Comparative Evaluation of the EIA Systems in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Angola, and the European Union
- 1 Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa, Edifício TECLABS, Lisboa, Portugal
- 2 Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa, Edifício TECLABS, Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
This article provides a comparative overview of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Angola, and the European Union (EU). EIA “systemic measure” and “foundation measure” criteria are used to evaluate and compare the performance of each system. In contrast to the EU, EIA must be carried out by registered experts in the African countries. In Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa public consultation is mandatory during scoping. In Kenya and Tanzania the EIA study should contain measures to prevent health hazards, to ensure employee safety, and for emergency management. EIA system monitoring is required in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, and in the EU, but not in South Africa and Angola. Financial issues, insufficient qualified personnel, and an increasing number of EIA applications undermine the capacity of competent authorities to adequately monitor these EIA systems. Consequently, training programmes increase effectiveness of EIA implementation is a common request. The African countries reviewed here have adopted EIA and integrated EIA systems into public policy despite the constraints they face. As they continue to gain experience in EIA and to revise their EIA systems, they are moving towards a more flexible system with greater public involvement and robust arrangements and practices.
- Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) (2005) Review of the Application of Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected Africa Countries. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
- Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment. O.J. No 175 L, 14/03/97, p.40.
- Directive 97/11/EC Amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment. O.J. No 73 L, 14/03/97, p.5.
- UNEP (2004) Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach.
- Balsam, A. and Wood, C. (2002) A Comparative Evaluation of the EIA Systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00004-5
- Wood, C. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. 2nd Edition, Longman, Harlow.
- Leu, W.S., Williams, W.P. and Bark, A.W. (1997) Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment in Three Southeast Asian Nations. Project Appraisal, 12, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1997.9727045
- The Environmental Management and Co-Ordination Act, Kenya, 1999.
- The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, Kenya, 2002.
- Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA) (1998) The Performance of EIA in Tanzania: An Assessment. IRA Research Paper no. 41, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
- The Environmental Management Act (2004) Gazette of the United Republic of Tanzania, No. 6, Vol. 86, Dated 11 February 2005.
- The Environmental (Registration of Environmental Experts) Regulations, 2005. Government Notice No. 348 Published on 4 November 2005, United Republic of Tanzania.
- Decreto-Lei No. 5/98, Diário da República, I Série, No. 27, Angola, 1998.
- Decreto-Lei No. 45/2004, Boletim da República, I Série, Número 39, Mozambique, 2004.
- Decreto-Lei No. 42/2008, Boletim da Republica, I Série, Mozambique, 2008.
- Duthie, A. (2001) A Review of Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Capacity in South Africa. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19, 215-222. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767032
- DEAT. Overview of Integrated Environmental Management, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 0, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria, 2004e.