THESIS ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING TOOLSA Prospective Study

By

Ibad ur Rehman

A thesis

presented to the Bahria University, Karachi Campus,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Masters of Science (MS) Environmental Sciences

November 2015

DEPARTMENT OF EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

BAHRIA UNIVERSITY

KARACHI CAMPUS

THESIS ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING TOOLSA Prospective Study

By

Ibad ur Rehman

A thesis

Presented to the Bahria University, Karachi Campus,

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Masters of Science (MS) Environmental Sciences

November 2015

BAHRIA UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

APPROVAL SHEETSUBMISSION OF HIGHER RESEARCH DEGREE THESIS

The following statement is to be signed by the candidates’ supervisor(s) and dean / head of faculty / department and must be received by the Director of Examination, prior to the dispatch of the thesis to the approved examiners.

Candidate’s Name: Ibad ur Rehman

Discipline: Environmental Sciences

Faculty / Department: Earth & Environmental Sciences

I hereby certify that the above candidate’s work, including the thesis, has been completed to my satisfaction and that the thesis is in a format and of an editorial standard recognized by the faculty / department as appropriate for examination.

Signature(s):

Principal Supervisor:

Date:

The undersigned, Certify that:

1. The candidate presented at a pre completion seminar, an overview and synthesis of major findings of the thesis, and that the research is of a standard and extent appropriate for submission as a thesis

2. I have checked the candidate’s thesis and its scope, format, and editorial standards are recognized by the faculty / department as appropriate.

Signature(s): Dean / Head of Faculty / Department:

Date:

i

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICATION

I certify that the research work presented in this thesis is to the best of my knowledge my

own. All sources used and any help received in the preparation of this dissertation have

been acknowledged. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in

whole or in part, for any other degree at this or any other institution.

Signature:

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am all thankful to the Almighty Allah, for making the journey of my life, till this point and including the reparation of this thesis, a blessing indeed.

Many thanks are due to Dr. Mubarak Ali – my thesis supervisor, Mr. Sharif Mughal – Co-supervisor, Dr. Yasmeen Nargis, my other teachers at Bahria University, and previously at Karachi University, for their untiring efforts in trying to transform a very mediocre student into a good one. Your efforts may or may not have brought the desired fruits, but may God accept your efforts.

My colleagues at NEC Consultants deserve a lot of thanks for creating a knowledge atmosphere at my work place.

Many thanks to all the respondents of my interview requests for this assignment. They have provided the main thrust of this dissertation, and it really was very insightful interaction with each one of them.

Thank you Shehbaz Ahmed, my classmate, colleague and dear friend, for making many dull days into interesting ones.

And finally, a lot of thanks to my family – my parents, wife, kids and siblings – for being there for me through the thick and thin of it all

iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family,

For always believing in me, inspiring me, and encourage me,

to reach higher in order to achieve my goals.

iv

ABSTRACT

Under the federal environmental legislative regime, all proposed projects underwent an initial screening based on Schedule I and II of EPA (Review of EIA & IEE) Regulations 2000. However, experience suggests that the two schedules prove inconclusive and / or insufficient in many cases. The Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014 has only been promulgated by the provincial government in March 2014, and the other relevant statutes, procedures and regulations are being developed currently. The relevant procedure for environmental screening under SEPA 2014 has been notified through SRO 739 / 2014 in December 2014. This SRO identifies three categories of Projects under Schedules I, II and III, requiring EIA, IEE and Environmental Checklist respectively.

However, unlike the chief law (SEPA 2014) which was formulated after painstaking consultations with all stakeholders, the mentioned rules have been developed without much consultation. Consequently, many parameters (or their values) need to be reviewed in these rules.

This study seeks to review the schedule I, II, and III mentioned above in light of practices by EPAs of other regional countries, developed countries, and development institutions.

After extensive literature review and detailed deliberations with various experts, this study finds that the schedules need a statement of guiding principle; areas not under the mandate of provincial government need to be removed; core parameters for the basis of categorization need to widen; and use of financial threshold as an indicator of potential environmental impacts is a debatable idea. Finally, there are certain errors and omissions that should be corrected.

v

Table of Contents

APPROVAL SHEET...............................................................................................................i

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICATION.......................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................iii

DEDICATION.......................................................................................................................iv

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................v

Chapter – 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Overview...........................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Environment – the Service Provider..........................................................................2

1.2.2 Environmental Assessment - Definition....................................................................3

1.2.3 Environmental Screening – Definition & Objectives................................................4

1.2.4 Criteria for Environmental Screening........................................................................5

1.2.5 Need to Review Provincial Environmental Screening Tools.....................................6

Chapter – 2: Methodology.....................................................................................................8

2.1 Exploratory Research........................................................................................................8

2.2 In-depth Interviews............................................................................................................8

2.2.1 Information Sharing Protocol...................................................................................10

Chapter – 3: Literature Review...........................................................................................11

3.1 Progression of Environmental Legislation in Pakistan...................................................11

3.2 Environmental Screening – Initial Step in Project Cycle................................................13

3.3 Difference between Screening & Assessment.................................................................14

3.4 Environmental Screening in Pakistan..............................................................................15

3.5 Legally Binding Approach to Environmental Screening................................................16

3.6 Guidance-based Approach to Environmental Screening.................................................18

Chapter – 4: DISCUSSION.................................................................................................24

4.1 Current Screening Schedules...........................................................................................24

vi

4.2 Freedom of Interpretation................................................................................................34

4.3 Core Parameters for Categorization................................................................................35

4.4 Financial Threshold.........................................................................................................36

4.5 Clarity on Jurisdiction.....................................................................................................38

4.6 Integration of Environmental Checklist into the Act......................................................39

4.7 List of Projects NOT Requiring Environmental Assessment..........................................40

4.8 Errors & Omissions.........................................................................................................40

Chapter – 5: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................42

List of References:..................................................................................................................44

Bibliography...........................................................................................................................46

vii

List of Tables:

Table 1: Follow-up on Screening.............................................................................................4

Table 2: Interviews Conducted.................................................................................................9

Table 3: Environmental Legislative Development in Pakistan – Chronology.......................12

Table 4: Intensity of Environmental Assessment...................................................................16

Table 5: Comparison of SEPA Schedule I & PEPA Schedule I (Projects Requiring IEE)....25

Table 6: Comparison of SEPA Schedule II & PEPA Schedule II (Projects Requiring EIA).29

viii

List of Annexure:

Annexure – 1: IEE / EIA Regulation 2014

ix

CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This research paper has come about to fulfill the requirements of MS (Environmental

Sciences) degree by the Bahria University.

This research paper focuses on the procedures and protocols applied when determining

the level of environmental assessment required for any proposed project in the province

of Sindh. This determination of level of assessment is known as environmental screening.

The research has been conducted with the following objectives:

a. To evaluate schedule I, II and III of SEPA (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2014 for

its relevance and efficacy in the current scenario of Sindh

b. To formulate suggestions and recommendations for improvement, if needed, in the above

mentioned schedules

The Schedule I, II and III of SEPA (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2014 are the

statutory tools that currently govern the environmental screening process in Sindh.

However, there is a need to review and modify the above mentioned schedules. This need

primarily emanates from the following:

1. Experience suggests that the schedules prove inconclusive and / or insufficient in

many cases.

2. Many financial limits mentioned in the schedules have to be checked under current

market price mechanism.

3. Currently, the schedules provide only lists of projects, and lack specification of

screening criteria that could be used in cases where a specific project is not listed.

4. The current regulations do not consider cumulative assessment.

This paper essentially expands and elaborates the above mentioned points, in the light of

the theory given in literature, practical experience in the local arrangement gleaned from

1

various assessment reports, and extensive interviews with professionals attached with the

field of environmental assessment as part of their job responsibilities.

1.2 Overview

1.2.1 Environment – the Service Provider

Our surrounding environment provides two of the most basic requirements for existence

of life on planet earth:

It provides the resources and raw material for everything, from oxygen for breathing

to uranium for atomic reactors. Some of these raw materials and resources, e.g.

oxygen for breathing, are renewable i.e. they are again available for the same use after

going through some natural regeneration steps. Whereas, some of these materials are

non-renewable that are lost forever once used, for example any fossil fuel.

It also serves as the sink for all the waste and trash resulting from existence of life and

anthropological activities, from human sewerage to industrial wastes. Some of this

waste or trash goes through a natural cyclic process, whereby it regains its original

form and becomes available for reuse in the previous manner. Whereas for much of

the material, the existing scientific wisdom points to a limited and definite supply, and

no cyclic natural regeneration process is known.

With growing population and improving lifestyles everywhere in the world, there is ever

more pressure on the environment for both the above mentioned services. It has been

argued that we might by outracing the nature’s ability to redeem itself: in terms of

recycling of waste into useful resources and also in terms of its assimilation capacity for

various forms of pollution. It means that we are not only running out of the non-

renewable resources, but also causing irreparable damage to the renewable resources. The

most common example for the former is the fossil fuel, while the pertinent, and most

worrisome, example for the latter is the fresh water.

The human society is coming up with various solutions to this environmental challenge.

The responses are in various forms starting from using best practices for manufacturing

industry to major technological innovations. Therefore, it could be seen that while an

average automobile used to go about only 2-3 km in one liter of petrol during the 50s, it

now runs more than 15 km in a liter. This has been made possible by continuous

2

technological advancements, and the target is to develop technology that goes 100 km in

a liter of petrol by 2025.

However, technology is not the only facet of environment. There has been intense debate

in the world revolving around the concept of sustainable development – a development

for the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to use

the environmental resources for their own needs. Simultaneously, there has been a general

consensus that any individual development project must be not only financially feasible,

but it should also be viable in terms of the environment that it is going to operate in.

further, it should also be socially acceptable to the communities that are directly or

indirectly affected by its implementation. This debate has resulted environmental

assessment becoming an integral part of all development projects, everywhere in the

world.

1.2.2 Environmental Assessment - Definition

Environmental assessment is the process through which educated-estimates are made

about the potential positive and negative impacts of any proposed project on the

environment. Depending on a number of factors – technical and others - it may be a

smaller, secondary data based exercise, or a comprehensive, primary data oriented

enterprise. Various terms are used nationally and internationally to describe

environmental assessments of varying depths. Most common, and most used in literature,

are the terms Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment.

In terms of time and human resources, the preliminary level assessment may require only

a couple of days and limited technical expertise on the part of the assessor(s). Whereas,

many large scale projects need a detailed assessments warranting a sizable team of

subject experts and taking up as long as a couple of years for completion.

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental

impact assessment as ‘the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the

biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major

decisions being taken and commitments made’ [1]. When defined this way, the

environmental impact assessment becomes a whole cycle including the preparation of the

assessment, reviewing its outcomes, and management of the entire process. This

definition also entails both the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and

3

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and any other nomenclature such as

Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)[2].

1.2.3 Environmental Screening – Definition & Objectives

The term environmental screening is used to refer to two similar – but distinct processes:

one to determine whether environmental assessment is required by a particular proposed

project; and two, to identify significant environmental aspects and impacts while

conducting the actual exercise of environmental assessment. However, it is the former use

of the term that is generally taken as its quasi-official definition.

For the purposes of this thesis, Environmental Screening is defined as the process of

determining and establishing the need of an environmental assessment for a particular

project, and once the need is established, determining the necessary level of

environmental review.

Screening is carried out because of the following rationale:

There are many developments that may not pose a significant threat to the

environment. In such cases, a full-fledged environmental assessment is not required.

More importantly, many projects may require only a limited level of assessment and

not all environmental aspects need to be covered. For example, development of a road

in an already settled urban landscape will not require a strong focus on the geology

and meteorology of the area, but will demand an emphasis on the socio-economy.

Therefore, subjecting all proposed development projects to the same intense level of

environmental assessment could amount to waste of time and other resources.

As a whole, environmental screening of projects at the initial stage offers multiple

benefits. It can lead to a number of different important follow-on actions [3]:

4

Table 1: Follow-up on Screening

Screening Outcome Further Action

No significant environmental issues

identified

No further action

There are some potential issues that

require proper management for the

project to remain environmentally

sustainable.

Identification of environmental opportunities

and risks

Further environmental studies are

needed.

Identification of the need for further studies;

The project design could be altered and

improved by incorporating results and

recommendations of these studies

Action planning for any follow-up

actions that might be required during

design or implementation

Allocation of budget, staff responsibility and

accountability

The unlikely, but possible, scenario

where a project reaches concept stage

before a serious risk has been identified.

Decision that the intervention is inappropriate

in its current form

1.2.4 Criteria for Environmental Screening

There are three criteria that are typically used for screening:

1. Nature of the Project / Type Criteria

2. Size of the Project / Threshold Criteria

3. Location of the Project / Sensitive Area Criteria

The nature or type criteria focuses on whether the proposed project is likely to create a

sizable environmental impact due to the nature of the processes involved. Therefore, a

textile wet processing unit (washing / dyeing / printing / finishing) is typically subject to a

detailed environmental impact assessment, whereas a textile ginning or garments

5

manufacturing unit may require only an initial environmental examination to be carried

out.

The threshold criteria focuses on the size of the proposed interventions despite its similar

nature. Hence for example, an initial environmental examination is deemed sufficient for

small scale village roads, but a more comprehensive environmental impact assessment is

warranted for large scale inter-city roads or highways.

Finally, the location criteria takes into account the particular geographical location of a

proposed intervention, in terms of the sensitivity of the environmental receptors. Hence,

any project proposed to be located or passing through a declared national park or nature

reserve will be subject to an EIA.

In practice, employing a combination of the above three criteria is generally more

prudent, than using any one specific criteria.

1.2.5 Need to Review Provincial Environmental Screening Tools

The current statute governing the environmental screening process in Sindh is the Sindh

Environmental Protection Agency (Review of EIA & IEE) Regulations 2014. Notified in

December 2014, these regulations provide three schedules, each listing projects requiring

EIA, IEE, and Environmental Checklists respectively. However, there is a need to review

and modify the above mentioned schedules. This need primarily emanates from the

following:

1. Experience suggests that the schedules prove inconclusive and / or insufficient in

many cases. One of the latest examples in this regard is the Bahria Icon Case,

whereby an Initial Environmental Examination was conducted and environmental

NOC was duly granted by the EPA. But one of the major stakeholders (DHA) has

challenged this in the court of law. They insist that a more comprehensive EIA should

have been conducted for the project, before it could be granted approval by the EPA.

2. Many financial limits mentioned in the schedules have to be checked under current

market price mechanism. For example, a piece of land in Karachi is typically much

more expensive than a piece of same size in Hyderabad. This leads to a project of

same nature and size having much higher cost in Karachi, but the environmental

6

impacts are likely to remain the same whether it is located in Karachi or in

Hyderabad.

3. Currently, the schedules provide only lists of projects, and lack specification of

screening criteria that could be used in cases where a specific project is not listed. In

some cases, it leads to arbitrary decision-making by the EPA. For example, the oil

marketing companies generally maintain storage facilities in various parts of the

country, to ensure smooth supply of fuel to all parts. However, there is no clear

mention of diesel storage facilities maintained by OMCs in the schedules provided by

the EPA.

4. The current regulations do not consider cumulative assessment. For example, a

pharmaceutical unit is required to conduct an IEE, irrespective of whether it is

situated in an industrial estate where EIA has already been conducted, or located

elsewhere. Vice versa, there could be many small scale interventions, like developing

water wells in Thar by various Charities, which need to be checked against their

cumulative impacts.

7

CHAPTER – 2

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Exploratory Research

Based on the nature of the problem as identified above, exploratory research was required

– that is, an initial research to determine whether the problem really exists, and if so, what

are its various facets. Hence, qualitative research method was adopted for this

assignment.

Information was collected from both secondary and primary sources to provide insight

into the above-mentioned problems and develop suggestions for improvement. Secondary

information was collected from a number of authentic and published sources. The

references of these sources have been provided in the endnotes as a list of references

attached at the end of this document.

2.2 In-depth Interviews

Primary information was collected through in-depth interviews with following categories

of environmental professionals:

EPA Academia Project Proponents Environmental Consulting Professionals Environmental Lawyers

The list of people interviewed is presented in the following table:

8

Table 2: Interviews Conducted

S. No. Name Relevance / Category Current

Organization

1. Engr. Tufail Ali Zubedi

Teaching environmental

engineering; environmental

consultant

NED University;

NEC Consultants

2. Mr. Rafi ul Haq Ecologist; Ex-IUCN CRAB

3. Mr. Kamran Naqvi Environmentalist IUCN

4. Mr. Waqar H. Phiulpoto EPA Sindh EPA

5. Mr. Imran Sabir EPA Sindh EPA

6. Dr. Sara Khan Academia IBA

7. Mr. Faisal AzizProject Proponent EHS

ManagerGetz Pharma

8. Ms. Rizwana Kazmi Project Proponent PPL

9. Mr. Qaiser HasanEnvironmental Advisor to

O&G Company

Name withheld upon

request

10. Mr. Mustafa Mirza Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan

11.Dr. Arjumand Zehra

Zaidi

Academia; Environmental

Consultant

Institute of Space

Technology

12. Mr. Mustafa MatloobProject Proponent EHS

ManagerSUPARCO

13. Dr. Bashir Lakhani Project designerTechno-Consult

International

14. Mr. Shamim Ahmed Adv. High Court Free lance

15. Mr. Waqas Qadri Environmental ConsultantPak-Marina

Consultants

The in-depth interview is an unstructured – direct technique in which no rigid format was

followed but the respondent was queried about the issue at hand. It used extensive

probing to prompt the respondent to express detailed opinion about the subject.

9

The main reasons for using this technique were the following:

It allowed for an intuitive and subjective approach for data gathering

The needed information was related to the respondents’ core profession

The research problem did not warrant any statistically or scientifically accurate data

It allowed for open-ended data collection format

It allowed for the use of small convenience sample.

The in-depth interviews covered the following thematic areas:

Why is environmental screening carried out

Are you familiar with current environmental screening tools in Pakistan

Are you in agreement with current environmental screening tools

If yes, why? If no, what improvement should be made

All the interviews were conducted at the workplaces of the respondents. The average

lapse time of each interview was one hour, but it took more time in a couple of cases.

Prior appointment was made with all interviewees before conducting the interview.

2.2.1 Information Sharing Protocol

For the secondary information, it has been ensured that only authentic and verifiable

sources are used. Further, wherever information has been gleaned from any particular

secondary data source, it has been duly mentioned in the text. Finally, there are a few

places in the paper where some piece of information has been used verbatim – or

reproduced from the original source. At all such places, use of parenthesis and reporting

speech has been made.

For the primary information, it was agreed with the respondents that the information

provided by them will be used only in generic terms and anonymously. In case their

background is needed to stress any point of information, only the general category they

belong to will be mentioned. This protocol has been followed throughout this research

paper.

10

CHAPTER – 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Progression of Environmental Legislation in Pakistan

The issue of environmental protection in Pakistan has been addressed from time to time

by legislations such as a Hazardous Occupation Regulation (1963), the West Pakistan

Pure Food Act (1965), the Motor Vehicle Ordinance (1965), the East Pakistan Sound

Amplifiers Ordinance (1965), the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (1971), the Cutting

of Trees (Prohibition Act (1975), Local Government Ordinance (1979/80), etc.

In 1983, the Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance (PEPO) was promulgated.

PEPO also provided for the establishment of Federal and Provincial Environmental

Protection Agencies (EPAs).

However, even after the promulgation of the 1983 Environmental Protection Ordinance,

environment remained largely a neglected area at the official level, while the word

‘environment’ remained unfamiliar to the common people [4]. The level of official apathy

was such that it took 9 years after the promulgation of PEPO for the Pakistan

Environmental Protection Council to meet for the first time.

However, a positive change came about with the initiation of NCS process. This process

had the full support of Ministry of Environment and NGOs in the country. This process

derived a general increase in the environmental awareness in the country. It involved civil

society institutions and other stakeholders in the environmental policy development. And

probably most important achievement was that it created an enabling atmosphere wherein

basic environmental institutions could be established in Pakistan [5].

A more comprehensive statute, the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997, was

notified by the Government of Pakistan on December 06, 1997 to replace PEPO 1983. Up

until the start of new millennium, the development of environmental legislation regime

has been documented in various sources of literature. One source summarizes this

development quite succinctly [6]:

11

Table 3: Environmental Legislative Development in Pakistan – Chronology

Year Event

1972 UN Stockholm Conference on Environment and Development

1975Environment and Urban Division (Ministry of Housing, works and Urban Affairs) established

1976 Draft Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance prepared

1983 Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance enacted

1983 Pakistan Environmental Protection Council established

1987-89 EPAs established

1992 National Conservation Strategy adopted

1992 FPCCI Standing Committee on Environment established

1993 Pakistan Environmental Quality Standards notified

1993 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act drafted

1995 Ministry of Environment, Urban Affairs, Forestry and Wildlife established

1996Name changed to the Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development (M/o ELG&RD)

1996 Drafts of Provincial Environmental Protection Acts (NWFP, Punjab)

1996 Environmental Technology Program for Industry (ETPI)

1997Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (December 1997) (Repealed PEPO 1983)

1997 Standing Committees on Environment of various Chambers of Commerce

1998 Rules and Regulations for PEPA drafted

1998 Environmental Magistrates notified (NWFP)

1999 Delegation of powers under PEPA 1997 to provincial EPAs

1999 Environmental Tribunals established (Karachi & Lahore)

2000 First Rules under PEPA notified; revised NEQS notified

2000NEQS Implementation Committee headed by Dr. Pervez  Hassan and comprising representatives of trade and industry, NGOs and other stakeholders constituted

12

With the advent of the new millennium, the environmental movement in Pakistan

continued to gain momentum. Many economic aspects became an important cog in its

wheel. For one, most multilateral and bilateral grants started to take environment as their

core agenda. Environmental soundness of any development project became the core

criteria of international funding. Even in the private sector, many international buyers

started to put greater pressure on Pakistani suppliers for improved environmental

performance. As many researchers have argued, environment became one of the main

non-tariff barriers after demolition of most tariff related barriers under the WTO.

Environment also became a quite prominent feature of the judicial activism in the

country.

On 8th April 2010, the National Assembly amended the Constitution of Islamic Republic

of Pakistan 1973 [7]. Under this, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the subject of

environment was devolved to the provincial level. Subsequently, the Sindh

Environmental Protection Act 2014 has been promulgated by the Government of Sindh

on March 20th, 2014. The Sindh EIA / IEE Review Rules, including the three schedules

for environmental screening of projects, were notified in December 2014. Various rules

and regulations under this act are currently being developed.

3.2 Environmental Screening – Initial Step in Project Cycle

It comes out as almost universally acknowledged that environmental screening should

form the first step in the environmental assessment process. Clarke (1998) suggests that

as the first step in environmental assessment, environmental screening should be carried

out using certain pre-developed criteria, to determine whether there are likely to be any

significant impacts. Afterwards, any of the following three courses of action could be

adopted, based on the outcome of the screening.

1. No further study if no significant environmental impacts are expected

2. Initial environmental examination if there is doubt about the significance of the likely

environmental impacts

3. Formal guidance on the extent of EA, to the proponent by the relevant authority.

13

The IFC guidelines put the (initial) screening of the project and the scoping of the

assessment process immediately after project definition. Then the next steps are identified

as stakeholder identification and gathering of social and environmental baseline data,

where relevant; impact identification and analysis; and; generation of mitigation or

management measures and actions [8].

In fact, OECD and the Nordic Council of Ministers go as far as to suggest that trade

agreements and policies should also be first environmentally screened [9].

3.3 Difference between Screening & Assessment

Though environmental screening is the first step in environmental assessment, technically

it is different than the assessment itself. The Canadian Government, for example,

describes it as the following [10]:

Screening is the process used by the Environmental Assessment (EA) Branch to determine whether or not a project, operation or activity is a ‘development' within Section 2(d) of The Environmental Assessment Act.

The proponent is asked to submit a project proposal that describes the project purpose, manner of operation, location and surrounding environment as well as any environmental protection measures that will be applied.

On the basis of information submitted, the EA Branch considers if the project is likely to have impacts significant enough to warrant an environmental assessment.

If the EA Branch concludes the project is unlikely to meet the definition of ‘development', the proponent is advised that the project has not triggered the EA process and may go on to get any further environmental approvals and requirements under other legislation.

If the EA Branch concludes the project is likely to have significant impacts, then the proponent will be asked to submit an environmental impact statement for analysis and approval by the Minister following a period of public review and comment.

14

3.4 Environmental Screening in Pakistan

The environmental assessment process in Pakistan is given as flow chart by Aslam F. [11]

The guidelines issued by Pakistan EPA [12] in October 1997 clearly categorize the

projects in three classes based on preliminary environmental screening:

15

Table 4: Intensity of Environmental Assessment

Project Environment Relationship Assessment Depth required

Projects likely to cause adverse environmental effects EIA required

Projects where their effects on environment are

uncertainIEE required

Projects not likely to cause any adverse environmental

effect

No formal IEE or EIA

required

However, situation on ground is rather more complex. Pastakia (2012) notes that under

PEPA 1997, a vast range of smaller projects escape the net of impact assessment.

Therefore, she argues, the steps for impact assessment should begin with screening for all

projects that have a potential to affect environment, regardless of scale. Depending on the

results, initial screening should be followed by an EIA or IEE [13].

3.5 Legally Binding Approach to Environmental Screening

Literature review indicates that there are two distinct approaches to screening adopted by

various authorities and agencies. Environmental law enforcement agencies generally tend

to provide list of projects where EIA is to be conducted or IEE is to be conducted. This is

almost invariably the case in regional developing countries. Such schedules are then

perceived as legally binding instruments, rather than only guidance and advisory tools.

There are arguments for and against this approach. In developing countries, where general

environmental awareness is low and most decisions are solely based on financials,

leaving the interpretation of guidelines open might be fraught with possible

misrepresentations. This could become further complicated due to non-availability or

non-functionality of a suitable redressal mechanism.

Importantly, the guidelines issued by EPA in 1997 contained good guiding statements at

the beginning of the three schedules that listed the projects requiring EIA, IEE or no

further study. Hence, schedule A states that: “the projects in Schedule A are generally

major projects and have the potential to affect a large number of people. They also

include projects in environmentally sensitive areas. The impacts of such projects may be

irreversible and could lead to significant changes in land use and the social, physical and

16

biological environment” [14]. In fact, the Schedule C – that is supposed to provide a list

of projects not requiring IEE or EIA – does not make any attempt to give any detailed list

of projects, and provides only a few illustrative examples [15].

However, in the next set of guidelines, the Pak-EPA suggests that the proponents should

consult with the responsible authority at the earliest possible time, to confirm the

categorization of the project [16].

Since the Sindh Environmental Protection Act [17] was passed by the provincial

assembly of Sindh in March 2014, and the EIA/IEE regulations were promulgated in

December 2014, the development of these statutes had the benefits of hindsight; the

problems faced by the Sindh EPA in interpreting and enforcing PEPA 1997 could be dealt

with. Furthermore, this process was supported by a four-year internationally funded

project titled National Impact Assessment Program (NIAP). The NIAP brought in

necessary expertise from within and outside Pakistan together and played a key role in

enhancing the capacity of EPAs.

The Sindh EPA recognized that clubbing all projects into two schedules (one for EIA and

one for IEE) is to narrow it down too much. Therefore, the provincial legislation provides

for three schedules; one each for EIA and IEE, and one for environmental checklists.

In the Environmental Protection Rules of Nepal, Clause 3 of Chapter 2 makes it legally

binding on the project proponents to prepare an EIA if their project falls under Schedule I

and IEE if it falls under Schedule II. Both the schedules then provide a list of more than

100 projects where EIA is required and more than 80 projects where IEE is required [18].

In case of Bangladesh, the apex environmental statute is the Bangladesh Environment

Conservation Act 1995, under which a host of rules and regulations have been notified.

Clause 12 of Environment Conservation Act, 1995, states: No industrial unit or project

shall be established or undertaken without obtaining, in the manner prescribed by rules,

an Environmental Clearance Certificate from the Director General. EIAs are reviewed in

Processing Environmental Clearance Certificate. The industrial units and projects are

classified in four categories, chiefly based on their site and impact on the environment.

Following are the four categories [19]:

17

Green

Orange – A

Orange – B

Red

The Environmental Conservation Rules 1997, promulgated under the Environment

Conservation Act of Bangladesh, provide lists of projects falling under each of the above

four categories. For Orange –B category projects, an IEE is required while for Red

category projects, an EIA is required.

In India, though EIA is in practice since 1976-77, initially it was used only as an

“administrative instrument”. It gained legal backing in January 1994 when EIA

notification was issued under the Environment Act of 1986 [20]. There has been few

modifications in this statute over the past two decades. It makes it mandatory for projects

to take environmental clearance before commencement of construction or operations in

four stages, namely:

Stage (1) Screening (Only for Category ‘B’ projects and activities)

Stage (2) Scoping

Stage (3) Public Consultation

Stage (4) Appraisal

All projects are required to get environmental clearance by filling out the prescribed

Form-I. This form is essentially an Initial Environmental Examination. Nevertheless, the

legal instrument contains a Schedule, giving list of projects falling in Category A and B,

based on their type and threshold. Category A projects need an EIA and approval from

the Central government. Category B projects also need an EIA, but their approval is

vested in the state or the provincial government. The schedule lists some 39 projects

under 8 separate heads, falling in category A or B or both [21].

3.6 Guidance-based Approach to Environmental Screening

The other approach is to expand the three criteria cited above, and encouraging the

proponent to screen the proposed project accordingly. This, of course, needs to be

18

endorsed by the approving authority based on the logic and rationale presented by the

proponent. This approach is more common in development financing institutions (World

Bank, ADB etc.) and the developed countries (EU etc.).

A look into IFC Social & Environmental Performance Standards provides an insight into

the basis of this approach:

“Depending on the type of project and the nature and magnitude of its risks and impacts, the Assessment may comprise a full-scale social and environmental impact assessment, a limited or focused environmental or social assessment, or straightforward application of environmental siting, pollution standards, design criteria, or construction standards. When the project involves existing business activities, social and/or environmental audits may need to be performed to determine any areas of concern. The types of issues, risks and impacts to be assessed, and the scope of the community engagement can also vary considerably, depending on the nature of the project, and its size, location, and stage of development” [22]

The Asian Development Bank screens any potential project under consideration for

financing prior to deciding about whether to go ahead with financing. This screening tool

divides the potential projects into three groups. The intensity and depth of environmental

review is different for each of this group [23].

Project in Category A generally require a detailed and comprehensive assessment in the

form of an EIA. This designation is based on nature of project, its size, and proposed

location. These projects are likely to cause significant changes in existing land use

patterns, changes to the socioeconomic environment of the direct project area and its area

of influence, as well as changes to the physical and biological environment. The category

A projects are deemed to be most environmentally sensitive, or having the highest

potential to cause environmental damage if not managed properly. Therefore, ADB

involves its own personnel in such projects from the very early stage; and they keep a

close vigil from field reconnaissance to the review of environmental assessment report.

ADB also advises proponents to engage an environmental specialist from the early stage

to determine the scope of the EIA necessary for compliance with the ADB’s

environmental policies. Bank personnel are involved in this category of project from early

field reconnaissance through EIA review.

19

Projects in Category B typically require an IEE, but not an EIA. The size or scale of the

project generally proves to be core criteria for classifying a project in category A or B,

despite similarity in the nature of the project. Hence large power plant projects are

included category A while medium-sized power plant projects fall under category B.

Nevertheless, any project proposed to be located in an environmentally sensitive area,

falls under category A and requires an EIA, irrespective of its scale. Due to smaller size,

and in some cases simpler type, the environmental impacts from category B projects are

expected to be generally less severe. As a result, it is easier to prescribe and implement

environmental mitigation measures for these projects. As in case of Category A projects,

it is advisable that the proponents engage an environmental specialist to assist in

formulating the Terms of Reference for the IEE so that the IEE report will comply with

Bank policies.

Category C is for projects that do not require an environmental assessment, because under

normal conditions, these projects are unlikely to have adverse environmental impacts.

The categorization procedure in use at the World Bank is explained in the World Bank’s

Operational Manual under Operational Directive 4.01 [24]. The number and

nomenclature of the categories remains the same as in ADB. However, the IEE is part of

the project screening step in the World Bank’s categorization procedure. Hence, the

Category B projects also require an environmental impact assessment, but its depth is

shallower and reliance on secondary data is easily tolerated. This practice of making IEE

a mandatory part of the screening process differentiates the World Bank procedures from

that of the ADB, and loosely aligns it with the environmental procedures currently used in

India. The categories are defined below.

Project Category A: Same as Category A of the ADB, projects in this category typically

require an EIA. The similarity extends to the potential environmental aspects and impacts,

including the likelihood to affect land use patterns, socio-economic environment, as well

as changes to the physical and biological environment. A typical example of such projects

is water storage dams etc.

20

Project Category B: In terms of potential impacts, this category is also similar to

Category B of the ADB. However, the term IEE is not used. The environmental

assessment / review for projects falling under this category usually requires a level of

effort less than that of a full-fledged EIA study.

Project Category C: Same as in the case of ADB, the projects that do not require an

environmental assessment owing to their negligible potential to cause environmental

impacts, fall under this category.

The International Finance Corporation is another development finance institution. It is a

member of the World Bank group, but it has developed and established its own set of

environmental guidelines. IFC also defines three categories for its direct investment

projects, almost in line with the ADB and the WB:

Category A includes projects having potential to cause significant adverse social or

environmental impacts. These impacts are expected to be irreversible, diverse, or

unprecedented.

Category B includes projects having potential to cause adverse social or environmental

impacts, but to a limited extent and relatively easy to mitigate. Such projects generally

have localized impacts that are few in number and / or largely reversible.

Category C includes projects with minimal or no adverse social or environmental

impacts. Projects in this category do not normally entail any sizable physical intervention.

Its example includes certain financial intermediary (FI) projects with minimal or no

adverse risks.

An important point to note here is the clear mention of the word ‘social’. Though it is

universally accepted that the term environmental impact does include impacts on the

social, economic, and cultural environment as well, but by clearly spelling it out, IFC is

using this categorization for at least two distinct objectives: firstly, this categorization

guides the depth of the ensuing environmental assessment; secondly, it points to the

public disclosure requirement within IFC’s institutional policy framework. Therefore, in

accordance with Section 12 of the Disclosure Policy, public consultation needs to be

21

carried out disclosing project specific information to the public and general stakeholders

prior to presenting category A projects to its Board of Directors for approval [25].

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has also developed a separate manual

on Social and Environmental Screening Procedures [26]. It requires all projects, funded

through UNDP, to be screened, except for the following:

Projects with a short budget (under US$500,000) are not subject to environmental

assessment, provided that they comply with other institutional requirements of the

UNDP

Multilateral projects where other financing partners are involved and UNDP serves

only as the Administrative Agent; such projects may or may not undergo

environmental assessment depending on the policy of the major donor agencies

involved, but UNDP environmental policies are not applicable here.

Projects chiefly concerned with dissemination and communication; where outputs are

normally comprised solely of report preparation; coordination of event (training /

workshop / meeting / conference etc.), or development of communication materials

and dissemination of results (e.g. documentaries, publications, etc)

The EU has also issued an Environmental Screening Guide to streamline the process of

screening the proposed projects. Again, there is a financial threshold, which is set at 1 M

pounds. However, like UNDP and other development agencies, this guide also notes that

“Below the £1 million threshold screening is also required where there are potential

environmental impacts. It will be difficult to decide whether there are potential impacts

unless you screen, and so it is strongly recommended that screening be carried out even

below this threshold. For example, DFID support to policy development may be below

this threshold but could have significant environmental implications” [27].

Besides guiding about the depth and intensity of the environmental assessment through

the above categorizations, generally the development institutions also have another

category: projects that are disallowed. Such projects are not financed, supported or

approved, whichever the case maybe. The potential harmful environmental impacts are

the most important factors in assigning any project to such category. The nomenclature

used for this category is the Exclusion List. For example, IFC’s Exclusion List includes

the following projects [28]:

22

Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or regulations or international conventions and agreements.

Production or trade in weapons and munitions.

Production or trade in alcoholic beverages (excluding beer and wine).

Production or trade in tobacco.

Gambling, casinos and equivalent enterprises.

Trade in wildlife or wildlife products regulated under CITES.

Production or trade in radioactive materials.

Production or trade in or use of unbonded asbestos fibers.

Purchase of logging equipment for use in primary tropical moist forest.

Production or trade in pharmaceuticals subject to international phase outs or bans.

Production or trade in pesticides/herbicides subject to international phase outs or bans.

Drift net fishing in the marine environment using nets in excess of 2.5 km. in length.

Generally, the development finance institutions are flexible in their approach towards the

excluded projects. IFC applies a ‘reasonableness test’ in such cases where the activities of

the project company are deemed to have a significant development impact, but

circumstances of the host country require adjustment to the Exclusion List. The core

reasons for categorizing a project under the Exclusion List generally do not include

financial viability, but these include cultural, health or ecology related concerns.

23

CHAPTER – 4

DISCUSSION

4.1 Current Screening Schedules

The current categorization for environmental screening, as used by the environmental

protection agency Sindh, is given in the schedules I, II and III of the Sindh EPA Review of

EIA / IEE Rules. It is attached with this thesis as Annex. The three schedules collective

present 11 different categories, under which a large number of potential projects are listed.

In the current schedules, for most categories the chief parameter is the scale or size of the

proposed project, determining whether an EIA is required or an IEE could be sufficient.

Specific size has been mentioned for some 12 projects in Schedule I and 10 projects in

Schedule II. Where specific size is not mentioned, financial threshold has been used as an

indicator of scale; financial size criteria is mentioned for 10 projects in the IEE schedule,

and 04 projects in the EIA schedule. Indirect scale implication could also be found for

many projects in all three schedules. The second most important parameter for this

determination comes out to be the nature of the project. For the location based criteria,

there is a clear and sweeping statement for projects located in environmentally sensitive

areas: all such projects will need to undergo an EIA, irrespective of their scale or nature.

The effort to use a combination of all these parameters is also evident.

According to the respondents of interviews conducted for this assignment, the three

schedules are a good improvement over the previously existing two schedules of PEPA-

1997. As previously mentioned in this thesis, the Sindh EPA was able to make good use of

the hindsight available in the form of more than a decade and a half. According to the

experts, this is a clear indication that Sindh EPA has learnt from experience and is willing

to apply this learning to move the agenda of environmental improvement forward. The

Sindh EPA officials affirmed that their institution looks forward to every opportunity to

further update and fine-tune the provincial environmental legislation. They see it as a

“live” document and wish to better it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

24

The following tables attempt to reproduce these schedules from the current provincial and

previous federal statues in a format enabling a comparative view of the categories EIA and

IEE. Since there was no category for projects requiring environmental checklist in the

previous federal legislation, a comparison is not possible for that category:

Table 5: Comparison of SEPA Schedule I & PEPA Schedule I (Projects Requiring IEE)

CategoriesProjects requiring IEE under SEPA (Schedule I)

Projects requiring IEE under PEPA (Schedule I)

Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

Poultry, livestock, stud and fish farms

Poultry, livestock, stud and fish farms with total cost more than Rs.10 M

Packaging, formulation, cold storage and warehouse of agricultural products.

Projects involving repacking, formulation or warehousing of agricultural products

Energy

Hydroelectric power (less than 50 MW)

Hydroelectric power generation less than 50 MW

Thermal power (less than 100 MW)

Thermal power generation less than 200 KW

Coal power plants (less than 50 MW)

 

Transmission lines less than 11 KV, and grid stations

Transmission lines less than 11 KV, and large distribution projects

Waste-to-energy generation projects including bio-mass less than 25 MW

Waste-to-energy generation projects

Solar project  Wind project    Oil and gas transmission systems

 

Oil and gas extraction projects including exploration, production, gathering systems, separation and storage

Oil and Gas projects

O&G 2D/3D Seismic survey and drilling activities

 

O&G extraction projects including exploration and production (outside any protected / environmentally

 

25

CategoriesProjects requiring IEE under SEPA (Schedule I)

Projects requiring IEE under PEPA (Schedule I)

sensitive area)LPG storage facilities  LPG, CNG filling station and petrol pumps

 

Manufacturing and processing

Ceramics and glass units (cost less than Rs. 500 m)

Ceramics and glass units with total cost more than Rs.50 million

Food processing industries with total cost less than Rs. 200 m

Food processing industries including sugar mills, beverages, milk and dairy products, with total cost less than Rs.100 million

Pharmaceutical units.  Marble units  Carpet manufacturing units  Rice mills, ghee/oil mills  Brick kilns  Stone crushing units  Man-made fibers and resin projects with total cost less than Rs. 200 M

Man-made fibers and resin projects with total cost less than Rs.100 million

Manufacturing of apparel, textile garments unit , including dyeing, bleaching and printing, with total cost less than Rs. 50 million

Manufacturing of apparel, including dyeing and printing, with total cost more than Rs.25 million

Wood products with total cost more than Rs.100 m

Wood products with total cost more than Rs.25 million

Steel re-rolling mills  Recycling plants  

Mining and mineral processing

Commercial extraction of sand, gravel, limestone, clay, sulphur and other minerals not included in Schedule II with total cost less than Rs.100 million

Commercial extraction of sand, gravel, limestone, clay, sulphur and other minerals not included in Schedule II with total cost less than Rs.100 M

Crushing, grinding and separation processes

Crushing, grinding and separation processes

Smelting plants with total cost Smelting plants with total cost 26

CategoriesProjects requiring IEE under SEPA (Schedule I)

Projects requiring IEE under PEPA (Schedule I)

less than Rs100 m less than Rs.50 million

Transport

Flyovers, underpasses and bridges having total length less than 500 meters

 

 

Federal or Provincial highways (except maintenance, rebuilding or reconstruction of existing metalled roads) with total cost less than Rs.50 M

   

Ports and harbor development for ships less than 500 gross tons 

Water management, dams, irrigation and flood protection

Dams and reservoirs (with storage volume less than 25 million cubic meters and surface area less than 4 square kilometers)

Dams and reservoirs with storage volume less than 50 million cubic meters of surface area less than 8 square kilometers

Small-scale irrigation systems and drainage system (total cost less than Rs. 100 M)

Small-scale irrigation systems with total cost less than Rs.50 million

 Irrigation and drainage projects serving less than 15,000 hectares

Water supply and filtration

Water supply schemes and filtration plants – new or maintenance / up-gradation of existing (total cost less than Rs. 100 m)

Water supply schemes and treatment plants with total cost less than Rs.25 million

Waste disposal and treatment

Handling, storage or disposal of Solid and non-hazardous waste (annual capacity less than 10,000 tons)

Waste disposal facility for domestic or industrial wastes, with annual capacity less than 10,000 cubic meters

Sewage treatment facility (total cost less than Rs. 200 M)

 

Industry specific Waste water treatment facility for Industrial effluent (small scale plant)

 

Urban Housing schemes less than 10 Housing schemes

27

CategoriesProjects requiring IEE under SEPA (Schedule I)

Projects requiring IEE under PEPA (Schedule I)

development (and tourism and communication)

acresMulti-story buildings having residential and commercial setup on the total plot size is less than 2000 sq. yards

 

Hospitals with capacity of 50 beds, health care unit/laboratories with 500 OPD / day

 

Construction of Educational, Academic institutions on land less than 10 acres.

 

 Public facilities with significant off-site impacts (e.g. hospital wastes)

  Urban development projects

Other projects

Any other project for which filing of an IEE is required by the Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 6

Any other project for which filing of an IEE is required by the Federal Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5

Table 6: Comparison of SEPA Schedule II & PEPA Schedule II (Projects Requiring EIA)

CategoriesProjects requiring EIA under SEPA (Schedule II)

Projects requiring EIA under PEPA (Schedule II)

Energy Hydroelectric power (above 50 MW)

Hydroelectric power generation over 50 MW

Thermal power (above 100 MW)Thermal power generation over 200 MW

Coal power projects (above 50 MW)

 

Transmission lines (11 KV and above) and electricity distribution

Transmission lines (11 KV and

28

CategoriesProjects requiring EIA under SEPA (Schedule II)

Projects requiring EIA under PEPA (Schedule II)

projects. above) and grid stations

Nuclear power plants Nuclear power plans

Wind energy projects (located in any sensitive / protected area)

 

  Petroleum refineries

Oil and Gas projects

Petroleum refineries  

LPG and LNG Projects (including LNG Terminals, re-gasification units) except LPG filling stations

 

O&G transmission systems  

O&G gathering system, separation and storage.

 

Manufacturing and processing

Cement plants Cement plants

Chemical manufacturing industries

Chemicals projects

Fertilizer plants Fertilizer plants

Steel Mills  

Sugar Mills and Distilleries  

Food processing industries including beverages, dairy milk and products, slaughter houses and related activities with total cost more than Rs. 200 m

Food processing industries including sugar mills, beverages, milk and dairy products, with total cost of Rs.100 million and above

Industrial estates (including export processing zones)

Industrial estates (including export processing zones)

Man-made fibers and resin Man-made fibers and resin 29

CategoriesProjects requiring EIA under SEPA (Schedule II)

Projects requiring EIA under PEPA (Schedule II)

projects with total cost of Rs 200 M and above

projects with total cost of Rs.100 M and above

Pesticides (manufacture or formulation)

Pesticides (manufacture or formulation)

Petrochemicals complex Petrochemical complex

Synthetic resins, plastics and man-made fibers, paper and paperboard, paper pulping, plastic products, textiles (except apparel), printing and publishing, paints and dyes, oils and fats and vegetable ghee projects, with total cost more than Rs. 10 m

Synthetic resins, plastics and man-made fibers, paper and paperboard, paper pulping, plastic products, textiles (except apparel),printing and publishing, paints and dyes, oils and fats and vegetable ghee projects, with total cost more than Rs.10 million

Tanning and leather finishing projects

Tanning and leather finishing projects

Battery manufacturing plant  

Mining and mineral processing

Mining and processing of coal, gold, copper, sulphur and precious stones

Mining and processing of coal, gold, copper, sulphur and precious stones

Mining and processing of major non-ferrous metals, iron and steel rolling

Mining and processing of major non-ferrous metals, iron and steel rolling

Smelting plants with total cost of Rs. 100 m and above

Smelting plants with total cost of Rs.50 million and above

Transport Airports Airports

Federal or Provincial highways or major roads (including rehabilitation of existing roads)

Federal or Provincial highways or major roads (except maintenance, rebuilding or reconstruction of existing roads)

30

CategoriesProjects requiring EIA under SEPA (Schedule II)

Projects requiring EIA under PEPA (Schedule II)

with total cost of Rs.50 million and above

Ports and harbor development Ports and harbor development for ships of 500 gross tons and above

Railway works Railway works

Flyovers, underpasses and bridges having total length of more than 500 m

 

Water management, dams, irrigation and flood protection

Dams and reservoirs (with storage volume of 25 million cubic meters and surface area of 4 square km and above)

Dams and reservoirs with storage volume of 50 million cubic meters and above or surface area of 8 square kilometers and above

Irrigation and drainage projects serving 15,000 hectares and above

Irrigation and drainage projects serving 15,000 hectares and above

Flood Protection  

Water supply and filtration

Large Water supply schemes and filtration plants

Water supply schemes and treatment plants with total cost of Rs.25 million and above

Waste disposal and treatment

Handling, storage or disposal of hazardous / toxic / radioactive waste

Waste disposal and/or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes (including landfill sites, incineration of hospital toxic waste)

Waste disposal facilities for municipal or industrial wastes (total annual capacity of 10,000 tons and above)

Waste disposal facilities for domestic or industrial wastes, with annual capacity more than 10,000 cubic meters

31

CategoriesProjects requiring EIA under SEPA (Schedule II)

Projects requiring EIA under PEPA (Schedule II)

Waste water treatment facility for industrial or municipal effluents.

 

Urban development (and tourism and communication)

Housing schemes above 10 acres  

Residential/commercial high rise Buildings / apartments from15 stories and above.

 

Land use studies and urban plans (large cities)

Land use studies and urban plans (large cities)

Large scale public facilities.  

Large-scale tourism development projects

Large-scale tourism development projects with total cost more than Rs.50 M

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

All projects situated in environmentally sensitive areas

All projects situated in environmentally sensitive areas

Other projects

Any other project for which filing of an EIA is required by the Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5.

Any other project for which filing of an EIA is required by the Federal Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5

Any other project likely to cause an adverse environmental effect

Any other project likely to cause an adverse environmental effect

In the previous Federal statute (EIA / IEE Regulations 2000) [29], there were 10

categories, and the listed projects were also less in number. The new provincial statute has

carried forward the 10 categories previously established in the federal law, and added

another important category of ‘Oil & Gas projects’. This has enabled a neater and clearer

arrangement of the projects in the list.

An important thing to note is that the SEPA schedules tend to put more stringent

requirements in many cases. Though a few interview respondents pointed out that the

32

financial threshold values have been doubled in almost all cases, others countered by

arguing that the cumulative inflation of 17 years (1997 to 2014) warrants more than

doubling. In some other cases, e.g. dams and reservoirs, EIA is now required if the project

has half the capacity compared to the previous one.

There are a couple of appreciable improvements in SEPA schedules, when compared to

PEPA. For one, it provides a larger list of projects, covering more ground. Secondly, and

equally importantly, for the new entries in the lists, it has lessened the previous tendency

of using financial threshold as the main parameter to determine the assessment level

requirements. The new schedules have removed financial thresholds and instead inserted a

more direct measure of scale. Hence, for example, any housing schemes planned over an

area of less than 10 acre will need an IEE but if it is more than 10 acres, an EIA will be

required.

Having established that, it is also abundantly clear that there are many areas where the

current screening process could be improved. Some of these improvement possibilities are

discussed in the next sections of this thesis.

4.2 Freedom of Interpretation

The first issue highlighted during the interviews was the limitation of using the schedules

as legally binding instruments. There was a general consensus amongst the respondents

that awareness about environmental issues has improved much over the time the PEPA

1997 came into force. At that time, it was required that not much is left for independent

interpretation by the proponents or the consultants, due to a general lack of environmental

awareness. Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency took it upon itself to clearly

identify which projects should undergo an EIA and where an IEE could be sufficient.

However, the level of awareness is much better on all sides now, therefore, the

requirements could be made open to some interpretation. As mentioned in Section 3.5 of

this thesis, even the guidelines issued in 1997 by the Pak-EPA contained good guiding

statements at the beginning of the lists of projects requiring EIA or IEE. This made it

possible to interpret as to the spirit of the law, so that any projects that are incidentally

omitted from this list, could be treated accordingly. The respondents pointed out that this

is not the case in the Sindh EIA / IEE Regulations, where Rule 3 and 4 just indicate the

schedules. The schedules, in turn, do not have any guiding statements, and only provide

lists of projects.33

It is evident that not all possible projects could be listed in the schedules, and there always

is a likelihood of some project propping up that is not included in any of the schedules.

This situation does arise often, according to the consultants and proponents interviewed. It

generally leads to quite a bit of confusion as to what level of assessment should be

conducted. Narrated by one of the interviewees, a recent example is the construction of a

diesel storage depot by an OMC (Oil Marketing Company) near the city of Shikarpur in

the upper Sindh. It is not listed in any of the current three schedules. In the absence of a

clear guiding statement anywhere in the law, the proponent was forced to contact EPA for

a clear advice. Unfortunately EPA has very limited resources, and takes a long time in

responding to such queries even after consistent follow-up. This resulted in undue delays,

and the project went into cost overruns.

Similarly, there are many instances where the schedules require EIA for a project, while in

reality this exercise does not yield any new meaningful information. As an example, one

respondent pointed out a recent case where a 14 km gas pipeline from an existing

wellhead to an existing industrial unit was to be laid. The line ROW (right of way) was

already secured as it was alongside an existing line of the same dimensions. The oil and

gas transmission systems have been included in schedule II where an EIA is required,

whereas in the above case, no new information or major environmental impact could be

foreseen by conducting a full blown EIA. In the absence of any guiding principles given in

the statute, it becomes very difficult to logically handle this case. We should also consider

the fact that cost of an EIA is generally 3 – 4 times that of IEE if not more. Add to this the

rampant corruption in the Government departments, and the situation becomes really

complex.

Two opposing arguments were presented during interviews regarding this aspect. Most

project proponents were of the view that leaving the interpretation only to EPA leads to

very stringent requirements put forward by them. This, coupled with the perceived

corruption in the Government institutions, makes most proponents very skeptical about the

appropriate use of screening schedules. On the other hand, EPA officials contend that if

the interpretation is kept open, all types of objections are raised by public. They sought the

example of the LNG terminals in this respect. For the first proposed LNG terminal, EPA

itself was not experienced and hence it took a long time to reach a decision. But by the

time the next LNG terminals came, enough information and experience was available with

EPA to come up with a decision early, and with less stringent conditions. However, this

did not go down well with the proponents of the first one, and they accuse the EPA of

34

biased approach towards the two similar projects discouraging the former one and

favoring the latter one.

Therefore, it could be suggested that spirit of the law, rather than the letter, should be

followed. It is highly desirable to include a guiding principle at the head of each of the

three schedules. The guiding principles could be borrowed from any of the development

institutions. The text available in the guidelines issued by Pak-EPA in 1997 also still holds

true, and it could also be used as the guiding statements.

4.3 Core Parameters for Categorization

The second issue highlighted during the interviews, and also revalidated through literature

review, is that some of the core parameters are perceived to be not taken into account

while developing the schedules.

Some of the respondents do not agree with the current lists because these have limited

focus on the assimilation capacity of the receiving environment. Though the schedules do

mention that projects in the declared environmentally sensitive areas will need an EIA,

there is no mention of, for example, a thickly populated area. Hence a cement plant will

need an EIA no matter if it is being set in proximity of Kotri, or at a deserted and

uninhabited place in the vast expanses of Thano Bola Khan. For industrial development

specially, this is already a bone of contention. An industrial zone is a development that is

designed to lead to sub-developments. Industrial zones are, naturally, subject to detailed

EIAs. Therefore, many respondents argued, individual industrial units coming up in

designated industrial zones complying with their original zoning plans should be subjected

to environmental assessment of a cursory level. This is not currently reflected in the SEPA

2014. Hence, a textile garment unit being set up in Korangi Creek Industrial Park is

subject to the same level of environmental scrutiny as a unit built and operating in the

proximity of residential areas (e.g. New Karachi).

Another respondent expressed the opinion that due weightage has not been given to

technological advancement. For example, in case of wastewater treatment plants, modern

plants could treat a very big volume of effluent with a high level of efficiency, while the

older technology could only offer 30-40 % efficiency. Therefore, besides the treatment

capacity of treatment plant, the treatment technology could also be a deciding factor as to

whether an EIA is to be conducted or an IEE is sufficient. However, a counter argument is

that more sophisticated technology can lead to higher frequency of failure, in view of the 35

limited capacity of infrastructure and human resources available in Pakistan. In case of

failure, modern plants tend to cause greater degree of harm, and therefore, they need to be

more minutely studied before implementation. But then again, latest technology generally

comes with better environmental safeguards built-in. Hence the argument of considering

technology could not be easily rejected.

4.4 Financial Threshold

The third and another interesting issue is that of the financial threshold. Financial

threshold has been used as an indicator of scale of a project – and thus its potential

environmental impacts – in the screening schedules of EPA. However, it should be noted

that the current legislation uses this method – rather than specific size of capacity – in case

of a total of 14 projects, down from the 17 in the previous federal legislation. Furthermore,

these 14 are out of a much larger list of projects, compared to the previous one.

One respondent, who has been part of the environmental statutory regime in Pakistan, says

that the financial threshold criteria is not a valid one in our circumstances. He argues that

if two industrial plants of same capacity are built, the one with better technology and

lower waste generation potential will almost certainly be more expensive. Hence applying

the financial threshold criteria means that we will have an EIA for a plant that is expected

to have lower environmental impacts to begin with, while for the plant with potentially

more environmental impacts, an IEE would be legally sufficient.

This argument is particularly relevant for the industrial development, for newer

technology is more expensive but more resource efficient hence more environmentally

sustainable. Furthermore, even in the new technology, there are often options to

incorporate environmental safeguards. An example is the industrial boiler. An economizer

is an equipment that makes use of the heat emitted by a boiler due to combustion, and pre-

heats the boiler feed water, thereby reducing the change of temperature required from the

boiler. With the same basic technology, boilers of the same capacity are available with or

without economizer. While economizer does increase the capital expenditure, it definitely

brings down the environmental emissions and puts much less burden on the fuel resources

when compared to a boiler without economizer. This improves environmental

performance but simultaneously increases the capital cost.

An EPA representative agrees with it only partially though. He says that applying cost

threshold criteria is still a good idea to infrastructure and other projects where technology 36

is not an element with importance. He uses the example of development agencies in

support of his argument, where a financial threshold is applied to ensure that projects with

lower total cost do not have to assign a substantial sum of their budgets towards

environmental assessment costs. Interestingly, the current schedules apply the financial

threshold criteria more on the industrial development than on the infrastructure projects.

Another confusion in the ambit of financial threshold is the cost of land. In many projects,

cost of land is the single biggest contributor in the total project cost. In case of industrial

units, there are many instances when the land is acquired as a whole piece and then

various industrial components are put in place. There is no clarity to apportion the land

cost in such cases. Similarly, in many public sector projects, development is carried out on

Government lands with low or no price tag attached to it. Nonetheless, this does not

reduce the potential environmental burden of the proposed project. In fact, in some cases

where the land cost is low, the environmental and social impacts are likely to be more

intense, in terms of receiving environment and community. A case in point is Thar Desert

where cost of land is very low. Hence, making a road there is not very costly. But that

ecosystem is very fragile and the social system there is also very peculiar, inhabited by

highly marginalized communities. Therefore, subjecting a project to less stringent

environmental scrutiny on the basis of upfront cost does not seem to be an appropriate

approach in such cases.

4.5 Clarity on Jurisdiction

The fourth issue emanates from the devolution of the subject of environment from federal

to provincial level. As author Firoza Pastakia mentions, the PEPA 97 operated at the

federal level, overriding any contradicting provisions in other federal or provincial laws.

Even under those clearer circumstances, the issue of jurisdiction did prop up every now

and then. When some development project was proposed on the Bundal Island located at

the mouth of the Port Qasim Navigation Channel in 2009, there was a number of

claimants over the jurisdiction of this piece of land, including Pakistan Navy, Maritime

Security Agency, Port Qasim Authority, Korangi Creek Cantonment Board and the City

District Government Karachi. Even the provincial forest department laid a claim, based on

the fact the part of the island came under cover of mangrove forests. Arising out of this

confusion, the next question was who would be responsible to review and approve the

environmental assessment of the proposed project. Here again, both Sindh EPA and the

Federal EPA has claims over the jurisdiction.

37

SEPA 2014 is a provincial law, and hence all federal laws can override it in case of any

contradiction in the legal provisions. More important in terms of the current study is the

fact that PEPA 97 used to govern all activities that have the potential to cause

environmental damage, including those exclusively under the purview of federal

government e.g. nuclear power plants. Under post-18th amendment scenario, there are

many subjects where federal government retains its exclusive authority, and hence, they

are out of the ambit of provincial environmental law. However, this technicality has also

been not clearly defined in the current provincial statutes. Some of the areas where federal

laws hold sway over the provincial laws are:

– Major ports

– Shipping

– Mining

– Highways

– Nuclear energy

– Oil & Gas

– Railways

Experts suggest that besides the three schedules, there should also be an exclusion list,

enlisting projects that fall under federal jurisdiction. This will be different than the

exclusion lists of the development financial institutions that provide lists of projects the

particular institution does not finance as a policy. The EPA exclusion list should be

ambivalent, neither supporting nor opposing in its tone towards the themes that come

under the federal purview. The interviewees think that this will also save Sindh EPA from

a lot of hassle. They noted that the environmental approval granted by the Sindh EPA to a

proposed nuclear power project being set up by a Chinese company near the KANUPP

brought about much criticism from various quarters, particularly the civil society and

others. This criticism would not have been directed towards the Sindh EPA, had it

maintained its neutrality over a matter that actually does not come under its mandate.

4.6 Integration of Environmental Checklist into the Act

The introduction of environmental checklist in Schedule III, to cover projects that are

likely to have only insignificant environmental impacts, was hailed by most respondents

as a very good step. It will support in portraying the true sense of the environmental

legislation, they argued, by depicting that lower potential of damage to environment needs

38

lower level of environmental planning at the outset. However, they point out that

seemingly, this concept has come in only as an afterthought. This is evident by studying

the Sindh Environmental Protection Act in some detail. Sub-section (1) of section 17

makes it binding upon the proponents of any project to carry out and file “an Initial

Environmental Examination or Environmental Impact Assessment” and get approval from

the Agency. There is no mention of Environmental Checklist here. Perhaps more

importantly, there is no mention of environmental checklist in sub-section (4) of section

17 of the Act, which sets out the time limits for invoking the “deemed approval”. This

clause binds the Environmental Protection Agency (Sindh) to convey its decision within

two months in case of IEE, and within four months in case of EIA, otherwise the project is

deemed to be approved. But no time frame has been given to EPA in case of

environmental checklist. The interview respondents opined that this is an important

omission. They were of the view that given the various limitations faced by the EPA,

including limited HR capacity, the EPA tends to give priority to larger proposals. This

approach is appropriate as well, because larger projects may cause larger damage to the

environment. However, it also results in unnecessary delay in granting approvals to the

micro projects where only environmental checklist was needed and filed. This discourages

the proponents of smaller projects to get in the ambit of the law, defeating the very

purpose of introducing the concept of environmental checklist.

4.7 List of Projects NOT Requiring Environmental Assessment

Another issue is to complete the cycle by defining which projects do not require any level

of environmental assessment. Previously, the environmental guidelines issued by the Pak-

EPA had three schedules: one each for EIA, IEE, and projects where no environmental

assessment is required. But when the Pak-EPA issued the EIA / IEE Regulations in year

2000, it included only two schedules and done away with the third one. The current SEPA

has taken a step in the right direction by introducing environmental checklist, thereby

making sure that almost 100% of activities that has the potential to cause environmental

impact are not only covered, but covered with the appropriate level of assessment.

However, it has continued the practice of omitting with the schedule identifying activities

where no environmental assessment is required. In this regard, using the previous schedule

C of Pak-EPA after due amendments could be a good solution.

39

4.8 Errors & Omissions

Finally, there are certain errors and omissions that were pointed out during the interviews.

These might be due to an error in judgment, or typographical error. For example, petrol

and CNG filling stations have been classified in Schedule I, requiring IEE, while an

environmental checklist could be a more apt option. Another example is bracketing of

textile garment units with dyeing / printing units and then applying a financial threshold

on it. Textile wet processing is a resource-intensive activity, specially in terms of water

usage. Whereas, textile garments manufacturing does not require use of many natural

resources. It is evident that textile garment units have minimal environmental impacts

whereas textile wet-processing has significant environmental impacts. Therefore, such

units should not be bracketed under the same category with the same financial threshold.

Interestingly, in Schedule II, it clearly excludes the textile apparel, meaning that

technically apparel units upto the defined financial threshold could file an IEE, but apparel

units above that threshold are outside the legal ambit. Similarly, Schedule I includes

multistory buildings mentioning the plot size but not mentioning the number of

permissible stories, whereas schedule II also includes multistory buildings, this time

defining the number of stories permitted but without any mention to the plot size.

Some of the respondents were of the opinion that only the really large projects must be

asked to go for an EIA. They think that the current list of projects requiring EIA is far too

long, and it essentially undermines the spirit of the EIA process. By strengthening the IEE

requirements, many projects from Schedule II could be taken to Schedule I. EIA should be

mandatory only where the scale of the project is very large, involuntary resettlement is

part of the project and / or the project is located in an environmentally sensitive area.

40

CHAPTER – 5

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

It is a known fact that enforcement of the law, rather than its development, pose a greater

challenge in Pakistan. However, as could be seen in the deliberations of the previous

chapter, a well-formulated legal instrument could be instrumental in smoother legal

enforcement. Therefore, this thesis attempts to list out certain policy level measures, that

could improve the quality of the current environmental schedules, automatically but

indirectly supporting its true implementation.

Nevertheless, being an exploratory study, this thesis could not formulate any

recommendations in terms of concrete design and built-in objectively verifiable indicators.

This thesis also does not intend to take up the task of formulating any list of suggested

changes in the existing schedules, respecting the fact that this task should only be carried

out through a consultative process in a group of environmental professionals and

stakeholders.

Following are the suggestions – points to ponder – that came out through discussions with

various experts and review of literature sources during the course of this assignment:

Though the SEPA schedules are good starting points, there is a need to further

improve it to overcame various limitations.

There is need to build trust between various stakeholders, to ensure sanctity of the

process and integrity of the system.

The schedules should be revised after extensive consultation with pertinent

stakeholders, as was the case with the development of Sindh Environmental Protection

Act 2014.

There should be certain guiding statements, either at the top of the three schedules, or

defined within the text of legislation itself, to ensure justified interpretation and to

account for any project that may not be listed.

Spirit of the law, rather than the letter, should be followed. This is particularly

important while interpreting various clauses of the SEPA 2014.

Core parameters for categorization (e.g. technology, population of the project area,

biological conditions of receiving environment etc.) should be clearly spelt out.

41

There is a need to revisit the financial threshold criteria by a team of experts. It should

be applied to only projects with low level of technology.

Subjects that are directly governed by the Federal Government should be removed

from the SEPA schedules

List of projects that do not require any environmental assessment should also be

clearly established.

The schedules must be rechecked in terms of current entries and errors and omissions

must be corrected.

To reap the intended benefits of the concept of environmental checklists, it should be

clearly mentioned in the main text of the Act.

Timeframe for environmental approval of projects falling under the Schedule III

should be clearly established.

42

List of References:

1. Senecal, P. et al. Principle of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice. (online) International Association for Impact Assessment in cooperation with Institute of Environmental Assessment, UK, January 1999, (Accessed November 12, 2015). Available from: http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf

2. Ayaz, Saaudullah. Discussion Paper on Institutional Framework and Coordination Mechanism for Environmental Impact Assessment in Pakistan, Islamabad: National Impact Assessment Program, March 2013

3. DFID Environment Guide – A guide for environmental screening. Department for International Development, UK. June 2003

4. Khan, Asif Shuja, Stepping forward towards better environment – The past, present and future, (Online), April 2002. (Accessed November 12, 2015). Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004682.pdf

5. Khan, Azheruddin. Past, Present & Future of NEQS Implementation in Pakistan. Sustainable Development – Bridging the Research / Policy Gaps in Southern Context; Vol-I: Environment, (p-89), Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Oxford University Press, 2005

6. Alrai, IRFAN SAEED, Environmental Regulatory Framework in Pakistan. Islamabad: NEAP-SP, UNDP/ Government of Pakistan, 2003

7. Pastakia, F. Environmental Protection and the 18th Amendment – Impacts of Constitutional Amendments on Environmental Protection Legislation, Analysis of Laws in Force, and Assessment of Implementation Issues. Islamabad: National Impact Assessment Programme, 2012

8. International Finance Corporation. Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability [online]. April 2010. [Accessed 3 November 2015]. Available from: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/our+approach/risk+management/performance+standards/environmental+and+social+performance+standards+and+guidance+notes#2006

9. Hveem, H. & Beas, M. The Trade-Environment Debate: Pre-negotiation, Negotiated Agreement, and Implementation. In: O.K. Fauchald & M. Greaker, ed. Environmental Assessment of Trade Agreements and Policy. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 1998, pp.21-35.

10. Government of Saskatchewan. How does screening by the Environmental Assessment Branch differ from an environmental assessment? [online]. 2013. [Accessed 4 November 2015]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=78f75774-d028-403d-9f05-9df428005678

11. Aslam, F. EIA in Pakistan – Overview, Implementation & Effectiveness. TRITA, LWR Masters Thesis, June 2006

12. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Policy and Procedures for the Filing, review and approval of environmental assessments. October 1997.

13. Pastakia, F. Environmental Protection and the 18th Amendment – Impacts of Constitutional Amendments on Environmental Protection Legislation, Analysis of Laws in Force, and Assessment of Implementation Issues. Islamabad: National Impact Assessment Programme, 2012

43

14. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Policy and Procedures for the Filing, review and approval of environmental assessments. October 1997. Annex I, Schedule A

15. Ibid. Annex I, Schedule C16. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for the Preparation and

review of Environmental Reports. October 199717. Sindh Environmental Protection Agency. The Sindh Environmental Protection Act

2014. March 201418. Government of Nepal. Environmental Protection Rules 2054. 1997

19. Sobhan, M.A. Sharing Experiences of EIA in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Department of Environment, Bangladesh. 2012

20. Kumar, A. EIA notification and its Implementation in India. (Online), October 2012. (Accessed November 12, 2015). Available at: http://www.sciencebeing.com/2012/10/eia-notification-and-its-implementation-in-india/

21. Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification S.O. 1533. September 2006

22. International Finance Corporation. Performance Standards I – Social & Environmental Management System. April 2006.

23. Asian Development Bank. Environmental Considerations in Bank Operations Section 21. 1993.

24. The World Bank. Operational Directive 4.00 & 4.01. 199325. International Finance Corporation. IFC’s Policy on Social & Environmental

Sustainability. 201226. United Nations Development Program. Social & Environmental Policies &

Procedures [online]. January 2015. [Accessed 3 November 2015]. Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/Social-and-Environmental-Policies-and-Procedures/UNDP-Social-Environmental-Screening-Procedure-1January2015.pdf

27. Department for International Development, Government of the UK. DFID Environmental Guide – A guide to environmental screening. June 2003

28. International Finance Corporation. Environmental & Social Review Procedures. April 2006

29. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Review of IEE & EIA Regulations 2000. SRO 339(1)/2001. 2001

Bibliography

44

Following literature resources were reviewed, besides the reference given in the list of references, for developing a general understanding about the research topic and its related issues:

1. Qadar S., and Dogar A. R., Pakistan’s Environmental Laws & Their Compliance, Lahore Law Times Publications, 2002.

2. Asian Development Bank, EIA Report of Jalalpur Irrigation Project, NESPAK, Lahore. 2015

3. Government of Pakistan, National Environmental Policy, Islamabad. 20054. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Sustainable Development: Bridging the

Research / Policy Gaps in Southern Context. Volume I: Environment. Islamabad: Oxford University Press. 2005

5. Government of Pakistan, The Pakistan National Conservation Strategy. Islamabad. 1993

6. American Society of Technical Measurements, Environmental Site Assessment Standards. 1998

7. USEPA Website: www.epa.gov 8. Pakistan EPA Website: www.environment.gov.pk/ 9. Sindh EPA Website: www. sindh .gov.pk/dpt/Environment/ 10. International Standardization Organization (ISO). ISO 14001:2004 standards.

