How efficient the EIA report

Have we placed undue expectation on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system as an environmental safeguard? Rightly or wrongly, many have come to rely on the EIA to be the shield against adverse impacts of development. To a great extent especially for would-be affected communities, the EIA is deemed their only chance of stopping an undesirable project. Department of Environment is the the government agency tasked to enforce Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 which gave birth to the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) Environmental Impact Assessment Order 1987 – has unwittingly become the Department of Everything, when its power is so limited.

While many agree that EIA is a planning tool to assist developers to avoid negative impacts on the environment, most concur that project proponents are more concerned about fulfilling a legal requirement to get the project going. From my point of view, EIA did not originate to support a project but to aid informed decision-making. Because the consultant is paid by project proponent maybe its the was to 'jaga the periuk nasi' to make sure their company growing.

There is consultant has suggested unrealistic mitigation measures when there is no proven technology or successful cases to support it.

How to solve this problem? Maybe DOE and the EIA consultant should sign a contract as equal clients that give sufficient clout to DOE to demand for unbiased assessment. Or maybe make it mandatory for project consultants to respond to public comments and publish comments of review panel for meaningful public participation