Introduction
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ensures that development projects balance economic growth with environmental sustainability. Since its inception in 1994 under the Environment Protection Act, the EIA process has safeguarded ecosystems while enabling industrial and infrastructure development. By evaluating the potential environmental consequences of projects, it provides a framework for mitigating adverse impacts and promoting sustainable practices.
Over the years, the EIA framework has evolved, with amendments aiming to streamline clearance processes and reduce bureaucratic hurdles. However, such changes have often sparked concerns about diluting public consultation and regulatory oversight. The 2020 Draft EIA Notification, introduced in March 2020, is no exception. While proposed to modernise the clearance process, the draft has faced criticism for weakening environmental safeguards.
What’s more concerning is the delay in finalising the draft. Public consultations, extended until December 2021, received extensive feedback, but as of 2025, the draft remains unfinalised. Meanwhile, over 100 changes to the 2006 EIA notification have been introduced through office memorandums (OMs). Many of these changes mirror contentious provisions of the draft, such as post-facto approvals and reduced consultation periods, bypassing public and parliamentary scrutiny.
The Importance of Environmental Impact Assessment
The EIA process evaluates the potential environmental risks of development projects, recommending strategies to mitigate adverse impacts. It ensures projects align with sustainable development goals while addressing critical issues such as habitat destruction, pollution, and resource depletion.
Public participation is the cornerstone of EIA. By empowering communities to voice concerns, the process promotes transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. For instance, in Goa, local stakeholders successfully stalled a proposed highway project through EIA hearings, citing its potential impact on mangroves and livelihoods. Such instances highlight how public engagement strengthens decision-making by incorporating ground realities often overlooked by project proponents.
Key Changes in the Draft EIA 2020
The Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020 introduces several significant amendments aimed at streamlining environmental clearance processes. However, these changes have sparked widespread concerns about their implications for environmental governance and public accountability.
One of the most contentious amendments is the reduction of the public consultation period from 30 days to 20 days. This shortened timeline severely limits the ability of affected communities and stakeholders to review and respond to complex EIA reports, undermining meaningful public participation.
Another controversial provision is the introduction of post-facto approvals, allowing projects to seek environmental clearance even after operations have commenced. This legalises violations that were previously deemed unlawful, effectively reducing the accountability of project proponents and weakening regulatory oversight.
The draft also expands the list of exemptions for certain project categories, including highways and certain industrial undertakings, from undergoing detailed environmental scrutiny or public consultation. Such exclusions prioritise economic expediency over environmental and social considerations, potentially opening the door to unchecked industrialisation.
These changes, while intended to expedite development, risk compromising ecological integrity, sidelining community voices, and fostering a perception that environmental protection is secondary to economic growth. The resulting trade-offs could have far-reaching consequences for India’s environment and society.
Perspectives on EIA 2020: Advocacy and Criticism
The Draft EIA 2020 has sparked diverse reactions from stakeholders, reflecting a wide spectrum of perspectives on its potential impact.
Environmental activists have raised their alarm, viewing the 2020 draft as a dilution of critical safeguards. They argue that reduced public consultation periods and post-facto approvals weaken environmental governance and undermine the rights of local communities. For instance, in 2020, widespread protests erupted across India, including online campaigns like #ScrapEIA2020, where environmentalists highlighted concerns about the draft’s implications for fragile ecosystems such as the Western Ghats and the biodiversity-rich regions of Arunachal Pradesh. Activists also point to cases like the Dibang Valley hydropower project in Arunachal Pradesh, where exemptions in the environmental clearance process could pave the way for large-scale deforestation and displacement of indigenous communities.
Furthermore, the exemption of certain projects from scrutiny, such as coal mining expansions, has been criticised for facilitating unchecked environmental degradation. Critics emphasise that prioritising industrial convenience over ecological protection risks irreversible damage to biodiversity and livelihoods, posing long-term threats to India’s environmental sustainability.
Conversely, industrialists advocate for the amendments, praising them as necessary steps to accelerate economic growth and attract investment. Reports in business publications, such as The Economic Times, have highlighted that simplified clearance processes under the draft could reduce project delays significantly, enabling faster implementation of infrastructure and industrial projects, especially in critical sectors like mining, manufacturing, and renewable energy. Proponents argue that streamlined regulations will improve India’s ranking in global ease-of-doing-business indices, fostering a more investment-friendly environment.
Experts, however, adopt a more nuanced stance. Environmental scholars and policy analysts, as reported in The Hindu and Down To Earth, acknowledge the need for efficiency in the clearance process but caution against compromising public participation and environmental safeguards. For instance, they cite the potential risks of prioritising speed over due diligence, which could lead to poorly assessed projects causing long-term ecological damage.
Political Dimensions of EIA
The Draft EIA 2020 carries significant political implications, particularly for marginalised communities, drawing criticism for its perceived disregard for democratic principles. By reducing public consultation periods and introducing post-facto approvals, the draft limits grassroots participation, effectively sidelining the voices of those most affected by developmental projects. Tribal populations, who depend on forests for their livelihoods and cultural identity, are disproportionately impacted by these changes. Provisions such as weakened public hearings and reduced monitoring undermine protections like the Forest Rights Act, eroding their ability to contest projects that threaten displacement and environmental harm.
Critics argue that these measures exacerbate social inequalities and undermine the government’s commitment to environmental justice and inclusive development. In Chhattisgarh and Odisha, large-scale mining projects have displaced tribal communities, disrupting traditional livelihoods and intensifying opposition to weakened consultation processes. Similarly, in Jharkhand, tribal protests against coal mining expansions reflect growing mistrust in the government’s intent to protect vulnerable groups.
Economic Considerations
The Draft EIA 2020 reflects the trade-offs between economic growth and environmental sustainability. While infrastructure and industrial expansion drive economic progress, they often come at the cost of environmental health, resulting in deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. The EIA process is designed to mitigate such impacts, ensuring development remains sustainable and inclusive.
Industrialists support the draft’s amendments, such as reduced public consultation periods, streamlined clearances, and post-facto approvals, arguing that these changes eliminate bureaucratic delays. Proponents claim the draft fosters investment and job creation, particularly in sectors like mining, manufacturing, and renewable energy, critical to India’s post-COVID-19 economic recovery.
However, critics warn that prioritising short-term economic gains could result in long-term ecological and social damage. The legalisation of post-facto clearances risks encouraging non-compliance with environmental norms, undermining the credibility of regulatory frameworks.
Benefits of the 2020 Draft EIA
The Draft EIA 2020 introduces reforms to enhance efficiency and accountability in the environmental clearance process. A key improvement is the categorisation of projects into Category A (requiring central clearance) and Category B (handled at the state level, with subdivisions B1 and B2). This segmentation ensures that projects with different levels of environmental impact are assessed by the appropriate authorities, reducing delays and improving decision-making efficiency.
The draft emphasises digitalisation to streamline processes. Online submission of applications and compliance reports minimises paperwork, increases transparency, and expedites project approvals. This shift to digital platforms enhances accessibility for stakeholders, ensuring faster and more efficient processing of environmental clearances.
Additionally, the draft aims to improve monitoring mechanisms through self-reporting by project proponents. Combined with penalty clauses for non-compliance, these provisions promote greater adherence to environmental regulations. Digital tools for monitoring and reporting enhance oversight, making the system more responsive and capable of ensuring projects align with sustainability goals.
Drawbacks and Concerns
One of the most contentious provisions of the Draft EIA 2020 is the legalisation of post-facto clearances, allowing projects to commence operations without prior environmental approval. This undermines accountability, as violations that were previously illegal can now be retroactively rectified through penalties. Critics argue that this approach normalises non-compliance and allows significant environmental damage to occur before regulatory intervention.
The draft also reduces monitoring frequency, requiring compliance reports to be submitted annually instead of twice a year, as mandated under the 2006 EIA notification. This change increases the likelihood of violations going unnoticed for extended periods, weakening regulatory oversight and enforcement.
Additionally, the draft significantly weakens public consultation mechanisms, which are vital for community participation in environmental decision-making. By reducing the consultation period from 30 to 20 days and exempting certain projects from public hearings altogether, the draft limits opportunities for affected communities to voice their concerns.
Recommendations for Improvement
To ensure a balanced approach to development and environmental sustainability, several enhancements to the EIA process are essential:
Strengthening Public Consultation: The consultation period should be restored to 30 days or extended further to allow affected communities ample time to review and respond to EIA reports. Simplifying technical jargon in reports and publishing notices in local languages would make the process more inclusive and accessible.
Increasing Transparency and Accessibility: All EIA-related documents, including Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), should be publicly available in digital and offline formats. Transparency can be further enhanced by live-streaming public hearings and ensuring real-time updates on project compliance.
Integrating Local Communities: Decision-making processes must involve local stakeholders, particularly indigenous and marginalised communities. Their knowledge and perspectives are critical in designing sustainable projects that minimise ecological and social harm. Gram Panchayats and other local governance bodies should play an active role in public hearings and monitoring activities.
These measures can restore trust in the EIA process, ensuring equitable development that prioritises both environmental integrity and community well-being.
Conclusion
The Draft EIA 2020 marks a critical juncture in India’s environmental governance. While its reforms aim to streamline project clearances and boost economic growth, provisions like post-facto clearances, reduced public consultation, and weaker monitoring mechanisms have raised valid concerns about sidelining environmental safeguards and public participation. Economic growth is vital, but it cannot come at the cost of ecological balance and community rights. A sustainable future demands a framework that strengthens environmental protections, fosters transparency, and ensures meaningful stakeholder engagement. Only by balancing development with accountability can India achieve progress that respects both its people and its natural resources.
Author’s Bio: Sunaina is a PGP student at the Indian School of Business (ISB), specialising in Strategy and Leadership as well as Marketing. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and has professional experience in consulting. Her areas of interest include sustainable development, environmental governance, and strategic innovation. Sunaina combines her analytical expertise with a passion for creating solutions that balance economic growth with ecological preservation.