Why environmental impact assessments often fail

Background

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) aim to mitigate the environmental costs of development, particularly in biodiversity-rich developing nations. While governments and corporations claim EIAs as safeguards against environmental harm from roads, dams, mines, and housing, many are ineffective or even worthless. Weak assessments fail to prevent projects that destroy habitats and endanger species. Key shortcomings include insufficient funding, narrow focus on immediate project areas, conflicts of interest among consultants, and poor governance that grants developers undue influence over policy decisions.

Goals and Methods

The article’s goal is to expose the failings of EIAs and to offer solutions for improvement. The article uses examples of failed EIAs from Panama, the Amazon, and Indonesia, and identifies key reasons for these failures.

Conclusions and Takeaways

The article reveals that many EIAs are inaccurate, biased, and poorly executed, allowing approval of projects that cause severe environmental and social harm. The author proposes eight strategies to improve EIAs, including increasing transparency, addressing corruption, incorporating early public input, securing adequate funding, rejecting harmful projects, and strengthening government oversight. Implementing these strategies through government authorities, project developers, and environmental groups can enhance assessment effectiveness. The author stresses the need for scrutiny of EIAs, as many rely on flawed, superficial reports and should not be accepted without thorough review.