Assessing the Inclusion of Critical Habitat Evaluation in Nigeria's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports: A Crucial Step towards Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development

Richard N. Michael, Eunice O. Nwachukwu, Kasarachi S. Nnadede
{"title":"Assessing the Inclusion of Critical Habitat Evaluation in Nigeria's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports: A Crucial Step towards Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development","authors":"Richard N. Michael, Eunice O. Nwachukwu, Kasarachi S. Nnadede","doi":"10.9734/jalsi/2023/v26i6626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is among globally accepted means to reduce habitat destruction and fragmentation that result to loss of biodiversity. However, non-technical revision of EIA Procedural Guidelines to address emerging environmental concerns and news areas by Federal Ministry of Environment are preventing EIA from meeting above obligation in Nigeria. This study evaluated extent of critical habitat assessment/inclusion in Nigeria`s EIA reports. 100 EIA reports from Manufacturing, Infrastructure, Power, Agric/Roads and Petroleum sectors were assessed using critical habitat evaluation criteria consisting of 20 attributes; adapted from International Finance Corporation`s Guidance Note Six. Results show varying levels of critical habitat inclusion in the EIA reports. Though majority of the reports recognised the need for conservation of biodiversity and proffered mitigation measures for reducing habitat fragmentation and restoration in course of project development; the evaluated EIA reports did not deepen habitat screening of project area or adopted any quantification approach. There was no evidence to show that avoidance was deployed as part of mitigation hierarchies; likewise, partnership with conservation organizations to offset residual impacts. Also, none of the EIA reports suggested modification of project execution option(s) based on EIA outcome. Result of critical habitat inclusion evaluation amongst the sectors, shows mean inclusion scores for Power, (37.2%), Petroleum (36%), Manufacturing (33.7), Infrastructure (27.8%) and Agric/Road (22.8%) with overall mean inclusion value of 31.7%. ANOVA statistic deployed, showed no significant inclusion difference among the sectors (P-value = .103>.05). Recommendations were made for the use of technology and capacity building to enhance critical habitat assessment as part of EIA reports in Nigeria.","PeriodicalId":14990,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Life Sciences International","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Life Sciences International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/jalsi/2023/v26i6626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is among globally accepted means to reduce habitat destruction and fragmentation that result to loss of biodiversity. However, non-technical revision of EIA Procedural Guidelines to address emerging environmental concerns and news areas by Federal Ministry of Environment are preventing EIA from meeting above obligation in Nigeria. This study evaluated extent of critical habitat assessment/inclusion in Nigeria`s EIA reports. 100 EIA reports from Manufacturing, Infrastructure, Power, Agric/Roads and Petroleum sectors were assessed using critical habitat evaluation criteria consisting of 20 attributes; adapted from International Finance Corporation`s Guidance Note Six. Results show varying levels of critical habitat inclusion in the EIA reports. Though majority of the reports recognised the need for conservation of biodiversity and proffered mitigation measures for reducing habitat fragmentation and restoration in course of project development; the evaluated EIA reports did not deepen habitat screening of project area or adopted any quantification approach. There was no evidence to show that avoidance was deployed as part of mitigation hierarchies; likewise, partnership with conservation organizations to offset residual impacts. Also, none of the EIA reports suggested modification of project execution option(s) based on EIA outcome. Result of critical habitat inclusion evaluation amongst the sectors, shows mean inclusion scores for Power, (37.2%), Petroleum (36%), Manufacturing (33.7), Infrastructure (27.8%) and Agric/Road (22.8%) with overall mean inclusion value of 31.7%. ANOVA statistic deployed, showed no significant inclusion difference among the sectors (P-value = .103>.05). Recommendations were made for the use of technology and capacity building to enhance critical habitat assessment as part of EIA reports in Nigeria.
评估尼日利亚环境影响评估 (EIA) 报告中关键栖息地评估的纳入情况:实现生物多样性保护和可持续发展的关键一步
环境影响评估(EIA)是全球公认的减少导致生物多样性丧失的生境破坏和破碎化的手段之一。然而,联邦环境部针对新出现的环境问题和新闻领域对《环境影响评估程序指南》进行的非技术性修订,阻碍了尼日利亚的环境影响评估履行上述义务。本研究评估了尼日利亚环境影响评估报告中关键栖息地评估/纳入的程度。根据国际金融公司《指导说明六》改编的由 20 个属性组成的关键栖息地评估标准,对来自制造业、基础设施、电力、农业/公路和石油部门的 100 份环评报告进行了评估。结果显示,环评报告中关键栖息地的纳入程度各不相同。尽管大多数报告都认识到保护生物多样性的必要性,并提出了在项目开发过程中减少生境破碎化和恢复的缓解措施;但所评估的环评报告并未深化项目区的生境筛选或采用任何量化方法。没有证据表明,避让是作为减缓等级的一部分;同样,也没有证据表明,与保护组织合作抵消了残余影响。此外,没有一份环评报告建议根据环评结果修改项目执行方案。对各行业关键栖息地纳入情况的评估结果显示,电力行业(37.2%)、石油行业(36%)、制造业(33.7%)、基础设施行业(27.8%)和农业/道路行业(22.8%)的关键栖息地平均纳入率分别为 37.2%、36%、33.7%、27.8% 和 22.8%,总体平均纳入率为 31.7%。方差分析统计结果表明,各部门之间的包容性差异不大(P 值 = .103>.05 )。建议利用技术和能力建设加强关键生境评估,将其作为尼日利亚环境影响评估报告的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信