Lakshadweep and Controversial Islands Development Plan:

(World Environment Day, 5 June 2021)

World Environment Day falls on 5 June each year, and the theme for the coming decade has been declared as ‘Ecological Restoration’. Tragically, however, a central concern in India these days is the ecological and human disaster unfolding in the Lakshadweep archipelago in the Arabian Sea, as well as in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands chain on the eastern flank of peninsular India in the Indian Ocean, all in the name of ‘island development.’

In a keynote address to a Conference of Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in 2019, the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, announced an increase of India’s commitment to restoration of degraded lands from 21 million hectares to 26 million hectares by 2030. India’s Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on climate change pledges to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 33-35% by 2030, increase share of renewable energy in electricity generation to 40% of total by 2030 (stepped up further since then with a new goal of 450 GW of renewables compared to 175 GW earlier). These and other similar commitments have often been made by the PM and other government leaders to international audiences and in different international Treaties. These promises are made while repeatedly citing Indian (Hindu) traditional and civilizational values of respect for nature and sustainable lifestyles.

Closer examination shows some of these targets to be modest at best, and many concerns persist on the conditions, qualifications and negative impacts related to these targets, as discussed further below. Perhaps more importantly, policies and actions of this government in India reveal its international stance to be mostly posturing, and the professed environmental concerns to be largely for the sake of image-building. Domestically, in sharp contrast, this government has systematically worked to promote ‘ease of doing business’ and consistently acted in favour of corporate industrial and commercial interests in extraction of value from nature at the cost of both the ecosystem and local populations. Mining, industrial and commercial projects inside forest areas and even infringing upon wildlife sanctuaries especially through the contrived device of ‘linear projects’ have now become commonplace. The transfer of wealth to corporations through shifting of natural public commons to private hands, has been facilitated by drastic dilution or reversal of several key environmental regulations.

Framing the Context: Changing Environmental Regulations

Earlier violations and piecemeal regulatory changes through executive notifications have been sought to be regularized through the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020. Draft EIA 2020 sought to vastly enlarge the categories of projects which require only cursory regulatory examination or even avoid regulatory clearance all-together. It severely dilutes environmental appraisal norms and reduces, or even completely omits, the role of public consultations in many sectors, while allowing the central government unlimited authority by reducing clearance requirements for projects of ‘strategic importance’ the parameters of which remain undefined. Draft EIA 2020 also turns a blind eye to egregious violations of environmental regulations and outright illegal activities by permitting post-facto environmental clearance of impermissible projects after simply paying a small compounding fine. Following widespread opposition, this Draft is currently in limbo, but many of its provisions are being implemented nonetheless, and it appears that the trend of roll-back of environmental regulations and people’s participation in safeguarding them will continue.

Regulatory changes have also been brought about across various sectors including forests, water resources, coastal areas, land use, mineral resource extraction, industrial safety and hazardous materials. Key amendments have been introduced in the Land Acquisition Act 2015, diluting the earlier Act by increasing exemptions from local consent and social impact assessment. The Coastal Regulations Zone (CRZ) rules have also been weakened by reducing the exclusion zone from 100m to 50m and other measures that are expected to open up the fragile coastline, already subject to erosion and impact of sea-level rise, for industry, real estate and tourism. Experts say this would also be exploited by corporate houses including under the Sagarmala programme which envisions a ‘garland’ of major ports. The draft National Forest Policy of 2018 promotes the interests of forestry corporations and private players, and weakens the Forest Rights Act 2006 secured by prolonged and sustained struggles of forest dwellers and other popular movements. Between June 2014 and May 2018, less than 1% of proposed projects seeking clearance have been rejected by the wildlife authority. In the government’s scheme of things, issues of environmental damage and linked people’s survival, sustenance and livelihoods come a distant second to business interests, so much so that some have dubbed the concerned department the ‘Ministry against Environment!’ Government inaction on aspects like solid waste management, air pollution and river cleanliness continue to worsen local environments and adversely impact people’s health.

Government Inaction on Climate Change

The Government’s response to the challenges of climate change follows a similar dual path, a seemingly strong posture abroad including in the international negotiations, and contrasting weak actions domestically. To put things in perspective, while India’s NDC compares favourably with hitherto low-ambition emission cuts promised by developed countries especially the US, these targets have been rated by the well-reputed Climate Tracker as ‘moderate’ and compatible with the 2 degrees C goal. Perhaps more seriously, India continues to pursue an externally-driven climate policy driven mainly by foreign policy considerations. Domestic action to adapt or build resilience to serious climate impacts in India, which is considered among the most affected regions of the world, is scarce. This is in sharp contrast to the stance of most developing countries, especially the least developed countries (LDCs) and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) who have approached climate change and international negotiations based on the severe impacts they are experiencing and the existential challenge posed by these impacts.

With worsening polar ice melt and sea-level rise, India’s coastal areas with over 170 million people are expected to be seriously impacted by coastal erosion, sea-water ingress and extensive permanent coastal submergence due to sea-level rise added to high tides and storm surges. The think tank Climate Central has projected that 36 million people could be affected in India in the near term, with the portal also providing extremely interesting data as well as dramatic interactive maps based on latest satellite data showing extensive inundation, particularly of densely populated urban agglomerations around Kochi, Mumbai and Surat on the west coast, and Chennai, Puri and Kolkata in the east. All these impacts are being worsened by rapid construction and other economic activities on or near the coast, and degradation of natural protective barriers such as mangroves.

There is an imminent threat for Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, with experts predicting that many of the islands may become uninhabitable by 2100 because of sea-level rise due to climate change. Yet, government action on any of these issues is insubstantial. Programmes initiated such as the Technology Missions under the UPA Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008-10 have been allowed to drift and fade away, being under-funded and lacking political support especially under the present Government. Even serious scientific studies of climate impacts have not yet seen the light of the day, with one major study expected to release its report only in the next year or so. Adaptation actions mostly fall under jurisdiction of State governments which are starved of funds and lack the necessary knowledge and capabilities required, calling for the Central government to take the initiative and the major burden. It needs emphasis that adaptation programmes are cost intensive, and the later the actions are undertaken, the more expensive they will become. This is a monumental problem facing the present and future generations of the Indian people. In this scenario, it is surprising that the main policy being discussed in the case of Lakshadweep is not on building protection against climate disasters, but instead on real estate development in the islands.

Recent Developments in Lakshadweep

The recently appointed Administrator of Lakshadweep, Praful Khoda Patel (he is the first political appointee to this post in the Union Territory and had earlier served as Home Minister in the Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government), has drawn up and sent to the Home Ministry for approval, a new Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 and a whole raft of other draft Regulations on Panchayats, Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) and Animal Preservation. Together, these assign unquestionable authority to the Administrator including giving him total eminent domain powers over the territory and people of the Islands, enabling the administration to take-over of any part of the islands in the name of ‘development activities’ including ecologically damaging mining and extraction of mineral resources. This also allows forcible removal or relocation of any islander owning that land, despite the fact that over 95% of islanders belong to Scheduled Tribes whose lands cannot be easily alienated by earlier laws; to by-pass panchayats and other local government bodies; and, amazingly, placing any such actions by the Administrator beyond appeal or judicial review. The recent control asserted by the administrator extends beyond the environmental realm, with measures like relaxation of customary alcohol prohibition in the Muslim-dominated islands and even arbitrary reduction of Covid-19 related restrictions.

The Administrator claims that all these measures have been taken in pursuit of development of Lakshadweep ‘along the lines of the Maldives’. His plans, so far unchecked by the Home Ministry under which the UT administration functions, mark out a developmental model which is sought to be imposed on the Lakshadweep people irrespective of their desires or interests. As a pre-emptive measure, the changes proposed allow for throttling of local opposition. In addition, measures taken by the Administrator include banning the sale, storage or consumption of beef, integral to the food habits of the overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim population with ST status; removing non-vegetarian food from school meals programmes; and closing down the islands’ only government-run dairy farm and ferrying in milk from Gujarat instead. There is also a clear attempt to de-link Lakshadweep from its historical links with Kerala by diverting supply ships from Beypore Port near Kochi to Mangalore in BJP-ruled Karnataka. Despite Malayalam being the lingua franca in Lakshadweep, recent news reports claim an attempt by the administration to shift its legal jurisdiction from the Kerala High Court to Karnataka High Court.

Widespread opposition by the locals has been met with heavy handed repression by the administration. Protesters have been arrested and incarcerated without trial using the PASR or ‘Goonda Act’. Local artisanal fishers have been attacked and their nets, gear and huts destroyed in the name of coastal regulations. Thousands of contract workers have been summarily laid off. The local people and their culture are seen as obstacles to be eliminated, while their island home is viewed as real estate and for its potential to generate wealth for the ruling state government. From the measures taken, the administrator seems hell-bent not only on stamping out dissent but also undermining the democratic roots of local governance and popular mobilization in Lakshadweep.

The Controversial Islands Development Plan

The recent proposals of this administrator cannot be seen in vacuum or as the actions of an individual alone, and applicable only in the case of Lakshwadeep. The larger and uncomfortable questions remain, particularly regarding the nature of the envisaged ‘development’ plans in the islands and the interests behind them. In June 2017 itself, the Indian Government had constituted an Island Development Agency under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Minister, which had mandated Niti Aayog to steer the programme for ‘Holistic Development of Islands.’ Important to note is how a body introduced by the government as ‘just’ a think-tank to replace the earlier supposedly authoritarian Planning Commission, is essentially acting as a centralized project planning and implementation oversight body with quasi-executive powers and outside all existing government structures, with accountability only to the home minister. Following preliminary studies, the CEO of Niti Aayog made a presentation to potential investors in August 2018, stating that the Government had accorded high priority to the development of the islands and was putting forward concrete and carefully worked out project ideas for the same. In order to further ease the path of investors, local Island Development Authorities were empowered to provide single-window facilitation to projects, with pre-obtained regulatory clearances for land use, environmental impact and so on!

More studies and information on the proposed projects are available in a May 2019 ‘think’ report by Niti Aayog staffers titled ‘Transforming the Islands through creativity and innovation’. Tourism related projects are central to the plans for Lakshadweep, unabashedly modelled after the Maldives. Plans for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are even more ambitious and fanciful including several airports, container trans-shipment ports, a new greenfield city to act as a financial hub ‘on the lines of Singapore and Hong Kong,’ with strategic value given proximity to the Malacca straits. The Maldives is a group of larger islands with a high-end tourism model, with few links to the bulk of the island population although adding hugely to the Maldivian GDP. Even there, the strains of the current tourism-based model of development are showing both on local ecosystems especially on the coral reefs, the very lifeline of the archipelago, and in adverse socio-economic impacts.

The feasibility and desirability of the replication of these international models, both in Lakshadweep (a group of 36 small islands comprises just 10 inhabited islands, 17 uninhabited islands, 4 newly formed islets and 5 submerged reefs) and the contrasting Andaman and Nicobar group (consisting of 576 relatively larger islands of which only 38 are inhabited) is not examined. Instead, the Niti Aayog studies bemoan the stagnation of international tourists at 15,000 in A&N and 500-odd in Lakshadweep in contrast with 1.5 million foreign tourists hosted by the Maldives annually. The potential of integrating island tourism with tourism in mainland India, whereby a wider set of attraction can be offered to international tourists, simultaneously promoting forms of environmentally friendly tourism and involving the local population in more sustainable tourism models are left explored. Rather, further studies by the Niti Aayog in association with international agencies, project feasibility of huge tourist inflows of 5,000-10,000 persons per day in the A&N islands which would be around 1.5 million per year in each of several islands, unimaginably, more than half the current foreign tourist arrivals in the whole of mainland India! Other Niti Aayog studies apparently also confirm such high carrying capacity estimates. This level can only be realized if all resources are ferried from the mainland, along with huge cost to the local ecology due to deforestation, change of land use patterns and disposal of the enormous quantities of wastes generated. With a large mainland back-up in India, the local population of the islands become virtually irrelevant.

