Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-2088-5
Environmental impact assessment (EIA): an overlooked
instrument for sustainable development in Pakistan
Rashid Saeed · Ayesha Sattar · Zafar Iqbal ·
Muhammad Imran · Raziya Nadeem
Received: 29 September 2010 / Accepted: 14 April 2011 / Published online: 2 September 2011
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
is a policy tool used for evaluating a project pro-
posal from physical and socioeconomic environ-
mental perspectives. Its aim is to reduce the impact
of development on environment, hence, ensur-
ing environmental sustainability. It is mandatory
to submit an Environmental Impact Statement
R. Saeed (B)
Department of Management Science,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Sahiwal Campus, 57000, Pakistan
e-mail: rashidsaeed@ciitsahiwal.edu.pk
A. Sattar · Z. Iqbal · M. Imran
Department of Environmental Sciences,
International Islamic University,
Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
A. Sattar
e-mail: yazdan4ever@yahoo.com
Z. Iqbal
e-mail: zispak2001@gmail.com
M. Imran
Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO),
Head Office, G-7/4, Islamabad, Pakistan
e-mail: mrnmalak@yahoo.com
R. Nadeem
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
e-mail: raziyaanalyst@yahoo.com
before starting a mega project as required by
Environmental Protection Act of 1997 and Envi-
ronmental Policy of Pakistan. Public consultation
plays a key role in an EIA system, identifying
the likely aspects and impacts of a development
activity. This aspect has been ignored in effective
enactment of environmental legislation in Pak-
istan. Sufficient legislative instruments are there
to support EIA system in the country but the
agencies responsible for the enforcement of envi-
ronmental regulations have failed to do so. The
current research gives an insight into the actual
status of EIA system in Pakistan along with the
feedback of EIA specialists and university teach-
ers of the concerned departments. A new index
has been devised on the basis of questionnaire
response to work out the overall performance of
EIA system in Pakistan or any other country. The
weaknesses and deficiencies of each EIA stage
have been worked out for Pakistan and elab-
orated with the help of the controversial Zero
point Interchange Project in the capital city of
Pakistan.
Keywords Environmental impact assessment ·
Environmental protection agency Pakistan · Zero
point interchange project · Capital development
authority · Pakistan Environmental Protection
Act (PEPA 1997) · EIA index
1910
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a sys-
tematic process to identify, predict, and evaluate
the environmental effects of the actions and pro-
posed projects. This process is applied at the plan-
ning stage of the project prior to major decisions
and commitments being made (Fitzpatrick and
Sinclair 2003, 2009; Sinclair et al. 2008; Petts 1999;
Wood 1995). Reducing the burden of environ-
mental impacts is necessary if development has to
be sustainable. As a result, EIA has become of
ever increasing importance as a tool for decision
making while pursuing the development (UNU
EIA Module 2006). This role is formally organized
in the Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on en-
vironment and development: “Environmental Im-
pact Assessment, as a national instrument, shall be
undertaken for proposed activities that are likely
to have a significant adverse impact on environ-
ment and are subject to a decision of a competent
national authority” (Rio declaration 1992).
Pakistan is experiencing a rapidly growing econ-
omy as well as high population and urban growth.
Ineffective natural resource management and a
long history of unplanned development not only
have had negative impacts on Pakistan’s socio-
economic fabric but also on its environment,
particularly in urban space (Alshuwaikhat 2005;
Nadeem and Hameed 2008). In Pakistan (like
in many jurisdictions around the globe), not all
development activities need to undergo Environ-
mental Impact Assessment (EIA) but only those
with likely adverse environmental and social im-
pacts. But it does not appear as an effective tool
to safeguard the environment and socio-economic
fabric of the communities in Pakistan (Aslam
2006; Saeed 2004; Zubair et al. 2011).
The abovementioned apathetic attitude towards
EIA implementation is well endorsed if the con-
troversial Zero point Interchange Project of capi-
tal city is taken into consideration. Islamabad, the
federal capital of Pakistan has two main highways:
Islamabad highway and Kashmir highway, these
two roads have to bear most of the traffic burden
of the city. Zero point occurs at the intersec-
tion of the two roads: central point of Islamabad
which has to face severe traffic jam problems.
To overcome this problem, Capital Developmen-
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
tal Authority (CDA) started construction of an
interchange worth Rs. 2.33 billion, ignoring the
submission of an EI statement of the project to
Pak-EPA and having an environmental permis-
sion. The project was stopped by Pak-EPA after
complaints from the people of the native area
facing severe environmental problems and CDA
was directed to submit an EI statement for the
project. A draft report was submitted by NES-
PAK (Pvt) Ltd (a consultancy firm hired by CDA)
and a public hearing was finally organized after
repeated delays.
