Introduction: -

Environmental assessment (EA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences (positive and negative) of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action.

In this context, the term "Environmental Impact Assessment" (EIA) is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programs most often proposed by organs of state^[1][2]. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review. 

Objectives: -

• To describe and discuss the common characteristics and evolution of EIA and it’s functioning in the given socio-economic, socio-cultural, political and ecological settings.
• To critically analyze the methods and evolution of EIA.
• To study the common trends and the emerging concept of the EIA.

Research Questions: -

• How EIA was evaluated andimplemented?
• How EIA works in India?
• How EIA works in international context?
• What areas of EIA require improvement?

Hypothesis: -                  

The researcher in the present study has following hypothesis:-

EIA is very useful and beneficial for the people and it can be more useful if the loopholes in it get removed.

What is Environmental Impact Assessment?

The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines EIA as “the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made”^[3]

The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project. EIAs are unique in that they do not require adherence to a predetermined environmental outcome, but rather they require decision makers to account for environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential environmental impacts^[4].

Objectives of Environmental Impact Assessment: -

• To examine and select the best from the project option available.
• To identify and incorporate into the project plan appropriate abatement and mitigating measures.
• To predict significant residual environmental impacts predicted.
• To identify the environmental costs and benefits of the project to the community.
• To identify, predict and evaluate the economic, environmental and social impact of development activities.
• To provide information on the environmental consequences for decision making.
• To promote environmentally sound and sustainable development through the identification of appropriate alternatives and mitigation measures.
• To describe the methodology and output of an EIA.
• To provide inter-disciplinary advice related to irrigation and drainage to those engaged in preparing EIAs.
• To enhance institutional capacity for carrying out an EIA.

Why do we need  Environmental Impact Assessment?

• To predict problems.
• To find ways to avoid them.
• To enhance positive effects.
• EIA is essentially a planning tool for preventing environmental problems due to an action.
• It seeks to avoid costly mistake in project implementation, either because of environmental damages that are likely to arise during project implementation or becauseof modifications that are required subsequentlyin order to make the action environmentally acceptable to government and community.
• The assessment is intended to effectively manage the ecosystems in play; be they biophysical, social or even cultural. 

Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment: - 

• Mandatory Method: - Some countries have made the exercise of EIA compulsory and involved the participation of the people concerned of the area in the process. The environmental agencies are obliged to submit EIA before granting or approval of the project is given. Such EIA implicitly guarantees the right to information, public participation and provides a solid basis for proper impact assessment. Involvement of the public including voluntary/expert groups working in this field helps in making thorough enquiry of the proposed project. NEPA^[5] is the best illustration of such model^[6].
• Discretionary method: - When EIA is not compulsory by law and depends on the discretion of the administrative or nodal agency, it is known as discretionary method. The administrative authority judging the exigency and necessity of the project/proposal can demand for EIA of that project. It is said that quick, proficient, and suitable decision is the main plank of this method. It is also less consuming. But it must be remembered that it gives unbridled and arbitrary powers to the administrative authority. Secrecy maintained by the authority is another darker side of this method^[7].
• Cost-Benefit analysis: - Cost-benefit effect simply compares all the expected present and future benefits of a project or policy with its present and future costs. It evaluates the practicability and viability of the project in relation to economic gains and the likely adverse effects of the project on the environment. Now it is felt that real value must be given to environmental components which must be recognised and considered in EIA. “Direct value” must be given to the natural forces like air, water, vegetation cover, commercial or non-commercial; for example, output of a forest would include both lumber (commercial) and recreational amenity value (non- commercial); and the “indirect value” like the ecological functions of the ecosystem, such as climate stabilization, nitrogen fixation, must also be considered in cost benefit effects. Recently an innovative new approach has been evolved to be considered in EIA, known as the generational cost-benefit analysis (GCBA). This approach discounts net benefits from the prospective of progeny involved. This approach was adopted by the courts also.^[8][9] 

Participants in EIA Process:

• Proponent:Government or Private Agency which initiates the project.
• Decision maker:Designated individual or group.
• Assessor:Agency responsible for the preparation of EIS.
• Reviewer:Individual/Agency/Board.
• Expert advisers, Media and Public, Environmental organisations etc. 

Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment: -

Environmental impact assessment is one of the successful policy innovations of the 20th Century for environmental conservation. Thirty-seven years ago, there was no EIA but today, it is a formal process in many countries and is currently practiced in more than 100 countries. Environmental impact assessments commenced in the 1960s, as part of increasing environmental awareness ( The United States Environmental Protection Agency was established on 2 December 1970, in response to elevated concern about environmental pollution). EIAs involved a technical evaluation intended to contribute to more objective decision making. In the United States, environmental impact assessments obtained formal status in 1969, with enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act. EIAs have been used increasingly around the world. The number of "Environmental Assessments" filed every year "has vastly overtaken the number of more rigorous Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)."^[10]An Environmental Assessment is a "mini-EIS designed to provide sufficient information to allow the agency to decide whether the preparation of a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary."^[11]EIA is an activity that is done to find out the impact that would be done before development will occur.

EIS Contents: 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should contain the following information’s/data: 

• Description of proposed action (construction, operation and shut down phase) and selection of alternatives to the proposed action.
• Nature and magnitude of the likely environmental effects.
• Possibility of earthquakes and cyclones.
• Possible effects on surface and ground water quality, soil and air quality.
• Effects on vegetation, wild life and endangered species.
• Economic and demographic factors.
• Identification of relevant human concerns.
• Noise pollution. Efficient use of inputs.
• Recycling and reduction of waste.
• Risk analysis and disaster management.

First Environmental Legislation: -

The first comprehensive environmental legislation (Section 102) in United States came into force on 1st January 1970 in the form of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In India, the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a Notification on 27th January, 1994 making EIA statutory for 29 specified activities falling under sectors such as industries, mining, irrigation, power and transport etc.

This Notification was amended on 4th May, 1994 and the amended version includes a self-explanatory note detailing the procedure for obtaining environmental clearance, technical information, documents required to be submitted for getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Recent Amendment in the Public hearing notifications is that hearings are now mandatory for all projects to which the EIA notification applies. A major amendment to EIA Notification was made in April 1997 for introduction of Public Hearing as a part of assessment procedure for ensuring participation of local people and stakeholders in various proposed development activities. 

Indian Model of Environmental Impact Assessment: -

The Indian experience with Environmental Impact Assessment began over 20 years back. It started in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission asked the Department of Science and Technology to examine the river-valley projects from an environmental angle. This was subsequently extended to cover those projects, which required the approval of the Public Investment Board. Till 1994, environmental clearance from the Central Government was an administrative decision and lacked legislative support.

On 27 January 1994, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Government of India, under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, promulgated an EIA notification making Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for expansion or modernization of any activity or for setting up new projects listed in Schedule 1 of the notification. Since then there have been 12 amendments made in the EIA notification of 1994. 

The MoEF recently notified new EIA legislation in September 2006. The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as mining, thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway, ports, harbors and airports) and industries including very small electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance. However, unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation has put the onus of clearing projects on the state government depending on the size/capacity of the project.

Certain activities permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone Act, 1991 also require similar clearance. Additionally, donor agencies operating in India like the World Bank and the ADB have a different set of requirements for giving environmental clearance to projects that are funded by them^[12].

EIA Notification^[13]: -

This notification is in suppression of the abovementioned notification of 1994 except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such suppression. It also aims to achieve the objectives of National Environment Policy as approved by the Union Cabinet on 18 May 2006. This notification has brought fundamental changes. It has also consolidated the notification of 1994 and 1997 and the amendments made therein. Various courts decisions on the topic have also been taken care of by the government in consolidating the notification. The Central agency and State agencies have been given independent powers to consider the EIA and take decisions for clearance of the projects with different threshold levels^[14]. 

