---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ESG VSNL India <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Kindly circulate this appeal widely)
Dear Friends,
Campaign for Environmental Justice – India appeals for your immediate
support in sending representations to the Indian Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) to withhold a comprehensive amendment
to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification.
MoEF is likely to legislate the amendments before 15 September 2006,
even though this is in direct contravention of the Environment
Protection Act, the opinion of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Science Technology, Environment and Forests and the concerns of the
wide public.
A copy of the representation already sent by CEJI is enclosed. You
may use the same representation or write one of your own.
Please send this representation on your organisational letter head or
individually, by mail and/or email and fax and as soon as possible.
All contact details required to send the representation are enclosed.
We request that you mark a copy of the representation to the MoEF
Secretary, Dr. Pradipto Ghosh. Please also mark a copy to CEJI at the
addresses of Kalpavriksh or Environment Support Group (given below).
A brief background note is enclosed to help you decide in supporting
this cause. You can also find more material at www.esgindia.org and
www.kalpavriksh.org.
Sincerely,
Leo F. Saldanha/Bhargavi S. Rao/Arpita Joshi (Environment Support
Group) and Kanchi Kohli/Manju Menon (Kalpavriksh – Delhi)
On behalf of Campaign for Environmental Justice – India
Manshi Asher (National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune), Nityanand
Jayaraman (Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai); Latha A.
(Chalakudy River Protection Committee, Thrissur); Samir Mehta (Bombay
Environment Action Group); Syed Liyakath (Equations, Bangalore);
Seerat Kacchap (BIRSA, Jharkand); Deepankar Dutta (Samatha,
Hyderabad); Bharat Jairaj (Citizens Action Group, Chennai) and others.
[CEJI is a network of voluntary organizations, movements, project
affected communities, NGOs, research organizations and individuals
working to address diverse environmental and social justice threats
and challenges in India]
Addresses:
Shri. A. Raja
Union Minister for Environment and Forests
Government of India
Paryavaran Bhavan
CGO Complex, Lodi Road
New Delhi 110003
Fax: 91-11-24362222
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, IAS
Secretary
Ministry for Environment and Forests
Government of India
Paryavaran Bhavan
CGO Complex, Lodi Road
New Delhi 110003
Fax: 91-11-24362746
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copy your representations to CEJI at:
Kalpavriksh,
134, Tower 10, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar 1, Delhi-110091,
Ph: 22753714; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Environment Support Group (r)
105, East End B Main Road, Jayanagar 9th Block East, Bangalore 560069.INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-22441977/26531339
Fax: 91-80-26534364
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.esgindia.org
Background Note to the CEJI demand to withhold the proposed amendment
to India's EIA Notification:
As you are aware, the Environment Impact Assessment Notification was
first enacted by MoEF in 1994 conforming to India's acceptance of
Agenda 21 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development held in 1992. This notification is the
only provision in the entire body of law that requires high impact
industrial projects (Eg. Refineries, fertiliser plants, highly
polluting industries, etc.) and infrastructure developments (Eg.
highways, dams, power plants, tonwnships and large commercial
complexes, etc.) to be approved, only after a detailed examination of
impacts on the basis of comprehensive Environment and Social Impact
Assessments, Statutory Environmental Public Hearings and review by
State Pollution Control Boards and MoEF.
In short, the idea of this notification was to ensure development
caused minimum impacts on the environment and peoples lives and
livelihoods. Significantly, the EIA Notification made it possible for
the very first time for direct and statutory involvement of the
affected communities and the wide public in shaping the decisions, in
expanding the scope for transparent decision making and also in
ensuring that environmental regulation of projects was accountable to
the local public.
On 15 September 2005, MoEF issued a new draft of the EIA Notification
for public comments, by putting out an English only version on its
website. This draft proposed comprehensive amendments to the EIA
Notification with the intent to make environmental clearances quick
and easy for large industrial and infrastructure investments. This
seriously diminishes the capacity to carefully consider options for
development based on the Precautionary Principle, particularly with
the objective of mitigating adverse impacts on the environment and
peoples' livelihoods.
Incidentally, the proposed amendment is not guided by any considered
study on the efficacy or failure of the existing provisions of the EIA
Notification. Rather, it is primarily guided by the Govindarajan
Committee on Investment Reforms which noted that environmental
clearance procedures need to be "reengineered" so that investment
decisions are not unnecessarily delayed. What this implies is that
comprehensive environmental and social impact assessments would be
replaced by rapid evaluations and investors can hope to obtain quick
clearances for exploiting resources, industrialization, and
infrastructure development.
The proposed changes also include a direct role for the State
Governments in granting environmental clearance, in comparison with
the present norms that completely bypass them. However, such
seemingly well-meaning decentralisation measures are likely to erode
the possibility of protecting the environment and people's livelihoods
as no operational framework or budgetary support is provided to build
capacities of regional regulatory institutions. Considering that
State Governments are competing with each other in soliciting
investments, they are unlikely to reject projects on environmental
grounds. This would surely be a recipe for a disastrous pattern of
"development" as in China.
Another significant amendment provides for the cancellation of the
Statutory Public Hearings based exclusively on the assumption of the
Government that "owing to the local situation, it is not possible to
conduct the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of
the concerned local persons to be freely expressed". This gives the
Government discretionary powers in holding Statutory Public Hearings
thus undermining the process of democratic decision-making.
The existing EIA Notification allowed for bureaucratic discretion to
hold Public Hearings when first enacted in 1994. Not surprisingly no
Public Hearings were held across the country until it was made
mandatory by an amendment in 1997. Seen in this context, the proposed
is a retrograde step taking India back to the pre-1997 position. It
may also be noted that even information access was severely
compromised until the 2002 amendment made it mandatory for releasing
the Environment Impact Assessment to the public prior to the Hearing,
rather than the ongoing practice of providing access only to an
Executive Summary that contained no credible information.
It is evident that the existing Notification needs to be closely
reexamined and in a very transparent manner. Its provisions need to
be strengthened to meet the objectives for which it was enacted. A
long awaited need has also been to integrate various provisions in
several laws and rules governing environmental clearance, under a
common set of Rules relating to environmental and social impact
assessments. If MoEF was keen on pursuing such reforms it could
easily have found wide support and a diversity of approaches to
achieve such result even as it would secured our environment without
unnecessarily hindering industrial and infrastructure growth. Instead
it has adopted a myopic view to scoping environmental and social
impacts, with the particular intent of speeding up environmental
clearance decisions. Such rapid clearances are bound to bypass
several environmental safeguards that have been built into considered
impact assessment processes.
It is interesting to note that a foreign consultant (ERM) was hired
for the task of "re-engineering" the notification. ERM completed this
task with minimal consultations and as part of the Environmental
Management Capacity Building Programme of MoEF financed by the World
Bank. In gross contravention of the procedure laid down in the
Environment Protection Act, of which MoEF is the prime custodian, the
finalization of the notification has been undertaken in utter secrecy
and without even consulting the Parliament or the States. The opinion
of local governments and the wide public was not even solicited
actively. However, certain Industry Associations were repeatedly
consulted in the process of finalizing the draft amendment, and much
after the due consideration time for commenting on the proposed
reforms had expired.
CAMPAIGN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - INDIA
RPAD/FAX/EMAIL
Shri. A. Raja
Union Minister for Environment and Forests
Government of India
Paryavaran Bhavan
CGO Complex, Lodi Road
New Delhi
05 Sep. 2006
Reg.: Request to put on hold proposed amendment to the EIA Notification
Dear Shri. Raja,
Representatives of the Campaign for Environmental Justice – India met
with you on 9th August 2006 with a request that the proposed
comprehensive amendment to the Environment Impact Assessment
Notification must be put on hold till such time extensive
consultations have been held across the country with State and Local
Governments, environmental groups and networks, mass movements, etc.