200411. Planning & Development Department, Government of Sindh. Sindh Vision 2030.

National Management Consultants. 200712. Westat, J.F. The User Friendly Handbook of Project Evaluation. National Science

Foundation. Arlington: 200213. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency. Sectoral Guidelines for Environmental

Reports. 199914. Punjab Environmental Protection Agency. Punjab Environmental Protection Act.

201215. Balochistan Environmental Protection Agency. Balochistan Environmental

Protection Act. 201216. Sindh Environmental Protection Agency. Sindh Environmental Protection Act.

201417. Caribbean Development Bank. Guidance Manual: Environmental Screening

Checklists & Guidelines for BNTF7 Programme. 2015

45

Annexure – 1

IEE / EIA Regulation 2014

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Karachi dated the 16th December, 2014.

46

NOTIFICATION

NO.EPA/TECH/739/2014:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014, the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency, with the approval of Government, is pleased to make the following regulations, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement

(1) These regulations may be called the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2014.

(2) They shall come into force at once.

2. Definitions.-

(1) In these regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context -

(a) “Act” means the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 (VIII of 2014);

(b) “Agency” means the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency as defined under section 2(ii);

(c) “Committee” means the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee constituted under regulation 24;

(d) “Director General” means the Director General of the Agency;

(e) “EIA” means an environmental impact assessment as defined in section 2(xv);

(f) “IEE” means an initial environmental examination as defined in section 2(xxx);

(g) “section” means a section of the Act.

(h) "Firm” means the Environmental Consulting Firm certified by the Agency;

(i) “Environmental Sensitive areas” means the area which falls under sensitive sites like protected areas, or the sites which may have crucial and growing importance;

(j) “protected area” means any area which safeguards the earths precious bio-diversity protect outstanding areas of natural beauty and conservation of cultural significance;

(k) “Schedule” means the Schedule to these regulations;

(l) “urban area” means an area within the limits of a town, municipality or city and includes any area declared as such by Government by notification in the official gazette;

(2) All other words and expressions used but not defined in these regulations shall have the same meaning as are assigned to them in the Act.

3. Projects requiring an IEE

A proponent of a project falling in any category listed in Schedule-I shall file an IEE with the Agency, and the provisions of section 17 shall apply to such projects.

47

4. Projects requiring an EIA

A proponent of a project falling in any category listed in Schedule-II shall file an EIA with the Agency, and the provisions of section 17 shall apply to such projects.

5. Projects requiring checklist

A proponent of a project falling in any category listed in Schedule-III shall file environmental checklist with the Agency and the provisions of section 17 shall apply to such projects.

6. Projects not requiring an IEE or EIA

(1) A proponent of a project not falling in any category listed in Schedules-I, II and III shall not be required to file an IEE or EIA:

Provided that the proponent shall file -

(a) an EIA, if the project is likely to cause an adverse environmental effects;

(b) an application for projects not listed in Schedules-I, II and III in respect of which the Agency has issued guidelines for construction and operation for approval accompanied by an undertaking and an affidavit that the aforesaid guidelines shall be fully complied with.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Agency may direct the proponent of a project, whether or not listed in Schedule I or II or III, to file an IEE or EIA or environmental check list, for reasons to be recorded in such direction:

Provided that no such direction shall be issued without the recommendations in writing of the Committee.

(3) The provisions of section 17 shall apply to a project in respect of which an IEE or EIA or environmental checklist is filed under sub-regulation (1) or (2).

7. Preparation of IEE/EIA and environmental checklist

(1) The Agency may issue guidelines for preparation of an IEE or an EIA or an environmental checklist, including guidelines of general applicability, and sectoral guidelines indicating specific assessment requirements for planning, construction and operation of projects relating to particular sector.

(2) Where guidelines have been issued under sub-regulation (1), an IEE or EIA or environmental checklist shall be prepared, to the extent practicable, in accordance therewith and the proponent shall justify in the IEE or EIA or in environmental checklist any departure therefrom.

8. Review Fees

The proponent shall pay, at the time of submission of an IEE or EIA or environmental checklist, a non-refundable review fee to the Agency as per rates shown in Schedule-IV

9. Filing of IEE, EIA and environmental check list.

48

(1) Ten hard copies and two electronic copies for an IEE and EIA reports shall be filed with the Agency prepared by Firm.

(2) Every IEE and EIA shall be accompanied by -

(a) an application, in the form prescribed in Schedule-V;

(b) copy of receipt showing payment of the Review Fee.

(c) no objection certificates from the relevant departments in case of EIA shall be the part of reports;

(d) the environmental check list as per its guidelines.

10. Preliminary scrutiny(1) Within fifteen working days of filing of the IEE or EIA or environmental check list, the Agency shall –

(a) confirm that the IEE or EIA or environmental check list is complete for purposes of initiation of the review process; or

(b) require the proponent to submit such additional information as may be specified; or

(c) return the IEE or EIA or environmental checklist to the proponent for revision, clearly listing the points requiring further study and discussion.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Agency may require the proponent to submit an additional information at any stage during the review process.

11. Public participation

(1) In the case of an EIA, the Agency shall simultaneously with issue of confirmation of completeness under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 9, cause to be published in any English or Urdu national newspaper and in a local newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the project, a public notice mentioning the type of project, its exact location, the name and address of the proponent and the places at which the EIA of the project can, subject to the restrictions in sub-section (3) of section 17, be accessed.

(2) The notice issued under sub-regulation (1) shall fix a date, time and place of public hearing for any comments on the project or its EIA.

(3) The date fixed under sub-regulation (2) shall not be earlier than fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice.

(4) The Agency shall also ensure the circulation of the EIA to the concerned Government Agencies and solicit their comments thereon.

(5) All comments received by the Agency from the public or any Government Agency shall be collated, tabulated and duly considered by it before decision on the EIA.

(6) The Agency may issue guidelines indicating the basic techniques and measures to be adopted to ensure effective public consultation, involvement and participation in EIA assessment.

12. Review

(1) The Agency shall make every effort to carry out its review of the environmental checklist within thirty days, IEE within sixty days, and of

49

the EIA within four months of issue of confirmation of completeness under regulation 9.

(2) In reviewing the EIA, the Agency shall consult such Committee of Experts be constituted for the purpose by the Director General, and may also solicit views of concerned Advisory Committee, if any, constituted by the Agency.

(3) The Director-General may, where he considers it necessary, constitute a committee to inspect the site of the project and submit its report on such matters as may be specified.

(4) In reviewing the IEE, the Director General may constitute a committee of the officers from within the Agency on case to case basis in view of the jurisdiction and location of the project for the purpose to extend final recommendation about the approval or rejection of the IEE.

(5) In reviewing of the IEE, the Director General may direct the proponent and Firm to present the report before the committee as given under sub-regulation (4) and the Director General may also invite environmental experts from outside the Agency for the purpose of assistance.

(6) The review of the IEE or EIA by the Agency shall be based on quantitative and qualitative assessment of the documents and data furnished by the proponent, comments from the public and Government Agencies received under regulation 10, and views of the committees mentioned in sub-regulations (2) and (3) above.

(7) The environmental check list shall be reviewed as per guidelines issued by the Agency.

13. Decision

(1) Subject to regulation 9 and 11, the documentary evidence in the form of videos (soft copies) of public hearing shall be submitted by the proponent at the time of environmental approval or at any stage of review process, to the Agency.

(2) On completion of the review, the decision of the Agency shall be communicated to the proponent in the form prescribed in Schedule-VI in the case of an IEE and environmental check list, and in the form prescribed in Schedule-VII in the case of an EIA and for environmental checklist.

14. Conditions of approval

(1) Every approval of an IEE or EIA or check list shall, in addition to such conditions as may be imposed by the Agency, be subject to the condition that the project shall be designed and constructed, and mitigatory and other measures adopted, strictly in accordance with the IEE or EIA or environmental check list, unless any variations thereto have been specified

50

in the approval by the Agency.

(2) Where the Agency accords its approval subject to certain conditions, the proponent shall -

(a) before commencing construction of the project, acknowledge acceptance of the stipulated conditions by executing an undertaking in the form prescribed in Schedule-VIII;

(b) before commencing operation of the project, obtain from the Agency written confirmation that the conditions of approval, and the requirements in the IEE or EIA or environmental check list relating to design and construction, adoption of mitigatory and other measures and other relevant matters, have been duly complied with.

15. Confirmation of compliance

(1) The request for confirmation of compliance under clause (b) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 13 shall be accompanied by an Environmental Management Plan indicating the measures and procedures proposed to be taken to manage or mitigate the environmental impacts for the life of the project, including provisions for monitoring, reporting and auditing.

(2) Where a request for confirmation of compliance is received from a proponent, the Agency may carry out such inspection of the site and plant and machinery and seek such additional information from the proponent as it may deem fit:

Provided that every effort shall be made by the Agency to provide the requisite confirmation or otherwise within twenty days of receipt of the request, with complete information, from the proponent.

(3) The Agency may, while issuing the requisite confirmation of compliance, impose such other conditions as the Environmental Management Plan, and the operation, maintenance and monitoring of the project as it may deem fit, and such conditions shall be deemed to be included in the conditions to which approval of the project is subject.

16. Deemed approval

The period for communication of decision stipulated in sub-section (4) of section 17 shall commence from the date of filing of an IEE or EIA or environmental check list in respect of which confirmation of completeness is issued by the Agency under clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 9.

17. Extension in review period

Where the Agency in a particular case extends the period of four months under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 17, it may extend the further period as it may deem fit, for the reasons to be recorded in writing thereof.

18. Validity period of approval

(1) The approval accorded by the Agency under section 17 read with regulation 12 shall be valid, for commencement of construction, for a period of three years from the date of issue.

51

(2) If construction is commenced during the initial three years validity period, the validity of the approval shall stand extended for a further period of three years from the date of issue.

(3) After issue of confirmation of compliance, the approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date thereof.

(4) The proponent may apply to the Agency for extension in the validity periods mentioned in sub-regulations (1), (2) and (3), which may be granted by the Agency in its discretion for such period not exceeding three years at a time, if the conditions of the approval do not require significant change:

Provided that the Agency may require the proponent to submit a fresh IEE or EIA, if in its opinion changes in location, design, construction and operation of the project so warrant.

19. Entry and inspection

(1) For the purpose of verification of any matter relating to the review or to the conditions of approval of an IEE or EIA or environmental check list prior to, before or during and after commencement of construction or operation of a project, duly authorized staff of the Agency shall be entitled to enter and inspect the project site, factory building and plant and equipment installed therein.

(2) The proponent shall ensure full cooperation of the project staff at site to facilitate the inspection, and shall provide such information as may be required by the Agency for this purpose and pursuant thereto.

20. Monitoring

(1) After issue of approval, the proponent shall submit a report to the Agency on completion of construction of the project.

(2) After issue of confirmation of compliance, the proponent shall submit an annual report summarizing operational performance of the project, with reference to the conditions of approval and maintenance and mitigatory measures adopted by the project.

(3) The proponent shall, in order to enable the Agency to effectively monitor compliance with the conditions of approval, furnish such additional information as the Agency may require.

21. Cancellation of approval

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, if, at any time, on the basis of information or report received or inspection carried out, the Agency is of the opinion that the conditions of an approval have not been complied with, or that the information supplied by a proponent in the approved IEE or EIA or environmental check list is incorrect, it shall issue notice to the proponent for show cause within two weeks of receipt thereof as to why the approval should not be cancelled.

(2) In case no reply is received or if the reply is considered unsatisfactory, the Agency may, after giving the proponent an opportunity of being heard -

(i) require the proponent to take such measures and to comply with such conditions within such period as it may specify, failing which the approval shall stand cancelled; or

52

(ii) cancel the approval.

(3) On cancellation of the approval, the proponent shall cease construction or operation of the project forthwith.

(4) Any action taken under this regulation shall be without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the proponent under the Act or rules or regulations or any other law for the time being in force.

22. Registers of IEE,EIA and Check list projects

Separate Registers to be maintained by the Agency for IEE, EIA and environmental check list projects under sub-section (6) of section 17 shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule-IX.

23. Environmentally sensitive areas

(1) The Agency may, by notification in the official Gazette, designate an area to be an environmentally sensitive area.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in regulations 3, 4 and 5, the proponent of a project situated in an environmentally sensitive area shall be required to file an EIA with the Agency.

(3) The Agency may from time to time issue guidelines to assist proponents and other persons involved in the environmental assessment process to plan and prepare projects located in environmentally sensitive areas.

(4) Where guidelines have been issued under sub-regulation (3), the projects shall be planned and prepared, to the extent practicable, in accordance therewith and any departure therefrom justified in the EIA pertaining to the project.

24. Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee.- For the purpose of rendering advice on all aspects of the environmental assessment including guidelines procedure and categorization of projects, the following Advisory Committee shall be constituted:-

(i) Director Technical, Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (EIA/IEE)

Chairman

(ii) Chief Environment, Planning and Development Department

Member

(iii) Four representative on each of industry, non-Governmental organization, legal and other experts

Members

Repeal and Savings. (1) The provisions of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency Review of Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Assessment Impact Regulations 2000, to the extent of the Province of Sindh are hereby repealed.

(2) All orders made, notification issued, actions taken under the repealed Regulations shall remain in force until amended, altered or repealed by the provisions of these Rules.

53

DIRECTOR GENERALSINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCHEDULE I(See Regulation 3)

54

A. Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

1. Poultry, livestock, stud and fish farms

2. Projects involving packaging, formulation, cold storage and warehouse of agricultural products.

B. Energy

1. Hydroelectric power generation less than 50 MW

2. Thermal power generation less than 100MW

3. Coal fired power plants with capacity less than 50 MW

4. Transmission lines less than 11 KV, and grid station

5. Waste-to-energy generation projects including bio-mass less than 25 MW

6. Solar project

7. Wind project

C. Oil and Gas projects:

1. Oil and gas 2D/3D Seismic survey and drilling activities

2. Oil and gas extraction projects including exploration and production located outside the environmentally sensitive areas

3. Construction of LPG storage facilities

4. Construction of LPG,CNG filling station and petrol pumps

D. Manufacturing and processing

1. Ceramics and glass units less than 500 million

2. Food processing industries with total cost less than Rs. 200 millions

3. Pharmaceutical units.

4. Marble units

5. Carpet manufacturing units

6. Rice mills, ghee/oil mills ,

7. Brick kilns

8. Stone crushing units

9. Man-made fibers and resin projects with total cost less than Rs. 200 millions

10. Manufacturing of apparel, textile garments unit , including dyeing, bleaching and printing, with total cost less than Rs.50 million

11. Wood products with total cost more than Rs.100 million

12. Steel re-rolling mills

13. Recycling plants

E. Mining and mineral processing

Commercial extraction of sand, gravel, limestone, clay, sulphur and other minerals not included in Schedule II with total cost less than Rs.100 million

1. Crushing, grinding and separation processes

55

2. Smelting plants with total cost less than Rs100 millions

F. Transport

1. Flyovers, underpasses and bridges having total length less than 500 meters

G. Water management, dams, irrigation and flood protection

1. Dams and reservoirs with storage volume less than 25 million cubic meters of surface area less than 4 square kilometers

2. Small-scale irrigation systems and drainage system with total cost less than Rs. 100 million

H. Water supply and filtration

Water supply schemes and filtration plants with total cost less than 100 million (Including projects of maintenance, up gradation, reconstruction of existing projects.)

I. Waste disposal and treatment

1. Solid and non-hazardous waste with annual capacity less than 10,000 tons

2. Waste water treatment for sewage treatment facility with total cost less than 200M

3. Industry specific Waste water treatment facility for Industrial effluent (small scale plant)

J. Urban development

1. Housing schemes less than 10 acres

2. Mutli-story buildings having residential and commercial setup on the total plot size is less than 2000 sq.yards

3. Hospitals with capacity of 50 beds, health care unit/laboratories with 500 OPD/day.

4. Construction of Educational, Academic institutions on land less than 10 acres.

K. Other projects

Any other project for which filing of an IEE is required by the Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 6.

SCHEDULE II

(See Regulation 4)

List of projects requiring an EIA

56

A. Energy

1. Hydroelectric power generation over 50 MW

2. Thermal power generation over 100MW

3. Coal power projects above 50 MW

4. Transmission lines (11 KV and above) and distribution projects.

5. Nuclear power plants

6. Wind energy projects if falls under any sensitive, protected area.

B. Oil and Gas projects

1. Petroleum refineries.

2. LPG and LNG Projects(including LNG Terminals, re-gasification units) except LPG filling stations

3. Oil and gas transmission systems

4. Oil and gas gathering system, separation and storage.

C. Manufacturing and processing

1. Cement plants2. Chemical manufacturing industries3. Fertilizer plants4. Steel Mills5. Sugar Mills and Distilleries6. Food processing industries including beverages, dairy milk and products,

slaughter houses and related activities with total cost more than Rs. 200 Million

7. Industrial estates (including export processing zones)8. Man-made fibers and resin projects with total cost of Rs 200M and above9. Pesticides (manufacture or formulation)10. Petrochemicals complex11. Synthetic resins, plastics and man-made fibers, paper and paperboard, paper

pulping, plastic products, textiles (except apparel),printing and publishing, paints and dyes, oils and fats and vegetable ghee projects, with total cost more than Rs. 10 million

12. Tanning and leather finishing projects13. Battery manufacturing plant

D. Mining and mineral processing

1. Mining and processing of coal, gold, copper, sulphur and precious stones

2. Mining and processing of major non-ferrous metals, iron and steel rolling

3. Smelting plants with total cost of Rs. 100 million and above

57

E. Transport

1. Airports

2. Federal or Provincial highways or major roads (including rehabilitation or rebuilding or reconstruction of existing roads)

3. Ports and harbor development

4. Railway works

5. Flyovers, underpasses and bridges having total length of more than 500m

F. Water management, dams, irrigation and flood protection

1. Dams and reservoirs with storage volume of 25 million cubic meters and above having surface area of 4 square kilometers and above

2. Irrigation and drainage projects serving 15,000 hectares and above

3. Flood Protection

G. Water supply and filtration

Large Water supply schemes and filtration plants.

H. Waste Disposal and treatment

1. Handling, storage or disposal of hazardous or toxic wastes or radioactive waste (including landfill sites, incineration of hospital toxic waste )

2. Waste disposal facilities for municipal or industrial wastes, with total annual capacity of 10,000 tons and above.

3. Waste water treatment facility for industrial or municipal effluents.

I. Urban development and tourism

1. Housing schemes above 10 acres

2. Residential/commercial high rise buildings/apartments from15 stories and above.

3. Land use studies and urban plans (large cities)

4. Large scale public facilities.

5. Large-scale tourism development projects

J. Environmentally Sensitive Areas

All projects situated in environmentally sensitive areas

K. Other projects

1. Any other project for which filing of an EIA is required by the Agency under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 5.

2. Any other project likely to cause an adverse environmental effect

58

SCHEDULE-IIIList of projects requiring environmental screening (through check list)

a. Construction of, offices and small commercial buildings (1-6 story),home industrial units, ware houses, marriage / banquet facilities, large scale motor vehicles workshops, restaurants / food outlets ,large baking unit subject to the compliance with existing zoning laws.

b. Reconstruction / rehabilitation of roads ( small roads in urban area and farm to market roads more than 2 km.

c. On-farm dams and fish farms.

d. Pulses mills.

e. Flour Mills

f. Projects promoting energy efficiency (small scale).

g. Lining of existing minor canals and /or water courses.

h. Canal cleaning

i. Forest harvesting operations

j. Rain harvesting projects

k. Rural schools (Secondary and Higher Secondary) and rural and basic health units having at least ten beds capacity.

l. BTS Towers

m. Lime Kilns

n. Ice factories and cold storage.

o. Cotton oil mill

p. Warehouses for pesticides and pharmaceuticals

59

Schedule-IV(See Regulation 7)

Description IEE EIAEnvironmental

Check list

Projects Rs.100,000 Rs.200,000

Rs.30,000 except BTS Towers which is Rs.15,000

60

SCHEDULE V[See Regulation 8(2)(a)]

Application Form

1. Name and address ofProponent

Phone:Fax:

Telex:2. CNIC No. of proponent

3. Description of project

4. Location of project

6. Objectives of project

7. IEE/EIA attached? IEE/EIA : Yes/No

8. Have alternative sites been considered andreported in IEE/EIA?

Yes/No

9.No Objection Certificate of relevant stakeholders

Name(s)

10. Existing land use Landrequirement

11. Is basic site dataavailable, or has itbeen measured?

(only tick yes if thedata is reported in theIEE/EIA)

Meterology (includingrainfall)Ambient air qualityAmbient water qualityGround water quality

Available MeasuredYes/No

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Yes/No

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/No

12. Have estimates of thefollowing beenreported, especially Quantitative Analysis?

Water balanceSolid waste disposalLiquid waste treatment

Estimated ReportedYes/NoYes/NoYes/No

Yes/NoYes/NoYes/No

13. Source of power Powerrequirement

14. Labour force(number)

Construction:Operation:

15. Environmental Consulting Firm

Verification. I do solemnly affirm and declare that the information given above and contained in the attached IEE/EIA is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date Signature, name and_______ designation of proponent (with official stamp/seal)

61

SCHEDULE VI[See Regulation 12]

Decision on IEE/Environmental Check List

1. Name and address of proponent

2. Description of project

3. Location of project

4. Date of filing of IEE

5. After careful review of the IEE, the Agency has decided –

(a) to accord its approval, subject to the following conditions:

or (b) that the proponent should submit an EIA of the project, for the following reasons –

[Delete (a) or (b),

whichever is inapplicable] Dated

Tracking no.___

Director-GeneralSindh Environmental Protection Agency

(with official stamp/seal)

62

SCHEDULE VII

[See Regulation 12]

Decision on EIA

1. Name and address of proponent

2. Description of project

3. Location of project

4. Date of filing of EIA

5. After careful review of the EIA, and all comments thereon, the Federation Agency has decided –

(a) to accord its approval, subject to the following conditions:

or (b) that the proponent should submit an EIA with the following modifications-

or (c) to reject the project, being contrary to environmental objectives, for the following reasons:

[Delete (a)/(b)/(c),

whichever is inapplicable] Dated

Tracking no.___

Director-GeneralSindh Environmental Protection Agency

(with official stamp/seal)

63

SCHEDULE VIII[See Regulation 13(2)]

Undertaking

I, (full name and address) as proponent for (name, description and location of project) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that I fully understand and accept the conditionsdated , and undertake to design, construct and operate the project strictly in accordance with the said conditions and the IEE/EIA/Environmental Check List.

Signature, name and designation of proponent (with official stamp/seal)

Witnesses(full names and addresses)

64

SCHEDULE IX(See Regulation 21)

Form of Registers for IEE and EIA and Environmental Check List projects

S. No. Description Relevant Provisions1 2 3

1. Tracking number2. Category type (as per Schedules I, II & III)3. Name of proponent4. Name and designation of contact person5. Name of consultant

6. Description of project7. Location of project8. Project capital cost9. Date of receipt of IEE/EIA/Environmental Check List10. Date of confirmation of completeness11. Approval granted (Yes/No)12. Date of approval granted or refused13. Conditions of approval/reasons for refusal14. Date of Undertaking15. Date of extension of approval validity16. Period of extension

17. Date of commencement of construction

18. Date of issue of confirmation of compliance19. Date of commencement of operations20. Dates of filing of monitoring reports21. Date of cancellation, if applicable

65