Environmental Impact Assessment

Video transcript: Challenges in ensuring

EIA conditions are met?

How do you know if an EIA has been undertaken, or undertaken properly? You will
recall that a proposed activity approved based on the EIS is either approved in full or
approved with conditions. If the project goes ahead, how do we know if the correct
conditions have been met? For example, if a condition of a mine going ahead was
the rehabilitation of the site after construction and/or post-operation, who checks to
see if that has happened? If a condition was the use of a particular technique,
product or materials in construction, who checks that it has happened? This is a
weakness of the EIA process and perhaps our greatest challenge.

Too often, there are very few checks and balances that provide a legal obligation for
companies to prove they have undertaken the project according to the guidelines. In
this context, the public often acts as public ‘watch dogs’ to assert the public interest
to maintain company alignment with the conditions set upon approval. In other
cases, a suite of evaluation and monitoring activities may be set up to ensure, over
time, that the proponents undertake best practices as it implements the activity. On
other occasions, a project, particularly if it occurs in multiple stages, will not be
allowed to proceed until it has met the conditions in the earlier stages. Companies
may agree to implement an environmental management system or EMS, which will
make them publicly accountable and transparent in how they deal with the impacts.

Overall there are much fewer legal obligations placed on proponents once approvals
have been granted. This is an underexplored area of EIA and is an ongoing
weakness. Ensuring project constructions, operation and wind down occur with
minimal impact and following EIS conditions, relies so heavily on goodwill, due
diligence and corporate social responsibility.
My Comment:

A notable example illustrating weaknesses in EIA enforcement and compliance can be seen in the
construction sector, particularly in rapidly developing economies. Projects often commence without
full EIA clearance or adhere to minimal standards to expedite progress. For instance, in some re-
gions, construction projects near sensitive ecological zones proceed with inadequate mitigation
plans for environmental impacts, largely due to lax enforcement and oversight. This practice not
only endangers biodiversity but also poses long-term sustainability risks.
The crux of the issue lies in enforcement and compliance mechanisms being under-resourced or
undermined by economic pressures. When short-term economic gains are prioritized over environ-
mental sustainability, EIAs can become a formality rather than a rigorous assessment process.
This reflects a significant weakness in the EIA system: the gap between policy and practice. With-
out robust enforcement, compliance becomes voluntary and inconsistent, diluting the EIA's effec-
tiveness in safeguarding the environment.
I concur that the practices of enforcement, or the lack thereof, represent a critical weakness in the
EIA process.