On 28th November 2024, India’s Central Government — more specifically the Ministry of Mines — launched the first tranche of thirteen offshore blocks for auction.[1] Three of these blocks are for ‘construction sand’ off the coast of Kerala, three for lime mud off the coast of Gujarat, and seven for polymetallic nodules and crusts off Great Nicobar Island.[2] These thirteen form part of a group of thirty-five blocks already handed over by the Geological Survey of India (GSI) for auction with another twenty-four (24) in the pipeline.[3] The news of this auction however, sparked a wave of protests amongst the fishing community in Kerala as the proposed mine sites for construction sand have been identified in “Kollam Parappu” also known as Quilon Bank which is claimed to be “one of the richest fishing zones on the southwest coast”.[4] Due to its attractiveness as a major fishing ground, Kollam Parappu attracts fishermen from across the community including mechanised trawlers, mesh gill net boats, and fishing trollers.[5] Hence, the fishing community believes that commercial scale mining operations in the proximity of Kollam Parappu will irreversibly damage the local ecosystem and severely affect the available fish stock. This may lead to an adverse impact not only on the livelihoods of the fishing community but may also have an impact on the food security of coastal States. Kerala’s opposition — expressed through a state assembly resolution — began the amendments made to the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002 itself, which enabled private participation in seabed mineral exploration within India’s maritime zones.[6]
More specifically, the whole issue revolves around the conduct— or lack thereof — of an impartial and credible impact study of such activity on the marine environment — an “Environmental Impact assessment” (EIA)[7] and has once again brought into the limelight, both the urgency and the complexities of marine spatial planning (MSP) as a subset of India’s Ocean Governance policy and its implementation. The primary opposition stems from the Government of India not conducting an impact study before the notice of invitation was issued. A question was raised in the Rajya Sabha asking whether the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had given any environmental clearances for deep sea mining off Kerala and whether the Central Geological Programming Board — an inter-ministerial body to coordinate mining activities in the country[8] — had submitted any study report documenting the environmental impact from this activity.[9] Vide a written response, the Minister of State in the MoEFCC, Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh stated, (1) that the Coastal Regulation Zone established under the CRZ Notifications 2011 and 2019 prohibited mining activity up to 12 nautical miles from the Low Tide Line i.e., within India’s territorial sea; (2) that the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006, as per the Minister, applied up to the seaward limit of the territorial sea, under which no proposal has either been received or granted; (3) the offshore blocks to be auctioned were located beyond the territorial sea, and (4) the ministry had not received any study report from the CGPB regarding environmental impact concerns. The implication that may be drawn from this response is that because offshore mineral mining is proposed to be conducted beyond the territorial sea, it does not fall within the purview of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 (as amended).
However, the Ministry of Mines, too, in response to this controversy, made public statements stating that the project “will begin only after releasing a full EIA and conducting transparent, inclusive consultations with affected communities”.[10] This EIA, as per the official, will be in the public domain and will be conducted under the “Offshore Areas Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2024”. Additionally, the official also indicated the inclusion within the production plan, a detailed environmental management plan describing essential baseline environmental data, a final impact assessment report — one that would outline mitigation strategies.[11] While there is some indication of such measures actually being planned, when and by whom this activity is to be conducted remains less clear and hence controversial. The local fishermen and the members of parliament (MPs) from Kerala have demanded that an “independent EIA” be conducted before the auction and grant of license to any operator.[12] While the Central Government has opined that the auction is a preliminary procedure and that the EIA will, indeed, be a part of the “production plan” submitted by the holder(s) of operating rights and that this would require government approval before the actual mining begins.[13] Against this convoluted and emotionally charged backdrop, this paper aims to shed light on offshore EIAs and, more specifically, their regulatory structures in India, with particular focus on offshore mineral mining. The paper also advocates a more holistic approach to environmental planning by adopting the concept of “Strategic Environment Assessments” (SEA), especially in the context of India’s transition to a ‘blue’ economy, which requires the balancing of competing interests of different sectors occupying the same ocean space, and ensuring sustainability in the entire set of processes.