Methodology
Environmental Assessment tools vary to a great
extent. A variety of tools exist (Haapio and
Viitaniemi 2008). Analysis of an EIA report
consists of evaluation of legislative provisions,
guidelines, institutional setup, screening, scoping,
public participation, mitigation of impacts, and
monitoring (Ahmad and Wood 2002; Wood 2003;
Fuller 1999; Nadeem and Hameed 2008; Say et al.
2007). As Environmental Impact Assessment for
Zero point Interchange has recently been a burn-
ing issue in the media with a common view from
different authors that the project has been among
top priorities of the government and will be com-
pleted irrespective of its environmental or social
costs.
The authors of this paper were extremely curi-
ous to go through EIA report for this project and
wanted to know about the degree of concerns on
behalf of EIA experts and environmentalists. For
this purpose, the authors collected the viewpoints
of environmental experts and faculty members of
concerned departments of the leading universities
of Pakistan about the validity of the draft report.
Major queries made were about the potential en-
vironmental and socio-economic impacts of the
whole project cycle. It was inquired: (1) whether
the EIA report is just a formality or effective
mitigation measures to the anticipated impacts
were recognized in the report; (2) whether proper
participation of all the stakeholders (public, Govt.
agencies, NGOS, UN agencies etc.) was ensured;
(3) whether environmental cost of project is com-
parable to the economical benefits; and (4) does
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
the report cover all significant aspects and im-
pacts, etc.
The case of controversial Zero point Inter-
change Project was included in the questionnaire
as a case study in order to cross check the responses
of experts. Overall response regarding EIA effi-
ciency in Pakistan was quite appreciable whereas
it was entirely disappointing for the case study
of Zero point Interchange Project. Most of the
respondents had not gone through the EIA report
for the project; even some of them were totally
unaware of the project and its impacts. Hence,
major output in this paper regarding the above-
mentioned case study comes from the authors af-
ter detailed review of the EIA report. To evaluate
the EIA system, a number of models are avail-
able in literature (Riffat and Khan 2006). In ad-
dition to questionnaire survey, a model proposed
by the Leu et al. (1996) was used. This model
consists of seven key pillars that are narrated as
follows: (1) Environmental policies, regulations,
and guidelines, (2) environmental administrative
framework, (3) EIA procedure, (4) role of actors
involved in EIA procedure, (5) EIA compliance,
monitoring, and enforcement, (6) EIA implemen-
tation in practice, and (7) resource availability for
EIA implementation. A new efficiency index for
environmental impact assessment was devised by
the authors in order to work overall efficiency of
EIA system in Pakistan. For this purpose, com-
ponent or sub-indices were calculated that finally
added to get an EIA Implementation Index.
The sub-indices included “Appropriate Screen-
ing Index (ASI), Scoping Efficiency Index (SEI),
Mitigation Index (MI), Environmental Manage-
ment and Monitoring Efficiency Index (EMMEI),
Environmental Impact Statement Index (EISI),
Environmental Institutional Performance Index
(EIPI), and Legal Performance Index (LFI).
Result and discussion
Environmental policies, regulations,
and guidelines
The Constitution of Pakistan contains provisions
for environmental protection and resource con-
servation. It mentions “Environmental Pollution
1911
and Ecology” as a subject in the Concurrent
Legislative List, meaning that both Federal and
Provincial Governments may initiate and make
legislation for the purpose. However, the basic in-
gredients for an EIA system were present in the
Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance
(1983). But unfortunately, it could not draw
the attention of the people until 1st July, 1994,
when it became a pre-requisite for mega projects
(Nadeem and Hameed 2006). National Conserva-
tion Strategy (1992) was another important mile-
stone to highlight the importance and need of EIA
process and its implementation in letter and spirit.
Later, the Government passed and promulgated
the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of
1997. The Act is fairly comprehensive. It made
environmental impact assessment mandatory for
various projects being launched in the country in-
cluding construction of roads, buildings, factories,
or other installations, or any alteration, expansion,
or repair of the same, or mineral prospecting or
mining or quarrying, etc. The law states that no
project may be launched without an EIA and
safeguards against environmental degradation
(Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency 1997).
In a nut shell, EIA had been introduced in
Pakistan through Environmental Protection Or-
dinance (PEPO) of 1983 (GoP 1983); later on,
it was replaced by the Pakistan Environmental
protection Act of 1997, which contains a detailed
package of guidelines comprising preparation and
review of environmental reports and public con-
sultation (GoP 1997a, b). The Pakistan Environ-
mental Protection Act of 1997 has been duly
operationalized. The requisite rules and regulations
have been enacted including Pakistan Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Review of Capital
IEE/EIA) Regulations of year 2000. National En-
vironmental Policy (2005) provides that “Environ-
mental Impact Assessment related provisions of
Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997
shall be diligently enforced for all development
projects”. Despite all the abovementioned re-
strictions, Capital Development Authority started
construction of the interchange (Zero Point) with-
out submitting an EIA report to Pakistan En-
vironmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA) and
without obtaining a “no objection certificate”,
which was a clear violation of EIA regulations.
1912
Environmental institutional framework
The Ministry of Environment is responsible for all
environmental issues. A Federal Minister heads
the Ministry while a federal secretary holds the
administrative charge. An additional secretary is
responsible for different sections dealing with en-
vironment, forestry, local government, and urban
affairs. The Pakistan Environmental Protection
Council was first constituted in 1984 under sec-
tion 3 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection
Ordinance of 1983, with the President of Pakistan
as its Chairman. In 1994, an amendment was made
in the Ordinance to provide for the Prime Minister
or his nominee to be the head of the Council.
The Council was reconstituted after enactment
of the new law, i.e., Pakistan Environmental
Protection Act of 1997. Pakistan Environmental
Protection Council is an apex statutory body. The
Chief Executive is the Chairperson of the Council
and the Federal Minister for Environment, Local
Government, and Rural Development as its Vice
Chairperson and Governors of all provinces are
its members besides others. The Council is rep-
resented by trade and industry, leading NGOs,
educational intuitions, experts, journalists, and
concerned ministries. Pakistan Environmental
Protection Agency was created with thin staff
and meager resources under 1983 Ordinance. In
the beginning, the agency was responsible for
pollution control, however, after enactment of
1997 Act, the functions and responsibilities of the
agency were enhanced and this department was
strengthened technically and logistically to face
the environmental challenges. Pak-EPA also pro-
vides technical support to the Ministry of Environ-
ment. Federal EPA is responsible for all projects
in federal territory while provincial EPAs take
care of provincial projects under the direct author-
ity of federal EPA. Other related departments are:
• Environmental Tribunals (in Punjab and
NWFP)
• Pakistan Forest Institute
• National Council for Conservation of Wildlife
• Zoological Survey Department
• National Center for Rural Development and
Municipal Administration
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
• Planning and Development Departments
(P&D)
The superior judiciary and in particular, the
Supreme Court of Pakistan, has played a positive
and constructive role in preventing the degra-
dation of environment and preserving ecological
balance of the nature. The Supreme Court of
Pakistan also resorted to the exercise of extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution by entertaining petitions pertaining
to maintaining clean environment, this being an
issue of great public importance (Pakistan Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency 2000). Zero point
Interchange Project in Islamabad is an example
of extreme negligence of the whole environmen-
tal administrative framework. As the project was
started in federal territory without notifying the
concerned authorities and no notice was taken
by the concerned executing agency (CDA) un-
less the environmental ministry received public
complaints about the pollution as a result of the
project.
EIA procedure
Pak-EPA introduced an EIA-Package in collabo-
ration with key stakeholders in the year 2000. This
EIA-Package provides a comprehensive guideline
about the EIA procedure in Pakistan. Impor-
tant EIA steps mentioned in EIA-Package are as
below:
Description of project and related environment
A comprehensive description of the plan should
include type and category, objectives, alternative
considerations, need for the project, detailed lo-
cation description, size, and magnitude of the
project as well as government approvals. Also, a
clear and brief picture of the environment of the
area including physical resources, ecological and
human resources, economic development, and
quality of life values should be depicted (Pakistan
Environmental Protection Agency 2005).
As far as EI statement of zero point project
is concerned, more emphasis is laid on the pro-
ponent’s introduction and consultant’s preface
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
instead of paying maximum attention to the im-
portant issues. Technical aspects of the project
were poorly addressed in the report; it was rather
masked with unnecessary material to give an im-
pression of comprehension.
Screening
Screening is the first key step in the EIA process.
It involves making a preliminary determination
of the expected impacts of a proposal on the en-
vironment and its relative significance. Develop-
mental projects have been divided into schedules
under section 12 of the Pakistan Environmental
Protection Act (1997). IEE or EIA requirement
for a project is decided by its cost and capac-
ity. Broader categories like agriculture, livestock,
fisheries, energy, manufacturing and processing,
transport, water management, and water supply
treatment are included in schedule I, that require
initial environmental examination (projects with
total cost of less than 5 million), while schedule
II includes the projects in the environmentally
sensitive sectors like agriculture, livestock, and
fisheries, of worth more than 5 million rupees.
Looking at the case study under consideration,
there was no screening stage as EI statement was
prepared after the project had been launched and
practical work was already in progress.
Scoping
Scoping is a critical and early step in the environ-
mental impact assessment. The scoping process
identifies the issues that are likely to be most
important and eliminates those that are of little
concern. Scoping refers to the early, open, and
interactive process of determining the major is-
sues and impacts that will be important in decision
making and need to be addressed in an EIA.
Scoping is completed when the detailed studies
required in the EIA have been specified. Often,
it involves preparing terms of reference or an
equivalent document. The sectoral guidelines are
available for projects belonging to various de-
velopment sectors. The guidelines for the prepa-
ration of environmental reports also suggest for
complete and comprehensive formulation of the
1913
EIA report. However, in EI statement of Zero
point Interchange Project, possible or likely im-
pacts during pre-construction, construction, and
operational phases were not properly assessed.
Design phase was not considered by the consul-
tants in formulating the EIA report in the project
impact matrix. Consequently, impacts were not
discussed in a logical manner. The impacts should
have been placed in the following order:
• Pre-construction impacts
• Construction impacts
• Operational impacts
Physical environment This section comprises of
a list of impacts on ambient air quality, ambient
noise, surface water, and groundwater quality,
land use, and soil fertility.
Biological environment This section comprises
of a list of impacts on trees/vegetation and fauna.
Socio-economic environment This section com-
prises of a list of impacts on infrastructure,
employment, public health and safety, cultural
resources, and aesthetics.
In case of Zero point Interchange Project, the
consultant carried out various tests for ambient
air quality, air pollution, etc. but the standards
against which these values were calculated were
not mentioned. As stated by the consultant, the
number of automobiles increased remarkably dur-
ing previous years and this trend will keep in-
creasing in the future, but the consultant gave
no count of vehicles/traffic load on already ex-
isting and interlinked roads of proposed project,
which is a common approach to justify the project
need and could serve as a strong argument for
the approval of the project. It would also give a
dynamic approach to the consultant for the study
of unambiguous and acceptable alternatives. Zero
point is situated in the center of Islamabad; its
exact position should have been specified using
advanced global navigation system, but it was not
done by the consultant. The proposed project al-
ternatives are ambiguous in the sense that there is
no practical alternative given in the report.
1914
EIA report preparation
Different names are used for the report that is
prepared on the findings of the EIA process,
environmental impact assessment report and envi-
ronmental impact statement being the most com-
monly used terms. The purpose of EIA report is
to provide a coherent statement of the potential
impacts of a proposal and the measures that can
be taken. An EIA report must be actionable,
decision relevant, and user friendly. EIA-Package
of the Pak-EPA provides comprehensive informa-
tion regarding the ingredients of EIA report. The
main theme of the report is supposed to give a
justification for the need of proposed project in
a dynamic way. Regarding environmental impact
statement of Zero point Interchange Project, the
report only discusses the number of vehicles on
the road. There is no interlink given in the re-
port between the project and the environment,
economy, development, and basic infrastructure
of Islamabad city.
Public consultation
Nearly all EIA systems make provisions for some
type of public involvement. This term includes
public consultation (or dialogue) and public par-
ticipation, which is more interactive and inten-
sive process of stakeholder engagement. The main
purpose of the public involvement is to: inform
the stakeholders about the proposal and its likely
effects; canvass their input, views, and concerns;
and take account of the information and views of
the public in the EIA and decision making. It is
mentioned in the EIA guidelines that all stake-
holders should be consulted during this process.
For most of the time, stakeholder involvement
is most neglected element of the EIA procedure
practiced in Pakistan. The whole EIA process is
manipulated in such a way that there is minimum
participation from public, like venue of the public
hearing is decided such that it is often inaccessi-
ble by the directly affected people (Nadeem and
Fischer 2011).
