Environmental impact assessment in the association of southeast Asian Nations

257

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1985; 5:257-263

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS

C E L S O R. R O Q U E

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has agreed that environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources are essential for sound economic development. The Environmental Impact Assessment is viewed as an important management tool and an ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment has been working for several years on a model especially adapted to the region and also on case studies of the implementation of EIA. Progress so far has been frustratingly slow due to misunderstandings, a lack of ecological data, inadequate trained manpower and institutional shortcomings for compliance. The author advocates collaboration on an ASEAN model for performing EIA as a means of accelerating acceptance and implementation. The concept of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management is proposed as a prototype.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is composed of Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei, the most recent addition. ASEAN began 16 years ago as a loose regional grouping and has made impressive progress in several areas of multinational cooperation such as cultural and technological exchanges, education, communications, international politics, industry, and environmental management. This trend of ever closer collaboration should continue toward the desirable but still distant goal of economic integration of member countries. In the areas of environmental protection and management, regional cooperation is definitely gaining momentum. There is a widely prevailing concern and awareness that the hectic pace of industrialization, population growth,

Address correspondence t o : Ceiso R. Roque, University of the Philippines Science Research Foundation, Inc., Room 412, pulma Hall Annex, Diliman, Quezon City, Greater Manila, Philippines. © 1985 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017

0195-9255/85/$3.30

258

c.R. ROQUE

and urbanization will make environmental management not only imperative to the preservation of the environment but also essential to sustainable progress. Within ASEAN, events of crucial environmental significance are occurring which should encourage and foster the cooperative pooling of experience and talents. For example: • The huge transmigration program of Indonesia involves potentially about 2.5 million people each year. • The ambitious Philippines energy program calls for installation of extensive geothermal power stations and a nuclear power plant. • Trade in exotic faunal species is brisk in Bangkok. • Deforestation continues rapidly in Malaysia. These are all major perturbations" in the area's natural and social systems. The potential for serious detrimental effects is real enough to provoke anxiety and concern among the region's growing ranks of environmentalists. In December of 1978, the ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment held its first meeting in Jakarta. They formulated the ASEAN Environmental Program which was formally approved during the First Ministerial Meeting on the Environment in 1981. This expression of concern at the highest bureaucratic level was further reinforced by a political document called the Manila Declaration on the ASEAN Environment. This document was characterized by flamboyant rhetoric proclaiming the concerns of governments and their commitment to resolve the existing and emerging environmental issues. REGIONAL EFFORTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (EIA) EIA has been prominent in the agenda of the ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment from the very first meeting when it was singled out as a priority area for implementation. This topic still occupies position of Goal 2 in the Second ASEAN Environmental Program for 1983-1987 (ASEAN Experts Group on the Environment 1983): "Development of tested methodologies in integrating environmental aspects of development plans and project evaluation." Although the EIA was accepted as an important management tool the relevant expertise for its implementation within the region seemed to be rather inadequate. The Group's meeting in Manila in 1980 called attention to this serious shortcoming and recommended the implementation of .training programs and the development of suitable EIA methodologies. The Group also decided to undertake case studies in all ASEAN countries in order to facilitate a more meaningful and useful exchange of experience. A workshop was held in the following year as a venue for the discussion of the results of the case studies. It is obvious from the deliberations of the Experts Group that they were in

EIA IN ASIAN NATIOlqS

259

search of methodologies that could be useful and relevant to the particular economic, cultural and political contexts of ASEAN. The hope was that new approaches could be discovered that would successfully dispel apprehensions that EIA was an obstacle to the planned rapid development of the region. The case studies were intended as learning situations with which new techniques could be created. Although there were ongoing national efforts in EIA, particularly in the Philippines and Thailand, the Group believed that regional cooperation would hasten the development of techniques and also facilitate the generation of funds for research and testing through agreements between ASEAN and international donors. An ASEAN model for EIA was suggested as a worthwhile objective (National Environmental Protection Council 1980). The regional efforts in EIA were anchored on two key projects: 1) tlae case studies in the various countries of the ASEAN which culminated in an EIA Workshop for Decision Makers in 1980, and 2) the policy recommendation concerning the preparation of EIAs for the ASEAN "industrial complementation projects." The latter is undecided pending the resolution of many political and . financial problems concerning the allocation of certain kinds of industrial production (e.g., fertilizer, cement, caustic-chlorine) among the cooperating nations. Thailand and the Philippines have established regulatory systems that are quite similar to that of the United States. Indonesia, even without formal legislation, is implementing guidelines for EIA that are fundamentally similar to those of the others. Malaysia is proceeding more cautiously by incorporating EIA in project planning and has been experimenting with various approaches. Although Singapore, having little rural land, would hardly need any regulations beyond pollution control and sanitation, it has conducted an EIA for a large coal-fired power station. The EIA, in whatever form, is an entrenched concept within the bureaucracies of the ASEAN. The big question, therefore, is whether the expected benefits of the exercise in implementing assessment are being realized. The answer to this question is, unfortunately, negative. Only a few successes have occurred in those rare and fortuitous cases where the environmental issues are obviously critical and where the EIA has been'undertaken at. the earliest stages of project planning. The shortcomings of the system that were manifested in the US in the early 1970s are occurring in the Philippines and Thailand with unrelenting predictability. For instance, some of the environmental impact assessments that have been submitted to date are nothing but a collection of unsynthesized biophysical data irrelevant to the choice among real alternatives. In addition, the usual Third World constraints of lack of basic knowledge and data and shortage of expertise are impairing the quality and utility of the EIAs. Regarding this point, Warren J. Evans in his report to the Experts Group after reviewing the EIA practice in ASEAN, said "the EIA as a planning tool is not being used in a way that maximum potential benefits can be gained." He also observed "it seems that a general

