NO matter who emerges victorious in the Cogentrix imbroglio—Maneka Gandhi or H.D. Deve Gowda—there's no doubting that something is terribly wrong with the way projects are granted environmental clearances in India. Indeed, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the whole business of making Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports—which tell you whether a given project would compromise the health of the environment—has become a sham. And often a scam.
Take, for instance, the EIA fraud perpetrated by the Sanghi Cement Industries in Kutch. The Worldwide Fund for Nature's (WWF) Centre for Environmental Law alleges that the Hyderabad-based company tampered with Survey of India maps to convince the Government that the jetty it was building on the Kutch coast would not violate the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991. WWF detected the fraud and promptly filed a case against the defaulter.
The Reliance Group's petrochemical plant, in Jamnagar, is another case in point. The EIA report, which found nothing 'wrong' with the project, was ripped apart by WWF correspondent Tariq Aziz following a private investigation of 'facts' contained in the report. Says Aziz: "The report abounds in conflicting information.
Not a line was devoted to pollution by effluents." What's more, many questions were left unanswered. "What are the effluents that are likely to be discharged by the plant and how would they be controlled?" asks Aziz. "What are the risks and emergencies? How would a disaster be handled?"
An excellent example of the EIA charade is Aziz's expose of the clean chit given to an NTPC plant in Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh. Says Aziz: "Contrary to the report's conclusion that 'current environmental impacts of development in the area are far less critical than expected', we found that the drinking water in the wells was not potable; levels of mercury in the Govind Ballabh Pant reservoir were 50 times the permissible limit; and the fluoride levels exceeded the safety mark by 12 times at some places."
And this may just be the tip of the iceberg. A majority of such cases go undetected simply because the EIA process is a confidential affair—or call it a tragedy of misdemeanors, a grand farce perpetrated in camera by the menage a trois of an apathetic, inefficient ministry, the profit-motivated industrialist and the mercenary EIA consultant. Says A.K. Roy, a freelance environmental engineer: "The EIA is an irritating formality. The idea is not to protect but appear to be protecting the environment. And when it comes to government projects, the fraud is even more sanctimonious."
Agrees Shyam Chainani, who is affiliated to the Bombay Environmental Action Group: "In my entire experience as a member of the EIA appraisal committee, I have come across only one EIA which judged a project to be environmentally unsound."
Because the report is privy only to the three-in-league, there is no clear cut way of finding out what's happening, or what's happened.
Unless, of course, somebody in the know decides to wash official dirty linen in public. Like environmentalist Ashish Kothari, who last year blew the whistle on the clearance of environmentally suspect hydel projects. Predictably, he was excommunicated from the appraisal committee. Or unless a disgruntled politician turns vengeful. Like the recent outburst by Maneka Gandhi over the Cogentrix deal. And if an enterprising journalist like Aziz debunks EIA reports.
Despite the debunking, however, the NTPC and Reliance Group projects were cleared by the ministry and the Sanghi project may get clearance as well. And then there are instances of a project being cleared by the minister after being rejected by the appraisal committee. Example: the Poyumkulam super thermal power plant in Kerala, rejected two years ago by the EAC as it would have destroyed Kerala's backwaters, was resurrected by the minister. But luckily for industrialists and Environment Ministry officials, such contretemps are rare.
Although a January 27, 1994, notification did propose some EIA reforms, including public participation in the assessment process, almost all the proposals were diluted in an amended edition dated May 4, 1994. According to this edition, EIA reports will be available "subject to public interest", which is a likely euphemism for "not available". Likewise, it states that "public hearing could be called for projects involving large displacements or having severe environmental ramifications". This is rather ambiguous and can be interpreted in anybody's favour. As per other 'amendments', the condition that no industry will be allowed within a10 km and 25 km radius of a forest and sanctuary, respectively, has been done away with.
Observers feel that this amounts to the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) being reduced to an appendage of the Impact Assessment Agency (read minister of environment and his coterie). Now the agency will "consult a committee of experts if deemed necessary". Besides, industries with an investment of less than Rs 50 crore have been exempted from clearance by the Environment Ministry, despite the fact that many of these industries could be extremely polluting.
AND the Environment Ministry is not only lacking in spirit, the parameters set by it also leave a lot to be desired. Points out Roy: "The ministry guidelines for preparing EIAs are vague in various respects, leaving ample room for misinterpretation, and hence misrepresentation, by the project authorities. For instance, the EIA guidelines for river valley projects require an assessment of impacts of a dam on downstream areas—but most EIA consultants look at the impact on commercial fisheries, ignoring potentially serious effects on aquatic life and on the land adjacent to the river." Many of these guidelines have not been revised for years.
However, keeping a check on environmental infringements wouldn't be such a monstrous problem if the EAC had the teeth and competence to reject these projects in the first place. Neither competent nor gutsy, the EACs are essentially a motley of so-called 'experts' with little experience in assessing EIAs. The reports themselves are so technical and ponderous that many committee members are loath to go through them. And since the report deals with diverse disciplines, it is essential for the expert to make connections, which is most often not the case. Besides, each member has to wade through a maze of often incomprehensible text for each meeting. All that for a mere Rs 250 per sitting.
The EACs wouldn't have such an uphill task on their hands if the EIAs were prepared by credible professionals. Says Praful Bidwai, journalist and a member of the EAC panel on river valley projects: "Evidently, most EIA consultants tend to underplay the negative impacts and overplay the beneficial ones." Not surprising, considering consultants can't afford to be conscientious if they want their money. And the fact that the Environment Ministry does not accredit EIA consultants doesn't help matters. So much so that as of now anybody can prepare an EIA report, provided he or she can get the project cleared (see Environmental Yuppies ). EIAs are a fairly recent addition to the growing arsenal of environmental defence. The US was the first country to deploy it in 1970. In India, it was adopted in 1977 for river valley projects which saw the rejection of the Silent Valley Hydroelectric Project. In 1984, major polluting industries were also brought within its ambit. But until recently the clearance itself was an administrative requirement for obtaining a green signal from the Central Investment Board and Planning Commission. In January 1994, the Environment Ministry issued a notification under the Environment Protection Act, making EIAs mandatory.
But laws and notifications are useless if they are not implemented. Says a disillusioned G.D. Aggarwal, a veteran environmental engineer and one of the first persons to undertake EIAs in India: "Let's not delude ourselves. Our politicians are just not interested in protecting the environment. They want development at all costs, for it provides employment and hence ensures their survival."
Recent probes by the EAC for river valley projects underscore Aggarwal's pessimism. Scientists from the six regional offices of the Environment Ministry, entrusted with monitoring the cleared projects, testified that in almost no case were conditions being fully or adequately fulfilled. Substantiates Kothari: "Of the 319 projects cleared in the last decade-and-a-half, 102 have never started off (owing mainly to lack of funds). Another 70 are complete, and 142 ongoing, of which available data shows that almost 90 per cent have not fulfilled their conditions of clearance."
Unfortunately, this kind of damning data is available only for river valley projects. "Many such violations of environmental norms are being committed in other sectors, such as thermal power plants, mining, and a host of polluting industries. But most dangerously, nobody even questions the environmental soundness of nuclear power projects," says Bidwai. But, as often happens, such legal improprieties are either condoned or never detected as post project-clearance monitoring is almost non-existent. And that is how it will continue to be unless a fair measure of glasnost and professionalism are introduced in the EIA process.
