EA education in India & other South Asian countries – challenges & constraints Dr Paola Gazzola Global Urban Research Unit – APL Newcastle University

Outline Background of PENTA –Internationalisation & standardisation of European EA practice & education –Harmonisation of European EA Relevance to South Asian countries –EA in South Asia, practice & education –Internationalisation & standardisation –Harmonisation Conclusions, challenges & constraints

Background of PENTA EC funded project –Enhance attractiveness of European EA education –Attract third country audience to EA –Develop outputs to support EA education Develop & maintain live network between EU & third country universities/experts –Knowledge exchange – learning European approach to EA?

Internationalisation & standardisation of European EA practice EU blueprint for: –EIA (85/337/EEC, amended by 97/11/EC) –SEA (2001/42/EC) Standardisation of procedural & legal requirements EU EA approach has worldwide impact –Non-EU countries –Developed and developing countries –Banks Internationalisation of European EA practice

Harmonisation of European EA practice One EU EA approach? –Planning & dm systems differ within MS –Dm cultures, values & routines vary within MS Harmonisation –Explore possibilities for harmonising & connecting EA procedures (recital 19, SEA Directive) –Elimination of contradicting evaluations rather than unification of procedures Towards a European EA approach

European education Bologna process –Standardisation, setting of common standards through ECTS –Harmonisation, intro of two-tiered cycle –Internationalisation, attractiveness, mobility, common education structure, language European EA education –Harmonisation of science & social sciences

Relevance to South Asia Develop & maintain live network PENTA workshop, Dehradun, India, 2007

Opportunities for networking –Knowledge exchange & sharing experiences

EA in South Asia EA in India & other South Asian countries –Triggered by environmental disasters –Complying with international obligations & donor requirements South AsiaEIASEA BangladeshIntroduced in 1995, mandatory in 1997 BhutanIntroduced in 1993Legally introduced in 2002 IndiaIntroduced in 1986, mandatory in Latest act 2006 NepalIntroduced in 1996, mandatory in 1999Pilot SEAs & research PakistanLegally introduced in 1994 Sri LankaLegally introduced in 1988Pilots SEAs

EA in South Asia EA practice –EIA is well-established, SEA still neglected South AsiaWeaknesses BangladeshConducted to fulfil bureaucratic requirement Public participation & monitoring poorly conducted IndiaAmbiguity in legislation & EIA process causing delays & bottlenecks NepalLack of integration of publics concern in reports copy and paste attitude in report preparation Sri LankaReports are too descriptive & aimed at fulfilling bureaucratic requirement Lack of baseline data

EA in South Asia EA education –Recent formalisation of env. education Need to structure proper syllabus (Supreme Court Judegement, 2003) Need to mainstream scientifically valid env. content in curricula (GoI, 2006) –Science-base focus, emphasising Impact identification & quantification High quality technology sciences (GIS, RS) Detailed scaled of analysis Quantitative methods & techniques

EA in South Asia SWOT analysis StrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesThreats Legal framework & statutory instruments Transparency of dm & public hearings (Right to Information Act, 2005) Support of good science Employment opportunities Robust env. baseline EIA is a product & not a process Little influence over project design Little added value to dm Poor application of CBA Lack of clear articulation of trade- offs Narrow vision of EA, lack of two-tier assessment Human resources Lack of training Achieve effective env. protection Increase exposure of good practice & learn from failures Improve performance standards & raise benchmarks Database of trained professionals with inter- & intra- disciplinary expertise Lack of political will Deterrents for development Lack of interdisciplinary approaches Rising role of global players & influencing national EIA Tunnelled vision of EA (a science or an art)

Relevance to South Asia Internationalisation & standardisation –Two-tier cycle –English language –Common framework for EA education to reduce regional disparities, based on local case-studies –Enhance understanding of environmental problems & share experiences & knowledge

Relevance to South Asia Harmonisation –Of disciplines and approaches Attract students from different backgrounds Strengthen practice, by evaluating impacts on social & natural environment –Decentralised legislation & responsibilities Better understanding of context Reconciliation of regional diversities More effective environmental protection

Conclusions Constraints –Lack of human resources (skills, knowledge & different disciplinary perspectives) –Inadequate EIA performance, public participation, screening and scoping –Lack of SEA –Lack of cases from developed world –Expectations from job market

Conclusions Challenges –Stimulate cross-fertilisation of ideas & approaches through internationalisation & standardisation –Better understanding and knowledge enhancement through mutual collaborations –Education as an advocacy tool to change tunnel vision of EA and shape job expectations

Conclusions A more comprehensive approach to EA is needed, but no such thing as one fits all EA curricula should include two-tier assessment More collaboration is advocated between universities, ministries, industries, practitioners, NGOs & dm in shaping education (practice) Creating opportunities for networking & discussion can help understand EA shortcomings, to strengthen education