Environmental Clearances in India

The environmental clearance process is required for many types of projects and covers aspects like screening, scoping and evaluation of the upcoming project.
The main purpose is to assess impact of the planned project on the environment and people and to try to abate/minimise the same.
Process related to granting environmental clearances in India :-

• Environmental clearance is granted by the ministry of environment, and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006.
• This notification details the process for granting EC.
• It includes the structure of the EIA report, process of appraisal, and the conditions and safeguards that a company has to implement, including what the environment management plan should be.
• The appraisal is carried out by the Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs), which largely comprise of ‘professionals and experts’. The appraisal procedure clearly states, ‘in case the project or activity is recommended for grant of EC, then the minutes shall clearly list out the specific environmental safeguards and conditions.
• EIA Notification 2006 was issued under the sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. This rule gives powers to the central government to impose certain restrictions and prohibitions on the location of an industry, or the carrying out of processes and operations in an area, based on their potential environmental impacts..

Shortcomings :-

• EC process in India involves a lot of paperwork with nothing to show on the ground.
• Almost every project is cleared by EACs which consist of people not accountable to anyone
• There is hardly any post-clearance monitoring. Hence, non-compliance of the safeguards and conditions is rampant.
• Projects are granted EC after they have already come up.
• Primary goal of the EC process is to ensure that projects are located and constructed in such a manner that they have the least possible impact on the environment.
• Unfortunately, the governments could not uphold this focus
• The present clearance process with its sequential hurdles either forces a project proponent to give up the venture, as was reportedly the case with major road projects of late, or burdens the project with time and cost overruns.

The mindset underlying the clearance process seems to be two-fold. One, all projects deserve the same degree of examination and the other being, following the “Precautionary Principle”, it is better to err on the safe side and withhold clearance.

CAG:-
It criticized delays at every step in projects getting environment clearances (ECs) and highlighted that the ministry had not penalized even a single project for violation of EC conditions.
Way forward:-

• CAG recommendations:-
  
• The process of granting ECs by MoEFCC includes grant of ToRs for preparing EIA reports, public consultations before they are considered for granting or rejecting environment clearance.
• EC letters should clearly mention cost of activities under the Environmental Management Plan along with the timelines for their implementation.
• The capital and revenue expenditure amount to be spent on CSR cost should be distinctly specified in the EC letter.
• EC conditions should be more specific for the area to be developed under green belt and species to be planted in consultation with forest/agriculture department along with post EC third party evaluation.
• While prescribing the conditions of environment clearance, the details about installation of monitoring stations and frequency of monitoring of various environment parameters in respect of air, surface water, ground water noise, etc. are clearly mentioned.
• It also said that the conditions of environment clearance should be compatible with the nature and type of project in order to avoid non-uniformity in similar kinds of projects.
• The NCEPC, revived in a form reflecting the times, could be the body entrusted with the preparation of a workable policy document on “Environment and Development”.
• It could be fashioned on the model of the White House Council on Environmental Quality functioning in the US directly under the President.
• The Indian version could be under the Prime Minister advising him on matters referred to it by him or taken up by it suo moto for enquiry.
• The reason for locating the Committee directly under the Prime Minister is that environment being an all-embracing term, the issues it would deal with would often be the concern of more than one ministry and their examination has necessarily to be undertaken with a perspective larger than what any individual department or ministry may have.

The revival of the NCEPC need not be at the cost of the MOEF:-

While the former would act as a senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister, the latter could continue to look after its present duties and responsibilities

By: SONAM SHEORAN