Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Cooking Up Environmental Assessments

Cooking Up Environmental Assessments

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 24, 2012   modified Modified on Feb 24, 2012
-EPW
 
The system of environmental clearances for developmental and industrial projects needs to be reworked.

India seems to have perfected the art of creating laws and rules that are destined to fail. Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of environmental regulations. You have pollution control boards that can do nothing to control pollution. And you have a system of environmental ­impact assessment (EIA) before a developmental or industrial project can be cleared which assesses little and certainly not the impact on the environment. Recent rulings of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which began functioning in July last year, have reminded us yet again of the urgent need to reassess and rework the entire system of EIAs and environmental clearances.
 
In just one month, the NGT has given three rulings that seriously question the manner in which EIAs are conducted. The NGT held that data had been “cooked” up to give environmental clearance to the expansion of a sponge iron and ­captive power plant in Chhattisgarh and that the mandatory public hearing was not held. It commented on the casual ­approach of the consultant tasked to conduct the EIA and ­recommended that the environment ministry develop “appropriate mechanism to check the authenticity of environmental data”. It also stayed a 300 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant in Kutch on grounds that the EIA had not been properly ­conducted. And in Uttarakhand, in response to an appeal filed by a local environmental activist, it has put on hold a hydel project on the Alakananda River which was cleared by the ­environment ministry despite an adverse report by the Forest Advisory Committee. The proposed dam will endanger the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Valley of Flowers.
 
These three rulings, however, are just the tip of the iceberg. Since 2006, when the government notified a new set of rules for EIAs that replaced an earlier set, environmentalists have questioned the way in which clearances are being rushed through in the name of encouraging economic growth. The fact that EIAs were mandated to guarantee “sustainable development” – growth that is not at the cost of the environment – seemed to have been completely overlooked in the process.

Some of the fault lies in the very rules governing EIAs that were notified without adequate consultation with all parties, particularly environmentalists. If more thought had been given to the process at the outset, it is possible that some of the more blatant discrepancies could have been checked. For instance, in most cases the project proponent appoints the consultant and pays for the EIA. It does not require acute insight to realise that this alone will distort an EIA. Surely, an independent and ­autonomous body should fund and conduct EIAs to guarantee that they are credible.
 
Second, there are inadequate mechanisms to ensure that the mandatory public hearings are properly conducted. More often than not, the exercise has become cosmetic. There is insuff­icient notice, all the information is not available to project-­affected communities and where there is opposition to the project, local people have reported intimidation and even ­violence by the project authorities. The combination of a tainted EIA and a perfunctory public hearing makes a mockery of the two essential components of environmental clearances. It is not surprising therefore that since the 2006 notification, environmental clearances have been greatly speeded up, thereby warming the hearts of investors but delivering a death blow to fragile environments around the country.

At the moment, the NGT does hold out some promise of stemming this trend of fake EIAs. It has been established for “the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources” and also for enforcing legal rights relating to the environment and giving relief and compensation for damages. The main bench of the NGT in New Delhi is already functioning and the four circuit branches in Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai are in the process of being set up. Once in place, the NGT should be able to handle many of the cases where shortcuts have been taken by the project authorities to get environmental clearances under the benign and blind gaze of the government. The tribunal, however, can be effective only if people question the government and challenge its decisions. Unfortunately, a combination of lack of transparency and information, and the fact that many of the more environmentally corrosive projects are coming up in remote and poverty-stricken areas, means that often no one questions the government or takes the matter to the NGT.

Tribunals and courts are needed as a last court of appeal. Ideally, they should not replace the executive. It is the job of the government to draft effective rules and implement them in letter and spirit. Regrettably, the record of the last two decades suggests that governments, irrespective of their ideological ­colour, will pay lip service to environmental protection while working assiduously to remove from the path of investors what are viewed as environmental “hurdles”.

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XLVII, No. 8, 25 February, 2012, http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/191041/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close