ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT PROJECTS

A Study in the Law, Policy and Governmental Decision-making in Tanzania

bulletIntroduction
bulletList of Statutes, Cases and Acronyms
bulletPart I. EIA in Tanzania's Environmental Law and Policy
bulletExpansive Policy Rhetoric
bullet...and Legislative Foot-dragging
bulletThe Section Proposes...
bulletEIA Regime under the Mining Act, 1998
bullet...and the Proviso Disposes
bulletNEMC's EIA Guidelines and Procedures
bulletPublic Participation under the Guidelines and Procedures
bulletAccess to Information
bulletPart II. Power Politics and EIA in Practice
bulletCase Study 1: Lessons from Rufiji Delta
bulletThe Rufiji Delta Prawn Farming Project
bulletControversy Over EIA
bulletContradictory Advice
bulletArms for What?
bulletThe Cabinet Decision
bulletGovernment Intransigence
bulletThe Government and the Investor
bulletPicking Winners...and Counting Losers
bulletCase Study 2: EIA in National Parks
bulletConclusions
you are hereRecommendations
bulletBibliography

Printable versions of this document:
Single HTML document
Microsoft Word format
Adobe Acrobat format

Get Acrobat MS-Word Viewer

RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the arguments and issues raised herein it logically follows that there is serious need for policy and legal reform along the following lines:

  1. That there is need to enact a framework legislation which will provide the basic minimum standards, procedures and guidelines for EIA in Tanzania. This legislation will be applicable across all sectors and for activities with likely environmental impacts. Sectoral laws may be allowed to have their own sectoral standards, procedures and guidelines which, however, shall not be lower than the basic standards provided in the framework law.
  2. That given the importance accorded foreign investment by the government and given the potential for widespread environmental abuse by investors, the present foreign investment legislation should be substantially amended to provide for obligation on investors to undertake environmental protection measures similar to, or better than, those under the mining legislation. That is to say, investors generally should be subjected to rigorous requirements for EIA and EMP and compliance thereof. Indeed, as we have seen, the draft bill for Tanzania Investment Act, 1997 had provisions for environmental protection which were however deleted in the final bill which was enacted into law. It does not make sense to exclude investors from the rigours of EIA law when their activities are liable to cause environmental harm.
  3. That the Mining Act, 1998, should be similarly amended to either completely remove or seriously curtail the exercise of ministerial discretion in respect of compliance with environmental standards which should be made mandatory to all investment projects with potential for adverse environmental impacts. In similar vein the Act should also be amended to remove powers of oversight and approval of EIA and EMP from the ministry responsible for mining to avoid conflict of interests.
  4. Local communities should organize to secure and defend their access to natural resources in view of the propensity of the state to secure the resources for investors and at the expense of the communities. It is only through organized power that the voice of the communities will be heard.
  5. Environmental activists and NGOs should also forge closer links with local communities and seek to take joint position in matters of environmental protection and community rights.