Strengthening biodiversity consideration in EIA and...

CBBIA Report 2005: 2004SGP01 1

Final report for CBBIA-IAIA Small Grant Project 2005

Research Project Strengthening biodiversity consideration in EIA and SEA

in Malaysia ì

Dr. Vun Leong Wan Environmental Science Programme

School of Science & Technology Universiti Malaysia Sabah


Final report for CBBIA-IAIA Small Grant Project 2005 Research Project Strengthening biodiversity consideration in EIA and SEA Researcher Dr. Vun Leong Wan School of Science & Technology Universiti Malaysia Sabah Locked Bag 2073 88999 Kota Kinabalu Sabah MALAYSIA Telephone number: +6088-320000 Ext 5787 Fax number: +6088-435324 Email address: [email protected], [email protected] Summary This study has been carried out to examine the consideration of biodiversity and ecological issues in EIA reports in Malaysia by reviewing the ecological components of locally prepared EIAs. A total of 85 EIA reports were reviewed for their ecological inputs and it was found that the majority lacked scientific rigor especially with respect to ecological information. Through this study, the potential for incorporation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) into Malaysian impact assessment and decision making processes were also considered. Two possible mechanisms have been proposed. This project interacted with and drew on the following sub-projects: 1. Chan Wei Seng Review of EIA quality for housing development projects in Sabah 2. Norinda Bt Che Ibrahim Review of Normal EIAs on forestry activities in Sabah 3. Khoo Yoke Choo Review of EIA guidelines on coastal resort development in West Malaysia

mailto:[email protected]



4. Nor Azura Mustaffar Review of EIA process in Sabah: issues and proposal for improvements 5. Noradnisah Adenan Application of SEA in Sabah and Malaysia 6. Nurhatini Bt. Che Rohim

Review on impact prediction on biological components in EIAs for sand and quarry mining activities

7. Nik Suriayati Nik Ismail

Review of impact prediction and impact assessment for coastal resort development in Malaysia

8. Noor Aishah Binti Ali

Review of ecological input in EIAs for coastal resort and recreational development in Sabah

Duration February 2005 – June 2006 Budget Total expenses in Ringgit Malaysia: RM 40,135.00 (∼ USD11,148.00)

Particulars Amount (RM) Enumerators and research assistants

28,800.00

Travel and lodging expenses 6,905.00 E-journals and references 1,650.00 Printing of reports, basic equipments and consumables

2,780.00

Total 40,135.00 Problems encountered during project The main problem encountered was difficulty in securing the data needed for the review, as the EIA reports are the property of the project proponents and also the environmental department and are not generally available. Review of reports


therefore had to be carried out onsite, in the resource rooms of the respective departments. This made the reviewing process difficult and time consuming. Main lessons learnt ó Our review revealed the value of EIA reports as a source of information for

research and review. The study has prompted further ongoing researches to review ecological input for other developmental activities in Malaysia.

ó Another lesson learnt was the general inadequacy of ecological input in all the EIAs reviewed. The root causes of this are not clear, and a further in-depth analysis is proposed as a basis for suitable solutions to the problem.

On-going researches The CBBIA project prompted other ongoing researches:

1. Review of the effectiveness of EIA in Sabah (1 research on-going) 2. Review of ecological inputs for EIAs for other development projects (2

researches on-going) 3. Review of EIA quality based on Lee & Colley package (1 research on-

going) 4. Root cause analysis of EIA in Malaysia (to be carried out) 5. Application of integrated environmental assessment (IEA) in Malaysia

(1 research on-going) Output A written report based on the CBBIA project and associated follow-on studies will be submitted to the following departments in Malaysia for their further attention and action: 1. Environmental Protection Department

Sabah State Government 2. Department of Environemnt

Malaysia Some of the results were also presented at IAIA06 (see Appendix I for a summary). Acknowledgement The author thanks IAIA and CBBIA programme for providing the small grant for the project. Without such grants and motivation, these projects would not have been possible.


Many thanks also go to Ms Bridget John and Dr. Jo Treweek for their diligence in communication and also in ensuring the progress and completion of the project.


Detailed Report First Objective Examine existing EIA practices in Malaysia and review the effectiveness of consideration of biodiversity and ecological issues. Methodology A total of 85 EIAs were reviewed, as summarised in Table 1. The full list of the EIA reports reviewed is listed under Appendix II.

Table 1. Types of EIAs reviewed. Activities Number of reports Coastal resort development (and golf resorts)

49

Quarry and mining activities 5 Forestry 17 Mixed development (housing cum commercial development)

14

Review of ecological inputs was carried out systematically using an ‘Ecological Input Review Package’ developed by Vun et al. (2004). In this study, two aspects, namely compliance and adequacy, were examined. Compliance was determined in terms of whether an EIA report conformed to the guidelines from DOE as put forth in section 34A of the Environmental Quality Acts 1974 and also the relevant requirements under the state legislation (Sabah’s Environmental Protection Department). This meant that an EIA report for a particular prescribed activity must comply with what is being written in the guidelines for the particular prescribed activity. Adequacy on the other hand, was determined in relation to the adequacy of ecological information to ensure a well-informed decision.

To ensure objectivity in review and facilitate unbiased comparison among the results observed, a review package was utilised to assess the quality of ecological input for EIAs prepared for coastal resort developments. To reduce any unnecessary bias, the EIAs in this study were reviewed in three sittings, each being one month apart. Besides that, in every session, the EIAs were being reviewed at random order to promote objectivity. Where significant differences


emerged after three review sessions, the report in question was re-evaluated and issues resolved.

