ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Environmental Impact Assessment (or EIA), is a formal process used to predict the environmental
consequences of a proposal or decision to introduce legislation, to implement policies and plans, or to
undertake development projects.

EIA was first introduced in the United States in 1969 as a requirement of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Since then, an increasing number of countries have adopted EIA, introducing
legislation and establishing agencies with responsibility for its implementation.

EIA has mostly been applied to individual projects and has led to various offshoot techniques such as
health impact assessment and social impact assessment. Recent developments include cumulative
effects assessment and strategic environmental assessment—the latter concerned with environmental
assessment at the level of policies, programmes, and plans.

Specific intentions for undertaking EIA

 To identify key impacts and measures to mitigate them

 To ensure efficient resource use

 To avoid serious and irreversible damage to the environment

 To protect human health and safety

 Make environmental protection commitments among developers

 Assist in plant and process design

 Assist setting lease conditions and discharge standards

 Provide a basis for continuing environmental management.

However, different governments have given particular emphasis to one or other of these functions at
different times. Worse still, in most developing countries, EIAs are sometimes just superficial and have a
lot of deficiencies.

EIA Steps:
 EIA usually involves a sequence of steps:

(1) Screening- to decide if a project requires assessment and to what level of detail;

(2) Scoping- to ensure the EIA focuses on key issues and to determine where more detailed
information is needed;

(3) The main EIA study (Impact Analysis)- detailed investigations to predict and/or assess impacts
of a proposed project and evaluate their significance. This identifies types of impacts, their
magnitude (extent), timing, (duration), uncertainty, reversibility, significance, etc;

(4) Mitigation- establish measures to prevent, reduce or compensate for the impacts;

(5) Reporting (Environmental Impact Statement-EIS)- Preparing information necessary for decision
making

(6) Review- checks the quality of the EIS.

(7) Decision making- a decision has to be made based on the assessment in terms of whether the
project is approved and can go ahead or rejected.

(8) Follow up- monitor impacts of project implementation.

EIA guiding principles

a) Process should be purposive - deliberate aims and objectives

b) Focused - concentrate on effects that matter

c) Adaptive - responding to issues and realities

d) Participative – full involvement of all stakeholders and the public

e) Transparent – clear and easily understood

f) Rigorous – employ the best practicable methodology

g) Practical – establish mitigation measures that work

h) Credible – carried out by competent personnel with objectivity and professionalism.

Benefits of EIA

 Environmental sound and sustainable design

 Better compliance with acceptable standards

  Saving capital and operating costs

 Increased project acceptance

 Better protection of the environment and human health.

Shortcomings of EIAs

Although it is understood that EIAs are necessary to preserve the environment, there are considerable
concerns about the process. EIAs are not simple and straightforward exercises. There are problems or
limitations associated with the process.

Among shortcomings of EIAs include:

 Interventions by interested parties and corruption among various players including government

 inadequate testing of impact predictions

 Limited formal public involvement in EIA processes: Involvement is usually done only when
submitting to first draft reports. Members have no provisions to object if their submissions have
not been adequately addressed in final reports.

 Process is also very costly. If the project requires an EIA, the investor must prepare, at his/her
own cost, an EIA in line with the regulations. The overall process begins with the definition of a
public consultation exercise and with the preparation of the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the
study. During the process of preparing to conduct an EIA, the investor is required to “take all
measures necessary” to seek public views, through publication in the media and meetings with
affected communities.

Lack of trained manpower

EIA often requires specialized professionals who may not be readily available or expensive to hire. A
different mix of experts is required for different types of projects.

Time constraint

Investors or their consultants are often required to come up with information within a short space of
time. While the EIA process in Zambia can take up to 6 months because of manpower and resource
shortages in ZEMA and the sectoral ministries, the actual time allocated to the EIA study often ranges
from a few weeks to a month to keep the consultants’ fees as low as possible. Ecological
processes/functions that have evolved over a period of time are too complex to be understood in a
matter of weeks or months. Time constraint may significantly distort the outcome of the study and
affects the effectiveness of mitigatory measures suggested.

