High Court relief for environment engineers

[Dr. Sudhanshu Kumar]

The high court has stayed an official memorandum by the Ministry of Environment and Forests which made it mandatory for environment consultants to obtain accreditation with the National Accreditation Board of Education and Training, Quality Council of India (QCI).

source: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/bengaluru/high-court...

[Vinod Kumar Gautam]

Quality is EIA report is poor as EAC and Some Directors/SEIAA Members take Money from Consultant and Project Proponent for clearing Projects.

When this will be stopped quality of EIA report will be improved overnight.

     

 

 

Prof Dr V N Sivasankara Pillai said:

Dear All,

Before looking in the correctness of HC order, it may be a relief tho those involved in EIA as a business, but not to environment. EIA reports produced by agencies still remain of appalling standards. No better is the SEIA committees. It is filled with "Raja's nominees" and even people who have bought ornamental degrees. EIA team requires experts from many areas relevant to the project and site sensitivities. The content of EIA reports and decisions of EAC clearly show that most of the "experts" are true to Indian context. We, Indian citizens, have to change a lot in our ethics for EIA to become an effective tool.

[Vinod Kumar Gautam]

NABET/QCI Scheme for EIA Consultants Accreditation is faulty, improper, unscientific and it encourage corruption, as  

 

• Most of the Assessor and Accreditation Committee members EIA Accreditation Scheme of NABET, do not have experience in Environmental Impact Assessment studies.
• Most of Assessors and Accreditation Committee members are of age 60 to 80 years. As per Government Service regulations, they are retired people and most of them are not fit mentally and physically to perform such responsibility. This is the reason that they could not dispose accreditation applications in more than a year time. They meet only 3-4 time in a month for 2-3 hours.
• Many Assessor and Accreditation Committee members are treating NABET Scheme asFamily & Friend Business, as they have been deputed in NABET/QCI based their personal rapport with few influential people. 
• Most of Assessors do not have qualification for assessing highly qualified professional. Their human assessment techniques are highly unscientific and improper. These Assessors and Accreditation Committee members declare, a well educated, trained and qualified professionals as “inadequate knowledge” and  “inadequate experience”. It is highly ridicules that how two Assessors can evaluate/assess experts and human resource of all disciplines. Based on their unscientific and improper evaluation, comments about professionals are displayed by NABET in public domain/web site. They are playing with the life and career of professionals. This is criminal offence and such Assessor and Accreditation committee members should be prosecuted for such act.
• Few members of Accreditation Committee of NABET are member of Expert Appraisal Committee. They take bribe and other benefits from Consultants and project proponents for clearing projects. In fact, such Accreditation committee Members/EAC member of  MoEF   are responsible for poor quality of EIA reports.
• NABET scheme is highly expensive. NABET charges 15000/- per manday for Assessors and three star facility and air travel. This in fact encourages mal-practices. Greedy people as Assessors have joined NABET based on person rapport, how we can expect quality from them.   
• NABET has only 4-5 staff  including One Director, One Joint Director, One Executive, few

  un-experienced secretarial staff. Their behavior with professionals is not satisfactory.  

     

Therefore, we welcome the stay order of Hon able High Court !!!   

 

Send you comments on [e-mail] and [e-mail]

[Prof Dr V N Sivasankara Pillai]

Thank you.

[Ajay B Dwivedi]

Dear VK Gautam and all friends in Forum,

I am not only having the same experience and interpretation of the process but also to add to this, the behavior and criminal negligence of MoEF to the fact that what was not included in the original Notification was included through an Office Memo. I have worke in Govt and know well what it requires to have a Circular signed. There was no Resolution and the entire circus was propelled by QCI/NABET at their will and in their way.

• Off the record in one of my miscarried assessments I asked the assessor having known that I had nothing to be lost further that if given opportunity to turn the tables and allow me the assessment with their 'criteria' could he find himself being assessed positively? The answer I got was - "In that case I would have been consultant myself". This said it all, still one assessor whose credentials are said to be doubtful remained adamant on claiming his candidature for EIA co-ordinator, having spent best part of his career in Govt.
• I have always wondered if a professinal working in a team cannot be certified to be 'adequately' experienced, then how come these public servants claim themselves to be experienced for work that was not even supervised by them?
• When the Govt servants are to draw DA from the Govt. its rates are defined under the accounting procedures, why these expenses @ 15000/- per day were stipulated?
• UNDER WHAT POWER THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WAS VIOLATED. ON WHAT BASIS QCI HAS BEEN AWARDED THE SILVER SPOON?
• QCI / MOEF / NABET HAVE BEEN CLAIMING THIS TO BE A UNIQUE SCHEME IN THE WORLD. WHY OTHER COUNTRIES WITH HIGHER INDUSTRIALIZATION DID NOT OPT FOR THIS TYPE OF SCHEME?
• INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SCHEME COULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNED IF 'QUALITY OF EIA' WAS 'THE CONCERN'.
• Why MoEF should not be held responsible for dipped GDP growth rate on this account at least partially?
• If the entire scheme is termed illegal by Court, why people resposible for wasted growth not be punished?
• ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING: QCI - NABET - NABL - ISO : EVEN AFTER THESE RIGOROUS ASSESSMENTS THE SYSTEM WAS NEVER EMPOWERED TO MUTATE ANYTHING FROM THE PROCESS, THERE MOEF PREECHES THE DOCTRINE WRITTEN IN THE NOTIFICATION. MOEF HAS NO CONTROL OVER QCI / NABET, BUT THEY WILL RESERVE THEIR POWER TO GET THE CONSULTANT DISMISSED FROM THE LIST, IS THIS JUSTICE?

Hope many more issues will now get dissected in the Forum and we all will have a lots to share.

[Ajay B Dwivedi]

Thanks a lot Vinodji.
 
Vinod Kumar Gautam said:

Yes Mr Abhay 

Attached is Copy of Order HC!!!

abhay Kumar Sharma said:

Can any one provide the copy of the stay order

[Dr Pawan Kumar Bharti Chauhan]

Thank you Dr. Saab for this info.

[Danish Khan]

If the NABET approved consultants prepared EIA report it means its real studied(NOT FAKE).

So its not neceessory to present before EAC committee. Project want to get direct EC. bcoz its prepared by approved consultants.

or

If the EAC scrutinized or checking all parameter(before presentation of project 8-10 days) 8 to 10 MOEF EAC members are checking technical as well as environmental aspect in the EIA report. So why should consultants get NABET approval. otherwise dissolve the EAC committee.

[abhay Kumar Sharma]

Dear Gautam Ji,

Thanks a lot for high court order copy

Vinod Kumar Gautam said:

Yes Mr Abhay 

Attached is Copy of Order HC!!!

abhay Kumar Sharma said:

Can any one provide the copy of the stay order

[Ruchika Sharma]

very well said Mr Dwivedi and Mr. Gautam.......the ministry must consider these factors also before passing any order.......how one can raise a point of doubt on the credibility and productivity of a person who has devoted 15 years of his career to this field........its ridiculous and unacceptable.........

[abhay Kumar Sharma]

Any new development regarding nabet stay order? Nebet meetings are still in process

[Prof Dr V N Sivasankara Pillai]

Dear Friends,

Probably, QCI_NABET accreditation has become a matter of concern for EIA professionals. Why can't we think of accreditation based on based on academic qualifications, hands-on experience (by professional in-job experience} and knowledge and skill based tests at various grades. The accreditation in an area may be as Grade I. Grade II etc. Tools used in EIA are rapidly changing, and professionals have to keep pace with advancements. Is this acceptable solution? Or should it be by "seniority" as in govt jobs?

See that for monitoring professionals such content based accreditation is needed in many countries.

[Ajay B Dwivedi]

Dr Pillai Sab,

It is becoming an employment niche for retired people from Govt sector. If you see the irrgularities in evaluation process it is evident that none have the motive to improve EIA. Good and not so good all professionals are discriminated in name of qualification, system, not in criteria, inadequate knowledge etc. irrespective of the accreditation of assessor's own capabilities objectively certified.

Yesterday only a senior consultant here in Ahmedabad sent us all mail regarding an institute called CEPT to be conducting a training program on Land Use with respect to EIA. Now this institute is having a renowned assessor working with them, who has himself disqualified many professionals on criteria of NABET not met with by individuals. An FAE aspirant was disqualified by NABET from his institute for not meeting the qualification criteria who is expected to train people who are otherwise qualified in NABET terms.

 

Point raised by you is valid but if someone is a B.Com having PG in Geomatics, how can he be a member of EIA team. I wish learned and really qualified people like you should come forward. If I, a PG from NIT with more than two decades of experience is not fitting these 'criteria', it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with the system. It has to be restructured.

 

I agree with your suggestion.