Eia Practice In India And Its Evaluation

EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis Ritu Paliwal ⁎ Centre for Regulatory and Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies, Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003, India Received 1 July 2005; received in revised form 1 December 2005; accepted 1 January 2006 Available online 6 March 2006

Abstract In India Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been formally introduced in 1994. It relied on the institutional framework that has a strong supporting legislative, administrative and procedural set-up. Both central and state authorities together are sharing the responsibility of its development and management. A Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) analysis taken up in this article has suggested that there are several issues that need to be readdressed. It highlights several constraints, ranging from improper screening and scoping guidelines to ineffective monitoring and post project evaluation. The opportunities are realised as increasing public awareness, initiatives of environmental groups and business community and forward thinking to integrate environmental consideration into plans and policies. Poor governance, rapid economic reforms, and favours to small-scale units are some of the foreseen threats to the system. This article concludes with some suggestions to improve EIA process in India. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; India; SWOT analysis

1. Introduction The concept of environmental protection and resource management has traditionally been given due emphasis and woven in all facets of life in India. These age-old practices teach people to live in perfect harmony with nature. Nevertheless, changing life styles, increasing pace of urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development have caused environmental pollution and degradation (Chopra et al., 1993). The losses manifest as pollution in air, water and land leading to biodiversity losses and potential health hazards.

Consequently, rules, laws and policies on environmental protection were introduced. One such effort, i.e., the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), particularly aims to optimise a trade-off between developmental activities and socio-ecological losses. It is a management tool to be linked closely to the project life cycle to ensure that appropriate environmental information is provided at the correct time (Wood, 1995). The overall objective of the EIA is to design developmental projects and activities taking into consideration the environmental perspective. In India, the first EIA was ordered, during early 1980s, on the Silent river valley hydroelectric project, which was a controversial project (Valappil et al., 1994; MoEF, 2003a). This project, proposed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to build a 130 m high dam across the Kuntipuzha river and a reservoir,1 was considered a big threat to the biodiversity and forest ecosystem of the Silent valley. Later in 1985, the project was abandoned and Silent Valley was declared as a national park. This case marked a new beginning in India and since then, EIAwas extended to other activities. Projects like mining, industries, hydroelectric plants, thermal power plants, atomic power plants, ports and harbours, rail, roads, highways, bridges, airports and communication project, required EIA if: • Project needed the approval of public investment board/planning commission/central water commission/central electricity authority, etc. • Project was referred to Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) by other ministries. • Project was to be located in environmentally fragile or sensitive areas. • Project was under dispute. However, EIA was introduced in 1994, when MoEF passed an EIA notification under Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1986, which made EIA mandatory for 29 highly polluting activities and later on three more activities were added to this list (Appendix A) (MoEF, 1994; MoEF, 2004). Over the years, the system has undergone several amendments to improve the environmental clearance (EC) process and to make it an integral component of decision-making. This paper will add knowledge about the EIA process in India. It describes the current statutory, administrative and procedural arrangements for EIA in India. To highlight the systems constraints, future potentials and challenges a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity and threat) analysis has been taken up in this work. The SWOT is based on authors' own experiences during field visits, professional's views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers) revealed during informal talks, and semi structured interviews and available literature on the subject. The SWOT suggests that there is a huge possibility to improve the system but the strong legal framework is a positive and supportive feature. Opportunities and threats discussed are relevant in the present context and should be given due consideration while thinking on making EIA more accessible. At present there are many efforts going to improve the environmental appraisal process and compliance by MoEF. This paper concludes with some contemplation on the potential steps considered necessary to improve the effectiveness of the EIA process. These suggestions are not only felt significant for Indian system but may also prove helpful for other developing countries those are undergoing similar developments. 2. Institutional arrangements The EIA process is now well established and EC is provided to over 1500 development projects (Table 1). It rests on three pillars of statutory, administrative and procedural frameworks. 1

http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/ic/wssd/doc3/chapter18/css/Chapter18.htm.

Table 1 Status of EIAs cleared in different sectors since 1994

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total

River valley projects

Industrial projects

Thermal power projects

Mining projects a

Other sectors b

Total

8 13 6 4 9 5 5 12 12 16

20 55 54 98 34 45 52 63 83 220

15 13 26 39 17 17 15 14 7 5

13 + 24 19 + 51 39 + 15 7 + 17 9 25 17 9 31 19

24 29 30 21 11 12 36 23 25 55

104 180 170 186 80 104 125 121 158 315 1543

Source: MoEF, Annual reports (1994–2004). a Environmental clearance + site clearance. b Include transport, ports, harbours, airports, highways and communication projects.

2.1. Statutory framework Environmental management issues came to focus in India, when National Committee on Environmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was constituted in 1972, following Stockholm conference, under Department of Science and Technology.2 The Planning Commission directed the NCEPC to undertake EIA of the major development projects to weigh the pros and cons of these activities on the environment. Later on, the Department of Environment (DoE) was established as per the recommendation of the NCEPC, in 1980, which was finally converted to a full-fledged Ministry of Environment and Forest 5 years later (Rao, 1997). MoEF enacted EPA, 1986, is an umbrella act covering various environmental aspects. Under EPA, 1986, an EIA notification was brought out, making EIA mandatory for a particular group of activities. This notification not only specifies the type of activities requiring EIA but also fixes a time schedule for the whole process. It also defines the role of the MoEF in the whole process. One of the major amendments made was to introduce public hearing procedure in 1997. It outlines the process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearing panel and time period for the completion of public hearing process. The EC process is also subjected to the stipulated standards in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, to provide prescribed limit of the pollutants which a particular activity may release to the environment. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, are the other major acts that have bearings on EC practice. In addition, state governments may have stringent regulations based on their local conditions, but these should be consistent with national laws, regulations and standards.

