Benchmarking the effectiveness of mitigation measures to the quality of environmental impact statements: lessons and insights from mines along the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe

Abstract

The environmental impact statement (EIS) plays an important role in informing decision makers about the likely impacts of development projects on the environment and suggesting mitigation measures for addressing such impacts. Increased effort to improve the quality of EIS has been a focus on its proposed mitigation measures and their likely effectiveness. There is, however, a lack of such studies in Zimbabwe’s mining industry. Following a conceptual framework of EIS quality as an indicator of mitigation effectiveness, this paper assesses the quality of EIS and its likely influence on the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation measures. Twenty-two purposively sampled EISs for mines operating along the Great Dyke of Zimbabwe were reviewed using the modified Lee and Colley (Review of the quality of environmental statements, Manchester EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester 1992) quality review package and Mitchell’s (EA the Magazine of IEA and EARA 28–29, 1997) mitigation hierarchy guidelines. Results show that 77 % of the EISs are of satisfactory quality, while 51 % of the proposed mitigation measures focus on adverse impact reduction. The deficiencies are traced to vagueness in the regulations regarding baseline data collection and analysis and conceptualization of mitigation. Based on the results, it is suggested that more efforts should be aimed at reviewing the EIA regulations in order to improve the quality of EISs.