Effective Public Participation in EIA in Pakistan PDF

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Impact Assessm...

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Impact Assessment Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan Obaidullah Nadeem a,⁎, Thomas B. Fischer b a Department of City & Regional Planning, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan b Department of Civic Design, the University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Evaluating the effectiveness of public participation in EIA related decisions is of crucial importance for Received 20 June 2009 developing a better understanding of overall EIA effectiveness. This paper aims to contribute to the Received in revised form 20 January 2010 professional debate by establishing a country specific evaluation framework for Pakistan, which, it is Accepted 31 January 2010 suggested, could also potentially be used in other developing countries. The framework is used to evaluate Available online 19 March 2010 performance of public participation in EIA in terms of 40 attributes for four selected projects from the province of Punjab. The evaluation is based on interviews with stakeholders, review of EIA reports as well as Keywords: EIA public hearing proceedings and environmental approval conditions. The evaluation of the selected projects Public participation revealed an overall weak influence of public participation on substantive quality of EIA and on the final Evaluation framework decision. Overall, EIA public participation has succeeded in providing a more egalitarian environment. Pakistan Furthermore, it appears fair to say that sufficient time for submitting written comments on EIA reports as well as for raising concerns during public hearings had been given. Also, public consultation was significantly contributing to educating participants. Despite some impediments, it is argued that public participation in EIA is gradually gaining ground in Pakistan. Recommendations to enhance EIA public participation effectiveness in Pakistan include applying a more proactive approach which should take place before EIA is conducted and before site selection for development projects is happening. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Wood, 2002; Glasson et al., 2005; Hartley and Wood, 2005; Paliwal, 2006; Petts, 1999; Wang et al., 2003; Wood, 2003). The reasons for Public participation is considered an essential and ‘integral’ this are said to include a late initiation in the EIA process, an intrinsic component of EIA (Hartley and Wood, 2005; Palerm, 2000; Wood, limitation of the participation mechanisms, a poor contribution of 2003; Jay et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2008). Furia and Wallace-Jones genuine stakeholders, as well as excessive time and cost requirements (2000) argued that for public participation in EIA to be effective, the involved in participation exercises (Bisset, 2000; Hartley and Wood, objectives of involving the public need to be satisfied. Beierle and 2005; Paliwal, 2006). Cayford (2002), as well as GoP (1997a), identified objectives of public In developed countries, whilst public participation is often said to participation. These include: have a moderate influence on the project design and environmental approval conditions of EIA, it appears that to date it has not frequently To provide adequate opportunities to stakeholders to raise their succeeded in building trust in the competent authorities and concerns and influence decision making at early stages of a project proponents. This is mainly due to poor communication, poor access To educate and increase awareness of the stakeholders about the to information and lack of transparency of the decision making projects and its potential environmental impacts process (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Bowler and Shepherd, 1997; To obtain local and traditional knowledge Hartley and Wood, 2005; Sinclair and Diduck, 2001). These short- To reduce conflicts among the participants comings can possibly be explained by the proponent driven nature of To make informed decisions by considering possible adverse EIA preparation and consultation processes (Glasson et al., 2005; impacts and mitigation measures in the EIA report and final decision Wood, 2003). Generally speaking, there is some evidence that overall, To enhance transparency and accountability in decision making benefits of public participation and resulting improvement in the And to build trust in the proponents and government institutions. quality of adopted projects exceed costs (Aschemann, 2004; Glasson Several authors have pointed out that to date public participation et al., 2005). has often failed in achieving these objectives (see eg Ahmad and Transparency of decision making is important, as “in practice, there is a move away from an elitist model in which expert advice acts as the ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 92 42 9029203; fax: + 92 42 9250202. authoritative source for regulation to one in which citizens have a E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Nadeem), fi[email protected] voice in framing government decisions” (Frewer and Salter, 2002, (T.B. Fischer). p.142). Nevertheless, “despite the [recent] resurgence of interest in 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003  O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 37 public participation, no consistent method has emerged for evaluating respect to identifying the mandatory and non-mandatory require- the success of individual processes or the desirability of the many ments regarding timing and procedures of public involvement. The participatory methods” (Bierele, 1998, p.2). An important reason may evaluation framework thus established was continuously refined be that every participation exercise is unique in terms of objectives and during the course of the research as new aspects emerged during socio-political context (Rowe and Frewer, 2004). Hence, the regional interviews with stakeholders. or country context and the objectives of participation are key To investigate how the affected and interested public are consulted determinants for effectiveness criteria. As Palerm (Palerm, 2000, and to establish the extent to which their concerns are addressed in p.582) suggested, “empirical evidence consistently shows that best the EIA reports, as well as the final decisions of development projects [public participation] practice is essentially country-specific”. Some in Pakistan, a case study approach was adopted. The decision on how authors have therefore suggested that the influence of public many cases to consider was of particular importance. Although a participation on the final decisions related to EIA has varied between single case can meet most of the requirements to confirm, challenge countries. Those with a good record are said to include the Netherlands or extend a theory as well as significantly contribute to knowledge and Denmark, particularly due to early public involvement and, in the and theory building, it often has a high risk of misrepresentation (Yin, former case, the existence of an independent EIA commission (Glasson 2003). In order to strengthen findings, multiple case studies were et al., 2005; Van de Gronden et al., 1994; Wood, 2003). therefore undertaken, leading to more robust results (Creswell, 1994; This paper aims at contributing to the literature by establishing a Herriott and Firestone, 1983). framework for evaluating public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Four case studies were finally selected, including two transport Whilst public participation during EIA of development projects in projects and two industrial development projects. The projects are Pakistan has been taking place for the last decade, to date, empirical located in the most populous province of Pakistan, namely Punjab, evidence of its effectiveness and influence on decision making has where more than 50% of the total EIA reports submitted to all EPAs in remained scant. Furthermore, the paper also reports on the results of the country are processed and public hearings are held. Out of all EIAs applying the framework to four EIA case studies from Pakistan. Results conducted in Punjab, a majority of EIA reports (60%) belonged to these may also be of interest for other developing countries with two development sectors. Other criteria for identifying suitable cases comparable contexts, including eg India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka included: (1) projects should be of national interest, attracting the (Rajvanshi, 2003). attention of a wider public; (2) some projects should be in urban and Subsequently, first the context of public participation in EIA in others in rural areas, representing both, urban and rural character- Pakistan is outlined. Then the methodology of the research underlying istics; and (3) projects should be affecting people belonging to diverse this paper is explained. The evaluation framework is set out next, the socio-economic backgrounds. rationale for the selection of case study projects is presented and Interviews with 40 stakeholders of each case study project (i.e. 160 results of applying the framework to the selected EIA cases are in total) were conducted. Stakeholders belonged to different groups, portrayed. Results are discussed and finally, conclusions are drawn. including those who participated in public hearings, ie those con- cerned officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Punjab, 2. The context of public participation in EIA in Pakistan project proponents, EIA consultants, academics and representatives of NGOs, as well as non-participating direct affectees. The latter were Public participation is mandatory under section 12(3) of the selected for interviews, using stratified random sampling technique. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997 (GoP, 1997) and Hearing participants were selected, using purposive sampling. The needs to take place during the competent authority review stage of evaluation of interviewees' responses included establishing satisfac- EIA. Furthermore, the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency tion level with the final decision, using Yeh's Index of Satisfaction (YIS) (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000 under section 10 require method (Yeh, 1975). A negative sign of the satisfaction index suggests that the public notice or invitation for participation to be published in a bigger percentage of unsatisfied than satisfied stakeholders. an English or Urdu national newspaper and a local newspaper of In order to identify the extent to which stakeholders' concerns general circulation in the project affected areas 30 days before the were actually incorporated in EIA reports, a five point scale was hearing (GoP, 2000). The public notice is also required to contain developed, using various symbols, as follows: information on project type, location, name and address of the proponent and the places at which the EIA report can be accessed. not mentioned Formal public consultation does not generally take place during EIAs, ○ mentioned except on socio-economic impacts of projects, taking the form of an discussed in detail opinion survey. EIA review is normally carried out by the competent discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures authority in-house. Independent experts are also occasionally discussed in detail and included in project design involved. Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) are legally required to make a decision and grant environmental approval within four months of the submission of the EIA report. An appeal against any There are certain limitations of this approach. Firstly, it was decision of the Federal or Provincial Environment Protection Agencies difficult to identify stakeholders, particularly of participants of public can be made to the Federal/Provincial Environmental Tribunal within hearings, as their complete addresses were not mentioned in the 30 days of the date of communication of the decision. The tribunal will attendance sheets. It was felt that interview questionnaires should then either endorse the approval or reject it. have been distributed to the stakeholders during public hearings and later on collected. Furthermore, the questionnaire was rather lengthy 3. Research methodology and contained questions for both, hearing participants and non- participants. Non-participant interviewees were unable to respond to First an evaluation framework was developed, based on (a) review questions pertaining to methods and framework for consultation, of the relevant literature, (b) legal provisions and guidelines, and composition and awareness of the public involved. Evaluation of these (c) interviews with concerned officials, EIA consultants and experts. aspects is therefore only based on the responses of hearing partici- The reviewed literature mainly included scholarly articles and books pants. Finally, many interviewees did not see the EIA reports and were on the evaluation of public participation in EIA. Legal provisions of the unable to comment on its overall quality. It is important to mention Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, the EIA regulations and the here that proceedings on several petitions against projects are still guidelines for public consultation (GoP, 1997a) were reviewed with dealt with in the High Court. Therefore, cases cannot be named. 38 O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 4. Evaluation framework Components are sub-divided into criteria, allowing to establish the extent to which objectives of involving the public (see Section 1) were The EIA public participation practice evaluation framework achieved. Some components also pertain to the stages of the EIA includes the following main components (see also Table 1): public participation process in order to establish how far stakeholders were enabled to participate in decision making and to identify hurdles Legal requirements (1) in the participation process. The choice of each component and asso- Effectiveness of methods used (2) and access to/quality of ciated evaluation criteria are briefly introduced here. information (3) The first component is the most basic of the evaluation framework. Timing (4) and venue of public consultation (5); time given to It aims at establishing the extent to which legal requirements for comment (6) involving the public and stakeholders during the EIA process were Composition and awareness of the public involved (7) taken into account. Methods and framework for consultation (8) Methods and quality of information provided pertain to the means Consideration of public concerns in the EIA report and incorporation used for informing, as well as inviting the affected and interested of public concerns into the final decision (9) public. This is particularly important for many developing countries Transparency of decision making process (10) since the majority of the population here still lives in rural areas and Table 1 Framework for evaluation of public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Nature Major component Questions/attributes Contextual Legal requirements 1. Did participation take place during EIA review before starting construction work of the project? 2. Did participation take place after the legal notice period? 3. Was the public notice for participation published in an English and Urdu national newspaper? 4. Was the public notice for participation also published in a local newspaper of general circulation in the project affected areas? 5. Did the public notice mention project type, its location, name and address of the proponent and the place where EIA report can be accessed? 6. Were the stakeholders given a right to appeal against the decisions? Methodological Methods and quality 1. Were directly affected communities and other potential stakeholders directly invited by writing letters/phone calls? of information 2. Was the language of public notice understandable by a majority of the stakeholders? 3. Did the public notice contain information about how stakeholders will be consulted? 4. Did the available document contain sufficient information about the project and its impacts in a manner understandable by the stakeholders? 5. Was the EIA report easily accessible (from a timing and location point of view) by a majority of the stakeholders? Methodological Timing and venue of 1. Were the timing and venue of public hearing easily accessible for the majority of the stakeholders? public consultation 2. Were stakeholders consulted at the planning stage, i.e. before site specific decisions were made? 3. Were stakeholders consulted during the preparation of the EIA report? 4. Were stakeholders given sufficient time for submitting written comments on the EIA report? 5. Were stakeholders given sufficient time to raise their concerns during the public hearing? 6. Were stakeholders provided with adequate transport (if needed) to reach the venue of the public hearing? 7. Were poor stakeholders provided with financial support as compensation to the loss of wages to enable them to participate? Contextual Composition and awareness 1. Did the participants represent all categories of the stakeholders? of the public involved 2. Were the participants aware of environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project? 3. Do the participants believe that the participation process significantly increased their knowledge about the project's impacts? Methodological Methods and framework 1. Do the methods adopted for consultation provide the participants with sufficient opportunity to influence decisions? for consultation 2. Were the project details, possible impacts and mitigation measures properly presented/explained to the participants? 3. Did the process provide for an egalitarian environment to all the participants for expressing their concerns? 4. Was the language of communication understandable to a majority of the participants? 5. Was there any provision of a mediator/hearing panel during the public hearing? 6. Did the process provide for any mechanism to validate authenticity of claims? 7. In case of conflicts, was any genuine attempt made to resolve conflicts? Substantive Consideration of public 1. Were adequate significance and coverage given to environmental concerns/impacts? concerns in the EIA report 2. Were adequate significance and coverage given to socio-economic concerns/impacts? 3. Were adequate significance and coverage given to physical/spatial concerns/impacts? 4. Was adequate consideration given to the project alternatives? 5. Were the participants/stakeholders' representatives informed about how their concerns were incorporated in the EIA report and project design? 6. Were justifications acceptable to the participants given, if adequate significance and coverage were not given to any of the concerns raised by the participants? Influencing Incorporation of public 1. Were the concerns raised by the participants adequately considered/incorporated into the final decision/ concerns into the conditions of approval? final decision 2. Were new opportunities for trade-offs or compensation to the affectees identified/negotiated? 3. Were the conditions of approval technically and financially achievable? Methodological Transparency of decision 1. Were the participants provided with the opportunity to see minutes of the consultation proceedings/public hearing? making process 2. Were the participants/stakeholders' representatives informed about how their concerns/input was used in the decision making by the proponent and the competent authority? 3. Were justifications acceptable to the participants given for not considering/incorporating their concerns into the final decision/conditions of approval? 4. Did the consultation process help building trust in the proponent and the competent authority? Source: Developed by the authors based on review of literature cited in Sections 1 and 4, study of legal requirements, guidelines and EIA process in Pakistan as well as interviews with local EIA experts.  O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 39 may only have limited opportunities to access that information. The Transparency of the decision making process is a further compo- quality of information depends on the clarity of the advertisement and nent of the evaluation framework. Whilst decision making processes the EIA report/summary and its ability to enhance the level of aware- should be transparent, in developing countries, transparency is fre- ness of participants about environmental and other issues related to quently hindered by limited access to information about the project's the project (Bierele, 1998; Sinclair and Diduck, 2000). impacts and the related decisions (Boyle, 1998). The public should be Regarding the aspect ‘timing and venue of consultation’, it is informed about how their concerns influenced decision making important to note that whilst public consultation is mandatory in (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). As a consequence, public participation Pakistan, during the competent authority review stage of EIA, should lead to increased public trust in competent authorities as well “consultations must take place at a time, where no irreversible deci- as proponents. However, lack of transparency may be in the way of sions have been taken yet” (Heiland, 2005, p.426). Timing is therefore building that trust, and as a consequence, there may be environmental also evaluated with regards to stakeholders being able to express their or media campaigns against certain projects as well as litigation opinion. The time provided should be long enough to allow the public (Kakonge, 1998; Rajvanshi, 2003). Transparency of a decision making to become familiar with the project so that their opinions can be process depends upon how far stakeholders are provided with access properly developed and formulated (Heiland, 2005). Furthermore, to information related to key decision making documents. Access to accessibility of the venue of public consultation is considered an information is therefore a key indicator of transparency. In the final important element for ensuring adequate participation of eg indige- decision, an explanation should be given on how stakeholders input/ nous communities or day labourers living in remote areas (Bisset, concerns were considered and how the final decision was made. This 2000, p.154). can help in building public trust in those who make decisions and who Composition and awareness of the public involved is important, as execute projects. Important documents related to the outcome of the stakeholders with different backgrounds and affiliations provide public participation process are the minutes of the public consultation useful insights (eg people from rural areas, women, members of proceeding/public hearing and environmental approval conditions. NGOs, academia, media and representatives of the concerned govern- ment departments (Bisset, 2000; Petts, 1999; Ryu et al., 2004). 5. Case studies Awareness of socio-economic and environmental issues and a lack of “understanding regarding scale, nature and likely effects of certain As indicated in Section 3, the four case studies include two road types of development projects” are considered constraints to effective developments and two industry establishments in the Punjab participation (Bisset, 2000, p.154). Province. Keeping in mind the constraint of staying anonymous, a Assessing the methods and framework for consultation should help brief introduction to the case studies is presented below. to identify how far the interested and affected public are enabled to make an active and meaningful contribution to the decision making 5.1. Case study A: construction of a motorway process. The assessment framework used in this context includes various issues of consultation and communication between partici- A 6 lane freeway with a right of way of 120 m and a total length of pants, the proponent and public hearing panel members. The attitude nearly 100 km is planned, which would cover an area of about of those consulting the public is important (Palerm, 2000), and it is 3000 acres. Most of the area covered consists of rich agricultural land, suggested that participants should be provided with an open and bisecting several villages. The estimated cost of the proposed project unrestricted environment to express their views. Public hearing is is about US $ 304 Million (1 US $ = 84 PKR). The road would contain considered a rather weak method of consultation in providing the several bridges, flyovers, vehicular and pedestrian underpasses as stakeholders with an influencing role in decision making (Aschemann, well as drainage culverts. Public hearing was held within 75 days of 2008; Bierele, 1998). It can prove to be complex, unpredictable and the submission of the EIA report. Environmental approval was granted intimidating. There is also a possibility that public hearing get within 4 months. ‘hijacked’ by some interested group and that the affected community cannot participate adequately (Naim, 2004, p.5). However, depending 5.2. Case study B: widening of a road on the framework and the environment in which it is being conducted, it can provide an opportunity of two way interaction among poten- The existing carriageway width ranges from 8 to 22 m and is tially opposing interests and may still be perceived as being useful located next to a canal. The project is about widening a 14 km long (Bierele, 1998). The framework therefore also includes presentation of stretch of road by 7.5 m. Overall, the width of used land will be about potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures, understand- 100 m. The widening will result in the cutting of about 2000 trees. The ability of the language of communication, degree of freedom to express estimated cost of this project is US $ 9.5 Million (1 US $ = 84 PKR). The views, mechanisms to validate authenticity of claims, and genuineness public hearing for this project was held after 60 days of the submission of attempts to resolve conflicts by those conducting hearings. of the EIA report and the environmental approval was granted within Considering public concerns in EIA can help in informing the 6 months. decision making process. However, how these concerns are subse- quently considered in the final decision is the main test for overall 5.3. Case study C: establishment of an industrial estate public participation effectiveness (GoP, 1997a). Boyle (Boyle, 1998) argues that the importance given to certain kinds of impacts in The new industrial estate (already under construction) is sup- decision making may vary, depending upon eg cultural context. posed to cover 1600 acres of agricultural land. The total number of Furthermore, measuring the influence of public participation on EIA industrial plots is supposed to be around 600 to 700, ranging from 0.5 related project decisions has also been identified as a major challenge to 5 acres in size. The industrial estate is located in the midst of six to research (Cashmore et al., 2004). Public input is not only a source of villages directly affecting nearly 10,000 people. The estimated cost of generating relevant factual information into a decision making this project is US $ 47.62 Million (1 US $ = 84 PKR). A variety of process, it can also lead to “decisions that are