Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
the developing world, their EISs have been
described as 'nothing but a collection of
unsynthesised biophysical data irrelevant to the
choice among real alternatives' (Roque 1985). In
spite of a considerable number of EIAs submitted
to environmental agencies in Southeast Asia, few
are able to have much impact in reducing the
environmental consequences of the projects
concerned.
Brazil, Malaysia and Mexico, however, do have
systems that integrate the EIA into the project
cycle. Apart from the advice that proponents of a
scheme receive regarding the integration of the
economic, technical and environmental elements
of their project, it is mandatory for them to show
that any conditions attached to the review report
are complied with and that measures to be taken
to alleviate or prevent the adverse impact on the
environment are being incorporated into the
design, construction and operation of the
prescribed activity. In Mexico, the EIS must be
approved before a project's final design is
produced, while Brazil effectively internalises EIA
in the project cycle by incorporating it into its
long-standing three-stage project-licensing system.
There are also built-in mechanisms for continuous
monitoring of every stage of project
implementation for compliance with
recommendations contained in previous licences.
However, as far as the developing world is
concerned, these three countries are quite
exceptional in terms of the way their EIAs
function.
recognition of EIA in 1973 led to the provision
by government of a structure for its own system
that was seen to be flawed because it allowed the
initiators the responsibility to screen and to assess
their own project environmentally (Cooper 1990).
Moreover, the original legalisation did not provide
for an enforcement mechanism. It also failed to
clarify, among other things, the types of project
that must be assessed, the content of an acceptable
environmental assessment, and the nature of the
role of the public in the process (FEARO 1987).
Although the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act of 1995 was supposed to remedy
such deficiencies, it continues to support self-
assessment and apparently does little to clarify with
precision what procedures should be followed in
the EIA process. This is especially unfortunate
since the federal approach fails to provide a
yardstick against which the provinces, each with
their very different approaches to EIA, might start
to move towards common national standards
(Delicaet 1995).
Perhaps more unexpected, however, are the
results of a survey that considered NEPA's
effectiveness after nearly three decades of its
application to US federal projects. This drew
attention to problems related to EIA practice
rather than process, commenting not merely on
the fact that the consideration of EIA in project
planning and decision making was not early
enough but also on the lack of post-EIS follow-
up in monitoring, in the implementation of
mitigating measures, in ecosystem management
and in environmental auditing. The survey also
remarked upon an insufficient consideration of
both biophysical and socio-economic factors in
an integrated mode in the EIA process. Although
it is possible to allow that these issues, according
to the survey's authors, particularly represent
common concerns in the worldwide practice of
EIA (Canter and Clark 1997), it is nevertheless
unfortunate that they remain flaws in the US
federal system so long after the establishment of
NEPA. A lack of political will during the last two
decades undoubtedly explains such inertia.
While such failings do remain a recurring
phenomena and can, indeed, be recognised in
Institutional and procedural arrangements—the
developed world
Compared with the developing world, the
implementation of the EIA process by the
developed countries is generally of a higher
standard. This is hardly surprising, given their
advanced state of economic development, their
political stability and the substantial period of time
in which they have had the opportunity to
embrace the original US federal initiative and to
experience its operation. However, there are
exceptions. For example, the Canadian federal
