Decision Making in the EIA Process

Decision making in the EIA process By Dr.Rim-Rukeh Akpofure Outline The concept of decision-making Importance of decision- making in the EIA process An Overview of the EIA Process Identify Stages/Steps in EIA Process where decisions (Interim and Final) are taken. Case Studies Bibliography OBJECTIVES To describe the role and contribution of EIA in the decision-making process. RELEVANCE The EIA process was introduced with the express intention of incorporating environmental considerations into decision-making on major proposals. All of those involved in EIA require an understanding of how the decision-making process operates and the particular contribution made by EIA. The Concept of Decision Making Decision making can be regarded as the mental or cognitive processes resulting in the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Every decision making process produces a final choice. The output can be an action or an opinion of choice. To make a decision the following must be considered: ‡ Objectives must first be established ‡ Objectives must be classified and placed in order of importance ‡ Alternative actions must be developed ‡ The alternative must be evaluated against all the objectives ‡ The alternative that is able to achieve all the objectives is the tentative decision ‡ The tentative decision is evaluated for more possible consequences ‡ The decisive actions are taken, and additional actions are taken to prevent any adverse consequences from becoming problems and starting both systems (problem analysis and decision making) all over again Importance of Decision - Making in the EIA process The EIA process was introduced with the express intention of incorporating environmental considerations into decision-making on major proposals. It is a policy management tool for both planners and decision-makers. EIA is an important tool in deciding about the final shape of a project. Not only does it help officials in making decisions about the project, it helps the project proponent achieve their aims more successfully EIA is an aid to decision-making. For the decision-maker to make any reasonable decision, alternative actions must be developed, and the alternative must be evaluated against all the objectives. The EIA process provides these alternatives upon which the decision maker utilizes. For example, the EIA process provides a framework for considering location and design issues and environmental issues upon which decisions are made. It can be an aid to the formulation of development actions, indicating areas where a project can be modified to minimize or eliminate altogether its adverse impacts on the environment. The consideration of environmental impacts early in the planning life of a development can lead to environmentally sensitive development; to improved relations between the developer, the planning authority and the local communities and to a smoother planning permission process. EIA can be the signal to the developer of potential conflict; wise developers may use the process to negotiate µgreen gain¶ solutions, which may eliminate or offset negative environmental impacts, reduce local opposition and avoid costly public inquiries. For example a local authority, it provides a systematic examination of the environmental implications of a proposed action (project), and sometimes alternatives, before a decision is taken. EIA is not a substitute for decision-making, but it help to clarify some of the trade ± offs An Overview of the EIA Process The basic steps in the EIA processes are as depicted in Figure 1.0: Simplified EIA Process .0: Project Proposal Screening EIA Required Scoping Initial EE No EIA Required Public Participation EBS Impact Analysis Mitigation & EMP Review Public Participation Decision Not Approved Approved Re-Submit IMM Fig 1. which should lead to more rational and structured decision-making.associated with a proposed development action. (b) The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Scoping begin with the identification of individuals. (a) The project is not likely to cause significant adverse environment effects. scoping is generally carried out in discussions between the developer. . Screening is carried out by the regulatory agencies usually after a site visit. from all of a project¶s possible impacts and from all the alternatives that could be addressed. It is often the first stage of negotiation and consultation between a developer and other interested parties. or such effects can be mitigated. Yet many projects may not have substantial or significant environment impact. At the end of the screening exercise. communities. the regulators and ideally the public. (c) The anticipated adverse environmental effects are considered to be significant and cannot be mitigated. This is initiated by the project proponent submitting the Terms of Reference (TOR) to the regulator. The project is therefore permitted and classified as category II and to undergo mandatory (full) ± scale EIA process. local authorities and statutory consultees likely be affected by the project.Project screening: Determines whether or not an EIA is necessary. The number of projects that could be subject to EIA is potentially very large. significant issues. one of the following three decisions is possible. The project is therefore permitted and the project classified as category 1 and to undergo only technical review. those that are the crucial. The development application is refused. the regulators carry¶s out a site (project location) verification exercise and a detail review of the TOR. Those with few or no impacts are screened out and allowed to proceed to the normal planning permission and administrative processes without any additional assessment. Upon receipt of the TOR. or there is public concern on the environmental effects of the project. Project scooping: This seeks to identify at an early stage. A screening mechanism seeks to focus on those projects with potentially significant adverse environmental impacts or whose impacts are not fully known. Population ± proximity and numbers. Community Development Association (CDAs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) are invited by the developer. Landscape and topography. A team should cover the main issues involved. historical sites among others.In Nigeria. educational facilities. 