International Convention on EIA in a Transboundary context: -

Environmental threats do not respect national borders. International pollution can have detrimental effects on the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, aquifers, farmland, the weather and biodiversity. Global climate change is transnational. Specific pollution threats include acid rain, radioactive contamination, debris in outer space, stratospheric ozone depletion and toxic oil spills. The Chernobyl disaster, precipitated by a nuclear accident on April 26, 1986, is a stark reminder of the devastating effects of transboundary nuclear pollution.^[15]

Environmental protection is inherently a cross-border issue and has led to the creation of transnational regulation via multilateral and bilateral treaties. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE or Stockholm Conference) held in Stockholm in 1972 and the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development(UNCED or Rio Summit, Rio Conference, or Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 were key in the creation of about 1,000 international instruments that include at least some provisions related to the environment and its protection.^[16]

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context was negotiated to provide an international legal framework for transboundary EIA.^[17]

However, as there is no universal legislature or administration with a comprehensive mandate, most international treaties exist parallel to one another and are further developed without the benefit of consideration being given to potential conflicts with other agreements. There is also the issue of international enforcement.^[18] This has led to duplications and failures, in part due to an inability to enforce agreements. An example is the failure of many international fisheries regimes to restrict harvesting practises.^[19] Application shall be achieved by the willing of counties authorities. 

Environmental Clearance Regulation, 2006^[20]: -

The Environmental Clearance Regulation of 2006 is in supersession space of the notification dated 27/1/1994 relating to EIA. It has been issued in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(i) and (2) (v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5(3) (d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The regulation provides that the construction of new projects and activities or expansion or modernization of existing projects at the time of this notification will not undertaken on or from the date of its publication (14/9/2006) without the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA) duly constituted under this regulation^[21].

The schedule of the notification as provided list of projects/activities which require environmental clearance. The projects which require clearance from the Central Government are 30 in number some of them are – off shore and onshore oil and gas exploration, mining, airports, river valley, soda ash, industry and others.^[22]

All projects and activities are broadly categorized into “A” and “B” category on the basis of spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impact on human health and natural and manmade resources.

As per Para 7 of the regulation, there are four stages of “prior environmental clearance” process for new projects. They are: -

• Screening (only for category “B” projects and activities) : - by SLEAC for determining whether or not the project/activity requires further environmental studies for preparation of EIA depending upon the nature and location specificity of the project, they shall be termed as “B-1" and the rest as”B-2” project requiring no EIA.
• Scope: - It refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in case of category “A” projects / activities, and State Level Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in the category “B-A” projects/activities, including expansion, modernization change in product mix of existing products/ activities, determine detailed and comprehensive terms of reference (TOR) for the preparation of EIA of the project//activity, which require prior environmental clearance. Such TOR will be conveyed to the applicant within 60 days from the receipt of Form I. application for prior environment clearance can also be rejected as this stage.
• Public consultation: - It refers to the process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environment impact of the project/ activity ascertained with a view to taking in to accounting all material concerning the project/activity. All projects/activities falling under “A” and “B-1” category are: expansion roads and highways, modernization of irrigation projects, projects/activities concerning national defence/security and building/construction activities and township. It has two stages:
• Public hearing at the site or at the close proximity of the project for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons ; and
• Obtaining response in writing from other concerned projects.

Public hearing shall be conducted by the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or Union Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC) in the specified manner, and they would forward its proceeding to the regulatory authority within 45 days of the request of the applicant. Such public hearing shall be held after giving a notice in, at least, one major national daily and one regional vernacular daily of the date, time and exact venue for the conduct of public hearing. A minimum of 30 days notice shall be provided for such hearing to the public for furnishing their responses.

4. Appraisal: - A detailed scrutiny by the EAC or SLEAC of the application is known as appraisal. The EIA report, outcome of the public consultation including public hearing proceedings, is examined thoroughly and in a transparent manner. Applicant shall also be invited for furnishing necessary clarification in person or through an authorized representative. On the conclusion of the proceedings, the EAC or SLEAC shall make “categorical recommendations” to the regulatory authority either for grant of prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or for rejection of the application together with reasons for the same.

G Sundarrajan v. Union of India^[23]: -The respondents appealed against the government of India requesting to grant permission for setting up a nuclear power plant in the south – Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. After considering the incidents that occurred in USA, USSR, Japan. The Supreme court approved for the power plant considering the judgment given in GodavarmanTirumalpad V UOI, but it held certain conditions that has to be fulfilled before the commissioning of the plant, after which the plant must be approved by AERB, NPCIL, DAE. Appeals disposed with no costs.

Validity of Environment Clearance^[24]: -

The validity period of the prior environmental clearance is as shown in Table 1:

Table 1 Validity period for different projects

For river valley project	10 years
Mining projects	Maximum 30 years (the EAC/SLEAC may fix any time period subject to the maximum period of 30years)
Area development/township	Up to or to responsibility of the developer which can be extended up to 5years
All other projects	5 years

It shall be mandatory for the project management to submit half-yearly compliance reports on 1 June and 1 December of each calendar year. Such compliance reports shall be public documents and will also be displayed on website of the regulatory authority (Para 10).with the transfer of project/activity, the environmental clearance would also be transferred automatically on the same terms and conditions and for the remaining period only.

Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd. V. Ministry of Environment & Forest^[25]: -The Company Sterlite Industrial sought permission to construct a bauxite ore mine on forrest land in Niyamgiri Hills, in Orissa, a region inhabited by a local indigenous tribe called the DongriaKondh, numbering 8,000 people including many children. The Ministry of Environment and Forests granted provisional environmental clearance, to be made final subject to an assessment of the planned construction’s impact on the DongriaKondh community.

Subsequent impact studies conducted by various official bodies concluded that the proposed construction would interfere with the Dongria community’s rights and should be rejected. However, the project was already embarked upon and a refinery was built at the bottom of the Niyamgiri Hills by Vedanta.

The Ministry officially rejected Sterlite’s application for environmental clearance, stating that the venture had displayed a blatant and shocking disregard for the rights of the tribal groups concerned, which are protected by the Forest Rights Act. In the present case, the company is asking the Court to overturn the Ministry’s rejection.

Issue and resolution: -

Whether the decision to reject environmental clearance for the construction of a mine because of its impact on indigenous tribes is lawful. The Court upheld the rejection on the basis that some places can – and must – be off limits to mining activities.

Court Reasoning: -

The Court considered the entitlement of tribal people to land which is owned by the company. However, the Court went on to clarify that the State holds the natural resources as a trustee of the people; as such, local populations must give consent to any efforts to extract these resources. Following a series of 12 village consultations regarding the Vedanta project, the Dongria unanimously rejected the proposal.  

The Court noted that agriculture was the only source of livelihood for the tribes concerned, apart from the collection and sale of minor forest produce to supplement their income. The tribes had great emotional attachments to their lands. The United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples notes that tribal forest dwellers have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands.

Vedanta had repeatedly argued that their project would help bring ‘development’ to the Dongria, a mainstream line about the beneficial impact that such a venture would have on a ‘backward or primitive tribe’. However, the construction of an open-pit mine would have devastated their habitat, resulting in negligible ‘development’. The mine’s accompanying initiatives were also all geared towards the permanent alteration of the Dongria’sway of life and independence.  

Review of EIA by the Judiciary^[26]: -

The decision of the Central Government to grant environmental clearance (EIA) can only be tested “on the anvil of well-recognised principles of judicial review”, i.e. on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.^[27] If the government has breached one of the mandatory requirements in procedure, the court can quash the environmental clearance. It cannot be reviewed or rejected on any other grounds.

Need to review the notification: -

Noida Memorial Complex near Okhla Bird Sanctuary re^[28]: -A petition filed before the central bench by Amit Kumar, a Noida resident, questioning construction work within 10 km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. Such constructions were being carried out illegally without obtaining the required approval from the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL).

In September 2013, NGT stopped construction activity within 10 km radius of the Okhla sanctuary in Noida. Later in October, Noida authority was further prevented from giving completion certificates to construction projects falling within the prescribed area by the tribunal. In the interim order of October, the NGT also said that “all constructions within 10 km radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within distance of eco-sensitive zone, as may be prescribed by the notification issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, shall be subject to the decision of the NBWL”. The order noted that till the time the clearance of NBWL is obtained, the concerned authority shall not issue completion certificates to the projects.

In February 2014, Uttar Pradesh (UP) submitted a proposal to the Union environment ministry, delineating100 m radius around the sanctuary as the eco-sensitive zone. Following submission by the state, the Wildlife Division of the ministry constituted a three member committee to visit the area and submit their observations. The team undertook a site visit on June 27 and submitted their report. Upon reviewing the report, the wild life division of MoEFCC has now asked the UP government to submit a revised proposal for delineating ESZ. Once such revision is received from the state, a notification will be issued by MoEFC^[29].

The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of EIA in the light of various provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and suggested that the EIA Notification urgently calls for a closesecond look by the authorities concerned. The project/activities under Section 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and that “built-up area with facilities open to the sky need to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness” need to be defined. It was also declared that if a project falls under such category, then prior approval of the Central Government (the EAC) is required^[30].

Narmada BachaoAndolan v. Union of India^[31]: - the environmental clearance was given by the Central Government in 1987, much prior to abovementioned notification of 1994. Even the dispute regarding raising the height of the dam was also settled by an award given in 1978. Therefore, the construction was taken up in 1987. The writ was filed to challenge the construction of and raising the height of the dam in 1994. The Supreme Court held that when projects are undertaken and hundreds and crores of public money are spent, individuals and organisations petitioning in the grab of public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be entertained. As the project commenced long back, it does not require EIA as required by the above notification^[32].

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[33]: - the Supreme Court made it clear that though the notification dated 29 January 1994 is not applicable to mining mineral but having regard to degradation of environment and risk involved to human health and ecology, the EIA is must. Moreover, the notification is also applicable when renewal of mining is considered after the issue of notification. In this case, the mining activity in Delhi and Haryana region of Aravalli hills causing environmental degradation was challenged. The Supreme Court appointed a “monitoring committee” to examine the issue with certain directions^[34].

Ministry of Environment and Forest vide its Notification S.O. 1236 (E) dated 27 October 2003 has also brought within the purview of the notification of 27 January 1994, new projects relating to a new township, Industrial Township, settlement of colonies, hotel complexes, hospitals, office complexes for 1000 persons and discharging sewage of 50,000 litres/day and above, or with an investment of Rs 50 crores or above and industrial estates having an area of 50 hectares or above^[35].

In Lafarge Umiam Mining^[36], the court made it clear that if the MoEFhas cleared the project under the EIA Notification, 1994, there is no need to get fresh clearance under EIA Notification, 2006.

The court also made it clear that it can review the decision-making process to ensure that the decision of the MoEF is fair and fully informed and based on correct principles, and free from bars or restraint. Participation of the tribal people in decision-making is a must if the land falls in such an area^[37].

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India^[38]: - the Supreme Court made it clear that any environmental clearance issued with reference to EIA Notification, 1994 cannot be quashed by the court without any substantial ground. The High Court could not have allowed a writ petition on the ground that environmental clearance was issued on the basis of “rapid” EIA or it was inadequate. Till the EIA clearance certificate was issued (by the Central Government on 16 January 1995 and by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 22 May 1995), public hearing was not compulsory.^[39] EIA done by the experts, expert authorities can only be quashed as well recognized principles of judicial review, i.e. only if there is any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in granting the EIA clearance. Violation of some mandatory condition can also be a ground for taking action against the industry.The Supreme Court has also made it clear that EIA notification applies prospectively.^[40]

Loopholes and Deficiencies: -

• Stage 1 – Screening: -
• Pre-feasibility report and conceptual plan - no guidelines or requirements, thereby no need to address environmental issues
• Based on info (form 1, 1A) supplied by investor
• Stage 2 - Scoping : -
• No public participation in scoping process - local knowledge about what environmental concerns should be investigated is not given consideration
• Strict timeline – not a continuous process
• Biased in securing favorable Terms of Reference for investors
• Access to TOR limited
• Stage 3 – Public consultation: -
• Unclear wording and definitions
• Can be avoided if regulatory agency feels it difficult to conduct it owing to local situation
• Local affected persons having plausible stake in impact of project 
• Public consultation shall ordinarily have two components 
• Other concerned persons having plausible stake shall submit responses only in writing 
• Hearing shall be conducted at the site or in its close proximity 
• No quorum required for holding public consultation 
• Huge list of exemptions for certain types of projects that cause deep environmental impact without justification 
• Weak wording that widens the scope of these exemptions
• Tight timeline: 45 days from the time requested by the investor
• Limiting access to information
• Only summary EIA report made available, not the full EIA with all TOR from the scoping process 
• Confidential information need not be disclosed in summary EIA
• Publicity
• Use of internet as the main means
• No definition on how publicity should be carried out
• Erosion of constitution of panel conducting public hearing
• EIA 2006 mentions only District Magistrate and a representative of SPCB
• EIA 1994 had District Collector, representatives of state dealing with the project, reps from Panchayats, senior citizens from the area, reps of SPCB
• Appraisal 
• No public participation
• Arguments between regulatory authority and expert committee made known only to investor and not to public
• Iron hand given to regulatory authority to make final decision – Expert committee opinion can be disregarded
• Deemed Clearance: Incase decision is not given within the prescribed timelines, applicant may proceed as though clearance has been granted or denied

Suggestions: -

• Public participation should be involved in discussion through surveys etc.
• Details which are useful for Public only that should be shared.
• Constitution should be given privileged.
• EIA should do advertising so that public can come to know about it.

Benefits of EIA System^[41]: -

On behalf of the EIA system it enables the decision makers and the EPA to predict the impact of the projected development activities and then it can be predicted that on behalf of the alternative which is beneficial or not and lead to the positive impact upon the environment or in direction towards the negative impact upon environment.

Only in that kind of situation projected procedure is helpful or useful when that particular project is not able to put any negative impact upon environment means in terms of damage or harmful for the environment and also there should be possibility of the suitable measures for the purpose to reduce the adverse impact from the side of this project. 

All these projected procedure is able to provide positive direction in the future with the help of the formulating body of the government and decentralization of the process of decision making and on behalf of those new objectives can be determined in positive manner and it also able to predict the requirements and opportunities for the locality. 

The development of EIA system is structured in that manner by this way this particular project is able to attract people for the purpose to obtain their personal opinion regarding this particular project in terms of project planning and decision making and for the development of the new structure. Thus it is clear that specifically the development of the EIA system is based on the participation of the local public in this procedure where public can provide their views for planning and controlling of this environmental project. 

In the past, for the purpose to take suggestion and comments from the side of public there were two workshops were organized and in that workshop main object was to show projection of the EIA system and on behalf of all collected information from side of public will utilize for the purpose to take appropriate decision or to determine adequate guideline for the stakeholders to build proper sense of this particular project in the mind of decision makers and stakeholders.

On behalf of the EIA process, project developer or decision maker is able to obtain adequate source of information in terms of the positive or adverse impact upon the environment where they are working or developing a specific project. 

Conclusion: -

• Environment Impact Assessment is a very beneficial step to check, whether the project is environment friendly or not.
• Since economic development is result of interaction between natural resources and technology supported by designed for people, so all human activity should be economic, social and environment friendly.
• EIA certainly has a crucial role to play in addressing environmental issues surrounding project development and especially power projects.
• The integration of environment into development planning is the most important tool in achieving sustainable development.
• Environmental protection and economic development must thus be dealt with in an integrated manner.
• EIA process is necessary in providing an anticipatory and preventive mechanism for environmental management and protection in any development.
• Several developing countries are still at the infancy stage of operationalization of their EIA processes.
• The need for capacity building for quality EIA is also eminent in these countries. 
• Despite these small setbacks, environmental impact assessment has become an integral part of project planning one, which is continually being improved for posterity.

 Bibliography: -

• Environment Impact Notification 2006; Gazette of India, 14th September, 2006.
• Kohli, Kanchi and Menon, Manju (2002) Environmental Impacts- Biased Assessments, The Survey of the Environment, The Hindu.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment.
• Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th), Lucknow:EBC Publishing,2018. 

^[1]MacKinnon, A. J., Duinker, P. N., Walker, T. R. (2018). The Application of Science in Environmental Impact Assessment. Routledge.

^[2]Eccleston, Charles H. (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices. Chapter 5. ISBN 978-1439828731.

^[3] “Principle of Environment Impact Assessment Best Practice”, International Association for Impact Assessment, 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-11.

^[4]Holder, J., (2004), Environmental Assessment: The Regulation of Decision Making, Oxford University Press, New York; For a comparative discussion of the elements of various domestic EIA systems, see Christopher Wood Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review (2 ed, Prentice Hall, Harlow, 2002).

^[5] S. 102(2)(c).

^[6] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg. 150.

^[7] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg. 150.

^[8] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg. 150.

^[9] G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620; Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railway Corpn., (1994) I Mah LJ 21.

^[10]Clark & Canter 1997, p. 199. 

^[11]Rychlak & Case 2010, p. 111-120.

^[12] Agarwal, Anil, ‘Understanding EIA’,<www.cseindia.org/understanding-eia-383>. (accessed 11/18/2018)

^[13] It has been notified, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (i) and cl. (v) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with cl. (d) of sub-r (3) of R. 5 of the environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

^[14] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.153.

^[15]Sands, P., (1989), The Environment, Community and International Law, Harvard International Law Lournal, 393, p402.

^[16]Weiss, E., (1999), Understanding Compliance with International Environmental Agreements: The Bakers Dozen Myths, Univ Richmond L.R. 32, 1555.

^[17] "Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991)". Unece.org. archived on2018-11-18.

^[18]Wolfrum, R., & Matz, N., (2003), Conflicts in International Environmental Law, Max-Planck-Institut für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrech.

^[19]Young, O., (1999), The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes, MIT Press

^[20] Vide Noti. No. S.O. 1533 (E), dt. 14-9-2006 published in the Gaz. Of India, Extra., Pt. II, S. 3(ii), dt. 14-9-2006, 36-72, No. 1067.

^[21]Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.153.

^[22] The fall under category “A” of the schedule.

^[23] (2013) 6 SCC 620. In this case EIA to a nulear power plant was discussed by the court.

^[24] Provided in para. 9 of the Noti. Dt. 14-9-2006.

^[25] (2013) 6 SCC 476.

^[26] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.157.

^[27] Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575, 594-95; also, Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338.

^[28] (2011) I SCC 744.

^[29]Bannerjee, Srestha, Okhla bird sanctuary case: respite likely for Noida home-buyers, developers, <www.downtoearth.org.in/news/okhla-bird-sanctuary-case-respite-likely-for-noida-homebuyers-developers-45767>. (accessed 11/19/2018)

^[30] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.158.

^[31] (2000) 10 SCC 664.

^[32] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.158.

^[33] (2004) 12 SCC 118.

^[34] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.159.

^[35] The government relied upon the observation in the matter of news from Hindustan Times entitled “And quiet flows the Maily Yamuna” v. Central Pollution Control Board, Writ Petition No. 725 of 1994(SC).

^[36] Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338.

^[37] Shastri, Satish, Environmental Law (6^th edn.), Lucknow:EBC Publishing:2018, Pg.159.

^[38] (2013) 4 SCC 575; in this case the High Court of Tamil Nadu ordered for the closure of the industry as the industry was disseminating air, water and land pollution. It was a copper smelter plant set up by the company.

^[39] It was made compulsory by a notification of Central Government dt. 10-04-1997.

^[40] Alaknanda Hydropower Co. Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi, (2014) I SCC 769. In this case Alaknanda Hydropower project in Srinagar was given tevhno-economic clearance in 1982 and EIA was done in 1985. The Ministry of Environment & Forest granted environmental clearance for the project on 3-5-1985. Therefore, the project does not require any public hearing as per new notifications after 1985.

^[41]LawTeacher. November 2013. The main problems of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-main-problems-of-environmental-impact-assessment-international-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 19 November 2018].