investigation into the evaluation of IPP in Nigerian EISs however with

Investigation into the evaluation of ipp in nigerian

This preview shows page 23 - 25 out of 74 pages.

investigation into the evaluation of IPP in Nigerian EISs, however, with particular focus on EcIA by developing a review checklist suitable for its appraisal. 2.6 Reviewing Environmental Impact Statements The EIS is a formal document which contains the outcome of an EIA (Wathern, 1988). It serves as a main source of information for both authorities and stakeholders, acting as a communication medium between them (Glasson et al., 1994). Thus, environmental information and consultation outcomes reported in the EIS are considered by decision-makers before a final verdict is given on a proposed project (Peterson, 2010). The quality of an EIS is viewed as crucial in protecting a developer's proposed project (Glasson et al., 1994; Glasson et al.,1997). However, quality of EISs over time have engaged the attention of academics, instigating a lot of researches all over the world into evaluating the quality of information provided in EISs (e.g Cashmore et al., 2002; Jalava et al., 2012). Simpson (2001) stated that the review package is a very effective evaluation tool which is suitable for comparing standards across sectors over time. In existence are a broad range of review packages which have proved valuable to stakeholders in reviewing EIS quality in a structured and systematic manner (Glasson et al., 2012), albeit, none of them can be described as the "perfect" one for reviews (IEMA, 2004). Some of the review packages include: The Environmental Statement Review Package (Lee et al., 1999), the European Commission’s (EC) EIS Review Checklist (CEC, 2001), the IAU Oxford Brookes University EIS Review Package (Glasson et al., 2012), etc. Most of these packages in use today are modifications to the Lee and Colley (1992) review package (Glasson et al., 2012). Most
Image of page 23
15 studies have employed the Lee and Colley (1992) review package or the Lee et al. (1999) review package because of its reliability and robustness (Barker and Wood, 1999). The Lee and Colley review package was developed partly to assess compliance with the obligations imposed by the EC Directive 85/337 as implemented in the UK, and minor modifications to the package have been made to cater for the modifications made in the Directive 97/11/EC (CEC, 1997a; Lee et al., 1999). Thus, it is best suited for reviews in UK because of the differences in regulatory requirements by EIA legislations of other nations (Cashmore et al., 2002; Badr et al., 2011). However, because of its flexibility, it can be adapted for use in other countries outside Europe (e.g Sandham and Pretorius, 2008; Sandham et al., 2013). In addition, it can be modified for reviewing component parts of EIA like WIA (Badr et al., 2004), or for use at a higher level of project EIA (Simpson, 2001). Due to these modifications in order to suit its intended purpose, a pilot study is often conducted, involving the review of test samples of EISs with the modified review package to correct for duplications or ambiguity (e.g Sandham and Pretorius, 2008; Sandham et al., 2008). One major disadvantage of the review package is that there is tendency for undervaluation or overvaluation of EIS reviewed if done by a single reviewer, and thus, it is advised that a
Image of page 24
Image of page 25

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 74 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • harms
  • Valuation, Environmental impact assessment, Environmental impact statement, EIA

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture