EIA practice in India and its evaluation usingSWOT analysis

Ritu Paliwal ⁎

Centre for Regulatory and Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies, Habitat Centre,Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003, India

Received 1 July 2005; received in revised form 1 December 2005; accepted 1 January 2006Available online 6 March 2006

Abstract

In India Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been formally introduced in 1994. It relied on theinstitutional framework that has a strong supporting legislative, administrative and procedural set-up. Bothcentral and state authorities together are sharing the responsibility of its development and management. AStrength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis taken up in this article has suggested thatthere are several issues that need to be readdressed. It highlights several constraints, ranging from improperscreening and scoping guidelines to ineffective monitoring and post project evaluation. The opportunitiesare realised as increasing public awareness, initiatives of environmental groups and business communityand forward thinking to integrate environmental consideration into plans and policies. Poor governance,rapid economic reforms, and favours to small-scale units are some of the foreseen threats to the system.This article concludes with some suggestions to improve EIA process in India.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; India; SWOT analysis

1. Introduction

The concept of environmental protection and resource management has traditionally beengiven due emphasis and woven in all facets of life in India. These age-old practices teach peopleto live in perfect harmony with nature. Nevertheless, changing life styles, increasing pace ofurbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development have caused environmentalpollution and degradation (Chopra et al., 1993). The losses manifest as pollution in air, waterand land leading to biodiversity losses and potential health hazards.

Consequently, rules, laws and policies on environmental protection were introduced. One sucheffort, i.e., the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), particularly aims to optimise a trade-offbetween developmental activities and socio-ecological losses. It is a management tool to be linkedclosely to the project life cycle to ensure that appropriate environmental information is provided atthe correct time (Wood, 1995). The overall objective of the EIA is to design developmentalprojects and activities taking into consideration the environmental perspective.

In India, the first EIA was ordered, during early 1980s, on the Silent river valley hydroelectricproject, which was a controversial project (Valappil et al., 1994;MoEF, 2003a). This project, proposedby the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to build a 130 m high dam across the Kuntipuzha riverand a reservoir,1 was considered a big threat to the biodiversity and forest ecosystem of the Silentvalley. Later in 1985, the project was abandoned and Silent Valleywas declared as a national park. Thiscasemarked a new beginning in India and since then, EIAwas extended to other activities. Projects likemining, industries, hydroelectric plants, thermal power plants, atomic power plants, ports and harbours,rail, roads, highways, bridges, airports and communication project, required EIA if:

• Project needed the approval of public investment board/planning commission/central watercommission/central electricity authority, etc.

• Project was referred to Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) by other ministries.• Project was to be located in environmentally fragile or sensitive areas.• Project was under dispute.

However, EIA was introduced in 1994, when MoEF passed an EIA notification under Envi-ronmental Protection Act (EPA), 1986, which made EIA mandatory for 29 highly pollutingactivities and later on three more activities were added to this list (Appendix A) (MoEF, 1994;MoEF, 2004). Over the years, the system has undergone several amendments to improve theenvironmental clearance (EC) process and to make it an integral component of decision-making.

This paper will add knowledge about the EIA process in India. It describes the currentstatutory, administrative and procedural arrangements for EIA in India. To highlight the systemsconstraints, future potentials and challenges a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat)analysis has been taken up in this work. The SWOT is based on authors' own experiences duringfield visits, professional's views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers) revealedduring informal talks, and semi structured interviews and available literature on the subject. TheSWOT suggests that there is a huge possibility to improve the system but the strong legalframework is a positive and supportive feature. Opportunities and threats discussed are relevant inthe present context and should be given due consideration while thinking on making EIA moreaccessible. At present there are many efforts going to improve the environmental appraisalprocess and compliance by MoEF. This paper concludes with some contemplation on thepotential steps considered necessary to improve the effectiveness of the EIA process. Thesesuggestions are not only felt significant for Indian system but may also prove helpful for otherdeveloping countries those are undergoing similar developments.

2. Institutional arrangements

The EIA process is now well established and EC is provided to over 1500 developmentprojects (Table 1). It rests on three pillars of statutory, administrative and procedural frameworks.

1 http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/ic/wssd/doc3/chapter18/css/Chapter18.htm.

Table 1Status of EIAs cleared in different sectors since 1994

River valley projects Industrial projects Thermal power projects Mining projects a Other sectors b Total

1994 8 20 15 13+24 24 1041995 13 55 13 19+51 29 1801996 6 54 26 39+15 30 1701997 4 98 39 7+17 21 1861998 9 34 17 9 11 801999 5 45 17 25 12 1042000 5 52 15 17 36 1252001 12 63 14 9 23 1212002 12 83 7 31 25 1582003 16 220 5 19 55 315Total 1543

Source: MoEF, Annual reports (1994–2004).a Environmental clearance+site clearance.b Include transport, ports, harbours, airports, highways and communication projects.

2.1. Statutory framework

Environmental management issues came to focus in India, when National Committee onEnvironmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was constituted in 1972, followingStockholm conference, under Department of Science and Technology.2 The Planning Commissiondirected the NCEPC to undertake EIA of the major development projects to weigh the pros andcons of these activities on the environment. Later on, the Department of Environment (DoE) wasestablished as per the recommendation of the NCEPC, in 1980, which was finally converted to afull-fledged Ministry of Environment and Forest 5 years later (Rao, 1997).

MoEF enacted EPA, 1986, is an umbrella act covering various environmental aspects. UnderEPA, 1986, an EIA notification was brought out, making EIA mandatory for a particular group ofactivities. This notification not only specifies the type of activities requiring EIA but also fixes atime schedule for the whole process. It also defines the role of the MoEF in the whole process.One of the major amendments made was to introduce public hearing procedure in 1997. Itoutlines the process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State PollutionControl Board (SPCB) to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearingpanel and time period for the completion of public hearing process.

The EC process is also subjected to the stipulated standards in the Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; NoisePollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, to provide prescribed limit of the pollutants whicha particular activity may release to the environment. The Hazardous Wastes (Management andHandling) Rules, 1989 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, are the other major acts that havebearings on EC practice.

In addition, state governments may have stringent regulations based on their local conditions,but these should be consistent with national laws, regulations and standards.

2 The NCEPC were to deal with complex environmental degradation issues and review of environmental implicationsof developmental activities was a part of its responsibilities (Valappil et al., 1994).

2.2. Administrative framework

The existing EC process is a two-tier system involving both central and state authorities (Fig. 1).At central level, Impact Assessment division (IA) under MoEF, regional offices of MoEF andCentral Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are three important institutions, whereas SPCBs and stateDepartments of Environment (DoE) are working at the province level.

2.2.1. Role of IAIA, in consent with relevant state and central authorities, is responsible for setting guidelines

for the preparation of the EIA reports, questionnaires and checklists for major sectors (MoEF,2003b). It prepares and issues various notifications and amendments pertaining environmentallaws. IA has constituted six multi-disciplinary expert committees known as EnvironmentalAppraisal Committee (EAC), as specified in the EIA Notification (Appendix B), to carryoutreview for the mining, industries, thermal power plant, river valley and hydro-electricity project,nuclear power plant, infrastructure and miscellaneous activities.

The appraisal process of EC, involving review of the EIA report and various documentssubmitted by the project proponent, is the leading responsibility of IA. IA may also seekclarification from the proponent and conduct site visits if it feels necessary during the reviewprocedure. Based on the documents submitted and clarification presented IA either grants orrejects the environment clearance of the developmental project. This division also carries outfollow-ups of the litigation in the various courts regarding EC decisions, notifications andamendments issued.

2.2.2. Role of CPCBThe CPCB is an autonomous organization under administrative control of MoEF. Initially it

was known as Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution of Water, which came intobeing as a statutory organization in 1974, with the enactment of Water (Prevention and Control ofPollution) Act, 1974. Later in 1981, board was renamed and assigned the powers and functionsspecified under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 too. CPCB primarily haspowers explicit to Water and Air act, but now it in an umbrella organization with legal strength of

Direct linkage Indirect linkage

Impact Assessment Division Central PollutionControl Board

Zonal Offices

Ministry of Environment & Forest

State Government

Department of Environment

State Pollution Control Board

Regional Offices Regional Offices

Fig. 1. Organogram of the institutions involved in the EIA process.

several acts that came afterwards. CPCB has no direct role in environmental clearance process,though it acts as a research organization, which by collecting, analysing and disseminatinginformation pertaining to pollution prevention and abatement, benefits the MoEF, SPCBs andseveral other stakeholders of environmental clearance process. It is a common practice thattechnical staff and experts of CPCB are designated in the expert committee constituted by IA.Member secretary of CPCB or his representative in particular is appointed in all the sector specificcommittees (MoEF, 2003a).

2.2.3. Role of state DoE and SPCBEnvironmental matters of any state ranging from the execution to formulation of guidelines

have been entrusted to the state DoE. A cabinet minister heads these departments. To carry out itsfunctions many State Governments have set up framework to accomplish EC at state levels,within state DoE. The SPCBs work under DoE having different structures for project appraisals(MoEF, 2003a). Andhra Pradesh has Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) under SPCB,which appraises the report submitted by project proponent before issuing No ObjectionCertificate (NOC). The states of Maharastra, Gujarat, West Bengal and Karnataka have createdEAC under DoE, which issues NOC. For the rest, member secretary or chairman of the pollutioncontrol board issues NOC.

Earlier these departments had no role in EC process but the amendment in EIA notification(MoEF, 1997) defined the role of state departments for EC of co-generation plants of anycapacity, certain captive plants and small utility projects. Sometimes SPCBs instruct projectproponents to submit rapid EIA on one season data, considering the size and type of industry.SPCBs issue NOC to establish for the project requiring EC from either state or centralgovernment if the water and air pollution loads are acceptable for the area in which project is tobe located.

The IA has conferred the responsibility of public hearings to SPCBs. The minutes of themeeting and major findings are to be furnished to IAwithin 30 days. SPCBs are also involved inthe national EC, in case of non-compliance of industries. The Ministry may direct SPCBs to lookinto the matter and take up desired measures.

2.2.4. Role of MoEF Regional Offices (ROs)The MOEF has set up six regional offices with a head quarter (HQ) unit at New Delhi.3

These centres have been set up especially for monitoring and implementation of stipulationsunder Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and provisions for environmental clearance, whereasoffice at Delhi coordinates with all regional offices. Post Project Monitoring (PPM) of thecleared projects in particular is the major responsibility of these offices. Project authorities arerequired to submit monitoring reports to these ROs every 6 months, detailing progress ofimplementation of the conditions, detailed while granting EC to the projects. These offices aredirected to follow up pollution control measures adopted by industries and in this concern;they are allowed to take up site visits. If any violation of environmental standards is noticed,ROs inform HQ to take necessary actions.

3 Regional offices and area of work: Banglore—Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa; Bhopal—Madhya Pradesh,Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Dadar and Nager Haveli, Daman and Diu; Bubaneshwar—Orrisa, Andaman andNicobar Islands, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal; Lucknow—Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan; Shilong—Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. (Regional Office (Upper Eastor Eastern Plateau) Yet to be made functional at Ranchi).

2.3. Procedural framework

The whole process of environmental clearance involves many ministries and departments(Fig. 2). The process starts when project proponent applies for NOC to respective SPCBs or otherlocal authorities (i.e., Delhi Pollution Control Committee in Delhi). Site clearance is required forsome of the activities i.e., mining, prospecting and exploration of major minerals, pithead thermalpower plants, multipurpose river valley projects and major ports and harbours. Consents fromairport authority and state forest departments are also considered necessary if any airport isnearby and project involving any forestland respectively. Once the project proponent receives allthe approvals, he submits an application to MoEF for environmental clearance.

No

Proponent initiates the process.

Site clearance from

MoEF (if required)Application to SPCB for NOC

(under Air and Water Act)NOC from State Forest Department /

Airport Authority (if required)

NOC granted?

Change site

Yes

No

Change site

Clearance

granted?

No

Yes

Change site

NOC granted?

Yes

No

Proponent submit an application to MoEF along with NOCs, EIA, EMP, risk analysis

for environmental clearances

Impact Assessment Division reviews the application

MoEF orders SPCBs to conduct public hearing

SPCB conducts public hearing

SPCB compiles comments

Is projectaccepted?

Environmental Clearance granted Monitoring

Yes

Fig. 2. Environmental clearance process in India.

2.3.1. EIA processEIA process in India involves three basic steps—(a) preparation of the EIA report, involving scoping

to documentation, (b) review and decision-making and (c) post project monitoring (Joseph, 1998).

2.3.1.1. Screening. Screening determines whether EIA is required or not. In India, 32 activitieslisted in schedule I (Appendix A), any project in ecologically fragile areas4 and any project fallingunder coastal zone regulation, requires an EIA (MoEF, 1989a,b, 1991a,b, 1992, 2001a, 2004).The investment clause has also been formulated to streamline screening process. It specifies thatnew projects with investment more than 100 crores and modernisation projects involvinginvestment more than 50 crores require EIA. This clause is not applicable to industries involvinghazardous chemical processes (see Appendix A).

2.3.1.2. Scoping. Scoping identifies the concerns and issues to be addressed for a particular project.MoEF has set guidelines and review checklists for relevant issues for different project types (MoEF,2001b) and provides general questionnaires for all the sectors. Study of alternatives and publichearings are undertaken at this stage only. Alternate scenario must account for no project conditionalong with project scenario employing best-suited technology or processes (MoEF, 2001b).

2.3.1.3. Baseline analysis. A comparison of project-induced environmental changes with theexpected environmental changes without proposed project is assessed through baselineanalysis. The quality of the baseline analysis establishes the viability of the appraisal of theimpacts, and therefore of the EIA itself. In India, data is collected on both project engineering andenvironmental aspects. Project engineering deals with process technology, raw material, waterand energy requirements, whereas data on air emissions, wastewater, noise, solid waste andhazardous/toxic waste is required for the environmental study. Project proponent conductsmonitoring for various required environmental quality parameters or data available with the localmonitoring stations of SPCBs and CBCP may also be used. MoEF provides the detailedguidelines on the procedures of monitoring and analysis of the baseline data.

2.3.1.4. Impact prediction. Once collecting the relevant environmental information, con-sequences of the project are outlined. The prediction analysis should forecast the nature andsignificance of the expected impacts, or explain why no significant impacts are anticipated. Severalmathematical models are listed in the manual of MoEF for environmental and socio-ecologicalimpacts predictions. Suggestions have also been made on the kind of conditions where they couldbe used. Socio-economic and ecological impacts are essential to be covered in this analysis.

2.3.1.5. Impact mitigation measures. In an EIA, mitigation measures are proposed to avoidor reduce environmental and social impacts. Environmental Management Plan (EMP), riskassessment report and disaster management plan (if hazardous substances are involved in theproject), rehabilitation plan (if displacement of people is anticipated) are prepared to suggestremedial measures. EMP in particular should entail following aspects (MoEF, 2001b).

• Pollution prevention• Waste minimization

4 Doon Valley (Uttar Pradesh); Murud Janjira, Dahanu Taluka and Mahabaleshwar Panchgani (Maharastra); Aravalliranges in Gurgaon (Haryana) and Alwar (Rajasthan).

• End-of-pipe treatment• Mitigation measures• Protection of the sensitive receptors

In addition to this EMP must be supplied with the work plan, time schedule, place and cost ofimplementing the mentioned measures.

2.3.1.6. Documentation. At the end of all the above-mentioned steps, a concise butcomprehensive report is prepared. It summarises the description of the project, regional settings,baseline conditions, impact prediction and important findings of the study. Project proponents hireconsultants to carry out the EIA and preparation of report for them.

2.3.1.7. Public hearing. The Indian system provides an opportunity to involve affected peopleand vulnerable groups to develop terms of references for EIA thus incorporating their concernsinto decision-making process. The SPCB is required to publish notices for public hearing in twolocal newspapers and one of which should be in vernacular language of the concerned locality(MoEF, 1994). The date, time and place of the hearing should be mentioned in the notice. EIAnotification also makes provision for access to the executive summary of the project at the officesof district collector, district industry centre, commissioner of the municipal corporation/localbody, SPCB and state DoE (MoEF, 1994). The composition of the public hearing panel has alsobeen specified by the law, which may consist of members of local authorities and representativesof the public nominated by the district collector.

2.3.1.8. Review and decision-making. The review and decision-making starts as the proponentfiles an application accompanied by the documents i.e., EIA and EMP report, NOC, riskassessment and emergency preparedness plan, rehabilitation plan, details of public hearing,clearance from airport authority and state forest departments, etc., to IA. The IA reviews the reportwith reference to the guidelines provided by MoEF in its manual (MoEF, 2001b). The IA is free toconduct site visits if considers necessary. Based on the EIA review and other information, the IAeither grants or rejects the environment clearance to the project. The assessment has to becompleted within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the requisite documents from the projectauthorities and completion of public hearing. The decision has to be conveyed to the proponentwithin 30 days thereafter.

2.3.1.9. Post Project Monitoring (PPM). The PPM aims to ensure that an action had beenimplemented in accordance with the measures specified while providing the EC. Thus, it performsa dual task of identifying the actual environmental impacts of the project and checks if the EMP ishaving the desired mitigation measures. Post-implementation monitoring is the responsibility ofMoEF's six regional offices and SPCBs.

3. The SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis is a technique commonly used to assist in identifying strategic di-rection for an organization or practice. It is preferred for the present work as it yields usefulinformation about the future viability of the considered system. The predictive capabilitiesof the technique come about from the consideration of system's strengths and weaknessesin the context of the environment, which may present opportunities and threats. The

intention is to determine how the system will fare in the light of changes taking placearound it.

The strengths and weaknesses of a system are determined by internal elements, whereasexternal forces dictate opportunities and threats. Strengths can be defined as any availableresource that can be used to improve its performance. Weaknesses are flaws/shortcomings ofany system that may cause to lose a competitive advantage, efficiency or financial resources.Sometimes it is recommended to identify opportunities and threats first in order to more quicklybring to light the systems strengths or weaknesses. Many of the threats are based onweaknesses.

This section presents a SWOT analysis, to highlight the Indian EIA systems constraints,potentials and challenges. Based on authors' own experiences with the industries andinstitutions in Haldia, expert views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers)revealed during informal talks, semi structured interviews and literature review; this SWOTbrings out some of peculiar features of the practice in India. SWOT presents issues, whichshould be given due consideration while thinking on making EIA more accessible.

3.1. Strengths

Strength identifies resources and capabilities of the EIA system, which may aid to developthe system further. It shows that there are huge possibilities to improve the system but stronglegal framework is a positive and supportive feature. The strength of Indian system also lies inexistence of regulatory authorities to execute the law all over the country.

3.1.1. Well-defined legal structureIt is very much evident that the constitution of India is deeply committed to

environmental protection (Biswas, 1996). A well-defined legal framework exists tosafeguard quality of environment. The EPA (1986) in particular established EIA as alegal requirement for upcoming development activities. The EPA (1986) and various otherlaws, to which EIA process is linked and draws its meaning, explicitly state penalties andfines along with imprisonment in case of any infraction of the legal provisions. Strongjudicial construct and democracy in the country are strong points of the system. SeveralPublic Interest Litigations (PILs) have been raised on the pollution related hazards indifferent parts of the country. On realizing implications of pollution on the environmentand human health, the judiciary has also directed central and state authorities to takeinitiatives (CPCB, 2002a).

3.1.2. Presence of well-knitted regulatory structureThe constitution of India has assigned various bodies with the responsibilities of the defining

and implementing the stipulations mentioned in EIA decree, as discussed in Section 2.2. Bothcentral and state authorities are made responsible for its execution, which provide a well-knittedexecution system at every end.

3.2. Weaknesses

Present EIA practice in India is restricted to project level, which also has several weaknesses. Itis perceived merely as a bureaucratic requirement limited to selection of project or pollutioncontrol technology (Lohani et al., 1997; Rao, 1997).

3.2.1. Screening and scoping processes are not well definedThe screening process is based on list of 32 projects listed in schedule-I of EIA notification,

amount of investment and sensitive zones, as discussed in Section 2.3, not on level of impact,types and complexities of pollutants, size of project or raw material and technology used, etc., asconsidered in China (Chen et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2003). Screening guidelines in India do notspecify if rapid EIA could be conducted (TERI, 2002). Scoping on the other hand is left on projectproponents who most of the time are not interested in considering diverse impacts. For instance,in industrial estate of Haldia, most of the industrial projects never tried to estimate the impacts oftheir effluents on the ground water and nearby flowing river streams. All of them got rid of it bysaying that impact of their loadings would be negligible when compared with the quantum of flowin the river Hoogly. Analysis of alternatives is also a weak link in EIA. Most of the time it isrestricted to ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios (World Bank, 1999). Site clearancehappens much before environmental clearance process because of which comparative assessmentof sites is also not given due consideration.

3.2.2. Insufficient baseline dataGood quality data is a major concern while preparing any EIA report. Lack of sampling

networks and ill-defined sampling and analysis procedures also adds to the problem ofinconsistency (TERI, 2002). There is no central data bank; therefore, data gathered throughdifferent agencies is not available to public. Quality assurance and quality control onexisting data is also nil. One of the PCB officials remarked during a meeting with author thatthere is no dearth of data as almost all major industries are carrying out periodic monitoringto fulfil their administrative requirements but reliability of such data is very low (personalcommunication).

3.2.3. Inconsistent application of evaluation and predictive toolsLack of guidelines on the use of available modelling approaches put a doubt on their

application to the Indian conditions and on their level of accuracy in prediction. Most of themathematical models used are not developed for Indian conditions, so validation is necessaryeach time, thus, accuracy of modelling depends on knowledge and expertise of the analyst. Indianpractice still considers impacts of individual activity thereby ignoring cumulative impactassessment. It was observed that prediction techniques employed in most of the EIA reports forthe units in Haldia focus on primary impacts, rather than secondary and tertiary impacts. Socio-economic, cultural and ecological assessments were also not given much emphasis.

3.2.4. Improper monitoring and implementationEMP is mere a statutory requirement i.e., if development of green belt is one of the solutions,

EMP mostly lacks details on type of plant species to be planted, area required for plantation andtime to accomplish the target. Most of the EIAs do not mention cost of implementation,responsibility and period for EMP implementation. It was observed that regulatory authoritieshave their own limitations in regards to manpower, technical resources and ever-increasingworkloads, to carry out a purposeful monitoring (Lohani et al., 1997). Besides weak enforcementis another important factor (MoEF, 2003a; TERI, 2002). It has been observed that show causenotices were issued to the industries in Haldia, which, were found noncompliant repeatedly.However, strong actions against them were not taken. “We do guide them on these issues and takenecessary actions but cannot shut them, as it may have several repercussions”, said one of thePCB officials (personal communication).

3.2.5. Inadequate public participationPublic hearings are conducted to incorporate concerns of locals in decision-making. Unlike USA

and Netherlands, where public involvement is must at various stages of EIA i.e., screening, scoping,report preparation and decision-making (Wood, 1995; MHSPE, 2000), in India public hearing isconducted just before making decisions. Though it is understood that mechanism of publicparticipation prevailing in developed countries may not be feasible in India because of societal andeconomic reasons. But even one time public interaction is not very apt because of insufficientinformation on the role of people in the process as well as lack of awareness on environmental matters(Sinclair and Diduck, 2000). Above that, people feel betrayed, as points raised in public hearing arerarely involved in planning and decision-making (as observed in case of one of the units in Haldia).

3.2.6. Poor quality EIA reports and non-accountability of EIA professionalsProject proponents hire professionals to carryout EIA for their projects and thus the role of these

experts is very central. There is no process of certification of consultants to maintain quality of EIAreport. There are guidelines for preparing EIA report (MoEF, 2001b), but most of the reports tendto be a collection and compilation of data (TERI, 2002; Valappil et al., 1994, personal observation).Interpretation and analysis of the collected data is subjected to various inadequacies, which place aquestion mark on the accountability of EIA professionals. As discussed in earlier sections forHaldia, information on various aspects of water had been collected but never done any analysis torealise the impact of various sources on the water quality, biodiversity, etc. In one of the reportseven the calculation for maximum ground level concentration of air pollutants was suspected whenfound inconsistent. Assumptions and limitations of the analysis carried out by consultants werehardly discussed in any of the report.

3.2.7. Lack of coordination and poorly defined decision-making processLack of expertise and limited resources with executing authorities result in inferior decision-

making. In several cases at Haldia lack of coordination was felt among SPCB and concernedregional office. Though they are dealing with same set of industries both perform their duties inisolation. Lack of coordination between various governmental agencies, decision makers,planners and project proponents not only cause delay in decision-making but also pose hindrancein effective implementation of environmental regulations (MoEF, 2003a).

3.3. Opportunities

With more education and awareness, people are becoming environment conscious. Change inincome levels, demand for personal comfort and socially responsible behaviour of industrial unitswould open up opportunities to improve the implementation of laws and policies.

3.3.1. Increasing public awarenessIncreasing awareness and growing public pressure are demanding action to stop further

environmental degradation. The demand for better environment is forcing a policy shift. Inresponse to this stress, government has been setting emission standards for various pollutants,whereas industries in turn have focused on achieving emission goals. People are challenging thedecisions of government where industrial growth is favoured over environmental protection.Several public interest litigations had been filled on these issues. Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ),shifting of industries from Delhi and Kanpur tanneries cases are some of the examples wherepublic intervened and judiciary reckoned that industries were liable to the environmental

damages (CPCB, 2002a). Local people are now emerging as a new range of environmental‘stakeholders’.

3.3.2. Growing consciousness through Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs)For the past few decades, environmental groups are taking initiatives to develop activities in

raising public awareness and public involvement in decision-making process. They play a multi-dimensional role, which includes capacity building of a civil society with emphasis on the principlesof sustainable development and creating a forum to facilitate the implementation of regulationsinvolving localites. Their campaigns empower communities by furnishing information onenvironmental laws, policies and effects of environmental damages. These NGOs are catalysing aparticipatory movement involving women and youth, school and university students, towardsenvironmental protection. The aims of the environmental movement is to improve informationdisclosure and engaging various stakeholders in the process of managing environmental goods.

3.3.3. Self-regulation in industrial sectorThe concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is emerging fast, which emphasise

on the business practices based on ethical values and respect for employees, communities andthe environment. Corporate have started realizing that initiatives towards environmentalconservation would characterize an effective means of advertising their virtue in the eyes ofsociety. Consumers are now demanding for more environment friendly products, which clearlyindicate that companies have their interest in going green. Corporate have also agreed that“clean is cheaper”, on saving resources and throwing less waste to environment in strictbusiness sense means adding to their profits. As per an environmental manager of a leadbattery-manufacturing unit, export opportunities paved way to adopt better house keeping andenvironmental standards (personal communication). Opening up of markets for multinationalsin India is providing opportunities as global companies may facilitate the diffusion of cleanertechnologies conforming high global standards.

3.3.4. Integration of EIA with plans, policies and programsTo streamline EIAs of individual development projects, the Indian system should also look at

the problem from a higher platform and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) may be seenas possible solution to it. SEA is a tool, which aims to integrate environmental considerations intolaws, policies, plans and programmes (Clayton and Sadler, 1998). SEA addresses cumulativeeffects and alternatives that are not addressed at project level as well as refines the scope ofassessment at lower tiers (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Nooteboom (2004) advocated SEA as itenhances the transparency of the whole planning and assessment process. Despite severalinherent advantages, SEA can never replace projects level EIA but it strongly reduces the effortand resources (i.e., time and cost) involved in project EIAs (Thérivel and Partidário, 1996).

3.4. Threats

Several advantages and opportunities have been realized in EIA system, yet certain threats exist,which are mentioned below.

3.4.1. Poor governance and corruptionGood governance implies decision-making in accordance with law and undertaken in a

transparent, accountable and participatory manner (UNDP, 1997; Kakonge, 1998). This implies that

political commitment at all the levels is crucial for any reform and it holds true for environmentalreforms or EIA system. Excessive bureaucratic requirements, inefficient and complex administrativeprocedures may pose hurdles to these reforms. Public disclosure of information and accountability arelacking. All above mentioned factors and governance failure has potential to encourage corruption,which may results in misuse of scarce public resources (UNDP, 1997). Corrupt payoffs, i.e., bribes,may be made to override the legal norms. As on today, corruption has become a critical considerationin India. The ministry must show commitment to safeguard the EIA process so that the same shouldnot creep into the system dealing with environmental regulations.

