4.4 Effectiveness of EIA process in Rwanda
4.4.3 EIA procedures and implementation in Rwanda
Table 4.11: Level of agreement with specific statements related to EIA procedures (in %, n=20)
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree No option
Most of the terms of Reference of EIA studies are prepared by the authority
80 10 5 - 5 - Different specialists in different domains
intervene in EIA studies
30 15 25 15 15 - The process of EIA report review respect
the time provided by the law (20 days)
5 5 40 - 45 5
Impact monitoring is often carried out after project approval
5 20 25 15 35 - There are adequate appeal mechanisms 10 5 65 5 10 5 All steps of EIA provided by the law are
respected
5 25 50 15 5 - Environmental audit is regularly carried
out by the authority
5 5 20 40 25 5
Table 4.11 shows that a high rate (80%) of the respondents strongly agreed that most of the ToR of EIA studies are prepared by the authority. This was expected since in the literature review it was shown that the EIA general guidelines of REMA and other
78
authors assert that ToR of EIA studies should be either prepared by developers and their consultants or by the authority. However, Cordura (2004) stresses that the ToR of EIA studies must be prepared by the developers or their consultants and submitted to the authority for approval before initiation of the EIA study. Similarly, Weaver (2003) indicates that the advantage of ToR prepared by developers themselves is that the scoping report comes up with the ToR of specialist studies to address key issues. In other words, the ToR should be outcome directed rather than instructive. This is not the case in Rwanda since the authority is the one which prepares the ToR and gives it to the developers and their consultants.
Indeed, this study shows that 30% of the respondents indicated disagreement while 25%
were neutral in response to the statement that different specialists in different domains intervene in EIA studies in Rwanda. This is a weakness of the EIA process in Rwanda since UNEP (2004) asserts that the plan of EIA study is made up by different ToR for different specialists according to the issues identified. Therefore, the environmental impact report is also made up by the integration of all specialist studies. According to the above findings, it is different from what is happening in Rwanda.
Only 10% of the respondents agreed that the process of the EIA report review respects the time provided by the law (20 days). This has a great negative impact on the EIA process and this has been found also by different authors. For instance, Sandham et al.
(2005) show that the slow pace of the EIA review in Limpopo is attributed to the shortage of staff in the EIA department, voluminous EIS and low level of experience among EIA officers. This has also supported by Nadeem and Hameed (2008) who indicate that the slow pace of the EIA review process in Pakistan has a negative impact not only on the effectiveness of the EIA process but also it delays the project to start which can cause some losses to the developers.
Half of the respondents disagreed that impact monitoring is often carried out after project approval and only 25% agreed with this statement. This also has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the EIA process in Rwanda as shown by Wood (2003a) and Dipper et al.
79
(2000) in the literature review that environmental impact monitoring is an essential part of the EIA process since it facilitates the identification of the anticipated impacts which help to rectify or address that change before it becomes uncontrollable. However, the above results were expected since different authors show that it is widely believed that monitoring and auditing are the weakest areas in the EIA process globally (Ahammed and Nixon, 2006; Dipper et al., 2000).
The majority of respondents (65%) were neutral that there are adequate appeal mechanisms in Rwanda while 15% disagreed. This dilemma of being neutral can be attributed to different reasons including not being sure if the appeal mechanism is there or they are ignorant about this statement. However, even if in the literature review REMA (2006) shows that the appealing process is provided in the EIA procedure in Rwanda, the above results shows that it is not adequate or it is not even known. On the other hand, some countries including China (Wang et al., 2003) and Cameroon (Alemagi et al., 2007) do not provide an appeal mechanism in their EIA processes. This has a negative impact on the effectiveness of EIA process since Glasson et al. (2005) assert that even if the development is permitted people or organisations have the right to challenge the permission and appeal against that decision and if the development is refused, the developer can also appeal against the decision. To not provide adequate appeal mechanisms is not only a problem of the EIA process but also a problem of the violation of rights. The above table also shows that 50% of respondents are not sure whether steps of the EIA provided by law are respected or not and only 30% agreed with this statement.
These findings were expected since they show that ToR are provided by the authority.
This means that the step of scoping is absent or not carried out adequately.
Finally, only 10% of the respondents agree with the statement that the environmental audit is regularly carried out by the authority. This is a big challenge in relation to effectiveness of EIA in Rwanda since EIA audits is considered as the investigation of the accuracy of prediction made in the EIS (Ahammed and Nixon, 2006; Dipper et al., 2000).
These results are not surprising since it is shown above that the environmental audit is the weakest areas in the EIA process globally. On the other hand, Dipper et al. (1998) reveal
80
that the reasons for weak EIA audits processes can not only be regarded as a threat to and a criticism of the decision-making process but also it is due to the limited resources in many authority organisations.