Evaluating The Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports in Punjab, Pakistan

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283196297
Evaluating the Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact Assessment

(EIA) Reports in Punjab, Pakistan
Article in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · September 2015

DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500301
CITATIONS READS
10 336
4 authors, including:
Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry Sana Akhtar

Lahore School of Economics Kinnaird College for Women
492 PUBLICATIONS 3,801 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry on 18 July 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
Vol. 17, No. 3 (September 2015) 1550030 (23 pages)
© Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500301
Evaluating the Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact

Assessment (EIA) Reports in Punjab, Pakistan
Samia Saif*,§, Asim Mehmood†,¶ , Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry*,|| and Sana Akhtar‡,**
by AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY on 11/01/15. For personal use only.
J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2015.17. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
*College of Earth and Environmental Sciences

University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore, Pakistan
†
Global Environmental Laboratories, (GEL)
2nd & 3rd Floor, 4–5, Commercial Area, Cavalary Ground, Lahore, Pakistan
‡
Department of Environmental Sciences
Kinnaird College for Women, 93-Jail Road, Lahore, Pakistan
§
saamia@eco-intl.org
¶
asim@eco-intl.org
||muhammadnawazchaudhry@yahoo.com
**sanakhtar23@gmail.com
Received 10 November 2014

Revised 26 February 2015
Accepted 1 August 2015
Published 25 September 2015
This paper evaluated the quality of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports
submitted to EPA Punjab, Pakistan during 2005–2013 (2005 is the period when the
practice became more common) prepared by different consultants and investigated whether
the information provided in the report is adequate for ultimate decision making by using a
comprehensive checklist. Data was collected through interviews, EPA library and Punjab
public library. The results are presented in graphical form after the detailed review of
randomly selected 100 EIA reports submitted to EPA Punjab during the study period. The
selected EIA reports were prepared for new development projects, expansion/extension
projects, rehabilitation projects and also for funding projects by donor agencies i.e. World
Bank and ADB. The study revealed that the reports prepared for international funding
agencies contained adequate data whereas the assessment report prepared by the con-
sultants for local development project were lacking in substantial primary data and ade-
quate evidences, showing lack of commitment towards sustainable development and
environment protection.
**Corresponding author.
1550030-1
S. Saif et al.
Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); EIA and EA reports; EPA; EPD
Punjab.
Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process that analyzes and evaluates
the impacts that human activities can have on the environment. Its purpose is to
guarantee a sustainable development that is in harmony with human welfare and
the conservation of ecosystems. EIA has proven itself to be an effective tool of
environmental planning and management (Jay et al., 2007; Ortolano and Sheperd,
1995; Toro et al., 2010; Wathern, 1994; Wood, 1993). The EIA is the technical
key to incorporating concepts such as the precaution principle and to preventing
the loss of natural resources, which is evidently the main goal of sustainable
development in decision making (Sadler, 1996; Wood, 2003). It goes without
saying that the adoption and application of EIA depends on the institutional
framework and the political context in the country or region (Ortolano et al.,
1987), however, the decision making is basically dependent on the quality of
environmental assessment (EA) reports. The provision of environmental infor-
mation to decision makers prior to final decision-making is not only intended to
prevent decisions being made that result in unacceptable environmental effects,
but also to promote an early incorporation of environmental values in the de-
velopment of initiatives subject to EIA (Jay et al., 2007). It has been observed
that, at least in developed countries, EIA achieves its goals, although its contri-
bution to environmental awareness and environmental protection generally is
modest (Fiddler and Noble, 2012; Fischer, 2009; Gazzola et al., 2011; Jay et al.,
2007; Wood, 2003; Cherp, 2001). An important component of effectiveness deals
with the quality of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There is a general
assumption that poor quality reports could contribute to a degree of ineffective-
ness since they contain the information related to the project and its likely con-
sequences that are subsequently used in decision-making (Glasson et al., 2005;
Wood, 2003). Extensive research has been conducted in both developed and
developing countries to evaluate the quality of environmental assessments
(Androulidakis and Karakassis, 2005; Jalava et al., 2010; Pardo, 1997; Pinho
et al., 2007; Zeremariam and Quinn, 2007). Adequate information is required for
the decision making as it may have permanent adverse impact on the ecology of
the area.
The quality of EIA reports have been found out to be very poor in Pakistan. As
discussed by Nadeem and Hameed (2008) the reason for ineffectiveness of EIA
system in Pakistan is the poor quality of reports. Consultants avoid extensive work
1550030-2
Evaluating the Adequacy and Quality of EIA Reports
and base their reports primarily in the secondary data even when they describe the
baseline environmental conditions. Public participation is the key to a successful
and effective EIA process and the concerns should be incorporated in the EIA
report. However, public consultation is very poor while preparing the EIA report
and even the genuine concerns of public are not incorporated. Detailing the project
cumulative impacts and considerations of sustainability is also very weak in the
reports (Nadeem and Fischer, 2011). Deficient capability of reviewing authorities
are also one of the reasons for poor report quality in Pakistan (Nadeem and
Hameed, 2008). EIAs have not been assessed in true spirit to evaluate they are
effective to improve and protect the environment and help in balanced decision
making (Arts et al., 2012; Lyhne, 2011). The main focus of this research is to
assess empirically whether all the aspects have been covered in the EIA which is
similar to the research carried out by Cashmore et al. (2004) and Van Doren et al.
(2013).
The study was carried out to see the deficiency of aspects of EIA as per the
national (Government of Pakistan, 1997) and international guidelines (Asian
Development Bank (ADB)). The reports were evaluated by researchers having the
background of environmental sciences as practitioners and also as academicians.
They scored the environmental reports as per the aspects mentioned in the EPA
and ADB’s guidelines. The criteria of score was based on the presence and ab-
sence of each parameters as well as the comprehensiveness and adequateness of
each of them.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to evaluate and review the quality of EA reports in
Punjab, Pakistan. It determined the following:
(1) Investigated the adequacy of available environmental information in the EIA

report.
(2) Assessed the relevancy and authenticity of the EIA reports.
(3) Evaluated and identify gaps against requirements; each component of EIA
reports (executive summary, introduction, project description, description of
environment, anticipated impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, Envi-
ronmental Management Plan (EMP), environmental monitoring plan, public
participation, grievance redressal mechanism, conclusion and recommenda-
tions, annexes) responsible for the poor quality of report.
(4) Draw conclusion on the basis of analysis and suggested recommendations
with an aim to further improve the quality of EA reports.
1550030-3
S. Saif et al.
Methodology
The methodology used for this research was derived on the basis of other similar
researches carried out by other authors (Nadeem and Hameed, 2008; Peterson,
2010; McGrath and Bond, 1997; Lee et al., 1999; Glasson et al., 1997) where
interviews and desk reviews were carried out. The sample was selected on the
basis of the most significant areas as notified by the business bodies. Following
methodology was used to carry out the study:
. Collection/selection of 100 EIA reports from different consultants and for dif-
ferent projects (30 Textiles, six Chemical Industries, 10 Beverages Industries,

four Sugar Industries, 18 Food Processing Industries, four Cement Industries,

four dams and barrages, 10 Pharmaceutical industries, and 20 Power Generation
Projects); These were the significant areas of development projects in Punjab,
Pakistan (source: Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry).
. Although the EPA guidelines (Government of Pakistan, 1997) for the review of
EIA report were consulted however the Reference Checklist was developed on
the basis of ADB guidelines on review and evaluating EIA Report; ADB has
been working aggressively in the Asian countries and has the experiences of
success and failures for various projects in different sectors.
. Interviews were carried out with EPA staff involved in the review of reports.
. Review through desk study.
The checklist used, helped in the comparative assessment of the EA reports.

Methodology devised through checklist evaluation was to assess the EA report
included the following:
(1) Legal — fulfillment of legal requirements for preparation and submission of

the EIA (Riffat and Khan, 2006).
(2) Correct Categorization of the project — a justification of classification
should be provided in the EIA reports.
(3) Scope should include all the potential issues associated with the proposed
project properly. Information regarding the study area and extent to which
the information should be provided.
(4) All aspects of proposed development relevant to the ecology.
(5) Consultation and Identification of stakeholders and incorporation of their
suggestions and concerns (Isaksson et al., 2009).
(6) Baseline data regarding environmental settings of the proposed project area
— use of primary and valid secondary data with identification of sources.
(7) Identification and discussion regarding project alternatives.
1550030-4
(8) Identification and assessment of impacts; primary, secondary, and cumula-

tive impacts.
(9) Evaluation of significance to determine the relative importance and accept-
ability of predicted and the residual impacts.
(11) Proper mitigation measures — adequacy and practicality of mitigation
measures.
(12) Adequacy and practicality of Environmental Management and Monitoring
Plan (EMMP): EMMP should provide sufficient details on practical aspects
of implementation including technical details, responsibilities, monitoring,
and cost.
(13) Grievance Redressal Mechanism to register complaints against the execution

of the project.
Results
To carry out the objectives of the research, 100 EIA reports of different envi-
ronmental consultants and consultancy firms produced from 2005 to 2013 were
reviewed. The EIA reports were collected from EIA consultants/practitioners and
Environmental Protection Department Punjab.
Evaluation of EIA reports

To check the quality of EIA reports prepared by different consultants in Punjab a
comprehensive checklist was prepared, identifying almost all the components to be
covered by any EIA report. Data was collected through different sources i.e. EPA
library and Punjab public library. Following are the results presented in graphical
form (Figs. 1–4) after the detailed review of carefully selected 100 EIA reports
submitted to EPA Punjab during the last eight years. The selected EIA reports
were prepared by different consultants for new development projects, expansion/
extension projects, and rehabilitation projects and also for funding projects by
donor agencies i.e. World Bank and ADB.
Executive summary
As the review of the EIA reports shows that executive summary is an integral part
of an EA report that should be present at the start of any report. This part of report
shows the slight sight of the whole document in a very short detail. There is
provision that the executive summary of the EA should be incorporated in the
report (Aslam, 2006).
1550030-5
S. Saif et al.
Fig. 1. Evaluation of executive summary in different EA reports.
Figure 1 depicts that 95% of the reports prepared by different consultants have
mentioned the key findings of the project in their executive summary. As far as
their solutions or mitigation measures are concerned 59% of the studied reports
were lacking in detailed mitigation measures of key environmental issues while
41% included the mitigation measures. Figure 1 also illustrate that though the
heading conclusion is present in 85% of the executive summary of reports it does
not sufficiently concludes the findings on the basis of detail assessment. Figure 1
also illustrate that majority of consultants have properly concluded their proposed
projects in their EA reports.
Introduction
Figure 2 shows the major components to be covered in any proposed development
project introduction i.e. project need, methodology used to carry out assessment,
review of similar projects, purpose and overview of the EIA report. Review of
different reports revealed that 63% of the reports prepared by different consultants
included the project rationale whereas it was missing in about 37% of the studied
reports. Out of 100 reports sample size, 49 reports have explained the methods to
identify the impacts of the project while the remaining 51% were lacking in
specifying the particular methodology. A very few numbers of consultants have
reviewed other EIA reports of similar projects (8%) to assess the similar outcomes
of the same project while 92% of the reports included no such review. 88% of the
reports have explained the need of the proposed project in the introduction of their
reports while 12% of reports missed to explain the need for the proposed project.
The introduction comes after the executive summary in the EA report. The
introduction is a part that introduces the proponent to the reader whether that may
1550030-6
Fig. 2. Evaluation of introduction in different EA reports.
be reviewing body or a person from a public participation aspect. This leads to the
better understanding of the likely impact of new project. The introduction came
across with the following features in the EIA report: (i) Purpose of the report,
including identification of the project and exponents, (ii) a brief description of the
nature and size, (iii) description of location of the project, and other pertinent
background information, and (iv) extent of the IEE/EIA study, scope of the study,
magnitude of effort, persons performing the study (Aslam, 2006).
Project description
The project description is mainly occupying the provision of sufficient details of
the project to give a brief but clear picture of the following: Objectives of project,
alternatives considered, and reasons for their rejection, location (use of maps and
photographs showing general location, specific location, and project site layout.
Include land uses on the site and surroundings, details of population centers and
nearby dwellings, road access, topographic and vegetation features of the site, and
other sensitive land uses such as national parks, wild life reserves or archaeo-
logical sites), size or magnitude of the operation, including capital cost, and as-
sociated activities, proposed schedule for implementation, description of the
project, including drawings showing project layout, components of the project, etc.
This information should be of the same extent as is included in feasibility reports,
in order to give a clear picture of the project, its context, and its operations.
Government approvals and leases required by the project (Toro et al., 2010).
Review of EA reports revealed that the project activities were illustrated and the
associated environmental, social, economic impacts were defined. A list of project
activities, likely to cause significant impacts to environmental resources were also
present in the report.
1550030-7
S. Saif et al.
Fig. 3. Evaluation of description of environment in different EA reports.
Different EIA consultants have different criteria to assess the project description
in their EA reports. According to Fig. 3, 21% reports have predicted the envi-
ronmental impacts during construction and operational phase of the project and
79% were lacking in identifying temporary and long term impacts of the proposed
development. 24% of the reports included the mitigation measure for the proposed
project and 76% failed to prepare the mitigation measure for construction and
operational phase of the project. But there was no detail of how the major impacts
have been mitigated. Majority of the reports (85%) have stated the location, scale,
and scheduling of activities of their proposed project that will help in identifying
the nature of the project while it was missing in 15% of the studied reports. 85%
reports were failed to assess the potential accidents or hazards associated with any
particular proposed development but 15% of the reports particularly prepared for
donor agency identified and explained this component.
Description of environment
Description of the environment is explanation of the surroundings, situation of the
project area where the project is to be developed. This area can be affected by the
project activities in many different ways. In area affected by project, provision of
sufficient information is needed to give a brief but clear picture of the existing
environmental resources including the physical resources (topography, soils, cli-
mate, surface water, groundwater, geology/seismology), ecological resources
(fisheries, aquatic biology, wildlife, forests, rare, or endangered species), human
and economic development (population and communities, industries, infrastruc-
ture, institutions, transportation, land use planning, power resources and
1550030-8
Fig. 4. Evaluation of description of environment in different EIA reports.
transmission, agricultural and mineral development), quality of life values (so-