In Pakistan, public participation or consulta-
tion in the form of public hearing is mandatory
during the scoping phase as in well-developed
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
EIA systems of Netherlands and Western Australia
(Wood 2003; Nadeem and Hameed 2008). In
case of Zero point Interchange Project, the pub-
lic consultation section is very poor. The con-
sultant team was not able to exactly identify
the stakeholder categories. The methodology and
approach adopted for public consultation was
not professional. General views of people about
the proposed project have been included in this
section; even no technical sentence was seen
in this section. No stakeholder from interna-
tional organizations like IUCN, UNDP, WWF etc.
and institutional stakeholders like Environmental
Directorate, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of
Environment, etc. were invited honestly and suffi-
ciently for raising the environmental issues regarding
proposed project. Guidelines for the preparation
of environmental reports suggest thorough dis-
cussions with key stakeholders, assembling avail-
able information from concerned departments
and agencies, consulting with possible affectees,
considering alternatives, and identifying informa-
tion gaps (GoP 1997c).
EIA review and decision making
The purpose of review is to assure the complete-
ness and quality of information gathered in an
EIA report. When undertaken as formal step, it
acts as a final check on the quality of the EIA
report submitted to obtain a project authorization.
Inevitably, there will be several decisions makers
involved depending upon the legislative and in-
stitutional framework. In Pakistan, involvement
of third party is an important feature of the EIA
system; however, no independent review commis-
sion exists. Also, a number of anomalies arise in
decision-making process due to lack of technical
capacity and political pressure. Decision about the
construction of Zero point Interchange Project
had already been taken, in fact construction had
been started. So reviewing the EI statement was
actually an eye wash.
Role of actors involved in EIA procedure
The role of actors involved depends upon the
type, magnitude, and funding body involved. For
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
most of the time, major actors involved are federal
and provincial EPAs, planning and development
departments, consultants, NGOs, international
cooperating bodies, and judiciary.
Regarding current case study, all key actors
involved showed sheer negligence. Capital de-
velopment authority started the construction of
interchange without obtaining a “no objection cer-
tificate” and by ignoring the legislative provisions
of the country. Key stakeholders were neither
identified well nor given due importance.
EIA compliance, monitoring, and enforcement
Key objectives of the EIA monitoring and en-
forcement are to: confirm that the conditions of
the project approval are met satisfactorily; verify
that impacts are within predicted permitted lim-
its; take actions to manage unanticipated impacts
or other unforeseen changes; ensure that envi-
ronmental benefits are maximized through good
practice; and learn from experience in order to
improve EIA process and practice. International
donor agencies providing funding for the projects
and the penalty section are major contributors
to this section. The responsible authorities, at
their direction, setup an environmental monitor-
ing committee for an approved project to assist
and guide the proponent in the management of
monitoring program. In case of Zero point In-
terchange Project, the consultancy firm provided
a monitoring plan for the proposed project, but
the monitoring plan did not mention the basic
parameters against which the monitoring would
be carried out.
EIA implementation in practice
The key objectives and tools of EIA implemen-
tation and follow-up include: surveillance and
supervision of key EIA terms; monitoring of en-
vironmental parameters, auditing to describe a
systematic process of examining documentation
and verifying the EIA procedures and outcomes;
and ex-post evaluation including policy-oriented
review of EIA process (UNEP 2002).
In the current case study, the consultancy firm
has failed to provide any section for Post Oper-
1915
ational Stage Auditing/Environmental Auditing,
which is a serious deficiency in the report. The
report includes a table exhibiting the responsibil-
ity of each person related to proposed project; it
is a good effort keeping in view the international
standards. International experiences indicate that
political, cultural, and economic conditions in gen-
eral influence the EIA practices (Thomas 2001).
Decision for the construction of Zero point In-
terchange Project had been taken in 1971; jus-
tification for such a long delay should have been
given in the report.
Resource availability for EIA implementation
As an emerging tool in policy and implementa-
tion, EIA process has special concerns regarding
resources both human and physical. Also inter-
national factors including financial and technical
assistance and bilateral regional cooperation are
of important consideration. Being a party to many
multilateral environmental agreements, Pakistan
has to fulfill its obligations, but as evident from
the above example, Pakistan is seriously lack-
ing sufficient financial and technical assistance to
carry out the EIA process in its true sense.