2

The NCEPC were to deal with complex environmental degradation issues and review of environmental implications of developmental activities was a part of its responsibilities (Valappil et al., 1994).

2.2. Administrative framework The existing EC process is a two-tier system involving both central and state authorities (Fig. 1). At central level, Impact Assessment division (IA) under MoEF, regional offices of MoEF and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are three important institutions, whereas SPCBs and state Departments of Environment (DoE) are working at the province level. 2.2.1. Role of IA IA, in consent with relevant state and central authorities, is responsible for setting guidelines for the preparation of the EIA reports, questionnaires and checklists for major sectors (MoEF, 2003b). It prepares and issues various notifications and amendments pertaining environmental laws. IA has constituted six multi-disciplinary expert committees known as Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC), as specified in the EIA Notification (Appendix B), to carryout review for the mining, industries, thermal power plant, river valley and hydro-electricity project, nuclear power plant, infrastructure and miscellaneous activities. The appraisal process of EC, involving review of the EIA report and various documents submitted by the project proponent, is the leading responsibility of IA. IA may also seek clarification from the proponent and conduct site visits if it feels necessary during the review procedure. Based on the documents submitted and clarification presented IA either grants or rejects the environment clearance of the developmental project. This division also carries out follow-ups of the litigation in the various courts regarding EC decisions, notifications and amendments issued. 2.2.2. Role of CPCB The CPCB is an autonomous organization under administrative control of MoEF. Initially it was known as Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution of Water, which came into being as a statutory organization in 1974, with the enactment of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Later in 1981, board was renamed and assigned the powers and functions specified under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 too. CPCB primarily has powers explicit to Water and Air act, but now it in an umbrella organization with legal strength of

State Government

Ministry of Environment & Forest

Impact Assessment Division

Regional Offices

Direct linkage

Department of Environment

Central Pollution Control Board

State Pollution Control Board

Zonal Offices

Regional Offices

Indirect linkage

Fig. 1. Organogram of the institutions involved in the EIA process.

several acts that came afterwards. CPCB has no direct role in environmental clearance process, though it acts as a research organization, which by collecting, analysing and disseminating information pertaining to pollution prevention and abatement, benefits the MoEF, SPCBs and several other stakeholders of environmental clearance process. It is a common practice that technical staff and experts of CPCB are designated in the expert committee constituted by IA. Member secretary of CPCB or his representative in particular is appointed in all the sector specific committees (MoEF, 2003a). 2.2.3. Role of state DoE and SPCB Environmental matters of any state ranging from the execution to formulation of guidelines have been entrusted to the state DoE. A cabinet minister heads these departments. To carry out its functions many State Governments have set up framework to accomplish EC at state levels, within state DoE. The SPCBs work under DoE having different structures for project appraisals (MoEF, 2003a). Andhra Pradesh has Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) under SPCB, which appraises the report submitted by project proponent before issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC). The states of Maharastra, Gujarat, West Bengal and Karnataka have created EAC under DoE, which issues NOC. For the rest, member secretary or chairman of the pollution control board issues NOC. Earlier these departments had no role in EC process but the amendment in EIA notification (MoEF, 1997) defined the role of state departments for EC of co-generation plants of any capacity, certain captive plants and small utility projects. Sometimes SPCBs instruct project proponents to submit rapid EIA on one season data, considering the size and type of industry. SPCBs issue NOC to establish for the project requiring EC from either state or central government if the water and air pollution loads are acceptable for the area in which project is to be located. The IA has conferred the responsibility of public hearings to SPCBs. The minutes of the meeting and major findings are to be furnished to IA within 30 days. SPCBs are also involved in the national EC, in case of non-compliance of industries. The Ministry may direct SPCBs to look into the matter and take up desired measures. 2.2.4. Role of MoEF Regional Offices (ROs) The MOEF has set up six regional offices with a head quarter (HQ) unit at New Delhi.3 These centres have been set up especially for monitoring and implementation of stipulations under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and provisions for environmental clearance, whereas office at Delhi coordinates with all regional offices. Post Project Monitoring (PPM) of the cleared projects in particular is the major responsibility of these offices. Project authorities are required to submit monitoring reports to these ROs every 6 months, detailing progress of implementation of the conditions, detailed while granting EC to the projects. These offices are directed to follow up pollution control measures adopted by industries and in this concern; they are allowed to take up site visits. If any violation of environmental standards is noticed, ROs inform HQ to take necessary actions. 3 Regional offices and area of work: Banglore—Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa; Bhopal—Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Dadar and Nager Haveli, Daman and Diu; Bubaneshwar—Orrisa, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal; Lucknow—Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan; Shilong— Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. (Regional Office (Upper East or Eastern Plateau) Yet to be made functional at Ranchi).

2.3. Procedural framework The whole process of environmental clearance involves many ministries and departments (Fig. 2). The process starts when project proponent applies for NOC to respective SPCBs or other local authorities (i.e., Delhi Pollution Control Committee in Delhi). Site clearance is required for some of the activities i.e., mining, prospecting and exploration of major minerals, pithead thermal power plants, multipurpose river valley projects and major ports and harbours. Consents from airport authority and state forest departments are also considered necessary if any airport is nearby and project involving any forestland respectively. Once the project proponent receives all the approvals, he submits an application to MoEF for environmental clearance.

Proponent initiates the process.

Site clearance from MoEF (if required)

Application to SPCB for NOC (under Air and Water Act)

NOC from State Forest Department / Airport Authority (if required)

Clearance granted?

NOC granted?

Change site

NOC granted? Change site

Change site

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Proponent submit an application to MoEF along with NOCs, EIA, EMP, risk analysis for environmental clearances

Yes

MoEF orders SPCBs to conduct public hearing

SPCB conducts public hearing

Impact Assessment Division reviews the application

No

SPCB compiles comments

Is project accepted?

Yes Environmental Clearance granted

Monitoring

Fig. 2. Environmental clearance process in India.

2.3.1. EIA process EIA process in India involves three basic steps—(a) preparation of the EIA report, involving scoping to documentation, (b) review and decision-making and (c) post project monitoring (Joseph, 1998). 2.3.1.1. Screening. Screening determines whether EIA is required or not. In India, 32 activities listed in schedule I (Appendix A), any project in ecologically fragile areas4 and any project falling under coastal zone regulation, requires an EIA (MoEF, 1989a,b, 1991a,b, 1992, 2001a, 2004). The investment clause has also been formulated to streamline screening process. It specifies that new projects with investment more than 100 crores and modernisation projects involving investment more than 50 crores require EIA. This clause is not applicable to industries involving hazardous chemical processes (see Appendix A). 2.3.1.2. Scoping. Scoping identifies the concerns and issues to be addressed for a particular project. MoEF has set guidelines and review checklists for relevant issues for different project types (MoEF, 2001b) and provides general questionnaires for all the sectors. Study of alternatives and public hearings are undertaken at this stage only. Alternate scenario must account for no project condition along with project scenario employing best-suited technology or processes (MoEF, 2001b). 2.3.1.3. Baseline analysis. A comparison of project-induced environmental changes with the expected environmental changes without proposed project is assessed through baseline analysis. The quality of the baseline analysis establishes the viability of the appraisal of the impacts, and therefore of the EIA itself. In India, data is collected on both project engineering and environmental aspects. Project engineering deals with process technology, raw material, water and energy requirements, whereas data on air emissions, wastewater, noise, solid waste and hazardous/toxic waste is required for the environmental study. Project proponent conducts monitoring for various required environmental quality parameters or data available with the local monitoring stations of SPCBs and CBCP may also be used. MoEF provides the detailed guidelines on the procedures of monitoring and analysis of the baseline data. 2.3.1.4. Impact prediction. Once collecting the relevant environmental information, consequences of the project are outlined. The prediction analysis should forecast the nature and significance of the expected impacts, or explain why no significant impacts are anticipated. Several mathematical models are listed in the manual of MoEF for environmental and socio-ecological impacts predictions. Suggestions have also been made on the kind of conditions where they could be used. Socio-economic and ecological impacts are essential to be covered in this analysis. 2.3.1.5. Impact mitigation measures. In an EIA, mitigation measures are proposed to avoid or reduce environmental and social impacts. Environmental Management Plan (EMP), risk assessment report and disaster management plan (if hazardous substances are involved in the project), rehabilitation plan (if displacement of people is anticipated) are prepared to suggest remedial measures. EMP in particular should entail following aspects (MoEF, 2001b). • Pollution prevention • Waste minimization 4

Doon Valley (Uttar Pradesh); Murud Janjira, Dahanu Taluka and Mahabaleshwar Panchgani (Maharastra); Aravalli ranges in Gurgaon (Haryana) and Alwar (Rajasthan).

• End-of-pipe treatment • Mitigation measures • Protection of the sensitive receptors In addition to this EMP must be supplied with the work plan, time schedule, place and cost of implementing the mentioned measures. 2.3.1.6. Documentation. At the end of all the above-mentioned steps, a concise but comprehensive report is prepared. It summarises the description of the project, regional settings, baseline conditions, impact prediction and important findings of the study. Project proponents hire consultants to carry out the EIA and preparation of report for them. 2.3.1.7. Public hearing. The Indian system provides an opportunity to involve affected people and vulnerable groups to develop terms of references for EIA thus incorporating their concerns into decision-making process. The SPCB is required to publish notices for public hearing in two local newspapers and one of which should be in vernacular language of the concerned locality (MoEF, 1994). The date, time and place of the hearing should be mentioned in the notice. EIA notification also makes provision for access to the executive summary of the project at the offices of district collector, district industry centre, commissioner of the municipal corporation/local body, SPCB and state DoE (MoEF, 1994). The composition of the public hearing panel has also been specified by the law, which may consist of members of local authorities and representatives of the public nominated by the district collector. 2.3.1.8. Review and decision-making. The review and decision-making starts as the proponent files an application accompanied by the documents i.e., EIA and EMP report, NOC, risk assessment and emergency preparedness plan, rehabilitation plan, details of public hearing, clearance from airport authority and state forest departments, etc., to IA. The IA reviews the report with reference to the guidelines provided by MoEF in its manual (MoEF, 2001b). The IA is free to conduct site visits if considers necessary. Based on the EIA review and other information, the IA either grants or rejects the environment clearance to the project. The assessment has to be completed within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the requisite documents from the project authorities and completion of public hearing. The decision has to be conveyed to the proponent within 30 days thereafter. 2.3.1.9. Post Project Monitoring (PPM). The PPM aims to ensure that an action had been implemented in accordance with the measures specified while providing the EC. Thus, it performs a dual task of identifying the actual environmental impacts of the project and checks if the EMP is having the desired mitigation measures. Post-implementation monitoring is the responsibility of MoEF's six regional offices and SPCBs. 3. The SWOT analysis A SWOT analysis is a technique commonly used to assist in identifying strategic direction for an organization or practice. It is preferred for the present work as it yields useful information about the future viability of the considered system. The predictive capabilities of the technique come about from the consideration of system's strengths and weaknesses in the context of the environment, which may present opportunities and threats. The

