Need for a Robust Review System to Improve the Quality of Environmental Impact Statements: An Indian Case Study Analysis

A K A Rathi

doi:10.37256/epr.112021948

Abstract

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, the final output of the EIA process forms the basis for environmental impact statement (EIS) review and decision-making, implying the need for its good quality. This empirical study is based on the literature review, opinions of EIA consultants, and views of experts associated with the EIA system in India. It is inferred that the overall quality of the EIS is below par and there are several inadequacies in the EIA appraisal system. Given the strong correlation between a robust EIS review system and a good quality EIS, a two-tier structured, transparent, and criteria-based review mechanism based on good practices is suggested. Further, it is crucial to adopt a professional approach for appraisal and capacity building of the professionals engaged in conducting the EIA and reviewing the EIS.

Highlights

The third stage of the four-stage environmental impact assessment (EIA) process [1] is the review of the EIA report, referred to as environmental impact statement (EIS) in the literature and used interchangeably in this study, by the competent authority to decide on the grant of environmental approval
The methodology used for the study consisted of: (a) review of the literature related to the EIA review and EIA quality in India from the leading international journals dwelling on the EIA-related aspects; (b) online open-ended questions asked to 25 randomly selected accredited EIA consultants to seek their opinion on the quality of the EIA reports and the EIS review process in India; and (c) views of experts [44] to substantiate the findings from the literature and the opinion of the consultants
The opinion of the EIA consultants that the EIA reports miss out on several basic and important aspects of environmental impact assessment, and mitigation measures and that the quality of EIA reports leaves much to be desired is corroborated by the views of two experts associated with the accreditation process for EIA consultants and who have examined over 200 EIA reports submitted for environmental clearance in the last ten years or so: “The sad fact is that many EIAs are not up to mark” and “The overall quality of the EIA reports is below par

Summary

Introduction

The third stage of the four-stage environmental impact assessment (EIA) process [1] is the review of the EIA report, referred to as environmental impact statement (EIS) in the literature and used interchangeably in this study, by the competent authority to decide on the grant of environmental approval. The basic intention of the EIA review is to determine whether the EIA report: (a) is complete; (b) contains correct and comprehensive details; and (c) could form the basis for taking a well-informed decision on the grant of environmental approval for the proposed project [5,6]. The EIA quality is the fundamental indicator of an effective EIA system, and the improved quality

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion