Monday, February 24, 2020

Shame on EAC! Obtaining fresh EC is a long process is a reason for waiver..

The mindless coal power project which is being pushed at a great cost to the environment and people in several areas of the world seems to have achieved yet another milestone in side-stepping the law. 

It is no less than a climate crime to fetch coal from Australia, lug in a train for 800 kilometers, build an exclusive rail-line through forests, fetch water from over 100 kilometers and export power to Bangladesh. 

See the amendments of amendments that the EAC is privileged to undertake!
 
MINUTES OF THE 37th MEETING OF THE RE-CONSTITUTED EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (EAC) ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) OF THERMAL POWER PROJECTS HELD DURING 23rd January 2020.
ANY OTHER ITEM WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR 
(37.6) 2x800 MW Imported Coal based Godda Thermal Power Project at Villages Motia, Patwa, Gangta and Nayabad of Godda Block and Sondiha, Petbi, Gayghat, Ranganiya and Mali villages of Poraiyahaat Block, Distt. Godda, Jharkhand by M/s Adani Power (Jharkhand) Limited- reg. amendment in Environmental Clearance. 

(37.6.1) Project Proponent submitted online application on IA/JH/THE/54853/2016 dated 23.12.2019 for amendment in EC dated 31.8.2017.  

  (37.6.2) Project Proponent has made the presentation inter-alia submitted the following information:

 i. The Environmental Clearance (EC) for 2x800 MW Imported coal based Thermal Power Project proposed in District Godda, Jharkhand was issued to M/s Adani Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. vide Ministry‟s letter dated 31.8.2017.

 ii. The Ministry also amended the EC for change in water source from Chir River to Ganga River vide letter dated 3.9.2019.

 iii. Para 5 of EC amendment dated 03.9.2019 mentioned as below: “Storage reservoir earlier planned in 441 acres has been reduced to 156 acres as the water drawl period has now been increased from 4 months to 6 months.”

 iv. As per the water allocation of 36 MCM/annum made by Water Resource Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 15.01.2018 stipulated that the water is to be drawn during June till December (07 months). Accordingly, water reservoir will accommodate the water drawn for seven months. Accordingly, the following change is required. “Storage reservoir earlier planned in 441 acres has been reduced to 156 acres as the water drawl period has now been increased from 4 months to 7 months.” 

v. Condition No.7(i) of the EC amendment dated 3.9.2019 stipulates that Stage-I forest clearance to be submitted and formal amendment to be issued after furnishing the Stage-I Clearance. As the Stage-I Forest Clearance was accorded by the Ministry‟s Regional Office, Ranchi vide letter dated 28.6.2019 for diversion of 13.3293 ha for laying water pipeline from Chir River to Power plant, this condition may now be deleted. 

vi. Project Proponent vide their letter dated 16.12.2019 submitted that the said project has now been designated as Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under SEZ Act, 2005 vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter dated 20.8.2019 and Notification No.S.O.3327(E) dated 16.9.2019 for an area of 222.668 ha (550.23 acres). The area has been classified as Sector Specific Economic Zone for Power.

 vii. The Environmental Clearance for Power Plant was issued under Sl.1(d) of the Schedule of EIA Notification. 
viii. In view of the new classification of power plant in the SEZ, the project also requires Environmental Clearance under Sl.No.7(c): Special Economic Zone (SEZ) of the Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006. Obtaining fresh EC is a long process. As there is no change in project configuration and scope or entity even after notification of SEZ, the said EC may also be granted under SEZ.

 ix. As per the EC and its amendment, project area was 558 acres. As per the notification of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, SEZ area is 550.23 acres. (37.6.3) Committee noted that project is exclusively meant for export of Power/electricity, and hence notified under Special Economic Zone. Proponent mentioned that the EC was issued for stand alone Thermal Power Plant. Even after notification of SEZ, it remains to be the Single Unit SEZ and there no change in the scope/configuration of the project. The differential area of 7.7  acres shall be developed with greenbelt by project proponent. 

Member Secretary informed that Infrastructure-1 Sector of IA Division has also recommended for giving amendment in EC for inclusion of project category under SEZ.

 (37.6.4) Committee after detailed deliberations, recommended for amendment in EC regarding inclusion of SEZ, storage of water reservoir area to 7 months, deletion of condition on Forest Clearance subject to following additional condition. i. The area of 7.7 acres (Originally proposed: 558 acres & Notified land: 550.23 acres) shall be developed with greenbelt. Demarcation of this land with coordinates and progress of greenbelt is to be submitted in the compliance report.  