5. water. aquifers. Table 1. 9. the average is three or four. Establishing Environmental Baseline: Environmental baseline data study includes land. 4. this aspect of EIA process is called public forum. 8. communities (likely to be impacted). For some projects. 6. 7. geology and geomorphology. _______________________________________________________ Identification of Impacts: Impact identification brings together project characteristics and baseline environmental characteristics with the aim of ensuring that all potentially significant environmental impacts (adverse or favourable) are identified and taken into account in the EIA . process / mechanical engineer. Soil. etc. 3.0: Information describing the site and its environment 1. The size of the team may vary from two to twelve and even larger. the developer presents the technical details and environmental implication of project for public scrutiny. land-use pattern. air. a team of 17 relevant specialist types has been recommended and this should include among others. water courses and shoreline. Recreational uses. human beings.0). local authorities and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). ecologist. Flora and Fauna (including both habitats and species) in particular. quantity. chemists. Here. nutritional status. medical personnel. However. 2. Baseline studies should involve the biophysical and socio-economic environments (see Table 1. This aspect of the EIA process is executed by a team of multi-disciplinary experts that are usually external consultants to the developer. Socio-economic variables such as employment. agricultural quality. health institutions. noise. Architectural and historic heritage. composition and strength of any existing discharges. climatic factors. protected species and their habitats. archaeological sites and features and other material assets. including the type. air quality. Water. archaeologist and soil scientist. where regulators. Air. Table 2. and physical. whether the impacts are beneficial or adverse and the duration of the . to be easy and economical to use. Table 3. long-term and short-term.g local. the following salient issues should be considered: * * to ensure compliance with regulations. Prediction involves the identification of potentials change in indicators of such environment receptors. to incorporate qualitative as well as quantitative information. Prediction of Impacts The object of prediction is to identify the magnitude and other dimensions of identified change in the environment with a project or action in comparison with the situation without that project or action. regional. to provide a comprehensive coverage of a full range of impacts including social. national).0 shows that prediction should also identify direct and impact impacts.0 provides a view of the scope of the environment and the environmental receptors that may be affected by a project. A wide range of methods has been developed and the methods are divided into the following categories: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) checklists matrices quantitative methods networks overlay maps. indirect and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. to allow a comparison of alternative development proposals. to be unbiased and to give consistent results. to distinguish between significant and insignificant impacts. When choosing a method. reversible and irreversible impacts. economic. to be of use in summarizing and presenting impacts in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).process. to consider carrying within the constraint of an area¶s carrying capacity. * * * * * * * * to identify secondary. * to distinguish between positive and negative. the geographical extent of impacts (e. large and small. Magnitude does not always equate with significance. Another important distinction associated with prediction of impacts is that magnitude (ie. their permanency. 2. The importance for decision-making) of the impacts. a large increase in one pollutant may still result in an outcome within generally accepted standards. Size) and the significance (ie. .0).impacts. The reversibility or otherwise of impacts. and their cumulative and synergistic impacts should also be predicted. whereas a small increase in another may take it above the applicable standards (Fig. For example. mammals. Supply and demand Health. erosion. . Direct employment. social problems. Population structure and trends. quality of life. services employment. contamination). vegetation Physical and mental health and well being Characteristics and quality of landscape Conservation areas. labour. historic and archaeological sites. market characteristics.Table 2. education etc lifestyles.0: Environmental Receptors Physical Environment Air and atmosphere Water resources and bodies Soil and geology Flora and Fauna Human beings Landscape Cultural heritage Socio-economic Indicators air quality water Water quality and quantity Classification. Birds.g.0: Types of Impact * * * * * * * * * * Physical and socio-economic Direct and indirect Short-run and long-run Local and strategic Adverse and beneficial Reversible and irreversible Quantitative and qualitative Distribution by group and / or area actual and perceived relative to other development. community conflict Demography Housing Local services Socio-cultural Table 3. risks (e. in comparison for example. statistical method. Evaluation methods are many and varied. They range from simple or complex. the level of public concern and political repercussions. which raises the important issue of uncertainty. mass balance method. There are many possible methods to predict impacts. Six types of predicting models have been identified. field and laboratory experimental methods and analogue method. When choosing prediction methods. there is a need to assess their relative significance. mechanistic method. the likely degree of the affected environment¶s recovery.Magnitude Medium Significance Low Significance High Significance Medium Significance Importance/sensitivity Fig. physical. None provides a magic solution to the prediction problem. formal or . a change in the quality of drinking water. with changes in community stress associated with a project). image or architectural method. and the distinction between quantitative and qualitative impacts.g. Some indicators are more readily quantifiable than others (e. but some seek to be more holistic than others. Another dimension is the unit of measurement. Predictions should also include estimates of the probability that an impact will occur. Criteria for significance include the magnitude and likelihood of the impact and its spatial and temporal extent. Predictions should be present impacts in explicit units for the purpose of evaluation. national and international standards. All methods are partial in their coverage of impacts. an assessor should be concerned about their appropriateness for the task involved. in the context of the resources available. the value of the affected environment. Quantification can allow predicted impacts to be assessed against local.0: Significance expressed as a function of impact magnitude and the importance/sensitivity of the resources receptors. 2. A study carried out in the early 1980s identified 150 possible prediction methods used in just 140 EIA studies from the Netherlands and North America. They are. Evaluation: Once impacts have been predicted. several criteria for effective public participation and consultation has been identified: (i) Identification of the groups/ individuals interested in or affected by the proposed development. Provision of pertinent and timely information by the developer. Public consultation and participation: One of the aims of the EIA process is to provide information about a proposal likely environmental impact to the developer. quantitative or qualitative. The first consists of pressure groups. To ensure that public involvement achieves the aims set out. (iii) (iv) It must cater for different levels of technical sophistication and for special interests. monetary valuation technique. Mitigation measures proposed for a particular action should be such that it is practicable and realistic. Although it may follow logically from the prediction and assessment of the relative significance of impacts. Other methods of evaluation are. it is in fact inherent in all aspects of the process. so that a better decision may be made. building regulation). aggregated or disaggregated method. Mitigation is not limited to one point in the assessment. air quality standards. It must establish a dialogue between the public and decision-makers (both the project proponent and the authorizing body) and to ensure that decision-making assimilate the public¶s view into their decision. Consultation with the public and statutory consultees in the EIA process can help to ensure the quality. Mitigation: Mitigation is defined as measured envisaged in order to avoid. cost-benefit analysis technique. CBOs.informal. The second group consists of the people living near the proposed project who may be directly affected by it. public and decisionmakers. An example of the formal evaluation method is the comparison of likely impacts against legal requirements and standards (e. This can be classified into two groups. and it possible remedy significant adverse effects. and CDAs. NGOs. comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the EIA as well as to ensure that the various groups¶ views are adequately taken into consideration in the decision-making process. . scoring and weighting and multicriteria methods. (ii) Information flow must be two-ways. reduce.g. Although EIA process may vary from country to country. it is an integral part of any EIA process worldwide. assess the validity and accuracy of information contained in the report. * * * * * * ensure that all relevant information has been analyzed and presented. However the FMEMV do not have the full range of technical expertise needed to assess the adequacy and comprehensiveness of an EIA report. the information contained in the EIA report and any comment made by the external reviewers and representations from members of the public as well as other material considerations. Many EIA reports in Nigeria for example do not meet even the minimum regulatory requirements. Community members. By any standards. The activity seeks to provide information on the characteristics and functioning of variables in time . the Federal Ministry of Environment review EIA reports and act as a quality assurance process. When making a decision. and advise on whether a project should be allowed to proceed. social and economic variables associated with development impacts (e. Review of the EIA Reports: The comprehensiveness and accuracy of EIA reports are matters of concern. decisions to authorize projects are made by the Honourable Minister of FMEMV. Decisions on project In Nigeria.g. air quality. noise. In Nigeria.. making decisions on development projects is a complex undertaking. Effective review criteria include amongst others. assess the significance of the project¶s environmental effects. but also determining whether the proposed project is in accordance with the country¶s development plan. general public as well as local authorities must have access to the decision process. the authority is required to have regard to all the environmental information ie. employment). traffic flows. Weighing up the information to reach a decision involves not only considering the views of different interest groups and the importance of the environmental issues.(v) (vi) An appropriate tool method of public participation and consultation should be used. consider whether additional information is needed. evaluate the need for mitigation and monitoring of environmental impacts. much less provide adequate information on which to base decisions. To this end. Monitoring after the decision Monitoring involves the measuring and recording of physical. consultants (usually experienced academicians) are brought into review the EIA report. The process is essentially political in nature that is based on information from a number of different sources and involves making a large number of trade-offs. stop-work orders. their environmental. A balance must be struck between the benefits and costs. The components of a monitoring programme would normally include the following: * * * * * a summary of the significant impacts identified in the EIA report. for example as an early warning system to identify harmful trends in a locality before it is too late to take remedial actions. these can include for example. It can help to identify and correct unanticipated impacts. and in particular on the occurrence and magnitude of impacts. Monitoring can also provide an accepted data base. which can be useful in mediation between interested parties. the agency responsible for the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The aim of monitoring is to help ensure that mitigation measures are implemented in a timely manner in accordance with the terms of the project approval. If monitoring reveals that mitigation measures are ignored or are not completed. Decision ± making involves weighing the benefits and costs and making trade-offs among a range of considerations. Decision making is the process of choosing between alternatives courses of action. and uncertainties and arguments over the significance of risks and impacts must be addressed. The process culminates in a final decision on whether or not a proposal is acceptable and under what conditions. and can be one of the most effective guarantees of commitment to undertakings and to mitigation measures. sanctions could be imposed. the mitigation measures recommended for each significant measures. economic and social elements must be weighed. Monitoring refers to the observation and oversight of mitigation activities at a project site. Monitoring can improve project management. When the term ³decision ± making´ is used in EIA. the reporting requirements. fines and restitution.and space. it is a process of information gathering which is intended to facilitate environmentally sound decision-making. It can be used. it is usually taken to mean final approval of a proposal. In the context of EIA. Decision-Making in the EIA Process EIA is part of a larger process of decision-making to approve a major proposal. the timing and / or frequency of the monitoring. Monitoring is also essential for successful environmental impact auditing. . 2. or such effects can be mitigated.g benefits-cost analysis involvement Information from Screening Fig. Baseline Data Gathering Public involvement Information from different sources EIA Report FINAL DECISION MAKING Other Inputs e. (iii) The anticipated .0: Decision ± making in the EIA process. Information from Scoping Env. Interim Decision: A series of decisions are made throughout the EIA process. a series of ³interim decisions´ about the proposal are made throughout the EIA process (see Figure 3.0).However. The project is therefore permitted and the project classified as category 1 and to undergo only technical review. one of the following three decisions is possible. Examples of such stages where interim decisions are made include: (a) Categorisation of Project: At the end of the screening exercise. (ii)The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. (i)The project is not likely to cause significant adverse environment effects. The project is therefore permitted and classified as category II and to undergo mandatory (full) ± scale EIA process. or there is public concern on the environmental effects of the project. women leaders. The approach is to invite the members of community development committee (CDC). (c) Public Forum: if the proposed project is categorized as one. As this stage. This is carried out through the use of experimental methods and questionnaires. Comments. (e) Public Display of the draft EIA report: Another stage of inputs/decisions into the EIA process is at the public display of the draft EIA report. The objective of the public forum is to inform the community people about the planned development and its likely ecological. environmental and cost-benefits information. Guiding such decisions are technical. inputs and complaints are also expected to be forwarded to the FMENV within the stipulated period of . youth leaders. socioeconomic and cultural impacts. and members of the traditional council of the identified communities that are likely to be affected by the proposed project to a town hall (usually located at the local government headquarters).adverse environmental effects are considered to be significant and cannot be mitigated. decisions/ inputs from the public are carried on board. Information in different media (newspapers and radio announcement) is made to notify the public of the display centers. At this stage. which causes significant environmental impact. The FMENV displays the draft EIA report submitted to it by the proponent at appropriate locations where the interested public will have access to it for at least 21 working days. (mandatory project) the project proponent (assisted by a consulting firm) organizes a public forum as part of the scooping process. (d) Gathering of Ecological and Socio-economic Baseline Data: Another stage in the EIA process where interim decisions are taken and documented is during the gathering of ecological and socio-economic baseline conditions data of the project area. The development application is refused. local people take part in the study by providing information through questionnaires administered to them by the consulting firm. (b) Project Options: Here decisions are taken based on possible options available. How these components are reconciled and documented in the EIA report can have an important bearing on the potential contribution it makes to decision-making. to review the draft EIA report at a public sitting. (f) Panel Review Meeting: Here members of the panel set up by Honourable Minister of Environment to review the EIA report submit their contributions to improve the report. At the expiration of the display period. Members of the public are expected to make useful contributions to making the document acceptable. The effectiveness of their implementation and the implication for decision making. It is a synthesis of facts and values. At a minimum. The Final decision maker in the EIA process in Nigeria is the Honourable Minister in charge of the Federal Ministry of Environment. may carry particular weight. Limitations that may need to be placed on information and advice contained in the EIA report. public trust in the EIA process. y y How EIA process and public measure up to internationally acceptable standards. In this regard. decision maker is expected to understand: y y y y The basic concepts and purpose of EIA. Typically.display. When making decisions. The usefulness of the EIA report for decision-making also depends upon the use of good practice at previous stages in the EIA process. those responsible seldom have time to read the EIA report. whose views are likely to be shaped by their policy mandates and responsibilities. The general receptivity of decision-makers to the findings of an EIA report will reflect their confidence in the EIA process and its perceived acceptance by other parties. they rely upon the advice of their officials. Issues associated with public consultation decision making including third party and legal challenges to the authorisation of proposals to EIA. Final Decision: The information provided by EIA is based on technical analysis and public involvement. EIA requirements. the FMENV constitutes a panel of experts. other than an executive summary. The factors that will be important in the final approval of a proposal include: . which is built up over time. principles and guidelines that is applicable. 0 below. A summary of Information considered important for decision-makers is given in the Table 3. significant environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures The extent to which the proposal conforms to the principles of sustainable development Design and operational changes to improve the environmental acceptability of the project Alternatives Public involvement Impact analysis Mitigation and monitoring Conclusion and recommendations Checks and Balances in Decision.Making: A number of checks and balances are built into EIA processes to help ensure accountability and transparency. . The relationship to environmental policies and plans Alternatives to the proposal (including the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) or equivalent designation) Key public views . Such checks and balances include: y y No decision will be taken until the EIA report has been reviewed and considered. etc). The findings of the EIA report and review are major determinant of approval and condition settings. y Public comment on the EIA report is taken into account in decision making. It lists the key aspects of EIA reports which decision-makers need to take into account when making final approvals and setting conditions for project implementation.0: Information Considered Important for Decision Makers Decision ± Making Stage Background Policy Context Important Information Project background and the most important environmental issues involved Basic development issue or problem being addressed (e.g. and other external pressures or political inputs to decision-making. Concerns of affected communities . This listing is generic and should be reviewed to establish the aspects that are important locally.y y y findings of significant impact contained in the EIA report. inputs from interim stages. water shortage. Areas of agreement and disagreement Costs and benefits Distribution of gains and losses Adequacy of proposal measures main economic benefits. Table 3. flooding. There is a public right of appeal against the decision (where procedures have not been followed or they have applied unfairly). The sustainable objective of EIA places a lot of task on the decision maker and hence it is important that the decision maker should be encouraged to: y Implement the sustainability commitments made at various International Environmental Fora. . economic and social factors. y y y Broaden their perspective of the environment and its values. Range of Possible Outcomes Arising from Decision Making: There can be a number of different outcomes from decision ± making: y y y y y The proposal can be approved. Improving the Possible Action of Decision Maker. Use strategic tools to aid decision ± making including SEA for proposed policies and plans and environmental accounting to gain a realistic measure of macro-economic progress. The proposal can be placed on hold pending further investigations. Better communicate information and reasons for decisions. The proposal can be returned for revision and re-submission. The proposal can be approved with conditions. y y y The decision is made by the FMENV other than the proponent. Reasons for the decision and conditions attached to it are published. Apply the precautionary principle when addressing the environmental impacts of development proposals. y Look for improved ways of making trade-offs among environmental. y y Adopt more open and participatory approaches. The proposal can be rejected outright.y Approvals can be refused or withheld. conditions imposed or modifications demanded at the final decision stage. ecological and socio-economic baseline data gathering and panel review meeting. the following decision was taken by the regulatory Ministry: The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and or there is public concern on the environmental effects of the project. public participation. let us consider the criterion of public participation. non-governmental organizations (NGOs). We then analyse the decision. conflict resolution. protection of natural resources and improved planning in the EIA process. First. the project proponent began the EIA process for the exploratory drilling of EkedeiDeep A by the submission of the Terms of Reference (TOR) to the regulatory agency (FMENV).Local Case Studies Case study 1: Exploratory Drilling of an Oil Well (Ekedei Deep A) In 2001. Secondly. The project proponent did what was required of them by legislation: organization of public forum for public participation. The project proponent organized a public forum with the objective of informing the community people (those that will be directly affected by the project activities).making of the project taken within the framework of regulatory activities.7km canal from the Sangana River to the drilling slot and the movement of a swamp drilling rig to the drilling slot and other associated drilling activities. the proponent commissioned a seismic company to carry out seismic exploratory of Amatolo/Ekedei area located in Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. regulatory agencies. community based organizations (CBOs) and community development associations . The result confirmed the presence of large quantity of hydrocarbon in the deeper structure of Ekedei area. the proponent planned to drill an exploratory well (Ekedei-Deep A) in the area. at the end of the screening exercise. Major project activities include amongst others. In 2003. Consequently. the dredging of a 1. The project is therefore permitted and classified as category II and to undergo mandatory (full) ± scale EIA process. Case study 2: Construction of an 8-inch 38km crude oil pipeline project. It is estimated that the Samabri-Beseni basin holds up to a large quality of crude oil (actual amount of crude oil not disclosed) concentrated in the Samabri-Beseni Field. The alternative involves the reconstruction of an existing but abandoned road that leads directly to drilling slot was generally accepted. erosion. technology and project design. flooding and alteration of the aquatic ecosystem. The proponent were informed of the possibility of accessing the drilling slot through an existing and abandoned road without the proposed construction of the 1. At the end of the public forum. The proponent agreed that engaging their stakeholders in a mutual. However. . A compelling characteristic of the project ³exploratory drilling of Ekedei Deep A´ is the general acceptability the project received from the community people. community leaders expressed their happiness and promised the project owner of a cordial working environment. loss of vegetation. salt water intrusion. Project acceptability results in a better planning process and a better decision. cooperative problem solving process promoted project acceptability. the schedule. the proponent had drilled a number of clusters of production wells and had proposed to construct an 8-inch 38km crude oil pipeline to transport crude petroleum to the nearest crude oil gathering facility. proponents may not have accomplished its mission on schedule. This is an example of interim decision. The field is located in Samabri/Beseni communities in Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. Eventually a final decision was given to project an approval without any conditions.7km canal by dredging from Sagana River to the drilling slot. Without public acceptance. the people felt that they were left in the dark about major programme decisions such as. In the development of the oil field.(CDAs) about the planned development. Considering the environmental problems such as. disruption of fishing activity increased turbidity. As a first step in the EIA process. A database was created with the names and addresses of . At the end of the EIA process.1m deep trench and later back filled. health. the proponent maintained continual community involvement especially at all levels of project implementation. members of various community organizations) were in attendance. Project activities also involve the clearing of vegetation along the acquired right of way (ROW) which is 30-50m wide. the project proponent. an approval was given for the commencement of the project with a major modification (a change of the pipeline ROW). The proposed pipeline ROW is planned to traverse a thick forest reserve and a seasonal lake (Abuo Lake). First.9-1. regulatory agencies. A fibre optic communication and sensing cable has also been buried in the pipeline trench for enhancement of leak detection capabilities.In 2004. The proponent organized a well-coordinated public forum where all