ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
What is EIA?

• A tool to make decisions regarding

developmental projects/programmes

• A process to predict environmental

consequences of a project

• Foresee & address problems at an early

stage
What is EIA?

• Identify before decision:

– Environmental
– Social
– Economic impacts
What is EIA?

• Conclude at an early stage:

– Most environmentally suitable option

– Most practical environmental option
– Alternative processes
What is EIA?

• Developer in conjunction with environmental

consultants

• Produce an environmental statement/report

– Description of project: Location, design, scale,
size
– Significant effects
– Mitigating measures
– Non-technical summary
Types of EIA
• Climate Impact
• Demographic
• Development
• Ecological
• Economic
• Environmental Audit
• EMS
• Health Impact
• Public Consultation & Participation
• Risk Assessment
• Social
Benefits for project
• Reduced cost & time of project
implementation
• Cost saving modifications in project design
• Easier project acceptance
• Non violation of laws & rules
• Improved project performance
• Avoiding waste treatment/clean-up
expenses
Benefits for local communities
• Healthier local environment
• Improved human health
• Maintenance of biodiversity
• Decreased resource use
• Fewer conflicts over natural resource
use
Process
Project Proposer

State PCB

Initiation of EIA

Agency
Public Hearing

Report to Proposer

MoEF
EIA Principles
• Basic Principles
– All stages of EIA
– Purposive
– Rigorous (best practicable solution)
– Relevant & cost-effective
– Efficient
– Participative
– Interdisciplinary
EIA Principles
• Operating Principles
– How the Basic Principles should be
applied to the main steps & specific
activities of EIA process
• Screening
• Scoping
• Identification of impacts
• Assessment of alternatives
Process
• Key Elements:
– Screening
– Scoping
– Identifying & evaluating alternatives
– Mitigating measures
– Environmental statements
Process
• Screening
– Whether or not a proposal should be subject
to EIA
– Subjected to EIA at what level of detail
– Schedule 1: Required in every case (thermal
power stations)
– Schedule 2: If project gives rise to
environmental effects due to nature, size or
location (holiday village, shipyard)
Process
• Preliminary Assessment in early
stages if screening fails to clear a
project
Research Data Review Expert Advice

Identify key impacts on local environment

Predict extent of impacts

Evaluate importance of impacts to decision makers

 Process
FORMATION OF AN EIA TEAM (If full EIA is needed)

Commissioning of independent co-coordinator & expert study team

Identifying key decision makers

Plan, finance, permit and control proposed project

Characterize audience for EIA

Researching laws & regulations that can affect these decisions

Communication of EIAs finding

Process
FORMATION OF AN EIA TEAM (If full EIA is needed)

• Lack of expertise can be a drawback

(anthropologists/wild-life experts)
Process
• Scoping : Ongoing process
– Identify key issues of concern early in
planning process
– Who is concerned
– What are concerns
– Threshold of concern

– Aid site selection

– What should be addressed in Env. Statement
Process
• Scoping :
• Lack of exhaustive ecological and socio-
economic indicators
• Public comments are not taken into
account at early stages
Process
Main EIA
1. What will happen as a result of the
project?
2. What will be the extent of the changes?
3. Do the changes matter?
4. What can be done about them?
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
Process
Main EIA
1. What will happen as a result of the project?

• Identification
– Compile a list of key impacts
– Name all the project’s sources of impacts
– List possible receptors in the environment
– Identify impacts themselves

– Credibility of primary data

Environmental Impact
Social impacts

• Demographic – changes to population numbers,

distribution
• Cultural – changes to customs, traditions and values
• Community – changes to cohesion, relationships
etc.
• Socio-psychological – changes to quality of life and
well being
 Health impacts
Examples of health impacts by sector
Communicable Non Nutrition Injury Psychosocial
disease communicable disorder and
disease loss of well-
being
Mining Tuberculosis Dust induced Crushing Labour migration
lung disease
Agriculture Parasitic Pesticide Loss of
infections poisoning subsistence
Industry Poisoning by Occupational Disempowerment
pollutants injury
Forestry Loss of food Occupational
production injury
Dams and Water borne Poisoning by Increased food Drowning Involuntary
irrigation diseases pollutants production displacement
schemes
Transportation HIV/Aids Heart disease Traffic injury Noise and
induced stress
Energy Indoor air Electromagnetic Community
pollution radiation displacement

Source: Birley, 2000

Economic impacts
• Duration of construction and operation
• Workforce requirements for each period
• Skill requirements (local availability)
• Earning
• Raw material and other input purchases
• Capital investment
• Outputs
• Characteristics of the local economy
Impact characteristics can vary in
• Nature (positive/negative, direct/indirect)
• Magnitude (severe, moderate, low)
• Extent/location (area/volume covered,
distribution)
• Timing (during construction, operation
etc, immediate, delayed)
• Duration (short term/long term,
intermittent/continuous)
• Reversibility/irreversibility
• Likelihood (probability, uncertainty)
• Significance (local, regional, global)
Impact characteristics summary table
IMPACT TYPE
IMPACT Water
air quality health
CHARACTERISTIC quality
nature
magnitude

extent/location

timing

duration
reversibility

likelihood (risk)

significance
Impact Identification Methods
Receptors in environment:
• Human health and safety
• Flora, fauna, ecosystems
• Soil, water, air, climate and landscape
• Use of land, natural resources and raw materials
• Protected areas and sites of special significance
• Heritage, recreation and amenity assets
• Livelihood, lifestyle & well being of affected
communities
Impact Identification Methods
1. Checklists
2. Matrices
3. Networks
4. Overlays & geographical information
systems (GIS)
5. Expert systems & professional
judgement
 Impact Identification Methods: Checklist For rural
and urban water supply and sanitation projects
Aspects of EI A Checkl i st Questi ons Yes No Addi ti onal
Wi l l the pr oj ect: Data needs

Sour ces of I mpacts 1. Require t he ac quis it ion or c onv ers ion of s ignif ic ant areas
of land f or res erv oir/ t reat ment work s et c . (e. g. > 50 ha
rural, > 5 ha urban)?
2. Res ult in s ignif ic ant quant it ies of eroded mat erial, eff luent
or s olid was t es ?

3. Require s ignif ic ant ac c ommodat ion or s erv ic e amenit ies t o

s upport t he work f orc e during c ons t ruc t ion (eg > 100
manual work ers )?

Receptor s of I mpacts 4. Flood or ot herwis e aff ec t areas whic h s upport

c ons erv at ion wort hy t erres t rial or aquat ic ec os y s t ems ,
f lora or f auna (eg prot ec t ed areas , wildernes s areas ,
f ores t res erv es , c rit ic al habit at s , endangered s pec ies ); or
t hat c ont ain s it es of his t oric al or c ult ural import anc e?
5. Flood or ot herwis e aff ec t areas whic h will aff ec t t he
liv elihoods of loc al people (eg require populat ion
res et t lement ; aff ec t loc al indus t ry, agric ult ure, liv es t oc k
or f is h s t oc k s ; reduc e t he av ailabilit y of nat ural res ourc e
goods and s erv ic es )?
6. I nv olv e s it ing s anit at ion t reat ment f ac ilit ies c los e t o
human s et t lement s (part ic ularly where loc at ions are
s us c ept ible t o f looding)?
7. Aff ec t s ourc es of wat er ex t rac t ion?

Envi r onmental I mpacts 8. Caus e a not ic eable permanent or s eas onal reduc t ion in
t he v olume of ground or s urf ac e wat er s upply ?

9. Pres ent a s ignif ic ant pollut ion ris k t hrough liquid or s olid
was t es t o humans , s ourc es of wat er ex t rac t ion,
c ons erv at ion wort hy aquat ic ec os y s t ems and s pec ies , or
c ommerc ial f is h s t oc k s ?
10. Change t he loc al hy drology of s urf ac e wat er-bodies (eg
s t reams , riv ers , lak es ) s uc h t hat c ons erv at ion-wort hy or
c ommerc ially s ignif ic ant f is h s t oc k s are aff ec t ed?
11. I nc reas e t he ris k of dis eas es in areas of high populat ion
dens it y (eg onc hoc erc ias is , f ilarias is , malaria, hepat it is ,
gas t roint es t inal dis eas es )?
12. I nduc e s ec ondary dev elopment , eg along ac c es s roads ,
or in t he f orm of ent repreneurial s erv ic es f or c ons t ruc t ion
and operat ional ac t iv it ies ?

Mi ti gati on Measur es 13. Be lik ely t o require mit igat ion meas ures t hat may res ult in
t he projec t being f inanc ially or s oc ially unac c ept able?

Comments

I r ecommend that the pr ogr amme be assi gned to

Categor y

Signat ure: Delegat ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Des k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impact Identification Methods: Checklist
Aspects of EIA Checkli st Questi ons Yes No Addi tional
Will the pr oject: Data needs

Sour ces of I mpacts 1. Require the ac quisit ion or conv ers ion of signif icant areas
of land f or res erv oir/ treatment works et c. (e.g. > 50 ha
rural, > 5 ha urban)?
2. Result in significant quantities of eroded material, effluent
or solid wast es?

3. Require signif icant accommodation or service amenities t o

support the work force during c ons truction (eg > 100
manual workers)?

Receptors of I mpacts 4. Flood or otherwise affect areas which support

conservat ion worthy t errest rial or aquatic ecosys tems ,
flora or fauna (eg protected areas , wilderness areas,
fores t reserves, crit ical habit ats , endangered species); or
that contain sites of historical or cult ural importance?
5. Flood or otherwise affect areas which will affec t t he
livelihoods of loc al people (eg require population
reset tlement; aff ect loc al indust ry, agric ulture, lives toc k
or fis h s toc ks; reduce the availabilit y of nat ural res ource
goods and servic es)?
6. Involve sit ing sanit ation t reatment fac ilit ies close to
human set tlements (part icularly where locations are
susceptible to flooding)?
7. Affec t s ources of water extract ion?

Envi r onmental Impacts 8. Caus e a noticeable permanent or seasonal reduc tion in

the v olume of ground or s urf ace water s upply ?

9. Pres ent a signif icant pollution risk through liquid or solid

wast es to humans, sourc es of water ex traction,
conservat ion worthy aquatic ecos yst ems and species , or
commercial f ish stocks ?
10. Change the local hy drology of surfac e wat er-bodies (eg
st reams, rivers, lak es) such that c onservation-wort hy or
commercially signif icant f ish stocks are aff ect ed?
11. Increase the risk of diseases in areas of high population
density (eg onchocercias is, filariasis, malaria, hepat it is,
gastroint estinal dis eas es)?
12. Induc e s econdary development, eg along acces s roads,
or in the form of ent repreneurial services f or construct ion
and operational activit ies?

Mi tigati on Measur es 13. Be lik ely t o require mitigation measures that may result in
the project being financially or s ocially unacceptable?

Comments

I r ecommend that the pr ogr amme be assigned to

Categor y

Signature: Delegat ion. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... Desk. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ..
Impact Identification Methods: Checklist

• Simple to understand & use

• Good for site selection

• Can’t distinguish between direct & indirect

impacts
• Can’t link impact & action
Impact Identification Methods: Matrices
Impact Identification Methods: Matrices

Features Roads and Colony Blasting Borrowing of Importing of

likely to be trail construction operation materials labour
affected
Forestry/ -1P +2P -1T
Vegetation

Birds -2T

Fisheries

Other -1P -1T -1T -1T

wildlife/land
animals
Sedimentatio -1T -1T -2T
n/erosion
Impact Identification Methods: Matrices

Mild Considerable High Very high

Beneficial +1 +2 +3 +4

Detrimental -1 -2 -3 -4

T = temporary effect; P = permanent effect

Impact Identification Methods: Matrices
Determine rankings by pair-wise comparisons

Compare With alternative Sum

alternative
W X Y Z

W - 0 0 0.5 0.5

X 1 - 1 0 2

Y 1 0 - 0 1

Z 0.5 1 1 - 2.5
Impact Identification Methods: Matrices

• Good display, simple to understand & use

• Links action to impact

• Can’t distinguish between direct & indirect

impacts
 Impact Identification Methods: Networks
CHANGING QUALITY CHANGING QUALITY
OF LIFE FOR WILDLIFE OF TOURISM

