You are on page 1of 29

Presented By

Tanmay Kumar MIshra

 Introduction
 Legal Provision for Public Participation
 Administrative Arrangement of EIA
 The EIA Procedure
 Loopholes & Deficiency
 Role of different actors in EIA
 Projects subjected to EIA
 EIA in India
 Conclusion
 References
It’s a tool that seeks to ensure sustainable
development through the evaluation of those
impacts arising from a major activity (policy, plan,
program, or project) that are likely to have
significant environmental effects.

It is anticipatory, participatory, and systematic in

nature and relies on multidisciplinary input
(Glasson et al. 1994).
EIA was made mandatory in 1994 under the
environmental protection Act of 1986 with the
following four objectives:
 Predict environmental impact of projects;
 Find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts;
 Shape the projects to suit local environment;
 Present the predictions and options to the
 Description of the proposed activities;
 Description of the base environmental and climatic conditions
 Analysis of the
 land use and land use change,
 waste generation
 water consumption
 power consumption along with the
 Social and health impacts
 An assessment of air pollution and noise generation.
 A risk assessment report and disaster management plan to mitigate
adverse environmental impacts of proposed activity;
 An indication of the likely area to be affected by the proposed activity or
its alternatives;
 A detailed environmental feasibility report of all the information provided.
 A major amendment to EIA Notification was made
in April 1997 for introduction of Public Hearing as
a part of assessment procedure for ensuring
participation of local people and stakeholders in
various proposed development activities.

 Recent Amendment in the Public hearing

notifications is that hearings are now mandatory
for all projects to which the EIA notification
The Impact Assessment
Agency has the overall
responsibility to administer,
and enforce the provisions
related to EIA. The IAA
would be the Union
Ministry of Environment
and Forests. To deal with
projects of different
sectors, three impact
assessment divisions were
The ministry has also
set up six regional
offices for Post Project
Monitoring of
Environment to
monitor and interact
with authorities of
different regions.
Project  IAA Environment  Reviewer Public Admini
    proponent Consultant strativ
e Body

Screening Decides the Guides the Determines if

type of project proponent in the the initial
and also about initial screening project
requirement of stage. description
Environmental submitted is
Clearance adequate.
Scoping Provide TOR Guidance is Establish if an EIA
provided to study is required
the and if so, finalize
proponent, the scope of the
if needed study.

EIA  Prepares Examines if Has to go After the

Report detailed project procedures through the EIA completion
report and have been Report very of EIA
provide followed as carefully. report, the
information in per MoEF law requires
logical and notifications that the
transparent , assesses public must
manner the report. be informed
Baseline  Adhere to the Should be Responsible for
Conditions attributes, conversant with assessing the
recommended the existing legal compatibility of the
by the BIS, and procedural proposed development
CPCB, and MoEF. requirements for with prescribed
the project. standards.

Public  Approach the SPCB forward SPCB's hold the public

Hearing SPCB for holding the details of hearing as per the
the public Public hearing provisions of EIA
hearing. Obliged to IAA. Notification and forward
to respond to the details to IAA.
issues raised
during the
Decision  IAA assists Justify the Makes decision along
Making administrative findings in the with IAA
authority in the EIA during
decision meetings with
making process the expert group.
Monitoring  Should be done Plays a role in Should monitor the
clearance  in the the monitoring implementation of
conditions construction and process by conditions
operation phase. examining
reports and
taking further

Submission of application (Form 1, prelim reports)


Stage 1: Screening; Decide project A, B1 or B2

days Stage 2: Scoping; Come up with Terms of Reference (TOR)

Prepare preliminary EIA report


State Pollution Control

45 days Stage 3: Public consultation (2 components)
Update EIA report (Investor)

60 days Stage 4: Appraisal

Expert Committee
15 days
30 days Final Decision Regulatory Authority
 Stage 1 - Screening
 Based on info (form 1, 1A) supplied by investor
 Pre-feasibility report and conceptual plan - no
guidelines or requirements, thereby no need to
address environmental issues

 Stage 2 - Scoping
 No public participation in scoping process - local knowledge
about what environmental concerns should be investigated is
not given consideration
 Strict timeline – not a continuous process
 Biased in securing favorable Terms of Reference for
 Access to TOR limited
• Stage 3 – Public consultation
 Unclear wording and definitions
 Can be avoided if regulatory agency feels it difficult to conduct it
owing to local situation
 Local affected persons having plausible stake in impact of project
 Public consultation shall ordinarily have two components
 Other concerned persons having plausible stake shall submit
responses only in writing
 Hearing shall be conducted at the site or in its close proximity

 No quorum required for holding public consultation

 Huge list of exemptions for certain types of projects that cause deep
environmental impact without justification
 Weak wording that widens the scope of these exemptions

 Tight timeline: 45 days from the time requested by the investor

 Limiting access to information
Only summary EIA report made available, not the full EIA with
all TOR from the scoping process
Confidential information need not be disclosed in summary EIA

 Publicity
Use of internet as the main means
No definition on how publicity should be carried out

 Erosion of constitution of panel conducting public hearing

EIA 2006 mentions only District Magistrate and a representative
EIA 1994 had District Collector, representatives of state dealing
with the project, reps from Panchayats, senior citizens from the
area, reps of SPCB
 No public participation

 Arguments between regulatory authority and expert

committee made known only to investor and not to public

 Iron hand given to regulatory authority to make final decision

– Expert committee opinion can be disregarded

 Deemed Clearance: Incase decision is not given within the

prescribed timelines, applicant may proceed as though
clearance has been granted or denied
 Project Proponent:
 Environment Consultant
 State Pollution Control
Board/Pollution Control Committee
 Public Law
 Impact Assessment Agency
 Projects where EIA is mandatory and requires clearance
from Central government.
 As of now, EIA clearance is required for 30 categories of
industries from the central government which can be
broadly categorized under sectors of-
 Industries,
 Mining,
 Thermal power plants,
 River valley, ports, harbors and airports,
 Communication,
 Atomic energy,
 Transport (rail, road, highway),
 Tourism (including hotels, beach resorts)
 Projects where EIA is mandatory and requires clearance
from State Governments.
 Projects coming under this category are thermal power
plants namely;
 All capacity cogeneration plants,
 Captive coal and gas/naphtha based power plants up to
250 MW,
 Coal based power plants up to 250 MW using
conventional technologies,
 Coal based plants up to 500 MW using fluidized bed
 Gas/naphtha based plants up to 500 MW require
environmental clearance from the state government.
 For these projects EIA is not necessary:
 Some of the projects that come under this category include-
 defense related road construction projects in border areas,
 production of bulk drugs based on genetically engineered
 Construction activities related to the projects of Department of
Atomic Energy
 Laying of pipelines, conveying systems including transmission
 Exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas is also
permitted between Low Tide Line and High Tide Line in
areas, which are not ecologically sensitive,
 Pipeline projects;
 Facilities for receipt and storage of Liquefied Natural Gas and
facilities for its re-gasification.
 Religious and historic places
 Archaeological monuments/sites
 Scenic areas
 Hill resorts/mountains/ hills
 Beach resorts
 Health resorts
 Coastal areas rich in corals, mangroves, breeding grounds of specific species
 Estuaries rich in mangroves, breeding ground of specific species
 Gulf areas
 Biosphere reserves
 National park and wildlife sanctuaries
 Natural lakes, swamps, Seismic zones tribal Settlements
 Areas of scientific and geological interests
 Defense installations, specially those of security importance and sensitive to pollution
 Border areas (international)
 Tiger reserves/elephant reserve/turtle nestling grounds
 Habitat for migratory birds
 Lakes, reservoirs, dams
 Streams/rivers/estuary/seas
 Railway lines
 Urban agglomeration
 In this presentation we had discussed about-
1. Introduction and matters covered in EIA
2. Administrative arrangement and Expert Committees
3. EIA Procedure
4. Role of different actors in EIA
5. Projects subjected to EIA (Category I, II and III)
 Some improvement is needed in this controversial issue in India
because of little participatory democracy in the formulation and
implementation of environmental legislation.
 Another major improvement required is in the area of PAP involvement.
 The literature reveals that the EIA Notification contains many of the key
elements found in most processes throughout the world including
1. Screening,
2. Scoping, 5. Review,
3. Comprehensive study, 6. Decision and
4. Progress reports, 7. Follow-up.
• Environment Impact Notification 2006; Gazette of India, 14th
September, 2006
• Green Tapism; Environment Support Group; 2007
• Kohli, Kanchi and Menon, Manju (2002) 'Environmental Impacts-
Biased Assessments', The Survey of the Environment, The
• Mazumdar, Madhusree (2000) 'Environmental Impact
Assessment in India', Journal of Social and Economic
Development, Vol III, No 1, Jan-June