EIA guidelines 1994 and 2006 Notification of Government of India
EIA Notification, 1994
Introduction
- The 1994 EIA Notification marked the formal introduction of the Environmental Impact Assessment process in India. It was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- The notification aimed to ensure that all developmental projects undergo an environmental clearance process to assess their potential impacts.
Key Features
- Scope: The notification listed various projects that required environmental clearance, including industries, mining, infrastructure projects, and thermal power plants.
- Screening: Projects were categorized based on their potential environmental impacts. Those requiring an EIA had to submit an application to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
- Public Consultation: The 1994 guidelines emphasized public consultation, requiring project proponents to disclose information about the project to affected communities.
- EIA Report: A detailed EIA report, including an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), was mandatory for obtaining clearance. The report had to outline the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures.
- Review and Clearance: The EIA reports were reviewed by expert committees, and clearances were granted based on their recommendations.
Limitations
- The 1994 notification faced criticism for its narrow scope, lack of transparency, and insufficient public participation. It also lacked clear timelines for the clearance process.
The Govindarajan Committee identified several constraints in the Environmental Clearance (EC) process under the 1994 EIA Notification. These included:
- A cumbersome procedure
- Excessive detail requirements in applications
- Delays in appraisal meetings
- Time-consuming processes that demanded undue effort
- Reopening of technical issues at various stages of appraisal
- Poor quality of EIA studies by consultants
- Delays caused by other concerned agencies
In contrast, the objectives of the proposed notification aimed to create a transparent, decentralized, and efficient regulatory framework that would:
- Integrate necessary environmental safeguards at the planning stage
- Engage stakeholders through public consultation
- Classify developmental projects based on their impact potential rather than investment criteria
Table highlighting the key amendments to the EIA Notification, 1994, as identified by the Govindarajan Committee:
| Amendment Date | Key Changes and Impacts |
|---|---|
| April 10, 1997 | Introduced Environmental Public Hearing (EPH) conducted by SPCBs; EPH committees formed for fair representation; changes to power plant clearance requirements. |
| June 13, 2002 | Exempted many industries from EIA process based on investment levels; specific exemptions for pipeline and highway projects; investment-based exemptions for projects under Rs. 100 crore (new) and Rs. 50 crore (expansion). |
| February 28, 2003 | Incorporated location sensitivity into clearance process; prohibited certain processes in specified areas of the Aravalli Range. |
| May 7, 2003 | Expanded list of activities involving risk or hazard, including river valley projects and major irrigation projects with exceptions for improvement works not passing through ecologically sensitive areas. |
| August 4, 2003 | Emphasized location sensitivity; projects in critically polluted areas or within 15 km of ecologically sensitive areas required central government clearance. |
| September 2003 | Made site clearance mandatory for greenfield airports, petrochemical complexes, and refineries; no public hearing required for offshore exploration beyond 10 km from nearest habitation and ecologically sensitive areas. |
| July 7, 2004 | Made EIA mandatory for construction and industrial estates. |
| July 4, 2005 | Allowed expansion or modernization of certain projects without prior clearance; provided for temporary working permission up to two years from MoEF, subject to eventual environmental clearance. |
Note: Despite multiple amendments, the EIA Notification of 1994 was criticized for its weaknesses, prompting the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to propose significant modifications. A draft notification was published in September 2005, leading to the revised EIA Notification in 2006.
EIA Notification, 2006
Introduction:
- The EIA Notification of 2006 replaced the 1994 guidelines, addressing many of its limitations and introducing more comprehensive and transparent procedures.
- This notification was also issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Key Features:
Categorization of Projects:
- Projects were categorized into two main groups: Category A (requiring clearance from the central government) and Category B (requiring clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)).
- Category B projects were further divided into B1 (requiring detailed EIA) and B2 (not requiring detailed EIA).
Screening and Scoping:
- A formal screening process determined whether a detailed EIA was necessary.
- Scoping, the process of defining the scope of the EIA, was made mandatory, involving the identification of key environmental issues through public consultations and expert inputs.
Public Consultation:
- The 2006 notification strengthened the role of public consultations, making them a crucial part of the EIA process. Public hearings were required for all Category A and Category B1 projects.
EIA Report and EMP:
- A comprehensive EIA report, including an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), was mandatory. The EMP had to detail the mitigation measures for managing identified impacts.
Review and Decision-Making:
- The review process involved expert appraisal committees (EACs) at the central and state levels. These committees evaluated the EIA reports and provided recommendations for approval or rejection.
- Clear timelines were established for the review and clearance process, ensuring timely decision-making.
Post-Clearance Monitoring:
- The 2006 notification introduced stringent post-clearance monitoring and compliance requirements. Project proponents had to submit regular compliance reports and were subject to periodic inspections.
Exemptions and Special Provisions:
- Certain projects, such as those in critical sectors or requiring urgent clearances, were exempt from detailed EIA requirements under specific conditions.
- Special provisions were made for projects in sensitive areas, requiring additional scrutiny.
Comparative Short Summary
| Feature | EIA Notification, 1994 | EIA Notification, 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| Categorization | Limited categories, broad list | Detailed categorization into Category A, B1, and B2 |
| Screening | Basic screening | Formal screening process |
| Scoping | Not mandatory | Mandatory scoping with public and expert input |
| Public Consultation | Required but less structured | Strengthened role with mandatory public hearings |
| EIA Report | Required with EMP | Comprehensive EIA report with detailed EMP |
| Review Process | Expert committees | Central and state-level expert appraisal committees |
| Clearance Timelines | No clear timelines | Defined timelines for review and clearance |
| Post-Clearance Monitoring | Minimal requirements | Stringent monitoring and compliance requirements |
| Exemptions | Few exemptions | Specific exemptions and special provisions |
Detailed comparison of the EIA Notification 2006 and EIA Notification 1994 (with amendments):
| Aspect | EIA Notification, 2006 | EIA Notification, 1994 (with amendments) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Categories of Projects | Projects in Schedule-1 divided into Category A and B. Category A projects require clearance from Central Government (MoEF). Category B projects require clearance from State Government, which further classifies B projects into B1 (requiring EIA) and B2 (not requiring EIA). | Proponent desiring to undertake any project listed in Schedule-1 had to obtain clearance from the Central Government. |
| 2. Screening Process | Well-defined screening process with projects divided into two categories: Category A (requiring EIA study and central government clearance) and Category B (application reviewed by State Level Expert Appraisal Committee into B1 and B2 categories). | Project proponent assesses if the proposed activity/project falls under the purview of environmental clearance and conducts an EIA study if necessary. |
| 3. Scoping | Scoping defined, with the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) responsible for determining the terms of reference (ToR) for Category A and B1 projects. EAC may consult experts and the public and must finalize ToR within 60 days, after which the proponent may proceed with their own ToR. The final ToR must be displayed on the Ministry of Environment and Forests website. | Scoping not applicable. Terms of reference were decided by the proponent without any public consultation. |
| 4. Public Consultation | Mandatory for all Category A and Category B1 projects, except for certain activities like road expansion and irrigation modernization. The State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) are responsible for conducting public hearings and must finalize details within 30 days of receiving the draft EIA report. The announcement must be advertised in one major national daily and one regional vernacular daily. | Project proponent must write to the State Pollution Control Board to conduct public hearings. The State Boards were responsible for publishing notice of the hearing in at least two widely circulated newspapers, including one in the vernacular language. |
This comparison highlights the evolution of the EIA process from 1994 to 2006, showing increased decentralization, improved public participation, and clearer definitions of responsibilities and procedures.