intention is to determine how the system will fare in the light of changes taking place around it. The strengths and weaknesses of a system are determined by internal elements, whereas external forces dictate opportunities and threats. Strengths can be defined as any available resource that can be used to improve its performance. Weaknesses are flaws/shortcomings of any system that may cause to lose a competitive advantage, efficiency or financial resources. Sometimes it is recommended to identify opportunities and threats first in order to more quickly bring to light the systems strengths or weaknesses. Many of the threats are based on weaknesses. This section presents a SWOT analysis, to highlight the Indian EIA systems constraints, potentials and challenges. Based on authors' own experiences with the industries and institutions in Haldia, expert views (i.e., government officials, consultants and managers) revealed during informal talks, semi structured interviews and literature review; this SWOT brings out some of peculiar features of the practice in India. SWOT presents issues, which should be given due consideration while thinking on making EIA more accessible. 3.1. Strengths Strength identifies resources and capabilities of the EIA system, which may aid to develop the system further. It shows that there are huge possibilities to improve the system but strong legal framework is a positive and supportive feature. The strength of Indian system also lies in existence of regulatory authorities to execute the law all over the country. 3.1.1. Well-defined legal structure It is very much evident that the constitution of India is deeply committed to environmental protection (Biswas, 1996). A well-defined legal framework exists to safeguard quality of environment. The EPA (1986) in particular established EIA as a legal requirement for upcoming development activities. The EPA (1986) and various other laws, to which EIA process is linked and draws its meaning, explicitly state penalties and fines along with imprisonment in case of any infraction of the legal provisions. Strong judicial construct and democracy in the country are strong points of the system. Several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been raised on the pollution related hazards in different parts of the country. On realizing implications of pollution on the environment and human health, the judiciary has also directed central and state authorities to take initiatives (CPCB, 2002a). 3.1.2. Presence of well-knitted regulatory structure The constitution of India has assigned various bodies with the responsibilities of the defining and implementing the stipulations mentioned in EIA decree, as discussed in Section 2.2. Both central and state authorities are made responsible for its execution, which provide a well-knitted execution system at every end. 3.2. Weaknesses Present EIA practice in India is restricted to project level, which also has several weaknesses. It is perceived merely as a bureaucratic requirement limited to selection of project or pollution control technology (Lohani et al., 1997; Rao, 1997).

3.2.1. Screening and scoping processes are not well defined The screening process is based on list of 32 projects listed in schedule-I of EIA notification, amount of investment and sensitive zones, as discussed in Section 2.3, not on level of impact, types and complexities of pollutants, size of project or raw material and technology used, etc., as considered in China (Chen et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2003). Screening guidelines in India do not specify if rapid EIA could be conducted (TERI, 2002). Scoping on the other hand is left on project proponents who most of the time are not interested in considering diverse impacts. For instance, in industrial estate of Haldia, most of the industrial projects never tried to estimate the impacts of their effluents on the ground water and nearby flowing river streams. All of them got rid of it by saying that impact of their loadings would be negligible when compared with the quantum of flow in the river Hoogly. Analysis of alternatives is also a weak link in EIA. Most of the time it is restricted to ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios (World Bank, 1999). Site clearance happens much before environmental clearance process because of which comparative assessment of sites is also not given due consideration. 3.2.2. Insufficient baseline data Good quality data is a major concern while preparing any EIA report. Lack of sampling networks and ill-defined sampling and analysis procedures also adds to the problem of inconsistency (TERI, 2002). There is no central data bank; therefore, data gathered through different agencies is not available to public. Quality assurance and quality control on existing data is also nil. One of the PCB officials remarked during a meeting with author that there is no dearth of data as almost all major industries are carrying out periodic monitoring to fulfil their administrative requirements but reliability of such data is very low (personal communication). 3.2.3. Inconsistent application of evaluation and predictive tools Lack of guidelines on the use of available modelling approaches put a doubt on their application to the Indian conditions and on their level of accuracy in prediction. Most of the mathematical models used are not developed for Indian conditions, so validation is necessary each time, thus, accuracy of modelling depends on knowledge and expertise of the analyst. Indian practice still considers impacts of individual activity thereby ignoring cumulative impact assessment. It was observed that prediction techniques employed in most of the EIA reports for the units in Haldia focus on primary impacts, rather than secondary and tertiary impacts. Socioeconomic, cultural and ecological assessments were also not given much emphasis. 3.2.4. Improper monitoring and implementation EMP is mere a statutory requirement i.e., if development of green belt is one of the solutions, EMP mostly lacks details on type of plant species to be planted, area required for plantation and time to accomplish the target. Most of the EIAs do not mention cost of implementation, responsibility and period for EMP implementation. It was observed that regulatory authorities have their own limitations in regards to manpower, technical resources and ever-increasing workloads, to carry out a purposeful monitoring (Lohani et al., 1997). Besides weak enforcement is another important factor (MoEF, 2003a; TERI, 2002). It has been observed that show cause notices were issued to the industries in Haldia, which, were found noncompliant repeatedly. However, strong actions against them were not taken. “We do guide them on these issues and take necessary actions but cannot shut them, as it may have several repercussions”, said one of the PCB officials (personal communication).

3.2.5. Inadequate public participation Public hearings are conducted to incorporate concerns of locals in decision-making. Unlike USA and Netherlands, where public involvement is must at various stages of EIA i.e., screening, scoping, report preparation and decision-making (Wood, 1995; MHSPE, 2000), in India public hearing is conducted just before making decisions. Though it is understood that mechanism of public participation prevailing in developed countries may not be feasible in India because of societal and economic reasons. But even one time public interaction is not very apt because of insufficient information on the role of people in the process as well as lack of awareness on environmental matters (Sinclair and Diduck, 2000). Above that, people feel betrayed, as points raised in public hearing are rarely involved in planning and decision-making (as observed in case of one of the units in Haldia). 3.2.6. Poor quality EIA reports and non-accountability of EIA professionals Project proponents hire professionals to carryout EIA for their projects and thus the role of these experts is very central. There is no process of certification of consultants to maintain quality of EIA report. There are guidelines for preparing EIA report (MoEF, 2001b), but most of the reports tend to be a collection and compilation of data (TERI, 2002; Valappil et al., 1994, personal observation). Interpretation and analysis of the collected data is subjected to various inadequacies, which place a question mark on the accountability of EIA professionals. As discussed in earlier sections for Haldia, information on various aspects of water had been collected but never done any analysis to realise the impact of various sources on the water quality, biodiversity, etc. In one of the reports even the calculation for maximum ground level concentration of air pollutants was suspected when found inconsistent. Assumptions and limitations of the analysis carried out by consultants were hardly discussed in any of the report. 3.2.7. Lack of coordination and poorly defined decision-making process Lack of expertise and limited resources with executing authorities result in inferior decisionmaking. In several cases at Haldia lack of coordination was felt among SPCB and concerned regional office. Though they are dealing with same set of industries both perform their duties in isolation. Lack of coordination between various governmental agencies, decision makers, planners and project proponents not only cause delay in decision-making but also pose hindrance in effective implementation of environmental regulations (MoEF, 2003a). 3.3. Opportunities With more education and awareness, people are becoming environment conscious. Change in income levels, demand for personal comfort and socially responsible behaviour of industrial units would open up opportunities to improve the implementation of laws and policies. 3.3.1. Increasing public awareness Increasing awareness and growing public pressure are demanding action to stop further environmental degradation. The demand for better environment is forcing a policy shift. In response to this stress, government has been setting emission standards for various pollutants, whereas industries in turn have focused on achieving emission goals. People are challenging the decisions of government where industrial growth is favoured over environmental protection. Several public interest litigations had been filled on these issues. Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), shifting of industries from Delhi and Kanpur tanneries cases are some of the examples where public intervened and judiciary reckoned that industries were liable to the environmental

damages (CPCB, 2002a). Local people are now emerging as a new range of environmental ‘stakeholders’. 3.3.2. Growing consciousness through Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) For the past few decades, environmental groups are taking initiatives to develop activities in raising public awareness and public involvement in decision-making process. They play a multidimensional role, which includes capacity building of a civil society with emphasis on the principles of sustainable development and creating a forum to facilitate the implementation of regulations involving localites. Their campaigns empower communities by furnishing information on environmental laws, policies and effects of environmental damages. These NGOs are catalysing a participatory movement involving women and youth, school and university students, towards environmental protection. The aims of the environmental movement is to improve information disclosure and engaging various stakeholders in the process of managing environmental goods. 3.3.3. Self-regulation in industrial sector The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is emerging fast, which emphasise on the business practices based on ethical values and respect for employees, communities and the environment. Corporate have started realizing that initiatives towards environmental conservation would characterize an effective means of advertising their virtue in the eyes of society. Consumers are now demanding for more environment friendly products, which clearly indicate that companies have their interest in going green. Corporate have also agreed that “clean is cheaper”, on saving resources and throwing less waste to environment in strict business sense means adding to their profits. As per an environmental manager of a lead battery-manufacturing unit, export opportunities paved way to adopt better house keeping and environmental standards (personal communication). Opening up of markets for multinationals in India is providing opportunities as global companies may facilitate the diffusion of cleaner technologies conforming high global standards. 3.3.4. Integration of EIA with plans, policies and programs To streamline EIAs of individual development projects, the Indian system should also look at the problem from a higher platform and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) may be seen as possible solution to it. SEA is a tool, which aims to integrate environmental considerations into laws, policies, plans and programmes (Clayton and Sadler, 1998). SEA addresses cumulative effects and alternatives that are not addressed at project level as well as refines the scope of assessment at lower tiers (Sadler and Verheem, 1996). Nooteboom (2004) advocated SEA as it enhances the transparency of the whole planning and assessment process. Despite several inherent advantages, SEA can never replace projects level EIA but it strongly reduces the effort and resources (i.e., time and cost) involved in project EIAs (Thérivel and Partidário, 1996). 3.4. Threats Several advantages and opportunities have been realized in EIA system, yet certain threats exist, which are mentioned below. 3.4.1. Poor governance and corruption Good governance implies decision-making in accordance with law and undertaken in a transparent, accountable and participatory manner (UNDP, 1997; Kakonge, 1998). This implies that

political commitment at all the levels is crucial for any reform and it holds true for environmental reforms or EIA system. Excessive bureaucratic requirements, inefficient and complex administrative procedures may pose hurdles to these reforms. Public disclosure of information and accountability are lacking. All above mentioned factors and governance failure has potential to encourage corruption, which may results in misuse of scarce public resources (UNDP, 1997). Corrupt payoffs, i.e., bribes, may be made to override the legal norms. As on today, corruption has become a critical consideration in India. The ministry must show commitment to safeguard the EIA process so that the same should not creep into the system dealing with environmental regulations. 3.4.2. Effect of economic reforms China faced serious environmental consequences of the pro-economic growth policies adopted by local governments where their performance was judged by financial benefits (Mao and Hills, 2002). Similarly, in Indian context, state government of Gujarat was in question (IPTEHR, 1999). In a survey CPCB identified 1349 units generating hazardous waste in the five districts of Gujarat, i.e., Valsad, Surat, Bharuch, Vadodara and Ahmedabad (CPCB, 1996). Industrial units manufacturing dyes and dye-intermediates account for 59.2% of the hazardous wastes generated and are concentrated in the industrial estates of Odhav, Naroda and Vatva in Ahmedabad district, Nandesari in Vadodara, Ankleshwar in Bharuch and Vapi in Valsad district. CPCB also identify Vapi and Ankleshwar as critically polluted areas because of spurt of growth in chemical units generating huge quantum of toxic effluent and hazardous waste (CPCB, 1994, 1996). Gujarat state had also given permissions to fertilizer plant in Baharuch, copper smelter and chlorine plant in Jhagadia, which were thrown out of Maharashtra state because of environmental considerations (CSE, 1996). Above-mentioned cases suggest that the concepts of heavy industrial growth for economic yields and environmental protection are conflicting in nature. The current era of economic reforms and decentralization of power, emphasize more on economic growth and profit generation, which may create stress on environmental regulations. 3.4.3. Lax regulations for small-scale industries (SSI) Unplanned, uncontrolled and haphazard growth of small-scale industries has caused serious problems of pollution. The SSI sector accounts for 45% of the industrial production and generates 40% of the total wastewater among different classes of industries (CPCB, 2002b). The outflow of wastewater, emissions or solid wastes per unit of production is very high in SSIs because of usage of outdated and inefficient technologies and lack of resources for enforcement and implementation of pollution control programmes (CPCB, 2002b). Still these small-scale industries most of the times do not require EC from MoEF. Mere acknowledgement of the application form by the SPCB or State Pollution Control Committees serves the purpose of consent for these units and there is no need to obtain periodic renewal of consent until the time they modify or change their process. These proliferating SSIs are posing environmental risks, which necessitate to considering these units under EIA regime; to formulate a carrying capacity based approach for better environmental management of an area. A step has been taken in this direction as last amendment in EIA notification has been put forth to cover industrial estate where pollution potential is high under purview of EIA notification (MoEF, 2004). 4. Potential directions of change/improvements For the purposeful implementation of EIA regulation, the ministry is rethinking on its commitment by updating policy guidelines, simplifying the procedural aspects and placing

measures to strengthen the role of regulatory agencies. This effort also requires better monitoring support and availability of environmental expertise. On understanding the weaknesses and challenges in the Indian system, there are certain suggestions for improvements in the Indian EIA practice to facilitate greater rigour in analysis, appraisal, monitoring and enforcement to achieve broader objective of protecting the environment.5 4.1. Increase the accountability of the EIA experts Certification of consultants is deemed necessary so that only licensed agencies should accomplish EIA. Authorship should be specified in the EIA reports with the intention that project developer or consultants should feel responsible and each piece of information could be traced back to its original source (Fearnside, 1994). IA professionals should not only explicitly mention all assumptions and limitations of the analysis but also present their findings in comprehensive and easy to understand format so that decision makers can judge both pros and cons of the upcoming activity. 4.2. Manage baseline data properly One of uncertainties in the EIA prediction is due to lack of reliable and accurate data. Therefore, it is suggested to organize a common database exclusively where all relevant agencies may pool in the data and this data could be made available to the project proponents on request. This data may be charged and money collected from this source may be utilized in upgrading the data bank. 4.3. Improve monitoring and implementation The EMPs should clearly suggest mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to eliminate, compensate, or reduce impacts to acceptable levels during construction as well as operation phase of an activity. Implementation of EMP must ensure effectiveness of mitigation measures and also detect the need for any corrective action. Continuous monitoring and assessment of the system, public participation and simplified administrative procedures are obligatory to facilitate the adequate implementation. Good environmental monitoring practices not only establish a baseline data of the region but also increase understanding of cause–effect relationship between an activity and environmental changes and checks accuracy of an EIA prediction, thereby increasing knowledge base for better EIA of the future projects. 4.4. Focus on SSIs Concept of industrial estate should be promoted for SSIs. Grouping of these units in an industrial estate should be done considering regional aspects such as carrying capacity, optimal utilization of natural resources, utilization of waste from one unit as resource to another and establishment of common waste treatment plants (Singhal and Kapoor, 2002). 5 Policymaker may look at the problem differently, considering “improvement” in terms of enhancements in realization of multiple objectives, e.g., reducing adverse environmental impacts, reducing costs of implementation of mitigation measures, reduction in transactions costs (and time), promoting economic and social development; while adhering to various constraints, including administrative capacities, availability of necessary disciplinary expertise, legal limits on time allowed, etc., as suggested by one of the reviewers.

4.5. Integrate environmental concerns into plans and policies There is a need to improve the role of local planning agencies in the EIA process. To incorporate environmental concerns into plans and policies, Mc Donald and Brown (1995) have illustrated certain ways: (i) Local strategic plans—determining the form of future developments that can take place in an area taking cumulative impacts and carrying capacity in account; (ii) Zoning schemes—addressing specific landuse patterns, permitted and prohibited in the area, as set out in local plan; (iii) Sub-divisional plans—setting layouts of future settlement pattern while conserving natural areas such as watercourse, riparian habitats, agricultural land, etc. 4.6. Capacity building of stakeholders It is very essential to spot major stakeholders involved in EIA system. While preparing the technical and procedural guidance material needs of all the stakeholders should be considered to indicate the roles and duties of each of them. Effective public involvement in the process brings forth wide range of social, cultural and emotional concerns, to establish terms of reference of scoping, which may be deemed out side the scope of EIA. It would make decision socially acceptable. In addition, it is necessary to sensitise, inform and train stakes to make them understand the significance of EIA process. Capacity building of regulatory agencies in terms of staff, technical expertise and monitoring facilities is also recommended. Making inter organization coordination more smooth would facilitate information sharing process. It is also required to develop disciplinary expertise to mainstream the cumulative impact assessment and SEA at plan and policy levels. 5. Conclusion It has been recognised that India is well verse with apt legal provisions, which are very essential for further strengthening of the EIA process. Moreover, EIA process possesses a basic structure, including screening, scoping, comprehensive study, progress report, review, public participation, decision and follow-up measures. To address the critical issues political commitment and public participation is indispensable. Improved effectiveness will also depend on strength of government agency coordination, integrated decision-making adequate training to various stakeholders and supporting infrastructure for purposeful monitoring and enforcement. It is required that EIA system be regularly revisited for progressive refinement that should not only remove existing constraints but also take care of future challenges. It is further recommended that project level EIA needs immediate attention but efforts should also be targeted to include environmental conservation concerns at policy and planning level. Such initiatives would help in filling up the gaps in coordination between various government authorities involved in planning and execution. Acknowledgement This research is part of an ongoing Ph.D. work at Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research, TERI—School of Advanced Studies (TERI SAS), New Delhi and is supported by University Grants Commission (UGC), India under Junior/Senior Research Fellowship Program. I would

like to thank Dr. Leena Srivastava, Supervisor and Dean, Centre for Regulatory and Policy Research and Dr. Soan Ray, Co-supervisor and Lecturer, Department of Policy Research, TERI SAS for their helpful comments and discussion during the preparation of this paper. I also benefited from working on the project ‘Preparation of an AEQM (Area-wide Environmental Quality Management) Plan for Haldia Planning Area’ and would like to thank Dr. T.S. Panwar, Senior Fellow, Centre for Environmental Studies, Policy Analysis Division, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Delhi, for the opportunity. I also acknowledge the reviewers for their valuable inputs.

Appendix A. Schedule-I of EIA Notification List of projects requiring environmental clearance 1. Nuclear power and related projects such as heavy water plants, nuclear fuel complex, rare earths.⁎ 2. River valley projects including hydel power, major irrigation and their combination including flood control (even if investment is less than 100 crores but command area is more than 10,000 ha).⁎ 3. Ports, harbours and airports (except minor ports and harbours).⁎ 4. Petroleum refineries including crude and product pipelines.⁎ 5. Chemical fertilizers (nitrogenous and phosphatic other than single super phosphate).⁎ 6. Pesticides (technical) and intermediates. 7. Petrochemical complexes (both Olefinic and Aromatic) and petro-chemical intermediates such as DMT, Caprolactam, LAB, etc., and production of basic plastics such as LLDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC. 8. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals and intermediates. 9. Exploration for oil and gas and their production, transportation and storage.⁎ 10. Synthetic rubber.⁎ 11. Asbestos and asbestos products. 12. Hydrocyanic acid and its derivatives. 13. (a) Primary metallurgical industries (such as production of Iron and Steel, Aluminium, Copper, Zinc, Lead and Ferro Alloys), (b) Electric arc furnaces (Mini steel plants).⁎ 14. Chlor alkali industry. 15. Integrated paint complex including manufacture of resins and basic raw materials required in the manufacture of paints. 16. Viscose staple fibre and filament yarn.⁎ 17. Storage batteries integrated with manufacture of oxides of Lead and Lead Antimony alloys.⁎ 18. All tourism projects between 200 m and 500 m of high water line and at locations with an elevation of more than 1000 m with investment of more than Rs. 5 crores. 19. Thermal power plants.⁎ 20. Mining projects (major minerals) with leases more than 5 ha. 21. Highway projects (except projects relating to improvement work including widening and strengthening of roads with marginal land acquisition along the existing alignments provided it does not pass through ecologically sensitive areas such as national parks, sanctuaries, tiger reserves and reserve forests).⁎ 22. Tarred roads in the Himalayas and or forest areas.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Distilleries. Raw skins and hides Pulp, paper and newsprint.⁎ Dyes and intermediates. Cement.⁎ Foundries (individual). Electroplating. Meta amino phenol (added in 2000). New townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel complexes, hospitals, office complexes for 1000 persons and above or discharging sewage of 50,000 l/day and above or with an investment of Rs. 50 crores and above (added in 2004). 32. New industrial estates having an area of 50 ha and above and the industrial estates irrespective of area if their pollution potential is high (added in 2004). ⁎Activity falls under investment clause. Appendix B. Schedule III of EIA Notification, 1994 Composition of the expert committees for EIA 1. The committee will consist of experts in the following fields: i. Eco-system management ii. Air/water pollution control iii. Water resource management iv. Flora/fauna conservation and management v. Land use planning vi. Social sciences/rehabilitation vii. Project appraisal viii. Ecology ix. Environmental health x. Subject area specialist xi. Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues 2. The chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist or environmentalist or technical professional with wide managerial experience in relevant development sector. 3. The representative of IA will act as a member secretary. 4. Chairman and members will serve in their individual capacities except those specifically nominated as representative. 5. The membership of the committee shall not exceed 15. References Biswas D. Environmental legislation and enforcement mechanism. Tech Monitor 1996;13(1):16–20. Chen W, Warren KA, Duan N. Incorporating cleaner production analysis into environmental impact assessment in China. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1999;19:457–76. Chopra K, Kadekodi GK, Mongia N. Environmental impact of projects: planning and policy issues. New Delhi, India: Institute of Economic Growth; 1993.

