1 POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

Transcription

1 1 POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE The Indian experience with Environmental Impact Assessment is just over 20 years old. Till 1994, Environmental Clearance from the central government was an administrative requirement for big projects undertaken by the government or public sector undertakings. Initially during 1978/79, EIA for river valley projects were carried out later extending to industrial projects. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India, under the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986, promulgated a notification on 27 January 1994 making Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for expansion or modernisation of any activity or for setting up new projects listed in Schedule 1 of the notification. Today environmental clearance from the central government is required for 30 categories of developmental projects broadly categorised under the following industrial sectors: mining, thermal power plants, river valley, infrastructure (road, highway, ports, harbours and airports) and industries including very small electroplating or foundry units. Although for many other projects, EIA is not needed. Certain activities permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone Act, 1991 also require similar clearance. Additionally, donor agencies operating in India like the World Bank and the ADB have different set of requirements for giving environmental clearance to projects that are funded by them. It is in this context that many developing as well as developed countries across the world are looking at incorporating changes to make their EIA systems more encompassing and effective. With the aim of removing the inadequacies in the Environment Clearance process the Ministry of Environment and Forests in India has been continually working on the evolution of the process with amendments to the 1994 EIA Notifications and subsequent policy decisions. To make the Environmental Clearance process and compliance in India therewith more effective, the Ministry of Environment and Forests in India is undertaking a reengineering exercise focusing on the following areas of environmental clearance (EC) of developmental projects. 1.1 FORMULATION OF SCREENING SYSTEM TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION OF VARIED DEVELOPMENTAL PROPOSALS. The current system of screening is a categorical process, which means that the requirement of EIA for a developmental activity is based on a list of activities annexed to the EIA Notification as Schedule 1. In addition, the screening criteria also looks at site considerations due to existence of legislative notifications that either regulate or even restrict certain categories of developmental activities within specified locations. It has been observed that some very small projects also find a mention in the Schedule, but certain other projects having potential to cause wider damage to the environment are exempted from the EIA system. The proposed Screening system has addressed the requirement for EIA in a much more judicious and comprehensive manner, with levels of assessment varying with the probable scale and severity of impacts that may result from a 1

2 project. The use of one integrated EA form will serve the purpose of Consent to Establish (NOC), and make do for other applications to be filled in for EC. It will also simultaneously provide sufficient and holistic information about the project with respect to its environmental settings to the decision-makers that would substitute the requirement for a more detailed EIA for granting EC to a project at a state level. The new system also envisages the screening of projects for EIA through an interactive, web based decision support system in light of the rapid advances happening in India in the field of IT. Also, considering the fact that an integrated Environmental Assessment form is proposed to be introduced in the medium term, such a system would provide a easy-to-use and transparent mechanism for project proponents to file their application for EC to the respective government agency through a web enabled system. 1.2 OVERALL FOCUS OF DECENTRALISATION OF EC PROCESS TO MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT All over the world, there is a gradual shift of paradigm in terms of implementation of environmental management plans in line with the Think Global, Act Local concept. Post Rio, the host of Global conventions, agreements and norms (collectively called the Rio Agreements) that have been formulated all have a prime focus on implementation at the local level which is where real environmental action takes place targeting the man-on-the-street. The policy shift has in turn triggered a shift from highly centralised and compartmentalised bureaucratic structures to decentralised and participatory governance for implementation of environmental monitoring plans and programs in most of the developing countries. On the ground, this has resulted in devolution of powers and the delegation of responsibilities to state / provincial governments, local bodies and municipalities to undertake environmental protection measures within the national conservation strategies. In India too, decentralisation and community driven management strategies have come to the forefront because of the process of globalisation and associated economic reforms. For example, direct local democracy in the form of definitive role of the village panchayat / ward council as a action point to find solution to local problems has been mandated through the 73 rd and 74 th amendments to the Indian Constitution In light of these policy imperatives, the new system for EC emphasises on a stronger role for state government bodies and local governments / village institutions in the EC process. This is also in tune with the thinking of the state governments who are keen to play a an increasingly more significant role in environmental decision making to grant environmental clearance to developmental activities or projects to come up at any location within their jurisdiction. Therefore in the proposed framework for EC, it has been proposed that screening and scoping for certain category of projects be left to state government with the involvement of regional or national experts. However, it must be stressed that such devolution of responsibility will require adequate capacity 2

3 building of the state level machinery so that they can live up to the responsibilities assigned to them by the new system. The new system also takes into consideration the fact that the State Governments are better equipped to carry out project level enforcement in terms of reach, legal backing and administrative measures at their disposal. For example, the State Governments have control over water and electricity supply and are empowered to take actions against defaulters. The Central Government is envisaged to play a more crucial role in formulating and crystallising the strategies, policies and programmes for the government. The State Governments would however be under the close surveillance of the Central Government to ensure overall environmental performance. 1.3 FOCUSSED ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE RESOURCE UTILISATION The current system has no requirements for formal scoping as a result of which the MoEF has come across a number of projects with poor quality EIA reports not addressing the vital issues of concern. As a result, MoEF often had to recommend a revised study, which inevitably causes delay in project implementation and also leads to a national economic loss. Although the current system considers the scope of alternative site in five types of projects requiring site clearance, but alternatives of technological options do not find any consideration. To address al these issues, the proposed system would have a formal scoping exercise which would set appropriate boundaries of the assessment, incorporating relevant project aspects and site sensitivity concerns of the government into the EIA study. It is also proposed to incorporate public concerns in EIA study at the beginning itself by involving people at scoping stage. This would facilitate both the project proponent as well as the authorities to understand the public concerns. The process would on one hand save valuable time of the project proponent and would also result in improved quality of EIA reports. 1.4 INCREASED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING The current EIA system has in its fold ways of espousing the views of the public through a Public Hearing. However, critical review of the existing practice and the past performance of such hearings have revealed that such a one-off dialogue is not serving the desired purpose. Consequently, there is a growing consensus amongst policy institutions and government agencies that timely and broad-based stakeholder involvement should form a vital ingredient of an effective EIA. If carried out properly, it can play a crucial role in building awareness about the project and it s associated environmental and social impacts and gaining agreement on management and technical approaches in order to maximise benefits and reduce negative consequences. Even private sector players in India are gradually coming to realise that effective public consultation by actively involving affected stakeholders enhances the long-term viability of a project. 3

4 Therefore, the new system for EC proposes adequate public consultation and disclosure mechanisms throughout the various EC stages i.e. scoping, EIA study phase and post project monitoring. At the same time, it provides for involving a broad range of stakeholders in the process starting from the Central or State Ministries, regulating bodies to district administrative officials, gram panchayats, and most importantly all individual stakeholders who are directly or indirectly affected by the project proposal. It is felt that such wide-ranging participation would promote transparency and build a sense of ownership of the project in the local community. At the end of the EC process, this should lead to lesser dissent and better understanding on what the project can deliver to the society in comparison to the impacts it causes. 1.5 REORGANISATION OF APPRAISAL SYSTEM TO ENHANCE DECISION MAKING Although the current system of appraisal of projects for EC is quite comprehensive but has certain inherent limitations and therefore has considerable scope for improvement. All experts members of the appraisal committee who sometimes receive the EIA report at the eleventh hour are required to review the complete report, which is often difficult. Moreover, the system does not have scope for a structured report to evaluate the adequacy of impacts considered with respect to the project, its environmental settings and the corresponding mitigation measures proposed. In the proposed framework of appraisal at EC stage ERM recommend introduction of system of independent review by resource persons. The EIA report would be reviewed by a pool of experts for judging the adequacy of impacts considered with respect to the project and its environmental settings and the soundness of related mitigation measures proposed in the EMP. The system proposes to introduce a reporting scheme for structured appraisal. The review report from the resource persons would be available to the committee members and the project proponent for meaningful discussions on mitigation of impacts. Since the same committee would recommend the TOR for the EIA at the scoping stage, the focus during appraisal would be more on arriving at a consensus on a effective EMP with considerations of project lifecycle stages and monitoring plan with indicators rather than looking into assessment details & data validation. 1.6 IMPROVED COMPLIANCE TO EC CONDITIONS THROUGH REORGANISED POST PROJECT MONITORING Compliance to EC conditions and regulations in general has been the major concern of the environmental regulatory authorities since the last three decades. There has also been acceptance of the fact that in most cases the EMPs formulated as a part of the EIAs are subjective in nature and cannot always be related to environmental performance. Moreover, the monitoring agencies (Regional Offices of MoEF) does not have the scope to review the EMPs even if it is not yielding the desired results or when the project lifecycle stage has changed. Considering these issues the proposed framework provide scope for voluntary improvement of environmental performance by internalising a Environment Management Systems framework of Plan Implement Review 4

5 Correct. This concept is also in accordance UNEP suggestions according to which EIA and the EMPs formulated at a earlier stage of the life cycle of a project should be fully integrated into a Environmental Management Systems framework of a organisation. This would in fact promote the use of the EIA study to cover all phases of the project, from "cradle to grave" taking into account the best available technology encompassing such specific activities right upto the decommissioning phase of a project. Looking from the other side, this would enable organisations to assert in their EMS that all demands resulting from the EIA procedure would be implemented and translated into operational activities The EMPs proposed in the modified system would be related to the environmental performance with regard to the mitigation of the impacts predicted in the assessment. Each such mitigation measure would have environmental aspects, impacts, appropriate Environmental Action Plans, monitoring indicators and plan. The system also provides scope for review of the EMPs at various stages of the project lifecycle. It is proposed that EMPs would be reviewed after a fixed period of time or when the projects shifts over to a new life-cycle stage. Additionally, with a focus to achieve improved compliance of EC conditions it is proposed that for industry sector the Post Project Monitoring be integrated with permitting system (consent to operate) to the extent possible. Thereby suggesting the State Department of Environment and State Pollution Control Boards to take up broader responsibility of State Environmental Protection Agencies. The State Pollution Control Boards are any ways under the Air Act and Water Act are monitoring the industries in the respective states and are legally better equipped for ensuring compliance. This again would call for significant capacity building both in terms of manpower and skills, which has been addressed at length in the phased implementation plan. 1.7 INVESTING IN CAPACITY BUILDING OF HUMAN RESOURCES LINKED WITH EC Capacity building in context of EC would mean the long term, voluntary process of increasing the ability of our country to identify problems in the EIA institutional set-up and to maximise its opportunities in the long term. It would involve the mobilisation of human, institutional and other resources and their subsequent strengthening and development with the ultimate objective of making the EC system efficient and effective. To make the overall EIA and EC system more effective certain aspects associated with the system need to be considered for capacity building. The first aspect that needs to be considered would be to develop the capability of EIA consultants and accreditation of EIA consultants under the framework of Chartered Professional Institute. This would be a critical component considering the fact that it is the EIA consultants who play the role of preparing a good EIA, thereby enabling decision making on the project. The Professional Institute would ensure the basic capability of consultants and a system need to 5

6 be implemented to make the consultant accountable for the quality of the EIA report. The Central and State public sector stakeholders including Minstry of Environment and Forests, Central and State Pollution Control Boards, State Department of Environments, District administrative authorities, local bodies and other institutions who would be expected to play a role in the modified EC process needs to go through a well planned and structured approach of capacity building and training. Such Capacity Building measures should happen at various functional levels and the initial focus should be on Training-of-Trainers who could later be responsible for disseminating the knowledge-base down the hierarchy of their respective organisations. While the training programs are structured, proper need analysis in accordance with their broader functions envisaged in the new systems should be given due consideration. For example, to broaden their role, technical officials from the SPCB should be trained to develop an understanding of bio-diversity and social impacts so that they can play a role in appraising and monitoring such projects. This is in line with our recommendation to re-christen the SPCBs to State Environmental Protection Agencies. With the aim of empowering the public and the stakeholders taking part in the EC consultation process to contribute constructively to come to a consensus decision on issues of mutual concern, they should be imparted certain basic training on environmental and social issues in their setting. Such training may be imparted through NGOs who would be made conversant on the new system and on the roles and responsibilities that the public can play without disrupting the developmental process. 6