ÍNDICE DE SIGLAS
2 Descripción de la Experiencia
organisations that are active in Pakistan and other developing countries. All of these apply EIA and have associated requirements and guidelines in place. The Canadian International Development Agency (2004) has summarised environmental assessment policies and procedures for
development assistance activities for numerous development banks and agencies, including those from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden Switzerland, UK, US and others. Subsequently, a few of these are summarised. In Australia (see http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20 summaries/ $file/Aus.pdf), development aid is driven by AusAID. In its activities, EIA is routinely applied according to the Environmental
Assessment Guidelines for Australia’s Aid Programme from 1996.
In Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has released environmental requirements and procedures (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi- cida.nsf/eng/REN-218123433-NN8). This follows closely the national Canadian EA requirements. In France, responsibility for official development co-operation is shared between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Co-operation (MC) and the French Development Fund (AFD), and Trade and Development. EIA requirements form an important part of their activities
(See: http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20 summaries/$file/Fra.pdf).
In Germany, responsibility for development co- operation is with the Ministry for Economic Co- operation and Development (BMZ). Furthermore, the Society for International Co-operation (GIZ) fulfils an important role. EIA is interpreted as follows (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/
IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20summaries/$file/ Ger.pdf): ‘The assessment focuses on the direct
and indirect effects on human health (including occupational health aspects) and the natural environment as well as social and cultural aspects, such as the consequences of
resettlement and influences on local populations or cultural monuments.’ (p.4). Generally speaking,
requirements follow traditional EIA stages closely. Dutch development assistance is the
responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20 summaries/$file/Net.pdf). Here, generally
speaking, EIA in development co-operation has to comply with the EC EIA Directive. In this context, the Dutch EIA Commission plays an important role. A Dutch policy document published in 1990 and subsequent new policy documents set poverty alleviation as the main
Box 6.1: Outline/contents of EIA report for the ADB funded projects
Source: ADB, 2003 Introduction
Description of the Project Description of the Environment Alternatives
Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Economic Assessment
Environmental Management Plan Public Involvement and Disclosure Conclusions
policy objective for development cooperation. Environmental assessment is considered an important contribution to sustainable development.
In the USA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which came into effect on January 1, 1970, has required all agencies of the United States Government to integrate environmental factors into their decision-making processes, including the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). Requirements are summarised by http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/
IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20summaries/$file/ US.pdf.
In Sweden, development co-operation is driven by one Agency, namely SIDA, (Swedish
International Development Co-operation Agency) which was formed in 1995. The use of EIA is advocated through three main assessment steps, including screening, initial and in-depth
assessment (http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20 summaries/$file/Swe.pdf ).
In Japan, development co-operation is implemented by the Japan International Co- operation Agency
(JICA). This Agency is responsible for technical assistance, and the Overseas Economic Co- operation Fund (OECF), which administers development loans. JICA uses a system of
‘environmental consideration’ in its activities, which includes screening and scoping, and which may lead to Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), a pre-EIA or a full EIA (http://www.acdi- cida.gc.ca/INET/
IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20summaries/$file/ Japan.pdf).
In the UK, the body responsible for development assistance is the Department for International Development (DFID). Environmental Assessment procedures closely follow those applied
nationally, i.e. a traditional EIA process is followed (http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/ea%20 summaries/$file/UK.pdf).
Generally speaking, there are only few differences between the requirements of different
organisations and World Bank as well as Asian Development practice can be seen as a proxy for procedures of other development organisations. EIA core elements tend to be very similar and follow a standard EIA approach as outlined in sections 6.2 and 6.3.
6.5
Practical element
Students to go to World Bank / Asian
Development Bank / international development organisations’ websites and summarise what they find on EIA i.e. how these institutions are
In this chapter, screening is described first. Next, checklists for screening and project categorisation for Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and EIA under Pakistani regulation are introduced. Thirdly, the rapid environmental assessment (REA) checklists of the ADB are presented. This is followed by an introduction to the purpose, objectives and guiding principles of scoping. Ways of undertaking scoping and in this context, the role of the public, as well as criteria of good practice are introduced next. Then, types of impacts are established before and finally baseline data needs are explored. The main sources this chapter draws on include the Asian Development Bank (2003i; iii), Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (2012), Fischer et al. (2008; chapter 13 by Fischer and Phylip-Jones: 136-142), European Commission (1999), and Government of Pakistan (GoP, 1997c).
7.1
What is screening and how is it done?
Screening is the first stage of the EIA process which results in a key EIA decision being made, namely to either conduct the assessment, based on the likely significant impacts, or not to conduct it in the anticipated absence of such impacts. Screening itself requires a procedural approach, as it is conducted for many potential development projects.