cioeconomic values, public health, recreational resources and aesthetic values,
archeological or historic cultural values) (Riffat and Khan, 2006).
Data collected with reference to the description on environment showed that
environment component (53%) that may be significantly affected by the project,
environmental indicators (90%), base maps (25%) for spatial data that are valuable
tool to orient the intended audience of EA report and baseline values (65%) that
present the preexisting conditions of the proposed project were covered in selected
EA reports (Fig. 4).
Anticipated impacts
The type and extent of a project’s potential environmental impacts are highly
context-specific and depend on factors such as topography, land use, vegetation
cover, and settlement patterns (Zhang, 2011).
Analysis of data further showed that anticipated impact of the development
projects were poorly conducted by most of the consultants. Although 61% of the
reports identified the major impacts of proposed development 39% failed to do
that. Similarly, cause and effect (56%) high level effects (53%) and impact as-
sessment (29%) were included in the EA reports (Fig. 5). The figure clearly shows
that most of the EIA reports have documented the cause and effect relationships
between planned projects activities and the environmental components. The results
are evident of the fact that various consultants have reported the high order impacts
significance in their report. They had identified the impacts for the proposed
activities through number of stated assumptions that affect the predicted impacts,
their probability of occurrence and degree of impacts. However, the main loop
hole in the reports was the assessment of the significant impacts of the proposed
1550030-9
S. Saif et al.
Fig. 5. Evaluation of anticipated impacts in different EA reports.
activity at the time of construction and will have cumulative impacts on the
environment.
Figure 6 is showing the proportion of anticipated impacts that have been
reported in the EIA by different consultancies. The impact predicted in the reports
was supported by different assumptions that will affect the predicted impacts.
Various consultants have mentioned the prediction of the impacts (78%) in their
reports that will lead to the recognition of all of the impact that may be direct or
indirect to the related proposed activity. Furthermore, the methodologies used for
the identification of predicted impacts were discussed in about 49% of the EIA
reports while 51% failed to specify any methodology to identify proposed project
Fig. 6. Evaluation of anticipated impacts in different EA reports.
1550030-10
impacts. Moreover, the approaches used to address the significance of impacts

were missing in about 62% of the studied reports. Similarly only 11% of the
studied reports successfully justified the project impacts by creating a link between
project aspect and their associated impacts. These include the reports particularly
prepared for donor agencies i.e. World Bank and ADB. While remaining 89%
consultants poorly justified the proposed project impacts. In general, the impacts
identification was qualitative and not quantitative.
Mitigation of impacts
Mitigation is defined as those measures or techniques that are used to minimize

damages that would otherwise occur because of a proposed action to the envi-
ronment. These measures include altering processes to reduce emissions, changing
pollution control equipment to render it more effective, adjusting the operation
time of a plant, etc. In addition, a continuous monitoring process is essential to
ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented, operated, and main-
tained in accordance with the approved procedure (Peterson, 2010).
The quality of EIA can be improved if proper mitigation is provided for the
impacts of the proposed project. The findings depicted in Fig. 7 shows that only
22% of the reports carefully incorporated the protection measures. The cost benefit
analysis for each of the impacts and its respective mitigation option was missing in
95% of the reports. The cost effectiveness of each of the mitigation approaches
were not discussed in detail in 79% of the studied reports. It is crucial to evaluate
each mitigation measure with respect to cost effectiveness as it aids to assess the
accurate approach for mitigation of the impacts.
Fig. 7. Evaluation of mitigation measures in different EIA reports.
1550030-11
S. Saif et al.
Migaon Measures
69%
61%
70%
53%
60% 47%
50% 39%
31%
40%
30% Yes
20%
No
10%
0%
Technologies Time Schedule Illustraons
for Migaon (Tabular Form)
Yes 47% 61% 69%

No 53% 39% 31%
Fig. 8. Evaluation of mitigation measures in different EA reports.
Figure 8 shows the percentages of the mitigation measures in the EIA reports.
The percentages of mitigation identifying the use of appropriate technologies was
present in 47% of the studied reports. The time schedule for the implementation of
the mitigation technologies was discussed in 61% of EIA reports. The scheduling
ensures the implementation of mitigation measures at the right time. Last bar in the
chart shows that the illustration of mitigatory measures in tabular form is more
understandable than that of non-tabular form and 69% of the reports presented
mitigation measures in tabular form.
Alternatives
If the project is expected to have a significant environmental impact, EIA should
also include information on alternative solutions and comparative assessment of
alternative mitigation measures (Isaksson et al., 2009). Alternative to a plan/action
is an important step in EIA procedure. Alternative may be a change in location,
materials or procedures, as well as “no action” in some cases, which can minimize
environmental impact of a proposed activity.
Figure 9 shows that the consultants did not properly consider evaluation
methods, environmental factors during EIA reports preparations. Evaluation of
alternatives were present in only 16% of the studied reports, while only 19% of
those reports considered alternative on the basis of environment, 3% considered
other factors and only 5% considered no project option.
Figure 10 shows that the “range of alternatives” were not provided by majority
of EIA reports (77%). A major portion of the reports 94% and 90% respectively
did not take into account the methods of scaling and weighting.
1550030-12
Fig. 9. Evaluation of alternatives in different EIA reports.
The majority of reports responsible for bypassing the applied methods, ag-
gregation methods, stated assumptions, and certainty is shown in Fig. 11, on the
other hand, very few reports considered these factors.
Public participation
The EA should report the results of public participation. It also ensures the
identification of the impacts that are socially and economically connected with the
public. The National EIA Guidelines contains objectives, methods of screening
projects requiring the level of EIA, scoping, impact identification and prediction,
1550030-13
S. Saif et al.
report review, monitoring and evaluation, and impact auditing. The guidelines also
contain methods for ensuring public participation during the preparation of the
EIA report (Bhatt and Khanal, 2009).
Under the heading of “public participation”, the factors of strategy and ap-
proach, chronology of individuals and groups consulted, description of methods
used to consult with public and summary of information obtained during con-
sultation were taken into account by majority of EIA reports as shown in Fig. 12
while on the other hand the number of reports ignoring these factors were less.
Fig. 12. Evaluation of additional studies: public participation in different EIA reports.
1550030-14
Fig. 13. Evaluation of environmental management plan in different EIA reports.
Public were consulted from nearby areas of the project. NGOs, government
agencies were mostly not consulted or just superficially consulted (inadequate
information regarding the project and concerns associated). Overall the assessment
implied doubts in the genuineness of the consultations except for those carried out
for the donor agencies projects, which also contained the names of the people
consulted.
Environmental management plan

Figure 13 reveals that the protective measures and monitoring requirements were
the factors which were only mentioned by a large number of reports under the
category of EMP and however, the 79% number of reports not including the staff
requirements, budgets, and schedule, administrative arrangements and adminis-
trative mechanism was more than the number of report including these factors.
EMP is considered to be the core of EIA reports which basically describe the
proposed impacts with respect to description of impact, point of impact required,
mitigation measure, and responsibilities (Haydar and Pediaditi, 2010).
Environment monitoring plan is very important aspect of any EMP. It is a
process which determines the implementation of mitigation measures in accor-
dance with the approved plan (Tzoumis, 2007).
Figure 14 depicts the status of environment monitoring plan in the studied
reports (in EMP section). Monitoring objectives were clearly defined in 62% of the
1550030-15
S. Saif et al.
Fig. 14. Evaluation of environmental monitoring plan in different EIA reports.
reports, monitoring program was available only in 29% of the reports and fre-
quency of measurable environment indicators were present in 49% of the reports
and were missing in the rest of the reports.
Figure 15 shows that 54% of the studied reports had sampling plan whereas
63% of the reports were lacking in quality control and assurance. Similarly en-
vironment reporting and monitoring results were missing in 52% of the reports.
Fig. 15. Evaluation of environmental monitoring plan in different EIA reports.
1550030-16
Summary and conclusion

Figure 16 reveals that 59% of reports did not mention net benefits, which justify
the project and 70% failed to explain how adverse effects have been mitigated.
Moreover, 77% of the reports missed to conclude the surveillance and monitoring
plan and 75% did not explain the use or destruction of any irreplaceable com-
ponents of proposed development. Most of the EIA reports failed to focus on the
essence of EMP to describe and mitigate various impacts of the proposed project
(Heinma and Pőder, 2010).
Grievance redressal mechanism
Figure 17 shows the percentage of grievance redressal mechanism in different EIA

reports. One of the most important but ignored component in the studied EA
reports was present in only 9% of the reports. Similarly GRM was not registered in
93% of the reports and was not incorporated in 91% of project activities of the
studied reports.
Evaluation of annexure
60% of the studied report failed to attach the supporting/background documents
and 59% did not provide the list of people contacted during public consultation as
shown in Fig. 18. It can also be interpreted from the figure that 55% of reports did
not make the quality assurance of data and 82% reliability of the data sources a
part of the annexure of their EIA reports.
By reviewing the EIA reports it was found that a section of environmental
economics was not present in any of the EIA report. It should be mentioned in EIA
Fig. 16. Evaluation of summary and conclusion in different EIA reports.
1550030-17
S. Saif et al.
Fig. 17. Evaluation of GRM in different EIA reports.
Fig. 18. Evaluation of annexure of different EIA reports.
reports because it studies the economic impact due to environmental policies

