BharatNotes Overview
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the cornerstone of India's environmental governance — the process by which the potential environmental consequences of a proposed project are evaluated before it receives clearance. The Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) framework provides a parallel regulatory mechanism for India's 7,516.6 km coastline. Together, EIA and CRZ constitute the primary "green clearance" architecture through which development is reconciled with environmental protection.
Legal Framework for Environmental Clearances
India's environmental governance rests on a multi-layered legal architecture anchored in the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA). The EPA was enacted in the aftermath of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy (and was also inspired by recommendations from the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment). Under Section 3, the Central Government is empowered to take all measures necessary to protect and improve environmental quality. The EIA Notification 2006 is the primary subsidiary legislation under EPA 1986 for project-level clearance, replacing the earlier EIA Notification of 1994.
| Legislation | Year | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Environment Protection Act | 1986 | Umbrella legislation; Section 3 enables MoEFCC to issue all environmental notifications |
| EIA Notification | 2006 | Mandatory environmental clearance for 39 project categories; replaced 1994 notification |
| Forest Conservation Act | 1980 (amended 2023) | Regulates diversion of forest land for non-forest uses |
| Wildlife Protection Act | 1972 | Clearances from National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) |
| CRZ Notification | 2019 | Regulates development in coastal areas; replaced CRZ 2011 |
| CAMPA Act | 2016 | Compensatory afforestation fund management |
| NGT Act | 2010 | Specialised environmental tribunal |
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
What Is EIA?
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Definition | A systematic process to identify, predict, and evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposed project before a decision is made on whether to grant clearance |
| Legal basis | Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — Section 3; first EIA Notification issued in 1994; replaced by the current EIA Notification, 2006 (S.O. 1533(E), dated 14 September 2006) |
| Objective | Ensure informed decision-making by incorporating environmental considerations into the planning process; prevent environmental damage before it occurs |
| Regulator | MoEFCC (through Expert Appraisal Committee — EAC) for Category A; SEIAA (through SEAC) for Category B |
Project Categories Under EIA 2006
Projects are classified based on spatial extent of impact, magnitude of investment, and environmental sensitivity:
| Category | Clearance Authority | EIA Required? | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category A | MoEFCC (through EAC) | Mandatory full EIA | Thermal power plants ≥500 MW, major ports, nuclear plants, river valley projects ≥50 MW |
| Category B1 | SEIAA (through SEAC) | Full EIA required | Mining projects ≥5 ha, highways 4+ lane >100 km |
| Category B2 | SEIAA (through SEAC) | No EIA; only Form-I | Small projects with low environmental impact |
For Prelims: Category A = MoEFCC + EAC; Category B = SEIAA + SEAC. Screening determines whether Category B is B1 (full EIA) or B2 (exempted).
Four Stages of the EIA Process
Stage 1: Screening
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Category B projects only (Category A automatically requires full EIA) |
| Done by | SEAC at the state level |
| Outcome | Project classified B1 (full EIA) or B2 (no EIA) based on location sensitivity, scale, and potential impact |
Stage 2: Scoping
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Defines boundaries, focus, and methodology of the EIA study |
| Done by | EAC (Category A) or SEAC (Category B1) |
| Output | Terms of Reference (ToR) — specifies which environmental parameters must be studied: air quality, water quality, soil, biodiversity, socio-economic impacts, noise |
| Timeline | ToR must be issued within 60 days of receipt of complete application; if not issued, deemed granted |
| Baseline data | Project proponent must collect baseline environmental data for one season (minimum) |
Stage 2B: EIA Study and Preparation of EIA/EMP Report
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Category A and B1 projects after ToR is issued |
| Duration | Typically 12–18 months, covering at least one full seasonal cycle to capture baseline environmental variability |
| EIA report contents | Baseline environmental data, project description, impact prediction, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), alternatives analysis, risk assessment |
| Consultant | Must be an accredited EIA consultant (accredited by the Quality Council of India — QCI) |
Stage 3: Public Consultation
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Allows local communities and stakeholders to express concerns |
| Components | (a) Public hearing at or near project site, presided over by a nominee of the District Magistrate/Collector; minutes recorded in local language. (b) Written responses from the public, NGOs, government bodies |
| Organised by | State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) |
| Timeline | Public hearing within 45 days of SPCB receiving the request; minimum 30 days advance notice |
| Exemptions | Projects in existing industrial estates; expansions within existing premises with no increase in pollution load; Category B2 projects; certain strategic/defence projects |
EIS vs EIA: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the report prepared by the project proponent documenting potential impacts — it must be submitted before the public hearing so communities can review it. The EIA is the entire assessment process. UPSC exams use both terms — know the distinction.
Stage 4: Appraisal
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Final evaluation of EIA report, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and public consultation proceedings |
| Done by | EAC (Category A) or SEAC (Category B1) |
| Outcome | Recommendation for or against Environmental Clearance (EC); final decision by MoEFCC (Category A) or SEIAA (Category B) |
| Time limits | MoEFCC must dispose of Category A applications within 105 days; SEIAA within 105 days for Category B |
| EC validity | Typically 7 years for construction projects (extendable); 30 years for mining (with 5-yearly reviews) |
| Conditions | EC granted with specific conditions — emission limits, compensatory measures, monitoring requirements |
Post-Clearance Obligations
- Half-yearly compliance reports submitted by proponents on the MoEFCC's Parivesh portal
- Compliance monitoring by the SPCB
- Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to be implemented
For Mains: The EIA process is designed to be participatory (public consultation), science-based (EIA report), and expert-reviewed (EAC/SEAC appraisal). However, critics argue that EIA reports are prepared by consultants hired by the project proponent (conflict of interest), public hearings are often poorly conducted, and compliance monitoring is weak.
Draft EIA Notification, 2020 — Controversies
| Issue | Draft 2020 Provision | Criticism |
|---|---|---|
| Post-facto clearance | Would allow projects that began without EC to apply retrospectively (with penalty) | SC held post-facto EC is "alien to environmental jurisprudence" — legitimises violations |
| Reduced public consultation | Public hearing notice shortened from 30 days to 20 days; expanded exemption list | Curtails democratic participation; silences affected communities |
| Expanded exemptions | Categories exempted: defence, border projects, inland waterways, solar parks, industrial expansions up to 50% | Removes environmental scrutiny from significant projects |
| Border area exemption | Projects within 100 km of international borders exempted from public consultation (strategic grounds) | Large areas in northeast, north, and western India excluded from public participation |
| Compliance reports | Changed from half-yearly to annual self-monitoring | Reduces oversight frequency; delays detection of violations |
| Violation window | Introduced window allowing violating projects to apply for clearance | Incentivises "construct first, seek permission later" approach |
| Third-party reports | Removed provision for third-party complaints triggering an appraisal | Eliminates civil society watchdog role |
| Online submissions only | Objections required to be submitted online only | Potentially excludes non-digital rural and tribal communities who lack internet access |
The Draft EIA 2020 received over 1.7 million public comments — the highest for any draft notification in India's history. As of May 2026, the final notification has not been issued and has not been formally withdrawn; the EIA Notification 2006 (as amended) remains in force.
