Page images
PDF
EPUB

11

use by federal agencies involved in actions proposed by

multilateral institutions.

Rather, I believe that the United

States should be encouraging the development of environmental impact assessment within the framework of the multilateral

institutions themselves.

One of the strengths of the NEPA

process, as applied domestically, has been that it is a process which is integrated into the decisionmaking of the government

agency which is proposing the action.

In the context of the

multilateral development banks (MDBS), application of this principle would suggest that the environmental impact assessment process should be implemented by the MDB itself.

I would support a program of u.s. assistance to develop an environmental impact assessment process within the MDBS, including technical assistance and educational training, as well as cooperatively prepared environmental assessments.

Additionally, the Department of the Treasury and the

Department of State, particularly through the Agency for

International Development, have taken a number of positive steps

to increase the consideration of environmental factors within the

decisionmaking process of the multilateral development banks (MDBS). I support these measures, which are outlined in detail

in those agencies' written testimony.

In developing any program of assistance to the MDBs in the

area of environmental impact assessment, I believe the following

principles should be considered:

* The increasing awareness of the interrelated, global

12

characteristics of environmental impacts.

* The international leadership role which the United

States has repeatedly assumed in environmental

protection.

* The fact that environmental impact assessment does

not require an agency to choose an action based on

environmental grounds; rather, it mandates

consideration of the environment.

* The fact that many other countries and multilateral

fora have and are adopting environmental impact
assessment procedures, including procedures for

assessing transboundary impacts.

2. Have other countries adopted policies and procedures similar to NEPA? If so, do they extend the procedures to their participation in international activities?

Many other countries, following the lead of the United

States, have adopted policies and procedures for environmental

impact assessment (EIA) similar to NEPA.

Some of the countries

which have such policies and procedures are Australia18, Canada 1', France 20, Indonesia21, Japan22, the Netherlands23, and

18

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, 1974.

19

Environmental Assessment and Review Process, Cabinet Decision, December 20, 1973, as modified by Cabinet Decision, February 15, 1977.

[blocks in formation]

13

Thailand24. Although CEQ officials have met with many visitors from these and other countries regarding their EIA processes, we do not have each country's current regulations on file, and thus

cannot address the question of whether their procedures extend to

participation in international activities. 25 We are not aware,

however, of any other country which has sought to extend its

procedures to its participation in any of the MDBs.

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that here have been

[blocks in formation]

21

Basic Provisions for the Management of the Living Environment, Article 16, 1981.

22

On Implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment, Cabinet Decision, August 28, 1984.

23

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, The Hague, March 1984.

24

National Environmental Quality Act, 1975.

25

A sense of the widespread interest in the world about environmental impact assessment may be gleamed from a list of the countries represented at the 8th Annual International Seminar on Environmental Impact Assessment, held in Scotland in 1987. The countries were: Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, England, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Scotland, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Turkey, Uganda, the United States, and Venezuela.

26

UNEP Governing Council, 14th Session, June 8-19, Nairobi, Kenya, Agenda Item 10. See Appendix B.

14

rationale and method for assessing the environmental impacts of

state action with a broad, generic approach which permits the

flexibility necessary to adopt them to the legal systems of all

member nations. They are voluntary guidelines. The U.S. strongly supported their adoption and urged that they be utilized

as the basis for negotiation of an international convention on

environmental impact assessment.

The Economic Commission for Europe recently considered

EIA at a seminar on the subject held in Warsaw, Poland, in 1987.

The conclusions reached at that meeting included provisions for

EIA in a transboundary context, including notification,

consultation, public participation, and monitoring. 27

Finally, the European Community (EC), composed of twelve

countries some of which have widely differing ecological,

economic, and cultural settings, has issued a directive requiring

all member nations to adopt EIA procedures by July, 1988.28 The

EC Directive also contains a provision for EIA for transboundary environmental impacts within the European Community.?

29

All of these developments suggest to me that there is an

increasing international awareness of environmental issues and

27

Draft Recommendations to ECE Governments, Seminar on Environmental Impact Assessment, Warsaw, Poland, September 21-15, 1987, Provision Number 23.

28

Council of the European Communities, Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment, June 27, 1985.

29

Council of the European Communities, Directive on the Assessment of the Effects of certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment, June 27, 1985.

15

growing receptivity to cooperative measures among a number of

countries.

I believe that we can build on these developments and

work cooperatively with other countries in fashioning effective environmental assessment procedures in the MDBs and in the

developing countries.

3. Are there specific incidences or situations where environmental damage has occurred that in your view could have been mitigated by applying the NEPA process to U.S. participation in international activities?

It must be realized that the application of NEPA or a

similar environmental impact assessment process by either the

U.S. or the appropriate MDB to these types of actions would not automatically eliminate or mitigate environmental damage; it

would, however, provide information about environmental impacts

in a timely to decisionmakers.

There are serious environmental problems which appear to

have been exacerbated on several occasions by large development

projects, funded by multilateral institutions. Deforestation and desertification are among the impacts mostly frequently

identified in this regard.

Some examples are:

The Narmada Valley Development Project, India

This project

involves the damming of the Narmada River, the largest west

flowing river in India, using 30 major dams, 135 medium-sized

dams, and more than 3,000 small dams.

Benefits of the project

are viewed as new jobs, potable water, irrigation and flood

control; environmental concerns include destruction of massive

« PreviousContinue »