Recently, Mount Lavinia beach in Sri Lanka sparked the attention of the public especially due to a beach nourishment project that commenced amidst curfew. Significantly, at the centre of this entire episode is the Director General of the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department (CCD) who quite dubiously admitted that no Environmental Impact Assessment was done prior to the commence of this project.
According to Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Sri Lanka ratified in 1994, EIAs should be introduced due to two main reasons: firstly, to avoid or minimise adverse effects, and secondly, to allow for public participation in such EIA procedures.
In Sri Lanka, the EIA process was first mandated for large-scale developmental projects located in sensitive ecosystems by Gazette no. 772/22 of 1993. This Gazette also specified the types of projects falling under the EIA requirement. If there is no complex environmental impact, an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) can be prescribed instead of an EIA.
If a project is outside the coastal zone, then it falls under the ambit of the Central Environmental Authority. However, if the project is located within the coastal zone, such as in the aforementioned case in Mount Lavinia, the duty of identifying whether a project requires an EIA is vested with the Director General of the CCD.
This is according to Section 14 of the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resources Management Act No. 57 of 1981. Section 14 (1) mandates a permit from the Director General for any development activity proposed. The Director General thus has the discretion to prescribe projects which do not require EIAs.
In any case, EIA is a process. It involves two main types of actors: project proponent (PP) and the Project Approving Agencies (PAAs). The PAAs are EIA administrative agencies that are responsible for guiding the EIA for projects and for issuing EIA approval or rejection.
The issue of coastal erosion in Mount Lavinia is now spiralling into a tangled list of unanswered questions due to the lack of an EIA. However, there are two key issues which cannot be left in confusion surrounding the turmoil.
Firstly, the issue of the CCD being both the PP and the PAA is deeply concerning as it clearly violates the very principles of natural justice. Secondly, the fact that a beach nourishment project facilitated by a mammoth of public funds without an EIA or at least an IEE is even more problematic. The statement made by Justice Amerasinghe in the Bulankulama v Ministry of Industrial Development case (2000 3 SLR 243) shares some valuable insight in respect of these concerns.
According to his Lordship: …EIAs are intended to foster sound decision making, not to generate paperwork. The EIA process should also help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore and enhance the environment.
In this light, although anthropogenic climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing this century; it is alarming to witness the lack of diligence on the part of the very authorities primarily vested with the duty of preventing and mitigating its adverse impact.
2004 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd.