COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCE

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Evaluation of Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessments and

Challenges of Investments Expansions:

On Local Livelihoods of Selected Woredas of Assosa Zone, ETHIOPIA

A RESEARCH REPORT

By

Habtamu Seyoum (MSc. In land Adminstration and Policy)

Principal Investigator
Alemayehu Teka (MSc. In Environmental Sciences) Co investigator

February, 2023
Assosa university, Ethiopia
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS i
LIST OF TBLES ii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of problems 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4.1The specific objectives 4
1.5 Significance of the Study 4
2 LITIRTURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Assessing Impacts of Land Acquisition 5
2.2 The EIA System in Ethiopia 6
2.3. Policy Framework for EIA 7
2.3.1. The FDRE Constitution 7
2.3.2. Environmental impact assessment law 8
2.4 The objectives of public participation 9
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS 10
3.1 Area of Description 10
3.1 Sampling Methods 11
3.2 Source of Data 12
3.3 Sample Size Determinations 13
3.7. Data Analysis 14
4.1. Work plan 14
5. BUDGET BREAKDOWN 1
5.1 Transport Expense 2
5.3 Budget Summary 3
Communication 3
6. APPENDIX 6

i
 ACRONYMS

EA Environmental Audit

EIA Environment Impact Assessment

EIAAR Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit regulation

EMS Environmental Management Systems

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPA Federal Environmental Protection Authority

MELCA Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Pragram

LAEPA Land administration and Environmental protection Authority

BGRS Benisghagul Gumuz regional states

IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment

ii
Abstract.

1
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not only about development and protecting
environment, but also about public participation during all the process. It is not an
overstatement that public participation is claimed as one of the key indicators of the effectiveness
of EIA. The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia grant people the right
to full consultation and to the expression of views in the planning and implementation of
environmental policies. The overall objective of the study is to evaluate the factors that affect
public participation in EIA process among selected woredas in Assosa zone BGR state. The
specific objectives of the study were to evaluate how socio- economic, behavioral and political
factors affect PP in EIA process. The study adopted descriptive research design. The researcher
targeted three woredas and six kebeles from them based on high number of project. The
population of the study included 105 respondents (150 participants 36 kebles cabinate and 12
project proponents). That is 25 respondents from each kebeles and 6 keble level cabinate form
each of kebeles. The researcher used questionnaires (participants) and interviews guides
(project proponents) to collect data. Data collected was both quantitative and qualitative. The
findings revealed that the level of education affects public participation in projects. Language
used during meetings could either encourage/ discourage effective communication hence have
an effect on participation. Employment status tend to affect how public participate in EIA
process. The level of trust between the government and public tends to affect how the public will
come out to participate in government projects when called upon. Politicians had an influence
on public participation in government projects. The study recommends regularly awareness by
National Environment Management Authority about EIA process and the public should change
their attitude towards participation in government projects.

2
Therefore, even in pandemic conditions while development still must go on at the same time,
public participation can be avoided in the EIA process. In a wide range of international
arrangements and national regulation, there are several guidance in accommodating public
participation such as the Aarhus Convention 1998 and Indonesian national regulation. This
article compares and analyses those legal procedures in mitigating unexpected conditions. The
result shows that both of them are still feasible to be applied even in abnormal circumstances.

Therefore, how these aspirations are conveyed and accepted must be done in various alternative
ways

3
 Chapter-One
1.1 Background to the Study

Economic development can have major impacts on the environment by degrading soils, polluting
bodies of water, altering landscapes and threatening biodiversity, in some cases driving species
into extinction. In turn, EIA provide effective means of harmonizing and integrating
environmental, economic, cultural and social considerations into a decision-making process in a
manner that promotes sustainable development prior to approval of a project or a public
instrument (UNEP, 1988).

From EIA public participation is an important and integral part of the Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) process. It is a requirement and a very crucial step for the collection of data
and especially the baseline information for proposed projects. In addition, it helps bring about the
argumentative issues and gives a chance to those who may be affected by a proposed project to
air their views. There is no doubt that public involvement is a fundamental principle of the EIA
process. No wonder why principle 10 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (1992) emphasizes that environmental issues are best handled
with the participation of all concerned citizens, at all the relevant level.
Moreover, Article 43, 44, and 92 in the Ethiopia Constitution guarantee equality, such that
citizens can force the government to take actions to protect the environment. In addition,
people or communities can demand involvement in a proposed project to guarantee equal
opportunity. Also EIA (Proclamation №299 of 2002) provides for public participation in the
environmental impact assessment process. It requires environmental bodies to ensure that the
comments made by the public are incorporated into the EIA study report as well as in to its
evaluation. To this end, it requires environmental bodies to make any EIA study report accessible
to the public and to solicit comments thereon. If the public is involved in the full decision
making process, their concerns may be met early on in the planning process when changes may
be easier to make, rather than late in the process when even small changes may cost both
time and money (Abaza et al, and UNEP, 2004). So this study is to examine level and factors
that influence of public participation in EIA process in the project.

4
1.2 Statement of problems

The achievement of sustainable development requires a framework of strategies, approaches and

tools. One of these tools is the application of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as an
evaluation method and decision-aid. From EIA process the public involvement is a fundamental
principle. Public involvement must provide an opportunity for those directly affected by a
proposal to express their views regarding the proposal and its environmental and social impacts.
Article 43: Ethiopian constitution under sub-Article 2 confirms that nations have the right to
participate in national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect to policies and
projects affecting their community.

So public participation is an integral part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process,
as it provides opportunities for interested and affected parties (I&APs) to participate in the
decision making process. Public participation Provide a platform for the public to raise their
concerns and as a result have their input influence decision making and thus enhance
environmental justice, equity and cooperation. Based on the public participation in EIA, several
gaps have been identified with regard to public participation in EIA. In most Ethiopia regions
including Be adequate knowledge lacks about public participation. Second, there is a lack of
research on the extent of public participation in EIA in BGRS.

