EIA in India: Critical Analysis of the 2006 Notification and Case Studies, Exercises of Urban Services Design and Administration

Download EIA in India: Critical Analysis of the 2006 Notification and Case Studies and more Exercises Urban Services Design and Administration in PDF only on Docsity!

Soumendra Majumder

[M.E. Architecture - PG 1] Roll No. 001910202008

Jadavpur University, Kolkata

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (EIA)

U R B A N A M E N I T I E S

1. Screening

2. Scoping

3. Public hearing

4. Appraisal

 Category A projects require mandatory environmental clearance and thus they do not undergo the screening process.

 Category B projects undergoes screening process and they are classified into two types :

1. Category B, projects (Mandatorily requires EIA).

2. Category B2 projects (Do not require EIA).

 Thus, Category A projects and Category B, projects undergo the complete EIA process whereas Category B2 projects

are excluded from complete EIA process.

After 2006 Amendment the EIA cycle comprises of four stages :

1. Applicability

There are several projects with significant environmental impacts that are exempted from the notification either because

they are not listed in schedule I, or their investments are less than what is provided for in the notification.

2. Composition of expert committees and standards

It is being found that the team formed for conducting EIA studies is lacking the expertise in various fields such as

environmentalists, wild life experts, Anthropologists and Social Scientists (to study the social impact of the project).

3. Public hearing

 Public comments are not considered at the early stage, which often leads to conflict at the later stage of project

clearance.

 A number of projects with significant environmental and social impacts have been excluded from the mandatory public

hearing process.

 The documents which the public are entitled to are seldom available on time.

 The data collectors do not pay respect to the indigenous knowledge of local people.

VII. Shortcomings of Environmental Impact Assessment

Case Study

 The MoEF constituted the Western Ghats Experts Ecology Panel (WGEEP) in 2010 under the Chairmanship

of Prof. Madhav Gadgil.

 The Panel submitted its report in 2011 but it was not made public immediately due to its stringent assessment of

the condition of Western Ghats.

 The report suggested many radical changes that needs to be brought to conserve Western Ghats.

 The recommendation if implemented would adversely affect mining mafia, sand mafia and local encroachers.

 Under pressure from various stakeholders, MoEF set up the High Level Working Group (HLWG) under the

Chairmanship of Dr. K. Kasturirangan to study recommendations of WGEEP.

 The HLWG had diluted many recommendations of WGEEP to satisfy the interests of various mafia.

6. Monitoring, compliance and institutional arrangements

 Often, and more so for strategic industries such as nuclear energy projected, the EMPs are kept confidential for

political and administrative reasons.

 Details regarding the effectiveness and implementation of mitigation measures are often not provided.

 Emergency preparedness plans are not discussed in sufficient details and the information not disseminated to the

communities.

1. Independent EIA Authority.

 Sector wide EIAs needed.

 Creation of a centralized baseline data bank.

 Dissemination of all information related to projects from notification to clearance to local communities and general

public.

2. Applicability

 All those projects where there is likely to be a significant alternation of ecosystems need to go through the process

of environmental clearance, without exception.

 No industrial developmental activity should be permitted in ecologically sensitive areas.

3. Public hearing

Public hearings should be applicable to all hitherto exempt categories of projects which have environmental impacts.

VIII. Recommendations to improve EIA process

7. Monitoring, compliance and institutional arrangements

The EIA notification needs to build within it an automatic withdrawal of clearance if the conditions of clearance

are being violated and introduce more stringent punishment for noncompliance. At present the EIA notification

limits itself to the stage when environmental clearance is granted.

8. Redressal

 The composition of the NGT needs to be changed to include more judicials from the field of environment.

 Citizen should be able to access the authority for redressal of all violation of the EIA notification as well as

issues relating to non-compliance.

9. Capacity building

NGOs, civil society groups and local communities need to build their capacities to use the EIA notification

towards better decision making on projects.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 (amended in July 2004 to incorporate new and expansion/modernization projects; originally enacted in 1994 ) under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 requires that a scheduled list of projects and activities must provide for public consultations and receive prior environmental clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), the environmental arm of India’s Central Government. However, there are blatant loopholes in this spineless attempt to prioritize the welfare of the environment over the continuous blossom of construction for the sake of economic development. It has been cited in several case studies that the Yamuna River suffers from severe anthropogenic pressures, such as civic construction, alteration in landscape pollution, change in nature of vegetation, and over-exploitation of species and agriculture, which has severely diminished the river’s capacity to be a reliable source for drinking or agricultural purposes. Increasing levels of urban runoff and sewage from Delhi’s booming population contribute to Yamuna’s polluted waters and flood phenomenon, and the Yamuna floodplains are struggling to recharge its groundwater resources. Thus, it has been strongly recommended to halt civic construction in the vicinity of the river and suspend the channelization of its water, as such actions could prove fatal in the river’s ability recharge itself of its groundwater supply. This brief note will illustrate how effortless it is for project proponents to exempt themselves from obtaining environmental clearances and holding public consultations through the lens of two development projects upon the Yamuna River (a 22 km stretch of the river that flows through Delhi’s eastern border), i.e. the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and the Commonwealth Games Village. C A S E S T U D Y

2. Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) In 2010 , Delhi will host the Commonwealth Games that are held every four years in one of 53 Commonwealth countries. In preparation for the Games, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) granted a Dubai-based real estate developer, EMAAR, the bid to construct a, 63. 5 hectare, residential and commercial complex to accommodate visiting athletes and gaming officials on the Yamuna River floodplain. DDA, created under the Delhi Development Act of 1957 , possesses the power to acquire, hold, manage, and dispose of land to promote and secure the development of Delhi. In 1998 /’ 99 , the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) was commissioned by the DDA to prepare an Environmental Management Plan with the overall objective of rejuvenating the Yamuna River. NEERI’s ’ 98 /’ 99 report suggested that recreational areas and camping sites should not be allowed to interfere with the floodplains. At this time in EIA history, it was not necessary for the DDA to obtain an environmental clearance for the CGV structure, as the schedule list had not been amended to include new construction and buildings.

Fearing the CGV structure would be considered a recreational construction, in 2005 , NEERI was commissioned again to submit a similar report to the DDA on the Yamuna River. This time, the report expressly prohibited residential and industrial facilities requiring permanent structures on its riverbed. It is important to note that the DDA now needed an environmental clearance for the construction of the CGV because of the 2004 EIA Notification amendment. However, the DDA concealed this 2005 report from the MoEF until 2006 , which lead to the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MoEF, the committee that appraises EIA proposals, recommending another study be conducted on this issue by the Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune (CWPRS), a R&D organization, affiliated with the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Meantime in late 2006 , the MoEF granted an environmental clearance for the CGV structure on the condition that it would not be permanent in nature. In early 2007 , the CWPRS report was submitted, and based on its findings, the 2006 environmental clearance was ‘renegotiated’ between the MoEF and the DDA to essentially allow permanent structures in the Yamuna riverbed. In January 2008 , a court visit was made to the site in dispute, and immediately following this site visit, the Ministry of Science and Technology (NEERI is apart of this Minstry) and the DDA coerced NEERI to publish a report to appease the court, which concluded that a man-made bund type structure around the project would shield itself from affecting the floodplain. It is imperative to note that not once during this entire EIA process were public consultations sought or mandated by the EIA Notification Process.

In addition, public consultations should be conducted at intervals during the EIA process and not simply after the EIA Report has been prepared. Public consultations should also be held after scoping and assessment of alternative sites and after impact predictions and mitigation measures have been considered to allow the public to understand and raise educated concerns throughout the EIA process. As the procedure exists now, the public consultation is a formality without any bearing on the outcome of environmental clearances. The public receives only one limited opportunity to convene to ask questions and assert their positions. Often times, they are overwhelmed with details and do not have enough background information about the project for the hearing to be meaningful.

Conclusion

The public is distrustful of the Indian government’s environmental protection commitments and rightfully so, as their concerns are secondary to economic development. The DMRC and CGV are only two of the countless examples of where the environment has lost its battle for survival because the environmental evaluation process is slanted toward private interests. In order for the EIA Notification to become a reliable act of government, substantial reformations will have to be made.

R E F E R E N C E S

1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process & Procedures Source : https://www.pmfias.com/eia-environmental-impact-assessment/
2. India’s Environmental Impact Assessment Process & Failure to Protect the Yamuna River from the Thirst of Development Source : https://accessinitiative.org/blog/india%E2%80%99s-environmental-impact-assessment-process-failure-protect- yamuna-river-thirst-development
3. Parna Mukherjee, EIA SCAMS : DECAYING THE EIA LEGAL REGIME IN INDIA , Journal of Environmental Research And Development Vol. 6 No. 3, Jan-March 2012 Source : http://www.jerad.org/ppapers/dnload.php?vl=6&is=3&st=
4. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India Source : http://moef.gov.in/division/environment-divisions/environmental-impact-assessment-eia/introduction/