The EIA Notification 2006 is best repealed rather than kept alive. Instead of fulfilling its purpose of minimising adverse impacts of development/industrial projects, all it does is to protect the interests of industrial lobby while keeping the public out of its purview.

That was the message from a panel discussion held to review the publication of ‘Green tapism: a review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006’, prepared by City-based Environment Support Group.

“For one, the language is tough to understand in most places lending itself to various interpretations. It will sure lead to mass litigations on the issue,” said Leo Saldanha, ESG. But, A B Harapanahalli, director, regional office of MoEF, said the latest notification has only aided more public hearings. “Is there nothing positive at all about the Notification as Leo says? Can it be so? If one needs development, there is need for some sacrifice,” he said.

Nagesh Hegde, professor, Indian Institute of Journalism and Media, countered, “Are the ones who reap the benefit the ones who sacrifice? No, it is the poor who have to sacrifice.” Is development and growth to be measured only in terms of creating wealth, asked Dr Ravi Chellam, director, Atree. R C Purohit, president, FKCCI took objection to the language of the publication where it spoke of “vested interests of industrial lobbies”. “There is no such thing. Our only objection was the time for clearance,” he said.

The publication was released by Dr B K Chandrashekar, Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Council, who felt even after decades since the Silent Valley project was turned down, there has not been much clarity on the subject of development vs environment. He agreed it was worrying the notification had not been placed before Parliament and suggested it be discussed in State legislatures.

Many felt there was a need for a law that could annul clearance if after starting, the project was found to be damaging to environment. Dr H C Sharatchandra, chairman, KSPCB felt the EIA was more a bureaucratic tool rather than one that helped in decision making. Dr Vinod Vyasulu, economist and director, Centre for Budget and Policy Studies chaired the discussion. The publication gives a detailed view of failures and loopholes of the environmental clearance process.