Environment Impact Assessment (eia)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a formal process for predicting the environmental consequences (both positive and negative) of a plan, policy, program or project before deciding whether or not to proceed with the proposed action. 

 

•    Formal impact assessments may be subject to judicial review and may be governed by administrative procedure rules regarding public participation and decision documentation.

 

•    An impact assessment may recommend measures to reduce or eliminate negative effects, as well as investigate new technological solutions.

•    ‘‘The term environmental assessment describes the technique and process by which information about the project's environmental effects is collected both by the developer and other sources and taken into account by the planning authority informing their decision whether the development should go ahead," according to the UK Department of Environment.

 

•    An EIA is defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating, and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions and commitments being made."

 

•    EIAs were first used in the 1960s to raise environmental awareness. The United States was the first country to enact EIA legislation. With the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, EIAs were given formal status in the United States. This was the first time that EIA was designated as an official tool for environmental protection. 

 

•    EIA was formalized by the United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972 and subsequent conventions (Ogola, 2007). EIAs are becoming more widely used around the world. They've also been recognized by a number of international treaties.

 

a.    To examine the proposal's benefits and drawbacks in a systematic manner.

 

b.    Ensuring that those consequences are considered during project planning.

 

c.    To identify the proposal's potential environmental effects and ways to mitigate them.

 

d.    Estimate whether there will be significant negative consequences even after mitigation.

 

e.    Promote community participation and inform decision-makers to reduce conflicts.

 

1.    Identification of the consequences of the proposal.

 

2.    Prediction of the extent of consequences.

 

3.    Evolution of project outcome (important or not)  

 

4.    Avoidance of negative consequences. 

 

5.    Documentation to help decision-makers understand what needs to be done.

 

The steps outlined below are part of the EIA process. The EIA process, on the other hand, is cyclical, with interactions between the various steps.

 

1.    Identification: -The first step is to define a project and research all of the likely activities involved in its execution in order to comprehend its scope and reach. This aids in determining the potential impact zones on the environment.

 

2.    Screening: Screening is done to determine whether a project requires environmental clearance in accordance with the law.

 

•    Investment scales

 

•    Development styles

 

•    Development location

 

A project's ramifications will be biophysical, environmental, economic, and social. As a result, it necessitates some level of public participation. EIA legislation differs from country to country. If the screening reveals that an EIA is required, the project advances to the next stage.

 

EIA may not be required for all projects. It is usually determined by the project's size, but it can also be based on site-specific information. The screening process produces a document called a"Initial Environmental Examination or Evaluation (IEE)" that is used to determine whether an EIA is required and, if so, to what extent.

 

•    Scoping is the process of identifying the most important environmental issues, and it is perhaps the most important step in an EIA. 

 

•    The scope or range of the EIA report is referred to as scoping. It examines the project's impact on the environment, including air, water, soil, noise, air quality, and physical impact.

 

•    It identifies issues and concerns, determines assessment methods, identifies affected parties, and invites public participation in order to reach a consensus on contentious issues.

 

•    All stakeholders, including project beneficiaries, local people, the private sector, NGOs, scientists, and others, are involved in public participation. 

 

•    It is a continuous process that will most likely continue during the project's planning and design phases. 

 

•    Scoping is important because it allows for changes to be made to the project early in its life cycle and ensures that all relevant issues are investigated. At this point, you have the option of cancelling or revising the project. 

 

•    There is little room for major changes to the project once it has passed this stage.

 

Impact Prediction: - Impact Prediction is a method of 'mapping' the environmental consequences of the project's major features and alternatives.

 

(I)    Identification: The process of identifying the impacts would have started during the scoping stage. These preliminary conclusions may be confirmed, and new ones may be added as the investigation progresses.

 

(II)    Prediction of Impacts: Impacts are predicted in both qualitative and quantitative ways. The reversibility or irreversibility of an impact determines its size and severity. If the effect is reversible, it is considered low impact. The impact is said to be high if the negative effect cannot be reversed.

 

The duration of the impact is also crucial to comprehend. It is necessary to consider the chronological aspects of impacts that occur at various stages.

 

a.    Short-term (3-9 years)

b.    Medium-term (10-20 years)

c.    Long-term (beyond 20 years)

 

•    This stage includes actions that can be taken to mitigate the project's negative effects. This is done in order to reduce negative effects and expand the scope of project benefits. 

 

•    Mitigating measures could include:

 

a.    Preventive: public awareness programs

 

b.    Compensatory: to reduce potential reactions

 

c.    Corrective: putting into place devices and installations

 

1.    Detailed project report (DPR)

 

2.    Filled in questionnaire

 

3.    Environmental impact statement (EIS): The EIS should detail the project's potential impact (both positive and negative).

 

1.    Soil, water (hydrologic regime, groundwater, and surface water), and air quality are all affected.

 

2.    Land use, forests, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, recreation, and other factors are all affected.

 

3.    Impact on society, including short- and long-term effects on the population

 

4.    Health repercussions

 

5.    Impact on flora, fauna, and wildlife, particularly endemic and endangered species, as well as the environment

 

6.    Environmental protection measures are included in the cost-benefit analysis.

 

1.    Proposed safeguards and control measures to avoid or mitigate the negative environmental impact

 

2.    Plans for project outer habitation

 

3.    Accidents and disasters require contingency plans.

 

4.    Monitoring and feedback mechanisms are in place to ensure that necessary safeguards are implemented.

 

The concept of Human Exposure Assessment Location (HEAL) was developed by WHO in collaboration with UNEP as part of a health-related monitoring program and the project has three components: global air quality monitoring, global water quality monitoring, and global food contamination monitoring. Chembur and central Bombay city have been identified in our country for such studies of human exposure to pollutants like chlorinated pesticides (DDT and BHC), heavy metals (lead, cadmium), and air pollutants (nitrogen oxides).

 

•    After the completion of the EIA report, the law requires that the public be informed and consulted on a proposed development.

 

•    The executive summary of the EIA is available to anyone who is likely to be impacted by the proposed project.

 

 

1.    Bonafide local residents

2.    Local associations

3.    Environmental groups active in the area

4.    Any other person located at the project site/ sites of displacement

 

According to Schedule IV of the act, they must be given the opportunity to make oral or written suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board.

 

Review (EIA): After the final report has been prepared, it may be reviewed based on stakeholder comments and input.

 

Making a Decision: The final decision to approve or reject the project is based on the EIA. On procedural grounds, this is subject to administrative or judicial review.

 

•    Once a project is approved, it must operate in accordance with the environmental clearance conditions.

 

•    These requirements must be closely monitored and implemented. Both the construction and operation phases of a project should be monitored. 

 

•    This is done not only to ensure that commitments are kept, but also to see if the predictions made in the EIA reports were accurate or not.

 

a.    Eco-system management

 

b.    Air/water pollution control

 

c.    Water resource management

 

d.    Flora/fauna conservation and management

 

e.    Land use planning

 

f.    Social Sciences/Rehabilitation

 

g.    Project appraisal

 

h.    Ecology

 

i.    Environmental Health

 

j.    Subject Area Specialists

 

k.    Representatives of NGOs/persons concerned with environmental issues

 

l.    The Chairman will be a distinguished and accomplished ecologist, environmentalist, or technical professional with extensive management experience in the relevant field.

 

m.    A member-secretary will be appointed by the representative of the Impact Assessment Agency.

 

n.    With the exception of those specifically nominated as representatives, the chairman and members will serve in their individual capacities.

 

o.    A committee's membership must not exceed 15 people.

 

1.    An Appraisal Committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to examine a project based on the information provided by the project's authorities.

 

2.    As and when necessary, the Ministry of Environment and Forests may hold consultations with investors and experts on specific issues.

 

3.    Environmental clearance is granted after all aspects of the project have been considered, subject to the implementation of the required environmental safeguards.

 

4.    If the project proponents have submitted all required information, a decision will be made within 90 days.

 

5.    The Ministry's six regional offices in Shillong, Bhubaneshwar, Chandigarh, Bangalore, Lucknow, and Bhopal monitor projects that have been approved.

 

6.    The primary goals of this procedure are to ensure that the suggested safeguards are adequate and, if necessary, to make mid-course corrections.