stakeholders (community people. safety and environment (HSE) issues and employment opportunities were openly discussed and generally acceptable decisions were taken. the regulatory agency carried out a site verification exercise of the project area. What went right? A well-conducted EIA resulted to the project¶s success. project schedule. Thereafter. the project was categorised as a project that will undergo full and mandatory EIA process (Category A). and regulatory agencies strove for democratic public involvement. to avoid the thick forest reserve and a reduction in the number of river crossing. substantitive and continuous public involvement during all phases of the EIA process and project implementation. Critical issues such as project design. The proposed pipeline is planned to be a completely and continuously welded forming a continuous of carbon steel (diameter 8 inch) with a polythene coating for corrosion protection. In addition. the proponent submitted a Terms of Reference (TOR) to the regulatory agency (FMENV) seeking for approval to commence the EIA process. The project¶s success has been attributed to early. The pipeline was planned to be lowered into a 0. Suggestions and selection of mitigation measures was not made in isolation of the community concerns. The proponent made spirited effort to maintain open and honest community people input was key to the evaluation of alternatives. Community people remarked that the proponent was ³actually listening to our suggestions.key community informants so that the proponent could communicate with each of the identified key informants in the area. and lawsuits. panel review meeting and ecological and socio-economic baseline data gathering helped the planning process. address and resolve conflicts rather than ignore them. Public opinions were elicited early enough to be part of project planning. The review process acknowledged an EIA report that was clearly and appropriately documented. the proponent took a proactive approach to conflict resolution. alternatives analysis and evaluation. As a notable testament to conflict resolution. The final decision was an approval without conditions. Fourth. the proponent and the stakeholders took proactive decisions that protected natural resources such as the thick forest area and Abuo Lake. Through extensive public involvement activities the proponent sought to identify. In turn. Weekly meetings were held to bring stakeholders concerns to the attention of the proponent and to disseminate information from the proponent to the community people. . families that own Abuo Lake were identified and all contentions issues resolved amicably. the people were supportive of the proponent¶s mitigation measures. family conflict. The proponent established a public affairs committee in the community. An Impact Mitigation Monitoring (IMM) was carried out to ensure that the suggested mitigation measures were implemented ruing project execution. the EIA process especially public forum. For example. Third. there were no communal clashes.´ Second. the decision on the actual number of samples to be collect from the various environmental media is taken by the proponent which in most cases does not reflect on the size of the likely impacted area. To take decision making in the EIA process in Nigeria to the next level requires a detailed examination of the present practices and procedures gap analysis and suggestions offered. and hence some weight is given to environmental factors during project decision-making. of the process and this can be achieved in part through having an open. decisions taken by the regulatory agency is based on the information submitted by the project proponent as per the terms of reference (TOR).TAKING DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN EIA TO THE NEXT LEVEL One important principle for effective decision making in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is the principle of transparency. It is not participative. opportunities and decisions in the procedure are clearly set out. and makes the EIA decision-makers accountable. During project scoping especially at the formal presentation of the proposal before community (open forum). EIA is considered to be effective when environmental impacts are accounted for by project decision-makers in the course of planning. What transpire in most cases is monologue and not dialogue. rest squarely on the fact that all participants have faith in the outcomes. A transparent process provides certainty in the EIA process through ensuring all obligations. 2. Again. presentation is too technical for the community people to understand and hence find it difficult to draw a nexus between project activities and the likely environmental impact. Transparency requires that all factors relevant to assessment of decisions are clearly identified by the decision-maker. 1. transparent system with clearly defined objectives and processes and realistic opportunities for participation by all stakeholders. The integrity of an EIA system. 