I(}IIflIITI, RE$EARCU

IIMRONMENTAL
OF AI{D
POtICffi$
V olume l, Nu mb e r 1 , 2 0 0 6
Co n tents P e5
I Clobal Warming and Agri culture in Usman Aliyu jalam l-8
DevelopingCountries:The Caseof Nigeria.
) Indigenous BLrilding Materials and O d u n joO , . O mo lo laA; d e o y eD. 9 -ll
SustainableHoLrsingProductionin Nieeria: A Olurvaseyi andOvadokLrn, J.
Focirson Laterite. Olur,r'afemi
J. Empirical Design Consideration and Ita,D. Effiom r2-15
Aestheticsin the Manufactureof Ceramics
Tablelvare.
A
T. Intelligent(Functional)
B uilding sf ro m a n d O b u z o r,N. O . lo-/l
the2lsrCenturyArchitecturalEdr-rcation.
). Evolving CollaborativeDecision Making :^ Itt A rib ig b o laA, . F a ru s inA; f b la b i,F . 22-28
Urban Planning in Nigeria: The Case of FatusinandAfolabiFrancis
Akure.
6. An Appraisal of Impact of Urbanizationon Wahab,A. B; Oh-rsola, K. O; 29-33
Properties
of Soil Mass. O s e g h a leG. . E . a n dA la k e ,O
7. I FloLrsehold Managementof PolytheneWastes Uloma JitrLrrum 34-i8
I in EnusLr Urban.
8. Problems and Prospects of Housing o.M. Z u b a ir 39-46
Cooperatives in Oyo State( CaseStLrdyof
HappyPeopleHousingCooperative, Ibadan).
9. National Building Code-The ChallengesR. I. J. Onyensoh andNI. E. 47-51
Beforethe Professionals
in the ConstructionAgurva
Industrv. IN'
t0. AnthropologicalPeqpectives about Waste SamuelL Udofia Th'
5 2 -58
Cenerationand Disposal irr Uyo Local shi
GovernmentArea of Akr,va Iborn State. )'ee
t"\ise r ia. car
phr
il The Position of Geomatics Engineering in Morakiny,o, B. O. 59-63
Engineeringin EnvironmentalN{anaqement.
s)'s
17 . Prioritizing Budgetary Allocation for Ajayi, M. T. A andAdoke,I. I 64-69 stu
Infrastructural Development and is
Ad m in istration
in Niseria. 20
l3 La6d-UseChangeDetectionof Eleiyeleand Ufoegbure,G. C; Adeofirn,A. O. 70-74 )'er
It's Environs Using Remote S e n s in g and Arvomeso.J. A. du
Te ch n ique. pe
t4 EnvironmentalIrnpactAssessmentChallenee R. O . Y u s u t S .E . A g a rrya n dA . 7s-62 ha
in Niseria. O. DLrrojail,e pr
15. InsuranceValuation and the InsuranceAct Uche S. Egrvuatu sa
8 3 -87 A^
UL
2003:An Ov'erview.
or
16. A PerceptLral
Assessmentof Residents
Ratingof Victor E. Otfiong 88-9r A.
Cuda's Enr.'ironmentalLaw Enforcemenr
ef
ApproachIn Calabar
C,
t7. En vir o nmental
P roblemsof Urb a n A re a s :] lf e a n fi C. O n u ig b oa n dR. 92-96 nI
l
Ca u se sand Implicationsfor rhe B u ilt -u pI \ \ ' a lp o leC. Nrv a n s u ma
Enr.'ironment. i
I I ul
:''

Instructionto Authors ,'.$

IE
SubscriptionRate :.
ii
it
 Journal of Envit'onmental Scienceand Technology Volume2, Number2,2007
1. P r i n t e d i n Nig e r ia .All r ig h ts r cse r ve d C ;pyri ght(c)2007.D uncnnS ci enceC onrpa n
-t
I
ENYIRONMEI{TAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE IN MGERIA

R. O. Yusuf; S. E. Agarry and A. O. Durojaiye

EnvironmentatEngineeringLaboratory, ChemicalEngineeringDepartment
Ladoke Akintola University of Technologv,Ogbomoso,Nigeria

ABSTRACT
A. review of Environmental Impact assessmeil @A) projects submitted to the Federal
Ministry of Environment between 1995 ond 2003 was carried aut in Nigeria. A total of
319 EA projects hwe been submittedfor revian'. Of thesenumbers, 187 projects have
been approved while 99 projects are being monitored. The numerous advantages of
carrying out an EIA on projects were enumerated. The oil ond gas sectors accounted
for 70% of project submission while the agriculture, dredging and mining sectors
accotmtedfor only 1.0, 0.6 ond 0.0?5 respectively. There is lack of coordination among
the various organisations involved in environmental decision-making and also among
key Federal Ministries likz Environment, I{orks, Housing Transport, Agriculture,
Water Resources ond Solid Minerals DevelopTnsnt- The study also showed some
signifcant shortcoming in the areas of public pmticipation in EIA and public litigation
of violation of environmental statutes. AIso evident was inadequate infrastructure for
monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations to ensureproper EU.
Keyw ords : Monitoring, E nforcement, Stat utes, L itigatio n, Regulatio n, Nigeria, Oil
And Gas.

INTRODUCTION
The advancementof technolory leads to happinessfor mankind. Today we have becomepainfully aware of
the fact that this advancernsnt may be a double-edged sword. The degradation of the environment is a
natural consequenceof urbanization and industriilization. These two processesare the leading sources of
environmental concerns in Nigeria. The country has witnessed a phenomenal industrial growth and
development especially since the indigenisation decree of 1974. The generation of large quantities of
hazardous and non-hazardouswastes is perhaps the most critical problem to the environmetttthat results
from industrial activities. Holdgate (1979) defines pollution as 'the introduction by man into the
environment of substancesliable to cause hazards to human health, harm to living resourcesand ecological
systems, damage to structure or interference with the legitimate use of the environment'. This implies the
lowering of the qualrty of the natural and human snvironment and will cause environmental hazard that has
the potential to lead to an environmental crisis. An environmental crisis is 'any uncontrolled or unplanned
interaction betweenthe 'business' and the environment that could result in significant costs' (Bulleid, 1996)
The environment is a complex wave of physical, chernical and biological factors that interact
with each other and impact on all living things and their surroundings.

Ehr-vIRohTMENTAL TMPACT ASSESSMENI (EIA)

Following the definition of Munn (1979), Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) can be described as a
process for identifying the likely consequences for the biophysical environment and for man's health and
welfare and for conveying this information, at a stage when it can materially affect this decision, to those
responsible for sanctioningthe proposals. Davies and Muller (1983) extendedthis definition to cover socio-
economic effects to provide for a unified appraisal. Garerally thereforg EIA is a processhaving the ultimate
objective of providing decision-makerswith an indication of the likely consequencesof their actions. The
outcome of an EIA is usually some formal document. This report has a variety of names,although the term
environmental impact statement @IS) is most widely known and carries the least scope for confusion. A
major deficiency of many EIS's has been the failure to establish a time frame indicating when impacts are
likely to be manifest. lmpacts are also site-specific and determination of their spatial distribution is also
important (Wathern, l9S-8). The objective of EIA is not to force decision-makers to adopt the least
environmentally damaging alternative, otherwise few developmentswilltake place. Envtonmental impact is
but one of the issues addressedby decision-makers as they seek to balance the often-competing danands of
developments and environmental protection. Social and economic factors may be far more pressing.

* Correspond
ing author:rafiuwsu@vahoo.com. +23 4-8045074497
t)
 Environmental Impact Assessment Challenge in Nigeria

According to Imevbore and Adegoke (1990) the primary purpose of an EIA is to ensure that potential
problerns are foreseen and addressed at the project design. Environmental Impact Assessment ptey
f a
procedure for analysing the environmental impiications of a decision to enatt legislation, to implement
policies and plans, or to initiate developme,ntprojects (WatherrL lgSS). EIA has become widely accepted
a
tool in environmental management. lt has been adopted in many countries with different degrees
of
enthusiasmwhere it has evolved to varying levels of sophistication. A host of industrialized countries have
implementedEIA procedures:USA in 1969, Canadain 1973, Australia rr lgT4,theNetherlandsin l98l and
Japan in 1984- The Ewopean Union (ELI) finally adopted a directive making environmental assessments
mandatory for certain categoriesof projects after nearly a decadeof deliberation
1Wutn".r,, 1988). Many less
dereloped countries (LDC) have appreciated that the procedures offer a means of introducing
some aspects
of environmental planning often in the absenceof any formal land-use planning control ,yiton.
EIA is a
process covered by sweral international standards. These standards dictate ttrat as
many environmental
aspects as possible should be identified in a project appraisal. While the ISO 14001'staniard
stipulates a
broad-ranging study, oFsite indirect impacts are not specifically required for an environmental impact
statement (EIS)- For the purpose of EIA, the meaning of 'environment' incorporates physical,
biological,
cultural, economic and social factors. The ISO 14001, which covers EIl, includes principal
steps suih as
general requirements, environmental poli_cy,_planning implementation and operation,
checking and
corroctive actiorq and managementreview. In these steps,the defrnitions of processessuch
as .auditin!' and
'scope' are included. Auditing is a term used in EIA principally to
check for compliance with critJia of
enlToSmental management practices by proponents. The scope describes the extent and
boundaries of the
audit in terms of factors such as physical location and organizational activities, as well
as the manner of
reporting (ISO, 1996b)- In practice, almost all EIA studf the direct on-site effects
alone, using process
and audit-type methods.Oflsite methodscan be up to ,"n"rul orders of magnitud" grodthan
Taly!! on-
site effects, and are usually not extensivelyaddressedin conventional ElAs (Lern1;;r'et
a1,2003). In addition
to direct effects, developments cause environmental pressure indirectly through the consumption
of goods
and services, and the activities of numerous producing industries in the -national
as well u, fJr"ig'
economies. Indirect effects are of infinite order: in the case of an airstrip, for examplg
they not only incluie
environmental pressure exerted by the airstrip.itself (impaction on vegetation, wildlife-and
the physical
also the land occupied by pioducers of construction michinery, by steel plents producing
::yronTery)'.but
the steel for the machinery, by mining operations providing the iron ore-
foi the sieel faltory, by
manufacturers of mining equipmen! etc. These impacts are generally off-site and
may even occur in foreign
countries. This process of industrial inter-dependencepro"rfor infrnitely in
un uprJom direction, through
the whole life cycles of all products,rike the bianchesofan infinite tree.

EFTICMNCY OF TI{E EIA PROCESS

il;; ;-l;; ;;; of criticism of EIA (Kennedy, 1984). They are deemedto have little effect on the
decision-making process; few tangible environmental benefits and inadequate
opportunities for public
involvement as well as being costly and a source of delay. Available evidence
seernsto refute some of these
criticisms' Significant changes have been made to projects during
the EIA process with marked
improvements in environmental protection measures and ttrat ein ,erult"
in net financial benefits (EpA,
1980)' The considerationof delay is a more complex issue as it dependsto
a large extent upon the quality of
the EIA' It is an inescapable consequenceof litigation resulting fiom
inadfruaie EIS that have been
implemented for more than a year (Lirofi 1985). ,q.notherarea oflriticism
of p'fe ;s its relatively nrurow
spatial a-ndternporal scope as pointed by Lakshman and Johnson (1985).
Similarly, ELA at the project level
is insufficient beeauseit starts too lati, ends too soon, and is too
sitespecific (Shepherd and ortolano,
1996)' One of the main weaknesses,beside lack of EIA audits, is the absence
of fin follow-up monitoring
(Ramjeawon and Beedassy,2004). While subjectivity is viewed
as one of the shortcomings of EId it has
been viewed as one of the positive attributes of tr,e pr*ot that should be encouragedin order to promote
sustainability and to inspire confidencein EIA (wilkirs, 2003).

ADVANTAGES OF EIA
EIA has many advantagesthat includethe following:
l. Minimization of the environmentalimpactsof our activities;
2' Reduction of costs and time taken to reach decisions by ensuringthat
subjectivity and duplication of
efforts are reduced to a minimum;
3' Helping to identifr and quantifu the primary and secondary
consequencesthat might have
necessitatethe introduction of expensive pollution control equipmen! compensatioq
or othertsts;
76
 Environmental Impact AssessmentChallenge in Nigeria

able l: S of Submitted:199$2003
Year oil Manufa- Mining Infrastr- Agnc. Dredging Total Approved Monitored
and cturing ucture
Gas
99s I 4 0 I 2 0 8 ) 0
996 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 6 2
997 4 I 0 5 0 l1 1l 5
998 l5 2 0 7 0 0 aA
L1 22 4
999 44 I 0 5 0 0 50 28 a
J

2000 4',1 I 0 a
J 0 0 51 19 5
2001 4l 10 0 l5 0 0 66 28 l8
2002 43 6 0 4 0 I 54 3l 31
2003 25 5 0 l8 I 49 5I JJ

Total 224 3 0 0 60 ) 2 319 187 99

oA 70.2 9.4 0 r8.8 1.0 0.6 100 58.6 3t

Source:Ajakaiye (2004)

DISCUSSION
Of the 319 projects submittd the oil and gas sector accountedfor 224 (70.2o/o).Nigeria, being the sixth
largest oil producer in the world" generates about 90% of her foreign revenue frorn the oil and gas sector.
This has led to massive investmentsin the sector with the attendant high level of activities. Prior to the
Ogoni crisis in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria" oil exploration and production were carried out without due
consideration of their effect on the people and the environmert. Cases of oil spillage, burst pipelines,
polluted rivers streams and creeks were very rampant. It took a strong resistance of the indigenes of this
area, led by the then Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) and some Non-Governmental
Organizations, through agitations and protests, for tle world to focus attention on the degradation of the
Niger Delta. This sustainedagitation sensitisedthe people of the area and has forced the multinational oil
companies to provide mitigation facilities for the consequenceof their actions and to pay adequate
compensation wfiere necessary. With this increased awareness Ademokai and Sheate (2004) reports that
much still needs to be done in the Niger Delta to engender greater awareness of EIA and the potential
benefits participation can hold. While Fairfax (1978) argued that environmental groups at times fight over
the wrong issues,the case of the Niger Delta was one of seriouspollution. The Niger Delta is in the South-
South g*political zone of Nigeria (Figure 5). There have also been increased EIA activities since the
advent of democratic rule in 1999. This is in contrast to the military era where the oil companiescould buy
their way out. Out of the 224 projects submitted for evaluatio4 200 (89%\ of thern were submitted in the last
five years. According to Amokare (2004) International treaties that have influenced domestic law in the field
of oil pollution are the International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution of the Sea by Oil (1954 -
1969),International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and Generat Convention on the
High Seas. Manufacturing activities has a total of 3A Q.aYo) EIA submissionsfor the period under review.
This is an evidenceof the decay that has set into this sector sincethe military era when many industries were
forced to close due to the economic downturn in the country. It was only in the last three years that there
seemedto have been increasedmanufacturing activities due to governmentincentivesand the willingness of
foreign investors to come to the county. Of particular concern is the lack of environmentalawarenessin the
mining sector where there has been zero submission of ElA. This is despitegovernment huge investment in
the exploration of solid minerals. All the cement companies in the country source their grpsum supplies
locally, yet there is no single EIA from any of the grpsum producing states like Sokoto State. There are
other parts of the country with illegal mining activities without due regards for the environmental
consequencesof such activities. The data showed that even in Jos and Enugu, where mining activities have
been done for docades, do not carry out EIA of these mining activities. The massive road construction
activities going on all over the country are being done without the necessaD/ EIA. Only 60 (19%)
infrastructural projects have been subrnitted for approval. This is in spite of heary spe,ndingin the provision
of roads, water, electricity and communication facilities. In 2002 alone, five hundred boreholes were drilled
in each senatorialdistrict in the country (i.e. 108 x 500 = 5400 boreholes).Subseque,nt constructionsof small
earth dams have been done without due regard for the environment. Communication masts are being erected
all over the country without taking their health and environmental implications into cognisance.

78
 Journal of Environmental Scienceand Technology Vorume2, Number2,2007
Printed in Nigeria. All rights reserved C opyri ght(c)2007.D unc:rnS ci enceC omp:r n

4. [mproving the efficiency of decision-making if applied at early stages of project planning and
design;
5. Enhancementof the public image of developerVcompanies and their host communities;
6. Prevention of any litigation and future liabilities;
7 - Creation of awarenessof environmentalprotection in the public;
8. Continuous improvementin our environmentalperformance;
9. Compliance with regulatory requirements;
10. Compliance with the environmentalpolicies of companiesand developerVproponents.
In Nigeria it is the responsibility of project proponents to prepare an EIA report for a project. The Federal
Ministry of Environment however, expects the proponent to use experts with sound knowtedge of the
disciplines involved. By way of assistance,the Ministry maintains a register of accreditedenvironmental
consultants and experts, of which here are over five hundred (Afolabi, 2004). Proponentsare expected to
consult fully with relevant stakeholders at the different stages of the EIA report preparation to ensure tiat
their views and concernsare adequatelyaddressed.While environmentalconflicts are resolvedmainly in the
political arenq applying conflict analysis method and simulating its settlement may be undertaken with
adaptations, designedto train community groups in negotiating while fostering the dernocratisationof these
disputes (Bredariol and Magrini, 2003).
A draft EIA report submitted to the Ministry is evaluated to know the type of review to be adopted. The
types of reviews are in-housereview, public review, panel review and a review by mediators.

