ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

End-term Assignment
Topic- “Environment Impact Assessment law and
procedure: EIA notification 2006”

Submitted to
DR. ABSAR IBN AHSAN

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AMUMC

Submitted by
KUNJALI SINGH

GK7931, 18BALLB34
Introduction 03

Introduction 03

Evolution of EIA 03

History of EIA In India 04

2006 EIA Notification 04

Environmental Components of EIA 05

EIA process and procedure 06

The Main Participants of EIA 12

Importance of EIA 13

Shortcomings of EIA process 14

Role of Judiciary 15

Recommendations 17

Conclusion 11

Bibliography 18
 INTRODUCTION

Every country strives to progress ahead one aspect of progress is economic development through
manufacturing and trading. Every country builds industries which provide employment, serve the
consumers needs and help to generate revenue. Unfortunately industrial development has had
adverse impact on the environment. Most of the developmental activities such as building of dams,
roads, airports, industries, railway tracks, cities etc. use enormous amounts of natural resources as
raw material and they may generate waste, which is disposed off into the environment. Waste
disposal causes damage to air, soil and water, and brings about depletion of natural resources.

The protection of the global environment is in the interest of all of us living on this planet. Various
measures have been taken at national and international levels to correct a number of environmental
problems as you have already learnt in the previous lesson.

In light of the above it is important to anticipate the likely environmental problems and threats that
may arise out of the proposed developmental activities and human actions. Such an anticipation is
termed “Environmental Impact Assessment” (EIA). EIA is tool that improves decision making
and ensures that the project under consideration is an acceptable option.

EVOLUTION OF EIA
EIA is termed as one of the best policy innovations in the 1900s. The main aim of EIA is to
conserve the environment and bring out the best combination of economic and environmental
costs and benefits. Read the below-mentioned points to understand the Environmental Impact
Assessment evolution and history:

1. The birth of EIA is dated back to the 1970s. In 1969, The USA had brought its
first National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) 1969.
2. The EIA was initially practised by developed nations but slowly it was also introduced in
developing nations including India.
3. Columbia and the Philippines are the earliest examples of developing nations who
introduced EIA in their policies. Columbia brought it in 1974 while the Philippines in 1978.
 4. Worldwide, EIA is now practised in more than 100 countries. By the mid-1990s, some 110
countries applied EIA as a major environmental policy.
5. In 1989, EIA was adopted as the major development project by the World Bank.

HISTORY OF EIA IN INDIA

• EIA started in India in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission directed the Department
of Science & Technology to assess the river valley projects from the point of view of the
environment. This was extended for all those projects that required approval from the
Public Investment Board.

• Then, in 1986, the government enacted the Environment (Protection) Act which made EIA
statutory. The other main laws in this regard are the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act
(1972), the Water Act (1974), the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981),
and the Biological Diversity Act (2002).

• In 1982, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change set up

the Environmental Information System (ENVIS) to collect, collate, storing, retrieving
and disseminating information related to the environment sector. This serves as a web-
based distributed network of subject-specific databases. The chief purpose of the ENVIS
is to integrate all countrywide efforts to collect, store, disseminate, and use environment-
information for better managing environmental assessment activities.

2006 EIA NOTIFICATION

Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 has decentralized the environmental
clearance projects by categorizing the developmental projects in two categories, i.e., Category A
(national level appraisal) and Category B (state level appraisal).

Category A projects are appraised at national level by Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) and
the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and Category B projects are apprised at state level.
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Level Expert Appraisal
Committee (SEAC) are constituted to provide clearance to Category B process.

After 2006 Amendment the EIA cycle comprises of four stages:

Screening

Scoping

Public hearing

Appraisal

Category A projects require mandatory environmental clearance and thus they do not undergo
the screening process.

Category B projects undergoes screening process and they are classified into two types.

• Category B1 projects (Mandatorily requires EIA).

• Category B2 projects (Do not require EIA).

Thus, Category A projects and Category B, projects undergo the complete EIA process whereas
Category B2 projects are excluded from complete EIA process.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF EIA

The EIA process looks into the following components of the environment.

Air environment

• Quality of ambient air.

• Wind speed, direction, humidity etc.

• Quantity of emission likely from project.

• Impact of the emission on the area.

