How can we improve effectiveness of EIA process in India

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

EIA has been legislated in India since 1994 as a requirement for Environmental Clearance (EC). We all know that in most cases, conduct of EIA is perceived more as a "permitting tool" than a process that stimulates alternatives, anticipates impacts/risks and prepares a prevention and control strategy/plan and importantly "value adds" to the original project/program proposal.

 

EIA reports are often prepared on the fly.

 

The EIA process is expected to be "concurrent" to project development and not a "terminal" activity when all configurations of the project are frozen. EIA process is also expected be transparent in communicating project and impact/risk related information to stakeholders and seek their involvement. Ground realities are however often different. How could we overcome this limitation?

 

One of major weaknesses of our EIA system is our project-limited approach. We haven't yet legislated regional, sectoral/strategic EIAs. We therefore miss consideration of cumulative and regional impacts and hence fail to safeguard environment on a regional basis. Our development plans for instance fail to mainstream environmental and social considerations 

 

A lot can be done to improve the present system. I would like to open a discussion on this topic.

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

 

Dear Debashish

I agree with you that there has been a gradual shift in the mindset of project proponents and EIA consultants. One of the interesting influences has been more understanding of environmental credit risks on the side of lenders or investors. If you look at the trail, the Development Financing Institutions (DFIs) played in a role in 1970s to 1990s to set the stage on Environmental and Social Safeguards. In specific for our region, the push came from the World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB). Later under the lead taken by International Finance Corporation (IFC), private banking institutions came together to sign up Equator Principles (EPs). You now see EIA consultants commissioned by Indian and International Banks to do independent assessment of EIAs that have been cleared by MOEF or do additional studies so as to meet EP or Safeguard requirements.

In the early days, there was a variance in the process, scope/content and rigor of the EIAs as required for clearance by MOEF and those asked by DFIs. Over a period of time, due to harmonization (and subsequent modernization), the differences are diminishing (at least in "words" if not fully in practice!!) and an "equivalence" across "country systems" in the region is getting established.  

Two years ago, I did evaluation of Environmental Safeguards of countries like India, Philippines, China, Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan for ADB and more recently I did such work for Bhutan at the behest of the WB. These evaluations showed that while equivalence was gradually getting attained towards international best practices of EIA, there was a significant gap in the "implementation capacity" - i.e.  Ground realities (many of these we have been discussing in this blog) were still of concern requiring interventions.   

One of the projects that I am launching now is the establishment of EIA Training Network for India. This project is supported by the WB. Idea here is to do training need assessment, identify partner institutions in thematic areas, come up with model training modules, conduct master trainers workshops, establish a web based knowledge sharing portal, conduct pilot training modules and then kick off a multi-institutional EIA training network.  We will devise extensions such as certification and come up with blended strategies of learning i.e. face to face, e-learning, field based, mentor driven etc.

Dear members of Indian Environment Network - do write to me with you ideas on above. I will be grateful for your inputs and insights.

 

Prasad Modak

[Debashish Manna]

Dear Dr. Modak,

 

The topic raised by you has certainly been in minds of many but unfortunately not much effort has been put in improving the quality of reports. EIA for a proponent is mostly to get environment clearance and whereas for a consultant is to earn money. There has to be a change in mindset at both fronts. The EIA though is tool to get environment clearance but for the proponent it can be a very useful business decision tool. EIA is normally carried out when a project is still at a conceptual stage. Through a proper EIA, the proponent can ascertain the risks associated with the project. Those days are gone when environmental and social considerations can be ignored. There is plenty of awareness both on the subject as well as the rights. A project might take off overlooking the environmental & social risks, however in the long term there is bound to be a issues that would cost the company much more that risk mitigation measures in the begining of a project would have costed. In my organisation it is ensured that the mitigation measures are not only included in project design but the budget is also allocated for that. During each stage of the project development and commissioning audits are conducted to ensure that the the deliverables have been implemented and only then the next stage is allowed.

 

As for the consultant, while it is an important revenue source, the quality and transperency must be ensured. The consultant should frankly state to the proponent, the actual risks associated as well as indication on cost implications of mitigation measures. Most of the consultants I have seen get on with EIA without proper planning. The reports carry a large section on baseline information, most parts of which are not used for impact assessment. The assessment in most cases will have detailed air impact assessment even though emissions may be absoutely an insignificant component of the project and followed by a very generic EMP which in most cases does not provide the proponent direction on what and how these are to be implemented. Two ares that is completely ignored is the SIA and the QRA probably due to lack of expertise. In many cases these should be the most important aspects of EIA.

 

The regulatory framework presently could have been appropriate, if all other associated regulations were robust and implementable. The powers granted to the SPCBs are mostly misused. The other rules need to be re-looked at along with the EIA notifications. The Air and Water Acts are only limited to paperwork. The focus at the SPCBs is so much on the paperwork that the intent of these regulations is completely lost. All other environmental regulations cannot be in isolation of the EIA notification. Customised requirements for a proponents that covers all regulations should be provided so that the proponents are also clear as well as it is also easier for the regulator to monitor compliance.

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

Dear Thoti

 

As I understand from yourcomment, you are saing that one must have adequate time and appropriate expertise to prepare a quality EIA report. You are also saying that one should state the facts as they are. Agree.

 

For interested members, you may like to visit MOEF home page to read about integrated and interlinked EIA. I will be posting my comments on this new procedure tomorrow

 

Regards

 

[thoti damodharam]

 

dear dr modak

EIA  needs expertise report with sufficient time and technical support on overoll development of the plan. freehands to the cpcb's reporters.and actuals should be represented without any hidings /hegitation

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

Dear Dr Bharat

 

You made an important point on environmental modelling related tools. We havent yet "prescribed" regularory models as done in the United States by US EPA. Some 15 years ago, Dr V V Shirwaikar of BARC, Sharma of IMD and myself (I was a Professor at IIT Bombay then), we drafted for CPCB Guidelines for using Air Quality Models. These guidelines as I believe are not updated and not available easily to those interested.

 

Many of the environmental models used in EIA today are applied by consultants as "black boxes". Few have received formal training and hence potential use and extensions of these models are rarely done - especially for scenario building and decision making. There is also a problem on availability of data and understanding of the limitations of the model. Models also get inappropriately used. Air dispersion models without provision of shore line fumigation are used for instance for coastal based Thermal Power Plants.   

 

On water quality models, I wrote two packages under Ganga Action Plan-Phase I - called STREAM-I and STREAM-II. STREAM-I is a one dimensional advection-transport model with provision to model non-point sources while STREAM-II is a two dimensional model for wide and shallow rivers factoring transverse dispersion. Both these models could be downloaded from www.ekonnect.net

 

Regards

[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Nagar]

Dear Dr. Modak,

Its a fruitful & important initiative, as the discrepancies in the past EIA reports have prompted MoEF to scrap/initiate action against the approved/existing projects. Recently, QCI has intervened to improve by making mandatory accreditation for consultants providing EIA services. As per my understanding, more robust use of environmental modelling tools and associated software, listed by CPCB should be emphasized for scoping and analysis of environmental impacts of related projects. For instance, one could use Total Maximum daily loading concept, as widely used in US for assessing pollution load budget for river stream, based upon its dilution and oxidation potential. Similarly, CPCB should initiate city wide air quality modelling trends with use of their regular air monitoring programmes. CPCB either should be entrusted as exclusive agency for providing air modelling results and should take work from EIA related consultants.

This shall probably improve information related to quantified information available related to environmental impacts of the proposed project, hence providing more realistic information about the projects and bringing quality of reports at par with other developed countries standard.

[Prof Dr V N Sivasankara Pillai]

Sear Mr Prasad,

You have correctly identified the problem. EIA is used "tool" to get clearance from MoEF and to project as a valid score to prove its environmental acceptance to non-understanding public. Just lioke many other rules and regulations we aped the system developed elsewhere. We could not look in to the diversity of environmental setting in which different projects are carried out. The EIA process also does not consider cumulative impacts.

MoEF was "trying" to improve the quality of EIA reports by getting EIA Consulting firms approved. The qualification ad experience of consultants have been sytematically reduced in consultation with "stake holders"

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

Dear Hemant

 

You are right in pointing out that regular updation of data is an important aspect of the Geo-database. This is critical for its relevance as well as acceptance. Quality assurance is another important aspect that you have mentioned. Indeed, this aspect is seldom taken on a serious note. Vagaries in data collection and analyses continue despite availability of elegant monitoring protocols. Data from multiple sources often provide conflicting information.

Let us discuss now possible solutions. One of the critical elements to my mind is need for building awareness, understanding and skills in impact assessment.  I am commencing a project on building such capacities at national level at the behest of the World Bank. Idea is to set up a collaborative network of training/practice institutions in the country where modules on various aspects of EIA are offered. The modules would address needs of decision makers, professionals, project proponents, investors/lenders, research organizations and environmental NGOs. I will post more on this project in my blog as we get to work more. Of course, training or capacity building is going to be just one of the interventions and one would certainly need a multi-pronged approach.