EIA index
An “EIA Implementation Index” was developed
by the researchers based upon the real-time
data collected. Thirty-four EIA experts and en-
vironmentalists were included in survey through
questionnaires. The questionnaire included the
questions about all EIA stages. Three choices were
given for each question; strongly agree, agree, and
don’t agree. A score of “1” was assigned to each
response of strongly agree, “0.5” of agree, and “0”
of don’t agree. Each aspect was assigned a maxi-
mum value of “100” and a minimum (0) value and
sub-indices were calculated using the formula =
(obtained value-minimum value/maximum value-
minimum value) 100. Each index was obtained by
adding sub-indices and then finally taking their
averages. The final EIA Index was worked out
adding indices for all EIA stages and taking their
average. The index calculated for Pakistan (0.57)
Table 1 EIA performance areas for Pakistan
1916

Stage Evaluation variable Score Percent score Sub index name Sub index Index name Index
Screening Legal provisions 31.5 92.6 Screening Legal 0.93 Appropriate Screening 0.70
for screening Provision Index (SLPI) Index (ASI)
Just screening decisions 16 47.1 Screening Decision 0.47
Index (SDI)
Scoping Baseline surveys 12 35.3 Baseline Efficiency 0.35 Scoping Efficiency 0.42
and techniques used Index (BEI) Index (SEI)
Impact identification 16 47.1 Impact Identification 0.47
Index (III)
Significant impact 16 47.1 Significant Impact 0.47
identification Identification Index (SIII)
Impact analysis 18.5 54.4 Impact Analysis Index (IAI) 0.54
Impact prediction 16 47.1 Impact Prediction Index (IPI) 0.47
Alternative suggestions 13 38.2 Alternative Suggestions 0.38
Index (ASI)
Public participation 9.5 27.9 Public Participation and 0.28
and consultation Consultation Index (PPCI)
Public hearing 12 35.3 Public Hearing Index (PHI) 0.35
Mitigation Sound/practicable 17 50.0 Mitigation Measure 0.50 Mitigation Index (MI) 0.50
Index (SPMI)
EMP Sound environmental 21 61.8 Environmental Management 0.62 Environmental Management, 0.62
management and and Monitoring Index (EMMI) Monitoring Efficiency
monitoring plan Index (EMMEI)
Reporting Quality of report 13 38.2 EIS Quality Index (EISQI) 0.38
Reviewer process 15 44.1 Reviewer Process Index (RPI) 0.44 Environmental Impact 0.39
Statement Index (EISI)
Unbiased approval 11.5 33.8 Unbiased Approval Index (UAI) 0.34
Institutions Sufficient departments 16 47.1 Institute Sufficiency Index (ISI) 0.47 Environmental Institution 0.29
Performance Index (EIPI)
Sufficient, relevant 3.5 10.3 Professional Human Resource 0.10
human resource Index (PHRI)
Legal framework Legal framework for 30 88.2 EIA Legal Framework 0.88 Legal Framework Index (LFI) 0.54
EIA implementation Index (EIALFI)
Implementation of legal 14 41.2 EIA Legal Framework 0.41
framework for EIA Implementation Index (EIALFII)
Environmental 11 32.4 Legal Institution Index (LII) 0.32
courts/tribunals
Over all performance EIA Index (EIAI) 0.57
of EIA in Pakistan
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
shows an average performance for EIA imple-
mentation in Pakistan as a good index must have a
value of at least 0.8. According to the calculations
in Table 1, the poorest areas regarding EIA per-
formance in Pakistan include public participation
and lack of relevant human resource in EPA and
other environmental agencies.
Conclusion
The basic approach of environmental impact as-
sessment is to conduct a detailed and multi-
dimensional study of the proposed project with
alternative analysis; baseline status of project area
on multi pillars, i.e., environment, economic, and
socio-cultural issues; a large-scale public consulta-
tion and stakeholder concerns; identification and
further detailed assessment of all possible or likely
impacts and environmental management plan on
technical basis; applicable mitigation measures;
monitoring and evaluation of the recommended
measures; and environmental audit.
An entirely new EIA index (EIAI) was de-
vised on the basis of questionnaire methodology
used in this research. The purpose of the re-
search was to work out the performance and trans-
parency of EIA process in Pakistan. The EIAI
was calculated from sub-indices for each EIA
stage, i.e., Appropriate Screening Index (ASI),
Scoping Efficiency Index (SEI), Mitigation In-
dex (MI), Environmental management, monitor-
ing efficiency Index (EMMEI), Environmental
Impact Statement Index (EISI), Environmental
Institution performance Index (EIPI), and Le-
gal framework Index (LFI). The sub-indices were
calculated from aspect indices for Each EIA
stage including Screening legal Provision Index
(SLPI), Screening decision Index (SDI), Baseline
Efficiency Index (BEI), Impact Identification In-
dex (III), Significant Impact Identification Index
(SIII), Impact Analysis Index (IAI), Impact Pre-
diction Index (IPI), Alternative Suggestions In-
dex (ASI), Public Participation and Consultation
Index (PPCI), Public Hearing Index (PHI), Mit-
igation Measure Index (SPMI), Environmental
Management and Monitoring Index (EMMI), EIS
Quality Index (EISQI), Review Process Index
(RPI), Unbiased Approval Index (UAI), Insti-
1917
tute Sufficiency Index (ISI), Professional Human
Resource Index (PHRI), EIA Legal Framework
Index (EIALFI), Legal Institution Index (LII),
and EIA Legal Framework Implementation Index
(EIALFII).
The overall performance of EIA process in
Pakistan as exhibited by Environmental Impact
Assessment Index EIAI (0.57) appears to be quite
reasonable but not ideal as appreciable value for
the same should be at least 0.8. However, the
values of sub-indices below 0.5 exhibit an alarming
situation for relative EIA stages including Envi-
ronmental Institution Performance Index (EIPI)
with a value of 0.29 and Environmental Impact
Statement Index (EISI) with a value of 0.39. In
the same way the aspect indices for each EIA
stage which had very low values included Pro-
fessional Human Resource Index (PHRI), Pub-
lic Participation and Consultation Index (PPCI),
Legal Institution Index (LII), Unbiased Approval
Index (UAI), Public Hearing Index (PHI), EIS
Quality Index (EISQI), and Baseline Efficiency
Index (BEI); hence, revealing the weaknesses of
specific aspects for each EIA stage.
The most important issues regarding EIA per-
formance in Pakistan include insufficient and ir-
relevant human resource in both government and
private sector, dishonesty in public consultation,
poor quality, and plagiarism in environmental
impact statements and corruption or biased ap-
provals owing to the monopoly and maneuvering
on behalf of few consultancy firms in the coun-
try. All abovementioned facts have well been ex-
emplified with the help of a highly controversial
project (Zero point Interchange Project) which
was started without EIA and after a great hue
and cry from the public and NGOs, the EIA was
conducted with a predetermined approval as the
project was on the top priority of the government.
Recommendations
EIA system of Pakistan is provided with enough
legislative support but there is need to imple-
ment it properly with an effective check and bal-
ance system. Inter-departmental coordination is
required imperatively. Agencies responsible for
environmental protection in Pakistan act as silent
1918
observers of violations of existing environmen-
tal rules and regulations. These organizations are
playing their role as sleeping partners as they
are not significantly contributing towards effective
enactment of EIA rules in the country. Rather,
it is the public, print media, and some NGOs
who take lead in pointing out the environmental
issues, usually arising during construction phase
of development projects. The Supreme Court of
Pakistan addresses most of the environmental vi-
olations; although the honorable court is not the
only agency meant for redressal of hue and cry
of people affected adversely by a development
project. At present, it is the need of the time
that all stakeholders of all development projects
like Zero point Interchange Project, in particu-
lar, the project affectees, must be identified and
consulted at the design and planning stage of the
projects and EIA system be implemented in true
spirit for achieving the national goal of sustainable
environmental management in Pakistan. A very
important issue pointed out by most of the experts
during this research was unavailability of relevant
human resource in the environmental agencies
which hampers the performance to a very seri-
ous extent. The EIA is being dealt as a formal
requirement for development projects instead of
a national responsibility. There is a great need
for the hiring of relevant and qualified staff both
in government and private sector in order to im-
prove the performance of environmental manage-
ment and conservation efforts. The qualified pro-
fessionals should join the field of consultancy in
order to counter the monopoly and corruption of
few dominant consultancy firms in the country. A
transparent mechanism should be established for
checking the originality of EIA and EIS review.
It must be ensured that no project should start
prior to a transparent EIA even if it is a govern-
ment project. The environmental tribunals should
also look into the matter of fake or insufficient
EIAs, the services of real environmentalists must
be availed for this purpose.
Acknowledgements Authors are thankful to the Pak-
EPA and all the relevant institutes which provided req-
uisite information. Also, we want to pay profound grat-
itude to EIA experts and faculty members of different
universities in Islamabad, who helped us make this effort
successful.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
References
Ahmad, B., & Wood, C. M. (2002). A comparative evalua-
tion of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia.
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
22(3), 213–234.