 

7.    In some cases, one or more natural resources in a given region become scarce, limiting the scope of development projects.

 

•    Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) are developed by coastal states or union territories in accordance with the rules established by the CRZ notification of 1991.

 

•    CZMPs are developed based on the identification and classification of coastal areas for various activities, and then submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval.

 

•    The ministry then establishes a task force to review their plans.

 

•    When a project requires both environmental clearance and approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, both proposals must be submitted to the Ministry's concerned divisions at the same time.

 

•    The clearance or rejection processing is done at the same time. The case is only processed for environmental clearance if the project does not involve the diversion of forestland.

 

•    Once all of the required documents and data from the project authorities have been received, and public hearings (if necessary) have been held, the project will be assessed and evaluated from an environmental standpoint.

 

•    ment angle is completed within 90 days, and the ministry's decision is communicated within 30 days [120 days for final decision].

 

•    Whenever a project is given environmental clearance, the Appraisal Committee sets a set of conditions that must be met by the project proponent on a case-by-case basis.

 

•    The project authorities must submit a half-yearly compliance report to the Ministry detailing the project's compliance with the terms and conditions.

 

•    Cases of cleared projects/units failing to comply with the recommendations and conditions are brought to the Ministry's attention, which may then take action against the project authorities.

 

1.    Those who propose the project are known as proposers.

 

2.    On behalf of the project proponent, an environmental consultant prepares an EIA.

 

3.    Board of Control for Pollution (State or National).

 

4.    The general public has the right to express themselves.

 

5.    The Agency for Impact Assessment.

 

6.    The Ministry of Environment and Forests has established a regional center.

 

1.    The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 decentralized environmental clearance projects by categorizing them into two categories: Category A (national level appraisal) and Category B (local level appraisal) (state level appraisal).

 

2.    Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) and Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) appraise ‘Category A' projects at the national level, while Category B projects are appraised at the state level.

 

3.    To give clearance to the Category B process, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) have been established.

 

1.    Screening

2.    Scoping

3.    Public hearing

4.    Appraisal

 

•    Projects in Category A are exempt from the screening process because they require mandatory environmental clearance.

•    Projects in Category B go through a screening process and are divided into two types.

 

a.    Category B, projects (Mandatory requires EIA)

b.    Category B2 projects (Do not require EIA).

 

• As a result, Category A and Category B projects go through the entire EIA process, whereas Category B2 projects are exempt from it.

 

•    Anyone seeking environmental approval for a project should request a public hearing from the relevant State Pollution Control Board.

 

•    The State Pollution Control Board publishes an environmental public hearing notice in at least two newspapers widely circulated in the project's surrounding area, one of which will be in the locality's vernacular language.

 

•    The date, time, and location of the public hearing are listed by the State Pollution Control Board.

 

•    Within thirty days of the notification's publication, the public will be invited to submit suggestions, views, comments, and objections.

 

•    Anyone who lives near the project site/sites of displacement/sites likely to be affected can attend the public hearing, including residents, environmental groups, and others. They can also make suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board, either orally or in writing.

 

 

•    State Pollution Control Board representative;

 

•    District Collector or his nominee;

 

•    An official from the state government who is dealing with the issue;

 

•    Representative of the State Government's Department of the Environment;

 

•    A maximum of three representatives from local governments (municipalities or panchayats);

 

•    The District Collector must nominate no more than three senior citizens from the area.

 

•    Several projects with significant environmental impacts are exempt from the notification requirement, either because they are not listed in Schedule I or because their investments are less than what the notification allows.

•    It has been discovered that the team formed to conduct EIA studies lacks experts in a variety of fields, including environmentalists, wildlife experts, anthropologists, and social scientists (to study the social impact of the project).

 

•    For example, the life science department of Berhampur University was given the task of preparing an EIA report for the proposed oil exploration off the coast of Orissa by the Reliance Group, despite the fact that it has no experience studying turtles and their life cycle.

 

•    Public comments are not taken into consideration at an early stage, which often leads to conflict later in the project approval process.

 

•    Several projects with significant environmental and social consequences have been exempted from the mandatory public hearing process.

 

•    Documents to which the public has a right are rarely available on time.