There is also insufficient information on the factors that hinder public participation in EIA in
BGRS. On the other hand lands have been used by local communities for generations for
farming; grazing or settlement purposes were transferred for investor. The declaration that
investment lands are previously idle is also flaw as land in many cases could be temporarily left
for various purposes, such as shifting cultivation or bush fallowing by local users. As a result, it
is feared that the government’s agricultural land investment policy could marginalize rural

population by depriving them of a crucial asset for their livelihoods. Local communities have no
say over LSAI and hence the government can transfer any land it wishes to investors. This in
turn makes rural communities voiceless because the ultimate power of deciding on the fate of
agricultural land vests on authorities. Consequently, these communities could see their
livelihoods hampered when large scale land is transferred to investors at the expense of their
interests.

5
1.3 Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

 To what extent did the public participate during the EIA process

 What are the factors that influenced the level of public participation during the EIA
process in the large-scale agricultural investments and mining project?

 How did public participation affect the outcome of the EIA process of the large scale
agricultural investments and mining activity?

 What are the main impacts of large scale agricultural investments and mining project on
local community Livelihoods?

 How many projects were EIA certified from research conducting area?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

 The overall objective of this study is to examine level and factors that influence of public
participation in EIA process in the large-scale agricultural investments and mining
project and their consequence to local community Livelihoods

1.4.1 The specific objectives

 Examine the level of public participation in the EIA process of the projects under study;
 To asses EIA certified documents to determine public participation and their comments
on projects.
 To identify factors that influences the level of public participation in the EIA process.
 To asses Challenges of expansions of investments on Local Livelihoods.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Studies on public participation in EIA, in Benishangul gumuz regional state important to create
awareness for local peoples, reduce conflicts and provide an opportunity for the public to

6
influence project design in a positive manner. Also, it increases public confidence in the EIA
process to integrate environment in development activity. It is base, because to protect the
consequences of project like expansions of large-scale agricultural investments and mining
activity. It is important to establish what went long in the EIA process of the project and whether
issues raised in the public participation aspects of the EIA will be taken into consideration. This
study can provide recent information on the aspect of public participation component of the
EIA process in proposed development projects in Benishangul Gumuzi regional state. The
findings will help in understanding the functioning of the EIA process besides establishing ways
to improve the EIA process. The findings of the study are also important in promoting
knowledge sharing with a view to enhancing effective participation of the public in the EIA
process, which is a policy tool in promoting sustainable development.

CAPTER-TWO

7
The first formal process to assess environmental impacts was conducted in the US in the early
1979s, in response to rising to public concern over environmental deterioration (Belayneh Ayele,
2011). In Ethiopia 1980s: through a UNDP/WHO assisted Water Resources Development
Projects, a limited effort was made to include an aspect of water based environmental and public

health concerns. 1987: the former Ethiopian Valleys Development Studies Authority (EVDSA)

was established (proc.318/1987), with a mandate among other things, "to indicate and advice
ways for the protection of the environment". The above attempts were all limited by the fact that
they were isolated, sectoral, and narrow in scope and application. A key to all of these reasons is
that they were the undertaking initiated by third party only with a view to meet the donors'
requirements. Because of that it did not bring about any significant change in manner and
practice of EIA in Ethiopia.

An epoch (a long period of time) making step in the history of EIA in Ethiopia is made by the
establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 1995 by the proclamation no.
9/1995 (EPA, 1997). Establishment of Environmental Protection Organs, proc. 295/2002,
Environmental Impact Assessment proc. no. 299/2002, Environmental Pollution Prevention and
Control (proc.no. 300/2002). Those proclamations could be taken as a turning point in the history
of EIA in Ethiopia (FDRE, 2002).

Concept of Public Participation in EIA

Many authors have defined the concept of public participation in EIA (Tom, 2008;) Public
participation in EIA variously referred to as public involvement, citizen involvement community
involvement, stakeholder involvement or citizen participation is an attempt to involve the various
publics in the decision making process so that a wider acceptability and support for the particular
action can be obtained.

8
Public participation is the process by which an organization consults with interested or affected
individuals, organizations, and government entities before making a decision. In fact, it is two-
way communication and collaborative problem solving with the goal of achieving better and
more acceptable decisions. Tom (2008) defined public participation as the deliberative process
by which interested or affected citizens, civil society organizations, and government actors are
involved in policy-making before a political decision is taken.

International Association for Public Participation (2007) defined Public participation as the
process by which an organization consults with interested or affected individuals, organizations,
and government entities before making a decision (http://www.iapp.org). Public participation is
two-way communication and collaborative problem solving with the goal of achieving better and
more acceptable decisions.

Objectives of public participation in EIA A number of reasons are adduced for the involvement
of the public in EIA. Jones and Wells (2007) suggests that public participation in EIA has a
critical role to play in helping to integrate economic, social and environmental objectives, i.e.
move towards more sustainable development by acting as a device to strengthen and increase
public awareness of the delicate balance between economic and environmental trade-offs.
Wasserman (2012) identified the objectives of public participation to include obtaining relevant
information, better decisions, building understanding and legitimizing the process which will
often results in creative solutions, useful role in monitoring follow up, minimizing cost and delay
from unresolved conflicts in other to facilitates project implementation.

Public participation is necessary for minimizing or avoiding public disagreement, conflict and
delay, and can make a positive contribution to the EIA process. Umeh and Uchegbu (1997)
opined that the main aim of public participation in environmental decision making is to promote
productive use of inputs from private citizens and public interest groups in order to improve the
quality of the environment. They also identified the objectives as: 1 to educate the citizenry on
what environmental impact assessment is all about and to disseminate information on the
findings and data on potential environmental impact. 2 to identify problems, needs and values
related to the determination of the environmental resources important to various segments of the
public in the area and also to define areas of environmental problems and needs and to address
the issues of potential solutions.

