21 September, 2020

Blog

The Importance Of Environmental Impact Assessments & The Turmoil In Our Coasts

By Piyumani Ranasinghe and Maleesha Gunawardana

Maleesha Gunawardana

Piyumani Ranasinghe

Recently, Mount Lavinia Beach sparked the attention of the public especially due to a beach nourishment project that commenced amidst curfew. Significantly, at the center of this entire episode is the Director General of the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department (CCD) who quite dubiously admitted that no Environmental Impact Assessment was done prior to the commence of this project. Before one dwells into the implications surrounding his statement, it is pertinent to understand what the EIA framework constitutes in light of environmental conservation and sustainable development. 

What is an Environmental Impact Assessment?

Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA is a process of assessing the potential socio-environmental impact of any development proposal aiming to change a natural landscape. It embodies the identification and suggestion of measures to minimise the likely negative impact of the said project, as well as to recommend steps to enhance the potential positive impact. 

According to Article 17 of the Rio Declaration, an EIA is defined as a national instrument, which is undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority. Simply put this is founded on the “precautionary principle”, which stipulates that if there is an element of uncertainty with regard to the environmental harm that may be caused by a proposed project, the precautionary approach of “better being safe than sorry” is applied by states to prevent irreversible environmental degradation. 

Further, according to Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Sri Lanka ratified in 1994, EIAs should be introduced due to two main reasons: firstly to avoid or minimize adverse effects and; secondly to allow for public participation in such EIA procedures.

In Sri Lanka, the EIA process was first mandated for large scale developmental projects located in sensitive ecosystems by gazette no. 772/22 of 1993. This gazette also specified the types of projects falling under the EIA requirement. If there is no complex environmental impact, an IEE (Initial Environmental Examination) can be prescribed instead of an EIA. 

If a project is outside the coastal zone, then it falls under the ambit of the Central Environmental Authority. However, if the project is located within the coastal zone, such as in the aforementioned case in Mount Lavinia, the duty of identifying whether a project requires an EIA is vested with the Director General of the CCD. This is according to section 14 of the Coast Conservation and Coastal resources management Act no. 57 of 1981. Section 14(1) mandates a permit from the Director General for any development activity proposed. The Director General has the discretion thus, to prescribe projects which do not require EIAs.

In any case, EIA is a process. It involves two main types of actors: project proponent (PP) and the Project Approving Agencies (PAAs). The PAAs are EIA administrative agencies that are responsible for guiding the EIA for projects and for issuing EIA approval or rejection. This process encompasses six key stages: (i) screening or determining whether an EIA / IEE is required for a project (ii) scoping or determining the scope of the EIA / IEE study and issuing of Terms of Reference (iii) preparation of the EIA / IEE report (iv) review of the report (by the public and the PAA) (v) approval with terms and conditions or rejection with reasons (vi) post-approval monitoring.

It should be noted that the review of the EIA encompasses both a public as well as a technical review of the impact assessment. In fact, EIA reports are specifically required to be open for public inspection and comment for a mandatory period of 30 days. Once the review is completed, the project proponent should respond to the public comments received. This underpins a framework of assessment which inculcates the broader socio-environmental impacts of the proposal. Thus, it is safe to say that EIAs are almost like maps fundamental to better navigate any proposed project. Due to this very reason, the Australian EIA network highlights the fundamental purpose of an EIA as a mode of informing the decision-makers of the likely impact of a proposal before a decision is made. Much of the dismay surrounding the present issue in Mount Lavinia is largely centered around the lack of such impact assessment made before the initiation of the project. 

No EIA or even an IEE in Mount Lavinia – Why is this Problematic?

As reported by the media on the 19th of April 2020, the Director General of CCD claimed that an environmental impact assessment report has been obtained for the project that was still ongoing at the time and dismissed any concerns that may arise on the impact to the environment. Contradicting himself and much to the confusion of concerned citizens, he later told the media that neither an IEE or an EIA had been conducted and continued to justify the failure to conduct an EIA by emphasizing the need for a “soft solution” to prevent coastal erosion, boost tourism and support the fishing industry.

