The Indian Himalayan Region Needs Its Own EIA

Why in News?

• Recent Teesta dam breach in Sikkim and floods and landslides in Himachal Pradesh are a stark reminder of the havoc India’s development model is wreaking on environment and ecology especially in the mountains.
• Therefore, it is imperative to assess the worthiness of any significant human endeavour in terms of its impact on the environment.

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) And Its Basis

• Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
  • This is a process defined by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as a tool to identify the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project before it is implemented.
  • This tool compares various alternatives for the proposed project, predicts and analyses all possible environmental repercussions in various scenarios.
  • The EIA also helps decide appropriate mitigation strategies.
• Basis of an EIA
  • The EIA process would need comprehensive, reliable data and would deliver results only if it is designed to seek the most appropriate, relevant, and reliable information regarding the project.
  • Hence, the base line data based on which future likely impacts are being predicted are very crucial.

A Background of EIA Mechanism in India

• Precursor to the EIA
  • In India, a precursor to the EIA began in 1976-77 when the Planning Commission directed the Department of Science and Technology to assess the river valley projects from the environmental point of view.
  • It was later extended for all those projects that required approval from the Public Investment Board.
  • Environment clearance then was just an administrative decision of the central government.
• First EIA Notification
  • On January 27, 1994, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA), promulgated the first EIA notification.
  • It made Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for setting up some specified new projects and also for expansion or modernisation of some specific activities.
• EIA Notification, 2006
  • The notification of 1994 saw 12 amendments in 11 years before it was replaced by the EIA 2006 notification.
  • The hallmark of the 2006 notification was the decentralisation of the process of EC.
  • State governments were also given powers to issue EC in certain cases. The 2006 notification has also been amended, in the name of fine-tuning the process several times. 
  • The EIA 2006 notification lays down the procedure as well as institutional set-up to give environmental clearance for the projects that need such clearance as per this notification.
  • Only projects enumerated in the schedule attached to the notification require prior EC.
• Draft 2020 Notification
  • The MoEF&CC floated a draft EIA in 2020 for public comments.
  • The draft faced backlash and was criticised as it was perceived to be pro industry and compromising the ecological concerns.

Problems Associated with India’s EIA Notifications

• Threshold Limits Required are Same Across the Country
  • This notification has categorised projects under various heads such as mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation, and physical infrastructure.
  • Unfortunately, the threshold limits beyond which EIA is warranted for all these projects is the same across the country.
• No Emphasis on Special Needs of Indian Himalayan Region (IHR)
  • Despite all levels of government being acutely aware of the special needs of the IHR, the region’s vulnerabilities and fragility have not been considered separately.
  • While some industries mentioned in the schedule to the notification cannot be set up in the IHR States due to the industrial policies of the respective States, other industries and projects have to meet the same threshold in the rest of the country.
  • Even the draft 2020 notification which was floated for public discussion does not treat the IHR differently than the rest of the country and is not cognisant of the special developmental needs of IHR 

Factors Ailing the India’s EIA Mechanism

• Flawed Graded Approach of EIC Notification, 2006
  • The Indian regulatory system uses a graded approach, a differentiated risk management approach.
  • It depends on whether a project is coming up within a protected forest, a reserved forest, a national park, or a critical tiger habitat.
  • The strictness of environmental conditions proposed in the terms of references at the scoping stage of the EIA process is proportionate to the value and sensitivity of the habitat being impacted by the project.
  • One unfortunate miss from this graded approach for differentiated risk management has been the IHR.
• No Regulator at the National Level
  • There is no regulator at the national level, as suggested by the Supreme Court of India in 2011 in Lafarge Umiam Mining vs Union of India.
  • The Judgement suggested to carry out an independent, objective, and transparent appraisal and approval of the projects for ECs and to monitor the implementation of the conditions laid down in the EC.
• EIA Process is Reactionary
  • The EIA process now reacts to development proposals rather than anticipate them.
  • As they are financed by the project proponent, there is an inclination in favour of the project.
• Does Not Consider Cumulative Impact: The process now does not adequately consider cumulative impacts as far as impacts caused by several projects in the area are concerned.
• Box Ticking Approach
  • In many cases, the EIA is done in a box ticking approach manner as a mere formality that needs to be done for EC before a project can be started.
  • The consequences of all these limitations are amplified in the IHR as on top of the inherent limitations of the process, the EIA process is not at all cognisant of the special needs of the IHR.

Way Forward

• Place the IHR’s Vulnerability and Fragility at the Centre of EIA
  • While categorising projects it is important that the impacts of all such projects and activities are seen in the IHR in the context of this region’s fragility and vulnerability.
  • Himalayas are inherently vulnerable to extreme weather conditions such as heavy rains, flash floods, and landslides and are seismically active.
  • Climate change has added another layer of vulnerability to this ecosystem.
• Address the Special Needs of IHR
  • The needs of these mountains could be addressed at all four stages of the EIA (screening, scoping, public consultation, and appraisal).
  • The four stages will be effective if projects and activities requiring EC in mountainous regions are made proportionate with the ecological needs of this region.
• Introduction of a Liability Clause for Projects in IHR
  • General conditions mandated for all projects at the end of the notification could also have had a clause about the IHR or mountains above a certain altitude, or with some specified characteristics that could increase the liability of the project proponent.

Conclusion

• The increasing frequency with which the Himalayan States are witnessing devastation every year after extreme weather conditions shows that the region is already paying a heavy price for this indifference.
• If used diligently, the EIA could be the most potent regulatory tool in the arsenal of environmental governance to further the vision of sustainable development in the country.

Q1) Which project is required for environmental clearance?

The EIA Notification of 1994 made the environmental clearance mandatory for all new projects and expansion/modernisation of existing projects covering 29 disciplines (later increased to 32 ) which included hydro-power, major irrigation and flood control projects.

Q2) What are the objectives of environmental clearance?

The main objective of environmental clearance is to reduce the environmental damages that have been taking place for years due to industrialisation, as people do not care for the environment where their own interest is lost.

Source: The Hindu