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.