| Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a mandatory procedure used widely in the developed world. Although becoming more common in developing countries, EIA is still a procedure required mainly by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies when they sponsor projects, and not host authorities. EIA has been criticized for being an ineffective, inefficient, and redundant procedure for borrowing agencies. Several reasons for these criticisms relate to the diversity of EIA systems and procedures in place by donor agencies. The primary objective of this study is to compare and contrast as well as highlight the strengths and weaknesses of six bilateral and three multilateral donor agencies' EIA systems and procedures. To accomplish this objective, criteria for evaluating EIA systems and procedures were created and then applied to the agencies. The criteria address six areas: background-legal setting; levels and scope of assessment; procedural elements; procedural requirements; procedural review; and system review. Based on the results, it appears that the donor agencies share many common features and strengths in the following categories: levels and scope of assessment; procedural elements; procedural requirements; and procedural review. On the other hand, the study reveals notable differences and weaknesses in the two remaining categories: background-legal setting and system review. Seven recommendations for greater coherence are made. |