Clayton BD, Sadler B. Strategic environmental assessment: a rapidly evolving approach. A directory of impact assessment guidelines. Compiled by Donnelly, Clayton B D, Hughes R. 2nd ed. London: International Institute for Environment and Development; 1998. p. 31–42. CPCB. Inventory of large and medium water polluting industries. Vol. II (Gujarat). Probes/58/1993–94. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 1994. CPCB. Inventories of Hazardous waste generation in five districts (Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat and Valsad) of Gujarat. Hazwams/6/1995–96. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 1996. CPCB. Public interest litigation. Parivesh newsletter. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 2002a. CPCB. Pollution control in small-scale industries: status and needs. Probes/85/2001–02. New Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board; 2002b. CSE. Country's waste: Gujarat's wealth. Down to Earth, vol. 5(5). New Delhi, India: Centre for Science and Environment; 1996. 19 pp. Fearnside PM. The Canadian feasibility study of the three gorges dam proposed for China's Yangzi River: a grave embarrassment to the impact assessment profession. Impact Assess 1994;12:21–57. IPTEHR. Who bears the cost: industrialisation and toxic pollution in the ‘golden corridor’ of Gujarat. http://www.iptindia.org/pdf/ Who%20Bears%20the%20Cost.pdf. The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights. February 1999. Joseph K. Monograph on environmental impact assessment in India, Environmental Information System, Centre for Environmental Studies. Chennai, India: Anna University; 1998. Kakonge KO. EIA and good governance: issues and lessons from Africa. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1998;18:289–305. Lohani B, Evans JW, Ludwig H, Evritt RR, Carpenter RA, Tu SL. Environmental impact assessment for developing countries in Asia (Volume I: Overview). Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 1997. Mao W, Hills P. Impacts of the economic–political reform on environmental impact assessment implementation in China. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2002;20:101–11. Mc Donald GT, Brown L. Going beyond environmental impact assessment: environmental input to planning and design. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1995;15:483–95. MHSPE. The texts of the regulations on environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. http://www.eel.nl/countries/ pdf/EIA%20Nl.pdf. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; 2000. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Doon Valley (Uttar Pradesh). S.O.102 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1989a. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Murud Janjira (Maharastra). S.O.20 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1989b. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Dhanu Taluka (Maharastra). S.O. 416 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1991a. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—coastal zone regulations. S.O. 114 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1991b. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Aravalli ranges. S.O. 319 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1992. MoEF. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification. S.O.60 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1994. MoEF. Annual reports. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1994–2004. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding thermal power plant (delegation of power). S.O.319 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 1997. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding Mahabaleshwar Panchgani (Maharastra). S.O. 52 (E). New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 2001a. MoEF. Environmental impact assessment: a manual. http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/eia/cover.htm, Impact assessment division. New Delhi, India: Ministry Of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 2001b. MoEF. Draft report on formulation of revised environmental clearance process—phased implementation: environment management capacity building project—EIA component. http://envfor.nic.in/divisions/iass/emcb/reportforec-cont. htm, prepared by ERM, Ministry of environment and Forest, New Delhi: India; 2003a. MoEF. Brochure on items of work handled in various divisions and sections of ministry of environment and forest. http:// www.envfor.nic.in, Impact assessment division. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest; 2003b. MoEF. The Environment (Protection) Act Notification—regarding new towns and industrial estates. S.O. 801 (E). http:// envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so801(e).doc, New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India; 2004. Nooteboom S. Environmental assessments of strategic decisions and project decisions, integrations and benefits. http://www2. vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=4917. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; 2004.

Rao CVC. Environmental impact assessment state-of-art. Tech Monitor 1997;14(3):40–9. Sadler B, Verheem R. SEA: status, challenges and future directions. International study of effectiveness of environmental assessment, EIA Commission of the Netherlands. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; 1996. Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP. Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: a case study of hydro development in Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh, India. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2000;18(1):63–75. Singhal S, Kapoor A. Industrial estate planning and management in India—an integrated approach towards industrial ecology. J Environ Manag 2002;66:19–29. TERI. TA cluster for environmental management at the state level (component A: promotion and assessment of environmentally sound projects), India (Volume I). TA No. 3423-IND. Submitted to Asian Development Bank; New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute; 2002. Thérivel R, Partidário RM. The practice of strategic environmental assessment. London: Earthscan; 1996. UNDP. Corruption and good governance. Discussion paper 3, http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/efa/corruption3/corruption3. htm, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, New York: United Nations Development Programme; July: 1997. Valappil M, Devuyst D, Hens L. Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment procedure in India. Impact Assess 1994;12:75–88. Wang Y, Morgan RK, Cashmore M. Environmental impact assessment of projects in the people's republic of China: new law, old problems. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2003;23:543–79. Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Longman; 1995. World Bank. India—review of the effectiveness of EA in World Bank assisted projects (1990–97). http://www.emcentre. com/, Environment Sector Management Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, DC: The World Bank; 1999. Author is a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for Regulatory and Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi under the supervision of Dr. Leena Srivastava, Dean, Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies. Her area of research is ‘Adequacy of environmental impact assessment procedure in India and challenges to effective implementation of environment management plan’. She had done her Masters in ‘Environment Management’ from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi.