Green tapism : A review of the environmental impact assessment notification 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
ABBREVIATIONS USED X;
INDEX OF REFERENCES XII;
INTRODUCTION 1;
- International treaties and Indian environmental legislations 2;
- Judicial determinants for environmental regulation in India 2;
- Counter trends: self-certification and complete exploitation of natural resources 3;
- Political and economic factors that influenced the new EIA norms 6;
- How the EIA Notification was “reengineered” 8;
- MoEF ignores efforts to broad-base consultations 10;
- No Parlimentary oversight over EIA norms 13;
- Why the EIA Notification – 2006 is deeply flawed 14;
1. EIA Notification – 2006 finalisation based on demands from industrial and investor lobbies 16;
2. Inadequate decentralisation and devolution in environmental decision-making 17;
3. Wasteful creation of new technical bureaucracies and other structural issues 17;
4. Process deficiencies in the new environmental clearance system 18;
5. Unwarranted exemptions, exclusions and other loopholes 18;
6. Inadequate monitoring and enforcement regime 19;
7. Total confusion regarding applicability of the new Notification 19;
- The new EIA Notification - ready to be discarded? 20;
Box 1: Abstracting the Rio Principles in Developing EIA Law 1;
Box 2: Contrary Legislative Trends 4;
Box 3: “Self Certification”, at whose Cost? 4;
Box 4: The FICCI ‘Self-regulatory’ Agenda 5;
Box 5: The Questionable Role of International Consulting Firm Environmental Resource Management (ERM) in Formulating the EIA Notification – 2006 8;
Box 6: Brazen Admissions! 12;
Box 7: Who Cares about Climate Change? 14;
CHAPTER 1: DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION 21;
- Failure of proportionate allotment in Centre-State-Local Government responsibilities 22;
1. Excessive centralisation of environmental decision-making 22;
2. All projects are Category A until SEIAA and SEAC are set up 23;
3. Untrammelled State overview for Category B projects 24;
- Role for Local Governance Bodies completely ignored 24;
1. Key provisions of Nagarpalika and Panchayat Acts ignored 25;
2. No involvement for Gram Sabhas as required under PESA 25;
3. Minimal compliance with Forest Rights Act 26;
- False claims of devolution of power 26;
Box 8: No Safeguards against Administrative Coercion 22;
v GREEN TAPISM;
CHAPTER 2: STRUCTURAL ISSUES RELATING TO DECISION-MAKING 28;
- Environment Impact Assessment Authorities 29;
1. No accountability or clarity regarding the central regulatory authority 29;
2. Time lines and procedures for creation of regulatory authorities not prescribed 30;
3. SEIAA decisions must be unanimous 30;
- Expert Appraisal Committees 31;
1. Flawed composition of the Committee 31;
2. No prescribed time line for creation of expert bodies 32;
3. Capacity and composition of EAC disproportionate to scale of review demanded 32;
4. EAC/SEAC opinion hampered by ‘collective responsibility’ 33;
5. Diminished efficacy of expert site visits 34;
6. SEAC representing several states contrary to federalism 36;
Box 9: The Not So ‘Expert’ Committees 31;
Box 10: Dismal Quality of EIA Reports to Continue 35;
CHAPTER 3: DEFICIENCIES IN THE VARIOUS STAGES OF THE EC PROCESS 38;
- Stage 1 – Screening 39;
1. No safeguards in Screening process 39;
2. No clarification on ‘Pre-Feasibility Report’ and ‘Conceptual Plan’ 40;
- Stage 2 – Scoping 40;
1. No public participation in ‘Scoping’ process 40;
2. Limited access to information in scooping process 43;
> No meaningful access to EIA Terms of Reference 43;
> Preliminary rejection of project not public 43;
- Stage 3 - Public Consultation 44;
1. Democratic Deficit in ‘Public Consultations’ 45;
> Narrow scope for public participation 45;
> Limited consultation in public hearing 47;
> Public hearing process easily undermined 48;
a) Regulatory authority can cancel public consultations 48;
b) Exemptions galore in public consultation process 48;
> Are all nuclear projects in India civilian facilities? 52;
2. Procedural and prescriptive infirmities in public consultation process 53;
> Time period for public consultation process reduced 53;
> No criterion for alternate public agency to conduct public hearing 54;
> Public hearing panel non-representative 55;
> No clarity on venue for public hearing 56;
3. Access to Information in the Public Consultation Stage 57;
> Limited access to EIA Summary, Draft EIA, Final EIA, etc. 57;
a) Undue reliance on summary EIA report and application 57;
b) Limited access to Draft EIA report 57;
c) Limited information disseminated before public hearing 59;
> Broad exemptions to information access in EIA documents 59;
a) No guarantee of Public Access to final EIA report 60;
> Skewed information access during public consultation stage 61;
vi GREEN TAPISM;
- Stage 4 – Appraisal 62;
1. Non-transparent, non-participatory appraisal process 62;