LEGAL AITD ADMIMSTRATTYE FRAMEWORI(

EIA and related procedureshave been identified as key mechanismsto translate the principtesand criteria of
sustainable development into practical strategies and actions. The 1982 Conference on Environment and
Development and Agenda 2l put considerableemphasison the potentialability of EIA to help achieve more
sustainable forms of development-As part of the precautionary principle, Principle l7 of the Rio Declaration
provides that an evaluation of environmental impact must be taken by virtue of national instrument in regard
to any proposed activity that probably produces any negative impacts on the environment and that *ould b"
subject to the decision of a competent national authority. Since then, the use of EIA as a managementtool
for improving the long term viability of many projects and as an avoidance mechanismagainst incalculable
mistakes that can be expensive and damaging in environmental and socio*onomic terms has increased
tremendously. The legal regime for the regulation of EIA of designatedprojects in Nigeria is contained in
the Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Decree No. 82 0f 1992, Environmental tmpact Assessment
Decree No. 86 of 1992 (FEPA, 1992) and the then Environmental Impact AssessmentProceduredeveloped
by the then Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) pursuant to the Decree. The Decre and
Procedure contained explicit and detailed provisions on the requiremantsof the EIA on proposedactivities
likely to have a significant impact on natural resourcesand the environment before such activities are givan
frnal government approvaUauthorisation. The legislation was enacted by the Federal Governmelt in
recognition of the need for care in the use of the countr5r's natural resources.The Federal Governmeng
through its various agencies,plays a crucial custodian role in the managernentof naturalresources.Enacting
the law sought to reverse a clear and intensi$ring trend toward environmental degradation and to rernedy the
lack of environmental awarenessof many federal agencieswhose policies were in conflict with the .general
public interest', with its main function 'to hold the Federal Government accountable as trustee ior the
protection of the Nigerian environment. Much has been done at the federal, state and local government
levels to put environmental issues in the front burner since 1988 by the establishmentof regulaLry bodies
(Federal and State Environmental Protection Agencies and the Departrnentof Petroleum Resources(DpR))
to enforce environrnental laws, to impose stringent statutory laws and to fund environmental and ecological
matters (FEPA 1988). Nigeria's attitude to environmental protection was partly influencedby the disco-very
of five shiploads of toxic waste at the small port town of Koko in Delta State. Government immediate
responsewas swift and decisive leading to the promulgation of the Harmftl Toxic Waste (Special Criminal
Provision) Decree and the establishment of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to monitor the
implementationof theselaws (Shyllon, d 1988)
Since the law came into full operation three hundred and nineteen (319) EIA reports for various
development projeds have been submitted to the Deparfrnent of Assessment of the Federal Ministrv of
Environment for evaluation(Ajakarye, 2004).

11
 Journal of Environmental Scienceand Technology Volume2, Number2,20Aj
P r i n t e d i n N i g e ria . All r ig h ts r e se r ve d C opyri ght(c)2007.D uncan S ci enceC ompany

There are no EIA submissionsfrom the Agricultural sector and only two (0.6%) EIA submissionshave been
rereived from dredging activities. A total of 187 (60%) of the EIA projects submitted have beenapproved
while 99 (31%) are being monitored (Figure 3). This implies that while the approval rating is high, projects
under monitoring are low. This is similar to the observationmade by Zubair (2001) that the infrastructure to
monitor and enforce etvironmental regulations is inadequate. He concluded that addressing these
shortcomings would be challenginggiven the oppositionto the EIA processand the limitations in resources.

