6.3 Criteria for Evaluation of EIA/EMP Reports Prepared in India
Above paragraphs bring to focus the expectations from EIA reports. It has already been reported that the concern for environmental sustainability, being of recent interest, can not be expected to have been taken into consideration in the EIA studies carried out in India. It should however be expected that these EIA reports should at least satisfy the stated objectives of undertaking the pre-project assessment of likely impacts of a project.

EIA literature is surprisingly silent on review criteria. Some countries, including Australia, The Netherlands and France, evaluate EIA reports on the basis of regulatory compliance, data sufficiency and prediction adequacy. These countries have well-developed methods of evaluating 'environmental statements'. Lee and Colley (1996) put forward a package for reviewing the quality of 'environmental statements' in UK. According to their package an environmental assessment capable of producing a good quality environmental statement is one which conforms to the town and Country Planning Regulations (UK) in scope whilst conforming to current international conceptions of best practice in procedure and methods. In other words to apply the package for reviewing an environmental statement in a country other than UK the regulatory review points must be suitably modified. In the following paragraphs an attempt is made to recast the Lee and Colley's package into a comprehensive package for evaluating EIA/EMP reports prepared in India. Based on the foregoing discussion (section 6.2) it is proposed to judge the completeness of an EIA/EMP report on the basis of the following points.
1. Whether the environmental settling and the proposed project are described properly?
2. Whether all the key impacts are identified and assessed?
3. Whether project alternatives (including the no project option) and mitigation measures are adequately considered?
4. Whether outcome of the study is effectively communicated?

The four points listed above represent the main review areas that may be divided into categories and sub-categories. Lee and Colley (1996) divided the four areas into 17 categories, which were again classified into total 49 sub-categories. The criteria of Lee and Colley are adopted with some modifications and the same is described below.

6.3.1 EIA/ EMP Review Criteria
Review Areas are designated by a single alphabet, e.g. a; within these are Review Categories, designated by two alphabets, e.g. a.a; and within each Review Category are Review Sub-categories, designated by two alphabets and a digit, e.g. a.a.1.

a. Description of the Project, the Local Environment and the Baseline Conditions
a.a Description of the development: The main purpose(s) of undertaking the project should be explained, as should the physical characteristics, scale and design. Quantities of raw materials energy and human input needed during construction and operation should be specified and, a description of the method of working should be included.

a.a.1 The purpose(s) and objectives of the proposed project should be explained.
a.a.2 The working schedule, production plan and layout of the project diagrams, with the help of plans or maps.
a.a.3 Visual aspects of the proposed project including physical presence and appearance during construction, operation and winding up phase should be indicated.
a.a.4 The proposed method of working during various phases of the project life should be described and the expected rate of production should be spelled out.
a.a.5 The nature of quantities of raw materials needed during both the construction and operational phases should be chalked out and presented in a well-formatted manner. a.b. Site description: A description of the on-site land requirement along with necessary information on pre-project land use, proposed land use changes, the duration of each land use and the proposed post project land-use.
a.b.1 The land area to be acquired for the project should be defined and its location clearly shown on a map. The category of land, viz., tenancy or forestland should also be clearly specified.
a.b.2 The uses to which this land will be put should be described and the different land use areas demarcated.
a.b.3 The estimated duration of the construction phase, operational phase and decommissioning phase should be given.
a.b.4 The means of transporting raw materials and products to and from the site and the approximate quantities involved should be described.
a.c Waste: The types and quantities of wastes likely to be produced should be estimated, and the proposal scheme described. [NB: Wastes include all residual process materials, effluents and emissions. Waste energy, waste heat, noise, etc. should also be considered].
a.c.1 An estimate should be provided of the various types of waste matter, energy and other residual materials likely to be produced at different stages of the project.
a.c.2 The proposed scheme for collection, treatment, handling and disposal of these wastes and residuals should be indicated.
a.d Environment description: The environmental setting of the area likely to be affected by the proposed project should be described.
a.d.1 The environment expected to be affected by the development should be indicated with the aid of a suitable map of the area.
a.d.2 The affected environment should be defined broadly enough to include any potentially significant effects occurring away from the vicinity of the project site. These may be caused by, for example, the dispersion of pollutants, infrastructural requirements of the project, traffic, etc.
a.e Baseline conditions: The pre-project environmental quality should be evaluated and the likely changes in the quality if the project were not to proceed, should be presented.
a.e.1 The important attributes of the affected environment should be identified and described. The methods and investigations undertaken for this purpose should be disclosed and should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the assessment task. Uncertainty should be indicated.
a.e.2 Wherever practicable the existing data sources should be browsed and if relevant, utilised.
a.e.3 Policy and planning documents in respect of the locality under consideration should be compiled and analysed to arrive at the "baseline" conditions, i.e. the probable future state of the environment, in the absence of the project, taking into account natural fluctuations and human activities (often called the "do-nothing" scenario).

b. Identification and Evaluation of Key Impacts
Definition of impacts: Potential impacts of the project on the environment should be investigated and described. Impacts should be broadly defined to cover all potential effects on the environment and should be determined as the predicted deviation from the baseline state.
b.a.1 A description should be given of the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.
b.a.2 A cause-effect analysis of the identified impacts on human beings, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, and the interactions between these should be systematically presented.
b.a.3 Impacts to be caused due to non-standard conditions (e.g., an accidental spillage of effluents) should also be described.
b.a.4 The impacts should be determined as the difference between the future state of the environment with project and without the same project. These differences may be accepted as the impacts caused by the project.
b.b Identification of impacts: All significant impacts warranting in-depth analyses should be identified.
b.b.1 Impacts should be identified using a systematic methodology such as project specific checklists, matrices, panels of experts, consultations, etc. Supplementary methods (e.g. cause-effect or network analyses) may be needed to identify secondary impacts.
b.b.2 A brief description of the impact identification methods should be given, as should the rationale for using them.
b.c Scoping: Key impacts should be identified using a systematic scoping process and the main stress of subsequent EIA investigations should be centred on these.
b.c.1 There should be a genuine attempt of involve the stakeholders and special interest groups (including NGOs) to appraise them of the project and its implications.
b.c.2 Key impacts should be identified and selected for more intense investigation. Impact areas kept outside the realm of thorough study should be listed and justification should be provided for their exclusion from further intense investigation.
b.d Prediction of impact magnitude: The likely impacts of the project on the environment should be described in quantified units wherever possible.
b.d.1 Impact magnitudes should be predicted using reliable data. Quantum of data should be adequate for arriving at an acceptable prediction. If data is acquired from secondary sources the same should be clearly mentioned. Any gaps in the required data should be indicated and the means used to deal with them in the assessment should be explained.
b.d.2 Techniques used for predicting the impact magnitudes should be appropriate to the size and importance of the projected impact. The technique used should be described.
b.d.3 As far as practicable impact magnitudes should be expressed in measurable quantities. Qualitative descriptions, where these are used, should be as fully defined as possible.
b.e Assessment of impact significance: The expected significance of the project impacts should be estimated. The sources of quality standards, together with the rationale, assumptions and value judgements used in assessing significance, should be fully described.
b.e.1 The significance of the predicted impacts on the environmental sustainability should be described and clearly distinguished from impact magnitude. Where mitigating measures are proposed, the significance of any impact remaining after mitigation should also be described.
b.e.2 While assessing impact significance the relevant quality standards should be taken into account.
b.e.3The choice of standards, assumptions and value systems used to assess significance should be justified.