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

net/publication/227652699

Environmental impact assessment follow-up in india: Exploring regional

variation

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · September 2011

DOI: 10.1142/S146433321100395X · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

17 1,944

1 author:

Urmila Jha-Thakur
University of Liverpool
41 PUBLICATIONS   794 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment practice in India View project

Evaluating EIA System in Iran View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Urmila Jha-Thakur on 11 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
Vol. 13, No. 3 (September 2011) pp. 435–458
© Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S146433321100395X

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UP

IN INDIA: EXPLORING REGIONAL VARIATION

URMILA JHA-THAKUR
Department of Civic Design, School of Environmental Sciences
University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZQ, UK
urmila.thakur@liv.ac.uk

Received 16 November 2010

Revised 13 July 2011
Accepted 13 July 2011

The aim of this paper is to explore regional variation in the implementation of Environ-
mental Impact Assessment follow-up in India and to identify causes of such variations. In
doing so, forty-three semi-structured interviews were carried out across the Indian mining
and environment sector. The findings from the interviews confirm that regional variation in
follow-up implementation is a result of social, environmental, economical and political
factors. To further explore these factors, three case studies of open cast coal mining were
conducted. The findings of the case studies offer insight as to how the factors identified
during the interviews influence follow-up outcomes. Furthermore, it reflects how the
nature of such variation is not always true to what is perceived about them. Subsequently,
the findings from the interviews and case studies help in contributing to the existing best
practice of EIA follow-up and developing recommendations for achieving better follow-up
outcomes in India.

Keywords: EIA follow-up; regional variation; developing country; India.

Introduction
The aim of this article is to explore the factors that cause regional variation in the
implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) follow-up. It has
already been established in the EIA literature that no two follow-ups will be same
even under the same jurisdiction due to the influence of contextual factors
(Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004a). In their edited book, Morrison-Saunders
and Arts (2004b) have compiled various case studies of follow-up to reflect such

435
436 U. Jha-Thakur

variations. However, the emphasis has predominantly been on the developed

world (also see Marshall, 2002; Baker and Dobos, 2001; Jesus, 2000; Ross,
2000; Ahammed and Nixon, 2006; O’Faircheallaigh, 2007) and includes examples
from the Netherlands, Scotland, Western Australia, Canada and Hong Kong.
Based on these examples, the experience of follow-up is drawn together and
presented in terms of contextual factors that influence EIA follow-up. The con-
textual factors identified are namely: (i) regulations and institutional arrangements;
(ii) approaches and techniques; (iii) resources and capacity; and (iv) project type.
Based on these four factors, “Best Practice” has been derived in the field of EIA
follow-up (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2003) that answers three broad questions,
which are:

. What are the contextual factors which affect follow-up?

. How is follow-up conducted?
. Who is involved in follow-up?

However, as follow-up outcome differs even within similar jurisdictions, it is

important to develop an understanding of the factors causing such differences. This
should help in designing better follow-up programs. Accordingly, an additional
question of “where” needs to be incorporated into the follow-up framework.
Figure 1 incorporates this question on the existing framework for EIA follow-up
which illustrates contextual factors and stakeholders required for moving towards
successful follow-up. This is expected to help verify the role of these factors in

regulations &
What? institutional approaches & resources & project
arrangements techniques capacity type
Where?

How? EIA Follow-up Outcomes

EIA follow-
up

Proponent regulator community

Who? 1st party 2nd party 3rd party

follow-up follow-up follow-up

Fig. 1. Contextual factors for developing best practice for EIA follow-up (adapted from Morrison-
Saunders et al., 2003).
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 437

differing contexts especially the developing country context which is somewhat

underrepresented in the current literature (see Hullet and Diab, 2002; O’Beirne
et al., 2000; Ross, 2001; Ramjeawon and Beedassy, 2004).
As such, this paper especially takes into account a developing country context
by looking at the case of India. India being an emerging economy is a land of
diversity which faces tricky environmental challenges associated with both the
developed and the developing world (Gazzola and Jha-Thakur, 2009) and there-
fore offers ideal background to tease out such contextual differences. It should also
be noted that some earlier work on EIA follow-up in India (see Jha-Thakur and
Fischer, 2008; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009a; Paliwal, 2009, 2006) indicates the
existence of regional variation in follow-up implementation. Priyadarshini and
Gupta (2003) attributed such regional variation to lax enforcement of environ-
mental standards demonstrated by the regulating agencies in India which result in
wide variations across the different states. Accordingly, this paper follows on from
previous work and explores regional variation in India by choosing three different
case studies in three different states, referred here as the regions of India.
The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, it helps in elaborating on regional
variation as indicated in previous work and secondly teases out the causes of such
variations. It is expected that understanding these causes and their influence on the
contextual factors, should help in addressing such variations more effectively in
EIA follow-up. In doing so, the paper explores first, how regional variation is
perceived and secondly, how it actually manifests itself in practice. Accordingly,
this work reflects on the existing “best practice follow-up” from a developing
country perspective.
In doing so the rest of the paper is broadly divided into 6 sections. First, the
context for EIA follow-up in India is set. This is then followed by the method-
ology that has been adopted for the research. The findings are presented in two
sections discussing the evidences collected from semi-structured interviews and
the three case studies. The interviews help in unveiling how regional variation is
perceived while the case studies provide an insight as to how it actually influences
practice. Wider international implications of the findings are discussed followed
by recommendations provided for the Indian context. Finally, conclusions are
drawn.