Ser;'
tori
d
EI 20o
A
Su
bm 15O
issi
on

Sectors

Figure l: Sectorial Submission of EIA Projects

Legend 1:Oil and Gas; 2: Manufacturing 3 : Mining

A.
Infrastructure 5 : Asriculture 6 : Drdging

()
.= so

e40
rr.l 30

.o zo
-.
10

1S5 1 S6 1S7 1S8 1S9 2000 2ml

Year of Submission

Figure 2:Yearty Submissions for Approval

79
 Environrnental Impact Assessment
Challenge in Nigeria

Figure 3: Yearly Approvals of

EIA Submitted

q
Wlrl p[1ect
submitred
C Approved project
87
D Under Moni
ts

E6 r
.=
ts r

Fer
o

a3c

E20
.:
€ jo
a

Figure 4: comparison of Submitted,

Approved and Monitored projects

CONCLUSION

poricies
Iff":'*.Jil'Hli:J:ffi,,T,x*,?i,f""j;gtrn:iti::"111^'rt jnt" area
ormonitoring.
3?,"*;nT:T,tr;s"m*t*:??*y"*rJi?i."#:TiJ""il"ji
JiT,:i'
ilffi ;:ffi il';ffff 'nllHf:#J*"#
""i,fffr::i
Jill'ffi,
fl:H'#;i ;L:#9"to*;3,
r"b*":s.*-ryi
or
piuii"
ffi ?:XH'ffif lflT:*
::*"i'ffif:i'rulif
;ilx,'ffi?I*;ffi
nonchalant ';"*
*L:T"qL,i?,'xff
,ff,g#ili:iil**i:"*{':l*14:#::f:ffi
attitude
tothedegraauion
"iilii, -.,,iro**t-ii;;;:ffiH*;Tff:ffii.
80
 Journal of Environmental Scienceand Technology Volume2, Number2,2007
Printed in Nigeria. All rights reseryed C opyri ght(c)2007.D uncanS ci enceC ompa n

There is lack of public litigation of violation of environmental statutes and no provision of private law
rernedies for victims of environmental pollution in the form of common law rernedies of damages and
injunction- This has been one of the major causesof the indiscriminate mining activities in the country. The
States' Environmental Protection Agencies focus all their attention only on solid waste collection and open
dumping at any available spacesoutside the cities. With EI{ other ways of achieving the same objectives
with less environrnenlal disruptions can be revealed. There might be, in addition, economic benefits from
using EIA mitigating measures identified during ELA that may be incorporated more economically at the
design stage than subsequently. There are inadequate infrastructure for monitoring and enforcernent of
environmental regulations. This is more pronounced at the State levels. According to USEPA (2004),
'assuring compliance by the regulated community with environmental laws/regulations through the effective
monitoring and assessment is the key factor in environmental protection'. Inter-ministerial negotiation
seems to be tacking among key Federal Ministries like the Federal Ministries of Environment Works,
Housing Transpor! Agriculturg Water Resources and Solid'Minerals Dwelopment as well as States'
Environmental Protection Agencies. Negotiation is a 'consultative process through which the regulatory
authorities and the regulated person or organisation considers the existing environmental standards and
directives and factors militating against the effective compliance and the variety of responseswith a view to
develop mutually acceptablecompliance schedules'(Shi-Ling; 2002). Environmental issues,however, rarely
form the sole basis for a decision related to the pressing need for eonomic development,jobs and revenue
generation or for remedying some social ill as an over-riding consideration despite consequent
environmental degradation. Thus, the case for development often seems overwhelming. This has been the
major reason why most facilities in Nigeria are cited without considering the environmental consequences.
Indeed the greatest contribution of EIA to environmental managernent may well be in reducing adverse
impacts before proposals come through to the authorization phase. With the wide application of EIA in all
areas decision makers will be provided with an indication of the environmentalconsequancesof the options
open to them. EIA is no longer seen as an 'add-on' process. Indeed the greatest contribution of EIA o
environmental managernent may well be in reducing adverse impacts before proposals come through to the
authorization phase.

REFER-ENCES
l. Ademokai, R. and W. R. Sheate, R. (200a): Community Participation and Environmental Decision-
making in the Niger Delta, Environmental lrEact Assessrrunt Review, 24(5),495-518.
2. Afolabi, O. A. (200a\: Environmental Consultancy, An Overview: National Workshop on Capacity
Building for FederalMinistry of Environment-AccreditedEnvironmentalConsultantsin Nigeria.
3. Ajakaiye, B. A. (2004): Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures and Review of Performance in
Nigeria: National Workshop on Capacity Building for Federal Ministry of Environment-Accredited
Environmental Consultantsin Nigeria.
4. Amokare, O. (2004): Environmental Laws, Regulation and Conventions in Nigeria: An Overview:
National Workshop on Capacity Building for Federal Ministry of Environment-Accredited
Environmental Consultants in Nigeria.
5. Bredariol, C. S. and A. Magrini, (2003): Conflicts in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Rio de
Janeiro, Environmental Inpact Assessmcnt Review, 23(4), 489-5 13.
6- Bullei4 P. (1996): Managing Environmental Crises: Stanley Thornes @ublishers) Ltd. Cheltenharn,
UK.
7 - Davies, G. S. and F. G. Muller (1983).'A Handbook on Environntntal Inpact Assessmentfor Use in
Developing Countries. Report submitted to United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
8. Fairfax, S. K. (1978): A Disaster in the Environmental Movernen! Science L99,743-8.
9. Federal Environmental Protection Agency, (1988): Harmfut Toxic Waste (Special Criminal Provision)
DecreeNo. 42 of 1988 (now cap 165,LFN 1990),FEPA' Lagos,Nigeria.
10. Federal Environmental Frotection Agency, (1992): Environmental Impact Assessment:DecreeNo. 86 of
1992, FEPA, Lagos, Nigeria.
I l. Holdgate, M. V. (1979): A Perspective of Environmental Pollution, CambridgeUniversity Press-
12. Hsu, Shi-Ling (2002): A Game-TheoreticApproach To Regulatory Negotiation and a Framework for
Empirical Analysis, 26 Hammd Erwironmental Law Review, 33-
13. Imevbore A.M.A. and O.S. Adegoke(1990): The Application of EIA Procdures to Nigerian Industries.
In Aina, E.O. and Adedipe, N. O.: 1990: Towards Industrial Pollution Abaterent in Nigeria. FEPA
Monograph 2pp.

8l
 Environment Impact AssessmentChallengein Nigeria

14 InternationalStandardsOrganization(1996b)ISO 14004:EnvironmentalManagementSystems General

Guidelineson the Principles, Systems,and SupportingTeehniques;Genev4 InternationalOrganization
for Standardization.
15 Kennedy W. V. (198a): US and CanadianExperiencewith EIA: Relevancefor the European
Communities?Zeitschriftfrr Umweltpolitik,7, 339- 66.
16 Lakshman,andJohnson(1985)
17 Lenzeg M., S. A. Murray, B. Korte and C. J. Dey (2003):EnvironmentalImpactAssessnient Including
Indirect Effects: A casestudy of using input-outpntanalysis:Ewironmental Impad AssessmentRevi.ew,
23(4),263-282.
18 Liroff, R. A. (1985): NEPA Litigation in the 1970s: A Deluge or a Dribble. In Enclosing the
Erwironmenr,C. Kury (ed\. 162-77.University ofNew lHsxico Schoolof Law, Albuqtrerque.
19 Munn, R. E. (1979):EnvironmentalImpactAnalysis:PrinciplesandProcedures, 2nd ed".SCOPEReport
no. 5, Chichester: Wiley
20 Ramjeawon,T. and R. Beedassy(2004):,Evaluationof the EIA Systemon the Island of Mauritius and
Developmentof an EnvironmentalModitoring plan Framework:Environmental Inpad Assessmmt
Review,24(5),537-549.
2I ShepherdandOrtolano(1996):
22 Shyllon,F. (ed) (1988):TheKoko Incident,the EnvironmentandThe Law, TheLaw andEftvironmentin
Nigeria.pp 73-80.
23 Watttert, P. (1988): Environmental Impact Assessment:Theory and Practice, Routledge,New York.
24 Wilkins, H. (2003):The Needfor Subjectivityin EIA: Discourseas a Tool for SustainableDevelopment:
Environmental Impod AssessmcntReview, 23(4), 40I4I4.
25 United States Environmental Protection Agency, (1980): Evatuation of EPAS EIA Program for
WastewaterTreatnent Facilities,WashingtonDC: USEPA.
26 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Q00$: Compliance Monitoring; URL
bjtpjAEuu-cpa.eoriaainplaqserren{sung. Assessedin July 2004.
27 Zubair,L. (2001):Challengesfor EIA in Sri Lanka:EnvironmentalImpactAssessment Revier',21(5),
469-478.

1
:1

F.'rn lir

'[i*Jx.r

l{ilsmqt{E$
i::=---5lL r:'-l
O l4 'ill l5i;!{&EEi

Figure 5: Map of Nigeria showingthe six geopoliticalzones

82