Aslam, F. (2006). Environmental Impact Assessment
System in Pakistan—Overview, Implementation and
Effectiveness. Master’s Thesis. Stockholm: Kthroyal
Institute of Technology.
Alshuwaikhat, H. M. (2005). Strategic environmental as-
sessment can help solve environmental impact as-
sessment failures in developing countries. Journal of
Environment Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 307–
317.
Environmental Impact Assessment Course Module, UNU
(2006). http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=173.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2003). Learning through
public involvement in environmental assessment hear-
ings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2),
161–174.
Fitzpatrick, P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2009). Multi-jurisdictional
environmental impact assessment: Canadian experi-
ences. Journal of Environment Impact Assessment
Review, 29(4), 252–260.
Fuller, K. (1999). Quality and quality control in environ-
mental impact assessment. In: J. Petts (ed), Handbook
of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 2. Oxford:
Blackwell Science ltd.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1983). Pakistan Envi-
ronmental Protection Ordinance, 1983. Islamabad:
Gazette of Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1997a) Pakistan Environ-
mental Protection Act, 1997. Islamabad: Gazette of
Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1997b) Policy and Proce-
dures for the Filing, Review and Approval of Environ-
mental Assessments. Islamabad: Pak-EPA.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1997c) Guidelines for
preparation and review of environmental reports.
Islamabad: Pak-EPA.
Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, A. (2008). A critical review of
building environmental assessment tools. Journal of
Environment Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 469–
482.
Leu, W. S., Williams, W. P., & Bark, A. W. (1996). Devel-
opment of an environmental impact assessment eval-
uation model and its application: Taiwan case study.
Journal of Environment Impact Assessment Review,
16(2), 115–133.
Nadeem, O., & Hameed, R. (2006). A critical review of the
adequacy of EIA reports—Evidence from Pakistan.
World Academy of Science and Technology, 23(2006),
64–70.
Nadeem, O., & Hameed, R. (2008). Evaluation of environ-
mental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Jour-
nal of Environment Impact Assessment Review, 28(8),
562–571.
Nadeem, O., & Fischer, T. B. (2011). An evaluation frame-
work for effective public participation in EIA in
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:1909–1919
Pakistan. Journal of Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 31(1), 36–47.
Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (1997).
Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA),
1997. Retrieved 2011, from www.environment.gov.pk,
http://www.emc.com.pk/pdf/1-Act%201997.pdf.
Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Brief
on Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
trieved 2011, from www.environment.gov.pk, http://
www.environment.gov.pk/aboutus/Brief-Pak-EPA.pdf.
Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Year
book 2005 (Pak - EPA). Retrieved 2011, from
www.environment.gov.pk, http://www.environment.
gov.pk/aboutus/YB2004-2005.pdf.
Petts, J. (1999). Handbook of environmental impact assess-
ment: Environmental impact assessment in process, im-
pact and limitations. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell Science
ltd.
Riffat, R., & Khan, D. (2006). A review and evaluation
of the environmental impact assessment process in
Pakistan. Journal of Applied Science and Environmen-
tal Sanitation, 1, 17–29. ISSN.0126-2807.
Rio declaration (1992). A short document produced at the
1992 United Nation’s “Conference on Environment
and Development, Informally Known as the Earth
Summit.”
Saeed, A. (2004). Current EIA Practices: Problems and
Issues. Proceedings of Capacity Building Workshop
1919
on EIA-A Tool to Achieve Sustainability. Islamabad:
Pak-EPA.
Say, N. P., Yucel, M., & Yilmazer, M. (2007). A
computer-based system for environmental impact as-
sessment (EIA) applications to energy power stations
in Turkey: C- EDINFO. Journal of Energy Policy,
35(12), 6395–6401.
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2008). Con-
ceptualizing learning for sustainability through envi-
ronmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years
of research. Journal of Environment Impact Assess-
ment Review, 28(7), 415–428.
Thomas, I. (2001). Environmental impact assessment in
Australia: Theory and Practice (3rd edn). Australia:
Federation Press.
UNEP (2002). UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment
Training Resource Manual (2nd edn). Retrieved
2011, from www.unep.ch, http://www.unep.ch/etu/
publications/EIAman_2edition_toc.htm.
Wood C. W. (1995). Environmental impact assessment:
A comparative review. London: Longman Group
Limited.
Wood, C. M. (2003). Environmental impact assessment: A
comparative review (2nd edn). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Zubair, S., Bowen, D., & Elwin, J. (2011). Not quite par-
adise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assess-
ment in the Maldives. Journal of Tourism Management,
32(2), 225–234.