DH Deciphers: Environmental Impact Assessment rules and what they mean

The union government has prepared a new draft of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) rules, proposing significant changes in the way development projects will be processed. The draft rules were put in the public domain in March, and people have time until August 11 to express their opinion about them. Many environmental experts and activists have already raised several red flags about the changes. What's this hullabaloo all about?

What is Environmental impact assessment? What's this new draft?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which evaluates the potential environmental impact of a development project. Parliament had enacted the law in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy. Based on the assessment, a panel of experts denies or grants environmental clearance to a project. Existing EIA rules mandate prior environmental clearance for all kinds of projects — mining, infrastructure, thermal or hydropower, irrigation, industries, etc. The EIA was amended in 2006. The current draft, if notified, will supersede the 2006 amendment.

Why is EIA such a big deal?

The EIA is crucial to protecting the environment and humans from adverse consequences of various projects. Carrying out a project without the EIA clearance has often proved disastrous. The gas leak at the LG Polymers plant in Visakhapatnam on May 7 is the latest example. The plant was later found to have been running without the EIA clearance for the past two decades. Globally, too, the EIA is considered a sustainability tool. Almost all countries have a legal procedure similar to the EIA.

What will change with the new rules?

The union government argues that the new rules will simplify the process of project clearance, expedite decision-making and avoid unnecessary delays. Environmentalists and grassroots leaders, however, see them as an attempt to weaken regulation, increase the government's discretionary power and reduce public participation. Some of the aspects that are seen as regressive are:

a) The draft rules exempt a large category of projects from prior environmental clearance. These include coal, minerals, sand and solar projects, thermal co-generation power plants (tied to cement or sugar plants), polymer/plastic manufacturing units, certain chemical units, etc. Factories that manufacture explosives, detonators, etc, have been marked under defence or "strategic" projects.

b) Post-facto approval of projects. A project can go on without getting the environmental clearance and then come back to get it. This could lead to legitimising the violations.

c) The notice period for public opinion has been reduced from "a minimum of" 30 days to 20 days. The time to appeal against environmental clearances in the National Green Tribunal is 30 days.

d) There is no robust post-environmental clearance monitoring system. Local and indigenous communities will no longer be able to complain if a project fails to comply with the EIA clearance.

How will the violations be monitored under the new rules?

Violations will be noted only if:

(a) The project proponent admits to it on one's own (suo moto).
(b) The government authority concerned notes and reports it.
(c) The violation is found during the appraisal by the appraisal committee; or
(d) The regulatory authority finds it while processing the application.

This entire process excludes local communities and whistle-blowers, giving companies an opportunity to whitewash the situation. It also reduces the frequency of compliance reports that project owners will be required to submit, from once every six months to once a year. This could lead to delays in reporting incidents, if any.