The basis of this demand was that the EIA Notification is the only
available means of information access and participation in decision
making that anticipates the environmental and social impacts of large
industrial or infrastructure projects, and highly polluting
facilities. While the present notification has many problems, and
needs to be reviewed, the process by which the Ministry of Environment
and Forests set about amending this notification has hardly been
inclusive.
Admittedly, during the 60 day commenting period starting 15 September
2005 when the draft proposed EIA Notification was located on the
Ministry's website (in English), only select consultations have been
held with State Government representatives and environmental groups.
The Parliament has not been consulted either during the commenting
period or at any time thereafter. State Governments who have
expressed their views have not been consulted in the process of
finalisation of the draft. The opinion of several environmental
groups, researchers, mass movements, etc. has hardly been considered
in the process of re-drafting the proposed amendment.
Admittedly, and shockingly, it has been confirmed in response to Right
to Information applications filed on behalf of the Campaign for
Environmental Justice, that the Ministry has mainly consulted certain
industry associations in the finalisation of the draft notification.
When these concerns were brought to the attention of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment and Forests,
the Chairman of the Committee, Shri. P. G. Narayanan, MP, thought it
fit to immediately write to the Prime Minister and yourself (in his
letter dated 1st September 2006) that he was:
"shocked to learn that the Ministry has been working on redrafting
this critical notification for over a year now. Unfortunately no
consultation has been sought with the Parliamentary Standing
Committee..... I am deeply worried by the far reaching consequences
of the proposed notification as it undermines the federal character of
our polity, given that the finalisation is driven merely by the
concerns of Industry Associations, at the neglect of States. The
Union of States has to be consulted and their views sought before any
major changes are effected before finalising the proposed revision of
Environment Impact Assessment Notification. Also we need to
appreciate the widespread concerns of peoples of India who have sought
our intervention in ensuring this draft notification is issued only
after meaningful consultations".
Shri. Sitaram Yechury, MP and Leader CPI (M) Group has urged you in
his letter dated 31 August 2006 to
"hold extensive consultations by organising zonal workshops involving
the State Governments, Zilla Parishads, Panchayats, mass organisations
and NGOs" on the proposed EIA Notification.
Shri. Yechury has further stressed that:
"there should also be a full discussion on this issue in the Winter
session of the Parliament. I hereby request you to withhold the
finalisation of the EIA Notification till such extensive discussions
and parliamentary debate take place on the issue".
Such consultations Shri. Yechury feels are important as:
"this notification will have a big impact on the life of local people
living in resource rich areas and it is therefore essential that their
concerns are adequately addressed and their voices heard. For this it
is also important that the draft of the Notification is discussed and
debated in the Parliament."
Shri. Ramji Lal Suman, MP and Member of the same Parliamentary
Committee has also written to the PM with an equally forceful appeal
(in his letter dated 01 September 2006) and stated that:
"it is a matter of great concern that the Parliament, Standing
Committees, and the people of India have not been taken into
confidence in proposing this notification which has serious
implications on our environmental security. This indicates that
suggestions of certain industry associations are being incorporated to
promote their profits."
Clearly taking a stand against the Ministry's move to amend the EIA
Notification in such manner, Shri. Suman urges the PM:
"that any notification should be put on hold in securing the interests
of our federal democracy, especially when such notifications cannot be
justified at any cost"
Dr. S. Ramadoss, Founder Leader of Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) has
written to you in his letter date 2nd September 2006 stating that:
"(t)he EIA Notification will have a bearing on the lives and
livelihoods of millions of already marginalised communities such as
small and marginal farmers, Dalits, adivasis and fisherfolk. It could
aggravate the problem of "development-induced" displacement and lead
to widespread outrage among communities".
On this ground he has also articulated that
"(t)he EIA Notification has such far-ranging implications that it
should not be a mere Notification. I humbly request that the process
of democracy not be derailed, and seek your intervention to ensure
widespread face-to-face consultations are held with MPs, elected Local
Government leaders, trade unions, community groups and public interest
organisations".
He has further stressed the fact that MoEF has
"technically opened up consultations only to the industry after the
60-day consultation period and recirculating amended notifications to
them after the comments is tantamount to reissuing the notification
without providing for public consultation".
Your Cabinet colleague, Shri. Mani Shankar Iyer has also forwarded the
concerns of CEJI to you for due consideration.
Sir, in light of these considered opinions of the Parliamentary
Standing Committee and Parliamentarians, particularly their demand
that the proposed amendment to the EIA Notification should not be
acted upon in these circumstances, it would have been appropriate for
the Secretary MoEF to respect their wishes. Yet, he has gone on
record to state that
"All consultations are over" (Times of India, 01 September 2006).
In effect this suggests that he intends to proceed with the
comprehensive amendment to the EIA notification.
As you are aware, the Departmentally Related Parliamentary Standing Committees
"is a path-breaking endeavour of the Parliamentary surveillance over
administration. With the emphasis of their functioning to concentrate
on long-term plans, policies and the philosophies guiding the working
of the Executive, these Committees will be in a very privileged
position to provide necessary direction, guidance and inputs for broad
policy formulations and in achievement of the long-term national
perspective of the Executive". (Source:
http://www.parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/intro/p21.htm)
It is clear from this that it is the task of the Executive wing of the
governance system of our country to seek "necessary direction,
guidance and inputs for broad policy formulations" in cognisance of
the Parliamentary Committee's role of "surveillance over
administration". Clearly, the manner in which the Secretary, MoEF has
proceeded to issue the draft notification for consultation, and the
skewed and partial manner of the consultations held in finalising the
notification, mainly with industry associations, presents a scenario
where the Executive division of the Ministry has not respected the
"privileged position" of the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
From this perspective, in serving the cause of federalism, meaningful
implementation of the rule of law and in fulfilling the objective of
Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, it would be in the best
interest of all concerned and the country as a whole, if the proposed
notification is kept in abeyance till such time the demands
articulated by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, Parliamentarians,
and mass movements, environmental networks, etc. are met with fully
and meaningfully. This would also ensure that there is no violation
of the Environment Protection Act in amending the EIA Notification.
Keeping all these issues in view, we hope you will take action as
requested and with due dispatch. All the aforementioned letters are
enclosed for your perusal and records.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Leo F. Saldanha
Environment Support Group
for
Campaign for Environmental Justice – India
Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon (Kalpavriksh Pune/Delhi), Manshi Asher
(National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune), Nityanand Jayaraman
(Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai); Latha A. (Chalakudy River
Protection Committee, Thrissur); Samir Mehta (Bombay Environment
Action Group); Liyakath Syed (Equations, Bangalore); Seerat Kacchap
(BIRSA, Jharkand); Deepankar Dutta (Samatha, Hyderabad); Bharat Jairaj
(Citizens Action Group, Chennai) and others.
[A network of voluntary organizations, movements, project affected
communities, NGOs, research organizations and individuals working to
address diverse environmental and social justice threats and
challenges in India]
Cc:
Shri. Mani Shankar Iyer, Union Minister for Panchayat Raj and Youth Affairs
Shri. Prithviraj Chauhan, Minister of State attached to Prime Minister's Office
Shri. P. G. Narayanan, MP, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Science, Technology, Environment and Forests
Shri. Sitaram Yechury, MP, Leader, CPI (M), Rajya Sabha
Shri. Ramji Lal Suman, MP and Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Science, Technology, Environment and Forests
Dr. S. Ramadoss, Founder Leader, Pattali Makkal Katchi
Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, IAS, Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment and Forests
Address for contact:
Environment Support Group (r)
105, East End B Main Road, Jayanagar 9th Block East, Bangalore 560069.INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-22441977/26531339
Fax: 91-80-26534364
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.esgindia.org
Kalpavriksh,
134, Tower 10, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar 1, Delhi-110091,
Ph: 22753714; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
