In two years, 952 industrial projects have been approved, none rejected. Crucial safety nets to protect our well-being have failed, exposes PRERNA SINGH BINDRA
That the repercussions of the environment crisis are more devastating, and far-reaching than the economic slowdown, is established. The key tool used worldwide as a safeguard against the devastating impacts of unplanned and careless industrial expansion is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). Unfortunately, in India, the EIA, rather than respect its role as crucial decision making tool, is reduced to a tawdry joke. Sample this: An EIA report lists two tiger species (though the world has only one), two unknown cobra species (if these exist, it’s time to celebrate), Brown Pied Hornbill (there’s no such bird), and Python aculetes (really? Must be new to science!). Other wildlife listed includes red panda, snow leopard, Himalayan black bear, musk deer — all critically endangered species. The conclusion? No major wildlife observed.
Another report counts cows, goats, buffaloes, cats and dogs as endemic fauna species.
These two gems from EIA reports were part of assessments by which clearances were given to development projects likely to have serious environmental and social impact. The second extract, from the EIA of JSW Energy Ltd in the Konkan region, classifies cats and dogs as endemic species, when a six-year-old knows them as pets kept at home. The first extract — replete with fraudulent ‘discoveries’ — pertains to the 3,000 Dibang Multi-Purpose Project in Arunachal Pradesh, the foundation stone of which was laid by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, in January 2008, in the face of stiff opposition from local tribals, and much before it got environmental clearance — a telling indication that a green signal is a foregone conclusion for a project. And why not?
According to investigations by the EIA Response Centre (ERC), an initiative of LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forests and Environment) and documents available exclusively with
HNN, in the past two years almost all submitted projects have sailed through the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Let’s be precise: since September 14, 2006, when the new EIA notification came into force, to September 2008, every industrial project for which approval was sought was cleared: 952 industries approved, none rejected. Nor did the 134 thermal power plants face any environmental hiccups, though it is well-established that such carbon-intensive plants contribute significantly to global warming. The one nuclear plant was approved, while only four construction sites out of a whopping 1,073, and 10 of 587 non-coal mining requests were rejected, raising the question whether the mandate of the MoEF is to protect or destroy the environment.
The law says that major development, infrastructural and industrial projects require an EIA, which must include a comprehensive survey and investigation — including environmental, social and economic repercussions — and be cleared by the Expert Appraisal Committees formed by the Ministry under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. But the law is an ass. And the EIA a farce practiced by the MoEF. Documents with HNN show how the Ministry has ignored environmental and social concerns in the face of glaring omissions, false information and public opposition.
Let’s pursue the JSW Energy Ltd in Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra, which first got into an MoU with the state, and only later applied for environmental clearance. The EIA conveniently ignores the existence of mangroves and reserve forests near the proposed thermal power unit. It also ‘forgets’ to mention that the area falls under the Ratnagiri- Sindhudhurg Regional Plan, which excludes thermal plants from the list of permitted industries. Telling of the EIA’s callousness is that it fails to assess the impact on fisheries and mango crops, which form the backbone of the local economy.
Ratnagiri is the home of the Alphonso mango, which is exported across the globe. It is established that air pollutants from coal-fired thermal plants damage mango crops, and consequently the market for this highquality mango has already been affected. Rues Pradeep Parulekar, a lawyer based in the region, who has been campaigning against the project, “The cumulative impact of the various power projects and mines will ruin this region, its marine life and mango crops.
We have already received letters from our exporters that if there are thermal power plants with sulphur dioxide emissions — as with JSW — our mangoes will not be acceptable under GAP (Good Agriculture Practice). We have already seen the sham of an EIA in the JSW case — I don’t hold hope for any others in the pipeline.” Need one mention that nothing of this carried weight with the MoEF, which, in its infinite wisdom, gave it the go-ahead.
Says Conservationist Bittu Sahgal, “The MoEF was entrusted with protecting our life support systems like river, corals, forests and mountains. It has failed. Its officers have the notion that their job is to remove all obstacles and facilitate the speedy construction of dams, roads, or thermal plants. The MoEF has lost the plot.”
JSW and the Dibang project are just two tales in a saga of fraudulent EIAs. The EIA that procured clearance for Ashapura Minechem’s mining projects was simply a copy of a Russian bauxite mine report, and has bloopers like: “The primary habitat near the site, for birds, is the spruce forests and the forests of mixed spruce and birch.” Forests found in northern temperate regions, not in the tropical ecology and vegetation of Ratnagiri, the mine’s site.
Another example of the EIA’s cyclostyle method is the Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydroelectric Project. This EIA refers to the riverbed of the Teesta, the lifeline of Sikkim, though the project is actually located on the river Alaknanda in Chamoli district, Uttarakhand.
Even the MoEF admits that most EIAs are cut-paste jobs, “mainly executed by fly-by-night operators. Any Tom, Dick and Harry may do it — there’s no registration system.” But, the MoEF official hurriedly adds, “there are checks and balances to check faulty EIAs.” This refers to the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA), to whom aggrieved parties may appeal. “A futile exercise,” points out Ritwick Dutta, co-convenor of ERC, which has monitored and challenged faulty approvals, often based on fraudulent EIAs, for two years. “The NEAA has dismissed every appeal filed in the last 11 years — since it was formed — save one. A major flaw in the clearance process is that EIAs are prepared by consultants employed by the proponent of the project, and are biased towards getting clearance,” he adds. The NEAA hasn’t even had a chairperson for eight years, and no vice-chair for three.
Renowned environmentalist Claude Alvaris cites Goa as a classic victim of the laissez faire manner of giving environment clearances. “After 2005, almost all mines have been given environment clearance. The first set of mining leases were cleared in a belt of one kilometre from wildlife sanctuaries, and even to leases located within wildlife sanctuaries! The clearances for mines in a small state like Goa has crossed 160! It’s become the easiest parcha to get. Even if there are state policies that don’t allow certain types of industries, the Ministry clears them.”
When, rarely, the MoEF does ask for additional EIAs, it does little good. The Lower Subansiri Hydel-Project on the Arunachal-Assam border is a classic example. This is expected to drown 3,500 ha of pristine forest, part of a rich biodiversity hotspot — but the EIA glossed over this. Under pressure from various conservation bodies, an additional six-day study was produced. This included comments like, “The long and vast waterbody created by the reservoir will be a happy haunt for aquatic creatures.” Someone please inform these experts that still waters do not make happy haunts for native aquatic species, which need fast-flowing rivers. If it wasn’t tragic, it would be funny.
In a democracy, public participation is supposedly important, especially regarding a project with major implications for the local populace. However, public concerns have been callously dismissed. The first public hearing for the Tapaimukh Multipurpose Project was held at Tamenglong, Manipur, about 300 km from the site. This project is set to drown 270 sq kms (roughly half the size of Corbett Tiger Reserve) of forest in one of India’s two biodiversity hotspots, and cut 84 lakh trees. Similarly, in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd in Raigarh district, Chattisgarh, the public hearing, was postponed, after which it was never held, even as the administration, on which also rests the responsibility, remained a mute spectator. They even began work without environment clearance. Regardless, clearance was granted on 26 December, 2007.
Public opposition is of little consequence. The Borga Iron Ore mine in South Goa was resisted by locals who feared loss of agricultural productivity and damage to water bodies. In the public hearing, the additional collector noted that “not one member of the public was in favour of restarting the mine.” But the mine is set to begin operation.
“The writing is on the wall: India has no environmental governance systems. If this continues, we might as well give up the pretence of environmental protection, public hearings, etc and say we can’t afford restrictive laws and prohibitory conservation measures — rather than waste taxpayers’ money over non-functional institutions,” says Dutta.
The problem is that the EIA process — ‘reformed’ in 2006 from an already weak policy — is geared to be investment friendly, not protect the environment. It aims “to do away with cumbersome environmental and forest clearance procedures.” Most EIAs, especially those on mines, are dismissed by Rapid EIA reports — studies done and data collected in just three months — though the EIA manual stipulates that over a year should be the norm for studies. Efforts to meet both the MoEF secretary, Vijai Sharma, and the Minister of State for Environment, Namo Narayan Meena, were resisted. This reporter attempted to meet the minister, but was refused entry by his private secretary, Rajeev Kumar, who dismissed the subject: “The minister cannot answer such conceptual questions. It’s nothing to do with him. He has nothing to do with policy. He merely passes on the papers to the PMO — the PM also holds the portfolio of the Union Minister of Environment and Forests.”
The watchdog for India’s environment has become a pet of the industrial and mining lobby.
.jpg)