 

•    The data collectors do not respect local people's indigenous knowledge.

 

•    One of the most serious concerns about the environmental clearance process is the quality of the EIA reports that are produced.

 

•    The reports are frequently incomplete and contain inaccurate information.

 

•    Many EIA reports are based on data from a single season.

 

•    Because the EIA document is so large and technical, it's difficult to decipher it and use it to help with decision-making.

 

•    It is the project proponent's responsibility to commission the preparation of the EIA for their project.

 

•    The EIA is actually funded by an organization or individual whose primary goal is to obtain approval for the proposed project.

 

•    Even if the consultant provides an unbiased assessment that is critical of the proposed project, there is little chance that the final assessment presented is unbiased.

 

•    There have been numerous instances of fraudulent EIA studies in which erroneous data has been used, the same facts have been used for two completely different locations, and so on.

 

•    Because EIA consultants are not accredited, any such consultant with a history of fraudulent cases cannot be held liable for discrepancies.

 

•    It's difficult to imagine a consultant preparing a report for the project proponents after being paid lakhs of rupees, indicating that the project is unviable.

 

•    For political and administrative reasons, EMPs are frequently kept secret, especially in strategic industries like nuclear energy.

 

•    Details on the efficacy and implementation of mitigation measures are frequently lacking.

 

•    Emergency preparedness plans aren't discussed in enough depth, and information isn't disseminated to the public.

 

•    Independent EIA Authority.

 

•    Sector wide EIAs needed.

 

•    Creation of a centralized baseline data bank.

 

•    Dissemination of all project-related information to local communities and the general public, from notification to clearance.

 

•    All projects that are likely to result in a significant change in ecosystems must, without exception, go through the environmental clearance process.

 

•    In ecologically sensitive areas, no industrial development should be allowed.

 

•    All previously exempt categories of projects with environmental impacts should be subject to public hearings.

 

•    The focus of EIA should shift from natural resource utilization and exploitation to natural resource conservation.

 

•    At the moment, EIA reports are woefully inadequate when it comes to assessing a project's biological diversity and the resulting impacts. This chasm must be filled.

 

•    All EIA reports should state clearly what the negative effects of a proposed project will be. This should be its own chapter, not tucked away in the technical details. 

 

•    Sub-components or subsidiary reports of EIA reports (e.g., biodiversity impact assessments conducted by a sub-consultant) should be made publicly available as standalone reports alongside the EIA. This should be available on the MOEF's website. 

 

•    EIAs should be based on full studies that take at least a year to complete. Data from a single season on environmental parameters such as biodiversity, as used in several rapid assessments, is insufficient to understand the full impact of the proposed project.

 

•    It is critical that the EIA be prepared without the involvement of the project proponent.

 

•    State and federal governments should keep a list of credible, independent, and capable EIA agencies on hand. Similarly, EIA consultants who submit false reports should be put on a blacklist. 

 

•    A national accreditation system for environmental consulting should be implemented.

 

•    The notification should make it clear that the provision for site clearance does not imply that the impact Assessment agency has committed to granting full environmental clearance.

 

•    Prior informed consent of local communities, urban wards, or residents associations should be required before environmental clearance is granted. The consent of the entire general body is required.

 

•    The language used to specify clearance conditions must be clear and precise.

 

•    The current executive committees should be replaced with experts from various stakeholder groups who are well-known in environmental and related fields.

 

•    Those committees' selection process should be open and transparent. These committee's minutes, decisions, and advice should all be available to the public.

 

•    The EIA notification should include an automatic revocation of clearance if the conditions of clearance are broken, as well as more severe penalties for noncompliance. At the moment, the EIA notification is limited to the stage of environmental clearance.

 

•    To effectively monitor compliance with clearance conditions, the MOEF should establish more regional offices with advisory Expert committees, each with a smaller area of jurisdiction.

 

•    The composition of the NGT should be changed to include more judges with experience in environmental law.

 

•    All violations of the EIA notification, as well as issues relating to non-compliance, should be able to be addressed by the authority.

 

•    NGOs, civil society organizations, and local communities must develop their capacity to use EIA notification to improve project decision-making.