Return to Issue
Full text – PDF
Full text – HTM
Full text – EPUB
Table of Contents
Greener Journal of Environment Management and Public Safety
ISSN: 2354-2276
Vol. 12(1), pp. 44-49, 2024
Copyright ©2024, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
https://gjournals.org/GJEMPS
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.15580/gjemps.2024.1.103024156
Centre for Environmental Management and Green Energy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Article No.: 103024156
Type: Review
Full Text: PDF, PHP, HTML, EPUB, MP3
DOI: 10.15580/gjemps.2024.1.103024156
This review provides an in-depth analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) with a focus on Nigeria, exploring the evolution of EIA globally and its establishment and modifications within Nigeria. The study reviews Nigeria’s EIA framework established by Decree No. 86 (1992) and subsequent amendment in 2004, contextualizes its relevance in addressing persistent environmental challenges such as pollution, deforestation, and oil spills, exacerbated by Nigeria’s rapid industrial growth. A comparative analysis between Nigeria and Uganda illustrates how each country’s EIA framework reflects its unique environmental and economic drivers. While Nigeria’s EIA regulations are strongly shaped by its oil industry, Uganda’s focus has largely been on sustainable agriculture, though recent oil discoveries are gradually influencing its policies. Uganda’s commitment to Multilateral Environmental Agreements further underscores its approach to sustainable land and water management. The review makes a number of recommendations to address Nigeria’s EIA challenges, including enhancing public participation, clarifying procedural ambiguities, and improving the consideration of cumulative impacts. Additionally, it raises a need for regulatory coherence among environmental agencies to bolster accountability and governance in Nigeria’s EIA processes.
Published: 29/11/2024
Nelson Nuwahereza
E-mail: nuwaherezanelson@ gmail.com
Phone: +256 772 400 524/ +234 8126496713
This review is structured into six sections: Introduction; The Global Origins and Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment; The Establishment of Nigeria’s Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992; The amendment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (1992) in 2004; Environmental Impact Assessment in Context: A Comparative Analysis of Nigeria and Uganda; and Conclusions and Recommendations.
According to Jay et al. (2007), environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the evaluation of the effects likely to arise from a major project (or other actions) significantly affecting the environment. The EIA considers possible effects prior to a decision being taken on whether or not a proposal should be given approval to proceed. Therefore, enactment of Nigeria’s Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No 86 of 1992 by the Federal Miltary Governemnt of Nigeria (FEPA, 1992) and its subsequent amendment in 2004 (FEPA, 2004), reflects a critical evolution in the country’s environmental governance.
Originally, EIA was first formally established in the United States of Ameria in 1969 (Glasson, J., & Therivel, 2012) and has since spread to other countries. As Nigeria continues to face diverse environmental problems such as air pollution, water pollution, oil spillage, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding caused mostly by anthropogenic activities (Pona et al., 2021). The effectiveness of the EIA framework is paramount in addressing these issues and fostering accountability among stakeholders.
The methodology for this review is a desk-based analysis of relevant literature and legislative documents on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Key sources include academic articles, government publications, and legal documents, examining Nigeria’s EIA Act of 1992, its 2004 amendment, and comparative insights from Uganda’s EIA framework.
The global origins and evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment was first formally established in the United States of Ameria in 1969 (Glasson, J., & Therivel, 2012), with enactment of The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 1969). The purpose of NEPA was stated as to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare or man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA required proponents of projects that involved U.S. federal land, federal tax or federal jurisdictions were required to file an environmental impact statement detailing the impacts of the proposed project, as well as project alternatives, on the physical, cultural and human environments. It also required mitigation measures for each impact and a monitoring program to ensure that mitigation measures were actually working. It is important to note that NEPA introduced principles of public participation and transparency and provided for stakeholders’ involvement in decisions impacting their environment.
Subsequently, in 1981 the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) was founded (Burdge, 1991), the association provided an international forum for persons interested in research and the practice of EIA. According to (Burdge, 1991), in 1982, IAIA published their first journal titled Impact Assessment Bulletin, which provided an outlet for both scholarly and practical research. He further reports that, by 1983, most U.S. federal agencies had formalized environmental impact assessment procedures in agency regulations.
NEPA spurred other developed countries to introduce similar EIA regimes during the early 1970s, with Australian being among the first movers (Macintosh, 2010). In Canada, it started with establishment of the Canadian Federal Department of the Environment in 1971(W.J. Couch, J.F. Herity, 1981). Then, European nations such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Netherlands followed. EIA was introduced in the Member States of the European Union in July 1988, following the approval of Directive 85/337/EEC by the European Council of Ministers in June 1985(Barker & Wood, 1999). According to (Bekhechi & Mercier, 2002), Most developing countries in Africa and elsewhere by 2002, had adapted the NEPA EIA framework to their own political, administrative capacity, technical and socio-economic conditions.
The wide adoption of EIA can be attributed to the 1987 publication of the Brundtland Report (UN, 1987) that redefined sustainable development as meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It emphasized that environmental degradation and economic growth were interconnected and that addressing one required attention to the other. It encouraged countries to adopt EIAs to ensure that environmental factors were considered in development projects. It is widely believed that the Brundtland Report laid the foundation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where nations were called to adopt EIA processes and where EIA was cemented as an essential tool for achieving sustainable development, serving as a bridge between economic growth and environmental protection.
Secondly, International organizations, including Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), played a significant role in promoting EIA as a global standard, by producing development assistance guidelines on environment and aid. The guidelines urged aid agencies to assess the environmental impact of development assistance projects which because of their nature, size and location could significantly affect the environment. These guidelines encouraged adoption of EIA by developing nations as a criterion to access development funding. Through these efforts, EIA became a recognized tool for sustainable development, setting the stage for its worldwide adoption.
Just like OECD, The World Bank issued The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Impact Assessments (World Bank, 2002) that mandated EIAs for funded projects likely to impact the environment, whereas it intended to inform the discussion about the state of environmental laws and policies in Sub-Saharan African countries, It served for comparative purposes with respect to environmental laws in the rest of the African continent and other regions of the world. Following the World Bank, other development institutions like the African Development Bank & Asian Development Bank issued EIA guidelines and procedures. i.e. African development bank environmental and social assessment procedures (ADB, 2001) and the Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries in Asia (Biswas & Qu Geping, 1987) respectively. These requirements made EIA a prerequisite for funding and prompted many developing countries including Nigeria to establish their EIA regulations.
Equally, the International Community played a key role in promoting EIA globally, like The World Charter for Nature (1982)[1], The 1987 United Nations’ Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment[2], The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development[3] and the Espoo Convention[4].
Environment in Nigeria is regulated by several laws (CEHRD, 2020), Environmental Impact Assessment Act (1992) as amended in 2004 being one of them. The journey to formal EIA adoption was shaped by increasing environmental challenges. The crisis of dumping toxic waste in Koko southern Nigeria in 1998 compelled the federal government of Nigeria to be proactive on environmental matters (Enebeli & Njoku, 2023). Consequently, In 1992, Nigeria formally institutionalized EIA with the enactment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, famously known as Decree No. 86 of 1992 (FEPA, 1992). The Act marked a significant milestone, mandating that major projects undergo an environmental assessment before proceeding (Ogunba, 2016). The EIA Act aimed to integrate environmental protection into Nigeria’s developmental agenda, ensuring that economic projects were executed in a manner that minimized adverse environmental impacts. Important to recall is that Prior to June 1988, Nigeria responded to most environmental problems on an ad hoc basis (Shyllon, 1989), For the first time, the law required developers to consider potential impacts on air, water, land, wildlife, and communities in the planning stages of projects. The EIA Act introduced public participation and transparency this empowered local communities to engage in environmental decision-making processes and hold developers accountable for mitigating environmental impacts.
According to Curkovic et al. (2016), before the formal adoption of EIA legislation, The Federal Environmental Protection Agency was mandated to control Nigeria’s environment and for the development of processes and policies to achieve this. Further, they reported that FEPA published the National Policy on the Environment (NPE) in 1989, with the policy goal of achieving sustainable development. It is evident that FEPA’s establishment was a foundational step in Nigeria’s journey toward EIA.
The role of the international community cannot be over emphasized, the OECD, The World Bank, African Development Bank & the Asian Development Bank through their mandatory EIA requirements for countries to qualify for development funding.
In 2004, Nigeria took a significant step forward in environmental governance with the amendment of its Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992 (FEPA, 1992), originally enacted in 1992. This chapter delves into the why and implications of this amendment, exploring the environmental challenges and shortcomings of the EIA Act (1992) that prompted the need for a reassessment of the Nigeria’s EIA framework. I will discuss the key modifications introduced in the 2004 amendment (FEPA, 2004), such as the increased emphasis on public participation, clearer procedural guidelines, and tougher enforcement measures.
Over the years, it became evident that the EIA process was not being implemented as effectively as intended, primarily due to gaps in enforcement, inadequate public participation, and insufficient clarity in the procedural framework (Echefu & Akpofure, 2016). The rapid pace of development in Nigeria (Eneh, 2011), mostly in the oil and gas sector, put immense pressure on the environment. Incidents such as oil spills in the Niger Delta (Ukhurebor et al., 2021) highlighted the urgent need for a robust EIA process that could effectively assess and mitigate environmental risks associated with development projects. There was also increasing recognition from international stakeholders, including development partners and financial institutions that Nigeria needed to strengthen its environmental governance to attract foreign investment and meet global environmental standards. Consequently, the 2004 amendment aimed to address these issues by refining the EIA process and enhancing its effectiveness. The 2004 amendment to the EIA Act introduced several key changes designed to strengthen the regulatory framework and improve the efficacy of environmental assessments in Nigeria (FEPA, 2004, Nwoko, 2013, CEHRD, 2020, Ogunba, 2016, Eneh, 2011). One of the most significant aspects of the amendment was the emphasis on public participation throughout the EIA process.
The implications of the 2004 amendment to the EIA Act enhancement of public participation (CEHRD, 2020), resulting into incorporating the perspectives of local communities. The amendment strengthened the legitimacy of the EIA process and improved the quality of environmental assessments (Eneh, 2011). Additionally, the clarified procedural framework (FEPA, 2004) and increased enforcement measures significantly improved the implementation of the EIA process. Improved environmental governance and a strengthened EIA framework enhanced Nigeria’s credibility, facilitating access to foreign investment and support for infrastructure projects.
This chapter undertakes a brief comparative analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment in Nigeria and Uganda, two nations grappling with unique yet interconnected environmental challenges. Nigeria is located on the western coast of Africa; its economy is based primarily on the petroleum industry and is one of the largest African petroleum producing countries[5]. It has faced rapid economic growth in transportation, construction, manufacturing, and government services. In contrast, Uganda is a landlocked country in east-central Africa, basically agricultural[6], it discovered commercial oil reserves around 2003[7], its target of first oil output is 2025.
Both Nigeria and Uganda have established legal and institutional frameworks for Environmental Impact Assessment; National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement (NESREA)[8] has a mandate of overseeing EIA in Nigeria and The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)[9] oversees EIA in Uganda. Whereas Nigeria, has a specific law on EIA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (1992) as amended in 2004, Uganda has not. EIA practice in Uganda was formally established through the National Environment Act, 1995 (George et al., 2020,The National Environment Act 2019, 2019)
A search by George et al. (2020) in the Ronald B. Mitchell[10] and the International Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project 2002–2019[11] found out that, Uganda has ratified several Multilateral Environmental Agreement with provisions for EIA . these include the Convention on Wetland of International Importance (1971)[12], the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)[13], the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1998)[14], the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)[15].
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) frameworks in Nigeria and Uganda reflect differing approaches shaped by their respective economic drivers and environmental concerns. In Nigeria, the robust petroleum industry has historically spurred the establishment of more stringent EIA regulations due to the environmental risks associated with oil extraction and processing. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992 (amended in 2004) in Nigeria provides a detailed legal framework that mandates comprehensive EIA for projects likely to have significant environmental impacts. National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) oversees these assessments, emphasizing monitoring and compliance to minimize industrial pollution and ecological degradation. The law is broad in scope, addressing sectors such as oil, gas, mining, and infrastructure, with specific guidelines for each, reflecting Nigeria’s drive to balance industrial growth with environmental sustainability.
In Uganda, the relatively recent discovery of commercial oil reserves has begun to shape the country’s EIA priorities, though agriculture remains its primary economic driver. The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) manages EIA in Uganda under the National Environment Act of 1995, which was updated in 2019 to incorporate evolving environmental needs and international obligations. Unlike Nigeria’s sector-specific approach, Uganda’s legislation takes a more generalized perspective, reflecting its early-stage industrial development. The Act emphasizes preventive measures, stakeholder participation, and environmental protection, while promoting sustainable agricultural practices and addressing emerging oil exploration concerns.
Furthermore, Uganda’s commitment to Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) with EIA provisions highlights its integration of international environmental standards into national policy. By ratifying agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1998), Uganda underscores its commitment to biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. These international commitments have influenced Uganda’s EIA practices, incorporating sustainable land and water management practices that support biodiversity protection and climate resilience. In contrast, Nigeria’s EIA framework, while also aligning with MEAs, is more geared towards addressing pollution control and environmental remediation in response to the demands of its established oil industry. It is evident that both nations have tailored their EIA frameworks to reflect their unique environmental challenges, with Uganda focusing on preemptive, sustainable measures and Nigeria adopting a regulatory framework responsive to the needs of a heavily industrialized economy.
Despite a sound legal basis and comprehensive guidelines, EIA in Nigeria has not yet evolved satisfactorily. According to Nwoko (2013), Nigeria’s EIA system has a number of shortcomings that include inadequate capacity of EIA approval authorities, deficiencies in screening and scoping, poor EIA quality, inadequate public participation and weak monitoring.
Whereas EIA is practiced in over 100 countries of the world (Jay et al., 2007), a study by Nwoko (2013) revealed that EIA effectiveness in developed countries has been explored to a certain extent, but research in developing countries such as Nigeria is still in its infancy and requires consented effort. This is not to mean there is no literature on EIA in Nigeria, but to say there is a need for more studies.
Enebeli & Njoku (2023) established that Section 2(2) of the Nigeria EIA Act uses the word “significantly affect the environment” to refer to a project that requires an EIA. They contend that its meaning has not been interpreted by the country’s courts. I equally hold the view that interpretation of this phrase is critical for enhanced environment governance in Nigeria. By defining what extent of environmental degradation qualifies to have or not have a significant effect on environment will set a clear yardstick on which to base to demand or not demand a project proponent to undertake an EIA.
One of the biggest challenges for EIA globally is the assessment of cumulative impacts. According to Glasson (2017) consideration of cumulative effects is absent in the developing world, not leaving out including Nigeria. Odum (1982) compounds Cumulative impacts and changes to the environment as those that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present, and future human actions. Cumulative impacts are important because many projects might pose minor risks to the environment in and of themselves but pose a significant risk to the environment in combination with others.
Environment governance in Nigeria is regulated by several agencies and laws (Echefu & Akpofure, 2016) at both Federal and state levels, often with similar, and in some cases, conflicting roles. CEHRD (2020) report that this has led to a chaotic regulatory. Further, they argue that regulatory agencies appear more focused on the revenue-generating aspects of their functions than on their regulatory roles. Environmental regulatory agencies should not be structured as revenue-generating organizations.
