Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has evolved as an environmental management and sustainability tool. Despite common principles shared by EIA globally, there are considerable variations in EIA processes across countries. In this paper, we reviewed and compared EIA processes of China, Queensland State of Australia and Nepal considering five key steps (selection of consultants, report preparation, public participation, report review and approval, and monitoring and evaluations) of EIA. Our review indicated that the EIA is well recognised in legal instruments in all state and countries under consideration and there are both similarities and differences in key steps of EIA. Monitoring of EIA recommendations and the integration of feedbacks from the past and current practices are important in improving EIA processes. This study also found that there are elements for possible improvement in existing EIA processes by each state and country introducing the best practices from others' EIA system. Some of the practices that Nepal can follow from the EIA processes of Queensland and China are licensing and accreditation of individuals and firms to conduct EIA, establishment of separate monitoring unit within regulating department, development of clear guidelines for approvals and monitoring, and the use of independent third-party auditing in EIA monitoring. The findings of this paper are useful in revising and improving EIA policies, practices and processes in the selected state, countries and elsewhere.
Keywords: Australia; China; Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Nepal; Queensland.