3. . It also partially provides accountability to participants and stakeholders. At the stage of gathering environmental baseline data. the application of socio-economic questionnaire to gather socio-economic data does not reflect the actual (real) situation and hence interim decision taken at this stage may not be correct. During project screening. The interim decision taken in such cases are not correct. It has been observed over the years that proponents are always economical with information regarding the project scope and details and hence regulatory agency categorise most project to undergo only technical review. The way in which decisions are reached in EIA and the manner of their communication are two factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a particular process. country such Nigeria that has diverse biological characteristics protect and develop its environmental values. and the level of assessment is subsequently determined by the regulatory agency. It has been noted that decision-making requires striking a balance between economic. Stating the environmental objectives that apply to a particular proposal during the scoping stage is a serious attempt to make the goals of EIA clear and provides a structure for what follows. Once these aspects are improved they will be more applicable to sustainable development of project execution. Even though Nigeria has been implementing the EIA Act No. Project proponent should be candid. Ultimately it leads to a more transparent way of reaching the conclusion that a particular proposal is environmentally acceptable. a standardised filtering table with check boxes should be developed to identify µtopics¶ that apply to the proposal. Public forum should be organised to make more participatory. truthful. During scoping. Conclusion and Recommendations It is mandatory that. 86 of 1992 for the past fifteen years there are still some aspects that need improvement and development and one of such aspect is the decision ± making process. 4.4. A well-coordinated EIA for developmental projects are a sure path to sustainable development. in practice. . only a generalised understanding of how decisions are actually reached in such cases is evident to the public There is room for improvement in EIA process. and more open about detail project activities. At the final decision stage. Thus it is a political process involving trade-offs rather than a purely scientific undertaking. 86 of 1992 and the development of the EIA procedural guidelines is an important tool for the protection of the precious environment. 1. This is a generic check sheet which links environmental factors with environmental objectives established by the regulatory agency. another checklist should be developed to establish the key environmental factors to be addressed by the proponent for each of the screening topics. environmental. 2. 3. trade-off process takes place largely behind µclosed doors¶. social and other criteria. The enactment of the EIA Act No. At the screening stage. and it can be achieved through having open communication processes or transparency in how decisions are reached. on the grounds that it is able to meet the regulatory objectives for individual environmental factors. G. Kakongo. 24: 131-134. CEC: Centre for Environment Commission (1985). (2004). B.J. Therivel. (1984). (1994). R. and Bernett. K. Elson. and Chadwick. London: UCL Press Limited. E. J. Munn. van der Wee. New York: Wiley. DOE (1989): Department of Environment) (Environmental assessment: a guide to the procedures.. R. Environmental Health Impact Assessment: Evaluation of a ten-step Model. R. Environ. Towards sustainability. O (1998) EIA and Good Governance: iIsues and Lessons from Africa. V. S. Fehr. What is Health Impact Assessment and what can it learn from EIA? Environ Impact Assess Rev. R. Urban. Elsevier Publisher 22:163-179. Environ. S. Environment Impact Assessment in Bangladesh: A Critical Review. Momtaz.Bibliography Appiah-Opoku. Brussels: CEC publications Inc. (1991). Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Impacts Assessment Unit. S. Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Procedures. Berkeley: University of California Press. (1993). J. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. (2002). J. L. M. Barber. Portney. J. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. (1979).s New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. M. E. Impact Asses Rev 21: 59-71. Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Hinkley Point C Power Station. . Impact Assess Rev 18: 289-305. Kemm.A Chechile and S. B. In R. Glasson. K. On the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Environmental Impact Analysi. Jain.. Official Journal L.. Epidemiology 19: 341-357. Glasson. (2001) Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: The Case of Ghana. and Stacey. London: HMSO.. Charlisle (Eds) Enviornmental Decision Making: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. A. Public Environmental Policy Decision-making: Citizen Roles. (1999). 175: 5 CEC: Centre for Environmental Commission (1992). (1999). Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Towards Operational Strategies.Rim-Rukeh. C. (1992). Moto. D. A: Army Environmental Policy Institute. WCED (1987): (World Commission and Environment and Development Our common Future.. . New York: Basic Books. C. Shepherd. L. Journal of Nigerian Environmental Society (JNES) 3 (1 & 2): 23-30. (1996). J. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 63-93. (2006). and Kelly.. I. Pubic Participation and Consultation in Nigeria EIA Process: A Procedure ± Practice Gap Analysis. E. L.) Post-Project Impact Assessment and Monitoring in: Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century. Susskind. and Singer. Yemadji. M. Tanner. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40 (6): 725-738. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (1): 5-16. (1997. (2005). Atlanta G. N. Shepherd. of the Rio Declaration on Environment and development. A. and Bowler. and Scrimshank. K. V. Property Rights and Takings. Assessing Health Impacts of the Chad ± Cameron Petroleum development and pipeline project: challenges and a way forward. Utzinger. J. D. Strong. A. A.. O. D. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. (1987). Wyss. Mandelker. R. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Singh. H.. Canada: IISD. Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA. A. D. B. and Titi. and Imide. UNCED (1992): United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Principle 17. (1997). M.