EA education in India & other South Asian countries – challenges & constraints Dr Paola Gazzola Global Urban Research Unit – APL Newcastle University [email protected].

EA education in India & other South Asian countries – challenges & constraints

Dr Paola Gazzola

Global Urban Research Unit – APL

Newcastle University

[email protected]

Outline

• Background of PENTA– Internationalisation & standardisation of

European EA practice & education– Harmonisation of European EA

• Relevance to South Asian countries– EA in South Asia, practice & education– Internationalisation & standardisation– Harmonisation

• Conclusions, challenges & constraints

Background of PENTA

• EC funded project– Enhance attractiveness of European EA

education– Attract third country audience to EA– Develop outputs to support EA education

• Develop & maintain live network between EU & third country universities/experts

– Knowledge exchange – learning

• “European approach to EA”?

Internationalisation & standardisation of European EA practice

• EU blueprint for: – EIA (85/337/EEC, amended by 97/11/EC)– SEA (2001/42/EC)

• Standardisation of procedural & legal requirements

• EU EA approach has worldwide impact – Non-EU countries– Developed and developing countries– Banks

• Internationalisation of European EA practice

Harmonisation of European EA practice

• One EU EA approach?– Planning & dm systems differ within MS

– Dm cultures, values & routines vary within MS

• Harmonisation– Explore possibilities for harmonising &

connecting EA procedures (recital 19, SEA Directive)

– Elimination of contradicting evaluations rather than unification of procedures

• Towards a “European EA approach”

European education

• Bologna process– Standardisation, setting of common standards

through ECTS– Harmonisation, intro of two-tiered cycle– Internationalisation, attractiveness, mobility,

common education structure, language

• European EA education– Harmonisation of science & social sciences

Relevance to South Asia

• Develop & maintain live network

• PENTA workshop, Dehradun, India, 2007

• Opportunities for networking– Knowledge exchange & sharing experiences

EA in South Asia

• EA in India & other South Asian countries– Triggered by environmental disasters– Complying with international obligations &

donor requirementsSouth Asia EIA SEA

Bangladesh Introduced in 1995, mandatory in 1997

Bhutan Introduced in 1993 Legally introduced in 2002

India Introduced in 1986, mandatory in 1994. Latest act 2006

Nepal Introduced in 1996, mandatory in 1999 Pilot SEAs & research

Pakistan Legally introduced in 1994

Sri Lanka Legally introduced in 1988 Pilots SEAs

EA in South Asia

• EA practice– EIA is well-established, SEA still neglected

South Asia Weaknesses

Bangladesh Conducted to fulfil bureaucratic requirementPublic participation & monitoring poorly conducted

India Ambiguity in legislation & EIA process causing delays & bottlenecks

Nepal Lack of integration of public’s concern in reports“copy and paste” attitude in report preparation

Sri Lanka Reports are too descriptive & aimed at fulfilling bureaucratic requirementLack of baseline data

EA in South Asia

• EA education– Recent formalisation of env. education

• Need to structure proper syllabus (Supreme Court Judegement, 2003)

• Need to mainstream scientifically valid env. content in curricula (GoI, 2006)

– Science-base focus, emphasising• Impact identification & quantification• High quality technology sciences (GIS, RS)• Detailed scaled of analysis• Quantitative methods & techniques

EA in South Asia

• SWOT analysisStrengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

•Legal framework & statutory instruments•Transparency of dm & public hearings (Right to Information Act, 2005)•Support of good science•Employment opportunities•Robust env. baseline

•EIA is a product & not a process•Little influence over project design•Little added value to dm•Poor application of CBA•Lack of clear articulation of trade-offs•Narrow vision of EA, lack of two-tier assessment•Human resources•Lack of training

•Achieve effective env. protection•Increase exposure of good practice & learn from failures•Improve performance standards & raise benchmarks•Database of trained professionals with inter- & intra-disciplinary expertise

•Lack of political will•Deterrents for development•Lack of interdisciplinary approaches•Rising role of global players & influencing national EIA•Tunnelled vision of EA (a science or an art)

Relevance to South Asia

• Internationalisation & standardisation – Two-tier cycle– English language– Common framework for EA education to

reduce regional disparities, based on local case-studies

– Enhance understanding of environmental problems & share experiences & knowledge

Relevance to South Asia

• Harmonisation – Of disciplines and approaches

• Attract students from different backgrounds• Strengthen practice, by evaluating impacts on

social & natural environment

– Decentralised legislation & responsibilities• Better understanding of context• Reconciliation of regional diversities • More effective environmental protection

Conclusions

• Constraints – Lack of human resources (skills, knowledge &

different disciplinary perspectives)– Inadequate EIA performance, public

participation, screening and scoping– Lack of SEA– Lack of cases from developed world– Expectations from job market

Conclusions

• Challenges– Stimulate cross-fertilisation of ideas &

approaches through internationalisation & standardisation

– Better understanding and knowledge enhancement through mutual collaborations

– Education as an advocacy tool to change tunnel vision of EA and shape job expectations

Conclusions

• A more comprehensive approach to EA is needed, but no such thing as one fits all

• EA curricula should include two-tier assessment

• More collaboration is advocated between universities, ministries, industries, practitioners, NGOs & dm in shaping education (practice)

• Creating opportunities for networking & discussion can help understand EA shortcomings, to strengthen education