<p>The Union Environment Ministry’s move to introduce a star rating system for assessment of environmental impact is unwise and will prove to be counter-productive. The ministry has told states that they would be ranked on the basis of the speed with which they give clearance to industrial or infrastructure projects. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) are the agencies responsible for clearance and they will now be ranked on some parameters. These include the average number of days taken to accept proposals, the number of complaints addressed by the authority, and the percentage of cases in which site visits were made. There are some other criteria too. The assessment authorities will be given stars on the basis of the speed and “efficiency’’ with which projects are cleared. A state whose SEIAA grants clearance in less than 80 days will get more points than another that clears a project in less than105 days. No point is given if the clearance takes more than that. A state that gets seven or more points is entitled to five stars. </p>.<p>It is claimed that the system will promote transparency, efficiency and accountability among states in the process of environmental clearance and that it would incentivise them to reduce delays. It is seen as part of some measures planned to improve the Ease of Doing Business in the country and is traced to a Union cabinet decision in this respect. SEIAA assessment, which studies the ecological cost of infrastructure or development projects, is a major requirement to determine if the project should be cleared. The new system may lead to quicker clearances of projects because states will be in an unhealthy competition to secure star rankings. But procedures like public hearings and detailed analysis of the implications of projects on the environment are likely to be short-circuited. </p>.<p>It is true that there are delays in the clearance of projects, as in the case of most government procedures. This is partly due to bureaucratic red tape and partly due to the complexity and sensitivity involved in the task which has a bearing on the lives and welfare of people and ecosystems. Greater attention is given to the task now because of greater awareness about the importance of the environment. There is greater public scrutiny too. It is wrong to hurry the procedure in order to secure a business-friendly image. The ministry has recently been emphasising the need to give clearances faster. But such haste will lead to lax scrutiny, especially if such laxity is to be rewarded with stars. As it is, the environmental impact assessment system has been diluted and is considered inadequate. The new grading system is likely to weaken it further. The government should drop this plan. </p>
<p>The Union Environment Ministry’s move to introduce a star rating system for assessment of environmental impact is unwise and will prove to be counter-productive. The ministry has told states that they would be ranked on the basis of the speed with which they give clearance to industrial or infrastructure projects. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) are the agencies responsible for clearance and they will now be ranked on some parameters. These include the average number of days taken to accept proposals, the number of complaints addressed by the authority, and the percentage of cases in which site visits were made. There are some other criteria too. The assessment authorities will be given stars on the basis of the speed and “efficiency’’ with which projects are cleared. A state whose SEIAA grants clearance in less than 80 days will get more points than another that clears a project in less than105 days. No point is given if the clearance takes more than that. A state that gets seven or more points is entitled to five stars. </p>.<p>It is claimed that the system will promote transparency, efficiency and accountability among states in the process of environmental clearance and that it would incentivise them to reduce delays. It is seen as part of some measures planned to improve the Ease of Doing Business in the country and is traced to a Union cabinet decision in this respect. SEIAA assessment, which studies the ecological cost of infrastructure or development projects, is a major requirement to determine if the project should be cleared. The new system may lead to quicker clearances of projects because states will be in an unhealthy competition to secure star rankings. But procedures like public hearings and detailed analysis of the implications of projects on the environment are likely to be short-circuited. </p>.<p>It is true that there are delays in the clearance of projects, as in the case of most government procedures. This is partly due to bureaucratic red tape and partly due to the complexity and sensitivity involved in the task which has a bearing on the lives and welfare of people and ecosystems. Greater attention is given to the task now because of greater awareness about the importance of the environment. There is greater public scrutiny too. It is wrong to hurry the procedure in order to secure a business-friendly image. The ministry has recently been emphasising the need to give clearances faster. But such haste will lead to lax scrutiny, especially if such laxity is to be rewarded with stars. As it is, the environmental impact assessment system has been diluted and is considered inadequate. The new grading system is likely to weaken it further. The government should drop this plan. </p>
