Please freeze the notification of the EIA draft 2005.
Sign Now
Why this petition to MoEF :
1. EIA is the bedrock of India's environment. EIA which was initally notified in 1994 has been already amended 11 times and most of the
times the amendment has been brutal to the environment.
2. This amendment in 2005 is bringing drastic changes to crucial pieces of EIA which will eventually make EIA as a junk one.
3. All over India, poor (or) rural (or) farming (or) fishing (or) coastal communities has been brutalised by abusing the EIA. With this draft, MoEF (under cohorts with World Bank and industrial lobbying groups) will make sure a thing called EIA will be dead.
4. MoEF has invited comments on the draft which is at http://www.envfor.nic.in / http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1324(e).pdf.
Hence this petition to MoEF.
Dear Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary MoEF,
How are you doing.
We are writing to you with great concern with respect to the proposed EIA draft 2005.
We are deeply disturbed by the undemocratic and secretive manner in which the MoEF has conducted itself, and is writing to call for an immediate freeze on the issuance of the Draft EIA Notification, 2005. I trust that you would have already received the representations sent by many people, some of us included, to protest against the content and mode of preparation of the National Environment Policy.
MoEF's repeated proclamations about transparency, public participation and decentralisation notwithstanding, the Draft EIA Notification reflects only the aspirations of industrial lobbies, and not that of communities, local Government bodies and public interest organisations.
The Draft leaves the public with few tools or fora to influence industrial or development proposals impacting them. The draft notification proposes to weaken provisions guaranteeing access to information and public participation, relax clearance requirements on industries and activities with serious potential for environmental damage, and increases discretionary powers to the Ministry and State Pollution Control Boards without concomitant increase in their accountability.
Coming as it does in light of a demonstrable, and perhaps willful, failure by the Ministry of Environment to grant clearances in keeping with the letter and spirit of the EIA Notification, the proposed draft Notification is nothing short of malafide, and requires to be set aside. The draft Notification also exposes the extent of influence wielded by industrial lobbies and trade associations vis-а-vis citizens, citizens groups, NGOs and local Government bodies. Industry's concerns are taken on board proactively, whereas the people's concerns are seen as impediments to investment and development.
We hereby, demand:
a)) An immediate freeze on the issuance of the EIA Notification, 2005
b)) An independent review of the performance of the EIA Notification, 1994, with a view to assessing the strengths, weaknesses, loopholes, institutional failures and reasons thereof associated with the implementation of the Notification.
c)) Initiation of a fresh round of consultations with citizens, citizens groups including NGOs and community organizations, local Government bodies and State Governments, to re-engineer the EIA Notification taking into account the independent review and comments below, and with a view to enhancing informed public participation in environmental decision-making.
Broadly, our objections to the proposed Notification can be summed up as follows:
1. Pro-Industry; Anti-Environment:
The reengineering process and the subsequent draft notification are guided almost entirely by recommendations of the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, constituted by the previous NDA government, and proposals made as part of the World Bank-funded Environmental Management Capacity Building Programme. The explicit and sole objective of the process and the draft EIA notificationis to expedite clearance mechanisms to assist investors. Environmental protection and public participation do not seem to be a priority at all.
2.Limits Public Consultation by
a) Restricting access to Public Hearings:
The draft notification prevents people who are not local residents from participating in public hearings, thereby eliminating the possibility of participation by public interest organisations, public interest scientists and engineers, professionals and advisors to communities in public hearings. The public hearing should be kept open to "persons" as defined in the EIA Notification, 1994.
b) Allows for unjustifiable cancelling of public hearings:
The proposed notification provides for the cancellation of public hearings in the event that local conditions are not conducive for hearing the views of the public in a free and fair manner. Oftentimes, such vitiated conditions are orchestrated by the project promoter and the State Government or district administration who wish to keep the public from attending the public hearings. This gives district administration and regulators unwarranted discretion in calling off public hearings, even while orchestrating the conditions to justify their cancellation. The State and District Administrations should be made to create the conditions required to hold the public hearing and solicit public comments.
3.Dilutes Due Process on Environmentally Damaging Activities
a) Caves in to builder lobby pressure:
Despite widespread public outcry over the role of unregulated construction over the Mithi River in the Mumbai floods earlier this year, the new draft Notification further eases regulatory and siting requirements for buildings within cities. Only buildings larger than 100,000 square metres built-up area require Central clearance, and construction greater than 20,000 square metres require State clearance. Earlier, all buildings generating more than 50,000 litres/day of sewage or housing 1000 persons required EIA and clearance under the Notification. To put that in perspective, according to accepted norms, construction projects covering an area of 14,000 square metres would be capable of housing 1000 persons or generating more than 50,000 litres/day of sewage.
We oppose this dilution because it would exempt more than 90 percent of all building projects from the purview of the Notification.
b) Exempts Industries within Industrial Estates
Individual units coming up inside dedicated industrial estates with prior environmental clearance will not be required to obtain individual environmental clearance. This exemption has been suggested on the unscientific pre-supposition that cumulative environmental impacts of an industrial estate can be estimated without any idea about the specific quantum and nature of raw materials, the processes employed and products manufactured by individual units within the estate.
4. Expert Committees Lack Experts:
The Expert Appraisal Committees to be constituted at State and Central levels no longer have social scientists or ecosystem experts. The Committees are to be loaded with technocrats a breed whose worldview is often in contradiction with sustainability, and far removed from the realities faced by the country's poor. Expert Committees should be include social scientists, ecosystem experts, public interest lawyers and social/environmental activists of renown.
5. No action on licensing of consultants
The world of EIA consultants is a seamy one characterised by fly-by-night operators and established names that do a slick job of saying what their client wants them to. There is no check on the quality, integrity and veracity of claims made in the EIAs, and no liability on the consultant. This issue was to be resolved by the MoEF and was noted as an agenda point for discussions. However, the proposed EIA notification contains no language to enable citizens or Government to hold consultants liable for their EIA reports. This lacuna has to be remedied.
6.Complicated, Poorly Drafted:
Drafted in a hurry, the proposed EIA notification does not even have paragraph numbers to allow for easy critiquing. The language is convoluted and the recommended procedures complicate the clearance process rather than simplify it.
In lieu of the above grave points please freeze and engage all stakeholders namely Farmers, Fishermen, NGOs, environmentalists, scientists in the entire review of EIA process.
1. EIA is the bedrock of India's environment. EIA which was initally notified in 1994 has been already amended 11 times and most of the
times the amendment has been brutal to the environment.
2. This amendment in 2005 is bringing drastic changes to crucial pieces of EIA which will eventually make EIA as a junk one.
3. All over India, poor (or) rural (or) farming (or) fishing (or) coastal communities has been brutalised by abusing the EIA. With this draft, MoEF (under cohorts with World Bank and industrial lobbying groups) will make sure a thing called EIA will be dead.
4. MoEF has invited comments on the draft which is at http://www.envfor.nic.in / http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1324(e).pdf.
Hence this petition to MoEF.
Dear Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary MoEF,
How are you doing.
We are writing to you with great concern with respect to the proposed EIA draft 2005.
We are deeply disturbed by the undemocratic and secretive manner in which the MoEF has conducted itself, and is writing to call for an immediate freeze on the issuance of the Draft EIA Notification, 2005. I trust that you would have already received the representations sent by many people, some of us included, to protest against the content and mode of preparation of the National Environment Policy.
MoEF's repeated proclamations about transparency, public participation and decentralisation notwithstanding, the Draft EIA Notification reflects only the aspirations of industrial lobbies, and not that of communities, local Government bodies and public interest organisations.
The Draft leaves the public with few tools or fora to influence industrial or development proposals impacting them. The draft notification proposes to weaken provisions guaranteeing access to information and public participation, relax clearance requirements on industries and activities with serious potential for environmental damage, and increases discretionary powers to the Ministry and State Pollution Control Boards without concomitant increase in their accountability.
Coming as it does in light of a demonstrable, and perhaps willful, failure by the Ministry of Environment to grant clearances in keeping with the letter and spirit of the EIA Notification, the proposed draft Notification is nothing short of malafide, and requires to be set aside. The draft Notification also exposes the extent of influence wielded by industrial lobbies and trade associations vis-а-vis citizens, citizens groups, NGOs and local Government bodies. Industry's concerns are taken on board proactively, whereas the people's concerns are seen as impediments to investment and development.