more technically medium to large manufacturing industries, including textiles, paper, rigorous and satisfy a wider range of interests” (Bierele, 1998, p.7; see beverages, pharmaceuticals, electrical appliances, mechanical equip- also Bierele and Cayford, 2002; Glasson et al., 2005). Thus, considering ment and others are proposed to be established. The public hearing for public (stakeholders) concerns related to environmental, socio- this project was held within 5 months of the submission of the EIA economic and physical/spatial impacts and project alternatives can report and the environmental approval was granted after a further possibly lead to improving the substantive quality of decisions. period of 18 months. Some excessive delays occurred mainly due to 40 O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 the initial rejection of its EIA report and the competent authority's mental education institutions, and mayors of the affected districts and request to the proponent to submit a revised version. representatives of some NGOs. A large proportion (90%) of inter- viewees in each case suggested that making announcements through 5.4. Case study D: construction of a cement factory mosque speakers, advertising in local cable networks and informing local community representatives could also be effective methods of This cement factory project consists of a regular Portland Cement inviting stakeholders from rural areas in Punjab Province in particular Plant with a production capacity of about 6000 tons per day. The and from urban areas in general. initial cost estimate of this project was US $ 77.38 Million (1 US $ = 84 PKR). The factory is supposed to be located in an environmentally 6.3. Access and quality of information (3) sensitive and predominantly agricultural area next to a village of 6000 inhabitants. Three other villages comprising a population of about EIA reports for all projects were placed in (a) public libraries of the 21000 are also located within a 2 km radius of the planned factory. municipalities where the project sites were located, (b) in offices of Including office buildings, the factory is spread over about 400 acres. the Punjab EPA, as well as (c) with proponents, once invitations for The plant is based on a dry processing method and uses clay and submitting written comments on the reports were published in limestone as raw materials. These are available in abundance in and newspapers. These reports could only be seen during office hours. around the factory area. Coal is being used as fuel. Photocopying was not allowed. Despite a wide circulation of the EIA reports (particularly of the motorway and the cement factory 6. Evaluation of results and discussion projects), about 70% interviewees stated that location and timing of making EIA reports available were not convenient to them. Many did This section is divided into eleven sub-sections. Each of the not even know about the EIA reports. sections presents an evaluation of the results, highlighting the extent About a quarter of the interviewees had managed to gain access to the to which the public participation effectiveness criteria, as given in EIA report through their personal contacts. However, a majority of them Table 1, were met. One of the sections also discusses stakeholders' found that EIA reports and non-technical summaries did not clearly satisfaction with the final decision. identify and predict impacts and mitigation measures. They considered the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), provided in the EIAs, as 6.1. Meeting the legal requirements of the country (1) vague. Furthermore, the EMP did not clearly allocate responsibility for its execution. Generally speaking, interviewees did not believe in the According to section 12(1) of the PEPA 1997, construction and correctness of the information provided. The interviewees were also operation of a project requiring EIA legally cannot be started before an asked to suggest appropriate locations where an EIA report should be EIA is submitted and approved. For the two road sector projects, the placed. Suggestions mainly included; nearby Union Council Offices or EIA reports were submitted before the construction work, ie hearings Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) Offices as well as the website of were held at the mandatory stage. For the two industrial projects, the the EPA. Some suggested that a non-technical summary should be EIA reports were submitted after the start of the construction work. circulated among key stakeholders or be published in newspapers. The issue of acquisition of land is not dealt with in the PEPA 1997. This is important because once land is acquired, the possibility of con- 6.4. Suitability of consultation timing (4) sidering alternative sites for a project is rather remote. Overall, legal requirements were fulfilled and invitations for public hearings for all Public hearings for the road sector case studies were held after four projects were published in English and in Urdu (ie the national completion of the project design, but before the acquisition of land. language) newspapers 30 days before the date of the hearing. Thus, it can be argued that there were possibilities to modify the None of the stakeholder groups/NGOs filed an appeal to the project design and proposed route. Both industrial projects were at Environmental Tribunal against the environmental approvals granted the construction stage when the EIA studies and hearings were held, to any of the case study projects. However, a joint public interest petition indicating no or only very small possibilities for changing the project had been filed to the concerned High Court by several NGOs against the design or the location, but there was some hope that mitigation environmental approval of the road widening project. Similarly, measures may be adopted. 90% of the interviewees suggested that affectees of the industrial estate and cement factory projects also filed stakeholders should be consulted not only at the EIA review stage, but petitions to the High Court, mainly not against adverse impacts but also during EIA preparation. It shows that people are still hopeful that against fraudulent acquisition of land. While industrial projects are now consultation could lead to incorporation of their concerns into the in operation, decisions on all these petitions are still awaited. decisions. Very few (about 10%) were of the view that such consulta- tion was either of no need or of no use. 6.2. Effectiveness of the methods used for informing/inviting stakeholders (2) 6.5. Accessibility of public hearing venue (5) Most of the interviewees (between 63% and 100% for the four An inappropriate venue of a public hearing is considered an cases) did not come to know about the public hearings through impediment to public participation. Out of all four case study projects, newspapers. Reasons for this included publishing of notices in news- the public hearing venue for the motorway project was most inappro- papers that did not have a wide circulation in those areas affected by priate, as it was very difficult and expensive to reach by those directly the projects. Also, people missed seeing notices that were published affected, ie those living in remote villages along a 100 km span of road. along numerous other tender notices. Furthermore, many villagers do Public hearing for the road widening project was held in a first class not read newspapers regularly. Those who participated were either hotel. This was located near the project site and was highly accessible directly invited by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) as offi- to a majority (90%) of the stakeholders, particularly those from cials of the concerned government agencies or came to know about it directly affected communities. through colleagues/friends/neighbours. The public hearing for the industrial estate project was held in a Review of the case files revealed that letters inviting written four star hotel located in the heart of the city, whereas directly comments and participation in public hearings were sent to between affected poor villagers were living some 50 km away from the city 20 and 33 potential stakeholders of each case study, mainly including centre. For the cement factory project, despite a sizable percentage of secretaries of concerned government departments, heads of environ- interviewees (37%) stating that it was difficult and expensive to reach,  O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 41 the attendance of participants in the public hearing held at the NGOs, officials of concerned government departments and academics. meeting hall of the concerned District Council, shows that in this case, Nonetheless, representation of academics and environmentalists/NGO it was not a barrier. This was mainly because the affected commu- participants was very thin, based on the fact that the hearing venue was nities had received information about its date and venue through their located in a municipality far away from where they are based. leaders and had strong concerns over loss of livelihood and environ- The public hearing for the road widening project was also attended mental impacts. by all categories of stakeholders, but some 42% of the interviewees felt Enabling poor people to participate in public hearings is of great that it was not fully representing those affected or interested, importance. This may include financial and transport provisions. particularly as non-car owner road users and canal swimmers were However, the majority of interviewees of all four projects stated that not present. Regarding the hearings for motorway and industrial they were willing to participate without such provisions. An over- estate projects, an important category of stakeholders i.e. those whelming majority (74% to 88%) also suggested that hearings should directly affected, could not participate mainly due to no information better be held at some big public place near the project site or at a about the event and the remote location of hearing venues. Some of nearby Union Council/Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) office. the interviewees also considered public hearings as a formality or were not interested to participate. 6.6. Adequacy of time given for written comments and raising The majority (between 70% and 80%) of hearing participants of the concerns (6) three case studies (all except the cement factory project), were well aware of potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the With the exception of a few, most interviewees (83% to 97%) of the respective projects. The highest level of awareness was found among case study projects felt that four weeks for submitting written the hearing participants of the road widening and motorway projects, comments on the EIA reports was sufficient. When asked whether possibly because they were highly educated professionals, including they were able to understand a voluminous technical report and give environmental experts, lawyers, architects, academics, representa- comments, low literacy interviewees responded that they would have tives of NGOs and government departments. The awareness level of asked somebody else (who was well educated) to read and write the cement factory hearing participants, who were less well educated comments for them. This actually happened in the cases of the cement and coming from local villages, was found to be comparatively low. factory and road widening projects, as the community leaders and Finally, when asked whether participation in the hearing had NGO representatives got hold of a copy of the EIA report and helped to increase their knowledge about potential impacts of the submitted written comments on behalf of the affectees regarding projects, about 50% of the interviewees of all four cases who their concerns over potential environmental and socio-economic participated in hearings realized that their knowledge about potential impacts of the project. impacts had significantly increased as compared to what they knew A majority of the public hearings participants (ie between 75% and about the projects before attending the public hearings. This was also 83%) felt that the time given for raising concerns on both, the confirmed through the highly technical and precise nature of concerns motorway and road widening as well as for industrial estate projects raised by the stakeholders during interviews for this study (see was sufficient. Hearing participants of the cement factory project were Tables 2–5). The rest of the participating interviewees felt that their of the view that they were not given sufficient time to raise their knowledge had increased to a lesser extent. concerns. In the latter case, the proponent, consultant and EPA officials wanted to finish the hearing as early as possible, presumably 6.8. Effectiveness of methods and framework for consultation (8) due to a fear of a serious clash. Direct affectees were furious and wanted the project not to be allowed in the anticipated location. During the public hearings for the case studies, potential impacts of the projects and proposed mitigation measures were not ade- 6.7. Composition and awareness of the public involved (7) quately explained to the stakeholders. Many interviewees pointed out that proponents tried to conceal potential impacts even in cases The public hearing for the cement factory project was attended by all where construction of projects was going on. This suggests that both, categories of stakeholders, including direct affectees, environmentalists/ EIA consultants and proponents were either lacking in knowledge Table 2 Public concerns and their consideration in the EIA report and final decision for case study A, construction of a motorway. Environmental impacts In EIA In final Socio-economic impacts In EIA In final Physical/spatial impacts, In EIA In final report decision report decision alternatives and others report decision Cumulative impacts not considered x Weakening of social ties √ No need of new motorway x Inadequate prediction of future x Decrease in agricultural ○ x Inadequate consideration ○ x state of environment products and increase in cost of alternative routes Location of asphalt plants and √ Loss of houses/other structures x Built motorway along the canal n/a service workshops Impact on water regime and √ Blockage of existing paths √ Consequential change in land use ○ u/a risk of flooding Air and noise pollution during √ Irregular division of land ○ x Inappropriate hearing venue x construction Loss of rich agricultural land x Increase in thefts n/a Lack of responsibilities in EMP √ Impacts on flora and fauna √ Improper location of pedestrian ○ √ Alien attitude of survey team n/a bridges Arrangement for disposal of √ Low payment for the √ Evidence of commitment for √ wastewater and solid waste compensation of land cost shifting of infrastructure Absence of resettlement action plan n/a Displacement of 2500 labourers √ due to alignment ○ only mentioned discussed in detail discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures. discussed in detail and included in project design not mentioned x not considered √ considered. Source: Based on review of EIA report, public hearing proceedings, interviews with the stakeholders and final decision/environmental approval for the case study A, construction of a motorway. 42 O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 Table 3 Public concerns and their consideration in the EIA report and final decision for the case study B, widening of a road. Environmental impacts In EIA In final Socio-economic impacts In EIA In final Physical/spatial impacts, In EIA In Final report decision report decision alternatives and others report decision Emissions of toxins due to loss x Safety of pedestrians and √ No need of the project x of 30,000 trees cyclists at risk Loss of 24 feet wide and 14 kms. x Loss of heritage of the x Inadequate consideration ○ x long green verge city/urban forest of project alternatives Destruction of biodiversity √ Disturbance to educational x No criteria for selection x and health institutions of consultant 2 to 3 degrees increase in ○ x Accidents and loss of life due x Inaccurate counting of trees √ temperature of the vicinity to high speed to be cut Air and noise pollution during √ No safety of workers and ○ √ Stakeholders not consulted x construction public during construction during EIA Risk of chest and other diseases x Reduction of green spaces ○ x Overall deficient EIA report x for public use Contamination of surface water √ Change in surrounding res. land ○ x use to commercial Soil erosion and silting of canal √ Hazardous handling and disposal x of waste Destruction of indigenous fauna ○ x (46 species) ○ only mentioned discussed in detail discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures. discussed in detail and included in project design not mentioned x not considered √ considered. Source: Based on review of EIA report, public hearing proceedings, interviews with the stakeholders and final decision/environmental approval for the case study B, widening of a road. about potential impacts or were deliberately ignoring them to avoid There was no independent mediator or hearing panel for the case possible delays in getting environmental approval. study projects. Except for the hearing of the motorway and the However, it is encouraging to note that the communication industrial estate projects, no genuine attempt was made to resolve the language used during hearings was understood by the majority of conflicts among the participants. Validation of the authenticity of participants (80%–98%), at least for three of the case studies. EIAs claims in the Punjab EPA was done by its in-house committee of were mainly explained in Urdu (ie the national language), and at officials for most of the cases, on the basis of apparent logic and times by the local languages of the projects' direct affectees. In the proponents' justifications. There was no independent committee or case of the cement factory project, 35% of the hearing participants any panel of experts for this purpose. were not able to understand the communication language. Similarly, interview data and observations by the first author of this paper 6.9. Extent of considering public