EIA Inputs to the Project Cycle:

Increasingly, Asian countries are enacting laws requiring EIAs for all major projects. Indeed,
in many countries EIA must be an integral part of the feasibility study. Where these laws are
enforced, they can be a powerful means of directing development towards sustainability.
Another major trigger for EIA is project financing. In many cases, a review of the project's EIA
is a mandatory requirement of financing. Few lending institutions and investors, whether
international 22 financial institutions or private sources of capital, are willing to risk their funds
on projects which do not meet environmental standards．These conditions have resulted in a
careful integration of environmental review procedures at various stages of the “project cycle.”
A generalized project cycle can be described in terms of six main stages:
1) project concept;
2) pre-feasibility;
3) feasibility;
4) design and engineering;
5) implementation; and
6) monitoring and evaluation.
EIA has a role to play at each stage in the cycle, as shown in Figure. Most of EIA activities
take place during the pre-feasibility and feasibility stages, with less effort devoted to
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation stages. In general, EIA should enhance the project
and augment the project planning process.
Identification (Pre-feasibility Study)
Early in the project cycle, the EIA process involves the site selection, screening, initial
assessment, and scoping of significant issues.
Preparation (Feasibility Study)
EIA must be an integral part of the project feasibility study. A project's feasibility study should
include a detailed assessment of significant impacts, including baseline information; the
prediction of effects and their quantification, and review of the EIA by a review agency.
Subsequent to these initial steps, environmental protection measures are identified,
environmental operating conditions are determined, and environmental management is
established. At the last stage in the feasibility study, the monitoring needs are identified, and
the environmental monitoring program and the environmental management plan is formulated.
Detailed Design (Design and Engineering)
The environmental management plan is put into effect during the implementation of a project
(including construction, operation, maintenance, and ultimate abandonment of a facility). This
plan must include mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts that cause adverse
effects during the implementation of the project. Environmental monitoring must be designed
to provide information on the activity's actual impacts, check the compliance with
environmental operating conditions, and assess the effectiveness of environmental mitigation
measures.
Implementation (Monitoring and Evaluation)
The evaluation of monitoring results is necessary to ensure that the environmental objectives
are achieved and, if necessary, the project modifications or remedial measures are undertaken
to address unforeseen impacts. Resources for the design and implementation of effective
monitoring programs have often been inadequate. As a result, follow up work to ensure that
the EIA recommendations are actually carried out has rarely been completed. Many national
environmental agencies and international assistance agencies (IAAs) such as the ADB
recognize the importance of follow-up evaluations. These agencies now call for many
additional requirements before approving the funding for the implementation of environmental
management plans and monitoring programs.

EIA Process:
After identified the needs of the proposed project, EIA process required to implement screening
to determine the necessary of EIA and how far each assessment should be. When these degrees
are decided, the process proceeds into the step of scoping to identify environmental factors
considered to be affected seriously, that will distilled up the key factors for assessment. In this
stage, public consultation is required. At the same time, assess the expected effects, study the
mitigation measure and make the EIA report. Based on this EIA report, hold the public
consultation again, and then submit the final report to the decision-makers. It is recommended
to have public consultation upon needs. After decision was approved, the proposed projects
will be implemented with the environmental monitoring. Figure below shows the whole EIA
process.
EIA Process can be itemized into the following 9 steps. Public disclosure and participation are
the key factors throughout the EIA system, and should be implemented at the effective timing
at every step. Practically, however, the timing of implementation differs by systems applied by
each country/organization.
1) Screening.
2) Scoping.
3) Baseline Study.
4) Environmental Impact Evaluation.
5) Mitigation Measures.
6) Assessment of Alternative Measures.
7) Preparation of Final Document.
8) Decision-making.
9) Monitoring of Project Implementation and Its Environmental Impacts.
1. Screening:
The project plan is screened for scale of investment, location and type of development and if
the project needs statutory clearance.
2. Scoping:
Scoping is a process for identifying environmental impacts of the project. At a very early stage
in the preparation of an EIA, the impacts of the project on the environment are identified. When
the list of the impacts is very large, only the most significant impacts are selected. This process,
therefore, determines the limits and the scope of the environmental degradation involved with
the project. Scoping actually controls the cost and time of the assessment in deciding the scope
of the EIA and therefore is a very important step both in identifying the impacts and controlling
the size of the EIA.
The following techniques are used for scoping.

• Checklist technique
• Matrix technique
• Networks technique
• Overlay technique
3. Baseline Study:
A baseline study is the study of the original status of the environment in the area before the
development work of the project is started. This study serves the purpose of a base reference
against which the changes due to implementation of the project are measured. Baseline studies
are based on the experience with respect to environmental aspects and cover everything
important about the environmental impacts of the project. On the other hand, a proper scoping
highlights the significant environmental issues of the project with respect to its locality and
regional environment. Hence, scoping and baseline studies often run into each other. Baseline
studies are rather easily carried out in the countries where the required technical expertise,
long-term database for environmental measures (for instance in the case of river flow) and
relevant research papers and reports are available for the area concerned. Thus, the baseline
studies are more easily prepared in developed countries. The local expertise, such as consulting
a forester or a soil scientist, could be utilized instead to complete the baseline studies in the
developing countries. In such cases, the team responsible for the EIA must have the ability to
find out the appropriate personnel for the required information. Failing that, the overseas
consultants can be hired but it will raise the cost of the EIA preparation. In other words, it is
the price a country has to pay for not having the required database.
4. Environment Impact Evaluation:
Environmental impact evaluation actually grows out of scoping and baseline study of the
project. In principle, EIA assigns various quantified values to different levels of all the impacts
affecting the project. This step is generally considered as the most technical in nature and
therefore is the most difficult and controversial part of the EIA. It is difficult because not every
impact, especially natural and social impacts, can be quantified. For example, it is very difficult
to agree on a number that can sum up all the negative impacts of deforestation. Occasionally,
it is possible to use surrogate measures, such as the amount of money required to mitigate the
damage or the amount of money local inhabitants are willing to pay to clean up the river.
However, the accuracy and appropriateness of such techniques can be questioned. Again, an
existing data set can be extremely useful for impact evaluation, but it is also costly.
Impact evaluation actually calls for very careful considerations of the most important impacts
and their accurate numerical representation. This has to be done not only for the proposed
project but also for all possible alternatives, so that a well-balanced final decision can be
reached regarding the fate of the project. Impact evaluation is therefore dependent on the
quality of the scoping that is done earlier on the project.
5. Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures are taken after the impact evaluation. These measures are taken to reduce
the magnitude or intensity of the impacts affecting the environment. This of course will incur
some costs, but it is expected that such measures will, in the long run, mitigate the impacts so
as to make the project both economically and environmentally viable. The EIA team has to
decide between two alternatives, either having a high cost and low pollution program or having
a low cost but a high pollution situation.
6. Assessment of Alternative Measures:
Assessment of alternative measures becomes possible at this stage. The proposed project and
all other relevant versions have been examined for environmental impacts by now. They have
also been corrected by applying the mitigation measures to minimize the adverse effects on the
environment. They have also been subjected to some kind of standardization such as impact
quantification so that all the relevant versions can be easily compared. The next step is to assess
the environmental degradation and improvement in terms of economic losses and gains. In
standard EIAs, a summary for each version of the project is given together with the comparative
assessment using benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Benefit-cost analysis has a long history of use
as a method for evaluating development projects and therefore is popular with a very wide
range of people, such as, engineers, economists, bureaucrats, etc. However, there is a difficulty
in the assessment as not everything is quantifiable. There is no exact numerical representation
for a beautiful view, for instance. Although attempts have been made to describe such situations
numerically. Therefore, not all assessments use net benefit criteria. The benefit-cost analysis,
when used, is equally applied to all options to make the comparative assessment easy. For
instance, it is more desirable to put up with limited pollution at a lower cost of mitigation than
to remove the pollution completely at a much higher cost.
7. Preparation of the final document:
Preparation of the final document should meet the following two objectives. First is to prepare
a complete and detailed account of the EIA. The second is to prepare a brief summarized
account for a decision-maker, who may not be a technical person. The detailed document is
usually called as the reference document. This document is used by the technical personnel that
is associate with the project. It is also referred for preparing future EIAs in the same
geographical area, or for the same type of project in a different area. The referred part usually
contains the technical calculations, graphs, and the results of field and laboratory
measurements. The summarized non-technical account is usually called as the working
document, which is written clearly without using technical language to communicate to the
decision-maker the findings of the EIA team. Main objective of this document is that the non-
technical decision-makers must properly understand the findings and recommendations of the
EIA team so that they can take a well-informed and correct decision promptly.
8. Decision making:
Decision-making is the process which starts after the above-mentioned steps of EIA are
completed. Usually, the decision is taken by a manager or a committee, or personnel from the
concerned ministry who had not been associated with the EIA during its preparation. Technical
and economic aspects of project alternatives are thoroughly considered but, at times, political
expediency and project feasibility control the final choice. In general, a decision-maker has
three choices:

• accepting one of the project alternatives

• returning the EIA with a request for further study in certain specific areas.
• totally rejecting the proposed project along with alternative versions.
As pointed out by Ahmad and Sammy (1985), EIAs are expected to aid decision-making; and
therefore, preparation and drafting of an EIA should always be carried out with this clear
objective in mind.
9. Monitoring of Project Implementation & its Environmental Impacts:
Monitoring of project implementation and its environmental impacts is usually carried out
while the selected project is under actual implementation. The monitoring is basically the
process of inspection to make sure that the proper guidelines and recommendations stated in
the EIA are faithfully followed. Such inspections may also be carried out after the completion
of the project to determine as to what accuracy the environmental impacts have been predicted
by the EIA. This could be a very valuable exercise for the environmental impact assessors.

Components of EIA:
The EIA process looks into the following components of the environment.
Air environment

• Determination of impact Zone (through a screening model) and developing a monitoring

network.
• Monitoring the existing status of ambient air quality within the impacted region (7-10km
from the periphery) of the proposed project site.
• Monitoring the site-specific meteorological data, viz. wind speed and direction, humidity,
ambient temperature and environmental lapse rate.
• Monitoring the site-specific meteorological data, viz. wind speed and direction, humidity,
ambient temperature and environmental lapse rate.
• Estimation of quantities of air emissions including fugitive emissions from the proposed
project.
• Identification, quantification and evaluation of other potential emissions (including those
of vehicular traffic) within the impact zone and estimation of cumulative of all the
emissions/impacts.
• Prediction of changes in the ambient air quality due to point, line and areas source
emissions through appropriate air quality models.
• Evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed pollution control devices to meet gaseous
emission and ambient air quality standards.
• Delineation of mitigation measures at source, path ways and receptor.
Noise Environment

• Monitoring the present status of noise levels within the impact zone, and prediction of
future noise levels resulting from the proposed project and related activities including
increase in vehicular movement.
• Identification of impacts due to any anticipated rise in noise levels on the surrounding
environment.
• Recommendations on mitigation measures for noise pollution
Land Environment