When retracing to the point of project approval, it is interesting to note that the CCD is both the project proponent and the PAA in the Mount Lavinia beach nourishment project. Whilst, this is in juxtaposition to the principle of natural justice “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one is judge in his own case); it also questions the discretion of the Director General in terms of prescribing EIAs. While the Act may provide the discretionary power to the Director General to decide whether an IEE or an EIA is best, in Environmental Foundation Ltd v. Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (2010  1  SLR  1) the court upheld the view that agencies of the  State are to be guided by directive principles and fundamental duties of the Constitution when carrying out their statutory and regulatory duties. Article 27(14) of the Constitution embodies the directive  principles of state policy where the state is to protect,  preserve and improve the environment.  Article 28  refers to the fundamental duty upon every person in  Sri  Lanka to protect nature and conserve its riches. Thus, the CCD is no exception and cannot evade this duty.

Undoubtedly,  the filling of sand entirely changes the landscape of the iconic Mount Lavinia beach, which is also known as Galkissa, derived from GalVissa – meaning 20 boulders. While the impact of the seasonal erosions, now worsening due to natural phenomena as well as unmanaged developments and population growth is a cause for concern, the severity of the erosion spoken of with regards to the Mount Lavinia beach is debatable as century-old photos of the area are no different to what appeared prior to the nourishment. Had there been an EIA which would include a description of the existing environment and the project justification, it could have been concluded that such a drastic preventative measure was indeed required.

The Director General publicly acknowledged that an EIA was not prescribed by virtue of the beach nourishment project being a soft solution to coastal erosion. On the one hand, whether a costly beach nourishment, that is claimed to last only for four years is in fact the best soft solution is uncertain.  On the other hand, soft solutions of this nature are means of utilizing the natural environment to prevent coastal erosion. Among them are other viable alternatives such as mangrove preservation and planting and coral reef preservation and enhancement. Hard solutions, in contrast, involve rock, cement or steel to build structures like revetments, sea walls or groynes. Once again, in the absence of an EIA which would mention the possible alternatives, the public has been denied this information and the ability to comment on their concerns within the 30 day period.  EIAs enable the evaluation of the socio-economic impact of a project due to the inclusive review process accompanying opinions of stakeholders ranging from industries to residents potentially affected by the project. Hence, without an EIA it is difficult to prove the claims made by the authorities, especially of boosted tourism and benefits to the fishing industry that beach nourishment would bring. 

Noteworthily, the Western coastal areas in Sri Lanka are the most common sea turtle nesting grounds for five out of the seven species of sea turtles. These endangered species constitute the very biodiversity that the Fauna and Flora Ordinance intends to protect. The coral reefs that dissipate wave energy and act as a natural prevention to coastal erosion, and the shipwrecks that not only make popular diving sites, but provide fish breeding grounds are among the many coastal ecosystems that could be negatively impacted through projects of this nature. Going in blind without assessing adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures; and by relegating conservation of such invaluable ecological resources to the lowest of priorities leaves very little space for environmental conservation and sustainable development. Ironically, CCD is termed the “Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department” although its actions are evidently quite aversive to what the name entails.

Way Forward: EIAs for Sounder Decision Making 

Thus, the issue of coastal erosion in Mount Lavinia is now spiralling into a tangled list of unanswered questions due to the lack of an EIA. However, there are two key issues which cannot be left in confusion surrounding the turmoil. Firstly, the issue of the CCD being both the PP and the PAA is deeply concerning as it clearly violates the very principles of natural justice. Secondly, the fact that a beach nourishment project facilitated by a mammoth of public funds without an EIA or at least an IEE is even more problematic. The statement made by Justice Amerasinghe in the Bulankulama v. Ministry of Industrial Development case (2000 3 SLR 243) shares some valuable insight in respect of these concerns. According to his Lordship, “…EIAs are intended to foster sound decision making, not to generate paperwork. The EIA process should also help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore and enhance the environment.” In this light, although anthropogenic climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing this century; it is alarming to witness the lack of diligence on the part of the very authorities primarily vested with the duty of preventing and mitigating its adverse impact. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    14

    Sometimes…..
    You have to walk around monoliths to make one’s way.

    • 2
      10

      scp
      This is flippancy bordering on the callous.

    • 12
      3

      You get informed, educated and bright people writing intelligently on a subject of national importance. And then you get johnnies wasting time by the roadside with sarong hoisted waist high yelling out obscenities and senseless nothings. That undoubtedly is the tragedy of free speech, often arrack or ganga enhanced.

      • 11
        0

        Sonali, well-said. The environment clearly is the least of their concerns.

      • 0
        10

        This is funny Sonali.,
        /
        You claim that my English “yelling out obscenities”
        You claim that I am a “johnnie”
        with “sarong hoisted waist high”
        and blaming it on “tragedy of free speech”
        /
        You stopped little short of claiming it is a “fault of free education”.

      • 3
        8

        Sonali
        Your attitude towards those with seemingly less formal education and wealth is deplorably supercilious.
        Civilized language is desirable, but is no guard against delivering falsehoods and communal venom.
        You rather sound like the generation of elite that felt that what was rightfully theirs has been stolen by the common man, starting 1956.
        *
        Dislike for the R family is no proof of a democratic mind.

        • 8
          2

          SJ’s meaningless comment can only come from someone who has had too much of the stuff manufactured in the hut down the end of the lane. There’s no cure for such drunken foolishness. All one can do is recommend that SJ should have two more glasses of that stuff and then a good lie down.

          • 2
            8

            Sonali……
            .
            On behalf of SJ…….
            .
            Please note that lack of comments doesn’t mean that there is a lack of interest in the article.
            .
            So..
            .
            You don’t have to create a war of words for more comments.

            • 7
              3

              Dislike for the R family? Typical Lankan assumptions. Those who just have just one interest in mind keep dragging politics into every scenario, even where it’s not or should not be of relevance.

              • 0
                6

                AR
                Kindly read a sentence in full before responding to it.

          • 0
            5

            Sonali
            You sound desperate.
            See a specialist before it is too late.

  • 5
    1

    Piyumani Ranasinghe & Maleesha Gunawardana thanks for a well presented report.
    Mount Lavinia Beach Nourishment project.

    You could have given some more details about the Project.

    If it is a foreign funded Project like World Bank or ADB, they would have insisted on FIA or IEE whether it is a small or big Project and also they would have been adamant on stakeholder consultation and stakeholder concurrence.

    Since we have to ensure sustainable development continue relentlessly until and unless the authorities come down and face the public resulting in a better and timely decision making..

  • 0
    1

    Thank you for the article well structured and very educational for us all to understand the EIA and all other laws/rules/ethics governs the matter in our land both with Nationally and International obligations.
    The soft solution being the beach nourishment means sand is pumped onto an existing beach to build it up…..this blends in with existing beach and appealing to tourists too. However the downside is the work need to be repeated ever so often to maintain and at times the sand need to be brought in from other areas too.
    From a Government department point of view CCD in this case who set out to deal with the matter of both protecting the environment/erosion and at the same time of providing additional beaches or to extent the beach area or to replenish the existing beach to its original status that could support “more” tourism would have been the prime aim?? Therefore they would have bypassed all that could be bypassed and at the same time saving unnecessary spending on the EIA study etc for something the Government things is important for the Nation that is to support tourism etc in this particular area??

    • 0
      0

      My last para got missed out earlier……..

      However CCD Director General could have stated all their intent clearly (without back tracking) may have looked better from day one.

      In all cases we should do an EIA as a standard process or some other form of Risk Assement based on the scale of the project (not knowing the size of this work/who is initiating and funding this work).

      The soft solutions is something we should do for the entire coastal region of Sri Lanka and should have a one holistic study should identify all that need to be done to prevent erosion/support bio diversity and all other economical needs such as Fisheries in mind/sea and land pollution management/agriculture & salinity management etc. .The respective solution (outcome of the study) should be defined as projects and EIA carried out naturally too for each project scope over time indeed.

      Thank you

  • 0
    0

    The island wide study should also consider future harbours/navy use/coast guard use/sea pollution management/tsunami eventualities/tourism as a very high level study in addition to what I mentioned earlier.

    All our Northern islands (including my village Karainagar) should be included in the study…perhaps our Universities should be encouraged to come up with the scoping the study some of which they themselves can undertake as part of research projects too. The EIA or even more eloborated/stringent form of impact assements we ourselves can define based on local needs/knowledge/demand etc.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.