(Nadeem and Hameed, 2006).
Conclusion and Recommendations

The quality of 100 completed and approved EA reports were assessed to inves-
tigate the contents of reports i.e. executive summary, introduction, project
1550030-18
description, description of environment, anticipated impacts, mitigation measures,

alternatives, EMP, environmental monitoring plan, public participation (proper
scoping and frequency should be adequately defined), grievance redressal mech-
anism (public complaints should be appropriately registered and resolved), con-
clusion and recommendations and annexes. The overall quality of the EA reports
was inadequate with respect to the standards, however some reports were better
than others due to their relevance to a particular consulting team (which have
similar expertise relevant to the specific project). The reports developed and
prepared by the donor agencies were by large up to the mark and better in all major
aspects as donor agencies exercise their controls and strict checks in order to
improve the quality and acceptability of the report. A number of relatively easy
steps can be taken to improve the quality of EIA reports.
The essence of an EIA report is not to manage the impacts but it is only to fulfil
the requirement of environmental clearance. Therefore, the consultant’s job is to
satisfy the proponent requirement of environmental clearance only rather than
ensuring the environmental and social soundness of the proposed projects. As
ascertained by Riffat and Khan (2006) it should act as a tool to assist in decision
making. Similar problems sometimes moderately exists in developed countries as
well as EIA in UK is more integrated in decision-making than in Netherlands (Arts
et al., 2012). However, the overall effectiveness of EIAs were found to be stable in
both the countries (see Runhaar et al., 2013).
EPA should develop a methodology to help consultants to predict impacts more
elaborately. This can be achieved through independent input from the experts and
practitioners of the same fields (Arts et al., 2012).
Since there is no registration process for environmental consultants, one of the
causes of the poor quality of EIA reports appears to be incapability and inexpe-
rience of environmental consultants and approval authorities. There is an estab-
lished relationship between inexperience consultants and approval authorities
which emphasizes on the need of training and certification.
Review of the submitted EIA reports is carried out by the government de-
partment (EPA) and not by independent experts due to the insufficient staffing and
other workload, the reports are reviewed by inexperienced staff.
Unlike EC guidelines, which seems to work well with the Punjab EPA
guidelines fail to ensure the quality of EIA reports. Therefore, the first step should
be to develop a comprehensive outline of EA reports to be included in the law so
as to give a clear instructional guideline to setup an acceptable format of EIA
reports. Moreover, the EIA reports should be reviewed by independent panel of
experts providing an impartial review on the quality of report. The panel of experts
1550030-19
S. Saif et al.
should be selected from the NGOs, academicians, and subject specialist (ecology,
sociology, etc.).
The EPA should develop a criteria to register and certify consultant in order to
regulate the quality of report. A process can be initiated to rate the consultants on the
basis of their impartiality and quality of the prepared reports with respect to set
criteria. Similar conclusion is also given by Momtaz (2002). Although EIA has
contributed to the environmental awareness among industries to some extent how-
ever it is ascertained that EIA has a moderate impact on decision-making (Lee, 1995;
Sadler, 1996; Weston, 1997; Heuvelhof and Nauta, 1997; Barker and Wood, 1999;
Glasson et al., 1999; Leknes, 2001; Christensen et al., 2005; Fischer, 2009; Köppel
et al., 2012; Arts et al., 2012) in almost all the developmental projects thus losing its
real essence. This study differs from the study carried out by Arts et al. (2012), where
majority of decisions makers formed their opinion on the basis of EIAs.
In the light of this study further research may be carried out to assess the
varying quality of specific aspects of an EIA report with respect to clarity and
efficacy of the information.
References
Androulidakis, I and I Karakassis (2005). Evaluation of the EIA system performance

in Greece, using quality indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26,
242–256.
Aslam, F (2006). Environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan — Overview,
implementation and effectiveness. Master’s Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technolo-
gy, Stockholm.
Arts, J, H Runhaar, TB Fischer, U Jha-Thakur, F van Laerhoven, P Driessen and
V Onyango (2012). The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental
governance — A comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management, 14(4), 1250025-1–40.
Barker, A and C Wood (1999). An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU
countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(4), 387–404.
Bhatt, RP and NS Khanal (2009). Environmental impact assessment system in Nepal —
An overview of policy, legal instruments and process. Kathmandu University Journal
of Science, Engineering and Technology, 5, 160–170.
Cashmore, M, R Gwilliam, R Morgan, D Cobb and A Bond (2004). The interminable
issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the
advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assess Project
Appraisal, 22(4), 295–310.
1550030-20
Cherp, A (2001). EA legislation and practice in Central and Eastern Europe and the
former USSR: A comparative analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
21(4), 335–362.
Christensen, P, L Kørnøv and EH Nielsen (2005). EIA as regulation: Does it work?
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 393–412.
Fiddler, C and B Noble (2012). Advancing strategic environmental assessment in the
offshore oil and gas sector: Lessons from Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34, 12–21.
Fischer, TB (2009). On the role(s) of (strategic) environmental assessment in “greening”
decision making. University of Utrecht, Copernicus Lecture, 2 March. www.twoeameu.
net.
Gazzola, P, U Jha-Thakur, S Kidd, D Peel and T Fischer (2011). Enhancing environmental

appraisal effectiveness: Towards an understanding of internal context conditions in
organizational learning. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(2), 183–204.
Glasson, J, R Therivel and A Chadwick (1999). Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment, 2nd Ed. London: UCL Press.
Glasson, J, R Therivel and A Chadwick (2005). Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment, 3rd Ed., p. 342. London: Routledge.
Glasson, J, R Therivel, J Weston, E Wilson and R Frost (1997). EIA Learning from
experience: Changes in the quality of environmental impact statements for UK planning
projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(4), 451–464.
Government of Pakistan (1997). Guidelines for preparation and review of environmental
reports. Pak-EPA, Islamabad.
Gray, IM and G Edwards-Jones (1999). A review of the quality of environmental impact
assessments in the Scottish forest sector. Forestry, 72(1), 1–10.
Haydar, F and K Pediaditi (2010). Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment
system in Syria. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 363–370.
Heinma, K and T Pőder (2010). Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment system
in Estonia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 272–277.
Heuvelhof, E and C Nauta (1997). The effects of environmental impact assessment in the
Netherlands. Project Appraisal, 12(1), 25–30.
Isaksson, K, T Richardson and K Olsson (2009). From consultation to deliberation?
Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 295–304.
Jalava, K, S Pasanen, M Saalasti and M Kuitunen (2010). Quality of environmental impact
assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assess Project
Appraisal, 28(1), 15–27.
Jay, S, C Jones, P Slinn and C Wood (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retro-
spect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 287–300.
Köppel, J, G Geißler, J Helfrich and J Reisert (2012). A snapshot of Germany’s EIA
approach in light of the United States arrchetype. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 14(4), 1250022.
1550030-21
S. Saif et al.
Lee, N (1995). Environmental assessment in the European Union: A tenth anniversary.

Project Appraisal, 10(2), 77–90.
Lee, N, R Colley, J Bonde and J Simpson (1999). Reviewing the quality of environmental
statements and environmental appraisals. Paper No. 55. EIA Centre, Department of
Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.
Leknes, E (2001). The roles of EIA in the decision making process. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 21(2), 309–334.
Lyhne, I (2011). Between policy-making and planning — SEA and strategic decision
making in the Danish energy sector. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 13(3), 319–341.
McGrath, C and A Bond (1997). The quality of environmental impact statements: A

review of those submitted in Cork, Eire 1988–1993. Project Appraisal, 12(1), 43–52.
Momtaz, S (2002). Environmental assessment in Bangladesh: A critical review. Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 163–179.
Nadeem, O and R Hameed (2006). A critical review of the adequacy of EIA reports —
Evidence from Pakistan. Trans Engineering Computer Technology, 17, 200–206.
Nadeem, O and R Hameed (2008). Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system
in Pakistan. Environment Impact Assessment Review, 28, 562–571.
Nadeem, O and TB Fischer (2011). An evaluation framework for effective public par-
ticipation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 36–47.
Ortolano, L, B Jenkins and R Abracosa (1987). Speculations on when and why EIA is
effective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 7, 285–292.
Ortolano, L and A Sheperd (1995). Environmental impact assessment: Challenges and
opportunities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13, 3–30.
Pardo, M (1997). Environmental impact assessment: Myth or reality? Lessons from Spain.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(2), 123–142.
Peterson, K (2010). Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny
by reviewers. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 169–176.
Pinho, P, R Maia and A Monterrosa (2007). The quality of Portuguese environmental
impact studies: The case of small hydropower projects. Environmental Impact As-
sessment Review, 26(3), 189–205.
Riffat, R and D Khan (2006). A review and evaluation of the environmental impact
assessment process in Pakistan. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sani-
tation, 1, 17–29.
Sadler, B (1996). International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. En-
vironmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance.
Final Report, Environmental Agency, International Association for Impact Assessment,
Minister of Supply and Services, Quebec, Canada.
Sadler, B (2004). On evaluating the success of EIA and SEA. In Assessing Impact —
Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-Up, A Morrison-Saunders and J Arts (eds.),
pp. 249–253. London: Earthscan.
1550030-22
Toro, J, I Requena and M Zamorano (2010). Environmental impact assessment in

Colombia: Critical analysis and proposals for improvement. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 30, 247–261.
Tzoumis, K (2007). Comparing the quality of environmental impact statements by
agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 27(1), 26–40.
Van Doren, D, PPJ Driessen, B Schijf and HAC Runhaar (2013). Evaluating the sub-
stantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 38(1), 120–130.
Wathern, P (1994). An introductory guide to EIA. In Environmental Impact Assessment:
Theory and Practice, P Wathern (ed.), pp. 3–46. London: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and
King’s Lynn.
Weston, J (1997). Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice. London:
Longman Ltd.
Wood, Ch (1993). Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australian discretion
rules EA. Journal of Environmental Management, 39, 281–295.
Wood, C (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, 2nd Ed.
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Zeremariam, T and N Quinn (2007). An evaluation of environmental impact assessment in
Eritrea. Impact Assess Project Appraisal, 25(1), 53–63.
Zhang, ZX (2011). Policies and measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts of
cross border infrastructure projects in Asia. Working Paper. 261, 37.
1550030-23
View publication stats

Evaluating The Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports in Punjab, Pakistan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating The Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports in Punjab, Pakistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Evaluating the Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact Assessment

Article in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · September 2015

Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry Sana Akhtar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evaluating the Adequacy and Quality of Environment Impact

*College of Earth and Environmental Sciences

Received 10 November 2014

(1) Investigated the adequacy of available environmental information in the EIA

ferent projects (30 Textiles, six Chemical Industries, 10 Beverages Industries,

four Sugar Industries, 18 Food Processing Industries, four Cement Industries,

The checklist used, helped in the comparative assessment of the EA reports.

(1) Legal — fulﬁllment of legal requirements for preparation and submission of

(8) Identiﬁcation and assessment of impacts; primary, secondary, and cumula-

(13) Grievance Redressal Mechanism to register complaints against the execution

Evaluation of EIA reports

Fig. 1. Evaluation of executive summary in different EA reports.

Fig. 2. Evaluation of introduction in different EA reports.

Fig. 3. Evaluation of description of environment in different EA reports.

Fig. 4. Evaluation of description of environment in different EIA reports.

transmission, agricultural and mineral development), quality of life values (so-

Fig. 5. Evaluation of anticipated impacts in different EA reports.

Fig. 6. Evaluation of anticipated impacts in different EA reports.

impacts. Moreover, the approaches used to address the signiﬁcance of impacts

Mitigation is deﬁned as those measures or techniques that are used to minimize

Fig. 7. Evaluation of mitigation measures in different EIA reports.

Yes 47% 61% 69%

Fig. 8. Evaluation of mitigation measures in different EA reports.

Fig. 9. Evaluation of alternatives in different EIA reports.

Fig. 10. Evaluation of alternatives in different EIA reports.

Fig. 11. Evaluation of alternatives in different EIA reports.

Fig. 13. Evaluation of environmental management plan in different EIA reports.

Environmental management plan

Fig. 14. Evaluation of environmental monitoring plan in different EIA reports.

Fig. 15. Evaluation of environmental monitoring plan in different EIA reports.

Summary and conclusion

Figure 17 shows the percentage of grievance redressal mechanism in different EIA

Fig. 16. Evaluation of summary and conclusion in different EIA reports.

Fig. 17. Evaluation of GRM in different EIA reports.

Fig. 18. Evaluation of annexure of different EIA reports.

reports because it studies the economic impact due to environmental policies

Conclusion and Recommendations

description, description of environment, anticipated impacts, mitigation measures,

Androulidakis, I and I Karakassis (2005). Evaluation of the EIA system performance

Gazzola, P, U Jha-Thakur, S Kidd, D Peel and T Fischer (2011). Enhancing environmental

Lee, N (1995). Environmental assessment in the European Union: A tenth anniversary.

McGrath, C and A Bond (1997). The quality of environmental impact statements: A

Toro, J, I Requena and M Zamorano (2010). Environmental impact assessment in

View publication stats

You might also like