https://www.drishtiias.

com/to-the-points/paper3/environmental-impact-
assessment-1

https://www.cseindia.org/understanding-eia-383

https://blog.ipleaders.in/environmental-impact-assessment-in-india/

Introduction
 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process of evaluating the likely
environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, taking into
account inter-related socio-economic, cultural and human-health impacts, both
beneficial and adverse.
 UNEP defines Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a tool used to
identify the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project prior to
decision-making. It aims to predict environmental impacts at an early stage in
project planning and design, find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts,
shape projects to suit the local environment and present the predictions and
options to decision-makers.
 Environment Impact Assessment in India is statutorily backed by the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 which contains various provisions on EIA
methodology and process. EIA is now mandatory for over 30 classes of
projects.

History of EIA in India

 The Indian experience with Environmental Impact Assessment began over
20 years back. It started in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission asked the
Department of Science and Technology to examine the river-valley projects
from an environmental angle.
 This was subsequently extended to cover those projects, which required the
approval of the Public Investment Board. Till 1994, environmental clearance
from the Central Government was an administrative decision and lacked
legislative support.
 On 27 January 1994, the then Union Ministry of Environment and Forests,
under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, promulgated an EIA
notification making Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for expansion or
modernisation of any activity or for setting up new projects listed in Schedule 1
of the notification.
 Since then there have been 12 amendments made in the EIA notification of
1994. 
 The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
notified new EIA legislation in September 2006.

o The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as

mining, thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway,
ports, harbours and airports) and industries including very small
electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance.
o However, unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation
has put the onus of clearing projects on the state
government depending on the size/capacity of the project.
o Certain activities permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone Act,
1991 also require similar clearance. Additionally, donor agencies operating
in India like the World Bank and the ADB have a different set of
requirements for giving environmental clearance to projects that are
funded by them.
The EIA Process
EIA involves the steps mentioned below. However, the EIA process is cyclical with
interaction between the various steps.
Salient Features of 2006 Amendments to EIA Notification
 Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 has decentralized the
environmental clearance projects by categorizing the developmental projects in
two categories, i.e., Category A (national level appraisal) and Category B (state
 level appraisal).

o Category A projects are appraised at national level by Impact

Assessment Agency (IAA) and the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and
Category B projects are apprised at state level. The projects belonging to
Category A require approval from the Ministry of Environment and
Forests on behalf of the Central Government, on the advice of the
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), constituted by the Central
Government for this specific purpose
o State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and
State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) are constituted to provide
clearance to Category B process.
o The Central Government is empowered to constitute a common
SEAC for more than one state and Union Territories, with the prior
concurrence of the concerned state/UTs to save administrative costs.
o The EAC and SEACs are constituted for a term of three years
each and are supposed to meet once every year.

 After 2006 Amendment the EIA cycle comprises of four stages:

o Screening - Applicable for those classes of projects falling into

Category B, the stage of Screening involves proper and methodological
screening by the SEAC for determining whether a project requires
further detailed study into the environmental factors, depending on its
nature, location coupled with other aspects, before furnishing an EIA
Report necessary for obtaining a clearance. Based on whether such an
EIA Report is required for projects, they are further classified into two
categories- B1 and B2, where the former mandatorily requires an EIA
report, and the latter does not.
o Scoping - The EAC and SEACs with regard to projects falling under
categories A and B1 respectively, devise detailed Terms of Reference,
addressing the environmental concerns for the formation of a detailed
EIA Report; which are formulated after conducting site inspections and
taking into account the details furnished by the applicants and shall be
conveyed to the applicants within 60 days from the date of submitting
the application. These Terms of Reference are to be displayed on the
website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the
concerned SEAC.
 o Public hearing - The EAC and SEACs with regard to projects falling
under categories A and B1 respectively, devise detailed Terms of
Reference, addressing the environmental concerns for the formation of
a detailed EIA Report; which are formulated after conducting site
inspections and taking into account the details furnished by the
applicants and shall be conveyed to the applicants within 60 days from
the date of submitting the application. These Terms of Reference are to
be displayed on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) and the concerned SEAC.
o Appraisal - The EAC and SEACs with regard to projects falling
under categories A and B1 respectively, devise detailed Terms of
Reference, addressing the environmental concerns for the formation of
a detailed EIA Report; which are formulated after conducting site
inspections and taking into account the details furnished by the
applicants and shall be conveyed to the applicants within 60 days from
the date of submitting the application. These Terms of Reference are to
be displayed on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) and the concerned SEAC.
In case of projects not involving obtaining EAI reports, Scoping, and Public
Consultations, the appraisal is carried out on reports based on findings during
the site visits, and the same shall be placed before the competent authority
within 15 days for its perusal.

For projects seeking clearances for their expansion and modernization shall be
considered by the concerned appraisal committee for granting/ rejection of the
environmental clearance, in accordance with the same procedure mentioned
above, within 60 days from the date of application.

 Category A projects require mandatory environmental clearance and thus they

do not undergo the screening process.
 Category B projects undergoes screening process and they are classified into
two types.

o Category B1 projects (Mandatorily requires EIA).

o Category B2 projects (Do not require EIA).
 Thus, Category A and Category B projects are subjected to the whole EIA
procedure, whereas Category B2 projects are not. Offshore and onshore oil, gas,
and shale exploration, inland waterway projects, aerial ropeways in environmentally
 sensitive locations, small and medium mineral beneficiation units, specified
building construction, and area development projects, to name a few, are all
included in the B2 Category.

Developed countries EIA in developing EIA in India

countries
Well-framed EIA Lack of formal EIA Formal legislation for
legislation in place. For legislation in many EIA. It has been
instance, in Canada, developing countries. For enacted by making an
Canadian Environmental instance, EIA is not amendment in the
Assessment Act regulates mandatory in many Environment
EIA while EU countries African countries Protection Act 1986.
are guided by Directive
on EIA (1985).
In developed countries, Limited involvement of Limited involvement of
active involvement of all public and government public and government
participants including agencies in the initial agencies in the initial
competent authority, phases. This often phases.
government agencies and results in poor
affected people at early representation of the
stages of the EIA. This issues and impacts in the
makes the process more report, adversely
robust and gives a fair affecting the quality of
idea of issues, which need the report.
to be addressed in the
initial phase of EIA.
Integrated approach to Mainly environmental No provision in place
EIA followed. All aspects aspects considered. Poor to cover landscape
including social and on social or health and visual impacts in
health taken into account. aspects. the Indian EIA
regulations
Proper consideration of The consideration of Same as developing
alternatives in EIA alternatives in countries
developing countries is
more or less absent.
The process of screening In developing countries, Screening done on the
is well defined. For screening practice in EIA basis of a defined list.
instance, in EU countries is weak. In most cases, Threshold values on
competent authorities there is a list of activities the size of the project
decide whether EIA is that require EIA but has been used to
required after seeking without any threshold decide whether the
advice from developer, values. project will be cleared
NGO and statutory by the state
consultees. In Japan, government or the
screening decision is central government.
made by the authorizing
agency with respect to
certain criteria. In
Canada, federal authority
determines whether an
environmental
assessment is required or
not.
Scoping process is Scoping process in most Earlier scoping was
comprehensive and developing countries is done by consultant or
involves consultation with very poorly defined. In proponent with an
all the stakeholders. In many countries including inclination towards
many countries like US, China, Pakistan, etc. meeting pollution
Netherlands, Canada and there is no provision for control requirements,
Europe, the involvement scoping. In some rather than addressing
of the public and their countries like in Nigeria the full range of
concern are addressed in and Indonesia, a term of potential
the scoping exercise. reference is followed for environmental impacts
Besides this, funding scoping while in some from a proposed
organisations such as countries like Ghana, development.
World Bank, ADB and Taiwan and Chile, a However, the new
ERDB have provision for general checklist is notification has put
consultation with the followed. In countries the onus of scoping on
affected people and NGOs where it is undertaken, the expert committee
during identification of there is no public based on the
issues in scoping consultation during information provided
exercise. scoping. Moreover, in by the proponent.
most developing Consultation with
countries, scoping is public is optional and
often directed towards depends on the
meeting pollution control discretion of the
requirements, rather expert committee.
than addressing the full  
range of potential
environmental impacts
from a proposed
development.
Most reports in local Most reports in English Most reports in English
language and not in the local and not in the local
language. language. In some
case, executive
summary is translated
into local language.
A multi-disciplinary Lack of trained EIA Same in India.
approach. Involvement of professionals often leads Preparation of EIA is
expert with expertise in to the preparation of done by consultants.
different areas. inadequate and Therefore, the
 irrelevant EIA reports in selection criterion for
developing countries the organisation is
fees/cost rather than
the expertise of EIA
team. 
Two tier of EIA review, Poor review or In India too, EIA
One conducted after the monitoring. review is not upto the
completion of EIA to marks. The review
check the adequacy and agency called Impact
effectiveness of EIA and Assessment Agency
the second done before (IAA) lacks inter-
decision-making. disciplinary capacity.
No representation of
NGO in IAA, which is a
violation of the EIA
notification.
Expertise in EIA: The The expertise in EIA is Expertise in this area
International Association slowly developing. In is developing.
for Impact Assessment most cases, students
(AIA) and other from the developing
organisations countries go to the
demonstrate that there developed countries to
are a large number of gain knowledge of the
individuals with the subject.
capability to design,
conduct, review and
evaluate EIAs from
countries of the North.
The major portion of
teaching about
environmental
assessment also takes
place in industrial
countries.
Source: Compiled by Industry & Environment Unit, Centre for Science
& Environment, 2006
EIA amendment, 2020
The draft of EIA 2020 (Amendment) was put up for public discussion and
consideration by the government last year. The government proposed certain
changes to the 2006 Notification in order to make the entire process transparent
and applicant friendly, which were described to be ‘diluting’ the existing
environmental regulations and shrink the scope of EIA, by environmentalists in and
around the country.

The new draft provides for the definition of many terms related to EIA, reducing
ambiguity in the existing law to a certain extent. 

The new rules provide for an ‘ex post facto clearance’ route under which certain
projects can go ahead with the construction without obtaining the necessary
clearance, subject to the payment of fines in cases of violations, subsequently.
Such clearances in past have been termed to be illegal by the courts in various
decisions, most recently in April 2020, in the case of Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v
Rohit Prajapati, the Apex Court while condemning and striking down an ex post
facto clearance, observed that it is in derogation of environmental jurisprudence
and an ‘anathema’ to the EIA Notification, 1994. Referring to the judgment of
Common Cause v Union of India, the court opined that such clearances could lead
to irreparable degradation of the environment. 

The period of time given to the public to file its concerns regarding the project has
been reduced to 20 days, as against the 20 days provided by the 2006 notification.
A new category of projects has been instituted under the head of ‘Projects Involving
Strategic Considerations,’ which have been kept outside the purview of public
consultations. Once a project is labeled to be strategic, no information regarding it
shall be made public as a matter of right. Any violations taking place can only be
reported suo moto by the appraisal/ regulatory authority, the government, or the
proponents themselves.

Monitoring requirements of environmental clearances have been relaxed by allowing

the submission of annual compliance reports instead of the previously mandated
half-yearly ones, increasing the risk of any hazardous implication- health-wise,
environmentally or socially, going unnoticed.

Shortcomings of EIA Process

 Applicability: There are several projects with significant environmental
impacts that are exempted from the notification either because they are not
 listed in schedule I, or their investments are less than what is provided for in
the notification.
 Composition of expert committees and standards: It has been found
that the team formed for conducting EIA studies is lacking the expertise in
various fields such as environmentalists, wildlife experts, Anthropologists and
Social Scientists.
 Public hearing:
o Public comments are not considered at an early stage, which often
leads to conflict at a later stage of project clearance.
o A number of projects with significant environmental and social
impacts have been excluded from the mandatory public hearing process.
o The data collectors do not pay respect to the indigenous knowledge
of local people.
 Quality of EIA: One of the biggest concerns with the environmental
clearance process is related to the quality of EIA report that are being carried
out.
 Lack of Credibility: There are so many cases of fraudulent EIA
studies where erroneous data has been used, same facts used for two totally
different places etc.
 Often, and more so for strategic industries such as nuclear energy projects,
the EMPs are kept confidential for political and administrative reasons.
o Details regarding the effectiveness and implementation of mitigation
measures are often not provided.
o Emergency preparedness plans are not discussed in sufficient
details and the information not disseminated to the communities.

Way Forward
 Independent EIA Authority.
o Sector wide EIAs needed.
o Creation of a centralized baseline data bank.
 Dissemination of all information related to projects from notification to
clearance to local communities and the general public.
 Applicability: All those projects where there is likely to be a significant
alteration of ecosystems need to go through the process of environmental
clearance, without exception.
 No industrial developmental activity should be permitted in ecologically
sensitive areas.
 Public hearing: Public hearings should be applicable to all hitherto exempt
categories of projects which have environmental impacts.
 The focus of EIA needs to shift from utilization and exploitation of natural
resources to conservation of natural resources.
 It is critical that the preparation of an EIA is completely independent of the
project proponent.
 Grant of clearance: The notification needs to make it clear that the
provision for site clearance does not imply any commitment on the part of the
impact Assessment agency to grant full environmental clearance.
 Composition of expert committees: The present executive committees
should be replaced by expert people from various stakeholder groups, who are
reputed in environmental and other relevant fields.
 Monitoring, compliance and institutional arrangements:
o The EIA notification needs to build within it an automatic
withdrawal of clearance if the conditions of clearance are being
violated and introduce more stringent punishment for
noncompliance. At present the EIA notification limits itself to the stage
when environmental clearance is granted.
o The composition of the NGT needs to be changed to include more
judicial persons from the field of environment.
o Citizen should be able to access the authority for redressal of all
violation of the EIA notification as well as issues relating to non-
compliance.
 Capacity building: NGOs, civil society groups and local communities need
to build their capacities to use the EIA notification towards better decision
making on projects.

Conclusion
The deadly gas leak at the LG Polymer Plant in Vizag, which claimed the lives of at
least twelve people and injured hundreds, was discovered to have been operating
without environmental clearances for years; the already deteriorating and
ecologically sensitive region of the Western Ghats has been bombarded with
proposed projects that would result in a significant loss of green cover, jeopardising
the region's sustenance of the River Cauvery- are just a few examples.

As environmental legislation around the world, including in India, aims to promote

and uphold a balance between development and environmental preservation,
because it is becoming increasingly important to recognise the importance of
environmental impact assessment in achieving the goal of sustainable development.