Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effectiveness of the Canadian International Development agency’s approach to environmental impact assessment Akolo, Akonyu G. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0210.pdf [ 1.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099117.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099117-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099117-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099117-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099117-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099117-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099117-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099117-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099117.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THECANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY’S APPROACHTO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: THE CASES OF THE THREEGORGES DAM AND TIlE MAE MOH MINE AND POWER PLANTbyAKONYU G AKOLOB.Sc., (Applied Environmental Sciences)The National University of LesothoA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE(PLANNING)inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril, 1994© Akonyu G Akolo, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)_______Department of C ;F ñN oNAC 4W/The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate c23DE-6 (2188)11ABSTRACTThis thesis reviews the Canadian International development Agency (CIDA)’s approach to EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (ETA) for major development projects. Two cases are studied in the thesis as examples ofCIDA’s approach to ETA: The Three Gorges Dam in the People’s Republic of China, and the Mae Moh Mine andPower Plant in Thailand.The thesis uses fifteen criteria grouped into four sets to determine the effectiveness of the EIAs of the twocases studied.The four sets are:i. CIDA’s own objectives for ETA.These are that ETA should be an effective aid to decision-makers, result in a thorough analysis of theeffects of projects or programmes on the quality of the environment, incorporate mitigation measures in thedesign of projects or programmes, result in the promotion of research which leads to technologies thateconomize energy, and result in environmental or related development training.ii. The social legitimacy of EIA.In order to be socially legitimate, an ETA approach should involve the participation of the people affectedby the proposed project or programme, and have an impact report that reflects the interests and thepreferences of the affected communities. Since the environment is perceived differently by differentpeople, ETA approaches should serve the best interest of the community that will be affected by the project,judged in terms of immediate benefits for the local community.iii. Technical legitimacy of ETA.In order to be technically legitimate, an ETA should result in decisions that explicitly account for theimpacts identified in the ETA process. An EIA process should take into account the adequacy ofadministrative, organizational and decision-making processes, legal instruments, and human and fmancialresources which are lacking in most countries receiving aid.111iv. Political legitimacy of ETA.EIA procedures should be clearly understood by the countries receiving aid, or else those countries willperceive them as a westem bias towards economic development in the developing countries as an exchangefor environmental protection.The EIAs of the two cases studied did not meet the fundamental criterion that, CIDA’s approach to EIAshould be an effective aid to decision-makers. The EIA recommendations in the cases studied were not used toguide the decision-makers in deciding the locations of the two projects, and whether to go ahead with the projects ornot. The cases studied did not involve “grassroots” public participation.These EIAs, however, were successful in identifying and analyzing the impacts of the studied projects onthe quality of the environment. The two ETA reports recommended mitigations to guide project design. Since ETA isan evolving process, the whole exercise seemed to be mainly a learning experience for local experts and foreignconsultants.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT.iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ixLIST OF FIGURES xLIST OF TABLES xiAcknowledgment xiiCHAPTER ONE 1INTRODUCTION 11.1. ThepurposeoftheStudy 11.2. Objective and Scope of Study 11.3. Background 21.4. Structure of the thesis 4CHAPTER TWO 6THE EIA PROCESS AND TECHNIQUES 62.1. Environmental Impact Assessment 62.2. The origin and antecedents of the EIA Process 72.3. An Ideal EIA Process and Associated Techniques 82.3.1. Screening 92.3.2. Preliminary Assessment 92.3.3. Organization 102.3.4. Scoping 102.3.5. Full scale EIA Study Process 142.3.5.1 Prediction 142.3.5.2 Evaluation, Detailed Study of Impacts and display on matrices 152.3.5.3 Mitigation (controls, treatment, engineering design) 16VPage2.3.5.4 Documentation 172.3.6. Resources that may be needed to complete an ETA Study 172.4. The ETA Approach of CIDA 182.4.1. CTDA’s ETA Activities 242.4.1.1 CIDAs Bilateral Project Cycle EIA process 242.4.1.1.1 Screening 242.4.1.1.2 Preliminary Assessment 262.4.1.1.3 Organization 262.4.1.1.4 Scoping 262.4.1.1.5 Full scale EIA Study Process 26ETA in CIDA-INC 262.5 Set of criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of CIDA’s ETA 292.4.1 In terms of CIDA’s stated objectives for EIA process 292.5.2 In terms of Social legitimacy of EIA 312.5.3 In terms of technical and procedural legitimacy 313.4 In terms of Political legitimacy 32CHAPTER THREE 34THE ETA CASE STUBTES OF THE THREE GORGES DAM AND MAE MOH POWER GENERATIONPLANT 343.1 The EIA of the Three Gorges Dam Project 343.1.1 Background and Geographical setting 343.1.2 Legal and Regulatory Context of ETA in China 373.1.3 Stages of EIA by YVPO 383.1.4 The ETA activities of CYJV 383.1.4.1 The Data acquisition by CYJV 403.1.4.2 The Identification of Potential Impacts (Scoping) by CYJV 40viPage3.1.4.3 The Evaluation of significance by CYJV 433.1.4.4 Documentation (fmal Report) by CYJV 433.1.5 The Summary of CYJV’s concerns, conclusions and recommendations 443.16 Summary 473.2 ETA of the Mae Mob Mine and Power Plant Expansion 483.2.1 Background and the Geographical setting 483.2.2 The Lampang ETA Consultants and Financiers 493.2.3 Legislation 523.2.4 Objectives of the EIA 523.2.5 Scope of Work 533.2.6 The ETA Study Activities and Methods 533.2.6.1 Workshops 543.2.6.1.1 The Project Bounding during the workshop 553.2.6.1.2 The Screening of parameters during the workshop 563.2.6.1.3 The Impact hypothesis 623.2.6.2 Impact Assessment 623.2.7 LET’s Conclusions 703.2.8 The Environmental Impact Report 723.2.9 Summary 72CHAPTER FOUR 74CONTRASTiNG THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDIES WITH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA 744.1. EIA should be an effective aid to decision-makers-- 744.2. ETA should result in a thorough analysis of the effects of the project-- 744.3. ETA should result in the incorporation of effective mitigation--. 75viiPage4.4. EIA should result in the promotion of or research development efforts-- 764.5. EIA should result in environmental and related training-- 774.6. ETA should involve the participation of the people affected by the project-- 774.7. Impact reports must indicate the interests and preferences of the community-- 774.8. The requirements to conduct ETA must be considered a path to achieving an end-- 784.9. ETA should serve the best interest of the society that will be affected-- 794.10. Decisions as a result of ETA should explicitly accounting for the impacts-- 794.11. ETA study must not leave the public out of the process decisions-- 804.12. EIA legal instruments should not a exemption rather than rule 804.13. ETA processes should improve database and educational opportunities-- 874.14. ETA should be an affordable processes 814.11. ETA procedures should not be perceived to be sacrificing development-- 81CHAPTER FIVE 83CONCLUSIONS AND TMPLTCATIONS 835.1 Conclusions 835.2 Tmplications 845.3 How to Improve CIDA’s ETA approach 855.3.1 Early of impacts of the project or programme on the indigenous people 855.3.2 Focus on Environmentally Significant Matters 865.3.3 Formulation of Altematives 865.3.4 Socially Responsive Environmental Planning 865.3.5 Decision-making Appropriate for Development Planning 875.3.6 Ongoing Management 875.4 Proposed improvement to the CIDA approach to ETA process-- 875.4.1 Participatory Rapid Community Appraisal 87viiiPage5.4.2 Local Resources Assessment 885.4.3 Screening the project 885.4.4 EIA Work Plan 885.4.5 Prioritize issues of importance to decision-makers 895.4.5.1 Day One (Scope I) 895.4.5.2 Day Two (Scope II) 895.4.5.3 Day Three (Scope III) 895.5.6 Preparation of EIA Report 90Evaluation of PEA 91REFERENCES 93ixLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSCAD: Computer Aided DesignCIDA: Canadian International Development AgencyCIDA-INC: CIDA Industrial Cooperation ProgramCIPM: Canadian International Project ManagementCYJV: CIPM Yangtze Valley Joint VentureEARP: Environmental Assessment Review ProcessEGAT: Electricity Generating Authority of ThailandEIA: Environmental Impact AssessmentESA: Environmentally Sensitive AreasESSA: Environmental and Social System AnalystsFEARO: Federal Environmental Assessment Review OfficeGIS: Geographic Information SystemLET: Lampang ETA TeamMW: MegawattsMWREP: Ministry of Water Resources and Environmental ProtectionNEPA: National Environmental Policy ActNEQA: National Environmental Quality ActNPL: Normal Pool LevelPEA: Participatory EIA ApproachPRC: Provincial Research CouncilSAS: Solar Aquatic SystemsUBC: University of British ColumbiaUNEP: United Nations Environmental ProgrammeU.S.A: United States of AmericaUSAm: United States Agency for International DevelopmentWCED: World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWUSC: World University Services of CanadaYVPO: Yangtze Valley Planning OfficexLIST OF FIGURESPageFigure 1. Flow Chart of the ETA Component of CIDA’s Bilateral Project Approval Process 21Figure 2. Flow Chart of Environmental Assessment Activities in relation to the overall (CIDA-INC)project cycle 28Figure 3. Map of China showing the Three Gorges 36Figure 4. Project Location map of the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant project 50Figure 5. Environmental Screening Parameters in the ETA of Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant report... 57Figure 6. Screening of Mae Moh Mine Impacts 58Figure 7. Screening of Mae Moh and Lampang Power Plant Impacts 59Figure 8. Screening of Mae Moh Valley Water storage/supply Impacts 60Figure 9. Screening of Mae Wang Valley Water storage/supply Impacts 61Figure 10. Effects of mine, power plant and water system on the water quality and human health 63Figure 11. Impacts of reservoir creation in fish harvest 64Figure 12. Impacts of reservoir creation on pesticides, fish and human health 65Figure 13. Impacts of Land clearing and overburden dumping on agriculture, timber and wildlife 66Figure 14. Impacts of emissions and dust from power plant and mine on agriculture, timber, wildlife andwater quality 67Figure 15. Impact of reservoir and mine on tourism, transportation, and archeological resources 68Figure 16. Flow Chart of a Community focused ETA Process 92LIST OF TABLESPageTable I .Checklist for the Huasai-Thale Noi road Project 13Table 2. The Matrix compiled for scoping the EIA of the construction of a refhgee settlement inMozambique 13Table 3. Scoping Matrix used by CYJV 42Table 4. Variation in total generating capacity at the Mae Mob and Lampang site over time 51Table 5. A table showing the summary of the effectiveness of the ELks of the cases studied 82xixiiAcknowledgmentI am deeply indebted to busy people who assisted me in this research.For their research abilities and technical input, the following individuals receive my special thanks:• Professors Aprodicio A Laquian, Peter Boothroyd and William E. Rees who guided the research from an ideato the finished product and reviewed the drafts,• Dr. Patrick Duffy Mr. William Harland and Mr. Robert Weir for direction in finding research material, and• Ms Lori-Lee McArthur Mr. Terry Lyster, Mr. David Hoey and the 1994 members of UBC WUSC committee,who proofread the manuscript.My gratitude goes to the World University Services of Canada (WUSC), with whose bursary I entered the GraduateSchool at UBC, and also to my wife Nthabiseng and son Alege who provided the moral support and lastly to parentsAsneta Weweru Akonyu, and the late Zebdayo Dukii Akonyu, to both of whom this work is dedicated.ICHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION1.1 The purpose of the StudyThis thesis examines the Canadian International Development Agency’s approach to Environmental ImpactAssessment (ETA) processes and techniques for major development projects. It is based on two case studies: theplanning for the Three Gorges Dam in China and the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant in Thailand.The search for the means that would allow the incorporation of environmental factors in decision-makingcontinues to drive researchers and policy makers to formulate specific polices that would lead to administrativereorganization and institutional reform of ETA. This thesis attempts to document the effectiveness of CTDA’sapproach to EIA, assuming that EIA is necessary and socially useful for any development project regardless ofwhere the project is to be built, what kind of people will be affected by the project, who will carry out the ETA studyand who will make decisions based on the ETA studies.1 It uses a list of criteria, derived mainly from what the thesiscalls an ideal ETA, for judging the effectiveness of CIDA’s approach to EIA.Like the approach taken by most institutions that use ETA as a policy instrument to prevent environmentaldamage, CTDA’s largely self-instituted approach to ETA is ostensibly intended to identif’ a potentially beneficialcourse of action for decision-makers who decide whether to fund a project or not. Generally an ETA report takes aposition on what action project proponents should take to ensure that the “best” alternatives for development froman environmental point of view are selected.CIDA’s approach to ETA is to ensure that concerns about environmental matters are identified andconsidered in the political and bureaucratic decision-making systems of those countries where CIDA’s aid goes.1.3 Objective and Scope of StudyThe general question addressed in the thesis is: Is CIDA’s ETA approach effective in affecting the fate ofproposed projects in developing countries? Specifically the thesis asks whether CIDA’s approach to EIA is aneffective decision-making tool for CIDA and the countries of the Third World where CTDA’s aid goes, and also1. “the general thrust of the symposium is to stress the needfor EIA. Failure to do EIA would result in seriousenvironmental degradation and socio-economic impacts” Wooldridge R. (1991), p. 303,Savory (1988), Berger (1988), CIDA (1992), Knight N. (1991), Costanza R. (1991), and WCED (1987)agreed with the above notion.2whether it serves to protect the biophysical and social integrity of the project environments. A brief historicalbackground of ETA and its development by CIDA is provided. On the basis of various published theories and viewson what constitutes a desirable ETA process, a model of an ideal ETA process is developed. From this model arederived criteria for assessing CIDA’s ETA practices. These criteria are then applied to CTDA’s process as exemplifiedby the two cases studied.The limitation of the study is lack of representation in the form of ETA case studies of CIDA’s approach.Only two cases were examined to represent CTDA’s approach. This number may not be statistically representative,given that CIDA was involved in many more studies. At the time of the study, most ETA reports in CIDA’spossession were parts of feasibility studies of development projects. These were classified documents, and thereforenot available for research purposes.However, for the purpose of this thesis, the two cases studied will achieve the purpose and objectives of thethesis, given the magnitude of the cases and the international attention they received. (The Three Gorges Dam whenbuilt, will be the world’s largest, and the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant Project reviews led to the first everresearch on acid rain in Thailand). The method was, therefore, limited to library research and interviews with peoplewith direct experience in CIDA’s activities.1.4 BackgroundPlanners and other decision-makers are faced with the problem of determining the proper balance betweenhuman activities and environmental integrity because maintaining human life on earth imposes costs on theenvironment (Cleveland 1991, Harmon 1991, El Serafy 1991, Sammy 1982). The present economic planningprocess has ignored or only partially captured these costs (Hueting 1991, Faber and Proops 1991, Rees 1989).In order to “predict” the future effects of proposed projects and programmes on society in general and onthe environment in particular, governments have developed the ETA process. It is a systematic procedure meant toassist decision-makers in making choices on the face of uncertainty, risk and conflicting objectives.CTDA, like other institutions that administer aid in developing countries, has included the ETA process as arequirement for input to decisions on funding operations that have diverse and significant environmental impacts(CTDA 1986). Until the passage of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in March 1992, no Canadianlegislation required that CIDA conduct ETA for the projects that it funds abroad. ETA was an environmental strategy3voluntarily developed by CIDA to try to meet the performance of its international counterparts, who were alreadyresponding to the worldwide outcry for decision-making that puts into consideration environmental impacts. CIDA’sinitial environmental framework was designed in accord with Canada’s Enviromnental Assessment and ReviewProcess (EARP). Over the years, the framework has incorporated ideas from other agencies such as the World Bank.In accordance with Canadian government policy, CIDA develops and applies phased approaches forassessing the environmental implications of its policy and programme proposals. According to FEARO’s September1990 press release, “Canadian international development assistance is subject to the Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Act, and environmental assessment will be an important element of Canadian international developmentassistance.” Accordingly, CIDA’s EIA should comply with that spirit and with Canadian environmental assessmentlaw.Section 5(1)(b) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act states that, “An environmental assessmentof a project is required before a federal authority performs functions in respect of a project where a federal authoritymakes or authorizes payments or provides guarantee for a loan or any other form of financial assistance to theproponent for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part, except where the fmancialassistance is in the form of any reduction, avoidance, deferral, removal, refund, remission or other form of relieffrom payment of any tax, duty or impost imposed under any Act of Parliament.”As well, CIDA’s ETA is guided by:1. Respect for the sovereignty of partner countries;2. Adaptation of approaches for public review of environmental assessment and consultations withaffected communities in a manner that respects the foreign nature of projects;3. Application of environmental assessment requirements of partner countries, or internationaldevelopment institutions, when they meet the basic objectives of Canadian Law;4. Assisting partner countries to develop and apply environmental planning and assessment capacity; and5. Making available to the Canadian Public the environmental assessment reports of CIDA projects(CIDA 1992a).CIDA’s funding operations are executed via three channels: the Bilateral Project Cycle, a government togovernment assistance progamme, the Multi-lateral and the Industrial Cooperation Program (CIDA-1NC), aprogranm-le to assist Canadian industries in marketing products abroad.4In its bilateral project approval process, when CIDA receives an application from a developing country tofund a project, it selects a project team leader to assemble existing information on the project or programmeproposed and determine the gaps in the documentation, a resource officer to write the terms of reference forfeasibility studies of the project, and an environmental advisor to design and commission the necessaryenvironmental studies. The actual ETA study of the project is contracted to consultants who are drawn mainly fromCanada.CIDA advertises the job in Canadian and international newspapers, and then chooses consultants byassessing the quality of their work on similar projects, as well as the amount of money the consultants ask tocomplete the job. CIDA’s project team leader uses the results of the feasibility studies provided by the selectedconsultants to prepare a project appraisal report.In the Industrial Cooperation Program (CIDA-INC), which is designed to promote Canadian industryabroad, Canadian industry and resource companies are sponsored by CIDA to seek markets for their productsabroad. Where the activity abroad involves a project that requires the preparation of an environmental impactassessment report, the firm consults with the subject country and prepares an estimated cost of the EIA. Theestimate goes to CIDA-INC together with the rest of the project proposal for approval. If CIDA agrees to fund theEIA, the proponent hires a consultant or does the ETA study.1.5 Structure of the thesisThis thesis has five chapters:Chapter One outlines the objectives of the thesis. It briefly states why CIDA includes ETA as a requirementfor input to decisions on funding operations that have diverse and significant environmental impacts.Chapter Two gives a defmition of EIA, traces its origin and its spread through out the world. It provides ageneral overview of an ideal EIA process and the techniques used to conduct it. It lists resources that may be neededto conduct an ETA study. This chapter also reviews the EIA approach of CIDA beginning with ETA in Canada,followed by CIDA’s environmental policy, and later the use of EIA in its bilateral activities and through CIDA-INC.Lastly Chapter Two establishes criteria to judge the effectiveness of CIDA’s approach to ETA.Chapter Three reviews two case studies of planning with ETA: the Three Gorges Dam Project and the MaeMoh Mine and Power Plant Project.5Chapter Four is devoted to contrasting the results of CIDA’s ETA approach in the cases studied with theestablished evaluation criteria for determining the effectiveness of CIDA’s ELA. It also provides the outcome ofcontrasting the ETA results with the evaluation criteria.Chapter Five draws conclusions about CIDA’s approach to ETA and with reference to the proceduresdiscussed in Chapter Two, identifies implications for improving the process. Lastly, Chapter Five suggested ways ofhow to improve CIDA’s EIA.6CHAPTER TWOTHE EIA PROCESS AND TECHNIQUESThis chapter provides a defmition of ETA, states its origin, and its spread throughout the world. It traces theorigin of ELA and how CIDA eventually included it into its process for approving project funding in the lessindustrialized countries. To develop criteria for assessing CIDA’s approach to EIA exemplified in the two casesstudied, this chapter develops a model of an ideal ETA process by describing a summary of ETA process outlined byCanter (1977), Tywoniuk (1987), Ahmad and Sammy (1985), Whitney and Maclaren (1985), and the UnitedNations Environmental Programme (1988). In addition to the ideal ETA process, this chapter also identifies therequired techniques to conduct an ETA and resources needed. It then illustrates CIDA’s requirements for ETA andgives an overview of the EIA approach of CIDA.2.1 Environmental Impact AssessmentETA is a process concerned with identif’ing and assessing the environmental consequences of planneddevelopment projects, programmes and policies in an attempt to ensure that the best alternatives for developmentare selected. It is a formal study process used to predict the environmental consequences of proposed majordevelopments. Such developments may include, for example, building a hydroelectric dam and factory, irrigating alarge valley or developing a harbour or a major mine.ETA is meant to integrate ecological and social considerations into the planning of major developments.This process ensures that environmental factors, public concerns and community values are integrated early in theplanning process so that business or governments can make timely decisions on projects. 22. Organizations and individuals define EIA differently. For example:a) EIA may include studies of the weather, flora and fauna, soil erosion, human health, urban migration,or employment, that is to say of the physical, biological, socioeconomic and cultural impacts. The numberof studies vary depending on the terms of reference of specific actions (United Nation EnvironmentalProgramme 1988);b) EIA seeks to compare the various alternatives which are available for any project or programme. Eachalternative will have economic costs and benefits as well as environmental costs and benefits. Naturallythere must be a trade-off between the environmental benefits and economic costs. Adverse environmentalimpacts may be reduced at higher economic costs. Conversely, economic benefits may be enhanced athigher environmental cost. EIA seeks to compare all feasible alternatives, and determine which representsan optimum mix of environmental and economic costs and benefits (Ahmad J. Yusuj and George K.Sammy, 1985);72.2 The origin and antecedents of the ETA ProcessThe ETA process has a legal birthday. It entered the world as a section of the US National EnvironmentalPolicy Act on January 1, 1970. Its origin can be traced to the 1960’s in the US, although previously in 1959 a Billwas passed in the United States’ Senate, which sought “to declare a national policy on conservation, developmentand utilization of natural resources.” (U.S.A Senate Bill No. 2549).Lang (1977) says that environmental degradation as a result of increased industrialization following theSecond World War, was seen by many as a threat to their basic interests and continued well being. This perception,which many people share today, led to calls for action.Additional factors contributing to the introduction of the ETA are outlined in O’Riordan and Sewell (1981):i) the growing scale and associated effects of resource development projects;ii) inadequate coordination between regulatory agencies; andiii) failure to adequately recognize and integrate environmental and socialfactors into project appraisal.The United States federal government’s response was the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA in short) in 1969, which mandated the ETA process and thereby led to a new era of environmentalmanagement in the United States. Prior to that, development projects were largely carried out within a limitedframework of objectives. Assessment of project viability was dominated primarily by technical and economicfeasibility with cost-benefit analysis the prominent method used to evaluate project alternatives (Lahlou and Canter1993).NEPA specifies that ETA must be performed on all major US federal actions significantly affecting thequality of human environment. Thus the nation may attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environmentwithout degrading it, or risking health or safety, or creating other undesirable and unintended consequences (Publicc) EIA is based on predictions. The technical work involves estimating the changes in the environmentalquality which may be expected as a result of the proposed action. For example, how will a coal-burningelectricity generator affect air quality in the adjacent village? Predictions can be based on existingmathematical formulae, or computer models generatedfor specc projects or programmes. Wherenumerical analysis cannot be employed (for example in social impacts), expert judgement and theknowledge by experience is heavily relied upon (Whitney and MaClaren 1985); andd) EJA attempts to guide the decision ofpolicy and decision makers, by weighing environmental effectsand economic costs and benefits in the overall project evaluation. If it is done the decision maker is lesslikely to overlook an environmental consequence in arriving at a decision (Bisset R. 1987).8Law, 91-190, 1970). The focus originally was on the bio-physical environment. By about 1975 the practice wasexpanded to include the social and cultural sectors of the human environment.Within a decade, a host of countries followed the initiative of the U.S.A Among the industrialized nations,Canada, Great Britain, France, the former West Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, all initiatedthe use of ETA for appraisal of major projects (Wandesford-Smith, 1980). Japan instituted it in later years.EIA process did not stop within the western industrialized countries. Less industrialized countries such asBangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,Thailand, the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, and the former Soviet Union, all adopted the process (Jalal andThampi, 1979).Multilateral development aid organizations for example the World Bank and government developmentagencies like the United States Agency for International Development and CIDA, also developed environmentalimpact assessment review processes which have direct links to the original EIA.2.3 An Ideal EIA Process and Associated TechniquesTo develop criteria for assessing CIDA’s approach to ETA, this study outlines a structure of a model ETA.Based on ETA requirements, several authors have developed structured environmental impact assessmentframeworks and guidelines (Canter 1977), and a substantial number of specific and global EIA methodologies,concerned partially or totally with various environmental components have emerged during the past two decades.The process described below is a synthesis of a number of approaches by different authors, which forms the basis ofan ideal ETA process and associated techniques and needed resources.An ideal ETA of projects and programmes involves some or all of the following activities:1 - screening;2 - preliminary assessment;3 - organization; and4 - full scale ETA (including scoping, study and reports).This list is derived from the ELk processes outlined by: Tywoniuk N (1987), outlining CIDA’s perspective;Ahmad and Sammy (1985), outlining the perspective of researchers from developing countries; Whitney and9Maclaren (1985), outlining the Canadian perspective; and the United Nations Environmental Programme (1988),outlining the perspective of an international organization.The preliminary activities comprising screening, preliminary assessment and organization are meant toanswer the questions: Who will make decisions about the project? Who will be the facilitator of the ETA process?Where is the location of the project site? What is the proposed action? and What is the relevant existing legislation?A full scale ETA evaluates the impacts of a project on the physical and human environment of the project area inorder to aid decision-makers in deciding whether to go ahead with a project or not.2.3.1 ScreeningScreening is the first and simplest tier of project evaluation. The principle purpose of screening is toevaluate whether the possible implications of a proposed project will require further analysis or whether specialconsideration of effects is needed. It clears the way for those projects which in past experience are not likely tocause serious environmental and social problems.The exercise may include one or more of the following:• measuring the project against simple criteria such as size or location near sensitive areas;• comparing the proposal with lists of project types rarely needing an ETA, (for example schools), ordefinitely needing one (for example coal mine);• estimating general effects, (for example increased need for infrastructure), and comparing theseimpacts against set thresholds; and• doing complex analysis using available data.These activities may or may not involve the local people.2.3.2 Preliminary AssessmentIn general, if screening does not automatically clear a project, the proponent may be asked to undertake apreliminary assessment, sometimes referred to as “Initial Tmpact Assessment.” This involves research andsolicitation of expert advice to: identify the project’s key effects on the local environment; generally describe, andpredict the extent of the impacts; and briefly evaluate their importance to decision-makers (UNEP 1988).The preliminary assessment narrows the discussion on possible project sites and serves as an early warningfor potential serious enviromnental difficulties.102.3.3 OrganizationIf after a preliminary assessment and the competent authority deems that a full ETA is needed, the next stepfor the project proponent is usually to organize a detailed ETA study.This entails commissioning a team of experts’ workshops in order to identif’ the team of decision-makerswho will do all or some of the following: plan, fmance, permit and control the proposed project or programme.These decisions are affected by laws and regulations governing the project or programme. The team commissionedwill determine how and when the findings of the ETA will be communicated (UNEP 1988, Tywoniuk 1987, Sammy1982, World Bank 1991).2.3.4 ScopingBefore a full scale EIA is conducted the team of experts commissioned engage in a scoping exercise(Beanlands and Duinker 1983).Scoping is a process whereby the spatial and temporal boundaries of the EIA study are determined.Scoping also involves the selection of the ‘important” environmental components of the project to be studied, listinghypothesis of the EIA study and selection of those groups of people upon whose opinions the criteria forsignificance of effects are based.Its aim is to ensure that the study addresses all the issues of importance to the decision-makers. In generalthe major steps in scoping are:1. issue identification;2. development of scenarios;3. identification of indicators;4. identification of time and space boundaries; and5. analysis of impacts both single effects and cross effects.A scoping exercise may be accomplished through two or three workshops (Beanlands and Duinker 1983,Whitney and Maclaren 1985, UNEP 1988), depending on the complexity of the project or the scale of anticipatedenvironmental impacts. The presence of qualified multi-disciplinary staff drawn from a pool of specialists in fieldssuch as environmental science, rural and urban planning, economics and engineering for example and participationof some members of the public (interest groups) is therefore important.11While interest groups could identify themselves by participation in meetings, petitions, letters to thenewspapers, or chosen by those commissioned to carry out the ETA study, a survey is needed to ensure that not onlyactivist minority views be taken into account, but rather that the silent majority’s opinions can be considered as well(Maclaren and Whitney 1984). Majority’s opinions in many circumstances are the views of the inhabitants of thearea where a project is located. Their knowledge of the area can not be compared to that of people who do not residein the area.The analysis accomplished after each workshop are submitted in a report to the project proponents. Each ofthe five steps of the scoping process is covered in the report. The report later becomes part of the fmalenvironmental assessment report.The first workshop is usually meant for issue identification, development of scenarios and identification ofindicators. It usually takes two to three days, and is led by experienced facilitators. The number of participants iskept small. Attendees may include the project team, selected resource experts and consultants to cover scientific ortechnical areas, and experts from other government or academic institutions (Tywoniuk 1987). The academicbackground and beliefs of participants is of crucial importance because, the quality and bias of the EIA is dependenton this group. The workshop mainly begins with the study team meeting with the selected group to discuss theinclusion of all the possible issues and concerns raised by all these groups. The group will discuss major issues ofconcern to the local or regional population, the national government or the development organization.After identifying the issues the workshop participants prepare a detailed description of the developmentscenario; including timing and location of the major activities associated with the development and a description ofthe environmental and social context in which the development will be implemented.The second workshop may take two to three days and is held at the project site. Public interest groups if notintroduced in the first workshop are usually introduced at this stage. All the items discussed in the first workshopare revised and the results are put to the scrutiny of the public interest groups.The list of project activities and environmental conditions or characteristics discussed in the workshops aredisplayed in checklists and matrices. After the workshop, the participants then write a report which summarizes thediscussions and the fmal results of the scoping exercise. The report, which contains a simple checklist ofenvironmental parameters for investigation and simple matrices displaying the relationships of environmental12conditions that might be affected, recommends whether there is the need to assess the impacts of the project in abroader context and in more depth or not (Tywoniuk 1987).An example of a simple checklist is that used by the National Environmental Board in Thailand forassessing the environmental impacts of the Huasai-Thale Noi Road project (see Table I next page).Also on the next page (Table 2) is an example of a simple matrix generated as class exercise to scope theETA of a refugee settlement in Mozambique by the School of Community and Regional Planning Students at theUniversity of British Columbia. It consists of horizontal list of project activities arranged against a vertical list ofenvironmental conditions or characteristics that might be affected. This combination facilitates the systematicidentification of cause-effect relationships between the specific activities and effects.13Table 1• Checklist for the Huasai-Thale Noi Road Project.Source: Biswas and Geping (1987).Items_____Nature of Likely linpactsAdverseST LT R JR L W ST LT SI NAquatic ecosystemsFisheriesForestsTerrestial wildlifeRare & endangered speciesSurface water hydrologySurface water qualityGroundwaterSoilsAir qualityNavigationLand transportationAgricultureSocio-economicAestheticxxxxxxx* *x xx xST = Short-termJR = IrreversibleSI = Significant*= NegligibleTable 2.LT = Long-termL = LocalN = NormalR = ReversibleW = WideThe matrix compiled for scoping the EIA of the construction of a refugee settlement in Mozambique.Source: From a workshop by Planning Students at The University of British Columbia (March, 1992)SCREENING MATRIX(DAMP CONSTRUCTION CAMP OPERATIONActivities: Channel Road Site Well Waste Ground EnergyDock Preparation Disposal WaterResources:Environment1. Vegetation L M M-H H2. GroundWater L H H H3. Nature Reserve L M-H M-H HSocio-economic1. Local Inhabitation L M-H H H2. Camp Condition M+ M+3. Ethnic Crowding4. Health5. Crime6. Security H M+ Unknown UnknownL = LowM = MediumH = HighM—H = Medium HighM = Medium Positivex xx xx xxxx* * *xxx** * * *x xx xx xx x142.3.5 Full scale EIA Study ProcessMost times a typical detailed ETA study of a project starts after “scoping.” According to UNEP (1988), itshould always attempt to answer the following five questions:1. What is likely to happen as a result of the project?2. What will be the extent of the changes?3. Do the changes matter?4. What can be done about them?5. How can decision-makers be informed of what needs tobe done?2.3.5.1 PredictionThe questions “what is likely to happen as a result of the project?” and “what will be the extent of thechanges?” are answered by “prediction”. Prediction scientifically characterizes the effects of a project on theenvironment and the local community. For example toxic liquid effluent in a water source reduces the water quality.This results in reduction of fisheries, which eventually affects economy of fishing villages, and may result incultural changes.Prediction draws on all modeling techniques, scaling, networks, overlays, models, simulations andmeasures plus photomontages, experiments or expert judgment.Overlays, for example, are transparent sheets showing specific spatial data which can be placed on basemaps (topographic sheets of the project area) to identify potential conflict. They show the area of specialenvironmental interest (usually environmentally sensitive areas such as archaeological sites, fragile habitats likewet-lands and bogs, scenic vistas, areas with endangered species etc.). One transparency is eventually made toshow the distribution of each chosen variable. Overlaying these sheets, reveals areas of conflict. The regions withthe greatest overlap are regarded as the most affected. The preparation of the base map and overlays often dictatesthe extent of the base line study. The most recent overlays are produced faster and more reliably on computer aideddesign (CAD) systems and Geographic information systems (GIS) (Klinkenberg 1990).15The prediction methods are designed to identify least-cost and least impact locations or routes through alandscape for project or development corridors. The sophistication of these methods is limited by fmances, thescope of the ETA or need to apply them, and the availability of experts and time.Lately, social and cultural impacts are becoming important issues that warrant the prominence indescribing the extent of changes expected as a result of a major project. Younger disciplines such as some branchesof sociology and cultural anthropology are trying to cope with the pressures of public demand to integratesociocultural effects wherever possible into every discussion involving physical/biological change (Montz andDixon 1993).All prediction techniques, by nature, involve some degree of uncertainty. Attempts to quantify theuncertainty of each prediction in tenns of probability or margin of error is encouraged. Further details of thesetechniques are beyond the scope of this thesis.Prediction is summarized as: identification of environmental modification that may be significant;forecasting of the quantity and/or spatial dimension of change in the environment identified; and estimating theprobability that the impact will occur (Keeny 1992).2.3.5.2 Evaluation. Detailed Study of Impacts and display on MatricesThe answers to the questions “what will happen as a result of the project?” and “does the change matter?”are answered by evaluation, i.e. by reviewing the predicted adverse impacts of a project or programme to determinewhether the effects are significant enough to warrant mitigation or canceling the project, and detailed study of theeffects.The judgment of significance is based on one or more of the following:i. comparison with laws, regulations or acceptable standards;ii. consultation with the relevant decision-makers;iii. reference to pre-set criteria such as protected sites, features or species;iv. consistency with government policy objectives;v. acceptability to the local communities or the general public.16Evaluation involves decisions about the importance of significant impacts within each component of theenviromTlent. Some impacts on component of the environment affect other components, because of the interactivenature of environmental components.Once the candidate list of key impacts derived from the scoping process (for example the atmospheric airand changes to air quality, noise levels, wild life habitats, species diversity, landscape views, social and culturalsystems, settlement patterns and employment levels) are evaluated for significance, the ETA team compiles a matrixthat shows the project components or activities on the horizontal axis and the environmental sector on the verticalaxis. The matrix can show the relationship between various components of the project and elements of theenvironment. The construction of a matrix with description of relationships assists ETA study team in identifyingpossible range of outcomes of any action as well as provides a clearer understanding of the environment even if noaction is taken. The relationship appears in qualitative form, similar to those in Table 2.All the project components may be named (inception, construction and operation), and all the sources ofimpacts may be named (for example smoke emission, water consumption, and jobs created) and then possibly thereceptors in the environment are listed, (for example crops, communities using the water for drinking, migrantlabourers) by surveying the existing environment and consulting with stakeholders.2.3.5.3 Mitigation (controls, treatment, engineering design)If the predicted changes are evaluated as significant, then the answer to the question, ‘what can be doneabout them?” is in most cases mitigation measures. A wide range of measures can be proposed to prevent, reduce,remedy, or compensate for each of the adverse impacts evaluated as significant.Possible mitigation measures include:• Changing the project sites, routes, processes, raw materials, operating methods, disposal routes orlocations, timing or engineering design;• Introducing pollution controls, waste treatment monitoring, phased implementation, landscaping,personnel training, social services or public education; and• Offering, as compensation, restoration or damaged resources, money to affectedpersons, concession on other issues or off-site programmes to enhance some otheraspects of the environment or quality of life for the community.172.3.5.4 DocumentationDocumentation, conclusion and the presentation of the report are the last steps in the ETA process. Thesemay respond to the question, “how can decision-makers be informed of what needs to be done?’ They communicatethe findings of the EIA to the decision-makers in a manner that will be understood by the audiences. This means,identifying the key decision-makers, perceiving the questions they will ask, and providing the answers in a formatthey can understand.An ETA report sometimes called an environmental impact statement (ETS) contains:1. An executive summary of the EIA fmdings, which provides an overview of the study and lists the majorconclusions reached in the study.2. A description of:a) the development project;b) major environmental and natural resource issues that needed clarification andelaboration;c) the project impacts on the environment (in comparison with a baselineenvironment as it would be without the project), and how those impacts wereidentified and predicted;3. A discussion of options for mitigating adverse impacts and for shaping the projectto suit its environment, and an analysis of the tradeoffs involved inchoosing between alternative actions;4. An overview of gaps or uncertainties in the information; and5. A summary of the EIA for the general public.All this may be contained in a concise easy-to-read document, with cross references to backgrounddocumentation, which is provided in an appendix.2.3.6 Resources that may be needed to complete an EIA studyIn general, in order to complete an ideal EIA study, the following resources may be required:1. Qualified multi-disciplinary staff including: a skilled manager, to co-ordinate the EIA activities,communicate with the decision-makers, and motivate the study team; trained specialists in18fields such as environmental science, rural and urban planning, economics, waste and pollutioncontrol, process engineering, landscape design, sociology, cultural anthropology; and acommunication expert.2. Reference material in form of technical guidelines and secondary data on the projects, agreedon by the competent authority. The materials are used to lead the various phases of the ETAprocess, especially screening, scoping, prediction, evaluation and mitigation.3. Analytical capabilities including those related to: field work, laboratory testing, library researchand data processing, remote sensing, photographic interpretation, photomontage, surveys andpredictive modeling.4. Administrative resources for the day to day running of the ETA process including: office staff,meeting rooms and support, communications facilities and records management.5. Institutional arrangements including: a formal procedure for consultation with decision-makersand other interest groups, the authority to obtain the necessary information for the proposedproject, and a formal process for integrating the ETA into decision- making about projects.6. Review, monitoring and enforcement powers, to ensure that accepted mitigation measures areincluded in the development.7. Money and time needed to perform the ETA. UNEP (1988), estimates the length of time tofmish a preliminary assessment to be from 2 to 10 weeks; a full EIA takes from 3 months to 2years. The estimated cost is between 0.1% to 1% of the total cost of the project. (UNEP (1988)also says that, EIA for most major development projects require extensive resources, butprogrammes and policy assessment would need just a few).2.4 The EIA Approach of C1T)AThis section reviews CTDA’s ETA process in order to determine how it fits in the ideal EIA structurediscussed in the previous section.The ETA approach of CIDA is derived from that of the Canadian federal government. In Canada the EIAprocess was adopted in 1973. The Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP) was established by a cabinet19decision on December 20, 1973 and the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) wasestablished by a cabinet memorandum in 1974 to administer the EARP (FEARO, 1985).The Canadian government was under the same pressure as that of the U.S.A to respond to the perceivedenvironmental crisis. This was especially so because large-scale hydrocarbon exploration was underway throughoutthe North and Eastern offshore areas (Rees 1988).The Cabinet decisions on the state of the environment were replaced by EARP Guidelines issued by anOrder-in-Council on June 22, 1984 (S0R184-467).The purpose of EARP is to ensure that the adverse environmental consequences of all federal proposals areassessed early in the planning process before any irrevocable decisions are made.The scope and process of EARP are concerned with changes that a proposal may cause to the naturalenvironment, as well as directly related social and economic implications.Like the ETA legislated by NEPA in the U.S.A., EARP applies to all Canadian federal proposals, i.e., thoseproposals that are undertaken directly by a federal initiating government department, have an environmental effecton the area of federal responsibility, or to which the federal government makes a fmancial commitment, or arelocated on lands, including the offshore, that are administered by the federal government, or have effects external toCanadian territory (FEARO, 1985).FEARO provided initiating departments with procedural guidelines for screening proposals and generalassistance in developing and implementing specific departmental procedures. FEARO also provided publicinformation and logistical support for public review for ELk proposals. FEARO guidelines of the proposal allowedthe particular Minister responsible for a proposed project, to decide the need for public review by a panel. However,the guidelines did not provide procedures for environmental assessments. At that time it was the responsibility ofthe federal department or agency, such as Crown Corporations, to develop the procedures. The guidelines did notestablish mechanisms for any public participation in the initial part of the environmental assessment process(FEARO 1990c).Within the time period of this research, the environmental assessment establishment in Canada wentthrough administrative and legal changes. The Canadian House of Commons has passed the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act on March 19, 1992, which gives environmental assessment legal powers. The Act20was later endorsed by the Canadian Senate and became law in 1993, after the most important sections of theregulations were written (Statute of Canada 1992, FEARO 1992 Press release). With the passage of a newenvironmental assessment law in Canada, a new agency known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agencyhas taken over the responsibility of EARP.Canadian federal government departments like their U.S.A counter parts use EIA as a tool to estimate thelikely environmental effects of proposed developments in the hope that they can be mitigated by marginal changesin design (FEARO 1985).Over the years, increased international awareness of environmental problems has resulted in several effortsby CIDA to include ETA as a requirement for its approval process for project funding (CIDA 1992a). The CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act does not however, mandate CIDA to adopt ETA as a decision tool to aid decisionsabout funding projects abroad.Tn 1986, CTDA adopted its “Environment and Development” policy, and ETA became an important part ofthe bilateral project cycle and the industrial cooperation programme. The EIA framework of CIDA was anagreement with the government-wide EARP in response to the order-in council of June 1984.On May 1st 1986, CIDA released a document that revealed it would include EIA in the approval processfor project funding. A systematic environmental screening process for all bilateral projects was outlined in thatdocument (CIDA 1986b). See figure 1 in the next page.Figure 1Flow Chart of the ETA Component of CIDA’s Project Approval Process2122Also in 1986, CIDA developed a form of environmental assessment framework that followed the EARPguidelines of 1984. Mr. Robert Weir, the officer in charge of environmental impact assessment in CIDA’sEnvironment Division in Ottawa, says that CIDA started screening its projects in 1984, using the EARP guidelinesas a model (Weir 1991, Pers. Comm.).Tn January 1992, CIDA released a new policy document which contained the following statement:CIDA’s policy is to integrate environmental considerations into decision-making and activities,and to work with its partners and developing countries at improving their capacity to promoteenvironmentally sustainable development. (CIDA, 1992a. p.1).The objectives for environmental sustainability, both general and operational apply to all CIDA branchesand delivery channels (CIDA, 1986a; CIDA, 1992a).CIDA acknowledges that before this policy, it worked in an ad hoc manner (CIDA, 1986a), and that itsEIA has had a poor reception both in Canada and receiver countries compared with the EIAs of other governmentdepartments. Recognizing that by 1986 many bilateral and multilateral donors were afready using the ETA process,CIDA (1986a) says that:“(a) The possible impacts on the environment will be considered up front when reviewing CIDAfmancing for any bilateral programme or project.(b) The production of full detailed environmental impact statements would be rare (only 32 for otherfederal government departments over a 10 year period) and the number requiring any assessmentwould be limited by screening of projects in accordance with procedures available from FEARO.(c) The project delays should not occur because of the environmental assessment, as other donors andother government departments’ experience has been that environmental assessment is performed atan early planning stage and assessments developed con-currently. The framework developed by theCIDA working group, and approved by FEARO, incorporates the principles of parallel assessmentand approval tracks.(d) Costs should not ordinarily be increased because of environmental assessments.(e) The lilceithood of abandonment of projects due to environmental assessment is remote. Only threeprojects in Canada have failed to proceed, following a Cabinet decision, where the EIA processhave resulted in major design changes.” (CIDA, 1986).These CIDA suggestions were to be implemented as follows:• The ETA will be arranged by the branch involved with the project, with thehelp of the former professional division of CIDA and the consultants hired byCIDA;23• Reporting requirements of FEARO3are limited to projects with significantenvironmental problems;• Where CIDA is funding a project with other donors, federal EARP isobligatory; and• Equipment to be used in CIDA sponsored projects will meet Canadianenvironmental regulations (CIDA I 986b).For multilateral funding, CIDA advocates and supports policies and procedures that ensure the use of EIA(CIDA 1992a).Under the present Canadian Environmental Assessment Act:(i) Canadian international assistance will be subject to Canadian ETA law;(ii) The ETA will respect the sovereignty of the states getting Canadian assistance and be conductedin accordance with the principles and practices of international law;(iii) The EIA reports will be made available to the Canadian public;(iv) Canada will adopt the environmental assessment requirements of recipient countries and of otherappropriate international and multilateral development institutions when they meet the basicgoals and objectives of Canadian environmental policy;(v) Canada will encourage and assist developing countries to develop and implement an indigenouscapacity for environmental assessment; and(vi) The model for public review of Canadian projects will be adapted to respect the foreign nature ofprojects (CIDA 1992a).Despite CTDA’s efforts to improve the ability of developing countries to manage their environments,criticisms of the current process have been frequent and strong. Scientific, political, and ethical concerns relating tothe types of information included in an environmental impact statement and access of information by concernedparties have been cited (Fuggle 1988; Runnalls 1986; Rees 1988a). Runnalls (1986) says CTDA has been one of theslowest of the bilateral agencies to act.Rees (1988a), points out that, “While the role of people and communities affected by development in theETA process is undefined, it could make a significant contribution not only to the quality of the ETA, but also tolocal environmental education and institution building.”3. FEARO guidelines are applicable in CIDA project cycle only by the recommendation of an environmentaladvisor, who will allocate the FEARO code.24It seems that, regardless of the new environmental legislation in Canada, ad hoc CIDA’s EIA approach willcontinue, since the act has not explicitly mandated ETA for CIDA’s activities.2.4.1 CIDA’s EIA ActivitiesCIDA’s project funding falls under three categories: bilateral, multilateral and the industrial cooperationprogramme. To guide its EIA activities for projects, CIDA relies on the work of a group of multi-disciplinary staffwithin its Environment Division and the existing environmental expertise within the recently abandonedProfessional Services Branch. This group of experts is supported by additional environmental expertise from withinthe agency and others drawn from outside the agency in Canada and abroad. The Environment Division audits allenvironmental assessments carried out in CIDA’s name (CIDA 1992c).For technical guidance through various steps of EIA, CIDA relies on the work of consultants drawn mainlyfrom Canada and the recipient country. The consultants follow the FEARO guidelines and guidelines adopted fromthe World Bank in their evaluation process. CIDA may invite observers to comment on the ETA results (CIDA1992c and CIDA 1986c).2.4.1.1 CIDA’s Bilateral Project Cycle EIA processCIDA’s president after receiving a request for assistance to fund the construction or the feasibility study ofa bilateral project, appoints a Project Team Leader (PTL). The PTL organizes a team consisting of a resourceofficer, to provide specialist knowledge to the team, write the terms of reference of the ETA study and hireconsultants, and an environmental advisor. This team, with the help of the consultants, screens the project.2.4.1.1.1 ScreeningIn CIDA’s bilateral project cycle screening involves checking the project against an environmentalchecklist. The project team leader chosen by CTDA determines whether the project falls in any of the two lists.List “A” includes: projects that are automatically excluded from further screening because they areperceived to have NQ significant environmental impacts.44. List “A” includes:1. Human resources development e.g. education, training, institution building;2. Human health e.g. - medical assistance;3. Food Aid; and4. Environmental Improvement/Protection,25List “B” includes: projects that may have significant environmental effects and require further screening.5In events where the project does not clearly fall under list A or B, the project team leader refers to aFEARO code6 with the advice of an environmental expert.• environmental education e.g. technical training in schools and universities, non governmentalorganizations, and in governments• institutional building e.g. environmental legislation and environmental agencies (CIDA 1986b).5. List “B” includes:1. Transportation projects; e.g. the construction of roads, railroads, bridges, pipelines, ports, canals,airports, and power lines.2. Energy production projects; e.g. construction of hydroelectricity darns, biomass, peat, coal, oil andgas extraction, and nuclear development.3. Waste management and domestic infrastructure; Waste resources infrastructure e.g. dams,transmission canals and pipelines, storage structures, tunnels, dykes and control structures,reservoirs. Water supply and sewerage e.g. water treatment plants, water transmission pipelines,reservoirs and storage facilities, distribution systems, sewerage lift stations andforce mains, sewagetreatment works, sewage and effluent disposal; Solid wastes disposal and pollution control works e.g.sanitary landfills, incinerators, composting facilities, transfer stations, hazardous waste storageand/or treatment.4. Industrial services5. Telecommunications6. Non- renewable resource extraction e.g. mining, oil and gas, prospecting for resources.Z Renewable resource developmentforestry e.g. harvesting and Transportation, processing, pest andweed control. Agriculture e.g. land clearing, drainage, irrigation, fertilization, mechanization,introduction of new species, plantations, pest control, processing ofproduce. Fisheries e.g. resourcemanagement, aquaculture/mariculture, processing/infrastructure.8. Integrated regional development schemes6. FEARO code:0 - initial assessment or preliminary assessment starting; no decision made yet.1 Automatically exclude proposal from study as a type that would not produce any adverseenvironmental effects.2 Proceed with proposal because there are no signficant adverse effects.3 Proceed with the proposal because the potentially adverse impacts may be mitigated with knowntechnology.4 Assess the proposal in greater detail because adverse effects that might be caused by the proposal areunknown.5 Give the proposal further study because the ability to mitigate adverse effects is unknown.6 Refer the proposal to the Minister of the Environment for public review by a panel because thepotential adverse impacts are signficant.7 Refer the proposal to the Minister of the Environment for public review by a panel because publicconcern about it is such that a review is desirable.8 Automatically refer the proposal to the Minister of the Environment for public review as a type thatpotentially could produce significant effects.9 Either modify the proposal and re-screen it or abandon the proposal because the impacts areunacceptable.10 Production of an Environmental Impact Statement at request of the Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency, because potential adverse impacts are significant.262.4.1.1.2 Preliminary AssessmentIn CIDA’s bilateral project cycle, if there are any environmental effects associated with the projectdocumented in the screening report, or if the project has a FEARO code No. 3 or above, further defmition ofmitigation measures for known impacts are investigated in an initial impact assessment. CTDA then hires consultantsto conduct detailed screening and initial impact assessment. The consultants choose the EIA study methods andtechniques in consultation with CIDA’s environmental advisor (Harland 1993, pers. comm.).2.4.1.1.3 OrganizationAfter a preliminary assessment, and the project team deems that a full ETA is needed, terms of reference forthe full scale EIA, acceptable to both CTDA and the recipient country are prepared. The decision to conduct an ETAis reached by CIDA and the receiver country. Consultants are invited from the receiver country and from Canada toengage in a full scale ETA. Again the consultants choose their own techniques and processes of evaluation inconsultation with CIDA’s environmental advisor.2.4.1.1.4 ScopingAfter a decision has been made to submit a proposal (a project and its alternatives) to conduct a full scaleETA, the project team together with the consultants engage in a series of scoping workshops in Canada or in thereceiver country or both, depending on the availability of data on the project.2.4.1.1.5 Full scale EIA Study ProcessAs mentioned in chapter one, CTDA contracts all full scale ETA studies to consultants. The consultants maychoose their own methodology of ETA, which follow guidelines provided by CTDA’s Environment Division or thoseof the consultant’s choice and are acceptable to CIDA and its partner2.4.1.2 EIA in CIBA-INCIn CIDA’s Industrial Cooperation Program, the proponent prepares a project proposal which outlines thework to be done using the terms of reference developed by CTDA in collaboration with the aid recipient. Applicantsseeking financial support to promote Canadian industry abroad can get assistance from CTDA to prepare ETAs ofmajor projects. The Canadian firm is either invited by a government abroad or goes abroad and seeks projects inwhich it can be involved. The firm can ask for funding for the ETA from CIDA.27The responsibility for complying with Canadian environmental assessment legislation and regulationgoverning CIDA’s environmental policy rests with the applicant (Harland 1993, Pers. Comm., CIDA 1 992b). CIDAprovides guiding principles for the ETA. These specify activities in relation to the overall Project Cycle. A flowchartof the EIA activities is given in the next page.The proposal submitted when applying for funding should include the description of the environmentalcondition of the area in which the project is to located. The proposal is reviewed by the environment departmentwhich then advises the programme about the environmental implications of the proposal. The two cases of CIDA’sapproach to ETA found in Chapter Three are both sponsored via the Industrial Cooperation Program.Figure 2.Flow Chart of Environmental Assessment Activities in relation to the overall (CIDA-INC) Project CycleSource: CIDA 199228292.5 Set of criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of CIDA’s EIASection 2.3 of this chapter has given the structure of an ideal ETA process. On the basis of the discussion ofan ideal ETA and CIDA’s ETA process outlined in section 2.4, this section establishes fifteen criteria to judge theeffectiveness of CIDA’s EIA approach.CTDA’s approach to ETA should meet some elaborate criteria of effectiveness in order to be an orderlyprocess with an achievable purpose, not merely consultants’ works that are easily mistaken for environmental impactstudy.Organizing an ETA process to meet these criteria is important because studies and CTDA’s own admissionhave revealed that some development projects meant to improve the livelihood of people in developing countries,resulted instead in the deterioration of the natural environment in those countries. For example: flooding of arableland drove peasant farmers to less productive and fragile land which led to further