There is an uproar in the world for illicit conversion of forest lands and other natural treasures. The world has lost nearly one- third of its forests because of rising needs of global population.
At least for the next 15 years, this increase will compound by 15 per cent to 8.4 billion and hence the per capita consumption will only increase, especially in the already strained fast-growing economies.
And hence targets and incentives have been introduced by the United Nations like Aichi convention or REDD+ to reduce as well as balance emissions arising from deforestation and forest degradation.
The COP26 inferences have suggested Nature-derived solutions to be the best of all methods capable of conserving a future for mankind on the very same planet that is on the verge of comatose.
Meanwhile, Indian Environment Ministry has embraced a policy that seeks to provide “ranking” and “incentives” to Indian States based on how fast an environmental clearance is given to respective infrastructure project.
This has attracted worldwide criticism because of its potential to fast track a crucial process that needs comprehensive and inclusive study.
An Expert asserts: “It creates a situation where you are not providing the time needed to make these decisions carefully. It also creates artificial competition between states, which may result in industries locating in states that offer environmental clearance quicker.”
The country observed how the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was tampered earlier that ultimately got safeguarded by the apex court. It is an essential component to make sure that project’s intended ecological costs are minimal.
It can be anticipated that the States, in their quest for more stars as well as look ambitious and supportive for business, will apparently clear the projects speedily rather than ensure a thorough investigation.
At times, to evaluate ecological and social risks, even site visits are crucial for better understanding.
However, in response to the words of criticism, Environment Ministry has clarified that the intention of this ‘ranking’ is not to hasten clearances but to accelerate and remove the procrastination in decision making.
The Ministry has attributed submission of “digital applications” to the justification for lessening the number of days consumed in order to provide clearance for the project, irrespective of the number and nature of applications or the wide range of businesses or industrial sectors one has to deal with.
But this is what the experts have claimed: “As it is, if you see the EIA process, there is complete regulatory capture because the consultancies producing environmental impact reports are hired by the businesses themselves. This pressure of speed, efficiency and incentivization is going to skew environmental governance and make it pro-business.”
This office memorandum (OM) of the ministry seems to embolden and facilitate the Government’s broader commitment to ‘Ease of Doing Business’.
How is a project approved?
As per the notification issued for EIA in 2006, 39 types of projects are listed for mandatory Environmental clearance.
Projects which are rather big or may possibly affect forest land lying under category A and must be cleared by an expert committee under the authority of Central government.
While those under Project B category are left at the discretion of state authorities.
Category B is an umbrella for a wide genre of activities, extending from mining of minerals (limestone, sand, bajri), metallurgical industries, hydroelectric power projects, cement plants, distillery, leather industry to even building and construction.
Infrastructure project greater than a certain size that can alter the natural environment considerably demands an approval by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), that is composed of State officers and independent environmental experts.
The state authorities still continue to suffer from the lack of environmental experts and most of the decisions are called by bureaucrats as compared to the environment specialists.
Most of the projects placed for approval have to be approved by SEIAA for activities including building or construction, small industry projects, small mining, or those which are ‘less polluting’.
On the similar lines, a seven- pronged criteria has been announced to rate SEIAAs on “transparency, efficiency and accountability”, based on which the states can earn a maximum of eight points and a rating of five stars.
How the State Authorities will be ranked under this mechanism?
This rating process, undertaken every 6 months, will involve one point for six criteria and two points for the remaining criteria.
Lesser number of days required for approval: One of these is an ‘average number of days for granting Environment Clearance’.
If the duration between project proposal and clearance if within 80 days, the states get two points (one additional), within 105 days or less will give states one point while any time between 105 and 120 days will earn states only half a point.
Percentage of terms of reference (TOR): it is a set of documents prepared by the SEIAA outlining the requirements for a fair environmental impact assessment.
SEIAAs which could dispose more than 90 per cent of TOR proposals will earn one point while those disposing 80- 90 per cent will earn half a point and zero points only for the ones who could only clear below 80 per cent.
Percentage of cases with multiple information requests: Simply put, in case of additional details fetched more than once, the SEIAA will lose more points.
“Any SEIAA that asks for such data will be given low marks or in fact zero. Besides, the SEIAA has the right to reject projects, something the OM is silent on,” wails an Environmentalist.
As per the rating guidelines, when the additional details are requested in more than 30 per cent of the cases zero points will be allotted. Only in case fewer than 10 per cent of cases witness multiple requests on additional information one point shall be given.
Number of days taken between accepting EC and TOR: States’ environment authority will also be assessed based on an average number of days taken just to accept EC and TOR proposals. With the proposals accepted within or five days will earn one point.
Responsibility and accountability: Authorities which are able to address all their complaints may earn one point, while those addressing 50 per cent or more of the complaints made will get half a point.
Addressing complaints lesser than even 50 per cent will fetch no points at all.
Percentage of the site visits: At times, the entire Environment Impact Assessment depends on understanding the nature of project site.
But ironically, conduct fewer site visits is about to get SEIAAs good marks: 10 per cent or less site visits undertaken will be given the maximum of one point and conducting site visits of more than 20 per cent of projects, will get zero points.
In short, as per the new declaration, the lesser number of site visits are to receive more marks.
An impetus to Ease of doing Business or a hindrance for ecological screening?
One can understand how the States Authorities get the bundles of cases as there is a wide variety of projects it has to deliver and verify. Undermining this epic yet important task performed by the States, can lead to bigger environmental as well as social problems in the longer run.
The Alternative theory:
Efficiency in a system is ever desired feature but on the cost of quality and environmental disregard, can topple even the well- managed achievements.
Most of these parameters and their respective scores, seem to be jeopardizing the very need to check the environmental damage done by such core activities. Instead of imbibing the transparency factor, it surely discourages and annihilates the very clarity one can obtain.
It is even delusional to think how lesser information request or lesser site visits can be beneficial to the country or this Ministry, that has so been formed to assist in saving the environment.
Better would be if the environment ministry can strive to create trust in the system and ensure that experts are available for better consultations and assessment.
Time and again, we have discussed and been ascertained how business and ecological concern can be aligned as well as how economic as well as ecological prosperity lies dependent on each other.
While our country continues to display its sheer will in protecting the nature and making valuable strives in saving Earth, shouldn’t we be concerned if the policy in eloquence and in official papers appear incompatible to each other?