Lack of adequate baseline data

EIA is also affected by lack of an adequate database pertaining to the existing state of the environment
from which to calculate impact. Knowledge of the existing state of the environment, both human and
physical is cardinal if accurate predictions are to be made.

Role of the public and local community

The role of the local community in the EIA process is to provide information about the local
environment, as well as community goals and aspirations in relation to the proposed development.
However, the extent to which public views are taken into account is a different matter.

Weighting of EIA findings

Interpretation of the findings of an EIA is not a politically neutral issue. An EIA may reveal the mal-
distribution of environmental impacts amongst the population who reside in an area where the project
is to be constructed. On one hand, politicians and other powerful interest groups may see such a
revelation as a potential constraint to the construction of the intended project. These would like as
much as possible to keep such findings dormant. On the other hand, environmental action groups,
interested parties and affected communities may use such a revelation to campaign for “non-action”
alternative or pressure for certain mitigatory but expensive measures.

EIA in practice: the case of the Universal Mining and Chemical Industries Ltd, Kafue

An open letter to Universal Mining Chemical Industries Ltd

Dear Sirs,
We are writing to you on a most important matter. In fact a matter of Life and Death. We are
writing to you as like us, you are people of the book and respect the almighty and Mosaic Laws.

We are writing to you as with our own government we have failed. We have tried all arms of
government- legislators, judiciary and civil service and have failed to get any response. In fact
they are standing aside with folded arms and watching us prepare to die.

We want to explain to you the consequences of your plan for building a steel factory in the
middle of Kafue Estates housing area.

1) Degradation of roads from heavy trucks hauling loads of land fill, metal scrap and ore.
This is already happening.

2) Pollution of main water supply to the estate housing area. Toxic chemicals will be
generated by your plant and will enter the water supply by the notoriously fragile pipe
system. Already water supply has been disrupted twice by activity at site.

3) Pollution of the air. This is our major concern as air borne dust and toxins will be carried
straight down wind to all Estates residents. Within five years major health effects will be
seen. Sickness and death will be caused. Estates properties will be worthless. We are not
exaggerating when we say Estates will be a ghost town.

We understand you have made a major investment at this site. You have been offered
alternatives, which will ensure the safety of Zambian people. We understand you have immense
resources and have benefited many people with your generosity.

However can your generosity extend to the thousands of small people who will become sick and
see their children die?

As men of God will you be able to bear this responsibility?

Have you seen that your factory will be belching its foulness onto schools, churches and indeed
a District Hospital all between 100m and half a kilometer away? Are you ready to answer to the
almighty and indeed the many residents who fear your coming?

Concerned Residents of Kafue Estates

Source: THE POST, Monday April 3, 2006

  The ECZ (now ZEMA) in 2005 rejected the proposal by Universal Mining and Chemicals Industries
to construct their factory at the proposed site.

 The company went ahead to develop the factory.

 Local residents and their representatives have protested and made representation with
Government but to no avail

The question is, who calls the shots

CONFLICT AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

Refs. 1. Muhammed N.A.L. (1994) “The Development Trap: Militarization, Environmental

Degradation and Poverty and prospects of Military Conversion” Occasional paper No. 5, OSSREA, Addis
Ababa,

2. Lester Brown et al (1989) State of the World

3. Harris L. (1984) “Great Britain – The Arms Race: A Burden on the economy” in World
Marxist Review vol. 27, No. 9, Sept. 1984

Introduction

 There now seems to be a consensus among social scientists and other development analysts that
global environmental change is also linked to the Arms Race and military expenditures.

 This world has been characterized by conflict at various levels. We have heard and read about the
two world wars – WWI and WWII; there have been numerous regional conflicts such as the Middle
East and Persian Gulf conflicts, the Great Lakes Congo conflict. There have been many local or
national conflict within nations e.g. Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Yugoslavia etc.