concerns in the EIA reports and final shows that participants were provided with an egalitarian environ- decisions (9) ment to express their views. The public hearing for the cement factory project proved to be the only poor example. Here, participating It is important to mention here that various measures for trade- interviewees felt very intimidated and pressurized due to the offs and compensation had been suggested, either in the EIA reports presence of police at the hearing venue. or in the conditions of the environmental approval in all four cases. Table 4 Public concerns and their consideration in the EIA report and final decision for the case study C, establishment of an industrial estate. Environmental impacts In EIA In final Socio-economic impacts In EIA In final Physical/spatial impacts, In EIA In final report decision report decision alternatives and others report decision Lack of baseline environment data √ Inflow of industrial workers ○ x Alternative sites not considered ○ x Environmental impacts due to x Extrajudicial land acquisition x Location of the estate against x industrial emissions the City's Master Plan Risk of diseases √ Blockage of access to other ○ x Absence of plan to deal with √ villages and graveyards emergency situation No indication of source of energy ○ √ Inadequate compensation √ Lack of zoning in industrial √ of land estate No information on ground √ No colony for industrial x No consultation during EIA x water consumption workers preparation No provision of buffer zone around the x Decrease in fodder for animals x Overall deficient EIA report √ industrial estate Inadequate arrangements for waste disposal √ Low job provision to locals ○ √ Loss of agricultural land & trees ○ x Blockage of domestic sewer √ Need of continuous environmental monitoring ○ √ No information on maintenance of ground water √ Redundant technology of effluent √ treatment plant Non-technical and illogical mitigation measures √ ○ only mentioned discussed in detail discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures. discussed in detail and included in project design not mentioned x not considered √ considered. Source: Based on review of EIA report, public hearing proceedings, interviews with the stakeholders and final decision/environmental approval for the case study C, establishment of an industrial estate.  O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 43 Table 5 Public concerns and their consideration in the EIA report and final decision for the case study D, construction of a cement factory. Environmental impacts In EIA In final Socio-economic impacts In EIA In final Physical/spatial impacts, In EIA In final report decision report decision alternatives and others report decision Risk of skin allergy, asthma and ○ x Blockage of established paths x Alternative sites not considered x obnoxious smell and access to agri fields Decrease in yield of agri land due x Low provision of jobs to local ○ √ Start of construction work prior x to air pollution residents approval of plan and EIA Inadequate measures to store raw √ No resettlement of residents of √ Unreliable data in the EIA report x material/kiln dust village opposite to factory No arrangement for treatment of wastewater ○ √ Social impacts and loss of privacy x No evidence for quality of ○ √ due to alien visitors plant machinery Soil destabilizing and loss of natural beauty x Loss of grazing fields leased x EIA done just for plant x for quarry operation not for project Lowering of water table ○ x Road accidents due to heavy traffic x Industrial wastewater polluting historical sites x Adverse impacts on tourism x Loss of fertile agricultural land x Inadequate compensation for ○ x loss of land Loss of local biodiversity & medicinal plants x Cracks/weakening of buildings x due to blasting Noise pollution/blasting of hills for raw material ○ x Death rate of cattle increased x Contamination of community water ponds ○ x ○ only mentioned discussed in detail discussed in detail and included in mitigation measures. discussed in detail and included in project design not mentioned x not considered √ considered. Source: Based on review of EIA report, public hearing proceedings, interviews with the stakeholders and final decision/environmental approval for the case study D, construction of a cement factory. However, those seem to be imposed and not negotiated through a were general in nature. Except for the condition to submit a separate conscious effort. Tables 2–5 summarise the concerns raised by the EIA for a section of the proposed motorway, linking it with a big city of stakeholders with regard to the case study projects and the extent the province, the remainder were nothing more than standard to which those were considered in their respective EIA reports operating procedures to avoid adverse environmental impacts during by the proponents and in the final decisions/environmental ap- construction and operation phases of a major road. Perhaps this is why provals by the EPA. The next four sub-sections provide for an the project proponent stated that all conditions were technically and explanation of the outcome of each case study project in these financially achievable. regards. Stakeholders' satisfaction levels with the final decisions are presented next. 6.9.2. Road widening EIA Whilst only three out of nine concerns that related to environ- 6.9.1. Motorway EIA mental impacts were considered in the EIA report of this project, the Comparatively speaking, the EIA and final decision/environmental environmental approval posed an additional condition, namely to approval for this project proved better in considering stakeholders' avoid soil erosion and silting of the canal (Table 3). Measures to control concerns than the other three projects. A systematic review shows air and noise pollution, traffic problems and contamination of surface that five out of eight concerns mainly relating to environmental and groundwater were also suggested. impacts expected to arise during the construction phase were con- Regarding socio-economic concerns, only the safety of pedestrians sidered in the EIA report and the final decision (Table 2). Hydrological and cyclists was considered through the relocation of pedestrian studies were conducted to thoroughly investigate possible flooding bridges. The environmental approval also mentioned this condition and impacts on water regimes. As a result, the project design includes along with ensuring the safety of workers and pedestrians during the 86 water course culverts and 108 drainage culverts. construction phase. The dispute over the number of trees to be cut Regarding potential socio-economic impacts, 10 different con- was attempted to be resolved by joint counting of the EIA consultant cerns were raised mainly related to social ties, access to villages/ and the representative of an active NGO. Possible spatial impacts of agricultural land parcels on the other side of the motorway, irregular permanent changes of land use from green to grey and from brown to division or loss of agricultural land and compensation (Table 2). The blue could not get attention of the proponent or the EPA at the time of EIA report indicates that US $ 81.48 million have been allocated to the decision on the EIA. Recently, the concerned building and compensate for the loss of agricultural land, trees and other assets. development control agency has banned further commercialization Whilst irregular division of land has been avoided, some inter- (change of land use from residential to commercial) along this road. viewees were still dissatisfied. Other than overhead bridges and Project alternatives were also proposed by the stakeholders, but those flyovers, 35 vehicular underpasses and 37 pedestrian bridges have were just discussed in the EIA. There does not appear to be any been included in the road design for ensuring access to both sides of genuine attempt to consider those alternatives. the motorway. The final decision regarding environmental approval for this Some of the alternative routes suggested by the stakeholders were project was subject to 19 conditions. Eight conditions were project already mentioned in the EIA report. However, no physical/spatial specific and the rest were of a general nature pertaining to environ- impacts of land use change and a decrease in agricultural products mental protection during construction and operation phases of the were considered because benefits of the project were given more project. Specific conditions were quite different from the routine. For importance than possible negative spatial impacts. Similarly, a instance, construction of a new road and five flyovers/underpasses at resettlement action plan was not seen to be necessary, because the various junctions with roads located at the middle and end points of project was funded by the Punjab Government. Such plan is normally road widening sections. These projects were already included in the only required by international donor agencies. future plan of the proponent for overall improvement of traffic flow in Overall, EIA decision making led to granting environmental the central and other parts of the city. Other specific conditions for this approval with 20 conditions. Out of those, 8 were specific and 12 project were important, especially as the proponent was advised to 44 O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 constitute an EMP implementation committee, making all potential factory project were not satisfied due to concerns regarding an stakeholders members. inappropriate location of the factory neither being considered in the EIA report nor the final decision. Despite the environmentally fragile 6.9.3. Industrial estate EIA nature of the project area and loss of livelihood of hundreds of families The EIA report of the industrial estate project was rejected by and some associated severe social and health impacts on 27000 hearing participants and the concerned EPA, based on a lack of infor- people, the EPA granted environmental approval. The main reason mation on several components of baseline conditions and potential appears to be the government's priority of economic development impacts. The Federal EPA also took note of the inadequacy of the EIA through promotion of industrial activities. report and suggested substantive improvements. The proponent 69% of the interviewees of the industrial estate project did not prepared a new EIA report considering most of the concerns related agree with the final decision of allowing this project at its current to environmental impacts, but potential socio-economic impacts location. The satisfaction level of those interviewees who had partici- remained poorly addressed. pated in the public hearing was comparatively higher than that of the Eight out of thirteen concerns relating to environmental impacts non-participants. However, most of the participants were environ- were considered in the revised EIA report. Most of the concerns were mentalists or interested stakeholders who did not belong to the incorporated in the final decision/conditions of approval (Table 4). directly affected communities. 91% of those interviewees not partici- Concerns pertaining to socio-economic and physical impacts and the pating in the public hearing, but belonging to the directly affected project's location being very close to residential settlements were not communities were not satisfied with the final decision. These people considered. The reason, as pointed out by some of the interviewees were all facing environmental and socio-economic impacts of the was that, on the choice of industrialists, a highly accessible fertile land project along with loss of land. Also, they were not aware of the on the outskirt of a major city was forcefully occupied by declaring it conditions of environmental approval/mitigation measures. partially barren. While the EIA report was being revised, the EPA could Regarding the road projects, about half of the interviewees were not stop construction activities at the project site due to very high dissatisfied and did not accept the environmental approval of these political patronage for the project. This implies that alternative sites projects by the EPA. They were of the view that both projects were were not given due consideration. unnecessary and that they will bear more environmental costs than The decision of environmental approval for the construction phase resulting in economic benefits. Interviewees of the motorway project contained 11 conditions. Only 4 conditions were project specific and 7 complained that alternative routes and widening of the existing were of a general nature. Specific conditions mainly suggested making highway link were not given adequate consideration. Almost all of the arrangements for treating wastewater and environment friendly man- hearing participants interviewed suggested that instead of widening agement of solid waste of individual units and ensuring installation the canal road by cutting thousands of mature trees and thus of air pollution abatement equipment etc. Concerned officials of the destroying an urban forest, the government should provide efficient proponent agency stated that all of the conditions were technically and and sufficient public transport and improve alternative roads. financially achievable, though some are very expensive. However, they Moreover, for both road projects, hearing participants felt that stressed that “we have to do it”. their concerns had no impact on the final decisions. This was the case because the conditions of environmental approval and suggested 6.9.4. Cement factory EIA mitigation measures were not conveyed to the stakeholders, indi- Many concerns regarding possible environmental and socio- cating a lack of communication among the decision makers and the economic impacts of the project were raised during the public hearing. affected and interested public. Slightly less than half of the inter- But neither the EIA report nor the final decision/environmental viewees who were satisfied with the decision of granting environ- approval gave adequate consideration to those concerns (Table 5). mental approval to the motorway and road widening projects believed The report stated that “there will be no adverse impact on the popu- that these would ultimately prove beneficial in terms of better lation and environment around it because of environmental manage- accessibility and a rise in property values. Furthermore, they thought ment measures”. Gaseous emissions of CO, SO2, NOx and PM10 and that these projects would bear more transport benefits than adverse noise levels will remain within the National Environmental Quality environmental impacts. Standards of Pakistan. Similar to the case of industrial estate, land required for the factory was procured at present location and Table 6 construction activities continued prior to EIA approval and even Stakeholders' satisfaction with the final decision. without planning permission. Project Level of Nature of involvement/ Overall Satisfaction The letter conveying the decision of EPA on this project was unique name satisfaction participation satisfaction index as it looked more like a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) than an (percentage) Hearing Non- environmental approval. It mainly stated that as the concerned District participant participant Government did not declare negative areas for industries which is its (percentage) (percentage) legal responsibility, the concerned EPA had no objection on the Motorway Satisfactory 8 22 17 − 0.52 construction of the cement factory at its proposed site. In the approval Acceptable 17 13 14 letter there were no general or specific conditions, as imposed in the Unsatisfactory 75 65 69 approval of the other three cases. Rather, the proponent was directed Total 100 100 100 to submitting documentary evidence to substantiate the type and Road Satisfactory 0 18 9 − 0.50 widening Acceptable 9 55 32 quality of machinery and a plan to address resettlement issues which Unsatisfactory 91 27 59 may arise due to project activities. The proponent was further directed Total 100 100 100 to discharge his liabilities under the Pakistan Environmental Protec- Industrial Satisfactory 17 9 11 − 0.69 tion Act 1997 and rules/regulations framed thereunder. estate Acceptable 25 0 9 Unsatisfactory 58 91 80 Total 100 100 100 6.10. Stakeholders' satisfaction with the final decision Cement Satisfactory 13 11 11 − 0.75 factory Acceptable 0 5 3 Overall, the results point towards some dissatisfaction with the Unsatisfactory 88 84 86 final decision taken in all case studies. This is indicated by the negative Total 100 100 100 index of satisfaction in Table 6. 75% of the interviewees of the cement Source: Interviews with the stakeholders of case study projects, 2008.  O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 45 6.11. Transparency of the decision making process (10) It is pertinent to note that in both cases, the public hearings were held in a fair and non-aggressive manner. Whilst direct affectees did Interviewees of all four case studies stated that they were not not attend, NGOs and environmentalists appear to have repre- provided with the opportunity to see any minutes of public hearings. sented them well. In addition, the proponents of both projects had Interviews of concerned officials from the EPA confirmed that people employed qualified environmentalists. Overall, it is found that the were not provided access to see the minutes of public hearings, which is type of project is not directly related to participation effectiveness considered confidential. However, in 2007, the Federal EPA started or with the influence of public participation in decision making. posting proceedings and photographs of public hearings for EIAs of Overall, projects have demonstrated a weak influence of public projects in its jurisdiction on its website (see http://www.environment. participation on the substantive quality of the EIA and the final gov.pk/). decision. The main reason is a failure to involve stakeholders early It is the responsibility of the concerned EPA to consider public in the EIA process and adequately addressing concerns before concerns while making decisions. The majority of the interviewees irreversible decisions regarding the project site and