Biodiversity in EIA: Analysis of EIA Guidelines of six South Asian countries

Parvaiz Naim

Regional Environment Assessment Program, IUCN Asia

P.O. Box 3923, Bakhundol, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal

E-mail: naim@iucn.org.np

  The EIA Guidelines of 6 South Asian countries were analyzed for their level of attention to biodiversity issues in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The analysis was based on coverage of 22 indicators for adequately covering biodiversity concerns in EIA. Of these Bangladesh and Bhutan covered 50%, Pakistan and Nepal 41%, India 14% and Sri Lanka 9% of the indicators.

The analysis showed that all countries, except Sri Lanka and Bhutan, covered the biodiversity concept in their definition of the term ‘environment’. Pakistan was the only country that attached significance to impacts on biodiversity in its guidelines. For key processes, communities, important species, their habitats and interrelations, the Bangladesh’ guidelines had more comprehensive coverage than others. No guidelines addressed genetic diversity or recommended the inclusion of a biodiversity expert in the EIA team.

The need for public participation in defining likely impacts was recognized by all the guidelines studied, except those of India. Only Bangladesh, Bhutan and Pakistan required public opinion to be taken into account when evaluating impacts.

The importance of using maps of the area to be affected for public consultation in scoping was recognised in the guidelines of Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal. The use of these maps specifically for public participation, however, is required only by the Nepali guidelines, while Bangladesh guidelines strongly advise their use

All guidelines, except those of India, implicitly required the application of ‘no net loss’ principle in designing mitigation measures.

Integration of biodiversity in EIA is a requirement under Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). As CBD signatories all these countries are obliged to meet this requirement. At present, the anomalies and gaps in the guidelines have far reaching implication for biodiversity as the followers of these guidelines end up ignoring critical issues that eventually lead to damage to biodiversity.  The study recommends improving these EIA Guidelines by creating a firm link with the National Biodiversity Action Plan and due attention to the IUCN Red List species. Parallel to this, a capacity building program is needed for EIA practitioners and appraisal officials for an effective use of improved EIA guidelines in minimizing the impacts of developmental activities on biodiversity.

Back To Abstracts Index!