Hilary Chiew, The Star 9 Sep 08;
A forum evaluates the effect of a 20-year-old piece of environmental regulation.
HAVE we placed undue expectation on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system as an environmental safeguard? That was the over-riding question posed to participants at a one-day forum to evaluate the effect of that piece of regulation that has been enforced since 1988.
Rightly or wrongly, many have come to rely on the EIA to be the shield against adverse impacts of development. To a great extent especially for would-be affected communities, the EIA is deemed their only chance of stopping an undesirable project.
The perception is misplaced, some argue, as the Department of Environment – the agency tasked to enforce Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 which gave birth to the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987 – has unwittingly become the Department of Everything, when its power is so limited.
DOE assessment director Halimah Hassan admits that Act and its array of regulations only address pollution from point sources, or better known as “brown issues”, while development projects often involve more than pollution. Siting of projects that are incompatible with sound land use policies like the National Physical Plan resulting in damage to vital ecosystem and loss of natural resources is one example.
DOE officials are ill-equipped to analyse and quantify damages to biodiversity and ecosystem (green issues) and it relies on the consultants to produce an honest assessment. Furthermore, natural resources are beyond the purview of federal laws like the Environmental Quality Act.
“The EIA is not the panacea for all our environmental headaches. A lot of environmental concerns should be addressed at the various agencies’ level,” adds Halimah.
Passing the buck
Dr G. Balamurugan, managing director of ERE Consulting Group which initiated the forum EIA: 20 Years On, What Next?, concurs. He says many agencies especially local councils are passing the buck by asking for EIA even for non-prescribed activities.
“There are many safeguards in other approval procedures. For example, earthwork and erosion control can be monitored by the local authorities. Buffer zoning is required by the Town and Country Planning Act and dust control is stipulated in any quarry plan. When the issues that are addressed in other planning submissions are also addressed in the EIAs, then we are wasting resources,” he says.
Balamurugan advocates less EIA, saying that if DOE has a reduced EIA workload, it can handle environmentally complex projects more effectively.
And DOE should focus instead at strategic issues at the macro level that clearly lacks environmental perspectives, he adds, referring to a number of contradictory national policies – for instance, land clearing in Cameron Highlands for temperate agriculture as promoted by the National Agriculture Policy and the National Water Resources Master Plan that calls for the construction of 50 dams.
“Instead of fire-fighting at the project implementation stage which is a bit too late, DOE and even environmental NGOs should exert influence at the policy framework development stage,” he asserts.
Is the EIA just a “tick in the box” – a formality that project proponents reluctantly embraced?
While many agree that EIA is a planning tool to assist developers to avoid negative impacts on the environment, most concur that project proponents are more concerned about fulfilling a legal requirement to get the project going.
Maybe that explains why after 20 years, there are still developers who complain that EIA is a hindrance to development although the approval time has seen significant improvement over the years. Approval period for preliminary EIA is within five weeks and 12 weeks for detailed reports.
EIA consultant Mazura Mazlan notes that much has been done to improve the technical aspects of the process, such as the publication of sector-specific guidelines and the registration of companies and individuals that offer EIA-related services to assist project proponents looking for consultancy service.
However, the measure was done on an administrative basis and does not preclude non-registered bodies from submitting EIA reports.
The pool of consultants has grown but like any other profession, there are bad apples. Poor quality reports has prompted DOE to make it mandatory for consultants to be registered last year and from October 2007, the DOE does not accept EIA reports from unregistered entities.
One contentious issue is the level of independence of the consultants preparing the report. Balamurugan argues that consultants should be ethical but not independent simply because according to EIA guidelines, their responsibility is towards the project initiators who hire them to plan the projects with the least adverse environmental impacts.
“An EIA consultant’s duty is to assist the developer to meet all environmental guidelines but he does not decide whether the project is right or wrong. If he thinks the project is immoral, he should not participate in the project,” he opines, adding that EIA is essentially a document in support of a project.
World Wide Fund for Nature-Malaysia (WWFM)’s Sarada Srinivasan, however, disagrees.
She says since its first implementation in the United States in 1970, EIA did not originate to support a project but to aid informed decision-making.
EIA reports that Sarada had reviewed in the past convinced her of the importance of the independence of consultants as too many reports were biased as shown in consultants prescribing unrealistic mitigation measures.
Citing a detailed report that she recently examined, the consultant has suggested the replanting of seagrass as replacement when there is no proven technology or successful cases to support it.
To maintain a certain degree of independence, she proposes that the DOE and the EIA consultant sign a contract as equal clients that give sufficient clout to DOE to demand for unbiased assessment.
Another criticism of the system is the lack of public participation. Sarada points out that although social impact assessment is a component required, it is limited to surveys and not proper consultation, adding that procedures for public participation are ambiguous in the EIA process.
Costly
Even the EIA report is not easily accessible with a price tag that is deemed prohibitive by some. The price is not fixed but the highest charged by a consultant so far is RM1,000.
Sarada recommends that as part of good governance, there must be a sound legal basis through provision in the law and the procedures clearly defined in the key stages of Terms of Reference drafting, report preparation, review and post-approval.
“Make it mandatory for project consultants to respond to public comments and publish comments of review panel for meaningful public participation. In The Netherlands, for example, the Review Commission is independent with a recognised status and government-allocated budget,” she adds.
After 4,000 EIA reports, many feel there’s a need for an overhaul of the system against the sobering fact that Malaysia is a fast-growing polluting nation in terms of carbon emission, waste generation and deforestation.
Towards this end, views expressed in the forum will be forwarded to DOE and Halimah promises to consider all of them in light of the amendment exercise currently being undertaken.