C.R.R~

misconception prevails which is that once the EIA study is completed, the environmental effects of the project are managed" (Evans 1983). Having observed closely the evolution of EIA practice in ASEAN, one could readily agree with Evans' observations. Indeed, the transformation of the EIA into a pro-forma document is an imminent possibility. In the Philippines, for instance, more than 80 percent of the EIAs submitted to the government have concerned small-scale quarrying of gravel and sand in which neither the project proponent nor the reviewers take the environmental consequences seriously. In both Thailand and the Philippines the preventive or remedial environmental management measures prescribed in the EIA reports are seldom actually incorporated in project plans and carried out. Moreover, there are no institutional mechanisms for systematically monitoring compliance with the recommended mitigation measures. FAILURE OF A TEST MODEL There has been prevailing sentiment for the design of a special regional model. The ESCAP/UNEP Regional Seminar on Alternative Patterns of Development and Lifestyles in Asia and the Pacific in 1979, recommended the formulation of new approaches to EIA that would not be as "complicated" and "expensive" as the traditional (Western) methods. However, it is quite unfortunate that the seminar worked under these false impressions. The notion of being "complicated," as used in the seminar, apparently meant requiring high-tech expertise, usually imported from the West. On the other hand, "expensive," which is a frightening word for poor developing countries, was not quantitatively defined. In fact, in the two countries with the most extensive experience in EIA (Thailand and the Philippines) the vast majority of the EIAs have been prepared by local finns and academic institutions. Moreover, in a survey made by Evans (1983), the actual cost, as far as can be determined, was 0.01-0.20 percent of project costs. Inspired by these inaccurate premises the UNEP regional office in Bangkok sponsored the formulation of a test model intended as an Asia/Pacific regional model. Case studies were undertaken in seven countries (Suriyakumaran 1980). Because the authors tried to avoid complexity, the model unfortunately became overly simplistic. The model operated on the premise that an EIA is merely an assessment of the resources that are utilized or affected by a development project. The calculation of costs and benefits became an elementary bookkeeping exercise to keep track of the cost of pollution treatment, mitigation measures, recycling costs, benefits in terms of increase in the gross domestic products, etc. Issues concerning social costs, opportunity costs, and other significant but not easily quantifiable factors were all swept under the rug. The so-called test model is completely devoid of any predictive capability with respect to ecological con-

EIA IN ASIAN NATIONS

261

sequences, a feature which is all important in view of the characteristically long time scale of ecological events. Even the use of a discount rate is avoided as if Third World analysts were not capable of doing these simple calculations. The elementary computations of undiscounted costs and benefits in the model, if strictly analyzed, have no valid economic meaning and are thus almost irrelevant to decision making. The test model, because of its many serious limitations, will definitely fade into obscurity--a fate which it richly deserves. PROPOSAL FOR AN ASEAN MODEL The idea of a regional model, especially that of an ASEAN model, is still valid and useful. Having sold the concept of EIA as an essential planning tool, the Experts Group should now concentrate on process and techniques. An ASEAN model which incorporates the accumulated and tested body of experience and concepts elsewhere has a number of strategic advantages. The member countries on their own would find it difficult to obtain funding support for projects exploring new directions in EIA. The implementation is fairly recent and national advocates would be admitting early failure by attempting to justify the search for newer approaches. However, an ASEAN project has a better chance of getting funding assistance from international organizations. Another advantage is that a prodact of a joint undertaking is much easier to identify with and accept as one's own. If there is a "domino theory" in operation at all in Southeast Asia it can definitely be seen in ASEAN projects. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that the design and testing of such a model would require a level of expenditure that most individual countries could afford or would be willing to pay. Although a favorable climate exists for innovation, the legitimate goal for the design of an ASEAN model is an EIA that takes into account the economic, political, social, and cultural peculiarities of the region. This is necessary to ensure its usefulness in the exploration of development alternatives for the sustainable use of natural systems. The model must accommodate real politik of decision making. While it should acknowledge the complexity of the interactions between economics and ecosystems, the model must be practically applicable in varying circumstances. The design should consider the constraints of the limited biophysical data and fundamental scientific knowledge of the region's ecosystems. Despite these constraints it should predict the probable consequences of perturbations. A possible prototype for an ASEAN model could be the so-called Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) initiated by C. S. Holling and others at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Holling 1979). The features that are relevant to the ASEAN context are discussed below. The key actors of a development project are allowed to interact throughout the assessment process. These actors include the decision makers, managers, scientists

262

c.R. ROQUE

and the affected constituencies. This kind of interaction is crucial in the Southeast Asia region in view of the overlapping and conflicting mandates and jurisdictions of many government agencies. Their close involvement in the EIA process can promote cooperation and collaboration. The workshop feature of AEAM provides a forum wherein people with different roles may relate and interact. The most common hindrance to successful EIA in the region are "people problems" rather than scientific techniques. Moreover, the interactions between various interests and kinds of expertise could result in a fresh and creative view of the development process. The workshop which is central to the AEAM could be structured to suit the group behavioral attitudes of persons from Asian cultures. At present the implementation of the environmental management schemes is the weakest link in the EIA system. The resulting common understanding of the issues and the improved communications between the various actors could greatly facilitate implementation. The use of systems analysis, simulation modelling and qualitative modelling in AEAM could clarify the dynamic and complex linkages between natural systems and the socioeconomic systems. This would constitute an educational experience for the decision makers and managers as welt as the constituents who are highly dependent on natural systems for their livelihood. The use of systems analysis also promotes clear and rational thinking through the analysis of th.e consequences of emotionally or traditionally held assumptions about natural systems. The rule of reason and logic may have better chances of prevailing over the usual emotionalism that occurs whenever vital interests clash. With the use of simulation models for the analysis the assessment becomes essentially predictive--a feature which is conspicuously absent in the majority of EIAs in the ASEAN. AEAM calls for the design of monitoring and research programs as well as the determination and analysis of actual impacts on a continuing basis. Since the lack of monitoring and follow-through is one of the serious weaknesses of the EIA practice in ASEAN, this feature would be an obvious and necessary improvement. The research program would make positive contributions to the knowledge and data bases for natural systems in the region. One experiment with Adapti.ve Environmental Assessment has taken place in the Nam Pong Basin in Thailand. It was conducted under the auspices of the Interim Committee for the Coordination of Investigations of the Lower Mekong Basin (Interim Committee 1982). Admittedly this attempt was to introduce an environmental assessment into an ongoing development scheme, rather than at the start of a project. A management-oriented computer simulation model was produced to give trend projections of the consequences of different management actions. With a proven approach such as Adaptive Environmental Assessment providing the framework, the A S E A N Model could also incorporate the streamlining concepts of scoping and tiering which help prevent the assessment from becoming unwieldy and also take advantage of previous similar assessments. The fear of sophisticated techniques reflected in the design of the Te.~t Model could be overcome partially by the use of microcomputers which are readily

EIA IN ASIAN NATIONS

263

available throughout Southeast Asia. A "toolbox" consisting of software packages could include everything from the traditional statistical analysis, simulation models, qualitative models, and economic valuation techniques to ecological models designed for microcomputers. The initial development effort for the proposed ASEAN model would be difficult but the possibilities are intriguing. These cooperating nations are motivated toward sound environmental management and a common model of Environmental Impact Assessment will hasten achievement of that mutual goal.

REFERENCES Association of Southeast Asian Nations Experts Group on the Environment and the United Nations Environment Programme. 1983. Phase II of the Regional Collaborative Programme on the Environment of ASEAN Countries. Bangkok: UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Evans, W. J. 1983. The Use of Environmental Impact Assessmentfor Development Project Planning in ASEAN Countries. Bangkok: UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Holling, C. S. (ed.) 1979. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Interim Committee for the Coordination of Investigations of the Lower Mekong Basin. 1982. Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelinesfor Application to Tropical River Basin Development. Bangkok: Mekong Secretariat of ESCAP. Philippines. National Environmental Protection Council, 1980. Proceedings of the EIA Seminar for Decision Makers. Baguio City, the Philippines: National Environmental Protection Council. Suriyakumaran, C. (ed.) 1980. Environmental Assessment Statements: A Test Model Presentation. Bangkok: UNEP Regional Of.rice for Asia and the Pacific.