The Hindu Business Line : New draft EIA Notification — Unaddressed issues cloud positives

ON SEPTEMBER 15, a new and re-engineered vision of the Environment Impact Assessment notification was uploaded on the Web site of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The mandatory 60 days time was given for all to respond to it. In the last ten months it has been communicated to the Ministry that the new notification is flawed, and that the process of drawing it up not quite inclusive.

The Environment Impact Assessment Notification was issued in 1997 to put in place a mechanism by which certain kinds of development and industrial processes/activities would need environmental clearance from the MoEF. These projects listed in Schedule 1 of the Notification included mining, river valley projects, ports, harbours and airports, exploration of oil/gas, distilleries, urban construction, and so on. The Notification also makes it mandatory for a process of public hearing that would bring the project proposer and the affected people face to face, and allow for objections to be raised and clarifications sought.

The draft Notification comes with the intention of re-engineering the 1994 document, which was deficient in content and implementation. So, logically, any re-engineering should have been towards making things better or plugging the gaps. But the draft Notification does neither.

One of the opening paragraphs of the draft brings out the intentions behind the Notification. It says that the Centre has reviewed the existing restrictions imposed on projects/activities to include only those with significant environmental impacts.

The biggest change that the new draft brings is in Schedule I. As of now, the entire list of projects in the schedule is required to go through the environmental clearance process with, of course, `exceptions' that were put in place by 13 amendments. The new draft categorises these into A, B and A/B. Projects in Category A would require a clearance from the Centre, those in B from the State governments and that in A/B will be recategorised A or B based on a screening process by an Expert Appraisal Committee constituted by the Centre.

The basis of this categorisation is not clear. An earlier note, Reforms in Grant of Environmental Clearances, circulated by the MoEF, had said that "proposals which are likely to have a higher impact on the environment or have impact on more than one State or neighbouring country, will fall in Category A which will be cleared by the MoEF. All other projects (in Category B) will be cleared at the State government level."

Where the Notification gets alarming is when it allows Category B to be further sub-divided to B1 and B2, with B2 not requiring environmental clearance. Thus, if a polluting unit is termed A/B, it can end up with a State government for clearance by being categorised a B project. And, then, a screening process by the State appraisal committee could exempt it from the environment impact assessment altogether.

There appears to be a defect in the screening process — the first stage, as laid down by the Notification. The draft includes four stages in the environmental clearance process — screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal. The screening stage is to decide which agency will grant environment clearance to the project — the Centre or the State.

The problem is that this decision is taken based on the information available to the agency from Form 1 filed by the project proposer. So, a mining project falling under Category A/B can be sent to a State government for clearance by being classified Category B, and local political factors can influence its labelling as B2, not requiring environmental clearance.

A look at Stage 3 — public consultation. At a glance, it would appear that the new Notification gives more scope by not restricting itself to one public hearing but a process of consultation. However, it actually takes away the right of `concerned people' who may not be locals to participate in the public hearing altogether. Thereby, it could keep out from public hearings public interest organisations, scientists and other professionals and advisors to communities.

The earlier Notification allowed any "bona fide" person to participate in the public hearing. In recent years, professionals have in several public hearings exposed flaws and frauds in project documents and environment impact assessments. Scientists, researchers and local activists have worked effectively along with project-affected communities and highlighted critical livelihood and environmental concerns.

The new draft also allows for the cancellation of public hearings if local conditions are not conducive for hearing the views of the public in a free and fair manner. Since such conditions can be orchestrated, clauses that give broad discretionary powers are unacceptable.

The final stage in the new proposed environment clearance process is appraisal. Often, the Expert Appraisal Committees, constituted by the Centre and the States, mostly have technocrats, and not social scientists or ecosystem experts. The roles and responsibilities of expert committees are not defined, and no specific provision has been made to shield expert committee members from political interference.

The status of EIA reports and the way they are carried out leaves much to be desired. Oftentimes, the assessments are ridden with inaccuracies and even inadequacies. The present EIA Notification empowers the impact assessment agency to reject a project if false and misleading data are provided. While groups and communities have been pushing for a stricter implementation of this clause, there are still no penal clauses for any violation of the Notification. In case of concealment or submission of false information, a final decision on rejecting the project will be taken by the appraisal committee only after giving a personal hearing to the project proposer.

There are several other discrepancies and shortcomings in the new draft. Ironically, many of these were present in the MoEF's first note on the reform or re-engineering process. No doubt there are many positive inclusions, but they get overshadowed by the problems and issues that continue to remain unaddressed.

(The authors are members of Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group and are based in Delhi and Pune respectively.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Of limited appeal

New draft EIA Notification — Unaddressed issues cloud positives

Inquiries into Volcker report — Let it not stray into a blind alley

Why France is burning

Portfolio for models and ministers

Whither regulatory autonomy?