The need for environmental assessment

Economic, social and environmental change is inherent to development. Whilst development

aims to bring about positive change it can lead to conflicts. In the past, the promotion of
economic growth as the motor for increased well-being was the main development thrust with
little sensitivity to adverse social or environmental impacts. The need to avoid adverse impacts
and to ensure long term benefits led to the concept of sustainability. This has become accepted as
an essential feature of development if the aim of increased well-being and greater equity in
fulfilling basic needs is to be met for this and future generations.

In order to predict environmental impacts of any development activity and to provide an

opportunity to mitigate against negative impacts and enhance positive impacts, the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure was developed in the 1970s. An EIA may be
defined as:

a formal process to predict the environmental consequences of human development activities and
to plan appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects and to augment positive
effects.

EIA thus has three main functions:

• to predict problems,
• to find ways to avoid them, and
• to enhance positive effects.

The third function is of particular importance. The EIA provides a unique opportunity to
demonstrate ways in which the environment may be improved as part of the development
process. The EIA also predicts the conflicts and constraints between the proposed project,
programme or sectoral plan and its environment. It provides an opportunity for mitigation
measures to be incorporated to minimize problems. It enables monitoring programmes to be
established to assess future impacts and provide data on which managers can take informed
decisions to avoid environmental damage.

EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers and complements other project
studies on engineering and economics. Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential
part of development planning and management. It should become as familiar and important as
economic analysis in project evaluation.

The aim of any EIA should be to facilitate sustainable development. Beneficial environmental
effects are maximized while adverse effects are ameliorated or avoided to the greatest extent
possible. EIA will help select and design projects, programmes or plans with long term viability
and therefore improve cost effectiveness.

It is important that an EIA is not just considered as part of the approval process. Volumes of
reports produced for such a purpose, which are neither read nor acted upon, will devalue the
process. A key output of the EIA should be an action plan to be followed during implementation
and after implementation during the monitoring phase. To enable the action plan to be effective
the EIA may also recommend changes to laws and institutional structures.

Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development but this view is
gradually disappearing. It can, however, be a useful constraint to unsustainable development. It
is now well understood that environment and development are complementary and
interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring that the two are mutually reinforcing. A study
carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency (USA) in 1980 showed that there were
significant changes to projects during the EIA process, marked improvements in environmental
protection measures and net financial benefits. The costs of EIA preparation and any delays were
more than covered by savings accruing from modifications, (Wathern, 1988).

Irrigated agriculture is crucial to the economy, health and welfare of a very large part of the
developing world. It is too important to be marginalized as it is vital for world food security.
However, irrigated agriculture often radically changes land use and is a major consumer of
freshwater. Irrigation development thus has a major impact on the environment. All new
irrigation and drainage development results in some form of degradation. It is necessary to
determine the acceptable level and to compensate for the degradation. This degradation may
extend both upstream and downstream of the irrigated area. The impacts may be both to the
natural, physical environment and to the human environment. All major donors consider large
irrigation and drainage developments to be environmentally sensitive.

An EIA is concerned both with impacts of irrigation and drainage on the environment and with
the sustainability of irrigation and drainage itself. Clearly an EIA will not resolve all problems.
There will be trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection as in all
development activities. However, without an objective EIA, informed decision making would be
impossible.

Objective

This guide aims to assist staff in developing countries from various disciplines and backgrounds
(government officials, consultants, planners) to incorporate environmental considerations into
planning, designing, implementing and regulating irrigation and drainage programmes, plans and
projects, thus leading to sustainable projects. The guide aims to be of general use throughout the
developing world and has three main functions:

• to describe the methodology and output of an EIA;

• to provide inter-disciplinary advice related to irrigation and drainage to those engaged in
preparing EIAs; and,
• to enhance institutional capacity for carrying out an EIA.

