Title: Graphic6
Author: USER
Document comments: DocumentCreationInfo

Environmental Impact Assessment Law and Its Role in Promoting Sustainable Development in Nigeria

Washington Osa Osifo, Godwin Luke Umoru, Joseph Nwazi, Adekunle Saheed Ajisebiyawo

Environmental Impact Assessment Law and Its Role in Promoting Sustainable
Development in Nigeria

By

Washington Osa Osifo
Department of Environmental Law Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State, Nigeria (washington.osifo@iuokada.edu.ng)

Godwin Luke Umoru
Dept of Business Law
Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State, Nigeria umoru.godwin@iuokada.edu.ng

Joseph Nwazi
Department of Environmental Law Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State, Nigeria (nwazi.joseph@iuokada.edu.ng)

Adekunle Saheed Ajisebiyawo
Department of Political Science Igbinedion University, Okada, Edo State, Nigeria (adekunle.ajisebiyawo@iuokada.edu.ng)

Abstract
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has emerged as a central regulatory tool for integrating environmental considerations into development planning and decision-making. In Nigeria, the legal framework for EIA is principally governed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap E12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which was enacted to ensure that the environmental consequences of proposed projects are identified, evaluated, and mitigated prior to implementation. This paper critically examines the effectiveness of EIA law in promoting sustainable development in Nigeria, with particular focus on its legal, institutional, and practical dimensions. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology, relying on statutory provisions, judicial authorities, and a wide range of scholarly literature. It analyses key judicial decisions such as Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, which have significantly shaped environmental jurisprudence and enforcement in Nigeria. The paper further evaluates the extent to which the Nigerian EIA regime aligns with international best practices and principles, including the precautionary principle and public participation. Findings reveal that although the EIA framework in Nigeria has contributed to increased environmental awareness and regulatory oversight, its effectiveness is constrained by several factors. These include weak enforcement mechanisms, inadequate public participation, political interference, lack of technical capacity, and poor integration of climate change considerations into assessment processes. The study also identifies gaps in the legal framework, particularly regarding cumulative impact assessment, monitoring, and post-project evaluation. The paper argues that while EIA law holds significant potential as a tool for sustainable development, its current implementation falls short of achieving its objectives. It recommends comprehensive legal and institutional reforms, including strengthening enforcement mechanisms, incorporating climate risk assessment,

enhancing transparency and stakeholder engagement, and aligning with global sustainability standards.  The  study  concludes  that  an  effective  and  well-implemented  EIA regime  is indispensable for achieving sustainable development in Nigeria. Strengthening the legal and institutional framework for EIA will not only enhance environmental protection but also promote responsible economic development and intergenerational equity.

Keywords:   Climate Change, Environmental Impact Assessment, Law, Pollution, Sustainable
Development

Introduction
Issues of environmental degradation arising from large-scale development projects constitute one of the most significant obstacles to Nigeria's sustainable development ambitions. The high rates of urbanisation, extractive activities, infrastructure expansion, and energy-related projects place considerable pressure on ecosystems and livelihoods, often relegating long-term ecological costs to the background. Against these challenges, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) emerges as a central pillar of environmental law and policy, designed to anticipate, evaluate, and mitigate adverse environmental effects before irreversible harm occurs. In its most fundamental form, EIA is a proactive environmental management tool that integrates environmental considerations into development planning at an early stage, rather than attempting to remedy damage after it has occurred (Robinson, 2003, p. 15).

EIA is codified under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap. E12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (Environmental Impact Assessment Act, 2004) (originally Decree No. 86 of 1992), which marked a significant milestone in Nigeria's environmental regulatory framework. This Act, far from being parochial, reflects Nigeria's commitment to international environmental standards, including the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (1972) (United Nations, 1972) and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) (United Nations, 1992), both of which advocate integrated environmental planning and sustainable development. In the Nigerian context, EIA theoretically provides a framework for balancing environmental protection and economic development, aligning with the principles of sustainable development that aim to preserve ecological integrity for present and future generations. This is particularly crucial in light of Nigeria's pressing environmental challenges, such as desertification in the northern regions, coastal erosion in the south, recurrent flooding, and the enduring environmental degradation associated with oil exploration in the Niger Delta (Ogboru& Anga, 2015).

Despite this robust normative and legal foundation, serious doubts persist as to whether Nigeria's EIA regime effectively influences development outcomes in practice. Scholars and practitioners have observed that EIA processes are frequently treated as mere procedural formalities to secure project approval, rather than as substantive decision-support mechanisms capable of shaping project design and outcomes (Ogunba, 2004). Concerns have been raised regarding the poor quality of EIA reports, inadequate public participation, weak post-approval monitoring, and inconsistent enforcement by regulatory authorities (Aina, 2012). These challenges raise a critical question for sustainable development in Nigeria: whether the EIA framework is fulfilling its intended purpose or has degenerated into a perfunctory exercise with minimal environmental or climate impact.
This research examines the effectiveness of Nigeria's EIA legal framework in advancing

sustainable development in practice. It interrogates whether the EIA serves as a meaningful mechanism for integrating environmental and climate considerations into development planning, or remains largely a procedural requirement with limited substantive impact. In doing so, the study contributes to the broader discourse in environmental law and climate governance, particularly on the capacity of legal frameworks in developing countries to influence environmentally sustainable development trajectories (Sands & Peel, 2012, p. 678).

From an environmental protection perspective, it is imperative to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of Nigeria's EIA regime in addressing ongoing environmental degradation and climate change risks. Within the context of development planning, this study examines the extent to which environmental considerations are embedded in decision-making processes at both national and sub-national levels. From a legal and institutional standpoint, the analysis evaluates the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks, the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms, and the role of courts and administrative agencies in upholding environmental standards. These issues are particularly salient in Nigeria, where institutional capacity constraints and competing economic priorities often shape regulatory outcomes (Emiri, 2015, p. 233).