• Pollution control desires / air quality standards.

Noise

• Levels of noise present and predicted

• Strategies for reducing noise pollution.

Water environment

• Existing ground and surface water resources, their quality and quantity within the zone.

• Impact of proposed project on water resources.

Biological environment

• Flora and fauna in impact zone.

• Potential damage (likely) due to project, due to effluents, emissions and landscaping.

• Biological stress (prediction).

Land environment

• Study of soil characteristics, land use, and drainage pattern, and the likely adverse impact of the
project.

• Impact on historical monuments and heritage site.

Assessment of expected economic benefits arising out of the project have to be compared to the
all the above mentioned factors.

Thus we can say that environmental concerns have to be made a part of the decision to set up a
project.

EIA PROCESS AND PROCEDURES

The first phase of an environmental assessment is called an Initial Environmental Examination

(IEE) and the second is Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) or simply detailed EIA.

a) Initial Environmental Examination (lEE)

IEE is carried out to determine whether potentially adverse environmental effects are significant
or whether mitigation measures can be adopted to reduce or eliminate these adverse effects. The
IEE contains a brief statement of key environmental issues, based on readily available information,
and is used in the early (pre-feasibility) phase of project planning. The IEE also suggests whether
in-depth studies are needed. When an IEE is able to provide a definite solution to environmental
problems, an EIA is not necessary. IEE also requires expert advice and technical input from
environmental specialists so that potential environmental problems can be clearly defined.

b) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA is a procedure used to examine the environmental consequences or impacts, both beneficial
and adverse, of a proposed development project and to ensure that these effects are taken into
account in project design. The EIA is therefore based on predictions. These impacts can include
all relevant aspects of the natural, social, economic and human environment. The study therefore
requires a multi-disciplinary approach and should be done very early at the feasibility stage of a
project. In other words, a project should be assessed for its environmental feasibility.

EIA should therefore be viewed as an integral part of the project planning process. Unlike the
environmental audit (EA), which is conducted on existing projects, the EIA is applied to new
projects and the expansion aspects of existing projects.
Screening

EIA process kicks off with project screening. Screening is done to determine whether or not a
proposal should be subject to EIA and, if so, at what level of detail. Guidelines for whether or not
an EIA is required are country specific depending on the laws or norms in operation. Legislation
often specifies the criteria for screening and full EIA. Development banks also screen projects
presented for financing to decide whether an EIA is required using their set criteria.
The output of the screening process is often a document called an Initial Environmental
Examination or Evaluation (IEE). The main conclusion will be a classification of the project
according to its likely environmental sensitivity. This will determine whether an EIA is needed
and if so, to what detail.

Scoping

The aim of EIA is not to carry out exhaustive studies on all environmental impacts for all projects.
Scoping is used to identify the key issues of concern at an early stage in the planning process
(Ahmed & Sammy, 1987). The results of scoping will determine the scope, depth and terms of
reference to be addressed within the Environmental statement. Scoping is done to:

• Identify concerns and issues for consideration in an EIA

• Ensure a relevant EIA
• Enable those responsible for an EIA study to properly brief the study team on the
alternatives and on impacts to be considered at different levels of analysis
• Determine the assessment methods to be used
• Identify all affected interests
• Provide an opportunity for public involvement in determining the factors to be assessed,
and facilitate early agreement on contentious issues
• Save time and money
• Establish terms of reference (TOR) for EIA study

Scoping should be an ongoing exercise throughout the course of the project. The following
environmental tools can be used in the scoping exercise

Checklists – Checklists are standard lists of the types of impacts associated with a particular type
of project. Checklists methods are primarily for organizing information or ensuring that no
potential impact is overlooked. They comprise list questions on features the project and
environments impacts. They are generic in nature and are used as aids in assessment.

Matrices - Matrix methods identify interactions between various project actions and
environmental parameters and components. They incorporate a list of project activities with a
checklist of environmental components that might be affected by these activities. A matrix of
potential interactions is produced by combining these two lists (placing one on the vertical axis
and the other on the horizontal axis). They should preferably cover both the construction and the
operation phases of the project, because sometimes, the former causes greater impacts than the
latter. However, matrices also have their disadvantages: they do not explicitly represent spatial or
temporal considerations, and they do not adequately address synergistic impacts.