3.4.2. Effect of economic reformsChina faced serious environmental consequences of the pro-economic growth policies adopted

by local governments where their performance was judged by financial benefits (Mao and Hills,2002). Similarly, in Indian context, state government of Gujarat was in question (IPTEHR, 1999).In a survey CPCB identified 1349 units generating hazardous waste in the five districts of Gujarat,i.e., Valsad, Surat, Bharuch, Vadodara and Ahmedabad (CPCB, 1996). Industrial unitsmanufacturing dyes and dye-intermediates account for 59.2% of the hazardous wastes generatedand are concentrated in the industrial estates of Odhav, Naroda and Vatva in Ahmedabad district,Nandesari in Vadodara, Ankleshwar in Bharuch and Vapi in Valsad district. CPCB also identifyVapi and Ankleshwar as critically polluted areas because of spurt of growth in chemical unitsgenerating huge quantum of toxic effluent and hazardous waste (CPCB, 1994, 1996). Gujaratstate had also given permissions to fertilizer plant in Baharuch, copper smelter and chlorine plantin Jhagadia, which were thrown out of Maharashtra state because of environmental considerations(CSE, 1996). Above-mentioned cases suggest that the concepts of heavy industrial growth foreconomic yields and environmental protection are conflicting in nature. The current era ofeconomic reforms and decentralization of power, emphasize more on economic growth and profitgeneration, which may create stress on environmental regulations.

3.4.3. Lax regulations for small-scale industries (SSI)Unplanned, uncontrolled and haphazard growth of small-scale industries has caused serious

problems of pollution. The SSI sector accounts for 45% of the industrial production and generates40% of the total wastewater among different classes of industries (CPCB, 2002b). The outflow ofwastewater, emissions or solid wastes per unit of production is very high in SSIs because of usageof outdated and inefficient technologies and lack of resources for enforcement andimplementation of pollution control programmes (CPCB, 2002b). Still these small-scaleindustries most of the times do not require EC from MoEF. Mere acknowledgement of theapplication form by the SPCB or State Pollution Control Committees serves the purpose ofconsent for these units and there is no need to obtain periodic renewal of consent until the timethey modify or change their process. These proliferating SSIs are posing environmental risks,which necessitate to considering these units under EIA regime; to formulate a carrying capacitybased approach for better environmental management of an area. A step has been taken in thisdirection as last amendment in EIA notification has been put forth to cover industrial estate wherepollution potential is high under purview of EIA notification (MoEF, 2004).

4. Potential directions of change/improvements

For the purposeful implementation of EIA regulation, the ministry is rethinking on itscommitment by updating policy guidelines, simplifying the procedural aspects and placing

measures to strengthen the role of regulatory agencies. This effort also requires better monitoringsupport and availability of environmental expertise. On understanding the weaknesses andchallenges in the Indian system, there are certain suggestions for improvements in the Indian EIApractice to facilitate greater rigour in analysis, appraisal, monitoring and enforcement to achievebroader objective of protecting the environment.5

4.1. Increase the accountability of the EIA experts

Certification of consultants is deemed necessary so that only licensed agencies shouldaccomplish EIA. Authorship should be specified in the EIA reports with the intention that projectdeveloper or consultants should feel responsible and each piece of information could be tracedback to its original source (Fearnside, 1994). IA professionals should not only explicitly mentionall assumptions and limitations of the analysis but also present their findings in comprehensiveand easy to understand format so that decision makers can judge both pros and cons of theupcoming activity.

4.2. Manage baseline data properly

One of uncertainties in the EIA prediction is due to lack of reliable and accurate data.Therefore, it is suggested to organize a common database exclusively where all relevant agenciesmay pool in the data and this data could be made available to the project proponents on request.This data may be charged and money collected from this source may be utilized in upgrading thedata bank.

4.3. Improve monitoring and implementation

The EMPs should clearly suggest mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures toeliminate, compensate, or reduce impacts to acceptable levels during construction as well asoperation phase of an activity. Implementation of EMP must ensure effectiveness of mitigationmeasures and also detect the need for any corrective action. Continuous monitoring andassessment of the system, public participation and simplified administrative procedures areobligatory to facilitate the adequate implementation. Good environmental monitoring practicesnot only establish a baseline data of the region but also increase understanding of cause–effectrelationship between an activity and environmental changes and checks accuracy of an EIAprediction, thereby increasing knowledge base for better EIA of the future projects.

4.4. Focus on SSIs

Concept of industrial estate should be promoted for SSIs. Grouping of these units in anindustrial estate should be done considering regional aspects such as carrying capacity, optimalutilization of natural resources, utilization of waste from one unit as resource to another andestablishment of common waste treatment plants (Singhal and Kapoor, 2002).

5 Policymaker may look at the problem differently, considering “improvement” in terms of enhancements in realizationof multiple objectives, e.g., reducing adverse environmental impacts, reducing costs of implementation of mitigationmeasures, reduction in transactions costs (and time), promoting economic and social development; while adhering tovarious constraints, including administrative capacities, availability of necessary disciplinary expertise, legal limits ontime allowed, etc., as suggested by one of the reviewers.

4.5. Integrate environmental concerns into plans and policies

There is a need to improve the role of local planning agencies in the EIA process. Toincorporate environmental concerns into plans and policies, Mc Donald and Brown (1995)have illustrated certain ways: (i) Local strategic plans—determining the form of futuredevelopments that can take place in an area taking cumulative impacts and carrying capacityin account; (ii) Zoning schemes—addressing specific landuse patterns, permitted andprohibited in the area, as set out in local plan; (iii) Sub-divisional plans—setting layouts offuture settlement pattern while conserving natural areas such as watercourse, riparian habitats,agricultural land, etc.

4.6. Capacity building of stakeholders

It is very essential to spot major stakeholders involved in EIA system. While preparing thetechnical and procedural guidance material needs of all the stakeholders should be considered toindicate the roles and duties of each of them. Effective public involvement in the process bringsforth wide range of social, cultural and emotional concerns, to establish terms of reference ofscoping, which may be deemed out side the scope of EIA. It would make decision sociallyacceptable. In addition, it is necessary to sensitise, inform and train stakes to make themunderstand the significance of EIA process. Capacity building of regulatory agencies in terms ofstaff, technical expertise and monitoring facilities is also recommended. Making interorganization coordination more smooth would facilitate information sharing process. It is alsorequired to develop disciplinary expertise to mainstream the cumulative impact assessment andSEA at plan and policy levels.

5. Conclusion

It has been recognised that India is well verse with apt legal provisions, which are veryessential for further strengthening of the EIA process. Moreover, EIA process possesses a basicstructure, including screening, scoping, comprehensive study, progress report, review, publicparticipation, decision and follow-up measures.

To address the critical issues political commitment and public participation is indispensable.Improved effectiveness will also depend on strength of government agency coordination,integrated decision-making adequate training to various stakeholders and supporting infrastruc-ture for purposeful monitoring and enforcement. It is required that EIA system be regularlyrevisited for progressive refinement that should not only remove existing constraints but also takecare of future challenges.

It is further recommended that project level EIA needs immediate attention but efforts shouldalso be targeted to include environmental conservation concerns at policy and planning level.Such initiatives would help in filling up the gaps in coordination between various governmentauthorities involved in planning and execution.

Acknowledgement

This research is part of an ongoing Ph.D. work at Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research,TERI—School of Advanced Studies (TERI SAS), New Delhi and is supported by UniversityGrants Commission (UGC), India under Junior/Senior Research Fellowship Program. I would

like to thank Dr. Leena Srivastava, Supervisor and Dean, Centre for Regulatory and PolicyResearch and Dr. Soan Ray, Co-supervisor and Lecturer, Department of Policy Research, TERISAS for their helpful comments and discussion during the preparation of this paper. I alsobenefited from working on the project ‘Preparation of an AEQM (Area-wide EnvironmentalQuality Management) Plan for Haldia Planning Area’ and would like to thank Dr. T.S. Panwar,Senior Fellow, Centre for Environmental Studies, Policy Analysis Division, The Energy andResources Institute (TERI), Delhi, for the opportunity. I also acknowledge the reviewers for theirvaluable inputs.

Appendix A. Schedule-I of EIA Notification

List of projects requiring environmental clearance

1. Nuclear power and related projects such as heavy water plants, nuclear fuel complex, rareearths.⁎

2. River valley projects including hydel power, major irrigation and their combinationincluding flood control (even if investment is less than 100 crores but command area ismore than 10,000 ha).⁎

3. Ports, harbours and airports (except minor ports and harbours).⁎

4. Petroleum refineries including crude and product pipelines.⁎

5. Chemical fertilizers (nitrogenous and phosphatic other than single super phosphate).⁎

6. Pesticides (technical) and intermediates.7. Petrochemical complexes (both Olefinic and Aromatic) and petro-chemical intermediates

such as DMT, Caprolactam, LAB, etc., and production of basic plastics such as LLDPE,HDPE, PP, PVC.

8. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals and intermediates.9. Exploration for oil and gas and their production, transportation and storage.⁎

10. Synthetic rubber.⁎

11. Asbestos and asbestos products.12. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives.13. (a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of Iron and Steel, Aluminium,

Copper, Zinc, Lead and Ferro Alloys), (b) Electric arc furnaces (Mini steel plants).⁎

14. Chlor alkali industry.15. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required

in the manufacture of paints.16. Viscose staple fibre and filament yarn.⁎

17. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of Lead and LeadAntimony alloys.⁎

18. All tourism projects between 200 m and 500 m of high water line and at locations with anelevation of more than 1000 m with investment of more than Rs. 5 crores.

19. Thermal power plants.⁎

20. Mining projects (major minerals) with leases more than 5 ha.21. Highway projects (except projects relating to improvement work including widening and

strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignmentsprovided it does not pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as national parks,sanctuaries, tiger reserves and reserve forests).⁎

22. Tarred roads in the Himalayas and or forest areas.

23. Distilleries.24. Raw skins and hides25. Pulp, paper and newsprint.⁎

26. Dyes and intermediates.27. Cement.⁎

28. Foundries (individual).29. Electroplating.30. Meta amino phenol (added in 2000).31. New townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel

complexes, hospitals, office complexes for 1000 persons and above or discharging sewageof 50,000 l/day and above or with an investment of Rs. 50 crores and above (added in2004).

32. New industrial estates having an area of 50 ha and above and the industrial estatesirrespective of area if their pollution potential is high (added in 2004).

⁎Activity falls under investment clause.

Appendix B. Schedule III of EIA Notification, 1994

Composition of the expert committees for EIA

1. The committee will consist of experts in the following fields:i. Eco-system managementii. Air/water pollution controliii. Water resource managementiv. Flora/fauna conservation and managementv. Land use planningvi. Social sciences/rehabilitationvii. Project appraisalviii. Ecologyix. Environmental healthx. Subject area specialistxi. Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues

2. The chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalistor technical professional with wide managerial experience in relevant development sector.

3. The representative of IA will act as a member secretary.4. Chairman and members will serve in their individual capacities except those specifically

nominated as representative.5. The membership of the committee shall not exceed 15.

References

Biswas D. Environmental legislation and enforcement mechanism. Tech Monitor 1996;13(1):16–20.Chen W, Warren KA, Duan N. Incorporating cleaner production analysis into environmental impact assessment in China.

Environ Impact Asses Rev 1999;19:457–76.Chopra K, Kadekodi GK, Mongia N. Environmental impact of projects: planning and policy issues. New Delhi, India:

Institute of Economic Growth; 1993.

Clayton BD, Sadler B. Strategic environmental assessment: a rapidly evolving approach. A directory of impact assessmentguidelines. Compiled by Donnelly, Clayton B D, Hughes R. 2nd ed. London: International Institute for Environmentand Development; 1998. p. 31–42.

CPCB. Inventory of large and medium water polluting industries. Vol. II (Gujarat). Probes/58/1993–94. New Delhi, India:Central Pollution Control Board; 1994.

CPCB. Inventories of Hazardous waste generation in five districts (Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat and Valsad) ofGujarat. Hazwams/6/1995–96. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 1996.

CPCB. Public interest litigation. Parivesh newsletter. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 2002a.CPCB. Pollution control in small-scale industries: status and needs. Probes/85/2001–02. New Delhi, India: Central

Pollution Control Board; 2002b.CSE. Country's waste: Gujarat's wealth. Down to Earth, vol. 5(5). New Delhi, India: Centre for Science and Environment;

1996. 19 pp.Fearnside PM. The Canadian feasibility study of the three gorges dam proposed for China's Yangzi River: a grave

embarrassment to the impact assessment profession. Impact Assess 1994;12:21–57.IPTEHR.Who bears the cost: industrialisation and toxic pollution in the ‘golden corridor’ of Gujarat. http://www.iptindia.org/pdf/

Who%20Bears%20the%20Cost.pdf. The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights. February 1999.Joseph K. Monograph on environmental impact assessment in India, Environmental Information System, Centre for

Environmental Studies. Chennai, India: Anna University; 1998.Kakonge KO. EIA and good governance: issues and lessons from Africa. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1998;18:289–305.Lohani B, Evans JW, Ludwig H, Evritt RR, Carpenter RA, Tu SL. Environmental impact assessment for developing

countries in Asia (Volume I: Overview). Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 1997.Mao W, Hills P. Impacts of the economic–political reform on environmental impact assessment implementation in China.

Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2002;20:101–11.Mc Donald GT, Brown L. Going beyond environmental impact assessment: environmental input to planning and design.

Environ Impact Asses Rev 1995;15:483–95.MHSPE. The texts of the regulations on environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. http://www.eel.nl/countries/

pdf/EIA%20Nl.pdf. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; 2000.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Doon Valley (Uttar Pradesh). S.O.102 (E). New Delhi,

India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1989a.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Murud Janjira (Maharastra). S.O.20 (E). New Delhi,

India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1989b.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Dhanu Taluka (Maharastra). S.O. 416 (E). New Delhi,

India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1991a.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—coastal zone regulations. S.O. 114 (E). New Delhi, India:

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1991b.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Aravalli ranges. S.O. 319 (E). New Delhi, India:

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1992.MoEF. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification. S.O.60 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and

Forest, Government of India; 1994.MoEF. Annual reports. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1994–2004.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding thermal power plant (delegation of power). S.O.319

(E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1997.MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Mahabaleshwar Panchgani (Maharastra). S.O. 52 (E).

New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 2001a.MoEF. Environmental impact assessment: a manual. http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/eia/cover.htm, Impact assessment

division. New Delhi, India: Ministry Of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 2001b.MoEF. Draft report on formulation of revised environmental clearance process—phased implementation: environment

management capacity building project—EIA component. http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/emcb/reportforec-cont.htm, prepared by ERM, Ministry of environment and Forest, New Delhi: India; 2003a.

MoEF. Brochure on items of work handled in various divisions and sections of ministry of environment and forest. http://www.envfor.nic.in, Impact assessment division. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest; 2003b.

MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding new towns and industrial estates. S.O. 801 (E). http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so801(e).doc, New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India;2004.

Nooteboom S. Environmental assessments of strategic decisions and project decisions, integrations and benefits. http://www2.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=4917. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; 2004.

Rao CVC. Environmental impact assessment state-of-art. Tech Monitor 1997;14(3):40–9.Sadler B, Verheem R. SEA: status, challenges and future directions. International study of effectiveness of environmental

assessment, EIA Commission of the Netherlands. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment; 1996.

Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: a case study of hydro development inKullu district, Himachal Pradesh, India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(1):63–75.

Singhal S, Kapoor A. Industrial estate planning and management in India—an integrated approach towards industrialecology. J Environ Manag 2002;66:19–29.

TERI. TA cluster for environmental management at the state level (component A: promotion and assessment ofenvironmentally sound projects), India (Volume I). TA No. 3423-IND. Submitted to Asian Development Bank;New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute; 2002.

Thérivel R, Partidário RM. The practice of strategic environmental assessment. London: Earthscan; 1996.UNDP. Corruption and good governance. Discussion paper 3, http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/efa/corruption3/corruption3.

htm, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, New York:United Nations Development Programme; July: 1997.

Valappil M, Devuyst D, Hens L. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment procedure in India. Impact Assess1994;12:75–88.

Wang Y, Morgan RK, Cashmore M. Environmental impact assessment of projects in the people's republic of China: newlaw, old problems. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2003;23:543–79.

Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Longman; 1995.World Bank. India—review of the effectiveness of EA in World Bank assisted projects (1990–97). http://www.emcentre.

com/, Environment Sector Management Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, DC: The World Bank; 1999.

Author is a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for Regulatory and Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies, NewDelhi under the supervision of Dr. Leena Srivastava, Dean, Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research, TERI School ofAdvanced Studies. Her area of research is ‘Adequacy of environmental impact assessment procedure in India andchallenges to effective implementation of environment management plan’. She had done her Masters in ‘EnvironmentManagement’ from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi.