3.9. DOSIFICACIÓN
3.9.1. MEZCLA DE PRUEBA Y REAJUSTE DE PARÁMETROS
This section covers criterion 22 of the analytical framework, which is the influence of funding agencies and funding conditions on the EIA process.
DRR as a part of funding conditions
The conditions attached to development funding are not a new phenomenon in developing countries. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and JICA include conducting environmental assessments as a condition attached to their development assistance. These three institutions together provided nearly 45 percent of all foreign aid received by Sri Lanka in 2012 (CBSL (The Central Bank of Sri Lanka), 2012). Table 5.11 shows the annual lending from 2008 to 2013.
Table 5.11 Foreign borrowing for Sri Lanka from 2008 to 2013 (Source: CBSL (The Central Bank of Sri Lanka), 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
Lender and project Amount disbursed (US$ millions)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Asian Development Bank 247 243.5 306.3 262.5 292 279
International Development Association
(World Bank) 95.3 148.1 144.5 195.7 166 171
Nordea Bank Denmark A/S 28.6 24.8 30.8 38.6
Government of Japan (JICA) 262.9 295.1 302.9 346.4 367 265
Government of France 20.8 19.4 50.2
Kingdom of Spain 20.1
Government of the People’s Republic of China 40.4 291.4 103.7
HSBC Bank PLC (UK) 32.4 98 77.4
HSBC Limited (Hong Kong) 26.3
European Investment Bank 28.7 21.2 33
Dunske Bank A/S 14.1
Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG 27.7
Government of India 30 201.2 26.1 189
AB Svensk Export Credit Corporation 22 28.5
Export-Import Bank of China 692.2 333.5 615 810
Government of Republic of Korea 36.7 26.6 43 36
Calyon Credit Agricole (CIB) 17.1 18.5
China Development Bank Corporation 152.8 75.4 229 129
Australian and New Zealand Investment Bank 35.7
Export Development Bank of Iran 17.1 49
Government of the Russian Federation 65
Rabobank of Netherlands 55
International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development 32
Total Lending 844.3 1193.5 1943.1 1551.2 1820.1 2031
The World Bank, ADB and JICA have operational procedures regarding environmental assessment. For instance, the World Bank carries out environmental screening of project proposals and classifies
131 funding proposals as category A, B, C and FI based on type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of potential environmental impacts (The World Bank, 1999). The above categories require different levels of assessment. A project is categorized as category A if it is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment and is requested to have a
comprehensive environmental assessment. A project where less adverse impacts on the
environment are predicted is in category B, which is required to have a narrower environmental assessment than a category A environmental assessment. A proposed project is classified as category C if it is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. No environmental assessment is therefore required for a category C project. Category FI is for investments that involve a financial intermediary and in such cases an appropriate environmental assessment is required. According to Operational Manual 4.01 on environmental assessment of the World Bank, it is the responsibility of the recipient country to carry out the environmental assessments. Like the World Bank’s operational procedures, both ADB and JICA have a screening process for their development lending; projects are categorised into A, B, C and FI (ADB, 2003; JICA, 2010). As indicated in Table 5.12, this categorization is based on very similar criteria to the World Bank ones and with similar requirements. None of the WB, ADB or JICA operational procedures on environmental assessment pays special attention to development-induced disaster risk. Nevertheless, the Safeguard Policy Statement 2009 of the ADB requires:
… project teams, through social and environmental screening and
classification, to gauge the extent of exposure of projects to natural hazards or their potential to exacerbate risk; to assess the risk of natural hazards for projects that are found to be highly exposed to natural hazards or have high potential to exacerbate risk; to conduct an alternative analysis of prevention and mitigation measures; and to include appropriate structural and non- structural mitigation measures in project design and implementation (ADB, 2009, p. 86).
Further, in the latest country partnership strategies issued for the 2012-2016 funding cycle for Sri Lanka, both ADB and the World Bank emphasise not only environmentally friendly development, but also the importance of integrating disaster and climate risk into development planning processes. The World Bank has identified mainstreaming of DRR into the development process as one of its 14 Analytic and Advisory Activities (AAA) proposed for the 2012-2016 Country Partnership Strategy period:
The World Bank will continue to engage in this area [environmentally friendly economy], seeking opportunities to support the mutually reinforcing aspects of economic growth and environmental sustainability as well as ensuring compliance to environment-related safeguards.
The ongoing AAA on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management looks to strengthen Sri Lanka’s early warning system and the capacity of
132 Government to assess risks, integrate disaster risk reduction into the
planning process and prepare post-disaster assessments (The World Bank, 2012, p. 62).
Table 5.12 A comparison of the categorization of projects of ADB, WB and JICA
Organization Category and criteria used
Category A Category B Category C Category FI
ADB Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required.
Projects with some adverse environmental impacts, but of lesser degree and/or significance than category A projects. An initial environmental examination (IEE) is required. Projects unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts. No EIA or IEE is required. A financial intermediary is involved. The financial intermediary must apply an environmental management system. The World Bank The project is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. The borrower is responsible for preparing an EIA. Potential adverse environmental impacts of the project are less adverse than those of Category A projects. The scope of environmental
assessment is narrower than that of a Category A EIA. The project is likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts. Beyond screening, no further EIA action is required for a Category C project.
A proposed project is classified under this category if it involves a financial intermediary. An appropriate EIA for each subproject is required.
JICA Proposed projects with significant adverse impacts. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required. Potential adverse impacts are less adverse than those of Category A projects. The scope of
environmental reviews is narrower than that of Category A projects.
Projects are likely to have minimal or little adverse impact. No EIA is required. JICA’s funding of projects is provided to a financial intermediary or executing Agency. Environmental reviews are conducted by the JICA.
Similarly, the ADB, in its Country Partnership Strategy, states that: “…all investments will be designed to be resilient to climate change and ADB will endeavour to tap other sources of funds for climate change” (ADB, 2011, p. 4). However, neither the World Bank nor ADB have clearly articulated how DRR is mainstreamed into the development planning process.
The influence of the funding conditions from the ADB, the World Bank and JICA to implement environmental planning is very evident in the Sri Lankan context. This means that some projects, which are not covered under the National Environmental Act (NEA), are at least required to undergo an EIA under conditions set by the funders. For example, expansion and widening of existing roads is not categorised as a prescribed project under the Gazette extra-ordinary No. 722/22 of 1993.
134 Summary
The findings show that criterion 22 is ‘mostly’ met in the Sri Lankan EIA process. It is clear that the Sri Lankan EIA process is influenced by the policies and demands of the development funders and some agencies are also increasingly looking for disaster risk and climate change impacts in development projects. However, the influence of such agencies is decreasing due to the changes in the foreign development aid flow to the country. Table 5.13 summarises the criterion findings for funding conditions in Sri Lanka.
Table 5.13 A summary of the criterion finding for funding conditions
Criteria Evaluation Justifications
(22) Funding agencies carry specific funding conditions to curtail the disaster risk of
the project. Mostly
Conditions set by the funders significantly influence how projects are done in Sri Lanka. The latest funding strategies also
emphasize disaster risk and climate change. However, the increased influence of Chinese funding has negative implications on implementing the full EIA process, therefore on addressing disaster risk.
5.6
Chapter Summary
This chapter reports the effectiveness of the Sri Lankan EIA process to address project-induced disaster risk. The findings show that most criteria are either met to a limited extent or not met in the Sri Lankan EIA process. Exceptions to the above can be seen only in criteria 2, 14, 17, and 22. The EIA process is backed with clear and specific legislation. Nevertheless, the legislation has several gaps that have limited its effectiveness. As reported earlier, even though a lack of transparency and poor commitment of the state agencies reduce its effectiveness, having a TEC in place is considered an important aspect of the EIA process. It is also difficult to verify whether developers address public comments because of the above-mentioned poor transparency of the TEC process. The influence of multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies on assessing the disaster risk of development projects is highly visible in the EIA process. These agencies are also increasingly looking for disaster risk and climate change impacts in development projects. However, the influence of such agencies is decreasing because of changes in foreign development aid flow to the country. Table 5.14 summarises the findings of the empirical study under the evaluation criteria identified in Table 3.1. The next chapter will present the data collected from an empirical study carried out in New Zealand on the
135
Table 5.14 A summary of the findings for the Sri Lankan EIA process against the criteria in Table 3.1 Effectiveness
Dimension
Criteria
cluster Criterion Evaluation Comments
Integration Purpose of EIA (1) Disaster risk reduction is an integral part of environmental assessment.
Limited Disaster risk is not explicitly mentioned in the EIA legislation.
Procedural Legal Basis
(2) The EIA system is based on clear and specific legal provisions.
Mostly Legal system is clear and comprehensive to a greater extent. However, a few gaps have been identified in this research. These include, insufficient provisions for public participation, lack of provisions for the public to appeal against a decision. (3) The impacts of all significant
actions are assessed.
Limited The prescribed project list provided in the NER 1993 has limitations. Some projects, for example expansion of existing roads, are not considered as prescribed projects in the law. Even though most of the prescribed projects can also be categorised as projects that increase disaster risk, assessment of disaster risk is not required under the EIA law. In addition, sub-activities of main
development activity (i.e., supply routes) are often not subjected to an EIA. (4) Alternative methods and
locations are considered.
Limited Consideration of alternatives is required under the NEA. Even though the NEA is not clear about requirement of both alternative methods and locations, in practice both alternative methods and locations are included in the EIA reports. However, a detailed assessment of alternatives has not been conducted or incorporated in the studied EIA reports.
(5) EIA reports contain a section on disaster risk.
Limited More obvious visible hazard risks, such as flood risk are included as part of anticipated environmental effects. However, the vulnerability of affected people is not included in the EIA reports.
(6) There is an opportunity for appeal or legally challenge the process or decision output.
Limited A developer can appeal against the decision to the secretary of the Ministry of Environment. However, the public cannot appeal against an approval decisions under the provisions of the NEA 1980. Currently, provisions of the Constitution are used to challenge decisions.
136
Effectiveness Dimension
Criteria
cluster Criteria Evaluation Comments
Procedural Guidance
(7) EIA reports are subjected to public review.
Limited Public review of EIA reports is legally required but measures are not sufficient to make maximum use of it. The conduct of public hearings is not consistent. The public is not often provided with information related to project impacts in simple language.
(8) ToR for EIAs carries specific requirements regarding hazard assessment and vulnerability assessment.
No A general ToR is used in most occasions. ToRs generally do not have a reference on disaster risk.
(9) Guidance is available to support compliance monitoring taking place and it is being implemented.
Limited The CEA is legally mandated with monitoring function. However, a monitoring is not taking place adequately. Poor motivation of the authorities is identified as the key issue.
Substantive
Level of Assessment
(10) Screening of actions for disaster risks is taking place.
Limited Screening of project proposals is based on the prescribed project list in NER 1993. Screening of proposals to decide whether an IEE/EIA is necessary is an opaque process and is done at the discretion of the PAA.
(11) Hazard and vulnerability assessments are conducted as a part of impact identification.
Limited Hazard assessments for more obvious visible hazards are done to some extent, but such assessments are not detailed enough to assess the frequency and magnitude of the hazard risks. Vulnerability assessments are not done.
Decision Making
(12) Findings of the EIA influence the final decision (van Doren et al., 2013).
Limited It is clear that most government-sponsored projects in Sri Lanka are not subjected to systematic environmental scrutiny. EIA is influential in some projects proposed by private entrepreneurs, but not a decisive factor in most projects proposed by the state agencies and political authorities.
(13) Planners use the EIA report as a reference document in project planning (van Doren et al., 2013).
Limited Design changes are made in some projects based on the findings of the EIA. This is mostly done because of public protests rather than the findings of the EIA report. There are some cases where the findings of the EIA report have been ignored in project design. For example; the STDP.
137
Effectiveness Dimension
Criteria
cluster Criteria Evaluation Comments
Contextual
Consultation and Public participation
(14) Consultation and participation are taking place before and following EIA report publication.
Limited Public participation is legally required only at public review of EIA reports. The public is not sufficiently consulted or participation is not adequately encouraged during scoping, impact identification and monitoring stages. Public consultation is done to educate the public on project benefits rather than listening to their concerns. However, public protests and campaigns, both self-initiated or supported by environmental NGOs, have a significant influence on project implementation.
(15) Feedback from consultations is incorporated into project planning.
Unclear According to the CEA, project proponents respond to public comments. However, interviews with community members suggest that most demands by the public have not been addressed in projects. This cannot be verified because the TEC reports are not accessible to third parties other than the CEA and the developer.
Policy context (16) Legal provisions given by other legislation to control development- induced disaster risks do influence the outcome of the EIA process.
Limited None of the other three Acts reviewed in this research has any provisions to control development-induced disaster risks. The National Strategy for Disaster Management does carry provisions to develop a Disaster Impact Assessment system but does not have any authority to influence the EIA process.
Transparency and
accountability
(17) EIA assessment processes and EIA reports are subjected to independent checks and verification.
Reasonably The EIA reports are assessed by a TEC, which is a multi-agency mechanism. Almost all planners and experts interviewed believed that this is an important aspect in the EIA process. But a lack of transparency and poor commitment of the state agencies and experts make the TEC ineffective in some cases. (18) Decision-making and approval
stages, (setting out what is required of proponents and government agencies and when) are made clear to all.
Limited Approval decisions are published in government Gazette and local newspapers. However, any conditions attached to the approval are not available to the public.
138
Effectiveness Dimension
Criteria
cluster Criteria Evaluation Comments
Contextual
Political Will (19) Political support is available for the EIA process.
Limited Political support for the EIA process is low. Some government-sponsored projects evade systematic environmental scrutiny. Still, there is some respect among politicians towards the EIA process since public protests could emerge on socially unacceptable projects.
Coordination
(20) Inter-agency coordination and cooperation is available across sectors and different levels (national/local) of government departments at all stages of the EIA process.
Limited There are 23 different PAAs under the NEA. Therefore, inter-agency coordination is required in the EIA process, especially at scoping and TECs. Coordination with provincial governments was not studied in this research. Lack of coordination among agencies, especially the DMC was visible in the interviews.
(21) Disaster management agency is involved (receive information and get coordination) in all stages of the EIA process.
No The DMC does not play an active role in the EIA process.
Funding conditions
(22) Funding agencies carry specific funding conditions to curtail the disaster risk of the project.
Mostly Conditions set by the funders significantly influence how projects are done in Sri Lanka. The latest funding strategies also emphasize disaster risk and climate change. However, the increased influence of Chinese funding has negative implications on implementing the full EIA process, therefore on addressing disaster risk.
139