In order to carry out screening, some basic information about the development proposal along with the environment in which it is set is required. This means that some basic baseline data on e.g. flora and fauna, water, air and soil quality also needs to be available. The effort (in terms of time and other resources) for screening is likely to depend on the specific type of proposal, the specific legal requirements for screening and the understanding of potential environmental impacts. If it is based on a project type checklist, it can be done quickly. If, on the other hand, it is done on a case-by case basis, it may take some more time. In the latter case, at times, a screening report may look similar to a full EIA report. Box 7.1 shows the two main screening approaches as used in most EIA systems worldwide.
7 Screening/project categorisation
and scoping
Box 7.1: Main EIA screening approaches
l prescriptive or standardised approach in which development proposals that either require or are exempt from EIA are listed in legislation and regulations; and l discretionary or customised approach in which proposals are screened on an
individual or case-by-case base, using indicative guidance. Source: authors
Screening will result in some projects requiring further assessment and others being screened out which in many systems is the majority of proposals. While there are exceptions, in many countries only major proposals are considered to give rise to significant environmental impacts. These impacts may potentially affect e.g. human health, endangered species, protected areas, fragile ecosystems, biological diversity, the quality of air and water, or the livelihood of communities.
The outcome of a screening process can have different outcomes. What exactly is possible or permitted is prescribed in the specific
requirements of an EIA system. According to the UN (2006f), the following four outcomes are possible:
l no further level of EIA is required;
l a full and comprehensive EIA is required; l a more limited EIA is required (preliminary or
initial assessment); or
l further study is necessary to determine the level of EIA required e.g. an initial
environmental evaluation or examination (IEE). If an EIA is found to be necessary, screening provides the basis for scoping. This establishes the key impacts and alternatives to be considered in assessment, thus providing for the terms of reference for an EIA. While many EIA systems have formal screening and scoping procedures in place, some leave the specifics to either the proponent or the authority dealing with the EIA. At times, screening and scoping stages may also overlap in order to have greater certainty about whether potential impacts are significant enough to justify conducting a full EIA.
It is usually the proponent’s responsibility to prepare a screening report, often with support of the responsible authority. At times, it is also the authority itself that completes screening. What is of great importance is that screening should be done as early as possible in the development of the proposal in order for the proponent and other stakeholders to be aware of possible EIA
obligations. It is also important that screening is applied systematically and consistently, so that the same decision would be reached if others did the screening. There are some specific methods applied to screening, which reflect prescriptive and/or discretionary approaches. These are shown in Box 7.2
Both, prescriptive and discretionary approaches to screening fulfil important roles and are often used in combination. For example, for projects that are on the borderline of a prescriptive threshold it makes sense to also have some discretionary freedom for deciding whether an EIA was required. For example, a threshold for new highways’ EIA of ten kilometres in length would mean a new road of 9.95 kilometres would not require one, if there was no possibility to apply some discretion.
Many EIA systems use project lists to screen proposals. Most of these are inclusionary lists, describing project types and size thresholds (thresholds may vary between projects). Any proposed project that is of the type specified and falling within the defined thresholds would automatically require an EIA to be conducted. Exemption checklists are also known, which would include projects that are known not to give rise to significant environmental impacts.
Box 7.2: Specific methods used in screening l legal (or policy) definition of proposals to
which EIA does or does not apply; l inclusion list of projects (with or without
thresholds) for which an EIA is automatically required;
l exclusion list of activities which do not require EIA because they are insignificant or are exempt by law (e.g. national security or emergency activities); and
l establishing criteria for case-by-case screening of proposals to identify those requiring an EIA because of their potentially significant environmental effects.
Inclusion lists differ between countries and international organisations with regards to
content, comprehensiveness, threshold levels and other specific requirements for application. Internationally, reference is often made to two lists, namely (according to UN, 2006f):
l Annexes I and II of the European EIA Directive, which lists projects subject to mandatory EIA and non-mandatory EIA; and l Annex E of the World Bank Operational
Directive on EA, which is illustrative and provides a framework for screening. The World Bank (1993) reported that these lists are a reliable aid to the classification of proposals into one of three categories:
l “projects requiring a full EIA because of their
likely environmental effects;
l projects not requiring a full EIA but warranting a further level of assessment; and
l projects not requiring further environmental analysis”.
It is important that screening lists are not static, but that they need to be revised in the light of the experiences gained. Also, environments may be changing and new demands may arise which should lead to an adaptation of lists. Screening lists should always be designed having a certain system or jurisdiction in mind. Transferability to other systems requires adaptation.