1.3 Adequacy of technical guidelines

l General TG is supplemented with specific guidelines for all environmental components and some industries.

l Too inflexible, result in unnecessary work.

1.4 Guidance for EIA implementation at the local level

l Exists regulations at the provincial level.

l Needs to be revised frequently.

1.5 Formal provisions for SEA

l Regulations on Planning EIA was issued in 2009.

l Lacks supporting laws to guide the implementation of Planning EIA.

2. Administrative set up

2.1 Specified EIA review body

l For EIR and EIF: (1) state environmental protection authority (MEE), (2) provincial, autonomous regions’ EPBs, (3) municipal, county EEPBs. For EIRF, online registration is required.


2.2 Existence of supervision authority

l MEE and EEPBs at different levels

l Vertical management reform of environmental monitoring and law enforcement departments under improving.

2.3 Specification of industry authorities’ responsibility

l The pre-review of EIR for some industries was canceled since 2017.


3. EIA process

3.1 Specified screening categories

l List and threshold approach.

Projects are classified into three categories: A, B and C, according to their projects’ features.

l Although the assessment methodologies are more specific, some regulations are too inflexible. It may lead to unnecessary work.

3.2 Systematic scoping approach

l Identifies the evaluation factors and working levels I-III following TGs, which decides the evaluation scope and ambient standard.

l Too inflexible

3.3 Requirement for impacts prediction

l Evaluation of environmental status and project engineering analysis;

Analyzes each pollution-producing node in production techniques and ecological impacts;

Evaluates the monetary value of environmental protection measures cost-benefit analysis.

l Too inflexible

3.4 Specified EIS content

l Required in article 17 of EIA Law.

l Too inflexible

3.5 Systematic decision-making approach

l Adopts technical review meetings.

Article 11 of REPMCP lists the conditions of not giving EIA approval.


3.6 Requirement for monitoring

l Randomly on-site investigation of projects, periodically selective examination of EISs and real-time monitoring of pollutant emission.


3.7 Public participation in the EIA process

l Public participation almost covers the whole EIA process.

l Not explicitly declare the environmental right of citizens.

3.8 Requirement to consider alternatives

l Focuses on technical options.

l No consideration of “without project” or “delay the project”.

3.9 Requirement for EIA follow-up

l Article 27 of EIA Law

If the construction and operation of projects are inconsistent with EIA requirements, the EIA follow-up needs to be conducted.

Foundation measures

4.1 Systematic supervise measures

l The interim and post-event supervision has been strengthened.

4.2 Effective warning and deterrent of penalties

l The penalties are more severe than before.

l Exists problems at implementation.

4.3 Existence of legislative provisions for appeals

l The Law of Executive Accusation is suitable for EIA appeal.

l The amount of lawsuit is low.

The percentage of developers or public winning the lawsuit is low.