3.3 The Process of EIA
A synthesis of the above definitions of EIA leads the author to infer that EIA can justifiably be called a systematic process undertaken to assess in advance, the likely consequences of a proposed or planned human activity. The principal objective of EIA process is to provide planners and decision makers with an indication of the project induced changes on the bio-physical environment during various stages of the project life and after the project comes to an end (Glasson et al. 1994, Wathern 1988). Greater emphasis is being placed on integrating EIA with the project planning process so that systematic, holistic and multidisciplinary studies required for EIA can be accomplished within the corporate planning framework. In India EIA study is almost invariably taken up as a post planning exercise to obtain environmental clearance. However in the developed world EIA is no longer seen as an add-on process. Wathern (1988) noted that the greatest contribution of EIA to environmental management might well be in reducing adverse impacts before proposals come through to the authorisation phase.

Jain et al. (1993) suggested a generalised procedure for conducting an EIA as below:
1. Define proposed action In this step a clear definition and a complete understanding of the proposed action are developed. Principal questions sought to be answered in this step include :
a. What is to be done?
b. Where?
c. What kinds of materials, labour, and/or resources are involved?
d. Are there different ways to accomplish the original purpose?
This step accomplish the task of finding out 'what is impacting" (Banerjee and Rathore 1994)

2. Define affected environment. Principal objective of this step is to develop an understanding of the affected environment. Attempts are made in this step to find answers to the following questions.
a) What is the nature of the biophysical and/or socio-economic characteristics that may be changed by the action?
b) How widely might same effects be felt?
In essence this step is undertaken to make a pre project assessment of 'what is to be impacted?' It is the possible effects on this environment that are next considered (Gilpin, 1994).

3. Determine possible impacts. Once the environment, that is likely to be affected by the proposed activities, is defined by means of quality values of a manageable number of environmental attributes the next step in EIA is to envision the implementation of the proposed action into that setting and to estimate the likely changes in the environmental attributes in quantitative terms as far as practicable.

4. Report the results. EIA can be effectively used as a decision-making tool only when the results are interpreted and the consequences of the impending project are property reported.

Largely following the above four-step sequence Jain et al. (1993) presented a step-by-step procedure for EIA (Figure 3.4). Canter (1977) presented EIA process as a system comprising five inter-linked activities (Figure 3.5). This framework of EIA can be further modified to present the process of EIA as a ten-step approach shown in Figure 3.6 (Canter 1996). Canter (1996) proposed culmination of EIA process at the documentation phase. Glasson et al. (1994) favoured public participation at all the important stages of EIA study (Figure 3.7). Westman (1985) proposed an EIA approach (Figure 3.8) comprising seven phases of activities in two stages (viz. pre-impact stage and post-impact stage). Westman (1985) also gave a list of fifty-two questions useful in planning the pre-impact phases of EIA. Like Glasson et al. (1994), Westman (1985) also underscored the importance of public participation in all phases of EIA (Figure 3.8).

It may be seen from Figures 3.4 to 3.8 that steps in the EIA process are presented in a linear fashion with some feedback and feed-forward mechanisms. However, it must be recognised that EIA should be a cyclical activity. Another important point to note is that depending on variation in institutional arrangements the process of EIA may vary considerably. The approaches towards the process of EIA outlined in the above paragraphs are mostly related to US-NEPA (1969) or the EC Directive. As such being applicable in developed countries these approaches show inclination to consider public participation at every important step. Logically public participation may pre-empt many possible conflicts. But if allowed without considering the socio-political situations prevailing in many developing countries, public participation may actually be counter productive.

Dangers associated with public participation include potential for confusion of the issues with introduction of many new perspectives. Participants may be of doubtful knowledge and hence may be the sources of much erroneous information. Other demerits include potential project delay.