In developing countries irrigation development is mainly the responsibility of the public sector.
This document therefore concentrates on public sector irrigation projects. Whilst national
irrigation authorities will not usually carry out EIAs, they will commission them, either as part of
a feasibility study or separately. They must therefore be familiar with EIA in order to formulate
the terms of reference and to appraise the impact statement. Private developers should also be
required to demonstrate that their proposals are environmentally sound.

The objective has been to produce a brief reference text that will be of most benefit to non-
specialists in developing countries who are perhaps facing the need to carry out an environmental
assessment for the first time. To ensure brevity, and accessibility to all readers, technical,
scientific or engineering content has been kept to a minimum. It is assumed that this information
is readily available in other textbooks or manuals and that many readers will already be familiar
with some technical aspects.

Similarly, no detailed explanation of the philosophy of EIA is given as this is available in

standard general texts. Throughout the guide the terms EIA and environmental assessment have
been used synonymously. A glossary of terms and abbreviations used in the text are included in
Annex 1. Chapter 6 provides a guide to other publications considered of most use that are also
widely available. Recommended texts, which are considered particularly useful, are reviewed at
the start of Chapter 6.

Using the guide

Environmental assessment is appropriate for both site specific projects and wider programmes or
plans covering projects or sectoral activities over a wide geographic area. In this document the
term "project" is used interchangeably for both the site specific and wider meaning.
Rehabilitation or modernization programmes are more common than new green field projects
and raise special issues which need to be addressed by an EIA. They provide more opportunities
to correct situations where the environment is adversely affected and they are usually richer in
available data, (Tiffen, 1989). Also, operation and maintenance reforms for regions or basins will
benefit greatly from an EIA. As this guide has been specifically prepared to address irrigation
and drainage projects, plans and programmes, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to be used to
carry out environmental impact assessments of other water resources projects.

Initially EIA was used for specific, particularly large scale, projects such as dams, which have
obvious long-term consequences. Now, however, greater attention is given to the wider
relationship between development and the environment. The relatively insignificant actions of
many individual people may cumulatively have a much greater impact on the environment than a
single construction project. For example a programme to support small-holder development,
through agricultural credit schemes to Water User Groups, may not warrant an EIA if each
scheme is considered in isolation. However, the impact within a river basin or in the water sector
in a region can be significant. A sectoral or basin-wide EIA would enable an assessment of the
collective impact of the programme. In a further example from Tamil Nadu, India, a decision
was made to provide free electricity to farmers to pump water for irrigation. Whilst this increased
agricultural production it also led to groundwater mining: the reduction in the groundwater level
in some areas has resulted in severe environmental and economic problems.

To enable the EIA process to be of maximum benefit, it must be incorporated into the planning
process of a country. The social, institutional and legal issues concerned with the effective use of
EIA are covered in Chapter 2. Chapter 5, on how to prepare terms of reference, has been
prepared to assist those who need to employ others to carry out EIAs on their behalf. The
mechanics of carrying out an EIA together with a description of the possible environmental
impacts of irrigation and drainage are described, respectively, in Chapters 3 and 4.
Annex I: Glossary
Glossary

Anopheline: A mosquito of the subfamily which includes the genus Anopheles. May transmit
malaria.

Arbovirus: Arthropod-borne virus.

Arthropod: Includes insects, ticks and mites.

Culicine: A mosquito of the subfamily which includes the genera Mansonia, Hedes and Culex,
and which may transmit a number of diseases.

Cutaneous: Of the skin.

Ecology: The study of interrelationships of organisms to their environment (or surroundings).

Ecology considers individual organisms, populations, and communities, as well as large units of
landscape such as forests, estuaries and river basins. For an EIA, the ecosystem can be
considered to be an appropriate unit of analysis concerned with a community and its
environment, both living and non-living (eg fish community of a lake and lake pH).

Ecosystem: A community and its environment (living and nonliving considered collectively)
(may range in extent from very small to very large units).

Environment: The total of all those physical, chemical, biological and social economic factors
that impinge on an individual, a community or a population.

Environmental audit: An analysis of the technical, procedural and decision making aspects of
an EIA carried out sometime after a proposal has been implemented.

Environmental impact: A change in effect on an environmental resource or value resulting

from human activities including project development, often called an "effect".

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Environmental Assessment: A formal process

to predict the environmental consequences of human development activities and to plan
appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects and augment positive effects.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document or report which contains the results of an
EIA study. The EIA is also referred to in some countries as Environmental Statement (ES).

Environmental management: Management and control of the environment and natural

resources systems in such a way so as to ensure the sustainability of development efforts over a
long-term basis.
Environmental monitoring: Observation of effects of development projects on environmental
resources and values.

Environmental planning: All planning activities with the objective of preserving or enhancing
environmental values or resources.

Eutrophication: The process of a water body becoming anaerobic, ie without oxygen.

Externalities: Effects on a project, individual or institution resulting from an action by a

different project, individual or institution (eg market prices or pollution).

Initial Environmental Examination (IEE): A preliminary attempt to evaluate environmental

impacts in order to determine whether a full-scale environmental impact assessment is needed.
Also called Initial Environmental Investigation (IEI), partial EIA or "Preliminary EIA".

Non-Governmental Organization: Private organizations that pursue activities to relieve

suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, or undertake community
development, (World Bank Operational Directive 10.70).

Parastatal: A government owned company.

Pathogen: An organism or substance which causes disease.

Reservoir host: An animal species which carries a pathogen without detriment to itself and
serves as a source of infection.

Residual Environmental impact: Potential impact remaining after mitigation measures have
been adopted into a project.

Scoping: An exercise involving the preliminary identification of the environmental issues

surrounding a project that requires an assessment. Scoping should take place soon after the
project has passed the Initial Review. Scoping identifies the potential impacts which are to be
addressed in detail by the assessment. Scoping will usually initiate the public consultation/public
participation process.

Vector: An organism which carries or transmits a pathogen.

Visceral: Of the main organs of the body.

A. Definition

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a project specific tool used to identify and assess the actual
and potential environmental implications of a project before the project commences.

B. Main Features

Often required by law; policies; administrative orders; or regulations, EIA systematically identifies, predicts
and assesses the actual and potential environmental consequences of a project, before the project is
approved. The EIA process ensures proponents take responsibility for minimising the environmental
impacts of their proposed project. Decision makers and other stakeholders use information generated
from the EIA process to identify environmental management options and to decide if and how the
proposed project will proceed. A key feature of EIA is public participation.

Used in many countries, the aim of EIA is to reduce the environmental impact of a project at the earliest
possible stage during the project cycle, that is, during the planning stage. Whilst EIA processes differ
between countries and projects, there are several common components:

 Screening - is an EIA required; what level of detail is required.

 Scoping - what are the issues and impacts of the project; who are the stakeholders; what is the
current state of the environment.
 Identification of alternatives - what alternatives exist.
 Impact analysis - what are the environmental, social and other related impacts of the project.
 Mitigation and impact management - how will the impacts be mitigated, reduced or managed.
 Evaluation of significance - are the impacts acceptable.
 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or report - documentation of the
proposal, impacts, impact mitigation and management options, level of significance and
concerns.
 Review of EIS - EIS is open for public comment for a sufficient period of time.
 Decision making - public comments considered and a decision made whether to accept the
proposal as is, modify the proposal or reject the proposal outright.
 Monitoring and review - develop an implementation plan; begin monitoring and review of the
project.

Some countries are attempting to take EIA by further integrating it into planning mechanisms and
expanding its scope to cover sustainable development and cumulative effects.

EIA has suffered much criticism over the years including criticism about: poor public consultation
practices; poorly written reports; costly, inefficient and time consuming practices; limited scope;
information understated or omitted from reports; EIA treated as a separate process and not integrated into
the project cycle; lack of monitoring and review of terms set out in reports; and inconsistent application.
The result is a lack of confidence in the EIA process by both decision makers and the general public.