Environmental Impact Assessment: Preservation Or Innovation?

The concept of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) evolved towards the end of the twentieth century, at a time when rapid industrialisation and unchecked development in many developed nations had caused extensive environmental degradation [1]. Massive industrial expansion, undertaken with little regard for ecological balance, resulted in widespread destruction of ecosystems and loss of natural habitats for animals, plants, and other living organisms. In response to this growing environmental crisis, EIA emerged as a systematic tool designed to identify, predict, and evaluate the potential environmental consequences of proposed development projects before key decisions were made [2].

During the latter half of the twentieth century, a broader ecological awakening began to take shape, compelling states to weigh the shadows of progress against the fragile pulse of the Earth. EIA became central to this awakening, integrating ecological, social, cultural, and economic considerations into development planning with the objective of achieving sustainable development [3]. By the mid-1960s, many countries began shifting their approach away from purely economic and industrial priorities towards development models that recognised the need for a healthy, liveable environment in which future generations could thrive.

Environmental Impact Assessment functions as an anticipatory and preventive mechanism. It systematically scrutinises proposed projects to assess their likely impacts on air, water, soil, biodiversity, and human communities, ensuring that environmental concerns are incorporated into public discourse and decision-making processes [4]. Rather than reacting to environmental damage after it has occurred, EIA compels planners and developers to reconsider potentially harmful activities at the planning stage, especially in an era marked by climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity [5].

At its core, EIA is not merely a technical exercise but a decision-making framework. It enables policymakers and developers to adopt precautionary measures, explore alternative designs, and implement mitigation strategies that align development objectives with environmental protection [6]. Through public participation and interdisciplinary analysis, EIA promotes transparency and accountability, allowing affected communities and stakeholders to engage meaningfully in development decisions that may impact their lives and livelihoods.

The roots of EIA can be traced to the environmental concerns of the 1960s, culminating in the enactment of the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 [7]. NEPA introduced the requirement for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for major federal actions affecting the environment, setting a global precedent. This legislative innovation inspired similar frameworks worldwide, including Australia’s environmental legislation in 1974, the European Union’s EIA Directive of 1985, India’s EIA rules of 1986, and Canada’s assessment processes for large-scale projects such as uranium mining and oil sands development [8].

The 1970s and 1980s witnessed both successes and setbacks in EIA implementation. While the tool contributed to improved environmental decision-making, political and economic pressures often weakened its effectiveness. Regulatory reforms in the United States during the Reagan administration prioritised project speed over environmental scrutiny, while large infrastructure projects in developing countries sometimes proceeded at the cost of cultural heritage and ecological integrity [9].

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit) marked a significant milestone by embedding EIA within the broader framework of sustainable development [10]. It also gave rise to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), extending environmental evaluation to policies, plans, and programmes. In the post-Paris Agreement era, advancements in digital modelling, public participation, and climate risk assessment have strengthened EIA practices, although challenges such as corruption and greenwashing persist [11].

Pakistan faces severe environmental pressures that threaten public health, economic development, and ecological stability. Climate change, deforestation, water scarcity, air and water pollution, and ineffective waste management pose persistent challenges [12]. Rapid urbanisation, population growth, and industrial expansion place immense strain on natural resources, accelerating environmental degradation. The country’s vulnerability to climate change is evident in recurring floods, prolonged droughts, glacial melt, and extreme weather events, all of which adversely affect agriculture, food security, water availability, and livelihoods [13].

In this context, balancing development with environmental protection is not merely desirable but essential. Environmental Impact Assessment plays a critical role by evaluating the potential consequences of projects before they commence, identifying risks, and proposing mitigation measures [4]. By facilitating informed decision-making, EIA aligns development initiatives with environmental preservation, contributing to long-term sustainability rather than short-term economic gains.

In Pakistan, Environmental Impact Assessment gained statutory recognition through the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997, building upon earlier efforts such as the Pakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance 1983 [14]. PEPA 1997 formalised EIA as a mandatory requirement for development projects likely to cause adverse environmental effects. The Act classifies projects into Schedule I and Schedule II, requiring Initial Environmental Examinations (IEEs) or full EIAs accordingly, and mandates public hearings, regulatory oversight, and compliance with National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) [15].

PEPA 1997 established two key regulatory bodies: the Pakistan Environmental Protection Council (PEPC), headed by the Prime Minister as the supreme policy-making authority, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which serves as the executive arm responsible for implementation at federal and provincial levels [14]. Following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, environmental governance was devolved to the provinces, enabling them to enact and enforce their own environmental laws while maintaining consistency with national standards [16].
Section 12 of PEPA 1997 expressly prohibits the commencement of development projects without prior environmental approval [14]. The Act also regulates hazardous substances, prohibits the import of hazardous waste, and introduces enforcement mechanisms through Environmental Tribunals and Environmental Magistrates, empowered to impose fines, order closures of polluting industries, and impose imprisonment of up to two years for serious violations [17]. Through these measures, PEPA 1997 shifted Pakistan’s environmental policy from a reactive to a proactive and legally enforceable regime.

