Dear Friends,
PLEASE TREAT THE MATTER AS UTMOST URGENT
New EIA Notification being finalised by the MoEF without public consultation
We have information that the MoEF has decided to finalise the new draft EIA Notification. As you all are aware, the present EIA Notification has been implemented since 1994. The Environmental Impact Notification was enforced to regulate the indiscriminate destruction of the environment and consequently the livelihoods of communities like tribals, fisher folks etc. in the name of developmental projects to put it very briefly. Over the last few years, the MoEF has been actively engaged in reforming the existing EIA Notification without holding any consultations with the communities, grama panchayaths, or even MPsand MLAs who have a direct say in these matters. The details are available in the background note below.
We have just come to know that the Moef has met the Law Ministry to finalize the draft EIA notification. From their submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee, it appears that the version MoEF is going to issue is even worse than the September 2005 draft. It will be retrograde in nature as according to this version the EIA report will not be made available before a public hearing, there will be single window clearances for construction projects and so on.
We also have heard that senior officials in the MoEF are not happy with the new EIA notification.
As a last attempt we need to make sure that our discontentment with the process and content of the notification is communicated to the MOEF, PMO and the Parliamentary Standing committee, as these were the people who had promised to intervene so that the EIA notification finalisation is opened up for wider consultation.
Attached with this mail is a letter, which you could sign and send as soon as possible. Please feel free to circulate it further to other networks, organisations, friends.... so that we can we can get as many faxes as possible sent.
The fax numbers / e mails are,
- Pradipto Ghosh, Secy, MoEF: 011 24362746 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- A. Raja, Minister E& F: 011 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- PG Narayanan, PSC on Environment: 011-23012009
- Prithviraj Chavan PMO: 011 23017931 (off), 23017839 (res)
In case you send an email please mark a copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Awaiting immediate action and response.
On behalf of all of us from the CEJI
Latha.A
The draft letter to be sent/ faxed/ e mailed
To,
Sri. Pradipto Ghosh,
Secretary,
MoEF
CGO Complex,
Paryavaran Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001
Sir,
On 9th August 2006, representatives of the Campaign for Environment Justice-India met with Shri. A.Raja, Union Minister of Environment and Forests (MoEF) with an appeal that since there had been no meaningful consultations on the draft EIA notification, 2005 the same should not be acted upon till such time this demand was met. Shri Raja expressed his surprise that no widespread consultations had been held on the matter. When it was brought to his attention that your office had in response to a Right to Information application confirmed on
20.6.2006 (No.J-11012/6/2006-IA-II (I)) that meetings and discussions with regard to finalization of the EIA notification had only been held with Apex Industry Associations and some central ministries, Shri Raja assured that he would direct you to hold wider consultations particularly with people's movements and civil society organizations. Till date we have not received any intimation in this regard.
The MoEF's response to our collective concerns based on the clarification sought by Shri. P.G.Narayanan, MP and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, confirms that even State Governments have been neglected in the process of finalization of the draft EIA notification. Further, none from amongst the wide cross section of Parliamentarians that we met during the recently concluded Parliamentary session have ever been consulted on the redrafting of this critical notification.
In keeping with the federal character of our country it would be appropriate if MoEF would put on hold the issue of the proposed EIA notification, till such time all State Governments and local Governments have been consulted. Needless to state it follows that the EIA notification should not be finalized till such time the assurance of your Minister is met with adequately in regard to the consultation with people's movements, networks, environmental groups, research organizations, etc.
Yours,
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.com) 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
THIS NOTE MAY BE WIDELY DISSEMINATED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR CONSENT SO LONG AS IT IS NOT MISQUOTED AND MISREPRESENTED
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala run by
Global Alternate Information Applications (GAIA)
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