2. Public in the dark while project proponent is privy to information during Appraisal 63;
3. Grant or rejection of prior environmental clearance 63;
> Confusing time-frames for decision of regulatory authority 63;
> Unguided regulatory hegemony over the final decision 64;
> Troubling consequences of ‘deemed clearance’ 64;
Box 11: UNESCAP Principles for Environmental Clearance Process 38;
Box 12: Components of Screening 40;
Box 13: What is Scoping? 41;
Box 14: MoEF Plagiarises from European Union EIA Formats! 42;
Box 15: The Access Initiative (TAI) Perspective 45;
Box 16: How CREDAI ‘manipulated’ the EIA Notification 2006? 49;
Box 17: Why have Construction Projects been Excluded? 49;
Box 18: Highways and Environmental Clearances 51;
Box 19: Defence Projects and Environmental Impacts 52;
Box 20: Poor Choice of Media for Information Dissemination 58;
Box 21: NEERI’s EIA Manuals Wasted 62;
CHAPTER 4: UNWARRANTED EXEMPTIONS, LOOPHOLES AND LACUNAE IN THE EC PROCESS 66;
- Land acquisition without environmental clearance 67;
- Un-regulated ‘Preconstruction Activity’ of Hydroelectric Projects 69;
- Flawed categorization of projects and activities 70;
1. Non-scheduled industries escape environmental clearance requirements 70;
2. No rationale for classification of projects as Category A or Category B 74;
3. No rationale for classification of projects as Category B1 or B2 74;
4. Problematic categorization of Industrial estates/parks/complexes/areas,
Export Processing Zone (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech Parks, Leather Complexes 75;
- The highly flawed regulation of Biotech Parks 76;
- ‘Specific Conditions’ create loopholes 77;
1. Polluting units shielded within Industrial Estates 77;
2. No priority for disaster management and liability 77;
- Unclear application of ‘General Conditions’ 78;
- Weak regulation of expansion, modernization and change in product mix 79;
1. Unregulated expansion of mining projects 80;
2. Unclear applicability of threshold limits 80;
3. No procedural safeguards for expansion and modernization 81;
- Validity of environmental clearance 81;
1. Unwarranted extensions in validity of clearance 81;
> Serious problems in review of River Valley and Mining Projects 81;
> Limited regulation of Area Development and Township Projects 82;
2. Typographical errors create confusion on period of validity of EC 83;
vii GREEN TAPISM;
- Transferability of environmental clearance 83;
1. No safeguards in transfer of environmental clearance 83;
Box 22: Railways – Time to Draw the Line? 66;
Box 23: Legitimating the Land Grab? 68;
Box 24: CDP Exempted from Environmental Clearance 70;
Box 25: Manufacturers of Lead Acid Batteries Appeased? 71;
Box 26: Power Play by the Automobile Manufacturing Sector 71;
Box 27: Urban Projects cause no environmental impact! 73;
CHAPTER 5: PROBLEMS WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCES 84;
- Monitoring weak after investor secures environmental clearance 84;
- Weak punitive measures against deliberate concealment and supplying of false data 86;
Box 28: Registration of EIA Consultants outsourced 87;
CHAPTER 6: RELATIONSHIP WITH AND CONTINUED RELEVANCE OF EIA NOTIFICATION 1994 88;
- Applicability of 1994 Notification undecipherable 88;
CONCLUDING REMARKS 91;
CASE STUDIES 93;
1: Construction Projects - the Athashri Paranjape Project, Bangalore 93;
2: Mockery of Environmental Public hearings 94;
3: EIA Notification 2006 Ignores the Deadly Health and Environmental Hazards posed by Electronic Waste 95;
4: Bogibeel Project: Bridge to destroy rivers 97;
5: Special Economic Zones with Special Exemptions 98;
6: Illegal dumping of Solid Wastes at Mavallipura village, Bangalore 99;
7: Careless Expansion: West Coast Paper Mills 100;
8: Ship-Breaking Yards and Units Brought Under Ambit of EIA Notification 2006 101;
9: Planning commision and the EIA process 103;
viii GREEN TAPISM;
ANNEXURE:
Annexure A Comparison of the Environment Impact Assessment Notifications of 1994 and 2006;
Annexure A1 A Schematic of the Environmental Clearance Process per the EIA Notification 1994;
Annexure B Comparison of Draft EIA Notification (2005) and EIA Notification – 2006;
Annexure C EIA Notification – 2006;
Annexure D Additional Circulars, Memos, Corrigendum and Clarifications
issued by the MoEF to the EIA Notification – 2006 (Updated till 15 April 2007);
Annexure E EIA Notification 1994;
Annexure F Extracts from Indian Environmental Policies;
Annexure G Open Letters by Indian NGOs/Campaign Organisations Questioning the National Environment Policy -2006;
Annexure H Campaign for Environmental Justice – India, Release on why a ‘Death Certificate’ was issued on MoEF;
Annexure I Campaign for Environmental Justice Press Release Critiquing the Process by which EIA Notification – 2006 was formulated;
Annexure J EIA Stages Recommended by UNESCAP;
Annexure K UNECE Principles for Meaningful Implementation of the EIA Process.