9
 Theoretical Background: Meaning, Objective, and Significance
of Public Participation in the EIA process.
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines public participation in the
environmental assessment as “the involvement of individuals and groups that are positively or
negatively affected, or that are interested in a proposed project, program, plan or policy that is
subject to a decision-making process.”6 Public participation is also meant for the involvement of
citizens in decision making regarding an EIA process with a view to influence decision makers
through presentation of information, and turning their focus of decision to the differential
environmental effects of development projects. 7 As such, public participation is essentially
concerned with informing, consulting and involving the public in planning and managing EIA
activities.8 Instead of being a mere procedural requirement for providing information to the
public, it seeks to gather input over concerns of participants that should be taken into account in
decision-making process. If handled properly, public participation in planning, decision-making
and environmental impact assessment has a critical role to play in helping to integrate economic,
social and environmental ends. It also serves as a safeguard against bad or politically motivated
decisions, and as a mechanism to increase public awareness over the delicate balance between
economic and environmental tradeoffs.9 Finally, public participation, where it is made
transparently, may increase public confidence in the decision making process.10

2. What is public participation?

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), (2006) defines public participation
in the context of environmental assessment as “the involvement of individuals and groups that
are positively or negatively affected, or that are interested in, a proposed project, programme,
plan or policy that is subject to a decision-making process” (p. 1). Here, the extent of
involvement as well as its intended effect remains unclear. By contrast, Hughes (1998) perceives
participation in EIA as a process, which enables individuals or organisations affected by a
proposed project to significantly influence decision-making. According to Arnstein (1969) – who
is frequently referred to in literature on public participation in EIA and beyond – participation is

10
“a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not
citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately
included in the future” (p. 216). This view implies that public participation is a means to
empower formerly marginalized individuals. These examples illustrate that the definition of
public participation in the context of EIA is directly linked to the objectives that the participatory
process is supposed to fulfil

11
2.2 Socioeconomic Factors affecting PP in EIA Process

Education and literacy go hand in hand although literacy is generally associated with the ability
to read and write. Education on the other hand requires application of skills in a real world
setting. Our education levels tend to shape our way of thinking, how we are able to express our
ideas and how we discuss issues during meetings. There is a direct correlation between public
participation and educational background of the public. People with a higher level of education
can to a large extent possess good literacy and communication skills and therefore tend to
participate more readily and actively in the EIA process since they can provide useful
suggestions and opinions (Zhao, 2010). Low education levels attained as noted by projects
committee members is the main reason to poor sustainability of projects in Kiambu County,
Kenya (Wathome, 2013). The study further noted delayed provision of training programs to the
committee members in equipping them with necessary skills on project management. In some
cases, trainings to the members of the committee failed to take place. However, where the
trainings were organized, some stages in the project cycle failed to take place.

Language differences hinder effective communication. Public participation is an open, ongoing

and a two- way communication between government and its citizens. Interactive communication
enables both parties to learn about and better understand the views and positions of the other. In
a study conducted in the USA about a project in Minneapolis, language barrier in Minneapolis
area did not arise. The Metropolitan Council employing students at the University of Minnesota
who were fluent in the region’s widely spoken foreign languages (primarily Spanish and Somali)
to canvas neighborhoods and go to door-to- door to discuss and provide information about the
project in resident’s native languages (U.S. Department Of Transportation, 2010). Similarly,
language barrier is a factor that hinders many of the participants when citizens attend these
forums. They are required to express themselves in Lughaya Taifa (Kiswahili) which they are
not confident in expressing themselves in. Most of the documents are written in English
language and thus those who cannot read and comprehend end up not to attend the public
participation meetings (Kalekye, 2016).

\There is a general assumption that higher the income level, higher the participation. As a result,
it can be said that lower income level affects participation. Higher income earners tend to
dominate discussions in public meetings because of their economic status and their influence in
the society unlike the low-income earners. However, in some cases, the unemployed category
tends to have more time at their disposal and they will be seen in meetings when called upon to
participate. Generally, there is an unequal representation due to biased approach. This is because
representation is based on what you possess and not your ideas. Income is closely associated
with participation even when taking account of gender, type of family, employment status, ethnic
group, educational levels, and region of residence (Ferragina et. al, 2013).

12
2.3 Behavioral Factors affecting PP in EIA Process

Attitude determines how the members of the public will come out to participate upon invitation.
Negative attitude probably stems out from experiences, which lead to feelings of frustrations and
disappointments by the public. If these experiences were not dealt with, they tend to shape future
experiences. With the negative attitude in the minds of the public, it is unlikely that the proposed
project will get support from the members of public. Failure of the project proponent to deal with
unresolved past conflicts creates hostility and animosity to new projects implemented by the
same proponent. Studies by the World Bank in Bosnia and Herzegovina established that even
though a large number of citizens were not satisfied with their representation in municipal or
local authorities’ activities, a small minority were willing to participate in such activities. Their
participation in local government was limited largely because citizens did not believe they could
influence local decision-making. As a result, public participation was more reactive than
proactive (World Bank, 2009).

With a positive mindset, success of the project is likely to be achieved due to the support of the
public. South Africa is the most successful country European Scientific Journal March 2019
edition Vol.15, No.9 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 292 in Africa with regard
to effectiveness of public participation in EIA. This is because both the public and private sector
in South Africa are knowledgeable on the importance of public participation. Private- Public
partnerships have helped develop the knowledge (Aregbeshola, 2009). According to a study
conducted in Garissa County about community participation in the implementation of
development projects, the findings revealed that the community around were not involved in the
management of Sewerage development projects. People from other areas managed the project
while the local people did not appreciate community development and their attitudes towards
participating in community development projects were not favorable (Ali, 2018).

Trust primarily makes people to have confidence about people or organizations. Positive
expectations towards people or organizations make people to be more trustworthy. People tend to
build trust on consistent delivery on promises along with other factors. Public trust is influenced

13
by behaviors that display integrity, openness, loyalty, competency and consistency. Trust
formation in the public sector is influenced by behavioral factors of two main behavioral
characteristics of public administrators. First, participation influences trust when participation
produces quality services that the public desire, and second, enhanced ethical behavior on the
part of public administration is another key reason that participation leads to trust (Wang, 2007).

Public participation builds trust and support. There is little chance of a plan that has no
“ownership” by the citizenry of being effective and successful. To care is to build trust. People
care less about what you know professionally until they know how much you care about their
welfare. Building trust between the public and other stakeholder helps to develop a sense of
ownership and responsibility towards the project (Abiodun, 2016).

2.4 Political Factors affecting PP in EIA Process

Politics tend to take center stage during participation especially if the government initiates the
project and the politicians have an upper hand in the government. In a study conducted in
Zambia, what came out clearly is that the government has been slow to decentralize its structures
to encourage local participation since independence in 1964 and the population has been
accustomed to a top down approach in participating in public matters. The past one party - state -
governance culture is also an obstacle in the sense that it brings back memories of fear and
victimization in the minds of the population. This reality instils a sense of caution towards public
participation and is a feature that continues to manifest itself in the current governance milieu of
the country. To participate in various public spaces, a person has to be on the correct political
side. However, with an evolving political culture and a

REVIEW OF RELATED LITIRTURE

2.1 Assessing Impacts of Land Acquisition
In Ethiopia land acquisition on small scale has been carried out since1995, although only few of
the projects launched went operational until now. The acquisition of large tracts of land by

14
foreign investors is a recent phenomenon, but these too have not begun full-scale operations.
Nevertheless, few of the investors have started clearing land and planting crops on small plots of
their land to test the suitability of seed varieties and their response to different inputs and
technologies. Thus it is expected that it will take many years before a given investment project
becomes fully operational. This makes it difficult to determine the various impacts of land
acquisition (economic, social, agricultural, technology transfer, employment, government tax
income, food security, etc) accurately and comprehensively in most cases ((Desalegn
Keba, .2013).

Studies suggest that some projects are carried out without consultation with local communities
and without their knowledge (Getnet 2012: 23). If the planned land lease program of the
government is completed, it is feared that the entire agrarian structure of the country will
radically change, leaving foreign capital the dominant player (Ibid). This will ultimately threaten
the long-term viability of smallholder agriculture, with the harms on local livelihood are being
observed even now. Among the damages observed are loss of farmland, of pasturage and grazing
rights, of source of water, and of access to firewood and useful plants (Ibid).

Although the long-term effects of LSLA is not fully evident, there are instances of likely impacts
which are already creating tension within local communities. In other words, competition for
scarce resources between the project and local communities has been apparent over key
resources. This is particularly observed in the competition for water resources, since most
projects monopolize water resources and force local communities to seek water from sources far
away from their village (Ibid). In many areas of projects, the majority of rural people do not have
access to piped water and hence exclusively depend on natural streams, rivers, and springs in
their locality. The so-called resettlement program is also another source of conflict between the
project and local communities. In regions where investors have acquired extensive land,
particularly in Benishangul Gumuz and Gambella, because of the resettlement program, now
renamed ‘villagisation’, local communities are relocated away from their areas (Ibid). The main
justification given by the regions and the federal government for this is that the program ‘will
enable local authorities to provide essential services such as education, health, clean water, etc’
(Ibid: 23). However, the communities’ account of the story gives different picture in that local

15
communities unanimously opposed the relocation program for it is solely aimed at giving
investors unlimited access to land and other resources (Desalegn Keba, .2013).

The impact on the environment and wildlife of the area surrounding the project was also
tremendous. In some cases, forest areas were also given out for projects despite strong local
opposition to the move. For example, some projects in Gambella Region have led to clearance of
forest to plant tea and other crops, where the region is very rich in wildlife and biodiversity.
Besides, some projects are also found even inside National Parks and protected areas, or inside
established wildlife habitats. Still some others are set up in transit corridors and wildlife
migration routes, which would effectively block or interfere with free movement of wildlife,
while others are located in places where they deny animal’s access to seasonal pasture and water
resources (Ibid). The impact on the soil is also considerable because the contracts have no
adequate provisions to prohibit the use of toxic agro-chemicals. In addition, the main purpose of
investors for acquiring large scale land is to carry out industrialized mono cropping, which will
in turn exhaust and damage the land (Ibid).

2.2 The EIA System in Ethiopia

Prior to becoming a legal requirement in 2002, the application of EIA in Ethiopia was
introduced by a few sectors. The practice of contemplating environmental and health impacts
was introduced as early as 1980 into water resources development projects assisted by
UNDP/WHO, though the main focus was limited to water-related and water-based health
problems (Solomon, 2006). This practice then evolved into a formal requirement in international
donor assisted and financed projects in various sectors. The former Ethiopian Valleys
Development Authority was the first national institution to incorporate EIA into its activities.
The authority developed its own specific guideline for the application of EIA in pre-feasibility
and feasibility studies of potential medium-scale irrigation projects (Solomon, 2006). Even
though these efforts were limited to the irrigation sector and narrow in scope, and despite that
they were donor-driven, they have nonetheless contributed to the emergence of the system of
EIA that exists in the country at present.

16
2.3. Policy Framework for EIA

Until 1997, Ethiopia did not have a comprehensive environment policy as such. The
Environmental Policy of Ethiopia was issued in 1997 to provide overall guidance in the
conservation and sustainable utilization of the country’s environmental resources in general. The
overall objective of the environmental policy is to promote the sustainable social and economic
development of the country through, inter alia, sustainable management and utilization of the
natural resources of the country. Among the specific objectives the environmental policy seeks to
achieve are ensuring the conservation, development and sustainable use of essential ecological
processes and life support systems, biological diversity and renewable natural resources; and the
empowerment and participation of the people in environmental management.

The environmental policy lays the foundation for environmental impact assessment in the
country. In section 4.9, the environment policy stipulates the country’s policies regarding EIA. It
provides for the enactment of a law which requires that an appropriate EIA and environmental
audits be undertaken on private and state development projects; and the development of detailed
technical guidelines that direct the undertaking of EIA and environmental audits in the various
sectors. It also provides for the establishment of an institutional arrangement responsible for
undertaking, coordinating and approving EIA and the subsequent environmental audits.
Furthermore, the environmental policy determines the scope and key elements of the EIA
process (Mellese Damtie and Mesfin Bayou 2008).

2.3.1. The FDRE Constitution

Being a supreme law of a land, a constitution provides the basic framework on which detailed
laws shall be developed for various sectors. The 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia contains provisions that support the enactment of EIA legislation. In this
regard, it stipulates that the design and implementation of development programs and projects in
the country should not damage or destroy the environment; and recognizes the right of the people
to be consulted and express their views on the planning and implementation of environmental
policies and projects that affect them (Art. 92). In addition, the constitution recognizes the right
of citizens to live in a clean environment, and, where they are displaced or their livelihood has
been adversely affected by the development projects undertaken by the government, the rights to

17
get commensurate monetary or alternative compensation, including relocation with adequate
state assistance (Art. 44). These provisions provide a perfect constitutional basis for the
development and implementation of an effective EIA process.

2.3.2. Environmental impact assessment law

Following the provisions of the environment policy, the Ethiopian government introduced the
Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation (Proclamation №299 of 2002). The
proclamation requires an EIA process for any planned development project or public policy
which is likely to have a negative impact on the environment. With regard to development
projects, the proclamation stipulates that no person shall commence implementation of a
proposed project identified by directive as requiring EIA without first passing through
environmental impact assessment process and obtaining authorization from the competent
environmental agency (Art. 3(1)). In line with this, project proponents must undertake EIA and
submit the report to the concerned environmental body, and, when implementing the project,
fulfill the terms and conditions of the EIA authorization given to them (Art. 7). Moreover, the
proclamation allows for the imposition of a fine between fifty-thousand and one hundred
thousand birr on any project owner who commences implementation of a project without
obtaining authorization from environmental agencies or who makes false presentation in the
environmental impact assessment study report (Art. 18).

Furthermore, the proclamation obliges licensing institutions, prior to issuing investment permits
or operation license to projects, to ensure that the relevant environmental bodies have authorized
the implementation of the projects (Art. 3). In addition, it requires such licensing institutions to
suspend or cancel the permit or license they have issued for projects where the concerned
environmental body suspends or cancels the authorization given for implementation of the
project (Art. 12). These provisions are important to ensure that project owners comply with the
EIA requirement.

The proclamation also provides for public participation in the environmental impact assessment
process. It requires environmental bodies to ensure that the comments made by the public (in
particular the comments by the communities likely to be affected by the implementation of a
project) are incorporated into the EIA study report as well as in to its evaluation (Art. 15). To this

18
end, it requires environmental bodies to make any EIA study report accessible to the public and
to solicit comments thereon.

The proclamation also requires public instruments, which are identified by directive as requiring
EIA, to pass through environmental impact assessment process prior to their approval. In line
with this, it obliges government organs to ensure that their policies have passed through EIA
process prior to their submission for approval (Art. 13). Having provided the basic framework of
EIA, the proclamation envisages the issuance of specific directives and guidelines that further
specify implementation of the EIA process. Particularly, it requires the Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) to develop a directive identifying categories of projects likely to have negative
impact and thus require EIA (Art. 5). It also requires EPA to issue of guidelines that determine
the elements necessary to prepare and evaluate EIA study report (Art. 8). The Environmental
Protection Authority has already developed such draft directives and guidelines but they have not
yet been formally adopted and put into force.

2.4 The objectives of public participation

The International Association for Impact Assessment (2006:2) emphasizes that public
participation is crucial for governance and it empowers local communities. The International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) (2006), Aucamp (2009:50) and Nadeem and Fischer
(2011:3) maintain that public participation is a multi-purposive process that aims to:
 Provide a platform for the public to raise their concerns as a result their input can
influence decision making and thus enhance environmental justice, equity and
cooperation.
 Educate and increase awareness: the public participation process encourages mutual
learning; and indigenous and traditional knowledge that cannot be deduced from
scientific reports can be obtained from local people in return the public can gain
knowledge on the project and its potential environmental impacts.
 Operate as a conflict resolution instrument: the participants are at liberty to analyse
the proposal and have an input in the process will be considered as a more acceptable and
sustainable project and as a result the project will have a greater public acceptance.

19
  Enhance informed decision-making: information exchange by both the public and
the proponent can provide valuable information on the how the scale, timing and how the
project can be altered to mitigate negative impacts.
 Enhance transparency and accountability in decision making.
 Build trust among stakeholders i.e. the proponent, government institution and the public.

It gives the stakeholders an opportunity to examine and analyses project proposals, leading to
more sustainable input and as a result the process is more supported and accepted by the
stakeholders (Mnengwane. 2014).

CAPTER-THREE
RESEACH METHODOLOGY

20
3.1 Description of the Study Area

The study will be conducted in the Benishangul‐Gumuz regional state, which is one of the nine
regional states of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. It is located in the north western
part of the country between 09º17` ‐ 12º06`North latitude and 34º10` ‐ 37º4` East longitude. The
region is bordered by Amhara regional state in the north and northeast, Oromia region in the
south and southeast, and Gambella region in the south. It also shares an international boundary
with Sudan in the west.

Administratively, the region is divided into three zones (namely Metekel zone, Assosa zone and
Kemashi zone), which are further divided into 20 woredas. According to the 2007 Census report,
the population size of the region was 670,847 (CSA 2008), with a population density of about 14
persons per square kilometer. The ethnic groups that are considered indigenous to the region
include Berta (25.9%), Gumuz (21.11%), Shinasha (7.59%), Mao (1.9%) and Komo (0.96%);
non‐ indigenous peoples comprise42.53% of the population. Most of the region’s population
lives in rural areas (86.5%), out of which the overwhelming majority is comprised of indigenous
ethnic groups, while the non‐indigenous groups reside mainly in towns (MoFA 2010).

In terms of land‐use patterns, the region’s landmass is predominantly comprised of bushes and
shrubs (77.4%), while forestland constitutes about 11.4%. Further, cultivated land, grazing land
and marginal land constitutes about 5.3%, 3.2% and 2.3%, respectively. While the region
generally lies between an altitude of 580 and 2731 meters above sea level (masl), its largest part
is in the lowlands situated below 1500 masl. In this regard, about 75% of the region is classified
as lowland (ibid).

21
Particularly, this study is going to be carried out at Assosa zone purposeful selected four woredas
such as Bambasi, kurmuk, Homosha and sherkole woreda. From those four woredas eight
kebeles will be selected based on number of investments.