• Studies on soil characteristics, existing land use and topography, landscape and drainage
patterns within the impact zone.
• Estimation of impacts of project on land use, landscape, topography, drainage and
hydrology.
• Identification of potential utility of treated effluent in land application and subsequent
impacts.
• Estimation and Characterisation of solid wastes and delineation of management options
for minimisation of waste and environmentally compatible disposal.
Water Environment
• Study of existing ground and surface water resources with respect to quantity and quality
within the impact zone of the proposed project.
• Prediction of impacts on water resources due to the proposed water use/pumping on
account of the project.
• Quantification and characterisation of waste water including toxic organic, from the
proposed activity.
• Evaluation of the proposed pollution prevention and wastewater treatment system and
suggestions on modification, if required.
• Prediction of impacts of effluent discharge on the quality of the receiving water body
using appropriate mathematical/simulation models.
• Assessment of the feasibility of water recycling and reuse and delineation of detailed plan
in this regard
Biological Environment
• Survey of flora and fauna clearly delineating season and duration.
• Assessment of flora and fauna present within the impact zone of the project.
• Assessment of potential damage to terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna due to discharge
of effluents and gaseous emissions from the project.
• Assessment of damage to terrestrial flora and fauna due to air pollution, and land use and
landscape changes.
• Assessment of damage to aquatic and marine flora and fauna (including commercial
fishing) due to physical disturbances and alterations.
• Prediction of biological stresses within the impact zone of the proposed project.
• Delineation of mitigation measures to prevent and / or reduce the damage.
Socio-economic and Health Environment
• Collection of demographic and related socio-economic data.
• Collection of epidemiological data, including studies on prominent endemic diseases (e.g.
fluorosis, malaria, fileria, malnutrition) and morbidity rates among the population within
the impact zone.
• Projection of anticipated changes in the socio-economic and health due to the project and
related activities including traffic congestion and delineation of measures to minimise
adverse impacts.
• Assessment of impact on significant historical, cultural and archaeological sites/places in
the area.
• Assessment of economic benefits arising out of the project.
• Assessment of rehabilitation requirements with special emphasis on scheduled areas, if
any.
Assessment of expected economic benefits arising out of the project have to be compared to
the all the above-mentioned factors. Thus, we can say that environmental concerns have to be
made a part of the decision to set up a project.

Roles in the EIA Process:

EIA involves many parties, grouped by their role definition within the process. The following
section outlines the basic responsibilities of varies bodies.

• The Project Proponent

• The Environmental Consultants
• The state pollution control Board/ Pollution Control Committees (PCCs)
• The Public
• The Impact Assessment Agency
The Role of The Project Proponent
The project proponent during the project planning stage decides the type of projects i.e., new
establishment, expansion or modernisation. Later the project proponent needs to prepare the
detailed project report/feasibility report and submits the executive summary, which shall
incorporate the project details, and findings of EIA study, which is to be made available to
concerned people.
The proponent has to the concerned SPCB for NOC and holding the public hearing. After the
public hearing the proponent submits application to IAA for environmental clearance.
Role of Environment Consultant
Environmental consultant should be conversant with the existing legal and procedural
requirements of obtaining environmental clearance for proposed project. The consultant should
guide the proponent through initial screening of the project and establish whether EIA studies
are required to be conducted and if so finalise the scope of such study. The consultant should
also be fully equipped with required instruments and infrastructure for conducting EIS studies.
The environmental consultant is responsible for supplying all the environmental related
information required by the SPCB and IAA through the proponent. The consultant is also
required to justify the findings in the EIA and EMP during the meeting with the expert groups
at IAA.
The Role of State Pollution Control Board/ Pollution Control Committees (PCCs)
The state PCBs / PCCs are responsible for assessing the compatibility of a proposed
development with current operational and prescribed standards. If the development is in
compliance, the PCB will then issue its NOC. They shall also hold the public hearing as per
the provisions of EIA notifications. The details of public hearing shall be forwarded to IAA.
The Role of Public
The public also has a important role to play in EIA. The concerned persons will be invited
through press advertisements to review information and provide their views on the proposed
development requiring environmental clearance.
The Role of Impact Assessment Agency (IAA)
Where a proponent is required to obtain environmental clearance, the IAA will evaluate and
assess the EIA report. In this process the project proponent will be given a chance to present
his proposal. If a project is accepted the IAA will also prepare a set of recommendations and
conditions for its implementations based on this assessment. Environmental clearance
conditions and recommendations of IAA are made available to the public through SPCB and
through website. During the implementations and operation of the project, the IAA will also
be responsible for the environmental monitoring process.
Ministry of Environment and Forests Environment Impact Assessment Notification
S.O.60(E):
S.O. 60 (E)- Whereas a notification under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986 inviting objections from the public within sixty days from the date of
publication of the said notification, against the intention of the Central Government to impose
restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new projects
being undertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearance has been accorded by the
Central Government or the State Government in accordance with the procedure specified in
that notification was published as SO No. 80(E) dated 28th January, 1993.
And whereas all objections received have been duly considered.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-
section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause
(d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central
Government hereby directs that on and from the date of publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette, expansion or modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the
existing one, or new project listed in Schedule I to this notification, shall not be undertaken in
any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central
Government in accordance with the procedure hereinafter specified in this notification.
2) Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance of projects:
I.(a) Any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion
or modernization of any existing industry or project listed in the Schedule-I shall submit an
application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.
The application shall be made in the proforma specified in Schedule-II of this notification and
shall be accompanied by a project report which shall, inter alia, include an Environmental
Impact Assessment Report, Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing as
specified in Schedule-IV prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central
Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests from time to time. However, Public
Hearing is not required in respect of (i) small scale industrial undertakings located in (a)
notified/designated industrial areas/industrial estates or (b) areas earmarked for industries
under the jurisdiction of industrial development authorities; (ii) widening and strengthening of
highways; (iii) mining projects (major minerals) with lease area up to twenty five hectares, (iv)
units located in Export Processing Zones, Special Economic Zones and (v) modernisation of
existing irrigation projects.
Provided that for pipeline projects, Environmental Impact Assessment report will not be
required: Provided further, that for pipeline and highway projects, public hearing shall be
conducted in each district through which the pipeline or highway passes through.
(b) Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate data and Plan may be
reviewed as and when submitted with complete data and Plan. Submission of incomplete data
or plans for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the Impact assessment
Agency to reject the case summarily.
II. In case of the following site-specific projects:
a. mining;
b. pit-head thermal power stations;
c. hydro-power, major irrigation projects and/or their combination including flood control;
d. ports and harbours (excluding minor ports);
e. prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas above 500 hectares;
The project authorities will intimate the location of the project site to the Central Government
in the Ministry of Environment and Forests while initiating any investigation and surveys. The
Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests will convey a decision
regarding suitability or otherwise of the proposed site within a maximum period of thirty days.
The said site clearance shall be granted for a sanctioned capacity and shall be valid for a period
of five years for commencing the construction, operation or mining.
III. (a) The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated and assessed by the Impact
Assessment Agency, and if deemed necessary it may consult a committee of Experts, having a
composition as specified in Schedule-III of this Notification. The Impact Assessment Agency
(IAA) would be the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts
mentioned above shall be constituted by the Impact Assessment Agency or such other body
under the Central Government authorised by the Impact Assessment Agency in this regard.
(b) The said Committee of Experts shall have full right of entry and inspection of the site or,
as the case may be, factory premises at any time prior to, during or after the commencement of
the operations relating to the project.
(c) The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of recommendations based on technical
assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities supplemented by data
collected during visits to sites or factories, if undertaken and details of the public hearing.
The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety days from receipt of the requisite
documents and data from the project authorities and completion of public hearing and decision
conveyed within thirty days thereafter. The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five
years for commencement of the construction or operation of the project.
IV. In order to enable the Impact Assessment Agency to monitor effectively the
implementation of the recommendations and conditions subject to which the environmental
clearance has been given, the project authorities concerned shall submit a half yearly report to
the Impact Assessment Agency. Subject to the public interest, the Impact Assessment Agency
shall make compliance reports publicly available.
V. If no comments from the Impact Assessment Agency are received within the time limit, the
project would be deemed to have been approved as proposed by project authorities.
3) Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to: a. any item falling under entry Nos. 3,
18 and 20 of the Schedule-I to be located or proposed to be located in the areas covered by the
Notifications S.O. No.102 (E) dated 1st February, 1989, S.O. 114 (E)
dated 20th February, 1991; S.O. No. 416 (E) dated 20th June, 1991 and S.O. No.319 (E) dated
7th May, 1992.
b. any item falling under entry no.1,2,3,4,5,7,9,10,13,14,16,17,19,21,25,27 of Schedule-I if the
investment is less than Rs.100 crores for new projects and less than Rs. 50 crores for expansion
/ modernization projects.
c. any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial Sector with investment less than Rs. 1 crore.
d. defence related road construction projects in border areas.
e. any item falling under entry no. 8 of Schedule-I, if that product is covered by the notification
G.S.R. 1037(E) dated 5th December 1989.
f. Modernization projects in irrigation sector if additional command area is less than 10,000
hectares or project cost is less than Rs. 100 crores.
4) Concealing factual data or submission of false, misleading data/reports, decisions or
recommendations would lead to the project being rejected. Approval, if granted earlier on the
basis of false data, would also be revoked. Misleading and wrong information will cover the
following:
o False information
o False data
o Engineered reports
o Concealing of factual data
o False recommendations or decisions
Environmental clearance:
Environmental clearance or the ‘go ahead’ signal is granted by the Impact Assessment Agency
in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
List of Projects Requiring Environmental Clearance from the Central Government:
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.
3. Ports, Harbours, Airports (except minor ports and harbours).
4. Petroleum Refineries including crude and product pipelines.
5. Chemical Fertilizers (Nitrogenous and Phosphatic other than single superphosphate).
6. Pesticides (Technical).
7. Petrochemical complexes (Both Olefinic and Aromatic) and Petrochemical intermediates
such as DMT, Caprolactam, LAB etc. and production of basic plastics such as LLDPE, HDPE,
PP, PVC.
8. Bulk drugs and pharmaceuticals.
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 200m—500 metres of High-Water Line and at locations with
an elevation of more than 1000 metres with investment of more than Rs.5 crores.
19.Thermal Power Plants.
20.Mining projects (major minerals) with leases more than 5 hectares.
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, Reserve Forests
22.Tarred Roads in the Himalayas and or Forest areas.
23.Distilleries.
24.Raw Skins and Hides
25.Pulp, paper and newsprint.
26.Dyes.
27.Cement.
28.Foundries (individual)
29.Electroplating
30.Meta amino phenol

Procedure for seeking environment clearance of projects:

1. (1) Any persons who desires to establish a thermal power plant of any category mentioned
n Schedule-I, shall submit an application to the Department of the State Government dealing
with the subject of environment.
(2) The application shall be made in the Form ‘A’ specified in Schedule-II annexed to this
notification and shall be accompanied by a detailed project report which shall, inter alia,
include an Environmental Impact Assessment Report and an Environment Management plant
prepared n accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Department of Environment from
time to time.
(3) Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate data and Action Plans may
be reviewed as and when submitted with complete data and Action Plans. Submission of
incomplete data for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the State Government
to reject the case summarily.
2. In case of the pit-head thermal power plants, the applicant shall intimate the location of the
project site to the State Government while initiating any investigation and surveys. The State
Government will convey a decision regarding suitability or otherwise of the proposed site
within a maximum period of thirty days. The said site clearance will be granted for a sanctioned
capacity and it will be valid for a period of five years for commencing the construction or
operation of the project.
3. (1) The applicant shall obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned Pollution Control
Board. The State Pollution Control Board shall issue No Objection Certificate to establish only
after completing public hearing as specified in Schedule-IV annexed to this notification.
(2) The reports submitted with the application and No Objection Certificate from the State
Pollution Control Board shall be evaluated and assessed by the State Government, in
consultation with a Committee of experts which shall be constituted by the State Government
as specified in Schedule-III appended to this notification.
(3) The said Committee of experts shall have full right of entry and inspection of the site or, as
the case may be, factory premises at any time prior to, during or after the commencement of
the preparations relating to the plant.
(4) The State Government Department dealing with the subject of Environment shall prepare a
set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data furnished by the
applicant supplemented by data collected during visits to sites, if undertaken and interaction
with affected population and environment groups, if necessary.
(5) The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety days from receipt of the
requisite documents and data from the applicant and decision conveyed within thirty days
thereafter.
(6) the environmental clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years from
commencement of the construction or operation of the project.
4. Concealing factual data or submission of false, misleading data reports, decisions of
recommendations would lead to the project being rejected. Approval, if granted, earlier on the
basis of false data, can also be revoked.

Application Form:
1. (a) Name and Address of the project proposed:
(b) Location of the project: Name of the Place: District, Tehsil: Latitude/Longitude: Nearest
Airport/Railway Station:
(c) Alternate sites examined and the reasons for selecting the proposed site:
(d) Does the site conform to stipulated land use as per local land use plan:
2. Objectives of the project:
3. (a) Land Requirement: Agriculture Land: Forest land and Density of vegetation. Other
(specify):
(b) (i) Land use in the Catchment within 10 kms radius of the proposed site:
(ii) Topography of the area indicating gradient, aspects and altitude:
(iii) Erodibility classification of the proposed land:
(c) Pollution sources existing in 10 km radius and their impact on quality of air, water and land:
(d) Distance of the nearest National Park/Sanctuary/Biosphere Reserve/Monuments/heritage
site/Reserve Forest:
(e) Rehabilitation plan for quarries/borrow areas:
(f) Green belt plan:
(g) Compensatory afforestation plan:
4. Climate and Air Quality:
(a) Windrose at site:
(b) Max/Min/Mean annual temperature:
(c) Frequency of inversion:
(d) Frequency of cyclones/tornadoes/cloud burst:
(e) Ambient air quality data:
(f) Nature & concentration of emission of SPM, Gas (CO, CO2, NOx, CHn etc.) from the
project:
5. Water balance:
(a) Water balance at site:
(b) Lean season water availability; Water Requirement:
(c) Source to be tapped with competing users (River, Lake, Ground, Public supply):
(d) Water quality:
(e) Changes observed in quality and quantity of groundwater in the last years and present
charging and extraction details:
(f) (i) Quantum of waste water to be released with treatment details:
(ii) Quantum of quality of water in the receiving body before and after disposal of solid wastes:
(iii) Quantum of waste water to be released on land and type of land:
(g) (i) Details of reservoir water quality with necessary Catchment Treatment Plan:
(ii) Command Area Development Plan:
6. Solid wastes:
(a) Nature and quantity of solid wastes generated
(b) Solid waste disposal method:
7. Noise and Vibrations:
a. Sources of Noise and Vibrations:
b. Ambient noise level:
c. Noise and Vibration control measures proposed:
d. Subsidence problem, if any, with control measures:
8. Power requirement indicating source of supply: Complete environmental details to be
furnished separately, if captive power unit proposed:
9. Peak labour force to be deployed giving details of: o Endemic health problems in the area
due to waste water/air/soil borne diseases: o Health care system existing and proposed:
10. (a) Number of villages and population to be displaced:
(b) Rehabilitation Master Plan:
11. Risk Assessment Report and Disaster Management Plan:
12. (a) Environmental Impact Assessment
(b) Environment Management Plan:
(c) Detailed Feasibility Report:
(d) Duly filled in questionnaire Report prepared as per guidelines issued by the Central
Government in the MOEF from time to time:
13. Details of Environmental Management Cell: I hereby give an undertaking that the data and
information given above are due to the best of my knowledge and belief and I am aware that if
any part of the data/information submitted is found to be false or misleading at any stage, the
project be rejected and the clearance given, if any, to the project is likely to be revoked at our
risk and cost.
Signature of the applicant with name and full address.
Given under the seal of Organisation on behalf of Whom the applicant is signing.
Date:
Place:
In respect to item for which data are not required or is not available as per the
declaration of project proponent, the project would be considered on that basis.