The Office Memorandum (OM) route: Rather than finalising the draft EIA 2020 into a new notification, MoEFCC has introduced over 100 amendments to the 2006 notification via Office Memorandums (OMs) — a route that bypasses the public consultation requirements applicable to a fresh notification. Critics (ISB Bharti Institute, Down to Earth analyses, January 2025) note that several contentious Draft 2020 provisions — post-facto approvals, reduced consultation periods, expanded exemptions — have effectively been implemented through OMs, without the scrutiny that accompanied the 2020 draft's public comment process. This has significant implications for environmental governance: the same outcomes are achieved through administrative circulars rather than a transparent legislative-regulatory process.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Definition | Assessment of environmental impacts at the policy, plan, or programme level — as opposed to EIA which assesses individual projects |
| Significance | Evaluates cumulative and regional impacts of multiple projects; prevents environmental damage at a strategic level before individual projects are proposed |
| India's status | No formal SEA framework in India; recommended by various expert groups and committees; some states have attempted SEA for industrial corridors |
| International practice | EU SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) requires SEA for plans and programmes; widely practised in Europe, Canada, and New Zealand |
Environmental Clearance for Specific Sectors
Mining
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Clearances required | EC under EIA 2006 + Forest Clearance (if in forest area) + Mining Lease under MMDR Act, 1957 |
| Key issues | Deforestation, water table depletion, air pollution (PM10/PM2.5), displacement of communities, biodiversity loss |
| Mine closure plan | Mandatory mine closure plan with financial assurance; progressive mine closure; final rehabilitation after mining ends |
Infrastructure (Highways, Railways, Airports)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Linear projects | Highways, railways, pipelines — require EC if passing through ecologically sensitive areas; Wildlife Clearance if through Protected Areas |
| Key issues | Habitat fragmentation, wildlife corridors disrupted, noise pollution, land acquisition |
| Mitigation | Wildlife underpasses/overpasses, noise barriers, compensatory afforestation |
Forest Clearances — Forest Conservation Act
Original FCA 1980
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (FCA) requires Central Government approval for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes (mining, roads, dams). No state government can dereserve forests or permit diversion without Central clearance.
Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023
The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 — also renamed Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam (Forest Conservation and Enhancement Act) — was passed by Lok Sabha on 26 July 2023 and Rajya Sabha on 2 August 2023, and received Presidential assent in August 2023:
| Provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Scope of "forest" | Applies only to land notified under Indian Forest Act 1927 or recorded in government records on/after 25 October 1980 — excludes many "deemed forests" |
| Border exemptions | Projects within 100 km of international borders/LAC/LoC exempted — covers large areas of ecologically sensitive northeastern and Himalayan forests |
| New permitted activities | Zoos and safaris (government-owned), eco-tourism within forest working plans, silviculture operations |
| Linear projects | Up to 0.10 ha for road/railway connectivity to habitations; up to 10 ha for security infrastructure, without Forest Clearance |
| LWE districts | Up to 5 ha for public utilities in Left Wing Extremism-affected districts |
| Surveys exempt | Geological, geophysical, and remote sensing surveys and investigations in forest areas are not treated as "non-forestry activities" — no FCA clearance required |
| Carbon sink targets | Amendment supports India's NDC commitment to create 2.5–3.0 billion tonnes of additional carbon sink by 2030 |
| Gram Sabha consent | Required for forest diversion in tribal/Scheduled V areas |
Criticism: The 100 km exemption covers roughly 2/3 of northeast India, which contains some of the country's most biodiverse forests. Environmentalists warned this accelerates forest loss in already fragile ecosystems.
Two-Stage Forest Clearance Process
Stage I (In-Principle Approval): State government processes the proposal, obtains Gram Sabha consent (tribal areas), compensatory afforestation plan, and Net Present Value (NPV) payment commitment. Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) examines and forwards recommendation. Stage I approval is "in-principle" — no forest land can be broken.
Stage II (Final Clearance): After all Stage I conditions are met (compensatory afforestation + NPV payment), MoEFCC grants Stage II clearance, after which forest land diversion can begin.
Net Present Value (NPV): The economic value of ecosystem services foregone due to diversion of forest land — calculated per hectare based on forest quality and type. NPV rates were revised upward by the Supreme Court in 2008 to better reflect true ecological value.
Compensatory Afforestation (CAMPA)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Origin | Constituted by Supreme Court in 2002 in Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case; statutory backing through Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 (effective 30 September 2018) |
| How it works | When forest land is diverted, user agency must: (a) provide equivalent non-forest land for afforestation, OR (b) pay the Net Present Value (NPV) of the diverted land |
| Fund size | ₹54,685 crore transferred from ad-hoc CAMPA to statutory CAMPA (Supreme Court approval, January 2019); cumulative transfers to 34 states/UTs reached ₹55,292 crore by March 2023 (National CAMPA data); National CAMPA approved ₹38,516 crore for state annual plans 2019–24 |
| Distribution | 90% to State CAMPA funds; 10% retained by National CAMPA (Centre) |
| Use | Compensatory afforestation, assisted natural regeneration, wildlife habitat improvement, forest management, community participation |
| Criticism | Survival rate of planted trees often low; compensatory monoculture plantations cannot replicate old-growth forest biodiversity; long delays in state utilisation of funds |
For Prelims: CAMPA: Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016 (effective 2018); ₹54,685 crore transferred from ad-hoc CAMPA (Jan 2019); 90:10 (State:Centre) distribution; mandatory when forest land is diverted.
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019
Evolution of CRZ Framework
| Notification | Year | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|
| CRZ 1991 | 1991 | First CRZ notification under EPA 1986; established concept of regulating coastal areas |
| CRZ 2011 | 2011 | Revised categories; introduced Island Protection Zone (IPZ) |
| CRZ 2019 | 2019 | Current framework; reduced NDZ in densely populated rural areas; state-level clearances for CRZ-II/III |
CRZ Categories Under CRZ 2019
| Category | Area Covered | Key Restrictions |
|---|---|---|
| CRZ-I(A) | Ecologically sensitive areas: mangroves, coral reefs, sand dunes, mudflats, national parks, turtle nesting grounds, salt marshes, archaeological sites | No new construction; only conservation and traditional use activities |
| CRZ-I(B) | Intertidal zone between Low Tide Line (LTL) and High Tide Line (HTL) | Land reclamation, bunding, or disturbing natural seawater course prohibited |
| CRZ-II | Developed urban areas within existing municipal limits with >50% built-up plots | Buildings permitted on landward side of existing roads; FSI as per town planning regulations |
| CRZ-III(A) | Rural areas with population density >2,161/sq km (2011 Census) | NDZ of 50 metres from HTL |
| CRZ-III(B) | Rural areas with population density <2,161/sq km | NDZ of 200 metres from HTL |
| CRZ-IV(A) | Water area from LTL to 12 nautical miles seaward | No untreated sewage/effluent discharge; no solid waste dumping; fishing rights protected |
| CRZ-IV(B) | Tidal-influenced water bodies (creeks, rivers, backwaters, estuaries) | Similar restrictions as CRZ-IV(A) |
Key Features of CRZ 2019
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| NDZ relaxation | Reduced NDZ from 200m to 50m in densely populated rural areas (CRZ-III(A)) |
| Tourism | Temporary tourism facilities (beach shacks, eco-tourism) permitted in CRZ-III with state approval |
| FSI | CRZ-II areas can use FSI norms as per town planning rules — removes earlier freeze on FSI |
| Clearance delegation | CRZ-I and CRZ-IV clearances remain with MoEFCC; CRZ-II and CRZ-III with state governments |
| Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) | Mandatory for all coastal states/UTs; maps with HTL, LTL, hazard line, CRZ classifications; prepared by National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) |
For Mains: The CRZ 2019 relaxed several restrictions — particularly the NDZ reduction in densely populated rural areas. Critics argue this opens fragile coastlines to construction and tourism-driven degradation. Defenders argue the 200m NDZ was impractical in already populated areas and denied livelihoods to coastal communities.
Wildlife Clearances — NBWL
Projects within or adjacent to National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves, and Community Reserves require additional clearance from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The NBWL, chaired by the Prime Minister, has a Standing Committee (chaired by the Minister of Environment) for project clearances. The Supreme Court's Central Empowered Committee (CEC) monitors compliance in forest and wildlife matters under Godavarman and related orders.
Role of Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Constitution | Constituted by MoEFCC under EIA Notification 2006; sector-specific EACs (mining, thermal power, infrastructure, industry, river valley) |
| Composition | Experts in environment, ecology, engineering, health, and social sciences |
| Function | Issues ToR (scoping), appraises EIA reports, recommends grant or rejection of EC |
| Decision | EAC recommendation is advisory; final decision rests with MoEFCC (Category A) |
| Concerns | Conflicts of interest (industry links of some members), rushed appraisals (too many projects per meeting), inadequate site visits |
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Established | Under NGT Act, 2010; became operational 4 July 2011 |
| Significance | India became the third country globally (after Australia and New Zealand) and the first developing country to establish a specialised environmental tribunal |
| Jurisdiction | Civil cases involving substantial environmental questions; appeals under 7 Acts (EPA 1986, Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, FCA 1980, Biological Diversity Act 2002, PLLA Act 1991, EIA Notification matters) |
Structure — Benches
| Bench | Location | Zone |
|---|---|---|
| Principal Bench | New Delhi | North Zone — general and residual |
| Western Bench | Mumbai | West Zone — Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Rajasthan |
| Central Bench | Bhopal | Central Zone |
| Southern Bench | Chennai | South Zone — TN, Kerala, AP, Telangana, Karnataka |
| Eastern Bench | Kolkata | East Zone — WB, Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, Northeast |
Key Powers
- Suo motu cognisance of environmental issues (post-2012 judicial interpretation)
- Time-bound disposal — efforts to decide cases within 6 months
- Power to award compensation and restore damaged areas
- Orders are binding; appeals lie to the Supreme Court within 90 days
What NGT Cannot Do
- Criminal jurisdiction (must go to regular courts)
- Matters not covered under Schedule I laws
- Matters where the High Court has already taken up the issue under writ jurisdiction
NGT and Environmental Clearances
NGT has emerged as a key forum for challenging environmental clearances, EIA violations, and CRZ breaches — passing landmark orders on river pollution, waste management, and illegal construction in coastal areas.
- Aggrieved parties may challenge an Environmental Clearance before the NGT within 30 days of the grant of EC
- Over 38,000 cases have been filed before the NGT since its inception
- NGT has suo motu jurisdiction to take up environmental matters; its decisions are appealable only to the Supreme Court of India
Environmental Governance Structure
MoEFCC
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is the nodal agency:
| Wing | Key Function |
|---|---|
| Environment Division | EIA clearances, CRZ clearances, hazardous substances regulation |
| Forest Division | FCA clearances, CAMPA oversight, Green India Mission |
| Wildlife Division | NBWL secretariat, wildlife trade regulation, Project Tiger/Elephant |
| Climate Change Division | NAPCC implementation, NDC coordination, climate finance |
Pollution Control Bodies
| Body | Level | Key Function |
|---|---|---|
| CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) | National | Standards, consent to establish, air/water quality monitoring, national data collection |
| SPCBs (State Pollution Control Boards) | State | Consent to operate, enforcement, district-level monitoring, EIA public hearings |
| PCCs (Pollution Control Committees) | Union Territories | Equivalent to SPCBs in UTs |
Parivesh Portal
The Parivesh (Pro-Active and Responsive facilitation by Interactive, Virtuous and Environmental Single-window Hub) portal was launched in 2018 as a single-window system for environment, forest, wildlife, and CRZ clearances — reducing delays, improving transparency, and enabling real-time tracking of pending applications.
Gaps in India's EIA Framework
Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA)
India's EIA is project-specific — it does not require Cumulative Impact Assessment studying the combined effect of multiple projects in a basin or region. The Ganga basin hosts hundreds of hydropower projects whose cumulative impact on flows, sediment transport, and ecology has never been formally assessed as a whole. Expert committees have repeatedly called for mandatory CIA for sensitive river valleys and ecologically sensitive zones.
Post-Project Monitoring
Post-clearance compliance monitoring remains weak:
- Many projects do not submit compliance reports on time
- CPCB/SPCB inspections are infrequent
- Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) are often treated as formalities
- No mandatory third-party environmental audits (unlike global best practices)
Conflict of Interest in EIA Reports
EIA reports are prepared by consultants hired by the project proponent — creating a structural conflict of interest. Independent accreditation and randomised consultant assignment have been recommended but not yet implemented.
Key Violation Cases and Judicial Interventions
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Sterlite Copper, Thoothukudi | 2018 | Permanent closure ordered after protests; highlighted failures in EIA compliance monitoring |
| Mopa Airport, Goa | 2020 | EC challenged for inadequate assessment of impact on Western Ghats biodiversity; SC allowed with conditions |
| Alang Ship-breaking, Gujarat | Ongoing | Environmental and health impacts of ship-breaking; CRZ violations; need for comprehensive EIA |
| Char Dham Highway | 2021 | SC-appointed committee recommended reduced road width to protect fragile Himalayan ecology |
| Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) | 2020 | SC held post-facto EC is "alien to environmental jurisprudence" — key judgment cited against Draft EIA 2020 |
Green Ratings vs EIA
EIA is a regulatory requirement. Voluntary green building ratings operate separately:
| Rating System | Full Form | Governing Body | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRIHA | Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment | MNRE / TERI | National rating for buildings and habitats |
| IGBC | Indian Green Building Council | CII-IGBC | Buildings (based on LEED adaptation) |
| LEED India | Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design | USGBC (adapted for India) | Commercial and residential buildings |
Green ratings focus on energy efficiency, water conservation, and material use — they are not substitutes for EIA which covers broader ecosystem and pollution impacts.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims Focus Areas
- EIA Notification 2006: 4 stages (screening, scoping, public consultation, appraisal)
- Category A = MoEFCC + EAC; Category B = SEIAA + SEAC; B1 (full EIA) vs B2 (no EIA)
- EC validity: 7 years (construction), 30 years (mining)
- Draft EIA 2020: post-facto clearance controversy; 1.7 million comments; not yet notified
- CRZ 2019: CRZ-I (most sensitive) to CRZ-IV; NDZ = 50m (CRZ-III(A)) and 200m (CRZ-III(B))
- CAMPA: Act 2016 (effective 2018); ₹54,685 crore transferred (Jan 2019 SC order); 90:10 (State:Centre)
- NGT: established 2010, operational 4 July 2011; 5 benches; 3rd country globally, 1st developing country
- FCA 2023: renamed Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam; 100 km border exemption
- Parivesh portal: single-window clearances, launched 2018
Mains Focus Areas
- EIA as a tool for sustainable development — process, strengths, weaknesses
- Draft EIA 2020 controversies — post-facto clearance, reduced public participation, expanded exemptions
- CRZ framework — balancing coastal development with ecosystem protection
- Compensatory afforestation — can planted trees replace old-growth forests? (₹54,685 crore corpus transferred; ₹38,516 crore approved for state plans 2019-24 but uneven utilisation)
- Strategic Environmental Assessment — why India needs SEA for cumulative impact assessment
- FCA 2023: 100 km border exemption — threat to northeast biodiversity
- Judicial role in environmental governance — NGT suo motu, compensation jurisprudence
- EIA as environmental democracy: the public hearing stage is the most contested — community voice vs. project viability
- CRZ 2019 relaxation: coastal development opportunity vs. ecosystem degradation and climate vulnerability from rising sea levels
- Forest Amendment 2023: security imperative (100 km border exemption) vs. tribal rights under FRA 2006 and biodiversity conservation in northeast India
- EIA Draft 2020: post-facto regularisation normalises violation and signals enforcement failure; "ease of doing business" vs. environmental democracy
Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims
(UPSC CSE Prelims 2021): "Environmental Impact Assessment in India (EIA) is governed under which Act?" — Environment Protection Act, 1986
(UPSC CSE Prelims 2020): "With reference to NGT: (1) Established by Act of Parliament. (2) Benches in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bhopal. (3) Follows Civil Procedure Code." — Statements (1) and (2) correct; (3) incorrect — NGT is NOT bound by CPC.
(UPSC CSE Prelims 2019): "CAMPA funds are used for which purposes?" — Afforestation, assisted natural regeneration, wildlife conservation — all are correct.
(UPSC CSE Prelims 2017): "CRZ-I covers?" — Ecologically sensitive areas including mangroves, coral reefs, intertidal zone between LTL and HTL.
Mains
(GS3 — 2020): "Elaborate on the procedure for giving environmental clearances under EIA Notification 2006. What are the gaps in the EIA framework in India?" (250 words)
(GS3 — 2018): "Examine the role of the National Green Tribunal in enforcing environmental laws in India. What challenges does it face?" (250 words)
(GS3 — 2016): "How is forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act different from environmental clearance under EIA Notification? Why are both required for mining projects?" (150 words)
(GS3 — 2014): "Discuss the salient features of the CAMPA Act. How does the law seek to address the problem of forest degradation through compensatory afforestation?" (200 words)
Mnemonic for EIA stages: Study Scope People Approve = Screening → Scoping → Public Consultation → Appraisal
Cross-paper relevance
- GS3 — Environment (primary) — EIA Notification 2006; CRZ Notification 2019; Forest Clearance stages (FC Stage I/II); EIA process: screening, scoping, public hearing, appraisal; National Green Tribunal (NGT)
- GS2 — Governance: MoEFCC as apex environment regulator; SEAC (State Expert Appraisal Committees); conflict between development and environment clearances; NGT as environmental judiciary
- GS4 (Ethics) — Environment vs. development dilemma in clearance process; right of affected communities to information and hearing; lobbying and clearance manipulation
- Essay — "Environmental clearance has become a rubber stamp rather than a safeguard" (recurring regulatory capture critique)
Recent Developments (2024–2026)
EIA 2024 Amendments — Speed vs Quality Trade-off
(The PARIVESH portal — launched 2018 as single-window for EC/FC/WL/CRZ clearances — is covered in the Institutional Framework section above. This section analyses whether faster clearance timelines improve or weaken environmental governance.)
The 2024 EIA amendments and PARIVESH-enabled processing reduced average Category B clearance times from 180 to 130 days, and over 15,000 environmental clearances are now processed annually through the portal. The government frames this as "ease of doing business" — reducing regulatory delays that held up infrastructure and industrial investment.
The Office Memorandum route — governance by stealth. As noted above (Draft EIA 2020 section), MoEFCC has introduced over 100 changes to the 2006 notification via OMs, bypassing the public consultation process applicable to a fresh notification. This includes changes mirroring Draft 2020 provisions on post-facto clearances and reduced consultation. The ISB Bharti Institute (January 2025) describes this as "a step backward" — administrative dilution without democratic scrutiny.
The post-facto regularisation paradox. The 2021 amendment permitted regularisation of violations committed before obtaining environmental clearance — premised on the idea that existing industries could comply with corrective conditions rather than face closure. By 2024, more than 2,500 post-facto regularisations had been granted. The Supreme Court ruling in Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) had explicitly held that post-facto EC is "alien to environmental jurisprudence." The scale of regularisations signals that non-compliance is being normalised rather than deterred — undermining the precautionary principle that EIA is designed to enforce.
The 130-day benchmark question. Faster clearance means either (a) the process has become more efficient, or (b) scrutiny has been reduced. The EIA process depends on the quality of the EIA report — which is still prepared by consultants hired by the project proponent. Faster review of a structurally compromised document does not improve environmental outcomes. Independent quality audits of EIA reports (done in the UK and EU) remain absent in India.
AMRUT 2.0 — the clearance-implementation gap at scale. The AMRUT 2.0 mission (approved till 2025-26, targeting 2.68 crore tap connections and 6,000 MLD sewage treatment capacity) illustrates another facet: while clearances are being granted faster, implementation is lagging. A Parliamentary Standing Committee report (December 2025) noted that of 133 water treatment plants approved under AMRUT 2.0, only 2 have been completed (less than 1%). Works worth ₹23,016 crore are physically complete (Feb 2026 data). Faster environmental clearance at the front end does not translate into faster project delivery — the bottleneck has shifted downstream to land acquisition, contractor capacity, and ULB financing.
Environmental democracy cost. The public hearing window is a statutory right under EIA 2006. 2024 amendments retain the 30-day public hearing requirement but allow simultaneous processing — compressing the effective consultation window. For communities near project sites (often adivasi or coastal fishing communities), this is a governance access issue that Mains GS-2 and GS-4 questions directly probe.
UPSC angle (Mains GS-2/GS-3): The EIA speed-quality trade-off, OM-route governance bypass, post-facto regularisation controversy, AMRUT implementation gap, and environmental democracy cost are five distinct analytical angles — each worth a paragraph in a 15-mark Mains answer.
CRZ 2019 — Legal Challenges and Western Ghats ESA (2024–2026)
The CRZ Notification 2019 has been subject to ongoing legal challenge. In November 2024, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) expanded the scope of a challenge to the CRZ 2019 to include coastal zone management authorities of all coastal states and Union territories; the larger bench was scheduled to hear the challenge in December 2025. Critics argue the 2019 notification dislodged the Hazard Line (marking tidal ingress from sea-level rise) from regulatory planning and undermined the precautionary principle approach embedded in the CRZ 2011 notification. The CRZ 2019 received amendments in November 2021 and November 2022; no formal amendment has been issued in 2024-25.
Western Ghats Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) — Sixth Draft (2025): The Union government reissued a draft notification for the sixth time proposing to classify parts of the Western Ghats across six states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu) as ESAs — designating 56,825.7 sq km of the Western Ghats. The proposed ESA restrictions include a complete ban on mining, quarrying, and sand mining; no new thermal power projects; prohibition on new 'Red category' industries; and restriction on construction projects above 20,000 sq metres. Despite six iterations over a decade, the draft has not attained final notification status because concerned states — particularly Kerala — have objected to specific area inclusions. The draft is open for public comments for 60 days.
UPSC angle: CRZ 2019 zone classifications (I through IV), NDZ widths, the November 2024 NGT challenge, Western Ghats ESA sixth draft (56,825.7 sq km), and the pattern of draft ESA non-finalisation are Prelims and Mains content.
National Green Tribunal — Key Directions 2024
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established under the NGT Act 2010, delivered several landmark directions in 2024: (a) directing states to complete groundwater-based water body restoration within 18 months; (b) ordering ₹300 crore penalty on a major steel company for unmitigated dust emissions violating EIA conditions; (c) directing real-time monitoring of industrial effluents from 750 cluster industries (pharmaceuticals, textiles, tanneries) to be integrated with CPCB's OCEMS (Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System).
The NGT's Suo Motu cognisance jurisdiction was reinforced in 2024 via a Supreme Court ruling affirming that the NGT can take up environmental matters even without a petition, making it one of the world's most proactive environmental courts. India's NGT is one of only a few countries globally with a dedicated environmental adjudication tribunal.
UPSC angle: NGT Act 2010, suo motu jurisdiction, OCEMS, NGT penalty powers, and key 2024 directions are Prelims and Mains data points.
Vocabulary
Key Terms
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
- Pronunciation: /ˈɛkspɜːrt əˈpreɪzəl kəˈmɪti/
- Definition: A multi-disciplinary committee constituted by MoEFCC under the EIA Notification 2006, comprising experts in environmental science, ecology, engineering, health, and social sciences, tasked with scoping (determining Terms of Reference), appraising EIA reports, and recommending grant or rejection of environmental clearance for Category A projects — the equivalent state body is the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for Category B.
- UPSC Relevance: GS3 (Environment). Prelims: EAC for Category A (MoEFCC), SEAC for Category B (SEIAA). Mains: effectiveness of EAC system; structural reforms needed (conflict of interest, randomised consultant assignment, mandatory site visits).
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)
- Pronunciation: /ˈkæmpə/
- Definition: A statutory body established under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 (effective 2018), to manage funds collected from user agencies that divert forest land — funds (comprising NPV of diverted forests, compensatory afforestation costs) are used for afforestation, forest management, wildlife habitat improvement, and community participation.
- UPSC Relevance: GS3 (Environment, Biodiversity). Prelims: CAMPA Act 2016 (effective 2018), ₹54,685 crore transferred from ad-hoc CAMPA (Jan 2019), 90:10 state:centre distribution. Mains: evaluate compensatory afforestation as a forest conservation tool; planted monocultures cannot replicate biodiversity of old-growth forests.
Sources: MoEFCC (EIA Notification 2006, CRZ Notification 2019, CAMPA Act 2016), environmentclearance.nic.in, pib.gov.in (Draft EIA 2020), Supreme Court judgments (Alembic Pharmaceuticals 2020 on post-facto EC; Common Cause v. Union of India; Godavarman case), NCSCM, Down to Earth (EIA Draft 2020 analysis)
