Union Environment and Forests Minister Raja to direct Secretary, MoEF to involve people's movements and NGOs in consultation process 

Shri. A. Raja, Union Minister for Environment and Forests responded to an appeal from the Campaign for Environmental Justice – India (CEJ-I) by promising to direct his Secretary, Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, to open up the process of amending the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications to people's organisations, regional and local Governments and public interest organisations. Shri. Raja indicated that these consultations would be held after the closure of the current session of Parliament later this month.  He made this commitment when a delegation of CEJ-I met him on August 9, 2006 and handed in a representation.  

People's organisations had protested the undemocratic manner in which the Notifications were being drafted and notified. Information provided by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in response to an RTI request revealed that the Ministry had only consulted industries and industry lobby groups, while comments sent by many peoples' organisations were not even registered. The Ministry admits that it has essentially consulted "Apex Industry Associations namely CII, ASSOCHAM, FICCI and CREDAI" and that "a draft of final notification had been circulated to Apex Industry Associations and Central Ministries/Departments for obtaining their comments/views." The MoEF also admits that the "comments of Apex Industry Associations and Central Ministries/Departments on Draft Final Notification are under examination".  (Copy enclosed) 

It is thus beyond doubt that there has been no meaningful consultation as is mandated by law with State Governments, Panchayati Raj and Nagarpalika institutions, Parliamentarians and State Legislatures in reformulating key EIA and CRZ notifications by MoEF . Both draft notifications have serious political and human rights ramifications because they propose to facilitate industrial and infrastructure development in coastal and hinterlands that will result in the displacement of millions of people.  

Despite many efforts, the executive leadership of MoEF has not responded to the calls from peoples' movements, environmental groups and NGOs that any amendment to such critical regulatory notifications must only be carried out after widespread and transparent consultations .  This especially considering that these notifications form a substantive part of ensuring conformance with environmental and social impact standards for the most polluting and environmentally damaging sectors.  

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Congress-I heading the United Progressive Alliance coalition Government at the Centre was clearly upset about this situation when CEJ-I representatives met with her on August 6, 2006 .   She expressed that "it is unfortunate" and assured the delegation that she will look into the matter".  

Similarly, Shri. Prithviraj Chauhan, Minister of State attached to the Prime Minister's Office found it wholly unacceptable that MoEF had proceeded to draft comprehensive amendments to such key notifications merely based on consultation with industry and Central Ministries.  He saw no reason why the Ministry should be so sectoral and secretive in its approach, when the matter of "balancing developmental priorities and environmental sustainability" demanded widespread and open participation.  He assured CEJ-I representatives who met him on August 9, 2006 that he would raise the matter with the Prime Minister.  

Shri.  P.G. Narayanan, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Forests admitted that MoEF had not consulted this apex body in re-drafting the EIA and CRZ notifications .  He felt this went against the spirit of democratic participation in formulation of regulatory mechanisms and promised to take up this matter immediately in an appropriate forum.  

CEJ-I will systematically follow up on these commitments to ensure that the EIA and CRZ Amendments are not pushed through under any expedient circumstances. 

In a state like Maharashtra, where several large- scale construction and industrial projects are in the pipeline and existing ones are expanding their capacities, not having regulatory mechanisms to protect the environment and livelihoods of farmers and fisher folk in place will spell disaster for the state. Today, the state is fraught with several environmental problems affecting the lives and livelihoods of communities, both urban and rural.

The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in its own study has pointed  out that the air of almost every major town of the state is unsuitable for breathing. The health costs due to this run into several crore rupees. The state has been reporting the highest number of accidents related to chemicals since 1985, followed by Gujarat, according to the MoEF (CSE, April 2000)

The past few months have witnessed farmers protests against the large scale land acquisition for Special Economic Zone projects coming up in Konkan and Pune districts. Of the 11 SEZ projects that are coming up in and around Pune, 8 are in the Construction sector. If the amendments in the environment clearance process come through, construction projects will no longer require any clearance from the Central Ministry. In such a scenario, it becomes even more critical that the environment clearance regime be strengthened rather than dismantled. These issues are being raised by groups like Kalpavriksh (Pune), National Centre For Advocacy Studies (Pune), National alliance for People's Movements, National Fish workers Forum and several others in the state  who have lent support to CEJ-I  

On behalf of Campaign for Environmental Justice – India:

Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon (Kalpavriksh – Pune/Delhi), Manshi Asher (National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune), Vimal Bhai (Matu People's Organisation – Uttaranchal); Madhumita Dutta (Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai); Souparna Lahiri (Delhi); Shankar Gopalakrishnan (Delhi); Pravin Mote (Delhi); Himanshu Thakkar (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People) and Leo F. Saldanha (Environment Support Group - Bangalore),

(Address for Correspondence: 134, Tower 10, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar 1, Delhi-110091, Ph: 22753714;

Email: kanchi@hathway.com) 

Local Contacts:

Manshi Asher, National Centre for Advocacy Studies. (9423207084)

Manju Menon, Kalpavriksh. (9423009534)

Background to the CEJI Initiative on the"reengineering" of EIA and CRZ Notifications  

CEJI has over the past two years come together as a formidable coalition of peoples' movements, environmental groups, human rights organisations, research and advocacy initiatives.  Through a series of Open Letters (available online http://www.esgindia.org or http://www.kalpavriksh.org ) CEJI has highlighted the serious neglect of the planning and punitive capacities of law and regulatory instruments by MoEF.  It was stressed that such soft approach has encouraged industrial and infrastructure development at any cost, and resulted in widespread violations of human rights and environmental clearance norms.  

Rather than implement existing provisions of law effectively, and proactively, and build capacities of Pollution Control Boards at the state level for this purpose, MoEF instead, launched on a "reform" initiative that it claimed to be the "re-engineering" of existing regulatory mechanisms, such as the EIA and CRZ notifications.  This exercise has been actively guided by the World Bank, which even funded the exercise, and draws its inspiration from the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, which explicitly demands that foreign direct investment is a priority that should not be stymied due to environmental clearance "bottlenecks".   

For this exercise of "reengineering" MoEF chose a foreign consultant (ERM from Holland) which had no idea whatsoever of the ground realities.  ERM also made no effort to meet peoples representatives and communities across the country.  In the only two consultations held during the drafting of the "reengineering" of the EIA notification in Bangalore and Delhi during 2004, ERM and MoEF ensured that most participants were drawn from industry, neglecting even state government representatives.   

This trend continued all the way to the level of MoEF Secretary Dr. Ghosh, who in consultations held with a select few during November 2004 on the controversial National Environmental Policy, pushed the draft EIA Notification on the agenda much to the surprise of participants, who were wholly unprepared.  

MoEF did put up the draft notifications on its website, but without any clear statement on the implications, and without an approach paper discussing alternative models.  There is widespread experience and expertise in India on strengthening environmental clearance procedures, both within Government and outside, but MoEF chose not to involve these constituencies in a spirit of securing the greater common good. Instead it has only focussed on serving the interests of the industry and foreign investors, and the result is that both the amendments to the EIA and CRZ notifications are guided merely by an unnecessary urgency to grant clearances speedily based on an investor induced demand rationale. This is in clear violation of the law and various constitutional provisions that requires well considered and democratic decision making processes keeping in view the long term and intergenerational impact of such decisions.  Consequently there are many dilutions in standards.  

For instance, MoEF had originally proposed that statutory Environmental Public Hearings could be conducted by the Investor seeking clearances, but eventually knocked this clause off on protests.  The present draft sustains the current practice of statutory authorities holding hearings, but also provides the possibility of cancelling Hearings "owing to the local situation, it is not possible to conduct the public hearing"  

Such unfettered discretion in cancelling key statutory forums for decision making, merely to ensure the satisfaction of the investor, will have disastrous consequences both to the environment and the lives and livelihoods of millions.  

Similarly, the proposed replacement of the CRZ Notification with a Coastal Zone Management Plan has been evolved without any meaningful and diverse consultations across the country, particularly the fishing communities. The M. S. Swaminathan Committee which was constituted in the tragic aftermath of the Tsunami to come up with a rigorous approach to coastal area management, instead came up with the CZMP idea, which is nothing short of a major dilution in land use control norms and strict clearance procedures that guides the existing CRZ Notification.  Even so, there have been widespread violations all along the coast, which has largely gone unpunished, and the Swaminathan proposal will accentuate the process, if accepted.  

The result today is draft amendments to the critical EIA and CRZ notifications that please none. Aware that its motives were skewed, MoEF tried every means to defeat efforts by CEJI to access documentation on the extent of consultations that supported these "reengineering" exercises.  Finally, when a RTI complaint was filed with the Central Information Commission, it had no option but to share over 2000 pages of documentation.  

The order of the Central Information Commission, issued recently, on 31 July 2006, is self explanatory: 

"As requested by the appellant and agreed to by the respondents during the hearing the information supplied will be provided free of charge as per Sec 7 (6).  Apellant has not pressed for penalty .  In this case the kind of delay that had taken place without intimation to the applicant is unacceptable, although the plea taken that this was amongst the earliest cases before the Ministry and, therefore, there was an office failure is, insofar as the  PIO is concerned, taken as reasonable cause for the delay.  Hence while no penalty is imposed, the Ministry is cautioned to ensure strict adherence to time limits prescribed u/s 7(1) of the Act to avoid invocation of Sec. 20." (copy of full order enclosed)  

A close review of the 2000 pages provided by MoEF under the order of the CIC confirms that several states have taken the initiative of reporting their comments on the drafts, and have in fact argued against the key provisions of the amendments proposed.  

Note issued by CAMPAIGN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - INDIA

August 2006