Indexed in Scopus Compendex and Geobase Elsevier, Geo-Ref Information Services-USA, List B of Scientific Journals, Poland, Directory of Research Journals www.cafetinnova.org
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 08, No. 04
August 2015, P.P.1711-1720
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India LATA R1, RISHI M S1, TALWAR D2 AND HEROJEET R1 1
Department of Environment Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014 2 Department of Chemistry, DAV College, Sec-10, Chandigarh Email:
[email protected]
Abstract: Public participation is widely lauded as a way to make environmental decisions more democratic, to improve their quality, and to enhance their legitimacy. Scholars and citizens around the world repeatedly complain, however, that public participation frequently serves primarily as a pro forma exercise to defend predetermined decisions rather than as a meaningful opportunity for the affected public to influence decision making. In recent years the need to enhance public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the efficacy of alternative mechanisms in achieving this goal, have been central themes in the EIA literature. The benefits of public participation are often taken for granted and partly for this reason the underlying rationale for greater public participation is sometimes poorly articulated, making it more difficult to determine how to pursue it effectively. This paper focuses on the public participation in EIA of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project (SHEP) and discusses their implications for decision making. The current study reveals that there are many constraints in EIA of SHEP such as inaccessibility of information, lack of familiarity with EIA, lack of institutional capacity, hinder serious public involvement. Public concerns in the area focused on safety issues with little consideration of environmental impact. Keywords: Public Participation, Environmental Impact Assessment, Hydroelectric Power Project (HEP), Decision Making and Implications. 1.
Introduction
The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) not only initiated the development of EIA, but at the same time embedded in the process of EIA the concept of public participation (Petts, 2003). At several international conferences following the introduction of EIA, the importance of public participation for environmental decision-making has been formally recognised. One example is the United Nations (UN) 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, which states in Principle 10 of its declaration that “environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level” (UN, 1992). Another landmark is the 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The Convention, which set out minimum requirements for public participation in various categories of environmental decision-making, calls upon signatory states to “guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention” (UNECE, 1998).
Reflecting the perceived centrality of public participation in environmental decision-making, virtually all countries applying EIA have enacted at least some practical measures for public participation in EIA (Boyco, 2010). The importance attached to public participation in practice is echoed in scientific literature (Doelle and Sinclair, 2006, Hartley and Wood, 2005, Kakonge, 1996, Palerm, 2000, Shepherd and Bowler, 1997, Sinclair et al., 2008). Not only is public participation in EIA a goal in itself, there seems to be widespread consensus that public participation is also key to effective environmental assessment. In line with this perception, most research has dealt with the question of how public participation in EIA can be facilitated (Hartley and Wood, 2005, Purnama, 2003, Stewart and Sinclair, 2007, Yang, 2008). However, a closer look at these studies reveals that most scholars are divided over the precise meaning of public participation in the context of EIA. That is, it is not clear what public participation in EIA involves and requires. Furthermore, there is no consensus on who should be allowed to participate in EIA. Lastly, and most strikingly, there is large disagreement as to the specific objectives of public participation in EIA.
#02080428 Copyright ©2015 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India Numerous authors have highlighted the important role of public involvement (PI) in EIA (Grima, 1985, Gibson 1993, Sinclair and Diduck, 1995). Most EIA legislation recognizes this role and calls on project proponents to engage the public in meaningful participation programs. Typically, EIA legislation also establishes detailed public hearings processes as the main vehicle of formal involvement within EIA. The Government of India passed EIA legislation in 1994 to assist in the “conservation, protection and preservation of the environment cornerstones of the Indian ethos, culture and traditions” (Singh, et al., 1994). In 1997, the process enacted in this legislation was amended to include provisions for mandatory public hearings. In terms of research design, the approach taken for this study was qualitative, interactive and adaptive. The primary data collection methods were qualitative interviews, document reviews and participant observation. The interviews were scheduled and nonstructured in nature and included members of the general public in the study area around Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project (SHEP) in question as well as those living in others areas of the Kinnaur District, individual citizens who participated in EIA cases,
1712
officials representing government EIA agencies and project proponents. Data sources of the document review were primarily public records such as statutes, regulations, policies, and proceedings from public hearings, court orders, maps and government reports. Participant observation occurred through attending EIA hearings and other public meetings in the study region. Analysis of the data occurred both in the field and after the field season. 2.
Three Core Values of EIA
As per the Manual in Perspective, EIA Training Resource Manual, United Nations Environment Programme, 2002: 110; the present study follows the three core values of EIA. Table 1 shows the comparison of EIA in India and other developing and developed countries. i)
Integrity: The EIA process should be fair, objective, unbiased and balanced. ii) Utility: The EIA process should provide balanced, credible information for decision-making. iii) Sustainability: The EIA process should result in environmental safeguards.
Table 1 Comparison of EIA’s world over EIA in Developed Countries EIA in Developing Countries EIA in India Well-framed EIA legislation in place. Lack of formal EIA legislation in Formal legislation for EIA. For instance, in Canada, Canadian many developing countries. For It has been enacted by making an Environmental Assessment Act instance, EIA is still not mandatory amendment in the Environment regulates EIA while EU countries are in many African countries Protection Act 1986. guided by Directive on EIA (1985). In developed countries, active involvement of all participants Limited involvement of public and including competent authority, government agencies in the initial government agencies and affected Limited involvement of public and phases. This often results in poor people at early stages of the EIA. This government agencies in the initial representation of the issues and makes the process more robust and phases. impacts in the report, adversely gives a fair idea of issues, which need affecting the quality of the report. to be addressed in the initial phase of EIA. Integrated approach to EIA followed. Mainly environmental aspects No provision in place to cover All aspects including social and health considered. Poor on social or landscape and visual impacts in the taken into account. health aspects. Indian EIA regulations. Expertise in EIA: The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) and other organizations The expertise in EIA is slowly demonstrate that there are a large developing. In most cases, students number of individuals with the Expertise in this area is still in from the developing countries go capability to design, conduct, review Developing stage. to the developed countries to gain and evaluate EIAs from countries of the knowledge of the subject. North. The major portion of teaching about environmental assessment also takes place in industrial countries. The process of screening is well In developing countries, screening Screening done on the basis of a International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
LATA R, R ISHI M S, T ALWAR D AND HEROJEET R
1713
defined. For instance, in EU countries practice in EIA is weak. In most defined list. Threshold values on the competent authorities decide whether cases, there is a list of activities size of the project have been used to EIA is required after seeking advice that require EIA but without any decide whether the project will be from developer, NGO and statutory threshold values. cleared by the state government or the consultees. In Japan, screening decision central government. is made by the authorizing agency with respect to certain criteria. Same in India. Preparation of EIA is Lack of trained EIA professionals A multi-disciplinary approach. done by consultants. Therefore, the often leads to the preparation of Involvement of expert with expertise in selection criterion for the organization inadequate and irrelevant EIA different areas. is fees/cost rather than the expertise of reports in developing countries. EIA team. Scoping process in most developing countries is very poorly Earlier scoping was done by Scoping process is comprehensive and defined. In many countries consultant or proponent with an involves consultation with all the including China, Pakistan, there is inclination towards meeting pollution stakeholders. In many countries like no provision for scoping. In control requirements, rather than US, Netherlands, Canada and Europe, countries where it is undertaken, addressing the full range of potential the involvement of the public and their there is no public consultation environmental impacts from a concern are addressed in the scoping during scoping. Moreover, in most proposed development. However, the exercise. Besides this, funding developing countries, scoping is new notification has put the onus of organizations such as World Bank, often directed towards meeting scoping on the expert committee based ADB and ERDB have provision for pollution control requirements, on the information provided by the consultation with the affected people rather than addressing the full proponent. Consultation with public is and NGOs during identification of range of potential environmental optional and depends on the discretion issues in scoping exercise. impacts from a proposed of the expert committee. development. The consideration of alternatives in Proper consideration of alternatives in developing countries is more or Same as developing Countries. EIA. less absent. Most reports in English and not in the Most reports in English and not in local language. In some case, Most reports in local language. the local language. executive summary is translated into local language. (Source: After Singh, 2007) 3.
History of EIA in India
The Indian experience with EIA began over thirty five years back. It started in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission asked the Department of Science and Technology to examine the river-valley projects from an environmental angle. This was subsequently extended to cover those projects, which required the approval of the public investment board. Till 1994, environmental clearance from the central government was an administrative decision and lacked legislative support. On 27 January 1994, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India (GOI), under EPA Act 1986, promulgated on EIA Notification making environmental clearance mandatory for expansion or modernization of any activity or for setting up new projects listed in Schedule- 1 of the Notification. Since then there have been 12 Amendments made in the EIA Notification of 1994 (GOI, 1994).
