3.5.2 Evolution and Spread of EIA
The US NEPA, (1969) was the first ever piece of legislation to incorporate a requirement for environmental impact assessment of 'major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment'. The effects of NEPA and the development of EIA are very well documented (e.g. Jain et al. 1977, Jain et al. 1993, Canter 1977, Canter 1996, Wandesforde-Smith and Kerbavaz 1988, Coldwell 1982, Warner 1973, Meyers, 1986, Sheckells 1980, etc.). Therefore, only a brief note on the subject is offered here.

The most important 'action forcing' provision of UN-NEPA is the section 102 (2) (c) which states that "all agencies of the Federal Government shall include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official" on the environmental impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives. This detailed statement and the procedure of preparing the statement have been termed respectively as 'environmental impact statement' (EIS) and 'NEPA process' (Ortolano and Shepherd 1995). The formal name of 'NEPA process' is 'Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act'; and its is also known simply as the 'CEQ Regulation' or the 'NEPA Regulation.' The US-NEPA process provides a structured approach to preparation of EIS and is focussed on brevity and compactness.

Being a generally worded Act, US-NEPA required substantial early interpretations. Such interpretations were often provided by the courts of law. Title II of US-NEPA set up a Council of Environmental Quality (US-CEQ). The US-CEQ issued guidelines for implementing the procedural aspects of US-NEPA. These non-binding guidelines have been replaced by enforceable regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of US-NEPA, issued by the US-CEQ under a presidential executive order.

While applicability of US-NEPA (1969) is limited to federal actions only, many American States introduced similar Acts (popularly known as 'little NEPAs') applicable in the states. Wood (1995) reported that although the first such state legislation was passed in 1970 in California, the majority of the US states have still not passed any such act.

The US-NEPA (1969) evoked lot of interest world-wide and soon after the UNCHE 1972 many countries in the world adopted EIA. However, the methods of adoption varied and most of the countries took enough precautionary pre-emptive measures to avoid US-NEPA type litigation. In fact many countries carefully distanced their EIA systems from the possibility of lawsuits (Glasson et al. 1994). Various methods of adoption included, - cabinet resolutions, advisory procedures, regulations and laws. Elaborate discussion on institutional arrangements on EIA may be found in Wood (1995), Wathern (1988(b), starzewska (1988), Htun (1988), Moriera (1988), and Canter (1984). Many international financial institutes (e.g. The World Bank, The Asian Development bank, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development etc.), donor agencies (e.g. USAID, ODA, OECD) and UN bodies (e.g. UNEP, UNCTAD) have also evolved EIA guidelines. The European Community (EC) issued a directive on EIA (directive 85/337) to all EC member states. The directive is primarily responsible for the existing level of parity in EIA requirements in various EC member states. Although many countries in the world are yet to adopt a formal EIA programme, requirements for EIA are imposed on them as bilateral and multilateral aid agencies often call for EIAs on projects they fund. The stated objectives of some aid agencies to embrace EIA include ensuring 'sustainable development'. EIA requirements of aid agencies and lending institutions are typically based on the principles enshrined in US-NEPA (1969). Some 100 countries have adopted EIA legislation and over 21000 EISs have been prepared in the United States since January 1, 1970, - the effective date of the US-NEPA (Canter 1996).

Sadler (1994) presented the evolution of environmental assessment in a chronological fashion as given in box 3.1.
Box 3.1: The evolution of environmental assessment (after Sadler 1994)
Sl. No
Date and Phase
Trends and Innovations
1
Prior to 1970 pre-EIA
Project review based on engineering and economic studies, e.g. cost-benefit analysis; limited consideration of environmental consequences.
2
1970-1975 Methodological Development
EIA introduced in some developed countries; initially focussed on identifying, predicting and mitigating bio-physical effects; opportunity for public involvement
3
1975-1980 Social dimensions included
Multi-dimensional EIA, incorporating social impact assessment (SIA) and risk analysis; public consultation integral part of development planning and assessment, increased emphasis on issues of justification and alternatives in project review.
4
1980-1985 Process and procedural redirection
Efforts to integrate project EIA with policy planning and follow up phases; research and development on effects of monitoring, on EIA audit and process evaluation, and on mediation and dispute resolution approaches; adoption of EIA by international aid and lending agencies and by some developing countries
5
1985-1990
 Scientific and institutional frameworks for EIA begin to be rethought in response to sustainability ideas and imperatives, search begins for ways to address regional and global environmental charges and cumulative impacts; growing international co-operation on EIA research and training
6
1990-present
 Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes introduced in some developed countries; international convention on transboundary EIA; UNCED places new demands on EIA for expanded concepts, methods and procedures to promote sustainability (e.g. through sustainable development strategies)