000			07436nam a2200445 4500
005			20260818100250.0
008			200898 th eng
035			_a.b10251029
099		9	_aAIT Thesis no.HS-93-26
100	1		_aSheikh, Masood Ahmad
245	1	0	_aEnvironmental Impact Assessment evaluation of administrative processes : _ba study of provincial and federal practice, Pakistan
260			_aBangkok : _bAsian Institute of Technology, _c1993
300			_a141 leaves + _e1 online resource
490	1		_aThesis ; _vno. HS-93-26
500			_aA thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
502			_aThesis (M.Sc.) - Asian Institute of Technology, 1993
520			_aEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA for short), is a formal study procedure to identify the potential adverse environmental impacts, of a proposed development activity. EIA, like many developing countries, is a new development in Pakistan. Until 1973, before inclusion of subject on environment in the constitution, environmental protection was being done through a variety of acts and regulations inherited by the nation before independence in 1947. The 1973 Constitutional provision resulted in promulgation of Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance (PEPO) in 1983. This Ordinance provided for establishment of Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) in the country. One of the central subjects of the Ordinance is the requirement of EIA for the projects that are expected to have adverse impacts on the natural resources of air, water and soil. The Ordinance could not be implemented fully due to various reasons - major being the lack of political will. An important headway however, under the provision of the Ordinance, was made by subjecting public projects to EIA by the beginning of nineties. Later, in 1993, came Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA). The new legislature, besides strengthening, also rectified some of the shortcomings and weaknesses of the 1983 Ordinance. The subject of EIA is still in infancy stage in Pakistan. EPAs are plagued with many problems. Major of these being the lack of authority and resources to carry out the business effectively. Uphill now there is no list of activities to go under EIA. Subject of public participation in environmental decision making is totally out of place. Private projects are not obliged to go under EIA. The legislative framework (PEPO 1983 and PEPA 1993) is lacking in operational definitions. The present study looks at these aspects of environmental issues by a series of case studies (Environmental Impact Statements - EISs), produced in Pakistan. Here the EIA process and the procedure has been evaluated with respect to parameters of local consultation, mitigation measures, alternatives, and time taken for environmental permits. These evaluations (the process and the procedure) give an insight into the environmental management and planning currently being practiced in Pakistan. The study is divided into three sections. First part deals with the general description of the environmental measures taken by Pakistan. This section also gives an account of the development planning system in the country, and its integration with environmental management system. Having this framework in the back ground, second part after general description of the cases, gives an analytical picture. Major weaknesses in the EIA reports and the administrative process of EIA have been identified. Scrutiny of reports revealed frailty in alternative consideration, mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the project, and the local consultation. In most of the cases either no alternatives to the project or the process were given, or the alternatives rested heavily on engineering and or economic considerations thereby dis-respecting environmental and social parameters. Mitigation measures, an essential part of an EIS, have also been treated verily. The evaluation on this part was done with regard to the practicability of the proposed mitigation measures. In some instances it was found that mitigation measures were proposed without an operational consideration. Local consultation is the weakest part of environmental decision making in Pakistan. Although the Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance 1983, provides for public involvement, yet this still is a discretion on part of the authority. The enquiry into EIA process is a mixture of successes and failures. On of the potential strengths of the system lies in subjecting public initiated projects to environmental considerations. This requires all projects having a financial outlay of Rs. 20 million (700,000 US $)and above, to submit an EIS, containing a description of the activity, its impacts on the environment and the measures to minimize these impacts. The system, however, has not yet been able to operationalise EIA requirement for private development endeavors. They (the private proponents), approach Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only if the project is financed by a donor agency who has set EIA requirement in lending policy. The EIA system in Pakistan can be regarded as development oriented due to leniency in granting environmental permits. These permits, some times, are issued after attaching conditions of emissions and/ or effluent discharge. This laxity however can be dangerous due to truancy in appropriate monitoring and surveillance. International donor agencies, against private as well as public sector, were found more responsive to environmental considerations by allowing for time and money set aside for such study. Virtually all EISs prepared by foreign consultants reveal severe dearth of environmental professionals in the country. Section III, based on study findings and conclusions in second section, ends with the recommendations on the various aspects of the EIA system in Pakistan research.
650		0	_aEnvironmental impact analysis _xPakistan
700	1		_aParenteau, Rene, _eChairperson
700	1		_aWeber, Karl E., _eCo-chairperson
700	1		_aRobinson, Ira M., _eExamination committee
700	1		_aKing, David J., _eExamination committee
710	2		_aCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA), _eScholarship donor
810	2		_aAsian Institute of Technology. _tThesis ; _vno. HS-93-26
856			_3Full-Text _uhttp://203.159.5.9/ait-thesis/detail.php?q=B15606
907			_a.b10251029 _bmnait _cs
902			_a251208
998			_b2 _c951012 _dm _ea _fs _g0
945			_lmnait
945			_lmnait
945			_lmnarc
945			_lmnarc
942			_c20
942			_c40
909			_aBarcode : 30050002829975 _bCREATED : 1995-10-14 _cRECORD # : i1030826x _dLPATRON : 1021938 _eLCHKIN : 2011-05-24 _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 3 _jTOT RENEW : 3
909			_aBarcode : 30050120715007 _bCREATED : 1995-10-14 _cRECORD # : i10308271 _dLPATRON : 1023412 _eLCHKIN : 2014-01-13 _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 17 _jTOT RENEW : 6
909			_aBarcode : 30050120374813 _bCREATED : 2016-07-06 _cRECORD # : i13019211 _dLPATRON : 0 _eLCHKIN : - _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 0 _jTOT RENEW : 0
909			_aBarcode : 30050120917637 _bCREATED : 2019-09-12 _cRECORD # : i13238309 _dLPATRON : 0 _eLCHKIN : - _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 0 _jTOT RENEW : 0
999			_c39107 _d39107