Setting the Context of EIA Follow-Up in India

EIA was introduced in India as an administrative measure in 1978–79, initially for
river valley projects that was later extended to industrial projects (CII and GoI,
1999). It was formally introduced by the Environment Protection Act (EPA) in
438 U. Jha-Thakur

1986. In this context, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) was of crucial importance in
precipitating the urgency for developing legislative instruments for enforcing good
environmental protection and management practices (Mathur and Rajvanshi,
2001). Subsequently, in 1994, full legislative EIA requirement was introduced in
the Indian Constitution.
Follow-up has been neglected stage of EIA in India since its inception. EIAs
had been carried out in India mostly in order to secure project funding. EIA during
the 1970s and early 1980s in India was not a legal requirement and its chief role
was to facilitate the clearance of the project in order to get funding for develop-
mental activities. This initial start certainly had a profound influence in shaping the
attitude of developers towards EIA who started visualising it as a “quick pass” for
environmental clearance of the development projects. Since EIA was not a legal
requirement under the 1986 EPA regulations, the decision to grant environmental
clearance (EC) was based on the discretion of the Ministry of Environment and
Forest (MoEF). EIA was a requirement only for large projects also called “mega”
projects, which were usually government undertakings (Sinha, 2001). As a result,
the proponents were mainly government authorities. This meant the system lacked
an independent review process. Due to a lack of a legal status, record keeping was
also minimum and therefore “the potential for feedback into the project design was
minimal” (Valappil et al., 1994).
EIA became a mandatory requirement under the EIA Notification of 1994,
which specified the requirement of follow-up by stating that the project authorities
“shall submit a half yearly report to the Impact Assessment Agency”. These
documents were required to report on the compliance of the recommendations and
conditions stipulated by MoEF, while according the EC to the specific develop-
ment proposal. However, these were seldom available to the public and were
submitted to the regulatory body.
The subsequent amendment in the EIA Notification of 1994 in 2006 (GoI,
2006) brought a major regulatory reform in improving public access to EIA related
information including the status of compliance monitoring. The project proponents
are now bound to submit the half yearly compliance reports, both, as a soft copy
and hard copy to the concerned regulatory authority twice in a calendar year. The
latest reports are also available on their website (GoI, 2006). These recent pro-
visions have technically advanced follow-up dissemination by making them
available on the internet and should play a crucial role in increasing the trans-
parency of follow-up. Another important procedural modification in EIA process
brought about by the amendment in EIA Notification (2006), is the delegation of
power from the Central to State Governments for conducting the review of EIAs
(GoI, 2006). This has been done by constituting a State or Union territory level
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 439

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) by Central Government in

consultation with the concerned State or Union Government.

Methodology
In order to explore regional variation, it was important to identify how follow-up
practices may have adapted and evolved differently over time in different regions
in India. As such the case of open cast coal mining was taken. Open cast coal
mines usually have a long life span and have played a leading role in the
economy of the country since independence (Srinivasan, 2001). The methodology
adopted for this paper is mainly qualitative in nature and can be discussed in two
parts.
First, it makes use of semi-structured interviews which were conducted
amongst the key players within the mining and environment sector at the national
level. A total of 43 interviews were conducted across a section of various insti-
tutions and organisations related to mining and environment. These include
NEERI (National Environment Engineering Research Institute of India), DGMS
(Director General Mines Safety), CIL (Coal India Limited), CMPDI (Centre for
Mine Planning and Design Institute), ISM (Indian School of Mines), CMRI
(Centre for Mining Research Institute of India), WII (Wildlife Institute of India),
MOC (Ministry of Coal), MOL (Ministry of Labour), CPCB (Central Pollution
Control Board), people from mining related media, academicians and the MoEF.
Within the MoEF, interviews were selected from the Environment as well as the
Forest Wing and also from the Expert Committee of Mining constituted in the IAD
(Impact Assessment Division) of MoEF. Figure 2 outlines the relations between
the various departments and highlights the ones that were included for these
interviews. Comments were also taken from three ex-coal Ministers of India which
includes Late Mr. Ajit Panja, Mr. Dilip Ray and Mr. P.A. Sangma.
Prior to conducting the semi-structured interviews amongst the 43 members,
pilot interviews were held with 10 prospective interviewees in India to develop a
general understanding of regional variation in EIA follow-up implementation in
India and glean through the factors contributing to such variations. The discus-
sions revealed four broad areas which were thought to be causing regional vari-
ation. These include Economical, Social, Political and Environmental. Based on
the literature and feedback from these pilot interviews, questions for the semi-
structured interviews were devised. As evident in Table 1 eight questions were
included starting with whether the interviewee agreed that regional variation exists
in EIA follow-up implementation in India. If yes, what were the reasons for such
variations? Based on existing literature (Priyadarshini and Gupta, 2003), the role
440 U. Jha-Thakur

Fig. 2. Institutional mechanism-mining and environment (adapted from Jain, 2004, p. 7).

of the regulating agencies, i.e., the respective State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCB) and the MoEF were also questioned.
The second part of the methodology involves a case study analysis which helps
to establish if at all regional variation exists in follow-up implementation and
elaborate on the factors that cause such variations. Three case studies have been
chosen in three different states in India which are Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and
Orissa. It should be noted that the main coal belt in India is spread across seven
states including the three from which the case studies were chosen. For each of the
case studies chosen, the regulating agencies including the state pollution control
board and the regional offices of the MoEF were also different.
In order to reduce any exaggeration of possible differences in performances
amongst the case studies, all mines chosen belonged to the parent company of CIL
which is the largest coal producing company in India contributing to 85% of
Indian coal production (CIL, 2010). Also to avoid any deviation from Indian
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 441

Table 1. Questions for semi-structured interviews and overall response.

No. Regional variation in follow-up implementation Conclusion

1. Do you think there is any regional variation in the Yes

implementation of EIA follow-up?
2. Does the economic situation of the region affect the Factors causing regional variation
follow-up implementation? includes:
. Economical
. Social
. Political
. Environmental
. Managerial/Organisational
3. Are there any political factors that cause regional
variation?
4. Are there social factors causing regional variation?
5. Do environmental factors cause regional variation?
6. Are there any other factors that may cause regional
variation apart from the ones already mentioned?
7. Are there any procedural variations with which the Yes
respective SPCB provide feedback to the
proponents?
8. Are there any procedural variations with which the No/unclear
MoEF provides feedback to the proponents?

practices, mining projects that were funded and therefore guided by any inter-
national guidelines of funding agencies such as the World Bank, were avoided.
The projects chosen were of similar age and production capacity. The use of
interviews along with the case study approach helps in offering a comparison of
how regional variation in follow-up is perceived to what actually exists on the
ground.

Evidence from the Semi-Structured Interviews

Out of a total of 43 interviewees who were involved in the semi-structured
interviews, 41 agreed that regional variation is present in follow-up implemen-
tation across India. Of the remaining two, one said that the variation was based on
company culture rather than regions while the other, neither confirmed nor rejected
the notion of regional variation. A wide variety of reasons were offered by the
interviewees supporting their perception of such variations. For ease of discussion,
these terms have been broadly categorised under the four headings derived during
442 U. Jha-Thakur

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Economical Environmental Social Political Managerial

Fig. 3. Factors causing regional variation in EIA follow-up in India (based on perceptions of
interviewees).

the pilot interviews. Figure 3 presents the overall response from the interviewees
which are discussed below:
Economical Factors: Terms used under this category include existing state
infrastructure; resources; company profits and economic health of affected popu-
lation. The general argument put forward is that the more affluent a state is the
better is the likelihood of good compliance as the government can dedicate more
staff for checking compliance. It was also suggested by the interviewees that if
local people are economically affluent, they would usually depend less on agri-
culture. As a result, mining companies would face less resistance from the local
community in terms of transferring land-use to non-agricultural activities. This
would allow them to focus on environmental factors increasing their follow-up
efficiency. Location in a comparatively richer state would also imply more
lucrative business for the company which should enable the company to use more
resources for follow-up activities. A total of 13 interviewees identified this factor
as a cause of regional variation.
Environmental Factors: This category mainly consisted of factors like geo-
graphical characteristics of an area; landscape and geo-mining conditions.
According to the interviews some follow-up conditions become difficult to adhere
to due to geographical restrictions.
It was viewed that areas which already have environmental problems in terms
of air pollution and deforestation due to other economic activities, find it difficult
to meet the expectations of the regulating agencies as the proponents feel that
“they have to repair damages done by others”. This category was selected by 13
interviewees who thought that regional variation was caused by this factor.
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 443

Social Factors: Factors under this category was selected by maximum number of
interviewees, i.e., 18 of them. This may be due to the fact that a wide variety of
sub-factors is circumscribed by this overall factor. These include cultural values of
people, occupational characteristics, social awareness, environmental conscious-
ness, attitude, educational and population identity. The explanation provided in
support of this factor was that even when proponent or government is not efficient,
public consciousness and effort can pave the way for better implementation of EIA
follow-up. Therefore, in states with higher literacy environmental consciousness is
also expected to be higher, resulting in strong public opinion supporting the cause
of social justice and environment.
Political Factors: Eleven interviewees thought that this overall factor causes
regional variation in EIA follow-up implementation in India. Terms categorised
under this heading includes local politics, state governance, state regulating bodies
and corruption levels. Interestingly, one of the interviewee cited an example where
villagers were manipulated and bribed with food by local politicians to oppose the
mining company. To maintain confidentiality, the details of this example cannot be
provided here. But this exemplifies the overlapping of social and political factors.
In areas where local people are deprived of basic amenities like food and shelter,
environment is hardly an option and their vulnerability may be exploited some-
times in the name of democracy.
Managerial Factors: Apart from social, environmental and political factors, five
interviewees strongly supported that the company management and organis-
ational culture itself plays a substantial role in follow-up implementation.
Therefore, if the higher official himself is environmentally conscious or advo-
cates and encourages good environmental practice, better implementation is
possible. Evidences were provided by the interviewees of the same company
which did better under a certain director and the performance degraded when
that director was changed. As far as organisational culture is concerned, more
information and research is required in terms of how this influences follow-up
practices.
It should be noted that the opinions provided here are that of the interviewees
which may be influenced by their personal experiences.
As evident from the discussion above, there is no one predominant factor that
overrides the others with the exception of the “management factor”, which was
supported by least number of interviewees. Therefore, regional variation is a result
of a combination of these factors. The case studies have helped to explore these
factors in more detail.
444 U. Jha-Thakur

Overview of Case Study Analyses

In order to further explore and establish the factors and their influence on
regional variation, three case studies of open cast coal mines were conducted
which are going to be henceforth referred to as Cases A, B and C located in the
states of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa respectively (see Fig. 4). The
main aim of the discussion below is to present the findings from the case studies
in terms of the regional variation they exhibited and is based under the four
broad categories of economical, political, social and environmental variations.
These observations are not always in par with the perception of the experts at the
national level with regards to the trends and factors causing regional variation in
follow-up. Therefore, the discussion below is expected to add new insights into
this subject area.

Fig. 4. Map of India showing case studies A, B and C in the states of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and
Orissa respectively.
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 445

Economical variations
The three states referred here as regions are not similar in terms of their economic
status. Based on 2008 figures Maharashtra has the highest GDP with 95,371
million USD, followed by Uttar Pradesh with a GDP of 61,703 million USD and
Orissa lags behind with a GDP of 5,753 million USD (CSO, 2008). This disparity
in terms of economic status seems to have implications on the contextual factors
and stakeholder’s role affecting follow-up outcomes as discussed below.
Challenges in Job Creation: During the case studies, proponents from Case C said
that they are always under immense pressure in terms of providing employment to
local people. The interviews revealed that the proponent was compelled to provide
employment to people who were not necessarily affected by the project. Social
unrest was perceived to be common in this region. To combat such problems a
Peripheral Development Committee (PDC) was initiated for consideration of
issues that arise from the community. Such a practice is absent in the other two
cases. In terms of international follow-up literature on best practices for mining
activities, a similar approach is seen in the Ekati Diamond mine of Canada (Ross,
2004). As such, follow-up in Case C was mainly community driven (See
Morrison-Saunders et al., 2001). Contrarily, Case B had minimum conflicts as the
population density of the region is low and resistance is less. According to the
proponents, this enabled them to concentrate more on the environmental issues
within follow-up.
Power of Proponents: As the proponent is a revenue generating company, the state
government also depends on the proponent for the overall improvement of the
area. This puts pressure on the proponent but at the same time makes the pro-
ponent very powerful and dilutes the role of the regulators. Consequently, the
power and influence of the proponent seems to be more or less like a “parallel
government”. This influence is pronounced in less economical developed area
where the regulators are weaker due to lack of resources. For instance, all three
cases were producing coal more than the sanctioned capacity. However, Case C
had to face the minimum opposition and interference from the regulators in charge.
The regional regulating office acknowledges this shortfall.
Under Staffed Regulating Bodies: The resource and capacity of all the regulating
bodies is weak. But their position becomes even more compromising in econ-
omically active region as it means industries are more densely located demanding
more resources to monitor. This is in contrast to what was perceived by the
interviewees at the national level. In Case A located in Maharashtra, the regional
office of the MoEF had only two officers who were responsible for checking
compliance of over 800 industries. As a result the office had set up a task of
446 U. Jha-Thakur

checking compliance for 120 industries per year which itself meant that each
industry will be monitored once in seven years. Case B and Case C shared a
similar situation. However, during the interviews it was perceived by the national
experts that economically strong regions will be able to devote more resources for
follow-up. This was clearly not happening in reality.

Environmental variations
According to the interviewees, environmental factors can influence the
implementation of follow-up as each region and in fact each project will have its
own geographical characteristics, unique landscape with particular geo-mining
conditions. During the case studies it was realised that this is indeed the case
however, the follow-up parameters set-up for monitoring by the regulating
agencies did not reflect any adjustment to the differing environmental factors. The
monitoring conditions stipulated by the regulating agencies were almost identical
for all three case studies. As a result they were not tailored to the specific needs of
the projects. The following paragraphs outline two such requirements which were
met with differing standards amongst the three cases owing to the variations in the
environmental factors namely landscape and geo-mining conditions.
Landscape: In each of the clearance letter accorded by the MoEF to the projects, a
stipulated angle of 28 ○ was required to be maintained for the overburden (OB)
dumps on the site.1 During the case studies, it was revealed that Cases A and C
were complying. But due to a hilly terrain and lack of levelled surface in Case B, it
was not always possible to maintain the OB dumps at this angle. Therefore, in
pursuit of saving surface space, the OB dumps in Case B had a steeper angle.
Practice in Case B was therefore not in line with the follow-up conditions. Sub-
sequently, the proponents had requested the regulating authority to revise this
condition to suit the project specific characteristics. Such a revision would imply
further bureaucratic hurdles and therefore would demand more time and effort. As
a result, there was almost a mutual understanding amongst the regulating authority
and the proponent that this particular requirement was not going to be met
according to the specifications. This observation during the case study may have
the following implications in follow-up practice in general for India:

(i) First, the clearance letter which stipulate follow-up conditions are generic in
nature and does not accommodate individual characteristics related to the
project concerned;

1 Opencast excavation of coal deposits involves the removal of overlying soil and rock debris and
their storage in overburden dumps (Chaulya et al., 2000).
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 447

(ii) Procedural stages in the EIA process are too rigid and not flexible which
discourages the follow-up process in being adaptive in nature making it less
dynamic;
(iii) Stringent regulations which do not cater to specific requirements are usually
not adhered to in reality;
(iv) The proponents as well as the regulators are aware of such shortfalls of the
system and prefer to get around with it informally. This also means that
currently, the follow-up process is not getting any feedback into it, making it
non-iterative in nature.

Geo-Mining Conditions: Similar to the problem discussed above, another

requirement included in the conditional clearance letter issued by the MoEF,
common to all the cases was the expectation by the regulating authority that the
“top-soil” will be maintained. Case C, which has a flat terrain also has a low
stripping ratio.2 According to the proponent, this makes it very difficult to maintain
the top-soil. Once again, the regulating authorities were aware of such non-
compliance on behalf of Case C, but no steps were taken either to accommodate or
to rectify this.

Social variations
Social factor was cited as the most popular reason affecting follow-up
implementation. This is perhaps owing to the wide interpretation of causes that can
be grouped under this category. The following discussion highlights three sub-
factors that affect follow-up implementation.
Scope of Social Aspects in Follow-Up: Out of the three cases explored, Case C is
the only one which involved displacement of people. Hence, in this case follow-up
on social aspects essentially involved the resettlement and rehabilitation work of
the project affected people (PAP). In Cases A and B, direct displacement was not
an issue and as such the social aspects of follow-up were hardly incorporated
within the follow-up strategy. Such an approach clearly disadvantages other social
issues that need to be addressed. For example, although villages were not dis-
placed in Case A, 95% of the people in the project area were from beyond the
region. This gives rise to new patterns and cultural set-ups. This is usually termed
as the “Boom Town Effect”, where the new settlement is a spontaneous combi-
nation and blend of the several groups that migrates to the area. Villages that are
just adjacent to the project do get affected. Such impacts may be positive as well as

2 Stripping ratio is the ratio of waste to ore in an open-pit operation (MetaGlossary, 2010).
448 U. Jha-Thakur

negative. For example, additional businesses may create employment opportu-

nities for adjacent villages; on the other hand, it may also be possible that some
village population may be losing out due to inflow of migrant workers. However,
based on the current practices of follow-up, focus on social issues is primarily
limited by concerns of displacement of people as a result of mining activities.
Cultural Values of Project-Affected People: Ideally, displaced people are rehabi-
litated and resettled in new villages. These new villages aspire to retain traditional
practices and designs. Case A did not involve any displacement of people, but the
proponent had experience of relocating people for other projects. Such a village
was visited by the author and it was observed that it did not necessarily reflect the
traditional characteristics. Interviews revealed that the affected people were keen to
adopt new styles and were themselves not in favour of traditional approaches as it
seemed dated to them and not in keeping with their improved economic status. It
should be noted that PAPs get compensated with new jobs and money which
substantially improves their economic status. Contrarily, in Case C, the rehabili-
tated settlements had to take into account the local culture of the people as locals
here are very sensitive to their cultural identities. Traditional characteristics that
were maintained in the village structure included- a well with each house; a
worship place in the village centre and other landmarks like a platform at the
centre of the village where meetings can be held.
Priority of PAPs: Based on the interviews and informal discussions undertaken
during the case studies and the minutes of the public meetings themselves, it was
realised that comparatively speaking the feedback of people attending these
meetings were oriented more towards environmental issues in Cases A and B and
less so in Case C where economic concerns eclipsed environmental concerns
completely. In Case C, people were not concerned about environmental impacts
and the priority was on employment generation. Environmental awareness was
also low as people were more focussed on meeting their basic needs (also
see Rajvanshi, 2003). With regards to follow-up issues highlighted through the
public hearing which were later incorporated in the EIA report, Case C was
strongest in terms of social issues and weakest in terms of environmental issues.

Political variations
During the interviews, factors perceived to be causing regional variation under the
political category included local politics, state governance, state regulating bodies
and corruption levels. The case studies revealed that these factors were indeed
responsible; furthermore the findings also shed light on some interesting devi-
ations that these factors may result in follow-up practices.
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 449

Pro-Active Government: In Maharashtra (Case A) the local MLAs (Member

of legislative assembly) are active and have been encouraging the proponents
to engage in research involving institutional brokering. This helps them to use
follow-up for defending their role in protecting the environment. Therefore, the
approach adopted in this case was different compared to the other two cases, where
institutional brokering was not the usual practice. This also meant re-inventing the
wheel and wasting valuable resources for the other case studies. The consultants
also accepted that frequently, not making use of existing knowledge banks have
resulted in the use of low quality data which further compromises on the quality of
the EIA reports and the resultant follow-up.
Corruption: Unfortunately politics can also breed corruption into the system. State
Government interference was suggested in Case C where social unrest is very
common. Political meetings have also delayed public hearing process. An emer-
gent meeting was called due to which the MLAs were not able to attend the public
hearing meeting for the project in Case C, delaying the meeting and thereby the
EIA process by a whole year. Political conflicts also result in more public outcry.
This is perhaps also related to the economical situation of the region where
demands are higher and resources are limited. In Case C it was evident that
economical concerns take precedent over environmental issues.
Lack of Co-Ordination Amongst the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB):
Inconsistency amongst the SPCB is quite evident. Usually the respective PCBs
need to issue “Consent to Operate” after the project is accorded with the
environmental clearance by the regulating authority which in this case was the
MoEF. Only after this certificate is provided can the proponent start the production
process. However, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) was yet to
issue Consent to Operate to the Proponent in Case A, while the Uttar Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (UPCB) gave the consent to operate (Case B) even before
the MoEF granted its clearance. It should be noted that both cases were already
producing in capacities for which they were not yet given clearances at the time of
the study. There was also no consistency with regards to how the compliance
reports were assessed. The UPCB does not send compliance report (Case B) to the
Central Pollution Control Board while the other SPCBs do. The cost of the
application form required by the proponents also differs. There is no set format for
analyses of data and the SPCBs are not coordinated with each other. However, the
only similarity lies in the fact that all SPCBs are understaffed and lack resources.
As suggested by Priyadarshini and Gupta (2003), the findings confirm the role of
regulating agencies in India as an important factor resulting in wide variations
across the different states.
450 U. Jha-Thakur

Lack of Co-Ordination Amongst Regional Offices of MoEF: During the time of the
study, the MoEF had regional offices which were coordinated to the central office
in Delhi. These regional offices also exhibited variation in terms of checking
compliance. In Case A the project had received its clearance from the MoEF in
2005 prior to which it was operating without obtaining any clearance from the
MoEF. The MoEF had never visited the mine for compliance checking. However,
Case C was visited 10 times since it had started production while Case B was
visited every year. Thus, there is no format or frequency set amongst the regional
offices of the MoEF with which they check compliance. None of the regional
offices provided feedback to the proponents neither do they have a similar
reporting style. The reports send by the proponent to the MoEF could not be
reviewed as access to these documents was not provided.

Managerial variations
This factor was mentioned by only five interviewees during the semi-structured
interviews and although some indications are available at this stage, the findings
are inconclusive. Some indications provided are discussed as follows:
Priority of Proponent: The ability of a mine to perform well in environmental
management depends on how much importance has been given to it by the higher
management. For example, it was said that day to day requirements of environ-
mental officers are often overlooked and compromised for other activities that are
deemed to be more important in a coal producing company. As said by one of the
interviewees from Case C, “environment is always an afterthought for a proponent
who is responsible for coal production”. Therefore, all resources are directed first
towards production. The environmental officers as a result to some extent are
neglected. Participants from Case B specifically were motivated towards
environmental protection. They attributed this to the current management of the
company. In this case, the company was also ISO 14000 Certified and promoted a
general culture of environmental awareness. Therefore organisational culture and
learning may play an important role (see Gazzola et al., 2011; Jha-Thakur et al.,
2009b; Fischer et al., 2009).

Wider International Implications

Based on the findings of the semi-structured interviews carried out amongst the
43 national experts in the field of environment and coal mining and complemented
by the findings of the case studies of three open cast coal mines in three different
regions in India, it can be concluded that follow-up implementation is affected by
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 451

regional variation. The variations are caused by a combination of factors which can
be broadly categorised as economical, environmental, social and political. These
factors need to be taken into account while designing follow-up. Beyond these
four regional factors, management was also cited by some to be an additional
factor that can influence follow-up implementation and even combat regional
variation. However, the influences of the regional factors on follow-up
implementation may not always match up with what is perceived. For example,
contradictory to the perception that economically active regions will be leading to
better follow-ups, the opposite has been observed in India. Such deviations may
have crucial implications in designing follow-up. The contextual factors as
identified in the best practice list can help in overcoming such variations. But in
order to tune contextual factors in achieving optimum follow-up outcomes, a better
understanding is essential of the regional factors themselves and their influence on
the contextual factors. Such influences will differ across countries and also within
countries. Accordingly, the existing best practice of EIA follow-up developed by
Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003) has been further extended in Fig. 5.

Management

Where? Economical, Environmental, Social, Political

regulations &
What? institutional approaches & resources&
project
arrangements techniques capacity type
Management

Management

How? EIA Follow-up

Proponent regulator community

Who? st
1 party
nd
2 party
rd
3 party

follow-up follow-up follow-up

Management

Fig. 5. Regional variation in implementation of follow-up (adapted from Morrison-Saunders et al.,

2003).
452 U. Jha-Thakur

Recommendations for Improving Follow-Up in India

Follow-up practice in India is not yet sensitive to these regional variations and more
awareness is required with regards to how the contextual factors from the “Best
Practice” can be adapted to improve follow-up implementation and combat
regional inadequacies. This needs to be done especially in the light of the influences
of the regional factors discussed in this paper. The recommendations provided here
are presented under the three broad categories of contextual factors including:
(i) regulations and institutional arrangements; (ii) approaches and techniques; and
(iii) resources and capacity (project type has been kept constant in this study).

Regulations and institutional arrangements

Co-Ordinate Standards Amongst the PCBs: The PCBs need to standardise their
format of reporting and co-ordination as well as compliance checking. Such
standardisation needs to be in terms of frequency with which monitoring takes
place, procedural requirements and data presentation and interpretation. The
standards set-up by the PCBs should also take into account the local characteristics
of the project concerned. Clearer communication and dissemination of results
should be done to increase the transparency of the project performance and follow-
up experiences thereby avoiding re-inventing the wheel. Their acts should be
further synchronised with the MoEF regional offices. Currently, each PCB almost
works in an insular fashion, which prohibits better understanding of the full picture.
Coordination Amongst the SEIAA: During the time of the study, the MoEF acted
as the apex body with regional centres. Under such a structure, it was evident that
the regional offices did not communicate properly and lacked coordination.
Decentralisation of the MoEF and the emergence of the SEIAA is a positive
change with respect to improving the efficiency with which the EIA reports of the
projects are considered and processed by the regulating authority. However, in
terms of regional variation, such a structure might actually increase the gap in
communication amongst the various regional offices. The SEIAA may however,
also be better suited to adapt to local and regional requirements. Additional
research is needed to verify how the formation of the decentralised system of EIA
is influencing follow-up implementation across India.
Adaptive Requirements: At present the regulations and institutional arrangements
are well established, however its compliance is lacking. In order to encourage
feedback into the system, a certain amount of flexibility is required to make follow-
up more adaptive in nature. This will also allow follow-up to progress from mere
compliance oriented to performance, uncertainty and disseminated oriented follow-
up (Partidário and Fischer, 2004). Rules that are compatible to regional needs are
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 453

also likely to be adhered to. As commented by Mr P. A. Sangma, (ex-coal minister

and ex-speaker of the legislative assembly of India) “additional follow-up require-
ments will simply add to the existing load without necessarily increasing the effi-
ciency of the system or improving environmental protection. The inefficiency of the
(EIA) system (in India) is due to over ambitious legal requirements. More attention
should be focused on improving resource efficiency and clearing bottlenecks”.

Resources and capacities

Capacity Building for Regulating Authorities: There is an urgent need for capacity
building amongst the regulating authorities in India. While doing this, it should be
noted that each region will have different demands in terms of work load. Staffing
is likely to be higher for economically active regions which have more number of
industries to be monitored. If the regulating authorities themselves are incapable of
enforcing the legislation, then it is perhaps unfair to focus all expectations on the
proponents alone.
Making More of Existing Resources: Amongst all three cases explored Case A was
the only one that involved in knowledge brokering. Local universities and research
institutes were involved. It is also evident from the literature that currently, EIA
reports in India suffer from low quality data which further deters the quality of the
reports (Jha-Thakur and Fischer, 2008). Therefore, to make the most of the
existing resources, it is advisable for proponents as well as regulating authorities to
involve local institutions and universities in knowledge brokering. It was also
evident that public participation is treated almost as an afterthought to the EIA
process in India (Rajvanshi, 2003). It is therefore advisable to use indigenous
knowledge of local people integrating it from an earlier stage to the EIA report
(For example see O’Faircheallaigh, 2007; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2003; Usher,
2000). Such use of existing resources will definitely go a long way in combating
the problem of limited resources in developing countries and improving overall
effectiveness of the follow-up procedure.

Approaches and techniques

Dissemination to be Strengthened: The current follow-up practices are almost
conducted insularly with very little dissemination. As a result, regional idiosyn-
crasies are not shared and knowledge transfer is hindered. This further deters
feedback into the EIA system. More dissemination of project specific follow-up
characteristics needs to be made available. Such dissemination of experiences
should be strengthened not only for the advantage of proponents but also for the
regulating agencies.
454 U. Jha-Thakur

Reporting Techniques: At the moment the data available for follow-up is too
technical and monotonous in nature and does not include the non-technical details
that are so vital for the success of follow-up. The recent ‘Right to information Act’
is a major step in increasing transparency of the EIA process, however the reports
themselves need to be written in a clear manner for normal public to make more
sense of them.
Lack of Innovation: Follow-up techniques at the moment in India are advocated
solely for compliance and are too technical in nature. As pointed out by
ex-minister Mr. Dilip Ray, there is scope for innovative techniques to be intro-
duced. He further commented that the stereo type approach adopted, robs the
potential of environmental management and EIA follow-up in India. He empha-
sised in learning from international practices elsewhere and to maintain an open
minded approach. For example, the Canadian diamond mine which uses scientific
monitoring and complements it with local traditional knowledge (Ross, 2004).
Examples of such innovative solutions were found during the interviews, like
sticking sheets of paper on OB dumps can indicate whether the slopes are
maintained properly or not. If the paper looks wrinkled, it implies that the dumps
may be unstable. Unfortunately, such practices are rare and even if they are
happening, these are not reported and disseminated. This is not to say that tra-
ditional rigorous scientific monitoring should be substituted by such methods, but
rather the point is that such methods can definitely complement the traditional
approaches.
Stakeholder Participation: Environmental consciousness in India has been steadily
increasing but more work is needed to improve its understanding to common
people. Mr. Ajit Panja (ex-minister) highlighted the importance of public opinion
and awareness by saying that “law has to be made but what is necessary is to make
people more conscious”. The follow-up process itself can be used to enhance
environmental awareness of people. Public hearing meetings should be better
advertised and properly integrated into the follow-up design. In places where
literacy is low, newspaper adverts may be complemented by a traditional village
announcement. The regulating agencies need to work closely with the proponents
and also guide them not just focus on policing them. Good and innovative prac-
tices should be acknowledged and appreciated.

Conclusion
This paper applies the best practice of EIA follow-up developed by Morrison-
Saunders et al. (2003) within an Indian context. It should be noted that the follow-
up literature is dominated by examples and practices from the developed world
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 455

and hence by applying it to a developing country, it helps in providing new

insights to it. Applying the best practice also helps in evaluating the extent to
which the contextual factors identified differ in different regions in India and the
regional factors that attribute to such variations. This paper therefore helps in
adding on to the existing international best practice of EIA follow-up.
Findings from semi-structured interviews conducted amongst 43 national
experts in the mining and environment sector in India indicates regional variation
is perceived to be a result of economical, environmental, political, social and to
some extent managerial factors. To further explore these factors on ground, three
case studies were conducted of open cast coal mines in three different regions of
India. The findings from the case studies confirmed regional variation as well as
the broad factors which causes this. However, it also revealed that in reality the
trend of how these factors were causing variations did not always match up to what
was perceived about them. The follow-up design stage in India is not sensitive to
such variations and is repetitive and stereo-type. Best Practice developed by
Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003), have already identified contextual factors that
need to be readjusted case-by-case to improve follow-up outcomes. Such read-
justments are obviously not happening in India. However, coal mining is likely to
play an important role in fuelling the economy of India and therefore efficient
environmental protection and management is of paramount importance. EIA fol-
low-up has the potential to enhance such environmental protection (Prasad, 2001).
Accordingly, recommendations are made as to how the contextual factors can be
better adjusted for conducting follow-up in India. Furthermore, how the regional
factors affect follow-up outcomes is not always well understood. This paper sheds
some light in this area but more research is needed.

Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to all the interviewees’ for their contribution of time and
support in conducting the research. Special thanks to the three honourable ex-coal
Ministers of India Mr. P. A. Sangma, Mr. D. Ray and Late Mr. A. K. Panja, for
sharing their precious time and vision.

References

Ahammed, AKR and BM Nixon (2006). Environmental impact monitoring in the

EIA process of South Australia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(5),
426–447.
456 U. Jha-Thakur

Baker, J and R Dobos (2001). Environmental Assessment Follow-Up: A Framework for

Environment Canada (draft), presented at Impact Assessment in the Urban Context,
21st Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, 26 May–
1 June, Colombia.
Chaulya, SK, RS Singh, MK Chakraborty and BK Tewary (2000). Bioreclamation of
coal mine overburden dumps in India. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 8(3),
189–199.
CII and GoI (Confederation of Indian industry and government of India) (1999). Appli-
cation Form and Questionnaire for Environmental Clearance; Environmental Man-
agement Division, Ministry of Environment and Forestry; New Delhi, India.
CIL (Coal India Limited) (2010). Highlights, available at http://www.coalindia.nic.in/
(accessed 13 February 2010).
CSO (Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation)
(2008). Available at http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/site/inner.aspx?status = 2&menu_
id = 92, (accessed 6th September 2010).
Fischer, TB, S Kidd, U Jha-Thakur, P Gazzola and D Peel (2009). Learning through EC
directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in
Germany, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 421–428.
Gazzola, P and U Jha-Thakur (2009). Internationalisation and standardisation of European
environmental assessment — Relevance to India. Environmental Education Research,
15(6), 625–664.
Gazzola, P, U Jha-Thakur, S Kidd, D Peel and T Fischer (2011). Enhancing environmental
appraisal effectiveness: Towards and understanding of internal context conditions in
organisational learning. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(2), 183–204.
GoI (Government of India) (2006). Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-
section (ii), 14 September, New Delhi, Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Hullet, J and R Diab (2002). EIA follow-up in South Africa: Current status and
recommendations. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4,
297–309.
Jain, KK (2004). Regulation of Environmental Management in Mines in India, India:
Kalyani Publishers.
Jesus, J (2000). Introduction of EIA follow-up into the New EIA regulations in Portugal
presented at Back to the Future: Where will Impact Assessment be in 10 years and how
do we get there? 20th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact
Assessment, Honk Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, 19–23 June, Hon Kong.
Jha-Thakur, U and TB Fischer (2008). Are open cast coal mines in India casting a shadow
on the Indian environment? International Planning Development Review, 30(4),
441–458.
Jha-Thakur U, TB Fischer and A Rajvanshi (2009a). Reviewing design stage of
environmental impact assessment follow-up: Looking at the open cast coal mines in
India. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(1), 33–44.
 EIA Follow-Up in India: Exploring Regional Variation 457

Jha-Thakur, U, P Gazzola, D Peel, TB Fischer and S Kidd (2009b). Effectiveness of

strategic environmental assessment — The significance of learning. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 133–144.
Marshall, R (2002). Professional practice in developing environmental management sys-
tems to deliver mitigation and protect the EIA process during follow-up. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(4), 286–292.
Mathur, VB and A Rajvanshi (2001). Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental Impact
Assessment: A National Case Study from India, prepared under the Biodiversity
Planning Support Programme of UNDP, UNEP and GEF, 2001; available at <http://
www.unep.org/bpsp/TS.html>, last accessed 6 December.
MetaGlossary (2010). Available at http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/863173/,
(accessed 6th September 2010).
Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (2004a). Introduction to EIA follow-up. In Morrison-
Saunders, A and J Arts (eds), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up,
London, Earthscan, 1–17.
Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (2004b). Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA
Follow-up, London, (eds.), Earthscan.
Morrison-Saunders, A, J Bake and J Arts (2003). Lessons from practice: Towards suc-
cessful follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 43–56.
Morrison-Saunders, A, J Arts, J Baker and P Caldwell (2001). EIA follow-up, Roles and
stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 19(4), 289–296.
O’Beirne, S, M Clark and J Preez (2000). EIA follow-up perspectives on a burgeoning
aluminium industry in two developing countries, paper presented at IAIA’00 Back to
the Future Conference, EIA Follow-up Stream, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition
CAentre, 19–23 June, Honk Kong.
O’Faircheallaigh, C (2007). Environmental agreements, EIA follow-up and aboroginal
participation in environmental management: The Canadian experience. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 319–342.
Paliwal, R (2009). Policy interventional analysis: Adequacy of post project monitoring
process in India and barriers to its effective implementation. Ph.D. Thesis, TERI
University, New Delhi.
Paliwal, R (2006). EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(5), 492–510.
Partidário, MR and TB Fischer (2004). Follow-up in current SEA understanding. In
Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (eds.), Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA
Follow-up, London, Earthscan, 224–247.
Prasad, DN (2001). Strategies for Indian coal sector restructuring’. In Dhar, BB and NN
Gautam (eds.), Mining Policy Initiatives: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Policy Initiatives for Sustainable Development of the Mineral Sector in India, New Delhi,
India, The Mining Geological and Metallurgical Institute of India (MGMI), 59–67.
458 U. Jha-Thakur

Priyadarshini, K and OK Gupta (2003), Compliance to environmental regulations: The

Indian context. International Journal of Business and Economic, 2(1), 9–26.
Rajvanshi, A (2003). Promoting public participation for integrating sustainability issues in
environmental decision-making: The Indian experience. Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management, 5(3), 295–319.
Ramjeawon, T and R Beedassy (2004). Evaluation of the EIA system of the Island on
mauritius and development of an environmental monitoring plan framework.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(5), 537–549.
Ross, WA (2000). The Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency: A Canadian Case
Study, paper presented at IAIA’00 Back to the Future Conference, EIA Follow-up
Stream, 19–23 June, Hong Kong.
Ross, WA (2001). Follow-up Studies in Cumulative Effects: Management Implications in
Developing Countries, presented at Impact Assessment in the Urban Context, 21st
Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Colombia, 26th
May–1st June, Canada.
Ross, WA (2004). The independent environmental watchdog: A Canadian experiment in
EIA follow-up. In Morrison-Saunders, A and J Arts (eds.), Assessing Impact: Hand-
book of EIA and SEA Follow-up, London, Earthscan, 178–192.
Sinha, IN (2001). A Framework of EIA for Environmental Sustainability, ENVIS
Monographs No. 8, September. Dhanbad, India: ENVIS Centre on Mining Environ-
ment, Indian School of Mines.
Srinivasan, G (2001). 10th plan to focus on underground coal mining, published in
Business Line, Internet edn, financial daily from ‘The Hindu group of publications’, 25
December 2001, available at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/2001/
12/25/stories/1425757x.htm, last accessed 6 December.
Usher, PJ (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and
management. ARCTIC, 53(2), 183–193.
Valappil, M, D Devyust and L Hens (1994). Evaluation of environmental impact
assessment procedure in India. Impact Assessment, 12(1).

View publication stats