See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247896902

Need for participatory and sustainable principles in India's EIA system:

Lessons from the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project

Article  in  Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal · June 2006

DOI: 10.3152/147154606781765237

CITATIONS READS

24 80

2 authors, including:

Rajaram T.
Roever College of Engineering & Technology, Perambalur, India
7 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Surface and Groundwater Modeling View project

Estimating Groundwater recharge potential View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajaram T. on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 24, number 2, June 2006, pages 115–126, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
EIA in India
Need for participatory and sustainable
principles in India’s EIA system: lessons from
the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project
T Rajaram and Ashutosh Das
This paper analyses the roles of various actors in
the environmental clearance procedure in India
and suggests improvements to promote more
congenial interaction, minimise conflicts and
achieve the stated objectives of environmental
impact assessment (EIA). Then the EIA system is
explored for its institutional and procedural pro-
visions, where major weaknesses have been iden-
tified. The environmental clearance process of
the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project is in-
vestigated: this project was promoted by the Gov-
ernment and was given environmental clearance
recently, amidst widespread protest by the public.
A modified clearance procedure with a key role
for local communities is suggested that brings it
in line with the goals of participatory decision-
making to achieve sustainable development.
Keywords: environmental impact assessment,
Sethusamudram, Panchayat, participatory
decision-making, India
T Rajaram (corresponding author) and Ashutosh Das are at the
School of Civil Engineering, Shanmugha Arts, Science, Tech-
nology and Research Academy (SASTRA), Deemed University,
Thanjavur – 613 402, India; Tel: +91 4362 264101 8 exn 256;
Fax: +91 4362 264120; Emails: rajaenviro@gmail.com; aca-
das@gmail.com.
The authors wish to thank the Government authorities and
NGOs for their valuable comments. They are also grateful for
the referee’s comments, which helped improve this paper. The
support received for this research from the SASTRA Deemed
University is gratefully acknowledged.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
I
NDIA HAS INVESTED considerable effort in
implementing the universally accepted principles
of the Rio Declaration. One of its 27 principles
calls for environmental impact assessment (EIA) to
be undertaken for activities that are likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the environment
(United Nations, 1992).
Since the conception of EIA in the late 1960s,
governments in more than 100 countries have
adopted provisions for its implementation, as a
means to scrutinise the technical and environmental
options of development projects and hence alleviate
their potential negative impacts (Canter, 1996; Bo-
jorquez-Tapia and Garcia, 1998; Barker and Wood,
1999; Glasson and Salvador, 2000; Andreou and
Jones, 2001; Gonclaves, 2002). India, for its part,
has instituted a legal and institutional framework for
the application of EIA as an important tool to
achieve sustainable development.
Sustainable development may be said to have
three major emphases: economic development to
improve the quality of life of people; environment-
ally appropriate development; and equitable devel-
opment. (Cicin-Sain, 1993). Involving the public in
the EIA process to achieve sustainable development
has gained wide recognition. The emerging view
holds that participation is not just a supplementary
part of the assessment; rather EIA is a collective
process where different actors — affected citizens,
interest groups, authorities, and experts — can de-
liberate and exchange their views of the goals and
their knowledge of the impacts of proposed devel-
opments (Yap, 1989; Boggs, 1991).
1461-5517/06/020115-12 US$08.00  IAIA 2006 115
EIA system in India
This paper focuses on the environmental clear-
ance procedure (ECP) in India. First, the various
players involved in the process are identified, with
the aim of identifying flaws that have developed in
their interaction with each other and suggesting im-
provements in the existing framework.
Secondly, we examine the ECP in the context of
large developmental projects that have the potential
to impact millions of livelihoods. We analyse the
case of The Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project
(SSCP) proposed near a protected marine sanctuary,
which was accorded clearance recently amidst wide-
spread opposition. The objective of this analysis is to
suggest improvements to make the EIA process
more closely aligned with the goal of participatory
sustainable development.
The insights into the roles played by the actors
and the workings of the environmental clearance
procedure were the result of various interactions
with the consultants, government authorities, non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and the first-
hand experience of the author’s (corresponding)
involvement in the process as a consultant for ob-
taining environmental clearance during 1998–2003.
The information regarding the Sethusamudram Pro-
ject was collected from various agency reports, news
media items and other information available in the
public domain.
EIA legislation in India
In January 1994, the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MEF) issued a Notification on EIA for
Development Projects. This listed 30 projects that
required environmental clearance from Central Gov-
ernment. It also included, for the first time, public
hearing as a prerequisite for clearing large projects
(UNEP, 2003). The notification made it obligatory
Project proponent
SPCB
Public hearing (PH) State Pollution Control Board
Local public
Clearance and monitoring
Figure 1. Existing environmental clearance procedure in India
116
to prepare and submit an EIA, an environment man-
agement plan (EMP), and a project report to MEF,
which had the option to consult a multidisciplinary
committee of experts. (MSE, 2005).
Environmental clearance procedure in India
The ECP followed currently in India is as shown in
Figure 1. The roles played by the various actors in-
volved in the clearance process is summarised in
Table 1. This procedure has many weaknesses that
give rise to conflict among the various actors in-
volved in the clearance process and ultimately it
stalls progress towards participatory sustainable
decision-making.
Roles in the EIA process: expected and suggested
This section outlines the role the current system ex-
pects from each of the actors, questions the rationale
behind certain responsibilities assigned to them and
suggests improvements to make the process properly
aligned to achieve the desired objectives of EIA. The
various actors involved are:
• the project proponent
• the environmental consultants
• the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
• the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA)/Ministry
(MEF)
• the public/NGOs and
• the National Environment Appellate Authority
(NEAA).
The project proponent, as is evident from Table 1, is
required to initiate and complete each of the stages
leading to the environmental clearance of the project.
In today’s competitive global economic scenario
Consultant
Site approval
EIA report
Minutes of PH and NOC
MEF/ IAA
National Environment
Appellate Authority
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
 EIA system in India

Table 1. Summary of the roles of different actors during EIA Process

Steps in EIA process Actors*

Project proponent IAA/ MEF Consultant SPCB Public/NGO

Screening Decide the type of Provide site Guide the proponent Provide site Not involved
project clearance, if required in the initial screening clearance
stage
Scoping Provide terms of Provide guidance if Establish whether an Not involved Not involved
reference proponent requires EIA study is required
any
EIA studies Conduct EIA studies Not involved Conduct EIA studies Not involved Not involved
EIA Report Submit executive Not involved Assist the proponent Arrange for public Have access to
(executive summary summary of EIA and hearing executive summary
only) copy of EIA report to
SPCB
Public hearing Obliged to respond to Not involved Assist the proponent Hold the public Can provide
issues raised during hearing and forward oral/written comments
the hearing NOC and minutes to regarding their
MEF concerns
Review for final Submit EIA report to MEF reviews the Justify/clarify queries Not involved Not involved
decision MEF project and accords from MEF
clearance
Monitoring clearance To adhere fully to the To monitor progress To assist proponent To monitor progress Not involved
conditions clearance conditions

Note: * The National Environment Appellate Authority is not included in this table as they come into picture only if there is any appeal
against the environmental clearance
Source: Modified from MSE (2005)

where the project proponent is already under consid-
erable stress to plan and safeguard the financial suc-
cess of the business venture, the current process,
whereby they are treated like probable defaulters
constantly required to prove themselves otherwise, is
detrimental to the economic growth of a developing
nation. Instead, the process should be more investor
friendly with an official from the SPCB playing a
guiding role in fulfilling the various requirements
leading up to the final clearance.
The environmental consultant is expected to be con-
versant with existing legal and procedural require-
ments of obtaining environmental clearance of the
project. The proponent appoints the consultant with
the sole objective of obtaining environmental clear-
ance by clearing all the hurdles set up by the authori-
ties. This involves conducting the EIA studies,
clarifying all the issues during the public hearing
and justifying his findings at the MEF review. The
consultant in most cases does not have any insight
into the prevailing socio-economic and or ecological
problems of the site studied.
Verifying the validity of the baseline data and im-
pact prediction results based on them is an area that
needs attention by the MEF. There have been cases
where EIAs have been completely fudged (Ernst and
Young rapid EIA for Dandeli Dam (ESG, 2000)),
where the data furnished was unrepresentative of the
area (air pollution modelling conducted by Transoft
of France for Tata Consultancy Services rapid EIA
of Mangalore Power Company) and quite often there
is a lot to be desired even in the fundamental as-
pects, presentation of facts and analysis of impacts
(ESG, 2000).
The data content in the EIA reports is generally of
poor quality and often incorrect (EIC, 2005). To rec-
tify this situation, the MEF has initiated a web-based
data-dissemination system called the Environmental
Information Centre (EIC). This data, however, is not
at micro level. The impact of this system on the pre-
vailing scenario can be ascertained in the coming
years.
The SPCB is expected to approve the site that the
proponent has chosen and to conduct and forward the
minutes of the public hearing to MEF. Instead of
limiting itself to the role of a policing authority keen
to measure its performance in terms of number of
The data content in the EIA reports is
generally of poor quality and often
incorrect: to rectify this situation, the
Ministry of Environment and Forests
has initiated a web-based data-
dissemination system called the
Environmental Information Centre

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006 117

EIA system in India
industries it has closed down, it should also take up
the role of guiding new and existing industries to
meet the regulations. It should play a more proactive
role in bridging the gulf between the proponents and
the public in informing, educating and bringing both
parties to a common understanding.
The added pressure of having to sustain itself by
collecting the fees for various sanction and consent
orders has reduced it to the status of a mere tax/toll
collector. Capacity building is required with a plan to
devolve to the SPCB all the functions currently car-
ried out inefficiently by the MEF.
The MEF or the IAA (which is constituted by
the MEF) receives the project application along with
the EIA report from the proponent for review and
decision-making. It also receives the minutes of the
public hearing along with the no objection certifi-
cate (NOC) from the concerned SPCB. The assess-
ment that, in developing countries, environment
ministries are often ‘bypassed’ by other, more pow-
erful, ministries (Wood, 2003) is still valid in the
case of India.
Considering that they are already unable to assert
their importance in the political arena, the expert
committees constituted by them are also unqualified
and unfit for the assigned task of reviewing the tech-
nical correctness of the EIA studies (Kalpavriksh,
2005). Further, they are perceived as toothless bod-
ies that recommend project clearance no matter how
blatantly false the information provided by the
project authority or how great the environmental
damage (Kalpavriksh, 2005).
The experts base their assessment on the baseline
data given in the EIA report prepared by the con-
sultant. The experts do not have any avenue for veri-
fication of the baseline data either directly or
through the SPCB. The concerns and issues of the
local public also do not reach them, as they get only
an official version of the public hearing.
We suggest that a state-level expert committee is
set up to scrutinise and accord clearance with in-
volvement in the scoping stage and an avenue for con-
sultation with the local public. This would also put an
end to the wastage of time and resources in the current
system, which requires the IAA committee and the
proponents to assemble in New Delhi for clearances.
The public/NGOs, invited through press advertise-
ments placed skilfully to make them inconspicuous,
are expected to put up a mere token appearance at the
public hearing. In most instances, the location of this
hearing is far away from the site of the project, such
as the district capital; the affected public finds it diffi-
cult to spend time and resources to reach the meeting.
The provision for the public making written or oral
suggestions does not guarantee that they will be con-
sidered. Because of this exclusionary approach, re-
cently there have been many instances of violent
conflict between the public and the proponents
(“Public hearing on polluting units turns violent”,
118
The Hindu, 2005a; “Eco groups seek cancellation of
public hearing”, The Hindu, 2005b). Hence, for
peaceful establishment of development activity, it is
time that a more inclusive approach is instituted to
conduct public consultation rather than just hearing
both pre- and post-EIA studies.
The NEAA was established in 1997, after the enact-
ment of the NEAA Act, as an independent body to
hear appeals against orders granting environmental
clearance. The Authority has a chairperson, vice-
chairperson and can have up to three members. It
has become a non-entity as far as the public is con-
cerned, because it has been functioning without a
chairperson since 2000, as a single-member body
until recently, when even that member’s term ex-
pired; it has now been taken over by an additional
secretary of MEF whose decisions it is supposed to
scrutinise (Menon, 2005; Kohli, 2005).
Even while it was functioning with its partial
membership, up to March 2005, it had heard only 15
cases. The applications in these cases were either not
admitted on procedural grounds, or were not within
the jurisdiction of the authority. The few that were
admitted were dismissed in favour of the project
proponent (Kohli, 2005). The urgent need is for a
state-level Appellate that is easily approachable and
tuned towards examining the merit of the appeals
from a scientific and humane point of view.
Assessment of the EIA system
Now that we have analysed the roles of all the actors
involved in the ECP, we assess the institutional and
legal basis of the Indian EIA system, using the set of
evaluation criteria developed by Wood (2002) (see
Table 2). From the table, it becomes evident that the
EIA system still has a long way to go in providing the
necessary legal and procedural provisions to make it
an effective decision-making tool. Yet the trend in
India is towards diluting existing provisions through
the proposed New Environmental Policy (NEP).
On 15 September 2005, the MEF put out the re-
engineered EIA notification for public comment.
This was drafted, much to the chagrin of the public,
under the guidance of the World Bank. Unfortu-
nately, this draft, which was undertaken mainly at
the behest of the Govindarajan Committee Report
(GOI, 2002) to simplify approval procedures primar-
ily to reduce the time taken for clearance, further
dilutes the existing environmental appraisal mecha-
nisms of EIA. Hence, as can be expected, MEF re-
ceived a barrage of comments against it and ever
since (up to February 2006) has been in the process
of considering the suggestions.
Apart from the flaws in the EIA provisions and
process, the screening criterion exempts a major
segment of activities from requiring an EIA, such as:
small-scale investment of less than Indian rupee
(INR) 10 million (about Euro 0.18 million); if the
project falls under a select list and the investment is
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
 EIA system in India

Table 2. Assessment of EIA system in India

No Criterion* Status in India Remarks

1. Is the EIA system based on clear and specific legal Yes Although inadequate
provisions?
2. Must the relevant environmental impacts of all significant Yes No check at scoping or during EIA studies to ensure
actions be assessed? that this happens
3. Must evidence of the consideration, by the proponent, of No Consideration of alternatives is not mandatory
the environmental impacts of reasonable alternative actions
be demonstrated in the EIA process?
4. Must screening of actions for environmental significance Yes, as per MEF No check to ensure that this happens
take place? guidelines, not
law
5. Must scoping of the environmental impacts of actions take Yes, as per MEF No check to ensure that this happens
place and specific guidelines be produced? guidelines, not
law
6. Must EIA reports meet prescribed content requirements Cannot be The internal assessment details are not made public
and do checks to prevent the release of inadequate EIA assessed
reports exist?
7. Must EIA reports be publicly reviewed and the proponent Only executive EIA reports are not fully accessible to public: the
respond to the points raised? summary is points raised by the public are just noted down in a
reviewed public hearing
8. Must the findings of the EIA report and the review be a Cannot be The internal assessment details are not made public
central determinant of the decision on the action? assessed
9. Must monitoring of action impacts be undertaken and is it Partially Regional office of MEF is responsible, follow-up
linked to the earlier stages of the EIA process? action is not made public
10. Must the mitigation of action impacts be considered at the Partially Assessment not made public
various stages of the EIA process?
11. Must consultation and participation take place prior to, and No No legal provision
following, EIA report publication?
12. Must the EIA system be monitored and, if necessary, be No Trend towards slackening control
amended to incorporate feedback from experience?
13. Are the financial costs and time requirements of the EIA No Proponents still view it as a wastage of time,
system acceptable to those involved and are they believed hindering economic growth
to be outweighed by discernible environmental benefits?
14. Does the EIA system apply to significant programmes, No No legal requirement
plans and policies, as well as to projects?

Note: * From Wood (2002)

less than INR 1000 million (Euro 18.8 million);
mining projects in an area less than five hectares;
and so on (for details, see MEF, 2006).
Any activities covered by the current lax provi-
sions are also cleared without adhering to those pro-
visions. This has been true in the case of the
Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project discussed in
the second half of this paper. This section dissects
the entire ECP drama played out recently and ex-
poses the major flaws responsible for its widespread
public rejection. It concludes with suggestions for
rectifying the problems.
The Sethusamudram Ship Channel
India does not have a continuous navigable route
around the peninsula running within her own terri-
torial waters because there is a shallow patch called
Adam’s Bridge at Pamban, where the navigable
depth is only about 3m (see Figure 2). Hence all the
ships travelling from west to east and from Tuticorin
Port to the east have to go round Sri Lanka, entailing
an additional distance of 254–424 nautical miles and
21–36 hours of additional sailing time (SCL, 2005).
In 1997, the Ministry of Shipping identified the
Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) as the nodal agency for
the implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship
Channel Project (SSCP). The TPT retained the
National Environmental Engineering Research Insti-
tute (NEERI), Nagpur, India to conduct the EIA
study for the project (SCL, 2005).
The proposed SSCP will have two legs: one near
Point Calimere called the Bay of Bengal channel and
the other across the Adam’s Bridge. The proposed
channel will be 12m deep with a bed width of 300m,
which will provide a safe width for two-way naviga-
tion. The channel will have side slopes of 1:3. Its to-
tal length will be about 260 km — about 120km
from Tuticorin Port to Adam’s Bridge (in the Gulf of
Mannar) and about 140km north of Rameswaram
from Adam’s Bridge to Bay of Bengal channel (in
Palk Bay) (SCL, 2005).
Projected benefits from the Shipping Channel are:
it would give a sheltered water route to the ships
sailing from the western ports to the eastern ports of

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006 119

EIA system in India

Figure 2. Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project

India; the average time saved per voyage would be
25 hours (average saving in distance 300 nautical
miles at an assumed speed of 12 knots); there would
be consequent fuel savings (SCL, 2005). The chan-
nel would be of very great importance from national
defence and security points of view.
The major milestones in the history of the project
are given in Table 3. It is evident that the project has
not had a smooth passage in obtaining environmental
clearance and the conflict does not seem to end. The
issues of conflict between the various stakeholders,
and how the EIA studies, rather than being a tool for

Table 3. Project timeline of Sethusamudram Ship Channel

No Date Milestone

1 May 2002 National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur appointed as consultant to carry out
EIA studies
2 June 2004 Application along with the EIA report filed with SPCB (Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, TNPCB) to obtain no
objection certificate (NOC)
3 September and The public hearing meetings held by TNPCB at six coastal districts through which the Channel alignment is
November 2004 passing amidst widespread opposition
4 December 2004 Written petition filed in Madras High Court by the Coastal Action Network (CAN, an environmental NGO), seeking
the Court’s directions on the grounds that the public hearings were not in compliance with the law. Court
dismisses petition as premature
5 January and Public hearing meetings held again by TNPCB at Nagapattinam and Thanjavur amidst tight security
February 2005
6 March 2005 TPT files a petition in Madras High Court for initiating action against TNPCB for delay in grant of NOC
7 March 2005 Project proposal placed before the MEF expert committee at New Delhi without the NOC from TNPCB
8 March 2005 Prime Minister’s Office finds the EIA report to be inadequate, calls for re-studies
9 March 2005 Environmental clearance given by MEF without waiting for NOC from the SPCB
10 April 2005 CAN files another petition in High Court to stay the SSCP. High Court asks CAN to approach National
Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA). Upon information that NEAA has not had a chairman since 2000,
directs the Central Government to appoint Chairman within 30 days
11 June 2005 Fishermen block public hearing proceedings of another project (Tuticorin Inner Port Harbour) claiming that the
whole process is a farce
12 July 2005 SSCP inaugurated by the Prime Minister of India. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State boycotts the inaugural
function citing flawed environmental clearance, but does not initiate any action to appeal against the clearance,
probably because it does not expect much political gain
13 August 2005 Fishermen protest against the dredging operations as their nets are damaged and there is no clear mechanism
to claim for compensation
14 Sept 2005 CAN files a petition in the Supreme Court of India to stay the project. The Supreme Court refuses to stay the
project, but issues notices to Central and State Governments to file their response and also to appoint members
to dysfunctional NEAA
15 Jan 2006 Abandoned by the disinterested media, fisher folk continue intermittent protests fully convinced that the SSCP is
mainly executed to drive them out of their coastal villages and make way for private corporate projects