Networks – these are cause effect flow diagrams used to help in tracing the web relationships that
exist between different activities associated with action and environmental system with which they
interact. They are also important in identifying direct and cumulative impacts. They are more
complex and need expertise for their effective use.

Consultations – with decision-makers, affected communities, environmental interest groups to

ensure that all potential impacts are detected. However there can be danger in this when excessive
consultation is done and some unjustifiable impacts included in the ToR.

Baseline data collection

The term "baseline" refers to the collection of background information on the biophysical, social
and economic settings proposed project area. Normally, information is obtained from secondary
sources, or the acquisition of new information through field samplings, interviews, surveys and
consultations with the public. The task of collecting baseline data starts right from the period of
project inception; however, a majority of this task may be undertaken during scoping and actual
EIA.

Baseline data is collected for two main purposes:

• To provide a description of the current status and trends of environmental factors (e.g., air
pollutant concentrations) of the host area against which predicted changes can be compared
and evaluated in terms of significance, and
 • To provide a means of detecting actual change by monitoring once a project has been
initiated Only baseline data needed to assist prediction of the impacts contained in the ToR
and scoping report should be collected.

Impact analysis and prediction

Predicting the magnitude of a development likely impacts and evaluating their significance is core
of environmental assessment process (Morris & Therivel, 1995). Prediction should be based on
the available environmental baseline of the project area. Such predictions are described in
quantitative or qualitative terms.

Considerations in impact prediction

Magnitude of Impact: This is defined by the severity of each potential impact and indicates
whether the impact is irreversible or, reversible and estimated potential rate of recovery. The
magnitude of an impact cannot be considered high if a major adverse impact can be mitigated.

Extent of Impact: The spatial extent or the zone of influence of the impact should always be
determined. An impact can be site-specific or limited to the project area; a locally occurring impact
within the locality of the proposed project; a regional impact that may extend beyond the local
area and a national impact affecting resources on a national scale and sometimes trans-boundary
impacts, which might be international.

Duration of Impact: Environmental impacts have a temporal dimension and needs to be

considered in an EIA. Impacts arising at different phases of the project cycle may need to be
considered. An impact that generally lasts for only three to nine years after project completion
may be classified as short-term. An impact, which continues for 10 to 20 years, may be defined as
medium-term, and impacts that last beyond 20 years are considered as long-term.

Significance of the Impact: This refers to the value or amount of the impact. Once an impact has
been predicted, its significance must be evaluated using an appropriate choice of criteria. The most
important forms of criterion are:

Specific legal requirements e.g. national laws, standards, international agreements and
conventions, relevant policies etc.
Public views and complaints

Threat to sensitive ecosystems and resources e.g. can lead to extinction of species and depletion
of resources, which can result, into conflicts.

Geographical extent of the impact e.g. has trans- boundary implications.

Cost of mitigation

Duration (time period over which they will occur)

Likelihood or probability of occurrence (very likely, unlikely, etc.)

Reversibility of impact (natural recovery or aided by human intervention)

Number (and characteristics) of people likely to be affected and their locations

Cumulative impacts e.g. adding more impacts to existing ones.

Uncertainty in prediction due to lack of accurate data or complex systems. Precautionary principle
is advocated in this scenario.

Impact prediction methodologies

Several techniques can be used in predicting the impacts. The choices should be appropriate to the
circumstances. These can be based on:

• Professional judgment with adequate reasoning and supporting data. This technique
requires high professional experience.
• Experiments or tests. These can be expensive.

THE MAIN PARTICIPANTS OF EIA

EIA applies to public and private sections. The six main players are:

(i) Those who propose the project

(ii) The environmental consultant who prepare EIA on behalf of project proponent.
(iii) Pollution Control Board (State or National).

(iv) Public has the right to express their opinion.

(v) The Impact Assessment Agency.

(vi) Regional centre of the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

IMPORTANCE OF EIA

Environmental impact assessment is not a procedure for preventing actions with significant
environmental impacts from being implemented. Rather the intention is that project actions are
authorised in the full knowledge of their environmental impacts. There are some cases that EIA
takes place in a political context. It is inevitable that economic, social or political factors will
outweigh environmental factors in many instances. This is why the mitigation measures are so
central to EIA. Decisions on proposals in which the adverse environmental effects have been
mitigated are much easier to make and justify than those in which mitigation has not been
achieved. The significance of EIA is:

1) EIA is more than technical reports, it is a means to a larger intention – the protection and
improvement of the environmental quality of life.
2) EIA is a procedure to identify and evaluate the effects of activities (mainly human) on the
environment - natural and social. It is not a single specific analytical method or technique, but uses
many approaches as appropriate to the problem.

3) EIA is not a science but uses many sciences in an integrated inter-disciplinary manner,
evaluating phenomenon and relationships as they occur in the real world.

4) EIA should not be treated as an appendage, or add-on, to a project, but be regarded as an

integral part of project planning. Its costs should be calculated as an adequate part of planning and
not regarded as something extra.

5) EIA does not give decisions but its findings should be considered in policy-and decision-making
and should be reflected in final choices. Thus it should be part of the decision-making process.

The findings of EIA should be focused on the significant and essential issues. It is also required to
provide a sufficient explanation on why they are important, and study its validity in order to
facilitate a basis for policy decisions.

SHORTCOMINGS OF EIA PROCESS

The key shortcomings of our EIA system can be summarized in the below points:
• Deliberate omission of vital information which may alter the fate of projects.
• False, unreliable and doubtful data; Inadequate single season data in Rapid EIA; Absence
of centralized databank
• EIA is funded by agency whose primary business is to obtain clearance; it cannot be
unbiased.
• No accreditation of EIA consultancy. Many a times, consultancies working on a project
have no specialization on concerned subjects.
• The EIA documents are bulky and technical and make it really difficult to help in decision
making.
• Plagiarism in EIA reports, wherein the same facts used for two different places.
 • False assumption that once site clearance is granted, environment clearance will follow.
The developers start construction work such as housing colonies, roads etc. However,
in EIA notification, it is mentioned that such works should not be taken before
environmental clearance.
• In some cases, environment clearance is granted despite of public objection. In other cases,

staged public hearing is carried out without involving the really affected people.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY
The Courts have subsequently expanded upon and deepened the impact of these changes through
their decisions which developed key aspects of the EIA process.

In Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India1 the Supreme Court discussed the specific
grounds on which administrative action involving the grant of environmental approval could be
challenged. The grounds for judicial review were illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety. Thus, the granting of environmental approval by the competent authority outside the
powers given to the authority by law would be grounds for illegality. If the decision were to suffer
from Wednesbury unreasonableness, the Court could interfere on grounds of irrationality. Last, an
approval can be challenged on the grounds that it has been granted in breach of proper procedure.

Thus, in Gram Panchayat Navlakh Umbre v. Union of India2 and Ors the Bombay High Court
held that the:

“decision making process of those authorities besides being transparent must result in a reasoned
conclusion which is reflective of a due application of mind to the diverse concerns arising from a
project such as the present. The mere fact that a body is comprised of experts is not sufficient a
safeguard to ensure that the conclusion of its deliberations is just and proper.”

In Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India3 the Delhi High Court had held that the EAC was bound to
disclose the reasons underlying its decision following the principle enunciated by the Supreme

1 2013 AIR SCW 3231..

2 Public Interest Litigation No. 115 of 2010. Judgment of Bombay High Court on June 28, 2012.
3 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9340 of 2009. Judgment of Delhi High Court on November 26, 2009
Court that quasi-judicial and administrative bodies have to disclose reasons for reaching a
particular conclusion. Further the Court has emphasized the need for a detailed analysis of facts
and reasoning.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has held that the: “appraisal is not a mere formality and it
requires detailed scrutiny by EAC and SEAC of the application as well as the documents filed, the
final decision for either rejecting or granting an EC vests with the Regulatory Authority concerned
viz., SEIAA or MOEF, but the task of appraisal is vested with EAC/SEAC and not with the
regulatory authority.”

In Samata and Forum of Sustainable Development v. Union of India4 , the NGT held that:

“In order to demonstrate [the] threadbare nature of discussions while considering a project for
giving its recommendation, it is essential that the views, opinions, comments and suggestions
made by each and every member of the committee are recorded in a structured manifest/format.”

Conduct of public hearings in an improper manner has also emerged as a common ground for
challenging environmental approvals. In Adivasi Majdoor kisan Ekta Sangathan v. Ministry of
Environment and Forest5, the evidence of persons who voiced their opposition to the project was
not recorded and no summary of the public hearing was prepared in the local language nor was it
made public. Therefore, the Court declared the approval invalid.

Attempts at circumvention by breaking up land parcels so as to escape the minimum land area cut
off requirement of five hectares for the conduct of EIAs have also been addressed by the Court. In
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana 6referring to the recommendations of the Committee on Minor
Minerals, the court underlined that state governments should be discouraged from granting a
mining license/lease to plots less than 5 hectares so as to reduce circumvention and ensure
sustainable mining. Further, where land is broken up into smaller parcels, prior environmental
approvals should be sought from the MOEF.

4 Appeal No. 9 of 2011. Judgment of NGT (Southern Zone, Chennai) on December 13, 2013
5 Appeal No. 3/2011 (T) (NEAA No. 26 of 2009). Judgment of Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal
on April 20, 2012. .
6 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19628-19629 of 2009. Judgment of Supreme Court on February 27, 2012
The role of private expert bodies and consultants conducting the EIA has also attracted judicial
scrutiny. Furnishing of false information by the consultant has been deemed by the Court
professional misconduct and it has recommended strict action in such cases.

In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. MoEF 7 , the Supreme Court has ruled that the religious
rights of individuals and communities to be determined by the Gram Sabha would have to be
protected and therefore the decision of the Gram Sabha would have to be considered before the
MoEF grants environmental approvals for developmental projects in forests or scheduled areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

➢ Independent EIA Authority: Civil society groups have suggested the need for an
independent Environmental Impact Assessment authority headed by a judicial officer and
comprising of representatives from communities, peoples group, scientists, sociologists
and environmentalists. Such body would be independent of the ministry of environment
and forests. The decision of this authority would be binding on the MOEF.
➢ Sector wide EIA s needed: There is a need to conduct policy-level and sector-wide EIAS
in the form of strategic impact assessments ( for various sectors including mining, power
and so on). This is critical to judge the impacts of macro- economic, developmental and
other policies. schemes and programmes.
➢ Conduct options Assessment: EIA s should follow only after an options assessment and
a least cost plan for a project is done by the state or central government. For this the
following steps are of relevance for both public and private sector projects:
a) In case of projects proposed by PSUs and the state/central governments, the options.
assessment preceding the ELA should provide information on the best strategies to meet
the need of the region, be it power, irrigation, employment or some other stated benefit.
b) In case of private sector projects, the project proponents project justification statement
should be accompanied by a mandatory project justification report prepared by the state or

7 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011.

 central governments. This project justification report would provide information assessing
the need for the project and the benefits accruing from it for the state nation and the people
of the be area.
c) The options Assessment or project justification reports should also state how the proposed
project fixes in to the existing developmental plans of the state or the state or the region.

CONCLUSION
Environmental impact assessment is not a procedure for preventing actionswith significant
environmental impacts from being implemented. Rather the intention is that project actions are
authorised in the full knowledge of their environmental impacts. There are some cases that EIA
takes place in a political context. It is inevitable that economic, social or political factors will
outweigh environmental factors in many instances. This is why the mitigation measures are so
central to EIA. Decisions on proposals in which the adverse environmental effects have been
mitigated are much easier to make and justify than those in which mitigation has not been
achieved. The potential impact of EIA depends on variety of factors. The success of EIA depends
on the fact that the information generated in the EIA actually contributed to decision making
process and environmentally viable options of sustainability. The prediction of the effectiveness
of impact management measures was accurate and authentic. The proposed mitigatory and
compensatory measures are internalized in the EIA management and law. The procedural
dimension of EIA are timely relative to and sensitive to economic and other factors such as cost
of EIA preparation, conflicting interests of stakeholders, have equality of opportunities party-
parotn relationship, decision making process of EIA, and effectiveness of EIA system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pacifica F. Achieng Ogola, “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
GENERAL PROCEDURE”
2. Leelakrishnan , P, Environmental Law in India , Lexis Nexis (third edition).