Composition of the Expert Committees for Environmental Impact

Assessment:
1. The Committees will consist of experts in the following disciplines:
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 Specialists
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 the relevant development sector.
3. The representative of Impact Assessment Agency will act as a Member-Secretary.
4. Chairman and Members will serve in their individual capacities except those specifically
nominated as representatives.
5. The Membership of a Committee shall not exceed 15.
Procedure for Public Hearing:
(1) Process of Public Hearing: Whoever apply for environmental clearance of projects, shall
submit to the concerned State Pollution Control Board twenty sets of the following documents
namely:
i. An executive summary containing the salient features of the project both in English as well
as the local language along with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, for
pipeline project, Environmental Impact Assessment report will not be required. But
Environmental Management Plan including risk mitigation measures is required.
ii. Form XIII prescribed under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975 where
discharge of sewage, trade effluents, treatment of water in any form, is required.
iii. Form I prescribed under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Union Territory Rules,
1983 where discharge of emissions is involved in any process, operation or industry.
iv. Any other information or document which is necessary in the opinion of the Board for their
final disposal of the application.
(2) Notice of Publics Hearing:
(i) The State Pollution Control Board shall cause a notice for environmental public hearing
which shall be published in at least two newspapers widely circulated in the region around the
project, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned. State
Pollution Control Board shall mention the date, time and place of public hearing. Suggestions,
views, comments and objections of the public shall be invited within thirty days from the date
of publication of the notification.
(ii) All persons including bona fide residents, environmental groups and others located at the
project site/sites of displacement/sites likely to be affected can participate in the public hearing.
They can also make oral/written suggestions to the State Pollution Control Board.
Explanation: For the purpose of the paragraph person means:
a. any person who is likely to be affected by the grant of environmental clearance;
b. any person who owns or has control over the project with respect to which an application
has been submitted for environmental clearance;
c. any association of persons whether incorporated or not like to be affected by the project
and/or functioning in the field of environment;
d. any local authority within any part of whose local limits is within the neighbourhood wherein
the project is proposed to be located.
(3) Composition of public hearing panel: The composition of Public Hearing Panel may consist
of the following, namely:
(i) Representative of State Pollution Control Board;
(ii) District Collector or his nominee;
(iii) Representative of State Government dealing with the subject;
(iv)Representative of Department of the State Government dealing with Environment;
(v) Not more than three representatives of the local bodies such as Municipalities or
panchayats; (vi)Not more than three senior citizens of the area nominated by the District
Collector.
(4) Access to the Executive Summary and Environmental Impact Assessment report: The
concerned persons shall be provided access to the Executive Summary and Environmental
Impact Assessment report of the project at the following places, namely:
(i) District Collector Office;
(ii) District Industry Centre;
(iii) In the Office of the Chief Executive Officers of Zila Praishad or Commissioner of the
Municipal Corporation/Local body as the case may be;
(iv)In the head office of the concerned State Pollution Control Board and its concerned
Regional Office; (v) In the concerned Department of the State Government dealing with the
subject of environment. 5. Time period for completion of public hearing: The public hearing
shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of complete documents
as required under paragraph 1.

Ecological sensitive places:

Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) have been identified and notified by the Indian Ministry
of Environment & Forests (MoEF) since 1989. Notifications declaring areas as ESAs are issued
under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The clauses of the EPA which allow for the
notification of ESAs hold the possibility of realising landscape-level conservation. However,
these clauses have been used only by a few actors mainly because of the lack of knowledge
about the scope of ESAs and also due to the MoEF’s ambiguity in notifying them.
The last decade has seen significant action around Ecologically Sensitive Areas at the national
level. The MoEF has defined the term ‘ecological sensitivity’. The criteria and procedure for
designation of areas as ‘ecologically sensitive’ have been decided and ‘environmental
sensitivity’ has emerged as an important driver of conservation. Nevertheless, due to
incomplete information, many proposals that were submitted to the MoEF are still pending or
were subsequently rejected as they did not meet the MoEF’s criteria.
Last year, a draft National Environmental Tribunal Bill was prepared by the MoEF and was
due for discussion at the subsequent session of Parliament. This new bill sought to dissolve all
authorities set up under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which included
all ESA authorities / committees and even the committee set up for evaluating ESA proposals.
It sought to transfer the powers of local ESA committees to the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authorities (SEIAA). Under these circumstances, the authors felt the need to
research and document thoroughly the process and experiences of declaration of ESAs in the
country so that future discussions on ESAs could be informed by these. An attempt has
therefore been made here to do this and provide both a national picture on ESAs as well as
chapters on individual ESAs. This study was carried out with the following objectives:
1. To compile the available information to the extent possible on the national processes around
Ecologically Sensitive Areas.
2. To piece together the historical background of various Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the
country, declared by the MoEF.
3. To undertake a case-by-case analysis of the designated ESAs with respect to the current
issues with their implementation.
4. To undertake a comparative analysis of all the notified ESAs.
5. To track the current status of ESA proposals submitted to the MoEF.
6. To understand the working of local monitoring committees/ authorities constituted to ensure
the implementation of the ESA notifications.
7. To understand the potential of ESAs as a conservation tool among other conservation
measures.
The Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986, under the jurisdiction of the Indian Ministry
of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is officially considered to be the umbrella legislation to
regulate environment degradation and pollution. It also attempts to provide a critical framework
to enable the coordination of bodies such as Pollution Control Boards set up through air and
water related legislations that precede the EPA. The enactment of the EPA is directly linked to
the commitments India made at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment held
in Stockholm in June 1972. The EPA primarily empowers the central government to take
measures necessary to protect and improve the quality of environment by setting standards,
regulating the siting of industries and so on.
The EPA is less known for its role in environmental protection and prevention of damage
through land use planning and safeguarding certain areas against the pressures of commercial
exploitation. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act empowers the central government to take all such
measures that it deems necessary to protect and improve the quality of the environment and
prevent environmental pollution. It allows for the restriction of areas in which certain
developmental activities can be prohibited. Further, section 5(1) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules (EPR), 1986, specifies certain criteria like topographic and climatic features
of an area, biological diversity of the area, environmentally compatible land use, extensive
cultivation, proximity to the protected areas, etc. that can be considered while prohibiting or
restricting certain operations in different areas.
Chronology of events around ESAs:

1986 Environment Protection Act (EPA) and Environment Protection Rules (EPR)
1989 1. Murud-Janjira Notification
2. Doon Valley Notification
1990 MoEF Report on Parameters for Determining Ecological Fragility
1991 Dahanu ESA Notification
1992 1. Aravalli Notification
2. Numaligarh ‘No Development Zone’
1996 Planning Commission Report on Conserving Ecologically Fragile
Ecosystems
1998 1. Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution Authority
2. Draft Pachmarhi ESA Notification
2000 1. Pronab Sen Committee Report
2. Draft Pachmarhi ESA Notification
3. Mahabaleshwar ESA Notification
4. Draft Himalayas ESA Notification
2001 Mohan Ram Committee to examine the ESA proposals & review the existing
ESAs
2002 Hill Stations Committee
2003 Matheran ESA Notification
2008 Mount Abu Draft ESA Notification
2009 Sultanpur ESZ Notification

Declaring Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs):

It is through the use of the above provisions that the MoEF has declared areas across the country
as Ecologically Sensitive/Fragile Areas. The details of each of these areas (including declared,
lapsed, rejected and pending notifications of the same) are presented in individual chapters of
this study. Presented below are brief descriptions of these:

• Murud-Janjira (1989): One of the first instances of the use of these legal provisions by the
central government was Murud-Janjira, a coastal village in Raigad District of Maharashtra,
in January 1989. At that point, the government of Maharashtra was considering the project
proposal of the Mazgaon Docks Pvt. Ltd. to set up a ship repair industry in Dighi-Murud-
Janjira. The Bombay Environment Action Group (BEAG), an NGO drew the attention of
 the MoEF to the potential environmental threat from this project and sought their
intervention. Alongside, the group lobbied with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi,
to advocate the issuance of a notification to protect Murud-Janjira. The notification currently
prohibits the location of industries in the region (except industries linked with tourism for
which environmental impacts are to be assessed) to preserve the mangrove ecosystem of
Murud. However, the term ‘ESA’ was not used in the notification.
• Doon Valley (1989): Just a month after the notification of Murud-Janjira, the Doon Valley
Notification was issued in February 1989. The Supreme Court had issued a directive in
August 1988, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by local people and
groups against indiscriminate limestone quarrying in the area. The PIL had sought that
quarrying be completely stopped in Doon Valley. The Supreme Court directed the MoEF to
constitute a monitoring committee to oversee re-afforestation and monitor operations of
limestone mines whose lease had not yet expired. The SC order preceded the notification
and therefore laid some positive ground for the Doon Valley Notification. The Doon Valley
Notification is particularly significant because it became a precedent for future ESA
notifications. Through this notification, for the first time, industries were classified into
‘Red’, ‘Orange’ and ‘Green’ categories based on their potential for pollution. The
notification prohibits the change of land use, grazing and setting up of ‘Red’ category
industries in the notified area. The term ‘ESA’ was not used in this notification either.
• Dahanu (1991): In 1988, the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Limited (BSES) proposed
to set up a 500 MW thermal power plant in Dahanu Taluka of Maharashtra. Alarmed by its
environmental consequences, the residents of Dahanu filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay
High Court. The Bombay High Court and later the Supreme Court both permitted the setting
up of the thermal power plant in their respective orders. However, local groups like the
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group (DTEPG) with assistance from groups like
the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) lobbied for the declaration of the area
as an ESA. An MoEF report titled ‘Parameters for Determining Ecological Fragility’ was
relied on to justify the issuance of the notification making it the first time that scientific
parameters were used in declaring an area as an ESA. In 1991, the notification was proposed
by Ms. Maneka Gandhi, the union minister for Environment and Forests at the time.
However, the notification was finally issued only after the thermal power plant was
permitted. This notification, employed categorisation of industries similar to the Doon
Valley Notification, and it was the first time when the term ‘Ecologically Fragile Area’ was
used in such a notification. Other elements in ESA declaration that this notification
introduced included the constitution of a Monitoring Committee which was to be set up
immediately after the notification was issued. It took a Supreme Court order in 1996 to
finally constitute the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) to
monitor the compliance of the Dahanu ESA Notification.
• Aravalli (1992): In 1989, civil society groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
Supreme Court against the illegal farmhouse constructions in the Sona region of Haryana
by the Ansals Housing and Construction Limited. In 1992, the Supreme Court directed that
the illegal constructions be stopped in the area. Following this, the MoEF deemed it
necessary to restrict certain developmental activities in the area, keeping the protection of
the area’s environment in mind. An Expert Committee was also constituted by the MoEF to
 appraise the developmental projects seeking to operate in the Aravalli ESA and to suggest
impact mitigation measures to those which were permitted to operate. In May 1992, specific
parts of the Aravalli hill region falling in the states of Rajasthan and Haryana were accorded
protection through the ESA clauses. Mining was prohibited in the region; the location of
new industries and construction of clusters of dwelling units, farm houses etc. were also
prohibited. In 1999, the MoEF delegated the powers to constitute an Expert and Monitoring
Committee to grant permissions and oversee the mining and other permitted developmental
activities in the region, to the state government.
• Numaligarh (1992): In July 1992, Numaligarh in Assam was declared a “No Development
Zone” using the EPA’s provisions. This was linked to the establishment of a refinery in
Numaligarh in 1993. The Numaligarh Refinery proposal was cleared by the MoEF, despite
its close proximity to the Kaziranga National Park. This was objected to by civil society
groups. In response, although the MoEF did not disallow the refinery, it placed restrictions
on the expansion of the industrial area, townships, infrastructure facilities and such other
activities which could lead to pollution and congestion in what it declared as the
‘Numaligarh No Development Zone’.
• Taj Trapezium Authority (1998): In May 1996, in response to a Writ Petition filed by the
noted environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh state
government to ensure that brick kilns operating in the Taj Trapezium abided by certain
safeguards suggested by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).
In May 1998, the MoEF directed the constitution of the Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution
Authority (TTZPA) to monitor the progress of various schemes for the protection of Taj
Mahal. The authority was reconstituted in 2003 for a period of two years.
• Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani (2000): Soon after the draft Pachmarhi ESA Notification was
issued in 1998, on November 18, 1998 the Bombay High Court passed an order to protect