120 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006


deliberative discourse, became the main source of
conflict, are brought out in the next section.
What’s at stake? For whom?
The previous section showed that the actors in this
project are:
• the Tuticorin Port Trust (project proponent/
Central Government organisation)
• NEERI (consultant/Central Government
organisation)
• SPCB (Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
(TNPCB)/State Government organisation)
• MEF/IAA (final authority/Central Government
ministry)
• local fisher folk and NGOs (who live along the
coastal districts).
It is clear that the entire group can be divided with
the government on one side and the fisher folk and
NGOs on the other. The benefits projected to accrue
from this project by the Government were discussed
earlier; the main highlight is the reduction in naviga-
tion time for ships and the resultant savings in fuel.
Let us examine the case of the opposition to deter-
mine exactly what is at stake for them.
The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR) is
located near the south-eastern tip of Indian peninsula
(Figure 2). It extends to 10,500 sq km having 3,600
species of fauna and flora. The GOMBR comprises
21 islands and is the first Indian marine national park
to be internationally recognised under the UNESCO-
MAB (United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation-Man and Biosphere) pro-
gramme. The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
commission on national parks and the Worldwide
Fund for Nature (WWF) identified the reserve as an
area of particular concern because of its rich bio-
diversity and multiple use (Envis, 2004).
There are about 47 villages along the coastal part
of the biosphere reserve that support some 100,000
people. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF)
has provided support to the establishment of the re-
serve, including setting up and administering the
The proposed Sethusamudram Ship
Channel would reduce ship sailing time
by an average of 25 hours with
consequent fuel savings: however,
there is a marine nature reserve, an
ancient series of sandbanks full of
legend, and a bay rich in coral reefs
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
EIA system in India
Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust, which is
responsible for the co-ordination of the management
plan with Government agencies, private entrepre-
neurs, and representatives of the local people (for
details see Envis, 2004).
Adam’s Bridge is a chain of shoals (sandbanks),
nearly seven in all, 30km long, which have high cul-
tural importance. Both legend and archaeological
studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabi-
tants in Sri Lanka date back to a primitive age, about
1,750,000 years ago, and the bridge’s age is almost
the same. This information is crucial for an insight
into the mysterious legend called Ramayana, which
was supposed to have taken place in tretha yuga (a
period in Vedic history more than 1,700,000 years
ago). In this epic, there is mention of a bridge built
between Rameswaram (India) and the Sri Lankan
coast under the supervision of a dynamic and invin-
cible figure called Rama, who is supposed to be the
incarnation of the Supreme Being (Manitham, 2005).
Palk Bay, an inlet of the Bay of Bengal, is bordered
by the Indian peninsula to the west, the island chain
of Adams Bridge to the south, and the island of Sri
Lanka to the east. The principal access to the Bay of
Bengal is through Palk Strait, north of Sri Lanka.
Many islands are situated within the eastern quad-
rant of the bay. The area is rich in coral reefs and
pearl grounds, with the entire coastal population de-
pendent on fishing for their livelihood.
Environmental impact assessment by NEERI:
The EIA studies were undertaken by NEERI in 2004
and the executive summary was posted for public
view at the website of TPT. The complete EIA re-
port was disseminated for public scrutiny only after
the grant of environmental clearance. The report by
NEERI concluded that, although there will be some
negative impacts on the environment, they were all
very insignificant (SCL, 2005).
It is interesting to note that, for a project of this
nature with a huge potential for impact on the liveli-
hoods and the environment of the area, the public
were kept at large all through the preparation of the
EIA report. Predictably, the public reaction was tre-
mendous and the list of questions raised for NEERI
to provide a creditable response was immense. A
partial list of concerns raised by the various sections
of the public and also, surprisingly, the Prime Minis-
ter of India’s Office (PMO) included:
• The Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS),
the largest NGO working in biodiversity and envi-
ronmental conservation, has said that the EIA re-
port prepared by the NEERI is insufficient and a
detailed study should be conducted in all seasons
for at least a year (Deccan Herald, 2004).
• The India Meteorological Department has as-
signed the Palk Bay as a “high risk area” for
121
EIA system in India
volcanic and cyclonic activity: this fact has not
been addressed at all (Raman, 2005).
• The Gulf of Mannar, supported by a US$8.6 mil-
lion conservation project from the GEF, and the
Point Calimere flamingo reserve will be severely
impacted (IANS, 2005).
• Coastal Action Network (CAN), an organisation
fighting for the protection of coastal ecology and
the livelihood of coastal communities, claims:
“The report does not give details of the ecological
destruction likely to be caused by the project. Ap-
parently, no major studies have been carried out
with special focus on the fauna of the Palk Bay”
(Subramanian, 2005).
• The PMO note commented that going ahead with
the construction of this mega-project, without col-
lecting information on the aspects of sedimenta-
tion as a result of cyclones and tsunamis, could
lead to major economic, technical and human
problems in future that could border on a disaster
(The Indian Express, 2005).
• NEERI’s suggestion that a trained pilot or envi-
ronmental watcher should board the ships that
cross the channel to watch out for marine
mammals is not practical (Manitham, 2005).
• Invasive species may be dispersed into these hith-
erto relatively protected seas with the bilge water
of ships sailing through the Channel (EFL, 2005).
It is evident from this partial list that the EIA report
by NEERI has failed to take into account, or allay,
the concerns of the public. This failure raises the
question of the credibility of the project, which is
supposed to aid economic growth and ultimately
public development through the trickle-down effect.
Involvement of the local public at the initial scoping
stage, to determine their likely concerns based on lo-
cal values and perceptions, would have avoided the
rift that has developed between the public and the
project proponents. Also, the fact that MEF has done
away with the requirement of NOC from the State
Government has added more confusion in the legal
requirements for environmental clearance.
The next section discusses the issues that chal-
lenge the undertaking of EIA in a developing nation.
A new framework is suggested, which can be fol-
lowed in situations akin to this project, which can be
expected to arise more frequently in the coming
years in all developing nations.
Discussion: EIA and sustainable development
The EIA studies carried out by the scientific com-
munity with sophisticated computer models tend to
drift away from the primary objectives of the very
nature of the undertaking. Simply put, the EIA pro-
cess can be viewed as an endeavour to answer a
basic question: will the identified impact be positive,
negative or uncertain? However, unless the person
who is analysing this question is the actual person
122
who will suffer the consequence, it is difficult for
him/her to appreciate the significance of the conclu-
sion drawn.
Hence, the duty of the scientific community is to
resist any external pressure and present all the likely
scenarios (best to worst) that are likely to arise, and
make it clear where the current level of knowledge is
insufficient to arrive at a conclusion regarding the
final scenario. As pointed out by Beattie (1995), “If
we as environmental professionals do not take up
this challenge, then EIAs will continue to be used as
proxies in political disputes that can never be re-
solved by reference to environmental impacts
alone”.
To arrive at an EIA process that will be true to its
intended purpose of sustainable development, we
will have to understand the critical factors at play in
a developing society like India. Among the various
complexities involved, two key issues have to be
tackled: how to judge the high economic growth ar-
gument; and how to include the public in a participa-
tory decision-making process.
Sustainability and the precautionary principle
The term sustainability has become a dreaded con-
cept in the developing world. The main argument
put forth by the advocates of high economic growth
is that the task of elevating the majority of the pub-
lic, who are currently languishing in poverty, should
not be compromised under the excuse of sustainabil-
ity. They accept that future concerns are important
too, but argue that alleviation of concrete misery
prevalent now always takes precedence.
Another important factor for the politician deci-
sion-makers is that the future citizens are simply not
a vote bank for today’s elections. In the context of
the Sethusamudram project, the issue to be resolved
is how much of a risk to the life-supporting coral
reef ecosystem we can tolerate against the promise
of economic growth through increased shipping ac-
tivity. First, we have to reach a consensus as to
whether we have to concentrate on protection of the
GOMBR at all.
Need to protect the GOMBR: According to one es-
timate, reef habitats provide humans with living re-
sources (such as fish) and services (such as tourism
returns and coastal protection) worth about US$375
billion each year (WRI, 1998: 11) providing bio-
diversity, sea food, new medicines, recreation, coastal
protection, climate regulation. Approximately 20%
of the world’s coral reefs were lost and an additional
20% degraded in the last few decades of the 20th
century, and approximately 35% of mangrove area
was lost during this time (Millennium, 2005: 18).
The people living along the coast obtain a consid-
erable proportion of their food and earnings from the
productivity of coral reefs. Coral reef ecosystems are
very sensitive to external impacts, both natural and
man-made, that violate their homeostasis. Of the
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006

total reef area of 6000 sq km in India, 68% is classi-
fied as under high risk of human disturbance (WRI,
1998: 24).
Now let us examine the economic growth argu-
ment. That economic growth aims to create wealth,
which is expected to trickle down to the poor, is a
premise that is yet to materialise. Ahana and
Rajagopalan (2000) point out that:
the threats to the Indian coastline are a result
primarily of development projects and industries
in the guise of improving the status of ‘back-
ward areas’, where employment opportunities
have been limited to traditional activities such
as agriculture, aquaculture or value addition to
locally available resources.
In the same paper, they indicate that, over the years,
projects in coastal areas have created a myriad of
problems ranging from increased urbanisation and
greater pressure on available resources (especially
fresh water supplies) to pollution by sewage and in-
dustrial wastes. They also argue that the benefits of
development are mostly cornered by those who are
able to manipulate the social and political system or
by the urban middle classes.
Development for whom? The poorer sections of
the public have so far experienced further alienation
and have seen the disparity between them and the
richer sections grow considerably. As the Millen-
nium report (2005: 17) points out:
the harmful effects of the degradation of eco-
system services are being borne disproportion-
ately by the poor, are contributing to growing
inequities and disparities across groups of
people, and are sometimes the principal factor
causing poverty and social conflict.
Hence, the argument of high economic growth by
itself can no longer be considered a cure-all and,
when it has the potential to affect existing life-
supporting systems, it becomes untenable.
Relevance of precautionary principle: In the con-
text of the project under discussion the application
The argument of high economic
growth by itself can no longer be
considered a cure-all and, when it has
the potential to affect existing life-
supporting systems, it becomes
untenable
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
EIA system in India
of the precautionary principle gains significance. It
states (IUCN, 2004):
When an activity raises threats of harm to hu-
man health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically. In this context the proponent of
an activity, rather than the public, should bear
the burden of proof
The precaution is well justified if we consider that
“the degradation of ecosystem services represents
loss of a capital asset” (Millennium, 2005: 22).
Applying this principle in the context of the pro-
ject under discussion, the list of concerns raised by
the public should have been studied in detail before
arriving at any conclusion as to whether to go ahead
with the project. In the event of the proponent being
unable to produce proof to the contrary, as is the
case now in the Sethusamudram project, the decision
of the MEF to give environmental clearance be-
comes questionable.
The minimum of effort that could have been un-
dertaken is to apply the tools of environmental eco-
nomics to understand the trade-offs involved
between preserving a life-supporting system against
the risks, and the benefits projected from the ship-
ping channel. In this way, the expertise of Indian
research institutes engaged in researching various
topics on environmental valuation and economics
would have been better utilised in coming to grips
with a complex decision regarding SSCP.
The participation problem
The second question to be tackled in a developing
society like India is how to ensure that we consider
the values and preferences of the affected public and
involve them in the decision-making process. The
importance of the traditional knowledge base of the
local public in improving the models and other tools
used for predicting impacts has been long under-
stood (Stevenson, 1996). As the Millennium report
(2005: 39) points out, effective management of eco-
systems typically requires ‘place-based’ knowledge,
that is, information about the specific characteristics
and history of an ecosystem that is too rarely incor-
porated into decision-making processes and indeed
is often inappropriately dismissed.
The main challenge in improving the EIA process
in developing countries is in raising public aware-
ness and in increasing opportunities for consultation
with affected parties, other interested groups and
NGOs throughout the EIA process (Glasson et al,
1999; Kennedy, 1999; Abaza, 2000; Appiah-Opoku,
2001; NIOT, 2000). The current practice in India of
conducting public hearings after the EIA studies are
completed can be considered a meaningless exercise,
as the public are just given an opportunity to voice
123
EIA system in India
their concerns with no assurance or mechanism to
ensure that they are/will be considered. The real way
forward would be to institutionalise the participatory
structure at the local level itself as we now outline.
The self-government of villages in India by lo-
cally elected representatives or panchayati raj
(panch – five member committee; raj – governance)
was strengthened by the 73rd constitutional
Amendment Acts of 1992. The basic concept of
panchayati raj is that the villagers should think, de-
cide and act in their own socio-economic interests
(NIRD, 2005). Considering that the village-level
self-governance institutions already exist, the next
logical step would be to dovetail environmental de-
cision-making into their scope of governance.
Currently, from the concerned districts three
members are nominated to the public hearing panel
without any clear-cut definition of their role or the
weight of their opinion on the final minutes of the
public hearing. The panchayats could be given the
key role right from the pre-EIA consultation stage
through to regular monitoring of the project for ad-
herence to conservation and mitigation measures
promised by the proponent.
Notwithstanding the claims of illiteracy and cor-
ruption, it would give the affected public a conduit
under their own control to express their voice and
act as a pressure group in case of any violation on
the part of the proponent.. This would go a long way
to avoiding the atmosphere of distrust and insecurity
that was prevalent during the public hearings of the
Sethusamudram project (The Hindu, 2004c; 2004d).
This village committee should be consulted before
the beginning of EIA studies, so that their valuable
input can help the scientists to prepare better EIA re-
ports. A modified environmental clearance procedure
is suggested in Figure 3 which would be the right step
forward towards development, to ensure the sustain-
ability of ecosystems in this nation of over a billion.
Elicit local knowledge and
concerns
SPCB - Village Panchayats/ Site approval /pre-EIA con-
NGOs
Incorporate traditional ecologi-
cal knowledge
Disseminate information
through internet and media
Village panchayats/NGOs
Clearance and monitoring
Figure 3. Proposed environmental clearance procedure for India
124
Conclusions: the way ahead
Even though India lays claim to being the world’s
largest democracy, it is still miles away from up-
holding the principles of democratic governance.
Environmental decision-making, which assumes cen-
tre stage in India because of its ecosystem-dependent
majority, is the key indicator of democracy that
needs to be improved. The malaise of inefficient
central control by a power-hungry politician–
bureaucrat nexus will continue until the rural poor
wakes up from its helplessness.
The evidence of growing awareness in the face of
continued failure of the EIA process is manifesting
in terms of violent conflict all around the country.
The fishermen are yet to be convinced that the
Sethusamudram project is not going to destroy their
livelihoods and are feeling completely orphaned as
the initial interest shown by the media has died
down. The worst case scenario resulting from the
failure of the EIA process in India happened when
12 tribespeople and a policeman died after police of-
ficers opened fire on protesters at the site of a
planned steel plant at Kalinganagar in January 2006
(BBC, 2006).
The way out is immediate reform of the EIA sys-
tem towards involving the local public to have their
say in decisions regarding their livelihoods. Cur-
rently the environmental NGOs in India are so disil-
lusioned with the MEF that they have gone to the
extent of issuing a death certificate for it (Panda,
2005). This is unfortunate in a civilisation known for
its tolerance and spirituality. Nevertheless, all these
incidents are yet to make a dent on the stance of the
MEF. The public and the NGOs are eagerly awaiting
the next move from MEF, hoping sincerely that it
will be in the interest of communities and ultimately
a tool that will ensure the sustainability of ecosys-
tems, poor humans included.
Project proponent
Consultant
sultation
Monitor process
EIA studies
SPCB
Public consultation IAA/ MEF
State Environment Appellate
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006

References
Abaza, H 2000. Strengthening future environmental assessment
practice: an international perspective. In Environmental As-
sessment in Developing and Transitional Countries, eds.
N Lee and C George. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Ahana, L and R Rajagopalan 2000. Socio-economic implications
of coastal zone degradation and their mitigation: a case study
from coastal villages in India. Ocean and Coastal Manage-
ment, 43, 749–762.
Andreou, A G and C E Jones 2001. Development of the EIA
process in Cyprus. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
19(3), 223–233.
Appiah-Opoku, S 2001. Environmental impact assessment in de-
veloping countries: the case of Ghana. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 21, 59–71.
Barker, A and C Wood 1999. An evaluation of EIA system
performance in eight EU countries. Environmental Impact As-
sessment Review, 19, 387–404.
BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation 2006. Orissa clash officers
transferred. BBC News. Available at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/world/south_asia/4584280.stm>, last accessed 6 March
2006.
Beattie, R B 1995. Everything you already know about EIA (but
don’t often admit). Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
15(2), 109–114.
Boggs, J 1991. EIA within democratic politics: contradiction in
terms or emerging paradigm. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 9,
1–11 (as quoted in Saarikoski, 2000).
Bojorquez-Tapia, L A and O Garcia 1998. An approach for evalu-
ating EIAs-deficiencies of EIA in Mexico. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 18(3), 217–240.
Canter, L W 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edn.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cicin-Sain, B 1993. Sustainable development and integrated
coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21,
11–43 (quoted in Ahana 2000).
Deccan Herald 2004. The Sethusamudram channel: boon or bane?
26 September. Available at <http://www.deccanherald.com/
deccanherald/sep262004/sl2.asp>, last accessed 20 May 2005.
EFL, Environmental Foundation Ltd 2005. Sethusamudram Ship
Channel Project: EFL Position. Available at <http://www.efl.lk/
Sethupos.html>, last accessed 10 May 2005.
EIC, Environmental Information Centre 2005. EIC and the environ-
mental clearance process in India. Available at <http://www.
eicinformation.org/>, last accessed 20 June 2005.
Envis, 2004. The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere. Department of Envi-
ronment, Government of Tamil Nadu. Available at <http://www.
envis.tn.nic.in/bio_gulf.htm>, last accessed 5 March 2006.
ESG, Environment Support Group 2000. Some suggestions for
review of the functioning of the Ministry of Environment and For-
ests, Environment Support Group, 2000. Available at <http://
www.esgindia.org/research>, last accessed 20 May 2005.
Glasson, J and N N B Salvador 2000. EIA in Brazil: a procedure–
practice gap. A comparative study with reference to the
European Union, and especially the UK. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 20, 191–225.
Glasson, J, R Thérivel and A Chadwick 1999. An Introduction to
Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd edn. London: UCL
Press.
GOI, Government of India 2002. Report on reforming investment
approvals and implementing procedures — Part II by Govinda-
rajan Committee. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India.
Available at <http://dipp.nic.in/reports_dipp.htm>, last ac-
cessed 20 May 2005.
Gonclaves, M E 2002. Implementation of EIA directives in Portu-
gal — how changes in civic culture are challenging political
and administrative practice. Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 22(3), 249–269.
IANS, Indo-Asian News Service 2005. Sethusamudram sea link
project could move ahead. 11 June. Available at <http://www.
indianera.com/displaynews.asp?nid=10728>, last accessed 20
May 2005.
IUCN, World Conservation Union 2004. The Precautionary
Principle in Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource
Management, by Rosie Cooney. IUCN Policy and Global
Change Series no 2. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:
IUCN. Available at <http://www.principle.net/publications/
PrecautionaryPrincipleissuepaper.pdf>, last accessed 14 April
2006.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006
EIA system in India
Kalpavriksh 2005. Why are the expert committees of Ministry of
Environment and Forests dominated by ex-bureaucrats, politi-
cians and engineers? April. Available at <http://www.
indiatogether.org/environment/docs/2005/MEFlett080405.pdf>,
last accessed 15 May 2005.
Kennedy, W V 1999. Environmental impact assessment and mul-
tilateral financial institutions, In Handbook of Environmental
Impact Assessment, Volume 2, ed. J Petts. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kohli, K 2005. NEAA rejecting clearance appeals coldly. India To-
gether, June. Available at <http://indiatogether.org/2005/jun/
env-neaacases.htm>, last accessed 1 March 2006.
Manitham 2005. Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project — interim
report. Available at <http://www.tamilinfoservice.com/
manitham/environment/sscp/ir.htm>, last accessed 10 June
2005.
MEF, Ministry of Environment and Forests 2006. Legislations, en-
vironmental clearance — general. New Delhi, Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Forests, Government of India. Available at
<http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/legis.html>, last accessed 5
March 2006.
Menon, M 2005. National Environment Appellate Authority: pup-
pet of the MoEF? InfoChange News and Features, October.
Available at <http://www.infochangeindia.org/>, last accessed
5 March 2006.
Millennium (2005), Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis
report, a report of the millennium ecosystem assessment.
Available at <http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/
Products.Synthesis.aspx>, last accessed 10 May 2005.
MSE, Madras School of Economics 2005 EIA actors. Available at
<http://coe.mse.ac.in/eiaactors.asp>, last accessed 10 May
2005.
NIOT, National Institute of Ocean Technology 2000. Manual for
Environmental Impact Assessment of Ports and Harbours
Chennai, India: National Institute of Ocean Technology. Un-
published report prepared for Department of Ocean Develop-
ment, Government of India.
NIRD, National Institute of Rural Development 2005. Panchayati
raj system in independent India. Available at <http://nird.org.in/
clic/pi.html>, last accessed 15 May 2005.
Panda, R 2005. MoEF’s ‘death certificate’ issued. Deccan Herald,
24 November. Available at <http://www.deccanherald.com/
deccanherald/nov242005/panorama1721720051123.asp>,
last accessed 2 March 2006.
Raman, P S 2005. Cyclones, tsunami and the Sethusamudram
project. India Nest.com, 11 June. Available at <http://www.
boloji.com/environment/25.htm>, last accessed 15 May 2005.
Saarikoski, H 2000. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as
collaborative learning process. Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 20, 681–700.
SCL, Sethusamudram Corporation Limited 2005. EIA of the
Sethusamudram Project. Nagpur, India: Sethusamudram Cor-
poration Limited. Available at <http://sethusamudram.gov.in/
English_Index.asp>, last accessed 5 March 2006.
Stevenson, M G 1996. Indigenous knowledge in environmental
assessment. Arctic, 49(3), 278–291.
Subramanian, T S 2005. Ecologists’ anguish. Frontline, 22(1).
Chennai, India: The Hindu Publication.
The Hindu, 2005a. Public hearing on polluting units turns violent.
11 April. Available at <http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/12/
stories/2005041209550400.htm>, last accessed 10 June
2005.
The Hindu, 2005b. Eco groups seek cancellation of public hear-
ing. 13 April. Available at <http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/13/
stories/2005041317880500.htm>, last accessed 10 June
2005.
The Hindu, 2004c. Time allotted for groups for public hearing on
Sethu project. 17 November. Available at http://www.hindu.
com/2004/11/17/stories/2004111703360500.htm>, last ac-
cessed 10 June 2005.
The Hindu, 2004d. Fishermen attend public hearing on Sethu pro-
ject. 20 November. Available at <http://www.hindu.com/2004/
11/20/stories/2004112006460500.htm>, last accessed 10
June 2005.
The Indian Express, 2005. PMO finds holes in ship channel pro-
ject, says fix them first. 9 March. Available at <www.ourmedia.
org/sites/ourmedia.org/files/Newspaper%20Reports%20Sethu
%20Policy.pdf>, last accessed 10 June 2005.
UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme 2003. India –
Country Profile. Available at <http://www.rrcap.unep.org/
country/cp/sasia/cp_India.cfm>, last accessed 10 May 2005.
United Nations, 1992. The United Nations Conference on
125
EIA system in India

Environment and Development. UNCED Report
A/CONF151/5/Rev.1. New York: United Nations..
Wood, C 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment: a Compara-
tive Review, 2nd edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Wood, C 2003. Environmental impact assessment in developing
countries — an overview. Paper presented at the Conference
on New Directions in Impact Assessment for Development:
Methods and Practice, 24–25 November, EIA Centre, School
of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.
WRI, World Resources Institute 1998. Reefs at Risk – a Map
Based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. Joint
publication by WRI, ICLARM, WCMC and UNEP.
Yap, N 1989. Round the peg or square the hole? Populist, tech-
nocrats and environmental assessment in third world
countries. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 8, 69–84 (as quoted in
Saarikoski, 2000).

126 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2006

View publication stats