of attention given to monitoring of development impacts (Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 1999) including funding and time constraints (Morris, 1995; Morrison-Saunders and Bailey, 2003). Treweek et al. (1993) and Thompson et al. (1997), in their EcIA review of British EISs observed that relevant data were either absent or inadequately provided in the reviewed UK EISs. They found out that quite a significant amount of the reviewed EISs failed to provide
18 the essential data needed to identify and properly assess those effects that are likely to significantly impact the environment as a result of the development. Also, Samarakoon and Rowan (2008) reviewed EcIA in Sri Lankan EISs and observed similar deficiencies to those identified by Treweek et al. (1993) and Thompson et al. (1997). In addition, Samarakoon and Rowan (2008) also observed that none of the EISs quantified ecological information which makes statistical predictions practically impossible. When impacts are not properly identified and evaluated, this grossly limits the attainment of the EIA goals of environmental protection and sustainable development, as this aspect of the assessment process is described as the core of the EIA process (Lee et al, 1999; Glasson et al., 2012). Consequently, poor impact identification and evaluation results in the formulation of inadequate mitigation measures prior to the sanctioning of such projects, thus making the proposed mitigation measures ineffective in addressing potential adverse impacts of the development. Thus, degradation of the ecosystem is inevitable when the development finally becomes approved by the competent authority. Monitoring, an essential aspect of the EIA process, with the sole objective of evaluating the accuracy of impact predictions and success of proposed mitigation measures have also been found to be grossly deficient. Treweek et al. (1997) observed that none of the EISs reviewed considered monitoring, even though it was not a statutory requirement under the EIA legislation at the time when the EISs were prepared. Samarakoon and Rowan (2008) on the other hand observed in their study that the percentage of EISs that included monitoring plan were far below average (30%). While a considerable number of articles on EcIA reviews have been published, none have yet focused on Nigeria. It becomes urgent for such research to be conducted owing to the continuous decline of biodiversity and rapid increase in urbanization and industrialization in the country (Hove et al., 2013). The importance of biodiversity to humans cannot be over- emphasized as the rural populace of developing countries largely depend on flora and fauna resources for their subsistence (IIED and WBCSD, 2002). Highly regarded as a biodiversity hotspot, Nigeria is currently experiencing massive decline in her fauna and flora resources, with invasive species on the increase (FMEnv, 2009, Adeyinka, 2012, Al-Almin, 2013).
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 74 pages?
- Spring '16
- Valuation, Environmental impact assessment, Environmental impact statement, EIA