By Sarath Obeysekera

A recent newspaper report highlighted concerns raised by a policy think tank regarding the quality of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in Sri Lanka. While the report correctly points out deficiencies in some EIA studies, it stops short of addressing a more fundamental question: Have EIAs become an instrument of environmental protection, or have they evolved into bureaucratic obstacles that unnecessarily delay development projects?

As an engineer who has been involved in planning and implementing infrastructure projects for several decades, I have observed both the strengths and weaknesses of the EIA process. Environmental protection is essential. No responsible developer would advocate the destruction of ecosystems, pollution of waterways, or displacement of communities without due consideration. However, the current EIA system often fails to achieve these objectives efficiently.

One of the biggest criticisms of EIAs is the quality of the reports themselves. In many cases, consultants are paid substantial sums to prepare voluminous documents running into hundreds of pages. Yet, a closer examination sometimes reveals that these reports are little more than cut-and-paste” compilations from previous studies.

A friend who sought an EIA for a proposed mini-hydropower project paid a considerable amount for the assessment. Upon reviewing the document, he discovered that portions of the report still contained the name of another client from an earlier project. The consultant had apparently forgotten to replace all references from the original document. Such incidents raise serious questions about the integrity and value of some EIA studies.

The irony is that these reports are often treated as authoritative documents by approving agencies. Lengthy reviews, requests for clarifications, public hearings, and committee deliberations can stretch over months or even years. During this period, project costs escalate, investors lose confidence, and opportunities for economic growth are delayed.

In many instances, the environmental impacts identified in EIAs are obvious from the outset. A road project will generate dust and noise during construction. A power project will affect land use. A harbour development may influence coastal processes. Experienced engineers and environmental scientists can often identify these impacts and propose mitigation measures without producing hundreds of pages of repetitive documentation.

The problem is not environmental regulation itself but the manner in which it is implemented. Too often, the EIA process becomes a procedural exercise focused on paperwork rather than outcomes. Consultants are rewarded for producing thicker reports rather than better analyses. Regulators are compelled to review extensive documents rather than concentrating on critical environmental risks.

There is also the question of accountability. If an EIA contains misleading, inaccurate, or copied information, there should be consequences. Consultants who submit substandard reports should face professional sanctions, and approving agencies should maintain a register of performance standards. The credibility of the entire system depends on ensuring that assessments are based on sound science and independent analysis.

A more practical approach would be to adopt a risk-based framework. Projects with limited environmental impacts should undergo a simplified and expedited review process. Comprehensive EIAs should be reserved for projects with significant ecological, social, or public health implications. This would reduce delays while allowing regulators to focus their resources where they are most needed.

Sri Lanka urgently requires investment in energy, transportation, water resources, housing, and industrial development. Environmental protection and economic development should not be viewed as opposing objectives. A well-designed EIA process can balance both. However, when assessments become little more than bureaucratic rituals or copy-and-paste exercises, they undermine public confidence and discourage investment.

The objective should not be to produce more reports. The objective should be to make better decisions.

An Environmental Impact Assessment should be a tool for informed development, not a mechanism that delays projects indefinitely while generating paperwork of questionable value.

Only then can EIAs serve the public interest, protect the environment, and support the nation’s economic progress simultaneously.

Sarath Obeysekera
Marine Engineer and Former Chairman, Sri Lanka Ports Authority

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera