Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Concept, Law, Process, Issues, and Current Debates

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for UPSC: Concept, Law, Process, Issues, and Current Debates

In UPSC (Prelims + GS-III Mains), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not just a definition-based topic. It is a high-utility area where environment, governance, development, federalism, and rights-based debates intersect. Questions usually test: (i) legal framework (EIA Notification 2006, environmental clearance), (ii) process steps (Screening–Scoping–Public Consultation–Appraisal–Decision), (iii) project categorisation (Category A/B, B1/B2), (iv) public hearing rules, and (v) policy controversies (Draft EIA Notification 2020, exemptions, post-facto clearances).

Because India is simultaneously pursuing infrastructure growth and climate/environment commitments, EIA becomes a practical "balancing tool" in governance. That is exactly why UPSC repeatedly uses EIA to frame analytical questions on sustainable development, precautionary principle, public participation, and institutional capacity.

Internal Links for Revision

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
• National Green Tribunal
• CPCB and SPCBs: Roles & Powers
• Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle & Polluter Pays
• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)

1) Historical Background: Global Roots and India's Evolution

Global milestones (UPSC framing)

• Stockholm Conference (1972): Put environment into global governance; introduced the idea that development must factor ecological limits (foundation for modern EIA thinking).
• Rio Summit / Earth Summit (1992): Strengthened sustainable development and public participation ideas (Agenda 21); these themes echo directly in EIA debates (public hearing, disclosure, inter-generational equity).

India's evolution

• Late 1970s–1980s: Early impact assessments began with large public projects (notably river valley projects) as a planning requirement.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provided the umbrella legal power for the Central Government to issue notifications/rules for environmental safeguards.
• EIA Notification 1994: First formal EIA notification (now superseded).
• EIA Notification 2006: Superseded the 1994 notification and established the modern system: Category A/B, SEIAA/SEAC, and a defined 4-stage EC process with public consultation.

Prelims Focus

• Years: Stockholm 1972; Rio 1992; EIA 1994; EIA 2006 (14 Sept 2006).
• Legal basis: EP Act 1986 + EIA Notification (delegated legislation).

Mains Focus

• How EIA operationalises sustainable development and precautionary principle in project governance.
• Institutional design: decentralisation (SEIAA/SEAC), transparency and public participation.

2) EIA Notification 2006: Core Legal Provisions (Must-Know for UPSC)

The EIA Notification 2006 (S.O. 1533, dated 14 September 2006) mandates that listed new projects, expansions/modernisations crossing thresholds, and certain product-mix changes can begin only after prior Environmental Clearance from the competent authority.

2.1 Prior Environmental Clearance (EC): When is it required?

• All new projects listed in the Schedule.
• Expansion/modernisation that crosses prescribed threshold limits after expansion.
• Change in product mix beyond specified range (manufacturing units).

2.2 Key institutions and who clears what?

• Category A: EC by Central Government (MoEF) on recommendation of Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
• Category B: EC by State/UT Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) based on SEAC recommendations.
• If SEIAA/SEAC not constituted: Category B is treated as Category A (central level).

2.3 Categorisation: Category A vs Category B + General Condition (GC)

Projects are categorised based on likely impact extent. Additionally, the General Condition can "upgrade" a Category B project into Category A if it is located within 10 km of certain sensitive boundaries (Protected Areas, Critically Polluted Areas, notified Eco-sensitive areas, inter-State/international boundaries).

2.4 Four-stage EC process (as per EIA 2006)

EIA 2006 explicitly states that the EC process for new projects has a maximum of four stages: Screening (only for Category B), Scoping, Public Consultation, and Appraisal.

2.5 Time limits (very exam-relevant)

• Scoping/ToR: ToR to be conveyed within 60 days; if not conveyed, ToR suggested by applicant is deemed approved (important for governance critique).
• Appraisal: To be completed within 60 days of receipt of final EIA (or Form 1/1A where EIA not required).
• Decision: Regulatory authority to convey decision within 45 days of EAC/SEAC recommendation.

2.6 Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC)

EIA 2006 defines EC validity (for commencement/completion stage) and provides typical validity periods: 10 years for river valley projects, project life up to 30 years for mining (as estimated, capped), and 5 years for most other projects (with extension possibilities).

2.7 Post-EC monitoring

Project management must submit half-yearly compliance reports (1 June and 1 December) and these are public documents (available on request and to be displayed).

2.8 Amendments (trend alert)

EIA 2006 has been amended multiple times. The MoEFCC portal maintains a list of "EIA Notification 2006 and subsequent amendments", indicating continuing regulatory changes rather than a settled framework.

3) EIA Process (All Stages): Screening, Scoping, Public Consultation, Appraisal, Decision

Stage 0: Application (Form 1 / Form 1A + Pre-Feasibility Report)

• Application is submitted in Form 1 (and Form 1A where applicable) after identifying the site, before starting construction/land preparation (except securing land).
• For most projects: attach pre-feasibility report.
• For construction/township (Item 8): attach conceptual plan instead of pre-feasibility report.

Stage 1: Screening (Only for Category B)

Purpose: Decide whether the project needs detailed EIA studies. Category B projects are classified into:

• Category B1: Requires EIA report (detailed studies).
• Category B2: Does not require EIA report.

Stage 2: Scoping (ToR finalisation)

Meaning: EAC/SEAC sets Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA report so that the assessment covers all relevant environmental concerns (baseline, impact pathways, mitigation, monitoring, risk).

• ToR must be conveyed within 60 days; otherwise applicant-proposed ToR is deemed approved.
• Exception (Item 8): Construction/Township projects do not require Scoping; they are appraised on Form 1/1A + conceptual plan.

Stage 3: EIA Study and EIA Report (Core technical output)

The EIA report is prepared as per ToR. A standard EIA typically includes:

• Project description: location, technology, capacity, resource needs.
• Baseline environment: air, water, soil, ecology, socio-economic profile.
• Impact prediction: construction + operation + decommissioning impacts.
• Mitigation measures and Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
• Monitoring programme: indicators, frequency, locations, reporting.
• Risk/disaster management, alternatives analysis where required.

Stage 4: Public Consultation (Public Hearing + Written Responses)

Definition: A process to ascertain concerns of affected persons and stakeholders so material concerns are built into project design/EMP.

Two components:

• Public hearing near the site (district-wise), conducted by SPCB/UTPCC.
• Written responses from other stakeholders (via website disclosure, etc.).

Projects that generally require it: All Category A and Category B1 projects, except specified exemptions.

Stage 5: Appraisal (EAC/SEAC scrutiny)

• EAC/SEAC scrutinises application + final EIA + public hearing proceedings in a transparent manner; applicant may be invited for clarifications.
• Committee recommends either grant (with conditions) or rejection (with reasons).

Stage 6: Decision (Grant/Rejection of EC)

The regulatory authority considers recommendations and conveys decision within 45 days of receiving them. EC generally includes conditions (pollution control, green belt, monitoring, CSR/CER, compliance reporting, wildlife safeguards, etc.).

Stage 7: Post-clearance monitoring

• Half-yearly compliance reports (EIA 2006 baseline requirement).
• Inspections/monitoring by competent bodies (often flagged as weak in practice—Mains angle).

Prelims Focus

• Only Category B undergoes Screening; Scoping is ToR; Appraisal is committee scrutiny; Decision is by regulatory authority.
• B1 requires EIA report; B2 does not.

Mains Focus

• Public participation quality, conflict of interest, compliance monitoring, and cumulative impact assessment are typical evaluation themes.

4) Category A vs Category B Projects (with Thresholds and Examples)

Category A: Larger scale/greater impact projects appraised at Central level (EAC + MoEF). Category B: Appraised at State/UT level (SEAC + SEIAA), unless "General Condition" applies.

These thresholds and conditions are taken from the EIA 2006 Schedule and its notes, including General Condition triggers and Item 8 thresholds.

General Condition (GC) and Specific Condition (SC): UPSC "trap zone"

• GC: Category B becomes Category A if within 10 km of Protected Areas, Critically Polluted Areas, notified Eco-sensitive areas, inter-State/international boundaries.
• SC (industrial estates/SEZ etc.): If an industrial estate/complex/SEZ obtains prior EC, individual industries within it may not need separate EC as long as estate conditions are complied with (a decentralisation/cluster logic).

5) Environmental Clearance (EC) Process: Flowchart Description (Text-based)

Flow (easy to reproduce in Mains answers):

Project identification & site selection → Form 1 / Form 1A + Pre-feasibility report (or conceptual plan for Item 8) → Category A/B determination + GC check → (For B) Screening → B1/B2 → Scoping (ToR) → EIA study + Draft EIA/EMP → Public Consultation (Public hearing + written responses) → Final EIA/EMP (incorporate concerns) → Appraisal by EAC/SEAC → Decision by MoEF/SEIAA (Grant/Rejection with conditions) → Post-EC monitoring + compliance reporting.

Prelims Focus

• Remember: Screening only for B; Public consultation generally for A + B1; Decision timeline 45 days after recommendations.

6) Public Hearing under EIA 2006: Provisions and Requirements

Conducting authority: State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) / UT Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC).

Key procedural requirements (EIA 2006 Appendix IV)

• Notice timeline: Member-Secretary finalises date/time/venue within 7 days of receiving draft EIA, and advertises in one national daily + one regional vernacular daily.
• Minimum notice period: 30 days for public to furnish responses.
• Access to documents: Draft EIA and Summary EIA must be made available for inspection (including display on website; full draft accessible at notified places).
• Post-hearing: Proceedings forwarded to the regulatory authority; concerns must be addressed in final EIA/EMP.

Who can participate and what is captured?

• Local affected persons, stakeholders, NGOs, experts, and "other persons with plausible stake".
• Issues raised become part of the official record; project proponent is expected to respond and integrate material concerns into mitigation/EMP.

Public Consultation exemptions (EIA 2006)

Even within Category A/B1, EIA 2006 exempts certain cases from public consultation, such as: modernisation of irrigation projects, projects within approved industrial estates/parks (subject to conditions), some road expansions without additional land acquisition, building/township projects (Item 8), Category B2 projects, and defence/strategic projects.

7) Draft EIA Notification 2020: Key Changes and Controversies

The Draft EIA Notification 2020 was issued for public comments (dated March 2020; published as draft). It states clearly that it would come into force only after the final notification is published in the Official Gazette.

7.1 Key proposed changes (high-yield points)

• Reduced public hearing notice period: Draft proposes a 20-day notice period for public responses, compared to 30 days in EIA 2006.
• Compliance reporting frequency: Draft shifts to yearly online compliance reports (by 30 June), introduces late fee, and provides for deemed revocation after prolonged non-submission; EIA 2006 required half-yearly compliance reporting.
• Validity periods: Draft proposes longer validity windows (e.g., mining project life up to 50 years or mining lease validity; river valley/irrigation/nuclear 15 years; others 10 years), unlike the shorter validity structure in EIA 2006 (10 years river valley, up to 30 years mining, 5 years others).
• Violation / post-facto framework: Draft contains a structured approach to "violation cases", including how violations can be taken cognisance of (suo moto by proponent, by government authority report, found during appraisal, etc.).
• Push for online, delegation, standardisation: Draft explicitly mentions streamlining through online systems and delegations as part of its rationale.

7.2 Why controversial? (How UPSC expects you to argue)

• Public participation dilution: Reduced notice period, more exemptions, and limited consultation windows are criticised as weakening participatory environmental governance.
• Post-facto clearances debate: Critics argue that regularising violations undermines the "prior" nature of EC; supporters argue it brings unregulated projects into oversight faster.
• Compliance vs enforcement gap: Moving to online annual reporting may improve efficiency, but critics question whether monitoring capacity and independent verification will keep pace.