Lo ss o f Hab itat In creased In cid en ts

b etween Lo ss o f Natu ral
Wild life & Peo p le Wild ern ess Valu e

Defo restatio n & Ero sio n o f Riv er Ban k Ov erg razin g Ch an g es in

Lo ss o f Bio d iv ersity Go rg e Ero sio n Aro u n d
An imal Beh av io u r
Access Path s Water Ho les

To o small an area
fo r an imal n u mb ers

Rip arian Co n strictio n Harrassmen t

Selectiv e Cu ttin g o f wild life
o f trees fo r Water Wav e Veg etatio n o f wild life
Po llu tio n Effects Red u ced mo v emen ts
Cu rio Wo o d
Mo re Fen ces/ Visu al Distu rb an ceIn creasin g
Oily d isch arg es Riv er Ban k & Islan d En clo su res Imp acts o f wild life n o ise lev els
fro m b o ats etc. Dev elo p men t

New Ro ad
Deman d fo r Ex p an sio n o f Mo re Aircraft Mo re & Brid g e at Old
Mo re Mo re
Cu rio s Raftin g Jetties & Ho tels/Camp s Fly in g Ov er Mo to r Drift/Zamb ezi
In creased & To u rist Facilities Falls & To wn Veh icles Natio n al Park
Licen ces Bo at Licen ces

In creased Visito r Nu mb ers

Deman d fo r Mo re Direct Imp ro v ed Bo rd er Imp ro v ed Ro ad Lin k s

Lo w-sp en d in g In tern atio n al Facilities - Liv in g sto n /Lu sak a
To u rism In creases Flig h ts - Zamb ia/Bo tswan a/Namib ia

In creased cu sto ms co -o p eratio n

Airp o rt Up g rad in g b etween Zimb ab we/Zamb ia
Impact Identification Methods: Networks
Primary Secondar Tertiary Quaternar Mitigation
impacts y impacts impacts y impacts
Lowering Loss of Use of poorer Increased 1. Ensure that the
of income & quality water health risks new DTW either
groundw water from holds domestic
ater in domestic water locally or
dry hand feed into
season pumps distributary system
Note: Effected
group are poorer
people
Income Decreased STW = shallow
tubewells
diverted to buy income &
DTW = deep tubewell
water time
Travel to Reduced
distant source quality of
life
Impact Identification Methods: Networks

• Good display
• Simple to understand if kept simple
• Links action to impact
Impact Identification Methods: Overlays
& GIS
• To illustrate geographical extent of
different environmental impacts
• Each overlay is a map of a single impact

• Good exhaustive tools

• Expensive
Impact Identification Methods: Expert
advice
• For predictions inherently non-numeric
• Suitable for estimating social and cultural
impacts
• Assess implications of modelling
predictions
• Consensus of expert opinion
• Local experience
Choice of method
• Type and size of the proposal
• Type of alternatives being considered
• Nature of the likely impacts
• Availability of impact identification methods
• Experience of the EIA team with their use
• Resources available - cost, information, time,
personnel
Impact types
– Short/medium/long term
– Mild/moderate/serious impact
– Temporary major impact
– Continuous major impact
Threshold tests for environmental
acceptability
Level of acceptability Impact threshold
Unacceptable Exceeds legal threshold,
loss of threatened
species
Normally unacceptable Large-scale loss of
productive capacity of
renewable resources
May be acceptable with Avoidance of spread of
mitigation biological
pests/diseases
Normally acceptable Some loss of non-
threatened species
 Examples of threshold tests for
environmental acceptability
Bo x 3: Exam ple s of t hre sh old te sts fo r e n viro nm e nt al acc e p tabili ty

Le vel of a c ce p ta bility P ot e nti a l imp a c t th re sho ld

Una cce p tab le Excee ds le g al t h re sho ld , e .g.

q ua lity stan d ar d
Una cce p tab le In cr e a ses le vel of risk to p u b lic
h e al th a nd s af e ty ab o ve
q ua lita tive o r q u a ntita tive crit e ria
( e .g. in s o me jurisd icti o ns a n
in c re as e d risk o f d e a th o f 1 in a
millio n p e r ye a r
Una cce p tab le Extin c tio n o f b iolo gic a l sp ecie s,
lo ss of ge n eti c d ive rsity, ra re or
e nd a nge re d sp e cie s, c ritic a l
h ab ita t
No rm a lly un ac c e p ta ble C on flict with e xist ing
e nv iro nm e nt a l po licies , lan d -use
p la n s
No rm a lly un ac c e p ta ble Loss of p op ula tio n s of co m me rcial
b iolo gic a l sp e cies
No rm a lly un ac c e p ta ble La rge- sc a le loss o f pr o d uc tive
c ap aci ty o f re n ew ab le re sou rce s
Ma y b e a cce p tab le o nly with Avo id a nce of s p re a d of bi o log ical
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a tion , m a na gem e nt d ise a se, p es t s, fe ra l a nim a ls,
we e ds
Ma y b e a cce p tab le o nly with Ta king of r ar e o r en da n g er ed
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a tion , m a na gem e nt sp e c ies
Ma y b e a cce p tab le o nly with So me lo ss of th re a te ne d ha bit a t
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a tion , m a na gem e nt
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble So me lo ss of p op ula tio n s a nd
h ab ita ts o f n on -th re a te n e d
sp e c ies
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble M od ifica tio n o f lan d sc a p e wi tho ut
d ow ng rad ing sp eci a l a e sth etic
va lue s
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble Emissio ns d em o nstra b ly les s tha n
th e c a rryin g ca pa city of the
recei vin g e nviro nm en t
So u rce : Sipp e 1999
 Examples of threshold tests for
environmental acceptability

Bo x 3: Ex am ple s of t hr e sh o ld te st s fo r e n viro n m e nt al acc e p t ab i l i t y

Le v el of a c ce p ta bili t y P ot e nti a l imp a c t t h re s h o ld

Una cce p t ab le Ex cee ds le g al t h re s h o ld , e .g.

q u a lity s tan d ar d
Una cce p t ab le In cr e a s es le v el of risk to p u b lic
h e al t h a nd s af e ty ab o ve
q u a lita ti v e o r q u a n t it a ti v e crit e ri a
( e .g. in s o me ju risd icti o n s a n
in c re as e d risk o f d e a th o f 1 in a
millio n p e r ye a r
Una cce p t ab le Ex tin c tio n o f b iolo gic a l s p ecie s,
lo s s of ge n eti c d iv e rs ity , ra re or
e nd a n ge re d s p e cie s, c ritic a l
h ab it a t
No rm a lly u n ac c e p ta ble C on flict w it h e xist ing
e nv ir o nm e nt a l po licies , lan d -u s e
p la n s
No rm a lly u n ac c e p ta ble Lo s s of p op ula tio n s of co m me rcial
b iolo gic a l sp e cies
No rm a lly u n ac c e p ta ble La rg e- s c a le lo s s o f pr o d uc t iv e
c ap aci ty o f re n ew ab le re s ou rce s
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly w it h A vo id a n ce of s p re a d of bi o lo g ical
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt d ise a se, p es t s, fe ra l a nim a ls,
w e e d s
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly w it h T a kin g of r ar e o r en da n g er ed
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt s p e c ies
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly w it h So me lo s s of th re a te ne d ha bit a t
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble So me lo s s of p op ula tio n s a nd
h ab it a t s o f n on -t h r e a te n e d
s p e c ies
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble M od ific a tio n o f lan d sc a p e w i t h o ut
d o w ng rad ing s p eci a l a e st h etic
va lue s
No rm a lly a cce p ta ble Emi s s i o ns d em o n s t ra b ly les s t ha n
th e c a rryi n g ca pa city of the
recei v in g e n v iro n m en t
So u rce : Si
pp e 1 999
 Examples of threshold tests for
environmental acceptability
Bo x 3: Exam ple s of t hre sh old te sts fo r e n viro nm e nt al acc e p tabili ty

Le v el of a c ce p t a bili t y P ot e nti a l imp a c t th re s h o ld

Una cce p t ab le Ex cee ds le g al t h re s h o ld , e .g.

q u a lity stan d ar d
Una cce p t ab le In cr e a s es le v el of ris k t o p u b lic
h e al t h a nd s af e ty ab o ve
q u a lita tiv e o r q u a n t ita tiv e crit e ria
( e .g. in s o me jurisd icti o n s a n
in c re as e d risk o f d e a t h o f 1 in a
millio n p e r ye a r
Una cce p t ab le Ex tin c tio n o f b iolo gic a l sp ecie s ,
lo s s of ge n eti c d iv e rsity, ra re o r
e nd a n ge re d s p e cie s , c ritic a l
h ab ita t
No rm a lly u n ac c e p t a ble C on flict w ith e xist ing
e nv iro nm e nt a l po licies , lan d -u se
p la n s
No rm a lly u n ac c e p t a ble Lo s s of p op ula tio n s of co m me rcial
b iolo gic a l sp e cies
No rm a lly u n ac c e p t a ble La rg e- sc a le los s o f pr o d uc t iv e
c ap aci t y o f re n ew ab le re s ou rce s
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly wit h A vo id a n ce of s p re a d of bi o log ical
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt d ise a se, p es t s, fe ra l a nim a ls,
we e ds
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly wit h Ta kin g of r ar e o r en da n g er ed
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt s p e c ies
Ma y b e a cce p t ab le o nly wit h So me lo s s of th re a te n e d ha bit a t
mi n imiza tio n , miti g a t ion , m a na gem e nt
No rm a lly a cce p t a ble So me lo s s of p op ula tio n s a n d
h ab ita t s o f n on -t h re a te n e d
s p e c ies
No rm a lly a cce p t a ble M od ific a tio n o f lan d s c a p e wi t h o ut
d o w ng rad ing s p eci a l a e st h etic
va lue s
No rm a lly a cce p t a ble Emi s sio n s d em o n s t ra b ly les s tha n
t h e c a rryin g ca pa city of t h e
recei v in g e n v iro n m en t
So u rce : Sipp e 1 999
Process
Main EIA
2. What will be the extent of the changes?

• Prediction
– Scientific characterization of impacts
– Secondary & synergetic consequences for
environment & local community
– Prediction uncertainty

– Direct impacts
Process
Main EIA
2. What will be the extent of the changes?
Reduced water quality
Toxic liquid effluents

Adverse impact on fisheries

Economic effects on fishing villages

Socio-cultural changes
 Types of uncertainty in impact prediction

• Scientific uncertainty
– Limited understanding of
ecosystem/community affected
• Data uncertainty
– Incomplete information or insufficient
methodology
• Policy uncertainty
– Unclear or disputed objectives or standards
Process
Main EIA
3. Do the changes matter?
• Evaluation
– Significant enough changes to warrant
mitigation
• Accepted standards
• Pre set criteria
• Acceptability to the local community
Process
Main EIA
4. What can be done about them?

• Mitigating measures
– Prevent
– Avoid
– Minimize actual or potential
adverse effects of project
– Quantify cost
Process
Main EIA
4. What can be done about them?

• Mitigating measures
– Abandon/modify proposal
– BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not
Entailing Excessive Costs)

– Effectiveness & implementation of mitigation

measures?
Process
• Alternatives which are
environmentally sound & benign
– Sites
– Techniques

– What happens to site-specific projects?

– Green field vs brown field projects
– Fragile ecosystems
Process
• Alternatives which are
environmentally sound & benign
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
• Environmental Statement/Report
– Comprehensive containing all aspects
covered when answering questions
– Executive summary:
• Most important, unavoidable, irreversible
impacts
• Key mitigating measures
• Proposed monitoring & supervision
requirements
• Recommendations of the report
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
• Environmental Statement/Report
– Main Text
• Maximum use of visual aids (maps, drawings,
matrices etc)
• Project description
• Time-scale of proposals under study
• Major revisions made due to scoping
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
• Environmental Statement/Report
– Main Text
• Summary of EIA methodology
• Policy, legal & administrative framework within
which project is situated
• Summary of baseline data
– Overall picture of present conditions
(physical, biological & ecological trends)
– Consequences of "no-action" option
– Other developments taking place & their
relationship to the study proposal
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
• Environmental Statement/Report
– Main Text
• Governmental & non-governmental
participation during the EIA
• Quantified environmental impacts (plus
uncertainties)
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of what
needs to be done?
• Environmental Statement/Report
– Main Text
• Environmental Action Plan Part I
– Implementation of proposed mitigation measures
(costs and training)
• Part II:
– Monitoring requirements to measure predicted
impacts
– Success of mitigation measures (also costs &
training)
– Programme of implementation
• Recommendations and guidance to the
decision maker
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of what needs
to be done?

Appendices:
• Glossary of technical terms and units
• List of the team who prepared the EIA
• Records of public meetings and consultations
• Catalogue of information, both data and written
material, and their source
• Technical information too detailed for the main text.
Process
5. How can decision makers be informed of
what needs to be done?
• Review of EIS
– to determine whether report meets its terms of
reference
– provides a satisfactory assessment of the
proposal(s)
– contains the information required for decision
making
Process
Granting of environmental clearance of
projects
• Site clearance = environmental clearance?
• Conveying information at much later stage
to stakeholders
Process
Projects exempted from public hearing
• Small scale industrial undertakings located
in notified industrial areas
• Widening & strengthening of highways
• Mining projects (major minerals) with lease
areas upto 25 hectares
• Units located in export processing zones /
SEZ
• Modernization of existing irrigation projects
Process
• Decision Making
– to approve or reject the proposal
– to establish the terms and conditions for its
implementation

• Follow up
– to ensure that the terms and condition of approval are
met
– to monitor impacts of development and effectiveness
of mitigation measures
– To strengthen future EIA applications and mitigation
measures
– Undertake environmental audit and process
evaluation to optimize environmental management
For case studies refer to:

http://www.eiatoolkit.ewt.org.za/provinces/
casestudy.html
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle

Prevention is better than cure

– Scientific proof of cause-effect

relationship?
– Uncertainty about probability of
risk/harm
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
– Evaluation of irrigation tunnel project
through Pench Tiger Reserve in India
– Only interstate Tiger Reserve (758sq.km)
– Provides regional connectivity to other PAs &
important wildlife habitats
– Supports breeding tigers, leopard, hyena,
chital, four horned antelope, Indian bison,
flying squirrel, mongoose
Precautionary Principle: Case
Study
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
– Project involved construction of 2.88 km of
tunnel through PTR
– Diversion of 15.79 ha of forest (4.56 ha part of
Tiger Reserve)
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
Implication of the project on conservation values of
PTR
Routing of underground tunnel through PTR can:
– Create physical disturbance associated with
construction works for a period of two years
– Tunnel exit will open into Sagara rivulet within
PTR
– This section can be subjected to disturbance
associated with construction of road etc
– Disruption in movement, reduction in habitat
quality and use by animals.
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study

Consideration of alternatives

– Increasing length of tunnel by 1.75 km to

locate the tunnel exit outside PTR
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
Consideration of alternatives

– Implications of increasing the length of the

tunnel on conservation values
• Major impacts on ecology of area falling within the
proposed Mansingh Deo Sanctuary
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
Consideration of alternatives
Impact analysis
– Project can jeopardize integrity and quality of
prime wildlife habitat for small gains of
irrigations
– Conservation priorities of PTR are too
important to be compromised by this project
– Project can pose threats to future
conservation efforts & prospects
What after EIA?
• Precautionary Principle: Case Study
Consideration of alternatives

Decision
– This project could not be granted
authorization in view of its irreversible
negative consequences
What after EIA?
• Polluter Pays Principle
– Payment method designed to
finance pollution control activities
– Does not guarantee cost efficiency
in environmental protection
– Extent of environmental damage?
– Preventive measures?
– Poor pollute more. What is the
payment method?
What after EIA?
• Polluter Pays Principle: Case study
– Oil tanker owned by Exxon spilled out over
300,000 barrels of crude oil into the sea
– Caused significant environmental hazard
– Exxon was forced to pay $125 million in fines
to federal government and Alaska
– $900 million into a fund for environmental
projects controlled by government, habitat
protection, and scientific research, among
other things
What after EIA?
• Beneficiary Pays Principle
–Wealthy should pay for keeping
environment intact

• Use of public bus: Polluter

Pays or Beneficiary pays?
Time: 20 min.
Class work: Divide yourselves into groups of 5
students each.

Submit the answers with your Names, Batch no. &

Enrolment no.

Design a matrix (activity vs impact) based

on the environment impact assessment
of a mining project case study provided