Learn - Step 6: Review and Licensing

Review and Licensing is the final check on the quality of the EIA report submitted to obtain a project license. Once the EIA report is submitted, designated authorities will usually go through it thoroughly, weighing the methods used, data, interpretations, measures and conclusions to assess the impacts of the planned development. Their review will determine whether or not the project adequately addresses major environmental and social impacts and other risks, and whether or not to grant a licence to the project proponents, or to request project changes. This means that a good quality EIA might still lead to the planned development not being permitted to go ahead based on the identified impacts. Often, the review process leads to a requirement for additional information on potential impacts, mitigation measures or other aspects.

The review is carried out to confirm the quality of the information and methods used in the EIA, and to verify that the EIA report addresses all the relevant mitigation measures as well as all the critical and cumulative impacts.

The key objectives of EIA review are to:

• Assess the adequacy and quality of an EIA report.
• Take into account public comments.
• Determine if the information is sufficient for a final decision to be made.
• Identify any deficiencies that must be addressed before the report can be submitted.

Over time, the approaches to EIA review have improved, with reviewers now usually following a formalized set of criteria or checklists specified by the designated agency. The criteria can also be formulated as questions that guide the reviewer in assessing whether the EIA meets the criteria completely, partially or not at all.

Each country has its own procedural approaches to EIA review. In general, these can be divided into two main types:

• Internal review – Undertaken by the responsible authority or other government agency, with or without formal guidelines and procedures; while this is a relatively low cost option, it lacks transparency.
• External review – Undertaken by an independent body, separate from and/or outside government agencies, with an open and transparent procedure for public comment; this helps in ensuring high-quality outcomes. The environmental issues and the technical aspects of the proposal will determine the expertise required by a review team or individual.

Other important procedural elements include:

Using input from public comment: Experience with EIA reviews in a number of countries has shown that public comment is a critical part of the EIA review process. Input may come from a public hearing, or from written comments submitted to the proponent or government department. From a hearing, there is often a summary of issues provided by the panel or officers responsible for hearing the submissions. With written comments, a summary of key points is needed to guide the review of the EIA. In both cases, the summary should focus on information that helps to identify problems with the EIA, contributes to the assessment of impacts, and identifies ways to reduce impacts.

Determining remedial options: Three remedial options are available when an EIA report fails to meet the standards required; these can be listed as follows:

• Acceptable: The EIA has acceptable quality; it identifies and mitigates the impacts of the development while at the same time identifying and addressing public participation and social impacts. Here it is also important that the data and methods meet national protocols and/or internally accepted relevant standards. At this level, it is also important that the information is well presented. The EIA is often considered satisfactory, although there may be some minor omissions and inadequacies of approach. The reviewing authority often provides a list of modification needed.
• Partially acceptable: The EIA considers the key impacts of the planned project, but there are significant omissions and inadequacies in the methods used, or some mitigation actions may be lacking. At this level, substantial modifications or complements are necessary. The reviewing authority often provides a list of modification needed.
• Deficient: The background data are unsatisfactory, poorly analyzed and presented and biased. They are not acceptable.

The review may be undertaken by the responsible authority itself, another government agency or committee, or an independent body. It can be carried out in three steps:

1. Identify the deficiencies in the EIA report, using the Terms of Reference, relevant guidelines, criteria and information on standards by national agencies and comparable EIA reports.
2. Focus on any shortcomings in the EIA report and identify gaps and areas that require further information and improvements in the methods based on suggested protocols; look at key gaps in areas that prevent qualified decision making. If no serious omissions are found, this should be stated clearly.
3. Recommend how and when any serious shortcomings are to be remedied, in order to facilitate informed decision making and appropriate measures for project implementation.

If the EIA is deemed to be satisfactory, the environmental licence for the project activity is issued.