Accepts panel report that self-certification is not enough and expansion impacts need scrutiny.
An amendment proposed in the Environment Impact Assessment rules and opposed staunchly by green groups will now be carried out only in a very diluted form, taking care of the concerns expressed by environmentalists.
The committee appointed to look at the comments expressed on the proposed amendment had given a report which has been accepted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, sending a sigh of relief among environment groups.
The main amendment proposed in the notification was that industry need not go for fresh approvals for any expansion of projects. But accepting the objections raised by environmentalists, the JM Mauskar committee had recommended no change on the matter, which the ministry has decided to maintain.
The proposed amendment said: “Modernisation or expansion proposals without increase in pollution load and/or without any additional water and or land requirement are exempted from the provisions of this Notification: Provided that, a self certification, stating that the proposal shall not involve any additional pollution load, waste generation or water requirement, be submitted to the regulatory authority by the project proponent.”
Another contentious proposal was related to expansion projects involving production enhancement by more than 50 per cent to have mandatory public consultation. This ruled out consultation for expansion that was less than 50 per cent. Civil society groups responding to the proposal had said that every one will try to show that it is less than 50 per cent and avoid the public consultation. Besides, if the product is hazardous, then even 10 per cent increase is dangerous. There are some products whose production may be in kilogrammes, but the pollution load they generate will be far more than that of a product that is produced in tonnes, said a comment incorporated in the Mauskar report .
On the proposed amendment mentioned earlier, views were even stronger. One commentator said the draft notification takes a myopic view of the environmental and social impacts of modernisation and expansion projects. Any modernisation/expansion projects will necessarily entail increase in production, increase in transportation, increase in the pressure on the local infrastructure and local natural resources and increase in the pollution load during the construction phase. So, even if a modernisation/expansion project does not lead to an increase in the pollution load or water or land requirement within the factory premises during the operation phase, it will lead to an increase in environmental and social impact outside the premises
Another concern expressed was about self-certification and ensuring elimination of fraud.
More From This Section
Said a comment included in the Mauskar report: ''Another problem with this proposed change is that though the Ministry is going to rely on a self-certification mechanism, it is silent on how it intends to deal with the issue of fraud. Also, given the weak capacities of the regulatory institutions, it will be more or less impossible to scrutinise and validate the self-certification.”
Those who opposed the proposal also noted the term “expansion” was open to misuse by project proponents. “We know that in power plant projects, separate and new units are being installed in the guise of expansion and modernisation. By doing this, companies circumvent the provisions of the law, by simply passing all new projects on the same site as expansion and modernisation. These projects have a massive environmental impact and lead to tensions with local communities. This provision will defeat the very purpose of the EIA notification.”
Said Kanchi Kohli of Kalpavriksh: “These were the main concern and have been addressed.” Most concerns of civil society have been addressed by the committee and it is a fine report, which balances the views and concerns of both civil society and industry, she said.
The decision to maintain status quo could also be linked to the plans to have an independent environment authority says Kohli. But whatever be the case, the environment safety is protected for now, she said. But civil society groups are keeping their fingers crossed till the matter goes through the Prime Minister's Office and comes out in the form of a notification.
Centre for Science and Environment, commenting on the Ministry’s decision to withdraw the proposed amendments to the EIA notification 2006, said most of the key concerns have been addressed. Said senior researcher Sujit Kumar, who took part in the consultations organised by the ministry: “The decision to do away with plans for self-certification are welcome. But there are still areas of concern.”
However, among the changes that have been approved in the existing rules are the exemption of many activities from a public hearing and the process of environment impact assessment, while some have passed on from Category A to B, thus moving out of the purview of the Union ministry of environment and requiring only the clearance of state governments. Coal mining projects of less than 150 hectares are also exempt from a public hearing.
The proposed amendments accepted by the ministry also exempt dredging activity from public hearing if the dredged material ifs disposed in port limits. It also exempts construction projects from a public hearing.