Environmental Impact Assessments
As per the “Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for Ports and Harbours” prepared by the National Institute of Ocean Technology (an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Earth Sciences), an EIA is the “process of examining the environmental, social and health effects of a proposed development”.[14] The EIA, therefore, seeks to determine the “environmental compatibility of a project” by identifying the impacts, costs, potential management and, monitoring and mitigation measures.[15] A crucial aspect of the EIA is the collection of baseline environmental data, which forms the basis upon which any impact can be studied. Further, conceptually, there are predominantly four types of EIA, viz., strategic environmental assessments, regional EIA, sectoral EIA, and project-level EIA, each successively reducing in scope.[16]
A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a systematic analysis of the environmental effects of development plans beyond the project level when major alternatives are still open.[17] At the other end of the spectrum are project-level EIAs which consider, largely in isolation, the impact of a particular project upon the environment. Given that there are these multiple types of EIAs, which one to choose is a policy decision — albeit one of great consequence.
EIA in India. In India, the EIA process has been institutionalised and streamlined for the obtaining of an environmental clearance from the Central or State government, through the “EIA Notification of 2006” under the “Environment Protection Act 1986”. The EIA Notification identifies four stages, viz., (1) “screening” (which addresses the question of whether the project requires the preparation of an EIA at all), (2) “scoping” (determination of the terms of reference for the preparation of an EIA and the ensuing Environment Management Report), (3) “public consultation” (where concerns of affected persons and other stakeholders are sought and noted), and (4) appraisal (scrutiny by a specially constituted “Expert Appraisal Committee” for the report). The EIA is considered to be a process that is required to be integrated into the entire lifecycle of the project rather than being viewed as a distinct stage or activity.[18] In fact, environmental considerations play a crucial role while assessing the feasibility of a project — especially in jurisdictions in which indicators of significant resultant harm to the environment may force the operator to abandon the project altogether.[19] Hence, early integration of assessing and planning for environmental-impacts not only promotes efficiency but also ensures that sustainability is treated as a core value with which the project is approached.
The application of this framework to offshore activities is demonstrated in the context of the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons i.e., oil and natural gas. Recently, in 2020, the MoEFCC shifted projects for offshore oil and gas exploration to Category B2 projects while retaining the production of oil and gas as a Category A project.[20] The implication of this move is that exploration activities no longer require an EIA to be conducted nor are the conduct of public hearings mandatory, and a mere environmental clearance from the concerned state would suffice.[21] “Exploration Operations”, as defined by the Director General Hydrocarbons (DGH) is the search for petroleum in the contract area using, inter alia, aerial-, geophysical-, and seismic surveys, etc., including structural test-drilling and the drilling of exploration wells.[22] Given that “exploratory drilling” is a temporary and short-duration activity when compared to “production drilling” (which spans significant periods of time),[23] this move is intended to promote the exploration and discovery of oil and gas wells by easing the number of regulatory compliances and clearances required. This need stems from the recognition that the high costs and delays that would accrue were a detailed EIA to mandatorily be conducted even before the preliminary estimates of any commercial quantity of the product are established, is likely to deter investments into exploration activities. Moreover, exploration is an activity which is conducted right after project discovery and before any pre-feasibility studies.[24] Pre-feasibility studies, on the other hand, constitute the first stage at which a more detailed assessment of environmental impacts is required. In fact, more often than not, the proponents of a given project must apply for an environment clearance along with a pre-feasibility study, which includes the anticipated impacts on the environment from subsequent project operations.[25] It is for this very purpose that in the case of hydrocarbons, the terms of reference stipulate that a “Final EIA Report” is submitted by the project proponent or by an established and reputed consultant engaged by the project proponent.[26]
For offshore mineral mining however, the source-legislation for EIAs differs. The process for applying for approvals is governed by the “Offshore Area Minerals (Development and Regulation Act) 2002” (as amended) and its various rules. A significant amendment to the 2002 Act has been the grant of a “Composite License”, which functions as an exploration-cum-production license to ease regulatory compliances and make things easier and more attractive for private investors. This regime enables an entity to bid for a composite license which if granted, will enable the bidder to enter into an “Exploration License Deed of Composite License” with the Central government and submit an “Exploration Plan” under “Rule 6 Offshore Areas (Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 2024)”. This “Exploration Plan”, however, does not require any declaration of assessed environmental impacts during the exploration phase.
Rather, the requirement to undertake an environmental assessment forms an eventual part of the exploration process. The bidder has the obligation to complete a detailed exploration (G1 level of exploration) and prepare a detailed feasibility study report (Rule 22 of the Offshore Areas Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2024) as part of the composite license. The stages of exploration and feasibility studies have been elaborated under the “Offshore Areas (Existence of Mineral Resources) Rules 2024”. Four stages have been identified for the exploration of any mineral deposit viz. “Reconnaissance Survey” (G4), “Preliminary Exploration” (G3), “General Exploration” (G2), and “Detailed Exploration” (G1) (Schedule I- Part I Existence of Mineral Rules). Each successive phase involves greater detail in estimating the quantity and grade of the mineral deposit with greater level of confidence.
This detail is a product of the methods by which profiling and sample collection is conducted. While a G3-level of exploration requires the collection of core samples, it is only at a G2-level that deeper coring/drilling is required. Part III Schedule I of the “Existence of Mineral Rules” further specify that for construction grade silica sand (the mineral resource in Kollam), it is at the G2-stage of exploration that a preliminary environmental impact assessment needs to be conducted. Further, at the G2-stage of exploration, the licensee is also required to collect information about the marine environmental setting, which includes data on currents, waves, noise levels, water quality, suspended and dissolved solids, etc. All this information will feed into the environmental impact assessment. Additionally, the feasibility study (also a part of the obligations of the licensee), requires a detailed techno-economic and socio-environmental evaluation of the mineral deposit. Therefore, environmental considerations will be addressed as part of the exploration process. Currently, the auction blocks at Kollam are already at the G3-level of exploration conducted by the Geological Survey of India, Mangalore.[27] Therefore, any licensee will, as part of their exploration, have to collect baseline data and conduct an EIA. While gauging environmental impacts, indeed, are envisaged by the government, concerns amongst the fishing community persist over what us perceived to be the complete removal of any pre-clearance process or assessment for exploration activities. The lack of a public consultation process and the non-accounting of the impact of increased vessel traffic, sonar, magnetic, and seismic interference, and even minor drilling on fish stocks, fuels such speculation and seriously erodes public trust. This is also at variance from the process established for hydrocarbon exploration, which at the very least is still a B2 category project that requires environmental clearance even if without an impact assessment. A detailed assessment would be required to assess whether this difference in hydrocarbon- and mineral exploration is due to a variance in the methods by which hydrocarbon and mineral exploration is conducted. Once exploration activities are completed, a production plan, which requires an environmental management plan, needs to be approved before any production activities may begin (Rule 15 Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 2024). Therefore, there clearly is a pre-clearance process for production activities.
However, two major challenges differentiate land-based EIAs from offshore ones. The first, is the fact that the marine environment is extremely dynamic, with inherent feedback loops that have the ability to amplify or diminish the impact of any anthropogenic activity.[28] Not only does this significantly complicate the process of conducting the EIA, the complexity is compounded by the fact that the marine environment is still poorly understood relative to the environment on land. Moreover, the existence of ocean currents and the singularity of the world ocean does not necessarily limit the impact of any activity within the confines of a particular region. Therefore, far greater precaution and diligence needs to be exercised for the conduct of offshore EIAs. This will also be in line with the precautionary principle under international law — issues of precautionary spotting notwithstanding — which require States to take precautionary measures for environmentally sensitive activities even if there is scientific uncertainty as to the true nature of impact.[29] It is in this context that the conduct of an offshore EIA by the project proponent may become problematic. Even though the project proponent will probably understand the mechanics of the underwater environment to some limited degree — a prerequisite to be able to undertake any activity — this limited understanding does not ensure a full appreciation of the impact that such activity may have on the marine environment. The second — and related —issue is the ability to effectively monitor the impact of such activity. The opacity of the marine environment makes it difficult to ensure accurate monitoring. Further, the monitoring and enforcement mechanism in the regulatory structure is limited. As per the “Mineral Conservation and Development Rules”, Rule 39 incorporates the precautionary approach but places the burden on the operator. Monitoring will be done through a self-assessment report to be submitted by the operator to the Indian Bureau of Mines as per a specified format. While the format may prevent the manipulation of the impact data, clarifying the process by which the Indian Bureau of Mines or even the CGPB will verify the self-assessment report may help remove misperceptions and assuage concerns. Moreover, capacity development and capability enhancement has been envisaged through the establishment of an “Offshore Areas Mineral Trust” that will undertake, inter alia, research for mitigation measures and provide relief should a disaster occur.
Additionally, the ocean environment enables the operation of multiple sectors within the same space. This forms the core issue in the Quilon Bank issue as well. Rather than being motivated by any intrinsic desire to protect the ocean and its biodiversity, the fishermen’s protest focuses solely upon the perceived loss of livelihood. In fact, mechanised trawlers have often themselves been cited as a significant risk to the oceans and its biodiversity. Therefore, another core challenge here is the management of competing resources and industries along with their environmental considerations.
A solution to this challenge is undertaking comprehensive “Marine Spatial Planning” (MSP) within India’s maritime zones — a process that has also been included in India’s “Draft Blue Economy Policy”. Along with MSP, it is important to move from a project-based EIA approach to a SEA one for the marine environment. Extension of EIA principles to the higher levels of decision-making across sectors and line ministries is important to ensure that the cumulative impact of multiple sectors and projects in relatively close proximity can be holistically understood and addressed. Discrete projects, each taken in isolation, may trigger unforeseen consequences. While these, taken individually may not be excessively alarming, when taken in aggregate, they may well generate very significant and well-founded concern.[30]
Conclusion
Addressing the needs of a growing population seeking a better standard of living — at least as per the current consumerist metrics of growth — requires greater availability of resources. The oceans are an attractive and tempting reservoir of many of these resources. However, the marine environment is extremely complex, diverse, and many of its resources are to be found in close proximity to one another. This often leads to multiple potential users competing with one another, often at a great cost to the ocean and to the nation itself. While the current regime in place in India to address the potential impacts of offshore mining does plan for environmental contingencies, the lack of a public discourse prior to the auction of licenses, the availability of global literature documenting the deleterious impact of offshore mining on marine ecosystems, the lack of any public studies on the specific impacts of mining in the identified blocks, and the lack of clarity on the monitoring capacity and mechanism, conspire to denude public trust. It is, therefore, very important that India moves from a project-based EIA approach to a Strategic Environment Assessment within the context of a Marine Spatial Plan to truly enable a comprehensive “blueing” of the Indian economy and to cease obsessively confusing the “blue economy” with an “ocean economy”.
*******
About the Author:
Mr Soham Agarwal, a Delhi-based lawyer, holds a Bachelor of Law (Honours) degree from the University of Nottingham, UK. He is currently an Associate Fellow with the Public International Maritime Law Cluster of the National Maritime Foundation, New Delhi. His research, which is focused upon issues relevant to the seabed, maritime infrastructure, and seabed warfare, is rapidly gaining significant traction internationally as well as nationally. He is currently also a CDRI Fellow of the Fourth Cohort. He may be contacted at law10.nmf@gmail.com
[1] Ministry of Mines, “Licenses for Offshore Mining”, PIB Delhi, April 02, 2025, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2117708
[2] Ministry of Mines, “Invitation of Bids for Grant of Operating Rights of Offshore Areas”, 28 November 2024 https://www.mstcecommerce.com/auctionhome/mlcln/
[3] Ministry of Mines, “GSI Hosts Workshop on ‘Offshore Exploration: Synergies and Opportunities (OESO)’ in Mangalore”, PIB Delhi, February 15, 2024 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2006344
[4] Navamy Sudhish, “A battle between fishing and mining”, The Hindu, March 03, 2025 https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-battle-between-fishing-and-mining/article69282201.ece
[5]Ibid
[6] The Hindu Bureau, “Kerala Assembly passes resolution against Centre’s decision to permit offshore mining”, The Hindu, March 04, 2025
[7] Liz Mathew, “Offshore mining: Kerala MPs demand impact study”, Indian Express, March 18, 2025 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/offshore-mining-kerala-mps-demand-impact-study-9891638/
[8] “Central Geological Programming Board (CGPB)”, Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Kerala, last accessed April 29, 2025 https://dmg.kerala.gov.in/en/cgpb/
[9] https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/267/AU1636_SwygUr.pdf?source=pqars
[10] Navamy Sudhish, “Offshore mining: Ministry of Mines assures EIA release and stakeholder consultations”, The Hindu, March 19, 2025 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/offshore-mining-ministry-of-mines-assures-eia-release-and-stakeholder-consultations/article69349288.ece
[11] Ibid
[12] Liz Mathew, “Offshore mining: Kerala MPs demand impact study”
[13] Government of India, Ministry of Mines. Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4289: Sea Sand Mining Tender, answered on March 26, 2025. https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/184/AU4289_TPwvTY.pdf?source=pqals.
[14] National Centre for Coastal Research. Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. Chennai: Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India. Accessed April 20, 2025 https://www.nccr.gov.in/sites/default/files/EIA.PDF
[15] Ibid.
[16] IL&FS Ecosmart Limited, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual: Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, (Hyderabad, Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change), August 2010 https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/User_EIA_Manuals/2.pdf
[17] Ibid
[18] United Nations Environment Programme. Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach. Nairobi: UNEP, 2002 https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8753/Environmental_impact_assessment.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed=
[19] IL&FS Ecosmart Limited, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual: Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
[20] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. Gazette Notification: S.O. 236(E), January 16, 2020. New Delhi: Government of India, 2020. https://dghindia.gov.in/assets/downloads/5e26b9dacbb53Gazette_Notification.pdf
[21] Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. “Govt of India Categorizes Onshore and Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Activities as Category B2 for Green Clearance.” Last modified January 16, 2020. Accessed May 1, 2025 https://www.dghindia.gov.in/index.php/story_details?story=182&heading=Govt%2520of%2520India%2520categorizes%2520on
[22] Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. “Glossary.” Last Accessed May 1, 2025 https://www.dghindia.gov.in/index.php/glossary
[23] National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study for Exploratory Drilling of Oil Exploration in the Block PEL of Kangra-Mandi. Nagpur: NEERI, 2009 http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/eia-oil.pdf
[24] Resource Capital Funds. “Phases of Mining.” Mining & Minerals 101. Last modified January 9, 2024 https://resourcecapitalfunds.com/insights/mining-and-minerals-101/phases-mining/
[25] IL&FS Ecosmart Limited, Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Manual: Offshore and Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
[26] Ibid
[27] MSTC Limited. “Mine Block Summary.” Last accessed May 01, 2025 https://www.mstcecommerce.com/auctionhome/container.jsp?title_id=Mine%20Block%20Summary&linkid=0&main_link=y&sublink=n&main_link_name=512&portal=mlcl&homepage=index&arcDate=30-11-2021
[28] Wang Bin et al., “Impact of Climate Change on the Dynamic Processes of Marine Environment and Feedback Mechanisms: An Overview.” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 31 (2024): 3377–3408 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11831-024-10072-z
[29] Meinhard Schröder, “Precautionary Approach/Principle,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, last modified March 2014 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1603
[30] United Nations Environment Programme. Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8753/Environmental_impact_assessment.pdf?sequence=3&%3BisAllowed=
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!