How can we improve effectiveness of EIA process in India

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

EIA has been legislated in India since 1994 as a requirement for Environmental Clearance (EC). We all know that in most cases, conduct of EIA is perceived more as a "permitting tool" than a process that stimulates alternatives, anticipates impacts/risks and prepares a prevention and control strategy/plan and importantly "value adds" to the original project/program proposal.

 

EIA reports are often prepared on the fly.

 

The EIA process is expected to be "concurrent" to project development and not a "terminal" activity when all configurations of the project are frozen. EIA process is also expected be transparent in communicating project and impact/risk related information to stakeholders and seek their involvement. Ground realities are however often different. How could we overcome this limitation?

 

One of major weaknesses of our EIA system is our project-limited approach. We haven't yet legislated regional, sectoral/strategic EIAs. We therefore miss consideration of cumulative and regional impacts and hence fail to safeguard environment on a regional basis. Our development plans for instance fail to mainstream environmental and social considerations 

 

A lot can be done to improve the present system. I would like to open a discussion on this topic.

[GOPI KANTA GHOSH]

Scientific design is needed for which there is need for professional approach...

[Dr. Hemalkumar Naik]

Dear Mr. Prasadji,

I am feeling good who wish to see the perfect EIA System and regulatory control for same. However, the points quoted by you are relevant only to the extent of act of consulting organization as well as project proponent. Have you ever try to look in to the matter of System & Approach of Authority? Like in foreign countries rather developed countries, there exist a system for free data delivery which provides data with ground reality and so the manipulation of data is merely not possible or the chance of manipulation is very less. Besides, here in our country there is no such electronic system to assess the data used for EIA based on regional conditions as well as sector specific importance.

Now talking about consulting organization & industries- the project proponent, it is always clearly visible that the basic concept of importance in the EIA as well as other environmental management task/activities is only ECONOMIC Suitability rather MORE PROFIT. This is why the quality and system of EIA is not up to mark rather up to the 20-30% of actual level of 100%. As far as my view & thinking is concern I would like to suggest that there shall be standard structures of Budgetary provision for EIA & EMS/EMP as well as a standard Rates for such works decided by authority which must be control based on Categories of Project-Cost of Project- Location & Size of Project- Regional Status (LULC) of the project area etc etc. As i have noticed that you are practicing as Corporate Consultant for Environment, you must find some basic system for the suggested concept of rate & budgetary provisions controlled under regulatory framework. Further, you might have noticed such system of cost of operation for Environmental Laboratory accredited under EPA 1986.

Well there are lot to do for the perfect EIA system & Environmental Management Activities to safeguard our environment. We can not point our finger to one as we all are on negative edge either by one or more of our policy or actions. As the system need to restructured from root it will take time. Govt. has started nicely to correct the system but I think it will need about 10-15 years to make a perfect system.

Hope it become perfect soon, as such system can be more fruitful to the people who want to earn through skilled and quality input for environmental safeguard. I personally wish that such system shall be implemented by Govt. within a time frame of 2-5 Yrs and I will be contributing in such system development efforts without any financial interest if any organization asks me for such efforts.

Any ways you have quoted good title but I request you to share more idea on the title as you are too experienced persona and from your idea & view we younger can learn a lot. Thanks

 

 

[Ajay B Dwivedi]

Sir, you are too generous by quoting the word often in place of the correct word "always". The people evaluating the matters have themselves confessed that the paper work does not improve the environment. EMPs for specific activities are function of a fixed set of parameters and having conditions which are more or less the same, say in case of an industrial estate where similar activities are on, where is the necessity of having the same process done individually. This process if evaluated from a different perspect does nothing else but to load the shelves of the Govt. offices.

As pointed it is agreeable that use of generic words has to be avoided. What is missing is courage of conviction at both ends. If the official does not allow use of such words he will "bear responsibility".

I remember a case where the EAC had literally fired me for interpreting the word "process" in pure chemical engineering terms. My argument in favor of the project proponent was to consider distillation as an "operation" and not process considering that no chemical mass transfer was expected. EAC was adamant to put the matter as "process" to the extent that one of the gentleman in the EAC even told me that he could prove all metallurgical operations to be processes. Point is the system is only made of Govt. officials who have made their way spending their careers through constraints and are too defensive to interprete the matters in right spirit.

[Prasad Madhav Modak]

I agree with your observations. Design and implementation of a sound Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is indeed a shared responsibility across project developer, regulator, financier as well as the community. Many times these roles and responsibilities are not fully understood and hence you see several problem areas.

EMPs are either too generic like a "boiler plate", with no adequate provisions of budget (especially for monitoring and adaptation/enhancement of mitigation measures), with ambiguities on the implementation arrangements and not addressing weaknesses on institutional capacities. You will rarely see EMPs that address all of the above critical elements. We need good examples.

Conducting a quality EIA makes a good economic sense.  This is often not understood as it is not widely demonstrated in economic terms (to the extent possible) and in a language that the stakeholders understand and appreciate.  

Damage to environment has cost implications. Resources when severely depleted are no longer available and cost much more. Degraded resources need "corrective" measures that require substantial investments. And then there are adverse impacts on health, ecosystems and economic activities like agriculture where costs incur and productivity suffers. Above all, there are public protests, reputation risks and possibilities of pulling out of investors on the principles of environmental ethics.

 Any compromises on the front of environment or natural resources has its costs and associated risks that can question viability, effectiveness and sustainability of the proposed investments.  We need case studies provide this message, clearly to the  project developer, regulator, financier as well as the community.

I will be very interested if members of this network provide such material and we come up with a publication to share.

[Kalathure Laxminarayana Rao]

Every one of the stake holders are responsible for the effectiveness of the E I A. The Present guidelines for the preparation of E I A fixes responsibility only on the Project Implementer. Take the case of Minor Ports being developed. These Ports collects fees for various services. Port Tariffs are not fixed scientifically and are too low. As a result Ports do not maintain the environment around the ports and we have bad approach roads resulting in noise pollution, as well as air pollution. Generally in minor ports  facilities like storage and bunkering terminals, storage Yards and ore handling facilities, go-downs and commodity handling facilities are privatized from day one. E I A for the minor port is totally silent about how and who should be responsible for EIA/EMP for each part privatized. The problem is realized by the people only when these facilities come up. The approach that private is more efficient and private will provide good service and at the same time take appropriate measure to protect the environment is wrong. Private has a profit motive and if the government controls the tariffs for services private has to take its profit at the cost of environment. After all you cannot expect the private to do charity. Thus the Govt and the private trade accusations at each other for the inadequacy of EMP or not implementing the mitigation measures. People in general are the tools in the hands of politicians. They want economic development but fight only for the no project alternative and thus are responsible for the delays in implementing the projects resulting in cost escalations and unviability of the projects at the tariffs fixed in the agreements.  

Thus when the Projects are decided based on the development needs of the region or because of economic compulsions of the country/state No project alternative need not be considered while preparing EIA. In addition if the Tariffs fixed do not take in to consideration the future maintinace of the surrounding environment then it becomes governments responsibility to maintain the surroundings. People should wait till the EIA reports are finalized and they have a chance to study and argue based on what mitigation measures are needed and what is proposed by the Government and the implementor. The present EIA procedure may be adequate and modifications are continuously done based on the needs of the time. If only we have better sense and utilise the time and money wasted in fighting and playing politics, probably we would have had better EMP's