Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 17.1 EIA as a systemic process.
Source: Allen 1996.
were to be located at the periphery of the state. At
the same time, the UK took the view that EIA
was an unnecessary and burdensome addition to
its sophisticated land-use planning system, which
had evolved effectively since the passing of the
Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. It
therefore took several years and more than twenty
internal drafts before the proposal to the EC was
formulated in 1985. Even then, it had to be pushed
onto the agenda at a period of high
unemployment throughout the Community on
the back of the promise that environmental
protection might hold out in terms of the creation
of new jobs.
Once the desire to have an EIA programme has
been accepted, the politicisation of its realisation
can also become apparent. While it is clear that
'the scope, timing and content of EIAs everywhere
in the world are invariably influenced largely by a
variety of administrative and legislative measures'
(Sankoh 1996), it is also evident that some
countries can take matters very much further in
their apparent subversion of the process. Here it
may be said that if no checks are in place, 'EIA is
open to capture by powerful government interests'
(Horberry 1984). In Nigeria, for example, the
guidelines on its fourth National Development
Plan (1981-1985) contained a directive that
'feasibility studies for all projects both private and
government shall be accompanied by an
environmental impact statement'. Whether this
was a general expression of government concern
about the need to prevent environmental
degradation, or intended to assuage aid agencies,
or to pay lip service to international
environmental conventions, it was certainly not
backed by anything resembling an EIA system.
Not surprisingly, ten years after the plan was
published the government had to admit that
environmental issues 'had been neglected or not
given enough attention…in actions designed to
increase the productivity of the society and to
meet essential needs' (FEPA 1989).
In general, however, EIA can expose
developing countries such as Nigeria to public
scrutiny and debate, a largely unwelcome
procedure for dictatorships no matter how
interested such countries may be in environmental
protection either notionally or in practice.
Moreover, the EIA process is also open to
subversion by powerful government interests
where even evidence of ecological damage can be
manipulated. As Ebisemiju (1993) has commented,
'unscientific and unprofessional practices thrive
best in socio-political systems in which corruption
and dictatorship are hallmarks'. These criticisms
are less likely to be valid, however, among
industrialised countries of long standing, where
Search WWH ::




Custom Search