Reform of the EIA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public involvement

Environmental and sustainability impact assessment in small islands: the case of Azores and Madeira

“…Decision-making was generally supported but the process was less transparent than in the mainland because it did not allow for appeal or for public participation, which is in agreement with findings of other authors (Ahmad and Wood, 2002;Purnama, 2003;King and Walmsley, 2003).…”

“…Several limitations of the EIA processes, in island regions and mainland states are related to the lack of coordination among the organisations that are involved in the environmental decision-making process (Momtaz, 2002). Further problems that arise include both the absence of public participation (Ahmad and Wood, 2002) and inadequate public participation (King and Walmsley, 2003;Purnama, 2003;Ramjeawon and Beedassy, 2004). Further pronounced drawbacks in many small island states are inadequate screening mechanism, lack of baseline data, deficiencies in data management systems, lack of expertise and trained staff, absence of clearly defined criteria for the eligibility and registration of EIA consultants and accreditation of EIA practitioners (Ramjeawon and Beedassy, 2004;Briffett et al, 2003;King and Walmsley, 2003;Turnbull, 2003).…”

The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding

“…The second group of authors, predominantly from developing countries, consider the objective to be to provide scientifically sound knowledge on the environmental impacts of proposed projects. EIA is considered a 'compliance tool', comparable to a robust environmental clearance or permitting procedure (Purnama, 2003;Ahammed and Harvey, 2004). These authors state that public involvement is low and will stay low for some time because the rights and the capacities of civil society organisations are limited, and a culture of participation and appeal does not exist in, for example, Indonesia (Purnama, 2003) and Bangladesh (Ahammed and Harvey, 2004).…”

“…Kakonge (1996), in a study on public participation in EIA in sub-Saharan Africa, argues that poor people are driven by day-to-day survival and tend to tolerate a highly polluted environment without complaint. Purnama (2003) stated that public involvement in EIA is limited because there is no culture of participation in public decision-making in Indonesia, which is the result of a historical process characterised, for example, by repressive political regimes. As a result, EIA does not contribute to legitimate and acceptable decisions.…”

First steps toward best practice SEA in a developing nation: lessons from the central Namib uranium rush SEA

“…This suggests that SEA can have a positive added value for environmental management of uranium mining and positive implications for attaining regional sustainable development. Second, the involvement of different stakeholders including the youth and other interest groups, however, unidirectional, reflects environmental awareness and responsibility of the public in a manner that is uncommon to practice in many developing nations (Purnama 2003;Li 2008). Third, regarding implementation, the relatively short time-scale (from 2010 to 2020), may serve as an incentive to implement many of the initiatives.…”