Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Evaluation of the environmental impactassessment (EIA) of Chinese EIA in Myanmar:Myitsone Dam, the Lappadaung Copper Mine andthe Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines

Thiri Shwesin Aung, Luan Shengji & Sharon Condon

To cite this article: Thiri Shwesin Aung, Luan Shengji & Sharon Condon (2018): Evaluation ofthe environmental impact assessment (EIA) of Chinese EIA in Myanmar: Myitsone Dam, theLappadaung Copper Mine and the Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines, Impact Assessment andProject Appraisal, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1529948

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1529948

Published online: 17 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View Crossmark data

Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of Chinese EIA inMyanmar: Myitsone Dam, the Lappadaung Copper Mine and theSino-Myanmar oil and gas pipelinesThiri Shwesin Aung a, Luan Shengjia and Sharon Condon b

aSchool of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School; bPeking University HSBC Business School, PekingUniversity Shenzhen Graduate School

ABSTRACTThe economic relationship between China and Myanmar is regarded as a win–win coopera-tion. However, Chinese investments, especially in extractive and natural resource sectors, areassociated with a number of unwanted environmental consequences. Moreover, the environ-mental impact assessment (EIA) quality of Chinese enterprises has often been criticized. EIAidentifies adverse impacts to the environment through evidence-based decision making. Onthis basis, this paper provides an evaluation of Chinese EIA performance within the naturalresources sector through a structured review of 15 environmental impact statements (EISs).This research also evaluates the EISs of the three largest and most controversial projects, theMyitsone Hydropower Dam, Lappadaung Copper Mine and Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipe-lines. The findings reveal several omissions, inadequacies and deficiencies in all the projectswith a significant number of EISs falling short of satisfactory quality. Through the analysis, thepaper summarizes the factors affecting the EIA performance and proposes feasible recom-mendations to improve EIA practices in Chinese development projects in Myanmar.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 25 April 2018Accepted 21 September 2018

KEYWORDSEnvironmental ImpactAssessment; Chinese EIA;natural resources;Hydropower Dam; CopperMine; Oil and Gas Pipelines;Myanmar

1. Introduction

China’s economic and political relationship withMyanmar is extensive and dynamic (Christie 2014).Since Myanmar’s liberalization of trade policy toinduce Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 1988, bilat-eral trade between China and Myanmar has beengrowing steadily and significantly (Dun et al. 2016).Along with China’s ‘going global’ policy in 2001,Myanmar experienced a dramatic increase in Chineseoutward foreign direct investment (COFDI) and Chinahas been Myanmar’s largest trading partner since2011 (Dun et al. 2016). Furthermore, Myanmar playsa unique and critical role in China’s ambitious foreignpolicy with the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiatives.Myanmar is extremely important for implementingChina’s foreign investment strategies and reshapingthe maritime/logistics and transport corridors in theregion as a geo-strategic bridge between South Asiaand Southeast Asia (Chan 2015). Myanmar’s abundantnatural resource endowments, especially rich oil andgas resources, and its strategic geopolitical context,make it key to China’s pursuit of regional and borderstability and in meeting its need for natural resources(Chan 2015). China has significant vested energysecurity interests in the region, especially in securingcrucial energy infrastructure for the OBOR.

However, after the reformist government took officein March 2011, Chinese investment in Myanmar

plummeted andpolitical tensionbetween the two coun-tries grew (Sun 2013). Furthermore, after the inaugura-tion of a democratically elected government in 2016,Myanmar’s drastic political and economic transforma-tions have substantially impacted Chinese investments,causing rapid investment decline (Gelb et al. 2017).Investment increased to $1946.75 million in 2010 from$20.18 million in 2014 and China invested about $13.6billion in the 2011–2012 fiscal year, mostly in energysector. Political tensions after change of governmenthave caused Chinese investment declined to $407 mil-lion in the fiscal year 2012–2013 and the drop in thisfigure caused total FDI in Myanmar fell to $1.42 billionfrom $20 billion (Hilton 2013). International and localconcern over Myanmar’s over-dependency on Chinaand China’s contentious influence in Myanmar sparkedwidespread opposition and ‘Chinese-unfriendly’ movesamong the general population (Dun et al. 2016).Consequently, the three major Chinese investment pro-jects in Myanmar, the Myitsone Dam, the LappadaungCopper Mine and the Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipe-lines, became touchstones for pervasive protests andencountered serious difficulties (Hilton 2013). Hostilitytowards these investments is mainly based on the alle-gation of potential environmental and social impacts, aswell as revenue transparency concerns. As the majorityof China’s investments are concentrated in extractive/natural resources sectors with serious environmental

CONTACT Thiri Shwesin Aung thiri@pkusz.edu.cn School of Environment and Energy, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISALhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1529948

© 2018 IAIA

and social consequences, local communities tend to feela deep distrust towards China’s investments, especiallyState-Owned Enterprises (Christie 2014). Rising politicalrisk against Chinese investments and vocal public senti-ments in Myanmar caused major uncertainties and pro-blems for both countries. Arguably, these three majorprojects symbolize China’s most crucial economic inter-est in Myanmar. Swirling controversies around theseprojects and the associated uncertainties will have enor-mous impacts on Sino-Myanmar economic and politicalties, and the continuation of OBOR in Myanmar (Sun2013; Chan 2015).

On the other hand, investment flow from China isexceptionally important for Myanmar’s economicdevelopment and regional politics. Despite the dras-tic investment fall, China remains the largest investorin Myanmar. Non-Chinese investment in Myanmar isstill noticeably absent and far from being enough tocompensate the recent steep drop in Chinese invest-ment (Sun 2013). China will continue to be a domi-nant economic player in Myanmar. Without doubt,the role of China as a lucrative foreign investor istherefore extremely important to boost Myanmar’ssocio-economic, financial and infrastructure develop-ment. Meanwhile, the political and business environ-ment of Myanmar remains fragile owing to its weakinstitutional capacity, poor governance, high level ofcorruption and lack of necessary administrative, andlegal structures (Aung 2017). In 2017, Myanmar wasranked as the 35th most fragile and dysfunctionalstate according to the Fragile State Index (ForeignPolicy 2016, Fragile State Index 2018) and it is alsoranked 147 out of 167 countries in TransparencyInternational’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI).Such a bleak investment environment coupled withan extremely weak environmental regulation andnegative business climate will consequently createinnumerable adverse environmental and social chal-lenges. In terms of environmental governance,Myanmar currently scores 138 out of 180 countrieson the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) in2018. Given the growing concerns of several envir-onmental challenges, Myanmar urgently requireseffective implementation of environmental evalua-tion mechanisms such as environmental impactassessments (EIAs). However, the formulation of EIAregulations is still in its infancy in Myanmar (Aung2017).

In general, EIA is defined as an evaluation of theenvironmental impacts of a proposed project at anearly stage (Aung 2017). As an internationally recog-nized standard environmental management tool forthe decision-making process, it is designed to iden-tify the significant impacts and mitigation measuresto avoid irreversible damage to the environment andto ensure sustainable use of natural resources (Aung2017). EIA can be regarded as an environmental

governance mechanism that institutes rules and allo-cates roles and responsibilities (Arts et al., 2012). Theaims of EIA include improving environmental aware-ness of public and private actors, leading to theintegration of environmental values in proposed pro-jects (Arts et al., 2012). Therefore, the extents towhich environmental awareness is raised throughEIA and environmental values are incorporated intodecision-making are also important indicators of theeffectiveness of EIA (Arts et al., 2012). In recent years,Chinese government authorities have devotedincreasing attention to the standard of EIAs on thedomestic front, to improve environmental regula-tions (Tracy et al. 2017). However, whether China’simprovement in the quality of EIAs domesticallyresonates with these transboundary mega-develop-ment projects, remains debatable. Although Chineseinvestment projects are key forms of development inthe region, their EIA quality has often been criticized,especially for these three mega projects (Arkan OilWatch 2012; Shwe Gas Movement 2013; InternationalRivers 2016).

Considering the immense scope and scale ofChinese investments in Myanmar, managing environ-mental and social issues is a key challenge for China,especially in a country like Myanmar, with a predomi-nantly poor record on environmental governance.Increasing criticism and the poor reputation of theenvironmental performance of Chinese companieshas prompted a reassessment of the risks of operatingin unstable political contexts and demands moreresponsible due diligence of Chinese investments inMyanmar. The public has become more skepticalabout Chinese investment due to a lack of publiclyavailable EIAs and social impact assessments (SIAs)(Chan 2015). As Myanmar is a country with fragileecosystems and relatively underdeveloped environ-mental laws and regulations, the self-discipline andaccountability of Chinese companies abroad are par-ticularly important. However, neither the governmen-tal nor non-governmental organizations have initiatedan independent scientific study of the EIA complianceof Chinese investments to address uncertainties asso-ciated with the projects.

Motivated by this concern, the primary objectiveof this research is to investigate the performance ofEIAs of Chinese investments within the Myanmarnatural resources sector. Particular attention isgiven to the environmental impact statements(EISs) of the three largest and most controversialChinese projects, the Myitsone Dam, theLappadaung Copper Mine and the Sino-Myanmaroil and gas pipelines. To date, studies that empiri-cally examine the EIAs of Chinese investments inMyanmar are scarce, let alone the quality of theEIAs in these three mega projects. To bridge thisresearch gap, this paper aims to pinpoint areas of

2 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

strengths and weaknesses of the EIAs in the naturalresources sector and, in particular, these criticalinvestment projects. The study also identifies thefactors affecting the quality of EIA performanceand provides feasible recommendations to improvethe sustainable development of Chinese projects inMyanmar. This research represents the first systema-tic attempt to unravel this research gap by clarify-ing the relevant area of environmental protectionmeasures taken by the Chinese enterprises, illustrat-ing the current process of sustainable developmentof Chinese mega projects in Myanmar. It is envi-saged that the evaluation framework adapted andthe methodology developed in this study will maketremendous contributions to the current field ofresearch in assessing Chinese overseas EIAs.

2. Environmental challenges of China’sinvestment in Myanmar

Given the magnitude of China’s investments and, theenvironmental and social risks associated with themega-projects, both countries face multiple chal-lenges along the way. Trade liberalization and FDIinflow, in general, inevitably present a number ofpotential threats to environmental quality and sus-tainable development of the host country, especiallywith developing countries like Myanmar with laxerenvironmental regulation standards (Aung 2017).Activists and analysts have expressed concerns forthe adverse social and environmental consequencesof such development projects, igniting criticism ofChinese investments throughout Myanmar. China’smajor priority now is to secure its existing invest-ments in Myanmar from further damage caused bylocal opposition, internal politics and instability inMyanmar. For the successful continuation of its long-established economic ties with Myanmar, Chinaseems willing to make concessions in the areas ofenvironmental protection, corporate responsibilityand profit-sharing of its projects (Sun 2013).

The Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines, theMyitsone Hydropower Dam Project and theLappadaung Copper Mine are the most prominentand controversial projects in Myanmar due to theirmagnitude, significance, operational complexity andenvironmental and social risks.

(1) The Sino-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines areoperated by the China National PetroleumCorporation’s subsidiary, Southeast AsiaPipeline Co. Ltd, and the commencement ofthe construction coincided with Myanmar’slaunching of political and economic reforms in2011 (MCPWC, 2016). Considering the pipelineis the fourth largest energy transportationroute for China after the Central Asia pipelines,

sea transportation and Sino-Russia pipelines, itis of national strategic importance for China’senergy policy and security (Dun et al. 2016).The 2,380 km long pipelines bring oil from theIndian Ocean to China’s south-west region andare intended to reduce China’s dependence onthe sea passage through the Strait of Malacca(Hilton 2013). However, the construction of thepipelines has led to continuous local and inter-national opposition based on the claim thatChinese investors failed to conduct due dili-gence or engage with civil society (Shwe GasMovement 2009). Controversy over the pipelineproject is largely focused on its environmentaland social impacts. The Myanmar–ChinaPipeline Watch Committee (2016) havereported that the project has had a massiveimpact on communities and ecosystems alongthe pipeline route and that the farmers haveendured environmental and social impactssince the commencement of the project. AThailand-based non-government organization,the Shwe Gas Movement, also claims thatthere are human rights abuses, environmentaldamage and poor revenue distribution.Notably, those accusations were echoed bynot only local Myanmar residents but alsoChinese residents in Yunnan through severalprotests and demonstrations (Hilton 2016). Inresponse to the opposition, the China NationalPetroleum Corporation (CNPC) claimed that thecompany has conducted EIAs, including SIAs,before the construction of the pipelines.However, the EIA report is not publicly avail-able, and the people of Myanmar have notbeen informed about the extent of the environ-mental destruction caused by the pipelines.This is because Myanmar had not promulgatedan EIA law and procedure until 2015 and EIAswere not a mandatory requirement for foreigninvestors prior to that time (Aung 2017).Enhanced awareness of both environmentaland social issues through publicly availableEIAs would have benefitted both Myanmarand China, by addressing the risk raised byopposing factions.

(2) The Myitsone Hydropower Dam Project, with atotal capacity of 13,360 MW and estimated totalinvestment of US$3.6 billion, is one of the lar-gest seven planned dam projects for the upperIrrawaddy (Martínez-Alier and Rodríguez-Labajos 2011). It is also the biggest Chineseinvestment in Myanmar (Guangsheng 2015).The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)was signed between Myanmar’s Ministry ofElectric Power and China Power Internationalon the development of Myitsone Hydroelectric

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 3

Project in December 2006. Geographically,Myanmar is highly suitable for hydropowerelectric generation and the construction ofdams have already provided much of the coun-try’s electricity supply (Brennan and Doring2014). However, the construction of dams, ingeneral, often alters the natural ecosystem andrequires extensive relocation of the local popu-lation and tends to exacerbate existing ethnicconflicts (Brennan and Doring 2014).Considering the fact that the location of theproject is recognized as one of the world’seight hotspots of biodiversity, and is a histori-cally and religiously sensitive area, the MyitsoneDam Project has drawn heightened scrutinyand serious criticism since the beginning(Kirchherr 2017). Moreover, concerns over thedam’s inevitable environmental and socialimpacts, the relocation of local villages anddisruption to livelihoods for the people of thearea, have prompted several public rebukes(Hilton 2013). It is believed that more than12,000 people from 63 villages will be forciblyrelocated and the dam will dramatically affectthe ecosystem of the Irrawaddy River, alsodirectly impacting downstream communities(Kirchherr 2017). Consequently, the formerPresident of Myanmar, Thein Sein, abruptlydecided to suspend the project temporarily.Given the immensity and importance of theproject, China has been making repeatedattempts to resume the stalled project(Kirchherr 2017). For Myanmar, harnessing theabundant hydropower resources can alleviatethe dire need for electricity and address theirenergy poverty (Sun 2013). However, contro-versy and hostility over the project has beenexacerbated by the widespread allegation thatthe quality and independence of the EIA of thismega-project is doubtful and, that the reportdoes not follow international guidelines onEIAs, even though it has never been system-atically studied against international EIA criteria(International Rivers 2016; Kirchherr 2017).Against this backdrop, China shows a willing-ness to ameliorate all major aspects includingenvironmental preservation, corporate socialresponsibility and, relocation and compensa-tion of local villages (Sun 2013). A full transpar-ency of the degree of environmental and socialimpacts through a constructive EIA is necessaryto dispel public misunderstanding and doubtsabout the project.

(3) Letpaduang Copper Mine Project is anotherhighly disputed Chinese investment in

Myanmar. This enormous surface mine is locatedin the Salingyi township of the Sagaing divisionin north-western Myanmar (Ewing and Hangzo2013). The Letpaduang Copper Mine Project isjointly operated by Wanbao Mining, a subsidiaryof China’s state-owned China North IndustriesCorporation (NORINCO) and the Union ofMyanmar Economic Holdings Ltd (UMEHL). Themine commenced production in 2012, with atotal estimated investment of US$1.065 billion,but operations soon after, due to local opposi-tion and protest against land grabbing, environ-mental damage and displaced villages (Ewingand Hangzo 2013). The project spans approxi-mately 7,867.78 acres of land, which includes5,057 acres of arable land and effects 26 villages.Social and environmental destruction, such aspotential contamination of important rivers anddirect health impacts, were also proclaimed (Lee2015). There were widespread and frequent pro-tests by local villagers against the lack of trans-parency about project details, benefit sharingand environmental pollution. Persistent ralliesresulted in a violent police intervention on theprotests and resulted in domestic and interna-tional criticisms. Accordingly, the Myanmar gov-ernment appointed an investigation committeeto scrutinize the operation of the project and itsalleged environmental and social impacts (Sun2013). Despite the conclusion that the miningproject lacks transparency, proper compensationand environmental protection measures, theinvestigation report supported the continuationof the project operation provided that companymade necessary improvements (Lee 2015).Based on the favourable verdict on the project,Wanbao resumed project operations in 2016and a total of 24,500 metric tonnes of cathodecopper were produced as of January 2017,bringing more than US$20 million from royalties,production sharing ratios, commercial tax andincome tax (Thant 2017). In the aftermath ofthe violent demonstration, China’s Wanbaoembraced several notable initiatives, with com-mitment to spend US$2million annually toensure an international standard of environmen-tal protection. Further, they committed to a 2%profit sharing for corporate social responsibilityprocess (Lee 2015). Understanding the need toaddress public resistance, the company alsopublished EIA and SIA reports (Lee 2015).Engagement with the public and stakeholders,coupled with increased transparency throughconducting an EIA, is arguably an indispensableway to minimize hostility towards the project.

4 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

3. Methodology

To evaluate the environmental performance ofChinese companies in Myanmar, and to offer insightinto the quality of their EIAs, this research utilized adiverse range of methods, dimensions and perspec-tives. As part of the method adopted for this research,a sample of Chinese EISs from the natural resourcesector under EIA type projects were selected for acomprehensive review. The majority of Chinese pro-jects in the natural resource sector require the sub-mission of a full EIA due to their massive capacity andscale. According to the 2015 Myanmar EIA Procedure,these types of projects fell into EIA type projects, theprojects judged by the Ministry as being likely to havepotential for adverse impacts (Government of theRepublic of Myanmar, 2015). Based on availability, 10Chinese EISs produced in the natural resources sectorbetween 2010 and 2017 were obtained for analysis.Given that there was no mandatory requirement foran EIA until 2015, and the EIAs were conducted arbi-trarily and on an ad hoc basis, the collection of EISs isincomplete and poorly catalogued (Aung 2017).Therefore, the total number of EISs submitted to theMinistry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry(MOECAF) is unknown and the collection is limited.The current research concentrated on a number ofspecific categories in the natural resource sector forwhich EISs could be obtained, namely: oil and gas,mining and power sectors. The study sample com-prised five EISs for oil and gas projects, three EISs formining projects and two EISs for power projects.Additionally, a specific comparative analysis was con-ducted for the EIA reports of the three mega invest-ment projects, China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines,the Myitsone Hydropower Dam Project and theLappadaung Copper Mine. These three projects werechosen and given special attention because of theirmagnitude, significance, complexity of operation,environmental and social risks, and controversy asso-ciated with the projects. It is important to note thatthe Chinese version of the summary of the EIA reportof the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines was usedin this research due to the lack of accessibility to fullEIA report for this project. The projects are also repre-sentative of the categories described in Annex I and IIof the Directive 2011/92 EU of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council where the projectswere made subject to an EIA (European Union 2016).

The critical evaluation of the EISs was based on aslightly modified version of a set of evaluative criteria,an Environmental Statement Review Package devel-oped by Lee and Colley (1990). The Lee and ColleyReview Package is an established approach to EISquality review and has been used extensively (Barkerand Jones 2013). EISs across a range of sectors aroundthe world have been widely and successfully assessed

using Lee and Colley (1990), either directly or withmodified review packages, over the past few decades(Dancery and Lee 1993; Gray and Edward-Jones 1993;McMahon 1996; MacGrath and Bond 1997; Kadir andMomtaz 2010; Badr et al. 2011; Barker and Jones 2013;Jones and Fischer, 2013; Barimah 2014; Mounir 2015).However, the studies that focus on natural resourcesector specifically and overseas investment in particu-lar is relatively rare. In this study, modifications weremade and additional criteria were added to be appro-priate to use in Chinese EIA in Myanmar context. Thestudy also ensures that the criteria reflect the regula-tory requirements and set objectives of Myanmar’s2016 EIA procedures and guidance. Lee and Colleyreview package can be reviewed by reviewers whomay not possess specialist environmental expertisebut who are familiar with the particular country’s EIAregulations, EIA methodologies, good practices in EIAand have a wide knowledge of environmental con-cerns. Following the original methodology, EISs werereviewed by two experts independently and signifi-cant differences are examined and resolved. Bothreviewers are environmentalists who are expert inEIA methodology, Myanmar and China EIA regulationsand environment problems in both countries.

In addition, this research investigates the differ-ences in effectiveness of EIAs for the three projects,the Myitsone Hydropower Dam Project, the China–Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines and the LappadaungCopper Mine, and conducts comparative assessmentsbased on the score obtained through the evaluationof EISs against thresholds proposed in Lee and Colley(1990) review criteria. For comparative evaluation ofthree projects, parameters or review grades given toeach attribute are normalized by converting theminto six-point scales, 1.00, 0.80, 0.60, 0.40, 0.20, 0.00.The score of 1.00 indicates a satisfactory EIS while 0.00suggests a poor EIS. Weighting for all attributes wasassumed to be equal. Integrating mathematical mea-surements allow to comprehensively compare thedifferent indicator variables of EIA from the threeprojects. This approach was previously utilized inOtwong and Phenrat’s study on comparative evalua-tion of public participation in the EIA of overseasinvestments from Thailand. The scores assignedthrough the review process are then averaged viathe following equation to obtain final score:

Sp ¼X SA

XA

SP is the average score for each attributeSA is the score of each attributeXT is the total number of attributes

The final score obtained for each project will deter-mine if the quality of the EIA process is satisfactory,borderline or unsatisfactory.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 5

3.1. Lee and Colley EIS quality review criteria

The Lee and Colley (1990) EIS Quality Review Packageconsists of several components such as advice forreviewers, a list of evaluative criteria to be used ineach EIS review and a collation sheet to record thefindings from the criteria checklist. The criteria arearranged in a hierarchical (pyramid) structure com-prising four levels of review, starting from the lowestlevel to the most complex criteria. A list of reviewtopics provides the evaluative criteria, such as reviewarea, review categories, review subcategories andoverall quality assessment. In an attempt to makethe review procedure more specific to the ChineseEIA in Myanmar context and to be more comprehen-sive, this research included one more review area,national involvement in the EIA process, with threeadditional review categories.

These four areas of review topics are summarizedin Table 1. A schematic representation of the hierarch-ical evaluative review criteria is exhibited in Figure 1.Based on the hierarchically structured criteria, thereview process includes assigning assessment grades,from the symbols A–F (see Table 2). In this paper,following the recommendation of the review proce-dure, two independent reviewers reviewed the EISs.

4. Result and discussion

4.1. Overall quality of EISs

The review of the 10 EISs produced by Chinese compa-nies inMyanmar, on thenatural resource sector between2010 and 2017 for EIA-type projects, reveals a relativelyweak picture of overall performance. The result indicatesthat only 33% of the EISs sampled were of a satisfactoryquality, 40% were unsatisfactory and 27% were border-line. The assessment results of the overall quality of EISsare summarized in Table 3. In many cases, failure toachieve a satisfactory score was attributed to poor per-formance in review area 3, alternative and mitigation(50%unsatisfactory), and review area 5, national involve-ment in EIA process (88% unsatisfactory).

Up to the present, there have been no studiessystematically conducted to assess the effectivenessof EIS quality in Myanmar, let alone the EIS in thenatural resources sector. Independent expert reviewof Myitsone Hydropower development damrevealed rather negative opinion on the overallquality of the EIS (International Rivers 2016).Moreover, studies conducted in other countrieshave mostly focused on one specific industry withinthe natural resources sector, such as the forest sec-tor, the oil and gas industry, wind farms, hydro-power dams and mining, and revealed varyingresults. However, juxtaposing this study against EISquality review studies in sectors related to naturalresources in other countries indicates that the

finding of our study is consistent with most of theprior studies in forest sector and mining develop-ments, where the effectiveness of EISs were belowaverage (Coles and Taylor 1993; Gray and Edward-Jones 1993; Baker and McLelland, 2003; Li, 2009).Previous research in wind energy, oil and gas andhydropower projects identified modest score forEISs quality (Pinho et al. 2007; Chang et al., 2013).Distinctively, Jones and Fisher (2013) found that90% EISs studied were satisfactory quality in windfarms in the United Kingdom and Germany. Barkerand Jones (2013) also observed that majority of EISsstudied were satisfactory quality.

Table 1. EIS review criteria.Review Area 1: Description of

Project and Environment1.1. Project Description1.1.1. Purpose1.1.2. Design and size1.1.3. Appearance of completed project1.1.4. Production process1.1.5. Raw material1.2 Site Description1.2.1. Land area1.2.2. Land use1.2.3 Duration1.2.4. Number of workers1.2.5. Transportation1.3. Wastes and Emission1.3.1. Waste quantity1.3.2. Waste handling1.3.3. Waste quantity estimationmethod

1.4. Environment Description1.4.1. Effected environment1.4.2. Effected environment away fromthe project

1.5. Baseline Condition1.5.1. Components of effectedenvironment

1.5.2. Data sources1.5.3. Local data sources

Review Area 2: ImpactIdentification

2.1. Impact Definition2.1.1. Direct and indirecteffects

2.1.2. Types of impacts2.1.3. Impacts from non-standard operations

2.1.4. Impacts from non-baseline conditions

2.2. Impact Identification2.2.1. Identify Impact2.2.2. Methodology2.3. Scoping2.3.1. General public contacts2.3.2. Public opinion2.3.3. Key impacts2.4. Impact Magnitude2.4.1. Use of data2.4.2. Method2.5. Impact Significance2.5.1. Community and society2.5.2. Method2.5.3. Justification

Review Area 3 Alternatives andMitigation

3.1. Alternatives3.1.1. Alternative sites3.1.2. Alternative process3.1.3. Re-appraisal3.2. Mitigation3.2.1. Mitigation of impacts3.2.2. Methods3.2.3. Extend of method effectiveness3.3. Commitment of mitigation3.3.1. Commitment of developer3.3.2. Monitoring arrangement

Review Area 4:Communication ofResults

4.1. Layout4.1.1. Introduction4.1.2. Information4.1.3. Chapters4.1.4. Acknowledgement4.2. Presentation4.2.1. Information4.2.2. Technical termsdefinition

4.2.3. Statement4.3. Emphasis4.3.1. Sever impacts4.3.2. Unbiased statements4.4. Non-TechnicalSummary

4.4.1. Main findings4.4.1. Main issues

5. National Involvement5.1. Government5.1.1. Concerns, recommendation,perception

5.2. Expertise5.2.1. Concerns, recommendation,perception

5.3. Public5.3.1. Concerns, recommendation,perception

6 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

Moreover, Table 4, summarizes the result of thecomparative evaluation of the quality of EISs for thethree mega investment projects, the China–Myanmaroil and gas pipelines, the Myitsone Hydropower DamProject and the Lappadaung Copper Mine. The tableoutlines the scores for each attribute based on thereview against Lee and Colley (1990) EIS QualityReview Package. The results of the review were nor-malized and averaged using equation 1. The result ofeach attribute was converted to a 6 point scale, ran-ging from 0.00 to 1.00. A final score of <0.40 indicatesan unsatisfactory EIA quality while a score of ≥0.40but <0.60 suggests the EIA quality is borderline. Afinal score of between ≥0.80 and 1 indicates a satis-factory EIA quality.

Based on the analysis, the results revealed that theoverall quality of EIAs for the Myitsone HydropowerDam and the Letpadaung Copper Mine was within therange of ‘satisfactory’ with the score of 0.70 and 0.72,respectively, even though some shortcomings and

deficiencies were found in review areas, review cate-gories and review sub-categories. These results differfrom those of Pinho et al. (2007) and Li (2009) whichshowed rather negative results. In the case of theMyitsone Hydropower Dam, the quality of the EIA inreview areas 1, 2 and 4 were satisfactory while reviewareas 3 and 5 were unsatisfactory. The EIA report forthe Myitsone Dam Project, a hydro-power develop-ment in the upper reaches of the Ayeyarwady River,was conducted by Changjiang Survey, Planning,Design and Research Ltd Co. (CISPDR) in conjunctionwith Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association(BANCA) in March 2010. The report claimed that it wasconducted in accordance with China’s EIA standardand referenced the EIA Guidelines of the World Bankand the Asian Development Bank. This was presum-ably because Myanmar did not have EIA guidelines ora mandatory requirement of EIA until 2015 (Aung2017). It is observed that the EIA report for this projectprovided sufficient information concerning the pro-ject description, site and local environment, and base-line condition of the environment. However, thereports did not detail the type and quantity of wastewhich will be produced during the operation of thedam or any waste treatment methods. These findingsare similar to the results of Pinho et al. (2007) inPortuguese’s hydropower project. Information about

Table 3. Overall quality of EISs.Overall Assessment Percentage of Sample (out of 10)

Satisfactory (A or B) 33%Borderline (C or D) 27%Unsatisfactory (E or F) 40%Not Applicable 0%

Table 2. List of EIS assessment symbols.Symbol Explanation

A Relevant tasks well performed, no important tasks left incomplete.B Generally satisfactory and complete, only minor omissions and inadequacies.C Can be considered just satisfactory despite omissions and/or inadequacies.D Parts are well attempted but must, as a whole, be considered just unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies.E Not satisfactory, significant omissions or inadequacies.F Very unsatisfactory, important tasks poorly done or not attempted.NA Not applicable. The review topic is not applicable, or it is irrelevant in the context of this statement.

Note: ‘Satisfactory’ = A or B‘Borderline’ = C or D‘Unsatisfactory’ = E or F‘Not Applicable’ = NA

Figure 1. Lee and Colley Review Package Framework

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 7

Table 4. Result of the comparative EIA quality analysis.Myitsone

HydropowerDam

LetpadaungCopper Mine

China–Myanmar Oiland Gas Pipelines

Review Area Review Category Review Sub-CategoryDescription of theDevelopment

Project Description Purpose 0.80 1 0.80

Design and size 0.80 1 0.80Appearance of completedproject

0.80 0.80 0.60

Production Process 0.80 0.80 0.60Raw material 0.60 0.80 0.60

Site Description Land area 0.80 0.60 0.80Land use 0.80 0.60 0.80Duration 0.80 0.80 0.60Number of workers 0.80 0.60 0.20Transportation 0.40 0.80 0.40

Wastes and Emission Waste quantity 0.60 0.60 0.60Waste handling 0.40 0.80 0.60Waste quantity estimationmethod

0.40 0.60 0.40

Environment Description Effected environment 0.80 1 0.60Effected environment awayfrom the project

0.80 1 0.60

Baseline Condition Components of effectedenvironment

0.80 0.80 0.40

Data sources 0.80 1 0.40Local data sources 0.60 0.60 0.40

Area 1 Score 0.70 0.78 0.56Identification andEvaluation of KeyImpacts

Impact Definition Direct and indirect effects 0.80 0.80 0.80

Types of impacts 0.80 0.80 0.20Impacts from non-standardoperations

0.60 0.80 0.60

Impacts from non- baselineconditions

0.80 0.60 0.60

Impact Identification Identify Impact 0.60 0.40 0.60Methodology 0.80 0.60 0.60

Scoping General public contacts 0.80 0.60 0.80Public opinion 0.80 0.60 0.60Key impacts 0.80 0.60 0.8

Impact Magnitude Use of data 0.80 0.8 0.80Method 0.80 0.60 0.60Prediction of impacts 0.80 0.60 0.60

Impact Significance Community and Society 0.60 0.80 0.60Method 0.60 0.60 0.60Justification 0.80 0.80 0.60

Area 2 Score 0.74 0.66 0.62Alternatives andMitigation

Alternatives Alternative sites 0.40 0.60 0.60

Alternative process 0.60 0.40 0.40Re-appraisal 0.40 0.20 0.40

Mitigation Mitigation of impacts 0.40 0.80 0.60Methods 0.20 0.60 0.60Extend of methodeffectiveness

0.00 0.80 0.60

Commitment of mitigation Commitment of developer 0.40 0.80 0.40Monitoring arrangement 0.40 0.80 0.40

Area 3 Score 0.35 0.62 0.5Communication of Results Layout Introduction 0.80 0.80 0.40

Information 0.80 0.80 0.60Chapters 0.80 0.80 0.40Acknowledgement 0.60 0.60 0.60

Presentation Information 0.80 0.80 0.60Technical terms definition 0.80 0.80 0.60Statement 0.80 0.80 0.20

Emphasis Severe impacts 0.80 0.80 0.60Unbiased statements 0.60 0.60 0.40

Non-technical summary Main findings 0.40 0.80 0.40Main issues 0.60 0.80 0.40

Area 4 Score 0.70 0.76 0.47National Involvement inEIA Process

Government Concerns, recommendation,perception

0.40 0.80 0.20

Expertise Concerns, recommendation,perception

0.40 0.80 0.20

Public Concerns, recommendation,perception

0.40 0.80 0.20

Area 5 Score 0.40 0.80 0.20Final Score 0.70 0.72 0.48

8 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

the levels of waste generation produced by the devel-opment and waste handling methods are an impor-tant aspect of an EIA as it helps to determine theimpact of the development and mitigation measures.The details provided for impact identification, scopingand, prediction of impact magnitude and significancewere found to be satisfactory. The report layout, pre-sentation and emphasis were of an acceptable stan-dard as was the provision of a non-technicalsummary. Nevertheless, the quality of this report wasfound to be significantly poor in the area of alterna-tives and mitigation. The report did not provide ade-quate information on whether any feasiblealternatives to the project had been considered. Thesame issues were observed in the study of Pinho et al.(2007). The scope and effectiveness of mitigationmeasures and commitment of mitigation were alsoconsidered unsatisfactory. Moreover, there was noreference to the government, national expertise orpublic involvement in the process of the EIA for thisproject.

Regarding the Letpadaung Copper Mine, reviewareas 1, 4 and 5 performed within the ‘satisfactory’range while review areas 2 and 3 were borderline,with some omissions and inadequacies. The EIA reportfor this project was prepared by Knight Piesold PtyLimited in January 2015. The report stated that it hadbeen prepared in accordance with EnvironmentalConservation Law, Rules and Procedures under theinstruction of the Ministry of EnvironmentalConservation and Forestry. The report described theproject, site, environment and baseline conditionappropriately and waste generation was mentioned,with minor omissions. Therefore, review area 1,description of development, is the best performedarea of this EIA report. Layout, presentation, emphasisof the importance and the non-technical summary ofthis report were also found to be well-performed.Noticeably, involvement of the government, localexpertise and the public was also found to be satis-factory for this project. This might be due to the factthat the report was prepared in response to wide-spread nationwide protests and the subsequent find-ings of a National Investigation Commission.Community consultations with stakeholders and rele-vant authorities were also mentioned in the report. Inthis context, Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003) andPinho et al. (2007) have argued that the principledriving force of good quality EIA is pressure fromthe public, political expectations, environmentaladministration and time and resources to prepareEIA reports. Adequacy of national regulations andavailability of technical guidelines on the format andstructure of EIA are also considered crucial contribu-tions to a good EIA (Environmental Protection Agency2015). Impact identification and evaluation of thisreport is just borderline, with significant omissions in

key impact identification. Moreover, alternatives andmitigation were also assessed as borderline as thereport failed to provide adequate information aboutalternative processes, design and operating condi-tions, and a reappraisal of the alternatives.

For the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines, theEIA report was carried out by a Thailand-basedcompany, the International EnvironmentalManagement Co., Ltd, in June 2013, but was notmade publicly available. The report claimed that itwas conducted in accordance with World BankGuidelines and the Equator Principle’s norms andstandards. However, an analysis of the EIA reportevidenced that the overall quality of the report wasunsatisfactory with major omissions, inadequacieswith some important tasks poorly completed orabsent in the majority of areas under review. Thefinal score of this EIA report was 0.48 which isbelow the range of borderline and is consideredunsatisfactory. This result contrasts with Barker andJones (2013)’s study where satisfactory EIS qualitywas found in Oil and Gas sector in the UnitedKingdom. Such apparent discrepancy may be dueto the incompatibility between expertise andexperience of EIA system and the companiesresponsible for EIA in oil and gas sector in theUnited Kingdom and Myanmar. The majority of thereview area of the EIA report resulted in an unsa-tisfactory result, besides review area 2, identificationand evaluation of key impacts, was considered bor-derline. This finding correlates with Barker andJones (2013)’s result in this review area where 70%of EISs achieved satisfactory grades. The reportfailed to provide sufficient information concerninga clear description of the overall development andconsideration of feasible alternatives to the project.The presentation and communication of the reportand national involvement in the EIA process wasalso found below the satisfactory standard. Table 5displays the summary of the comparative analysis ofthe three projects based on the review areas.Figure 2 portrays the visual presentation.

Table 5. Result of the comparative EIA quality analysis.Myitsone

HydropowerDam

LetpadaungCopperMine

China–MyanmarOil and GasPipelines

Description of thedevelopment

Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Identification andevaluation of keyimpacts

Satisfactory Borderline Borderline

Alternatives andmitigation

Unsatisfactory Borderline Unsatisfactory

Communication ofresults

Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Nationalinvolvement inEIA process

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Overall Quality Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 9

4.2. Results by review area

4.2.1. Description of project and environmentReview area 1 was the best performed task, with 88%of the EIS samples assessed as satisfactory and a greatproportion of the review categories graded as satis-factory or borderline (see Table 6). This result is con-sistent with previous findings on EIS quality reviews(McMahon 1996; Barker and Wood 1999; Cashmoreet al. 2004; Badr et al. 2011; Barker and Jones 2013;Chang et al., 2013). Majority of the EISs in this reviewarea generally perform better than other parts of EISsbecause this review area is considered more straight-forward and simpler task within the wider EIA process(Barker and Jones 2013). Chang et al. (2013) alsostated that this task tends to be the easiest andleast expensive procedure of the EIA process. Thisreview area includes information for the develop-ment, site, waste generation, the local environmentand baseline conditions. Some weak areas observedare: providing detail information on the waste estima-tion and disposal; description of the environmenteffected by the project; and the baseline conditionof the environment. The description of the

development project was the best performed reviewcategory (100%), whereas estimation and disposal ofwaste and emission was the worst performed cate-gory with 40% of the cases assessed as unsatisfactory.

In this review area, in common with previous find-ings, the Myitsone Hydropower Dam and theLetpadaung Copper Mine were assessed within thesatisfactory range, with the score of 0.70 and 0.78,respectively. Conversely, China–Myanmar oil and gaspipelines showed a contradictory result with unsatisfac-tory score of 0.56. However, the interpretation of thisresult for the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelinesshould be made with caution because the report usedfor analysis was the summarized version of the originalreport. Initial consideration against the review packagealso showed identical results (see Table 7). Based on theresults, the Myitsone Hydropower Dam provideddetailed explanations for all the review categoriesexcept for the waste and emission section. TheLetpadaung Copper Mine performed well in most ofthe review categories. The China–Myanmar oil and gaspipelines report did not provide sufficient informationfor all the review categories, other than the project

Table 6. Variation in EIS quality for review area 1.Review Category

Overall Assessment Review Area 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

% Satisfactory 88 100 77 27 80 50% Borderline 2 0 33 33 5 31% Unsatisfactory 10 0 0 40 15 19% Not Applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 2. Visual Presentation of the EIS Quality

Table 7. Result for review area.Review Category

ProjectsReviewArea 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Myitsone Hydropower Dam B B C D B BLetpadaung Copper Mine B B C C A BChina–Myanmar oil and gas

pipelinesD B C D C D

10 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

description. In general, all the projects are particularlyweak in the ‘describing waste and emission’ category. Inparticular, the information for waste quantity estimationmethod was inadequate (see Table 8).

4.2.2. Impact identificationFor the identification and evaluation of key impacts,the majority of the review categories were assessed asborderline (60% of the EISs), 30% as satisfactory and10% were unsatisfactory (see Table 6). Majority of theprevious studies identified this area as one of theweakest areas of EIA (Gray and Edward-Jones 1993;Guilanpour and Sheate 1997; Pinho et al. 2007; Badret al. 2011). Phylip-Jones and Fischer (2013) andBarker and Jones (2013) found that scoping in thisreview area was mostly satisfactory in their studies.The most satisfactory review area was scoping (69%)and the assessment of impact significance was thecomparatively weakest area (35% unsatisfactory and35% borderline). Prediction of impact magnitude isanother higher performing review area with 55% ofEISs graded as satisfactory. Reviewers noted that agreat number of EISs graded as borderline in thisreview area, especially for definition of impact (80%)and identification of impact (77%). The effects of theprojects are not always explained in detail, and themethods and the approaches used in impact identifi-cation are not clear. It is important to focus on poten-tial direct and indirect impacts using systematicmethodologies to evaluate likely risks associatedwith the projects. The attention given to the signifi-cance and magnitude of the impacts were alsoinadequate.

The identification and evaluation of key impactsare regarded as the most important area of the EIAprocess. This review area comprises critical tasks inimpact assessment of the development such as defin-ing and identifying key impacts, scoping, prediction ofimpact magnitude and assessment of impact signifi-cance. The score of 0.74 indicates that the MyitsoneHydropower Dam’s EIS was satisfactory in this reviewarea while the EIS of the Letpadaung Copper Mineand the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines wereborderline, with the scores of 0.66 and 0.62, respec-tively. Common deficiencies observed in this areawere a failure to identify impacts using a systematicmethodology and a failure to follow internationalquality methods and standards to assess the signifi-cance of impact. Inadequate explanation of methods

used to predict and evaluate impacts, was alsoobserved for the Letpadaung Copper Mine and theChina–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines. Other principalweaknesses identified for these two projects were thelack of public participation in the EIA scoping andmethods used in the prediction of impact magnitude.Table 9 summarizes the result for review area 2.

4.2.3. Alternatives and mitigationThe review area 3, alternative and mitigation, is thesecond weakest review area after review area 5. Half ofthe EISs were graded as unsatisfactory, 32% were bor-derline and only 18% achieved a satisfactory grade (seeTable 10). This result is in common with most of theprevious EIS quality review around the world whichindicated this review area to be the weakest category(Barker and Jones 2013; Jones and Fisher, 2015; Pinhoet al. 2007; Gray and Edward-Jones 1993). Commondeficiencies observed in this review area were a failureto provide information for consideration given to alter-native project sites and operation processes, inade-quate information for mitigation methods and theircommitment to the proposed methods. Considerationof alternatives is also recognized as a problematiccategory in previous studies conducted for EIS qualityin other countries (Glasson 2005; Badr et al. 2011).Monitoring of the mitigation measures was also weakand seldom linked to an Environmental ManagementPlan, mentioned in the EIA procedure.

Similar to previous findings, this review area is theleast well-performed area for all three projects, withonly the Letpadaung Copper Mine assessed as border-line (0.62) and the other two assessed as unsatisfactory,with the result of 0.35 for the Myitsone HydropowerDam and 0.50 for the China–Myanmar oil and gaspipelines. Notably, the Myitsone Hydropower Dam per-formed worst in this review area, with almost all thereview category scoring below the satisfactory level.Therefore, this result correlates to the result of Pinhoet al. (2007) in their study of EISs in hydropower

Table 8. Variation in EIS quality for review area 2.

Overall Assessment Review Area 2

Review Category

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

% Satisfactory 30 8 16 69 55 30% Borderline 60 80 77 20 30 35% Unsatisfactory 10 12 7 11 15 35% Not Applicable 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 9. Result for review area 2.

ProjectsReviewArea

Review Category

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Myitsone Hydropower Dam B B C B B CLetpadaung Copper Mine C C D C B BChina–Myanmar oil and gaspipelines

C C C B C D

Table 10. Variation in EIS quality for review area 3.

Overall Assessment Review Area 3

Review Category

3.1 3.2 3.3

% Satisfactory 18 10 7 16% Borderline 32 30 40 48% Unsatisfactory 50 60 53 36% Not Applicable 0 0 0 0

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 11

projects. There is, therefore, considerable scope forimprovement in this review area. Consideration ofalternatives and mitigation is particularly importantfor an EIA process since it seeks to ensure that theproject proponent has considered other feasibleapproaches, including alternative development loca-tions, operation processes, scales and layouts (Glasson2005). Consideration of alternatives, especially reap-praisal of those alternatives, was identified as themost problematic area for all the projects. Table 11summarizes the result for review area 3.

4.2.4. Communication of resultsCommunication and presentation of an EIS is also avital area in the EIA process as it allows readers tounderstand the information and estimates of impactsderived from the various steps in the process (Glasson2005). A great number of the EISs under review, in area4, communication and presentation of information,performed well with 74% of the EISs scored satisfactorywhile 21% were borderline and only 5% being unsa-tisfactory (see Table 12). Much prior research alsofound that tasks related to layout and presentationusually scored higher (Lee et al. 1999; Pinho et al.2007; Badr et al. 2011). This was also found to be thecase in the current study, with 86% scored satisfactoryfor layout and 75% for presentation. Conversely,emphasis given to severe impacts and non-technicalsummary were not well-performed, satisfactory EISsbeing only 9% and 8%, respectively. This is a significantdeficiency because the provision of a non-technicalsummary is especially important for the effective com-munication of the result of an EIA.

In this review area, the Myitsone Hydropower Damand the Letpadaung Copper Mine results were satis-factory (0.70 and 0.76, respectively). The result for theChina–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines was unsatisfac-tory with the score of 0.47. Contrary to this result,Barker and Jones (2013) found satisfactory result forthe UK oil and gas sector in terms of this review area.Similarly, providing a non-technical summary and

unbiased statements appears to be the most proble-matic categories for these three projects. Table 13summarizes the result for review area 4.

4.2.5. National involvementThe last review area, national involvement in an EIAprocess was the weakest area with only 5% of EISsachieving a satisfactory grade and 88% graded asunsatisfactory (see Table 14). The majority of thesampled EISs were unsuccessful in providing ade-quate information for government, experts and publicparticipation, in the process of conducting an EIA.There has been only one previous study that includednational involvement in their study (Guilanpour andSheate 1997). They found unsatisfactorily lowergrades for all the review categories in this reviewarea. Our result is consistent with this prior finding.

Given the fact that the three mega projects, theMyitsone Hydropower Dam, the Letpadaung CopperMine and the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines,are managed by state-owned enterprises that operatein natural resource sectors, national involvement isextremely important in the EIA process. The participa-tion of government, experts and the public is crucialin executing an effective EIA in Myanmar. The involve-ment of government officials’ opinions and concernsin the EIA process can help to ensure that nationalenvironmental policies are incorporated in the EIAdecision-making process in Myanmar (Guilanpourand Sheate 1997). The Myitsone Hydropower Damand the China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines wereassessed as unsatisfactory (0.40 and 0.20 respectively)in this area as they failed to provide adequate evi-dence of government, expert and public input intothe EIA process. The Letpadaung Copper Mine resultwas satisfactory as the information provided was con-sidered to be adequate, with the score of 0.80. Asdiscussed above, this result can be attributed to thefact that the EIA for this project was conducted inconjunction with National Investigation Commission.Table 15 summarizes the result for review area 5.

Table 11. Result for review area 3.

Projects Review Area

ReviewCategory

3.1 3.2 3.3

Myitsone Hydropower Dam E E E DLetpadaung Copper Mine D D C BChina–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines D D C C

Table 12. Variation in EIS quality for review area 4.

Overall Assessment Review Area 4

Review Category

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

% Satisfactory 74 86 75 9 8% Borderline 21 6 10 76 64% Unsatisfactory 5 8 15 15 28% Not Applicable 0 0 0 0 0

Table 13. Result for review area 4.

Projects Review Area

Review Category

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Myitsone Hydropower Dam B B B C DLetpadaung Copper Mine B B B C CChina–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines D B C D D

Table 14. Variation in EIS quality for review area 3.

Overall Assessment Review Area 5

Review Category

5.1

% Satisfactory 5 5% Borderline 7 7% Unsatisfactory 88 88% Not Applicable 0 0

12 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

5. Conclusion

The EIA process has been accepted as the corner-stone of decision-making mechanisms in environ-mental policy and the quality of an EIS is of greatimportance in informing public and decision makersabout the consequences of a proposed project andmitigation measures (Peterson 2010). Therefore, aquality review of EISs is crucial in providing effectivefeedback for the improvement of EIAs. Given themassive scope and scale, rapid expansion of thedevelopments and adverse impacts associated withChinese Investments in the Myanmar naturalresource sector, evaluating and monitoring EISs isvital. The evaluation of the quality of Chinese EISsin the natural resource sector in Myanmar shows thatwhilst only one third (33%) of the EISs sampled weresatisfactory, 27% were borderline and the rest (40%),were unsatisfactory. This demonstrates a relativelypoor overall quality of EISs in the industry whenrelated to Chinese EIAs and quality improvementsneed to be made in several areas. For review area3, alternative and mitigation, and review area 5,national involvement in the EIA process are themost problematic areas and require specific atten-tion to improve the performance of overall EISs.Within the natural resources sector, the overall resultof our study is similar to those in forest and miningsector but differs from those in wind energy, oil andgas, and hydropower.

From the analysis of the quality of the EIA reports ofthe three mega development projects in Myanmar, sev-eral omissions, inadequacies and deficiencies were alsoevidenced in all the projects despite the fact that theaverage scores indicate they were within the range ofsatisfactory for two of the three projects. Significantweaknesses were found in the area of evaluation of keyimpacts and consideration of alternatives and mitiga-tion, which are vital areas of an effective EIA. It is alsoimportant to note that among the three projects, the EIAreport of the Letpadaung Copper Mine was consideredthe best performing in terms of the adequacy of infor-mation provided in all the review areas. This can beattributed to the fact that the EIA for this project wasconducted after the drafting of the first national EIA lawand procedure together with the environmental protec-tion law and environmental conservation rules inMyanmar. Previously, Myanmar did not require EIA fordevelopment projects and did not have standardizedEIA systems (Aung 2017). Through public disclosure of

effective EIA reporting and successful engagement withstakeholders, the Letpadaung Copper Mine has miti-gated the hostility against the project and resumed itsoperation. On the other hand, the quality of the EIA forthe China–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines project is sub-stantially lower and the company did not disclose thereport to the public. The report for this project wasconducted before Myanmar enacted the requirementto conduct an EIA and make it publicly available. Thesefindings suggest that the strength of the mandatoryrequirement of EIAs, EIA guidelines and national involve-ment in an EIA process played a significant role in overallquality of Chinese EIAs and public acceptance of suchdevelopment in Myanmar.

The results yield several important implications forpolicy makers, investors and stakeholders, not only inMyanmar and China, but also in other developingcountries with similar scenarios. Governmental gui-dance and policies have proven to be crucial factorsin better EIAs and in improving sustainability perfor-mance for Chinese enterprises abroad (United NationsDevelopment Programme 2015). It is suggested thatboth the host and home country governments shouldemphasise institutional constraints and ensure enfor-cement to effectively regulate enterprises’ EIA prac-tices. Particularly, the Chinese government shouldstrengthen guidance for ‘going global’ enterprises byproviding clarified EIA requirements, penalty mea-sures and supervision mechanisms, especially in theleast developed countries like Myanmar, with mani-festly poor environmental legislations. Going globalpolicy is China’s strategy to encourage enterprises’overseas investments. Project proponents need tostrengthen their EIAs, integrate with stakeholders,enhance transparency in environmental managementand make practical contributions to local develop-ment. In order to avoid disputes between stake-holders and enterprises, effective impactassessments, mitigation plans and an inclusiveapproach in public decision making is required.Against this backdrop, this study’s empirical evalua-tion of the EIA of mega Chinese developments inMyanmar can be useful to identify strengths andweaknesses in EIA practices and help manage theissues that engender continued controversy surround-ing Chinese enterprises’ commitment to sustainabledevelopment in the region.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Thiri Shwesin Aung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9262-531XSharon Condon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8364-6875

Table 15. Result for review area 5.

Projects Review Area

Review Category

5.1

Myitsone Hydropower Dam D DLetpadaung Copper Mine B BChina–Myanmar oil and gas pipelines D D

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 13

References

[MCPWC] Myanmar China Pipeline Watch Committee. 2016.In search for social justice along the Myanmar-China oiland gas pipeline. Myanmar China Pipeline WatchCommittee.

Arts, J., Fischer, T.B., Runhaar, H. & Jha-Thakur, U. 2013.Environmental Governance: Reflecting on 25 years ofEIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment Policy and Management. 14(4)

Arkan Oil Watch. 2012. Burma’s resource curse: the case forrevenue transparency in the oil and gas sector. p. 51.[accessed 2018 Apr 17] http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/images/uploads/Burmas-Resource-Curse.pdf

Aung TS. 2017. Evaluation of the environmental impactassessment system and implementation in Myanmar: itssignificance in oil and gas industry. Environ Impact AssessRev. 66:24–32.

Badr E, Zahran A, Cashmore M. 2011. Benchmarking perfor-mance: environmental impact assessment statement inEgypt. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31:279–285.

Baker, DC. & McLelland, JN. 2003. Evaluating theEffectiveness of British Columbia’s EnvironmentalAssessment for First Nations’ Participation in MiningDevelopment. Environmental Impact AssessmentReview, 23(5), pp. 581–603.

Barimah PT. 2014. Quality of environmental impact state-ments in Ghana. J Environ Earth Sci. 4(21):140–145.

Barker A, Jones C. 2013. A critique of the performance of EIAwithin the offshore oil and gas sector. Environ ImpactAssess Rev. 43:33–39.

Barker A, Wood C. 1999. Evaluation of the performance ofthe European EIA process. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 23(4):439–451.

Brennan E, Doring S. 2014. Harnessing Myanmar’s hydro-power and negotiating conflict. Sweden: Institute forSecurity and Development Policy.

Cashmore M, Christophilopoulos E, Cobb D, Bond A. 2004.The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive pur-poses, outcomes and research challenges in the advance-ment of environmental impact assessment theory. ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal. 22(4):295–310.

Chan T. 2015. Myanmar and China’s one belt one road strategy. Hong Kong: China Business Centre.

Chang, T., Nielsen, E., Auberle, W. and Solp, F. 2013. Aquantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA infor-mation in wind energy development and avian/batassessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review38:142–150.

Christie K. 2014. Myanmar’s China threat: how the UN globalcompact is changing development in Southeast Asia.Athens J Soc Sci. 1:9–20.

Coles RW, Taylor J. 1993. Wind power and planning: theenvironmental impact of wind farm in the UK. Land UsePolicy. 10(3):205–226.

Dancery R, Lee N. 1993. The quality of environmentalimpact statements submitted in Ireland and the UnitedKingdom: a comparative analysis. Project Appraisal.8:31–36.

Dun C, Ji L, Peng K. 2016. Chinese investments in Myanmar-scoping study. China: Global Environmental Institute.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Revised guidelineson the information to be contained in environmentalimpact statements. Environmental Protection Agency.

European Union. 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment.[accessed 2018 Apr 17]. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm

Ewing JJ, Hangzo PKK. 2013. Will the resource tide lift allboats? Responsible development in Myanmar. Canada:Center for Non-traditional Security Studies.

Foreign Policy 2016 Fragile State Index. Foreign Policy.[accessed 2018 Apr 17]. http://foreignpolicy.com/fragile-states-index-2016-brexit-syria-refugee-europe-anti-migrant-boko-haram/

Gelb S, Calabrese L, Tang X. 2017. Foreign direct investmentand economic transformation in Myanmar. China:Carnegie-Tsingua Center for Global Policy.

Glasson JR. 2005. Introduction to environmental impactassessment. 3rd ed. London: Spon Press. Government ofthe Republic of the Union of Myanmar. 2015.

Government of the republic of the union of Myanmar. 2015.Environmental impact assessment procedure. Ministry ofenvironmental conservation and forestry.

Gray IM, Edward-Jones G. 1993. A review of the quality ofenvironmental impact assessments in the Scottish forestsector. For. 72(1):1–10.

Guangsheng L. 2015. Sino-Myanmar ties: lessons from the“Myitsone Dam Event”. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam Schoolof International Studies.

Guilanpour K, Sheate WR. 1997. A systematic review ofTanzanian environmental impact statements. ProjectAppraisal. 12(3):138–150.

Hilton I. 2013. China in Myanmar: implication for the future.Norway: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre.

International Rivers. 2016. Independent expert review of theMyitsone Dam EIA. International Rivers.

Jones, R. and Fisher, TB. 2015. EIA follow-up in the UK-a2015 update. Journal of environmental impact assess-ment policy and management. 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321650006X

Jones, JP. and Fischer, TB. 2013. Strategic environmentalassessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: Lessonsfrom the United Kingdom and Germany. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review. 50: 203–212.

Kadir SM, Momtaz S 2010. The quality of environmental impactstatements in Bangladesh. Conference Proceedings of theRole of Impact Assessment in Transitioning to the GreenEconomy. Geneva. April 6–11.

Kirchherr J. 2017. Conceptualizing Chinese engagement inSouth-East Asian dam projects: evidence from Myanmar’sSalween River. Int J Water Resour Dev. accessed 2018 Apr14. doi:10.1080/07900627.2017.1322942.

Lee DT. 2015. Myanmar Letpadaung Copper Mining Project.USA: University of Manchester.

Lee N, Colley R. 1990. Reviewing the quality of environmen-tal statements. Manchester: Department of Planning andLandscape, University of Manchester.

Lee N, Colley R, Bonde J, Simpson J 1999. Reviewing the qualityof statements and environmental appraisals. Occasionalpaper no.55. Manchester (UK): EIA Centre, Department ofPlanning and Landscape, University of Manchester.

Li, F. 2009. Documenting Accountability: EnvironmentalImpact Assessment in a Peruvian Mining Project.Political and legal anthropology review. 32(2):218–236.

MacGrath C, Bond A. 1997. The quality of environmentalimpact statements: a review of those submitted in Cork,Eire from 1988–1993. Project appraisal. 12:43–52.

Martínez-Alier J, Rodríguez-Labajos B. 2011. The Myitsonedam in the Irrawady River (Burma – Myanmar),Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities andTrade. 1:3.

McMahon N. 1996. Quality of environmental impact state-ments submitted in Northern Ireland in relation to thedisposal of waste land. Project Appraisal. 11:85–94.

14 T. S. AUNG ET AL.

Morrison-Saunders, A, Baker, J and Arts, J. 2003. ‘LessonsFrom Practice: Towards Successful Follow-Up’, ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, vol 21, pp43–56.

Mounir ZM. 2015. Evaluation of the quality of environ-mental impact assessment reports using Lee andColley package in Niger Republic. Mod Appl Sci. 9(1):89–95.

Peterson K. 2010. Quality of environmental impact state-ments and variability and scrutiny by reviews. EnvironImpact Assess Rev. 27(3):189–205.

Phylip-Jones J, Fischer T. 2013. EIA for wind farms in theUnited Kingdom and Germany. J Environ Assess PolicyManag. 15(2):134008.

Pinho P, Maia R, Monterroso A. 2007. The quality ofPortuguese environmental impact studies: the case ofsmall hydropower projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev.27(2007):189–205.

Shwe Gas Movement. 2009. Corridor of power: China’sTrans-Burma oil and gas pipelines.

Shwe Gas Movement. 2013. Drawing the line: the caseagainst China’s Shwe Gas project for better extractiveindustries in Burma. Shwe Gas Movement.

Sun Y. 2013. Chinese investment in Myanmar: what liesahead. Washington: Stimson.

Thant H 2017 Letpadaung Copper Project to bring in US$20m, Myanmar Times. [accessed 2018 Apr 14]. http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/data/

Tracy EF, Shvarts E, Simonov E, Babenko M. 2017. China’s newEurasian ambitions: the environmental risks of the silk roadeconomicbelt. EurasianGeography andEconomics. 58(1):56–88.

United Nations Development Programme. 2015. Report onthe Sustainable Development of Chinese EnterprisesOverseas. China: United Nations Development Programme.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 15