Faktor mempengaruhi kualiti Laporan Penilaian Kesan Alam Sekitar di Malaysia (Factors influencing the quality of Environmental Impact Assessment Report in Malaysia)
Abstract
Kualiti laporan penilaian impak alam sekitar (EIA) merupakan salah satu aspek yang menjadi indikator terpenting keberkesanan pelaksanaan EIA. Isu berkaitan dengan kualiti laporan EIA telah dibincangkan secara meluas pada peringkat antarabangsa. Dalam konteks Malaysia isu mengenai tahap kualiti laporan EIA yang kurang memuaskan sering kali ditemui pada peringkat penilaian laporan EIA. Kajian ini adalah bertujuan untuk mengkaji faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kualiti laporan EIA di Malaysia dan mengenal pasti langkah penambahbaikan bagi mempertingkatkan kualiti laporan EIA. Kajian ini dijalankan dengan menggunakan soal selidik terhadap 198 responden yang terdiri dari pegawai Jabatan Alam Sekitar dan jururunding EIA di Malaysia. Nilai kebolehpercayaan (Cronbach’s alpha) soal selidik bagi kesemua konstruk yang telah digunakan berada pada julat 0.8 hingga 0.9 iaitu berada pada tahap yang baik. Hasil analisis kajian mendapati terdapat beberapa aspek utama yang boleh mempengaruhi kualiti laporan EIA iaitu kos bagi penyediaan laporan, masa yang mencukupi untuk kajian dijalankan, kepakaran khusus jururunding dan kepakaran pegawai pengulas EIA, latihan yang mencukupi kepada pegawai pengulas EIA dan perunding EIA. Kajian ini mendapati terdapat tiga aspek yang perlu ditambah baik iaitu pertama aspek latihan kepada pegawai pengulas dan jururunding EIA yang perlu ditambah baik, kedua memperkasa sistem pengkalan data bagi pemprosesan laporan EIA dan maklumat berkaitan dengan kajian EIA dan ketiga kepentingan untuk mempertingkatkan kefahaman pemaju projek tentang prosedur dan keperluan mematuhi perundangan berkaitan EIA di setiap masa.
Kata kunci: Faktor mempengaruhi kualiti laporan EIA, jururunding EIA, keberkesanan EIA, kualiti laporan EIA, penilaian impak alam sekitar.
The quality of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report is the most important aspects in EIA implementation. Issues related to the quality of EIA reports have been widely discussed internationally. In Malaysia the issue with regards to the poor quality of EIA reports is often pointed out at the EIA reviewing stage. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors which influence the quality of EIA reports and to identify measures to improve the quality of EIA reports. The study was conducted using online survey on 198 respondents which includes EIA consultants and Department of Environment (DOE) officers that involved in the processing and enforcement of EIA. The reliability (Croncbach’s alpha) of all constructs in the questionaires ranged within 0.8 to 0.9. The results of the study indicate that there are a few key factors that influence the quality of EIA report, such as cost of EIA preparation, sufficient time to conduct EIA study, skills and expertise and adequate training of consultants and DOE officers. This study also suggest three aspect to be improved, firstly the training aspect among the consultant and DOE review officers, secondly strengthening the EIA database system and thirdly to increase the understanding of the project developer in terms of EIA procedure and regulation at all time.
Keywords: factors influencing EIA quality, EIA consultants, EIA effectiveness, quality of EIA reports, environmental impact assessment.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdul Rahman, M., Zaini, S., & Khairul Nizam, A. M. 2017. Analisa terhadap kaedah pengulasan laporan Penilaian Kesan kepada Alam Sekeliling (EIA) di Malaysia. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 4(4), 11–21.
Bond, A., Retief, F., Cave, B., Fundingsland, M., Duinker, P. N., Verheem, R., & Brown, A. L. 2018. A contribution to the conceptualisation of quality in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68(October 2017), 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.006
Doberstein, B. 2004. EIA models and capacity building in Vietnam: An analysis of development aid programs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(3), 283–318. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2003.09.001
DOE. 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines In Malaysia. Department Of Environment, Malaysia.
Ebissa G.K. 2017. Environmental impact assessment and their mitigation measures of Irrigation Project. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 2(December 20185), 186–193. doi:10.1201/b12159-14
Hein van Gils. 2015. How Often and Why Are Alternatives Absent in Environmental Assessment Practice. “IAIA15 Conference Proceedings” Impact Assessment in the Digital Era 35th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment,.
IISD. 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment Training Manual. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from www.iisd.org/learning/eia
Kabir, S. M. Z., & Momtaz, S. 2013. Sectorial variation in the quality of environmental impact statements and factors influencing the quality. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 0568(February), 1–17.
Kamijo, T., & Huang, G. 2016. Improving the quality of environmental impacts assessment reports: effectiveness of alternatives analysis and public involvement in JICA supported projects. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 5517(May), 1–9.
Kirchoff, D. 2006. Capacity building for EIA in Brazil: Preliminary considerations and problems to be overcome. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 08(01), 1–18.
Mohammed, H. 2018. Environmental Impact Assessment and its application in the Middle Euphrates Region (July 2018).
Rajaram, T., & Das, A. 2011. Screening for EIA in India: enhancing effectiveness through ecological carrying capacity approach. Journal of environmental management, 92(1), 140–8.
Sadler, B. 1996. International study of the effectiveness of Environmental Assessment - Final Report. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practive to Improve Performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Vanderhaegen, M., & Muro, E. 2005. Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2), 123–142.