Comparative Study of EIA Systems: Philippines and Other Countries

How does the Philippine EIA System compare with the EIA systems in other

countries? What is the value of EIA in development planning in the international

context?

Strong features of the Philippines EIA System include the project ranking system

(categories A, B, and C), the IEE checklists, and the need for Environmental

Clearance Certificates.

In comparison to other EIA systems in Asia and the Pacific, there are several

weaknesses, however, that will be elucidated. For example, the Philippines

system appears to be heavily weighted towards administrative compliance rather

than a useful design tool.

Comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the Philippines EIA system with

other EIA processes in the region and globally will highlight areas for potentially

strengthening the utility of EIAs in the Philippines as a powerful project design

tool.

Dr. Peter N. King

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Dr. King is the Senior Policy Advisor for IGES based in Bangkok, Thailand. As a former Director of the Asian Development Bank, with 15 years in Manila, he is experienced in EIA practice throughout the region and currently heads the Secretariat of the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network.

INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES

Quick Study of EIA Practices in some Asia-Pacific Countries and

Beyond Lessons for the Philippines?

Peter King and Simon Hoiberg Olsen

6/4/2013

This study provides a snapshot of past and current Environmental Impact Assessment practices in a number of countries with a view to extracting good practices for the improvement of Philippine assessments.

This page is intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Charts and Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv

Comparative Study of EIA Systems: Philippines and Other Countries ............................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Main elements of EIAs .................................................................................................................................... 2

Impact Assessment in the United States ........................................................................................................ 3

EIA Process in the United States ................................................................................................................. 3

Environmental Impact Assessment in Japan .................................................................................................. 4

EIA Process in Japan ................................................................................................................................... 5

EIA in Malaysia................................................................................................................................................ 6

EIA in China ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

EIA China Process ....................................................................................................................................... 8

EIA in the Republic of Korea ........................................................................................................................... 9

European Union EIA Directive and Process .................................................................................................. 10

EIA in the Philippines .................................................................................................................................... 12

Value of EIAs in an International Context ..................................................................................................... 14

EIA Related Training ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Effectiveness of EIAs ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Cost and Options for Improvement .............................................................................................................. 17

Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 18

References .................................................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF CHARTS AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Generalized EIA Process Flowchart…………………………………………………………………………………………………2

Figure 2: EA Process in the United States………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

Chart 3: The Projects Subject to EIA Law……………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Chart 4: Process and Institutions in Malaysia…………………………………………………………………………………………………6

Chart 5: EIA China Process…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Chart 6: The EIA Procedure in Republic of Korea…………………………………………………………………………………………..9

Chart 7: The EIA Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

Chart 8: EU EIA Directive and relation to SEA Directive……………………………………………………………………………….11

Chart 9: Japanese and EU EIA compared………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

Chart 10: EIA Process in the Philippines………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...13

Chart 11: International EIA Regimes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14

1

Comparative Study of EIA Systems: Philippines and Other Countries

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an overview of key elements of a number of different countries’ Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) procedures. These elements will be compared to the current EIA process of the Philippines

in order to draw out lessons for possible improvement. The EIAs reviews are from the following countries:

China, Japan, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, United States, and the regional regime in the European Union

(EU). The paper also includes a brief discussion of the value of EIA in the international context, and

reflections on assessing the effectiveness and cost of EIAs.

The paper is structured as follows: The first section focuses on the country cases. The second section

discusses the value of EIAs in an international context, provides some information on the cost of conducting

EIAs, compliance and enforcement, provides information on EIA related training, and presents possible

options for evaluating EIAs. The third section provides some information from the Philippines case and

compares it with the practices undertaken in the other countries. The paper concludes with a brief set of

recommendations and several points for further discussion on improving EIA generally and in the Philippines.

Main points to consider for improving Philippines EIA found through this quick study are the following:

EIAs should be implemented earlier (at program or policy formulation stage) to help clarify whether there are other alternatives to the project to be considered at the scoping stage.

Compliance with EIA process/procedures at the approval stage, does not guarantee enforcement till the end of the project life-cycle. Proponents should include also possible long-term impacts as a

part of EIAs.

It could be useful to consider a move from target clearance type of assessment to “best effort” types of assessment. “Best-effort” assessments may reveal more environmentally effective options

than if only predefined minimal and static targets were to be achieved.

EIAs alone do not suffice. Environmental protection, standards and other regulations and effective environmental compliance and enforcement can improve environmental outcomes when

implemented alongside EIAs.

2

MAIN ELEMENTS OF EIAS

While countries’ design, emphasis and procedures for EIAs will differ; EIAs commonly have the following

elements/steps embedded in their procedure:

Chart 1: Generalized EIA Process Flowchart (Agola 2007:6).

The country overviews below will make more detailed observations on how the generic EIA steps are

approached in the different countries as the actual process varies somewhat and changes over time.

Additionally, some countries refer to the assessment as it is undertaken as well as the final project

report/outcome under one umbrella as an EIA, while other countries differentiate between the EIA as the

assessment process towards a final output being the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Moreover, the

actual approval of the assessment varies by name in the reviewed countries. Some authorities grant

approval by providing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (Philippines), by approval of Final

3

Environmental Impact Statement (US, Japan); providing a Written Permission/Approval (Malaysia), or by

making a Final Decision (China, Republic of Korea).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

The United States pioneered the move towards mainstreaming EIAs with the 1969 National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), which was the first real legislation to provide a solid framework that could address various

environmental concerns at an early stage in the conception of a project. The main purposes of an EIA in the

US are (i) to determine whether a detailed environment impact statement (EIS) is necessary or not; (ii) to

integrate generation and dissemination of environmental information; (iii) to foster collaboration among

diverse public and private actors and stakeholders which characterize major, environmentally controversial

decisions (Encyclopedia of Earth 2013). Environmental assessment applies not only to project approval

action but include also “…action on legislative and other such proposals (SEA), and EIS should be prepared

by federal agencies” (MOEJ 2010).

In terms of project identification, or screening, the US EIA practice utilizes Categorical Exclusion criteria,

which are lists of categorical criteria developed by the federal agencies that aid in determining whether a

proposed project has to undergo environmental evaluation or not. If it is determined that the project may

have environmental impacts, an environmental assessment (EA) is carried out. If it is determined that the

project is unlikely to have significant environmental impacts (and if potential impacts can easily be mitigated)

then a so-called finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is issued by the assessment agency. If on the other

hand, impacts are anticipated, an environmental impact statement (EIS) has to be prepared that contains

more detailed information of the project’s possible impacts and alternatives. The simpler EA usually has to

be carried out within a 3-month time frame, and the more detailed EIS usually is required to complete

within maximum 12 months (with exceptions). The assessments usually follow the steps as depicted below.

EIA PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES

Figure 2: EA Process in the United States (adopted from Stampe 2009)

During the review process of the EIA in the US, agencies with expertise and also the public are given a

certain period of time (30 days) for reviewing and submitting comments to the agency that has prepared the

assessment. In this manner any outstanding issues with the EIA can be solved. If unsolved ambiguities

remain, the Council for Environmental Quality is mandated to take any necessary corrective action. This

Proposing Agency

Record of Decision

Notice of Intent

Scoping Process Draft EIS

EPA and other agency

comments

Public Comments

Final EIA Review and Approval

4

includes repeating some steps of the EIA, as well as submitting the matter to the President, if no other

solutions can be found. The number of EIS recorded in the United States since 2004 amount to 4,842.1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN JAPAN

In Japan, EIA was first introduced in 1972. Thirteen types of projects are required to undertake EIAs in the

following sectors: roads, rivers, railways, airports, power plants, waste disposal sites, landfill and

reclamation, land readjustment projects, new residential area development projects, industrial estate

development project, new town infrastructure development, distribution center complex development

projects, and residential or industrial land development by specific organizations (MOEJ 2012).

The EIA law was enacted in 1997 (and revised in 2005). It determines provisions and procedures to ensure

that EIAs are conducted properly and smoothly. This is important especially for large-scale projects with

potentially serious environmental impacts. The law defines the responsibilities of the Government regarding

EIAs and prescribes measures to reflect the results of EIAs in implementation of proposed projects and in

determining the content of such projects (Phillips, M.J., Enyuan et. al 2009). Projects for EIA fall into three

different categories (see Chart 2 below), which also determine the stringency of the assessment imposed on

a possible project. For class 1 projects, an EIA is mandatory, class 2 projects are optional, and the category

“others” does not require EIA.

Chart 3: The Projects Subject to EIA Law (MOEJ 2012:3)

Proposed projects are screened to determine whether EIA is required, and normally scale plays a large

determining role in deciding on the necessity of an EIA. However, for class 2 projects, other factors such as

location and proximity to environmentally and socially sensitive areas also play a role and decisions are

made on a case-by-case basis (MOEJ 2012).

1 See http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenView for details of the recorded EIS.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenView

5

EIA PROCESS IN JAPAN

All possible projects go through initial screening, which involves the prefectural and municipal governments

as well as citizens concerned. Opinions are collected and a project outline is prepared by the proponent,

which is then sent to the national government, where the authorizing agency makes a judgment on whether

the project falls into class 1 (additional assessment required), or class 2 (no mandatory additional

assessment).

For class 2 projects, the more elaborate EIA decisions proceed with an inclusive process to identify the exact

assessment method. The assessment itself contains a survey and a forecast and evaluation of possible

environmental impacts along with a consideration of optional measures to protect the environment from

the identified impacts. After the initial assessment is done, there is a participatory procedural stage in which

opinions of the public and municipal government are collected and added to a draft Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The draft document is made available to both the environment minister as well as the

authorizing agency, whose opinions are fed into the final EIS. The public then has one month for review and

provision of additional comments that could affect the outcome of the EIA. The final stage includes an

examination for the authorization of the project along with implementation itself (MOEJ 2012).

The Japanese EIA system has been progressively amended over the years. In order to accommodate financial

challenges for the undertaking of EIAs, the law now stipulates addition of EIA projects, which can be

supported with grants. Additionally, public participation is now an obligation even at an early stage. Thus the

project proponent must now hold a public consultation session at the stage of the assessment method

determination. This is a much earlier stage, when compared to earlier EIAs in Japan. In line with increased

demands for public access to information, another amendment prescribes an obligation for the publication

of the documents prepared by the project proponents via internet, as well as the necessity to consult the

Minister of the Environment in the selection of evaluation items and collect his or her advice when a

prefectural authority is the issuer of the license or project permission.

Other amendments include one towards greater decentralization, which is achieved by enabling direct

submission of opinions from designated cities to the project proponent, without having to go through the

central government. There has also been a move from target clearance type of assessments to “best effort”

type of assessments. The latter type of assessment may result in improved environmental performance as

the “best-effort” assessments may reveal more environmentally effective options than if a static target were

to be achieved.

Establishment of a Primary Environmental Impact Consideration (PEIC) was also included into the EIA

process. The PEIC stipulates that alternative plans on a project location, scale and other factors must be

presented for comparison with the original proposal prior to implementation of the project. The opinions of

citizens, experts, local governments and others are also brought in for consideration in regard to possible

negative impacts on living environment, natural environment and others. The advantages of the PEIC

include a more earnest consideration of alternative plans before a project is commenced. The PEIC is

relevant for both class 1 (mandatory) and class 2 (voluntary) project categories (MOEJ 2012)

Impact Mitigation Reporting (IMR) is another newer requirement for inclusion in an EIA. The IMR refers to

the ex-post project stage. Here the project implementer is required to compile and publish a document

proving the undertaking of a follow-up survey as well as implementation of mitigation measures for

protecting the environment to cope with the conditions identified during the survey and the progress of the

6

measures taken. Moreover, the IMR discloses information to engaged citizens, and complements the

substance of measures taken by having opinions provided from the Minister of the Environment (Ibid).

EIA IN MALAYSIA

Malaysia has implemented EIAs since the passing of Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987, which

was formally inscribed in 1988. The bodies in charge of EIAs are the State Planning and Development

Committee and the National Industrial Development Committee (source). Malaysia distinguishes between

three project classes (see Chart below), i.e. projects that are not required to undertake EIA; projects where a

preliminary EIA will suffice, and then projects with more serious potential environmental impacts that need

to undergo a detailed assessment. Compared to, for instance, the Japanese EIA practice, it is only those

projects that are required to undertake a detailed EIA, which have components of public consultation. The

public has a mere 14 days to review and comment on EIAs before they are finalized (Yusof 2012).

In Malaysia 19 project classes are required to undertake an EIA under the EIA Order 1987. The projects

include airports, large agricultural projects, irrigation and drainage schemes, land reclamation, fisheries and

forestry, housing, industry, infrastructure, ports, mining, petroleum, power generation and transmission,

quarries, railways, transportation, resorts and recreational development, waste treatment and disposal, as

well as water supply.2

Chart 4: Process and Institutions in Malaysia (adopted from Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004:5)

Especially in the first years of EIA application, most projects undertook only preliminary assessments, as the

detailed assessments were deemed too complicated (Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004:5).

Moreover, the oversight and approval of projects was a matter for the central government, but since the

2 See http://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Appendix_2.pdf for exact details on

additional sectoral criteria.

http://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Appendix_2.pdf

7

1990s, gradually this process has become more decentralized and the states have the power to regulate and

decide on project approvals.

Other changes include a gradual merger between EIA and Health Impact Assessments (HIA), as well as an

increase in fines imposed for projects starting without receiving approval (from 20,000 RM to 50,000 RM).

Malaysia has also established a specialized Environmental Court with jurisdictions extending to more than

38 environment-related laws such as Street, Drainage and Building Act, Local Government Act as well as 17

Regulations overseeing environmental quality (AECEN 2012).

Some of the challenges and issues relate to Malaysian EIA concern governance and particularly the

mismatch of scale. For instance, the 1987 EIA regulations are federal, but due to the gradual

decentralization environmental issues increasingly fall under State jurisdiction. Another governance issue

relates to the ad-hoc nature of public participation. The exact modalities for stakeholder engagement are

left for the project proponent to decide.

Moreover, there is overlap between planning requirements and projects that are relating to land use. These

projects have to obtain approval both in forms of EIAs but also from relevant spatial planning authorities.

Research argues that the EIA in this case often risks becoming a mere formality as it is commissioned after

the State Executive Committee has approved the land change proposal (Ibid.). Last but not least,

“implementation of the conditions in the EIA approval seems to be the weakest link in the Malaysian EIA

system” (Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004:6).

EIA IN PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

EIA in China has been practiced since 1973 and implemented on a project basis since the late 1970s. The

“…rate of EIA enforcement for development projects was 61% in 1991 and it increased to 90% in 2000”

(Chen, Zhang and Ekroos 2007:54). A formal Environmental Impact Assessment Law of P. R. China was then

adopted in 2003.

Today, EIA in China covers two main kinds of projects, namely construction and plans. Construction projects

are classified by types, scales and are classified by a List of Environmental Protection Classified Management

for Construction Projects in China. Projects are further divided into “two categories, a) plans for land use,

regional, watershed and offshore development, and b) “specific plans” which include for agriculture,

industry, livestock breeding, forestry, natural resources, cities, energy, transportation, tourism, etc.” (World

Bank, 2006:22). These categories are supported by 15 sectoral laws on “air, noise and water pollution

control, management of solid wastes, resource conservation, wildlife, land-use control, and hazardous

material disposal” (Chen, Zhang and Ekroos 2007:65). Important administrative regulations and guidance

relating to the EIA are the Ordinance of Environmental Management for Construction Projects (OEMCP)

from 1998.

SEA was adopted in China in 2002 (Jing Du, Sachihiko, Harashina and Fenglin Yang 2008). It can be said to be

somewhat similar to the European case, as there are institutional linkages between EIA and SEA. This means

that the policies, plans or programs that are subject to SEA are supposed to be coherent with the project

based EIA. With regards to transparency, monitoring is a compulsory part in China’s EIA process, and

activities to this end are to be undertaken not only at completion of project but throughout its

implementation to ensure transparency and provide possibilities to adjust the project while it is underway.

8

In terms of governmental responsibility, the Department of Supervision and Management under the

Ministry of Environmental Protection is responsible for supervising and coordinating the implementation of

EIAs at national level. There is a dedicated EIA Review Committee, which is mandated to review project

Environmental Impact Statements, and there is an Appraisal Center for Environment and Engineering. This

center is responsible “for providing technical review, supporting research, and training for licensed agencies

and sub-levels of Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs),” with the intention of improving vertical

integration. The EPBs receive their budgetary resources from their local governments rather than the

national government (Chen, Zhang and Ekroos 2007:55).

EIA CHINA PROCESS

The process of EIA in China is as follows (Chart 5):

Chart 5: EIA China Process (Tao, Tan and He 2007)

EIA in China falls into three different categories of projects decided in 1998 by Article 11 of the Ordinance of Environmental Management for the Construction Projects (OEMCP). Categories are as follows: A: Projects which are likely to cause a range of significant adverse environmental impacts need to produce an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); B: Projects which are likely to cause a limited number of significant adverse environmental impacts need to fill in an Environmental Impact Form (EIF); C: Projects with no adverse impact expected but still have to fill in an Environmental Impact Form (EIF). There are four additional categories: (i) nuclear or military; (ii) cross-province; (iii) large scale (more than US$2.5 million); and (iv) transboundary projects. These all have to be approved centrally by the State Council (Phillips, M.J., Enyuan, F., Gavine, F. et.al. 2009). In terms of review, the state authorities are requested to complete EIA review within a certain time frame after receiving the EIA. For an EIA statement the time limit is 60 days (Zhu and Lam 2009).

9

Until recently, one of the weaknesses in Chinese EIA was the lack of mainstreamed public participation. But

some of the provinces have gradually adopted increased participatory models in the late 2000s, In 2006

public participation became enshrined in EIA regulations under the State Environment Protection Agency

(SEPA) - now the Ministry of Environmental Protection (World Watch 2013).

EIA IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

EIA was introduced in 1977, and in 1982 the Republic of Korea (ROK) established professional agencies in

charge of coordinating EIA. In 1990, practices of public participation were added to the EIA process, and it

became enshrined in national law under the EIA Act (EIAA) in 1993. In 1994, Korea introduced a Preliminary

Environmental Review System (PERS) and in 1999 SEAs for administrative policies were introduced to

increase coherence between administrative policies and practices and project-based activities. The National

Environmental Research Institute under the Office of the Prime Minister is responsible for EIAs today. EIA

requirements aim at 63 project types distributed in 17 sectors covering urban development, development of

athletic facilities, development of industrial complexes, construction of railroads (subways), development of

mountain areas, development of energy, construction of airports, development of designated regions,

construction of harbors, utilization and development of rivers, installation of waste disposal facilities

construction of roads, reclamation works, construction of military facilities, development of water

resources, development of resort and recreation areas, and excavation work (Moon 2012).

Chart 6: The EIA Procedure in Republic of Korea (adopted from Moon 2019)

As shown in the chart, the Korean EIA consists of three main stages: initiation stage (preparation of draft

statement and conducting a public hearing process); an elaborate decision making stage in which the EIS is

prepared and introduced to the public and to expert reviewers (Korean Environment Institute - KEI). This

decision making stage has an optional loop for possible exceptions and alterations to the project proposal. If

that happens additional consultation with the public is required. The third stage is called the monitoring

10

stage which means that the correct consideration of comments received from the consultation process is

monitored. Finally a decision is made on whether the project can proceed with implementation (Young

2004).

In 2005, ROK introduced a Prior Environmental Review System (PERS), which was used primarily for

administrative plans or development projects, smaller than larger scale projects for which the EIA is used

(MOE 2013). In 2009, ROK introduced a scoping process, along with a simplification of the EIA process and

the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions as criteria for the EIA. In 2009, the number of EIA projects

amounted to 76 unit projects distributed in 17 sectors. In terms of training, the MOE, together with the KEI

are providing training and capacity building for transboundary and national level EIAs. Korean EIA

distinguishes between EIA and EIS. The EIS is not submitted to any public authority but is submitted to a so-

called qualified EIA agent, which can be a consultancy or independent agency. Public participation takes

place at an early stage of the process, much earlier than for instance in Malaysia, where stakeholder

engagement is almost an add-on at the end of the EIA process.

Since 2012, EIAs are no longer governed by both the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and the EIAA.

This eliminates any confusion arising from inconsistencies in the two Acts. In an attempt to increase clarity

and consistency, Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEIAs) and Small-Scale Environmental Impact

Assessment were introduced to replace the PERS. Moreover, it was stipulated that public opinions must be

accepted at the SEIA stage, as well as requiring Environmental Impact Evaluators to be certified through

national level examinations. Additionally, the choice of experts in EIA was provided with new criteria so as to

facilitate the collection of broader views and opinions not only from technical experts but including also

social scientists.

EUROPEAN UNION EIA DIRECTIVE AND PROCESS

The EU introduced EIA into European Community (EC) law by Directive (85/337/EEC), which was adopted in

July 1985. Today around 16,000 EIAs are conducted across the EU. In the Directive there are two different

classes of EIA - one that is mandatory for all member states and another one that is optional for member

states’ own discretion. This classification depends on the nature of the proposed projects, and project

classifications are listed in Annex I and Annex II of the Directive (EC 1985). The EIA procedure is schematized

as follows, distinguishing procedurally between Annex I and Annex II projects:

11

Chart 7: The EIA Procedure (EC 2012)

The review procedure of the EU EIA Directive differs depending on member states. In some countries,

two weeks notice is given, whereas in other countries between 6-7 weeks are allowed for public

comment.3 As is the case for some other countries as well (notably the US and China), the EU utilizes

SEA alongside the EIA. The relationship between the two can be illustrated as follows:

Chart 8: EU EIA Directive and relation to SEA Directive (EC 2006).

An example from Japan can illustrate the relationship between EIA and Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA). Even though Japan has long experience with EIAs in many sectors, it remains mainly project-based. In

the EU, the EIA is linked to an overarching Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, in which

possible impacts are considered even at the level of planning, programming and policy making (see Chart 9).

Embedding EIAs in more holistic and systemic assessments as the chart shows could be more effective and

lead to a better integration between planning, programs and implementation of projects.

3 Read more details on how EU member states differ in terms of their provision of space for public review of

the EU EIA at http://www.unece.org/env/eia/pubs/publicpart_guidance.html.

http://www.unece.org/env/eia/pubs/publicpart_guidance.html

12

Chart 9: Japanese and EU EIA compared (MOEJ 2012:7)

In 1997, the EU EIA Directive was amended to include transboundary issues, as well as additional criteria for

the classification of projects were requested and more information to be provided by project proponents. In

2003, objectives of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, decision-making and justice in

environmental matters were included to provide coherence between that convention and EU EIA law. More

recently, in 2009, additional projects were included from the transport sector, as well as from carbon

capture and storage.

EIA IN THE PHILIPPINES

EIA was introduced in the Philippines in 1978. Today the Environment Management Bureau (EMB) is

responsible for EIAs, both in central and regional offices, which shows some decentralization in EIA

management.4 EIAs emphasise prevention principally through the gathering of information prior to project

implementation to allow informed decision about the possible environmental impacts of a planned project

(About Philippines 2013). The project proponent is responsible for adequate training of staff.

The EIA procedure has strong channels for public participation beginning from the scoping stage and

including the implementation and monitoring stage - the latter employs a multi-stakeholder monitoring

team (MTT) for independent assessment of the project (AECEN 2009).5 The project ranking follows four

categories (plus 2) and proceeds according to following procedure (Chart 10):

Category A. Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) with significant potential to cause negative environmental impacts. Projects in this category are required to undertake a full EIA.

Category B. Projects that are not categorized as ECPs, but which may cause negative environmental impacts because they are located in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs). Projects in this category

4 An important new development which builds on an earlier AECEN initiative is that EMB has created an Environmental

Compliance Assistance Center to assist Local Government Units understand their obligations under the relevant environmental laws, and if necessary to assist with technical assistance.

13

are required to undertake an initial environmental examination, which is potentially followed by a

full EIA, depending on the findings of the initial examination.

Category C. Projects intended to directly enhance environmental quality or address existing environmental problems not falling under Category A or B. Projects in this category are required to

undertake a Project Description with an Environmental Management Plan.

Category D. Projects unlikely to cause adverse environmental impacts. Projects in this category are prescribed to undertake a project description.

Co-located. Projects or series of similar projects or a project subdivided into several phases and/or stages by the same proponent, located in contiguous areas. These projects are required to

undertake a programmatic EIA.

Expansion. Expansion of existing projects requires production of an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan (ADB 2007).

Chart 10: EIA Process in the Philippines (University of Santo Thomas Undated)

The steps of the EIA involve:

“Screening – which determines whether the proposed project requires an EIA and if it does, then the level of assessment that will be required;

Scoping - identifies the key issues and impacts that should be further investigated. This stage also defines the boundary and time limit of the study;

Impact analysis - gathering of baseline information, and identifies and predicts the likely environmental and social impact of the proposed project and evaluates the significance;

Mitigation - recommends the actions to reduce and avoid the potential adverse environmental consequences of development activities;

Reporting - presents the result of EIA in a form of a report to the EMB; Review of EIA/Project Appraisal - examines the adequacy and effectiveness of the EIA

report and provides the information necessary for decision-making;

Project Implementation and Monitoring. This stage comes into play once the project is commissioned. It checks to ensure that the impacts of the project do not exceed the legal

14

standards and implementation of the mitigation measures are in the manner as described

in the EIA report (UST 2011)”.6

In 2003, the Philippines EIS System (PEISS) was amended through publication of the Revised Procedural Manual. The system itself has three major stages, which are: (i) screening, (ii) application for environmental compliance certificate, and (iii) the post-environmental compliance certificate application (ADB 2007).

VALUE OF EIAS IN AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSBOUNDARY CONTEXT

International EIA regimes can be useful to address environmental impacts that transcend national borders,

such as those that relate to ecosystems, air or water-borne pollution.

Image 11: International EIA Regimes (Moon 2012)

Transboundary EIA treaties can potentially ensure that states give extraterritorial impacts the same scrutiny

as domestic impacts. They primarily concern transboundary development projects such as rivers, estuaries,

ecosystems, offshore dredging and other impacts beyond national borders.

Another dimension of international EIAs relates to coordination of Official Development Assistance (ODA)

among donors and implementers of international development projects. Here the option exists to conduct

EIAs of planned projects. This is a common requirement in development banks and donor agencies.

Transboundary regimes can also lead to additional bilateral treaties between neighbouring signatory states.

Thus even though the transboundary regime may not be binding, the fact that neighbouring countries enter

into such agreements may increase their awareness about the necessity for concerted action.

However, to further enhance international EIA systems it will be necessary to either create matching

international regulations analogous to the domestic ones that empower environmental ministries, or at

least ensure that member nations have EIA capacity at domestic level and transpose (and use) those

institutions dealing with domestic EIAs for international ones (Kersten 2009). Other options for

strengthening the international dimension of EIAs and related assessments include capacity building and

6 Author’s emphasis

15

harmonization of EIA systems among countries subject to the same transboundary EIA regime, such as

under the ASEAN Economic Community.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EIA COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

The Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) conducted a comparative analysis

of EIA compliance and enforcement among its 16 member countries (http://www.aecen.org). Some of the

key findings were as follows:

• Virtually all countries in Asia require EIA and this is generally embedded in national laws, regulations, and mandated procedures, which vary in detail but have similar objectives;

• Over time, developing countries have experimented with various innovations, such as cumulative assessments, health impact assessments, social impact assessments, and incorporation of climate

change, but these innovations have not been adopted widely.

The main challenges faced by the member countries were as follows:

(i) Loopholes in the list of prescribed projects (ii) Late timing – decision has already been made to proceed

(iii) Inadequate consideration of alternatives (iv) Incremental rather than cumulative impacts (v) Conflicting interests - public sector projects are often the worst offenders for non-compliance

(vi) Inadequate qualifications and certification (vii) Lack of data – especially cause-effect or dose-response data

(viii) Systematic under-estimation of costs (ix) Inadequate monitoring plans (x) Poor compliance and enforcement

(xi) Inadequate sanctions +/or prosecutions (xii) Conflicting jurisdictions

(xiii) Inadequate public participation (xiv) High transaction costs

Note that a number of these challenges have more to do with effective implementation of EIAs and

environmental monitoring and management plans, rather than their preparation.

The main legal and regulatory limitations experienced by the surveyed countries are inadequate sanctions

(basically too small to act as a deterrent) and an inability to adequately monitor the mitigation measures

proposed in the EIAs. The lack of accountability on the part of EIA consultants and the developers they work

for is a key aspect of the sanctions problem. Rarely will an EIA consultant reach a finding that is negative for

his/her client or recommend the “no project” option. Overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions in relation to

EIAs is also a problem in several countries, as often decisions in support of a project are made by other parts

of government, sometimes at very high levels, before the EIA results are known. While the “watchdog” role

of public participation could help in this regard, the extent and timing of public participation is also

inadequate in many jurisdictions.

http://www.aecen.org/

16

Respondents also noted that the main obstacles for effective implementation of environmental

management and monitoring plans (EMMPs) are inadequate financing (especially for post-project

monitoring) and the lack of commitment by project owners to follow through on the EIA recommendations

that impose additional costs.

Re sp o nse

Pe rce nt

Re sp o nse

Co unt

15.4% 2

23.1% 3

23.1% 3

38.5% 5

30.8% 4

46.2% 6

23.1% 3

23.1% 3

7.7% 1

53.8% 7

15.4% 2

Inadequate EIA regulations do not provide clear guidelines on the conduct of

EIA

EIA laws and regulations do not require effective public participation

There are overlapping and/or conflicting jurisdictions of multiple agencies

Mechanisms are inadequate to monitor and enforce EIA regulations

EIAs are not legally required early enough in a project cycle

Process is lengthy and cumbersome to acquire EIA approval

Wha t a re so me o f the ke y le g a l a nd re g ula to ry limita tio ns to e ffe c tive imp le me nta tio n a nd

e nfo rce me nt o f EIA re q uire me nts in yo ur co untry?

Laws do not impose enough accountability on developers and/or EIA

consultants

Guidelines are inadequate for EIA-approving authorities

List of prescribed projects are not sufficiently comprehensive or clearly defined

Sanctions are inadequate for violation (e.g. financial penalty is too small to act

as a deterrent)

Other (please specify)

Re sp o nse

Pe rce nt

Re sp o nse

Co unt

53.8% 7

30.8% 4

61.5% 8

30.8% 4

23.1% 3

23.1% 3

23.1% 3

46.2% 6

Inadequate financing for monitoring EMMPs

Inadequate sanctions (e.g. level of financial penalty is too low)

Lack of baseline data and no funding for data collection

High transaction cost and inadequate funding in preparing the EIA

Proposed EMMPs are not cost-effective

Ba se d o n yo ur e xp e rie nce , wha t a re the ke y o b sta c le s fo r the e ffe c tive imp le me nta tio n

a nd mo nito ring o f EMMPs? Ple a se se le ct the thre e mo st imp o rta nt re a so ns.

Insufficient procedural guidance

Lack of ownership/commitment for EMMPs by project owner

No sound basis/ expertise for proposed mitigation measures

17

For further information on this survey and other compliance and enforcement issues, readers are

encouraged to visit the EIA compendium on the AECEN website.

EIA RELATED TRAINING

Given that lack of capacity is often a constraining factor for implementers of EIAs, training is a continuous

necessity. Such training can include various elements pertaining to EIAs such as: preliminary investigation,

formulation of terms of reference (ToRs), scoping, baseline study, environmental impact evaluation, and

mitigation measures, assessment of alternatives, final reporting, decision-making and project monitoring.

General guidance materials for EIA practice are widely available, as noted in the bibliography (for example,

Sadler and McCabe (2002) and UNU (2007), and in a number of countries government officers and

professionals have received extensive training (FAO 2009). Other countries (notably US) offer online EIA

training courses, which makes it easier for officials and EIA staff at organisations in developing countries to

keep their knowledge up-to-date (EIA-training 2012).

EFFECTIVENESS OF EIAS

Research (EER 2009) states that in order to evaluate the effectiveness of EIAs, it is necessary to first establish

the objectives of EIAs, whether it is to improve the environment, streamline environmental management, or

whether broader sustainability objectives should be considered as well. Evaluation can focus on efficacy of

EIAs and can include dynamic variables such as public participation, monitoring, or social learning. It can use

questionnaires to involved parties to reveal their degree of satisfaction with the existing EIA system and

allow efficiency improvements to be suggested. As was indicated in the country cases, most EIA systems

undertake such reviews of the EIAs as part of the approval process. But beyond the review as part of the EIA,

reviews can also take place at the meta-level allowing a closer examination of the EIA system itself.

In this regard, focus areas for an evaluation could include: (i) questions on whether the data generated is

effectively communicated to decision-making or planning processes; and (ii) if the data and knowledge have

influenced outcomes. On the outcome side, criteria for evaluation pertain to two angles: (i) the emphasis on

the outcomes; and (ii) emphasis on soundness of the EIA process. In terms of bringing various stakeholders

together, useful questions for evaluation of EIAs could focus on whether the EIA process provides any

options for linking views and objectives of different stakeholders and finding satisfactory resolution of

differences.

COST AND OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

In the EU, for instance, many of the elements of assessing possible impacts of planned projects and

programs were already undertaken in various countries. This means that by formalizing and harmonizing the

procedures under EIAs and SEAs, respectively, the costs did not increase very much. Generally, the

observation has been that the larger a project, the smaller the proportion of the planned capital cost will fall

to the EIA. But overall it was calculated that for more than half the undertaken EIAs, “…costs amounted to

less than 0.5 % of the overall capital cost. Costs in excess of 1% were the exception, and occurred in relation

to particularly controversial projects in sensitive environments, or where good EIA practice had not been

followed” (EU 1997).

The same document also proposes options for reducing the cost and time for undertaking assessment. For

example, it was discovered that many decisions about projects were decided at the programming and

18

planning stage. Hence it could be cost effective for countries to undertake SEAs alongside EIAs, since the

former in many cases would help to decide whether an EIA is necessary or not. Other proposed

improvements include: (i) improvements to screening stage; (ii) joint scoping by developer and responsible

authority of the terms of reference, and content, of the EIA; (iii) guidance on standards in sectors such as

waste management, water storage, mineral extraction, road development and tourism; (iv) greater public

involvement at or after the scoping stage, and before the EIS is published; (iv) clearer definition of

mitigation standards; and (v) a formal requirement to introduce monitoring (Ibid.).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The brief overview of EIA processes raises some issues that could be examined in the case of the Philippines

EIA practice. First, a follow-up study comparing the Japanese Primary Environmental Impact Consideration

and Impact Mitigation Reporting practices with similar practices in the Philippines could be useful. PEIC and

IMR allow capturing of possible alternatives of a project in the earliest planning phase, as well as address the

longer term impacts once immediate project activities have been completed. This would be particularly

relevant for long-term projects in large sectors such as mining, where life-cycles are several decades and the

environmental impact after end-of-life of the mine can be significant.

In terms of coherence between different institutions and mechanisms, it is worth considering whether the

Philippines EIA is fully embedded in more programmatic and strategic SEA (as practiced in EU and China) or

whether such processes are still disconnected? Identifying the relationship between projects and

administrative programs and designing EIAs and SEAs adequately as well as delegating responsibilities for

their undertaking could help bring about greater coherence between development projects and overarching

plans and programs. Currently, some institutional overlaps exist between the mandates of the EMB and

other national and regional agencies and Local Government Units, and it would be useful to revisit these

mandates to determine whether a better delegation of authority exists.

In terms of environmental outcomes, it would be useful to look into whether supporting regulations,

environmental/social standards are sufficiently in place to ensure that even “most harmful” projects adhere

to minimum standards (like EU)? Moreover, it could be useful to do a comparative review to investigate

whether policies in sectors such as trade, mining fully correspond to the objectives of environmental

management and protection, or do they ultimately compromise the efficacy of the Philippines EIA system?

In terms of reviewing the effectiveness of EIAs in the Philippines, it could be worth conducting additional

study, involving other stakeholders and sample their views on the effectiveness of EIAs. In this regard useful

mechanisms summarized above on EIA monitoring, review and reporting could be applied to a number of

EIAs undertaken in the Philippines to determine whether the EIAs are ultimately carried out as planned.

Other considerations include determining whether it may be necessary to implement EIAs at earlier stages

(at program or policy formulation stage) to really make a difference. This way it could become clearer

whether there are other real alternatives to the project considered at the scoping stage. Moreover, an EIA

should be used to improve project design rather than just meet procedural requirements; this indicates that

performance review of EIAs undertaken by independent reviewers could be useful. Also if the proponent

and approval agency are the same there is an obvious conflict of interest and that therefore approval

agencies need to be independent from proponents. This is particularly relevant for public sector projects.

On the compliance side, it was found that even though compliance with EIA processes/procedures is good, it

does not automatically guarantee enforcement till the end of the project life-cycle. It would therefore be

19

interesting to find out whether proponents include also possible long-term impacts as a part of EIA reports.

EIAs alone do not suffice, and therefore more stringent environmental standards can potentially result in

more effective outcomes in terms of environmental protection when they are implemented alongside EIAs.

It could be useful to consider a move from target clearance type of assessment to “best effort” types of

assessment. The latter type of assessment may result in increased environmental performance. “Best-effort”

assessments may reveal more environmentally effective options than if predefined minimal targets were to

be achieved only.

Additionally, this brief study found that the choice of scientific method used to calculate possible future

outcomes of environmental decisions will influence the outcome of the EIA. Variables to take into account

here include (i) the discount rate used in cost-benefit analyses; and (ii) the value in involving a wide range of

difference sciences (including the social sciences) in determining focus areas for the EIAs. This would allow a

wider variety of concerns to be reflected in the EIAs. Lastly, a consideration would be whether EIAs should

ultimately graduate to specifically include the three dimensions of sustainable development as assessment

criteria. This will become particularly relevant in the period after 2015, anticipating a global agreement on

sustainable development goals.

20

REFERENCES

Josefo B. Tuyor, et al. 2007. The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System: Framework,

Implementation, Performance and Challenges. Discussion papers, East Asia and Pacific Region. Rural

Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sector. Washington, DC: World Bank.

AECEN 2009. The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System PEISS http://www.powershow.com/

view/1e5bdaM2U1N/The_Philippine_Environmental_Impact_Statement_System_PEISS_powerpoint_ppt_pr

esentation

AECEN 2010. Environmental Impact Assessment (Eia) System in the Philippines. Strategic Environmental

Assessment Considerations of Cumulative and Induced Impacts of Financial

Mechanisms.http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/workshop/june2010/

presentations/Presentation_sea,%20etc%20060910%20final.PHI.pdf ;

About Philippines 2013. Requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment System.

http://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/PermittingProceduresEIA.pdf;

Bakar Jaafar 2004. Environmental impact assessment::principles, policy and practice. Abj Enviro-Lecture

Series 1/2004. http://www.scribd.com/doc/29153105/ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT-ASSESSMENT-MSM3208-

LECTURE-NOTES-7-Principles-Policy-and-Practice;

Bond A. 1999.EIA in the European Union. http://www.is.pw.edu.pl/plik/204/EIA%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

Chen Qiaoling, Yuanzhi Zhang and Ari Ekroos 2007. Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) Law with the European Union (EU) EIA Directive. Environ Monit Assess (2007) 132:53–65

Department of Environment – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Malaysia 2010.

Environmental Requirements: A Guide for Investors. Eleventh Edition. October 2010.

http://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-Guide-For-Investors1.pdf

EC 1985. Environmental Assessment Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment. 85/337/EEC. Official Journal NO. L 175 , 05/07/1985

P. 0040 - 0048. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/full-legal-text/85337.htm

EC 1997. EIA - A study on costs and benefits. Summary: Additional tools.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs-benefit-en.htm

EC 2012. Commission Staff Working Paper Impact Assessment. Accompanying the document: Proposal for a

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council. Brussels, 26.10.2012 SWD (2012) 355 final.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/IA%20SWD-2012-355.pdf

EC 2006. “Strategic” Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC: “on the assessment of the effects of

certain plans and programmes on the environment”. Relationship with the Cohesion Policy for the period

2007-2013. Presentation. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/nychas_en.ppt

Economic Commission for Europe 2013. Guidance on Public Participation.

http://www.unece.org/env/eia/pubs/publicpart_guidance.html

http://www.powershow.com/view/1e5bda-M2U1N/http://www.powershow.com/view/1e5bda-M2U1N/http://www.powershow.com/view/1e5bda-M2U1N/http://www.powershow.com/view/1e5bda-M2U1N/http://www.powershow.com/%20view/1e5bdaM2U1N/http://www.powershow.com/%20view/1e5bdaM2U1N/http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/workshop/june2010/%20presentations/Presentation_sea,%25http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/workshop/june2010/%20presentations/Presentation_sea,%25http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/workshop/june2010/%20presentations/Presentation_sea,%25http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/workshop/june2010/%20presentations/Presentation_sea,%25http://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/PermittingProceduresEIA.pdfhttp://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/PermittingProceduresEIA.pdfhttp://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/PermittingProceduresEIA.pdfhttp://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/PermittingProceduresEIA.pdfhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29153105/ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT-ASSESSMENT-MSM3208-LECTURE-NOTES-7-Principles-Policy-and-Practicehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29153105/ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT-ASSESSMENT-MSM3208-LECTURE-NOTES-7-Principles-Policy-and-Practicehttp://www.is.pw.edu.pl/plik/204/EIA%20in%20the%20EU.pdfhttp://www.is.pw.edu.pl/plik/204/EIA%20in%20the%20EU.pdfhttp://www.is.pw.edu.pl/plik/204/EIA%20in%20the%20EU.pdfhttp://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-Guide-For-Investors1.pdfhttp://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-Guide-For-Investors1.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/full-legal-text/85337.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs-benefit-en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/IA%20SWD-2012-355.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/nychas_en.ppthttp://www.unece.org/env/eia/pubs/publicpart_guidance.html

21

EIA Effectiveness Research 2009. Effectiveness and Environmental Impact Assessment. Presentation.

Uppsala, Sweden, October 6 and 7, 2009. http://www.eiaeffectiveness.ca/resources/Day%202.pd

EMB 2010. Technical Guidelines for the conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the

Philippine EIS System: Integrating Climate Change Risk Reduction (CRR)/ Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)

Analysis emb.gov.ph/eia-new/2010-12/General%20Guidelines.pdf ;

Hayes Sean 2013. Environmental Impact Statements in Korea: New Korean Environmental Impact

Assessment Regime. The Korean Law Blog. http://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2013/02/environmental-

impact-statements-in.html

Jing Du, Sachihiko, Harashina and Fenglin Yang 2008. Comparative Study of EIA Systems and SEA

Requirements in China and Japan. International Association For Impact Assessment.

http://www.iaia.org/iaia08perth/pdfs/concurrentsessions/CS2-1_regional_Dujing.pdf

Kersten, Charles M.2009. Rethinking Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment. A Note.

http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Kersten.pdf;

Memon Ali 2002. Devolution of environmental regulation: EIA in Malaysia. Case study 6. UNEP EIA Training

Resource Manual. http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/13)%2045%20to%2061%20doc.pdf;

MOEJ 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment in Japan. Environmental Impact Assessment Division.

Ministry of the Environment of Japan. http://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/docs/files/20120501-04.pdf;

MOEJ 2010. History of EIA Systems and Measures taken around the World.

https://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/ document/10-eiae/10-eiae-2.pdf;

Moon, Nankyoung 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment system in Korea. Presentation. Geneva April. 24 ,

2012. Korea Environment Institute. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin /DAM/env/eia/documents/

WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdf

Ogola, A. 2007. Enviromental Impact Assessment General Procedures. Presented at Short Course II on

Surface Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP and KenGen, at Lake Naivasha, Kenya,

2-17 November, 2007. http://www.os.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-05-28.pdf

Phillips, M.J., Enyuan, F., Gavine, F. et.al. 2009. Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring

in aquaculture in Asia-Pacific. In FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO

Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 153–283.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0970e/i0970e00.htm;

Stampe, John 2009. Lessons Learned from Environmental Impact Assessments: A Look at Two Widely

Different Approaches – The USA and Thailand. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies vol. 8,

no. 1, 2009. http://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdf

Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia, South Africa,

Thailand, and Denmark: Background, layout, context, public participation and environmental scope. The

Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies vol. 3, no. 1, 2004 http://www.journal-tes.dk/

vol%203%20no%201/Jens%20St%E6rdahl_lav.pdf?id=00028

http://www.eiaeffectiveness.ca/resources/Day%202.pdhttp://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2013/02/environmental-impact-statements-in.htmlhttp://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2013/02/environmental-impact-statements-in.htmlhttp://www.iaia.org/iaia08perth/pdfs/concurrentsessions/CS2-1_regional_Dujing.pdfhttp://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Kersten.pdfhttp://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Kersten.pdfhttp://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/13)%2045%20to%2061%20doc.pdfhttp://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/docs/files/20120501-04.pdfhttps://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/document/10-eiae/10-eiae-2.pdfhttps://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/document/10-eiae/10-eiae-2.pdfhttps://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/document/10-eiae/10-eiae-2.pdfhttps://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/document/10-eiae/10-eiae-2.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.unece.org/fileadmin%20/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdfhttp://www.os.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-05-28.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0970e/i0970e00.htmhttp://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0970e/i0970e00.htmhttp://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdfhttp://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdfhttp://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdfhttp://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdfhttp://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_8_no_1/artiekl%202%20John%20Stampe.pdf

22

University of Santo Thomas Undated. Environmental Impact Assessment in the Philippines. EnviArch SP2:

Ecological Construction. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18629501/722933483/name/Environmental

Unknown 2012. 1st HIA for ASEAN Workshop. Understanding Health Impact Assessment (HIA): A

Foundation for the Well-being of the ASEAN Community” 13-14 February 2012, The Aquamarine Resort and

Villa, Phuket, Thailand;

Tao Tang, Zhu Tan and Xu He 2007. Integrating environment into land-use planning through strategic

environmental assessment in China: Towards legal frameworks and operational procedures. Environmental

Impact Assessment Review Volume 27, Issue 3, April 2007, Pages 243–265.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925506001247

World Bank 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and Strategic Environmental Assessment

Requirements – practices and lessons learned in East and Southeast Asia.

http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ext/epic.nsf/ImportDocs/D0A095C2D47B6664482573250019A3C6?opendoc

ument&query=PH

National Centre for Technology in Education 2013. Dublin: Dublin City University.

http://www.ncte.ie/environ/eia.htm

Encyclopedia of Earth 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment. http://www.eoearth.org/article/

Environmental_Impact_Assessment

US EPA 2013. All EISs since 2004 (by publication date). http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca

/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenView

Ministry of Environment 2013. Prior Environmental Review System. http://eng.me.go.kr/

content.do?method=moveContent&menuCode=pol_nat_pol_pri_review

Worldwatch 2013. China to Strengthen Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessments.

http://www.worldwatch.org/china-strengthen-public-participation-environmental-impact-assessments

Young, Il-Song 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Korea. Korea Environment Institute.

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/135715/SEA_Song_Beijing_June_04_EN.pdf

Yusof, Norhayati Mohamad 2012. Public Participation Approaches and strategies Under the EIA Process in Malaysia. AECEN Regional Workshop: Strengthening Public Participation on Environmental Management in Indonesia, 10-11 July 2012The Four Seasons Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia. http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/public_participation_in_eia_in_malaysia.pdf

Zhu and Lam 2009 (eds.). Environmental Impact Assessment in China. Research Center for Strategic

Environmental Assessment, Nankai University, China and Centre of Strategic Environmental Assessment for

China, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. http://cseac.grm.cuhk.edu.hk/publications/EIA_IN_CHINA.pdf

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18629501/722933483/name/Environmentalhttp://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18629501/722933483/name/Environmentalhttp://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18629501/722933483/name/Environmentalhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925506001247http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925506001247http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925506001247http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925506001247http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ext/epic.nsf/ImportDocs/D0A095C2D47B6664482573250019A3C6?opendocument&query=PHhttp://lnweb90.worldbank.org/ext/epic.nsf/ImportDocs/D0A095C2D47B6664482573250019A3C6?opendocument&query=PHhttp://www.ncte.ie/environ/eia.htmhttp://www.eoearth.org/article/%20Environmental_Impact_Assessmenthttp://www.eoearth.org/article/%20Environmental_Impact_Assessmenthttp://www.eoearth.org/article/%20Environmental_Impact_Assessmenthttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca%20/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenViewhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca%20/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenViewhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca%20/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenViewhttp://eng.me.go.kr/%20content.do?method=moveContent&menuCode=pol_nat_pol_pri_reviewhttp://eng.me.go.kr/%20content.do?method=moveContent&menuCode=pol_nat_pol_pri_reviewhttp://www.worldwatch.org/china-strengthen-public-participation-environmental-impact-assessmentshttp://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/135715/SEA_Song_Beijing_June_04_EN.pdfhttp://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/public_participation_in_eia_in_malaysia.pdfhttp://cseac.grm.cuhk.edu.hk/publications/EIA_IN_CHINA.pdf

First National Convention on the Philippines EIS SystemManila Hotel, City of Manila, Philippines

19 to 21 June 2013.

Peter KingSenior Policy AdvisorInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the Philippines EIA system with other EIA processes in the region and globally;

1. How does the Philippine EIA System compare with the EIA systems in other countries?

2. What is the value of EIA in development planning in the international context?

1. Brief overview of impact assessments in:i. United States ii. Japaniii. Malaysiaiv. Chinav. Koreavi. EU (EIA Directive)

2. Value of EIAs in an international context3. EIA related training4. Evaluation of EIAs5. EIA in the Philippines6. Comparing EIA in Philippines with other cases7. Concluding recommendations

1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):◦ First legislation to provide a robust framework for

addressing several environmental concerns simultaneously;◦ EA/EIS process: The simpler EA usually has to be carried

out within a 3-month time frame, and the more detailed EIS usually is required to complete within maximum 12 months (with exceptions).

Proposing Agency

Record of Decision

Notice of Intent

Scoping Process Draft EIS

EPA and other agency comments

Public Comments

Final EIA Review and Approval

(Stampe 2009)

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: History of EIA Systems and Measures taken around the WorldNumber of EIS since 2004 - source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/viEIS01?OpenView

◦ Purpose To decide whether a detailed environment impact statement

(EIS) is necessary or not; To integrate generation and dissemination of environmental

information; Foster collaboration among diverse public and private actors and

stakeholders which characterize major, environmentally controversial decisions.

Environmental assessment should be applied not only to project approval action but action on legislative and other such proposals (SEA), and EIS should be prepared by federal agencies.

Number of EIS since 2004: 4,842 EIS more cumbersome to produce than simple

environment assessment;◦ Is due procedure followed or are agencies trying to negate

possible impacts to avoid EIS?

(MOEJ 2012:3)

EIA is required for 13 types of projects

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: http://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/docs/files/20120501-04.pdf

For class 1 projects, an EIA is mandatory, class 2 projects are optional, and the category “others” does not require EIA.

Proposed projects are screened to determine whether EIA is required, and normally scale plays a large determining role in deciding on necessity of EIA. For class 2 projects, other factors such as location and proximity to environmentally and socially sensitive areas also play a role and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis (MOEJ 2012).

Some amendments of Japanese EIA: Obligation to hold a public session at the stage of the assessment method

determination; (earlier stage) as well as access to information on internet; Stipulation of the procedure to have opinions from Minister of the

Environment in the selection of evaluation items; Stipulation of the procedure to gain advice from the Minister of the

Environment when a prefectural governor etc. is the issuer of the license etc.; Enabling direct submission of opinion from the designated cities to the

project proponent; Establishment of Primary Environmental Impact Consideration (PEIC) and

Impact Mitigation Reporting (IMR); Moving from target clearance type of assessment to “best effort” type of

assessment (for increased environmental performance).

PEIC: alternative plans on a project location, scale and others are compared, and opinions of citizens, experts, local governments and others are considered in regard to possible impacts on living environment, natural environment and others caused by the project (class 1 mandatory/class 2 voluntary)◦ Enables more earnest consideration of alternative plans before

project is commenced; IMR: After a project has been implemented, the

proponent compiles and publishes a document about a follow-up survey, along with the measures for protecting the environment to cope with the conditions identified during the survey and the progress of the measures taken.◦ discloses the progress of the measures taken to the citizens who are

interested, and complements the substance of measures taken by having opinions provided from the Minister of the Environment

PresenterPresentation NotesFun fact: Windmills are included in requirements for EIA (NIMBY) and others even though perceived as low-carbon environmentally friendly option;

(DOE-MONRE 2010:20)

PresenterPresentation Noteshttp://www.doe.gov.my/portal/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-Guide-For-Investors1.pdf

Project Proponent

Screening and consultation with

DOE

No EIA

Preliminary assessment

Project proponent prepares TOR after informal consultation with

DOE

Federal (or state) level review by

DOE

Preliminary assessment by

project proponent

Approving Authority

Project implementation and monitoring

Detailed assessment

Preparation of Detailed Assessment Brief by review panel appointed by

DOEPublic Comments on

Brief

Preparation of Detailed Assessment by project proponent

Public comments on report

Report review by Review Panel

Detailed EIA

(Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004:5)

Preliminary EIANo EIA

PresenterPresentation Notes(Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004:5)

Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987 formally inscribed in 1988;

Bodies responsible for EIA are the State Planning and Development Committee and the National Industrial Development Committee

In Malaysia 19 project classes are required to undertake an EIA under the EIA Order 1987

EIA in Malaysia was a federal government responsibility. But since 1990s devolved to the states;

EIA training of staff is a responsibility of employer/project initiator;

Integration of Environmental Impact Assessment and Health Impact Assessment;

Starting works without an EIA report raised to RM50,000 from RM20,000 (US$16,600);

Establish specialized Environmental Court (jurisdictions include more than 38 environment-related laws such as Street, Drainage and Building Act, Local Government Act as well as 17 Regulations overseeing environmental quality.)

Mismatch of scale: 1987 EIA regulations are federal, but environmental issues are now under State jurisdiction;

Participation ad-hoc: The form of public participation is left to the project proponent;

Overlap: Integrated planning and EIA (often EIA is commissioned after State Executive Committee has already approved proposal);

Implementation of the conditions in the EIA approval seems to be the weakest link in the Malaysian EIA system.

PresenterPresentation Notes(Stærdahl, Jens, Zuriati Zakaria et. al 2004) ;

Environmental Impact Assessment Law of the P. R. China (adopted in 2003);◦ EIA practice introduced in 1973 and implemented (project

basis) since 1979; Rate of EIA enforcement for development projects

was 61% in 1991 and it increased to 90% in 2000 (SEPA, 1999)

EIA is supplemented by 15 specific laws that address air, noise and water pollution control, management of solid wastes, resource conservation, wildlife, land-use control, and hazardous material disposal.

Important administrative regulations and guidance: the Ordinance of Environmental Management for Construction Projects (OEMCP) (1998);

Also includes policies, plans or programs under the SEA law (not even all EU states have this);

Monitoring is a compulsory part in China’s EIA process not only at completion of project but throughout implementation;

Department of Supervision and Management under SEPA (now MEP) is responsible for watching over and coordinating EIA implementation nationwide;

EIA Review Committee is in charge of reviewing and making decisions on those EISs of projects that need the approval from MEP;

Appraisal Center for Environment and Engineering: responsible for providing technical review, supporting research, and training for licensed agencies and sub-levels of Environmental Protection Bureaus (EPBs) (vertical integration);◦ EPBs receive their budgetary resources from their local

governments

Three categories of projects (A, B, and C) (ADB)◦ A: Projects which are likely to cause a range of

significant adverse environmental impacts need to produce an Environmental Impact Report (EIR);

◦ B: Projects which are likely to cause a limited number of significant adverse environmental impacts need to fill in an Environmental Impact Form (EIF);

◦ C: No adverse impact expected but still have to fill in an Environmental Impact Form (EIF);

4 additional categories: (i) nuclear or military; (ii) cross-province; (iii) large scale and approved by State Council (more than US$2.5 million); and (iv) transboundary.

Introduced in 1977; National Environmental Research Institute under the

Office of the Prime Minister responsible for EIAs; 1982: professional EIA agencies (now around 200); 1990: Public participation; 1993: EIA Act (EIAA) (independent law); 1999: Introduction of SEA for administrative policies◦ Preliminary Environmental Review System (PERS)

2009: Introduction of scoping process, simplified EIA, and inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions

Number of EIA projects (2009): 76 unit projects / 17 areas

MOE ROK and KEI are providing training on transboundary EIAs;

Project developer

Preparation of draft EIA

Public participation

Project developerPreparation of EIS

Project developer Approval agency

Submission of EIS

Approval agency MOEConsultation of EIS

Approval agency project developer

Final Decision

Approval agency & MOEMonitoring

Review of EIS by KEI

Done by a qualified EIA agent

(Moon 2012)

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdf

2012: Now EIAs are no longer governed by both the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and the EIAA◦ Eliminating confusion caused by inconsistencies in the Acts.

Other amendments include: Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments and

Small-Scale Environmental Impact Assessment replace Prior Environmental Review;◦ Increase clarity and consistency

Public opinions must be accepted at the SEIA stage Environmental Impact Evaluators certified through

National Examination ◦ New criteria for experts broader and not only narrow

technical expertise required;

PresenterPresentation Noteshttp://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2013/02/environmental-impact-statements-in.html

Introduced into EC law by a Directive (85/337/EEC) (adopted in July 1985);◦ Distinguish between Mandatory EIAs, and those at

discretion of the Member States; “Best environmental policy consists of preventive

action and that it is necessary to identify the likely damage to the environment of a particular project (or action) at the earliest possible stage” (Lambrechts, 1996).

Policies

Plans & programmescovered by SEA Directive

(2001/42/EC)

Projectscovered by EIA Directive

85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC

By July 2004 all EU Member States to implement SEA Directive;

(EC 2006)

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: European Commission website (to add to resources): ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/nychas_en.ppt

2 different versions of EIA - one is mandatory for all member states and the other is optional;◦ Depending on classification of proposed projects

(Annex I and Annex II respectively) Three important amendments ◦ 1997: Transboundary issues, more criteria, more

information to be provided;◦ 2003: Provisions for including Aarhus Convention

objectives;◦ 2009: Adding projects related to the transport,

capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2);

Bond

199

9:4)

Environment Management Bureau (EMB) responsible for EIAs (both central and regional offices) some extent of decentralization;

Emphasis on prevention (i.e. gather information prior to implementation to make informed decision about a project);

Project proponent responsible for adequate training of staff;

Category A. Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) with significant potential to cause negative environmental impacts Category B. Projects that are not categorized as ECPs, but which may cause negative environmental impacts because they are located in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs)Category C. Projects intended to directly enhance environmental quality or address existing environmental problems not falling under Category A or B.Category D. Projects unlikely to cause adverse environmental impacts.

1. Screening - determines whether the proposed project, requires an EIA and if it does, then the level of assessment required;

2. Scoping - identifies the key issues and impacts that should be further investigated. This stage also defines the boundary and time limit of the study;

3. Impact analysis - gathering of baseline information, and identifies and predicts the likely environmental and social impact of the proposed project and evaluates the significance;

4. Mitigation - recommends the actions to reduce and avoid the potential adverse environmental consequences of development activities;

5. Reporting - presents the result of EIA in a form of a report to the EMB;6. Review of EIA/Project Appraisal - examines the adequacy and effectiveness

of the EIA report and provides the information necessary for decision-making;

7. Project Implementation and Monitoring. This stage comes into play once the project is commissioned. It checks to ensure that the impacts of the project do not exceed the legal standards and implementation of the mitigation measures are in the manner as described in the EIA report.

PresenterPresentation Notesemb.gov.ph/eia-new/2010-12/General%20Guidelines.pdf

(University of Santo Tomas 2012)

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18629501/722933483/name/Environmental

(Moon 2012)

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/WG2.1_apr2012/EIA_system_ROK_moon_Geneva.pdf

Transboundary EIA treaties ensure that states give extraterritorial impacts the same scrutiny as domestic impacts.◦ Transboundary development projects (rivers, estuaries,

ecosystems, off-shore dredging, etc.);◦ Coordination of ODA and development projects internationally;

Transboundary regimes often lead to additional bilateral treaties between signatories;

To improve efficacy of international EIA systems it would be necessary to either:◦ Create matching international regulations analogous to the

domestic ones that empower environmental ministries ◦ Ensure that member nations have EIA capacity at domestic level

and transpose (and use) those institutions dealing with domestic EIAs for international ones. Capacity building and harmonization of EIA systems among countries; Twining partnerships among interested countries;

PresenterPresentation NotesSources: http://www.yale.edu/yjil/files_PDFs/vol34/Kersten.pdf

• Virtually all countries in Asia (and elsewhere) require EIA and this is generally embedded in national laws, regulations, and mandate