Representative photo: TripodStories-AB/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
- The Union environment ministry has issued a memorandum laying down the criteria to ‘rate’ State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
- SEIAAs are responsible for deciding whether to approve or reject environmental clearance (EC) applications of over 90% of projects in India.
- This memorandum is deeply problematic for India’s environment and should be withdrawn immediately, the author, a research associate at CPR, writes.
On January 17, 2022, the Union environment ministry issued an office memorandum laying down the criteria for ‘rating’ the functioning of State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) across the country. The SEIAAs are constituted under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, along with State Expert Appraisal Committees.
SEIAAs are responsible for deciding whether to approve or reject environmental clearance (EC) applications of over 90% of projects in India. (To wit, 46,217 proposals have been submitted for grant of EC to 3,494 expert appraisal committees and 42,723 SEIAAs since July 4, 2014.) The environment ministry’s memorandum seeks to facilitate the ‘ease of doing business’ by awarding more points to SEIAAs that grant ECs in less than 80 days. SEIAAs that undertake site visits or seek essential details more than once during the assessment process will be given fewer points.
This memorandum is deeply problematic for India’s environment and should be withdrawn immediately. Here are three reasons why.
First, the memorandum compromises the functioning of SEIAAs (and the State Expert Appraisal Committees that assist them) and runs the risk of increasing the number of industrial disasters. Over the last two years, India has witnessed a rise in such incidents, which some believe coincides with the start of the dilution of regulations under the guise of ‘ease of doing business’.
The contamination of the Shambhavi river from fly ash produced by the Udupi Power Corporation was attributed to the failure of the Karnataka SEIAA to issue adequate EC conditions and comply with the process prescribed in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification with regard to public consultations. The explosion at Yashashvi Rasayan in Gujarat, which led to the death of 11 persons and injuries to about 100, and the flooding in the river Subarnarekha, West Bengal from large scale mechanised sand mining, were both partly chalked up to inadequate post-EC monitoring at the site.
Repeated dilution of environmental standards have weakened the regulatory framework, resulting in these industrial disasters. The new memorandum will only exacerbate the situation. It encourages SEIAAs to expedite the EIA process by compromising on site visits, not seeking additional information about the proposed project, and rushing the issuance of terms of reference. Promoting such ‘shortcuts’ and reduced scrutiny could increase the risk of industrial disasters. While initiatives to facilitate the ease of doing business may be required to incentivise investments in some situations, they can’t be “on the graves of human beings”.
The EIA process is the manifestation of the ‘preventive principle’ in India, since it seeks to anticipate and identify potential harms to human health and the environment and mandate ameliorative measures to address them. The parent Act – the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 – was itself the result of an industrial disaster, the Bhopal gas tragedy, and was enacted with the view to prevent such accidents in the future. The memorandum, with its star rating incentives for SEIAAs that dispose of EC applications in a short time frame, defeats the purpose of the Environment (Protection) Act and the EIA process.
Second, the EIA process was never meant to be an expedited one in the interest of business; in fact, the courts have repeatedly cautioned against the rushed grant of ECs. The Supreme Court has categorically said that applications for EC must be subject to ‘detailed scrutiny’ of the information provided by the project proponent. This includes carrying out an analysis of the EIA Report, proceedings of the public consultation (where applicable) and other project-related documents, and not merely being bound by the information provided by the project proponent.
In the case concerning the grant of EC to the greenfield airport at Mopa in Goa, the project proponents deliberately failed to disclose critical information about the site. Columns requiring information on forest land, human habitations and wildlife were left blank in the EC application, despite the site being nestled in the Western Ghats – a global biodiversity hotspot. As a consequence, the terms of reference for the EIA Report did not include the submission of additional assessments such as avi-faunal studies or the impact of the project on ecologically sensitive areas. It was only during the proceedings before the Supreme Court that details about the ecologically sensitive nature of the project site were brought to light.
It is clear from the Supreme Court’s judgement that the Expert Appraisal Committee had taken the submissions of the project proponent in the EC application to be the gospel truth, without exercising its right to carry out or commission a visit of the project site prior to formulating the terms of reference. Undertaking such site visits to verify the information in the EIA Report or requiring additional information from the project proponent cannot be viewed as an impediment to economic development. These are necessary for making an informed decision on the grant of ECs. The memorandum promotes reduced scrutiny by discouraging SEIAAs from undertaking such site visits and will undoubtedly lead to adverse consequences on the ecology.
Finally, the memorandum might be in the interest of facilitating ease of doing ‘business’, but certainly isn’t in the interest of ‘development’. The memorandum gives no indication of incentives – financial or otherwise – being provided to states that secure a higher ranking. Therefore, it is entirely probable that the ranking is primarily to indicate new and expanding businesses that states provide favourable conditions to operate.
While this rating system offers businesses the opportunity to ‘select’ an SEIAA, the same luxury of choice does not exist for the worker community. As a result of the memorandum, states in which SEIAAs undertake a detailed assessment of the EC proposal or carry out site inspections to verify information will be penalised with a lower rating, likely leading to decreased employment opportunities as a consequence of diverted businesses. The memorandum will create an unnecessary sense of competition between states in the race to grant ECs in short durations – creating unfair economic outcomes.
It is clear that the memorandum, if implemented, will not only have adverse consequences on the effective functioning of the SEIAAs as environmental regulatory bodies, but also on the lives and livelihoods of people and the surrounding ecology. For these reasons, the memorandum must be withdrawn immediately.
Sharon Mathew is a research associate at the CPR Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment.
This article was first published on CPR’s Environmentality blog and has been republished here with permission.