Simply defined, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is “the systematic examination of unintended consequences of a development project or programme, with the view to reduce or mitigate negative impacts and maximise on positive ones.”
 
Introduced in the country 32 years ago, precisely in 1992, to protect the rights of those affected by development projects that have significant adverse effects on the environment, the effectiveness of the EIA Act, its impact, and the process of assessments are being called to question.

Under the statute, EIA is mandatory for public and private sectors, especially for projects such as agriculture/agro-allied, fisheries, forestry, industry (manufacturing), food beverage and tobacco processing, infrastructure, ports, housing, airports, railways, transportation, as well as, drainage and irrigation.

Others are resort and recreational developments, power generation, petroleum, mining, quarries, waste treatment and disposal, water supply, land reclamation, and brewery.

However, findings by The Guardian reveal that there is duplication of functions and overlapping responsibilities in processes and procedures guiding the execution of the various impact assessment tasks. Consequently, serious bottlenecks and bureaucratic confusion are created in the processes.

Also, there is little or no synergy between the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), and states’ environmental agencies as far as ensuring adequate and comprehensive compliance with assessments is concerned.

Among professionals, there is also this claim that EIAs are merely academic exercises as many stakeholders simply dump the reports and their recommendations are never followed once they obtain app approvals for their projects.
 
In this direction, the lack of enforcement by the government and its agencies constitutes a major reason for the plethora of environmental problems facing Lagos State and some other cities in the country.

Observers were quick to cite the Oshodi-Apapa axis where two of the country’s busiest seaports and numerous tank farms are located as an example of non-compliance with the 32-year-old legislation.
 
There are also queries on what has been done with the EIA reports submitted by the property developers, especially those engaged in dredging, and sand-filling the shorelines.

Despite the ongoing controversy surrounding the regulation and implementation of the EIA Act, human settlement experts believe that these assessments are critical to sustainable development because every development project alters the state of the environment in its shape, size, components, and order.

The President of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP), Nathaniel Atebije, said that EIA is very useful in identifying potential environmental effects of proposed projects, preparing to mitigate their negative impacts, and providing a forum for citizens’ participation in development projects through the consultation processes, thereby facilitating development.

Furthermore, it also promotes informed decision-making on projects; identifies the social, economic, and environmental benefits, challenges, and guides the most feasible method of implementation, as well as prevents environmental disasters.

Atebije told The Guardian that one of the major challenges associated with the EIA processes is a lack of awareness. “Many developers or investors do not know the importance of EIA to the success of their projects, including government projects.

“The developers also feel that the fees charged by consultants to develop the assessment reports are too high, just as most project proponents are compelled to conduct EIA reports just to get a development permit. Another problem associated with the EIA is the bureaucracy of government offices in handling it, even as the delay is not always taken in good faith by developers. There is also the challenge of data to compile a trend on environmental characteristics of proposed project locations.”

Atebije, while agreeing that the enforcement of legislation is another albatross noted: “People act with impunity and they are tolerated when breaking laws. This can be gleaned from members of the political class influencing illegal developments. Qualified personnel are also inadequate in the public service system to cope with mounting challenges. So, the government should engage more professionals to enforce regulations.
 
“Most importantly, the operative laws should be reviewed to include stiff penalties for defaulters, while adequate provisions should be made for the welfare of enforcement staff.”

The NITP president said that the quantity and quality of staff, as well as a dearth of adequate equipment, constitute a hindrance, rather than a let to enforcement of the law. Additionally, the government should guarantee the safety of enforcement personnel. Staff members of the enforcement unit should be well-remunerated to avoid compromise.

“It is also very important for the government to understand that environmental corruption is worse than financial corruption as it leads to chaos and urban malfunctioning, which is difficult to remediate and could last for a lifetime. Financial corruption could be swept under the carpet, but environmental corruption stays on and stares at us for life until it is remedied at an unpleasant cost,” he stated.

Displeased with the scenario, the former president of the Association of Town Planning Consultants of Nigeria (ATOPCON), Dr Moses Ogunleye, urged the government to take matters of environmental protection more seriously.

He noted that the process of preparing assessment reports takes too long. “The composition of panel in the public hearing usually constituted by the Federal Ministry of Environment is large with the so-called reason “of ensuring a spread.  This balloons the entire cost as panel members have to make their way from far locations to the local councils where projects are located.”

Ogunleye stated that the process of carrying out EIA needs to be reviewed for efficiency.  About six years ago, an attempt was made by the National Assembly to review the EIA Act, but that was not concluded. “What will make the goals of EIAs to be achieved is adherence to the recommendations of the report. Usually, the mitigations in the EIA are left unattended by project proponents,” he said.
   
The Guardian gathered that some government officials support the review of the regulation as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) keeps evolving and existing guidelines cannot incorporate climate-smart decisions that will adequately address this phenomenon.

These new trends and emerging global environmental issues make it imperative for Nigeria to review the existing EIA Act, which has been in operation for the past three decades to address the shortcomings in a bid to bridge the gaps and ensure conformity with international standards.

The Executive Secretary of the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resources Centre) Sulaimon Arigbabu, said that EIA remains very important in any society, as it helps to identify potential environmental endeavour that would distort or disturb natural resources, either for positive or negative reasons.

“It ensures that we develop sustainably, minimise our ecological footprints on the planet, and keep the planet viable for future generations, while meeting our need for housing and other things that give us quality life.

“EIA laws do not give enough room for citizens or public participation; the process is often between the regulatory agency and the proponent of any development. They select their environmental auditors or assessors, and the public only comes in at the end of the process.

“Public participation is limited and there’s insufficient data required by the regulators or testing capabilities to validate the assumptions of the report. There is also political interference, which is sometimes good, or for self-aggrandisement as regulators are told to approve projects despite having unfavourable EIA reports,” Arigbabu said.

The experts said the amendment should include the social and economic impacts of projects on the people. According to them, the review should include strong punitive actions against companies and individuals who violate the regulation.

They argued that the amendment should ensure an increase in penalties and sanctions for defaults by individuals and corporations. Also, the provision of the EIA Act which gives the president a prerogative to exempt a project from undergoing EIA should be deleted or subject to his discretion to conditions.

They argued that the cost of doing an effective EIA to private companies might seem too high compared to the fine if they failed to do it. “We have seen examples where people died as a result of failure to implement what is required on EIA, so there should be punitive action against companies and individuals who are negligent.”
   
The experts further suggested an increase in NESREA’s capacity through adequate manpower, training, procurement of tools and equipment, as well as the designation of a special account for EIA to ensure the availability of funds for enforcement of the provisions of the EIA Act.

They also recommended technology to spread awareness, and ensure the availability of all information generated during environmental assessments to the public through an online registry.

Besides, they also maintain that information for post-construction monitoring and enforcement should be publicised to enable the public to keep track of projects’ strict adherence to the EIA reports, while NESREA should be allowed to obtain expertise from federal scientists and retain external scientists to also provide technical expertise.

According to them, there should be more collaborative efforts between the proponents, the government, and interested parties at the early stage of the regulatory process through collaborative multi-stakeholder committees.

Another sore point, which they say must be addressed is funding. This remains a challenge to NESREA enforcement of EIA, even as the agency is at the whims and caprices of the executive.
 
To make matters worse, there is no designated account to ensure the enforcement of the EIA Act, as insufficient funding affects the quality and strictness of the work performed by NESREA.