Why Green Reform is a Grave Step Back

Context:  The recent industrial accidents —the gas leak at the LG Polymers plant in Visakhapatnam and the fire at Oil India Limited’s Baghjan oil well in Assam has resurfaced the criticism of the recent Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) amendments.

Features of EIA:

• Project classification under 2006 notification

• Category A projects are larger in scale and mandatorily require clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEFCC)
• Category B projects are further divided into two sub-categories: 

• B1, which need to seek approval from the respective State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), and 
• B2, which are exempt from any clearances.

• A 4-step clearance process as notified in the 2006 notification: The first two stages are required to be completed within a total of 60 days, while the remaining two have a threshold of 105 days.

• Screening: 

• Involves submitting a pre-feasibility report with the proposed terms of reference (ToR) to the MOEFCC.
• To determine whether the project requires an Environment Clearance (EC) or not

• Scoping stage

• An Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), appointed by the ministry, either approves or rejects the project and displays the particulars on the MOEFCC website. 

• Public consultation: 

• The proceedings of the public consultation are to be displayed on the notice boards of the panchayats concerned and the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) website.

1. EAC appraises the project and gives its recommendation to the MOEFCC, which takes the final call.

• A Post-EC monitoring mechanism, which entails the submission of half-yearly compliance reports.

 Shortcomings of the process: (identified by a 2016 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG))

• Delays: 

• In 89% of cases, there was an overall delay in the grant of ECs to applicants.
• The delays were pervasive at all stages, but especially in the recommendation by the EAC to the competent authorities.

• Inconsistencies in the EC process:

• Lack of cumulative impact assessment- Impact was considered independently, without accounting for other existing or planned activities in its proximity.
• For over a third of the projects analyzed, the accreditation certificate (issues by Quality Council of India (QCI)) was not available for the EIA consultants.

• Irregularities in the public consultation: 

• Delay in the conduct of public hearing, missing advertisements, advertisement not in vernacular language and not taking views of the public into account.

• Data regarding violations and fines imposed since 2015 is not available in the public domain.

• Zero penalties were imposed by the ministry in 2014 and 2015 for violating EC conditions.

• As per a 1986 law, the penalty for non- compliance with EC conditions was up to ?100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years.
• In 2015, an amendment allowed fines up to ?15-20 crore, and an additional ?1 crore per day if the damage continues.

CAG recommendations and outcomes:

• Adhere to timelines

• Better screening of projects based on the initial ToR submitted
• Establishment of a national regulator to monitor environmental violations.

• Positive Outcomes:

• In 2017, close to 20% of the EC applications were rejected at the screening stage itself, as opposed to zero projects rejected in 2015 -  according to data from the Parivesh portal of the MOEFCC,
• Close to 40% of EC applications this year have been rejected at the outset.

Critique of the Draft EIA Notification:

• More industries will now be classified under Category B2, and therefore be exempt from the EIA and public consultation process: 

• Includes projects labelled ‘strategic’ by the government, for, E.g. oil, gas and shale exploration, hydroelectric projects up to 25 MW.

• No Public Hearing: for projects such as roads and pipelines in border areas.

• Disenfranchising the public who are most likely to suffer the consequences of environmental violations, might have severe consequences on the environment and local populations.

• Reduced the mandatory window for public consultation from a minimum of 30 days to a minimum of 20 days:

• There might not be enough time for the public to be informed and to raise objections

• Introduction of post-facto project clearances:

• Projects operating in violation of the Environment Protection Act will now be able to apply for clearance, as long as they have a plan for remediation and resource augmentation equivalent to 1.5-2 times. 
• These violations cannot be reported by the public, but only by the government authorities or the developer-promoter itself.
• This is against ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘public trust doctrine.’

Conclusion:

• India may be climbing the global rankings on the ease of doing business, but its environmental protection record remains dismal.

• As India strives for further economic growth, it has to ensure this does not come at the cost of its environment, and a robust EIA legislation is critical for a sustainable future.