1. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007)1 Reviewing

2. 2 Reviewing is the process of EIA report assessment produced during EIA process is concerned with assessing its quality for decision-making.

3. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 3 Quality of reviewing depends on: Stage in EIA process at which it is undertaken Qualifications, experience and degree of independence of the reviewers Availability of the relevant documentation for review Resources and time provided for review Transparency and degree of participation in the reviewing process

4. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 4 Reviewing considers the adequacy of: compliance with the Terms of Reference the examination of alternatives, impacts, mitigation and monitoring the use of scientific and technical analytical information techniques conduct of the EIA process and the consideration of views of all parties present the sufficiency of information presentation of information to public and decision-makers

5. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 5 Steps in reviewing an EIA report: set the scale/depth of the review select reviewer(s) use public input identify review criteria carry out the review determine the remedial options publish the review report

6. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 6

7. 7 Range of review methods: general checklists project specific checklists ad hoc processes expert opinion, accredited reviewers public review panels of inquiry, independent commissions legal approaches

8. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 8 General checklists:  can be developed using compliance with the local legislation or guidelines as the starting point. Project specific checklists and guidelines:  are much more successful if they are based on a general or sectoral checklist and then adapted to suit the requirements of the specific project and its terms of reference.

9. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 9 Ad hoc processes:  are the most open to controversy and corruption.  greatly reduces the ability of government to set appropriate standards for documentation and reduces the opportunities for building local capacity

10. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 10 Expert opinion, accredited reviewers:  can be engaged to review the adequacy of the report and carried out by academic or other institutions, NGOs or an accredited reviewer Public review:  can be sought on the adequacy of the report and given to the decision-maker for consideration in the decision-making process

11. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 11 Panels of inquiry and independent commissions:  requires the availability of independent experts to review the EIA report and make recommendations to the decision-maker  is generally regarded as being very fair and well received by the stakeholders in the process

12. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 12 Legal approaches:  Some countries allow the adequacy of an EIA report to be challenged in a court of law.  This has beneficial effects in terms of proponent compliance, it can prove to be very expensive.  It may also focus the EIA process on specific legal arguments rather than on its true roles of producing environmentally sustainable design and environmental protection.

13. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 13

14. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 14 Criteria rating: Rating system consists of  A, B, C, D, E, F and  N/A (not applicable)

15. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 15

16. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 16 In UK & EU, EIA results to environmental benefits More than 50% of EIA is emphasis on reduction of negative impacts Cost of EIA are typically ~0.2% of total project cost and exceptionally increase to >1% of total capital cost Well-management systems with good EIA report will decrease the time of project authorisation

17. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 17 Comparison of EIA Report High income countries:  Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK.  ~70% of EIA Report reviewed were of satisfactory quality (with ‘C’ grade or above)  The least satisfactory performance in assessment is ‘Identification and Evaluation of key impacts’

18. EIAReview11.07(Gajaseni, 2007) 18 Developing countries: Malaysia (1988-1991) 8% were assessed as good quality (A or B grade) 77% were borderline (C or D grade) 15% were poor (E or F grade) India (1994) ~30% to be satisfactory (all in C grade) 70% were unsatisfactory (in D, E and F grade)