Judicial activism has played a crucial role in strengthening environmental governance in Pakistan. Since the late 1980s and 1990s, courts have interpreted constitutional provisions expansively to protect environmental rights under the broader umbrella of fundamental rights [18]. Articles 9 (right to life), 14 (dignity), and 18 (freedom of trade) of the Constitution have been repeatedly invoked in environmental public interest litigation (PIL), recognising the right to a clean and healthy environment as an integral component of the right to life [19].

In Shehla Zia v WAPDA, residents challenged the construction of a high-voltage grid station in a residential area of Islamabad. The Supreme Court accepted the petition under Article 184(3) and acknowledged the precautionary principle, directing the establishment of a commission of independent experts to assess potential health and environmental risks [20].

Similarly, in Imran Tiwana v Province of Punjab, the Lahore High Court suspended the construction of a signal-free corridor on the grounds that it had proceeded without a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment, thereby reinforcing the binding nature of EIA requirements under Pakistani law [21].

In Asghar Khan v Federation of Pakistan (Leghari Case), the court addressed climate-change-induced threats such as water scarcity, flooding, and agricultural disruption. The Lahore High Court held that failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy 2012 and its implementation framework violated fundamental rights, and consequently established a Climate Change Commission to monitor governmental compliance [22].

Environmental jurisprudence was further strengthened in the Lahore Canal Road case, where the Supreme Court intervened suo motu in response to the proposed widening of the canal road, which threatened thousands of trees. Following expert mediation, the Court limited the project scope and mandated compensatory environmental measures, thereby affirming sustainable development as a guiding constitutional principle [23].

Despite its theoretical strengths, Environmental Impact Assessment faces numerous practical challenges that can limit its effectiveness in achieving sustainable development. Understanding these challenges is essential for improving EIA practice. In many developing regions, immediate economic needs to create strong pressures to approve development projects quickly with minimal environmental restrictions. When communities face poverty, unemployment, and lack of basic services, the long-term benefits of environmental protection may seem less compelling than short-term economic gains. This challenge is exacerbated when EIA is perceived as an expensive administrative hurdle imposed by wealthy nations or international organizations.

Effective EIA implementation in such contexts requires demonstrating how environmental protection contributes to rather than conflicts with economic development and poverty reduction. Governments must ensure by applying a protective measure’s, impact assessment of projects on environment and its results in their development and growth. Major changes are done in recent and past few decades. Changes in the environmental circumstances led nations to think about consequences of their act regarding industrialization. For this purpose, in 1960’s NEPA adopted by USA to address their challenges where it lacks some. Similarly, in 1990’s Pakistan adopted PEPA ACT 1997 to tackle the environmental situations gently.

To ensure compliance, PEPA 1997 established a judicial system consisting of Environmental Tribunals and Environmental Magistrates. The courts began to interpreting constitutional provisions broadly to protect the environment, public health and other rights. Article 9, 14, and 18 of the constitution of Pakistan have been cited in environmental PIL cases, as they somehow related to life, health, and welfare. EIA implementation in such contexts requires demonstrating how environmental protection contributes. Guided by nature-loving principles, theories, and findings, EIA prioritizes ecosystems, monitors projects, issues guidelines, and builds institutional structures for analysis. The study has developed a framework to seamlessly incorporate environmental SDG considerations through SDGs Compass to standard EIA process.

Despites all these sources, authorities, developed mechanisms and rules there need to be more vigilance regarding the ecosystem and its working. Governments and other NGO’s take necessary measures to tackle down this, also by regulating the private companies, their projects managements and use those sustainable development methods that provide nature a good, formal and habitual growth. Environmental Impact Assessment methods are widely used by all developed nations, alike them Pakistan must follow the same footstep to achieve their goals regarding economy, financial or social matters for the betterment of Pakistani society.

Bibliography:

1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Brundtland Report, 1987).
2. Glasson J, Therivel R and Chadwick A, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (4th edn, Routledge 2012).
3. Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A and MacKenzie R, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, CUP 2018).
4. Morgan RK, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: The State of the Art’ (2012) 30 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 5.
5. United Nations, Paris Agreement (2015).
6. International Association for Impact Assessment, Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice (1999).
7. National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (USA).
8. Craik N, The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment (CUP 2008).
9. Boyle A and Redgwell C, International Law and the Environment (4th edn, OUP 2021).
10. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992).
11. United Nations General Assembly, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015).
12. United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual (2002).
13. Asian Development Bank, Environmental Assessment Guidelines (ADB 2003).
14. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997.
15. National Environmental Quality Standards (Pakistan).
16. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (Eighteenth Amendment).
17. Khan IA, Environmental Law in Pakistan (OUP 2019).
18. Ahmad S and Khan M, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment in Pakistan’ (2018) 35 Pakistan Journal of Environmental Law 45.
19. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, arts 9, 14, 18.
20. Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693.
21. Imran Tiwana v Province of Punjab PLD 2015 Lahore 522.
22. Asghar Khan v Federation of Pakistan PLD 2015 Lahore 522.
23. Lahore Canal Road Widening Case PLD 2011 SC 619.