An absolute must for a good EIA report is proper identification and evaluation of key impacts. In order to pass as a satisfactory EIA, the report must provide the following:
* Identification of direct impacts, description of indirect, secondary, cumulative impacts, and distinction between short medium and long-term impacts.
* A cause-effect-condition analysis of the identified impacts on human beings, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, climate, landscape and interactions between these.
* In addition to predicting magnitude of impacts a clear evaluation of significance of each impacts taking into account the relevant standards.
* Taking account of the magnitude, location and duration of each impact.

Another important yardstick for reviewing EIA/ EMP reports includes assessment of mitigation process undertaken. Following points act as adequacy indicators:
* Consideration of the mitigation of all significant adverse impacts.
* A clear commitment of the project developer to the mitigation measures presented in the EIA report.

Finally the need for an effective communication requires the evaluator to consider a non-technical summary to be a sine-qua-non for a good EIA report. The summary must satisfy the following criteria:
* Present main findings and conclusions of the study in a non-technical language.
* In addition to covering the main issues, should present the description of the project and the environment in a summary form.

From the above discussion it is apparent that out of all the sub-categories, at least 40% are of so much importance that the evaluators must accept all of them to be satisfactorily dealt with in the EIA report in order to pass the report as an acceptable one.

Following evaluation scheme is adopted for performance rating of various review topics.

SYMBOL	EXPLANATION
A	Generally well performed, no important tasks left incomplete.
B	Generally satisfactory and complete, only minor omissions and inadequacies.
S	Can be considered just satisfactory despite omissions and/or inadequacies.
D	Parts are well attempted but must, as a whole, be considered just unsatisfactory because of omissions and/or inadequacies.
E	Not satisfactory, significant omissions or inadequacies.
F	Very unsatisfactory, important tasks poorly done or not attempted.
NA	Not applicable. The review topic is not applicable or irrelevant in the context of the project under consideration.

6.4 Conclusion
In India more EMPs are rejected on technical grounds (inadequate information provided) than an environmental ground. This leads to project delays. EIAs do not carry out any exercise to select the environmentally most attractive alternative from amongst the feasible alternatives by which the objectives of the development may be achieved. EIAs are mostly concerned with remedial measures through which the environmental impacts may be reduced.

The legal basis of the India EIA system has recently been strengthened. However, the institutional framework is still very weak.
There is a general lack of any real understanding of the EIA procedure. There also exists a dearth of qualified and experienced EIA practitioners. EIA is invariably undertaken as a post planning exercise and often regarded as a process to produce evidence as to why the project should be cleared from environmental angle. Since the developers undertake EIAs for their own projects, EIAs often contain data or the interpretation of data which are biased to reflect the proponents interest.

EIAs are not legally required for all types of actions capable of causing environmental damage. Exemptions granted to small scale projects are of serious concern in areas having multiple units of such projects.

The need to employ appropriate EIA methodologies in India can hardly be over emphasised. On one side the EIA studies are too mechanistic and voluminous, on the other side resource constraints (manpower, knowledge money, time, etc.) do not permit their proper use. Any EIA methodology to be adopted should therefore be linked to the prevailing realities of data availability, EIA expertise available, legal regime and institutional arrangements. It should, nevertheless, be borne in mind that there is no need to employ a particular EIA methodology for the entire EIA process. Different methodologies may be employed for different component of the EIA process. For example while simple checklists may be employed in screening and scoping. A simple network may come handy as an impact identification tool.

The basic objective behind design of an appropriate process should be to enhance the ability of the EIA system to provide timely inputs for environmental decision making at each stage of the EIA process and project decision making.