The Promise
The election manifesto of the
Bharatiya Janata Party[i] stated “We will put
sustainability at the centre of our thoughts and actions, working on the
principle that inclusive growth cannot be limited by the barriers of time and
space - it has to be built on the foundations of the past, leverage on the
opportunities of the present, and preserve and enhance its resources for the future.
We will take Climate Change mitigation initiatives with all seriousness and
work with the global community and institutions in this regard.”
The manifesto further talking
about natural resources invoked Gandhiji and asserted “A country's progress depends
upon its resources and how they are harnessed and protected. Those in power
have to realize they are just trustees of the resources of the nation. The
resources are neither meant for them nor for their masters. If we bring this
basic shift in thinking of the Government, which Mahatma Gandhi also advocated,
all problems will be resolved. In recent years, it has been noticed that
country's tangible and intangible resources have been looted with impunity. The
adverse result is being felt on two sides: Firstly, the proceeds of the
resources have not gone to the public exchequer. Secondly, because of this
culture of usurping, the same resources are not available for public purposes.
The management of natural resources is marred with either misappropriation or
misallocation. This has to be set right.”
The Performance
Attempt to wholesale
dilution of Environmental Safeguards
The Government began the process
with a diametrically opposite effort by constituting a High Level Committee to
dilute the various provisions of the Environmental legislations. These
legislations have come in with several struggles of the communities and also
commitments made to the international community. The process and the report of
the High Level Committee led to severe disapproval and the report was placed
before the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) of the Ministry. The PSC observed[ii], “The recommendations of the
HLC report will not empower regulatory agencies to safeguard the environment.
In many cases implementation of the High Level Committee Report[iii] will lead to multiplicity
of institutions and authorities with little strength, power and capacity in the
institutions such as the proposed National Environmental Management Agency and
State Environmental Management Agency.”
The PSC rejected the report with
the following recommendation, “Considering the various objections as aforesaid
and comments of the Ministry, the Committee finds that objections raised by
members of civil society/NGOs/experts are prima facie valid and require serious
reflection. The Committee is of the view that the period of three months
allotted to the High Level Committee for reviewing the six environmental Acts
was too short and that there was no cogent reason for hurrying through with the
Report without comprehensive, meaningful and wider consultations with all
stakeholders.” Having failed in wholesale dilution, persistent efforts are
being continuously made to dismantle these safeguards.
Efforts to Remove the
Construction Sector from the Purview of Environmental Scrutiny
While there is a
constant attempt to undermine the existing regulations, the case of the
construction sector is worth analysing. Under the existing law, all Building
and Construction projects from 20,000 Sq Mts requires an environmental
clearance EC under the EIA Notification, 2006. In addition, it requires Consent
to Establish and Operate under the Air Act, 1981 and the Water Act, 1974.
Moreover, any concerned person can approach the National Green Tribunal to
challenge the Environmental Clearance or seek action for violation.
In a Notification dated December 9, 2016 issued by
MoEF&CC which exempted real-estate projects upto 1,50,000 sq.m built up
area from the need for undergoing environmental impact assessment (EIA) and obtaining
Environmental Clearance (EC) from MoEF/ State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) and exempting the operation of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for Building and Construction projects
upto 150,000 Sq Mts.
The Notification was challenged by a group of
petitioners on various grounds including the reason for the exemption was 'ease
of doing responsible business' and the same cannot be a ground for exempting
the application of environmental law. In addition, the other ground i.e '
housing for all by 2022' is an attempt to 'hide behind' the poor while actually
benefiting the builders lobby. Most significantly, all the exemptions were
ironically done by stating that the exclusion of the application of
environmental law was essential in order to improve the quality of environment.
In the strongly
worded judgment, the Tribunal condemned this act of diluting environmental
safeguards in the interest of ‘ease of doing responsible business’ under the
garb of ‘housing for all’. It noted that: "The said amendment
notification is only a ploy to circumvent the provisions of environmental
assessment under the EIA Notification, 2006 in the name of ‘ease of doing responsible
business’ and there is no mechanism laid down under the amendment notification
for evaluation, assessment or monitoring of the environment impact of the
building and construction activity. The construction industry consumes enormous
resources and has a significant energy footprint; the sector emits 22 per cent
of India’s total annual carbon-dioxide emission.”
The Tribunal also strongly reprimanded the Ministry
for overlooking its own findings regarding the incompetence of local
authorities to appraise real-estate projects as reported by the committee
headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan. Despite this, currently the Ministry has come
up with a new effort to increase this limit from 20,000 Sq Mts to 50,000 Sq.
Mts.
The Impunity of the
Highway Sector
The dilution of the regulations
is also best indicated in the Roads and Highway sector. The Ministry has
exempted highways below 100 km from the purview of Environmental Impact
Assessments. This has led to the widespread destruction the highways are
causing to the environment and also generating pollution, dumping muck into
reservoirs and wetlands, haphazardly quarrying for road materials. The classic
case is of the Chandigarh-Rohtang National Highway 21, which goes along the
Bhakra Reservoir. The four-laning of this road has been split in sections of
less than 100 km to do away with all the due-diligence required. The Bhakra
Reservoir area, which used to be the Govind Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary” was
denotified, apparently to rationalise protected areas.
Highways passing thorough
National Parks and Sanctuaries, ecologically sensitive areas are being
bull-dozed into construction despite objections being raised by local
communities and in some occasions by the relevant forest and wildlife
departments.
The menace of this mindless road
construction, much of which has no relevance to the vast majority of the rural
people, is not only impacting the environment but also is the cause for a
number of local land related problems and litigation. In their urgency the
highway authorities do not properly demarcate the specific parcel of the land
acquired from a specific family and when the road construction is complete,
there are number of discrepancies of land that is left of the plots. The end
result is that neighbours then have to seek legal remedy between themselves and
the road builders are seen no-where. The irony is that these highways then
become the toll-ways which add to the profit of the investors leaving the local
people literally “in the streets”.
New Effort to Dilute
Coastal Zone Regulations
The
CRZ Notification governs development on the Indian coastline. It demarcates the
first 500 metres of land from the sea as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and
divides it into ecologically sensitive areas, water areas, urban and rural
areas. It also includes the area in the sea up to 12 nautical miles.
Acknowledging the vulnerability of coastal ecosystems, it delineates the first
200 metres of the rural areas of CRZ as No Development Zone (NDZ).
Being
obsessed with rapid and exponential development of ports and coastal
infrastructure, with the assumption of office in 2014, the Government initiated
a CRZ review by Shailesh Nayak Committee to the proposed MCRZ Notification,
each review/revision process has only diluted the coastal regulation. The
MoEFCC opened the CRZ Notification to review but with a narrow scope – it
limited the Terms of Reference of the Shailesh Nayak Committee only to address
state governments’ grievances. Other stakeholders were kept out and the review
thus conducted was obscure and skewed without an objective, inclusive and
participatory assessment of the CRZ Notification. The inter-ministerial meeting
does not fare any better. Fisheries and coastal agriculture, two livelihoods
dependent on unhindered access to coastal commons are not represented in this
‘stakeholder’ meeting[iv].
CRZ 2018
notification proposes a series of changes in the 2011 version. Among the most
worrisome is the arbitrary reduction of the tidal influence on land. The draft
notification states “CRZ limits on land along the tidal influenced water bodies
has been proposed to be reduced from 100 metres or the width of the creek,
whichever is less, to 50 metres or the width of the creek, whichever is less.”
