and social policies,
identii es any environmental risks and meets best industry practice. In the case of Equator
Banks, the review is to ensure that the project complies with the Equator Principles. Beside