ADB. (2001). Environmental and social assessment procedures for African Development Bank’s Public Sector Publications (Issue June).
Bank Wold. (2002). The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Impact Assessments. In The Legal and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Impact Assessments. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5115-x
Barker, A., & Wood, C. (1999). An evaluation of eia system performance in eight eu countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00015-3
Bekhechi, M. A., & Mercier, J.-R. (2002). The legal and regulatory framework for environmental impact assessments : a study of selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa /. 153 p.
Biswas, A. K., & Qu Geping. (1987). Environmental impact assessment for developing countries. Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries. 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8377(88)90079-8
Burdge, R. J. (1991). A brief history and major trends in the field of impact assessment. Impact Assessment, 9(4), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1991.9726070
CEHRD. (2020). Review of Environmental Legislations in Nigeria: Case Study of EIA Act, NOSDRA Act, NESREA Act, EGASPIN Regulation And HYPREP Gazette.
Echefu, N., & Akpofure, E. (2016). Environmental impact assessment in Nigeria: regulatory background and procedural framework. In UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (Vols. 2B-2016, pp. 63–74). https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2016-6914
Enebeli, V. N., & Njoku, D. C. (2023). African Journal of Law and Criminology Vol . 13 No . 1 ( 2023 ). June.
Eneh, O. C. (2011). Managing nigeria’s environment: The unresolved issues. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2011.250.263
FEPA. (1992). Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No 86 of 1992 (Vol. 53, Issue 73). https://gazettes.africa/archive/ng/1966/ng-government-gazette-supplement-dated-1966-01-26-no-6-part-a.pdf
FEPA. (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment Act (2004). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/nig18378.pdf
FMGN. (1992). Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No 86 of 1992 (Vol. 53, Issue 73).
George, T. E., Karatu, K., & Edward, A. (2020). An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment practice in Uganda: challenges and opportunities for achieving sustainable development. Heliyon, 6(9), e04758. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04758
Glasson, J. (2017). Socio-economic impacts 1: overview and economic impacts. Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, 475–514.
Glasson, J., & Therivel, R. (2012). Introduction To Environmental Impact Assessment (4th ed.). Routledge.
The National Environment Act 2019, Volume CXI The Uganda Gazette No. 10 pages 1 (2019).
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 287–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001
Macintosh, A. (2010). Best practice environmental impact assessment: A model framework for Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00703.x
NEPA. (1969). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 1969, 100–103.
Nwoko, C. O. (2013). Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment System in Nigeria. Greener Journal of Environmental Management and Public Safety, 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781786359513-019
Odum, W. E. (1982). Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions. BioScience, 32(9), 728–729.
Ogunba, A. (2016). an Appraisal of the Evolution of Environmental Legislation in Nigeria. Vermont Law Review, 40, 673. http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985
Pona, H. T., Xiaoli, D., Ayantobo, O. O., & Narh Daniel Tetteh. (2021). Environmental health situation in Nigeria: current status and future needs. Heliyon, 7(3), e06330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06330.
Shyllon, F. O. (1989). The law and the environment in Nigeria. Vantage Publishers.
Ukhurebor, K. E., Athar, H., Adetunji, C. O., Aigbe, U. O., Onyancha, R. B., & Abifarin, O. (2021). Environmental implications of petroleum spillages in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112872. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112872.
UN. (1987). Development and International Eco~Omic Co-Operation: Environment: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
W.J. Couch, J.F. Herity, R. E. M. (1981). Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. In Building in Value: Pre-Design Issues (Issue 6). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080500416-6.
Nuwahereza, Nelson (2024). A review of historical development of environmental impact assessment vis a vis Nigeria environmental impact assessment act of 1992 as amended in 2004. Greener Journal of Environmental Management and Public Safety, 12(1): 44-49, https://doi.org/10.15580/gjemps.2024.1.103024156
PDF VIEWER
Download [501.36 KB]
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
