Sacrificing healthy environment for stronger economy

EIA’s role in making development sustainable and the government’s attempt to debase it

August 11, 2020 is the deadline for the proposed DRAFT EIA NOTIFICATION 2020. This was set by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) for the public to share their responses and grievances.

India and EIA, what is the relation?

India being a signatory nation to the Stockholm declaration of 1972 (UN Conference on Human Environment), drafted its first EIA in 1994 bolstering the earlier Water & Air Pollution Acts and The Environment Act of India 1986 which was enacted in the wake of Bhopal gas tragedy. The EIA notification was amended 12 times. While most of the amendments diluted the processes of environmental clearances, there were some significant amendments which have strengthened the process too. One such amendment which reinforced the process was the 2006 amendment.

So what is EIA?

Environment Impact Assessment abbreviated as the EIA is a process to estimate the likely outcomes of a project and its impact on the natural resources, bio diversity and the environment as a whole. EIA process involves a series of steps comprising screening, scoping, impact analysis, mitigation, public hearing, EIA report, decision-making etc. that focuses on the best approach for a project implementation and the likely possible alternatives if the proposed project has any adverse impacts.

Too complex? Well in simple terms: impacts of our deeds on the earth. EIA is a mandatory precondition for all projects that go beyond a prescribed size and category such as mining, thermal power plants, ports, airports, atomic energy etc.

The EIA 2006 notification has categorized the projects based on the scale and type. The projects which fall under the category A (National level appraisal) and category B (State level appraisal) require mandatory EIA and those projects that fall under category B2 don’t demand EIA.

Purpose of newly proposed amendment 2020

All the key techniques involved in it have been debased by such legislations as part of this new amendment. In order to know why the incumbent government had to resort to such a move, we need to look at some factors that hamper the industrialization and business growth.

India ranks 63^rd among 195 nations in the ease-of-doing business category. The delay can be attributed to the prevalent complex laws, bureaucratic delays and time-consuming approval procedures. The estimated time to get environmental clearance is 238 days.

This is why the government has brought in such an amendment to do away with such impediments. The new amendment would help investors, corporates, industries and also to promote FDI inflow. However, development without sustainability not only endangers the environment but also our future generations.

What is wrong with this 2020 amendment?

In contrast, with the 2006 amendment the newly proposed draft notification has considerable drawbacks. It has many discrepancies which are detrimental to the environment and the diverse stakeholders linked to it. Few of the major concerns are listed below.

• POST FACTO APPROVAL

The draft proposed a post facto clearance for all the projects. Now what this means is that the projects can apply or get clearance after work has started or even after its completion. This move (by the government) of giving a free hand to the corporates will have destructive consequences. It is similar to locking the stable after the horse has bolted. In effect, the irreversible damage to the environment and ecology would already be done as a result of these violations. However, the damage incurred can be compensated in the form of fine to the government.

But truly speaking is this a compensation the government wants to favor? It is absurd how the government is standing by this move and blindly legitimizing the environmental violations.

• REDUCTION IN TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING

One of the crucial steps involved in EIA is public hearing. It has been considered as sacrosanct. And still the time-frame dedicated for the public hearing as part of the EIA assessment has been curtailed to 20 days (from the existing 30 days period). This further dissolves the transparency and credibility.

Just imagine the serious threat that this poses to the remote areas, areas which are not easily accessible and where information is disbursed with significant delay. Also, public, particularly those who will be affected by the proposed project should be given ample amount of time to respond or to draft their suggestions and grievances.

It is definitely not sanguine on the government’s part to dilute such norms. Democracy is for the people, by the people, of the people. But in this case their voices are being muted with these brazen legislations.

• FREQUENCY OF COMPLIANCE REPORT

The 2006 amendment mandated that the promoter of the project should submit a compliance report. (This report should state whether it is going by the rules framed while commencing the project. It should also confirm that the current project does not violate any of the environmental laws and terms which were agreed upon initially at the time of the project approval.) Now in this amendment, this frequency has been extended to a year. In short that, it is necessary for the promoter to submit the report only once in a year.

Who would be responsible for any irreversible environmental, social or health consequences during this window period? Such damages would simply go unnoticed. This can be better understood with an example-

If a mining activity is being carried out at someplace X. This place X can be potentially hazardous to the nearby population and can contaminate the air and water nearby. If the compliance report was taken half-yearly then you would see the impact on the neighborhood sooner than if the accountability was yearly. Thus giving you a better chance in addressing these concerns early.

• POWER OF CATEGORIZATION

The proposed amendment is an attempt by the government to reinforce its power on categorizing a project as strategic. Any project that is declared to be strategic by the center is exempted from disclosing the information in public domain.

The government has empowered itself in a way to veto anything by simply declaring a project as strategic which is against transparency and vigilance.

Inference

In the Samarth Trust Case, the Delhi high court had considered EIAs- a part of participatory justice in which voice is given to the voiceless and it is like a Jan Sunwai, where the community is the jury.

The government instead of diluting the available provisions in the law must concentrate on bridging the gap between the promoters of the project and bureaucracy. The delay in procuring clearance can be shortened by easing complex legal structures as well. This draft should be debated inside the parliament for a better understanding and awareness in the public. India has witnessed dissent from people when such projects threatening the environment were put forward. Per se, the Chipko movement and the Silent valley movement. It is high time that the political wisdom understands that we cannot grow now and sustain later. We must also realize that economic growth and environment protection can and should go hand in hand. I am reminded of this verse from the Bhagavad Gita:

“Prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah

Ahamkaravimudhatma kartaham iti manyate”

Literal translation is:

Every work is governed by the grace of the nature,

Only the arrogant will deny it.

India being a developing country needs natural resources more than any other nation. Especially to bring its people out of poverty and catapult its economy through rapid industrialization and easing the procedure for business setup. Can’t the same be achieved without endangering the environment?