Shri. A. Raja, Union Minister for Environment and Forests in response to an appeal from the Campaign for Environmental Justice - India (CEJ-I) had directed his Secretary, Dr. Pradipto Ghosh on 9th August 2006 to open up the process of consultations in the process of comprehensively amending the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications. Shri. Raja had specifically issued this direction in light of the fact that people's organisations, regional and local Governments and public interest organisations had been deliberately kept out of the consultation process. Shri. Raja had assured that these consultations would be held after the closure of the current session of Parliament during end August.
According to reliable sources, it is now learnt that MOEF is pushing ahead with the notification in clear violation of the assurance of the Union Environment and Forests Minister. If this turns out to be true, MoEF would have acted in direct contravention of the federal character of our country, for besides not consulting the public at large, in particular movements and networks that have repeatedly demonstrated the lackadaisical concern of MoEF to environmental and social justice issues; the Ministry would also have not given State Governments the status they have accorded the Corporate sector.
Information provided by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in response to an RTI request has confirmed that the Ministry had only consulted industries and industry lobby groups, while comments sent by many people's organisations were not even registered. The Ministry also brazenly admits that it has specifically consulted "Apex Industry Associations namely CII, ASSOCHAM, FICCI and CREDAI" and that "a draft of final notification had been circulated to Apex Industry Associations and Central Ministries/Departments for obtaining their comments/views." The MoEF further admits that the "comments of Apex Industry Associations and Central Ministries/Departments on Draft Final Notification are under examination".
Recently, CEJI representatives met with Shri. P. G. Narayanan, MP and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, to apprise him of the MoEF's intentions. Shri. Nararayan admitted he was not consulted in the process of reformulation of these critical notifications, and paying heed to CEJI concerns, immediately wrote to the Ministry calling for an explanation. In response, MoEF has stated unequivocally that following a presentation by Dr. Ghosh, Secretary MoEF the Principal Secretary, PMO and Member Secretary, Planning Commission "it was decided that MoEF should be (siq) another round of discussions with the Apex Industry Associations namely; CII, ASSOCHAM, FICCI, CREDAI after circulating to them the amended version of the notification prepared by the Ministry. It was also directed that simultaneously the notification be circulated to all concerned Central Ministries and their comments invited within 15 days."
It is a matter of record that many State Governments and a host of NGOs, movements, networks, etc. had also made representations to the Ministry. In some cases they were as exhaustive reports following the holding of Public Hearings, as was the case with CEJI's Public Hearing held in Delhi on 13 November 2005. But MoEF and the PMO found it fit to ignore State Governments and everyone else and proceed to make the changes merely in consultation with "Apex Industry Associations" and Central Ministries. Not only is this is blatant violation of the letter and spirit of the Environment Protection Act, but clearly attacks the Federal character of our country that relies on the cooperation between Centre and States in securing the lives and livelihoods of the people of India and its ecological security for posterity.
From these submissions made by the Ministry to the Parliamentary Committee, it is also clear that bending to the pressures of Business and Multinational interests, MoEF is ready to complete diluting significant regulatory powers latent in the Environment Protection Act by issuing an Environment Impact Assessment Notification that is a completely watered down version of the existing one.
Background:
We also wish to highlight that the executive leadership of MoEF has not responded to the calls from peoples' movements, environmental groups and NGOs that any amendment to such critical regulatory notifications must only be carried out after widespread and transparent consultations, as directed by the Union Environment Minister till date_. This especially considering that these notifications form a substantive part of ensuring conformance with environmental and social impact standards for the most polluting and environmentally damaging sectors.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Congress-I heading the United Progressive Alliance coalition Government at the Centre was clearly upset about this situation when CEJ-I representatives met with her on August 6, 2006. She expressed that "it is unfortunate" and assured the delegation that she will look into the matter".
Similarly, Shri. Prithviraj Chauhan, Minister of State attached to the Prime Minister's Office found it wholly unacceptable that MoEF had proceeded to draft comprehensive amendments to such key notifications merely based on consultation with industry and Central Ministries. He saw no reason why the Ministry should be so sectoral and secretive in its approach, when the matter of "balancing developmental priorities and environmental sustainability" demanded widespread and open participation. He assured CEJI representatives who met him on August 9, 2006 that he would raise the matter with the Prime Minister.
Shri. P.G. Narayanan, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Forests admitted that MoEF had not consulted this apex body in re-drafting the EIA and CRZ notifications. He felt this went against the spirit of democratic participation in formulation of regulatory mechanisms and promised to take up this matter immediately in an appropriate forum.
Keeping in view the interest of millions of farmers, workers, and communities directly dependant on natural resources, as well as the critical need to protect ecologically sensitive habitats, CEJI will continue to campaign across the country against any dilution of environmental and forest clearance standards.
The current approach of the Ministry to comprehensively amend the notifications without any meaningful consultation and precisely based on sectoral consultations with the Business Sector, had exposed itself as a Ministry that is not working to the mandate it is appointed: to protect India's environment and forests.
In this context, CEJI demands that the proposed EIA and CRZ Amendments should be put on hold till such time the broadbased consultations are held across the country. Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon (Kalpavriksh - Pune/Delhi), Manshi Asher (National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune), Nityanand Jayaraman (Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai); Leo F. Saldanha (Environment Support Group (Bangalore); Latha A. (Chalakudy River Protection Committee, Thrissur); Samir Mehta (Bombay Environment Action Group); Liyakath Syed (Equations, Bangalore); Seerat Kacchap (BIRSA, Jharkand); Deepankar Dutta (Samatha, Hyderabad); Bharat Jairaj (Citizens Action Group, Chennai)
On behalf of Campaign for Environmental Justice -- India
Bangalore Contact: Environment Support Group ®, 105, East End B Main Road, Jayanagar 9th Block East, Bangalore 560069. INDIA Telefax: 91-80-26341977/26531339/26534364 Email: esg@esgindia.org or esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in Web: www.esgindia.org
Background to the CEJI Initiative on the"re-engineering" of EIA and CRZ Notifications
CEJI has over the past two years come together as a formidable coalition of peoples' movements, environmental groups, human rights organisations, research and advocacy initiatives. Through a series of Open Letters (available online http://www.esgindia.org or http://www.kalpavriksh.com) CEJI has highlighted the serious neglect of the planning and punitive capacities of law and regulatory instruments by MoEF. It was stressed that such soft approach has encouraged industrial and infrastructure development at any cost, and resulted in widespread violations of human rights and environmental clearance norms.
Rather than implement existing provisions of law effectively, and proactively, and build capacities of Pollution Control Boards at the state level for this purpose, MoEF instead, launched on a "reform" initiative that it claimed to be the "re-engineering" of existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the EIA and CRZ notifications. This exercise has been actively guided by the World Bank, which even funded the exercise, and draws its inspiration from the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, which explicitly demands that foreign direct investment is a priority that should not be stymied due to environmental clearance "bottlenecks".
For this exercise of "reengineering" MoEF chose a foreign consultant (ERM from Holland) which had no idea whatsoever of the ground realities. ERM also made no effort to meet peoples representatives and communities across the country. In the only two consultations held during the drafting of the "reengineering" of the EIA notification in Bangalore and Delhi during 2004, ERM and MoEF ensured that most participants were drawn from industry, neglecting even state government representatives.
This trend continued all the way to the level of MoEF Secretary Dr. Ghosh, who in consultations held with a select few during November 2004 on the controversial National Environmental Policy, pushed the draft EIA Notification on the agenda much to the surprise of participants, who were wholly unprepared.
MoEF did put up the draft notifications on its website, but without any clear statement on the implications, and without an approach paper discussing alternative models. There is widespread experience and expertise in India on strengthening environmental clearance procedures, both within Government and outside, but MoEF chose not to involve these constituencies in a spirit of securing the greater common good. Instead it has only focussed on serving the interests of the industry and foreign investors, and the result is that both the amendments to the EIA and CRZ notifications are guided merely by an unnecessary urgency to grant clearances speedily based on an investor induced demand rationale. This is in clear violation of the law and various constitutional provisions that requires well considered and democratic decision making processes keeping in view the long term and intergenerational impact of such decisions. Consequently there are many dilutions in standards.
For instance, MoEF had originally proposed that statutory Environmental Public Hearings could be conducted by the Investor seeking clearances, but eventually knocked this clause off on protests. The present draft sustains the current practice of statutory authorities holding hearings, but also provides the possibility of cancelling Hearings "owing to the local situation, it is not possible to conduct the public hearing."
Such unfettered discretion in cancelling key statutory forums for decision making, merely to ensure the satisfaction of the investor, will have disastrous consequences both to the environment and the lives and livelihoods of millions.
Similarly, the proposed replacement of the CRZ Notification with a Coastal Zone Management Plan has been evolved without any meaningful and diverse consultations across the country, particularly the fishing communities. The M. S. Swaminathan Committee which was constituted in the tragic aftermath of the Tsunami to come up with a rigorous approach to coastal area management, instead came up with the CZMP idea, which is nothing short of a major dilution in land use control norms and strict clearance procedures that guides the existing CRZ Notification. Even so, there have been widespread violations all along the coast, which has largely gone unpunished, and the Swaminathan proposal will accentuate the process, if accepted.
The result today is draft amendments to the critical EIA and CRZ notifications that please none. Aware that its motives were skewed, MoEF tried every means to defeat efforts by CEJI to access documentation on the extent of consultations that supported these "reengineering" exercises. Finally, when a RTI complaint was filed with the Central Information Commission, it had no option but to share over 2000 pages of documentation.
The order of the Central Information Commission, issued recently, on 31 July 2006, is self explanatory:
"As requested by the appellant and agreed to by the respondents during the hearing the information supplied will be provided free of charge as per Sec 7 (6). Apellant has not pressed for penalty. In this case the kind of delay that had taken place without intimation to the applicant is unacceptable, although the plea taken that this was amongst the earliest cases before the Ministry and, therefore, there was an office failure is, insofar as the PIO is concerned, taken as reasonable cause for the delay. Hence while no penalty is imposed, the Ministry is cautioned to ensure strict adherence to time limits prescribed u/s 7(1) of the Act to avoid invocation of Sec. 20." (copy of full order enclosed).
A close review of the 2000 pages provided by MoEF under the order of the CIC confirms that several states have taken the initiative of reporting their comments on the drafts, and have in fact argued against the key provisions of the amendments proposed.
Note issued by CAMPAIGN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – INDIA
August 2006
THIS NOTE MAY BE WIDELY DISSEMINATED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR CONSENT SO LONG AS IT IS NOT MISQUOTED AND MISREPRESENTED
|
