- Email: [email protected]
Evaluation of the EIA system on the Island of Mauritius and development of an environmental monitoring plan framework
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (2004) 537 – 549 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
Evaluation of the EIA system on the Island of Mauritius and development of an environmental monitoring plan framework T. Ramjeawona,*, R. Beedassyb,1 a Faculty of Engineering, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Department of Environment, Government of Mauritius, Port Louis, Mauritius
b
Received 1 August 2003; received in revised form 1 December 2003; accepted 1 January 2004
Abstract The Environment Protection Act (EPA) in Mauritius provides for the application of an EIA license in respect of undertakings listed in its first schedule. Following the promulgation of the Act in June 1993, the Department of Environment (DOE) is issuing an average of 125 EIA licenses yearly. In general, the review exercise of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is terminated once the license has been granted. The aim of this project was to evaluate the EIA system in Mauritius and to identify its weaknesses and strengths. One of the main weaknesses, besides the lack of EIA audits, is the absence of EIA follow-up monitoring. It is necessary to distinguish between monitoring done for regulatory purposes (compliance monitoring) and environmental monitoring related to the EIA. With the growth of the tourism industry on the island, coastal development projects have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. A sample of EIA reports pertaining to this sector was assessed for its quality and follow-up mechanisms. Proposals for the contents of EIA Prediction Audits, Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) and the format for an EMP report are made. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Auditing; Coastal; Island; Mauritius; Monitoring
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +230-4541041; fax: +230-4657144. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Ramjeawon), [email protected] (R. Beedassy). 1 Tel.: + 230-2113556; fax: + 230-2129407. 0195-9255/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.001
538
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
1. Introduction Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a planning tool used to predict and evaluate the impacts of proposed projects in order to assist decision making (Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995). Adoption and implementation of the EIA process depends on the institutional framework and the political context of the decision making (Beattie, 1995; Ross, 1994; Wood and Bailey, 1994). Small islands like Mauritius provide a special case in development, largely due to special characteristics of their natural resources, economies and, in many cases, their cultures (Hess et al., 1991). Insular natural resources—water, soil, lagoons and wildlife—ultimately dictate the capacity of an island to accept and sustain development. Their reduced areas, shortage of natural resources, geological complexity, isolation, exposure to natural disasters, fragile ecosystems, demographic pressures and economic fragility make the environmental problems of islands usually very serious. Understanding and implementing preventive strategies for sustainable development become critical issues for islanders. One of the main features of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) in Mauritius is the requirement for all undertakings listed in the first schedule to carry out an EIA and to obtain an EIA license from the Minister before proceeding. The Department of Environment (DOE) is issuing an average of 125 EIA licenses yearly. Despite positive benefits and significant improvements in planning, design and decision making from EIAs, various difficulties and constraints have been encountered in implementing the system. No in-depth evaluation has yet been carried out on its strengths and weaknesses. One such weakness is the little attention paid to EIA follow-up. According to EPA Australia (1995), EIA follow-up is needed because relatively little attention is paid to the actual effects arising from project construction and operation. Without some form of systematic follow-up to decision making, EIA may become just a paper chase to secure a development permit, rather than a meaningful exercise in environmental management to bring about real environmental benefits. Increasing amounts of manpower, money and time are being devoted to EIAs in developing countries and there is a need to safeguard the returns (i.e. environmental benefits and quality of decision making) on the resources spent. This paper aims to evaluate the EIA system in Mauritius and to develop an EIA follow-up mechanism, with a focus on coastal development projects. Key deliverables included the development of a methodology to carry out impact prediction audits and recommendations on the format of an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) report.
2. The tourism industry and the EIA process in Mauritius In the past two decades Mauritius has experienced an unprecedented boom in the tourism industry. Tourism activities are mostly concentrated on the
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
539
coastal zone and over 90% of the hotels have a beach frontage. Tourism is the third pillar of the economy behind the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) and sugar sectors. Its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is around 5% and the growth rate for the industry averaged 11% over the past 5 years. There were 660,000 tourists arrivals in 2001 with an average stay of 10.3 days (MEPD, 2001). The ribbon development around the coast and the lack of EIA monitoring are having negative visual and environmental impacts on the coastal zone which can affect the sustainable development of the tourism industry. Part IV of the EPA relates to the requirements for an EIA and makes provision for the application of an EIA license in respect of undertakings listed in its first schedule. The EIA mechanism came into force in June 1993. Since then, about 1000 EIA applications have been received in various sectors (see Fig. 1). About 10% of these applications pertain to coastal development projects. Proponents applying for an EIA license are required to submit to the Director of Environment 15 copies of the EIA report. After a preliminary review, to ensure that the EIA report is as accurate and exhaustive as possible, the EIA is open for public inspection and comments. Fig. 2 shows an outline of the EIA procedure. A copy of the EIA report is circulated to the Ministries or agencies concerned, requesting for their views in writing. Concurrently, the Environmental Assessment Unit of the DOE organizes a joint inter-ministerial site visit for an on-site assessment of the potential environmental implications of the proposed development, together with the proponent and/or contact person and his EIA consultant(s). The proponent may be requested to carry out further studies or to submit additional information. The Director of DOE may also set up a Technical
Fig. 1. Sectoral breakdown of EIA applications.
540
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
Fig. 2. Outline of the EIA procedure in Mauritius.
Advisory Committee to advise him on the EIA or on any other aspects of the undertaking.
3. Research approach Hirji and Ortolano (1991) developed a concept of EIA effectiveness in terms of the following five dimensions: procedural compliance, completeness of EIA documents, methods to assess impacts, influence on project decisions, and weight given to environmental factors. Wood (1994) introduced 14 criteria
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
541
for evaluating EIA systems which were applied to examine the EIA system in the United Kingdom. Leu et al. (1996) introduced the framework of fundamental components of an effective EIA system and quality-control mechanisms. The fundamental components of an effective EIA system proposed include: (1) environmental policies, regulations, and guideline; (2) environmental administrative framework; (3) EIA procedure; (4) role of actors involved; (5) status of EIA reports; (6) EIA compliance monitoring and enforcement; (7) EIA implementation in practice; (8) implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA); and (9) international interactions. This framework has largely been followed for evaluating the EIA system in Mauritius. To develop an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) for coastal development projects, nine hotels constructed during the last 5 years were selected. The contents of the EIA reports were evaluated by verifying their conformity with the official guidelines for performing EIA. The quality of the EIAs was assessed using a judgmental approach based on the literature cited above and on the following quality criteria: baseline information; plans and drawings; methodology and techniques used for impact prediction; field surveys and consistency in the analysis; relevance of proposed mitigating measures; impact monitoring plan; and impartiality of the EIA contents. During the in-depth analysis information was retrieved from the EIA reports submitted by the proponents and from the EIA licenses issued by the authority.
4. Research findings Much has been achieved in the last 15 years in terms of establishing a legal and institutional framework for environmental management in Mauritius. However, the legal and institutional framework is fragmented, with the relevant provisions being dispersed across a number of different acts and regulations, often giving rise to jurisdictional overlaps. Moreover, most of the existing environmental laws are inadequately enforced, mainly due to a lack of resources and capacity in government departments, a lack of awareness of the laws themselves, overlapping responsibility for enforcement, and legal limitations on the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. The following sections summarize the main problems identified in the EIA system. 4.1. The EIA process The following weaknesses in the EIA process were identified:
One of the major shortcomings in the EIA procedure is that the screening mechanism is not adequate. Sixty-six percent of EIA applications relate to
542
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
poultry rearing and land parcelling. As a result of the policy adopted by the DOE with regard to poultry rearing, proposed development involving more than 25 layers or more than 50 broilers warrants an EIA license. Similarly, applications for EIA license have to be made for parceling of lands into more than nine lots. Significant resources from the DOE and other relevant authorities are being devoted to processing such applications. There is a need for a Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) for such type of activities to decide whether an EIA is really warranted. The minimum scoping requirements for an EIA need to be elaborated, as they are currently too general to ensure that all the relevant information is taken into account in deciding whether or not to grant an EIA license. There is a lack of sectoral guidelines to ensure a high quality of EIA reports. Access to information and public participation in the EIA process needs to be improved. There is poor public participation from project inception to implementation stages. There is an absence of clear criteria for the registration of consultants eligible to prepare EIA reports. There is an absence of a time frame for processing EIA applications. The procedure for reviewing EIA and granting EIA licenses is lacking in transparency and accountability. For example, there are no requirements to publish the final decision and/or to give the reasons or considerations on which it is based. Consent conditions imposed on the EIA license are not made public. There is an absence of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) for coastal development in a given area. One of the major shortcomings of EIA compared to SEA is that no consideration is given to cumulative effects. The EIA system focuses on the specific project under consideration and on its environmental implications, whereas SEA examines the significant environmental impacts resulting from all activities within the area under study. As is the case in many developing countries, there is a lack of expertise and trained staff to conduct and review EIAs. There are generally no environmental management plans (including monitoring plans during implementation and completion of projects) included in the EIA reports.
4.2. EIA Reports
There is an urgent need to set up sectoral guidelines to ensure uniformity and standard in the contents of the reports. The guidelines should indicate those issues that can have significant potential impacts so as to ensure acceptable quality of EIA reports. Alternatives, including the option of no development, are generally not addressed.
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
543
Information on baseline data and site characteristics are generally not adequate. The lagoon is one of the basic reasons for the tourism industry and yet there are no or insufficient investigations carried out on the baseline conditions such as quality of the seawater, marine ecology and beach stability. There is no consistency in complying with planning guidelines for coastal development. Economic impacts are always considered favourable and are given more weightage in the final decision. In most cases, additional information was requested to enable a proper review exercise given the lack of information in the reports. Many reports can be considered as descriptive and there are lengthy descriptions of nonimportant issues instead of a focus on key ones. 4.3. EIA license
There are no provisions to impose a condition for reinstating the site in case of any environmental degradation. There are certain conditions which are too general or almost impossible to comply with and to monitor. For example, the license stipulates that the proponent should undertake to resolve all conflicts with local fishermen. Over the years there have been increasing claims from fishermen claiming monetary compensation which can be unfair to the proponent. The licenses do not cater for a proper monitoring during the different stages of the project’s life cycle. For instance, parameters and methodology to be monitored are not specified. 4.4. Post-EIA compliance monitoring
Most of the proponents did not inform the authority of the exact start of the implementation of the project. In certain cases, the proponents were initially reluctant to give access and provide assistance in the monitoring exercise. The absence of a well-defined monitoring plan imposed on the developer is a major deficiency in the system.