We hereby, demand:
a)) An immediate freeze on the issuance of the EIA Notification, 2005
b)) An independent review of the performance of the EIA Notification, 1994, with a view to assessing the strengths, weaknesses, loopholes, institutional failures and reasons thereof associated with the implementation of the Notification.
c)) Initiation of a fresh round of consultations with citizens, citizens groups including NGOs and community organizations, local Government bodies and State Governments, to re-engineer the EIA Notification taking into account the independent review and comments below, and with a view to enhancing informed public participation in environmental decision-making.
Broadly, our objections to the proposed Notification can be summed up as follows:
1. Pro-Industry; Anti-Environment:
The reengineering process and the subsequent draft notification are guided almost entirely by recommendations of the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, constituted by the previous NDA government, and proposals made as part of the World Bank-funded Environmental Management Capacity Building Programme. The explicit and sole objective of the process and the draft EIA notificationis to expedite clearance mechanisms to assist investors. Environmental protection and public participation do not seem to be a priority at all.
2.Limits Public Consultation by
a) Restricting access to Public Hearings:
The draft notification prevents people who are not local residents from participating in public hearings, thereby eliminating the possibility of participation by public interest organisations, public interest scientists and engineers, professionals and advisors to communities in public hearings. The public hearing should be kept open to "persons" as defined in the EIA Notification, 1994.
b) Allows for unjustifiable cancelling of public hearings:
The proposed notification provides for the cancellation of public hearings in the event that local conditions are not conducive for hearing the views of the public in a free and fair manner. Oftentimes, such vitiated conditions are orchestrated by the project promoter and the State Government or district administration who wish to keep the public from attending the public hearings. This gives district administration and regulators unwarranted discretion in calling off public hearings, even while orchestrating the conditions to justify their cancellation. The State and District Administrations should be made to create the conditions required to hold the public hearing and solicit public comments.
3.Dilutes Due Process on Environmentally Damaging Activities
a) Caves in to builder lobby pressure:
Despite widespread public outcry over the role of unregulated construction over the Mithi River in the Mumbai floods earlier this year, the new draft Notification further eases regulatory and siting requirements for buildings within cities. Only buildings larger than 100,000 square metres built-up area require Central clearance, and construction greater than 20,000 square metres require State clearance. Earlier, all buildings generating more than 50,000 litres/day of sewage or housing 1000 persons required EIA and clearance under the Notification. To put that in perspective, according to accepted norms, construction projects covering an area of 14,000 square metres would be capable of housing 1000 persons or generating more than 50,000 litres/day of sewage.
We oppose this dilution because it would exempt more than 90 percent of all building projects from the purview of the Notification.
b) Exempts Industries within Industrial Estates
Individual units coming up inside dedicated industrial estates with prior environmental clearance will not be required to obtain individual environmental clearance. This exemption has been suggested on the unscientific pre-supposition that cumulative environmental impacts of an industrial estate can be estimated without any idea about the specific quantum and nature of raw materials, the processes employed and products manufactured by individual units within the estate.
4. Expert Committees Lack Experts:
The Expert Appraisal Committees to be constituted at State and Central levels no longer have social scientists or ecosystem experts. The Committees are to be loaded with technocrats a breed whose worldview is often in contradiction with sustainability, and far removed from the realities faced by the country's poor. Expert Committees should be include social scientists, ecosystem experts, public interest lawyers and social/environmental activists of renown.
5. No action on licensing of consultants
The world of EIA consultants is a seamy one characterised by fly-by-night operators and established names that do a slick job of saying what their client wants them to. There is no check on the quality, integrity and veracity of claims made in the EIAs, and no liability on the consultant. This issue was to be resolved by the MoEF and was noted as an agenda point for discussions. However, the proposed EIA notification contains no language to enable citizens or Government to hold consultants liable for their EIA reports. This lacuna has to be remedied.
6.Complicated, Poorly Drafted:
Drafted in a hurry, the proposed EIA notification does not even have paragraph numbers to allow for easy critiquing. The language is convoluted and the recommended procedures complicate the clearance process rather than simplify it.
In lieu of the above grave points please freeze and engage all stakeholders namely Farmers, Fishermen, NGOs, environmentalists, scientists in the entire review of EIA process.
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
0 signatures
Goal: 50
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