Comparison Table: EIA 2006 vs Draft EIA 2020 (Direct UPSC utility)

8) Exemptions from EIA / EC (What UPSC tests)

8.1 "Below threshold" = generally exempt

If a project/activity is not listed in the Schedule or remains below threshold limits, prior EC under EIA 2006 is typically not triggered.

8.2 Specific exemptions noted in the Schedule

• Mineral prospecting (without drilling): Exempt (with conditions mentioned in notes).
• Exploration surveys (without drilling) for oil & gas: Exempt (with conditions mentioned in notes).

8.3 B2 projects

Category B2 projects do not require an EIA report (a major built-in exemption from detailed assessment).

8.4 Exemptions from Public Consultation (EIA 2006)

• Modernisation of irrigation projects.
• Projects within approved industrial estates/parks (as per conditions).
• Expansion of roads/highways not involving further land acquisition.
• All building/construction/area development and townships (Item 8).
• All Category B2 projects.
• Defence/security/strategic projects (as determined by Central Government).

UPSC Angle

• Prelims: Distinguish "exempt from public consultation" vs "exempt from EC itself". Many projects may still need EC but may be exempt from public hearing.
• Mains: Debate whether exemptions reduce social legitimacy and increase conflict/litigation later.

9) Criticisms and Challenges of EIA in India

9.1 Structural and procedural issues

• Quality of EIA reports: Allegations of copy-paste, weak baseline data, inadequate seasonal/biodiversity assessment, and limited cumulative impact assessment.
• Conflict of interest: Consultants are hired/paid by project proponents, raising credibility concerns (independence issue).
• Time pressure vs scientific rigour: Fixed timelines can sometimes push "procedural compliance" over deep assessment.
• Public consultation limitations: Technical language, low awareness, access barriers, and "hearing as formality" critique.
• Weak post-clearance monitoring: Compliance reporting exists, but enforcement capacity and field verification are often questioned.

9.2 Governance and federal issues

• Capacity constraints: SEIAA/SEAC/SPCB staff and expert availability vary widely across states, affecting appraisal quality.
• Fragmented clearances: EC interacts with forest clearance, wildlife clearance, CRZ clearance, consent to establish/operate—coordination failures can dilute accountability.
• Regulatory capture risk: When development targets dominate, appraisal bodies may face institutional pressure.

9.3 Judicial scrutiny: "Prior EC" and post-facto debate (Recent, high-value)

• May 16, 2025 (Vanashakti judgment): The Supreme Court held that the concept of ex post facto environmental clearance is illegal and struck down measures enabling such clearances.
• Nov 18, 2025 (Review, CREDAI v Vanashakti): A Supreme Court review petition resulted in multiple opinions; the case records that the review sought recall of the May 2025 judgment, highlighting continuing legal contestation on post-facto EC and "balancing" arguments.

Mains-ready line

EIA's legitimacy depends not just on clearance speed, but on the credibility of science, transparency of decision-making, and enforceability of conditions—otherwise it becomes a "paper gate" rather than a "planning tool".

10) Recent Developments and Reform Directions

10.1 Digitalisation and process management

• India has increasingly moved EC workflows to online portals (submission, tracking, disclosures), intended to standardise processes and improve transparency and time management.

10.2 Continuing amendments rather than a settled regime

• The official portal lists many amendments to EIA 2006 over the years, reflecting continuous regulatory churn and frequent threshold/procedure updates—an important Mains critique point about predictability and regulatory certainty.

10.3 Public hearing and exemptions debate in current affairs

• Policy moves to exempt certain categories from public hearing have repeatedly surfaced in recent discourse, raising questions of transparency versus speed in strategic sectors.

10.4 Reform ideas (UPSC solution-oriented framing)

• Independent EIA preparation: Move towards a neutral, publicly accountable body or pooled-fund model to reduce proponent bias.
• Better baseline databases: Open environmental data (air/water/ecology) to reduce "manufactured baselines".
• Cumulative and climate risk assessment: Basin-level EIAs for river valley/linear projects; integrate climate resilience and disaster risk.
• Strengthen monitoring: Third-party audits, community monitoring, real-time emissions reporting where feasible, stricter enforcement for non-compliance.
• Meaningful public participation: Wider access to summaries in local language, improved hearing design, transparent response-to-comments matrix.

11) Quick Facts (8–10 Bullet Points)

• EIA 2006 mandates prior Environmental Clearance for listed projects before construction/land preparation (except land acquisition).
• Projects are divided into Category A (Central) and Category B (State/UT).
• Screening applies only to Category B projects.
• Category B splits into B1 (EIA required) and B2 (EIA report not required).
• Public consultation generally applies to Category A and B1, with specified exemptions.
• Public hearing notice in EIA 2006: minimum 30 days.
• GC: Category B becomes A if within 10 km of Protected Areas/CPA/ESZ/inter-State/international boundary.
• EIA 2006 validity: river valley 10 years; mining up to 30 years; others 5 years (indicative).
• Draft EIA 2020 proposes 20-day notice for public hearing and yearly compliance reports online.
• EIA 2006 continues with many amendments listed on MoEFCC portal.

12) PYQs (Previous Year Questions) with Model Answer Points

13) UPSC-style MCQs (6) + Answer Key

1. Which statement best describes "Screening" in the EIA 2006 process?

   • (a) Conducted for all Category A projects to finalise ToR
   • (b) Conducted only for Category B projects to decide B1/B2
   • (c) Conducted only after public hearing to finalise EC conditions
   • (d) Conducted only for River Valley projects

2. Under EIA 2006, which authority conducts the public hearing?

   • (a) MoEF&CC directly
   • (b) Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
   • (c) State Pollution Control Board / UT Pollution Control Committee
   • (d) District Magistrate alone

3. Which of the following can trigger the General Condition (GC) under EIA 2006?

   • (a) Project within 10 km of a Protected Area boundary
   • (b) Project within 10 km of inter-State boundary
   • (c) Project within 10 km of a notified Eco-sensitive area
   • (d) All of the above

4. As per EIA 2006, which is correct about Category B2 projects?

   • (a) They require full EIA report and public consultation
   • (b) They do not require EIA report (as per Screening outcome)
   • (c) They are always appraised at Central level
   • (d) They are exempt from EC but require public hearing

5. Which pair is correctly matched (EIA 2006 Schedule)?

   • (a) Airports – Category B
   • (b) Ports & Harbours (≥ 5 million TPA cargo) – Category A
   • (c) Thermal power plants (≥ 500 MW coal) – Category B
   • (d) Townships (Item 8b) – Category A

6. Draft EIA 2020 proposes which change regarding compliance reporting?

   • (a) Half-yearly compliance reports remain unchanged
   • (b) Quarterly compliance reports become mandatory
   • (c) Yearly compliance reports to be submitted online by 30 June
   • (d) Compliance reports are removed as a requirement

Answer Key: 1-(b), 2-(c), 3-(d), 4-(b), 5-(b), 6-(c)

14) Conclusion: How to Write EIA Answers in UPSC

Prelims: Focus on definitions, stages, authorities, Category A/B/B1/B2, GC/SC triggers, and key thresholds (mining, thermal, highways, ports, townships).

Mains: Use EIA as a governance case study: show how it should enable sustainable development, then discuss ground-level gaps (report quality, monitoring, participation). Always conclude with reforms: independent assessment, stronger monitoring, better baseline data, and meaningful public consultation. For contemporary relevance, link the debate to Draft EIA 2020 proposals and the continuing legal-political contest over post-facto clearances and the "prior EC" principle.