 

PS The EIC you are referring to us perhaps different. The EIC I was talking about was a Pilot Project managed for MoEF by IL&FS Ecosmart India. This Pilot EIC no longer exists.

[Dr. Hemalkumar Naik]

thank you very much sir,

I feel you are really interested in making a good Georeferenced data base for India. I too prefer such system as the scope of manipulation and use of data without confirming AGE can be solved by such system provided the data base is updated timely.

Further, about EIC i would like to tell you that the data delivered by EIC is not up to the mark when we talk about AGE. except some layers the data is almost decade old. Many cosultants are using EIC data, even i used the data many time but when i cited very big gap in data in one case while doing site visit, i decided to stop buying data from EIC. further, the delay in delivery as well as the rate are also not suitable especially when the data is decade (>5 yrs) old. The data base has not been update on annual basis which shall be must to keep the quality up to the mark. Now a days i prepares georeference data for EIA using some opern source data of recent information/resources and three good mapping tools. I also suggest other to do so, as GPS logger with these data can give very good outcome as i have realised in recent past. Even the cross referencing of the prepared data with google impage for GIS related details can also serve as best tool for getting good quality.

In addition to these about primary data i would like to cite a point that the Quality of primary data (especially for water quality, Air Quality, Noise and Soil quality) prepared by almost 95% organisation including reputed Govt. Organisation fails to satisfy the general scientific criteria of Quality Assurance/Control. I have gone through numbers of data for citing this point. only 5% cases i found good quality which is acceptable. After citing these points I started making one system for QA/QC of water & soil analysis. For myinetrnal purpose the system in ready but to make it widely usable i will still require a time span of about 6 months. Other general points i have noticed are the MDL, Uncertainty, etc mentioned in the result are reflecting the values described in the refence method. Almost all are doing such practice and only few people have prepared their own up on the refence method.

Regarding effectiveness of EIA, it is noted by me the EIA process has just became a regulatory procedure for citing industry and thus became one time process. The significant component called EMP & Post project monitoring has just been on Paper rather in report. As part of standard condition in Consent to operate SPCBs give monitoring requiement but it never focuses on quality monitoring. Even the tracking of probable impacts after citing industry with refernce to the described impacts in EIA report as well as mitigation mentioned in EMP has become few words to speak only during the EIA. During operation no one has tried to cite additional impacts, even no body has cited necessary implementation & improvement of EMP. All are just doing practice with so called ETP, APCs, HWM and standard practices of monitoring. So the purpose of EIA can never be solved which is to safegaurd & improve the envionmental status of our country.

Well, as i said earlier, the issue of quality & effectiveness of EIA is very big to discuss and may need lot of times and lacs of paragraphs. I hope i am quoting the writing reason to stop here.

 

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

 

  

Dear Hemant

 

You have raised several interesting points. I will focus here however on the case of "data"" its quality and availability for the conduct of EIA

 

Indeed, we need a GIS based system managed on a professional basis to provide project proponents, consultants, communities as well as regulators & planners "baseline information" that is regularly updated. Such a commonly available, quality information base would help in quality of environmental assessment and subsequent decision making.

 

Years ago, in 2000, I designed for the Ministry of Environment & Forests an Environmental Information Centre (EIC) with the support of World Bank, specifically targeted to meet this objective. The EIC was operated as a Pilot Project for 2 years with pilots in 3 States. Information on land cover/land use; Met data; watersheds, groundwater, rivers and transportation networks, protected areas and reserved forests etc were mapped. Some of the information "layers" were processed for better interpretation. EIC was put up as a MOEF supported service - at reasonable cost so that the operations become sustainable over a long run. Unfortunately, due to lack of decision making on the institutional format (i.e. post pilot project phase), EIC could not "take off" and it eventually got buried.

 

I now understand that Planning Commission and CPCB are in discussion to revive this concept. I am not too optimistic though. I am currently setting up a Geo-Database at my outfit Environmental Management Centre. Will keep you all posted as it develops.

 

Regarding the term "effectiveness", I would like you to refer to the work we did (me and colleagues from the World Bank) on assessment of effectiveness of EIA in India. This work was done in 1997-1998 and focused on 14 projects. You can download this publication from www.ekonnect.net. You will need to register for downloading.  This publication will explain what is meant by the term "effectiveness of EIA process". I will be most pleased to provide you more information should you be interested.

 

Regards

 

Prasad Modak

[e-mail]