Chennai: Many environment groups have objected to the modifications to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) norms announced recently by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and plan to contest them.

The clause that allows the regulatory authority — the State Governments and the Union territories are to have State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — to do away with public hearing if the public agency reports that it is not possible to conduct has raised concern.

Manju Menon of the Campaign for Environment Justice fears that the State Government in many instances is a developer and aggressively seeks investment. She wonders how a developer could function as a fair appraiser.

Instead of a convenient separation of projects as Central and State — the major change to the EIA is the categorisation of projects that are to be cleared by the Centre and the State separately — she thinks it will be better to have checks and counter-checks. Doubts are raised about compliance.

The proposed modifications to EIA are an outcome of the recommendations made by the Govindarajan Committee. It was constituted to examine the procedures for investment approvals and project implementation. It found that the environment clearance causes maximum delay to projects and recommended that some of the cumbersome procedures be modified.

The proposed modification makes project management to file a mandatory compliance report every six months. The State committee with just three members might find it difficult to verify them.

Leo Saldana of the Environment Support Group, Bangalore, objects to the exclusion of a social impact assessment expert from the EIA committee. Unlike the earlier authority, the proposed one comprises only technocrats, and NGOs fear that this may affect the assessment of social costs of the project. Mr. Saldana finds no compelling reason to exempt projects such as township and area development projects from public hearing.

River Valley projects that generate less than 25 MW are exempted from prior environment clearance and thus public hearing. Mr. Saldana cites the example of 18 MW Dandeli hydel project in Karnataka, which would submerge about 210 hectares. He fears that many would use this loophole, put up 24 MW projects and later apply for expansion and avoid public hearing. The new notification provides only a summary of the assessment report and that too a maximum of 10 pages in public domain. The entire impact assessment report will be made public only on demand. Many feel this will impede public scrutiny of the project.

Bharath Jairaj of the Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group is concerned about the large-scale handing over of evaluation power to the State Government, which on many occasions is a sponsor or promoter of mega projects. He finds the present notification emphasises clearance to projects rather than assessment and, in the process, the guiding precautionary principle has been given the go-by.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail