Panel set up to re-assess green clearance process

[Ratnakar Pandey]

The infrastructure ministries and industry, the environment ministry has set up a committee to review the kind of projects requiring environmental clearance from the Centre. A re-assessment is likely to reduce the number of projects that would have to seek approval from Delhi.

The committee, set up under  Planning Commission member  K Kasturirangan, will review what kind of projects can be dealt with at the state level and which would require central nod.

At the moment, projects below a certain size or of certain nature require clearance only from the state level environmental authority while the rest are sent to the expert panels set up under the environment ministry in Delhi.

The  PMO has been pushing, along with several states, for changing the criteria in some cases to make the clearance process simpler for the industry and infrastructure projects.

Project developers as well as state governments have often found it easier to get projects cleared by the state appointed expert panels rather than sending the projects to Delhi for approval.

Projects which would usually be submitted for clearance to the state governments are instead referred to the Centre if they are located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of either national parks and sanctuaries or critically polluted areas as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board or notified eco-sensitive areas or inter-state and international boundaries.

These restrictions, forcing developers to send their projects for central clearance, have also come under fire from several state governments.

The Kasturirangan panel will take a re-look at these restrictions as well as the overall classification of projects for different levels of clearance and is expected to come back with a set of 'reforms'.

[ganesan viswanathan]

tIt is a good move to some extent.Some of the highly polluting sectors like Plating Industries which are being misused by the large scale Automobile and Textile machinery SHALL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE LIST.Our major rivers like ganges ,Yamuna,Cauvery are being polluted by these units for the benefit of the above people

How ever, The committee should also re exam the functioning of the EIA consultancy  accreditation process being forced through QCI.

• I beleive  the enfocement of Env clearance conditions by the project proponent is lacking.Large violations during establishment and operations.
• .QCI,s over stepping in all the areas resulting to unpleasantness among senior Env Experts.
•   The Said to be assessers simply harassing the Senior Experts.At one point of time this field will lose the services of dignified experts
• QCI should concentrate more on wetting the EIA Study report through third parties at the cost of project proponent.
• QCI should stop its exercise just prescribing the qualification and experience for the different fields and allow the consultancy firm should be allowed to recruit the experts on their own methods.
• Too much restriction on sectors allocation would result to death of good no of
•  consultancy firms.Only TATA,s will survive.
• Moef should establish more appraisal committees,to reduce the delay in Env Clearance and concentrate more on implementation of EC Conditions.Diluting the Green Clearance would would result to more of Env problems.
• Shall the Committee will be looked in to? 

[Kunal V Jaiswal]

@ Mr. Ganeshan Sir I am really in fever of all the Issues raised by you... in my view more information should be available in public domain & more public participation required....but still very happy for this good effort...

[nand gopal maurya]

 Dear Sir,

 I am totaly agreed with this. Apet from thist here should be a change in the qualifying criteria of the expert  members  in the SEAC. I had seen  that in some states SEAC the acadametions are selected. They may be good in formulising the theoritical practices  for the safeguarding the environment. But due to lack of practical experienc on ground realities the conditions put on the  proponent became mearly and eyewash excesises. Specialy in construction projects. Regards
ganesan viswanathan said:

tIt is a good move to some extent.Some of the highly polluting sectors like Plating Industries which are being misused by the large scale Automobile and Textile machinery SHALL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE LIST.Our major rivers like ganges ,Yamuna,Cauvery are being polluted by these units for the benefit of the above people

How ever, The committee should also re exam the functioning of the EIA consultancy  accreditation process being forced through QCI.

• I beleive  the enfocement of Env clearance conditions by the project proponent is lacking.Large violations during establishment and operations.
• .QCI,s over stepping in all the areas resulting to unpleasantness among senior Env Experts.
•   The Said to be assessers simply harassing the Senior Experts.At one point of time this field will lose the services of dignified experts
• QCI should concentrate more on wetting the EIA Study report through third parties at the cost of project proponent.
• QCI should stop its exercise just prescribing the qualification and experience for the different fields and allow the consultancy firm should be allowed to recruit the experts on their own methods.
• Too much restriction on sectors allocation would result to death of good no of
•  consultancy firms.Only TATA,s will survive.
• Moef should establish more appraisal committees,to reduce the delay in Env Clearance and concentrate more on implementation of EC Conditions.Diluting the Green Clearance would would result to more of Env problems.
• Shall the Committee will be looked in to? 

[KANCHAN KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY]

A good endeavour.