Saturday, February 8, 2020

How ignorant is our legal fraternity!


How ignorant is our legal fraternity!
Supreme Court Order in 114/2014
In the course of hearing, this Court on 16.01.2019 passed an order taking cognizance of the deleterious effect of mining on vegetation, after mining activities are over. In particular, it is observed that an area which is mined results in complete elimination of grass which in turn denies fodder to the herbivores.
The only solution can be re-grassing of such mined areas. It is not in dispute that re-grassing technology is available in this country.
We see no reason why the area which has been mined should not be restored so that grass and other vegetations including trees can grow in the mining area for the benefits of animals.
We are of the view that this can be achieved by directing the Union of India to impose a condition in the mining lease and a similar condition in the environmental clearance and the mining plan to the effect that the mining lease holders shall, after ceasing mining operations, undertake re-grassing the mining area and any other area which may have been disturbed due to their mining activities and restore the land to a condition which is fit for growth of fodder, flora, fauna etc.
The Union of India may devise appropriate methods for ensuring compliance of this condition after the mining activity is over at the cost of the mining lease holders. This condition shall be in addition to those conditions which have already been imposed for achieving the same purpose under the mine closure plan. This condition shall not be imposed in derogation of any conditions which are already in force.
The court and the great set of lawyers present in the court failed to mention that the current law goes beyond re-grassing!
If the judges were knowledgeable or the lawyers honest enough to mention that the current legislation calls for tougher conditions than what they are prescribing and all the miners are in complete violation.
Here are the guidelines…
Guidelines for preparation of Mine Closure Plan
Preamble:
1. The Central Government vide Notification No. GSR 329 (E) dated 10.04.2003 and No. GSR 330 (E) dated 10.04.2003 amended the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 respectively. As per these amendments all the existing mining lessees are required to submit the "Progressive Mine Closure Plan" along with prescribed financial sureties within 180 days from date of notification. Further, the mining lessee is required to submit "Final Mines Closure Plan" one year prior to the proposed closure of the mine. In the notification it has been enumerated that the "Progressive Closure Plan" and "Final Closure Plan" should be in the format and as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Bureau of Mines.
2. Mine closure encompasses rehabilitation process as an ongoing programme designed to restore physical, chemical and biological quality disturbed by the mining to a level acceptable to all concerned. It must aim at leaving the area in such a way that rehabilitation does not become a burden to the society after mining operation is over. It must also aim to create as self-sustained ecosystem.
3. Mine closure operation is a continuous series of activities starting from day one of the initiation of mining project. Therefore, progressive mine closure plan will be an additional chapter in the present mining plan and will be reviewed every five years in the Scheme of Mining. As progressive mine closure is a continuous series of activities, it is obvious that the proposals of scientific mining have had included most of the activities to be included in the progressive mine closure plan. Therefore, reference to relevant paragraphs and a gist of the same in progressive mine closure plan will be sufficient.
4. Final mine closure plan as per statute, shall be considered to have its approval at least nine months before the date of proposed closure of mine. This period of nine months is reckoned as preparatory period for final mine closure operations. Therefore, all proposals for activities which have to be carried out after production of mineral from the mine or mining is ceased, shall be included in the final mine closure plan. The final mine closure plan will thus be a separate document with detailed chapters as per guidelines given below.
The mine closure plan will be prepared as per the guidelines given as enclosure. The guidelines include the specific activities both in progressive mine closure plan and final mine closure plan.

ENCLOSURE
GUIDELINES FOR MINE CLOSURE PLAN
1. Introduction:
The name of the lessee, the location and extent of lease area, the type of lease area (forest, non-forest etc), the present land use pattern, the method of mining and mineral processing operations, should be given.
1.1   Reasons for closure: 
The reasons for closure of mining operations in relation to exhaustion of mineral, lack of demand, uneconomic operations, natural calamity, directives from statutory organisation or court etc. should be specified.
1.2   Statutory obligations: The legal obligations, if any which the lessee is bound to implement like special conditions imposed while execution of lease deed, approval of mining plan, directives issued by the Indian Bureau of Mines, conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, State of Central Pollution Control Board or by any other organisation describing the nature of conditions and compliance position thereof should be indicated here (the copies of relevant documents may be attached as Annexure).
1.3   Closure plan preparation: The names and addresses of the applicant and recognised qualified person who prepared the Mine Closure Plan and the name of the existing agency should be furnished. A copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors or any other appropriate administrative authority as the case may be on the decision of closure of mine should be submitted.
2. Mine Description:
2.1 Geology: Briefly describe the topography and general geology indicating rock types available, the chemical constituents of the rocks / minerals including toxic elements if any, at the mine site.
2.2 Reserves: Indicate the mineral reserves available category wise in the lease area estimated in the last mining plan / mining scheme approved along with the balance mineral reserves at the proposed mine closure including its quality available (for final mine closure plan only).
2.3 Mining Method: Describe in brief the mining method followed to win the mineral, extent of mechanisation, mining machinery deployed, production level etc.
2.4 Mineral Beneficiation: Describe in brief the mineral beneficiation practice if any indicating the process description in short. Indicate discharge details of any tailings / middlings and their disposal / utilisation practice followed.
3. Review of Implementation of Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining including five years Progressive Closure Plan upto final closure of mine:
Indicate in detail the various proposals committed with special emphasis on the proposals for protection of environment in the approved Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining including five years Progressive Closure Plan upto the closure of mine vis-a-vis their status of implementation. Highlight the areas, which might have been contaminated by mining activities and type of contaminants that might be found there. The reasons for deviation from the proposals if any with corrective measures taken should also be given.
4.Closure Plan:
4.1 Mined-Out Land: Describe the proposals to be implemented for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined-out land including the manner in which the actual site of the pit will be restored for future use. The proposals should be supported with relevant plans and sections depicting the method of land restoration / reclamation / rehabilitation.
4.2 Water Quality Management : Describe in detail the existing surface and ground water bodies available in the lease areas and the measures to be taken for protection of the same including control of erosion, sedimentation, siltation, water treatment, diversion of water courses , if any, measures for protection of contamination of ground water from leaching etc. Quantity and quality of surface water bodies should also be indicated and corrective measures proposed to meet the water quality conforming the permissible limits should also be described. Report of hydrological study carried out in the area may also be submitted. The water balance chart should be given. If there is potential of Acid Mine Drainage the treatment method should be given.
4.3 Air Quality Management: Describe the existing air quality status. The corrective measures to be taken for prevention of pollution of air should be described.
4.4. Waste Management: Describe the type, quality and quantity of overburden, mineral reject etc. available and their disposal practice. If no utilisation of waste material is proposed, the manner in which the waste material will be stabilised should be described. The protective measures to be taken for prevention of siltation, erosion and dust generation from these waste materials should also be described. If toxic and hazardous elements are present in the waste material the protective measures to be taken for prevention of their dispersal in the air environment, leaching in the surface and ground water etc, should be described.
4.5 Top Soil Management: The top soil available at the site and its utilisation should be described.
4.6 Tailing Dam Management : The steps to be taken for protection and stability of tailing dam, stabilisation of tailing material and its utilisation, periodic desilting, measures to prevent water pollution from tailings etc., arrangement for surplus water overflow alongwith detail design, structural stability studies, the embankment seepage loss into the receiving environment and ground water contaminant if any should be given.
4.7 Infrastructure: The existing infrastructural facilities available such as roads, aerial ropeways, conveyer belts, railways, power lines, buildings & structures, water treatment plant, transport, water supply sources in the area etc. and their future utilisation should be evaluated on case to case basis. If retained, the measures to be taken for their physical stability and maintenance should be described. If decommissioning proposed, dismantling and disposal of building structures, support facilities and other infrastructure like electric transmission line, water line, gas pipeline, water works, sewer line, telephone cables, underground tanks, transportation infrastructure like roads, rails, bridges, culverts etc., electrical equipments and infrastructures like electric cables, transformers to be described in connection with restoring land for further use.
4.8 Disposal of Mining Machinery: The decommissioning of mining machineries and their possible post mining utilisation, if any, to be described.
4.9 Safety and Security: Explain the safety measures implemented to prevent access to surface openings, excavations etc., and arrangements proposed during the mine abandonment plan and upto the site being opened for general public should be described.
4.10 Disaster Management and Risk Assessment: This should deal with action plan for high risk accidents like landslides, subsidence flood, inundation in underground mines, fire, seismic activities, tailing dam failure etc. and emergency plan proposed for quick evacuation, ameliorative measures to be taken etc. The capability of lessee to meet such eventualities and the assistance to be required from the local authority should also be described.
4.11 Care and maintenance during temporary discontinuance : For every five yearly review ( as given in the mining scheme), an emergency plan for the situation of temporary discontinuance or incomplete programme due to court order or due to statutory requirements or any other unforeseen circumstances, should include a plan indicating measures of care, maintenance and monitoring of status of unplanned discontinued mining operations expected to re-open in near future. This should detail item wise status monitoring and maintenance with periodicity and objective.
5. Economic Repercussions of closure of mine and manpower retrenchments:
Manpower retrenchment, compensation to be given, socio-economic repercussions and remedial measures consequent to the closure of mines should be described, specifically stating the following.
5.1 Number of local residents employed in the mine, status of the continuation of family occupation and scope of joining the occupation back.
5.2 Compensation given or to be given to the employees connecting with sustenance of himself and their family members.
5.3 Satellite occupations connected to the mining industry - number of persons engaged therein - continuance of such business after mine closes.
5.4 Continued engagement of employees in the rehabilitated status of mining lease area and any other remnant activities.
5.5 Envisaged repercussions on the expectation of the society around due to closure of mine.

6. Time Scheduling for abandonment:
The details of time schedule of all abandonment operations as proposed in para 4 should be described here. The manpower and other resources required for completion of proposed job should be described. The schedule of such operations should also be supplemented by PERT (Programme Evaluation & Review Technique), Bar chart etc.
7. Abandonment Cost: 
Cost to be estimated based on the activities required for implementing the protective and rehabilitation measures including their maintenance and monitoring programme.
8. Financial Assurance: 
The financial assurance can be submitted in different forms as stated in Rule 23(F)(2) of Mineral Conservation and Development (amendment) Rules, 2003. In the mine closure plan, the manner in which financial assurance has been submitted and its particulars have to be indicated. For Model Bank Guarantee Form, please click here.
9. Certificate: 
The above-mentioned actions have been taken to be stated clearly in the mine closure plan. A certificate duly signed by the lessee to the effect that said closure plan complies all statutory rules, regulations, orders made by the Central or State Government, statutory organisations, court etc. have been taken into consideration and wherever any specific permission is required the lessee will approach the concerned authorities. The lessee should also give an undertaking to the effect that all the measures proposed in this closure plan will be implemented in a time bound manner as proposed.
10. Plans, Sections etc.: 
The chapter 1,2,3 and 4 should be supported with Plans and Sections. The Closure Plan may also be submitted depicting photographs, satellite images on compact disc etc. wherever possible.
NOTE
1. The mine closure plan in progressive stage will be prepared by paragraphs where sub-paragraphs may be added for detailed items whereas the final mine closure plan will be prepared in chapters with sub-chapters as necessary with adequate details.
2. The guidelines for the both the documents will be same as above.
Why this?
The Courts are passing verdicts, Justice is a far cry and notional according to the whims and fancies of our legal fraternity!

Friday, February 7, 2020

Reality about Coal Stock, Why Should the Government mislead Rajya Sabha?


Ministry of Coal Coal in a press release claimed that stocks at power plants increase by 77% to 34.25 MT. The reality is that the Pit Head Closing Stocks have been much higher according to the Coal Ministry’s own Statistics.
Pit Head Closing Stock [MT]
The Reality
Year
Coal
Lignite
2009-10
64.863
0.565
2010-11
72.192
0.610
2011-12
74.040
1.051
2012-13
63.049
1.493
2013-14
55.514
1.860
2014-15
59.389
3.176
2015-16
65.361
4.809
2016-17
76.889
6.883
2017-18
62.043
7.210
2018-19
57.640
5.672
Source: Provisional Coal Statistics 2018-19, GOI
Coal stocks at power plants peaked to 34.25 million tonnes on January 26, equivalent to 19 days’ consumption, and up by 77% as against 19.36 million tonnes, equivalent to 12 days’ consumption at the same time last year. “Thrust has been also given to augment coal supplies to non-power sector by holding regular auction for coal linkages where the consumers have been given the flexibility to choose nearest mine, quality (grade, size) etc. To facilitate easy availability of coal to all the sectors, Coal Companies are also offering increased coal under spot and exclusive e-auction.” Union Coal Minister Shri Pralhad Joshi said in a reply in the Rajya Sabha.
Now you can mine any which way and take it in your own unique way!
The Minister informed that various steps have been taken to ensure the easy and adequate availability of coal to every coal dependent industries/Power Sector. The power houses in close vicinity of the coalfields were offered coal for enhanced lifting of coal through captive mode (like Belt Piped Conveyor (BPC), Merry-go-Round (MGR) etc.) and road modes. For augmentation of supplies, the power houses were advised to move coal through Goods Sheds by Road-cum-Rail (RCR) mode. Efforts were made to enhance supplies through captive modes of transport like MGR, Belts, Ropeways etc. Supplies of coal to power houses through all modes were prioritized. Rationalization of Linkages were ensured to reduce transportation cost.
The Coal and Mines Minister further added that the recently promulgated ‘Mineral Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020' has brought amendment in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 [CMSP Act] to allow wider participation and competition in auctions. The companies which do not possess any prior coal mining experience in India can now participate in auction of coal blocks. Any company selected through auction/allotment can carry on coal mining operation for own consumption, sale or for any other purposes, as may be specified by the Central Government. The Minister also informed that Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has granted Environmental Clearances to 13 coal projects during calendar year 2019. About 4 to 6 billion tonnes of proved coal resources are added in a year and the proved coal resources in the country are about 155.6 billion tonnes as on April 1, 2019.

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Neither law nor accident stops coal mining in Meghalaya

https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/2019/12/19/neither-law-nor-accident-stops-coal-mining-in-meghalaya/

On December 13, 2018, 20 miners were trapped in a mine in Ksan, in the north-east Indian state of Meghalaya. Five managed to escape. Rescue efforts for the remaining 15 continued for months, but failed.
The miners were trapped at a depth of around 370 feet (112 metres) in the Jaintia Hills district. Service personnel from the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the State Disaster Response Force began operations shortly after the miners were trapped. After a request for assistance from the district administration, teams from Coal India, Kirloskar Brothers, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy joined the rescue effort.
The accident happened despite the fact that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had banned mining in Meghalaya — particularly ‘rat-hole’ mining which is a primitive and hazardous method of mining for coal, with tunnels that are only 3-4 feet in diameter.
The NGT and anti-mining activists have pointed out that illegal mining of coal continues.
While two activists were conducting their investigations a few months ago, a group of people encircled their car and attacked them. Both were hospitalised with critical injuries, and local media reported that the attack pointed towards a coal mafia.
Coal mining in Meghalaya can no longer persist with its dangerous legacy. It is essential for India to set this right before we wake up to another disaster. The attacks on activists indicate that the process of setting it right will involve more than cosmetic changes.
A look at the Supreme Court case on coal block allocation (WP Civil 120 of 2012) and the subsequent amendments in 2012 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation (CMN) Act and the Coal Mines Special Provisions Act 2015 as well as subsequent meetings in the Ministry of Coal indicate that the coal mining in Meghalaya is entirely illegal.
The key points of the judgement were:
  • The allocation of coal blocks through government dispensation route, however laudable the object may be, also is illegal since it is impermissible as per the scheme of the CMN Act. No state government or public sector undertakings of the state governments are eligible for mining coal for commercial use. Since allocation of coal is permissible only to those categories under Section 3(3) and (4), the joint venture arrangement with ineligible firms is also impermissible…
  • The grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of an area containing coal or lignite can be made only through selection through auction by competitive bidding even among the eligible entities.
India’s coal ministry and the Meghalaya state government do understand this. The issue has been taken up in various meetings. In January 2017, a meeting was held in which ways to enable mining under the existing laws were discussed. It was concluded that the only viable option under the existing statutes will be for a state-owned corporation to do the mining.  In August 2017, the coal ministry accepted the state government’s submission that the Meghalaya Mineral Development Corporation will be the designated agency for mining coal and would be allocated the permission to mine if an appropriate proposal was made.
This has not happened yet. Till then, any and every coal transaction in Meghalaya – including mining – is patently illegal. The moot question is: who will set it right?
Sreedhar Ramamurthi works for Environics, an environmental NGO with focus on mining activities

Thursday, January 17, 2019

ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: HUGE CHASM BETWEEN PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE


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/