The MoEF recently notified new EIA Legislation in 14th September 2006. The notification makes it mandatory for various projects such as mining, thermal power plants, river valley projects, infrastructure and industries including very small electroplating or foundry units to get environment clearance. However, unlike the EIA Notification of 1994, the new legislation has put the onus of clearing projects on the state government regarding the size/capacity of the project. Certain activities permissible under The Coastal Regulation Zone Act, 1991 also require similar clearance. Additionally, donor agencies operating in India like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have a different set of requirements for giving environmental clearance to projects that are funded by them. 4.
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India India, as already stated is on the expressway to development. Rapid industrialization and an upsurge in the number of development projects all over the country is often accompanied with massive environmental and social burdens, principally borne by communities living in the vicinity of project sites. Monitoring tools like EIA, therefore, assume great significance in ensuring sound economic development without compromising on environmental and societal costs. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification which was notified on 14th September, 2006 supersedes the 1994 EIA Notification. The purpose of the notification is to impose certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects and activities, or on the expansion or modernization of existing projects and activities based on their potential environmental impacts. A prior environmental clearance must be obtained either from the Central Government or the State/ Union Territory Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by the Central Government under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (GOI, 2006). According to the notification, different projects/developmental activities have been divided into 8 major heads requiring “Environmental Clearance” (EC) either from Central Government, i.e. MoEF (Category „A‟) or at State Level from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) (Category „B‟). The category „B‟ has been further divided into category „B1′ project which requires submitting EIA report and „B 2′ project activities which
1714
don‟t require EIA report. All categories „A‟ and „B 1′ projects necessarily have to carry out EIA studies along with the “Public Hearing” as per the procedure stipulated in the notification. In the draft notification (January, 19th 2009), revised “threshold criteria” have been introduced for different project categories. Further, an effort has also been made to make EIA procedure more transparent and to provide societal vigil of projects affecting the environment through Public Hearing/ Consultation by moving the environment protection agenda into public domain. 5.
Common Stages in EIA Process
EIA is a process having the ultimate objective of providing decision-makers with an indication of the likely consequences of their actions (Wathern, 1988). The most important thing for the sustainability is that EIA process should be fair, objective, unbiased and balanced and should provide balanced, credible information for decision-making. It should result in environmental safeguards. A key weakness with the process is the lack of a seamless link between the EIA and the implementation phase where environmental management systems, which include a management plan, monitoring, auditing as well as provisions for closure, are required. Although the EIA process varies from country to country, there are certain basic steps that are common to all. Figure 1 show the process involved in EIA in which each step has an equal importance in determining the overall performance of the project.
*GC-General Conditions *EC-Environment Clearance *SEAC-State Environment Appraisal *EIA- Environment Impact Assessment *TOR- Terms of Reference *SEIAA- State Environment Impact Authority Fig 1The common EIA process for any developmental activity International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
1715
6.
LATA R, R ISHI M S, T ALWAR D AND HEROJEET R
Rationales for Public Participation
Why involve the public in decisions that affect the environment? The literature suggests three basic rationales (Peterson and Franks, 2005, Glucker, et al., 2013). First, public participation is seen as an essential aspect of democratic governance (Barber, 1984, Lafferty and Meadowcroft, 1996, Mouffe 1999, 2000, Thomson, 1970, Webler, 1995). Involving citizens in environmental decision-making is understood as implementing a fundamental tenet of democracy that people should have the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them and that decision-makers should be accountable to those affected by decisions (Depoe and Delicath, 2004, UNDP, et al., 2003). Furthermore, theorists argue that public participation vitalizes democracy by reinvigorating citizens, engendering civic competence and building confidence in democratic institutions (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, Fischer, 2003, Mouffe, 2000, Renn, et al., 1995). Second, public participation is lauded as a way to improve the quality of environmental decisions (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, CEQ, 1997, Fiorino, 1990, 1996, Renn, et al., 1995). The basic notion is that better decisions result when a diversity of viewpoints, values and interests are taken into consideration. Diverse perspectives can help ensure that site-specific knowledge and local ways of knowing are not overlooked by privileging dominant systems of knowing, such as scientific expertise (Fischer, 2003, Kinsella, 2004, Peterson, 1997). Diverse public input can solve ground reality decisions that reflects balanced trade-offs between competing interests [Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), et al., 2003]. Citizen involvement is also seen as essential to producing decisions that are sustainable, a much-touted goal around the world (International Association for Public Participation, Peterson, 1997; UNDP, et al., 2003). Third, public participation is believed to foster social legitimacy for environmental decisions by building public trust or even a sense of ownership in the decision making process and by reducing conflict among stakeholders (Beierle, 1988, Beierle and Cayford, 2002, Daniels and Walker, 2001, Ingham, 1996, Senecah, 2004, World Bank, 1999). Despite the widely acclaimed merits of citizen involvement, however, scholars and activists repeatedly complain that public participation efforts too often become „„public relations‟‟ (Shepherd and Bowler, 1997, Katz and Miller, 1996). In other words, public participation frequently serves as a pro forma exercise
to defend predetermined decisions rather than as a meaningful opportunity for public input in a decisionmaking process (Hendry, 2004, Katz and Miller, 1996). 7.
Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project and EIA Process
Prior to Environmental Impact Assessment study of any HEP, it is essential to identify the levels of relevant environmental parameters which are likely to be affected as a result of the construction and operation of such project. Standard methodologies of Environment Impact Assessment were followed in the study of the Sorang HEP. The present study has been based on the guidelines for EIA developed by several workers and institutions like CISMHE, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2005, Clark, 1981, Leopold, et al., 1971, Sassaman, 1981, Lohani and Halim, 1987, Biswas and Geping, 1987). Studies on water resource development projects were also consulted for the present study (Bisset, 1987, Dee, et al., 1973 and Duke, 1979). Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project is a run-off-theriver type development on Sorang Khad, a tributary of Satluj River, in district Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. The construction work of the project was started from 1 st September 2007 and the estimated construction schedule was three years and was expected to commission on September 2010 (Srivastava, et al., 2010). But the work on all major components is still in progress. Now the project is schedule for commission in 2015. The project consists of construction of trench weir across Sorang Khad at an elevation of + 1943.50 meters. The water flow directed shall be fed through + 1.540 kilometers long Head Race Tunnel (HRT) and 183 meters long pressure shaft and 970 meters long buried penstock to a underground powerhouse on the left bank of Tikadda Khad near the confluence with Satluj river. The Project thus utilizes a head rated of 667.15 meters to produce 100 MW of power. The project will export approximately 464 GWh of electricity per annum. It will utilize the natural flow of the Sorang Khad to generate electricity and hence does not involve the construction of a reservoir. A concrete trench weir, with a bottom intake and desander, will be constructed across the Khad about 30 meters in length and with a maximum height, from the deepest foundation to the crest of about 7 meters. The water will be diverted through an interconnecting channel at the bottom of the weir into a desilting basin before being conveyed into a head race tunnel, penstock tunnel and surge shaft. The water will pass from the penstock tunnel into the underground powerhouse that will accommodate two 50 MW Pelton wheel turbines vertically mounted and coupled with synchronous
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India generators. The powerhouse will be fitted with a ventilation tunnel. From the powerhouse the water will be discharged back into Satluj river, via a tail race tunnel. It will enter the Satluj river immediately downstream of the power house site. The voltage of the electricity generated at the generator terminals will be 11 KV which will be stepped up to 220 KV at the
1716
switchyard of the powerhouse. The switchyard will be located above ground. The electricity will be exported to the grid via an 18 kilometers double circuit transmission line from SHEP to HPSEB‟s Kotla Substation (Lata, et al., 2013). Figure 2 shows the location of the Sorang HEP components and Table 2.4 describes the salient features of SHEP.
Fig 2 Location of the Sorang project components (Source: After UNFCC, 2006) 8.
People’s Participation in Decision Making
One of the major amendments made to EIA Notification in 1997 was to introduce public consultation procedure. It outlines the process of conducting public hearing, from submission of report to State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to the specification for public hearing notice, composition of the hearing panel and time period for the completion of public hearing process (MoEF, 1997). Public participation is one of the important aspects of any EIA process. According to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, vide notification dated 14th September, 2006, the public consultation is mandatory for getting the approval for construction of projects in order to mitigate the significant environmental impacts. This mechanism
provides an opportunity to the affected people to raise their concerns about the projects and get them addressed accordingly. Involving the public during project preparation facilitates decision-making on project development, raises public awareness about the projects and their potential impacts, and effective monitoring. However, in order to assess the existing involvement of the local people in the management of the hydro power project and the surrounding area, the author has covered this issue in the socio- economic survey conducted. During the data collection in the study area, it is indicated that 67.24% of the sample population were not involved in any phases of hydropower development and decision making, while 18.96% respondents were aware of the project (Fig. 3.). 31.03% respondents did not respond to the question.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
1717
LATA R, R ISHI M S, T ALWAR D AND HEROJEET R
achievement of its substantive aim, contributing to more sustainable patterns of activity, although difficult to assess, appears to be even more elusive. This may be partly because this aim is ill-defined in itself but it also betrays a failure to incorporate into EIA systems any clear rationale for working to such an end.
Fig 3 Public Participation in hydroelectric power development This clearly shows that even now the local people are marginalized and excluded from any type of participation concerning the environmental management and the decision making of Sorang hydropower development. It is pertinent to state that public participation holds a very crucial role in the decisions making process for any successful environmental management. Public participation in hydropower projects is an instrument that may contribute to the development of forms of cooperation between project and local people. The main purpose of participatory activities is to involve the local population in a two-way communication process, through information sharing, consultation, involvement in the decision-making process, implementation activities and sharing project benefits. Public participation can reinforce their organizational structure which will make them better prepared to adopt new technologies. 9.
Conclusion
Despite the rapid pace of development in general, and for hydro power development specifically, a critical element of the environmental approvals process, namely environmental impact assessment, is in its nascent stages in this area of the Indian Himalaya. As one local individual suggested “there is a failed record of EIA in the mountains. Development of roads, dams and other constriction activities has followed a technocratic model that has failed the environment and the people”. There has been growing dissatisfaction over the fact that EIA's influence over development decisions is relatively limited and that it appears to be falling short of its full potential. Even its most immediate aims of ensuring that the likely environmental consequences of developments are properly taken into account and ameliorated where necessary are only being met to a limited degree. The
This disappointing performance has led to increasing questioning about the nature of EIA and a recognition that its fundamentally rationalist approach is out of step with the realities of decision making. This has begun to focus attention on decision-making contexts themselves and suggests that EIA should be more closely adapted to the processes that it seeks to influence. On a positive note, effectiveness studies also suggest that EIA already relates to decision making in more indirect ways, implying that EIA is yielding more far-reaching benefits than those simply associated with specific project decisions. The continuing aspiration that EIA should contribute to the wider endeavour of bringing about sustainable development has provided EIA with its most strategic sense of purpose but this has not been translated clearly into EIA frameworks, principles or methodologies. Setting about this task would be a means of reestablishing the founding purposes of EIA and giving it a more determinative position in project planning processes. The effectiveness of EIA would be strengthening if a specific aim was to deliver „no net environmental deterioration‟ and, if this could not be demonstrated to require the application of the precautionary principle in decision making. Local people are environmentally aware and more concerned about what is happening to „their virgin environment‟. The challenge is to engage them in the decision making process more effectively. A fruitful area of further research in this regard would be to explore the application of informal adult education as a strategic component of EIA. The issues explored in this paper confirm the need for policy makers to consider fully a diverse array of constraints to the effective implementation of legislative initiatives. References [1] Barber, B. R. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a new age, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [2] Beierle, T. (1988) Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework using Social Goals, Discussion Paper, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 99-106. [3] Beierle, T. C. and Cayford, J. (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. [4] Bisset, R. (1987) EIA Methods: A Selective Survey with Case Studies, Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries, Tycooly International, London, 3-64. [5] Biswas, A.K. and Geping (1987) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries, Natural Resources and the Environment Series, Tycooly International, London, 19:191-232. [6] Boyco, W.M. (2010) Political Opportunity and Public Participation: EIA in Northern Canada and South Africa, Master Thesis University of Guelph. [7] Centre for Inter- Disciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment (CISMHE, 1993) Environmental Sensitivity of Himalayan River Basins, CISMHE, Univ. of Delhi, Delhi. Sponsored by NHPC Ltd., New Delhi. [8] Centre for Inter- Disciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment (CISMHE, 1998) Environmental Sensitivity of Tuivai River basin and Environmental Impact Assessment of Tuivai Hydro-electric Project, CISMHE, Univ. of Delhi, South Campus, New Delhi. [9] Centre for Inter- Disciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment (CISMHE, 2002) Environmental Impact Assessment of Parvati H.E. Project Stage II in Himachal Pradesh, National Hydro-Power Corporation, Ltd., Faridabad. [10] Centre for Inter- Disciplinary Studies of Mountain and Hill Environment (CISMHE, 2005) Environmental Impact Assessment of Pakal-Dul (Drangdhuran) H.E. Project in Jammu and Kashmir, National Hydro-Power Corporation, Ltd., Faridabad. [11] Clark, B.D. (1981) A Manual for the Assessment of Major Development Proposals, London: Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, 1-98. [12] Council on Environmental Quality (1997) The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness after twenty-five years, Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Retrieved June 20, 2006 from: http://wwww.nepa.gov/nepa/ nepa25fn.pdf. [13] Daniels, S. E. and Walker, G. B. (2001) Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach, Westport, CT: Praeger. [14] Dee, N., Baker, J.K., Drobny, N. L., Duke, K.M., Whitman, I. and Fahringer, D.C. (1973) An Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resource Planning, Water Resources Research, 9: 523-535. [15] Depoe, S. P. and Delicath, J. W. (2004) Introduction: In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, and M.-A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public
1718
Participation in Environmental Decision-making Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1-20. [16] Doelle, M and Sinclair, J. (2006) Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 26: 185–205. [17] Duke, K.M. (1979) Environmental Quality Evaluation Procedure Implementing Principles and Standards for Planning Water Resources Programs, Draft Report, Washington, DC: US Water Resources Council, 1-43. [18] Fiorino, D. J. (1990) Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15: 226-243. [19] Fiorino, D. J. (1996) Environmental Policy and the Participation Gap, In W. M. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the Environment, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press, 194-212. [20] Fischer, F. (2003) Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [21] Gibson, R. (1993) Environmental assessment design: lessons from the Canadian experience, The Environmental Professional, 15, pages 12–24. [22] Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A. and Runhaar, H.A.C. (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43:104–111. [23] GOI, Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests (1994) Notification on Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Projects, S.O. 60(E), Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, 13p. [24] GOI, Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests (2006) Notification on Environmental Impact Assessment, Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. [25] Grima, A. P. (1985) Participatory Rites: Integrating Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment in J B R Whitney and V W Maclaren (editors), Impact Assessment: The Canadian Experience (University of Toronto, Toronto). [26] Hartley, N. and Wood, C. (2005) Public Participation in Environmental Impact AssessmentImplementing the Aarhus Convention,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
1719
LATA R, R ISHI M S, T ALWAR D AND HEROJEET R
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25:319–340. [27] Hendry, J. (2004) Decide, Announce, Defend: Turning the NEPA Process into an Advocacy Tool rather than a Decision-making tool, In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, and M.-A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 99- 112. [28] Ingham, Z. (1996) Landscape, Drama, and Dissensus: The Rhetorical Education of Red Lodge, Montana, in C. C. Herndl and S. B. Brown (Eds.), Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 195- 212. [29] Kakonge, J.O. (1996) Problems with Public Participation in EIA Process: Examples from SubSaharan Africa, Impact Assess 14:309–20. [30] Katz, S. B. and Miller, C. R. (1996) The low-level Radioactive Waste siting Controversy in North Carolina: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Risk Communication, in C. C. Herndl and S. B. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 111- 140. [31] Kinsella, W. J. (2004) Public Expertise: A Foundation for Citizen Participation in Energy and Environmental Decisions, in S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath and M. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 83- 95. [32] Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J. (1996) Democracy and the Environment, UK: Edward Elgar Press. Cheltanham, UK. [33] Lata, R., Rishi, M. S., Kochhar, N. and Sharma, R. (2013) Socio-economic impacts of Sorang hydroelectric power project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(3): 54-61. [34] Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F.E., Hanshaw, B. B. and Balsley, J. E. (1971) A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, US Geological Survey Circular 645, Washington, DC, 1-13. [35] Lohani, B.N. and Halim, N. (1987) Recommended Methodologies for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: Experiences derived from Case Studies from Thailand, Environmental Impact and Project Appraisal, 16(4): 255-266. [36] MoEF (1997) The Environment Protection Act Notification S.O.319 (E), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
[37] Mouffe, C. (1999) Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? Social Research, 66(3): 745_758. [38] Mouffe, C. (2000) the democratic paradox. New York: Verso. [39] Palerm, J.R. (2000) An Empirical–theoretical Analysis Framework for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Environ Plan Manag, 43(5): 581–600. [40] Peterson, T. R. (1997) Sharing the Earth: The Rhetoric of Sustainable Development. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. [41] Peterson, T. R. and Franks, R. R. (2005) Environmental Conflict Communication, in J. G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating theory, Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [42] Petts J. (2003) Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment, in: Petts J, editor. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1. London: Blackwell Science. [43] Purnama, D. (2003) Reform of the EIA Process in Indonesia: Improving the Role of Public Involvement, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23:415–39. [44] Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [45] Sassaman, R.W. (1981) Threshold of Concern: A Technique for Evaluating Environmental Impacts and Amenity Values, Journal of Forestry, 79(2): 684. [46] Senecah, S. (2004) The Trinity of Voice: The Role of Practical Theory in Planning and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory Processes, in S. P. Depoe, J.W. Delicath and M.-A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 13-33. [47] Shepherd, A. Bowler C. (1997) Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA, Jour. Environ Plan Manag, 40 (6):725–738. [48] Sinclair, A. J. and Diduck, A. P. (1995) Public Education: An Undervalued Component of the Environmental Assessment Public Involvement Process, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15: 219–240. [49] Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A. and Fitzpatrick, P. (2008) Conceptualizing Learning for Sustainability
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Study of Sorang Hydroelectric Power Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India through Environmental Assessment: Critical Reflections on 15 years of research, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28: 415–28. [50] Singh, G. (2007) To Study the Inception and Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment in the World and in India and to analyze and Comment upon the Environmental Clearance Process in the Country, Dissertation Masters of Science, School of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, 32 p. [51] Srivastava, G., Sharma, A., Raman, K. V. and Kulkarni, A. (2010) Validation Report on Sorang Hydro Electric Project in District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India, Det Norske Veritas, Norway, Report No. 2007-1128 Revision No. 04, 170. [52] Stewart, J. and Sinclair, A. (2007) Meaningful Public Participation in Environmental Assessment: Perspectives from Canadian Participants, Proponents and Government. Jour. Environ Assess Policy Manag, 9(2):161–83. [53] Susskind, L. and Cruikshank, J. (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes, New York: Basic Books. [54] Thomson, D. F. (1970) the Democratic Citizen: Social Science and Democratic Theory in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [55] U.N. (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; 1992 [Rio de Janeiro; Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Defa ult. asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163]. [56] UNECE (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 1998 [Aarhus, Denmark; June 25, 1998. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/docu ments/ cep43e.pdf].
1720
[57] UNFCC, (2006) Clean Development Mechanism Project Design Document Form (CDM-PDD), Version 03, 1-59. [58] United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute (2003) World Resources, 2002- 2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, Voice and Power, Washington DC: World Resources Institute. [59] Walker, G. B. (2004) The Roadless areas Initiative as National Policy: Is Public Participation an Oxymoron? In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, and M.A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 113-135. [60] Wathern, P. (1988) Environmental Impact Assessment, London: Unwin Hyman. [61] Webler, T. (1995) „„Right‟‟ Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluation Yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedeman (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Aademic Publishers. Available at: http://sitersources.worldbank.org/INTSAFEPOL/11 429471 118039086869/20526299/Update26PublicConsultat ionInTheEAProcessAStrategicApproachMa, 3586. [62] World Bank (1999) Public Consultation in the EA Process: A Strategic Approach, World Bank Update, No. 26. [63] Yang, S. (2008) Public Participation in the Chinese Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System. Jour. Environ. Assess Policy Manag, 10(1): 91– 113. [64] Yosie, T. F. and Herbst, T. D. (1998) Using Stakeholder Processes in Environmental Decisionmaking: An Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from http://www.riskworld.com/nreports/1998stakehold/ PDF/nr98ab01.pdf.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 04, August, 2015, pp. 1711-1720
