A dangerous dilution

Draft EIA Notification 2020

At a time when global warming and climate change are taking their toll on the environment and adversely impacting the lives of millions, the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020 notification should have focused on strengthening the 1994 and 2006 EIA notifications. Instead, the latest draft seeks to dilute existing regulations. The proposed changes will give a relatively free reign to polluting enterprises, and make our country more vulnerable to unprecedented environmental disasters.

The Union environment ministry had fixed June 30 as the deadline for public responses to the draft EIA, seeking to make these changes in the midst of a raging pandemic. But the Karnataka High Court has allowed till September 7 for the responses and also directed that the draft be made available in the regional languages. The Supreme Court also issued a similar direction. Nearly 1.1 million objections have been filed against the draft, including some important ones by retired bureaucrats and professionals from different organisations.

The EIA notification 2006 brought a provision for accredited consultants for studying and preparing project reports. The process is initiated by a project proponent choosing a consultant from the list of accredited consultants with the Quality Control of India – National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (QCI-NABET). The consultant is paid by the project proponent to provide data, conduct studies and write a report on the proposed project. There was clearly a conflict of interest involved and such a report cannot be objective. The current draft has not addressed this lacuna.

The Supreme Court, in the Lafarge case, had asked the Centre to appoint a national regulator for appraising projects, enforcing stipulated environmental conditions and to impose penalties on polluters. Later, a committee headed by ex-bureaucrat Subramanyam also suggested constituting a national authority for environmental appraisal and monitoring, rather than the paid consultant system of the EIA notification 2006. This has also been forgotten in the current draft.

States choose members of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in a transparent manner. However, in the central Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the minister picks the members of the EAC. The list is not notified in the official Gazette and can be changed easily. The current draft fails to make the EAC selection process transparent.

In EIA notification 2006, projects were listed in A and B categories for regulation and prior Environmental Clearances (EC). Further, by a government notification in 2014, a sub-category (B2) of projects for minor minerals was created to keep these out of the full EIA process. The most controversial part of the current notification is that a large list of project types have been added to the B2 category, exempting all of them from EIA. These are generally irrigation projects, mineral beneficiation units, chlor-alkali industries, dykes and dykes intermediates, bulk drugs, basic organic chemicals, etc. Prior Environmental Permission (EP) is sufficient to run these projects henceforth. At present, EIA is done and prior EC is obtained for these projects. Some of the chemical industries can be small in size, but they can have greater hazardous potential and so should not go out of the purview of EIA.

Even road expansion and building projects close to ecologically sensitive areas such as Protected Areas and other projects of modernisation and expansion have been added in B2 category and are sought to be exempted from EIA.

Activities such as mining of minor minerals in up to two hectares of lease area and building construction projects with built-up area between 20,000 and 1,50,000 sq meters can enjoy deemed EP, which stands granted within 15 days of the online application.

Dredging in offshore areas within 12 nautical miles is placed in B2 category, and no EIA is necessary. However, its impact on fishing, marine life, waste materials disposal, underground pipelines, etc., can be consequential. It should not be exempt from EIA.

The collection of baseline data of environmental parameters was from the area within 10 km for all projects requiring EIA. The new draft has retained 10 km for category A projects and reduced it to 5 km for category B1 projects. Further, the data is prescribed to be collected for only one season other than monsoon. Monsoon data is collected only when the Appraisal Committee prescribes it. Thus, the draft focuses on regulation of air and water quality and ignores biodiversity, especially micro flora affected in non-rainy season.

The new draft provides for post-facto project clearance for those operating in violation of Environment (Protection) Act. Project authorities may apply for clearance, as reiterated in the March 2017 notification. The violator may apply with two plans for remediation and resource augmentation, corresponding to 1.5 to two times the ecological damage assessed and benefit derived due to violation. Also, the violator may be charged Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 as penalty for each day of delay.

Earlier, after public consultation, project proponents had to address all concerns of the public and suitably modify mitigation and management plans. In the new draft EIA notification, they have to address only material concerns of the environment. Social and economic impacts will remain unaddressed in the new scenario.

The new draft has waived public hearing for the expansion of any project, which may be misleading in some cases. Moreover, the public hearing so far was conducted by Collector/District Magistrate of the district. As per the new draft, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is also empowered to conduct public hearing of projects listed in B1 category. This is in line with the intent of downgrading the need for EIA overall.

The new draft has dispensed with the functions of the District Environment Authority. Earlier, stone and sand mining at a small scale was regulated at the district level. Now, all such small projects may need the approval of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. In a way, it will cause hardship to small businesses.

The best course for the MoEF&CC is to give up the current EIA draft completely and constitute a national authority for appraisal and monitoring of projects and to deal with all aspect of environmental management. It will also ensure that site-specific conditions are stipulated in clearances, unlike ‘cut and paste’ methods adopted at present.

(The writer is a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka)