Evaluation of the Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) System in Lao PDR
- 1 National University of Laos, Office of International Relations, Vientiane, Laos
- 2 National University of Laos, Office of International Relations, Vientiane, Laos
Abstract
This study explores and seeks to explain the EIA procedures practice gap in Lao PDR. It reviews the literature and studies EIA legislation, administrative procedures, guidelines, and relevant documents by using a model proposed by Leu et al. (1996) and applying criteria proposed by Wood (1995) to evaluate the performance of EIA systems. Key EIA legislation in Lao PDR has many strengths, but also major weaknesses: Inadequate planning procedures, no secondary regulations, few trained and skilled personnel, inadequate public consultation, lack of environmental data, weak follow-up and monitoring, and no enforcement machinery. Additionally, the EIA approval procedure is very bureaucratic and easily derailed by political and economic pressures. In addition, coordination among EIA proponents, consultants, concerned ministries, local authorities, planners, and decision-makers is generally weak. This delays decision-making and hinders implementation of environmental regulations. Thus, procedures and evaluation are not always performed well. EIAs are more a project justification tool than a project planning tool for sustainable development. We conclude with recommendations to strengthen the system, such as improving capacity building, implementing an EIA consultants’ accreditation system, ensuring effective public participation and access to EIA reports, applying systematic EIAs, reviewing criteria, and promoting environmental awareness.
- G Jay, S. C. Jones, P. Slinn and C. Wood, “Environmental Impact Assessment: Retrospect and Prospect,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2007, pp. 287-300. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001
- B. Ahmad and C. Wood, “A Comparative Evaluation of the EIA Systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2002, pp. 213-234. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00004-5
- M. Elliott and I. Thomas, “Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia,” The Federation Press, Sydney, 2009.
- B. Dipper, C. Jones and C. Wood, “Monitoring and Post-Auditing in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Review,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 41, No. 6, 1998, pp. 731-747
- B. Sadler, “Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance,” final Report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ministry of Supply and Services, Ottawa, 1996.
- Environmental Protection Authority, “Report of the EIA Process Strengthening Workshop,” Canberra, 4-7 April 1995, EPA, Canberra, 1996.
- J. Glasson, R. Therivel and A. Chadwick, “Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment,”3rd Editon, Taylor & Francis, London, 2005.
- W. Chen, K. A. Warren and N. Duan., “Incorporating Cleaner Production Analysis into Environmental Impact Assessment in China,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 19, No. 5-6, 1999, pp. 457-476. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00023-2
- B. Sadler, “International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment: Final Report Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance,” 1996.
- D. Hickie and M. Wade, “The Development of Environmental Action Plans: Turning Statements into Actions,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 40, No. 6, 1997, pp. 789-801. doi:10.1080/09640569711912
- R. Hirji and L. Ortolano, “EIA Effectiveness and Mechanisms of Control: Case Studies of Water Resources Development in Kenya,” International Journal of Water Resources Development, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1991, pp. 154-167. doi:10.1080/07900629108722508
- Y. Wang, R. K. Morgan and M. Cashmore, “Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects in the People’s Republic of China: New Law, Old Problems,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2003, pp. 543-579. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00071-4