The Hindu Business Line : Protecting natural resources

The ineffectiveness of the current legislation on environmentprotection and biosafety underscores the fact thatconservation is too serious an issue to be left to governmentdepartments. If the sustained diversity of our living resourcesis to be ensured, people's supervision and oversight of thoselaws are necessary, say SHALINI BHUTANI and KANCHI KOHLI.

There is no provision for securing free, prior informed consent of small farmers before geneticallymodified crops are released or made available by either government researchers or private companies.

The country's natural resources and biological wealth have never been under such threat as they are today. Also compromised alongside are people's livelihoods and traditional knowledge, integrally linked to the continuance of natural ecosystems.

It is often claimed that India has a wide array of regulatory regimes to facilitate both the protection of biological resources and biodiversity- based livelihoods. While this might hold true, the real test is in assessing how these regimes have fared in their conservation objectives.

Consider two subordinate legislations issued under the same law - the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The first being the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 (originally issued in 1994) and the second, the Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro- organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells of 1989, more commonly referred to as India's "Biosafety" Rules.

Though several years apart, many parallels can be drawn in the manner in which both are implemented. Both are under the purview of the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), implemented through different divisions and personnel.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS?

The EIA notification puts in place a regulatory framework that enables the MoEF to grant or refuse environment clearance for "development" and industrial projects such as mines, highways, etc. The Biosafety Rules are meant to keep a check on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), both at the research stage in laboratory conditions and thereafter in their large-scale application, as in transgenic crops in farmers' fields.

When first notified, they were meant to safeguard biodiversity and the ecosystems in which the diversity of biological resources would not only survive but thrive. The issue is: have considerations other than protection begun to take precedence?

Suffice it to say that both the executive orders seem to be falling short in their conservation imperative in the name of India's "growth" agenda.

A cursory look at the EIA notification between 1994 and the present, and the Biosafety Rules since 1989 show a clear preference for economic priorities over ecological interests.

In the case of the EIA notification, the Terms of Reference (ToR) based on which EIA reports are prepared is first presented to the MoEF by the project proponent itself. Tweaked a bit in MoEF, the same ToR are given to an EIA consultant hired by the project proponent, leaving little scope for unbiased assessments.

As a parallel, the Biosafety Rules do not question the generation of biosafety data critical to assess the impacts of the introduction of genetically engineered crops by the very same company or research institute whose interest lies in getting the sanction. Independent assessments are lacking in both.

Practice has also shown that both the approval procedures pay scant regard to people's prior informed consent in decision-making. The provision of public hearing in the EIA notification has been used by several local communities and civil society organisations to put forth their concerns and opinions regarding projects from the very outset when this provision was a mandatory requirement.

INFORMED CONSENT

The 2006 framework of the notification changes the scope of public "consultation" and makes it a platform to share a draft EIA report with people's inputs to improve the same. Likewise, in the Biosafety Rules there is no inbuilt scope for ordinary people to voice their concerns or know more about what is being proposed.

There is no provision for securing free, prior informed consent of small farmers before genetically modified crops are released or made available by either government researchers or private companies.

The common pattern continues not only in processes but in personnel as well. The Biosafety Rules operate through the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the MoEF.

For the environment clearance there are different Expert Appraisal Committees for mining, dams, infrastructure, industries, etc.

It is interesting to note the serious conflict of interest when it comes to the members of these committees.

For instance, the Co-Chair of GEAC, a nominee from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) was also a Board member of ISAAA - an international network funded by biotech majors. Similarly, the current chairperson of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on River Valley projects is on the Board of Directors of power and infrastructure companies, all having a stake in hydro-power development in the country today.

This raises serious concerns of independence in decision-making.

And what of the post-clearance scenario, once approvals have been given? Both the GEAC and the EAC recommends approvals based on certain conditions being cleared. The executive orders allow for the revocation/withdrawal of clearance if the subjected conditions or compliance protocols are not followed.

ENSURING COMPLIANCE

But who is to monitor this? It would not be an exaggeration to say that the compliance of environment clearance conditions is dismal today. The five regional offices of the MoEF entrusted with monitoring such compliance are severely understaffed and most often are unable to track the sheer quantum of projects being cleared.

In another department, the biotechnology Monitoring and Evaluation Committee did not meet for a long time until concerned citizens themselves set up their peoples' MEC.

There are several cases where the State- and District-level Biotechnology Coordination Committees mandated by the Rules do not even exist!

They were set up in some areas only after the case was heard before the Supreme Court.

Both these frameworks were brought into place without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny, let alone a larger public debate. The trend continues through the amendments, both actual and proposed, over the years.

The business of conservation is too serious to be left to government departments.

If the sustained diversity of our living resources is to be ensured, people's supervision and oversight of those laws are necessary to prevent physical destruction, chemical pollution and biological contamination of our natural resources.

(Shalini Bhutani works with GRAIN and Kanchi Kohli is a member of Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group. Both are based in Delhi.)