Effectiveness of EA in DecisionMaking: Nepals Experience

1
Effectiveness of EA in Decision-Making Nepals
Experience
PENTA-WII Workshop on EA Curriculum Dehradun,
India 24-26 September 2007

• Batu Uprety
• Chief, Environment Assessment Section
• Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology,
  NEPAL
• E-mail upretybk_at_wlink.com.np
• 25 September 2007

2
Reviewers PerspectiveRealisation of EIA

• Sixth Plan (1980-1985) included policy and
  programme to conduct EIA of major infrastructure
  projects
• Implementation of Environmental Impact Study
  Project (EISP) in 1982 - carried out EIA studies
  of some projects
• EIA of some studies conducted in donor-funded
  projects in 1980s
• Seventh Plan to Tenth Plan (1985-2007) focused
  on conducting EIA, developing and implementing
  EIA guidelines, and carrying out monitoring and
  auditing
• Sectoral policies formulated after mid-1990s
  focused on the need for carrying out EIA

3
Policy Focus on EA
Master Plan for Forestry Sector and National
Conservation Strategy
1980s
6th and 7th Plans Initiation of policies
8th and 9th Plans Expansion of policies,
standards and monitoring
NEPAP, Sectoral policies on industry, hydropower,
tourism, solid waste, and irrigation etc.
1990s
Sectoral policies and strategies on public
infrastructures, hydropower, biodiversity,
wetland, transport, irrigation, and SDAN, NBS,
WRS, NWP etc.
Tenth Plan (2002-07) Monitoring and SEA Interim
Plan (2007-09) Promote environmental balance
2000s
NEPAP Nepal Environmental Policy and Action
Plan (1993), SDAN Sustainable Development
Agenda for Nepal (2003), NBS Nepal Biodiversity
Strategy (2002), and WRS Water Resources
Strategy (2002), NWP National Water Plan (2005)
4
Policy Shift on Environment Assessment
Conduct EIA of major development projects
1980 to 1996 Study phase
IEE/ EIA (Project level) to SEA (PPP level)
Enforcement of EPA, 1996 and EPR, 1997
proposals prescribed in Schedules (1 2),
approval process included
1997-2007 Implementation Phase Participatory EIA
and monitoring
Approval of EIA reports of 71 projects as of
mid-September 2007 (7 reports in process of
approval)
5
Approval Process of SD and TOR of EIA Report
Proposal requiring EIA (Schedule 2 of EPR, 1997
Issuance of 15 days Public Notice in the national
newspaper for Scoping (Rule 4.1)
Determination of Scoping Document as proposed or
in the revised form (Rule 4.5)
Preparation of Scoping Document and TOR, and
submission to Concerned Body by the Proponent
(Rule 4.3)
Preparation and Submission of TOR (in the format
of Schedule 4) by the Proponent (Rule 5.2)
Investigation of Scoping Document, and TOR, and
forward to MoEST with opinions and suggestions
(Rule 4.4)
Approval of TOR as proposed or in the revised
form (Rule 5.3)
Note Proponent responsible to prepare and submit
SD and TOR for approval
6
Approval Process of EIA Report
After SD and TOR Approval
Drafting of EIA Report in the format as indicated
in Schedule 6 (Rule 7.1)
Issuance of 30-days public notice in daily
newspaper for public opinions and suggestions
(Rule 11.2)
Approval of EIA Report within 60 or 90 days upon
receipt (Rule 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6)
Public Hearing at Project Site (Rule 7.2)
Preparation of Final EIA Report and Submission of
15 copies to the Concerned Body (with proofs of
Rules 7.2 10)
Compliance of EIA Report and other conditions
during proposal implementation (Rule 12)
Environmental monitoring and inform MoEST on
directives issued to Proponent (Rule 13)
Investigation and forward 10 copies of EIA report
to MoEST with opinions within 21 days from the
date of its receipt (Rule 11.1)
Environmental Auditing after 2 years of service
commencement (Rule 14)
7
Composition of the Review Committee

• Joint-Secretary, MoEST Chairman
• Representative (concerned ministry to
  project) Member
• Experts (3) Physical, biological, and socio
• economic or depending upon the nature of
  project Member
• Representatives of NGOs or GOs (3) Member
• Chief, Law Section, MoEST Member
• Chief, EA Section, MoEST Member-Secretary
• Total 10 members
• Additional invitees about 3
• Proponent and consultant

8
Time Taken for Approval - Example

• Upper Tamakoshi HEP
• Approval of SD and TOR 295 days
• Approval of EIA report 103 days
• Total time at MoEST 398 days (1 yr, 1 month )
• After approval of SD and TOR, time taken by the
  proponent 1244 days (3 yr and 5 months)
• Kawaswoti 132 kV Sub-Station
• Approval of SD and TOR 12 days
• Approval of EIA report 86 days
• Total time at MoEST 98 days
• After approval of SD and TOR, time taken by the
  proponent 1 year
• Talkot-Mahendranagar 400 kV
• Approval of SD and TOR 24 days
• Time taken by the proponent for submission of
  legal requirements and report refinement 21 days

9
New year starts in mid-May and data organised in
Nepali calendar
10
EIA Related Guidelines and Laws

• EIA Guidelines
• National EIA Guidelines (1993), and separate EIA
  Guidelines for Forestry and Industry Sectors
  (1995) endorsed by the government
• EIA Guidelines for water resources, roads, mines,
  tourism etc. drafted
• Laws
• Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1996 and
  Environment Protection Rules (EPR), 1997 (both
  enforced in June 1997) contain provisions to
  promote use of EIA and for EIA report review and
  approval
• Forest Act, 1993 provision to provide forest
  area to implement the project if the project does
  not affect the environment significantly
• Water Resources Act, 1992 and Electricity Act,
  1992 - identify adverse impacts of the project on
  the environment

11
Institutional Development on Environment
Ministries and department related to natural
resource management Environmental Impact Study
Project
1980s
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC)
renamed as the Ministry of Forests and
Environment, 1991 Again renamed as MFSC in
1992 Ministry of Population and Environment
(MOPE) in 1995
1990s
2000s
Ministry Environment, Science and Technology in
2005 by dissolving MOPE
12
Difficulty in Approval

• Legal complications such as projects proposed for
  implementation in the protected areas (EIA
  reports of 4 projects proposed for implementation
  in PAs not approved)
• Non-compliance of the provisions of EPA, 1996 and
  EPR, 1997
• Non-inclusion of public concerns in the EIA
  report
• Non-inclusion of comments and suggestions of the
  review committees
• Under quality due to copying and pasting
  consultants ethical issue

13
Implementation level - Key Messages

• Non-compliance of Hydropower Development Policy,
  2001 (10 downstream water release in HEPs)
• Impacts on fish species in dewatered zone is a
  real threat
• Habitat fragmentation in the linear projects
  (irrigation and transmission line) is a permanent
  effect
• Compensatory plantation internalised
• No mechanism for submission of compliance and
  impact monitoring reports
• No proper linkage on baseline data/information,
  adverse impacts and mitigation measures,
  monitoring and auditing requirements in EIA
  reports
• Some impacts most theoretical, subjective,
  unrealistic and non-site-specific

14
Additional Initiatives

• Cabinet decision (February, 2007) - provide
  forest areas on lease for non-forestry purposes
  and introduce compensatory plantation _at_ of 125,
  and manage for 5 years in projects cost and
  handover to community users
• If compensatory plantation is not possible,
  conduct economic valuation of forest resources
  and provide compensation to the forest owner
• Consider forests as one of the components of
  alternative analysis during the EIA study
• Conduct environmental monitoring and auditing
• Guides on environment management plan,
  monitoring, auditing and approval process
  published in November 2006 to improve quality of
  EA report (www.most.gov.np)
• Fast-track decision-making adopted
• Studies conducted in 2006 on accrediting
  consultants and provisions for SEA in the
  legislation
• Projects requiring IEE/EIA amended in August 2007
  etc.

15
Recent Initiatives
Economic valuation of ecological goods and
services
Need to link baseline, impacts, measures,
monitoring and auditing information
Quantified information
TOR Phase
Need to include cost-based EMP
Involvement of appropriate professionals in
study team
EIA Report
Cost-based EMP
Proponent responsible for EMP implementation
Monitoring
Plantation _at_ 125 Manage for 5 yrs and
handover Restoration/creation of habitats
Auditing
16
Academic PerspectiveEIA in Academic Courses

• Graduate level - 1 cr. hr. (16 hrs teaching
  exam)
• Masters level - 3 cr. hrs.
• EIA courses introduced in environmental
  management, environmental science or natural
  resource management streams in Tribhuvan
  University (TU), Kathmandu University (KU) and
  Pokhara University (PU)
• TU B.Sc. course outline - EIA in project
  planning EIA process scoping and EIA
  methodologies baseline study and impact risk
  assessment management and mitigation measures
  comparison of alternatives review and
  decision-making, compensatory activities, and
  policy and guidelines
• Similar courses in other universities
• Up to 1 month (6 hrs a day) EIA training launched
  every year to develop human resources change in
  perspective of report preparers and reviewers

17
Masters Level EIA Course

• Historical perspectives and development of EIA
  system
• EIA in international instruments legally
  binding (conventions), and non-legally binding
  instruments (declarations/decisions)
• EIA related policies, laws, guidelines and
  institutions
• EIA in the project cycle and differences between
  EAs (SIA, BIA, SEA etc.)
• EA principles and processes environmental
  screening, scoping, ToR, baseline data and
  information (parameters and methods for
  collection and analysis), alternative analysis,
  methods for impact identification, prediction and
  evaluation, mitigation measures, environmental
  monitoring and auditing, environment management
  plan, preparation of EIA report, public
  consultation/hearing
• EIA report review, evaluation and decision-making
• SEA principles, practices, process/methods
• Future trends in EIA
• Case studies field studies

18
Constraints and Opportunities

• Constraints
• Generic EIA curriculum and inadequate linkage
  with sustainable development objectives
• Inadequate knowledge-based human resource
  (concept and practice) for teaching and field
  exercises
• Teaching gap on policies, laws, guidelines and
  institutions
• Methodological issues (value judgment)
• Opportunities
• Refining academic courses
• Regular production of knowledge-based human
  resources
• Launching field exercise-based teaching
• Participation in EIA report review committee
  formed by MoEST
• Involvement of knowledge-based persons in
  improving the quality of EIA report

19
At the End

• Well integrated in decision-making process
• Foundation well established
• Realisation of the importance and benefits of EIA
  at decision/policy-making level
• Need to develop knowledge-based human resources
  through academic and training courses
• Need to prepare and share what worked and what
  did not
• PENTAs contribution to further streamline EIA
  process at country level

Thank you very much