In 1997, an amendment to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 1994 (issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 made conducting an environmental public hearing a mandatory step in the process of environmental clearance for certain developmental projects. Development projects and operations are often undertaken in environmentally sensitive areas and they have direct impacts on the livelihoods of the people of the region as well as biological elements in the ecosystem. Be it power generation, infrastructure, tourism or any other kind of activity, it often demands that "sacrifices" be made by people who have long established relationships with the region. The involvement of these stakeholders is integral to any planning exercise in that region.
Prior to the inclusion of the need for public hearings, there was no mechanism by which local residents, concerned individuals and groups could rightfully demand information about a proposed developmental project or voice their views about it. Though this process is ridden with its own set of discrepancies, it clearly provides a legal space for people of an area to come face-to-face with project authorities and the government.
The public hearing for the Kameng hydroelectric project was conducted on November 17, 1999 in the Deputy Commissioner's office at Bomdila, West Kameng. As per the notification, information regarding the proposed public hearing was advertised through two newspapers, Echo and The Arunachal Times. The advertisements appeared on September 11 and 12, 1999, respectively. In effect, individuals and groups had more than two months of prior notice to prepare their comments and views regarding the project. However, without access to all project-related documents, it could not have been possible for citizens to effectively participate in the public hearing and give their opinions and views. Till June 2002, it was not mandatory for the authorities to make public the EIA reports of the project. Therefore, in a number of cases all over the country, local citizens and concerned groups did not have access to information regarding the environmental and social impacts that the project may have. They were also not aware of which offices they should approach to obtain such information. As a result, they were unable to present informed opinions regarding the project.
The recorded proceedings of the public hearing clearly indicate that no opinions based on detailed analysis of the information in the project reports were voiced. Only basic questions were asked, which the project authorities answered. Thus, first-level sharing of rather rudimentary information was all that took place at the public hearing, and at the end of this question and answer session, the public hearing panel is reported to have 'cleared the project'! Thus the Kameng public hearing was far, far from the ideal.
A public hearing ought to be a forum where diverse agencies, interest groups and individuals can articulate their opinions or grievances as inputs in the decision-making process. If this was to have happened, all the information should have been shared prior to the hearing and the opinions and conclusions that people arrived at after analysing this information should have been voiced.
The proceedings of the hearing recorded by the State Pollution Control Board authorities state that the public hearing panel comprised of the Deputy Commissioner of West Kameng, Additional Deputy Commissioner of West Kameng, a Deputy Conservator of Forests and the Divisional Forest Officer of West Kameng. However a letter from the Secretary, Pollution Control Board, which is the authority in charge of conducting the hearing, reports that it was an officer from Bomdila Electrical Division who was on the panel and not the Additional D.C. Strangely, the EIA report of the project further states that "the hearing was attended by all concerned officials of the state…" The EIA notification very clearly specifies the constitution of the public hearing panel. Both the Pollution Control Board and the project authorities should necessarily be aware of this. As per the norms of the notification, the Kameng public hearing panel was grossly inadequate. The composition of the public hearing panel as stated in the notification in clause 3 is as follows:
- Representative of State Pollution Control Board;
- District Collector or his nominee;
- Representative of the state government dealing with the subject;
- Representative of the department of the state government dealing with environment;
- Not more than three representatives of local bodies such as municipalities or panchayats;
- Not more than three senior citizens of the area nominated by the District Collector.
The recorded proceedings make a special mention that "no representatives of local bodies were found for the panel as per Clause 3 (v) of the public hearing composition, as these bodies are not in existence at present in Arunachal Pradesh". Do the authorities mean to say that panchayats were not in existence in the state in 1999?
These are some of the discrepancies reflected in the recorded proceedings of the public hearing. Going by the experience that groups have of such hearings and the inability of authorities to document the proceedings accurately due to logistical and other problems, it is very likely that many more discrepancies may not have found a place in the records.