Against this backdrop, the research is guided by three key questions. First, to what extent is Nigeria's EIA legal framework effective in promoting sustainable development? Second, what roles have courts and regulatory agencies played in enforcing EIA compliance and ensuring environmental accountability? Third, what institutional and procedural challenges continue to undermine the effective implementation of EIA in Nigeria? By situating these questions within the broader context of Nigeria's climate vulnerability and institutional limitations, this paper moves beyond a purely doctrinal analysis to evaluate EIA as a practical governance tool.

Literature Review
The paper is theoretically grounded in the concepts of sustainable development and the precautionary principle as applied within environmental law and regulation. This study does not treat Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a mere procedural regulatory requirement, but rather as a preventive and participatory decision-making tool that integrates environmental and climate considerations into development planning. Anchored in sustainable development as a normative framework, the paper examines whether Nigeria's EIA regime effectively balances economic development, environmental protection, and intergenerational equity. The precautionary principle further enriches this analysis by emphasising risk anticipation and early intervention in situations of scientific uncertainty, particularly regarding climate change impacts (Sands & Peel, 2012, p. 217). Taken together, these principles provide the analytical lens through which the effectiveness, implementation, and potential reform of EIA law in Nigeria are critically evaluated.

Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainable Development
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) occupies a central position in modern environmental governance, functioning both as a statutory requirement and a critical decision-support mechanism. In essence, EIA seeks to identify, predict, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects prior to their approval or implementation. Unlike reactive environmental regulatory approaches, which respond after harm has occurred, EIA is inherently preventive and anticipatory. It is not limited to identifying environmental risks; it is also

intended to influence decision-making processes to avoid, minimise, or mitigate environmental harm while permitting socially and economically beneficial development (Wood, 2003, p. 1).

The objectives of EIA extend beyond narrow environmental protection to encompass social, economic, and increasingly, climate-related considerations. Globally, EIA has evolved into an integrated assessment framework that reflects a holistic understanding of development impacts. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), EIA is a systematic process that promotes environmentally sound decision-making by integrating environmental considerations into economic and technical planning (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2002). This integrative role is particularly relevant in countries such as Nigeria, where intense development pressures often result in environmental externalities disproportionately borne by vulnerable communities.

The theoretical linkage between EIA and sustainable development is well established in both international and domestic environmental law literature. Sustainable development, as defined in the Brundtland Report, refers to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987, p. 43). EIA operationalises this principle at the project level by embedding long-term environmental considerations into development decision- making. Through its emphasis on alternatives analysis, mitigation strategies, and cumulative impact assessment, EIA provides a structured mechanism for reconciling development objectives with environmental constraints.

Closely associated with this sustainability function is the precautionary principle, which has emerged as a cornerstone of contemporary environmental law. The principle posits that the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used as grounds for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation when there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Principle 15). In practice, EIA serves as a primary legal instrument for operationalising the precautionary principle by requiring a risk assessment prior to project approval. It shifts regulatory focus from scientific certainty to risk management and anticipatory governance. This precautionary dimension is particularly significant in the context of climate change, where uncertainty, cumulative impacts, and long- term risks are inherent features.

The interaction between EIA, precaution, and sustainable development in Nigeria is complex and context-dependent. Large-scale developments in sectors such as oil and gas, transportation, power generation, and urban expansion are frequently located in ecologically sensitive areas. They are associated with greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, and socio-economic displacement. In principle, an effective EIA system should require decision-makers to evaluate these risks, consider less harmful alternatives, and enforce mitigation and monitoring measures. However, the extent to which EIA practice in Nigeria consistently reflects the principles of precaution and sustainability remains contested within the literature (Emiri, 2015, p. 245).

Beyond its substantive objectives, EIA also serves as a procedural governance tool to enhance transparency, accountability, and public participation in development planning. It facilitates stakeholder engagement, creates opportunities for public input, and establishes a documentary record  for  regulatory  and  judicial  review.  These  procedural  dimensions  are  not  merely

incidental; rather, they are central to EIA's capacity to support sustainable development (Craik,
2008, p. 98). Meaningful public participation, for instance, can incorporate local knowledge, highlight distributive impacts, and enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of development decisions. From a climate governance perspective, such participation is essential to ensure that adaptation and mitigation strategies are context-specific and socially responsive.

This theoretical perspective, therefore, conceptualises EIA not merely as a technical exercise, but as a dynamic governance process in which environmental protection, developmental priorities, and climate imperatives intersect. It provides a robust analytical foundation for critically assessing the implementation of EIA in Nigeria, particularly in determining whether it contributes to sustainable and climate-resilient development or merely legitimises environmentally harmful projects through procedural compliance.

Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Whether Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) translates into improved environmental outcomes remains one of the most contested issues in environmental governance scholarship. However, EIA is widely adopted as a legal requirement across jurisdictions, including under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap. E12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (Environmental Impact Assessment Act, 2004), its practical effectiveness remains uncertain and subject to debate. The central concern is not merely the preparation of EIA reports, but whether such assessments meaningfully influence decision-making processes in favour of environmental and climate protection.

Early scholarship on EIA expressed optimism regarding its potential to integrate environmental considerations into development planning (Gilpin, 1995, p. 12). However, subsequent empirical studies reveal a persistent gap between formal compliance and substantive environmental protection, with many projects continuing to generate adverse environmental impacts even after EIA approval (Glasson et al., 2012, p. 356). Scholars emphasise that the effectiveness of EIA depends on factors such as the quality of assessment, the rigour of review processes, and the institutional capacity of regulatory agencies (Wood, 2003, p. 289).

A key distinction in the literature is between procedural effectiveness and substantive effectiveness. Procedural effectiveness focuses on compliance with formal requirements, such as scoping, public consultation, alternatives analysis, and documentation. Substantive effectiveness, on the other hand, examines whether EIA leads to improved environmental outcomes, such as project modifications, risk mitigation, or harm prevention. In many jurisdictions, including Nigeria, evidence suggests high levels of procedural compliance but limited substantive impact, thereby reducing EIA to a “box-ticking” exercise (Holder & McGillivray, 2007, p. 412).

This gap is particularly pronounced in contexts characterised by weak regulatory capacity. In such settings, EIA reports often become bureaucratic artefacts that create an appearance of compliance while failing to ensure accountability or prevent environmental harm (Craik, 2008, p. 156).

Another recurring theme in the literature is the problem of weak enforcement and political interference. Even where legal frameworks are robust, their effectiveness is undermined by limited institutional independence and inadequate enforcement mechanisms. Environmental regulatory agencies in many developing countries, including Nigeria, are often underfunded and subject to political pressures that prioritise economic growth over environmental protection (Emiri, 2015).

Political economy analyses further highlight the influence of economic interests on EIA outcomes. In resource-dependent economies such as Nigeria, where oil revenues play a central role in national income, there is significant pressure to expedite project approvals and minimise regulatory constraints. This dynamic poses a risk of regulatory capture, in which environmental authorities are marginalised or influenced by powerful economic actors (Auty, 2001, p. 89).

These concerns are particularly relevant in Nigeria, where rapid development pressures, climate vulnerability, and institutional limitations intersect. Nigerian scholarship reflects similar global trends, noting that EIA practice often remains procedural rather than substantive, particularly in environmentally sensitive regions such as the Niger Delta (Nwankwo & Eze, 2013).

In summary, the literature on EIA reveals a tension between its normative promise and practical limitations. While EIA has the potential to bridge the gap between development and environmental sustainability, its effectiveness is frequently constrained by institutional weaknesses, political interference, and limited enforcement capacity. These challenges are especially pronounced in Nigeria, where climate vulnerability, resource dependence, and governance deficits exacerbate the disconnect between formal EIA compliance and substantive environmental protection.

Historical Overview of Environmental Impact Assessment in Nigeria
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime in Nigeria did not emerge from a regulatory vacuum. Prior to the enactment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, environmental regulation in Nigeria was fragmented, reactive, and largely sector-specific. Early environmental controls were embedded within public health laws, town planning statutes, and legislation governing extractive industries, none of which required a comprehensive prior assessment of environmental impacts. Consequently, regulatory intervention typically occurred only after environmental harm had been inflicted, reflecting a command-and-control approach that prioritised economic activity over environmental protection (Emiri, 2015, p. 112).

This pre-EIA regulatory environment became particularly evident during the rapid industrial expansion of the 1970s and 1980s. The ineffectiveness of environmental governance frameworks was starkly exposed by environmental incidents such as the Koko toxic waste dumping scandal of 1988, which galvanised public awareness and policy demand for a more preventive and coordinated environmental protection regime (Sanda, 1991). These developments coincided with a growing global emphasis on environmental assessment as a tool for sustainable development, particularly following the Stockholm Conference of 1972, which encouraged the adoption of EIA practices across both developed and developing jurisdictions (United Nations, 1972).

Against this backdrop, Nigeria enacted the Environmental Impact Assessment Act in 1992 (now
Cap. E12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004). This legislation marked a significant

paradigm shift from reactive to preventive environmental regulation, introducing a project- based assessment framework applicable to both public- and private-sector undertakings. The Act mandates prior environmental assessment as a precondition for project approval, thereby integrating environmental considerations directly into development planning processes rather than treating them as ancillary regulatory requirements (Environmental Impact Assessment Act,
2004).

The EIA Act adopts a tiered classification system, categorising projects into those requiring mandatory full assessment, partial assessment, or exemption. It further provides for public participation, inter-agency consultation, and the systematic review of EIA reports prior to project approval. In principle, this framework aligns with international best practices and reflects Nigeria's commitment to incorporating environmental considerations into development decision-making. However, in practice, the effectiveness of these provisions has been significantly undermined by constraints on institutional capacity, weak enforcement mechanisms, and competing governance priorities (Emiri, 2015).

The implementation of the EIA regime is primarily the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Environment, which oversees policy formulation, review of EIA reports, and approval of projects of national significance. State environmental protection agencies play a complementary role, particularly regarding projects within their territorial jurisdiction. Although this multi-level institutional arrangement is intended to promote cooperative federalism in environmental governance, the literature identifies persistent challenges, including overlapping mandates, inconsistent regulatory standards, and limited technical capacity at the sub-national level (Aina,
2014). These institutional tensions have direct implications for climate governance, as fragmented authority structures can undermine coherent and coordinated responses to cumulative environmental and climate impacts.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Comparative Perspectives
Comparative analysis is instrumental in evaluating the effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regimes, as it reveals how similar legal principles are implemented across diverse political, economic, and institutional contexts. Although EIA frameworks globally share common features such as prior assessment, public participation, and mitigation planning, their practical application varies significantly. An examination of experiences in South Africa, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Brazil, and India provides valuable insights into how EIA can be leveraged to promote sustainable development and climate-responsive governance, particularly in developing and resource-dependent contexts such as Nigeria.

The EIA regime in South Africa is widely regarded as one of the most advanced in Africa. Anchored in the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (NEMA), EIA is embedded within a comprehensive environmental authorisation framework grounded in sustainability principles, including intergenerational equity and the precautionary approach. A distinguishing feature of the South African system is the judiciary's robust role, which has consistently treated EIA as  a  substantive  legal  requirement  rather  than  a  procedural  formality.  Courts  have invalidated projects lacking adequate environmental assessment or meaningful public participation, thereby strengthening the credibility and enforceability of EIA (National Environmental Management Act, 1998). This jurisprudential approach enhances the relevance of EIA in climate-sensitive sectors such as mining and energy (Feris, 2008).

In  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  wider  European  Union,  EIA operates  within  a  highly institutionalised and legally harmonised framework. The EU EIA Directive, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU, explicitly requires the assessment of climate-related impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, climate resilience, and cumulative environmental effects (Directive
2014/52/EU, 2014). This reflects the EU's broader commitment to climate mitigation and adaptation. Detailed procedural requirements, rigorous administrative review, and strong judicial oversight characterise the implementation of this Directive in the United Kingdom. Courts have demonstrated a willingness to quash development consents for non-compliance with EIA obligations, thereby affirming that EIA compliance constitutes a substantive legal duty rather than a mere technicality (Lee, 2014, p. 215). For Nigeria, this experience underscores the importance of integrating climate considerations into EIA frameworks and strengthening the legal consequences of non-compliance.

Brazil presents a comparatively instructive example of a resource-rich developing economy facing significant environmental and climate challenges. The Brazilian EIA system is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act and administered by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). EIA practice in Brazil places considerable emphasis on environmental licensing procedures and public hearings, particularly for large-scale infrastructure and extractive projects in ecologically sensitive regions such as the Amazon (Brazilian National Environmental Policy Act, 1981). Although enforcement remains inconsistent, Brazilian courts have increasingly intervened to review EIA approvals, particularly regarding cumulative environmental impacts and climate risks (McAllister, 2015). This experience highlights both the potential and limitations of EIA in politically and economically contested development contexts, offering important lessons for Nigeria regarding the need to safeguard institutional independence.

These comparative experiences reveal several lessons of direct relevance to Nigeria. First, public participation must be meaningful rather than symbolic, requiring access to information, adequate consultation periods, and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Second, post- approval monitoring and enforcement are as critical as pre-approval assessment, particularly regarding long-term and climate-related impacts. Third, judicial oversight plays a decisive role in transforming EIA from a procedural checklist into a substantive accountability mechanism. Finally, the explicit integration of climate considerations into EIA frameworks enhances their relevance in addressing contemporary environmental challenges.

Overall, comparative analysis demonstrates that the effectiveness of EIA depends less on the formal  existence  of  regulatory  procedures  and  more  on  institutional  capacity,  judicial enf  rcement, and the robustness of post-approval controls—areas in which Nigeria continues to face structural challenges.

Metho^odology
The paper adopts a doctrinal approach to legal research, supported by qualitative analysis, to examine how Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) law in Nigeria operates in practice. The study focuses on primary legal sources, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, subsidiary regulations and administrative guidelines, and judicial decisions relating to EIA compliance and enforcement. Secondary sources, including academic literature, policy documents, and institutional reports, are also utilised to support the contextual and interpretive dimensions of the analysis.

In explaining how EIA law functions in practice, the research draws on a purposive review of approved EIA reports for major development projects, particularly in the oil and gas and infrastructure sectors. The assessment is undertaken with reference to legal compliance, regulatory effectiveness, and institutional coordination, with specific attention to transparency, public participation, and post-approval monitoring mechanisms.

The EIA reports selected for analysis were purposively chosen based on three criteria: the magnitude and potential environmental impact of the projects; their location within environmentally and climate-sensitive areas; and their representation of sectors historically associated with high environmental risk in Nigeria, particularly the oil and gas and infrastructure sectors. This methodological approach enables a critical evaluation of EIA performance within periods and sectors where environmental pressures and regulatory scrutiny are most pronounced (McHarg, 1969).

Analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law and Sustainable Development in Nigeria

Analysis of Selected EIA Reports
An analysis of selected approved Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documents for major development projects in Nigeria reveals recurring deficiencies in the quality and scope of environmental assessments. The analysis is based on a purposive sample of EIA reports approved by the Federal Ministry of Environment between 2010 and 2020, selected based on project scale, environmental risk profile, and thematic relevance to climate-sensitive areas. Illustrative examples include the Final Environmental Impact Assessment of the 60TPH Palm Oil Mill Extension Project prepared for Okomu Oil Palm Company Plc, Edo State (2020), EIA reports  relating  to  Niger  Delta  gas  development  projects  (2015–2018),  and  EIA reports commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Power for electricity transmission line projects approved between 2012 and 2019.

Across the reviewed reports, formal compliance with statutory EIA requirements is generally evident; however, the quality of baseline environmental data remains consistently inadequate. Major oil and gas projects, highway developments, power infrastructure, and rapidly expanding urban centres are frequently situated in ecologically fragile zones or areas characterised by socio-environmental vulnerability (Okorodudu-Fubara, 1998). Empirical studies demonstrate that Nigeria's extractive industries contribute significantly to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use changes, and population displacement, particularly in the Niger Delta and coastal regions (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2011).

Large-scale developments, such as the Lekki Free Trade Zone, illustrate the socio- environmental consequences of megaprojects, including land dispossession, livelihood disruption, and tenure insecurity, notwithstanding the completion of formal EIA procedures (Oluduro, 2014). Similarly, Nigeria's continued reliance on gas-based industrialisation, including the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) project, highlights the persistent tension between economic development objectives and environmental sustainability imperatives (Ako,
2012).

In the Okomu Oil Palm EIA, the baseline ecological survey was conducted over three months
(December 2019 to February 2020), which is insufficient to capture seasonal variations,

particularly wetland dynamics critical to the ecology of southern Edo State. Best international practice requires multi-seasonal baseline studies to ensure data reliability (Glasson et al., 2013). Similarly, EIA reports relating to Shell's Niger Delta gas projects rely predominantly on secondary data and historical incident reports, with limited consideration of cumulative environmental impacts, including long-term pollution and climate stressors arising from prolonged oil and gas operations (Nwankwo & Ogagarue, 2011).

The treatment of project alternatives in the sampled reports is generally superficial. In the Okomu EIA, the “no-project” alternative is addressed only briefly and rejected primarily on economic grounds, with minimal analysis of environmental or climatic implications (Federal Ministry of Environment, 1995). Transmission line EIAs similarly present a narrow range of route alternatives, often without adequately demonstrating how environmental sensitivity or climate resilience considerations influenced route selection.

Although mitigation measures are typically included, they are highly standardised and lack project-specific adaptation. For instance, the Okomu EIA recommends compensatory afforestation without specifying species selection, climate adaptability, or long-term survival benchmarks (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO], 2013). Likewise, EIA reports on Niger Delta gas projects contain generic mitigation language on gas flaring reduction and spill response, with limited site-specific quantification or measurable performance indicators. Such overreliance on standardised mitigation frameworks undermines the EIA process's capacity to address context-specific environmental and climate risks.

Another recurring deficiency is the weak linkage between environmental commitments and implementation mechanisms. While Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) are routinely included, they often lack robust provisions for independent monitoring, verification, and enforcement. In the Okomu EIA, there is no provision for independent oversight, and compliance is limited to periodic (quarterly) reporting, with no clearly defined sanctions for non-compliance (Environmental Impact Assessment Act, 2004). Similar gaps are evident in EIA reports for Shell gas projects, where post-construction audits and long-term monitoring obligations are insufficiently articulated.

These patterns suggest a systemic tendency within Nigeria's EIA regime to prioritise procedural compliance over substantive environmental protection, thereby undermining the effectiveness of EIA as a tool for sustainable development and climate governance (Nwankwo, 2015).

Interpretation of Judicial Decisions
The role of judicial review in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) compliance in Nigeria has been cautious and somewhat inconsistent. However, judicial pronouncements have generally affirmed the mandatory nature of EIA under Nigerian law. The foundational authority remains Ontario Douglas v Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd (1998), in which the Federal High Court held that projects likely to have significant environmental impacts cannot lawfully proceed without prior compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. This decision firmly establishes EIA as a condition precedent to project execution rather than a discretionary administrative requirement, thereby reinforcing its preventive and regulatory function within Nigeria's environmental governance framework (Oronto Douglas v Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd, 1998).

Notwithstanding this early judicial affirmation, subsequent jurisprudence reveals a marked reluctance by courts to interrogate the substantive adequacy of EIA processes. Courts have generally been more inclined to determine whether an EIA was conducted at all than to evaluate its quality, scope, or environmental integrity critically. This procedural orientation is evident in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd (2005), where the Federal High Court recognised the environmental and public health consequences of gas flaring and declared the practice unconstitutional, yet did not undertake a detailed examination of the adequacy or implementation  of  the  relevant  EIA processes  (Gbemre  v  Shell  Petroleum  Development Company Nigeria Ltd, 2005).

This trend reflects a broader pattern of judicial restraint in cases involving extractive industries, which are often regarded as economically strategic sectors. Consequently, courts tend to grant declaratory relief rather than coercive orders, such as injunctions or project suspensions, and rarely engage in rigorous regulatory review of environmental compliance mechanisms (Nwankwo, 2016).

Another significant limitation affecting the judicial enforcement of EIA obligations is the lack of access to environmental justice. Traditionally, restrictive rules on locus standi, coupled with high litigation costs and evidentiary burdens, have constrained individuals' and civil society organisations' ability to challenge non-compliance with EIA requirements.

This constraint was partially alleviated by the Supreme Court's decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019), in which the Court significantly liberalised the doctrine of locus standi in environmental matters. Although the case did not directly address EIA compliance, it removed a major procedural barrier to environmental litigation and is widely regarded as a turning point in the development of public interest environmental litigation in Nigeria (Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, 2019).

Taken together, these judicial decisions demonstrate that while Nigerian courts acknowledge the legal indispensability of Environmental Impact Assessment, they remain reluctant to deploy EIA as a substantive instrument for environmental protection and climate governance. Judicial intervention continues to focus predominantly on procedural compliance, with limited willingness to invalidate non-compliant projects or assess whether EIA outcomes meaningfully advance sustainable development objectives. This gap undermines the transformative potential of EIA as a tool of environmental rule of law (Boyle & Redgwell, 2021).

Environmental Authorities' Role
The institutional framework governing EIA implementation in Nigeria is characterised by fragmented authority and capacity constraints. The Federal Ministry of Environment retains primary responsibility for EIA approval, particularly for projects of national significance. At the same time, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) is mandated to enforce environmental standards and regulations. Notwithstanding this formal allocation of responsibilities, coordination between federal institutions and state environmental protection agencies remains limited and often ineffective (National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency [NESREA] Act, 2007).

In practice, this institutional fragmentation has resulted in significant deficiencies in enforcement and monitoring. Regulatory agencies frequently face resource constraints, including inadequate technical expertise, insufficient funding, and limited logistical capacity to conduct post-approval monitoring and enforce EIA conditions.

While major infrastructure projects typically demonstrate formal compliance with EIA procedural requirements, such compliance often fails to translate into substantive environmental protection. For instance, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Ajaokuta–Kaduna–Kano (AKK) Natural Gas Pipeline was approved by the Federal Ministry of Environment as meeting statutory requirements, including public consultation and stakeholder engagement (Federal Ministry of Environment, 2019). However, mere procedural adherence does not necessarily ensure environmental sustainability or regulatory effectiveness.

Empirical studies indicate that EIA reports in Nigeria often prioritise descriptive impact identification over critical evaluation of project alternatives, cumulative environmental effects, and long-term sustainability considerations (Glasson et al., 2013). This tendency limits the strategic value of EIA as a decision-making tool, reducing it to a compliance-oriented exercise.

These challenges are particularly pronounced in regions with intensive extractive and infrastructure development, where regulatory demands exceed institutional capacity (Okorodudu-Fubara, 2002). Coordination between federal and state authorities remains largely ad hoc, resulting in inconsistent enforcement outcomes and regulatory overlap.

The institutional weaknesses identified above have direct implications for the effectiveness of EIA as a tool for sustainable development. In contexts where regulatory oversight is weak, fragmented, or under-resourced, EIA conditions are less likely to be effectively implemented, monitored, or enforced, particularly in economically strategic sectors such as oil and gas.

Accordingly, the principal limitations of the EIA regime in Nigeria arise less from the absence of legal provisions than from deficiencies in institutional design, coordination, and enforcement capacity (Ako, 2014). These realities raise critical concerns as to whether the Nigerian EIA framework functions as a substantive mechanism for environmental protection or merely as a procedural formality within development planning processes.

These issues are further interrogated in the subsequent section, which situates the findings within the broader discourse on sustainable development, climate governance, and the environmental rule of law.

Discussion of Key Findings
Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The findings of this paper demonstrate that although Nigeria possesses a comprehensive legal and procedural framework for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), its practical effectiveness in promoting sustainable development remains constrained by procedural formalism, institutional deficiencies, and weak accountability mechanisms. This section interprets these findings in light of the research questions, particularly regarding whether EIA meaningfully influences development decision-making and advances climate-sensitive governance.

The results indicate that, notwithstanding the strong statutory foundation of Nigeria's EIA regime, its operational impact on sustainable development outcomes is limited. The predominance of procedural compliance, as reflected in the quality of EIA documentation, judicial reasoning, and institutional practices, suggests that EIA is frequently treated as an administrative precondition for project approval rather than as a substantive decision-making instrument. This reality calls into question the underlying assumption, embedded in the Environmental  Impact Assessment Act,  that  environmental  assessment  will  significantly influence development trajectories, particularly in environmentally and climate-sensitive contexts (Environmental Impact Assessment Act, 2004).

More specifically, the inadequate consideration of project alternatives and the limited integration  of  climate-related  variables  indicate  that  EIA exerts  minimal  transformative influence on final development decisions. Where project options are dismissed primarily on economic grounds, without rigorous environmental or climate-based evaluation, EIA operates in a reactive rather than strategic manner. These findings align with broader scholarly critiques that EIA in many developing jurisdictions has not evolved into a sustainability-oriented planning tool, but remains largely a project-level compliance mechanism (Glasson et al., 2013).

This procedural orientation is particularly problematic within the context of climate governance. Climate risks such as cumulative environmental degradation, long-term ecological vulnerability, and constraints on adaptive capacity are inherently systemic and temporal. A regulatory framework that relies on short-term baseline data and standardised mitigation measures is therefore structurally ill-equipped to address these complex and evolving challenges. Consequently, the current EIA regime in Nigeria exhibits limited capacity to respond effectively to contemporary sustainable development and climate imperatives (Boyle & Redgwell, 2021).

Weaknesses and Capacity Gaps of Institutions
The findings further reveal that post-approval monitoring mechanisms are structurally weak, thereby limiting the ability of EIA conditions to meaningfully influence project implementation. Importantly, the evidence suggests that the principal constraints to effective EIA implementation in Nigeria are institutional rather than purely normative.

Despite a relatively robust legal framework, enforcement agencies continue to face significant technical, financial, and administrative limitations. Inadequate post-approval supervision, weak inter-agency coordination, and overlapping or conflicting institutional mandates collectively undermine effective regulatory oversight, particularly in high-impact sectors such as oil and gas and large-scale infrastructure development (Okorodudu-Fubara, 2002).

Political and economic considerations further complicate regulatory effectiveness. Projects classified as nationally strategic or economically critical are often fast-tracked for approval, with limited scope for rigorous environmental scrutiny. This dynamic reinforces a compliance culture in which EIA approval is treated as the culmination of regulatory engagement rather than the starting point of continuous environmental governance. Similar patterns have been observed in other resource-dependent economies, where regulatory institutions are structurally constrained or disincentivised from imposing stringent environmental controls on major development initiatives (Ako, 2014).

These institutional deficiencies have direct implications for climate governance. In the absence of robust institutional capacity to monitor, verify, and enforce compliance with EIA conditions, environmental and climate protection objectives remain largely aspirational. Accordingly, strengthening institutional capacity emerges as a critical prerequisite for repositioning EIA as an effective instrument of sustainable development and climate-responsive governance in Nigeria (Nwankwo, 2015).

Public Participation and Right of Access to Information
Although the Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides for public participation and access to environmental information, the findings reveal a significant gap between legal provisions and practical implementation. Public consultations are often conducted at advanced stages of the EIA process, thereby limiting their influence on project design and decision- making. Additionally, technical information is rarely disseminated in accessible formats, constraining meaningful engagement by affected communities.

Communities affected by large-scale development projects, particularly those in rural or socio- economically marginalised areas, face practical barriers, including limited awareness, financial constraints, and low technical literacy. These challenges significantly diminish their capacity to participate effectively in environmental governance processes (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2018).

Such limitations undermine the deliberative and participatory objectives of EIA and risk rendering the process technocratic and exclusionary. Where affected populations are unable to contribute to environmental assessment processes meaningfully, EIA fails to serve as an instrument of environmental democracy. This concern is particularly acute in regions such as the Niger Delta, where environmental degradation intersects with longstanding socio-economic marginalisation (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2011).

Inclusive participation is both a procedural requirement and a substantive component of effective climate governance. Local and indigenous knowledge systems can provide valuable insights into environmental dynamics, climate vulnerability, and context-specific adaptation strategies. Furthermore, community-based monitoring mechanisms can enhance transparency and accountability in project implementation.

The limited realisation of participatory rights in Nigeria, therefore, significantly constrains the EIA regime's transformative potential to deliver equitable, sustainable, and climate-resilient development outcomes (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO], 2014).

Overall, the analysis reveals a persistent disconnect between the normative aspirations of the EIA framework and its operational realities in Nigeria. While the legal regime is formally aligned with the principles of sustainable development, its effectiveness is undermined by procedural formalism, institutional weaknesses, and limited citizen engagement. These structural deficiencies collectively impede EIA's capacity to function as a credible instrument of climate-responsive environmental governance.

The foregoing challenges provide the analytical foundation for the recommendations advanced in the subsequent section.

Conclusion
This paper has examined the interaction between Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) law and sustainable development in Nigeria, focusing on how the legal framework operates in practice rather than merely in theory. The study demonstrates that although the Nigerian EIA regime is firmly established in law, its effectiveness as a tool for sustainable and climate- responsive development remains limited, as evidenced by the analysis of EIA reports, judicial decisions, and institutional practices.

The findings reveal a persistent pattern in which EIA functions primarily as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive instrument influencing development decision-making. Despite formal compliance with statutory requirements, deficiencies in baseline data, inadequate alternatives analysis, weak post-approval monitoring, and ineffective enforcement mechanisms significantly undermine the capacity of EIA to address long-term environmental and climate risks (Glasson et al., 2013).

This procedural orientation is further reflected in judicial practice, where courts have consistently affirmed the mandatory nature of EIA but have shown limited willingness to interrogate its substantive adequacy or to halt non-compliant projects. Similarly, institutional and capacity constraints continue to restrict effective regulatory oversight, particularly in economically strategic sectors such as oil and gas.

The implications of these limitations for environmental governance in Nigeria are profound. An EIA system that prioritises formal approval over substantive environmental responsibility is inherently ill-equipped to address cumulative environmental degradation, climate vulnerability, and environmental justice issues. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to reposition EIA as a substantive planning and governance tool rather than a mere procedural formality (Boyle & Redgwell, 2021).

Without a fundamental shift from procedural compliance to substantive accountability, EIA in Nigeria will remain legally visible but environmentally ineffective. The reforms proposed in this study—focusing on improving the quality of environmental assessments, strengthening institutional capacity, and enhancing transparency and public participation—provide a pathway to  transform  EIA into  a  more  effective  instrument  for  sustainable  and  climate-sensitive development planning.

If properly restructured and implemented, EIA has the potential to evolve from a procedural gateway into a central pillar of environmental governance, capable of advancing sustainable development and climate policy objectives in Nigeria.

Recommendations
Legal and Regulatory Reforms
The revision of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act is both necessary and urgent to
address contemporary challenges relating to sustainable development and climate governance.
Although the Act establishes a mandatory framework for EIA, it does not sufficiently prescribe
standards regarding the quality of assessments or the integration of long-term environmental and
climate risks. Legislative reform should therefore introduce clear minimum standards relating to
baseline data requirements, cumulative impact assessment, and robust alternatives analysis,

with explicit incorporation of climate resilience and adaptation considerations (Environmental
Impact Assessment Act, 2004).

The EIA Act also needs to provide stronger, more enforceable sanctions for non-compliance. Existing enforcement mechanisms are largely dependent on administrative discretion, which has contributed to weak deterrence and regulatory inefficiency. The introduction of graduated penalties, including monetary fines, suspension or revocation of project approvals, and civil or criminal  liability  for  false  or  misleading  EIA submissions,  would  significantly  enhance compliance incentives (Ako, 2014).

Furthermore, the Act should establish a comprehensive legal framework for post-approval monitoring  and  enforcement,  ensuring  that  compliance  with  EIA conditions  becomes  a continuous legal obligation rather than a one-off procedural requirement. Such reforms would strengthen the accountability of project proponents and improve the long-term environmental performance of development projects.

Administrative and Institutional Enhancements
To improve the effectiveness of EIA in Nigeria, targeted institutional reforms are required in addition to legal amendments. Regulatory agencies, including the Federal Ministry of Environment, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), and State Environmental Protection Agencies, require sustained capacity building in areas such as environmental science, climate risk assessment, and compliance monitoring. Investment in technical expertise is essential to enable regulators to move beyond formal document review towards substantive environmental oversight (Okorodudu-Fubara, 2002).

Enhanced coordination between federal and state environmental authorities is also critical. A clear delineation of institutional responsibilities, supported by formal inter-agency cooperation mechanisms, would reduce duplication, minimise regulatory conflicts, and strengthen enforcement outcomes, particularly in projects that span  multiple jurisdictions (National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency [NESREA] Act, 2007).

In addition, establishing independent technical review panels for high-risk or climate-sensitive projects would improve the credibility and quality of EIA decision-making. Such panels would provide an additional layer of expert scrutiny, thereby reducing the risk of regulatory capture and enhancing public confidence in the EIA process.

Transparency and Accountability of Actors
Enhanced transparency is fundamental to repositioning EIA as an instrument of environmental accountability and good governance. Legal and administrative frameworks should mandate the timely and comprehensive disclosure of EIA reports, approval decisions, and post-approval monitoring outcomes. Importantly, such information should be made available in accessible formats, rather than being limited to technical summaries or fragmented disclosures (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2018).

The development of a centralised and publicly accessible digital EIA registry, managed by the Federal Ministry of Environment, would significantly improve transparency, data accessibility, and public oversight. This registry should function as a comprehensive repository of approved EIA reports, conditions of approval, monitoring data, and enforcement actions, thereby enabling

civil society organisations, researchers, and affected communities to track compliance over time.

Finally, greater empowerment of civil society and local communities is essential. This can be achieved through early-stage consultations, improved access to relevant information, and the establishment of accessible mechanisms for reporting non-compliance. Meaningful stakeholder engagement not only enhances environmental performance but also strengthens the legitimacy and credibility of EIA as a governance tool for sustainable and climate-resilient development (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO], 2014).

References
Ako, A. (2012). Nigeria's liquefied natural gas project: Environmental and socio-economic implications. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 6, 45–64.
Ako, A. (2014). Environmental regulation in Nigeria: A critical appraisal. Journal of African
Law, 8, 1–20.
Aina, O. O. (2012). Public participation in environmental impact assessment in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. African Journal of Environmental Science, 8(2), 120–130.
Aina, O. O. (2014). Environmental governance and federalism in Nigeria. African Journal of
Environmental Policy, 6, 88–102.
Auty, M. (2001). Resource abundance and economic development. Oxford University Press. Boyle, A., &Redgwell, C. (2021). Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell's international law and the
environment (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Brazilian National Environmental Policy Act. (1981). Brazil.
Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. (2019). 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 (SC).
Craik, N. (2008). The international law of environmental impact assessment. Cambridge
University Press.
Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2014). Amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
Emiri, F. E. (2015). Environmental law in Nigeria. Princeton Publishing.
Environmental Impact Assessment Act, Cap. E12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. (2004). Federal Ministry of Environment. (1995). Guidelines on environmental impact assessment in
Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Environment.
Federal Ministry of Environment. (2019). Environmental and social impact assessment report on  the Ajaokuta–Kaduna–Kano  (AKK)  gas  pipeline  project—Federal  Ministry  of Environment.
Feris, L. (2008). The role of the judiciary in environmental governance in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Law, 20, 123–138.
Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2013). Climate-smart forestry and sustainable forest management. FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2014). Participatory forestry and climate change adaptation. FAO.
Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd. (2005). AHRLR 151 (NgHC). Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment (EIA): Cutting-edge for the twenty-first
century. Cambridge University Press.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (4th ed.). Routledge.

Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2013). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (5th ed.). Routledge.
Holder, J., & McGillivray, D. (2007). Environmental law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Lee, M. (2014). EU environmental law: Governance and decision-making. Hart Publishing. McAllister, D. (2015). Environmental licensing and judicial review in Brazil. Law, Environment
and Development Journal, 9, 102–118.
McHarg, I. A. (1969). Design with nature. Natural History Press.
National Environmental Management Act. (1998). South Africa.
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Establishment) Act.
(2007).
Nwankwo, B. O. (2015). Environmental governance and sustainable development in Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal of Environmental Law, 7, 89–105.
Nwankwo, B. O. (2016). Judicial attitudes to environmental litigation in Nigeria. Nigerian
Journal of Environmental Law, 10, 112–130.
Nwankwo, B. O., & Eze, E. C. (2013). Environmental regulation and the Niger Delta crisis.
Journal of Environmental Law, 5, 52–68.
Nwankwo, C. N., &Ogagarue, D. O. (2011). Oil spill control and management in Nigeria.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 2, 298–312.
Ogboru, I., & Anga, R. A. (2015). Environmental degradation and sustainable economic
development  in  Nigeria:  A  theoretical  approach.  Researchjournali's  Journal  of
Economics, 3(6), 1–13.
Ogunba, A. (2004). An appraisal of the evolution of environmental legislation in Nigeria.
Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 26(3), 185–203.
Okorodudu-Fubara, O. E. (1998). Law of environmental protection in Nigeria. UNIBEN Law
Journal, 2, 45–60.
Okorodudu-Fubara, O. E. (2002). Institutional challenges in environmental governance in
Nigeria. UNIBEN Law Journal, 6, 78–95.
Oluduro, A. (2014). Globalisation and the development agenda: Environmental and human
rights implications of the Lekki Free Trade Zone. African Human Rights Law Journal, 8,
1–25.
Oronto   Douglas   v   Shell   Petroleum   Development   Company   Ltd.   (1998).   Suit   No.
FHC/CS/573/93 (Federal High Court, Nigeria) (unreported).
Robinson, I. A. (2003). Environmental impact assessment: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Sanda, A. O. (1991). Industrial pollution and environmental protection in Nigeria. Nigerian
Journal of Environmental Law, 3, 67–75.
Sands, P., & Peel, J. (2012). Principles of international environmental law (3rd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
United Nations. (1972). Stockholm declaration on the human environment.
United Nations. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development.
United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Environmental governance and public
participation in Nigeria. UNDP.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). Environmental impact assessment training
resource manual. UNEP.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2011). Environmental assessment of Ogoniland.
UNEP.
Wood, C. (2003). Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review (2nd ed.). Pearson.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford
University Press.

TIDS JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT (TJD) Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2026