Tag: EIA

The NGT’s Tightrope Walk on the Yadadri Thermal Power Plant

In only suspending the project’s environmental clearance despite taking note of illegalities, the NGT is continuing the tradition of allowing violators of environmental laws to focus on their business interests without thinking about the impacts.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in a near-decade-old petition concerning a 3,600 MW thermal power plant of the IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. The key contention in the IL&FS case was that the project developer carried out a rapid Cumulative Impact Assessment instead of a detailed one, which the National Green Tribunal (NGT) deemed illegal and grounds for canceling the project’s environmental clearance. The NGTs decision in 2014 was challenged by the company in the Supreme Court, where it was stayed, and while the decision of the court was pending the project was commissioned in 2015. The stay on the NGTs judgement resulted in a fait accompli situation wherein the project was allowed to proceed with procurement and construction despite the clear violations recorded by the NGT.

Unfortunately, Cuddalore/IL&FS is not an isolated experience. A few months ago, the NGT passed a crucial judgement on the 4000 MW super critical Yadadri Thermal Power Plant in the Nalgonada district of Telangana. Both the judgments are vital case studies in how the clearance granting ecosystem within the environmental decision-making process is predisposed to manipulation and arbitrariness, and in constant need of course correction.

The Yadadri case

 The Yadadri case offers critical insights into the pervasive culture of environmental misgovernance, especially in an environment dominated by highly interpretive procedural laws. The improvement of environmental governance in India is a work in progress and the judiciary must play a critical role in channelling the process towards the desirable state of affairs. However, in both these cases, and more so in Yadadri, the judiciary’s attempt to between environmental protection and development has proven beneficial for the violator at great cost to the environment.

It is important to mention at the outset that the Yadadri project received executive and judicial sanction despite faulty studies, a plagiarised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report and a flawed public hearing and site selection process.

Also read: Will the Hindenburg Episode Affect Adani’s – and India’s – Energy Plans?

Plagiarised EIA

The EIA report is the key scientific document that the Central/state agencies, experts and the impacted communities rely on to make an informed decision about the fate of the environment once the project is operational. Simply put, the EIA is a way to assess the possible impacts of a project and choose the least destructive path that a project should take and offer engineered solutions wherever the environmental impacts are unavoidable. It also forms the basis for the public hearing, another important stage in the clearance process.

In the case of Yadadri, the EIA consultant hired by the project developer, Telangana State Power Development Corporation (TSPDC), was found to have plagiarised large sections of the report and provided false and misleading information on crucial elements. Experts who reviewed the EIA even noted language like “Handling of heavy bags of the final products may lead to occupational Injuries like strains, sprains and cramps”, which bears no relevance to thermal power plant projects and is most likely borrowed from an EIA report on an airport.

More concerning from the community point of view was that the faulty EIA formed the basis for the public hearing – the sole opportunity for impacted citizens to voice their opinions. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) appointed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to review the project dutifully rejected the EIA report.

However, the arbitrary misinterpretation of the EIA Notification 2006 (the law that governs the EIA process) began at this point. The law is clear on cases where the EIA is found to be plagiarised, it even prescribes the cancellation of the process. However, the EAC, after acknowledging the plagiarism, instead of cancelling the project’s environmental clearance, proposed that the TSPDC just revise the EIA report using a new consultant. To make matters worse, the EAC also exempted the company from holding a fresh public hearing, as mandated in the EIA 2006. The public hearing was replaced with a three-week online consultation which received four comments, based on which the environmental clearance was granted. This decision was not backed by any legal rationales.

The tribunal chose to remain silent on this aspect and also included no directions in the operative part of the order to correct this violation or even penalise the project proponent.

Telangana chief minister KCR inspecting construction at the Yadadri plant. Photo: Telangana CMO

 Violation of site selection criteria

The site selection process was yet another area where the authorities and the EAC displayed their arbitrary application of the law.

The total land required for the project is 2,800 acres. Around 75% of the project site falls under the Veerapalem Reserved Forest area. Later, the site was also found to be less than 10 km from the Amrabad Tiger Reserve by a sub-committee of the EAC. In order to understand the nature of the violation, it is important to understand the criteria of site selection under the EIA process. As mentioned earlier, the key objective of an EIA is to choose a path of least impact.

Therefore, the selection of the site must be an objective exercise which involves consideration of all possible alternatives and choosing the one with the least social and environmental disruption. This precaution was thrown to the wind by the project developers and subsequently condoned by the EAC. The biggest violation was of the   for thermal power plants, which clearly state that “No forest land shall be used for non-forest activity for the sustenance of the industry”.

A closer scrutiny of the project documents revealed the creative subversion of the law. The current site, according to the NGT judgment, was chosen . In fact, the process of seeking forest clearance started after the chief minister had already decided on the site. In fact, the site selection was a fait accompli and rejection on any grounds was politically unviable. To fulfil the EIA criteria, – one inside the Kinnarasani Wildlife Sanctuary where any industrial activity is statutorily prohibited and another under legal dispute where acquisition was stayed by the high court.

While noting these illegalities, the NGT chose to condone the forest diversion in this particular case citing “exceptional circumstances” but also using this opportunity to reprimand the environment ministry – “Though we are not happy with the manner in which the MoEF&CC, Government of India had granted the approval for grant of FC for the project and the State of Telangana had selected a reserved forest for this project, in future, we direct the MoEF&CC to desist from ordering conversion/diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose for industrial purposes especially those are having more potential for pollution being caused in the area and that is likely to have impact on forest.”

Change in coal source

While burning coal is the key ambition of a thermal power plant, the quantity and most importantly the nature of the coal being burnt is also critical. In fact, the nature of coal used in thermal power plants is the key determinant of how the plant will be designed and how the operators will control and capture the pollution. The project proponent initially planned to use imported and domestic coal in a 50:50 ratio. However, during the proceedings before the NGT, the proponent submitted that it would opt for 100% domestic coal, in view of the recent changes in domestic coal policy.

It is important to explain the difference between Indian coal and imported coal at this stage. Indian coal contains up to 50% mineral matters like metallic oxides and silicates resulting in vast quantities of fly ash generation, anywhere between 35-45%. The ash content in imported coal, however, varies from 10-20%. This huge differential determines all the engineering aspects of the project, from the design of the boilers, the sophistication of the pollution control components like electrostatic precipitators (meant to capture ash before it reaches the chimney), and the Flue Gas Desulperisation that captures excess sulphur dioxide to the land required for the disposal of the fly ash.

