EIA practice in India and its evaluation using

SWOT 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 2006
Available online 6 March 2006

Abstract

In India Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been formally introduced in 1994. It relied on the
institutional framework that has a strong supporting legislative, administrative and procedural set-up. Both
central and state authorities together are sharing the responsibility of its development and management. A
Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis taken up in this article has suggested that
there are several issues that need to be readdressed. It highlights several constraints, ranging from improper
screening and scoping guidelines to ineffective monitoring and post project evaluation. The opportunities
are realised as increasing public awareness, initiatives of environmental groups and business community
and 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 been
given due emphasis and woven in all facets of life in India. These age-old practices teach people
to live in perfect harmony with nature. Nevertheless, changing life styles, increasing pace of
urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development have caused environmental
pollution and degradation (Chopra et al., 1993). The losses manifest as pollution in air, water
and land leading to biodiversity losses and potential health hazards.
 Consequently, rules, laws and policies on environmental protection were introduced. One such
effort, i.e., the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), particularly aims to optimise a trade-off
between developmental activities and socio-ecological losses. It is a management tool to be linked
closely to the project life cycle to ensure that appropriate environmental information is provided at
the correct time (Wood, 1995). The overall objective of the EIA is to design developmental
projects and activities taking into consideration the environmental perspective.
In India, the first EIA was ordered, during early 1980s, on the Silent river valley hydroelectric
project, which was a controversial project (Valappil et al., 1994; MoEF, 2003a). This project, proposed
by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to build a 130 m high dam across the Kuntipuzha river
and a reservoir,1 was considered a big threat to the biodiversity and forest ecosystem of the Silent
valley. Later in 1985, the project was abandoned and Silent Valley was declared as a national park. This
case marked a new beginning in India and since then, EIAwas extended to other activities. Projects like
mining, 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 water

commission/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 polluting
activities 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 the
environmental 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 current
statutory, administrative and procedural arrangements for EIA in India. To highlight the systems
constraints, 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 during
field visits, professional's views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers) revealed
during informal talks, and semi structured interviews and available literature on the subject. The
SWOT suggests that there is a huge possibility to improve the system but the strong legal
framework is a positive and supportive feature. Opportunities and threats discussed are relevant in
the present context and should be given due consideration while thinking on making EIA more
accessible. At present there are many efforts going to improve the environmental appraisal
process and compliance by MoEF. This paper concludes with some contemplation on the
potential steps considered necessary to improve the effectiveness of the EIA process. These
suggestions are not only felt significant for Indian system but may also prove helpful for other
developing countries those are undergoing similar developments.

2. Institutional arrangements

The EIA process is now well established and EC is provided to over 1500 development
projects (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 1
Status 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 24 104
1995 13 55 13 19 + 51 29 180
1996 6 54 26 39 + 15 30 170
1997 4 98 39 7 + 17 21 186
1998 9 34 17 9 11 80
1999 5 45 17 25 12 104
2000 5 52 15 17 36 125
2001 12 63 14 9 23 121
2002 12 83 7 31 25 158
2003 16 220 5 19 55 315
Total 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 on

Environmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was constituted in 1972, following
Stockholm conference, under Department of Science and Technology.2 The Planning Commission
directed the NCEPC to undertake EIA of the major development projects to weigh the pros and
cons of these activities on the environment. Later on, the Department of Environment (DoE) was
established as per the recommendation of the NCEPC, in 1980, which was finally converted to a
full-fledged Ministry of Environment and Forest 5 years later (Rao, 1997).
MoEF enacted EPA, 1986, is an umbrella act covering various environmental aspects. Under
EPA, 1986, an EIA notification was brought out, making EIA mandatory for a particular group of
activities. This notification not only specifies the type of activities requiring EIA but also fixes a
time 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. It
outlines the process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State Pollution
Control Board (SPCB) to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearing
panel and time period for the completion of public hearing process.
The EC process is also subjected to the stipulated standards in the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, to provide prescribed limit of the pollutants which
a particular activity may release to the environment. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and
Handling) Rules, 1989 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, are the other major acts that have
bearings 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 implications
of 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 and
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are three important institutions, whereas SPCBs and state
Departments of Environment (DoE) are working at the province level.

2.2.1. Role of IA
IA, 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 environmental
laws. IA has constituted six multi-disciplinary expert committees known as Environmental
Appraisal Committee (EAC), as specified in the EIA Notification (Appendix B), to carryout
review 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 documents
submitted by the project proponent, is the leading responsibility of IA. IA may also seek
clarification from the proponent and conduct site visits if it feels necessary during the review
procedure. Based on the documents submitted and clarification presented IA either grants or
rejects the environment clearance of the developmental project. This division also carries out
follow-ups of the litigation in the various courts regarding EC decisions, notifications and
amendments issued.

2.2.2. Role of CPCB

The 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 into
being as a statutory organization in 1974, with the enactment of Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974. Later in 1981, board was renamed and assigned the powers and functions
specified under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 too. CPCB primarily has
powers explicit to Water and Air act, but now it in an umbrella organization with legal strength of

State Government

Ministry of Environment & Forest Department of Environment

Impact Assessment Division Central Pollution State Pollution

Control Board Control Board

Regional Offices Zonal Offices Regional Offices

Direct linkage Indirect linkage

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 disseminating
information pertaining to pollution prevention and abatement, benefits the MoEF, SPCBs and
several other stakeholders of environmental clearance process. It is a common practice that
technical 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 specific
committees (MoEF, 2003a).

2.2.3. Role of state DoE and SPCB

Environmental 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 its
functions 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 Objection
Certificate (NOC). The states of Maharastra, Gujarat, West Bengal and Karnataka have created
EAC under DoE, which issues NOC. For the rest, member secretary or chairman of the pollution
control 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 any
capacity, certain captive plants and small utility projects. Sometimes SPCBs instruct project
proponents 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 central
government if the water and air pollution loads are acceptable for the area in which project is to
be located.
The IA has conferred the responsibility of public hearings to SPCBs. The minutes of the
meeting and major findings are to be furnished to IA within 30 days. SPCBs are also involved in
the national EC, in case of non-compliance of industries. The Ministry may direct SPCBs to look
into 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 stipulations
under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and provisions for environmental clearance, whereas
office at Delhi coordinates with all regional offices. Post Project Monitoring (PPM) of the
cleared projects in particular is the major responsibility of these offices. Project authorities are
required to submit monitoring reports to these ROs every 6 months, detailing progress of
implementation of the conditions, detailed while granting EC to the projects. These offices are
directed 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 and
Nicobar 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 East
or 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 other
local authorities (i.e., Delhi Pollution Control Committee in Delhi). Site clearance is required for
some of the activities i.e., mining, prospecting and exploration of major minerals, pithead thermal
power plants, multipurpose river valley projects and major ports and harbours. Consents from
airport authority and state forest departments are also considered necessary if any airport is
nearby and project involving any forestland respectively. Once the project proponent receives all
the approvals, he submits an application to MoEF for environmental clearance.

Proponent initiates the process.

Application to SPCB for NOC Site clearance from NOC from State Forest Department /
(under Air and Water Act) MoEF (if required) Airport Authority (if required)

NOC granted? Clearance NOC

granted? granted?

Change site Change site

Change site

No No No
Yes Yes
Yes

MoEF orders SPCBs to

conduct public hearing
Proponent submit an application to MoEF
along with NOCs, EIA, EMP, risk analysis
for environmental clearances

SPCB conducts public hearing

Impact Assessment Division reviews the application SPCB compiles comments

No Is project
accepted?

Yes

Environmental Clearance granted Monitoring

Fig. 2. Environmental clearance process in India.

2.3.1. EIA process
EIA 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 activities
listed in schedule I (Appendix A), any project in ecologically fragile areas4 and any project falling
under 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 that
new projects with investment more than 100 crores and modernisation projects involving
investment more than 50 crores require EIA. This clause is not applicable to industries involving
hazardous 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 public
hearings are undertaken at this stage only. Alternate scenario must account for no project condition
along 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 the

expected environmental changes without proposed project is assessed through baseline
analysis. The quality of the baseline analysis establishes the viability of the appraisal of the
impacts, and therefore of the EIA itself. In India, data is collected on both project engineering and
environmental aspects. Project engineering deals with process technology, raw material, water
and energy requirements, whereas data on air emissions, wastewater, noise, solid waste and
hazardous/toxic waste is required for the environmental study. Project proponent conducts
monitoring for various required environmental quality parameters or data available with the local
monitoring stations of SPCBs and CBCP may also be used. MoEF provides the detailed
guidelines 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 and
significance of the expected impacts, or explain why no significant impacts are anticipated. Several
mathematical models are listed in the manual of MoEF for environmental and socio-ecological
impacts predictions. Suggestions have also been made on the kind of conditions where they could
be 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 avoid
or reduce environmental and social impacts. Environmental Management Plan (EMP), risk
assessment report and disaster management plan (if hazardous substances are involved in the
project), rehabilitation plan (if displacement of people is anticipated) are prepared to suggest
remedial 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); Aravalli
ranges 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 of
implementing the mentioned measures.

2.3.1.6. Documentation. At the end of all the above-mentioned steps, a concise but
comprehensive report is prepared. It summarises the description of the project, regional settings,
baseline conditions, impact prediction and important findings of the study. Project proponents hire
consultants 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 people
and vulnerable groups to develop terms of references for EIA thus incorporating their concerns
into decision-making process. The SPCB is required to publish notices for public hearing in two
local 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. EIA
notification also makes provision for access to the executive summary of the project at the offices
of district collector, district industry centre, commissioner of the municipal corporation/local
body, SPCB and state DoE (MoEF, 1994). The composition of the public hearing panel has also
been specified by the law, which may consist of members of local authorities and representatives
of the public nominated by the district collector.

2.3.1.8. Review and decision-making. The review and decision-making starts as the proponent
files an application accompanied by the documents i.e., EIA and EMP report, NOC, risk
assessment 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 report
with reference to the guidelines provided by MoEF in its manual (MoEF, 2001b). The IA is free to
conduct site visits if considers necessary. Based on the EIA review and other information, the IA
either grants or rejects the environment clearance to the project. The assessment has to be
completed within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the requisite documents from the project
authorities and completion of public hearing. The decision has to be conveyed to the proponent
within 30 days thereafter.

2.3.1.9. Post Project Monitoring (PPM). The PPM aims to ensure that an action had been
implemented in accordance with the measures specified while providing the EC. Thus, it performs
a dual task of identifying the actual environmental impacts of the project and checks if the EMP is
having the desired mitigation measures. Post-implementation monitoring is the responsibility of
MoEF'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 useful
information about the future viability of the considered system. The predictive capabilities
of the technique come about from the consideration of system's strengths and weaknesses
in 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 place
around it.
The strengths and weaknesses of a system are determined by internal elements, whereas
external forces dictate opportunities and threats. Strengths can be defined as any available
resource that can be used to improve its performance. Weaknesses are flaws/shortcomings of
any 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 quickly
bring to light the systems strengths or weaknesses. Many of the threats are based on
weaknesses.
This section presents a SWOT analysis, to highlight the Indian EIA systems constraints,
potentials and challenges. Based on authors' own experiences with the industries and
institutions in Haldia, expert views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers)
revealed during informal talks, semi structured interviews and literature review; this SWOT
brings out some of peculiar features of the practice in India. SWOT presents issues, which
should 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 develop
the system further. It shows that there are huge possibilities to improve the system but strong
legal framework is a positive and supportive feature. The strength of Indian system also lies in
existence of regulatory authorities to execute the law all over the country.

3.1.1. Well-defined legal structure

It is very much evident that the constitution of India is deeply committed to
environmental protection (Biswas, 1996). A well-defined legal framework exists to
safeguard quality of environment. The EPA (1986) in particular established EIA as a
legal requirement for upcoming development activities. The EPA (1986) and various other
laws, to which EIA process is linked and draws its meaning, explicitly state penalties and
fines along with imprisonment in case of any infraction of the legal provisions. Strong
judicial construct and democracy in the country are strong points of the system. Several
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been raised on the pollution related hazards in
different parts of the country. On realizing implications of pollution on the environment
and human health, the judiciary has also directed central and state authorities to take
initiatives (CPCB, 2002a).