In this review package, a total of 12 criteria were established to reflect the ecological content in an EIA report (Table 2). The EIA guidelines from DOE were followed strictly in the process of setting up this package (DOE 1988, 1994, 1995). In addition, certain important ecological consideration or insights proposed by other researchers were also included separately to complement what is lacking in the DOE guidelines. The assessment from applying each criterion is recorded on a Collation Sheet, using a standard list of assessment ratings (Table 3). To simplify the assessment ratings, they are summed up into three major quality ratings, whereby A and B are classified as good, C and D as borderline, and the remaining as poor.

Table 2. Twelve areas of review and corresponding categories. 1 Description of the development

§ Statement of purpose § Description of project § Project option

2 Describing existing biological environment § Survey method § Other related information § Existing environment § Species abundance and status § Carrying capacity § Ecological processes

3 Predicting ecological impacts § Prediction method/model § Types of impact identified § Other potential ecological impact § Source of impacts/uncertainties § Cumulative impacts § Indirect effects § Long/short term effects

4 Evaluation of impact significance § Identifying significant impact § Quantifying impacts § Thoroughness, uncertainties and ecological

consideration


§ Unknown impacts 5 Mitigation and abatement measures

§ Mitigating measures § Consistency, feasibility and effectiveness

6 Residual impacts 7 Monitoring and audit

§ Monitoring programme § Commitment to monitor

8 Checklist 9 Communication of report 10 Summary 11 References 12 Consultants

Table 3. List of assessment ratings. A. relevant information are well-documented, no important task

left incomplete B. generally satisfactory and complete, only minor omissions C. can be considered just satisfactory despite

omissions/inadequacies D. parts are well attempted but, must as a whole be considered

unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies E. not satisfactory, significant omissions F. very unsatisfactory, important task(s) poorly done or not

attempted

Results The following is a summary of the results for the first objective. Aspects Findings Ecological survey and information

ó Only 10% mentioned the survey methods that they used in their sampling of ecological data, but none of them gave their rationales for selecting those methods.

ó Nine reports specified the survey period and duration, and out of the nine, only seven stated the survey


coverage and the sites for sampling. ó Overall, none of the preliminary EIAs (pEIAs)

reviewed indicated any uncertainties in their survey. ó Some of the pEIAs contained only secondary data on

the biological environment, there was no new fieldwork conducted. This is partially inline with what was proposed by DOE, that data should be sought after from government agencies or local institutions on the matter, however they failed to carry out any fieldwork and they also did not discuss the reliability of their data. All of the secondary data used was found to be not site-specific and outdated.

ó Most of the reports utilizing secondary data also failed to mention the source of the data.

Baseline conditions ó With respect to biological environment, the baseline data collected most frequently for terrestrial flora and fauna, and less frequently for the marine counterparts.

ó Survey of vegetation and wildlife was referred to in 75% of the reports reviewed, whilst aquatic species were surveyed in 40% of the reports.

ó The coverage on birds was quite extensive; approximately 61% of the reports covered this.

ó Among the aquatic fauna described, fish was the most covered.

ó In regards to the description of natural fluctuation, only one report addressed this matter.

ó Although the survey on birds is quite thorough, their habitat was never examined; none of the reports mentioned the migratory routes and breeding areas of the birds seen in the project site.

ó Such was the case for others as well, on the species level, the reporting is exhaustive, but majority did not touch on the habitat and communities level.

ó For example for coral reefs, their presence was recorded in detail, but their whereabouts and the habitat that they are in were not described.

Species abundance and status

ó Only 34% of the reports stated the conservation status of the species surveyed, the others just included species lists.


ó The species status, such as rare, endemic, endangered, protected and common, are found in the reports reviewed, however there was no point of reference as why and how a certain status were given.

ó Species status was only attributed to terrestrial fauna/flora and turtles; corals, an important coastal resource, were not given a status although they are classified as sensitive.

ó In addition to assigning conservation status, there is also a need to establish whereabouts of the species involved. From the review, there was no indication of whereabouts the impacted species are located in the pEIA reports.

Prediction of ecological impact

ó Results showed that all the pEIAs have included a section on impact prediction, however, in regards to ecological impact prediction, none of them mentioned the method of prediction involved.

ó Although 14 or 34% of the pEIAs reviewed provided a basis for their prediction, they failed to provide support for their arguments, for example case studies, models, literature or experts’ opinion. The reasons were given as if they were common understanding.

ó Despite the fact that all these reports explained the nature of the effects and impacts, they tended to rely on descriptive rather than quantitative phrases.

ó Observations can also be made that the reports reviewed tended to refer to direct habitat loss and none touched on the matter of habitat fragmentation or insularization.

ó Cumulative, indirect and long/short term impacts were also not mentioned in the reports reviewed.

Evaluation of impact significance

ó It was also found that none of the reports attempted to quantify the significant impacts.

ó Those reports that claimed insignificant impact with the adoption of mitigating measures did not refer to other case studies or expert opinions (which was required) in making their conclusions, they just simply made a list of unsupported reasons.

Mitigating measures ó In general, all of them that have identified possible


ecological impacts have included a section on mitigating measures.

ó Among the proposed mitigating measures, landscaping was found to be the most common approach in mitigating ecological impacts.

ó Review showed that 24 reports have described the mitigating measures to a certain extent, but only one that attempted to give detail prescriptions then mild descriptions, even this, there was no mentioned of any schedule of occurrence.

ó Majority of the reports failed to give any detail description to the mitigating measures proposed.

ó Some of the reports mentioned about the feasibility of such measures but none mentioned anything about their effectiveness.

ó There was no priority in terms of mitigating measures proposed. At close examination of the pEIAs, it seemed that the types of mitigation were not as important, any mitigating measures would be suffice, as long as the adverse impacts were dealt with.

ó Landscaping, transplanting schemes, relocation of species are mostly reductive or restorative measures.

ó There is a common saying, prevention is better than cure, and so all measures proposed should not be treated equally, preventive measures in mitigation ought to be given more preference than rectification measures. Needless to add, preventive measures are more cost and time-consuming, but these measures are sustainable-orientated.

Residual impacts ó None of reports mentioned about the possibility of ecological residual impacts.

Environmental monitoring

ó Majority of the reports reviewed mentioned monitoring programmes.

ó Among them, none of the pEIAs showed a commitment to monitor the environment; this can be seen through the description of the monitoring programme, majority of the reports did not state the budget allocation, personnel involved in monitoring, locations for monitoring and schedule for reporting.


ó At close examination, all the reports have stated monitoring for the physico-chemical factors, such as pH, level of contaminations and pollution, and none has mentioned about monitoring the biological factors such as eutrophication or others.

Consultants ó Two reports of different locations were found to contain identical ecological content, word for word.

ó Not all the EIAs had a multi-disciplinary team as their EIA consultants and some even do not have any biological scientists on the team.

Second Objective Propose ways to incorporate SEA in the existing impact assessment and decision-making process in Malaysia. Methodology Review was carried out on the existing EIA process in Malaysia and the whole system was thoroughly examined of its possibility to incorporate SEA. Results Overall two mechanisms have been thought of that would enable the incorporation of SEA into the existing environmental assessment scenario in Malaysia to complement and supplement the project based EIA. First Mechanism – through existing mechanism

ó Under Section 34A of the Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 1985, it requires anyone who intends to undertake a prescribed activity to carry out EIA. The section also specifies 19 categories of activities requiring EIA reports prior to implementation. The whole process of EIA was made mandatory through Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (EIA) Order 1987 in April 1988.

ó Section 34A reads: o The Minister, after consultation with the

Council, may by order prescribe any activity which may have significant environmental


impact as prescribed activity. o Any person intending to carry out any of the

prescribed activities shall, before any approval for the carrying out of such activity is granted by the relevant approving authority, submit a report to the Director General. The report shall be in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Director General and shall contain an assessment of the impact such activity will have or is likely to have on the environment and the proposed measures that shall be undertaken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment.

o If the Director General on examining the report and after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, is of the opinion that the report satisfies the requirements of paragraph (2) and that the measures to be undertaken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment are adequate, he shall approve the report, with or without conditions attached thereto, and shall inform the person intending to carry out the prescribed activity and the relevant approving authorities accordingly.

o If the Director General, on examining the report and after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, is of the opinion that the report does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2) or that the measures to be undertaken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment are inadequate, he shall not approve the report and shall give his reasons therefore and shall inform the person intending to carry out the prescribed activity and the relevant approving authorities accordingly: Provided that where such report is not approved it shall


not preclude such person from revising and resubmitting the revised report to the Director General for his approval.

o The Director General may if he considers it necessary require more than one report to be submitted to him for his approval.

o Any person intending to carry out a prescribed activity shall not carry out such activity until the report required under this Section to be submitted to the Director General has been submitted and approved.

o If the Director General approves the report, the person carrying out the prescribed activity, in the course of carrying out such activity, shall provide sufficient proof that the conditions attached to the report (if any) are being complied with and that the proposed measures to be taken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment are being incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the prescribed activity.

ó Under section 34A of the third paragraph, before the Minister (that is the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources) approves of the EIA report, he would be able to attach condition to it if necessary, and this would provide an avenue for the environmental agency to require the project proponent to undertake a simple SEA to determine the impacts of such project on the regional basis. With such a condition, issues that relate to cumulative impacts could be addressed.

Second mechanism: Strategic-EIA and SEA

ó Short term: Strategic-EIA. ó Integrating the assessment of cumulative and indirect

impacts, as well as impacts interactions into the present project EIA system would be able to inject some strategic elements in the short term (Strategic-EIA).

ó Although the mandatory EIA amendments in 1985 in the Environmental Quality Act 1974 did not include the clause for any assessments of cumulative or indirect


impacts whatsoever, it did stress that “the report shall be in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Director-general and shall contain an assessment of the impact such activity will have or is likely to have on the environment and the proposed measures that shall be undertaken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment” (Malaysia 1995).

ó Since all the impacts on the environment are required to be considered; cumulative and indirect impacts and the impacts interactions should not be the exceptions.

ó Aside from advocating the necessity to integrate such considerations, the DOE should also identified proven methodologies to assess such impacts, so that the methods used would be standardized, and this would ease the assessors in their systematic review of the EIA reports.

ó Strategic-EIA could also be implemented through the introduction of a small-scale SEA in the project-EIA process. Usually in a developmental project, a number of ecosystems, administrative boundaries, and communities would overlap, so the EIA report could take into account the various policies, plans or issues that involved in the various parties. Through this, the EIA report would be able to incorporate certain strategic elements in the environmental assessment.

Long-term: SEA ó In order to carry out a sectoral SEA on a developmental

activity, all the project proposals submitted could be pooled and considered as a whole. When compiled, then it is possible to narrow down the densities of such activity in the different regions.

ó The densities study would help to pinpoint the areas with the most or more developments, and it is in such areas that cumulative impact is of great concern. After narrowing down to the area, then digital data could come in. With the help of existing marine, coastal and vegetation data, as well as periodic monitoring data, either from the authorities or those project proponents


that undertook an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), then a simulated model showing the relative vulnerability of the areas could be done with the utilisation of Geographical Information System (GIS).

ó Vulnerability could be defined: (a) significance of the ecosystem, regionally and globally; (b) rarity or abundance; and (c) ecosystem resilience.