its procure- were not aware of how their input was used. Also, they did not know ment are made. what the final decision or the conditions of approval were. The official There was lack of communication as well as access to information point of view is that informing and satisfying every stakeholder would between the EPA and stakeholders. This was identified by inter- lead to no project being approved. Rather, every effort should be made viewees as a cause for a lack of transparency in the decision making to ensure that public concerns are incorporated in project designs and process and also trust in the EPA and the proponents. conditions of approval. Anybody visiting the EPA office for this purpose Regarding stakeholders' roles during public hearings, technical would be verbally informed about how the stakeholders' concerns experts and NGOs appear to be able to influence outcomes of public were considered and how some of the concerns were incorporated in hearings more positively than direct affectees, mainly due to often the conditions of approval (final decision). non-technical and ‘sentimental’ objections of the latter. Thus, Theoretically, public consultation and participation that take place contrary to some suggestions in the literature that ‘the wider the during the preparation and review of an EIA report should lead to general public takes part the better’ it could be argued that good building trust in government institutions and proponents (Beierle and representation by a third party may actually be preferable. Cayford, 2002; Hartley and Wood, 2005; Petts, 1999). However, The research underlying this paper identified a direct relationship evidence from the case studies suggests that involving the public in between the presence of qualified environmentalists and positive EIA related decision making had failed in fostering trust in govern- outcomes of the project in terms of an improved EIA report and ment institutions and in project proponents, mainly because concerns better final decision, at least from a public's point of view. were largely ignored and the decision making process remained Overall, the EIA public participation process in the country can be intransparent. Nevertheless, some participants felt that consultation said to have achieved the establishment of a more egalitarian was partially helping in building trust in the competent authority and environment and sufficient time for submitting written comments in proponents. These particularly included the motorway and indus- on EIA reports and raising concerns during public hearings. More trial estate projects interviewees. importantly, public consultation was significantly contributing to educating the participants, thus fulfilling one of its objectives. This 7. Conclusions and recommendations was also explained by a high level of awareness about a project's potential impacts and mitigation measures among the hearing Public participation is an important part of EIA. It has elevated participants. EIA from a mere technical exercise for the conservation of natural Whilst the literature suggests that there is often a general apathy resources to a political tool of environmental planning and manage- and lack of willingness to participate in EIA, both, in developing ment. However, EIA practice around the globe suggests that the and developed countries, the public in Punjab province appear to overall influence of public participation on EIA related decisions is still be highly willing to contribute. There is therefore a great potential weak, particularly in developing countries. It is comparatively more for an active public involvement in EIA of projects. It can thus be effective and transparent where it is mandatory/initiated early in the concluded that public participation in EIA is gaining grounds in EIA process (during scoping) and where review is done by indepen- Pakistan. dent experts. Furthermore, there is a need to consistently evaluate the The results of this research suggest that public participation should performance and effectiveness of public participation in EIA, keeping be held before detailed EIA studies, since in the case study projects, in view the country context in which it operates. Such evaluation can particularly for industrial establishments, key decisions regarding site possibly help to identify deficiencies of current practice and measures selection and their procurement along with detailed project design were to improve effectiveness. For this purpose, an evaluation framework already made. Most of the concerns by the stakeholders were related to was developed for Pakistan. This paper has demonstrated that an inappropriate location of the projects. Practically speaking, once the by using the evaluation framework (Table 1), effectiveness of public site is procured and construction work is started, it is extremely difficult participation and its influence on EIA related decisions can be to relocate the project as a result of EIA. Involving the concerned public assessed. The framework evaluated 40 attributes of public participa- before and during EIA studies can accrue significant benefits as tion in EIA of four selected projects from the province of Punjab, compared to those of public hearing at the EIA review stage. Specific Pakistan, including a motorway scheme, a road widening scheme, an measures for improving the public participation process and practice industrial estate and a cement factory. Main findings include: in Punjab and the overall EIA system in Pakistan are subsequently recommended. The EIA public participation of the motorway project performed better compared with the other three projects. Since affected com- munities were consulted before the project design was finalized 1. Legal provisions for public consultation and participation should be during EIA, many public concerns were incorporated. On the other strengthened by making it mandatory before site selection and EIA hand, the industrial estate establishment project was positively studies instead of conducting it during the EIA review stage, perceived despite holding public consultations only after the site as required under section 12(1) of the 1997 PEPA. Furthermore, was selected and construction activities had started. This is mainly instead of conducting a detailed EIA at the outset and presenting it because its EIA report was revised and most of the mitigation to a ‘wider public’ during review, an initial environmental examina- measures suggested by the hearing participants were incorporated. tion (IEE) report should be presented to the concerned Municipal 46 O. Nadeem, T.B. Fischer / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 36–47 Fig. 1. Proactive public participation based EIA model suggested for Pakistan. Source: Authors own construct based on analysis of public participation in EIA of development projects in Punjab, Pakistan. Administration (TMA) in the presence of representatives (both, that the proponent organization should be required to employ at elected and nominated) of the direct affectees, NGOs, academics least one qualified environmental planner/manager (depending and concerned officials, as suggested in Fig. 1. The IEE, being a upon the project size) to coordinate the EIA process. preliminary assessment of potential environmental impacts, as 4. EIA reports should be placed at the TMA offices or at the Union suggested in the GoP (1983) and the PEPA (GoP, 1997), will help Council (UC) Office where the project is located within the juris- identify the need of a detailed EIA and issues to be included diction of one UC, and a PDF (portable document format) version (scoping). This will allow a comprehensive coverage of significant at the website of EPA, in addition to current practice of placing it in environmental and socio-economic impacts of proposed projects the libraries for public review. In addition to the legal requirement and their EIAs. of publishing the notice/invitation in newspapers for submitting Land use planning lies within the control of the TMA under the written comments and participation in hearings, representatives Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001 (Abid and Haider, of real stakeholders should be directly invited. 2001). After getting approval of alternative sites and guidelines 5. To improve communication between the EPA and stakeholders, for scoping, the wider public preferably belonging to direct dissemination of minutes of consultation proceedings as well as affectees must be consulted during EIA studies and their concerns the final decision, the internet and notice boards at the TMA, EPA are to be incorporated. There will be no need of a 2nd hearing, if the along with the offices of concerned agencies should be used. initial hearing reports and video recording of consultations done at Also, decisions need to be directly conveyed to representatives of the EIA preparation stages are presented during the EIA review, stakeholders from all categories. provided it is done by a panel/committee comprising independent experts, representatives of direct affectees and EPA officials. The review panel may summon a post EIA hearing, if it is deemed