People's Democracy

Re-Engineering Environmental Impact 

Assessment For Corporate Sector

Archana Prasad

THE Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has issued a new notification on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on September 14, 2006 (i.e., one year after the issuing of a draft notification on September 15, 2005). The finalisation of the draft notification has taken place despite serious concerns expressed from several quarters regarding the restricted nature of public consultations held on the issue. Leader of the CPI(M) in Rajya Sabha, Sitaram Yechury, in a letter written to the environment and forests minister (dated August 31, 2006) had pointed out that the notification would have a big impact on the life of local people living in resource rich areas and demanded that their concerns should be adequately addressed and their voices heard through a proper process of consultation. Several other MPs, including P G Narayanan, the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, protested against the undemocratic manner in which the notification was being pushed by the MoEF through letters written to the minister as well as the prime minister.

Despite this the MoEF not only went ahead with the notification but the secretary, MoEF continues to claim that it has carried out extensive consultations and came up with a notification that will satisfy all interests and facilitate the process of reforms. Pradipto Ghosh, the secretary MoEF, stated in a press statement after the release of the notification, that the new EIA document promoted a process that was “the most advanced in the world”. At the same time the minister’s apologetic tone exposes this hollow claim. A Raja, the environment and forests minister has been quoted in several newspapers to have stated that the new notification is a result of pressures of his “more influential cabinet colleagues” who are leaving no stone unturned to give concessions for the inflow of FDI in the resource rich areas. That the minister, A Raja, is more honest than his secretary is also proved by the fact that the final notification has only been circulated to “central government ministries/departments and apex industrial associations like CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM and CREDA”. It is no secret that this step is in line with the reasoning of the Report of the Govindarajan Committee on Disinvestment and the conclusions of the World Bank’s environmental capacity building project. These reports had identified the cumbersome processes of environmental and forest clearances as one of the major impediments to attracting foreign and private investments in the country. The re-engineered fast track process is meant to reform the regulatory structures to improve this situation. It is evident that the recent attempts to privatise forests, common lands and other natural resources, will end up receiving a huge fillip with the clearance of this final notification. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS 

The new measures proposed by the EIA notification, 2006 of September 14, 2006 will result in a severe dilution of even the existing EIA procedures, which needed to be strengthened rather than weakened. The re-engineered environmental clearance process is meant to be a “fast track one” based on commercial considerations rather than scientifically accepted international norms. Under the notification the central government will set up state level environmental impact assessment committees to grant clearances to some specific types of projects on the basis of an irrational classification. All projects needing prior environmental clearances have been re-classified into: Category A projects that will have to get clearance from the MoEF or the central government, Category B projects that can be granted clearances through state level bodies and Category A/B will have to be screened by the MoEF and categorised according to their scale and scope. Category B projects will be divided into B1 (those projects needing to prepare a full EIA report) and B2 projects that will be granted clearance after a mere examination of the TORs. While the decision to give greater powers to the state governments is not in itself a wrong one, the way the guidelines have been formulated by the notification is clearly for the benefit of granting big industry and trans-national corporations fast track prior clearances and not to facilitate the greater integration of public participation in the EIA process. This is especially true of mining and construction projects, biomedical units, the expansion of industrial areas and the setting up of special export promotion zones. The state level mechanism is free to decide whether Category B projects like mining projects below 50 hectares, or construction projects below 1.5 hectares need detailed EIA reports as stated in Stage II of the document. At another level the nature of the information required in the proposed TORs and EIA reports is itself one-sided and problematic as it only looks at all “relevant environmental aspects” of the project. Clearly, this is a setback for those who have been asking for the greater focus on social displacement and livelihood related factors in the EIA process. This provision also needs to be seen in the context of the increasing conflicts between the local people and the state-industry nexus, especially in contexts like Kalinganagar, Vedanta etc. While decentralisation of the EIA process to state governments may be considered a welcome step in the interests of federalism, no dilution of the EIA should be allowed. The preparation of the EIA reports in all its aspects should be mandatory and social audits and public participation should be structured into the process. If this is not done, displacement and conflicts in resource rich areas are only likely to increase with such provisions.

One of the processes included in this notification was the provision of public hearing that (with all its limitations) provided the only opportunity for the affected people to participate in the decision making process. The ministry has been stating that the provision is for a clear structure and time frame for public consultations. But if we look at the provisions of Stage III carefully, it shows that this claim is quite hollow as the provisions in the current notification make too many exceptions in the case of modernisation and construction projects, SEZs, townships and industrial areas which require no public consultation. Further Stage III states that the public hearing can be avoided if “the local situation” is not conducive for it. Past practices of public consultation in the EIA process show that the project managers can easily create such situations in collaboration with the local administration. It is therefore appropriate that the new provisions give a role to local bodies like panchayats, zilla parishads, autonomous councils (where they exist) in holding public consultations and monitoring the project as is done in many of the advanced countries. Currently the notification restricts the public hearing process and does not give space to citizens groups, mass organisations or experts to present the case against the proposed project. This is required because local people may not have access to information and technical knowledge regarding the project.

Clearly, the notification is in violation of internationally accepted norms of environmental impact assessment. These norms accept that public institutions and local committees should have greater control over the assessment process through stringent and transparent processes of the preparation of EIA reports and post-EIA monitoring. They also ensure that the project proponent rather than the state pays for the entire EIA and the monitoring process in the post-EIA phase. Further the assessment process in most advanced countries lays greater stress on the search for alternatives and mitigation methods in cases where the projects are environmentally unsustainable. This may take a longer time than the current notification allows for and may involve substantial changes in project design. At a time when the world is moving towards social and strategic environmental impact assessments, the current notification is based more on the need to provide industrial capitalists with “a single window” fast track system, rather than a scientifically sound and socially just EIA process. These points should be seriously considered when the notification is placed for discussion in the parliamentary committees on subordinate legislation. The democratic movement should ensure that the MoEF is forced to make appropriate changes in the notification and maintain its dignity as a ministry that acts in favour of the people rather than the MNCs and big industrial capitalists.