The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) draft, 2020 on 23 March this year but made it available for public opinion on 11 April 2020. Normally, the time available for public opinion is 60 days. The publication of the draft in the gazette was delayed by 19 days due to Covid-19. So, when many people mailed to seek an extension to the mandatory 60-day window for pub- lic feedback, the ministry’s top brass thought it was fit to allow another 60 days until 10 August. But later limited the extension to 20 days. Objections were raised and matter led to a judi- cial intervention, and finally, the court extended the deadline.
Before going into the detailed analysis of the EIA draft, 2020, let us understand the EIA. It is defined as one of the environmental assessment tools being used worldwide to provide planners and concerned citizens with essential information to plan for harmonising developmental activities. It is a systematic analysis of projects to determine their potential environ- mental impacts and the significance of such impacts and to propose measures to mitigate the negative impacts. Historically speaking, India started the practice in 1976-77, when the Planning Commission asked the then Department of Science and Technology to examine the river valley projects from an environmental angle. This was subsequently extended to cover those projects which required approval of the ‘Public Investment Board’ such as industries, thermal power projects, mining schemes, etc.
Although the EIA was established to safeguard the environment, it has been observed that its process has become a façade of legal paperwork. In most of the cases, the reports are prepared by the professional private consultant agencies, authorised by the government. If the projects approved by them are found unfeasible, they are rarely held accountable. Lack of administrative capacity to ensure compliance often renders a long list of clearance conditions which are meaningless. Periodic amendments are exempting one category of industries or the other from scrutiny. These exemptions are mostly given under pressure. Developers complain that the EIA regime has dampened the spirit of liberalisation and only increased one additional step that takes additional time in completing the project.
The latest EIA draft gives more discretionary powers to bureaucrats and politicians, while limiting pub- lic engagement. If the government declares any project as “strategic”, then no information will be made available to public. This draft says no information on such projects shall be placed in the public domain. This opens a window for immediate clearance for any project deemed strategic without any explanation. Projects concerning national defence and security are naturally strategic. It exempts linear projects such as roads and pipelines in border areas from following EIA norms and it will not
require any public hearing. “Area falling within 100 km of aerial distance from the Line of Actual Control with bordering countries of India” is defined as the “border area”. This would cover much of the North- east, the repository of the country’s richest biodiversity. All inland waterways projects, expansions/widening of national highways will be exempted from any prior clearance.
The most concerning issue of this draft is the post facto clearance which means projects which are al- ready operating in violation of the Environment Act will now be able to apply for clearance. It is a reappearance of a March 2017 notification for projects operating without clearance. Violators just need to pay 1.5-2 times “the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation” for remediation and resource augmentation. For such late applications, a developer will have to cough up Rs 2,000-Rs 10,000 per day for the period of delay. The impact of this can be considered with the example of illegal miners who are mining several trucks every day.
On 1 April, in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus Rohit Prajapati & Ors case, the Supreme Court held that environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development. The violations can only be reported by the government officials or the violator himself, excluding the pub- lic from the process. It has extended the construction permit area required from earlier 20,000 sq m to 150,000 sq m. Conclusively, it is apparent from the above discussion how important EIA is if implemented properly but the recent amendments in the EIA norms make them prone to violations.
Environment is an issue that is always taken for granted in our country. People’s memory is very short. We forget the disasters very soon and never learn any lesson from our past. The recent Visakhapatnam gas leak case and the Assam gas and oil leak case were the results of the EIA norms violation. People should send their objections to the ministry within the stipulated time. Collective intelligence is considered to be powerful, so should be the collective objection.