The draft complicates
the understanding of the coastal ecosystems by dividing the CRZ into seven
categories – CRZ-I A, CRZ-I B, CRZ-II, CRZ-III A, CRZ-III B, CRZ-IVA and CRZ-IV
B compared to only four classifications (CRZ-I, CRZ-II, CRZ-III and CRZ-IV) in
the 2011 version. Of the seven classifications, CRZ-I A is environmentally the
most sensitive and critical, comprising areas like mangroves, coral reefs, sand
dunes, biologically active mudflats, salt marshes, national parks, marine
parks, reserve forests, wildlife habitats, turtle nesting grounds, nesting
ground for birds, and heritage sites. These areas are also not spared from
destructive development activities.
The draft notification
states construction of roads and roads on stilts, by way of reclamation in
CRZ-I areas, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases for defence,
strategic purposes and public utilities, subject to a detailed
marine/terrestrial environment impact assessment, to be recommended by the
Coastal Zone Management Authority and approved by the MoEFCC. Further it goes
on to state “in case construction of such roads passes through mangrove areas
or is likely to damage the mangroves, a minimum three times the mangrove area
affected/ destroyed /cut during the construction process shall be taken up for
compensatory plantation of mangroves,”
A series of public
hearings are being done in the coastal areas currently. The recent public
hearing in Chennai[v]
saw fisherfolk resisting and rejecting the farce public hearing which were not
in accordance with the 2011 notifications. The information on the basis of
which the public hearing on the specific zonation was to be undertaken was
grossly inadequate to make any proper decisions. The pushing of these revised
regulations to benefit tourism, real-estate and port based activities are going
to be a death knell for the coastal fisherfolk especially when combined with
the ambitious “Sagarmala” project which aims to connect ports with roads across
the country’s eastern and western coasts. No wonder that these communities
already living and eking out livelihoods in an uncertain environment
exacerbated by the impacts on climate are deeply concerned about their future.
Dilution and Destruction of Institutions Governing
Wetlands
The Wetlands
(Conservation and Management) Rules 2010 had clearly prohibited activities like
reclamation of wetlands, setting up of new industries and expansion of existing
industries, solid waste dumping, manufacturing or handling or storage or
disposal of hazardous substances, discharge of untreated waste and effluents
from industries, cities, towns and other human settlements, any construction of
permanent nature and any other activity that is likely to have an adverse
impact on the ecosystem of wetlands. The new wetland rules promulgated, in the
guise of “wise-use”,by the Government has severe implications to the already
depleting waterbodies especially thorugh dumping on these sites and large scale
encroachment by real estate. The specific aspects of the dilution are indicated
here but in the name of decentralising authority, the role has been assigned to
those who are responsible for its degradation.
i. Restricted, Diluted definition of
Wetland by excluding zone of direct influence, catchment area, manmade water
bodies/ tanks/ salt pans from the ambit of the definition.
ii. The categorization laid down under
the Rules of 2010 has been done away with, and only Ramsar Sites as well as wetlands
identified by the Central Government, State Government and the Union
Territories’ Administration would be protected under the new regime.
iii. Dismantling of the Central Wetland
Regulatory Authority, and constitution of a National Wetlands Committee which
has been given only an advisory role under the new regime envisaged under the
impugned Rules.
iv. Arbitrary concentration of power with
the State Government as it has been empowered to notify the wetlands in their
respective States and it is the Minister of Environment of the State that heads
the Wetland Authority which has to identify and recommend wetlands for
notification.
v. List of Prohibited and Restricted
Activities that can be carried out on wetland and its catchment area has been
severely diluted
vi. Requirement of Environment Impact
Assessment has been deleted which was mandatory under the Rules of 2010[vi].
Ostrich like attitude on Air Pollution from Coal
Based Power Plants
Coal Based Thermal
Power plants were to adhere to stricter pollution norms from December 2017. The
Government did not make any effort or push the industry to initiate action on
this notification issued in 2015. While environmentalists concerned with the
raising air-pollution across the country from these polluting plants have been
reminding the Government, it maintained that the norms will be adhered to by
all industry by the said date of 7th December 2017. Unabashedly in
an ongoing case at the National Green Tribunal until the said date the Ministry
maintained that it will be enforcing this condition. However, it
surreptitiously approached the Supreme Court, with a dubious report to seek its
intervention in extending the period for compliance to 2022. Coal Based thermal
power plants are the undoubtedly the biggest emitters of GHGs. Promotion of
such a destructive energy source in a period when renewables have become even
financially attractive and dilution of the norms for their emissions clearly
indicates the utmost lack of concern of the government towards the environment
and in this case the very health of the citizens.
Decentralisation and Lure to States of Decision
Making as a Tool for Dilution
While the
constitution proudly proclaims our country to be a Republic, it has enabled or
strengthened local institutions. Even state governments lack the institutional
and technical basis for making several decisions. Further at the local level,
decision-makers are themselves the vested interests in pushing ahead projects
which are detrimental to local people. In almost all aspects of environmental
decision making this is being used as a tool to enable easing of all the
clearances. For instance, small projects are now cleared by a District
Environmental Appraisal Authority and the Head of the Irrigation or Public
Works Department happen to be among the members!
After the Supreme
Court decision on the 2-G and coal scams, the law was changed to auction all
mining leases. States are being lured into getting upfront money and the
auction process is conducted completely keeping those people whose land is
question in the dark. Once the bid is won, the promoter and the state force all
clearance to be granted. The Government formed a “Post-Auction Mining
Clearances and Approvals Facilitator (PAMCAF)” under which a more sophisticated
acronym “TAMRA” - Transparency, Auction Monitoring and Resource Augmentation –
has been created clearly to facilitate and expedite various clearances /
approvals required after the mineral block is allocated. The consideration
whether peoples’ rights exist, environmental conditions allow for such mining
to come up do not seem to weigh much in this governance process.
Directions issued from PMO forcing agencies to
clear without due diligence
Perhaps the most
impactful of environment is the role of the Project Monitoring Group of the
Prime Minister’s Office. The role of the project monitoring group is to enable
investors ( FDI of Rs 500 Crore or Indian Rs 1000 Crore) can log in to the
e-Suvidha portal and seek intervention in changing policies, obtaining
clearances and changing rules to facilitate them. Once uploaded the PMG
officials chase down the appraisal authorities to expedite the clearances which
then become a fait accompli and without proper due-diligence they are merely
papers generated to allow the activity.
A look at the
current list of 914 projects[vii] in this portal is clearly
indicative of the grossly climate unfriendly approach the Government has unleashed.
This has completely undermined the laws and policies - that even if they were
not the best, and its mindless and relentless pursuit of
“ease-of-doing-business” is completely destroying the edifices of the
regulatory and oversight institutions.
No wonder India is
177th in the Environmental Performance Index among 180 countries
even if it has inched to the 100th position in the
Ease-of-Doing-Business Index. One dreads to think if further improvement in the
facilitation of destructive corporate activities have to be undertaken, how far
more degradation of environment and quality of life we need to suffer.
The huge chasm
between the promise and the performance needs a herculean effort to reverse the
very mind-set of the state and regulatory agencies if we were to be serious
about the looming climate crisis and even our Nationally Determined
Commitments.
[i]
https://www.bjp.org/images/pdf_2014/full_manifesto_english_07.04.2014.pdf
[ii]http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20S%20and%20T,%20Env.%20and%20Forests/263.pdf
[iii]
http://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/press-releases/Final_Report_of_HLC.pdf
[iv]
https://counterview.org/2017/05/05/how-each-reviewrevision-of-the-proposed-mcrz-notification-only-diluted-coastal-regulation/
[v]
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/apr/28/angry-tamil-nadu-fishermen-raise-a-stink-public-hearing-on-draft-czmp-ends-abruptly-1807369.html
[vi]
Based on detailed analysis by EIA Resource and Response Centre
[vii]
https://esuvidha.gov.in/