Environmental Impact Assessment in India- An

Analysis

Optional -3

Submitted by
Submitted to Vignesh Appavu G
Dr. S.P Anandh Kumar Roll No: 1874
Associate Professor IFS(P), 2018 Batch
IGNFA IGNFA

1
Table of Contents
Environmental Impact Assessment in India- An Analysis ...................................................... 1
Environmental Impact Assessment in India- An Analysis ...................................................... 4
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
2. EIA Legislation in India.............................................................................................................. 6
3. Environmental Clearance Procedure (ECP) in India .................................................................. 6
4. Role of Stakeholders in ECP....................................................................................................... 8
4.1 The Role of the Project Proponent ............................................................................................ 8
4.2 The Role of Environmental Consultant .................................................................................... 8
4.3 The Role of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) ........................................................ 8
4.4 The Role of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MEF) / Impact Assessment Agency
(IAA) ............................................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 The Role of the Public/ NGOs .................................................................................................. 9
5. The EIA Process ....................................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Screening................................................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Preliminary Assessment .......................................................................................................... 11
5.3 Scoping ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.4 Main EIA ................................................................................................................................ 11
5.5 Public Hearing ........................................................................................................................ 12
6. Exemption of Small projects ..................................................................................................... 15
7. Analysis of EIA in India with some case studies ...................................................................... 15
7.1 Case Study 1: Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project............................................................. 15
7.1.1 What’s at Stake? For Whom? .............................................................................................. 17
7.1.2 Need to Protect the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve: .................................................... 17
7.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] by NEERI:......................................................... 19
7.1.4 Discussion: Isn’t EIA about sustainable development after all? ......................................... 20
7.1.5 Sustainability and the Precautionary principle .................................................................... 21
7.1.5.1 Need to Protect the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR): ............................... 21
7.1.5.2 Development for whom?................................................................................................... 22
7.1.5.3 Relevance of Precautionary Principle ............................................................................... 22

2
7.1.6 The Participation Problem ................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Case Study 2 : Niyamgiri Hills – Bauxite Mining Project...................................................... 24
7.2.1 Tribal Customary laws vs Vedanta’s Bauxite mining project ............................................. 24
7.2.2 Key issues and learnings from the case study ...................................................................... 25
7.3 Case Study 3 : Kol-Dam hydropower project ......................................................................... 25
7.3.1 Observations and Inferences from the case study ................................................................ 29
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 29
9. References ................................................................................................................................. 30

3
 Environmental Impact Assessment in India- An
Analysis

Abstract
“Doing the best at this moment puts you in the best place for the next moment”
- Oprah Winfrey

As rightly said by Oprah Winfrey, being proactive always support

us to be in better position in future. Environmental Impact assessment
(EIA) is one such tool to be proactive in conserving as well as maintaining
the sustainability of the environment and bridging the gap between socio-
economic development and environmental conservation.

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)

defines an EIA as “The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating an
mitigating the biophysical, social and other relevant effects of
development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and
commitments made.”
In India EIA was first started in 1977-78 with evaluation of river
valley projects, later EIA Notifications in 1994 and 2006 were issued
based upon Environment Protection Act, 1986. Both the notifications
together provided clarity on Environment Clearance Procedures. These
legislations and notifications discusses on broad aspects about stake

4
holders involved and their roles, procedures to be followed, chain of
process to be carried out, etc under Environmental Impact Assessment in
India.

Despite the fact that the EIA process in India is very vivid involving
stakeholders, there are mixed responses among people and the outcomes
from various case studies involving EIA is quite interesting and needs
detailed discussion on it.
This projects aims at analysing the various intricacies of EIA and to
discuss the bottlenecks in the EIA processes with references from various
case studies. And the project also deals the way forward to produce
comprehensive EIA (i.e) Strategic Environmental Assessment to achieve
Sustainable Development.

5
1. Introduction

India has invested considerable effort in implementing the universally

accepted principles of Rio Declaration. In one of its 27 principles, the Rio
Declaration 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). As per its commitment India has instituted legal and
institutional framework for application of EIA as an important tool to achieve
sustainable development. However off late in the developing countries, the word
sustainable development has become a challenging task with conflicting tradeoffs
between achieving high economic growth rate and preserving the resources for a
sustainable future. Every country has to ensure that sincere efforts are made to
elevate the environmental clearance procedure of which the EIA is the heart to an
all inclusive participatory decision making exercise.

2. EIA Legislation in India

EIA in India was first started in 1977-78 with evaluation of river valley
projects. This was later extended to mining, Industries, thermal power, port and
harbors, atomic power, rail and road highways, bridges airport and communications,
etc. The Central government issued first Notification on EIA in 1994 based upon the
powers vested by Environment Protection Act, 1986. This Notification listed 30
projects that required environmental clearance from the Central Government. It also
included - for the first time – Public hearing as a pre-requisite for clearing large
projects. The notification made it obligatory to prepare and submit an EIA, an
Environment Management Plan (EMP), and a project report to MEF which had the
option to consult a multi-disciplinary committee of experts.

3. Environmental Clearance Procedure (ECP) in India

The ECP in India as per EIA 1994 is shown in Figure-1. The role played out
by the various stakeholders involved in the clearance process is summarized in
Table–1. In EIA 1994 the Project proponent was required to consult the State
Pollution Control Board (SPCB) for approval of the identified site. If the site came

6
under any special notification such as forest land, coastal zone, ecologically sensitive
area, etc., then clearance for the site was to be obtained from Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MEF) which functions under the control of the Central
Government.

Figure-1. Environmental Clearance Procedure (ECP) as per 1994

Once the site clearance is obtained the proponent with the help of an
environmental consultant will conduct the EIA study. Once the proponent submits
the EIA report to the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), it fixes the date of the
Public Hearing and Informs the proponent to advertise in the local newspapers
inviting the public for the hearing. The SPCB conduct the public hearing and forward
the minutes of the hearing along with the No objection certificate to MEF. The
proponent is required to submit the EIA report along with a filled in questionnaire
to MEF. The MEF reviews the EIA report in conjunction with the minutes of the
public hearing with/ without the help of an expert committee and then accorded
clearance with/ without conditions. The MEF along with the SPCB periodically
monitored the implementation and adherence of the proponent to the conditions laid
down by MEF.
7
4. Role of Stakeholders in ECP

4.1 The Role of the Project Proponent

The project proponents are required to initiate and complete each of the stages
leading to the environmental clearance of the project with support of other
stakeholders.

4.2 The Role of Environmental Consultant

The Environmental Consultant is expected to be conversant with existing

legal and procedural requirements of obtaining environmental clearance of the
project. It conducts the EIA studies, clarifying all the issues during the public hearing
and justifying their findings at the MEF review.

4.3 The Role of the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)

The SPCBs are expected to approve the site that the proponent has chosen and
to conduct & forward the minutes of the public hearing to MEF. They should play a
more proactive role in bridging the gulf between the proponents and the public in
informing, educating and bringing both the parties to a common understanding.

4.4 The Role of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MEF) / Impact
Assessment Agency (IAA)

The MEF or the IAA (which is constituted by 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 NOC from

8
the concerned SPCB. And it will issue final orders of approved/ unapproved for the
project.

4.5 The Role of the Public/ NGOs

The public invited through press advertisements placed skillfully to make

them inconspicuous, is expected to put up a mere token appearance at the public
hearing

Table.1- Summary of roles of different stake holders during EIA Process

9
5. The EIA Process

In India, there is an elaborate EIA process involving many steps such as

Screening, Preliminary Assessment, Scoping, Main EIA including public hearing,
appraisal etc.
First of all, the developer has to prepare an EIA report with the help of an
environment consultant. On the basis of such report, the EIA may be either
comprehensive EIA or Rapid EIA. If the EIA report has to incorporate the data of
all four seasons of a year, it is called Comprehensive EIA. If the EIA report has only
one season data, then it’s called Rapid EIA. We note here that the comprehensive
EIA was later on diluted by Environment Ministry and currently, only Rapid EIA is
sufficient. Once this report is prepared, it is submitted to the
regulatory agency. The agency may then decide if the project may go for formal EIA
or not.

5.1 Screening

Screening is the first and simplest process in project evaluation. It decides if

the project needs EIA or not. The government rules categorize projects into two
categories, A and B based on the spatial extent of the impacts, effects on human
health and the effects on the environment.
Category A projects are looked into by the Central Government
Category B Projects go to the State Government.
Category B projects are further sub divided into Category B1 and Category B2.
B1 require a public hearing for EIA B2 don’t require.
Screening basically screen outs the projects that don’t require EIA process. But there
are several issues with this. Firstly, the projects are exempted from EIA on the basis
of value of investments they would be involving. The logic behind this is to keep out
the small projects from tangles of the complex process. Secondly, even if a project
may be eligible for exception from EIA process, they might involve some technical
processes which might be harmful to the environment.

10
5.2 Preliminary Assessment

The screening would thus clear a project or hold it for further stages. If it is
held for next stage, the developer will have to take Preliminary Assessment, which
involves sufficient research, review of available data and expert advice in order to
identify the key impacts on the project at local environment. This study will predict
the extent of the impacts and would briefly evaluate the importance for decision
makers. After the preliminary assessment, the competent authority would review it
and would decide if there is a need of comprehensive EIA or Rapid EIA. Then, the
developer will have to prepare the EIA report. The competent authority would create
an EIA team with independent coordinator and an expert study team.

5.3 Scoping

Scoping is yet another stage before the main EIA process begins. The EIA
study team which was organized after preliminary assessment would get engaged
into discussions with developers, investors, regulatory agencies, scientific
institutions, local people etc. It would study and address all issues of importance and
the concerns raised by various groups. Then the team would select the primary
impacts for main EIA to focus and determines detailed and comprehensive Terms of
Reference (ToR) for the main Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).

5.4 Main EIA

Once scoping is over, the main EIA begins. Basically, EIA would try to
answer the following questions:
1. What are the potential results of the project?
2. What are the potential changes and extent of those changes? To what extent
such changes matter?
3. What can be done about these changes? How the decision makers have to be
Informed of these changes?

11
 Thus, the EIA becomes a cycle of asking questions, and further questions until
workable solutions are reached. During this process, the key impacts on environment
such as changes in air quality, noise levels, impacts on wild life, impact on
biodiversity, impact on local communities, changes in settlement patterns, changes
in employment stats, changes in water consumption and availability etc. are formally
identified. The answers of the questions make the so
called “prediction” in the EIA process. The prediction scientifically characterises the
impacts quantitatively as well as qualitatively. We note here that prediction
techniques involve some degree of uncertainty.
Prediction is followed by evaluation. This part evaluates the predicted adverse
impacts and determines if they can be significantly mitigated. The next step is
mitigation which the study team would analyze the wide range of measures for
mitigation of adverse impacts. Such measure may include changing the project site,
operating methods, raw materials, disposal methods and routes, engineering designs,
waste treatment, phased implementation, landscaping, training, social service etc.
The compensation for damaged resources, affected persons etc. are also offered here.
Overall, the mitigation costs are identified and quantified. This part also involves the
Cost benefit analysis of the project in terms of mitigation costs.
Once mitigation measures and costs are identified, the next part is
documentation, which is called EIA report. This report has executive summary of
the project, a description of the proposed development, major environment issues,
impacts on environment, prediction, mitigation measures and options etc. along with
gaps and uncertainties in the information; and a summary of the EIA process for
general public. The project developer would now submit 20 copies of the executive
summary to SPCB (State Pollution Control Board). It is now responsibility of the
SPCB to conduct a public hearing.

5.5 Public Hearing

The SPCB conducts a public hearing at the site or in its close proximity-
district wise for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons. It includes obtaining

12
responses in writing from other concerned persons by posting on website within 7
days of receiving application.

In India, Public hearing is not required for the following projects:

Small scale industrial undertakings located in Notified or designed industrial
areas/ industrial estates. Areas marked for industries under the jurisdiction of
industrial development authorities. Widening and strengthening of highways Mining
projects (major minerals) with lease areas upto 25 hectares Units located in export
processing zones and special economic zones and Modernization of existing
irrigation projects.

MoEF is the nodal agency for environmental clearance. Once public hearing
is over, the project developer will get a NOC from SPCB and submit application to
the MoEF secretary to get environmental clearance. In MoEF, the application
evaluated by an Impact Assessment Agency (IAA). IAA may consult the experts and
again create a team to study the project. It has full right of entry and inspection of
the sites or factory premises prior to, during or after the commencement of the
project. IAA team does a technical assessment and gives its recommendations within
90 days. On the basis of this, the MOEF grants the environmental clearance which
is valid for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation
of the project.

13
Figure-2 EIA Process in India

14
6. Exemption of Small projects

Currently projects involving investments less than 100 crores are exempted
from EIA. Government has identified 16 categories of industries for relaxation. It
includes gas/petroleum exploration, refineries, ports, hydel power and major
irrigation projects.
Major theme behind exemption is to get fast approval for the projects which
will lead to socio-economic development. But these exemption may also result in
unsustainable development. Because if these projects are implemented without
proper EIA, then the projects may result in environmental degradation which will be
detrimental to the local people as well as wildlife in and around the project.
So in order to overcome the shortcomings, EIA shall be categorized as
Preliminary EIA and Comprehensive EIA. Preliminary EIA shall be made
compulsory for small projects which are currently exempted. Preliminary EIA shall
have a local environmental assessment with multiple stakeholders like local people,
experts, etc. Based upon preliminary EIA, whether Comprehensive EIA shall be
prepared may be decided. This idea will ensure holistic assessment of an area before
any project without compromising on rapid socio-economic development values.

7. Analysis of EIA in India with some case studies

7.1 Case Study 1: Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project

India does not have a continuous navigable route around the peninsula running
within her own territorial waters due to presence of a shallow patch called “Adam’s
Bridge” at Pamban where the navigable depth is only about 3m (refer figure 3).
Hence all the ships from west to east and from Tuticorin Port to the east have to go
round Sri Lanka entailing an additional distance of more than 254-424 nautical miles
and 21-36 hours of additional sailing time. The Ministry of Shipping in 1997,
identified the Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) as the nodal agency for the implementation
of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP). The Tuticorin Port Trust
retained National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur,
India to conduct the EIA study for the project.

15
 Figure 3: Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project

The proposed SSCP will have following 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 of 12m depth and bed width of 300m which will provide a
safe width for navigation of two way channel. The channel will have side slopes of
1:3. The total length of the channel would be about 260 km. About 120 km from
Tuticorin Port to Adam's Bridge (in Gulf of Mannar) and about 140 km north of
Rameswaram from Adam's Bridge to Bay of Bengal channel (in Palk Bay).
Projected Benefits from the Shipping Channel are: It will give sheltered water
route to the ships sailing from the western ports to the eastern ports of India. Average
time saved per voyage will be 25 hours (average saving in distance 300 nautical
miles and speed assumed as 12 knots) resulting in fuel savings also. The channel
will be of very great importance from national defence and security point of view.
The issues of conflict between the various stakeholders and how the EIA studies
rather than being a tool for deliberative discourse came about to be the main source
of conflict.
16
7.1.1 What’s at Stake? For Whom?

As it would be evident from the preceding sections the actors in this project
are:
• Tuticorin Port Trust (Project proponent/ Central Govt. Organization)
• NEERI (National Environmental Engineering research Institute-Consultant/
Central Govt. Organization)
• SPCB (TNPCB/ Tamil Nadu State Govt. Organization)
• MEF/ IAA (Final Authority/ Central Govt. Ministry)
• Local Fisher Folk and NGOs (who live along the coastal districts).
From the above listing it becomes clear that the entire group can be divided
as the Government on one side and the Fisher folk & NGOs on the other. The
benefits projected to accrue from this project by the Government is the reduction in
navigation time for the ships and the resultant savings in fuel. Let us examine the
case of the opposition as to what exactly is at stake for them.

7.1.2 Need to Protect the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve:

The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR) is located near the south-
eastern tip of Indian peninsula (figure 3). The extent of GOMBR is 10,500 sq.km
having 3,600 species of fauna and flora. The GOMBR comprises of 21 Islands and
is the first Indian marine national park which was internationally recognised under
the UNESCO-MAB programme. The IUCN commission on national parks and
WWF identified the reserve as an area of particular concern because of its richest
biodiversity and multiple use of the area (Envis, 2004). There are about 47 villages
along the coastal part of the biosphere reserve which support some 100,000 people.
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has provided support to the establishment
of the biosphere reserve, including the setting up and functioning of the Gulf of
Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust, which is responsible for the coordination of the
management plan for the biosphere reserve with government

17
agencies, private entrepreneurs, and local people’s representatives with priority
being given to encourage community-based management.
The present rate of degradation even without the shipping canal, if allowed to
continue will result in the total disruption of the sensitive eco system and consequent
drastic depletion of the marine wealth and its biodiversity. This in turn would make
the lives of the several thousand fishermen much harder. Hence there is an
imperative need to protect the marine wealth of the Gulf of Mannar by means of
regulated harvesting of marine resources and the amelioration of sensitive marine
eco-system, which is currently under tremendous threat.

Adam's Bridge:

Adam's Bridge is a chain of Shoal, nearly seven in all, 30 km long which have
a high cultural importance. The legends as well as Archaeological studies reveal that
the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to a primitive age of about
1,750,000 years ago and the bridge’s age is also almost equivalent. This information
is a crucial aspect for an insight into the mysterious legend called
Ramayana, which was supposed to have taken place in tredha yuga (more than
1,700,000 years ago). In this epic, there is a mention about a bridge, which was built
between Rameswaram (India) and Srilankan coast under the supervision of a
dynamic and invincible figure called Rama who is supposed to be the incarnation of
the Supreme as 30 per Hindu religion.

Palk Bay:

Palk Bay, an inlet of the Bay of Bengal, is bordered by the Indian peninsula
on the west, the island chain of Adams Bridge on the south, and the island of
SriLanka on 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 quadrant of the bay.
The area is rich in coral reefs and pearl grounds with the entire coastal population
dependent on fishing for their livelihood.

18
7.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] 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 report
was disseminated for public scrutiny only after the grant of environmental clearance.
The report by NEERI pointed out that though there will be some negative impact on
the environment; it concluded that they were all very insignificant. It is interesting
to note that for a project of such nature with a huge potential for impact on the
livelihoods and the environment of that area the public were kept at large all through
the preparation of the EIA report. Predictably the public reaction was tremendous
and the list of questions put up for NEERI to provide a creditable response was
immense. A partial list concerns raised by the various sections of the public and also
surprisingly the Prime Minister of India’s Office (PMO) is listed below:

Public Concerns regarding the project:

• The Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), the largest NGO working in the
field of bio-diversity and environmental conservation in India, has said the EIA
report 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 assigned the Palk Bay area as a “high
risk area” for volcanic and cyclonic activity, this fact has not been addressed at all.
(Raman, 2005).
• The Gulf of Mannar supported by an USD 8.6 million 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.
Apparently, 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 collecting information on the aspects of sedimentation due to

19
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 environmental watcher should board the
ships which cross the channel to watch out for marine mammals is not practical
(Manitham, 2005).
• Invasive species may be dispersed into these hitherto relatively protected seas with
the bilge water of ships sailing through the Channel. (EFL, 2005).
It is evident from the above partial list of concerns raised by the public and by
the PMO that the EIA report by NEERI failed to take into or allay the concerns of
the public. This failure questions the credibility of the project which is supposed to
aid economic growth and ultimately public development through trickle down effect.
Involvement of the local public at the initial scoping stage itself to determine their
likely concerns based on local values and perceptions would have avoided the rift
that has developed between the public and the project proponents. Further 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.

7.1.4 Discussion: Isn’t EIA about sustainable development after all?

The EIA studies carried out by the scientific community with sophisticated
computational models tends to drift away from the primary objectives of the very
nature of the undertaking. Simply put EIA process can be viewed as an endeavour
to answer a basic question: whether the identified impact will be positive, negative
or uncertain. 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 that might arise.
To arrive at an EIA process which 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
questions have to be tackled and they are:

1) How to judge the high economic growth argument?

20
2) And how to include the public in a participatory decision making process?

7.1.5 Sustainability and the Precautionary principle

The term Sustainability has become a dreaded concept 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 public who are currently languishing in
poverty should not be compromised under the excuse of sustainability. 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 activity. First, we have to reach a consensus as
to whether at all we have to concentrate on protection of the GOMBR.

7.1.5.1 Need to Protect the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR):

According to one estimate, reef habitats provide humans with living resources
(such as fish) and services (such as tourism returns and coastal protection) worth
about USD 375 billion each year (WRI, 1998, pp.11) providing biodiversity, 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 several decades of the twentieth century, and approximately 35%
of mangrove area was lost during this time (Millennium, 2005, pp.18). The people
living along the coast obtain a considerable proportion of their food and earnings
from the productivity of coral reefs. Coral reef ecosystems are very sensitive to
external impacts both natural and manmade, which violate their homeostasis. Of the
total reef area of 6000 sq.km in India, 68% of the area is classified as being under
high risk category of human disturbance (WRI, 1998, pp.24).

Now, let us examine the economic growth argument. That the economic
growth is aimed at creating wealth which is expected to trickle down to the poor is
a premise which is yet to materialize. Ahana and Rajagopalan (2000) point out that

21
“the threats to the Indian coastline are a result primarily of development projects and
industries in the guise of improving the status of ``backward areas'', where
employment opportunities have been limited to traditional activities such as
agriculture, aquaculture.

7.1.5.2 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 Millennium report (2005, pp.17) points out, “the harmful effects of the
degradation of ecosystem services are being borne disproportionately 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.

7.1.5.3 Relevance of Precautionary Principle

In the context of the project under discussion the application of precautionary

principle gains significance. The precautionary principle states (IUCN 2004),”
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, pre-
cautionary 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,
pp.22).

7.1.6 The Participation Problem

22
 As the millennium report (2005, pp.39) points out that effective management
of ecosystems typically requires “place-based” knowledge; that is, information about
the specific characteristics and history of an ecosystem which is too rarely
incorporated into decision-making processes and indeed is often inappropriately
dismissed. Of course the main challenge in improving the EIA process in developing
countries is the raising of Public awareness and the increasing of opportunities for
consultation with affected parties and other interested groups, as well as
nongovernmental organizations, throughout the EIA process. The real way forward
will be to institutionalize the participatory structure at the local level itself as outlined
below.

Panchayati Raj – adding more purpose:

The basic concept of Panchayati Raj is that the villagers should think, decide
and act for their own socio-economic interests. According to the Constitution,
Panchayats are given powers and authority to function as institutions of self-
government. Considering that the village level self governance institutions are
already existing, the next logical step would be to dovetail environmental decision
making into their scope of governance. Presently, from the concerned districts three
members are nominated to the public hearing panel without any clear cut definition
of role or weightage of their opinion on the final minutes of the public hearing. This
village committee should be consulted before the beginning of EIA studies so their
valuable input can help the scientists to prepare better EIA reports.
A modified Environmental Clearance procedure is suggested in Figure-4
which will be the right step forward towards development to ensure the sustainability
of ecosystems in this nation of over a billion.

Figure-4 Proposed ECP for EIA in India from the case study

23
7.2 Case Study 2 : Niyamgiri Hills – Bauxite Mining Project

The Niyamgiri is a hill range situated in the districts

of Kalahandi and Rayagada in the south-west of Odisha, India. These hills are
home to Dongria Kondh indigenous people. The hills have one of India's most
pristine forests in the interior. It is bound by Karlapat Wildlife Sanctuary on the
north-west side and Kotgarh Wildlife Sanctuary on the north-east end.The Dongrias
worship the top of the mountain as the seat of their god and protect the forests there.

7.2.1 Tribal Customary laws vs Vedanta’s Bauxite mining project

Vedanta entered into MOU with Odisha Mining

Corporation for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri Hills in
1997. In 2002, land acquisition from 12 villages of the
lanjigarh started and refinery started in lanjigarh. Then Figure-5 Niyamgiri Hills
acquisition of land in Niyamgiri hills started. However in 2004, a case was filed in
supreme court against the bauxite mining process in Niyamgiri hills. And Supreme
24
court appointed Central Empowered Committee [CEC] to investigate the matter
further. In 2005, CEC stated that such an ecologically sensitive areas should be
disallowed for mining. On considering the recommendations, Supreme court
revoked Environment Clearances for the project. However Vedanta Company
submitted revised proposal which was approved by supreme court.

In 2010, Forest Advisory Committee of the MOEF undertook a site inspection

and observed several violations of environmental laws including non-compliance of
FRA, 2006. This is followed by formation of various committees and subsequently
in 2013, Supreme court ordered to conduct an ENVIRONMENTAL
REFERENDUM in all 12 villages. As per the order, referendum was conducted and
all 12 villages unanimously opposed mining project leading to cancellation of the
project by the state government.

7.2.2 Key issues and learnings from the case study

➢ Attempt to compromise tribal customary rights.

➢ Violation of environmental laws and forest conservation laws.
➢ Compromising Tribal Rights.

So, it is evident from the case that, if the local tribals are briefed about the project
earlier and consulted them in proper way before environmental clearances, then the
issue would have been solved far before, rather through judicial process. From this
case study, it is proposed that consultation of concerned Gram Sabha while preparing
preliminary assessment should be made compulsory and Environmental
Referendum by Gram Sabha should be made part of public hearing by SECB.

7.3 Case Study 3 : Kol-Dam hydropower project

The projects seen in Case studies 1 and 2 are either yet to be implemented or
not implemented. But this case study will analyse the socio-economic impacts of an
hydropower project located on satluj river in Himachal Pradesh.

25
 Kol-Dam hydropower project is located between 31021’54" to 31005’13" n
latitude and 76051’31" to 77023’51" E longitude on Satluj river, in Himachal
Pradesh. It covers some part in Mandi and Bilaspur of the state. Himachal Pradesh
is endowed with hydroelectric potential of about 27436 MW on the five river basins
namely Satluj, Ravi, Beas, Yamuna & Chenab. The basin wise potential are Satluj
(13,332 MW), Beas (5,995 MW), Chenab (4,032 MW), Ravi (3,237MW) and
Yamuna (840 MW). Although, hydroelectric projects provides opportunities for
economic development but also have the potential to adversely affect the livelihood
and well-being of local as well as downstream communities in the area. So the study
on the impacts of Kol-dam hydropower project on local people and their overall
economy has been made by a group of experts.
Land is the basic resource, which can be allocated for different farm and non-
farm activities for maximization of household income depending upon its nature and
type. Land inventory and its utilization pattern, before and after project
implementation period in the sampled households have been analyzed and depicted
in Table 2. The table revealed that there was a loss of total land holding per family
in the range of 33.07 to 64.46 per cent in affected villages. However in case of
cultivated land there was a loss in the range of 36.15 to 67.36 per cent in sampled
villages. In case of pasture, maximum loss of 60 per cent was in Kasol. It was
recorded minimum (7.50 %) for village Jamthal. Similarly it had also reported that
1600 hectare of cultivable land and 2000 hectare uncultivable pasture land occupied
by Tehri dam project in Garhwal Himalayas of Uttrakhand. Total area under crop
was decreased in the range of 67.36 to 36.15 percent in affected villages (Table 3)
In the research it is also found that the estimate loss of total land holding per
family in EIA (before start of project ) was 20%. Now 5 years after the commission
of project it is estimated as 67.36%. As far as the total livestock per family is
concerned, there was a substantial decrease in the livestock population which ranged
from 52.50 to 59.60 percent (Table 4). Construction of dam leads to

the loss of fodder due to submergence of farmland, pasture/ghasni land which

ultimately resulted in decrease in livestock population in each village. Overall there
was a decrease in income ranged from 42.86 to 81.17 per cent from on-farm sectors
(agricultural crop & livestock) and an increase in off farm (jobs and private business)
26
income ranged from 13.33 - 48.33 per cent has been observed in the affected villages
(Table 4).

Table 2 : Change in the average land holdings per family

Table 3 : Change in the average area under crops per family in different villages of
Kol-Dam project area

27
 Table 4 : Change in the per family livestock status in different project affected
villages

Table 5 : Change in income per family from different sources in project affected villages

28
7.3.1 Observations and Inferences from the case study

The real ground level Socio- economic impacts are far more negative than the
expected level as per EIA assessment. It signifies that the methodology and
technology used to assess the socio-economic impact during EIA should be more
broad, inclusive and sustainable.

8. Conclusion
India being a growing economy has the challenge of finding a trade-off
between Economic Development and Environment Conservation. By proper EIA
assessment and regular monitoring and enforcement of Environment Management
Plan we could able to achieve both development and conservation thereby upholding
the principles of sustainable development. This can be achieved through versatile
and flexible EIA in action. Therefore EIA in India is inevitable and indispensible
and needs few amendments as noted in cases studies and in future too.

29
9. References
9.1 Environmental Impact Assessment of Kol-Dam Hydropower Project – A Case Study from Himachal
Pradesh, India Hukam Chand1*, K. S. Verma2 and TanviKapoor1 Department of Environmental Science,
2 Dean College of Forestry, Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Solan (H.P)-
173230, India.

9.2 Conflict, Negotiations and Natural Resources Management, A legal pluralism perspective from India,
Edited by marten Bavinck and Amalendu Jyotishi.

9.3 ASSESSMENT OF EIA SYSTEM IN INDIA: NEED FOR PARTICIPATORY AND

SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES, Govind Anand.

9.4 EIA Process by GKTODAY.

9.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (Eia) In India: An Appraisal By Dibya Jyoti Kalita, Omiyo
Kumar Das Institute Of Social Change And Development (Okdiscd)

30