3.1.2. Presence of well-knitted regulatory structure

The 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. Both
central and state authorities are made responsible for its execution, which provide a well-knitted
execution system at every end.

3.2. Weaknesses

Present EIA practice in India is restricted to project level, which also has several weaknesses. It
is perceived merely as a bureaucratic requirement limited to selection of project or pollution
control technology (Lohani et al., 1997; Rao, 1997).
3.2.1. Screening and scoping processes are not well defined
The 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., as
considered in China (Chen et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2003). Screening guidelines in India do not
specify if rapid EIA could be conducted (TERI, 2002). Scoping on the other hand is left on project
proponents 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 of
their effluents on the ground water and nearby flowing river streams. All of them got rid of it by
saying that impact of their loadings would be negligible when compared with the quantum of flow
in the river Hoogly. Analysis of alternatives is also a weak link in EIA. Most of the time it is
restricted to ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios (World Bank, 1999). Site clearance
happens much before environmental clearance process because of which comparative assessment
of sites is also not given due consideration.

3.2.2. Insufficient baseline data

Good 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 of
inconsistency (TERI, 2002). There is no central data bank; therefore, data gathered through
different agencies is not available to public. Quality assurance and quality control on
existing data is also nil. One of the PCB officials remarked during a meeting with author that
there is no dearth of data as almost all major industries are carrying out periodic monitoring
to fulfil their administrative requirements but reliability of such data is very low (personal
communication).

3.2.3. Inconsistent application of evaluation and predictive tools

Lack 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 the
mathematical models used are not developed for Indian conditions, so validation is necessary
each time, thus, accuracy of modelling depends on knowledge and expertise of the analyst. Indian
practice still considers impacts of individual activity thereby ignoring cumulative impact
assessment. It was observed that prediction techniques employed in most of the EIA reports for
the 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 implementation

EMP 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 and
time 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 authorities
have their own limitations in regards to manpower, technical resources and ever-increasing
workloads, to carry out a purposeful monitoring (Lohani et al., 1997). Besides weak enforcement
is another important factor (MoEF, 2003a; TERI, 2002). It has been observed that show cause
notices 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 take
necessary actions but cannot shut them, as it may have several repercussions”, said one of the
PCB officials (personal communication).
3.2.5. Inadequate public participation
Public 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 is
conducted just before making decisions. Though it is understood that mechanism of public
participation prevailing in developed countries may not be feasible in India because of societal and
economic reasons. But even one time public interaction is not very apt because of insufficient
information 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 are
rarely 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 professionals

Project 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 EIA
report. There are guidelines for preparing EIA report (MoEF, 2001b), but most of the reports tend
to 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 a
question mark on the accountability of EIA professionals. As discussed in earlier sections for
Haldia, information on various aspects of water had been collected but never done any analysis to
realise the impact of various sources on the water quality, biodiversity, etc. In one of the reports
even the calculation for maximum ground level concentration of air pollutants was suspected when
found inconsistent. Assumptions and limitations of the analysis carried out by consultants were
hardly discussed in any of the report.

3.2.7. Lack of coordination and poorly defined decision-making process

Lack 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 concerned
regional office. Though they are dealing with same set of industries both perform their duties in
isolation. Lack of coordination between various governmental agencies, decision makers,
planners and project proponents not only cause delay in decision-making but also pose hindrance
in effective implementation of environmental regulations (MoEF, 2003a).

3.3. Opportunities

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

3.3.1. Increasing public awareness

Increasing awareness and growing public pressure are demanding action to stop further
environmental degradation. The demand for better environment is forcing a policy shift. In
response 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 the
decisions 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 where
public 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 principles
of sustainable development and creating a forum to facilitate the implementation of regulations
involving localites. Their campaigns empower communities by furnishing information on
environmental laws, policies and effects of environmental damages. These NGOs are catalysing a
participatory movement involving women and youth, school and university students, towards
environmental protection. The aims of the environmental movement is to improve information
disclosure and engaging various stakeholders in the process of managing environmental goods.

3.3.3. Self-regulation in industrial sector

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is emerging fast, which emphasise
on the business practices based on ethical values and respect for employees, communities and
the environment. Corporate have started realizing that initiatives towards environmental
conservation would characterize an effective means of advertising their virtue in the eyes of
society. Consumers are now demanding for more environment friendly products, which clearly
indicate 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 strict
business sense means adding to their profits. As per an environmental manager of a lead
battery-manufacturing unit, export opportunities paved way to adopt better house keeping and
environmental standards (personal communication). Opening up of markets for multinationals
in India is providing opportunities as global companies may facilitate the diffusion of cleaner
technologies conforming high global standards.

3.3.4. Integration of EIA with plans, policies and programs

To 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 seen
as possible solution to it. SEA is a tool, which aims to integrate environmental considerations into
laws, policies, plans and programmes (Clayton and Sadler, 1998). SEA addresses cumulative
effects and alternatives that are not addressed at project level as well as refines the scope of
assessment at lower tiers (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Nooteboom (2004) advocated SEA as it
enhances the transparency of the whole planning and assessment process. Despite several
inherent advantages, SEA can never replace projects level EIA but it strongly reduces the effort
and 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 corruption

Good 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 environmental
reforms or EIA system. Excessive bureaucratic requirements, inefficient and complex administrative
procedures may pose hurdles to these reforms. Public disclosure of information and accountability are
lacking. 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 consideration
in India. The ministry must show commitment to safeguard the EIA process so that the same should
not creep into the system dealing with environmental regulations.

3.4.2. Effect of economic reforms

China 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 units
manufacturing dyes and dye-intermediates account for 59.2% of the hazardous wastes generated
and 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 identify
Vapi and Ankleshwar as critically polluted areas because of spurt of growth in chemical units
generating huge quantum of toxic effluent and hazardous waste (CPCB, 1994, 1996). Gujarat
state had also given permissions to fertilizer plant in Baharuch, copper smelter and chlorine plant
in 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 for
economic yields and environmental protection are conflicting in nature. The current era of
economic reforms and decentralization of power, emphasize more on economic growth and profit
generation, 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 generates
40% of the total wastewater among different classes of industries (CPCB, 2002b). The outflow of
wastewater, emissions or solid wastes per unit of production is very high in SSIs because of usage
of outdated and inefficient technologies and lack of resources for enforcement and
implementation of pollution control programmes (CPCB, 2002b). Still these small-scale
industries most of the times do not require EC from MoEF. Mere acknowledgement of the
application form by the SPCB or State Pollution Control Committees serves the purpose of
consent for these units and there is no need to obtain periodic renewal of consent until the time
they 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 capacity
based approach for better environmental management of an area. A step has been taken in this
direction as last amendment in EIA notification has been put forth to cover industrial estate where
pollution 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 its
commitment by updating policy guidelines, simplifying the procedural aspects and placing
measures to strengthen the role of regulatory agencies. This effort also requires better monitoring
support and availability of environmental expertise. On understanding the weaknesses and
challenges in the Indian system, there are certain suggestions for improvements in the Indian EIA
practice to facilitate greater rigour in analysis, appraisal, monitoring and enforcement to achieve
broader 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 should

accomplish EIA. Authorship should be specified in the EIA reports with the intention that project
developer or consultants should feel responsible and each piece of information could be traced
back to its original source (Fearnside, 1994). IA professionals should not only explicitly mention
all assumptions and limitations of the analysis but also present their findings in comprehensive
and easy to understand format so that decision makers can judge both pros and cons of the
upcoming 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 agencies
may 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 the
data bank.

4.3. Improve monitoring and implementation

The EMPs should clearly suggest mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to
eliminate, compensate, or reduce impacts to acceptable levels during construction as well as
operation phase of an activity. Implementation of EMP must ensure effectiveness of mitigation
measures and also detect the need for any corrective action. Continuous monitoring and
assessment of the system, public participation and simplified administrative procedures are
obligatory to facilitate the adequate implementation. Good environmental monitoring practices
not only establish a baseline data of the region but also increase understanding of cause–effect
relationship between an activity and environmental changes and checks accuracy of an EIA
prediction, 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 an
industrial estate should be done considering regional aspects such as carrying capacity, optimal
utilization of natural resources, utilization of waste from one unit as resource to another and
establishment of common waste treatment plants (Singhal and Kapoor, 2002).
5
Policymaker may look at the problem differently, considering “improvement” in terms of enhancements in realization
of multiple objectives, e.g., reducing adverse environmental impacts, reducing costs of implementation of mitigation
measures, reduction in transactions costs (and time), promoting economic and social development; while adhering to
various constraints, including administrative capacities, availability of necessary disciplinary expertise, legal limits on
time 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. To
incorporate environmental concerns into plans and policies, Mc Donald and Brown (1995)
have illustrated certain ways: (i) Local strategic plans—determining the form of future
developments that can take place in an area taking cumulative impacts and carrying capacity
in account; (ii) Zoning schemes—addressing specific landuse patterns, permitted and
prohibited in the area, as set out in local plan; (iii) Sub-divisional plans—setting layouts of
future 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 the
technical and procedural guidance material needs of all the stakeholders should be considered to
indicate the roles and duties of each of them. Effective public involvement in the process brings
forth wide range of social, cultural and emotional concerns, to establish terms of reference of
scoping, which may be deemed out side the scope of EIA. It would make decision socially
acceptable. In addition, it is necessary to sensitise, inform and train stakes to make them
understand the significance of EIA process. Capacity building of regulatory agencies in terms of
staff, technical expertise and monitoring facilities is also recommended. Making inter
organization coordination more smooth would facilitate information sharing process. It is also
required to develop disciplinary expertise to mainstream the cumulative impact assessment and
SEA at plan and policy levels.

5. Conclusion

It has been recognised that India is well verse with apt legal provisions, which are very
essential for further strengthening of the EIA process. Moreover, EIA process possesses a basic
structure, including screening, scoping, comprehensive study, progress report, review, public
participation, 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 regularly
revisited for progressive refinement that should not only remove existing constraints but also take
care of future challenges.
It is further recommended that project level EIA needs immediate attention but efforts should
also 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 government
authorities 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 University
Grants Commission (UGC), India under Junior/Senior Research Fellowship Program. I would
like to thank Dr. Leena Srivastava, Supervisor and Dean, Centre for Regulatory and Policy
Research and Dr. Soan Ray, Co-supervisor and Lecturer, Department of Policy Research, TERI
SAS for their helpful comments and discussion during the preparation of this paper. I also
benefited from working on the project ‘Preparation of an AEQM (Area-wide Environmental
Quality 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 and
Resources Institute (TERI), Delhi, for the opportunity. I also acknowledge the reviewers for their
valuable 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, rare
earths.⁎
2. River valley projects including hydel power, major irrigation and their combination
including flood control (even if investment is less than 100 crores but command area is
more 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 Lead Antimony alloys.⁎
18. All tourism projects between 200 m and 500 m of high water line and at locations with an
elevation 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 alignments
provided 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 hides
25. 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 sewage
of 50,000 l/day and above or with an investment of Rs. 50 crores and above (added in
2004).
32. New industrial estates having an area of 50 ha and above and the industrial estates
irrespective 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 management
ii. Air/water pollution control
iii. Water resource management
iv. Flora/fauna conservation and management
v. Land use planning
vi. Social sciences/rehabilitation
vii. Project appraisal
viii. Ecology
ix. Environmental health
x. Subject area specialist
xi. Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues
2. The chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist
or 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 assessment
guidelines. Compiled by Donnelly, Clayton B D, Hughes R. 2nd ed. London: International Institute for Environment
and 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) of
Gujarat. 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 the
Environment; 1996.
Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: a case study of hydro development in
Kullu 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 industrial
ecology. J Environ Manag 2002;66:19–29.
TERI. TA cluster for environmental management at the state level (component A: promotion and assessment of
environmentally 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 Assess
1994;12:75–88.
Wang Y, Morgan RK, Cashmore M. Environmental impact assessment of projects in the people's republic of China: new
law, 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, New
Delhi under the supervision of Dr. Leena Srivastava, Dean, Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research, TERI School of
Advanced Studies. Her area of research is ‘Adequacy of environmental impact assessment procedure in India and
challenges to effective implementation of environment management plan’. She had done her Masters in ‘Environment
Management’ from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi.