4.2.3 Public Hearing
Prior to 1994 sectoral guidelines and questionnaires issued by the Department of Environment carried an assurance that the information provided would be kept strictly confidential. General public, even affected parties, did not have access to the EIA documents or data. The situation changed with the publication of EIA Notification 1994. Public is provided access, subject to public interest, to the summary of the reports/Environmental Management Plans at the Headquarters of the Impact Assessment Agency. Similarly, half-yearly compliance reports submitted by project authorities are also made publicly available, subject to public interest.

Before 1994, EIAs in India were prepared to comply with either donor agency requirements or administrative requirements. There was no public involvement in EIA process, neither the public were involved in the evaluation of EIAs. The 1994 EIA Notification heralded a new era of transparency and public involvement by providing for the scope of arranging public hearing if so decided by the IAA. Usually three factors, viz., whether the project might involve significant displacement of persons; whether there was a public outcry against the project; or whether a significant degradation in environmental quality was likely to be caused because of the project, used to be taken into consideration in deciding on a public hearing. It was not mandatory to conduct public hearing for every project. If public hearing was to be arranged the onus of conducting such hearing felled on the IAA.

A significant modification to the EIA notification has been made in April 1997 whereby public hearing has been made a part and parcel of the environmental clearance procedure. Under the changed procedure an application for environmental clearance of a project must be accompanied by a project report including an Environmental Management Plan and details of public hearing. That is public hearing has now become compulsory for all projects seeking environmental clearance. A new schedule (Schedule-IV) specifying the public hearing procedure has been annexed to the EIA Notification.

Arranging for public hearing is no longer the responsibility of the IAA. From issuing notification to conducting public hearing; everything has become the responsibility of the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB). The project proponent submits twenty sets of the following documents to the concerned State Pollution Control Board: -

1. An executive summary of the project report (both in English and local language).
2. 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.
3. Form I prescribed under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Union Territory Rules, 1983. Where discharge of emissions are involved in any process, operation or industry.
4. Any other information or document which is necessary in the opinion of the Board for their final disposal of the application.

The SPCB notifies the date, time and venue of holding the hearing in two local newspapers one of which must be in vernacular language. General public may submit written suggestions, views, comments and objections within thirty days. Stake holders, affected persons or associations, local authorities, local residents and environmental groups may participate in the hearing.

Persons and associations eligible to participate in the hearing are provided access to the executive summary of the project furnished by the project proponent to the SPCB.

Apart from the headquarter and the regional office concerned of the SPCB, copies of the executive summary may also be accessed at the offices of the District Collector, District Industry Centre, Zilla Parishad or Municipal Corporation. A public hearing panel, duly constituted under the provisions of schedule-IV, conducts the public hearing and records the proceedings. Details of public hearing are made available to the project proponent for consideration and for filing to the Ministry of Environment and Forests along with the application for environmental clearance.

4.3 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the evolution of the environmental impact assessment system in India. It has also provided an historical perspective on the events that contributed to restructuring of policy frameworks and institutional arrangements for environmental management in the country. An important watershed has been the EIA Notification issued by the MOEF in January 1994 and subsequently modified in May 1994 and April 1997. For successful implementation of the EIA system much remains to be done to bridge the gaps in enforcement mechanisms.

Important legislative measures have been taken over the last two decades. However, as has been stressed in the previous chapters, 'command and control' approach suffers from its inherent drawbacks. Experiences all over the world have manifested to a convincing extent that unless backed by appropriate strategy of market incentives, education and training, legal measures towards environmental protection are viewed as obstruction to project development.

There is duplication of EMP requirements for mining of non-coal non-minor minerals if the leasehold area is more than five hectare. In spite of policy level talks on integrating EIA into the process of planning and design, EIA has largely remained a post planning exercise usually carried by a proponent-appointed consultancy firm with the sole objective of getting environmental clearance. This chapter has revealed that recently the following important developments have taken place.

1. Adoption of national policy on environment and development.
2. A general awareness of the need to consider environmental issues.
3. A legislative backing to environmental procedures.

However, the following key constraints remain to be removed: -
1. A general lack of accountability by decision-makers.
2. Inefficient administrative structure.
3. An over-abundance of mediocrity among the think tank.
4. A lack of environmental expertise and an acute shortage of financial resources.

Another important constraint inhibiting the development of an effective EIA system in India has been the lack of political will and internal pressure. The development of the current legal regime owes more to international commitments than to internal urge. Until recently environmental issues have not been high on the political agenda. The issue has been brought to focus largely by the media and an active judiciary. Although the term 'sustainable development' has been in the air for quite some time, much remains to be done to translate the rhetoric into a concrete action programme which would, at the least, require EIA systems to ensure adverse impact compensation.

The 1997 modifications to EIA Notification, making public hearing, conducted by SPCB concerned, to be an essential requirement for environmental clearance has opened up possibility of critical debate. Of late the procedures have become uniform, however the EIA system has not yet acquired full transparency. Under the 1994 notification the decision to conduct a public hearing was taken by the IAA and among other things, the submitted EIA used to be considered for arriving at the decision. However, the 1997 modification to the notification is silent about it. The SPCB is to conducts public hearing on the basis of information made available to it regarding the water discharges, air pollution and the project description (executive summary). The public hearing is, therefore, likely to be conducted much before the completion of the EIA study. While this will enable the project planner to take into consideration the public view, the system will be rendered ineffective if IAA fails to attach due importance to the revelations of such public hearing exercises.

In this connection the author wishes to stress that many projects involve complex technical issues often beyond the understanding of the public. Any public hearing conducted without the EIA report will not be able to expose such complexities and indirect impacts may go unnoticed. Moreover only stakeholders are allowed to participate in public hearing. This pre-empts the possibility of any open academic interchanging of opinion.

A process of sweeping economic reforms is under way in India. It is desirable that the EIA system in India would be comparable in effectiveness to the systems utilised world over.

The MOEF has identified itself as the Impact Assessment Agency. The author is of the opinion that an independent Impact Assessment Agency (like the Planning Commission) should be created. In addition to EIA evaluation the agency should be responsible for ensuring integration of environmental issues into the planning process. Needless to mention, such an agency would require adequate infrastructure and human resources. In addition, it must have adequate legal strength to enforce compliance of commitments made by the proponents and the conditions imposed by the agency based on which the environmental clearance has been given.

Over the years various evaluation procedures for EIA have emerged in the literature. It is important that a synthesis be carried out and an objective criteria for evaluation of EIAs/ EMPs be devised. This would reduce subjectivity and would ensure that individual bias and priorities cannot influence the evaluation to any significant extent.