Pursuing the Distilled Good Practices to Improve the Quality of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports and Hence Enhance the EIA Effectiveness and Help Address the Concerns of Project Proponents: An Indian Context

Arjun Kumar A Rathi(Faculty of Planning and Public Policy, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, 380059, India)

Abstract

Despite a wealth of literature on the different facets of the EIA, and copious theoretical knowledge and practical experience, the general agreement is eluding definitions of EIA effectiveness, quality, and good practices. There are apprehensions about EIA meeting its basic objectives while project proponents continue to treat EIA as an impediment to development. Governments tend to adopt a “practical” approach, sacrificing pillars of EIA and overlooking the prime objective of environmental protection. Based on an extensive literature study and the author’s long EIA-related experience, some key workable practices for the EIA process are elaborated. Meticulous scoping using different sets of lenses, spotlighting significant impacts to determine the breadth and depth of EIA reports for focussed EIAs, robust EIA review and decision-making, commitment from the regulators for environmental protection, and use of strategic planning, strategic environmental assessment, and tiering practices are expected to address scholars’ apprehensions and project proponents’ concerns.

Keywords

EIA reforms; EIA regulation; EIA review; Good quality EIA report; Good practice EIA

References

Morrison-Saunders, A., Sadler, S., 2010. The art and science of impact assessment: Results of a survey of IAIA members. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(1), 77-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X488835

Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 30(1), 5-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557

Fonseca, A., Sánchez, L.E., Ribeiro, J.C., 2017. Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 62, 90-97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.10.002

UNEP, 2019. Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report [Internet] [cited 2022 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/environmental-rule-law-first-global-report

Esseghir, A., Haouaoui, K.L., 2014. Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development: The case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy. 71, 218-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.050

Marques, A.C., Fuinhas, J.A., Pais, D.F., 2018. Economic growth, sustainable development and food consumption: Evidence across different income groups of countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 196, 245-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.011

Nita, A., Fineran, S., Rozylowicz, L., 2022. Researchers’ perspective on the main strengths and weaknesses of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 92, 106690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106690

Gazzola, P., 2022. The bad, the abnormal and the inadequate. A new institutionalist perspective for exploring environmental assessment’s evolutionary direction. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 95, 106786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106786

Toro, J., Requena, I., Duarte, O., et al., 2013. A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 43, 9-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.04.004

Roche, C., Brueckner, M., Walim, N., et al., 2021. Understanding why impact assessment fails: A case study of theory and practice from Wafi-Golpu, Papua New Guinea. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 89, 106582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106582

Joseph, C., Gunton, T., Rutherford, M., 2015. Good practices for environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 33(4), 238-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811

Banhalmi-Zakar, Z., Gronow, C., Wilkinson, L., et al., 2018. Evolution or revolution: Where next for impact assessment? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 36(6), 506-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1516846

Enríquez-de-Salamanca, A., 2016. Project splitting in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 34(2), 152-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1159425

Macintosh, A., 2010. Best practice environmental impact assessment: A model framework for Australia. The Australian Journal of Public Administration. 69(4), 401-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00703.x

Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., et al., 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 41, 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008

Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., et al., 2014. Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining? Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 45, 46-53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.12.002

Bragagnolo, C., Lemos, C., Ladle, R.J., et al., 2017. Streamlining or sidestepping? Political pressure to revise environmental licensing and EIA in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 65, 86-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.04.010

Lawrence, D.P., 2013. Environmental impact assessment: Practical solutions to recurrent problems and contemporary challenges. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken.

Arnold, L., Hanna, K., 2017. Best Practices in Environmental Assessment: Case Studies and Application to Mining. Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI) Report 2017-003 [Internet]. Available from: https://ok-cear.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/01/Best-Practices-in-Environmental-Assessment.pdf

Middle, G., Middle, I., 2010. The inefficiency of environmental impact assessment: Reality or myth? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(2), 159-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X498825

Runhaar, H., Gommers, A., Verhaegen, K., et al., 2019. The effectiveness of environmental assessment in Flanders: An analysis of practitioner perspectives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 76, 113-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.006

Arts, J., Runhaar, H., Fischer, T.B., et al., 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance—A comparison of 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment and Policy Management. 14(4), 1250025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333212500251

Van Doren, D., Driessen, P.P., Schijf, B., et al., 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 38(1), 120-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.002

Loomis, J.J., Dziedzic, M., 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: A state of the art. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 68, 29-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005

Sadler, B., Petts, J., 1999. Handbook of environmental impact assessment: Process, methods and potential, vol. 1. Blackwell: Oxford.

Kolhoff, A.J., Driessen, P.P., Runhaar, H., 2018. Overcoming low EIA performance: A rapid assessment tool for the deliberate development of capacities of EIA organizations in low-and middle-income countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 68, 98-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.001

European Communities, 2001. Guidance on EIA-EIS Review [Internet]. Available from: http://www.zeleni.org.mk/uploads/media/Guidance_on_EIA_EIS_Review_02.pdf

Sandham, L.A., Pretorius, M., 2008. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 28(4-5), 229-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.07.002

Talime, L.A., 2011. A critical review of the quality of EIA reports in Lesotho [Master’s thesis]. Bloemfontein: University of Free State.

Rathi, A.K.A., 2017. Evaluation of project-level environmental impact assessment and SWOT analysis of EIA process in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 67, 31-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.08.004

Rathi, A.K.A., 2021. Handbook of environmental impact assessment: Concepts and practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne.

Kagstrom, M., 2016. Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: How consultants guide quality in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 60, 169-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.05.003

IAIA, I.E.A., 1999. Principles on environmental impact assessment best practice. International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND. and Institute of Environmental Assessment: Lincoln.

Rathi, A.K.A., 2017. Environmental impact assessment: Good quality report preparation. Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering. 59(1), 41-52.

Bond, A., Fischer, T.B., Fothergill, J., 2017. Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 63, 160-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2016.12.001

Nisbet, J., João, E., 2022. A framework for evaluating enhancement quality as part of the EIA process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 96, 106806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106806

Marshall, R., Arts, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2005. International principles for best practice EA follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 23(3), 175-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765490

Rathi, A.K.A., 2021. The need for a robust review system to improve the quality of environmental impact statements: An Indian case study analysis. Environmental Protection Research. 1(1), 38-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37256/epr.112021948

Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., et al., 2013. Designing an effective sustainability assessment process. Sustainability assessment: Pluralism, practice and progress. Routledge: London.

Runhaar, H., van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P., et al., 2013. Environmental assessment in the Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 39, 13-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003

Cashmore, M., Christophilopoulos, E., Cobb, D., 2002. An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece. Journal of Environmental Assessment and Policy Management. 4, 371-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/s1464333202001121

Duarte, C.G., Sanchez, L.E., 2020. Addressing significant impacts coherently in environmental impact statements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 82, 106373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106373

Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., et al., 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 22, 295-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765860

Lyhne, I., Van Laerhoven, F., Cashmore, M., et al., 2017. Theorising EIA effectiveness: A contribution based on the Danish system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 62, 240-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.12.002

Caro-Gonzalez, A.L., Toro, J., Zamorano, M., 2021. Effectiveness of environmental impact statement methods: A Colombian case study. Journal of Environmental Management. 300, 113659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113659

Chanchitpricha, C., Bond, A., 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 43, 65-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006

Sadler, B., 1996. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance, Final report. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada: Ottawa.

Gibson, R.B., Doelle, M., Sinclair, A.J., 2015. Fulfilling the promise: Basic components of next-generation environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice. 29, 251-276.

Hanna, K., Noble, B.F., 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 33, 116-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.992672

IEMA, 2015. Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Shaping Quality Development [Internet] [cited 2022 Apr 3]. Available from: https://www.iema.net/resources/iema-essential-reading

IAIA, 2021. Resilience assessment: International best practice principles. International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND.

Wood, C., 2003. Environmental impact assessment: A comparative review, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall: UK.

Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment, 2003. Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 21, 231-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766293

Lawrence, D.P., 2003. Environmental impact assessment: Practical solutions to recurrent problems. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Gibson, R.E., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., et al., 2005. Sustainability assessment: Criteria, processes and applications. Earthscan Publications: Sterling, VA.

Andre, P., Enserink, B., Connor, D., et al., 2006. Public participation: International best practice principles. Special publication series No. 4. International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND.

Noble, B., 2010. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: A guide to principles and practice. Oxford University Press: Don Mills, ON.

Vanclay F, Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I., et al., 2015. Social impact assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND.

Morrison-Saunders, A., Arts, J., Bond, A., et al., 2021. Reflecting on, and revising, international best practice principles for EIA follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 89, 106596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106596

O’Faircheallaigh, C., 2017. Shaping projects, shaping impacts: Community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. Third World Quarterly. 38(5), 1181-1197.

Jha-Thakur, U., Khosravi, F., 2021. Beyond 25 years of EIA in India: Retrospection and way forward. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 87, 106533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106533

Annandale, D., Taplin, R., 2003. Is environmental impact assessment regulation a “burden” to private firms? Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 23, 383-397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00002-7

Enríquez-de-Salamanca, A., 2021. Simplified environmental impact assessment processes: Review and implementation proposals. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 90, 106640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106640

European Union, 2014. Consolidated Text: Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (Codification) [Internet] [cited 2021 Dec 14]. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/92/2014-05-15

MOEF, 2006. Environmental impact assessment notification. Ministry of Environment and Forests: New Delhi.

Rathi, A.K.A., 2016. Environmental impact assessment: A practical guide for professional practice. Akar Unlimited: Ahmedabad.

Caro, A.L., Toro, J.J., 2016. Effectiveness index for environmental impact assessment methodologies. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 203, 73-86. DOI: https://doi:10.2495/EID160071

Rathi, A.K.A., 2022. Is “consideration of alternatives” in project-level environmental impact assessment studies in developing countries an eyewash: An Indian case study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 65(3), 418-440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1886058

Rathi, A.K.A., 2019. Development of environmental management program in environmental impact assessment reports and evaluation of its robustness: An Indian case study. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(5), 421-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1558745

Morrison-Saunders, A., Art, J., 2004. Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. Earthscan: London.

Arts, J., Caldwell, P., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2019. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: Good practice and future directions-findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 19(3), 175-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767014

Rathi, A.K.A., 2018. How robust is executive summary in an environmental impact assessment report for decision-making: An Indian case study. Current World Environment. 13, 4-10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.13

UNEP, 2002. Environmental impact assessment training resource manual, 2nd edition. United Nations Environment Program: Geneva.

Rathi, A.K.A., 2022. Do the environmental approval conditions enable the best practice EIA follow-up and hence strengthen the EIA system? An Indian case study analysis. Macro Management & Public Policies. 4(2), 10-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v4i2.4729

Pinto, E., Morrison-Saunders, A., Bond, A., et al., 2019. Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up. Journal of Environment Assessment and Policy Management. 21(2), 195008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S146433321950008X

Allan, C., Curtis, A., 2003. Learning to implement adaptive management. Natural Resource Management. 6(1), 25-30.

Gonzalez, A., Therivel, R., 2022. Raising the game in environmental assessment: Insights from tiering practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 92, 106695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106695

Franks, D.M., Brereton, D., Moran, C.J., 2010. Managing the cumulative impacts of coal mining on regional communities and environments in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(4), 299-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12838715793129

Gunn, J., Noble, B.F., 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 31(2), 154-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003

European Community, 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment [Internet] [cited 2021 Oct 4]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042

Therivel, R., 2010. Strategic environmental assessment in action, 2nd edition. Earthscan: Abingdon.

White, L., Noble, B.F., 2013. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of academic research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 42, 60-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.10.003

Polido, A., Ramos, T.B., 2015. Towards effective scoping in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 33(3), 171-183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.993155

Sánchez, L.E., Silva-Sánchez, S.S., 2008. Tiering strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment in highway planning in São Paulo, Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 28, 515-522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.001

Therivel, R., González, A., 2020. Is SEA worth it? Short-term costs v. long-term benefits of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 83, 106411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106411

Lawrence, D.P., 2007. Impact significance determination—Back to basics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27, 755-769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.011

Briggs, S., Hudson, M.D., 2013. Determination of significance in ecological impact assessment: Past change, current practice and future improvements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 38, 16-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.003

Morrison-Saunders, A., 2018. Advanced introduction to environmental impact assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.

Thomas, F., 2008. Scoping in Environmental Assessment [Internet] [cited 2022 Aug 2]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/2675273/13_Scoping_in_environmental_assessment

MOEF, 2015. Standard terms of reference (TOR) for EIA/EMP report for projects/activities requiring environmental clearance under EIA notification 2006. Ministry of Environment and Forests: New Delhi.

Veronez, F.A., Montaño, M. (editors), 2015. EIA effectiveness: Conceptual basis for an integrative approach. IAIA15 Conference Proceedings of Impact Assessment in the Digital Era; 2015 Apr 20-21; Florence. International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND.

Rathi, A.K.A., 2023. Integration of the standalone ‘risk assessment’ section in project level environmental impact assessment reports for value addition: An Indian case analysis. Sustainability. 15, 2296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032296

Anifowose, B., Lawler, D.M., van der Horst, D., et al., 2016. A systematic quality assessment of environmental impact statements in the oil and gas industry. Science and Total Environment. 572, 570-585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.083

Momtaz, S., Kabir, S.M.Z., 2018. Effective environmental impact assessment system: The need for an integrated holistic approach. Evaluating environmental and social impact assessment in developing countries, 2nd edition. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Paliwal, R., 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 26(5), 492-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.004

Bindra, P.S., Rawat, V., 2020. EIA 2020 Legitimises Environmental Damage [Internet] [cited 2021 Feb 14]. Available from: https://sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/eia-2020-legitimises-environmental-damage

Jha-Thakur, U., 2021. Fat promises and lean performances: Why is environmental impact assessment underperforming in India? Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law. Student Law Review. 7(2), 184-197.

Alshuwaikhat, H., 2005. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 25(4), 307-317.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26549/mmpp.v5i1.15853