11 August 2020
The Secretary,
Ministry for Environemnt, Forest & Climate Change
Government of India, Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj,
New Delhi 110 003
Subject: Objections and suggestion on Draft Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA), 2020
Dear Sir/Ma’am,
You have introduced draft EIA notification and sought public comments for the same. After going through the entire draft, we could assertively say that in the present form it will bring about cataclysmic harm to the ecology and people of India defeating the very objective of EIA (harmonious development). In this letter, we have raised our arguments which corroborate the same.
The Right Science | Credibility of ACO
It has been observed that environmental impact assessment done by Accredited Environment Impact Assessment Consultant Organization (ACO) often contains insufficient data or is manipulated in order to serve industrial interests. Projects are granted environmental clearance based on these reports, which is proving disastrous for the local people and the ecology.
We believe such a situation could be avoided in the future if:
- A third-party audit from credible research institutes should be carried out to ensure that all the data submitted is correct, complete and unequivocal.
- To ensure that the constituted should be neutral and have equal participation from people, environmental groups, project proponent and the government accredited functional area expert.
Right Categorization
The present draft categorizes the proposed project into Category A (MoEFCC), Category B1 (SEIAA/ UTEIAA), Category B2 (SEIAA/ UTEIAA). The draft though asserts that the categories A, B1 and B2 are based on estimated environmental and societal impacts but one can easily observe that the categorisation of industries under the schedule,” LIST OF PROJECTS REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE OR PRIOR ENVIRONMENT PERMISSION” is based on capacity or size.
Such a categorization is farcical and fallible as it fails to take into account the true ecological and health impact of the project. The present draft permits certain projects of category B2 to bypass the stringent scrutiny as required in category A and B1.
It can’t be ignored that such categorization is based on the underlying assumption that only big projects can lead to irreversible societal and environmental damage. However, such is not the case and small projects (category ‘B2’) could lead to damage of similar levels. For example – chrome plating industry- the proponent of carcinogenic hexavalent chromium, secondary metallurgical industry- proponent of toxic metals.
Post-Facto Clearance
The provision of post-facto clearance in the present draft defeats the very purpose of precautionary environmental impact assessment. The provision allows the project proponents to construct, expand or modernize the plant without obtaining any Environmental clearance or permission. The clearance will be granted later on against payment of a penalty.
We believe it will open the floodgates for irrevocable environmental and societal violations and will serve as a tool by business interests to maximize profits at the expense of human and environmental health.
Strategic Projects and Defence
The government is within their rights to not to disclose the details of the project that they consider to be ‘strategic’ or of ‘national security’.
But the draft doesn’t mention anywhere the specifics pertinent to ‘strategic’ and ‘national security’. This will pave the way for project proponents to bypass the stringent EIA scrutiny process after receiving a ‘strategic’ label from the government. Thus, inviting prodigious ecological and societal disruption.
The government need not share the details of the project but should conduct EIA of such projects and release the potential environmental and societal impact of such projects in the public domain.
Diluting Public consultation
The draft EIA Notification 2020 exempts a large number of projects from public consultation.
Public consultations are essential as the local populace can foresee the ecological and societal cost a project can create. Their participation in the decision-making process of environmental clearance is essential in order to prevent disastrous mishaps causing permanent damage to the local ecology and displacement of thousands of families.
Polluter Pays Principle
Violators after causing irreversible damage to the people and ecology can get away after paying a paltry amount of Rs 2000 to 10000 per day and by employing some mitigations measures, the specifics of which are nowhere mentioned in the draft.
In the absence of strict punishments, the present draft provides a provision to get away from disruptive violations.
Monitoring
The environmental conditions imposed on the companies are rarely monitored by the regulatory authorities. Monitoring is based on self-certified half-yearly reports submitted by companies and this has been reduced to yearly report in the 2020 draft, thus diluting the very purpose of Environment Protection act 1986.
Monitoring ensures that the terms and conditions on which the environmental clearance has been issued are duly complied and serves as data points to analyze/estimate the potential or future impact. This enables the concerned authority to keep a check on an industry’s operation, cutting the problem at the root and prevent disastrous aftermath.
Since the local populace are the one who are facing or will face the brunt of industrial pollution; they should be an integral part of the monitoring process. Presently the data shared by the industries as part of self-reporting is somewhat eluded from the public domain. Making such information publicly accessible would bring greater transparency and create a degree of accountability of the polluters towards the general public.
Technology and Economic Feasibility of the Proposed Projects
It has been observed that with the advancement in science and technology, many times the raw materials used by an industry or the product prepared by it becomes outdated i.e. a better or next-generation alternative comes into the market. This causes tremendous losses to the industries. In order to cut losses, they cut on essential operations like effluent treatment, emission treatment, workforce reduction, maintenance reduction, overhauling of pollution abatement technologies etc. This paves a way for a potential irrevocable ecological and societal disaster.
Weak Cognizance Mechanism
This draft excludes the general public from reporting environmental violations. It only authorises some government authorities, appraisal committee, regulatory authority and industries to report such violations. It is to be taken into account that no violator till date has accepted environmental or societal disruption. It is only the affected masses that report such violations. This also flies in the face of art. 51(a)(g) of the constitution that makes it the duty of all citizens to protect the environment.
Cluster-Based Projects
The present draft fails to capture the ‘cumulative’ impact of projects in a region. Though a single project after successful EIA can be perceived to be of minimal or no impact, cumulative projects of similar scale can cause irreversible damage to the ecology and people.
Disaster Risk Reduction
National Institute of Disaster Management, India has recommended an ecosystem approach towards Disaster Risk Reduction strategies so that the impact of natural hazards can be minimised. It has recommended the use of EIA instruments to assess the ecosystem services provided to humans and plan the development activities accordingly. India and its neighbouring countries are prone to natural hazards which are increasing in intensity because of climate change. Hence, it is imperative to include an ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction strategy for all development projects planned in the country and EIAs should be planned and conducted from that viewpoint also. Otherwise, even the development projects of strategic importance and national importance will fail over time due to impact of natural hazards caused by the destruction of the ecosystems and will hamper economic, social development as well as foreign relations and diplomacy for the people of India.
Endorsed by:
Sandeep Pandey, Ph.D., UC Berkeley; Visiting Faculty, IIT Kanpur, IIT Gandhinagar, BHU Varanasi, IIM Ahmedabad
Lubna Sarwath, Ph.D. and Former Visiting Lecturer, Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia
Peehu Pardeshi, PhD, Assistant professor- TISS
Guru Moorthy, Secretary-Sochara
Atul, law student National Law University
Ankit Goyal, Process Engineer, environmental writer
Surabhi Agarwal, M.Phil., Hyderabad University; Socialist Party (India)
Bobby Ramakant, Citizen News Service
Submitted by:
Eco-Socialism Front.
