What are your thoughts on the role being played by the MoEF's Expert Committees (ECs)?
I think that the envisaged role is critical, of being able to independently appraise projects that come to the MoEF for clearance. Undoubtedly, at times it has played such a role, especially when the members and chairpersons have been environmentalists, scientists, or activists who are not afraid to speak up. But very often, and increasingly in the last few years, the committees are becoming mere rubber stamps. They are filled with yes-men and women, and the odd member who speaks up is overwhelmed by the majority.
Should the ECs' recommendations be made statutory instead of merely advisory?
Yes, but even this would only work if the ECs are more independent of the government and are composed of people chosen for their environmental, social and scientific track record as relevant to the subject of each EC.
Would it be feasible to have the ECs also look into whether the clearance conditions are being fulfilled by projects already under construction or already complete?
When Valmik Thapar and I were on the River Valley EC, this is what we forced the MoEF to let us do. We had recommended that ECs should also be overseeing the monitoring process and that regional offices of the MoEF should regularly report their findings to the EC. This would introduce greater transparency in the entire environmental clearance process, which otherwise suffers from a serious lack of openness.
You conducted a survey to assess how many cleared projects had adhered to their clearance conditions. Can you tell us some more about that?
I think ours was the first EC to call in the regional offices of the MoEF to report on the state of compliance of environmental conditions imposed on projects when they were cleared. We got information on about 300 projects cleared from 1978 to 1995. When we analysed the data, it was absolutely shocking (though I must admit that a couple of us were not very surprised!). About 90% of the dams that had commenced construction (about 200 of the 300 cleared projects) had not complied with the environmental conditions! Even if we knock off many of these for minor violations, we would still arrive at a figure that is unacceptable, for it implies that hundreds of thousands of crores of rupees were being spent on projects that are, by the law of the land, illegal! Equally shocking was the fact that the MoEF had not stopped a single one of these projects, or penalised any official concerned, despite having the legal powers to do so, and despite repeated advice from its own regional offices. They only kept issuing warnings! We said at the time that this was a fraud bigger than Bofors, but one that got no public attention.
Can you share with us a few examples of projects that came up during your tenure where you feel proper procedure was disregarded?
It would be easier to list projects that did follow the procedure! In our survey of 300-plus projects (that were already cleared before our time), we listed the following for immediate action (stoppage of construction, penal action against top officials, etc.), based on records of serious and repeated violations of conditions:
Chamera hydroelectric project, Himachal: Dumping of 4 million cubic metres of construction muck into the river Ravi and refusal to answer the MoEF's queries.
Sipu, Gujarat: Project nearing completion, conditions unfulfilled.
Koyna hydroelectric project, Maharashtra: Project nearing completion, conditions unfulfilled.
Man, Madhya Pradesh: Nearing completion, Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) very poor, package reduced by project authorities after obtaining clearance!
Jobat, Madhya Pradesh: No conditions fulfilled.
Hasdeo Bango, Madhya Pradesh: No conditions fulfilled.
North Koel, Bihar: Project nearing completion, R&R very poor.
Upper Indravati, Orissa: R&R very poor, other conditions unfulfilled.
Singur, Andhra Pradesh: Non- compliance of forest conditions, poor response to the MoEF regional office.
Telegu Ganga, Andhra Pradesh: Poor resettlement and command area development, construction parameters changed without referring back to the MoEF.
Sharavathi Tail-Race, Karnataka: Violations of forest and flora-fauna related conditions such as building a fish ladder, securing corridor for elephants, ensuring nistar rights for local people.
Of the projects that came to us during our term, there were many where procedures were thrown to the winds. I remember Bisalpur dam in Rajasthan, built to provide water to Jaipur… the construction of this project started and was continued well before environmental clearance was given. On our field visit to the site, we found serious violations of R&R provisions. Despite repeated warnings, the construction was never stayed. Similar deliberate procedural violations were reported from some other projects. Unfortunately our EC did not have the Narmada projects in our mandate, otherwise I'm sure we would have found violations of all kinds!
Do you feel that there is a bias against environmentalists in the composition of these committees?
The composition of the ECs under the Environment Protection Act is somewhat vague, allowing scope for the MoEF to decide who is an expert in what field. So it is easy to fill the committees with people who are unlikely to stand up for the environment or for local communities who are being displaced. I have no doubt that many officials in the MoEF have protested this tendency and managed to slip in independent environmentalists, scientists and activists, but by and large, EC members lack independence and, in some cases, credibility.
Many greens feel that ECs are nothing more than 'rubber stamps', and that their members assume that all projects before them will eventually be cleared.
This is not the case only with ECs, but there is a general assumption that environmental clearance is only an irritating hurdle to be skirted around as far as possible and when that does not work, to be bulldozed. Project authorities and relevant ministries or departments never see the process as something that can considerably strengthen the process of sustainable and equitable development or as something that is as essential for the viability of the planning process as the technical and financial clearances. There is a huge communication gap here, apart from the games that vested interests play.
Do you feel that there are too many bodies involved in the clearance process now? The Indian Board for Wildlife for protected areas, the ECs, the Forest (Conservation) Act Committee… Is this good or bad?
We had recommended that forest and environmental clearances be merged, because what also tends to happen often is that project authorities consider one of these clearances as a signal to start work. On the other hand, it also confuses genuine project applicants. In any case, when considering environmental clearance, the issue of forests and protected areas is considered (or is supposed to be!), so there is no reason to have separate procedures for these. But having clearances for denotifications or boundary changes of national parks and sanctuaries go before the Indian Board for Wildlife is a good idea, as it helps avoid the short-circuiting and misuse of the clearance process.
How can ECs be strengthened or reformed?
Soon after the shocking statistics cited above came to light, we had suggested a list of measures that need to be taken by the government to reform the environmental clearance process (not just the ECs). These included the following:
- Revisions of the EIA guidelines for river valley projects to make them more biodiversity-oriented and more comprehensive regarding ecological and social impacts. Our EC actually did revise the guidelines and recommend them to the MoEF, but I am unaware if they were ever accepted.
- Delinking the EIA funding from the project authorities – this is perhaps the single most important cause of fraudulent and doctored EIAs, for how would someone give an honest report if they feared that their final instalment will be held up by the project authorities? – and creation of a separate fund within the MoEF for this, built up from a flat percentage taken from each project applicant.
- Creation of a roster of credible, independent EIA experts, who can be called upon as and when needed and blacklisting of all EIA consultants and agencies that have been known to have submitted fraudulent reports.
- Strengthening of the impact assessment cells in the central and regional offices of MoEF (we found it strange that a handful of officials with limited technical expertise, time and resources, have to monitor hundreds of projects of various kinds and that the regional offices did not even have access to the Detailed Project Reports of the projects they were monitoring!).
- Much greater public (especially local community) involvement in the entire process, through compulsory public hearings, mandatory disclosure of all information in local languages, the search for alternatives to each proposed project, monitoring of conditions, EC-like bodies for each regional office of the MoEF, and so on.
- Changes in the clearance letter format and contents, especially to introduce time-bound and more target-oriented conditions, and explanatory notes where necessary. To be fair to project authorities, we found that there was often genuine confusion on what needed to be done.
- Automatic revocation of the clearance if violations persist, with stoppage of construction until conditions are fulfilled.
Some of these recommendations have been taken on board, such as public hearings and the disclosure of EIA reports. But the system remains ridden with gaping holes. We are once again trying to bring some of these key suggestions in through the ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process.
Another idea that we have more recently been advocating is the creation of a constitutional office such as an Environment Commission, equivalent to the Election Commission or the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. These are offices whose functions the government cannot tamper with. The Environment Commissioner's task would be to ensure that all central ministries and all state governments are following the environmental laws and policies of the country. The task of environmental clearances can then either be supervised through such a Commission, or at least monitored by it. My one regret from those days in the EC is that we did not go to court with all the evidence that was dug up and demand a total overhaul of the system!
Bittu Sahgal, Member of the Indian Board for Wildlife, served for several years on the River Valley Expert Committee. He has this to say about the manner in which clearance is granted for hydroelectric projects:
“When people ask me about the environmental clearance process, I quote the example of the Tuivai project in Mizoram. There was a shocking lack of data and studies – hydrological, seismological and biodiversity-related. But the project authorities (NEEPCO) blandly stated on record that detailed studies are neither possible nor required! This for a project that required 1,600 ha. of forestland, less than seven kilometres from the then proposed Lengteng Sanctuary. On a site visit in 1999, it became apparent that almost the entire submergence area was forestland, contrary to the project authority's claims that no forestland was involved. The reports submitted to the EC repeatedly stated that there was no wildlife of value in the area, yet the forests to be submerged supported tigers, among other mammals. The Wildlife Institute of India pointed out serious lacunae in the EIA reports submitted. Despite this, environmental clearance to the project was granted in October 2001. The more recent case of the Lower Subansiri project in Arunachal Pradesh is another example of how pristine mountain valleys with extremely rare wildlife are sought to be drowned even without anyone insisting that proper bio-habitat evaluation studies be conducted! I believe that this is an indicator that ECs are, for the most part, toothless, spineless bodies, too afraid to actually ever reject a project, no matter how blatant the lies or violations!