5. Recommendations 5.1. Recommendations on the EIA system
There is a need for public participation at the stage of preparation of the EIA and at the stage of examination within the EIA Committee. A copy of the EIA report must be made available at the local government level. The onus should be on the proponent to involve the public and any affected parties right at the
544
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
conception of the project and at specific times through the EIA study in addition to formal review once the EIA is complete. The list of scheduled activities should be divided into three parts, namely, (i) major projects always requiring an EIA, (ii) projects which may in some cases require an EIA (to be decided according to guidance and/or policy papers) but which in all cases require preparation and submission of a preliminary environmental report, and (iii) projects which do not need an EIA but which must be notified and recorded by the authorities for the purpose of judging projects in categories (i) and (ii). The sector for hotel and coastal development constitutes one of the major sectors in terms of number of applications with significant environment impacts. The sector should be further divided into more specific sectors such as construction of permanent structures in the sea; construction of marinas; desalination plants; fishing port; golf course; harbor dredging operation, construction and development; hotel (coastal) including extension; lagoon dredging of sea beds including creation of bathing areas; and modification of existing coastline such as beach reprofiling, coastal protection works and removal of basaltic and beach rock. A catch-all category needs to be added to ensure that any other undertaking likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue inter-alia of its nature, size or location is subject to an EIA. The recommendation of the Minister and the consent conditions as imposed in the EIA license should be made public. It should be clearly stipulated in the EIA license that the developer has to provide all necessary assistance to any officer from the Department of Environment during site inspections and monitoring works at all times. A proper monitoring plan should include amongst others, measurement of seawater quality parameters so as to enable assessment of cumulative effects from hotel development and other activities in the area. A number of challenges need to be overcome for SEA to be an effective tool in environmental management. Research needs to be carried out on how to design an SEA process that can be integrated with the EIA decision-making process for coastal development projects. EIA on small islands is impeded by a lack of human resources. Overcoming this constraint requires long-term policy commitment and institutional development. There must be a comprehensive programme of capacity-building.
5.2. Proposal for impact prediction audits A compliance monitoring consists of a regulatory audit and impact prediction audits. The regulatory audit has the same meaning as the postEIA compliance monitoring which is a less quantitative method to determine whether the terms and conditions of the project approval are adhered to. The
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
545
‘impact prediction audit’ evaluates the performance of an EIA by comparing actual impacts to what was predicted. There are two common objectives of this audit:
to check the accuracy of predictions and to explain errors so that methods used in future EIAs will be more valid; and to assess the success of mitigation in reducing impacts, so that management can be made more effective at decision making. Wilson (1998) developed a model consisting of a nine-step procedure for auditing EIA making it more practical than audit procedures commonly described in the literature, which view EIA predictions as scientific hypothesis to be evaluated through rigorous statistical tests and experimental controls. The proposed model can be thought of as an ‘impacts-backward’ approach, in contrast to the scientific or ‘predictions-forward’ method. This model has been adapted to develop the methodology for Impact Prediction Audit in the hotel and coastal development sector. It consists of the following steps:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Select the EIAs to audit. In order to limit costs, select a few representative projects that have been granted EIA license, operating long enough, and have significant environmental impacts due to the nature and scope of works involved. Identify and prioritize impacts. The DOE has established an in-house EIA checklist which is used for the scoping exercise. Based on this checklist and consultation with other relevant authorities involved in reviewing EIAs, for instance, the Ministry of Housing for planning issues, Ministry of Fisheries for beach and lagoon, WMA for wastewater, etc., a list of likely project impacts can be identified. EIA reports can also be used for this exercise. Prepare field protocols. There are several techniques which can be used for each impact category, for example: compare with another or control site; interview proponents, neighbors, fishermen and other stakeholders; examine the monitoring data compiled by the proponent; review monitoring data available at relevant authorities; interpret available aerial photographs; and make field measurements using the appropriate equipment and take sample for analysis. The last technique may require assistance from other relevant authorities and therefore it is important to identify the responsible officers prior to effect the field visits. Impact documentation. It is important to have a proper recording for the observed impacts for each category identified in step 2. Comparison to EIA report. At this stage it is important to identify those impacts that were not identified in the EIA reports. Corrective action. Analyze those impacts that were not identified in the report and prepare an action plan with corrective measures. Concurrently, the proponents may be requested to propose corrective measures that they intend to implement to mitigate those impacts. Once these measures are obtained and accepted (after consultation with relevant authorities) at the DOE level, the proponents are instructed to implement the action plan. Last but not least the lessons learned should be used by the DOE for reviewing future EIA.
546
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
5.3. Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) The main objectives of an EMP are:
The organization and interpretation of the environmental monitoring data to establish a record of change associated with the implementation of a project or the operation of an organization; The process of verification that all or selected parameters measured by an environmental monitoring program are in compliance with regulatory requirements, internal policies and standards, and established environmental quality performance limits; The comparison of project impact predictions with actual impacts for the purpose of assessing the accuracy of predictions; The assessment of the effectiveness of the environmental management systems, practices and procedures; and The determination of the degree and scope of any necessary remedial or control measures in case of noncompliance or in the event that the organization’s environmental objectives are not achieved. Prior to formulating the EMP it is important to consider the following:
Monitoring has traditionally been considered to comprise of only verification for post-EIA compliance with consent conditions by the authorities. It is necessary to distinguish between monitoring done for regulatory purposes (compliance monitoring) and environmental monitoring related to the EIA. Monitoring is expensive and therefore it should be focused on the impacts that are either significant or not well understood (requiring further analysis). It must be accepted that both the authority and the proponents have a stake in the results of the monitoring study and there is thus a need for cooperation by pooling expertise, funds and logistical support in an acceptable way to increase the chances of meaningful monitoring. 5.4. Proposal for the format of an EMP report A full EMP should be required under the following circumstances: (a) The project has the potential of causing environmental impacts which are or are likely to be prejudicial to the health or well-being of the people, the flora, fauna or ecosystem if the recommended mitigation measures are not properly implemented; (b) The project is situated in any area of high conservation value; (c) The project involves mitigation measures of which the effectiveness may require a long period to establish, e.g. compensatory planting of trees or mangroves;
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
547
(d) The project involves an unproven technology; (e) The project involves unproven mitigation measures; (f) An otherwise familiar or routine mitigation measure is proposed for a new or unfamiliar environmental setting; (g) The analysis is based on a new technique or model, or there is other uncertainty about design assumptions and/or the conclusions. The EMP should be implemented by the proponent and documented in regular reports. It is proposed that the report resulting from the implementation of an EMP should contain the following:
An executive summary; Basic information on the project including a synopsis of the project organization, management structure (for maintenance and monitoring), and works undertaken during the monitoring works; A brief summary on the requirements of the EMP including all parameters monitored; methodology used; environment quality performance/standards limits; environmental mitigating measures as recommended in the EIA report and imposed in the EIA license; and environmental requirements in contract documents; Status on the implementation of the mitigating measures and pollution-control measures; Drawings/plans showing the project area, any environmental sensitive receivers and the location of the monitoring and control stations; Monitoring results including date, time frequency and duration; Presentation of monitored parameters (preferably graphical plots of trends); Constraints and any factors which might have affected the monitoring results; A summary of noncompliance of the environmental quality performance limits; A review of the reasons for and the implications of noncompliance including review of pollution sources and working procedures; A description of the actions taken in the event of noncompliance and deficiency reporting and any follow-up procedures related to earlier noncompliance; A summary record of all complaints received (written or verbal) for each media, including locations and nature of complaints, liaison and consultation undertaken, actions and follow-up procedures taken and summary of complaints; A summary record of notification of summons, successful prosecutions for breaches of environmental protection/pollution control legislation, and actions taken to rectify such breaches; A forecast of the works program, impact predictions and monitoring schedule for the next three months; and Comments, recommendations and conclusions for the monitoring period.
548
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
5.5. Proposal for conditions to be included in EIA license As mentioned earlier an appropriate EIA follow-up system should comprise of an environmental monitoring plan prepared by the EIA consultant and compliance monitoring consisting of regulatory and impact prediction audits prepared and implemented by the authority. These must be included in the EIA license. A proposal for conditions that may be specified in the EIA license includes the following specifications:
The parameters or impact to be monitored; The frequency of monitoring, or the procedures, practices methods or equipment to be used for monitoring; The standards or criteria to be used for evaluating and auditing monitoring data; The action plans and procedures in response to the results of such monitoring programs; The nature, format or frequency of the reporting of the results and findings of monitoring or action plans and procedures; and The release to the public of reports on monitoring or auditing work.
Consideration may also be given to methods of calibration of equipment and quality assurance and laboratory accreditation procedures; remedial measures to redress or reinstate to original environmental state; the requirements to carry out environmental monitoring by accredited laboratories, or environmental audit by qualified personnel; and compensation measures.
References Beattie RB. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1995;15(2):101 – 14. EPA Australia. International Study on the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canberra, Australia: Environment Protection Agency; 1995. Hess ALC. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. In: Beller W, D’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Series, vol. 5. Paris: UNESCO; 1991. p. 3 – 14. Hirji R, Ortolano L. EIA effectiveness and mechanisms of control: case studies of water resources development in Kenya. International Journal of Water Resources Development 1991;7(3):154 – 67. Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark WA. Development of an environmental impact assessment evaluation method and its application: Taiwan case study’. Environment Impact Assessment Review 1996; 16:115 – 33. MEPD. Ministry of Economic Development and Regional Co-operation. Annual Digest of Statistics 2001. Mauritius: Republic of Mauritius Central Statistics Office; 2001. Ortolano L, Shepherd A. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assessment 1995;13:3 – 30. Ross WA. Environmental impact assessment in the Philippines: progress, problems and directions for the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1994;14(4):217 – 32.
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
549
Wilson L. A practical method for environmental impact assessment audits. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1998;14(1):37 – 59. Wood C. Evaluating impact assessment. Integrated Environmental Management 1994;30:12. Wood C, Bailey J. Predominance and independence in environmental impact assessment: the Western Australian model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1994;14(1):37 – 59.
Evaluation of the EIA system on the Island of Mauritius and development of an environmental monitoring plan framework T. Ramjeawona,*, R. Beedassyb,1 a Faculty of Engineering, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Department of Environment, Government of Mauritius, Port Louis, Mauritius
b
Received 1 August 2003; received in revised form 1 December 2003; accepted 1 January 2004
Abstract The Environment Protection Act (EPA) in Mauritius provides for the application of an EIA license in respect of undertakings listed in its first schedule. Following the promulgation of the Act in June 1993, the Department of Environment (DOE) is issuing an average of 125 EIA licenses yearly. In general, the review exercise of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is terminated once the license has been granted. The aim of this project was to evaluate the EIA system in Mauritius and to identify its weaknesses and strengths. One of the main weaknesses, besides the lack of EIA audits, is the absence of EIA follow-up monitoring. It is necessary to distinguish between monitoring done for regulatory purposes (compliance monitoring) and environmental monitoring related to the EIA. With the growth of the tourism industry on the island, coastal development projects have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. A sample of EIA reports pertaining to this sector was assessed for its quality and follow-up mechanisms. Proposals for the contents of EIA Prediction Audits, Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) and the format for an EMP report are made. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Auditing; Coastal; Island; Mauritius; Monitoring
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +230-4541041; fax: +230-4657144. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Ramjeawon), [email protected] (R. Beedassy). 1 Tel.: + 230-2113556; fax: + 230-2129407. 0195-9255/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.001
538
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
1. Introduction Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a planning tool used to predict and evaluate the impacts of proposed projects in order to assist decision making (Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995). Adoption and implementation of the EIA process depends on the institutional framework and the political context of the decision making (Beattie, 1995; Ross, 1994; Wood and Bailey, 1994). Small islands like Mauritius provide a special case in development, largely due to special characteristics of their natural resources, economies and, in many cases, their cultures (Hess et al., 1991). Insular natural resources—water, soil, lagoons and wildlife—ultimately dictate the capacity of an island to accept and sustain development. Their reduced areas, shortage of natural resources, geological complexity, isolation, exposure to natural disasters, fragile ecosystems, demographic pressures and economic fragility make the environmental problems of islands usually very serious. Understanding and implementing preventive strategies for sustainable development become critical issues for islanders. One of the main features of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) in Mauritius is the requirement for all undertakings listed in the first schedule to carry out an EIA and to obtain an EIA license from the Minister before proceeding. The Department of Environment (DOE) is issuing an average of 125 EIA licenses yearly. Despite positive benefits and significant improvements in planning, design and decision making from EIAs, various difficulties and constraints have been encountered in implementing the system. No in-depth evaluation has yet been carried out on its strengths and weaknesses. One such weakness is the little attention paid to EIA follow-up. According to EPA Australia (1995), EIA follow-up is needed because relatively little attention is paid to the actual effects arising from project construction and operation. Without some form of systematic follow-up to decision making, EIA may become just a paper chase to secure a development permit, rather than a meaningful exercise in environmental management to bring about real environmental benefits. Increasing amounts of manpower, money and time are being devoted to EIAs in developing countries and there is a need to safeguard the returns (i.e. environmental benefits and quality of decision making) on the resources spent. This paper aims to evaluate the EIA system in Mauritius and to develop an EIA follow-up mechanism, with a focus on coastal development projects. Key deliverables included the development of a methodology to carry out impact prediction audits and recommendations on the format of an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) report.
2. The tourism industry and the EIA process in Mauritius In the past two decades Mauritius has experienced an unprecedented boom in the tourism industry. Tourism activities are mostly concentrated on the
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
539
coastal zone and over 90% of the hotels have a beach frontage. Tourism is the third pillar of the economy behind the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) and sugar sectors. Its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is around 5% and the growth rate for the industry averaged 11% over the past 5 years. There were 660,000 tourists arrivals in 2001 with an average stay of 10.3 days (MEPD, 2001). The ribbon development around the coast and the lack of EIA monitoring are having negative visual and environmental impacts on the coastal zone which can affect the sustainable development of the tourism industry. Part IV of the EPA relates to the requirements for an EIA and makes provision for the application of an EIA license in respect of undertakings listed in its first schedule. The EIA mechanism came into force in June 1993. Since then, about 1000 EIA applications have been received in various sectors (see Fig. 1). About 10% of these applications pertain to coastal development projects. Proponents applying for an EIA license are required to submit to the Director of Environment 15 copies of the EIA report. After a preliminary review, to ensure that the EIA report is as accurate and exhaustive as possible, the EIA is open for public inspection and comments. Fig. 2 shows an outline of the EIA procedure. A copy of the EIA report is circulated to the Ministries or agencies concerned, requesting for their views in writing. Concurrently, the Environmental Assessment Unit of the DOE organizes a joint inter-ministerial site visit for an on-site assessment of the potential environmental implications of the proposed development, together with the proponent and/or contact person and his EIA consultant(s). The proponent may be requested to carry out further studies or to submit additional information. The Director of DOE may also set up a Technical
Fig. 1. Sectoral breakdown of EIA applications.
540
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
Fig. 2. Outline of the EIA procedure in Mauritius.
Advisory Committee to advise him on the EIA or on any other aspects of the undertaking.
3. Research approach Hirji and Ortolano (1991) developed a concept of EIA effectiveness in terms of the following five dimensions: procedural compliance, completeness of EIA documents, methods to assess impacts, influence on project decisions, and weight given to environmental factors. Wood (1994) introduced 14 criteria
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
541
for evaluating EIA systems which were applied to examine the EIA system in the United Kingdom. Leu et al. (1996) introduced the framework of fundamental components of an effective EIA system and quality-control mechanisms. The fundamental components of an effective EIA system proposed include: (1) environmental policies, regulations, and guideline; (2) environmental administrative framework; (3) EIA procedure; (4) role of actors involved; (5) status of EIA reports; (6) EIA compliance monitoring and enforcement; (7) EIA implementation in practice; (8) implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA); and (9) international interactions. This framework has largely been followed for evaluating the EIA system in Mauritius. To develop an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) for coastal development projects, nine hotels constructed during the last 5 years were selected. The contents of the EIA reports were evaluated by verifying their conformity with the official guidelines for performing EIA. The quality of the EIAs was assessed using a judgmental approach based on the literature cited above and on the following quality criteria: baseline information; plans and drawings; methodology and techniques used for impact prediction; field surveys and consistency in the analysis; relevance of proposed mitigating measures; impact monitoring plan; and impartiality of the EIA contents. During the in-depth analysis information was retrieved from the EIA reports submitted by the proponents and from the EIA licenses issued by the authority.
4. Research findings Much has been achieved in the last 15 years in terms of establishing a legal and institutional framework for environmental management in Mauritius. However, the legal and institutional framework is fragmented, with the relevant provisions being dispersed across a number of different acts and regulations, often giving rise to jurisdictional overlaps. Moreover, most of the existing environmental laws are inadequately enforced, mainly due to a lack of resources and capacity in government departments, a lack of awareness of the laws themselves, overlapping responsibility for enforcement, and legal limitations on the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. The following sections summarize the main problems identified in the EIA system. 4.1. The EIA process The following weaknesses in the EIA process were identified:
One of the major shortcomings in the EIA procedure is that the screening mechanism is not adequate. Sixty-six percent of EIA applications relate to
542
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
poultry rearing and land parcelling. As a result of the policy adopted by the DOE with regard to poultry rearing, proposed development involving more than 25 layers or more than 50 broilers warrants an EIA license. Similarly, applications for EIA license have to be made for parceling of lands into more than nine lots. Significant resources from the DOE and other relevant authorities are being devoted to processing such applications. There is a need for a Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) for such type of activities to decide whether an EIA is really warranted. The minimum scoping requirements for an EIA need to be elaborated, as they are currently too general to ensure that all the relevant information is taken into account in deciding whether or not to grant an EIA license. There is a lack of sectoral guidelines to ensure a high quality of EIA reports. Access to information and public participation in the EIA process needs to be improved. There is poor public participation from project inception to implementation stages. There is an absence of clear criteria for the registration of consultants eligible to prepare EIA reports. There is an absence of a time frame for processing EIA applications. The procedure for reviewing EIA and granting EIA licenses is lacking in transparency and accountability. For example, there are no requirements to publish the final decision and/or to give the reasons or considerations on which it is based. Consent conditions imposed on the EIA license are not made public. There is an absence of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) for coastal development in a given area. One of the major shortcomings of EIA compared to SEA is that no consideration is given to cumulative effects. The EIA system focuses on the specific project under consideration and on its environmental implications, whereas SEA examines the significant environmental impacts resulting from all activities within the area under study. As is the case in many developing countries, there is a lack of expertise and trained staff to conduct and review EIAs. There are generally no environmental management plans (including monitoring plans during implementation and completion of projects) included in the EIA reports.
4.2. EIA Reports
There is an urgent need to set up sectoral guidelines to ensure uniformity and standard in the contents of the reports. The guidelines should indicate those issues that can have significant potential impacts so as to ensure acceptable quality of EIA reports. Alternatives, including the option of no development, are generally not addressed.
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
543
Information on baseline data and site characteristics are generally not adequate. The lagoon is one of the basic reasons for the tourism industry and yet there are no or insufficient investigations carried out on the baseline conditions such as quality of the seawater, marine ecology and beach stability. There is no consistency in complying with planning guidelines for coastal development. Economic impacts are always considered favourable and are given more weightage in the final decision. In most cases, additional information was requested to enable a proper review exercise given the lack of information in the reports. Many reports can be considered as descriptive and there are lengthy descriptions of nonimportant issues instead of a focus on key ones. 4.3. EIA license
There are no provisions to impose a condition for reinstating the site in case of any environmental degradation. There are certain conditions which are too general or almost impossible to comply with and to monitor. For example, the license stipulates that the proponent should undertake to resolve all conflicts with local fishermen. Over the years there have been increasing claims from fishermen claiming monetary compensation which can be unfair to the proponent. The licenses do not cater for a proper monitoring during the different stages of the project’s life cycle. For instance, parameters and methodology to be monitored are not specified. 4.4. Post-EIA compliance monitoring
Most of the proponents did not inform the authority of the exact start of the implementation of the project. In certain cases, the proponents were initially reluctant to give access and provide assistance in the monitoring exercise. The absence of a well-defined monitoring plan imposed on the developer is a major deficiency in the system.
5. Recommendations 5.1. Recommendations on the EIA system
There is a need for public participation at the stage of preparation of the EIA and at the stage of examination within the EIA Committee. A copy of the EIA report must be made available at the local government level. The onus should be on the proponent to involve the public and any affected parties right at the
544
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
conception of the project and at specific times through the EIA study in addition to formal review once the EIA is complete. The list of scheduled activities should be divided into three parts, namely, (i) major projects always requiring an EIA, (ii) projects which may in some cases require an EIA (to be decided according to guidance and/or policy papers) but which in all cases require preparation and submission of a preliminary environmental report, and (iii) projects which do not need an EIA but which must be notified and recorded by the authorities for the purpose of judging projects in categories (i) and (ii). The sector for hotel and coastal development constitutes one of the major sectors in terms of number of applications with significant environment impacts. The sector should be further divided into more specific sectors such as construction of permanent structures in the sea; construction of marinas; desalination plants; fishing port; golf course; harbor dredging operation, construction and development; hotel (coastal) including extension; lagoon dredging of sea beds including creation of bathing areas; and modification of existing coastline such as beach reprofiling, coastal protection works and removal of basaltic and beach rock. A catch-all category needs to be added to ensure that any other undertaking likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue inter-alia of its nature, size or location is subject to an EIA. The recommendation of the Minister and the consent conditions as imposed in the EIA license should be made public. It should be clearly stipulated in the EIA license that the developer has to provide all necessary assistance to any officer from the Department of Environment during site inspections and monitoring works at all times. A proper monitoring plan should include amongst others, measurement of seawater quality parameters so as to enable assessment of cumulative effects from hotel development and other activities in the area. A number of challenges need to be overcome for SEA to be an effective tool in environmental management. Research needs to be carried out on how to design an SEA process that can be integrated with the EIA decision-making process for coastal development projects. EIA on small islands is impeded by a lack of human resources. Overcoming this constraint requires long-term policy commitment and institutional development. There must be a comprehensive programme of capacity-building.
5.2. Proposal for impact prediction audits A compliance monitoring consists of a regulatory audit and impact prediction audits. The regulatory audit has the same meaning as the postEIA compliance monitoring which is a less quantitative method to determine whether the terms and conditions of the project approval are adhered to. The
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
545
‘impact prediction audit’ evaluates the performance of an EIA by comparing actual impacts to what was predicted. There are two common objectives of this audit:
to check the accuracy of predictions and to explain errors so that methods used in future EIAs will be more valid; and to assess the success of mitigation in reducing impacts, so that management can be made more effective at decision making. Wilson (1998) developed a model consisting of a nine-step procedure for auditing EIA making it more practical than audit procedures commonly described in the literature, which view EIA predictions as scientific hypothesis to be evaluated through rigorous statistical tests and experimental controls. The proposed model can be thought of as an ‘impacts-backward’ approach, in contrast to the scientific or ‘predictions-forward’ method. This model has been adapted to develop the methodology for Impact Prediction Audit in the hotel and coastal development sector. It consists of the following steps:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Select the EIAs to audit. In order to limit costs, select a few representative projects that have been granted EIA license, operating long enough, and have significant environmental impacts due to the nature and scope of works involved. Identify and prioritize impacts. The DOE has established an in-house EIA checklist which is used for the scoping exercise. Based on this checklist and consultation with other relevant authorities involved in reviewing EIAs, for instance, the Ministry of Housing for planning issues, Ministry of Fisheries for beach and lagoon, WMA for wastewater, etc., a list of likely project impacts can be identified. EIA reports can also be used for this exercise. Prepare field protocols. There are several techniques which can be used for each impact category, for example: compare with another or control site; interview proponents, neighbors, fishermen and other stakeholders; examine the monitoring data compiled by the proponent; review monitoring data available at relevant authorities; interpret available aerial photographs; and make field measurements using the appropriate equipment and take sample for analysis. The last technique may require assistance from other relevant authorities and therefore it is important to identify the responsible officers prior to effect the field visits. Impact documentation. It is important to have a proper recording for the observed impacts for each category identified in step 2. Comparison to EIA report. At this stage it is important to identify those impacts that were not identified in the EIA reports. Corrective action. Analyze those impacts that were not identified in the report and prepare an action plan with corrective measures. Concurrently, the proponents may be requested to propose corrective measures that they intend to implement to mitigate those impacts. Once these measures are obtained and accepted (after consultation with relevant authorities) at the DOE level, the proponents are instructed to implement the action plan. Last but not least the lessons learned should be used by the DOE for reviewing future EIA.