Figure 1. Map of the study area

3.1 Sampling Methods

The study will be conducted in BGRS Assosa zone, kurmuk. Sherkole, homosha and bambasi
woredas based on number and types of investments. From those woredas, eight kebels will be
selected based on number of investments and EIA certification. Taking Banbasi, kurmuk,
sherkole and homosha as the main study areas, in‐depth interviews with informants and
discussions with community members will be conducted at the village level. Within these
woredas, some villages will be carefully selected based on investment concentration as well as
expert opinion, particularly regarding accessibility and representativeness. Through this process,
eight kebeles, garabiche wolaka, wonba, selama from Banibas will be selected.

22
3.2 Source of Data

This study used a combination of methods: literature review; reviewing the EIA reports of the
Projects based on the review package to investigating public comments and participation of EIA.
Conducting field observation and investigation in the project impact areas; and assessing the
perception and opinion of specialists, administrative officials, project affected people and
other stakeholders through questionnaire, interview and focus group discussion.
Appropriate checklists, structured questionnaire and interview questions was developed and
will be used to collect the required data.

In order to answer the research question the participant observer technique (registering as an
interested and affect party) will be employed to gain an insider’s point of view. The participatory
method included interviewing various stakeholders and attending focus group discussion.
Questionnaires will be used to collect the awareness of concerned EIA experts. The basic
assessment areas will be covered through the questionnaires. Separate structured questionnaires
for each component will be developed and used.

A total of 35 peoples are selected from different stakeholders environmentally concerned and
total of 241 local people around the project will be interviewed. Stakeholders, i.e. regulatory
body, project proponents, EIA practitioners, NGOs and sectoral environmental units will be
interviewed. The composition of the sample will be selected carefully, in order to represent the
whole spectrum of EIA stakeholders. Purposeful sampling will be considered to identify the
respondents and the sites of research. Respondents will be selected on the basis of their
association with the stake in EIA practice, their expertise, occupation, and those who are
involving within the activities of the investment projects with respect to environmental matters.

23
Table 1The stakeholders represented in the research and number of respondents

Type of stakeholder No
Regulatory body (BGRS of LAEPA) 2
Zonal LAEPA (Assosa) 2
Woreda EPA (homosha, sherkole, kurmuk and Banbasi 4
Consulting Firms(EIA consultancy) 3
Project Proponents 8(one from each kebeles)
NGO (MELCA and AEPA) 2
peoples around the project each kebeles 241
kebeles Administrator 8
Total 29 +241=270

3.3 Data Collection System to Address Affected Party

The primary data comprised of information is collected from the people and institutions near to
project site and affected by project. The people affected by investments project in selected kebels
are interviewed. The interview process focused on those that had been involved during the EIA
process. Ten group of discussion with 10 participants in each of kebeles are conducted with
kebel administration, DA, religious leaders and selected local peoples. In addition, data is
collected from the firm of experts who conducted the EIA study for the project. Reviewing the
EIA reports of the Projects based on the review package to investigating public comments and
participation of EIA; from each of kebeles three EIA documents are examined to asses’ public
participation and comments during environmental impact assessments of the project. This is used
to archive the second objective of the research.

3.3 Sample Size Determinations

In any sample survey, sample size determination is an important step. To determine

sample size of households those to participate in the study, a sample technique (formula), which
was developed by yamen sample size (1967) to determine sample size (n) with the desired
degree of precession for general population, is used. The total households from sex kebeles are
1056. e=0.05

n= = 241+ 29 peoples from different stakeholders = 270 Total sample size

24
3.7. Data Analysis

SPSS V 20.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science) is used for the analysis of data obtained
from questionnaire group discussion. The data are described by using tables and graphs. The
collected data were further edited, organized and coded through standardized procedure to make
it suitable for analysis. Once the analysis was undertaken, the result of the analysis was presented
in interpretive and descriptive statistics formats including frequency, tables, chart, graphs,
percentages and ratios. While, for the information obtained through interview, FGD and
participant observation, narrative qualitative data analysis system was employed.

3.2.7. Research ethics

During undertaking the interviews and conducting the focus group discussions, the research team
was keen to apply a high standard of research ethics. For this reason, there was a structured
ethics protocol to guide how respondents and focus group discussants were requested for their
informed consent. In addition, respondents were notified at the beginning of a session that any
and all information they gave was treated confidentially and anonymously such that all report
were devoid of identity or immediate context that could lead to identification of the respondent.

3.2.8 Research Result Dissemination Strategies

Forest sectors, local communities, environmental national and international NGOs operating on
environment and forest management will be the primary beneficiary of this finding, which assist
them to improve their focus, tactic, legal and institutional arrangement in order to tackle and
minimize the socio-economic and environmental damage of fire. Moreover, this will provide
baseline information on the root cause, effects and recommendable management strategies of
forest fire that will be disseminated to the beneficiary mentioned above, through publication,
presentation on different workshop and to the communities especially by designing project that
helps and improve their capacity and skill to mitigate the negative effects and damage of forest
fire.

CAPTER-FOUR

25
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The previous chapter described methods used in this study. This sub-section of the study tried to
present the main results based on the collected data. It was structured in a way that relates these
results to the order of research objectives. In doing so, the chapter has utilized different items and
inputs; which are the results of the respondents’ idea, voices of the informants, FGD participants
and the relevant works of scholars relating to the issues under investigation. The chapter begun
by providing a general description and discussion on the demographic characteristics of the
respondents such as their respective kebele, sex, age and ethnic composition of the sampled
house-hold and community status of informants in FGDs and key informant interviews.

4. 1 Socio-Economic Profile of Sampled Households

The demographic characteristics of the sampled respondents are shown in Figure 2 below. As
indicated in the figure, from the total respondents, 71.85% of them are male headed and 28%
were females. From age categories 28.8%, 68%, 22% and 3.3% were in age group of 18-30,30-
40, 40-50 and50< respectively. From this age group the frequently observed groups were the age
group which was categorized in 30-40. The education statuses of respondents were 50% never
attended, 31.48 primary, 9.6% Secondary, 5.5% technical and finally 3.3 % were attended
university education.

26
Figure 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

4.2 The concept of EIA and people level of understanding

A forest fire involves combustion of organic material (fuel) that releases a large quantity of
energy. The combustion energy is transferred from the burning fuel to unburned fuels ahead of
the fire front. This phenomenon ensures the fire spread. The fire start depends on the
flammability of the vegetation. The fire spread depends on a number of variables, including fuel
characteristics (size, moisture content and arrangement), weather and topography.
The timing of forest fire and the extent of its effect depend on the type of economic activity of
the area and the type of forest formation. In case of Ethiopia, the pastoralists usually set fire in
their range lands in order to avail fresh grazing and browsing material for their livestock. Fire is
therefore used as a management tool in the low land areas where the woodlands and bush lands
are used to it. Every year, very large areas of low land forests and grass land formations are
affected by fires, particularly in the drier parts of the country just before the short-rainy season
starts. Uncontrolled forest fire can contribute to economic, social, ecosystem and environmental
degradation.

27
4.2.1 Investment projects and their status of conducting EIA

28
 Conclusions
Public participation is based on the principle that dialogue between decision-makers and the
public benefits both parties. It allows the public to gain an understanding of government
decisions and policies, while providing the government with input to help them design and
implement a better and appropriate development process. It is usually done to obtain relevant
information, make better decisions, build understanding and legitimizing the process which will
often results in creative solutions, useful role in monitoring follow up, minimizing cost and delay
from unresolved conflicts in other to facilitate project implementation and thus ensure wider
acceptability and support for the particular action. In carrying out environmental impact
assessment (EIA), public participation provides a means for government entity to gather the most
diverse collection of options, perspectives, and values from the broadest spectrum of the public
allowing (government agency) to make better and more informed decisions. This process is
backed by law as the law that established EIA also provided for public participation in the EIA
process.

Regrettably in Nigeria and many other African countries, previous studies carried out found that
the EIA practice negates the principles of public participation. In many occasions, public
participation are not part of the process and in some cases, the EIA team merely informed
affected groups of what they were going to do and not to seek their contribution. To put it
clearly, an earlier study of 35 World Banksupported projects in Africa, found that only ten had
included some measure of public involvement, and only four of these met with the World Bank’s
operational requirements. Although the challenges adduced for non-involvement of the public
include time constraint, language and public presentation barriers, educational level, cultural
differences, gender, physical remoteness, political and institutional culture of decision making,
pressures imposed by the project cycle and mistrust; it is our conviction that engaging the
community members in understanding community issues, the economic, social, environmental,
politics and psychological impacts associated with alternative courses of action before, during
and after project implementation will enhance the EIA process. This will help to incorporate the
diverse interests and cultures of the community in the EIA development process and avoiding
effort that will adversely affect members of the community. In conclusion, the Nigerian and

29
African governments must structure a participation process where the public has the opportunity
to follow-up and to know how public input will be used to inform decision-making processes via
proactive support for stakeholder involvement in EIA including incentives for involvement
especially where significant costs will be incurred is required.

30
 6. REFFRANCES
Belayneh Ayele. 2011. Course Material for Environmental Impact Assessment, Bahr Dar
University, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Department of Natural
Resources Management.
Comments given at a workshop organized by Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia, (02
November, 2005, at Global Hotel) from delegates of the Investment Agency and Ministry
of Trade and Industry.
Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1995.
Desalegn Keba Dheressa.2013. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Large Scale
(Agricultural) Land Acquisition on Local Livelihoods: A Case Study in Bako Tibe
Woredaof Oromia Region, Ethiopia

Environment Policy of Ethiopia, 1997.

Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation №299/2002
Environmental Protection Organs Establishment Proclamation №295/2002.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia). 1997. Environmental Policy of Ethiopia.
Environmental protection Authority in collaboration with the Ministry of Economic
Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia). 2002. Environmental Pollution Control

Proclamation, Proclamation No. 300/2002, Negarit gazeta 9 th year No. 12, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Zhiqing Zhou (2012). Public Participation in EIA, China. Unpublished Manuscript, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 48-58.

Wathome M. D. (2013): Factors Influencing Sustainability of Community Service Order Projects

in Kiambu County, Kenya. Unpublished Manuscript, College of Education and External
Studies, University of Nairobi, 31-33.

Kalekye, A. (2016). Determinants of Citizen Participation in Devolved Governance in Kenya: A

Case Study of Machakos County. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Sociology and
Social Work, University of Nairobi, 45-47.

Ferragina, E., Tomlinson, M., & Walk, R. (2013). Poverty, Participation and Choice. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation Journal of Public Participation 3(1), 12 -15

World Bank (2009). Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Volume I: Policies, Procedures and
Cross-sectoral Issues, World Bank Technical Paper No. 139, Environment Department
Washington, DC.

31
Aregbeshola, M. T. (2009). Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment: An effective tool
for sustainable development, South African perspective (Gautrain). Unpublished Manuscript,
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, 53- 54.

Ali H. (2018). Determinants of Community Participation in the Implementation of Development Projects:

A Case of Garrisa Sewerage Project, Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and
Management, 6(4), 843-855.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Rural Land Administration and Utilization

Proclamation №456/2005. www.chilot.meOverview of EIA in Ethiopia 65.
Mellese Damtie and Mesfin Bayou. 2008. Overview of Environmental Impact Assessment in
Ethiopia Gaps and Challenges, Published and distributed by: MELCA Mahiber.

Mnengwane. Jjj. 2014. The effectiveness of public participation in Environmental Impact

Assessment in selected South African case studies.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003).Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies.
UNECA (2005), Review of the Application of Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected
African Countries.

UNEP (1988) Environmental Impact Assessment: Basic Procedures for Developing Countries,
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

6. APPENDIX

PLEASE MARK THE APPROPRIATE BOXES

PART A: Personal Information

1: Gender

Male 1
Female 2
2: Age Bracket

18-25 1
26-35 2
36-45 3
46-55 4

32
56-65 5
Above 65 6
3: Highest academic qualifications

Primary 1
Secondary 2
Post-Secondary Certificate 3
Diploma 4
Degree 5
Masters and above 6
Others (specify) 7

B12: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements
Section 4: A Questionnaire to the Public (Local Community)
Village/site …………........................Type of project …………………
Name of the interviewee____________________________ Age____Sex_____
Name of the individual who filled the form....................................
Title .............................................................Date .............................................
1. Do you have agricultural development projects in your area other than this project?
a. Many b. Some c. Very few d. None
2. If yes, in which of the following stages of agricultural development projects do you
participate?
a. In planning b. In designing c. In implementing d. In monitoring and
evaluation e. In some of them f. In all g. None of them
3. Do you know what EIA is? Yes………………....................No………………………
4. Do developers and development agencies conduct EIA in the implementation of
agricultural development projects? Yes………No……if yes, do they involve you? Yes
……………No…………....
5. Did the implementers of this project conduct EIA before implementation?
Yes………………No…………….. If yes, were you consulted and involved in all stages of
the EIA process of that project? Yes…………No………..
6. Has the project had an impact on your environment (on your animals, water sources, and
land and /or on your wildlife? Yes…………No………If yes, what are the
impacts?......................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................

33
 7. Were you compensated for the above impacts? Yes ……….No…......If not, what do you
think should be done to compensate the impacts...........................................................
………….........
8. Are you satisfied with the type of the EIA conducted by the implementers?
Yes………….No…….
9. Do you participate in all stages of EIA of any other agricultural development projects?
Yes…………..No……………….
10. Are you happy regarding the ways the developers conducted these projects?
Yes…………..No…………………….
11. Do you benefit from agricultural development projects in general & from this project in
particular?
Yes………No……… If yes, what are the benefits?
....................................................................................................................................................
...................
12. Which of the following is (are) correct about development agencies in your locality?
A. All of them involve us C. Some of them involve us
B. None of them involve us D. Very few of them involve us
13. What is your view regarding the implementation of this project? Is it helpful or useless?
14. Have you been given a chance/opportunity to voice your concerns to the project?

Yes………..No…………..

15. Do you have any suggestions on what could be done regarding this project? Yes………
No……….If yes, what are your suggestions..................................................
……………………………………............
16. In your opinion do you think there is good relationship between the community and the
project implementers? Yes………..No…………if not, what could be done to improve their
relations?
....................................................................................................................................................
...................
17. Do you think the implementation of this project has affected you negatively in any way?
Yes……….No………….If yes, what do you think should be done to correct /address these
negative impacts…………………………………………………………………
18. Did you get any compensation for the losses caused by this project? Yes……….No…… ..If
not, why not,……………..............................................................................................................
19. If you have any additional ideas, comments or suggestions

34
............................................................................................................................................................
...........
Thank you for your cooperation!
PART B: Public Participation in the EIA Process of selected woredas kebel of BGRS
B1: Where do you live? _______________________________
B2: Approximately, how far is the investments project from your residence?

0– 50 meters 1

51– 100 meters 2

101– 150 meters 3

151– 200 meters 4

200 meters and beyond 5

B3: What is your occupation?

Formal employment 1
Informal employment 2
Business 3
Student 4

Please give details

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

B4: Do you know about investments project around you?

1) Yes ( ) 2) No ( )
B5: If yes, how did you know about the project?
Through:-

Questionnaire participation 1

Focus group discussions 2

Consultative and public participation 3

meetings

35
Telephone 4

Others (please specify) 5

B8: How did you get information about the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
process?

Through:

Newspaper 1

Public notice 2

Questionnaire 3

Community/Religious gatherings 4

All of the above 5

Others (please specify) 6

B9: At what stage of the EIA process of the investments project did you participate?
Screening 1
Scoping 2
Baseline study 3
Impacts Assessment and Evaluation 4
After publication of the EIA report in the 5
Newspapers
Other (please specify) 6
B10: Please indicate your level of agreement of the entire EIA process of the any
large scale project.
1= Strongly Agree (SA)
2= Agree (A)
3= Unsure (U)
4= Disagree (D)
5= Strongly Disagree (SD)

(SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD)

The public were consulted early during the project planning 1 2 3 4 5
and design
The need and purpose of the project were clearly stated 1 2 3 4 5
when the EIA process started
Adequate information was provided on negative and 1 2 3 4 5

36
positive impacts of the project
The data and maps provided were sufficient to enable 1 2 3 4 5
participants to comprehend and visualize the project
Sufficient time was given to participants to assess the 1 2 3 4 5
implications of the project and submit their concerns

B11: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements

Statement (SA) (A) (U) (D) (SD)

The need and purpose of the project were clearly stated 1 2 3 4 5
Adequate information was provided on the negative aspects 1 2 3 4 5
of the project
The public was involvement in project planning 1 2 3 4 5
Adequate information was provided on the positive of the 1 2 3 4 5
project

The public was involved in project design 1 2 3 4 5

The public was allowed to express their view values and 1 2 3 4 5
fears of the project
The public was involved in decision making process 1 2 3 4 5
There was a process of dialogue and mutual agreement 1 2 3 4 5
among participants
There was adequate opportunities for everyone to participate 1 2 3 3 3
in the process
1 2 3 4 5

Appendix 6 Questions set for focus group discussion

1. Did you participate in the EIA process during scoping stage?

2. Did you take part in the EIA process when the developer worked on the EIS report?
3. Did you take part in the EIA when the EIS was reviewed by the EPA?
4. Did you take part in the EIA after the EPA had taken decision?
5. Did participation take place during EIA review before starting construction work of the
project?
6. Do public notice /announcement made for public participation?
7. Was the EIA report easily accessible by a majority of the stakeholders?
8. Did the participants represent all categories of the stakeholders?
9. Were the participants provided with the opportunity to see minutes of the consultation
proceedings/public hearing?
10. Were you involved in any impact mitigation activities?

37
11. Have you adequate access to information related to the projects?
12. What are the major significant impacts occurred to the surrounding environment and
your livelihood as a result of project activities?
13. What do you suggest to improve the effectiveness of the EIA implementation?

38