1.1
Study outline
This study recognises that in order to be useful as an aid to decision making
under the new paradigm of human development, all phases of the environmental
impact assessment process requires to be improved. It is further realised
that although there have been all-round development both in methodologies
and techniques of EIA almost all such developments took place in the developed
countries. As such the developed tools and techniques can not be applicable
in the context of developing countries without significant modifications.
However, emphasis of this study is primarily on EIA methodology. Ever since
the enactment of NEPA in USA numerous methodologies have been developed. A
few of the many methodologies could be selected for critical analysis. One
of the objectives of the analysis is to ascertain the suitability of the methodologies
in order to be applicable to development projects. Strength and weaknesses
of the methodologies under scrutiny are also highlighted. Emphasis has been
laid on identification of the characteristics and features which would be
critical to the development of improved methodologies.
The purpose of this monograph is to devise a framework for environmental impact
assessment of development projects in India. Attempt has been made to strike
a balance between the two contrasting features,- legislative requirements
and resource constraints (in terms of time, skill finance and data availability).
This study takes into account the broader context of sustainable development
as the new development paradigm and dwells at length on the strategies to
be undertaken for achieving the goal of environmental sustainability.
The principal objective of the study has been `To Develop a Framework for
Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Projects under the Context
of Environmental Sustainability'.
Associated objectives of the study, inter-alia, include the following:
1. To study and assess the recent changes in development paradigms.
2. To study the focus changes required in EIA process and methodologies under
the changed perspective of human development.
3. To study the institutional arrangements for environmental management, with
emphasis on regulatory requirements of EIA.
4. To review a few time-tested EIA methodologies.
5. To put forward necessary criteria for evaluation of EIA/EMP reports.
1.2 Scope of the Study
As has been emphasised above there is a pressing need for EIA to become part
and parcel of the overall project planning procedure. To this end perhaps
the most suitable definition of EIA is the one provided by Smith (1993) who
redefined EIA as 'a process of environmental planning that provides a basis
for resource management to achieve the goal of sustainability'. The full range
of activities that could be described as environmental impact assessment,
however, goes far beyond the scope of this study, which essentially is an
individual effort. Over the last 31 years of its existence EIA (variously
called as environmental assessment, environmental impact analysis or environmental
impact assessment) has matured into a discipline of its own. During the intervening
period it has also widened its scope, both in application and content. As
the field developed, two more names have been assigned to the impact assessment
studies. They are 'technology assessment' and 'social impact assessment'.
The names principally indicate their focus. The coinage 'ecological impact
assessment' gradually diffused to the content of 'environmental impact assessment'.
Rossini and Porter (1983) stressed that all forms of impact assessment should
be:
1. Effects focused.
2. Future oriented.
3. Centred around technological development.
4. Systematic comprehensive and interdisciplinary in approach.
5. Comparative and policy-oriented.
Technology assessment generally falls under the category of public policy
analysis and therefore does not lie within the realm of this study. It is,
however, difficult to dissociate social impact assessment (SIA) and environmental
impact assessment (EIA) as both of them owe their origin to NEPA (1969).
Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS for 'major
federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment'.
Much of the strength of NEPA came from early court cases and along with other
generally worded terms contained in NEPA, the term 'human environment' underwent
many changes in its definition as a result of decisions stemming from NEPA
related litigations. The USCEQ Regulations (1978) for implementing NEPA procedures
point out that the "human environment" is to be "interpreted comprehensively"
to include "the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people
with that environment." Under the US Law SIA is therefore an integral part
of EIS. SIA can be defined in terms of efforts to assess or estimate, in advance,
the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policies,
plans, programs and projects (ICGP SIA, 1995). Social impacts mean the consequences
to human populations of any public or private actions - that alter they way
in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet
their needs, and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes
cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values and beliefs that guide
and rationalise their cognition of themselves and their society (ICGP SIA,
1995).
Social impact assessment (SIA) has evolved as the principal offshoot from
EIA, with its own extensive literature (Branch et al. 1984, Brudge 1994, Frendenburg
1986, Taylor et al. 1990, Finsterbusch 1990).
This study recognises SIA to be an integral part of EIA. However, in this
individual research effort focus is limited to impacts on biophysical attributes.
Exclusion of SIA from the purview of project EIA goes fairly well under Indian
context where EIA guidelines issued by the Central Government are silent about
the SIA issues except requiring rehabilitation of project ousties.
Another young and important offshoot of EIA is strategic environmental assessment
(SEA). In principle, EIA should deal with all the four levels of human actions,
viz., policies, plans, programs and projects. EIA process applied to policies,
plans and programs is known as strategic environmental assessment (SEA) (Therivel
et al. 1992, Lee and Walsh 1992, Wood 1988). In the context of USA, strategic
environmental assessment is analogous to programmatic environmental impact
statements (PEISs) (Canter 1996). However, SEA is still in its formative stage
and it may be premature to incorporate SEA practices in its present form in
the developing countries. The study is therefore focused on project EIAs.
It may be worthwhile to mention that under EIA notification 1994 (MOEF 1994)
only certain scheduled projects require EIA.