Consequences of the Envisaged ‘Development’ Model

Lakshadweep is already suffering from severe coastal erosion, and experts predict that some islands may become uninhabitable due to sea level rise related to climate change. Various other negative ecological impacts are also predicted by experts such as coral reefs bleaching, damage to fish habitat and breeding grounds etc.

The Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects in the Little Andaman Island records the enormous ecological risks to pristine local forests, mangroves, marine life and endangered species such as Leather-backed Turtles. One of the proposed projects, in Little Andamans envisions a full-size airport and aerocity, expanded tourism centres, convention centres, and hospitals or ‘medicity’, a leisure district spread with a tourism SEZ and ‘nature’ retreats, and a development of a new 100 km east-west coastal ring road and a mass transit system. The total area of the island is only around 737 sq. kms – about the size of Mumbai or Hyderabad, of which 95% or about 700 sq. km is reserve forest. Of this, about 450 sq. km is designated as the Onge Reserve, home to this highly endangered early aboriginal tribe of whom there are only 100 or so persons left. This Project calls for clearing about 224 sq. km or 32% of the reserve forest with around two million trees and de-notifying 135 sq. km or about 30% of the Onge Reserve. But all this may not matter to Niti Aayog planners and their supporters in the Union Government. Even reported opposition from the forest department has met with little response from the government. The Union Environment Ministry has granted environmental clearance in the Andamans, coolly noting that the Onges, for instance, can simply be relocated elsewhere. Clearly, in this model of island development, the environment matters little and the local population matters even less.

In the three years since the Island Development plans were advanced, including the recent Little Andamans ‘super’ project dangling all kinds of inducements to the corporate sector, reports say that investors are yet to come forward, possibly due to the risks, challenges and viability doubts. But, irrespective of the actual tourist impact in these islands, the government in charge stands to make huge profits from land rents and prospective corporate deals.

As the Union Government grows more authoritarian and asserts greater authority especially in the Union Territories, environmental regulatory systems are being either captured or strangulated, and local populations are simply ignored or crushed in the name of development. National and internationally committed environmental goals like the forestry targets appear unrealistic in the face of systematic encroachment upon forest areas as discussed above, which cannot be offset by increasing ‘green cover’ outside forests, for instance along highways, since a group of trees however large simply cannot perform the same ecological services as a forest. The forests of Andaman cannot be compensated by afforestation in mainland India and neither can the lives of the indigenous peoples. Across India, not only have many of the recent changes been detrimental to the environment and people’s lives and livelihoods, they uniformly suppress people’s rights and seek to reverse many of the hard won regulations resulting from people’s movements in the past few decades. Institutional autonomy, regulatory structures and even judicial oversight are being systematically undermined in the field of environment as much as in other arenas of governance. Even the National Green Tribunal has been repeatedly attacked and sought to be weakened in several ways. While rarely compromising in the face of opposition by peoples movements, civil society organizations and experts, the relentless assault continues in different forms and across various theatres. This situation calls for urgent and large coalitions across the country to resist the grandiose so-called “development” plans of the current ruling dispensation.

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

February 17, 2021 by mkukrishna

AIPSN Position Paper on Uttarakhand Disaster

click here to read the English pdf of the AIPSN-PositionPaper17Feb2021-Ukhand-Disaster

AIPSN Position Paper on Uttarakhand Disaster

17 Feb 2021

The disaster in Chamoli District, Uttarakhand on 7 February 2021 morning, in the region around the Nandadevi Biosphere Reserve, saw a large volume of fast moving flood waters carrying ice and snow, rocks, debris and mud come rushing down from high-altitude mountains. At the time of writing on 14 February 2021, over 58 persons have tragically lost their lives and 148 persons are still missing. Most were workers in different projects in the area, along with some local villagers, and another 150 or so remain missing. Many workers are feared trapped inside the tunnel of the badly damaged under-construction ADB-funded 520 MW NTPC Tapovan hydro-electric project on the Dhauliganga river. The small Rishiganga 13.2MW hydel project on the Rishiganga river, about 4km upstream near the village of Raini where the famous Chipko movement started, was completely destroyed. At its peak, the flow was reportedly around 30,000 cumec (cubic metres per second) with a 10-15 metre wave in narrow parts of the river. The deluge continued downstream past Joshimath where monitoring stations apparently showed the waters at more than 3 metres above the previous Highest Flood Line recorded during the infamous 2013 disaster in Uttarakhand resulting from extreme rainfall over several days and flash floods. Several other hydel Projects nearby, such as the World Bank-funded 444 MW Pipalkoti dam still being built and the 400 MW Vishnuprayag dam, were also threatened but damage assessment is awaited.

The exact cause and circumstances of the disaster are yet to be fully determined. Based on what is currently known, the earlier speculation about a glacial lake burst is probably incorrect. It now seems, based on satellite imagery in India and abroad, and preliminary observations by specialist Indian teams from the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIHG), Dehradun, that a large weakened section of a rocky section of the Raunthi mountain-top fell over on an over-hanging portion of a glacier, and carried along an avalanche of large quantities of recently accumulated snow, rocks and debris. This massive avalanche-cum-landslide seems to have settled in the Raunthi river on the valley floor, blocking it for several days, and then bursting through in the deluge witnessed on the 7 February. Recent reports suggest formation of another large pool behind large amounts of accumulated rocks and debris, threatening another high river flow event.

It is indeed tragic that most of the dead so far seem to be workers in different infrastructure and hydro-electric power projects. According to both Central and State governments, these and other infrastructure projects were supposed to benefit the region. However, this has long been questioned by environmentalists, local residents as well as by many experts and civil society organizations that remain of the opinion that such projects should be scaled down and assessed carefully before being launched. Decisions need to be taken keeping in mind the precautionary principle in view of the fragile mountains, low carrying capacity of towns and other settlements in the area, and high risks posed by floods, landslides etc. At present, it is not known if there is any evidence pointing to these infrastructure projects having any role in triggering the rock and glacier break-off rock and related avalanche and landslide. But, as discussed below, they certainly contribute to the magnitude and impact of such disasters, which therefore can never be termed as purely “natural” disasters or “acts of god.”

Ironically though, in the present case, these very projects and those working on them, including local villagers, have themselves become victims of a disaster.

Role of Climate Change & Infrastructure Projects

Regardless of the issue of causation, this disaster is nevertheless a grim reminder of the potential impact and dangers of mindless so-called “development” projects, ignoring all warnings and expert opinion, brushing aside environmental assessments, and implemented badly, all without thought about consequences.

Two major aspects stand out which cause, or contribute to, similar disasters in mountain areas in India especially in the Western Himalayas, namely climate change and thoughtless infrastructure and other construction projects in the region.

Man-made global warming has resulted in rapid melting and shrinking of glaciers along with melting of polar ice caps. The Himalayas are often called “the third pole” since they are the third largest reservoir of fresh water in the form of ice and snow. More recent studies, both internationally and in India, have shown that melt rates are much higher at present than in earlier decades and, in India, more rapidly in the Western Himalayas than in the East. Glacier melt often leads to formation of glacial lakes or large pools of water. Sometimes under pressure or due to external forces or impacts, the barriers of these glacial lakes break, releasing large volumes of water leading to flash flooding downstream, as was earlier speculated in the present case. Rapid melting of glaciers in India therefore lead to large-scale instability in the Himalayan region with increasing probability of increase in river water flows and flash flooding, posing a serious but as yet poorly predictable threat and imminent danger to downstream settlements and infrastructure, besides medium-term hydrological impacts on the whole Indo-Gangetic basin.

On top of this, there has been, especially in recent times, an irresponsible rush to build numerous roads, power plants and other infrastructure in the region without adequately assessing the potential environmental and societal impact, addressing the geological and tectonic instability of the region, and the carrying capacity of settlements and the hills. The Himalayas are a young and unstable mountain range, located in the most earthquake prone seismological Zones IV and V, subject to frequent landslides, with cloudbursts and flash floods carrying tons of rocks and other debris, causing havoc even normally. Even the on-going unplanned expansion of towns and settlements, beyond their carrying capacity, is already adding pressure on the regional environment through larger populations, new buildings outside the town limits, new hotels, new road construction or widening, depletion or even disappearance of water sources, and tree felling leading to loosening of soil and rocks which increases landslips and rainwater run-off leading to floods in local streams and rivers.

Rash of construction projects

The current rash of construction projects, expedited and pushed through under the present government, has taken such destruction to new and dangerous levels. A massive number of hydro-electric projects are now under construction in the region. At present there are around 100 dams in the State with many more under construction. According to some estimates, over 450 hydel projects are planned, meaning there could be one project every few dozen kilometers! Several of these are supposed to be run-of-the-river projects but, in practice, also involve at least some impounding of water and/or much construction activity. The construction of these dams and hydel projects involve tree-felling with lackadaisical compensatory afforestation, and a lot of construction, often using dynamite and other questionable techniques triggering further instability in already unstable hill regions. Construction debris are often simply dumped into the river in violation of procedure, or along the roadside in so-called “designated spots,” but frequently end up in rivers below, further blocking the river flow and raising the river bed, thus increasingly the potential for flooding.

Over the years, these projects have led to large-scale protests by villagers, environmentalists and experts. In the wake of the 2013 Uttarakhand disaster, a Supreme Court appointed expert committee recommended cancellation of most of the proposed projects, which a second Committee appointed also endorsed. A third hand-picked committee thereafter appointed overturned these recommendations, but many projects thus approved continue to be under disputation. A leading expert, and Chairman of the SC-appointed committee, has opined that no dam or hydel project should be taken up in the para-glacial zone of 2,200 metres altitude or above on safety grounds.

Massive road construction is also underway, notably under the Rs.14,000 Crores Char Dham Project started in 2016 linking the four major pilgrimage sites in Uttarakhand with over 900 km of roads including the Char Dham Mahamarg highway, hotels and other infrastructure. Environmental clearance for the project was obtained in 2018 through aggressive push from the highest levels of the central government, who also amended the EIA Notification 2006 to exempt road projects under 100km in length from EIA. Using this subterfuge, the Char Dham Highway project was divided into 53 projects of under 100km length and given clearance without any environmental appraisal using the kind of norm-twisting modifications proposed in the Draft EIA 2020 Notification!

A majority of members of the packed High Powered Committee to review the project recommended keeping the road width to 10 metres, involving cutting of the hill upto 24 metres, as earlier approved by the Supreme Court which, however, had later ordered restricting road width to 5.5 metres but work had meanwhile speedily covered a substantial length of the highway at the larger width. Road cutting and scooping of hillsides have been done in a non-standard and dangerous manner including through dynamiting, often with almost vertical slopes against all protocol and sharply increasing prospects of landslides, and without stabilization and fresh plantation to help bind the slopes. Debris is also very often dumped carelessly and ends up in the river below. Speed, greater profits for the companies involved, and the headlong rush to build infrastructure, not safety, is clearly the priority.

Besides the direct damage caused in the already unstable region, all this only worsens impacts of future flooding events. Debris raises the river bed, increasing chances of flooding and submergence of riverside infrastructure and townships as happened in the 2013 disaster. Debris also enters dams and power plant races reducing dam life and damaging generating equipment.

Way forward

With the rationale of boosting tourism in the region, regardless of carrying capacity and fragility of the mountain ecosystem, Kedarnath town, which suffered extensive damage in 2013, is being rebuilt with little thought to the impact on the surrounding environment and the vulnerability of the town to further flooding and other events like in 2013. Alternative suggestions such as building residential infrastructure at lower altitudes with regulated pilgrim traffic to the temple have been brushed aside.

Monitoring and observation of this region for extreme weather events, landslides and slope instability, and glacial observation, is also almost non-existent.

While there is some indication that there is some slowing down of dam-building and hydel projects in the region, in so many other ways various highly risky and environmentally damaging infrastructure projects continue to be undertaken in this eco-sensitive area. It is essential that this disastrous course be reversed without delay; otherwise we will be left only with post-disaster analyses in future.

In light of the tragedies of the 2013 and 2021 disasters in the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand, a safety and environmental review should be urgently conducted of all hydro-electric, road building and infrastructure currently underway and planned, based on which these should be suitably modified or cancelled.

For clarifications contact:

D. Raghunandan 9810098621

P. Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

July 3, 2020 by mkukrishna

Press Release of the statement on AIPSN Response to Draft EIA Notification 2020

Click here for AIPSN-Press-Release-Statement-on-EIA-2020-July3

Press Statement on

AIPSN Response to Draft EIA Notification 2020

It is deeply regrettable that the Union Ministry of Environment Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC) has decided to press ahead with the Draft EIA Notification 2020 (hereafter Draft EIA 2020), despite many Organizations and Experts calling for extending the period for responses beyond 30 June 2020 given the continuing restrictions related to the Covid-19 pandemic. These restrictions have prevented grassroots level consultations, especially with nature-dependent and marginalized communities, that are required for fruitful public participation in discussions on Draft EIA 2020.

Nevertheless, the All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN), comprising 40 Peoples Science Organizations in 25 States/UTs, has held extensive consultations to the extent possible and has submitted its considered Response to Draft EIA 2020. While our response (click here or here ) contains clause-by-clause critiques and recommendations, a brief summary of salient points is presented here.

The present Government, since it first took office in 2014, has embarked on a determined course to severely dilute Environmental Regulations and norms in India, and weaken monitoring by regulatory agencies, so as to advance the “ease of doing business” and give corporates greater freedom to set up and run projects at the cost of the natural environment, and at the expense of lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people dependent on it. Environmental Regulations and systems for appraisal, approval and monitoring of projects have been painstakingly built up over the years under pressure from civil society organizations, affected communities and experts in the environmental and broader scientific community, all of whom have sought sustainable development while protecting the natural environment which sustains life itself.

Unfortunately, far from tightening these norms and closing the many loopholes that have crept in under pressure from vested interests, Draft EIA 2020 has further weakened environmental regulation, and reduced transparency and accountability. In fact, several provisions specifically seek to circumvent National Green Tribunal (NGT), High Court and even Supreme Court rulings based on EIA 2006 and objecting to many Orders/Notifications issued from time to time.

The major objectionable changes sought to be introduced through Draft EIA 2020 include:

● re-classification of various types of Projects, with a number of them potentially having considerable environmental impact being placed in Category B2 under which no Appraisal or public consultation/hearing is required: eg. Oil and Gas exploration (such permission was given in the fertile Cauvery delta region leading to farmer uproar in Tamil Nadu and subsequent withdrawal of permission), Water Aerodromes, River Waterways and other projects requiring dredging of river beds (cleverly dropped in Draft EIA2020 from the definition of “capital dredging” which it clearly is), Construction and Area Development Projects of 20,000-50,000 sq.m area (NGT had earlier ruled against an attempt to exempt projects of 20,000 to 150,000 sq.m , therefore this attempt in Draft EIA2020); and “linear projects” which would only be appraised and public consultations held in those districts of National Park, Sanctuaries or Coral Reefs through which they pass (exempting huge tracts through which pipelines etc may traverse)

● another set of Projects with significant environmental impact are now exempted from obtaining Prior Environment Clearance, (a provision originally meant for artisan groups such as Potters etc for excavating of clay) such as Solar Photo Voltaic (SPV) power projects, Solar Thermal power plants, Solar Parks, coal and mineral exploration, and another vague category of “R&D Projects,” Minor Irrigation Projects of upto 2000 ha command area, Hazardous Waste recycling units etc, Defence and Explosives Manufacturing Units,

● defence and national security projects, including projects deemed to be “strategic” by the Central Government,” are to be exempt from Appraisal and public hearings, with the added proviso that that “no information relating to such projects shall be placed in public domain:” classified information of military/security projects need not be disclosed, but external aspects with impact on environment such as area covered, construction in coastal regions, air pollution and/or liquid effluents discharged etc should be disclosed and appraised; further, the declaration of some projects as “strategic” is vague, non-transparent and open to misuse for hiding all kinds of projects from public scrutiny

● notice period for public to respond to Public Consultations reduced from the earlier already inadequate 30 days to a mere 20 days now

● among the most egregious provisions of Draft EIA 2020 related to violations i.e. projects starting construction or operations or expansion/modernization without receiving prior Environment Clearance (EC) would henceforth be given post-facto EC and permitted to continue after paying small fines: (the Vizag LG Polystyrene plant was operating without EC and was seeking post-facto approval) NGT and Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled post-facto EC to be violative of environmental laws, and Draft EIA 2020 attempts to subvert these rulings by incorporating such provisions in the Notification

For clarifications contact:

P. Rajamanickam 9442915101 D. Raghunandan 9810098621

June 29, 2020 by mkukrishna

Comments and observations from AIPSN on draft EIA notification 2020

Click here to see the email submission of this response to MoEF&CC

Click here for the pdf of the submitted response

AIPSN Response to Draft EIA Notification 2020

AIPSN Organization, is a Network of 40 major State-level Member Organizations and is the largest network of organizations working on science and society issues focusing mainly on S&T policy, impact on people particularly the poor and marginalized, and promotion of scientific temper. We were among those who had asked for an extension of the earlier deadline for submitting responses to the Draft EIA Notification 2020 to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and are grateful for the extension till 30 June 2020. However, it would have been better if some more time had been given to enable wider consultation and more intensive discussions, which have been highly constrained during the Covid19 pandemic and the various restrictions imposed during it. In any case, we are submitting our Response based on internal deliberations and discussions with different grassroots groups and communities within the constraints of time and Covid19-related restrictions.

In broad terms, we have been observing that the MoEFCC has been issuing various notifications and orders, besides taking many decisions that dilute earlier environmental regulations. Perhaps these steps are being taken because the Union Government feels that this will assist in raising the rank of India in international “Ease of Doing Business” indices. However, in our considered opinion, these dilutions have had a negative impact on the environment and on the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people dependent on it. It has also emboldened manufacturing, mining and infrastructure industries to start projects and conduct operations in an environmentally destructive manner and without consideration for affected communities. We feel the Draft EIA Notification 2020 too is yet another step in the same general direction and further dilutes rather than strengthens environmental regulations in India which is the true mandate of the MoEFCC. We also wish to point out that all these measures put together will have a cumulative impact on India’s Sustainable Development Goals targets which the country has committed itself to in international fora.

With this background, we offer the following responses to different specific provisions in the Draft EIA Notification 2020 (henceforth Draft EIA 2020) for your consideration and also insist that the responses received and discussions be placed transparently in a public accessible website.

Introductory Paragraphs: At the outset, Draft EIA 2020 begins by giving a background referring to the earlier EIA Notification 2006, the necessity it spelled out for Prior Environmental Clearance (Prior-EC) by the Centre or the concerned State, the 2017 Notification dealing with violations especially starting construction, undertaking expansion or making modifications, and various Judicial and NGT rulings calling for strengthening of monitoring and compliance. It is then stated that the main purpose of Draft EIA 2020 is to “lay down the procedure to bring such violation projects under the regulations in the interest of the environment at the earliest point of time rather than leaving them unregulated and unchecked, which will be more damaging to the environment.” However, detailed perusal of the different provisions made in Draft EIA 2020 show, as discussed further below, that in fact Draft EIA 2020 does not strengthen compliance with environmental regulations but dilutes these very provisions and condones violations, thus weakening environmental protection and regulation.

2) Clause 3: Definitions– Some definitions in Draft EIA 2020 have serious implications. While these have discussed under relevant Clauses where they appear, brief mention may be made here at the outset itself.

Clause 3(8) Capital Dredging is defined as “removal of virgin material from the sea bed” alone, and does not cover non-maintenance dredging of river beds, contrary to EIA Notification 2006 which covered both. This is important because capital dredging of river beds for new projects can have considerable environmental and social impact especially on fishers and others. It is strongly urged that the term Capital Dredging include sea as well as rivers and other fresh water bodies.
Clause 3(16) Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) defines it to mean that part of the Environment Management Plan (EMP) which the project holder is mandated to implement in the immediate surroundings of the Project arising ether out of the public consultations/hearings or the EIA conducted for the Project. This is an unnecessarily restrictive definition of CER. The EMP covers what the Project holder is required to do as part of the Project itself and should be counted as part of Project Costs, whereas CER should be what the project holder does over and above the EMP as a part of the company’s responsibility towards the environment and society in general, much like Corporate Social Responsibility.

Clause 4(3) defines Permissible Construction work before Prior-EC/EP as erecting fencing around the project site, but allows “leveling of land without tree felling” and “geo-technical investigations if any.” Levelling of land can fundamentally alter the use of the land after such activity and should not be permitted. Geo-technical investigations which could include test-wells, mineral prospecting could also have serious, even irreversible impact on the environment and should not be permitted without Prior EC/EP.

Clause 5. Category B2 Projects exempt from Appraisal and Public Hearing Several types of Projects and activities have been placed by Draft EIA 2020 under Category B2 under which no examination by the Appraisal Committee at either Centre or State/UT level is required, and Prior-Environment Permission (Prior-EP) may be obtained at the relevant level without such Appraisal. Such Projects are also exempt from the requirement for Public Hearing/Consultation. Various types of Projects or Activities placed under Category B2 as Listed in the Schedule include many Projects/Activities with significant impact on the environment, as well as in most cases and on human lives and livelihoods as well, and hence require EIA, Appraisal and Public Hearing. Therefore, the following types of Projects/Activities listed in the Schedule under Category B2 should be shifted to Category B1 (or as otherwise indicated) requiring EIA, Appraisal and Public Hearing, with brief justification for such a shift with additional comments being offered against each:

Item 2a) Oil & Gas Exploration: Even exploratory drilling can have serious environmental and related human impact as evidenced by public protests in the fertile Cauvery delta region in Tamil Nadu against permissions given earlier this year. The very recent blowout and fire at OIL Well No.5 in the Baghjan Oil Fields also saw an adjacent exploratory workover, with subsequent order by the Assam State Pollution Control Board to close all OIL wells in the area in view of the perceived risk in the whole region, although the order was later withdrawn for reasons best known to them. Further, if exploration yields positive results, this increases likelihood of EC being granted for actual drilling and operation of oil/gas wells with even further environmental impact especially in ecologically sensitive areas. Thus such Projects/Activities be shifted to Category B1.

Item 10f) Foundries, Rolling Mills etc: Such Projects, which are not too small, may also be problematic and may be shifted to B1.

Item 16) Chlor-Alkali/Halogen Units: Plants with capacity < 300 tons/day have been placed in Category B2 provided they are located within Industrial Estates. However, since many Industrial Estates are located near population centres, or population centres have come up near these Estates, proper EIA and Appraisal should be done under Category B1.

Item 32) Water Aerodromes for Commercial Use can have considerable environmental impact on coastal or river/lake ecosystems and therefore should be removed from Category B2 and placed in Category B1.

Item 34) Various EEZs, Industrial estates: Estates/Zones over 500 ha and without any Projects of Categories A and B1, along with Estates/Zones of any area if it houses at least 1 Category B2 Project, are in Category B2 which is an over-generous leeway given, for instance Estates/Zones of massive size with potential for causing huge environmental damage would be exempt from appraisal! Only Estates/Zones under 500 ha with only Category B2 Projects should fall under this Category.

Item 37) Capital Dredging for Inland Waterways Projects can have considerable ecological damage along river banks and river beds and require Appraisal. Anomaly arises in the case of Inland Waterways classified as B2 because “Capital Dredging” has been defined wrongly as applying only to sea-based projects (as discussed above), so these should be shifted to Category B1.

Item 42) Construction & Area Development Projects have been a contentious issue for long. The government had earlier exempted all area development, housing and other construction projects between 20,000 and 150,000 sq. metres from the need to obtain environmental clearances, placed them under the purview of local authorities which would integrate environmental requirements into building bye-laws and approvals. This was however overruled by the NGT as a violation of the 2006 Notification. Draft EIA 2020 now attempts to skirt this ruling by placing Projects of 20,000-50,000 sq.mts of built-up area in Category B2 and exempting them from Appraisal, while requiring only Projects of 50,000-1,50,000 sq.mts of built-up area to seek Appraisal. Such Projects have also been exempt from Public Hearing. It is recommended that all Projects having more than 20,000 sq.mts build-up area be placed in Category B1, and all Projects with built-up area more than 1,50,000 sq.mts be placed in Category A.

Clause 5(7) Defence, Security and “Strategic” Projects This clause specifies that all projects concerning national defence and security, or involving “other strategic considerations as determined by the Central Government,” shall require prior EC/EP from the Ministry whatever the original category of the project, which is understandable since defence is exclusively a Union subject. However, it is disturbing that the clause further states that “no information relating to such projects shall be placed in public domain.” There are two distinct unacceptable provisions here.

First, many such projects such as shipyards, testing ranges, coastal military bases etc can and do have considerable ecological and social impact. It is a patent infringement on the right to life and livelihoods of affected communities that they do not have access to any information based on which they could object to or otherwise voice their concerns with respect to such Projects. Military or intelligence matters relating to specific projects need not be placed in the public domain but other relevant facts such as area and number of villages to be covered, discharges into the air and onto land, sea, river or other water bodies etc should be disclosed so that affected parties may assess potential ecological and social impact.

Secondly, blanket authority bestowed on the Central Government to deem any project as involving “strategic considerations” allows for too much leeway to arbitrarily declare all sorts of Projects such as, for instance, nuclear power plants, oil wells and rigs etc as “strategic” and hence escape public scrutiny.

Non-military facts relating to military/security Projects should be made available in the public domain, and this Clause should not permit declaration of other types of projects as “strategic.”

The related provision in Clause 14(1)c stating that the “Regulatory Authority may decide on the feasibility and requirement of Public Hearing and/or consultation in the case of defence projects” should also be amended in line with the above.

Clause 7 State/UT Environment Impact Assessment Authority It is often found that the State Pollution Control Board (PCB) acts as the Secretariat of the State/UT EIA Authority, and Project Proponents often apply to it for, and obtain, permission to set up or operate, even without Prior EC/EP, as happened with the recent LG Polymers Vishakhapatnam. Case. A specific para should therefore be added to this Clause to the effect that State/UT PCBs or any other Agency are not authorized to act on behalf of the State/UT EIA Authority and are not empowered to grant EC/EP

Clause 14(2) Public Consultation exempts a wide variety of Projects from Public Consultations whether in the form of written submissions or in the form of Public Hearings. This is not only highly objectionable from the point of view of environmental protection which is the goal of the various Environmental Acts and the EIA Notifications, it is also completely unacceptable in a democracy. As stated while discussing the B2 Category of Projects above, many of these Projects potentially have considerable environmental and social impact, and it is inconceivable that potentially affected people and other stakeholders are not given an opportunity to voice their concerns and objections. Exemptions from Public Consultations/Hearings should therefore be withdrawn for the following types of Projects.
Projects covered by this include “all Category B2 Projects and activities,” already discussed such as No.s 10(f), 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 36, 40 within Notified Industrial Estates, and No.s 42 and No.43 (Construction and Area Development Projects, and Elevated Roads respectively) in the Schedule, defence/security and other “strategic” Projects as discussed above, and “all linear Projects under item 31 (oil and gas pipelines) and 38 (Highways) in Border Areas.”
It may specifically be noted that highways in border areas need not be linear, especially in mountain areas and may indeed have considerable environmental impact in ecologically sensitive areas such as in mountains, glacial areas etc.
Further, it is stated that for “linear projects” passing through a National Park or Sanctuary or Coral Reef or other Ecologically Sensitive Area public consultation “shall be limited to [these district (s)].” As is well known, such Projects can also cause substantial ecological damage in adjoining districts as well, so this provision should be withdrawn.
Such blanket exemptions from public consultations and public hearings are abhorrent under the relevant Environmental Protection Acts and should be dropped from Draft EIA 2020.
Appendix-1 Clause 3.1 under the head Procedure of Public Consultation, states that a “minimum notice period of twenty days shall be provided to the public for furnishing their responses,” compared to the 2006 Notification under which this period was 30 days. It is difficult enough for local affected people such as fishers, coastal people, tribals and hill peoples etc to study all relevant documents, without being pushed into a small window of a mere 20 days. It is suggested that the Notice period for public consultations/hearings be extended to 60 days.
Public Hearings/Consultations and consent of gram Sabhas should be mandatory in all Scheduled Areas as per the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996.

Clause 19 (1) I d: Validity of Prior-EC or Prior-EP for mining projects has been extended from 30 years in EIA 2006 to 50 years covering the entire expected life of the Project, all of which has been inexplicably placed under Construction/Installation phase. During this prolonged period, most of which would definitely cover operation of the mine, all sorts of changes and modifications would take place, with potential environmental impact. It is recommended that Prior-EC/EP be provided for 30 years after which the project holder be required to seek fresh EC/EP based on updated information.

Clause 22: Violation Cases These contain some of the most egregious provisions of Draft EIA 2020, effect of which is to gloss over violations, pave the way for their regularization, and enable continuous operation of violators without having to worry about Environmental rules or Regulatory Authorities, all at the cost of the environment. Violations of course, as defined in the Draft EIA 2020 itself, refers to Projects that have started construction, installation or even operations, or expanded or modernized beyond the limits permitted, without Prior Environmental Clearance or Prior Environmental Permission.
Clause 22(1) states that violations would be taken cognizance of based on application of the project proponent itself, reporting by any Government authority, found during the Appraisal process, or found during application by the Regulatory Authority. The Clause should be amended to also take cognizance of violations being brought to the attention of relevant authorities by local residents, civil society organizations, lawyers or other stakeholders who have, amazingly, been excluded from this provision.
Subsequent Paras of Clause 22 spell out various means and methods for the regularization of such Projects, despite their flagrant violation of Environmental Laws, clearly in the knowledge of the project proponents since any industrialist knows that Prior EC/EP is required. Only those Projects that are simply not permissible in the area concerned, or those Projects that are environmentally not sustainable in the area, in other words such projects that would not have obtained Prior EC/EP had they applied for it, would be closed down. These various means include fines, mandatory environmental remedial measures for damage caused etc.
These provisions clearly amount to post-facto regularization of violations and grant of EC as, for instance, is being pursued in the case of LG Polystyrene in Vishakhapatnam which had been operating for years without EC. The effort made by the Ministry in 2017 through a Notification towards the same end, albeit as a one-time amnesty provision, had been struck down by the NGT. The very idea of post-facto EC was declared by the Supreme Court as late as April 2020 to be “in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA Notification.” The attempt by Draft EIA 2020 to give this provision a backing through a fresh Notification is ethically atrocious and is bad in law. These entire provisions should therefore be removed. If at all such a provision is required to be made, in view of the Ministry and regulatory Authority turning a blind eye over the years to perhaps hundreds of such violations, then it should be a one-time amnesty provision with a time frame of not more than 1 year from the date of Notification with a strict stipulation that no future violation will be tolerated at any cost.
The same applies to Clause 23 as well.

. Clause 26: Projects exempt from requiring Prior-EC/EP Some of the projects covered by this Clause are intended to permit artisanal activities such as extraction of potters’ clay etc. Surprisingly, however, many projects with known and considerable environmental and social impact have also been included under this Clause. It is strongly urged that the following types of Projects be removed from this Clause and placed under the Schedule for Category B1 or B2 Projects (after being amended as suggested here):
Clause 26(14): Solar Photo Voltaic (SPV) power projects, Solar Thermal power plants and Solar Parks, which have well-known environmental impacts including diversion of agricultural land, excess demand on subsoil water etc.
Clause 26(15): R&D Activities for Activities in Schedule is too broad a categorization. For instance a Fast Breeder Reactor or a Test Well may also be described as an “R&D Project.” This sub-category should be better defined
Clause 26(19): Coal and non-coal mineral prospecting which can cause considerable ecological damage, quite apart from the larger extraction projects that may follow
Clause 26(21): Minor irrigation Projects with command area upto 2000 ha should not automatically be exempt from Prior-EC/EP
Clause 26(24)(a, b): Secondary metallurgy Units are not free of air pollutants, effluent streams and solid wastes including metals, and cannot be exempt from Prior EC/EP
Clause 26(24)(c): Recycling Units registered under Hazardous & Other Waste Rules 2016 involve considerable toxic and other wastes, and certainly should not be exempt from Prior EC/EP
Clause 26 (25)(a): Re-rolling Mills with Pickling especially of the scale mentioned will certainly involve effluent streams and will require Prior EC/EP
Clause 26(36): Defence Manufacturing units or strategic units for explosives etc: the idea that Units under the Ministry of Defence do not require Prior EC/EP is astounding to say the least, since it can be nobody’s case that these Units do not cause pollution. Such Units should be required to obtain Prior EC/EP based on disclosure of such information relating to pollutants generated and measures taken to reduce discharge of pollutants as per relevant industry standards. This is especially so since the Schedule (Item 30) lists explosives etc Projects under Category B1, assuming these to be non-Defence Units?
Clause 26(39): Maintenance dredging should clarify that (as per the suggested amended Definition of Capital Dredging) that this does not apply to dredging and removal of virgin material from beds of rivers, lakes or other fresh water bodies.

For clarifications contact:

Rajamanickam 9442915101 D. Raghunandan 9810098621