546
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
5.3. Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) The main objectives of an EMP are:
The organization and interpretation of the environmental monitoring data to establish a record of change associated with the implementation of a project or the operation of an organization; The process of verification that all or selected parameters measured by an environmental monitoring program are in compliance with regulatory requirements, internal policies and standards, and established environmental quality performance limits; The comparison of project impact predictions with actual impacts for the purpose of assessing the accuracy of predictions; The assessment of the effectiveness of the environmental management systems, practices and procedures; and The determination of the degree and scope of any necessary remedial or control measures in case of noncompliance or in the event that the organization’s environmental objectives are not achieved. Prior to formulating the EMP it is important to consider the following:
Monitoring has traditionally been considered to comprise of only verification for post-EIA compliance with consent conditions by the authorities. It is necessary to distinguish between monitoring done for regulatory purposes (compliance monitoring) and environmental monitoring related to the EIA. Monitoring is expensive and therefore it should be focused on the impacts that are either significant or not well understood (requiring further analysis). It must be accepted that both the authority and the proponents have a stake in the results of the monitoring study and there is thus a need for cooperation by pooling expertise, funds and logistical support in an acceptable way to increase the chances of meaningful monitoring. 5.4. Proposal for the format of an EMP report A full EMP should be required under the following circumstances: (a) The project has the potential of causing environmental impacts which are or are likely to be prejudicial to the health or well-being of the people, the flora, fauna or ecosystem if the recommended mitigation measures are not properly implemented; (b) The project is situated in any area of high conservation value; (c) The project involves mitigation measures of which the effectiveness may require a long period to establish, e.g. compensatory planting of trees or mangroves;
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
547
(d) The project involves an unproven technology; (e) The project involves unproven mitigation measures; (f) An otherwise familiar or routine mitigation measure is proposed for a new or unfamiliar environmental setting; (g) The analysis is based on a new technique or model, or there is other uncertainty about design assumptions and/or the conclusions. The EMP should be implemented by the proponent and documented in regular reports. It is proposed that the report resulting from the implementation of an EMP should contain the following:
An executive summary; Basic information on the project including a synopsis of the project organization, management structure (for maintenance and monitoring), and works undertaken during the monitoring works; A brief summary on the requirements of the EMP including all parameters monitored; methodology used; environment quality performance/standards limits; environmental mitigating measures as recommended in the EIA report and imposed in the EIA license; and environmental requirements in contract documents; Status on the implementation of the mitigating measures and pollution-control measures; Drawings/plans showing the project area, any environmental sensitive receivers and the location of the monitoring and control stations; Monitoring results including date, time frequency and duration; Presentation of monitored parameters (preferably graphical plots of trends); Constraints and any factors which might have affected the monitoring results; A summary of noncompliance of the environmental quality performance limits; A review of the reasons for and the implications of noncompliance including review of pollution sources and working procedures; A description of the actions taken in the event of noncompliance and deficiency reporting and any follow-up procedures related to earlier noncompliance; A summary record of all complaints received (written or verbal) for each media, including locations and nature of complaints, liaison and consultation undertaken, actions and follow-up procedures taken and summary of complaints; A summary record of notification of summons, successful prosecutions for breaches of environmental protection/pollution control legislation, and actions taken to rectify such breaches; A forecast of the works program, impact predictions and monitoring schedule for the next three months; and Comments, recommendations and conclusions for the monitoring period.
548
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
5.5. Proposal for conditions to be included in EIA license As mentioned earlier an appropriate EIA follow-up system should comprise of an environmental monitoring plan prepared by the EIA consultant and compliance monitoring consisting of regulatory and impact prediction audits prepared and implemented by the authority. These must be included in the EIA license. A proposal for conditions that may be specified in the EIA license includes the following specifications:
The parameters or impact to be monitored; The frequency of monitoring, or the procedures, practices methods or equipment to be used for monitoring; The standards or criteria to be used for evaluating and auditing monitoring data; The action plans and procedures in response to the results of such monitoring programs; The nature, format or frequency of the reporting of the results and findings of monitoring or action plans and procedures; and The release to the public of reports on monitoring or auditing work.
Consideration may also be given to methods of calibration of equipment and quality assurance and laboratory accreditation procedures; remedial measures to redress or reinstate to original environmental state; the requirements to carry out environmental monitoring by accredited laboratories, or environmental audit by qualified personnel; and compensation measures.
References Beattie RB. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1995;15(2):101 – 14. EPA Australia. International Study on the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canberra, Australia: Environment Protection Agency; 1995. Hess ALC. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. In: Beller W, D’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands. Man and the Biosphere Series, vol. 5. Paris: UNESCO; 1991. p. 3 – 14. Hirji R, Ortolano L. EIA effectiveness and mechanisms of control: case studies of water resources development in Kenya. International Journal of Water Resources Development 1991;7(3):154 – 67. Leu WS, Williams WP, Bark WA. Development of an environmental impact assessment evaluation method and its application: Taiwan case study’. Environment Impact Assessment Review 1996; 16:115 – 33. MEPD. Ministry of Economic Development and Regional Co-operation. Annual Digest of Statistics 2001. Mauritius: Republic of Mauritius Central Statistics Office; 2001. Ortolano L, Shepherd A. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities. Impact Assessment 1995;13:3 – 30. Ross WA. Environmental impact assessment in the Philippines: progress, problems and directions for the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1994;14(4):217 – 32.
T. Ramjeawon, R. Beedassy / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 24 (2004) 537 – 549
549
Wilson L. A practical method for environmental impact assessment audits. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1998;14(1):37 – 59. Wood C. Evaluating impact assessment. Integrated Environmental Management 1994;30:12. Wood C, Bailey J. Predominance and independence in environmental impact assessment: the Western Australian model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1994;14(1):37 – 59.