ó Ground-truth surveys could also be carried out to verify the facts and also to obtain more accurate information on the environment. With the availability of reliable data, then it is possible to carry out strategic assessment to determine the degree of impacts anticipated with the new or further developments.

ó Other long term goals that relate to the introduction of SEA in prescribed activities would be the identification of ecological indicator and the setting up of an environmental research fund.

ó The fund could possibly be pooled from existing project proponents and also future developers as this would show their concern for environmental protection and improvement and their commitment for sustainable development.

ó Suitable and practical sustainable indicators should also be established. For different types of sectoral activities, the indicators should be different because the biological diversity involved may vary; therefore setting a standard suite of sustainable indicators is not applicable, rather the indicators assigned ought to be activity-specific. These indicators could be applied in SEA to measure and describe baseline environmental conditions and predicted impacts, compare alternatives and monitor the implementation of the PPP.

Main concerns regarding SEA implementation and their possible solution: Concerns Possible solution 1 Who is going to fund

the strategic assessment?

DOE/Local Authorities § Through the Environmental Fund as described

above.


§ Federal/State funding Project Proponents § Projects proponents that carry out mix

developmental projects at a certain prescribed size (to be determined).

§ Project proponents that carry out developmental projects at certain prescribed sensitive areas.

2 Who is going to carry out the strategic assessment?

DOE/ Local authorities/ other governmental agencies that involved in the preparation of PPP. Project Proponents.

3 What is the scale of the assessment?

The scale of assessment could be determined through the preparation of a Guideline for Assessment or an agreement between the proponents, the authorities and also the public.

The implementation of SEA is still in its infancy in Malaysia. The first SEA in Malaysia was conducted in 2000 in a wetland area called Payah Indah near Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) and has taken almost three years to complete. The second was initiated in Sabah in 2004, but has still not reached completion due to lack of commitment and continuity from the local authorities. There is a potential role for SEA to play in Malaysia to ensure that environmental effects are considered in the earlier stage of planning and policy decision making processes and to ensure that the importance of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services is recognised in the planning process. Although there is a worldwide trend to adopt SEA and also other assessment tools, its implementation in Malaysia is still lacking. At the moment, the closest strategic assessment tool in the country is a macro-EIA or detailed-EIA, however these do not support a proactive, strategic approach to the assessment or management of biodiversity. Related strategic initiatives including ICZM (Integrated coastal zone management) and ELP (Environmental consideration in land-use and planning) have been undertaken in Sabah, but they were met with weak implementation. It is unlikely that effective SEA will be introduced until there is stronger commitment and buy in from the decision-making agencies.


Conclusions This study found that ecological content in all the reports reviewed was inadequate to support robust decision-making. Although the implementation of SEA would be possible with the existing legislation; the effective implementation of SEA is thought to be unlikely until the root cause (lack of commitment) to planning for ecosystem services and biodiversity is addressed.

REFERENCES

DOE 1988. A handbook for Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. Ministry of

Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia. DOE 1994. EIA Guidelines for Coastal Resort Development Projects. Ministry of

Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia. DOE 1995. A handbook for Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines, 2nd.

Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, Malaysia. Malaysia. 1995. Environment Quality Acts 1974 & subsidiary legislations made

thereunder. International Law Book Services. Malaysia. 1998. National Policy on Biological Diversity. Ministry of Science,

Technology and the Environment, Malaysia. Salveson, D. 1990. Wetlands: Mitigating and regulating development impacts. Urban

Land Institute, Washington, DC. Thompson, S., Treweek, J. & Thurling, D.J. 1997. The ecological component of

EIA: a critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 40(2): 157-171.

Treweek, J. 1996. Ecology and Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of applied ecology. 33: 191-199.

Treweek, J. 1999. Ecological impact assessment. Blackwell Science, UK. Treweek, J. & Thompson, S. 1997. A review of ecological mitigation measures in

UK environmental statements with respect to sustainable development. Int. J, Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 4: 40-50.

Treweek, J., Thompson, S., Veitch, N. & Japp, C. 1993. Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements. Journal of environmental planning and management. 36(3): 295-307.

Vun, L.W. & Latiff, A. 1999. Preliminary ecological input assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for coastal resort development in Malaysia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 17(2), 133-140.

Vun, L.W., Latiff, A. and Nordin, M. 2004. Review of ecological input in preliminary EIAs for coastal resort development projects in Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 6(3): 385-401.


Wood, C. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment. A comparative review. Longman, Harlow.


Appendix I

Poster presented at IAIA06, Stavanger, Norway, 23-26 May 2006.

Adequacy of Proposed Ecological Mitigating Measures and EIA Guidelines For Coastal Resort Development in Malaysia

Leong-wan Vun

School of Science & Technology Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)

88502 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia * [email protected] or [email protected]

ABSTRACT

In Malaysia, EIA procedure has been developed primarily as an aid to the environmental planning of new developmental projects or to the expansion of existing projects. Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1985 requires that the EIA for prescribed activities to contain an assessment of the significant impacts as well as proposed mitigating measures to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment. The proposed mitigating measures contained in 18 preliminary EIA (pEIA) for coastal resort development were reviewed for their ecological content. The current EIA guidelines for the preparation of these reports were also examined for their adequacy. It was found that ecological mitigating measures recommended in all reports were not specific on the ecological details and requirements for their implementation. Also, not all significant ecological impacts identified were addressed and there was no evaluation of the feasibility of the mitigating measures proposed. These reports also neglected to provide economic evaluation of the design measures adopted in the project plan. The EIA guideline for coastal resort development was found to be ambiguous on mitigating measures as well. It fails to provide details about suitable methods for making evaluations and of the probable effectiveness of each measure. Keywords: EIA, ecological mitigating measures, EIA guideline, coastal resort

INTRODUCTION




Assessment of ecological impacts is fundamental to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. Such assessments have important roles in minimising ecosystem degradation and in conserving biological diversity (Treweek 1996). In order to balance environmental conservation and economic development, all EIA related legislation makes provision for the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts (Wood 1995).

The need to mitigate the environmental impacts of development projects categorised as a “Prescribed Activity” under the Environmental Impact Assessment Order of 1988, is one of the main aims for section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Amended 1985, 1995). The Act requires an EIA report to contain an assessment of environmental impacts and the proposed measures to prevent, reduce or control adverse impacts (Malaysia 1995). An earlier preliminary study showed that there was a lack of details in the ecological mitigation measures proposed in locally prepared preliminary EIA (pEIA) reports for coastal resort development (Vun & Latiff 1999, Vun et al., 2004).

This paper examines the weaknesses of pEIA reports based on a review of 18 preliminary EIA (pEIA) reports for coastal resort development. Ecological mitigating measures proposed in these reports were evaluated for their adequacy and comprehensiveness. The current guidelines for the preparation of EIA reports on coastal resort development were also examined.

The ability to assess the likely effectiveness of mitigating measures

proposed in pEIA reports is vital for improving the EIA process, as mitigation provides the mechanism by which damage to, or loss of natural resources can be ‘made good’ (Treweek & Thompson 1997). In its guidelines, the Department of Environment (DOE) stresses that ‘identification of environmental protection measures is only part of the task. Assessors must also seek to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures’ (DOE 1988, 1995). The results of this assessment of effectiveness of ecological mitigating measures are meant to contribute to further enhance and strengthen the EIA process.

METHODS A total of 18 preliminary EIA reports for coastal resort development projects submitted to the DOE from 1990 to 1998 were reviewed. Coastal resort development for recreational projects is one of the 19 prescribed activities identified by the DOE that require the preparation of an EIA report for


consideration prior to their approval. This includes construction of hotel facilities with more than 80 rooms; hotel development extending over an area of 50 hectares (123.55 acres) or more, and development of recreational facilities within a national park or on islands in waters which are gazetted as national marine parks (Malaysia 1995). All the pEIA reports examined had been reviewed by the DOE, and the development of each of the proposed project had been approved. The mitigating measures proposed in each pEIA report to off-set predicted ecological impacts were summarised and classified into three categories: prevention, reduction or control and restoration. Prevention measures include the deliberate retention of ecologically valuable or sensitive areas and the intentional avoidance of impact/s altogether by refraining from taking certain actions or parts of an action. Reduction or control on the other had refers to steps taken to minimize impacts by limiting the degree of an action. Restoration includes repairing or rehabilitating the impacted environment and replacing it with a substitute or man-made environment.

The ecological information provided by each report relevant to the mitigation measures proposed were then evaluated for its adequacy and comprehensiveness in addressing the need to mitigate the ecological impacts identified in the report. In the light of the findings of this review, the adequacy of the section on mitigating measures published in the DOE guidelines for coastal resort development was also evaluated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Ecological Impacts The specific ecological impacts identified in the pEIA reports reviewed are summarised in Table 1. Three reports suggested that no ecological impacts will be detectable with the development of the projects despite the fact that these projects were situated along the beach with coastal and marine frontage. Vegetation and habitat losses were the two most common ecological impacts identified. There was also mentioned of pollution and/or disturbances that was resulted from the construction and operational phases of the project. Only one report addressed impacts in terms of functional relationships of ecological processes. The same report also made reference to more complex ecological effects such as habitat fragmentation. Even though all pEIAs attempted to


identify all possible ecological impacts, none of the reports reviewed attempted to quantify their extent.

References to complex ecological effects are rare even in EIAs conducted in other countries (Treweek and Thompson 1997). If habitat and species loss are not quantified, then it would be impossible to estimate the regional, national and international consequences of habitat loss for associated species or habitat type. Without such information, the appropriateness of recommended mitigating measures and estimation of residual ecological effects would be meaningless (Treweek & Thompson 1997).

TABLE 1. Ecological impacts identified in 18 pEIA reports on coastal resort development.

Ecological impacts Vegetation loss Habitat loss Pollution (Noise, air and water) Disturbances (constructional & operational) Habitat fragmentation Hydrological alteration Disturbance on the ecological processes (food chain etc) Sedimentation Discharge of sewerage effluent

Proposed Mitigating Measures A wide range of mitigating measures was proposed in the pEIA reports examined in this study. These have been classified according to whether the primary role of the proposed measure was to prevent, reduce or restore ecosystems degraded by the construction and operation of the project as explained above (Table 2).

TABLE 2. Proposed mitigating measures according to three categories. Categories Mitigating measures recommended Prevention § Avoidance of key areas


§ Controlling access § Limiting areas to be cleared § Avoiding clearing trees indiscriminately § Incorporating conservation measures into the

development plan § Avoiding clearing of small sized habitats

Reduction/ § Relocation of species control § Buffer strip of vegetation reword!

§ Controlling sedimentation § Controlling tourist activities at night to reduce

disturbances § Supplying water to the wildlife § Controlling use of fertilisers

Restoration § Landscaping § Implementing transplanting programme § Providing opportunities for the scientists from

Wildlife Department to transfer rare species elsewhere

§ Preserving and propagating valuable species § Prepare research facilities to monitor these

natural resources reword § Habitat restoration

Landscaping was found in the reports reviewed to be the most common recommendation for mitigating ecological impacts. However 95% of the reports made seemingly ambiguous suggestions. There was also a lack of mitigating measures proposed for the ecological impacts of project development on off-shore resources and the majority of the reports focussed on impacts on the terrestrial environment.

Mitigation measures must be proposed for all identified adverse impacts identified to be of significance (DOE 1988, 1994 & 1995). However it was found that not all of the adverse ecological impacts identified were provided with proposed mitigation measures. In most reports, a single measure was proposed to mitigate a number of ecological impacts.

Only one report gave detailed prescriptions of the mitigating measures proposed. All other reports examined made suggestions with minimum details.


Besides that, these reports also failed to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed although this is stipulated as a requirement in the EIA handbook (DOE 1988, 1995). Only 5% of the pEIAs examined noted the requirement for a monitoring programme for the ecological mitigating measures proposed. All other reports focussed on the need to monitor physico-chemical conditions around the project site. None of the reports examined provided economic valuations of the proposed mitigating measures.

The prevalence of landscaping as a mitigating measure for environmental impacts appears to be related to project proponents’ concern with providing as much green cover as possible to minimise the potential visual impact of projects as quickly as possible. This approach is practised widely. However such a measure serves mainly as cosmetic purposes (Thompson et al. 1997).

The failure to propose mitigating measures for off-shore coastal resources

and shallow suggestions on mitigating measures to impacts on the terrestrial coastal environment can lead to effects that jeopardise the well-being of off-shore coastal ecosystems in the short- and long-term. Such a bias was not detected by an earlier study (Vun and Latiff 1999) because the pEIA reports examined were not extensive. This was however strengthened in a later study by the same authors (Vun et al. 2004).

Lack of comprehensive coverage and mismatches between identified

environmental impacts of a project and the proposed mitigating measures are a common weakness of EIA reports. In the United Kingdom for example, Treweek (1999) reported that there were frequent gross mismatches between impacts identified and the mitigation measures proposed. This may be indicative of a lack of ability to address the mitigation of specific ecological impacts or of an unwillingness to suggest more complex and expensive mitigating measures.

The lack of specificity in the mitigating measures suggested can be

construed as attempts to satisfy EIA requirements rather than fulfilling its true purpose in minimising ecological impacts (Vun & Latiff 1999, Vun et al. 2004). Similar shortcomings were also apparent in environmental statements from the United Kingdom (Treweek et al. 1993, Treweek & Thompson 1997). Whatever mitigating measure proposed would be vulnerable to failure if details of how they would be implemented are not provided.

Evaluating the effectiveness of ecological mitigation is essential in order to engage sustainability objectives in the EIA process, as one need to know the


adequacy and reliability of the proposed mitigating measure in offsetting damages or losses resulting from development projects. In the UK, only 4% of environmental statements (out of 194) provided estimates of the likely success of proposed measures and only one recommended contingency measures in the event of failure of the proposed mitigation measure (Treweek & Thompson 1997). On the local side, none of the pEIA reports examined included any contingency plans. A checklist for decision-makers on the effectiveness of proposed mitigating measures as suggested by Treweek 1999 and that contained in DOE’s EIA guidelines is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3. A checklist of questions to examine the effectiveness of proposed mitigating measures (Treweek 1999) vs. guidelines from DOE.

Checklist Guidelines from DOE § Have recommendations

been made for significant adverse ecological impacts?

§ All adverse impacts should be mitigated.

§ Are mitigation proposals realistic?

§ All mitigating measures should be described.

§ Are mitigation proposals technically feasible?

§ Have they tried and tested elsewhere?

§ Mitigations should be evaluated of their effectiveness.

§ How much will the proposals cost to implement?

§ Economic evaluation of the mitigation proposed.

§ How much follow-up management is necessary to ensure effectiveness of the MM?

§ Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

§ What are the chances of failure?

§ What are the consequences of failure?

§ How long will the mitigation take?


Adequacy of related EIA Guidelines and mitigating measures

There are two editions of the DOE Handbook of EIA Guidelines (DOE 1988, 1995). Both editions have identical content on mitigating measures. The guidelines stresses that all the mitigating measures should be discussed fully and an economic evaluation of the proposed measures should also be included in the discussion.

Supplementing the handbook is a more specific EIA Guidelines for Coastal Resort Development Projects (DOE 1994) which was expressly prepared for this particular prescribed activity. The section on mitigating measures in this guideline is more detailed than in the handbook. It explains the meaning of mitigating measures and that all proposed measures should take into consideration all the adverse impacts identified as significant. It also lists the entire scope of mitigating measures for coastal resort development. It recommends that all measures should be described and mapped for each adverse impact according to specifications and location of the proposed project, and that this should linked to project activities by schedule of occurrence. Should several alternative mitigating be available for a single impact, it requires that measures be compared and weighed for consideration as options by he project proponent.

From our review, the majority of the pEIAs examined failed to meet the requirement. This could be due to the ambiguities found in the guidelines. Though the guidelines mentioned that the measures should be described, they did not mentioned what should be covered. According to Salvesen (1990) and Treweek (1999), a mitigation plan should include the following details: § a clear statement of the objectives; § an assessment of the natural resource values that will be lost in comparison

with those that will be replaced; § a description of what sequential actions will be taken and when; § a monitoring and maintenance plan; § an indication of the likely success of such proposals and § a contingency plan in the event of mitigation failure.

In term of the effectiveness of the proposed measures, the DOE guidelines again fail to specify what methods and criteria should be used in evaluating the effectiveness of proposed mitigating measures, although the supplementary guidelines stressed the need to set up a programme of monitoring to check the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures (DOE 1994).


Available guidelines also did not provide details what is required for economic evaluations of ecological mitigating measures proposed. This may have been the reason for the absence of such valuations in the reports examined.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Much more has to be done to improve the quality of pEIA reports in Malaysia. This is especially true with regard to the mitigating measures recommended to off-set adverse ecological impacts related to development projects for coastal resort development. The mitigation of adverse ecological impacts of development projects is critical in ensuring the sustainable use of coastal resources (Malaysia 1998). If the ecological mitigation measures suggested in EIA reports is to take into account sustainability, it should at least meet the following conditions:

1. It should be ascertained from the out-set that the mitigating measures proposed be congruent with the significant ecological impacts identified and any possible residual impact should also be assessed.

2. Mitigation proposals should be sufficiently detailed for their

effectiveness to be evaluated. In line with this, the EIA handbook/guidelines should be explicit about the aspects that should be covered in the evaluation.

3. The rationale of the mitigation measures proposed should be

documented with proper references. It should also indicate the effectiveness of the mitigation measure proposed, based on similar experiences elsewhere. If certain approaches are untested/new, this should be made clear.

4. Monitoring of ecological mitigating measures should be implemented.

5. Contingency plans should be included in case mitigation plans failed.


6. The type of mitigating measures proposed should be prioritised, instead of treating all the measures as equal, precedence should be given to prevention measures than that of rectification.

According to Treweek & Thompson (1997), many of the barriers to

effective mitigation are due to the current project-based approach to EIA, which prevents a resource-based approach to the monitoring and management of natural resources. However thresholds of viability are unknown for most habitats and species, and evaluating the likely success of a proposed mitigation measure is a challenging preposition. Nevertheless, it remains critical that they are estimated adequately in all EIA reports.


Appendix II

List of EIAs reviewed in this study.

No. Preliminary EIA/Normal EIA reports Submission 1 Preliminary EIA for Teluk Datai Resort,

Langkawi Jan 1991

2 Proposed Aseania Seaview Resort on lot 1640 Mk Kedawang

May 1991

3 Proposed hotel and residential development in Mk Kuah on lot 515 Jln Ayer Hangat

Oct 1995

4 Preliminary EIA report for proposed mixed development on plot A and plot B at Pantai Kok, Mk Padang Matsirat

July 1997

5 Pre-EIA for proposed resort development at lot 85, Mk Kuah

May 1997

6 Preliminary EIA for proposed coastal resort development on lots HS(M) 49/83, 101/83, 2276, 2277 and 2085, Mk Kedawang

Feb 1998

7 Proposed Burau Bay Tourist Resort on lot 1675-1691 Padang Matsirat

July 1997

8 Proposed Marina development in Kuah, Langkawi

Feb 1992

9 Proposed Aseania Cliff View Beach Resort on HS(M) 80/83, 97/83, 83/123 Mk Kedawang

April 1991

10 Proposed chalet development in Kota Langkawi

April 1991

11 Proposed Berjaya Premier Beach Resort development in Telok Burau, Padang Matsirat on lot 1659, 1660 and part of 1653-1657

May 1993

12 Proposed extension to the exisitng Pelangi Beach Resort on Pantai Chenang on lot 2583 and 2585

Dec 1993

13 Proposed 180-240 rooms Beach Resort Mk Kedawang

April 1991

14 Proposed Perdana Beach Resort in Mk Padang Matsirat on lot 79

Sept 1993

15 Proposed hotel and apartment development in Kedawang on lot 2281 and 2282

Jan 1993


16 Proposed resort development at Pulau Tuba Sept 1996 17 Telok Burau Resort project in Telok Burau Aug 1990 18 Proposed hotel and apartment development

on lot 693 and 694 Kuah Aug 1990

19 Preliminary EIA proposed resort development at Pulau Tinggi, Mk Pulau-Pulau, Daerah Mersing, Johor

Nov 1997

20 A proposed 79.293 acres resort development at Tanjung Balau Mk Pantai Timur, Johor

May 1994

21 Proposed beach resort on Pulau Long Tengah, Mk Pulau Redang, Daerah Kuala Terengganu

May 1992

22 Proposed development of Pantai Dalit Resort on LA90041033 Tuaran Sabah

Nov 1992

23 Proposed 204 rooms extension to existing Rasa Sayang Hotel, Bandar Batu Ferenggi, Mk Batu Feringgi, Pulau Pinang

March 1991

24 Proposed phase I resort development at Teluk Rubiah, Lumut, Perak

July 1992

25 Proposed Rompin Village golf and beach resort, Rompin, Pahang

Oct 1992

26 Proposed chalet resort development on lot 1 and 2, Teluk Dalam Kecil, Pulau Redang, Terengganu

Dec 1992

27 Proposed resort hotel and service apartment development at Teluk Burau, Pulau Langkawi, Kedah

Jan 1993

28 Integrated tourist resort development at Pasir Panjang, Negeri Sembilan

Sept 1993

29 Proposed Tourism Town at Pantai Kijal, Terengganu

Jan 1994

30 Proposed chalet and apartment development on lot 1253 & lot 1263 Mk Pantai Timur, Johor

May 1997

31 Proposed development of peace resort on lot 411 Mk Tenglu, Mersing, Johor

Aug 1997

32 Proposed coastal resort development known as Pantai Peranginan Morib on lot PT294 Mk Morib Kuala Langat Selangor

Jan 1997

33 Proposed Pulau Indah Marina Resort (Phase 1 & 2) at Pulau Indah Kelang District Selangor

April 1997


34 Proposed coastal resort project at lot 6345 Pulau Pangkor Mk Lumut, Manjung, Perak

Aug 1996

35 Proposed Kebana Sari Beach Resort on lot 450 Kg Merang, Mk Merang, Setiu Terengganu

Oct 1997

36 Proposed development of resort hotel at Telok Salang Pulau Tioman Pahang

June 1996

37

Proposed international resort development at Tg Siang, Tg Kelasa, Mk Pantai Timur, Daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor

Sept 1997

38 EIA Study for Pulau Rebak Besar Marina Resort development

Nov 1997

39 Proposed 7-storey hotel extension to existing Tanjung Aru Beach Resort at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

Sept 1991

40 Proposed Karambunai Beach Resort & Gold residential development project, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

April 1992

41 Proposed Island Resort development at Pulau Besar, Mukim Pulau-pulau, Mersing District, Johor Darul Takzim

Oct 1997

42 Preliminary EIA for proposed residential project on Lot 1387, 1399, 1893, 1894 & 2968, Jalan Tuaran, KK, Sabah

1995

43 Preliminary EIA for proposed housing development at Kuala Menggatal, Sabah

1996

44 Preliminary EIA for proposed residential cum commercial development in Suang Parai, Likas, KK, Sabah

1997

45 Preliminary EIA for proposed low density housing development project on lot CL 075368419 Trig Hill, Jalan Utara, Sandakan, Sabah

1998

46 Preliminary EIA study for the proposed mixed development of Ladang Buntar Kedah

Jan 1997

47 Preliminary EIA for proposed development Mukim Semeling, Kuala Muda, Kedah

Nov 1997

48 Preliminary EIA for proposed development of Kota Perdana ASAN Metropolis of the 21st Century a Mukim Sungai Laka Bukit Kayu

Mar 2002


Hitam, Kubang Pasi, Kedah 49 Preliminary EIA study for proposed hosing

development at Mukim Sungai Petani, Kuala Muda, Kedah

Feb 2002

50 Preliminary EIA for proposed mixed development at Mukim Jabi, Pokok Sena, Kedah

Jul 2002

51 Preliminary EIA for proposed mixed development at Mukim Tawar, Baling, Kedah

Jun 1997

52 Preliminary EIA for mixed development at Pinang Tunggal, Kuala Muda, Kedah

Nov 2003

53 Preliminary EIA for proposed new township at Mukim Sungai Ular, Kulim, Kedah

Jul 2003

54 Preliminary EIA for proposed housing and commercial development at Mkim Tumin, Kubang Pasu, Kedah

Sept 2003

55 Preliminary EIA for proposed housing development at Mukim Lunas, Kulim, Kedah

Nov 2002

56 EIA for River stone mining at Sungai Kedamaian and processing facility at Kg Narinang, Sabah

Jul 2003

57 EIA for River sand mining at Sg Padas, KgBengkalalak, Beufort, Sabah

Jun 2002

58 EIA for river sand stone mining at Sg Langganan, Kg Napong, Ranau, Sabah

Oct 2001

59 EIA for river sand mining at Sg Papar, Kg Manggis, Papar, Sabah

Nov 2001

60 EIA for river sand mining at Kg Lakut, Sg Papar, Sabah

Nov 2000

61 Proposed logging project for Yayasan Sabah Coupe YK 1/06 and YK 1/07 at Sg Pinangah Forest Reserve, Tongod, Sabah

Sept 2005

62 Proposed timber harvesting at YK1/08 at Pinangah Forest Reserve, Tongod, Sabah

Oct 2005

63 Forest logging at Pensiangan Forest Reserve Nabawan, Sabah

Nov 2005

64 Proposed forest logging operation within Pensiangan Forest Reserve, Pensiangan, Sabah

Nov 2005

65 Proposed logging activities at Pensiangan Dec 2005


Forest Reserve, Keningau, Sabah 66 EIA on exisitng forest logging of 5,000 hectares

at Tangkulap Forest Reserve, Telupid, Sabah 2000

67 EIA on forest relogging on Pensiangan Forest Reserve, Sabah

2001

68 EIA on proposed forest logging at Sapulut commercial forest reserve, Kalanakan, Sabah

2003

69 EIA on existing forest logging at Lot 14950272, Tambunan, Sabah

2004

70 EIA for logging activities at Sg Ulu Milian Forest Reserve in the administrative district of Keningau, Sook, Sabah

Feb 2001

71 EIA for logging activities at Tomani Forest Reserve in the administrative district of Keningau, Tenom

Jul 2002

72 EIA for proposed logging operation in Pensiangan state land in Ladas Jaya

May 2001

73 EIA for logging activities in Sg Pinangah in the district of Tongod, Sabah

May 2001

74 EIA for logging activities within the FMU 25 in the Kalabakan forest reserve

Sept 2001

75 EIA for Pantai Dalit Resort, Tuaran, Sabah Nov 1992 76 EIA for Rafflesia Golf and Country Resort,

Tuaran, Sabah Dec 1992

77 EIA for Coastal Resort and Golf Course, Kuala Inanam, Sabah

Dec 1994

78 EIA for Kabang Retirement Resrt, Kg Kabang, Papar, Sabah

Nov 1996

79 EIA for Hyatt Duta Regency Hotel, Tanjung Aru, Sabah

Jan 1997

80 EIA for Dumpil Lagoon Resort, Meruntum, Lok Kawi, Sabah

Oct 1997

81 EIA for Lok Kawi Beach and Marina Resort, Lok Kawi Beach, Sabah

Feb 1998

82 EIA for MCM Resort, Ranau, Kota Belud, Sabah

May 1998

83 SEIA Study For Sustainable Forest Management Of Ulu Tungud Forest Reserve.

2003

84 Special Environmental Impact Assessment 2004


(SEIA) The Proposed Forest Logging & Plantation Of 95, 300 Hectares At Forest Management Unit (FMU 14), Sapulut, Sabah.

85 SEIA for Proposed oil palm plantation and industrial tree plantation development at Benta Wawasan I and Benta Wawasan IIc, Yayasan Sabah Forest Management Area, Kalabakan and Gunung Rara Forest Reserves, Tawau District, Sabah.

2005

Date post:	01-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Strengthening biodiversity consideration in EIA and...

Documents