Also read: Kailash-Mansarovar: What Is the Ecological Footprint of Isha Foundation’s ‘Sacred Walk’?

None of these considerations were noted by the EAC or the MoEF&CC before granting the clearance and the proponent was allowed to proceed with business. However, the NGT recorded this as a significant issue of concern and observed that a change in fuel source is only permissible if the project proponent applies for a fresh environmental clearance. The NGT’s observations on this issue sets a significant precedent.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

Another noticeable direction by the NGT is to conduct ambient air quality modelling studies and cumulative impact assessment (CIA) over a 25 km radius, and to suggest appropriate mitigation measures based on its findings. This was considering the fact that a number of cement plants were already operating in the vicinity of the proposed plant. This was in keeping with the earlier decision  of the NGT which was also upheld by the Supreme Court:

“… the necessity for conducting the cumulative impact assessment study is a must for considering the question of allowing a new industry to come in an area which is already an industrial estate having a lot of polluting industries, and non-conducting of such a study and suppression  of certain material facts by the project proponent will be a ground of setting aside the environment clearance or suspending the environment clearance…”

However, in the case of Yadadri, the benefits of a CIA are scuttled since this is being done post-facto. The purpose of such a study at this stage can only be academic and any mitigation interventions superficial.

Suspension of the environmental clearance  

The critical test for the tribunal in this case was in how it would treat the legality of the clearance granted to the Yadadri project. There was a compelling case for the cancellation of the clearance based on the facts presented to the bench. This would be the logical conclusion but given the proverbial tightrope the tribunal had to walk, the bench only directed the suspension of the environmental clearance pending certain scientific studies. The project construction was also allowed to continue but the plant would not be commissioned pending the findings of these studies. The tribunal drew precedence for this approach from the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Uma Maheshwar Dahagama, wherein the NTPC was allowed to continue with the construction with an environmental clearance in abeyance. The justification behind such judgments is often a variation of economic loss, larger public good or sustainable development. In the case of Yadadri, the tribunal observed that:

“Telangana State being a new state formed, they may require power generation for their development process, for which, they will have to develop further power plants. So, the principle of “Sustainable Development” will have to be considered, as without economic growth, needs of the people cannot be considered.”

In most cases, much like this, construction activities are allowed to begin before the necessary clearances are granted, creating a fait accompli situation that courts find hard to undo. Such legal outcomes have become so predictable that project proponents have perhaps become deliberate in violating environmental laws.

The Yaradri case offers an interesting insight into the modus operandi of environmental crimes and the enabling environment created by the system. Needless to say, a systemic change is what is needed – but to achieve that, we need to transform our foundational belief that environmental conservation is an impediment to economic growth.

Dharmesh Shah is an environmental policy researcher based in Kerala.

Edited by Jahnavi Sen.

Now, Highway Projects Near Borders Don’t Need Environmental Clearance

The government needs to balance both national security and the environment while also maintaining transparency in prioritising such projects, experts said.

Kochi: All highway projects within 100 km of India’s “Line of Control (LoC) or border” will now be exempt from environmental clearances. This is in view of their importance for defence and national security, as per a notification issued on July 14 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

The notification is unclear about whether ‘borders’ refer to both land and coastal borders, mapping experts and ecologists pointed out. If it applies to both, highway projects in around 35% of India’s land area – which includes all four of India’s biodiversity hotspots – would be exempt from environmental clearances. Even if only land borders are considered, this amounts to more than 7,00,000 square km of India’s land area, encompassing most of India’s northeast. While national security and development are important, the question is about how the government can balance both while also maintaining transparency in prioritising such projects – as is necessary in a democracy, experts said.

Clearances and EIA 2006

As per the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules (2006), all developmental projects – new ones or those that involve the expansion of existing projects – have to acquire prior environmental clearance from the MoEFCC before implementation. This is done through EIAs that examine a project’s potential impacts on human health and the environment. A project obtains environmental clearance only after several stages (including public consultation, in which project proponents have to present the project and its potential impacts to the members of local communities and stakeholders for their feedback).

Also read: Manipur Govt Orders Floating Homestays Off Loktak Lake; Locals Sniff Tourism Commercialisation Plot

A notification published by the MoEFCC on July 14 exempts all highway projects within 100 km from India’s LoC or border from environmental clearances. This means that such projects will not need to be assessed for their impacts on people and the natural ecosystem; this also eliminates the process of public consultation, among others.

This is because such projects “related to defence and strategic importance in border States are sensitive in nature” and “need to be executed on priority keeping in view strategic, defence and security considerations”, as per the notification. Highway projects exempted from these clearances will be subject to specific Standard Operating Procedures.

Which borders will this apply to?

The notification, however, is unclear about which ‘borders’ this amendment applies to, mappers pointed out. India has both land and coastal borders.

As per the Ministry of Home Affairs, India’s land borders run to around 15,100 km and its coastline to around 7,500 km.

According to Veera Mahuli, an environmental lawyer and policy researcher, the mention of just ‘borders’ is vague for a reason.

“We have already been seeing [an] uproar with regard to coastal projects and that could be a reason to not specify coastal borders,” she said. “This amendment is with the view to sidestep necessary impact assessment procedures as per the government’s own convenient prioritisation of infrastructure projects.”

That these projects will be prioritised for ‘defence, strategic and security considerations’ makes it all the more precarious and difficult to raise objections, she added.

 The Wire wrote to the secretary, MoEFCC, to clarify the definition of ‘border’ in the amendment. The story will be updated once their response is received. But let’s look at what both definitions of a border (land and coastal, or land alone) would mean in the context of this amendment for India, its people and biodiversity.

Also read: A NITI Aayog-Commissioned Report Unveils the Hypocrisy of Modi Govt’s ‘Climate Concerns’

If we consider both land and coastal borders, it would mean that highway projects in around 35% of India’s land area would be exempt from environmental clearances, said ecologist M.D. Madhusudan. This would include all four of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots found in the country: the Himalaya, Western Ghats, the Indo-Burma region and Sundaland (comprising the Andaman and Nicobar Islands). Highway projects in almost all of the Western Ghats and India’s northeastern states – both spots of very high biodiversity and endemism, and of immense cultural richness and livelihood value for local communities – will be exempt from environmental clearances.

Even if we consider only land borders, this amounts to more than 7,00,000 sq km of India’s land area because ~60% of India’s international borders are terrestrial ones, Madhusudan said. Northeast India will bear the brunt here: entire states, including Sikkim, Tripura and Meghalaya would be exempt from clearances for such projects. Incidentally, the northeast is home to a large part of India’s remaining forest cover. Around 64% of India’s northeast – 1,69,521 sq km – is forest, as per India’s latest State of Forest Report.

Impacts on ecosystems and people

However, the changes that this amendment will bring about will impact not just forests but numerous other habitat types too. This includes distinct ecosystems such as Open Natural Ecosystems in western India, high-altitude steppe pastures, wetlands, coastal and intertidal ecosystems, said Madhusudan. “These are just as important as our forests… maybe even more.”

As experts on environmental law have noted, the government tried to evade the need for an EIA in Uttarakhand’s Char Dham project (which aims to develop highways across 825 km in the Himalaya) by splitting it up into 53 smaller patches of less than 100 km each. Both the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court did not appreciate this, said Kavita Upadhyay, an independent water policy researcher and journalist. The NGT asked for a rapid EIA; and the Supreme Court appointed a High Powered Committee (HPC) to look into all the environmental impacts that the Char Dham project would cause. Finally, a draft rapid EIA was submitted to the HPC.

However, the latest notification ensures that even this would not be required, she said. She took the example of the Rishikesh-Mana patch (spanning NH-58). Around one-third of this 281 km-stretch will be free of any requirement to obtain environmental clearance; but this is “a big area for a small state like Uttarakhand”, and in a region that is “environmentally and ecologically sensitive”, said Upadhyay.

Also read: The Case of Ramdas Janardan Koli, or How an Underdog Successfully Won an Environmental Case

“Prior to the recent notification too (i.e., when the environmental clearance norms were well in place), many norms were flouted with regards to EIA, hill-cutting, muck disposal, tree-felling, etc. But one could at least approach courts based on strong grounds (legally). Now, that is not an option.”

Most of these areas are also high seismic risk zones.

“Such risks exist and must not be sidelined,” said Upadhyay. “Climate change, especially with many instances of extreme rainfall events being experienced in the state, is a pertinent risk too.”

The notification is therefore a “setback” for everyone living in environmentally sensitive regions like the Himalayas, said Upadhyay.

Fine balance

National security and economic growth are both important, no doubt. But we must also recognise that their pursuit also inevitably involves serious trade-offs with the ecology and environment. Therefore, transparency is vital to demonstrate how the government is striking a balance between the gains and the pains involved, Madhusudan commented.

“I can think of few things more nationalistic than defending the vital ecological foundations of our nation and our economy. If the only way of defending our nation is by damaging our own ecology, then why even have environmental laws,” he asked.

According to Madhusudan, laws, institutions and processes of environmental regulation, like the EIA, necessarily have a narrow mandate: to conserve and protect the environment. Where such environmental concerns intersect with other priorities – like national security – it is the responsibility of any democratic government to harmonise them in the most transparent way possible, sharing information with citizens both about the environmental and ecological costs they carry, as well as the potential economic, developmental, and national security benefits they may bring.

“And then, to publicly reason that these are fair costs to pay for the benefits they bring,” he said.

The draft amendment pertaining to this notification was published in the Gazette on April 11 for suggestions and comments. One news article quoted an environment ministry official saying that the MoEFCC had received “hardly any objections to these amendments”.

However, there is no way to determine this.

The process really does lack transparency, Mahuli said. “It is hard to believe that an amendment of this nature, wherein projects have already seen disastrous impacts on lives and livelihood, would not have received sufficient clapback,” she said.

Implement Vishwamitri River Action Plan in Three Months, NGT Tells Authorities

The National Green Tribunal has asked authorities to remove unauthorised structures, demarcate and protect the Vishwamitri flood plain zone within three months.

New Delhi: The National Green Tribunal has directed the authorities to implement the “Vishwamitri River Action Plan” in Vadodra including the steps for removal of unauthorised structures, demarcation and protection of flood plain zone within three months.

A bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel noted that Vishwamitri river is one of 351 identified polluted river stretches, identified as such by the Central Pollution Control Board.

“While directing consideration of all the issues by the applicants, we reiterate the direction for implementation of the Vishwamitri River Action Plan including the steps for removal of unauthorised structures, demarcation and protection of flood plain zone and other action points as per the river restoration plan,” the bench said.

The action should be completed by the concerned authorities within three months, it said.

The tribunal was hearing a plea filed by Rohit Prajapati and others against the Vishwamitri Riverfront Development Project (VRDP) at Vadodra in Gujarat, in violation of environmental norms.

The plea alleged that the project violated the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, requiring prior EC, after assessment of the impact of the project on environment.

The project in question adversely impacted the environment, particularly the Vishwamitri River wetlands, ravines, inter-connectivity with other water bodies, floodplains, flora and fauna and biodiversity, the plea said.

Vadodara Municipal Corporation, however, told the NGT that the project has not yet been finalized and it was only at conceptual stage.

The project was to beautify and rejuvenate the river for the benefit of the general public. It will increase the flood carrying capacity, clean the river and protect the habitat of the wildlife, VMC said.

More Than 500 Students, Researchers Ask Environment Ministry To Revoke EIA 2020 Draft

‘We urge the MoEF&CC to withdraw the draft notification and instead strengthen the existing EIA notification with a new proposal.’

Smoke billows from a fire at Baghjan oilfield a week after the blowout, in Tinsukia district, June 9, 2020. Photo: PTI.

Over 500 academics, scientists and researchers from various educational institutes have penned an open letter to the Union environment ministry enumerating their concerns with the draft Environmental Impact Assessment notification 2020, which has drawn ire from multiple quarters for its scheme to ease business by diluting regulations that protect the environment and safeguard the rights of people affected by prospective projects.

The letter was initiated by PhD students from different institutes. The signatories themselves belong to more than 130 institutions and universities, including the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru; some of the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research; some IITs; the National Centre for Biological Sciences; and the Wildlife Institute of India. The letter criticises the draft notification and calls for better and more inclusive environmental decision-making.

The Wire is publishing their statement in full, followed by the list of signatories.

An open letter to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

September 2, 2020

We, a group of academics, scientists and researchers engaged in various capacities, express our deep concern regarding India’s sustainable future in the light of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 (hereafter ‘Draft Notification’), recently proposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India.

As citizens of this country, many of us have sent our feedback and comments on the document by the specified deadline, 11th August, 2020. However, limited circulation and publicity of the Draft Notification compounded by a lack of its availability in most Indian languages hindered true and inclusive public participation. Moreover, many traditional communities of rural India, often most affected by unappraised developmental projects, also lack the technology and access to take part in such an exercise. Considering that the Central Government is currently restrained by Karnataka High Court from publishing the final draft till 7th September, 2020, we find this time opportune to present our chief concerns on the Draft Notification with this press release to further a wider public debate on the subject.

Overall, we have come to the conclusion that the Draft Notification, in its current form, is likely to seriously threaten our country’s ecological and environmental security. The Draft Notification neither adheres to the fundamental objectives of its parent legislation, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, nor does it align with our country’s commitments under various international agreements and conventions.

The existing EIA 2006 Notification itself has been deemed insufficient in meeting its stated aims. The undermining of environmental safeguards by non-compliant and unmonitored industries and practices has often led to environmental disasters including overwhelming loss of biodiversity, human lives and livelihood, as happened recently with the Vizag gas leak and the Baghjan oil-well blowouts. Rather than strengthening the EIA process, the Draft Notification tends to promote industrialisation at the cost of the environment. Some of our major concerns are that this Draft Notification:

1. Legitimises ex post facto environmental clearances and encourages industries with no prior clearance to commence operations and eventually get regularised by paying a penalty amount (Clause 22) even after causing an irreversible damage to the environment, which is contrary to the precautionary approach of EIA regulations.

2. Mandates the baseline data collection period to prepare an EIA report for all projects as only one season (except for river valley projects), wherein additional data from the monsoon season is required only if prescribed by the Appraisal Committee (Clause 13(2)) – this is severely inadequate for evaluating the seasonal impact of the project on ecology and the environment.

3. Includes solar thermal power plants, extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, and maintenance dredging in the list of projects that do not require prior environmental clearances (Clause 26). Without proper understanding of the possible impacts of these projects, when carried out on large scales, such exemptions may negatively affect existing terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, hamper wildlife movement and fragment habitats.

4. Reclassifies many potentially ecosystem-damaging and even some highly polluting red category industries as ‘B2’ category (p. 37-45, Schedule), thereby exempting them from scoping (Clause 12(1)) and public consultations (Clause 14(2)) and allowing approval based on Environmental Management Plan Report instead of EIA Report (Clause 13(11)).

5. Exempts ‘A’ and ‘B1’ category projects, including many projects listed in red category (such as thermal power plants (p. 37-45, Schedule)) from having to conduct public hearings for modernisation and expansions below 50% (Clause 14(2)) and reduces the minimum notice period for furnishing a public response from an already insufficient 30 days to 20 days (Appendix-I(3)), both of which severely compromise public consultation processes.

6. Allows only project proponents and government authorities to officially report cognisance of violations (Clause 22(1)) and non-compliance of conditions (Clause 23(1)), curbing the rights of any other concerned or affected person.

7. Dilutes post-clearance monitoring by reducing the mandatory compliance report submission by project proponents from half-yearly to yearly (Clause 20(4)).

With the rise in pollution-related health impacts already causing high mortality in India, the importance of having stronger regulations and overseeing polluting industries cannot be overstated.

A report by the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, published in June 2020, pointed out that rapid changes in India’s climate will worsen the challenges facing us by affecting the country’s biodiversity, food, water, and energy security as well as public health. Since 2016, India has slipped 27 places from its global Environment Performance Index (EPI) rank in 2020, and is now ranked 168 out of 180 countries. Our country’s declining environmental performance mandates immediate pro-environmental and ecologically sound developmental measures, which are not addressed by this Draft Notification.

We, therefore, urge the MoEF&CC to withdraw the Draft Notification and, instead, strengthen the existing EIA Notification with a new proposal, following wider and more inclusive public consultation, preferably after the ongoing pandemic subsides. Such a revised proposal must also incorporate views and suggestions from domain experts and scientists from various concerned fields, with the objective of promoting an eco-sensitive and responsible model of economic growth.

Signatories: (The signatories express their personal views in this statement, and the views do not represent the stance of any institute they may be affiliated with.)

Why the Draft EIA’s Plan to Ease the Approval Process for Projects Is a Bad Idea

The approval rate under the EIA is almost 100%. But the rate of non-compliance is also as high, but violators are rarely ever punished.

The Indian government released a draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020 for public comments on March 12, 2020, days before a countrywide COVID-19 lockdown was announced. The draft notification proposes a revised ‘environmental clearance’ process for 43 categories of industrial and infrastructure projects. Despite the limited opportunities for protests during this period, the draft has become a public controversy. Legal cases and digital protests have criticised the draft for its content, timing and public outreach. There are demands to scrap the draft and design a new, stronger law.

EIA’s blindspots

Although the environment minister called the public criticisms “premature“, the government is finally presenting its thinking behind the draft now. In their interviews, the environment minister and secretary have made three main points as justification for the draft EIA 2020. These are: all EC violators should be regularised so that they can be brought into the ministry’s “regulatory regime“; projects start operations or expand without ECs because government takes too long to decide; and project approvals can be made more permissive as projects will be strictly monitored to manage all the impacts.

These statements in support of the draft are not backed by empirical data or by sound environmental principles and legal basis. They show more clearly that the EIA notification is seen only as a project licensing process, to be made easier for those seeking approvals.

Also Read: Javadekar Scuttles Bid to Extend Public Consultation on Controversial Environment Rules

The approval rate under EIA is nearly 100% which means no project is ever rejected. But another statistic that is equally important to see alongside this is on project non-compliance. It is also nearly that high.

According to the environment ministry’s website, over 15,000 projects have been granted EIA approvals since 1994. Each project was permitted with conditions meant to prevent problems such as leaks, discharges and emissions that contaminate the environment, illegal tree felling, landslides and encroachments. The conditions also require projects to take up afforestation, set up health camps and assessments, recharge groundwater and provide occupational safety devices.

In 2009, the non-compliance of these conditions was upwards of 90%. Since then, the approval procedures have been diluted and there have been no improvements to the monitoring aspects of the EIA. In effect, the EIA system has assured approvals to most projects but systematically failed to attend to the social and ecological costs of the huge inventory of approved projects that violate their approval conditions. Therefore, there is a very sound case to be made for a moratorium on EIA approvals to new or expanding projects until the load of impacts caused by operational projects is managed and mitigated through effective legal and policy measures.

Union minister Prakash Javadekar briefs the media on cabinet decisions in New Delhi on October 9, 2019. Photo: PTI/Subhav Shukla

Regulatory support to violations

The EIA system has approved projects, often despite community opposition to them. The scientific appraisal process identifies a fraction of the problems that the project operations can create. The project’s approval conditions determine what project impacts deserve to be managed or mitigated and what gets externalised to the public. But even the impacts identified in the approval conditions are not managed because of the high levels of non-compliance and poor monitoring of these projects. As a result. projects have knowingly exposed people to years of pollution, lack of jobs, loss of water sources and poor rehabilitation. A growing number of cases of non-compliance are being brought to the NGT, but that is merely the tip of the iceberg, given the limitations of access to justice.

This article draws from research on 37 cases to show the deficiencies of India’s EIA monitoring system. These cases involved projects that violated environment clearance conditions and communities facing project impacts tried to obtain remedies by bringing such cases to the attention of regulatory bodies. These cases prove that environmental impacts and disasters occur not only because projects do not take adequate measures or put in safeguards against accidents. Government monitoring routinely encourages non-compliance through its own actions of abetting project violations and impacts. Of these cases, 20 cases were in violation for four-five years and six cases for over 10 years. Although these projects had compliance and monitoring reports, the violations by them have continued.

In 20 out of the 37 cases, affected communities brought evidence of violations to regulatory bodies in the EIA system, such as regional and central offices of the environment ministry and the SEIAAs. This experience of putting together evidence on non-compliance showed that such evidence is available through many sources including government’s own data and scores of media stories or petitions and memoranda submitted by affected communities over years of the project’s operations. Yet, these cases of project violations and impacts are not “visible” to the regulatory system.

No intention to enforce EIA conditions

Affected communities pursued their complaints at substantial time and monetary costs to them that involved making phone calls, visiting regulatory offices, attending meetings and collecting relevant information. Out of the 20 cases on which well-drafted complaint letters with evidence were taken to EIA regulators, four got no response at all, despite multiple follow-ups. Of the remaining 16, four got some response from the EIA regulators in the form of site visits and acknowledgement of the violation. But due to the lack of concrete action against the violation, the problem persisted and there was no meaningful remedy.

In the remaining 12, the complaints were redirected to the SPCBs with directions to take “appropriate action”. In these cases, the affected community had to return to the process of establishing evidence for violations with the SPCBs. In some cases, the complaint letters were pushed between government offices for up to two years, without involving the complainant. These details became known to the community members only when they filed Right to Information (RTI) applications.

Also Read: EIA Legitimised Environmental Destruction. Now, Govt ‘Renovates’ it for the Worst.

The initial responses from the above offices included discrediting or refuting the basis of the complaint. Action was taken on violations only after community members reiterated their complaints and gave fresh evidence of the continuation or repetition of violations. On complaints involving big mining projects in Chhattisgarh and Odisha, violations were officially recorded only when the regulatory authority was compelled to undertake inspections jointly with project-affected communities. In cases where the evidence of project violations was accepted and where SPCB officials came to inspect the site, show cause notices were issued to the violating projects. But this too did not stop projects from continuing their violating operations. Regional offices do not issue show-cause notices without prior permission from the central environment ministry.

Of the 20 complaints pursued by communities, only seven cases were resolved. And out of those, in three cases, violations reoccurred within 5-6 months. These challenges proved to affected communities that if harmful projects are not held back at the outset, getting environment regulators to control the polluting operations of approved projects in nearly impossible.

A protest by locals and members of environmental organisations in Renuka Valley, September 2010. Credit: Sumit Mahar

A protest by locals and members of environmental organisations in Renuka Valley, September 2010. Photo: Sumit Mahar

Why approval process shouldn’t be eased

Our EIA system approves nearly all projects but does not control their harmful operations. EIA regulators are also hostile or patronising to affected communities who bring complaints about project violations that affect their lives.

In these circumstances, it would be a great folly to further ease the process of granting approvals to new or expansion projects and bring violating projects within the regulatory net. Such objectives of the environment ministry run counter to environmental principles. It is important to link the demands for institutional reforms in EIA with the justice-oriented efforts and experiences of communities affected by EIA violations.

Manju Menon, Kanchi Kohli and Vidya Viswanathan are environmental researchers with CPR.

Thousands of Protesters Take to Streets as Anti-CAA, Anti-EIA Agitations Erupt in Assam

Assembled under the aegis of the Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuva Chhatra Parishad, the protesters warned of more intense agitations in the future.

Guwahati: Thousands of protesters hit the roads across Assam on Monday, demanding the repeal of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020.

Assembled under the aegis of the Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuva Chhatra Parishad (AJYCP), the protestors warned of more intense protests in the future.

The AJYCP supporters also demanded the release of Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti leader Akhil Gogoi, who is in jail and is being probed by the National Investigation Agency for his alleged role in the violent anti-CAA protests that rocked the state last year.

Also read: NIA Court Rejects Akhil Gogoi’s Bail Plea in Case on Anti-CAA Protests

“We will not stop till the CAA and EIA are repealed. It is also unfortunate how this government has vindictively kept Akhil Gogoi inside jail just to derail the anti-CAA movement,” said AJYCP’s Guwahati unit president Pradip Kalita, while taking part in a human chain in the Narengi area.

In Dibrugarh, hundreds of protestors were detained by police as they assembled to form a human chain, an official said.

A protestor taking part in a human chain in front of the historic Nagaon College said, “We will not accept the CAA and EIA. We have been protesting against the CAA since 2016, but this government has not listened to us.”

Also read: Citizenship and Assam: An Explainer on the Legal Questions That Still Loom Large

In Morigaon, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and a few tribal student groups joined AJYCP and formed a long human chain.

“The Assam government has failed to protect the people of Assam. We cannot accept the diktat of Delhi. They have to repeal these two,” a protestor said.

Human chains were formed across many cities and towns in various districts, including Dhemaji, Darrang, Nalbari and Biswanath.

The contentious CAA seeks to provide Indian citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis entering India on or before December 31, 2014, from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after five years of residence here.

On the other hand, the draft EIA Notification 2020 seeks to supersede and completely replace the EIA Notification 2006 along with several amendments made since then.

Also read: Watch: How Does the New Draft EIA Affect the Environment, and Me?

The new draft intends to bring in controversial amendments such as post-facto grant of approval, exemption of several large industries from public hearings and reducing the time for public consultation to 40 days from 45 days.

It also proposes to permit industries to submit just one compliance report a year rather than two along with increased validity of the environment clearances for mining and river valley projects.

The Govt is Trying to Make it Easier for Industries to Avoid Environmental Accountability

The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 seeks to create a permanent setup to regularise industrial processes that have evaded environmental clearance.

Note: This article was first published on May 6, 2020 and was republished on August 11, 2020.

The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 has inverted the logic of ‘precautionary principle’ which forms the bedrock of India’s environmental outlook.

It seeks to create a permanent setup to regularise industrial processes that have evaded environmental clearance and curtail public hearings for many industries.

Interestingly the term ‘precautionary principle’ has its origins in the German word vorsorgeprinzip. Another translation of this word is ‘foresight principle’. Simply put, it asks us to ‘look before we leap’.

If the current pandemic has taught us anything, it is this – we as a species lack foresight and severely so.

Planetary health scientists and virologists had long cautioned that the transmission of disease from wildlife to humans is “a hidden cost of human economic development.” They had predicted that pandemics would come and disrupt global health, security and economies because we are going into largely undisturbed places and inviting exposure to viruses we are unaccustomed to. Kate Jones, a disease ecologist rightly put it a few days back when she said, “We are creating habitats where viruses are transmitted more easily, and then we are surprised that we have new ones.”

Today, the whole world including the most influential economies have been rendered defunct, incapable of protecting the lives of millions. When talk of a ‘new normal’ is rife across the world, where knowledge of the intricate links between the natural world and human society should be at the foreground and the global lockdown has significantly reduced our impact on the environment giving us a window-of-opportunity to address climate change, India cannot walk back into the dark ages.

The new notification comes in the wake of recent attempts to dilute environmental safeguards and follows from a tradition to widen the escape route for violators or environmental regulations.

Only recently the state government of Goa was caught blatantly engaging in fraud. It submitted a false report to obtain clearance for an airport near the ecologically sensitive Mopa plateau endangering not only flora and fauna but also marauding the livelihood of hundreds of farmers. Even after this, neither the government officers nor the EIA consultants who gave false information to secure the clearance were reprimanded. Instead, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MOEF&CC revisited the project and issued a clearance.

Also read: Before Pathogens Become Pandemics, Bring Disease Ecology Into Public Health

Under such circumstances, granting ex-post-facto Environmental Clearance, or legitimising a let-mistakes-be-discovered approach, is dangerous. The Supreme Court, National Green Tribunal and the Madras high court have ruled against it in the past stating that it is “unsustainable-in-law”. India endorses the ‘polluter-pays-principle’, it cannot afford to endorse the “pollute-and-pay” sham.

Further, violators will be relied upon to self-report on violations! We have not forgotten how Sterlite hid its mining business and caused a social uproar, or, how Vedanta violated legal provisions to accrue benefits at the cost of the local tribal community. It is a mockery of the law and public trust to give a free hand to those who are only concerned with economic profits.

In an age which requires sincere efforts to protect the environment and public health, can we afford to let our vigilance take a backseat? Then why does the notification reduce the reporting requirements of project proponents to only once-a-year instead of the previous six-monthly reporting? This gives enough scope to hide or under-report the environmental and social consequences of a project.

Recently, a dyke at a Reliance power plant in Madhya Pradesh broke, spilling ashes over hundreds of acres of cropland, polluting the river and killing many individuals including children. This is the third time such an incident has occurred in a year.

A similar breach at an Essar power plant resulted in 500 farmers losing their crops yet the company alleged it was a “clear case of sabotage”. A government report later pulled up the company for “extreme carelessness by the management”, erecting a “substandard boundary” and “not clearing waste material from the boundary”. Such entities show no ecological and social responsibility and will thrive under the draft notification.

The notification is extremely dubious about trying to silence the voice of the people. Polluting industries like soda-ash, acids, petroleum and petrochemical products, dyes, biomedical waste, treatment plants, synthetics, paints, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and construction industries – all of which pose threats to human health – will be exempted from the public clearance process!

Also read: Explainer | The Controversy Surrounding Dibang Dam, India’s Largest Hydropower Project

The strong local voice against hydro-electric projects in the north-eastern states was heard in the mainstream despite the North East remaining but a minor blip in the consciousness of the country. For instance, the Idu-Mishmi community raised their voices in each public hearing against the Dibang dam. According to a press report, “almost 99% of the speakers at the public hearing on the Dibang project said that they opposed the project.”

So they were coerced by paramilitary forces followed by an incident where they were fired at and over the years the government’s sustained attack on protestors managed to subdue their morale. All for raising their voice legitimately. Planning to erect such a dam in a seismically active zone is a disastrous and irresponsible decision on the part of the government anyway. But now, hydro-electric power plants are proposed to be exempted from public hearings altogether!

The draft notification comes with several other precarious provisions like the designation of ecologically sensitive areas as per the MOEF&CC. It is well-known that the dry grasslands of Gujarat and Rajasthan are home to critically endangered fauna like the Great Indian Bustard and are used by nomadic pastoralists. Under the current notification, such sensitive ecosystems will be left free to be looted and plundered by the corporate sectors. Sacred groves and numerous patches of remnant forest lands like the Aarey forest, public protests around the degradation of which have made it to the headlines time and again and encouraged environmental activists, are all left out.

Further, the accessory or sequentially dependent components of a project do not fall within the ambit of vigilance. In addition, the study area for Category A projects (i.e, projects with the most harmful consequences) is within 10 km and for Category B projects (i.e., projects with a less severe impact) is within five km. The combined effect of these two provisions could be disastrous. For example, power plants often build their own rail networks to transport materials. Local people have often protested against the transportation of materials for coal mines which leaves a cancerous environment behind. The impact of a thermal power plant can extend way beyond 300 kilometres.

The provisions which allow levelling of land without needing clearance and the preparation of an EIA report with baseline data from only one season other than monsoon are an absolute no-no. Wetlands that provide a lifeline for civilisations are already serially massacred by illegal filling up or levelling. Further, it is absolutely critically necessary to include baseline data of monsoon months in an EIA report on wetlands. The consequences otherwise are disastrous because wetlands purify and store water and are climate regulators. Marginal communities depend on them for sustenance.

Also read: Environment Ministry’s Draft EIA Notification Pushes ‘Investment at Any Cost’

Furthermore, what is the hurry to bring out this notification in the midst of the pandemic? How can public consultation take place during a time of death and disruption?

The current drop in carbon emissions and pollution should be celebrated. After all, air pollution kills over seven million people globally. We need to maintain the new environmental baseline as a country committed to addressing the climate crisis.

Coronavirus has shown us the scale of the response needed to fight the climate crisis and address human sustenance in the post-COVID-19 world. Walking back instead of adapting is out of the question. We are a democracy. The natural resources of India are our lifeline.

Tiasa Adhya has been working on globally endangered wetland species for more than a decade. She also received the Nari Shakti Puroskar award (the highest civilian award for women in India) in recognition of her work.

Watch | Digital Lockdown in Digital India

This episode of Media Bol discusses the burning issue of muzzling voices digitally.

Three websites that raise environmental issues have been blocked upon a complaint by the environment ministry. Not just this, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in social media accounts of some journalists and social organisations being banned in many districts of Haryana, citing the Epidemic Act.

This episode of Media Bol discusses this burning issue of muzzling voices digitally.

People With Disabilities Can’t Be Too Joyful Over Rollback of Amendments to the RPWD Act

The Centre attempted to take blatant advantage of the COVID-19 situation. And those that stood to lose the most have been saved by a whisker.

On July 2, 2020, the disability sector in India received a shock as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) came out with a draft proposing amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act of 2016 to ‘decriminalise minor offences’.

Further, only select disability rights organisations were asked by MSJE to send their recommendations by July 10. As of July 9, people with disabilities can breathe a sigh of relief, thanks to the efforts of disability rights activists and organisations as the proposed amendments have been rolled back.

But we can’t be too joyful just as yet.

It is still astonishing to see the sheer audacity and gall of the MSJE, who tried to take blatant advantage of the COVID-19 situation to amend the RPWD Act of 2016 in the garb of ‘improving business sentiment and unclogging court processes’. They did this slyly by trying to insert Section 95(a) which allowed the State and Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to ‘compound offences’.

Also read: India Has a Long Road Ahead to Combat Challenges Faced by Persons With Disabilities

It also sought to propose in the same section that ‘where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in custody shall be discharged and any proceeding in respect of such offence, shall be dropped’. This insertion completely diluted the existing penal system of the RPWD Act undermining Sections 89, 92(a) and 93.

Breaking down the law and explaining the insertion of Section 95(a) is an important aspect for truly understanding how decadent the RPWD Act would have become.

Section 89 is a basic necessity of the RPWD Act which ensures that there are penalties for those who break any provisions of this law. Upon first infringement, entailing a maximum amount Rs 10,000, upon subsequent contravention would be any sum between Rs 50,000 and Rs 5 lakh.

Section 92(a) clearly lays down what will happen if anyone insults or humiliates a person with disability within public view, such an individual would be punishable if proven guilty for a minimum jail-time of 6 months which may extend upto 5 years and with a fine. This is similar to Section 3 of The Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Lastly Section 93 has been put in place to ensure accountability of the competent authority as it mandates a maximum fine of Rs. 25,000 on the first offence and Rs. 1,000 for each day, of continued failure to provide any book, account, document, statement, information under the RPWD Act. The above penalty under Section 93 is also applicable to an answer for any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this law.

Rather than holding businesses accountable for exploitation, discrimination, misinformation and not providing reasonable accommodations to the specific needs of people with disabilities, the Ministry would have allowed the Chief or State Commissioners of disability to withdraw cases with the consent of the person who filed the case, leading to the accused being acquitted without a punishment.

Even if it were to be just an addition it would have still diluted the process of punishment and penalties as prescribed by the RPWD Act.

Being the nephew of the late Javed Abidi who was a pioneer in the field of disability rights, successfully advocating for the first persons with disabilities act of 1995 and who subsequently advocated for the second law (RPWD Act of 2016), this proposed amendment angered me.

The amendments would have rendered this law the same as the previous one: toothless.

Also read: Indian Mythology Has a Problem With Disability

Some may argue that amending three sections, by introducing the new section 95(a) would not have greatly affected the comprehensive law but I am of the strong belief that it would have given multiple opportunities to offenders to further marginalise people with disabilities.

People with disabilities certainly did not ask for this amendment and in the garb of improving investment opportunities for business the government is attacking the civil liberties of people with disabilities. This is a cause of concern for people without disability as well.

Also read: EIA Legitimised Environmental Destruction. Now, Govt ‘Renovates’ it for the Worst.

The government is radically targeting civil liberties of people in India. Just as the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 seeks to create a permanent setup to regularise industrial processes, which is making it easier for industries to avoid environmental accountability.

This move cements the same fact that the government may want to show that it is pro ‘divyangjan’. This is a title prescribed by the central government that all self-respecting disability rights activists abhor but in reality, the government perceives this community (people with disability) just as a testing ground for how far they can push civil society.

This is mainly because politicians don’t believe that people with disabilities are a big enough vote bank and the sector is fragmented having almost very little to no consensus on what should be done.

How is it that in the case of humiliation and insulting; Section 3 of The Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, has the same consequence as RPWD Act Section 92(a) which is that ‘a person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which is not less than six months but which may extend to five years and with a fine’?

Why isn’t there any talk to amend Prevention of Atrocities Act then?

Also read: The Dark Realities of the SC/ST Atrocities Act: An Ethnographic Reading

Further, if this amendment were to be tabled and passed, would it lead to a subsequent change in all laws which read like section 92(a)? How can discrimination against different communities be subjected to different standards of law?

It is a well-known fact that there are states where there isn’t even a state commissioner for persons with disabilities, and where the post of chief commissioner itself was vacant for quite some time. Plus, most commissioners are not full time, neither do they have independent charge.

Ultimately, this is not just a disability rights issue. This proposed amendment to the RPWD Act of 2016 is an assault on civil liberties of people across India. Today it is people with disabilities who have been saved from an inch of their breath to have their rights diluted, tomorrow it may be women and children and the day after that it may be another group, marginalised community.  

Shameer Rishad is the Convenor of Javed Abidi Foundation (JAF). He can be reached on twitter @RishadShameer

Javadekar Scuttles Bid to Extend Public Consultation on Controversial Environment Rules

Environment minister overruled his officials, reducing the proposed window for people to send feedback on the draft Environment Impact Assessment notification widely seen as diluting protection norms.

New Delhi: The COVID-19 crisis has pushed back many official deadlines with the government accepting that the rigours of social distancing mean compliance with pre-coronavirus timetables is well-nigh impossible. But when it comes to allowing the general public to submit feedback on the Narendra Modi government’s controversial draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, environment minister Prakash Javadekar has shot down a proposal by his own officials to extend the deadline till August 10.

Overruling the suggestion moved on file by the ministry’s joint secretary and endorsed by the environment secretary too, Javadekar set June 30, 2020, as the final date for the submission of public feedback to the proposed draft notification, without assigning any specific reason for his decision.

This information has come to light through documents accessed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which have been seen by The Wire.

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) put up the draft notification for public consultation on March 23 and it was published in the Gazette of India on April 11. At that time, a 60-day time frame, ending on June 10, was set for the submission of representations by the people.

The proposed draft EIA notification seeks to amend the 2006 notification that made the scrutiny of developmental projects necessary for getting projects cleared. Among the controversial amendments that have been proposed in the draft notification are exempting certain industries from public hearings, requiring industries to submit one instead of two compliance reports annually, and giving clearances for a longer time period to mining projects in environmentally sensitive regions. It is for these reasons that the draft EIA notification has encountered opposition from environmental experts, activists and common people.

Telangana Rashtra Samiti, Telangana, Forest Rights Act, community forest rights, individual forest rights, tribals, tribal welfare, afforestation, Telangana ku haritha haram, Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority, CAMPA funds,

The draft notification proposes to exempt certain industries from public hearings. Representative image. Photo: blackfog/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

The thousands of responses that made their way to the union environment ministry had one request – in view of the unprecedented situation created by the COVID-19 crisis and the apprehensions regarding the impact of the proposed EIA notification on large sections of the population and the issue of access to natural resources, the ministry should extend the time frame for people to submit their feedback.

Taking cognizance of the issue, in a file noting of April 23, 2020, joint secretary in the Union environment ministry, Geeta Menon, had suggested that September 23, 2020, be set as the final date for the submission of public representations.

Menon wrote, “Numerous representations (over 4000) have been received by the undersigned also. Since the EIA notification and any change thereto is of great significance to the management of environment in the country as a whole and to the matters of access and utilization of natural resources, there is some merit in the request to reconsider the time limit of 60 days that has been provided at present in view of the Corona pandemic.”

Geeta Menon’s notes.

Also Read: The Govt is Trying to Make it Easier for Industries to Avoid Environmental Accountability

The joint secretary’s rationale was that there was a precedent for taking such a decision in the ministry. Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances, there was a case for extending the time limit for public submissions.

As the official pointed out in the same noting (April 23, 2020) “It is submitted that recently, in the context of the Draft Battery waste Management Rules which has a much more limited scope, the Ministry has agreed to extend the time frame for receiving feedback. Accordingly, it is suggested that we may extend the time frame to a total of 180 days from the time of issue, i.e., 23 March, 2020.”

The internal documents reveal that the over 4,000 representations that Menon mentioned in the noting were received in the space of just 12 days, between April 11, when the draft notification was published in the Gazette of India, and April 23! In their responses, people had cited the difficult conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for seeking an extension of the time limit.

However, the issue was not looked into immediately. Menon discussed it with additional secretary Ravi Agrawal and it was decided that they would review the matter around May 15. The noting made a couple of hours later, on the same day (April 23) read: “Discussed with As (RA). As advised by him, we can review this matter around 15 of May.”

Meanwhile, the then environment secretary, C.K. Mishra dismissed Menon’s suggestion, saying that a time limit of 120 days – not 180 days – be set from the date on which the draft notification was issued.

A file noting of May 4, 2020, by scientist ‘C’, J.D. Marcus Knight says, “The matter was discussed with Dir (SKP) [Sharath Kumar Pallerla] and it was informed that based on the comments received (copies attached in correspondence file, the Secretary, MoEFCC has instructed that the notice period for the draft EIA notification 2020 may be extended for a further period of 60 days. “

“As advised”, Knight prepared a draft notification for an extension. The file was moved to the joint secretary to be submitted for the approval of the minister.

In her file noting (May 4), Menon wrote, “In response to the Draft EIA notification put up for public consultation, a large number of responses requesting for the Notification to be withdrawn/kept on hold/ extend the time frame for submission of feedback, etc., have been received. Accordingly, as directed, a draft communicating extension of time for feedback by a further period of 60 days from the date of publication in the Gazette i.e 11th April 2020 till 10th August 2020 is placed alongside for approval.”  Both additional secretary Agrawal and environment secretary Mishra concurred with Menon.

Many activists and common people sought an extension because of the COVID-19 lockdown. Photo: PTI

Javadekar dismisses extension

However, when the file reached Union environment minister Javadekar, he dismissed the proposed extension of the time limit, giving June 30 as the final date.

The documents received under the RTI Act show very clearly that over his signature, dated May 5, 2020, Javadekar wrote the date, June 30, 2020. He gave no reason for his decision.

Note showing Javadekar’s decision to overrule the extension.

Subsequently, the environment ministry issued a new notification on May 8 which stated that the final date for sending in comments was June 30.

The minister’s decision has angered environmental activists who have demanded that the Centre extend the time limit for feedback.

Also Read: Environment Ministry’s Draft EIA Notification Pushes ‘Investment at Any Cost’

Environmental activist Vikrant Tongad, who accessed these internal documents under the RTI Act, said that if the Centre does not take a decision to extend the time limit in the coming days, he will knock on the doors of the Delhi high court.

A resident of Greater Noida, Tongad said, “This is an attempt to take advantage of people’s helplessness. During the lockdown, when the postal service was not working and people were confined to their homes, the union government brought in the EIA notification hastily. Now people are not being given an opportunity to give their views on it, considering it is going to impact the entire country.”

Tongad was of the view that it would be much better if the Centre were to withdraw the draft EIA notification immediately in the interests of strengthening environmental regulation.

The Wire has written to Union environment minister Javadekar seeking his comment on the story and the logic behind his decision. The report will be updated as and when he responds.

Translated from the Hindi original by Chitra Padmanabhan.