 Throughout human history, governments have sought to develop and acquire numerous and more
effective arms. Governments have justified high militarization on account of guarding against
external enemies or protecting “National sovereignty.” Many countries in the world are building up
arsenals to fight “imaginary enemies”

 The world’s big powers – the so-called “super powers” (the West and the former Soviet Union)
during the cold war era have had a distrust for each other and as such fuelled destabilizing arms
races. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the distrust is now most visible between the West and
some Middle-East countries.

 Each super-power wants to have a “perfect” weapon to assure absolute security. The competition
in building up military potential has helped step up the arms race.

 Apart from the quest to safeguard “national sovereignty” there are other interests that have kept
the arms race growing. For instance, keeping a nation in a state of constant war preparation gives
politicians, bureaucrats, and generals command over an enormous share of a society’s resources.
E.g. compare share of the military budget with the social sectors.
 Modern military technology has dramatically increased the destructive power of weapons, the range
and speed of delivery vehicles, and the sophistication of targeting techniques. We have moved from
an era where warfare depended on “bows and arrows,” the “assegai,” “muzzle-loader” etc., to an
age of highly sophisticated military weapons and techniques. Today we have intercontinental
bombers, cruise missiles, scud missiles, bunker busters, ballistic missiles, multiple warhead delivery
systems etc. Modern weaponry ranges from nuclear, chemical, biological etc. These are all weapons
of mass destruction that are capable of incinerating the whole earth.

Social, Economic and Environmental Impact of Militarisation

 The arms race has developed at the cost of social, economic and environmental well-being.

o The money spent on arms production, purchases, and other general military
expenditure is so enormous. It is now estimated that almost $1000 billion is expended
towards the military around the world annually. Since the World War II the world has
spent over $16 trillion for military purposes.

o The manufacture of weapons, the transport of these weapons, and the mining of
minerals for their production all place enormous demands on energy and mineral
resources and are a major contribution to pollution and environment deterioration.

o A disproportionate share of vital resources that would otherwise have been used for
socially relevant programmes is consumed by militarization. The production of arms is
now heavily dependent on non-renewable resources of uranium, titanium, chromium
and copper – these will be depleted in the long run.

o The diversion of resources to the military has deprived the civilian sectors of key
elements needed as a basis of growth. This is most evident in the case of Research and
Development (R & D). A comparable portion of skilled manpower especially scientists
and engineers are engaged in the military sector. This means that a large pool of a
nation’s vitally needed talent is diverted away from the civilian economy. It is estimated
that 20% of all scientists and engineers in the world are employed by the military. Thus,
important and more relevant inventions such as Cleaner Production Technologies and
energy efficiency technologies suffer at the expense of inventions with only military
application.

o For developing countries, however, only few manufacture their own arms. This means
that militalization in developing countries involves the purchase of armaments. Some
studies have now established that two-thirds of conventional weapons traded in the
arms market are purchased by poor developing countries. Such soaring arms imports
have contributed to bloated foreign debt. Vital foreign exchange reserves are
 constantly directed towards arms imports. This continued siphoning off of financial
resources needed for investment stagnates economic growth.

Militarization in Theoretical Perspective

 A number of theories have been developed to explain or justify the need for high military
expenditures.

 Two different but somewhat related theories – the Keynesian and Marxist theories – are
noteworthy.

a) Keynesian theory/military Keynesianism

 Keynesian theory, when applied to the military sector is known as “military Keynesianism.”

 This theory postulates that military expenditure increases national output through the multiplier
operations when there is inadequate effective demand in the economy. If aggregate demand is
lower than potential supply, increased military spending could raise capacity utilization and lead to
increased rate of profit. Military spending according to Keynesian theory raises investment and
growth. Therefore a stead stream of large government contracts for weapons is seen as a perfect
tool for stimulating the economy. The Keynesian theory, thus, offers some economic justification
for military spending.

 Advocates for military expansion have, argued that even if military production absorbs a high
proportion of scientists and engineers, it is beneficial to the whole economy. They argue that: -

1) Indirectly, military production yields “spill-offs” in the sense that its results are
taken up by non-military industries, and

2) Directly it produces military products which are strong exports and benefit the
country’s balance-of-payments.

b) Marxist approach
 The Marxist theory simply sees military expenditure as necessary for the development of the
capitalist system by maintaining effective demand and moderating the downward pressure on the
rate of profit and, consequently, preventing economic crisis and breakdown.

 According to this theory, capitalism suffers from underconsumption - a long-run difficulty in selling
commodities (i.e. inadequate effective demand). This profit realization problem can be overcome
by the state spending on the military, and since increasingly severe crises will result if it is not
overcome, it is in capital’s interests to promote arms spending.

Military Conversion

 The late 1980s signaled the end of super powers’ rivalry that was behind the growth of the arms
races. The end of the cold-war between the West and the East, and the break-up of the former
Soviet Union has brought prospects for peace and security. This has provided many countries with
opportunities for reducing arms spending.

 The peace and security dividend made possible by the post cold war situation is an opportunity for
funding “Conversion” programmes and investments in critical human, environmental and
infrastructure needs.

 “Conversion” entails “the transformation of military resources into civil activities and production.” It
involves not only the reduction of military production but also a structural reconstruction of the
national economy, and its productive sectors.

 Three broad approaches to conversion can be distinguished: Macroeconomic, microeconomic, and

political conversion approaches.

a) Macroeconomic Approach:

 The focus of the macroeconomic approach is on the negative relationship between arms
spending and economic growth.

 This approach emphasizes that reducing defense expenditure will help to facilitate the transfer
of resources to other government current and capital expenditures.

 It also argues that equivalent levels of investment in the civil sector create more employment
than in the military sector.
 b) Microeconomic Approach:

 The microeconomic approach focuses on the industry or plant-based conversion.

 This involves the re-use or transformation of existing military resources for civilian purposes.

 It is a strategy of diversification, in which defense industries begin engaging in non-military

production in addition to their existing military production activities. For example, in 1986 an
attempt was made by Lucas Aerospace – a British arms industry to redirect some of the
company’s production from military electronics to production of kidney dialysis machines, heat
pumps and other socially useful products. This attempt was, however, unsuccessful.

 Microeconomic approach has not been particularly successful, partly because of the difference
between commercial and military production criteria and cultures.

c) Political Conversion Approach:

 The political conversion approach emphasises the transformation of resources tied up in defense
production within a broader socio-economic and political context.

 This approach is, thus, not narrow as the other two “economic approaches.” There should be an
overall political will to demilitarize society and plans to meet basic human and environmental
needs.

 There is need for political will within the political/bureaucratic establishments to shift national
resources away from military-defined objectives to socially useful production.

Planned Conversion

 Conversion on its own might not mean anything useful. Simply reducing the money spent on
armaments is not enough. It has to be planned together with the deliberate creation of new
production and new jobs to take up the labour and resources released by the military industries or
sector.

 Similarly, the transfer of resources from military to civilian purposes will not automatically serve
environmental purposes. Therefore, as resources are being channeled from the military to the
civilian economy there is need to provide sufficient resources for reversing environmental
degradation.

 Conversion offers enormous opportunities for environmental conservation, in that:

 1. It can be a medium for better use of resources for sustainable development

2. It can be used to clean-up of the environment already devastated by military activities.

 Conversion also frees up the money and brains required for reversing environmental degradation.
Skilled manpower from the military can now be engaged in environmental conservation ventures
such as environmental monitoring, chemical analysis, medicine etc.

 Furthermore, conversion allows the use of military personnel during peace time in civilian projects
e.g. delivery of emergency relief; building socially relevant infrastructure

Conclusion

 What are the problems associated with conversion?

 Anxieties over unemployment

 The nature of military production processes and products

 Arms merchants – want profits

 The Politicians have vested interests in high militarization e.g. in developing countries politicians
feel more secure when they have a powerful defense system.