environmental destruction;clearing of forests led to loss in bio-diversity; chemical manufacturing released toxic fumes to the environment andsome times killed people who lived there.The results of the judgment can be used to test the success and suitability of a specific ETA, with the hopeof replicating the process in similar circumstances.The criteria listed below are derived from various sources. They are grouped into four sets: CIDA’s statedobjectives for EIA, the social legitimacy of ETA, technical and procedural legitimacy of ETA, and politicallegitimacy of ETA. An ideal ETA would meet all criteria.2.5.1 In terms of CIDA’s stated objectives for EIA processThe criteria in this set are derived from CTDA’s policies and strategies. For example, CIDA’s 1992 policydocument stated that environmental considerations will be integrated into decision-making and activities, includingETA as part of the process used to decide whether to fund a project or not. Therefore ETA should result in:1. effective recommendations to aid decision-makers in making decisions that will take into account theenvironmental implications of a development project so that a balance between economicdevelopment and maintenance of good environmental quality may be achieved. Like economicanalysis and engineering feasibility studies, EIA is used as a management tool for officials andmanagers who must make important decisions about major development projects. Choices between30development and preservation of pristine natural areas are among today’s most controversialdecisions. Authorities with responsibility for such decisions and the public are confronted with whatappears to be sharply conflicting stories about the economic impacts, environmental effects, andsocial implications of leading land-use options for example, timber harvesting and preservation ofbio-diversity (Keeny and Gregory 1992). That is more so in the developing countries where thedream of achieving the standard of living of the western industrialized countries is driving the lessdeveloped countries into tough decisions. ETA should therefore, help both CIDA and the countriesreceiving CIDA’s aid to reach decisions that are beneficial to both the environment and theeconomies of those countries.2. a thorough analysis of the effects of projects and programmes on the quality of the environment withfocus on sustainable resource use including directly related social impacts (CIDA 1986). The presentrate of resource use by all the nations of the world poses a threat to the health of the environment andof humanity. Thorough analysis of the effects of projects and programmes on the quality of theenvironment would aid decisions on resource use.3. the incorporation of effective mitigation measures in the project design to make those projectenvironmentally acceptable (CIDA 1986). EIA should not be just a requirement to fulfill a legalmandate or complete a process.4. a promotion of research development efforts which lead to technologies that economize on energyand resources and limit impacts on the environment (Rees 1988). Again, due to limited resourcesand energy, EIA results can trigger comprehensive research on resource use.5. environmental and related development training for community groups in developing countries.CIDA has a training programme for professionals from developing countries and research funds forvarious institutions that study Third World development. Those programmes should be expanded toinclude training in ETA techniques. Results of an ETA should be able to set the basis of training forcommunity groups, that would other wise not benefit from CIDA’s training programme.312.5.2 In terms of Social legitimacy of ETA6. EIA studies should include the participation of the people affected by the proposed project orprogramme. The ETA studies of the western industrialized countries benefit from the contribution ofpublic involvement. Likewise, the ETA studies of CIDA funded projects should use the richknowledge of indigenous people, who will benefit or negatively be affected by a project orprogramme.7. The environmental impact reports must indicate the interests and preferences of the affectedcommunity.8. The requirement to conduct an EIA must be considered a path to achieving an end (decision) ratherthan an end in itself.9. The ETA study must serve the best interest of the community that will be affected by the project,judged in terms of benefits (especially immediate benefits like compensation for lost property) tothose communities. Tt is not surprising that the concept of ETA that has found acceptance in theindustrialized world has not been adopted in the developing countries that lack some, if not all, ofthe values and traditions that generate the plea to assess the environmental impacts of developmentprojects. “In circumstances where the basic human needs of food, shelter and security are understress, people do not perceive humans as posing a threat to the environment but view theenvironment as posing a threat to them. Demand is for utilization and intense exploitation of theliving earth for its resources. Aesthetic, scientific, educational and future needs are consideredunaffordable” (Minister of Environment, India 1992). There is little social pressure or political will(at government level) to introduce ETA into countries where significant numbers of the populationare poor and illiterate.2.5.3 In terms of technical and procedural legitimacy10. Decisions as a result of an ETA should explicitly account for impacts identified or concerns raised hithe EIA process through for example design changes, fair compensation or other forms of mitigationincluding abandonment of the project should there be highly controversial issues raised in the ETA.3211. The EIA study must not leave the public out of the process of decisions that would affect them.Some governments of developing countries do not have the mandate of their people to govern,therefore consider their people as a threat to the government. It is not acceptable that the people areLeft out of all decisions that affect them. CIDA has a chance, through the EIA process to give voiceto the people.12. Legal instruments for the ETA should be the rule. Where the EIAs have been undertaken in thedeveloping world, there are often no legal requirements or administrative mechanism to ensure thatthe recommendations of an assessment are implemented (Duffy 1992, pers. comm.). Governments ofthe developing world have allowed the implementation of environmental assessmentrecommendations of development projects either as a fulfillment of the governments ownlegislation, or because it was a requirement of major international funding agencies. Developersinvesting in the developing countries know that their projects are unlikely to be refused authorizationon environmental grounds and so they view the ETA as a marginally relevant and time consumingexercise.13. EIA processes should improve the database and educational opportunities of the aid donors andreceivers alike. There is shortage of information on the ecology and social structures in thedeveloping countries and expertise to conduct the ETA.14. ETA should be affordable. It should allow the recipient country to contribute the bulk of the financialresources to conduct the study. That will ensure that the process will be continued even after the aidceases.2.5.4 In terms of Political legitimacy15. EIA procedures should be clearly understood by the countries receiving aid or else those countrieswill perceive them as a western bias that denies them economic development in exchange forenvironmental protection. The social needs and values of people in developing countries arechanging according to the WCED (1987), to give rise to widespread support for policies aimed ateconomic growth. Industrial and infrastructure development is imperative to improve the standardsof living. Consequently, environmental analyses, or any other procedures thought to be sacrificing33development in favour of environmental protection, are unlikely to be countenanced. This does notimply that citizens of developing countries are not concerned about environmental matters. Theirconcerns are real but take second place to meeting the basic needs of food, shelter and acceptance.The perceived need by governments of the Third World countries backed by internationalorganizations like the World Bank is for an improved quality of life through environmentalexploitation, not for an improved quality of life through environmental conservation (Hill andFuggle, 1988).34CHAPTER THREETHE EIA CASE STUDIES OF THE THREE GORGES DAM AND MAE MOH POWER PLANTTo judge the effectiveness of CIDA’s approach to ETA, two cases, the Three Gorges Dam project in Chinaand the Mae Moh Power Generation Project in Thailand were examined for this study. The EIA of these casesstudied exemplifi CIDA’s approach to ETA. The effectiveness of these EIAs was judged by contrasting the results ofthese studies with the evaluation criteria listed in chapter two. As stated in the limitation of the thesis, availableinformation no other ETA in which CIDA was involved could not be released. That information was protected byCIDA’s non-access policy. The opportunity to contrast many cases was missed.The ETAs of the two cases studied were prepared by private consultants through C1DA’s TndustrialCooperation Program (CIDA-INC). As stated in chapter one, CTDA-INC is designed to promote Canadian industryabroad. Canadian industry and resource companies can be sponsored by CTDA through this programme to seekmarkets for their products abroad. Where the activity abroad involves a project that requires the preparation of anenvironmental impact report, the firm consults with the recipient country and prepares an estimate cost of the ETA.The estimate goes to CIDA-INC with the rest of the project proposal for approval. CTDA-INC can sponsor the ELAstudy even though CIDA may not be involved in funding the construction of the project.3.1 The EIA of the Three Gorges Dam Project3.1.1 Background and Geographical settingTt is important to know that CTDA has not confirmed whether it will fund the construction of the ThreeGorges Dam Project (Weir, 1991. Pers. Comm.). Other donor agencies like the World Bank, and the Japanese ODAare likely to fund the construction stage (Probe International, 1990). CIDA funded the feasibility study that wasconducted by a Canadian consortium made up of two government power companies and consulting firms.The proposed Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze river, the third largest river in the world and one of thetwo longest rivers in China, will be the world’s largest dam if it is built. Located 45 km up stream of Yichang (seemap Figure 3), the dam would create a 500 km to 700 km long reservoir upstream of the Three Gorges, dependingon the height (head) of the dam selected. The proposed heights (heads) range from 150 m to 185 m (ProbeInternational, 1990).Since the 1950’s, there has been a plan to dam the river at the Three Gorges to satisfy the objectives of:electricity production, flood control, and a regulated river discharge.The last goal will improve navigation and allow larger ships of 10,000 tons to reach further in land (seemap Figure 3). It is claimed that fish production and irrigation would improve, and 1675 to 1768 Megawatts ofelectricity will be generated by the dam annually. This capacity would exceed the capacity of any single existingpower station in the world (CYJV 1988; Macmillan 1989).35o—.0- o000I037The Yangtze Valley Planning Office (YVPO) completed a Feasibility Study recommending a 175 metrehigh dam with a 150 metre reservoir level to be constructed starting in 1986.In 1986, CIDA arranged with China’s Ministry of Water Resources and Electricity Power to fmance afeasibility study to be conducted by a Canadian Consortium. The consortium known as CIPM Yangtze JointVenture (CYJV), which included three private companies, Acres International, SNC and Lavalin International, andtwo state-owned utilities, Hydro-Quebec International and British Columbia Hydro International was formed. Theirinvolvement, according to the CYJV, was to provide input to the Chinese Government’s decision-making process.A steering committee including representatives from CIDA, World Bank, and the Chinese Ministry ofWater Resources and Electricity Power was formed to supervise the feasibility study. The World Bank alsoassembled ten experts, five of whom were from China and the rest drawn from Canada, US and France into aninternational panel of experts whose role was “to evaluate the study and ensure that it met high standards ofinternational practice for such kind of studies.” (Probe International, 1990).3.1.2 Legal and Regulatory Context of MA in ChinaEnvironmental protection laws and regulations have been adapted by the Chinese State Council andvarious ministries. Some of these regulations are listed below chronologically.• Regulation concerning the propagation and conservation of aquatic resources (1957, 1979)• The environmental protection law of the PRC (1979)• National Forestry law (1979)• Wildlife policy act (1980)• Regulation on environmental assessment and impact statements of water resource projects(MWREP - 1982)• Regulation on land requisition for state construction (1984)• Water pollution and control law of the PRC (1984)• Regulation on environmental protection for development projects (1985)• Law of land management (1986)38The “regulation on environmental protection for development projects (1985)” requires that an ETA beprepared for the Three Gorges Projects. The ETA must meet the guidelines of the Chinese National EnvironmentalProtection Agency and be approved by the state council.3.1.3 Stages of ETA by YVPOOne of the mandates of the Three Gorges Dam Project Feasibility Study is to address the issues ofenvironmental impacts. CYJV reviewed all the Three Gorges environmental impact data supplied by the YVPO, andthe ETA report produced by YVPO, to present the results of an independent review.The Environmental Assessment Processes of the Three Gorges Dam Project by YVPO went throughroughly four stages.Stage 1.The Chinese government undertook a comprehensive planning of the Yangtze basin in the 1950’s. Thestudy included a basin wide research and preliminary analysis of a wide array of issues; from sedimentation,resettlement, fish communities, and water related epidemic diseases.Stage 2.At the end of the 1970’s, YVPO researched the Three Gorges area and released a preliminaryenvironmental statement for a 200 metre high normal-pool-level (NPL) scheme in 1981. The main issues addressedthen were: reservoir inundation, fisheries, water related epidemic diseases and downstream hydrologicalmodification, particularly at the estuary.Stage 3.In the 1980’s, emphasis shifted to dams with lower NPLs.Stage 4.In 1983 the YVPO completed a feasibility report for a 150 metre NPL scheme.3.1.4 The ETA activities of CYJVThe ETA activities of CYJV examined here are those, after 1983, when the YVPO had completed an EIAthat recommended a 150 metre NPL scheme. According to the CYJV, the Canadian involvement was to “assist theChinese in undertaking an independent study, to international standards, of the Three Gorges Project,” while the39Chinese wanted an independent review of their accumulated data and analysis, using world-class techniques (CYJV1988).CYJV recruited a few Chinese from YVPO and used environmental data collected by the Chinese over theyears. The project area encompassed a broad range of physical, biological and socioeconomic phenomena.The Chinese government (YVPO) according to CYJV, had accomplished the goal of:comprehensiveness (where a complete range of biological, physical and socioeconomic factorswhere considered plus all potential impacts);• depth (significant environmental impacts were dealt with in a manner that permitted qualitativeand quantitative evaluation of the impacts); and• completeness (the information analyzed permitted an evaluation of significant impacts locally,nationally and internationally (CYJV 1988).Activities related to the CYJV EIA review were broken down into four phases:1) Inception Phase;In the inception stage, the following took place:• Initial scoping and collection of data documented in an inception report;• Redefmition of the study mandate and programme; and• A project overview meeting held in Montreal Canada.2) Concept Phase;In the concept state, the following took place:• Preliminary compilation of data and assessment of feasibility issues to distinguish between NPL’sdocumented in a concept report which oriented the projects concept. All these were reviewed in ameeting in Wuhan, China.3) Assessment Phase;In the assessment phase the following took place:• preparation of a comprehensive review of existing YVPO EIA studies, assessment of impacts fromavailable data to contrast YVPO’s assessment, and presentation of an integrated evaluation of thevarious schemes including the CYJV-recommended project at a meeting in Beijing, China.404. Documentation Phase;In the documentation phase, the following took place:preparation of comprehensive environmental review of the feasibility of the Three Gorges Project ina Feasibility Study Report reviewed at a meeting held in Montreal, Canada.3.1.4.1 The Data acquisition by CYJVCYJV characterized the existing environment within the Three Gorges study areas on the basis ofinformation already made available by YVPO. CYJV did not carry a comprehensive field study. To confirm whatthe Chinese government has gathered, CYJV did a general reconnaissance of the study area by boat and byinterpretation of high altitude air photography (CYJV 1988).CYJV assembled data throughout the first three phases of the ETA (inception, concept and review). In theInception phase CYJV acquired and reviewed information already available from a variety of international sources,including libraries, specialized research institutes, government agencies and international conservation groups. Theinformation contained in the EIA report prepared by YVPO was used as baseline data (CYSV 1988).In the Concept phase, discovery measures focused on the acquisition of additional published data availableonly from Chinese specialists and from departments already involved in ETA in China. The characterization ofexisting environment was completed during the Review and Assessment phase. At the request of the Chinesegovernment a number of Chinese worked in Canada for periods up to two months, to acquire what the Chinesegovernment referred to as world-class techniques.Details of CYJV’s data acquisition were documented in a working paper (CYJV 1988), which providedinformation with regard to data requests by CYJV and response thereto, by YVPO, field mission programmes andthe feasibility reports.3.1.4.2 The Identification of Potential Impacts (Scoping) by CYJVEarly in the first phase of the CYJV’s environmental review, a multi-disciplinary scoping process wasinitiated to identify a broad range of key environmental concerns, data requirements and constraints. The goal of theprocess was to rapidly focus efforts of the study team on potential key issues.Scoping was carried out by Chinese and Canadian environmental specialists, world experts in specificfields and project engineers. The process resulted in the identification of environmental components and parameters41likely to be affected by the project. A checklist of project activities most likely to have environmental implicationswas prepared. The scoping exercise led to preparation of the preliminary EIA matrix which identified cause/effectrelationships.For details, the scoping process further focused the reviews and assessment within specific fields.Environmental components were factored into basic parameters (for example, water quality was subdivided intonine different parameters and endangered species into individual species). Insignificant project/environmentinteraction according to the scoping exercise were left out.The approach resulted in a summary matrix for each discipline.Table 3.Scoping Matrix used by CYJV. Source: CYJV. 1988ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTSFiE11o —0-C > —o >= Ii,—> , -o—-1 n c> -4-4—4, Z42IOCIG- (CO44lC (CILG4C*L piIctcII •1LCA C44(IC5LPCC4CS lID PDPULAEIOIS AlI4QPNCII LAID 10144 441(1AAUA1IC f(II(SIIIAL AUIFAC( (10410: :::T : ;.: : :::::::::11JJ::::::::::. ..•. 111.14,I I 114 Cl.4lIqI l • Il,.1tl.I..tI I I I 0I4tIl• -•.1: : : : - : : : • • J • :::.:::::“. . . •. .---.—____. I • I LIb.I r,.-...------ 0- C. . . . . . • . . I • . A.t,q 01141111 V IA• I I. I • 47.11(4 StInt. .4.11111,7 7,.., LIe..‘4Ill Pip.)?,., 0‘ I. . . .. A1P1.,I4.,.l-I.,.,Li....,—------- 0. .. . .. . ••.I.• I P I 1.0111.1 I.tPl0,?.(0I‘• I •l II I I I: :::4A:..I:::j..:433.1.4.3 The Evaluation of Impact significance by CYJVThe first step in the evaluation of impact significance was to review the basis for YVPO’s prediction ofmagnitude of anticipated changes to the key environmental components. CYJV reviewed available documentsconcerning each potential environmental issue identified during the scoping exercise, and the approach taken byYVPO to determining the important environmental components.The environmental components studied were:1. Physical Environment (hydrology, micro climate and sediment levels).2. Water Quality (turbidity, metal concentration in fish and pollution dispersion).3. Aquatic environment (catch fishery, aqua culture, Yangtze sturgeon, Chinese dolphin, and ChineseAlligator, Poyang and Dong-ting lakes habitats and reserves, reservoir tributary valleys, and theenvironmental quality of the basin at large).4. Environmental Geology (erosion and soil instability).5. Socioeconomic environment (population, land, economic activities and structures around thereservoir area, water bone diseases, landscape, cultural heritage, construction activities, andimpacts in the downstream area.6. Environmental Management (institutional and environmental protection) (CYJV 1988).A summary of the concerns, conclusions and recommendations on the various components of theparameters are found in the next section.The second step in the evaluation of impact significance was the look at the resettlement of the populationthat will be affected by the project. CYJV took the model of resettlement produced by YVPO to assess the quality ofthe land for agriculture for the relocated people, the dispersal and division of villages, and the issue of “minorityareas” (One of the resettlement sites belongs to a minority ethnic group, which for years had been badly treated bythe Chinese government according to Probe International 1990).3.1.4.4 Documentation (final Report) by CYJVThe CYJV organized the Three Gorges Project Feasibility study into a report consisting of 11 volumes.The ETA report is Volume 8. The preface of volume 8 contained a summary of environmental setting, mandate andscope of work, review of alternative schemes, review of the YVPO ETA, assessment of cost feasibility andrecommendations.443.1.5 The summary of CYJV’s concerns, conclusions and recommendationsThe highlights of the CYJV concerns were as follows:1. Concerns about the Physical environment (including hydrological modification, climatic change andsedimentation).Conclusions:• Flows downstream will be reduced significantly in the months of October; Flows will vary during peakoperations in winter and there will be cumulative effects of hydrological modification over the long term; Therewill not be significant climate change; Patterns of aggredation and degradation down stream are insufficientlyunderstood and magnitude of effects on estuary dynamics is unknown.Recommendations:• Review characteristics of water storage, duration and time of occurrence of draw-down and filling, assesspossibility of increasing October flows; Assess effects of significant daily fluctuations; Monitor to validatepredictions; Monitor changes down stream and in the estuary and complete ongoing studies.2. Water quality concerns, including turbidity and heavy metal contamination of fish, and pollution dispersion.Conclusions:• Water quality is only a potential problem in tributaries and appropriate mitigation is required for pollutiondispersion for reservoirs.Recommendations:• Map and analyze flooded soils, model thermal regime before and after analysis and monitor bio-magnificiablepollutants in fish; Model to quantif’ effects of pollution dispersion and optimize cost, implement mitigation andtreat waste water.3. Aquatic environment concern, including Yangtze Sturgeon, Chinese Sturgeon, Chinese dolphin.Conclusions:• Fish catch is enhanced in reservoirs and gas supersaturation is problematic to catch fishery and flows changefrom April to June; There will be loss of fry for aqua-culture, but enhancement is possibility; Yangtze Sturgeonswill adapt to reservoir although their spawning sites are unknown, There is a possible habitat degradation for45Chinese dolphins and natural spawning success, and reduced October flows are during spawning seasons forChinese Sturgeons.Recommendations:• Establish integrated management and stocking programme; Review analogous situations and tolerance in fish;Develop and integrate existing programmes in the estuary and reestablish mitigations; Select and evaluate sites,determine feasibility of cage/cove culture, conduct basic research on birds and locate their spawning areas;Assess dolphin sites, implement mitigation and compensation for dolphin loss and upgrade all stockingprogrammes.4. Terrestrial environment, including Siberian Crane, Chinese alligator, Poyang & Dong-ting Lakes habitat andreserves, reservoir tributary valleys, and environmental quality.Conclusions:• Magnitude of effects on cranes’ habitat unknown; There is possible enhancement of alligator habitat; Themagnitude of effects on the lakes and reservoir is unknown. The lakes support commercial fishery; The tributaryvalleys are less disturbed than the main valley.Recommendations:• Detailed evaluation of potential impact on cranes, implement alligator programme enhancement, protect cranes,develop reservoir management programmes, study tributary habitats and use, map environmentally sensitiveareas and develop long term management programmes.5. Environmental geology, including erosion and soil instability.Conclusions:• Erosion is only locally problematic and specific data on erosion sites is lacking. Instability of mitigation isfeasible.Recommendations:• Site specific studies of proposed resettlement areas to determine appropriate erosion mitigation.6. Socio-economic environment, including: population, land economics, water borne diseases, landscape, culturalheritage, construction activities, and impacts in downstream areas.46Conclusions:• Population, land economic activities and structures in the reservoir area are the most significant environmentalimpacts. Environmental feasibility is linked to feasibility of resettlement, the main issues being: landavailability, defmition of host areas and industrial job creation, waterborne diseases namely, schistosomiasis andoncomelania snails are not likely to be introduced in the reservoir areas, and temporary increase in malaria andencephalitis is expected, canyon effect will diminish and changes to fjord-like conditions on the landscape willoccur. Long term tourist potential will be reduced and cultural heritage will be inundated (valuable culturalheritage dating back to the earliest period of Chinese history). Construction activities, if properly planned willsignificantly benefit the surrounding area and Yichang City; and the down stream areas will have better floodprotection and better opportunities for retailing local investments.Recommendations:• Resettlement planning at a detailed level should continue. Social impacts should be assessed and specific plansprepared. A separate organization to coordinate planning and implementation of resettlement should beestablished. Establish a medical advisory panel to link the project to public health networks; implementpreventive measures to combat disease, supply drinking water and treat waste water. Conduct a comprehensivelandscape visual impact analysis, develop access to scenic areas and relocate affected cultural features.Complete studies carried out to date on cultural heritage and determine resettlement and development planning.7. Environmental Management including institutions, and environmental protection.Conclusions:• Institutional have overlapping responsibilities. A comprehensive plan for environmental protection andcoordination with resettlement is required.Recommendations:• Clarify organizational arrangements, responsibilities and institutional jurisdictions. Establish an environmentdepartment, develop a long term environmental protection plan and policy. Provide an adequate environmentalbudget and establish an environmental advisory board.473.1.6 SummaryThe Chinese government wanted an independent review of their data and analysis using what they calledworld-class techniques (CIDA November, 1 992c Press release). This review was an assessment carried out todetermine, according to CIDA (1992), whether and how project’s goals can be attained in an acceptable manner; inthis case acceptable to the governments such as Japan and Canada and organizations such as the World Bank andthe Asian Development Bank, which are likely to fund the project. This follows the World Bank’s incorporation ofstrict criteria for environmental protection and human resettlement into its standards ofjudgment for financingdevelopment projects. The term the World Bank uses is “Bankable feasibility study” for a study of this nature, doneto determine acceptability to world fmancial institutions; environmental and resettlement assessments are integralparts of such assessment (World Bank Department of Environment 1991).CIDA, for its part, aided Canadian firms with development interest in the Three Gorges Dam project byfunding its feasibility study. A final decision about the project has not been made. Consequently, the EIA by CYJVwill not be expected to be a factor in the decision on whether the Three Gorges Dam project will go ahead or not.That decision has already been made by the Chinese government. It is only a matter of time when the constructionwill commence. However, the analysis of YVPO’s data identified potential impacts as a result of the constructionand operation of the Dam on the aquatic and terrestrial environment, and environment geology. CYJV defined thestatus of these resources and recommended remedies required to preserve them during the construction andoperation of the Dam.CYJV, according to Probe International (1990), analyzed the potential impacts of the project to a degreeacceptable by the team of observers assembled by the World Bank. CYJV’s ETA report included suggestedmitigation measures for: pollution dispersion, geological instability, and aquaculture. It recommended theimplementation of those measures in a just, timely and cost effective manner.CYJV recommended that the Chinese government establish a project Environment Department within theThree Gorges Proponent Organization. Such a department could implement the project plan to enhance furtherresearch and compensation, and resource management programmes in the long term. The research proposed was notgeared to technologies that economize on energy and resources, but rather to fulfill the objective of controlling theYangtze river floods and to provide transportation and hydroelectricity.48The department’s effectiveness depends on the commitment of the decision-makers in implementing therecommendations of the EIA. It is unclear at this point what the Chinese government would do.The ETA of the Three Gorges Dam did not create too many additional training opportunities for the localcommunity. However, the representatives of the Chinese Communist Party and workers at the Yangtze ValleyPlanning Office gathered data and some attended EIA workshop meetings in Montreal, Canada, and Beijing andWuhan in China. These were not people whose lives were to be directly impacted by the project.CYJV did not report any participation by the local population in the EIA process, even though YVPOestimated that the reservoir will encompass 610 townships. The local people consulted were Communist Partyrepresentatives.The plans for the resettlement programme were termed as one of the best organized in the world (CYJV1988). However, there was concern about moving ethnic minorities to other places against their will (Goodland1989).The ETA of the Three Gorges Dam was clearly designed to achieve a preconceived conclusion. Its objectivewas not to study the environmental impacts of the activities and operation, but rather to formulate a “bankablefeasibility study” for China and promote Canadian utility companies and consulting firms in China.3.2 ETA of the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant Expansion3.2.1 Background and the Geographical settingThe Mae Moh power generation project is located in the Mae Moh Basin, 25 km east of the City ofLampang in the northern region of Thailand (see the Map; Figure 4). At the time of the ETA, there was a large openpit lignite mine, and nine operating lignite-fired generating units on the site, with a capacity of 1,425 MW. Twomore units were being considered by the Thai government at the time of the ETA, which included a provision foradditional water supply for the two units. Investigations of the lignite confirmed that the reserves were sufficient towarrant increasing the power generation beyond 11 units (nine existing and two under construction), with totalcapacity of 2,025 MW.Tn July of 1990, the Thai government decided to construct two additional 300 MW units, bringing the totalto 13. In November of that year, the Thai government confirmed that eight additional 300 MW units will be builtand that the extension will be called the Lampang Plant. This would bring the total electricity generating capacity of49the Mae Moh Power Plant and the new Lampang Power Plant to 5025 MW by the year 2002. The Thai governmentwould gradually decommission the power generation as the economically viable lignite will be depleted by the year2027.3.2.2 The Lampang ETA Consultants and FinanciersThe Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) invited a consortium of companies, to undertakea study comprising an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Lampang Project. These companies included:SCHULTZ International Limited (SCHULTZ), Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd. (ESSA) of Canada,and TEAM Consulting Engineers Co., Ltd. of Thailand, referred in the thesis as The Lampang EIA Team (LET).The funding for the EIA was provided jointly by the CIDA and EGAT.Figure 4.Project location map of Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant.5051Table 5.Variation in total generating capacity at the Mae Moh and Lampang site over time.Mae Moh Plants Lampang Plant TotalM.M. “A” M.M. “B’ CapacityYear MW MW MW MW1990 225 1050 12751991 225 1350 15751992 225 1650 18751993 225 1800 20251994 225 1800 20251995 225 2100 300 26251996 225 2400 750 33751997 225 2400 1050 36751998 225 2400 1200 38251999 225 2400 1350 39752000 225 2400 1500 41252001 225 2400 1950 45752002 225 2400 2400 50252003 225 2400 2400 50252004 225 2400 2400 50252005 225 2400 2400 50252006 112 2400 2400 49122007 - - - 2400 2400 48002008 2400 2400 48002009 2175 2400 45752010 1875 2400 42752011 1800 2400 42002012 1800 2400 42002013 1800 2400 42002014 1650 2400 40502015 1350 2400 37502016 1050 2400 34502017 750 2400 31502018 600 2400 30002019 600 2400 30002020 300 2100 24002021 - - - 1650 16502022 1350 13502023 1200 12002024 1050 10502025 900 9002026 450 4502027 - - - - - -523.2.3 LegislationIn Thailand, under section 17 of the National Environmental Quality Act (NEQA) of 1975, as amended in1978, the Ministry of Science/Technology and Energy has the power to issue notification to proponents of projectswhich are required to submit an EIA. A specific regulation issued under the Improvement and Conservation ofNational Environmental Quality Act demanded that ETA be conducted for any dam with a storage capacity ofgreater than 100 mega cubic metres or has reservoir surface area greater than 15 2, or any thermal power plantwith generating capacity over 10 MW (LET 1991).To obtain approval for project implementation from the government, the engineering and economicfeasibility study must be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment and mitigation plan.The environmental impact evaluation division of the National Environment Board is responsible foradministration of the ETA process. It has published guidelines for preparation of environmental impact evaluation.The manual includes general guidelines for preparation of environmental impact reports, supplemental guidelinesfor specific project categories, initial examination guidelines for specific project categories, and ETA’s terms ofreference guidelines (LET 1991).3.2.4 Objectives of the EIAThe terms of reference of the study agreed to by CIDA and EGAT were related to the objectives of thestudy, the scope of work, identification evaluation and mitigation measures. The terms of reference required that animplementation plan for the recommendations of the ETA study and an environmental monitoring plan be designed.According to the terms of reference, the main objectives of the ETA were to identify the significantenvironmental impacts and to recommend mitigation measures. To achieve these within time and budgetaryconstraints, CIDA and the Environmental Impact Evaluation Division agreed that the study would focus on thefollowing:1 Preparation of an environmental assessment report responsive to the requirements of the relevantgovernment agencies and considerate of public concern over the proposed project;2 maximizing use of existing environmental documentation and monitoring data generated for existingfacility;3 the effort would be to concentrate on the most sensitive environmental issues; and534 the detailed study of environmental impact assessment and mitigation options would be limited tothose management issues of greatest concern (LET 1991).3.2.5 Scope of WorkBased on the characterization of the baseline environment and the project description, the impacts of theproject construction and operation on the existing environment were identified. Impacts were judged by their degreeof severity and examined in the context of the specific circumstances of the site. The consultants worked withEGAT to establish evaluation methods, such as those of the Office of National Environment Board and thosesuggested by the World Bank Guidelines (LET 1991).Specific analysis included air dispersion modeling to determine the capacity of the atmosphere in the areato disperse emissions, as well as water quality modeling to determine the impacts of both chemical and thermaldischarges to the streams on the aquatic biota and predict impacts to the area’s hydrologic budget.Models were developed for impacts on land resources, water resources, socioeconomic conditions, siteecology and archeology as well as other human use values. The relationships between socioeconomic issues andphysical environment issues were addressed; dealing specifically with the competition between the project and areaagricultural activities for land and limited water resources available. The effects of site location on air quality andpotential resettlement activities were evaluated.The team of consultants identified alternative sites for the project and potential mitigation measures duringthe development of the project description. The relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative were described.The team chose Mae Moh Mine, Mae Wang Valley water supply/storage, Mae Moh water supply/storage and MaeMoh and Lampang Power Plan sites for the detailed EIA.The consultants drew plans to continually characterize project emissions and effluents during theconstruction as well as later in the operation of the project. Particular emphasis was placed on air and water qualitymonitoring.3.2.6 The EIA Study Activities and MethodsThe study was formally initiated on November 1, 1989. On November 23-24 of 1989, an initial scopingworkshop was held which included members of the study team from SCHULTZ, ESSA, TEAM Consultants andEGAT counterparts. The assessment of environmental effects related to the construction and operation of the54Lampang project was conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of specialists. The study team comprised of specialistsin: air quality, water quality, aquatic biology, fisheries, soils, forestry, land use, archeology, public health,socioeconomics, resettlement planning, power plant engineering, mining engineering, mine waste, watermanagement, environmental impact assessment and environmental management.The next major activity was a workshop in Lampang (see figure 4) on February 19-21, 1990. The objectiveof this workshop was to conduct the environmental “screening of the effects” induced by the project activities on theresources values in the project area, and to define the major environmental impacts caused by construction and/oroperation of the project. The main basis of the approach was the concept of impact hypotheses (a collection ofstatements that connect development activities with their potential environmental effects on valued ecosystemcomponents).Valued ecosystem components are defined as resources or environmental features that:• are important to the local population; or• have national or international significance; and• if altered from their existing status, will be important in evaluating the impacts of development and infocusing management or regulatory policy.This approach referred to as an integrated or “systems” approach is interdisciplinary, aimed towardsdefining each impact hypothesis and reaching consensus by the study team members on the important issues.3.2.6.1 WorkshopsThe study team set the first workshop on February 19-21, 1990 at Mae Moh Power Plant complex inLampang province, to discuss and defme the major environmental impact hypothesis.The objectives of the workshop were to:1. Develop an integrated framework representing the major impacts of the Mae Moh Plant expansionand the Lampang development on the resources of the area.2. Assess the adequacy of existing information.3. Identify additional information needs for the project.The workshop tasks were:551. Review of each of the construction and operation activities of the existing project and the purpose ofthe expansion.2. Identification of the environmental impact issues associated with physical, ecological, human use,and quality of life resource values.3. Definition of all environmental impact hypothesis4. Discussion and determination of valid environmental impact hypotheses.5. Definition of information needs to assess the validity of each impact diagram.6. Evaluation of the existing information and definition of additional field work required to evaluatepotential environmental impacts.7. Identification and evaluation of both existing and any additional mitigation measures for each majorenvironmental impacts.8. Outline of all environmental monitoring requirement indicated in the terms of reference (LET 1991).In addition to the study team, EGAT operational personnel from Mae Moh were invited to participate inthe workshop. The participants helped to ensure that a complete understanding of available data and processes wasavailable for the workshop discussions.The preliminary session of the workshop involved presentations by representatives of the groups that wereinvolved. After the presentations, the participants were divided into three groups related to the three major overallproject development components.3.2.6.1.1 The Project Bounding during the workshopProject bounding was established by delineating the geographic area that was likely to be affected by theproject, as well as to determine the time period over which the project would have had an effect on the environmentof the region.The temporal boundaries for the project were separated into three phases: existing situation, construction,and operation. Spatial bounds for the socioeconomic assessment focused on a number of levels; macro-level(general changes to the provincial economy, as a result of the proposed construction activity), a detailed assessmentof economic effects generated by the project, impact on land use patterns, and the structure of the community in thevicinity of the project site.56The spatial boundary for assessment of air quality effects is defined by the airshed. Effects are determinedby the height of the stack, stack exit velocities and temperature, and magnitude and dispersion characteristics of thegaseous effluent. The spatial boundary for assessment of the physical and chemical impacts were the immediateenvironment of the proposed activities including the area to be developed for water supply, the mine, the ashdisposal area, coal storage area, the plant itself and the adjacent water courses. This boundary was used for assessingvisual and noise impacts.The aquatic biology assessment covered the upstream and downstream areas of the proposed developmentand the related reservoir system. Terrestrial features included the area to be affected directly by the mine expansionand power plant development.3.2.6.1.2 The Screening of parameters during the workshonThree interdisciplinary working groups were established with the appropriate combination of experienceand expertise to focus on defining the specific project activities associated with the construction and operation ofthe power plant. The working groups were asked to construct a matrix with the project activities on the vertical axisand the environmental parameters across the horizontal axis.The environmental parameters included the physical resources, ecological resources, human use values andquality of life values. The effects of each specific project activity on each defmed environmental parameter werediscussed. Parameters not affected were eliminated, while a ranking of high, medium and low was assigned to thoseparameters thought to have been affected by the project activity.The first step in the screening process was to defme the specific project activities associated with theconstruction and operation of the Mae Moh Mine, the Mae Moh power plant and the water supply system. A matrixwas then constructed with the project activities on the vertical axis and the environmental parameters across thehorizontal axis (Figure 5). The environmental parameters or valued ecosystem components included the physicalresources, ecological resources, human use values and quality of life values.57Figure 5.Environmental Screening Parameters in the ETA of Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant report.surface water hydrologysurface water qualityground water hydrologyPhysical ground water qualityclimateResourcesair qualitysoilsgeology/seismologyEcological ::i forestsResources jJ terrestial wildlifeL..J aquatic hiotaagriculture/land useflood controlHuman Use water supplyValues power/industriesaquaculturetourismtransportationQuality arehacologicaUculturalof Life public healthValues socio-economic58In all, five matrices were constructed for screening the construction and operation activities of the entireproject: one for the screening parameters and one each, for the Mae Moh mine, the Mae Wang Valley watersupply/storage, the Mae Moh Valley water storage/supply, and Mae Moh and Lampang Power Plant. Description ofeach of the impacts represented in the matrices is represented below.Figure 6.Screening of Mae Moh Mine Impacts.0‘Ecological ::Resoources ::HumanuseValuesQualityof lifeValueso ,, .0ecC’, 0>..0 .0 I-.o_> >c) C) — 0 0 i-—--..i.--—- —PhysicalResourcesImpaactHighMediumN/Asurface water hydrologysurface water qualityground water hydrologyground water qualitysoilclimateair qualitygeology/seismologyforestterrestrial wildlifeaquatic biotaagriculture/land useflood controlwater supplypower/industryaquaculturetourismtransportaionarcheological/culturalpublic healthsocioeconomic___W:+ I 11W!Valued Ecosystemcomponents Envirnmental Parameters59Figure 7.Screening of Mae Moh and Lampang Power Plan Impacts.C.9tOcj en C>cen4?en 9<oen.C enton4? ..flen .9. 6. = I...... .E H=a Ea.9 0..D. >.—O en enc::iiiir: ::ut•crr::::::I:EcologicalResources i!FTWrl9frl! forestterrestnal wildlifeaquatic biotaHumanUseValuesagriculture/land useflood controlwater supplypower/industryaquaculturetourismtransportaionQuality oflife Values [Valued Ecosystemcomponentsarcheological/culturalpublic healthsocioeconomicEnvironmental ParametersPhysicalResourcesImpacthighmedium::: lowunknownn/asurface water hydrologysurface water qualityground water hydrologyground water qualitysoilsclimateair qualitygeology/seismiloty.Wi•zjjj4z60= =- .99 Impaact= 0.. 9 . •High°9 .) c) . .fl“ 2 Medium-.9 U 9 Lowflownt. ‘u .n e Unk.9.9. 0 .9. 0 — U UN/A00o o C Q.C U .0 cUFigure 8.Screening of Mae Moh Valley Water storage/supply impacts.PhysicalResourcesEcologicalResoourcesHumanuse_____________Values_Qualityof lifeValuesValued EcosystemcomponentsHsurface water hydrologysurface water qualityground water hydrologyground water qualitysoilclimateair qualitygeology/seismologyforestterrestrial wildlifeaquatic biotaagriculture/land useflood controlwater supplypower/industryaquaculturetourismtransportaionarcheologicalfculturalpublic healthsocioeconomicEnvirnmental Parameters61Figure 9.Screening of Mae Wang Valley water supply/storage impacts.•000.ni a C.)00 0 0‘I...— Cj C) C)Cl)0. Il 0 00 a..-. •E• •tLo. ‘u o0 000 C) Impaact00 •Hich0V/A MediumLow.0 0.00 > C)= C UnknownN/A0 Cd)0O0 ‘0 h .0 C) .0surface water hydrologysurface water qualityground water hydrologyground water qualitysoilclimateair qualitygeology/seismologyforestterrestrial wildlifeaquatic biotaPhysicalResourcesI I IEcological I—ResoourcesL.:sI!!1 [—___________HumanuseValuesQuality_____________of lifeValuesValued Ecosystemcomponentsagriculture/land useflood controlwater supplypower/industryaquaculturetourismtransportalonI I archeological/cultural__public healthsocioeconomicEnvirnmental Parameters623.2.6.1.3 The Impact hypothesisThe results of the screening conducted by the working groups were analyzed in the second phase of theworkshop to determine the type and extent of environmental impacts rated in the high impact category. Theworkshop participants identified valued ecosystem components as the critical process because these were thelimiting factors to discussions on impact hypotheses and monitoring programmes.The working groups in the second phase of the workshop were restructured to include participants with theappropriate combination of expertise. Group members were familiar with those project activities and environmentalimpacts identified in the high impact category.3.2.6.2 Impact AssessmentThe Mae Moh EIA focused around three essential levels of environmental effects analysis including:1. a set of impact hypotheses;2. a set of cross impact matrices; and3. a set of cumulative impact hypotheses.To determine possible environmental impacts related to the project construction and operation, the methodslisted above were applied using available data. These methods are defmed later in the chapter.Draft impact hypotheses were prepared to guide the second phase of workshop discussions.The impact hypotheses were:1. The project activities (water management, plant construction and operation and mine operation) will haveeffects on the drinking water quality thereby adversely affecting human health. These activities are linked asshown in the figure below.63Figure 10.Effects of mine, power plant and water supply system on water quality and human health.Power PlantsAsh DampinVastewater GousAsh Ponds Stonn waterCoal and Sewage andStockpiling DischargesOveiburdenDumpingWaterPumping642. The effect of reservoir creation on aquatic populations and commercial fish harvest is likely to besignificantly positive. Reservoir creation is linked with fish harvest as shown on the diagram below.Figure 11.Impacts of reservoir creation on fish harvest.653. The creation of a reservoir will allow agricultural activities down stream. However, chemicals usedin irrigation and pesticides would accumulate in fish resulting in human health problems.Figure 12.Impact of reservoir creation on pesticides, fish and human health.664. The construction of the power plant and ancillaries, the roads, transmission lines and the mine siteloosens the soil and may cause soil erosion. Construction will also consuming agricultural landforcing the people to more fragile lands that are susceptible to erosion.Figure 13.Impact of Land clearing and overburden dumping on agriculture, timber and wildlife.5. Particulate matter and sulphur oxides generated by various mine and plant activities may affect terrestrialresources in the area.Figure 14.Impacts of emissions and dust from power plant and mine on agriculture, timber, wildlife and water quality.676. The mining and plant construction and operation will affect settlement.Figure 15.Impact of reservoir and mine on tourism, transportation, and archeological resources.6869There were also hypotheses for cumulative impacts on air quality, water quality, agriculture,socioeconomics, infrastructure, archaeological resources, global warming and jobs. At the conclusion of theworkshop, data and information deemed relevant for the completion of the EIA were identified.The ETA results focused around three essential levels of environmental effects analysis including:1. a set of impact hypotheses;Impact diagrams schematically represented the impacts of single or multiple project activities on a singleresource or value in the project area (e.g. fish and ground water). The resource or value contained as anend point in the impact diagram must be one that: has importance to the local population (e.g. fish,drinking water, and agricultural products); has national or international profile (e.g. tropical rain forestand endangered species); or one which, if altered from its present status, will be important in evaluatingthe impacts of development and in focusing regulatory policy (e.g. levels of phytoplanktons causes thedecline of fish stock);2. a set of cross impact matrices;Single entry matrices representing the effects of a single project activity on a single resource (e.g.impacts of clearing the forest on the quality of water in the area, or impact of mine discharge on the fishstock); and3. a set of cumulative impact hypotheses.These schematically represent the impacts of multiple project activities on a single resource valuethrough all time (e.g. fish stock potentially impacted by changes in water quality occurring from projectactivities, regional air quality impacted by emissions from the power plants, or impact on the regionaleconomy by the development in the entire valley).To determine possible environmental impacts related to project construction and operation the abovemethods were applied using available data.The resettlement of the people in and around the proposed facilities was commissioned under a separatestudy.That involved:1. A socioeconomic survey of prospective evacuees;702. Property survey;3. Survey of possible resettlement sites;4. Assessment of resettlement sites and selection;5. Formulation of alternative resettlement schemes;6. Infrastructure and agricultural planning;7. Physical layout; and8. Costing and scheduling of the resettlement programme.3.2.7 LET’s ConclusionsThe conclusions reached by the LET of the EIA of the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant expansion projectwere as follows:• The data base was extensive and provided good yet incomplete representation of the environment inthe Mae Moh Valley and the surrounding region.• A number of major environmental issues were identified which require mitigation and monitoring.These included the following:1. Project activities (e.g. water management, plant construction and operation, and mineoperation) will have detrimental effects on surface water quality, thereby adversely affectinghuman health.2. Operation of the mine, power plants and water supply system will affect aquatic resources andhence, through the food chain, human health.3. The effect of reservoir creation on aquatic populations and commercial and domestic fishharvest is likely to be significantly positive.4. The negative impact of the reservoir on human health, caused by increasing pesticide use foragriculture and irrigated lands, is assessed as likely, but with unknown magnitude.5. The construction of Lampang power plant and ancillaries, including the conveyor corridor andaccess roads, the transmission right-of-way, and expansion of the existing mine site at MaeMoh, will occupy land which might otherwise be used for agriculture or timber production.71This presents a change in the actual and/or potential production in the area. Further,construction and mine expansion may cause soil erosion, resulting in changes of theproductivity of immediately adjacent land as well as contributing to sedimentation in the nearbywatercourses.6. Particulate matter and sulphur oxides generated by various mine and plant activities may affectterrestrial resources in the area. Impacts may be felt directly by the foliage of forest and/or cropvegetation, or indirectly via gradual changes in soil chemistry.7. Construction and operation of the mine, power plants and water supply systems will requireresettlement of significant numbers of people offsetting the negative impacts, the increase inemployment opportunities will be a positive impact. The net result is a socioeconomic impacton the area.8. Creation of new reservoirs and mine expansion will attract tourism, faster transportationsystems. These may have impact on the archaeological resources of the area.9. Atmospheric emissions and fugitive dust, caused by the construction and operation on the mineand the power plant, will have an adverse effect on human health.10. Water storage iii the reservoir will result in greater amounts of water in the dry seasons forirrigation.• A number of cumulative impacts were also identified as follows:1. Increased levels of sulphur dioxide released by the power plant will lead to acid rain.2. In case of low volumes of flow, agriculture that is dependent on irrigation water will bejeopardized.3. The Mae Moh project and the power plant will be one of the largest in Thailand resulting insignificant socioeconomic impacts at a national level.4. A total of 110 million tones of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere by the year2026.72Given the magnitude of the existing development and planned expansion, it was not possible to assess allpossible impacts and their magnitudes. Considerable base line data were required before such assessment could bemade.In summary, while the available data had not permitted identification of all possible issues, it was believedthat the most significant issues have been recognized and that suitable mitigation and monitoring were feasible. Itwas, therefore, considered that application of mitigative measures, as identified in the fmal report would make itpossible for the project to be completed in compliance with the environmental standards and the regulations of theNational Environmental Board of the government of Thailand, the World Bank and CIDA by spending a little moremoney to increase levels of mitigation.3.2.8 The Environmental Impact ReportFollowing the workshop, field studies to acquire additional information for the project proceeded. TheCanadian team returned to Bangkok in November of 1990 to meet with the Thai counterparts for the writing of thefmal report. This study schedule was based on the assumption that a great deal of information, environmentaldocumentation and monitoring data was already available for the existing facilities. Also the study was limited tothose resource management issues of greatest concern.The draft report was submitted on January 10, 1991. Comments from EGAT were received by the teambetween February 11 and March 7, 1991.3.2.9 SummaryThe EIA of the Mae Moh Power Plant was a legal requirement of the Thai National Environment Boardunder the National Environmental Quality Act. It is expected at the time of writing that the Thai NationalEnvironment Board will enforce the recommendations of the EIA study. These recommendations include: adaptiveresponses to unimown impacts and mitigation programmes, education programmes for environmental awarenessand environmental audit. Some of these measures could influence the design of the dams, mine, and power plans.The legislation does not clearly state the consequences of violation of any of the recommendations or lack ofimplementation.73LET (1991), stated that, over the years, the method of approach to EIA has been evolving and remains intransition. Recent trends are towards an integrated or systems approach similar to one adopted for the ETA of MaeMoh Mine and Power Plant expansion project.Specifically, LET used a new concept of impact hypothesis. The guidelines for this process aremodifications of the World Banics ETA guidelines. Simply, impact hypothesis are stated (a collection of statementsthat coimect development activities with their potential environmental effects on valued ecosystem components) andcontrasted with the results of the ETA evaluation.The objective of the ETA was different from that at the Three Gorges: to identify significant environmentalimpacts attributed to the expansion of the project and recommend mitigation measures.The EIA process was structured such that:1 a number of environmental impacts would require adaptive environmental mitigation;2 it would allow statistically sound and well-designed monitoring programme;3 environmental education is included in the mitigation;4 energy conservation programme is included in the process;5 it would reduce energy demand by power pricing; and6 it would allow environmental audit at two or three years interval.Like the CYJVs study, the major drawbacks of the process were those related to the: decision to increasethe capacity of the power production at this site which was reached before the ETA was done. LET’s workshops didnot include the local people. The participants were “experts” drawn from Canada and Thailand. According to theETA report, the local people would be brought in as labourers, thus losing the training opportunity that the processwould offer for the local people.74CHAPTER FOURCONTRASTING THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDIES WITH THE EVALUATION CRITERIAThis chapter is devoted to contrasting the results of CIDA’s ETA approach in the case studies with a list ofevaluation criteria to determine the effectiveness of CTDA’s approach in meeting the criteria. The results of the ETAof Three Gorges Dam and Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant are contrasted against the fifteen criteria identified inchapter three.4.1 ETA should be an effective aid to decision-makers in making decisions that will take into accountenvironmental implications of a development project.The ETA of the Three Gorges Dam by CYJV was intended to provide international recognition of the ETAconducted by YVPO. The Chinese government hoped to get international funding for the project (from the WorldBank, Japan, the Asian Development Bank or Canada), while CTDA involvement was to aid Canadian firms withdevelopment interests in the project. The decision about when the construction of the project will take place has notyet been made. The construction of the dam is in the Chinese government’s Ten Year Plan which was developedbefore CYJV’s ETA. Therefore, the results of the ETA did not aid decision-makers in deciding whether to constructthe dam or not.Decision about the construction of additional units to the existing Mae Moh Power production complexwas made before the ETA. Like the Three Gorges Dam, the results of the EIA did not aid decision-makers indeciding whether to increase the number of units of the power plants or not.4.2 EIA should result in a thorough analysis of the effects of the project on the quality of the environment.with focus on sustainable resource use.The EIA of the Three Gorges Dam project by CYJV identified potential impacts on the physicalenvironment (hydrological modification, climate change and sedimentation), water quality (turbidity, metalconcentration in fish and pollution dispersion), aquatic environment (fishery, aquaculture, water birds), terrestrialenviromnent (birds, reptiles, quality of the basin, reservoir), and environmental geology (erosion, and soil stability)as a result of the construction and operation of the Dam. The process defined the status of these resources andrecommended what remedies will be required to preserve these resources during the construction and operation ofthe Dam. That means the ETA process successfully analyzed the potential impacts of the project on the quality of the75environment. However, the focus was not to study the impacts on sustainable resource use but rather the economicbenefits as a result of power generation and flood control.The EIA of the Mae Moh Mine and Power Plant Project identified potential impacts on the physicalresources (surface water and ground water, soils, climate, air quality), ecological resources ( forest timber, terrestrialwildlife, aquatic biota) human resources (agriculture and land use, water supply, aquaculture, aesthetics) and qualityof life resources (Archeologicallcultural and public health) as a result of the construction and operation of the mineand power plant. Impact models were prepared in the ETA process. The analysis of the models suggested methods ofmitigation and monitoring processes.Therefore the EIA process was effective in identif’ing the potential impacts of the construction andoperation of the mine and power plant.4.3 ETA should result in the incorporation of effective mitigation measures in the project design to make theproject environmentally acceptableThe Three Gorges Dam ETA report prepared by CYJV concluded that pollution, geological instability, andaquaculture contamination should be mitigated. It recommended that these measures be implemented in a just,timely and cost effective manner.The mitigation proposal if implemented would influence the design of the dam, although the size of thedam has already been agreed upon (a 150 m Normal Pool Level). Tts effectiveness can only be determined at theproject design stage.The ETA of the Mae Moh Power Plant project identified mitigating measures for the impacts on thephysical, ecological, human and quality of life resources of the study area.The process was structured such that;1 a number of environmental impacts would require adaptive environmental mitigation;2 it would allow a statistically sound and well-designed monitoring programme;3 environmental education is included in the mitigation;4 energy conservation programme is included in the process;5 it would reduce energy demand by power pricing; and6 it would allow environmental audit at two or three years interval.76The mitigation measures, if implemented, could influence the design of the dams, mines, and power plants.The effectiveness of mitigation can only determined at the project design stage.4.4 ETA should result in the promotion of or research development efforts which lead to technologies thateconomize on energy and resources, and limit impacts on the environmentCYJV’s fmal ETA report for the Three Gorges Dam recommended that the Chinese government establish aproject Environment Department within the Three Gorges Proponent Organization to implement the project planand enhance further research and compensation, and resource management programmes in the long term. Theresearch proposed was not geared to technologies that economize on energy and resources. Rather, fulfill theobjective of controlling the Yangtze river floods and providing transportation and hydroelectricity.The environment department’s effectiveness depends on the commitment of the decision-makers inimplementing the recommendations of the EIA. It is unclear at this point whether the Chinese government willimplement this recommendation.The ETA process of the Mae Moh Power Plant followed a new concept called Impact Hypothesis (acollection of statements that connect development activities with their potential environmental effects on valuedecosystem components). Its guidelines were modified from the World Bank’s EIA guidelines. Simply, impacthypotheses are stated and contrasted with the results of the ELk evaluation.The EIA recommended further research (data collection and analysis) on unknown impacts and strongmonitoring of the effects of the mitigation measures that would be implemented.It produced links between resource use and human health (for example, how mining affects water qualityand results in poor human health). It also produced links between the use of one resource and others (for example,how the use of coal affects water quality, that affects aquatic resources). There was also a link between the use ofpesticides to increase farm production. The pesticides are washed into the drinking water sources or fish ponds, andeventually end up as a health problem for the same people who used the pesticides. It effectively kept a list of linksbetween resource use and environmental degradation that may led to human health problems, and recommendedfurther study of the links that were not known to have any mitigation measures.774.5 EIA should result in environmental and related training opportunities for community groups indeveloping countriesThe LIA of the Three Gorges Dam did not create any additional training opportunity for the localcommunity. Only the representatives of the Chinese Communist Party and workers of the Yangtze Valley PlanningOffice gathered the data that were used by CYJV. Some of those workers attended ETA workshops in MontrealCanada, and Beijing and Wuhan in China.In this regard the ETA was not effective. The only people who benefited educationally were those from theCanadian consortium. The benefits to them were their consultancy fees and involvement in studying an environmentthat they knew little about.In the ETA of Mae Moh Power Plant, the public (but not the local people) was involved in the scopingprocess. The participants were mainly comprised of experts drawn from Canada and Thailand. According to the ETAreport, the local people will be brought in as labourers. Training opportunities for the local people may not occur inthe future.4.6 ETA should involve the participation of the people affected by the project or programmeThe EIA of the Three Gorges Dam was based on data collected by the Yangtze Valley Planning Office.That group consisted of government employees. The EIA did not report evidence of participation by the localpopulation. Public consultation was limited to representatives of the Chinese Communist Party.The EIA of the Mae Moh Power Plant had the best opportunities to involve the local people in the process,because it involved scoping that drew participants from government representatives to international observers.Much of the impact study was around the impacts on the health and the agricultural production of thepeople who live around the project area, but none of the local people were involved in the process. The report saidthat the local people would be hired as construction workers in the mine and construction sites.4.7 Impact reports must indicate the interests and preferences of the community affected by the projectCYJV’s report on the Three Gorges Dam EIA explained that the Chinese government representativesinvolved in the EIA expressed the need to protect the needs of the people that will be affected by the project. TheETA report, however did not reflect the interest of the local people to the degree they would have wanted to berepresented due to their absence in the process.78Although the resettlement programme was judged by CYJV as one of the best organized in the world, it didnot mention any concern about moving ethnic minorities to other places against their will.The ETA of the Mae Moh Power Plant was concerned with the health of the community and agriculturalpotential of the land that the people depend on for their livelthood. It suggested the study of the links betweenenvironmental impacts with public health, and the study of impacts of introduction of irrigation and the use ofchemical fertilizers and pesticides to the health of the community. It revealed impact on the lifestyle of thecommunity as more people from cities will come to the area as construction workers. The benefits in terms ofemployment for the community was mentioned but remains uncertain.These, however, reflected the ideas of the EIA team, not the interests of the local population.4.8 The requirements to conduct an EIA must be considered a path to achieving an end (decisioni rather thanan end result itselfThe EIA of the Three Gorges Dam was clearly not a means but rather an end. Its objective was not to studythe environmental impacts of the activities and operation of the Dam, but rather to have an independent review ofthe ETA prepared by Yangtze Valley Planning Office.Commissioned through the CIDA Industrial Cooperation Program, it was intended to assess theenvironmental implications of the project in order to justify international funding. If funding was secured by theChinese government, it is hoped that Canadian firms would get contracts at the construction level.Decision on whether to approve the project or not will not be based on the findings of the ETA study as theChinese govermnent seems to be in favour of the dam from the beginning. Therefore the process was ineffective inleading decision about the approval of the project. Although it recommended some mitigations measures that wouldbe appropriate to guide the construction and operation of the dam.Decision regarding the expansion of the Mae Moh to 11 units arid the mine to supply the amount of coalneeded, was reached before an ETA study was commissioned. Again sponsored through the CIDA-1NC, Canadianfirms that were involved in the study saw an opportunity to participate in the construction of a dam, power plant andmine operation. The ETA was CIDA-TNC’s requirement for approval of sponsoring those firms to market theretechnologies abroad. Its impact hypothesis process however, reached various recommendations on how to proceedwith the construction and operation of the project. Tt strongly recommended further studies on impacts that had no79known mitigation measures, and proposed strict monitoring. Again it was itself an end, therefore ineffective as atool on decisions about alternatives to the expansion of the plant.4.9 ETA should serve the best interest of the society that will be affected by the impacts of the project. judgedby immediate benefitsThe ETA of the Three Gorges Dam identified benefits in the form of flood control medical advisory whichwill linic the project to any public health problem.The ETA of the Mae Moh Power Plant had recommendations that would benefit the local people who livein the area. They include well designed: solid waste disposal systems, erosion control systems, collection, treatmentand discharge of contaminated run off and mine waste water.The local population will benefit from water for their irrigation, jobs as labourers, and forest producttransportation improvement as a result of new roads built to the project site. When implemented the recommendedmitigations would improve the condition of the environment, which is already highly contaminated by the operationof the present nine (9) plants.4.10 Decisions as a result of ETA should explicitly account for the impacts identified or concerns raised in theETA processAmong other things, the ETA of the Three Gorges Dam recommended filling gaps in the data collected byYVPO, environmental monitoring, effective planning and full support for the local people including compensation.Decisions about constructing the dam will rest on the political process in China. The ETA report did not includeways by which the results of the study will be used in the decision to construct the dam.The ETA process was not designed to account for the impacts identified. It recommended compensation,but did not have any legal jurisdiction to impose the compensation. Therefore it was ineffective in accounting forthe impacts which were identified.The EIA of the Mae Moh Power Plant was a legal requirement of the Thai National Environment Boardunder the National Environmental Quality Act. It is expected that the recommendations of the ETA study whichincluded among other things; adaptive responses to unknown impacts and mitigation programmes, educationprogrammes for environmental awareness, and environmental audit, will be implemented by the Thai NationalEnvironment Board. The legislation however does not clearly state the consequences of any violation of theimplementation of the recommendations of the ETA.80Compensation for the people who would be affected by the project was not mentioned in the report. Againthe ETA was ineffective in accounting for the impacts that were identified.4.11 ETA study must not leave the public out of the process decisions that would affect themThe EIA process of the Three Gorges Dam did not include consultation with the local public.The EIA process of the Mae Moh Power Plant also did not involve the local people in the decision reachedin the study. Only workers for the Electric Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) were invited for the workshopin Lampang. They were the only local people involved in the ETA process outside of the team of experts. Both EIAswere therefore ineffective in identifying the need to involve the local public in the decision that would affect them.4.12 ETA legal instruments should not be the exemption rather than the ruleIt is unclear, which legal instruments of the ETA were used for the EIA of the Three Gorges Dam. TheChinese government regulation on protection of the environment requires that an ETA be prepared for the ThreeGorges Dam. That the ETA must meet the guidelines of the National Environmental Protection Agency and itsfmdings be approved by the State Council. However, the main objective of CYJV’s study was to reach anindependent evaluation of the EIA earlier conducted by Yangtze Valley Planning Office, in order to convincedonors and lenders like the World Bank to find the project.The participants in the process used guidelines adapted from the Canadian Federal EnvironmentalAssessment Review Office and the World Bank. Both guidelines do not have legal jurisdiction in China.The ETA of the Mae Moh Power Plant is mandated by the Thai National Environmental Quality Act.Although the regulation requires the comparison of engineering and economic feasibility studies to obtain approvalfor project implementation, the ETA was conducted after decision was already made about the expansion of thepower plants at Lampang. As required, the screening guidelines of the EIA team were compared with thosedeveloped by the Thai National Environment Board, and the ETA terms of reference were acceptable to CIDA andEGAT. Therefore the process was effective in following the ETA legal instruments.4.13 ETA processes should improve database and educational opportunities for the donors and receiversThe EIA of the Three Gorges Dam had a vast database which was used for the evaluation of the impacts.The CYJV did not collect new data to reach their conclusions. Critiques of the project as well as supporters of the81project benefited from the same database. The study was therefore effective in providing data for storage andeducational purposes.Like the ETA of the Three Gorges Dam, the ETA of the Mae Moh Power Plant used much of theinformation already collected. Raw data was collected to assess the impacts of the construction and operation of thePlant on physical resources, ecological resources, human resources and quality of life. The data, according to theETA report, will in the future be used as an educational resource. That includes the EIA process which was new andinnovative.The process was effective in setting a data bank and was educative especially for the consulting team fromThailand that worked with the teams from Canada.4.14 ETA should be an affordable processesThe cost of the ETA of the Three Gorges Dam was not revealed by CYJV. China contributed personnel andground base data. It Chinese government obviously could not afford the ETA. It did not have sufficient funds to payfor it. Therefore the process was not cheap.The ETA of the Mae Moh Power plant was funded by CIDA and EGAT. The contribution from the Thai governmentamounted to 20% of the cost of the EIA. The contribution of the Thai government was desirable, but insufficient.4.15 EIA procedures should not be perceived to be sacrificing development in favour of environmentalprotectionThe ETA of the Three Gorges Dam was for the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. It reveals two majorobjectives of the Chinese government; flood control, and hydroelectricity generation. Other objectives includednavigation improvement and fishing. These economic benefits would be considerable, according to the Chinesegovernment and outweigh the cost in environmental impacts.The ETA was not perceived as sacrificing development in favour of environmental protection. Tnsteadcritics say it compromised environmental protection to favour development. Therefore it was effective in supportingpolicy aimed at economic development in China.For Canada, the construction of the dam would support industrial growth. Exports from Canadianindustries would be needed in the construction of the dam.82For Mae Moh project, the supply of electricity up to year 2027 was the major goal of the Thai government.The decision to expand the plant was reached before the ETA was conducted. The ETA study was designed to guidethe construction and operation of the plant, not as tool to select the best alternative energy production source.Economic benefits governed the decision to expand the plant.The ETA report was not critical about the decision to increase the electrical supply, but presented ways ofhow to construct and operate the additional units and mines. Therefore the Thai government did not perceived theprocess as a way to sacrifice development in favour of environmental protection.Table 6A table showing the summary of the effectiveness of the EIAs of the cases studied.criteria Mae Moh Three GorgesNo. Effective Ineffective Effective Ineffective1 X X2 X X3 X X4 X X5 X X6 X X7 X X8 X X9 X X10 X X11 x x12 X X13 X X14 X X15 X X83CHAPTER FWECONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS5.1 CondusionsThe conclusions of this thesis are based on the results of contrasting the results of the ETA case studies withthe evaluation criteria listed in chapter three.The most important point is that, the EIAs of the cases studied did not meet the fundamental criterion that ETAshould be an effective aid to decision-makers. The recommendations of the cases studied were not used to guidethe decision-makers in deciding whether to go ahead with the two projects or not. The decision to expand theMae Moh Power Plant was made before the ETA was commissioned. Like wise the decision to dam the Yangtzeriver at the Three Gorges was reached before the Chinese government requested that CYJV review the ETAstudy completed by YVPO.2. Another important criterion not met by CIDA’s approach to ETA in the cases studied is public participation. Thepublic involved in the cases studied comprised of mainly representatives of the Thai for the Mae Moh projectand Chinese governments for the Three Gorges Dam project. That involvement was not enough to affect andchange the agenda set by the consultants, which was guided by terms of reference written by CIDA andgovernments of Thailand and China. The consultants hired by CIDA used guidelines of their choice (mainlythose of the World Bank ETA process), although CTDA’s approach to EIA was largely meant to be guided byguidelines of FEARO which require a public review with a panel.3. The absence of local communities in the ETA process of the cases studied resulted in EIAs that were externallyinitiated and expert dominated. The approach did not involve the local communities and broke the circle ofinterdisciplinary research linked to development of projects of the calibre of the Three Gorges Dam and MaeMoh Mine and Power Plant. Research of that nature requires the involvement of three main groups of people(scientists, management and land use planners, and the local people of the area) to plan and carry outrecommendations of a research project. Early involvement of these groups provides time for ideas and relationsto develop in order to build the ground for the application of the results of any study.4. The ETA approach in cases studied placed it between the agents of planning and development, and the localpopulations who are unfamiliar with sophisticated legal and scientific or analytical process. It therefore missed84the opportunity to include the interests of the local people in the planning process and to include ETA into localframes of project evaluation.5. The ETA of the cases studied did not have a clear legal process to enforce compliance with therecommendations of the EIA report.6. Inspite of the shortcomings listed above, the ETA of the cases studied met some of the criteria stated in ChapterTwo. The approach in the two cases studied was successful in identifying impacts and analyzing the effects ofthe two projects on the quality of the environment. The two BIAs recommended mitigation measures to guideproject design. Both EIAs mentioned chances of employment and opportunities for better economic well beingfor the local people, especially in Thailand, therefore portraying an image that the projects were not to sacrificeeconomic development in favour of environmental protection. A large quantity of data was generated for thetwo studies, which would be used for education. Thai and Chinese members of the ETA teams, promoted,through the recommendations of the two ETAs research and development efforts which would lead totechnologies that would economize energy and resources.Although the two cases have some shortcomings, there were lessons learnt in China and Thailand. It isappropriate to say that CIDA’s approach in the two cases studied contributed to better understanding of the biophysical and socioeconomic states of the project areas. Considering this, the answer to the question. “Ts CIDA’sapproach effective in affecting the fate of proposed projects in developing countries?’ relies on the implementationand monitoring of the mitigation measures recommended in the two ETA reports.EIA still remains an evolving process with a lot of room for improvement.5.2 ImplicationsI Considering that the ETA of the two cases studied in the thesis did not aid decision-makers in deciding whetherto go ahead with the projects or not, it is therefore prudent that CIDA must introduce ETA approaches that willaid decision-makers in deciding on the fate of projects. The inclusion of environmental consideration indecision-making is important to promote sustainable development. The EIA approaches must be understood bythe receiver countries or else those countries will perceive them as acting against economic growth.2 The ETA cases studied in the thesis did not explicitly demonstrate any motive to involve the people that will beaffected by the projects, neither were their values considered in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of85those areas. In order to include the local people in the EIA process, CIDA must structured its ETA process so asto:i include the values of the people who will be affected by the development into the prediction,interpretation, and evaluation of impacts to encourage realistic option or alternatives for proposedactivity early in the planning process;ii determine the relative environmental effects on different interest groups and the indigenous people;iii foster implementation of environmental management and rehabilitation plans which are sociallyacceptable to the local people;iv allow for appropriate decision-influencing mechanisms that allow indigenous people to express theirvalues of the land;v readily identifS’ development projects likely to have significant environmental consequences which areexpected to change the livelihood of the indigenous people;vi have ongoing management that will include the indigenous people;vii assess indigenous environmental knowledge;viii understand local resource use; and3 CIDA must gear its aid to impact evaluations that encourage societal responsiveness and lead to realisticalternatives. Problems associated with development should be solved instead of the attempts made to stopdevelopments such as building a dam, factory, sewer lines etc. that developing countries need so badly.5.3 How to Improve CIDA’s EIA approach5.3.1 Early Evaluation of impacts of the project or programme on the indigenous peopIeMost EIAs in the western industrialized countries, are undertaken after preliminary design or detaileddesigns are prepared. Two examples cited here are: Rafferty Alameda and Oldman dams in Canada. As the courtscontest whether the dams should be built or not, and whether the Federal government should conduct an EIA,engineering work proceeded on the site. The point is evaluate early, or late evaluation encounters resistance.When ETA is introduced at a later stage, alternatives are limited to identif’ing mitigation measures.Reactive assessments have to rely on the decision-makers’ ability and willingness to terminate a project if the ETAidentifies severe unavoidable adverse impacts. These decisions are unlikely in developing countries after they haveinvested considerable sums of money in project planning, and preliminary construction work.86Therefore, to improve its approach to EIA, CIDA must incorporated it early into feasibility studies, so as toassess the adverse effects of each development option pro-actively, and to evaluate realalternatives.5.3.2 Focus on Environmentally Significant MattersPersonnel trained in impact evaluation and financial resources to conduct an EIA are likely to be limited inmost developing countries, therefore, it is essential that efforts be focused on those projects that will have significantenvironmental effects. Based on the public process, actions that are unlikely to have far reaching environmentalconsequences must be exempted from stringent EIAs. Where far reaching environmental consequences areexpected, the evaluation should produce trade-offs between environmental costs and economic development andsocial well being.5.3.3 Formulation of AlternativesToday, most developing countries follow the pattern of development of the western industrializedcountries. This trend is unlikely to change in the near future. Because of that, CIDA’s decisions after an EIA cannotbe “stop or go’, but rather those that formulate a sensible compromise in which development is planned, designedand managed to minimize environmental degradation.These decisions can be achieved by consensus reached among all the parties that are involved. Whereconsensus cannot be reached, educating the people by involving them in the process, and training others to handlethe technical, ecological, economic and cultural merger is important.5.3.4 Socially Responsive Environmental PlanningIn deciding between development options, CIDA must use methods that have a social context. It is equallyimportant to recognize that the value of components of the environment differ from group to group and depend ontheir needs and aspirations. It must be emphasized that the outcome of an evaluation will depend on the criteriaused, and these criteria are bond to differ from group to group and are subjective.Affected people or groups of people should, therefore, be an integral part of the evaluation procedures.They can identify the environmental components they value, and contribute towards the formulation of appropriatedevelopment strategies to protect them.875.3.5 Decision-making Appropriate for Development PlanningIf CIDA’s claim of encouraging environmental management is to take root in developing countries, theprocess must be integrated into the local development planning. Bearing in mind that Canadian style ETA as it ismay not work in those countries because it is an adversary process between those in favour, and those against adevelopment (the battle of development versus environmental preservation). The resulting winllose decision-makingprocess is quite different from that used in project planning in most developing countries (the mixed-scanningapproach in which decisions are made without much information or analysis).5.3.6 Ongoing ManagementCIDA’s EIA approach must accept the inevitability and desirability of infrastructure and industrial growth.Such procedures, should, therefore, focus on management options to minimize environmental problems rather thangathering data solely to influence initial decisions or prevent development. Emphasis should be on finding solutionsto environmental problems rather than on attempting to achieve environmental favourable decisions. After all mostdeveloping countries already have terribly degraded environments. CIDA has to focus on managing the existingsituation in order to minimize further degradation.5.4 Proposed improvement to the CIDA approach to EIA process (Participatory ETA approach PEA).5.4.1 Participatory Rapid Community AppraisalThe first task of PEA is to analyze the community understanding of EIA. In order to realize the level ofunderstanding of the perceived impacts of a project or a programme in a community, the proponent should run anappraisal of the values and practices of the community’s heritage in relation to the proposal.Where the community has knowledge of environmental assessment or project impacts, the proponentshould collect information on the resources available within the community that can be used to conduct anenvironmental impact assessment.Where knowledge is lacking, the proponent must educate the community education about the changes aproject or programme will bring to the community. The education programme should be translated into the locallanguage and delivered by the leaders of the community. The mode of delivery information must be one that isfamiliar to the community (i.e. inform of plays, songs, story telling and dance). A library of the recordings of theinformation should be kept at the local community centres, churches or kept with the community leaders.88The information package should contain the following:• methods of sensitizing the community;• identification of ecosystem components (the community should be a component);• identify anticipated types of changes;• identify institutions/or develop institutions and legal systems.5.4.2 Local Resources AssessmentWith the help of community leaders, the proponent assesses the resource potential of the community.The list of resources should include:• natural resources that will be committed to the assessment;• human resources;• financial resources;• institutional resources;• legal frame work; and• time.5.4.3 Screening the projectAfter the resource potential of a particular community is assessed, the proponent assembles a team toscreen the project. The purpose of the screening is to determine at what level of ETA (no formal ETA report,Preliminary ETA, or Comprehensive ETA) the proposed project will be assessed. This is determined in collaborationwith Canadian ETA legislation, and relevant EIA regulations of CIDA and the partner country. It is important thatthe right level of ETA is determined at this point to avoid delays.5.4.4 ETA Work PlanFor each project or programme a detailed EIA work plan is submitted by the consultant charged with theresponsibility to conduct EIA. The plan should outline among other thing the scope of work, legal and theoreticalframeworks of analysis, methodology, a draft out line of the EIA, a draft report schedule and budget allocated to theETA. The level of the technical expertise that will be used to conduct the ETA is important.895.4.5 Prioritize issues of importance to decision-makers(Scoping:Given that most countries at the receiving end of CIDAtsaid have limited fmancial and human resources,EIA studies can not address all issues. Only issues of importance to the proponent, the government of the partnercountry, and the community are addressed. The scoping exercise is achieved through workshops held in the projectarea. Up to three workshops can be organized; preferably in three consecutive days.5.4.5.1 Day One (Scope 1)On the first day of the workshop the following takes place:1. The proponent states the background of the project to reveal its purpose and objectives;2. Presentations are heard from CIDA, the partner country, an international organization representative andthe Local community leader.The later part of the day should be spent for an informal tour of the project area.5.4.5.2 Day Two (Scope IDThe group breaks into groups to develop value trees for ecosystem components, anticipate types of changesand perceived impacts. No rigorous analysis and mathematical statements are necessary at this point. Each groupwould structure a hierarchy of objectives, for example preservation of unique environments, ground watermanagement, management of environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining heritage, etc.Each group later present their work to the rest of the workshop participants. A list of objectives thatencompasses those factors that are important to all groups (an integrated set of objectives) is produced.The final step for the day is to identify the key objectives that are more important from the viewpoint ofeach group. This list is used to set priorities among the ecological components and parameters to be studied. Thefmal product of the day is a matrix of relationship between project activities during construction and operation andthe impacts on various components of the environment of importance to the participants. This matrix will be a guideto the rest of the ETA.5.4.5.3 Day Three (Scope III)The third day should be devoted to develop study strategy.1. The first step is to select a study team. Workshop participants should play a big role in the choicesmade.90The study team should included;Actors;a - community representatives;Even when the project is not intended to benefit the local community, they should be activelyinvolved in the study to ensure that their values are taken into consideration in the ETA process.b - impact assessment professionals;Practitioners who are involved in the field of impact assessment and have a professional stake inthe quality of work to be done.c - Planners;Individuals who assume the responsibility of identifying and coordinating activities.d - developers;May be proponents or administrators of the proposal. In CIDA’s case developers are theindustrial groups seeking CIDA assistance to promote Canadian industry abroad.e - government;The government of partuer country seeking CIDA’s assistance. Some govemments are known tobe deliberately repressive, however for the sake of achieving some degree of cooperation theirideas must be incorporated.2 - Delineate study boundaries:a - geographicb - databasei) primary data;ii) secondary data.5.4.6 Preparation of EIA ReportThis is the stage in which all major ETA activities are carried out. With the guidelines of the scope andobjectives of the project that were established during the workshop periods, the project study team sets to conductthe detailed ETA. The major activities of the study include: the collection of necessary data, impact prediction andevaluation, formulation of environmental management plans and documentation of the fmdings, conclusion and91implications of the studies. The report produced should be available in a format that is easy to read and can beaccessed by the decision-makers and the local community.Quite often the ETA reports are very bulky and full of technical language that bewilder the localcommunities (Duncan, 1991).5.5 Evaluation of PEA.This framework for environmental assessment is sensible doable and an improvement over CIDA’s currentpractices. However, the incorporation of its concepts require not only a change in skills but a change in policy.Analysts accustomed to having a great deal of discretion in decision structuring must learn to share that power withthe public. Those analysts accustomed to making explicit choices must make explicit trades, and those analystsaccustomed to building biological processes must recognize the importance of social values.The author believes that, PEA will form a basic structure of a decision- tool which is appropriate tofacilitate environmental decision-making.The are still questions that require further exploration when considering EIA remaking in developingcountries as EIA continues to be a learning process in Canada and else where in the world and the role of CIDA infmancing the studies. For instance in the areas of legislation that govern the EIA studies, legal capabilities andlegislative measures that would provide the basic public involvement and incentive to use ETA as a decision toolneed to be identified. Whether CIDA and the governments of developing countries are sufficiently organized toparticipate in what is becoming the only meaningful way (meaning ETA) to manage the environment would have tobe assessed on a case by case basis. At the present time, CIDA has made a good start, leaving a lot of room forimprovement.Figure 16.The flowchart of a Community focused EIA Process9293REFERENCESAbmad, YusufJ. and Sammy, George K. 1985. Guidelines to Environmental Impact Assessment in Developingcountries. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi.Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment inCanada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousue University. HalifaxBisset, R. 1987. Post-Development Audits to investigate the accuracy of Environmental Impact prediction inEnvironmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries. The United Nations University, Tokyo.Biswas, Ask K. and Guping, Qu (ed.). 1987. Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries. TheUnited Nations University, Tokyo.Boxer, B. 1988. “China’s Three Gorge Dam: Questions and Prospects.” The China Ouarterly: An InternationalJournaL for the Study of China. No. 133, March 1988.Canada, Government of, 1992. Canada’s National Report. United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment, Rio De Jeneiro, Brazil 1992. Ministry of Supplies and Services, Ottawa.Canada, Government of. 1984. Government Organization Act. 1979. Environmental Assessment and ReviewProcess Guidelines Order. Canada Gazette part 111984.Canada, Government of. 1992. Statutes of Canada 1992. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. ThirdSession, Thirty-fourth Parliament 40-41 Elizabeth II, 1991-92.Canter, L.W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York.Canter, L.W. and G.K. Sammy. 1982. Environmental Impact Assessment in developing countries. What are theproblems? A paper presented at the first annual meeting of the international association for impactassessment. Washington DC. Jan. 1982.CIDA. 1992a. Policy for environmental sustainability. Canada Ministry of Supplies and Services. Ottawa.CIDA. 1992b. Guide to Applicants preparing a submission to CIDA-INC: Environmental AssessmentRequirements. Environment Division CIDA, Hull.CIDA. 1992c. Press Release: Answers to the questions posed by Probe International regarding the EIA of the ThreeGorges Dam, Public Affairs Branch CIDA, Hull.CIDA. 1990. Background to development. Press Release. CIDA communication Branch, Hull.CIDA, 1989. CIDA and Sustainable Development. Institute of Policy Analysis, Ottawa.CIDA, 1987. Environment and Development. The policy of the Canadian International Development Agency.Public Affairs Branch, CIDA. Minister for External Relations and International Development, Hull.CIDA, 1 986a. Development and Environment. Public Affairs Branch, CIDA, Hull.CIDA, 1986b. Environmental Assessment Frame work. CIDA, Ottawa.Cleveland, J.C. 1991. Natural resource Scarcity and Economic growth Revisited in, Ecological Economics. TheScience and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York.94Costanza R. Ed, 1991. Ecological Economics. The Science and Management of Sustainabilitv. Columbia UniversityPress, New York.CYJV, 1988. The Three Gorges Water Control Project Feasibility Study. Vol. 8 and 9. Ottawa, CYJV/CIDADepartment of the Environment. 1991. Environment Assessment Review, editorial. Newsletter of the FederalEnvironmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). Vol. 1 No.2 September, 1991.Dixon, J. A. et al. 1987. Dams and the Environment: Consideration in the World Bank. World Bank TechnicalPaper No. 110, Washington, D. C.: World Bank.Duffy P. 1992. Personal Communication.Duncan, F.L. 1991. May the Best Lion Win. Current State of resources for public intervenor in the environmentalreview process. Unpublished, Calgary.El Serafy, S. 1991. The Environmental Capital. In Ecological Economics. The Science and Management ofSustainabilitv. Columbia University Press, New York.Erickson, P.A. 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment. Academic Press, New York.Faber, M. and J.R Proops. 1991. National Accounting, Time and the Environment. A neo-Austrian approach, inEcological Economics. The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, NewYork.FEARO, 1985. Environmental Assessment in Canada. 1985 Summary of Current practice. Canadian Council ofResource and Environment Ministers, Ottawa., 1990a. FEARO News Release. June, 1990., 1990b. FEARO New direction. News Release. September 1990., 1990c. 1986 -1990. Bulletin of Initial Assessment Decisions: Under the Federal Environmental Assessmentand Review Process. Edition 1. - 8. FEARO Ottawa., 1992. FEARO Press release. July 11, 1992.Fearnside, P. M. 1988. ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: ‘Fatal’ Project or Step toward Modernization.” WorldDevelopment. Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 615 - 630.Fuggle R. 1988. Integrated Environmental Management: An appropriate approach to Environmental concerns inDeveloping Countries. IAIA’88, Brisbane, 5-9 July.Goodland, R.J.A. ed. 1990. The Race to Save the Tropics. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Goodland, R. J. A. 1982. Tribal Peoples and Economic Development: Human Ecological Considerations. TheWorld Bank, Washington, D.C.Gore, R. and D. Bruce. 1980. “Journey to China’s Far West,” National Geographic. Vol. 157, No. 3, March 1980.pp.292 -331.Gregory, Robin. Keeny, Ralph. and von Winterfeld, Detlofeldt. 1991. Adapting the environmental assessmentstatements process to inform decision-makers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. In press.95Hanman, B. 1991. Accounting in Ecological Systems, in Ecological Economics. The Science and Management ofSustainabilitv. Columbia University Press New York.Hardin, Garrett. 1974. Lifeboat Ethics. The case against helping the poor. Psychology Today, September, 1974.Harland, William. 1991. Personal Communication.Henderson, Hazel. 1991. Paradigms in Progress. Life beyond economics. Knowledge systems Inc., Indianapolis.Hill, R.C. and R.F. Fuggle. 1988. Integrated Management of Development in South Africa. Preceding of the eighthquitiquennial convention of the South African Institute of Civil Engineers (SAICE), Pretoria.HolIng, S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Institute of Animal ResourceEcology University of British Columbia Press, Toronto.Holling, S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Institute of Resource Ecology, Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver.Hueting, R. 1991. Correcting Natural Income for Environmental loses. A practical solution for theoretical dilemma,in Ecological Economics. The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, NewYork.Jalal, K.F. and S.P. Thampi. 1979. An overview of environmental impact assessment in various countries of theESCAP region. Working Paper No. 3. Regional seminar on EIA New Delhi, thdia. October, 1979.Keeney, R. and R. Gregory 1992. Structuring the Preservation/Development Problem:A case Study in Sabah. Malaysia. University of Southern California. UnpublishedKeeney R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking. Harvard University Press, Boston.Klinkenberg, Brian. 1990. Introduction to Geographic information systems for planning departments. Department ofGeography. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Knight N. 1991. Meg-Project Planning and Economic Welfare. A case study of British Columbi&s North East CoalProject. University of British Columbia; Ph.D. Thesis.Krishna S. and K.George. 1982. Environmental Impact assessment in developing countries. University ofOklahoma, Oklahoma.Lahlou, M. and L.W. Canter 1993. Alternatives Evaluation and Selection in development and environmentalremediation projects. In Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 1993; 13:37-61Lahani, B.N. and S.J. Arceivala 1982. Checklist and Matrices for rapid assessment of environmental impacts. Inter-Country workshop on rapid techniques for environmental assessment. January, 1982, Bangkok.Lang, R. 1977. Environmental assessment changes planning. Plan Canada 17:1 pp. 59 - 69.Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand Country Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York.LET 1991. The Lampang ETA Team Environmental Report. Environment Division CIDA, Hull.MacMillan, B. 1989. “The Three Gorges Dam: Practical Geography on the Grand Scale.” Geography Review:November, 1989.96Monoswski, 1987. Environmental Evaluation in Developing Countries. A case of Experts. Journal ofEnvironmental Management. 12:87. 79-90.Montz, B.E. and J.E Dixon. 1993. From Law to Practice: Environmental Impact Assessment in New Zealand.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1993: 13:89-108.OECD. 1991. The State of the Environment Report. 1991. Paris, OECD.Orloff, P. 1978. The environmental Impact Statement process. A guide to citizen action. Information ResourcePress, Washington D.C.Patten, Christopher. M.P. 1987. Aid and the Environment. The Geographical Journal. Vol. 153. No. 3 November1987. pp. 327 - 342.Pearce, D., A. Markandya, and E. Barbier 1989. Blue Print for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications, London.Pesking, H.M. 1991. Alternative Environmental and Resource Accounting Approaches, in Ecological Economics.The Science and Management of Sustainabilitv. Columbia University Press, New York.Probe International. 1990. Damming the Three Gorges: What Dam-Builders Don’t Want You to Know: A Critiqueof the Three Gorges Water Control Project Feasibility Study. Grainne Ryder ed. Probe International,Toronto.Probe thtemational et al. (No date), Press Release: China Approves Construction of World’s Largest Dam.Public Law, 9 1-190. 1970.Rees, W.E. 1992. Personal Communication.. 1993. Personal Communication.. 1989. Ecological meaning of Environment/Economy integration. University of British Columbia,Vancouver.. 1988a. The limitation of EIA as a tool for sustainable development (with a case of CIDA’S approach).The Rawson academy of aquatic science, Ottawa., 1 988b. A role of Environmental Assessment in achieving sustainable development. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review 1988:8 pp. 273 - 291.Rees, W.E. and P. Boothroyd, 1987. Reform of EARP: Background Paper on Process and Structure. The RawsonAcademy and The Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Ottawa.Runnalls, D. 1986. Environment and Development. A Critical stoke taking. North-South Institute, Ottawa.Ryder, G. 1989. “Three Gorges Dam Shelved,” World Rivers Review. International River’s Network. Vol. 4, No.3, May/June 1989.Sammy, G.K. Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofOklahoma. Norman Oklahoma.Savory A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.97Schibuala, S. 1991. Use of knowledge based systems for the review of environmental impact assessment.Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 1991:11 pp. 11 - 27.Seatec et al, 1978. Environmental and Ecological Investigation of Pattani multipurpose Project. Vols. I-Ill. October.Sewell, W.R.D and T. ORiordan. 1981. Project Appraisal and Policy Review. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,United Kingdom.Swift, R. 1991. The environmental Challenge. Towards a Survival Economy, conflicts of interest. pp. 213-239.Tywoniuk, N 1987. Opportunities for Environmental Mediation. International Workshop on Impact assessment forInternational Development JAIA, Barbados.UNEP, 1982. The use of Environmental Impact Assessment for Development project planning ii Asean Countries.Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok.----, 1987. The State of the Environment. Butterworth, London.----, 1988. Environmental Impact Assessment. Basic procedures for developing countries. UNEP, Nairobi.UNEP and UNAPDI, 1980. Environmental Impact Statements. A test model presentation. UNEP, Bangkok.U.S.A.A. Senate Bill No. 2549.Wandersford S. 1980. International perspective on environmental impact assessment review. Vol. I No. 1. March.1980.Weir, R. 1991. Personal Communication.Whitney, J.B.R. and V.W. Maclaren. 1985. A framework for the assessment of EIA methodologies inEnvironmental Impact Assessment. The Canadian experience. Institute for Environmental Studies,University of Toronto, Toronto.The World Bank Department of Environment. 1991. Environmental assessment resource book. Vol. 1. World Banktechnical paper No. 139.World Commission on Environment and Development. 1989. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, NewYork.Wooldridge R. 1991 ed. Techniques for Environmentally sound water resources development. Papers presented tothe African Regional Symposium held in Alexandria, 17-19 February.Yao, M. H., 1991. “Three Gorges Dam Project Still Lacks Final Approval,’ Xing Tao Daily, Tuesday, April 2,1991.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099117/manifest

Comment

Related Items