the environment of hill stations like Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani in Maharashtra. This order
was issued in response to a Writ Petition filed by the BEAG in 1997 against illegal
constructions and violations of building byelaws in Mahabaleshwar. Following this, in
December 1998, Mr. Suresh Prabhu, the union minister for Environment & Forests, asked
the Government of Maharashtra for its views on declaring Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani as an
ESA. The state government did not reply till June 1999. Based on the draft Pachmarhi
Notification, the draft Mahabaleshwar Panchgani ESA Notification was prepared by Mr.
Shyam Chainani of BEAG and sent to the MoEF in early 1999 which was revised and resent
by Mr. Shyam Chainani in May 1999. Having received no response from the Maharashtra
Government, in July 2000 the MoEF eventually decided to issue the draft Mahabaleshwar-
Panchgani ESA Notification in the official gazette inviting suggestions and objections from
the public. On January 17, 2001, the final Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Notification was
issued. For the first time provisions were made for heritage conservation, regulation of
groundwater extraction and regulation of traffic. These provisions were added keeping in
mind the ecology of the hill station ESA. In October 2001, a High-Level Monitoring
Committee was also constituted by the MoEF whose term was not renewed after January
2005, until April 2008.
• Matheran (2003): Encouraged by the initial response to Pachmarhi, BEAG drafted the
notification for also declaring Matheran in Maharashtra as ‘ecologically sensitive’ in
 December 1998 and sent it to the MoEF. The MoEF expressed its willingness in declaring
Matheran as eco- sensitive and asked for the state government’s approval. There were
divergent views about this within the Maharashtra Government which took two years to
resolve. The Maharashtra Government finally sent its consent for the Matheran ESA
Notification in November 2000. By that time the Pronab Sen Committee’s report (see
section 4 of this chapter) was out and the Matheran Notification was now redrafted to fit the
criteria laid down in this report. In September 2001, the Supreme Court intervened regarding
Matheran [I.A. No. 659 & 669 of 2001, Amicus curiae (‘Friend of the Court’)] and directed
the state government to take action towards declaring the ESA. The boundary of the
proposed ESA was a contentious issue amongst various local and statelevel departments.
The state government could not decide on one single boundary for the Eco-Sensitive Zone
and submitted two proposals with two different areas to the MoEF. On February 6, 2002,
the MoEF issued the draft Matheran ESA Notification in the gazette showing boundaries of
the state government proposal with the larger area. But, due to state government’s reluctance
to notify a large area and due to local opposition, the MoEF reduced the area to 214 sq km
in the final Matheran ESA Notification on February 4, 2003. This notification was very
similar to the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Notification. A monitoring committee was
constituted on January 1, 2004 with a term of two years. Since December 2005, the
committee has not been reconstituted.
• Mount Abu (Draft 2008): In 1995, a Writ Petition was filed by Amicus Curiae (‘Friend of
the Court’) Mr. Siddharth Chowdhary seeking the declaration of Mount Abu as an ‘eco-
fragile area’ and the setting up of a committee under the EPA to protect the area. Besides
ordering a blanket ban on any further constructions in the area, on May 9, 2002, the Supreme
Court asked the Mohan Ram Committee to examine the area. On April 17, 2003, the Mohan
Ram Committee made a visit to the area and examined the draft ESA proposal prepared by
the Rajasthan Government. The Committee suggested that a revised draft be produced
including the changes they suggested and favoured the notification in principle. The matter
was not pursued any further and since 2004, this Committee’s meetings stopped taking place
altogether. The MoEF officials made a second visit to the site again in July 2008 and the
draft Mount Abu Notification was gazetted on October 28, 2008 inviting public objections
and suggestions. Rainwater harvesting, a ban on the usage of plastic bags and guidelines for
the construction of hill roads are a few features unique to this notification.
• Sultanpur (Draft 2009): On January 29, 2009, the MoEF issued the draft notification
declaring the area upto five kilometres from the boundary of the Sultanpur National Park in
Gurgaon district of Haryana as Eco- Sensitive Zone. This notification was made available
on the MoEF website in February 2009 for public comments. The notification has been a
direct fallout of the Supreme Court order dated December 4, 2006 to the states to declare
areas of 10 km around Protected areas as eco- sensitive. Zonal Master Plan and regulations
on setting up of industrial units, construction activities, quarrying and mining, tree felling,
ground water extraction, to check noise pollution, discharge of effluents and solid waste
disposal are the salient features of the notification. A ten-member monitoring committee
under the chairmanship of Gurgaon deputy commissioner is proposed to be set up to ensure
monitoring and compliance of the law.
International environmental agreements:
Most of the following agreements are legally binding for countries that have formally ratified
them. Some, such as the Kyoto, differentiate between types of countries and each nation's
respective responsibilities under the agreement. Several hundred international environmental
agreements exist but most link only a limited number of countries. These bilateral or sometimes
trilateral agreements are only binding for the countries that have ratified them but are
nevertheless essential in the international environmental regime. Including the major
conventions listed below, more than 3,000 international environmental instruments have been
identified by the IEA Database Project.
Adopting renewable energy sources and reducing CO2 emissions are common goals of
environmental agreements. They can also be indicators of a country’s larger environmental
shifts. The United States, for example, increased contribution of renewables to energy
production by 27 percent between 1990 and 2015 and reduced CO2 emissions per capita by 21
percent.
Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany and South Africa are seeing even more positive
shifts in their use of renewables, with increases ranging from 530 to 773 percent. Some
emerging nations like Brazil and India exhibit negative trends — increasing CO2 emissions by
54 and 156 percent, respectively. Also, their use of renewables as a proportion of total energy
production is decreasing.