Some Suggestions for Review of the Functioning of the Ministry of Environment and Forests

 

 

Submitted to

 

 

Shri. T. R. Baalu

Hon'ble Union Minister for Environment and Forests

Government of India

 

 

On the occasion of

 

 

MoEF Regional Offices Meeting

23-24 October 2000

New Delhi

 

 

Submitted by

 

 

Environment Support Group ®

S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,

Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 041. INDIA

Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)

Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in

 

 

October 2000

 

 

Introduction

 

Environment Support Group is a non-governmental organisation that is involved in working on social and environmental justice issues of concern.  It is an interdisciplinary group involving experts from the areas of environmental law and policy, planning, ecology, basic and social sciences and mathematics.

 

On 12 September 2000, Union Environment Minister Shri. T. R. Baalu visited Bangalore, during which time a team from Environment Support Group met with him.  During the discussions the Hon'ble Minister informed the ESG team of his plans of holding a Regional Offices Meeting to review the environment/forest clearance compliance.  Based on this information, the ESG team voluntarily decided to produce a Note examining the functioning of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and highlighting areas for reform.  The main purpose of this was to provide the officials of the Ministry an external input to an internal  evaluation process. 

 

What we have attempted here is a synoptic view along the following themes:

 

1.     The Forest Clearance Cycle

2.     The Environmental Clearance Cycle

3.     The need for Decentralisation of the Clearance and Review Mechanism

4.     The Emergent need for Scientific and Technical Capacity Building of the MoEF

5.     A Submission of ESG to the Draft Industrial Siting Notification

 

These themes do not obviously comprehend the overall scheme of review and monitoring of environmental and forest clearance cycles.  For the purposes of brevity only pressing Issues of Concern underlining areas for reform are raised.

 

A brief gist of the existing Forest and Environmental Clearance mechanisms are provided as Annexures towards the end of this note, merely for the purpose of quick reference.

 

 

 

 

 

Theme 1:  Forest Clearance Cycles

 

Issues of concern to be addressed:

 

1.       Arbitrary Powers of the DFO:  The DFO of the State Forest Department (SFD) has arbitrary powers, with no checks and balances whatsoever.  Given that the main verification of facts and site of project takes place at this level, there is all possibility of political, administrative and personal impressions forming a pressure lobby.  Quite possible that corrupt practices could be induced at this level, say for instance by the investor, to secure a favourable decision.  It is essential that this level of enquiry is tightened, with public participation involvement, say through Public Hearing Process, and the decision taken should be made public with reasons clearly documented.

2.       Time Targets at State Level of Clearance: There is no defined time set for processing and clearance at the State level.  This is a very weak arrangement as in effect it means that the State can indefinitely delay the process of clearance if it wants to.  This is not good administrative discipline.  There is a need to fix time period for the State Level clearance, with each sub-level of clearance being provided their individual component of time.  For instance it could be 30 days for the DFO, 30 days for the PCCF and 30 days for the DFE to complete the formalities and forward the proposal to Regional CCF/Central Office. In this way not only is the Investor not harrassed, but as well there is a clear understanding of where the decision is being taken at a particular point of time in the clearance cycle.  The only exception to this strict adherence to effective and speedy clearance should be an "Act of God" or similar incidents.

3.       Empowering State Levels of Clearance:  When Project is rejected at the State level, the Proposal is still forwarded to the Centre seeking endorsement of Rejection. It is possible that such a provision may have arisen due to the need to neutralise local political backlash at the State level.  This, however, is a retrograde step as it involves unnecessary administrative expenditure, involving the sparse resources of the MoEF.  Considering the impetus on decentralisation, State Governments should be confident of their stand.

4.       Safeguarding Protected Forests:  The opinion of the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) should be binding in cases involving protected forest areas, but are most often not.  In some cases, even when the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) has rejected the proposal, the PCCF and the Secretary DFE have recommended the proposal and forwarded the same to the Centre without justification for overruling CWW's decision or providing higher rationale for according approval.  Eg. Temporary mining clearance granted to M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd.  This approach is a bane to safeguarding the country's fast depleting biodiversity.

5.       Integration of Scientific opinion: There is absolutely no scientific input in the entire process.  When decisions to be taken become increasingly complex given fragmentation of forests at a rapid rate, a multitude of factors will have to be considered before taking a decision.  Whilst there may be hundreds of applications for small scales of forest clearances, there is often a few large projects that in effect involve high levels of impact on the forests.  Whether the scale of forest involved is small or large, the day has arrived when even the tiniest patch is cleared for "development" only after the most careful scrutiny.  Given that, by and large, the DFO or RFO are unable to be up-to-date with the latest understanding of forest systems, most often due to large administrative workloads, it is imperative that a clear scientific input should be integrated at the earliest stage of processing an application.  Not only will it enable the formulation of a very sound decision, but will also prevent the unnecessary administrative burden at higher levels were a project found not worth passing the muster on scientific grounds.

 

6.     Need for Public Involvement:  There is absolutely no public participation.  When the EIA Notification requires Public Hearings to be held for a schedule list of projects, those projects that are not included in this list, yet having high impact, escape public involvement in decision making as the Forest Clearance cycle completely obviates the need for such engagement.  It would be a progressive step to make Public Hearings mandatory for all projects involving forest clearances, thus covering the lacunae of the EIA Notification.  This fundamental precaution is needed keeping in view the various Rights, esp. Rt to Livelihood given the fact that there is a overwhelming dependence of minor forest resources by forest dwelling communities for subsistence living.

 

Theme 2:  Issues of concern in the Environmental Clearance procedure

 

Issues of Concern to be addressed:

 

Weak EIA process

 

1.       Poor Quality of EIAs: Perhaps the most critical area of concern with regard to the clearance procedure is that the quality of information furnished by the project developer as part of the EIA/EMP and DPR is often found wanting in crucial areas of the project impacts. There have been cases where EIAs have been completely fudged (Eg. Ernst and Young REIA for Dandeli Dam), where the data furnished is unrepresentative to the area (Eg.  Air Pollution Modeling conducted by Transoft of France for Tata Consultancy Services REIA of Mangalore Power Company) and quite often there is a lot to be desired even in the fundamental aspects presentation of facts and analysis of impacts.

2.       Weak Technical Competence of Consultants: Given that the EIA is prepared by consultants hired by the developer/investor, in most cases the EIA is viewed as a mechanism of compliance with procedures and information provided is very superficial and often not representative of the ground reality.  This problem has been widely acknowledged as undoing of the very precepts of the EIA Notification.  Despite which there is very little or no verification of facts presented by conducting site visits or ground verification.

3.       Need for empanelling Consultants: Several suggestions have been offered over time to fix such lacunae.  However, a most pressing need is to validate Consultants, thus ensuring that in the very least the information brought is of a quality that is justifiable for initiating the clearance process.  The credentials of the Consultant/Consulting Company/Organisation should be subject to public review as in the case of all companies by way of furnishing Quarterly Report, Annual Reports, etc. 

4.       Need for Independent EIA Authority:  There is also the demand for setting up an independent Environment Impact Assessment Authority headed by a judicial officer and comprising of eminent scientists, technocrats and environmentalists.  Such a step must be considered consciously and with due dispatch.

 

 

Faulty environmental clearances

 

1.       Pressure for Quick Clearance: The regulatory agencies at the State and Central levels are constantly under pressure to accord quick clearance to the project, by a combination of investor induced and bureaucratic and political interferences.  Consequently, clearances are likely to be provided without sufficiently addressing all the issues involved.

2.       Technical Skills of Review:  Additionally, in-house skills of review, from the scientific and legal points of view, have been found wanting in a variety of areas, and exposed repeatedly, especially through the process of Public Interest Litigation in different parts of the country, and in several instances in the recent past, various Courts have struck down final environmental clearances accorded, citing fundamental violations in administrative review, planning and environmental legislation and lack of application of mind on critical areas of environmental concern.

 

 

Rapid EIA and Conditional Clearances

 

1.       Rapid EIA:  With the demand to accord speedy clearances to industrial and infrastructure projects increasing, a mechanism adopted by Pollution Control Boards and Ministry of Environment and Forests has been to accord conditional clearances to projects merely on the basis of Rapid Environment Impact Assessment.  This is based on one season data, which technically implies a 3-month period, but is normally a one-month data.  Again there is no clear procedure to establish whether the data has been collected afresh or collated secondarily.  This effectively provides an impression that some level of scientific work has been undertaken, whereas in real terms the quality of the scientific methodology involved is highly questionable.

2.       Violation of Conditions granted:  Often, conditions are violated blatantly and the violators get away scot-free with the Ministry of Environment and Forests lagging in enforcing penal action against the violators as per law.  The immediate action that needs to be taken for not fulfilling the conditions is that the environmental clearance should be revoked.  This is not done in most cases and a classic example for this is the clearance accorded to the 1,000 MW thermal power plant of Mangalore Power Company proposed to be sited in the Dakshina Kannada region. 

3.       Quality of Conditions Framed:  A quick perusal of clearances granted by MoEF to a variety of projects bring to light the typical terminology used in defining conditions.  Some examples are listed:  "carefully examined", "strict compliance", "adequate facility", "regular monitoring", "sufficient funds", "properly trained", "appropriate measures to improve design and operating practices", etc., etc.  It may easily seen that none of these terms can be considered as clearly defining a particular type action that should be undertaken, which can be reviewed credibly based on existing standards and most importantly can be held per law to penalise non-compliance.  Such conditions reflect a lack of appreciation of the fundamental importance that clearances play in mitigating environmental damage within the concepts of sustainable development.  Were such terms used occasionally, it could have been ascribed to the lack of rigour on a few officers in applying their minds to the task on hand.  However, it is distressing to note that such terms are prevalent, rather than rare, and are seen to be acceptable, than being questioned.  This approach must be fundamentally revamped and clear and specific conditions, even exhaustively describing the compliance per existing standards, manuals, treaties, etc. should be the norm from framing.  The outcome of this will be that monitoring mechanisms would be tightened and violations framed can be easily defended in the Court of Law. 

4.       Monitoring Roles:  Monitoring roles are exceptionally important steps in ensuring that environmental degradation is mitigated, especially in highly polluting industries.  Presently the Regional Office is mainly responsible for monitoring and reporting to the Central Office.  However, the decision is taken at the Central level.  This has time and again proved to be a dis-jointed process as the Officer who has monitored is not empowered in framing the conditions thereof and the officer framing the conditions has no ground knowledge of the impacts.  Quite clearly in environmental compliance issues, there is simply no possibility of critical evaluation based on secondary data and information.  There is thus an immediate need to change this process and empower the investigating officer in formulating follow-up, rather than the existing scenario.  

5.       Compliance Reports:  Presently a 6 monthly report of compliance is to be filed by the project authority.  This is made available to the public on demand.  What action is taken thereafter is not subject to public scrutiny.  It would in the best interest of maintaining local environment that the review and recommendations following monitoring by the MoEF is also brought into the public domain.  This will not only ensure a more benign reflection of the Ministry's creative interest in ensuring transparency, but will also bring in public involvement with technical input for better maintenance of local environment.

6.       Clearance bloopers:  There have been instances where quite a few clearances granted have bloopers of a most interesting nature. The clearance granted to the Almatti dam project is a classic case and contains the following condition:
"3 (vi) Six monthly monitoring reports should be submitted to the Ministry and its Regional Office, Chandigarh for review." And the very next condition reads:
"4. Officials from Regional Office MoEF, Bangalore would be monitoring the implementation of the environmental safeguards….".  It is clear that the former condition may have been an oversight, but quite strangely there are several clearances which are marked by such blatant errors.  Almatti being in Karnataka, how Chandigarh comes into play is an issue that could become legally embarrassing at a later date.  What this reflects is that the such an important task as issuing environmental clearance is often done in a very lackadaisical manner. 

 

 

Public Hearing Process

 

1.       Quality of Information:  The 10th April 1997 Amendment to the EIA Notification makes Public Hearings mandatory for all projects listed in Schedule 1.  The process of calling for the hearing and the conduct of the same is defined.  If effectively utilised, this could empower local populations tremendously in having some control over decision making processes that directly impact them.  However, a critical area of concern remains the quality of information provided, as public has access only to the Executive Summary of the project and that prepared by the developer, giving room for advocating one’s project rather than making an objective statement of potential impacts.  Further, given the low awareness of the processes involved in industrial and infrastructural developments, the Public Hearing process may end up as a mere formality, if no clear initiatives are taken presently.  There is a great role for public interest advocacy agencies to play here and increase the level of awareness of local populations and empower them with such information that would enable them to make rationale choices.

2.       Experience of Recent Hearings:  The experience from recent Public Hearings is that the project developer and the agency conducting the hearing are extremely secretive of the information.  The Executive Summary is often a brochure and contains little quality information.  People participating in the Hearings are becoming disillusioned and often this is breeding conflict, that very thing that Hearings sought to avoid.  Considering the present move to introduce the Right to Information, there is clearly no need to make EIAs and related documents secretive as they absolutely do not impinge on the security of the nation.  An amendment to the Notification is thus needed immediately to allow access to all detailed environmental information on the project to ensure transparency, build public confidence, negate conflicts and develop conditions with public input that is of a high quality.

3.       Capacity Building:  There is also an emergent need to train the length and breath of this country in the conduct of and participation in Public Hearings, including by developing modules and audio-visual programmes for training, so this healthy process is evolved to maximum public interest advantage.

4.       Follow-up:  The follow-up after the Hearing should also be made available to the Public, for instance the report of the Public Hearing panel.  Also Hearings should be held post clearance and post project implementation to ensure proper compliance and develop confidence amongst the local community.  World-wide, such healthy openness and engagement of local communities has brought reputation to regulatory agencies and helped protect the environment.

5.       Widening the Hearings Base:  Public Hearings should also be made applicable to project involving Forest Clearance  and those with high impact that are not presently within the purview of Schedule I.  Eg.:  Massive automobile units are not included, though they have foundries and thus have major impacts.  The Toyota Kirloskar factory at Bidadi near Bangalore was cleared without Public Involvement even when the Special Secretary of the Karnataka Dept of Environment had insisted the need for Public Hearings.

Theme 3:  Decentralisation of the Clearance and Review Mechanism

 

Some Possible Steps that could be adopted:

 

1.       Improving Democratic Involvement content:  Perhaps a most critical feature that needs to be addressed in the environmental clearance cycle is that the entire process is initiated under bureaucratic control and is highly centralised.  The process of conducting “Public Hearing” is the only visible democratic intervention openly accessible to the public.  Apart from a representation of local elected representatives and leading citizens on the panel, there is no proviso for a project and its impacts to be discussed and debated in local elected bodies. 

2.       Integrating Environmental Management with Local Government Involvement:  The involvement of the public and rationalisation of development projects and priorities has been provided for in the Town and Country Planning Legislations, and more recently in the 73rd and 74th Amendments.  These enactments require a very high degree of involvement within the planning processes by local bodies.  However, the set of environmental legislations presently in force do not recognise this need adequately.  Most decisions are left to the interpretation of regulatory agencies with no specific requirements for integration of the local demands and concerns.  The existing mechanisms within the prevailing environmental clearance cycle are largely exclusive of local government interventions and concerns, despite the requirements for the same as per “enabling planning legislations” (eg. Town and Country Planning Act) and those of local self government ( 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments).  In recognition of the principles laid down in the 11th and 12th Schedule, therefore, it is essential that local governments be an integral part of the environmental clearance cycle.

3.       Devolving Powers:  Considering that the Ministry has to comply with the letter and spirit of the Constitutional 73rd and 74th Amendments, it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of evolving a system of Regional Directorates to devolve powers of clearances and monitoring at more local levels than is presently the case.  Such Directorates should cover a range not as extensive as present Regional Offices, but without increasing administrative burden should work with State Regulatory agencies to evolve strong clearance and monitoring discipline.

Theme 4:  Scientific and Technical Capacity Building of the Ministry of Environment and Forests

 

 

Preamble: 

 

The functioning of any administrative setup is effective only when there is a healthy system of monitoring performance and promoting excellence.  Government administrative setups are constantly attempting to meet such standards.  The Tiwari Committee Report of  1980 envisaged a Technical Department of Environment akin to the US EPA that would consist of technical staff with the capacity to respond to the challenges of environmental pollution, and natural resource management.  The enclosed article from Economic Times (published during 1997) analyses how far the Ministry has achieved these goals.

 

The Ministry's functioning today is in the least governed by the rationale set out by the Tiwari Committee, and functions more along the dynamics between the four major cadres of officers that man it.  These are the Civil Services, Forest Services, Secretarial Services and Scientific Services.  For instance the top decision making rung of the Ministry ranging from the Secretary to the level of Under Secretaries include about 25 officers from Civil Services, 25 officers from Forest Services, 50 officers from the Scientific Services and rest are from Secretarial Services in a total number of 150.  It may appear that the Scientific Services are considerable in number.  However, the reality is somewhat different as the key decision making officers are either from Civil Services or Forest Services.  Scientific opinion is by and large advisory in nature and subservient to the compulsions placed by the Administrators.  For instance the constitution of the National Coastal Zone Management Authority is a good case in point. 

 

 

Performance Review System:

 

In reviewing the functioning of the Ministry, what is effectively in place is the "Confidential Reporting" system, which forms the only basis of monitoring progress and as well granting promotions.  Here again there is problem in building the confidence of the Ministry officials in their technical achievements as their review is essentially effected by bureaucrats who have no significant background or capacity to review the specialised skills and competence.  Thus there is the tendency to underestimate the technical import of the tasks on hand, and present the functioning of the Ministry in administrative terms (say for instance number of clearances granted) than to evaluate the quality of the functioning (that is to analyse whether the existence of the Ministry has helped improve environmental quality in the country).

 

Presently Governments undertakes review of performance based on a five-point scale.  This is essentially based on an archaic process that has been by and large abandoned world-over, including in most progressive government establishments, both in the developing countries and developed nations as well. 

 

The present process of reviewing the Candidate's performance by Reviewing Officer is based on the Reporting Officer's comments, and not on the basis of personal interaction or interview with the Candidate. Further, it is only a file transfer mechanism and there is no joint interaction between the three officers.  Fundamentally it must be noted that the Reporting Officer who is mainly involved with Candidate whose performance is being reviewed has absolutely no role in grading.  This is a crucial gap as s/he is best suited to evaluate the candidate having been interacting with him/her day in and day out.  Thus, to provide no power of grading to this Reporting Officer gives rise to a variety of complex problems.  Some of them are listed below:

 

1.       Lack of Interaction during Review:  The Reviewing Officer who has the power to grade operates in a vacuum, and has to rely either on the Reporting Officer's entry in the CR or his/her own opinion formed based on hearsay.  This would have been alright were the Reviewing Officer closely interacting with the Candidate. However, it is not clear if such interaction is taking place through regular personal meetings.

2.       Lobbying of Better Grading:  In such a setup, there is tendency on part of the candidates to please the Reviewing Officer and thus the Reporting Officer could be sidelined, despite having the best knowledge on candidate's performance.  In cases of candidates who would not resort to such questionable steps of influence, the possibility of their review being attended to fairly will be marginal.  Further, there is a major possibility of unhealthy influences operating on the Reviewing Officer, and given the vacuous situation in which s/he has to grade the candidate, it is very much possible due to this systemic deficiency that the Grading is not necessarily reflective of the reality.

3.       Inter-cadre inconsistencies:  There has also been a convention in the Ministry that Reviewing Officer has normally been from the Civil Services.  There could be the possibility of the Reviewing Officer being biased by inter-cadre disagreements leading to inconsistencies in evaluation and reviews.  Thereby leading to a most unhealthy process that destroys administrative discipline, develops cynicism and brings down the morale of the officers.  A combination of these factors work to inhibit the possibility of high levels of performances from officers.

4.       Technical Competence Review:  There is very poor review of technical competence of Candidates.  Considering that all Secretary level positions have been occupied from the Civil Services (including Indian Administrative Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounting Service, Indian Audit Accounting Service and Indian Revenue Service), the system of reviewing performance of Technical Staff of the MoEF is thus left to Reviewing Officers who have no qualifications for the same.  Apparently, civil service officers enter into the Ministry on the basis of having had a background in science/engineering in their basic education.  Certainly such knowledge basis, that has over years become dated, must not form the basis for reviewing technical skills in the apex body of the Government of India dealing with environment and forest issues.  In a country where industrial operations are increasingly complex, industrial disasters frequent, and natural disasters rampant, high technical skills are an essential prerequisite.  It is only when technical officers are reviewed by technically competent people, even if exterior, that the Ministry will be able to guage whether it has the wherewithal to deal with the complex task of monitoring, regulating and mitigating environmental pollution or avoiding damage altogether.  It may be worthwhile to examine the possibility of establishing clear standards verifying the technical and scientific competence growth areas of the candidate.

5.       Poor Documentation:  The Proforma for documenting performance requires overhaul as it does not provide the scope or capacity for comprehensive evaluation of the candidate.  It is merely a technical fix that is presently in place, and enables quick entries lacking depth of review.  Several of the items forming the basis of the present evaluation proforma are undefined and in some cases irrelevant.

6.       Feedback of Review:  There is no feedback to the candidate providing details of assessment in order to encourage higher levels of performance. Such a process is often a fundamental norm of any evaluation.  To have completely steered clear of this requirement develops an attitude of deference to higher authorities rather than a climate of healthy criticism that is essential in a technical Ministry.  A windows open approach enables the candidate to identify strengths and weaknesses, provides a clearer understanding to the Senior Officer to position the Division's performance more appropriately and works together to build a Ministry that is competent and responsive to the public need. 

 

 

Capacity Building:

 

1.       There is an acute need to develop curricula, varying levels of training and evolve modules for conducting periodic refresher courses with specialised topics to bring the Officers of the Ministry on par with latest scientific understanding of environment and pollution control technology.  Such refresher courses should also involve administrative management aspects and environmental law and policy awareness. 

 

2.       The World Bank loan granted to Environmental Capacity Building project is unfortunately not been utilised to develop such capacities, even when there have separate categories to develop capabilities of Regional Offices and Environmental Law, for instance.

 

 

 

 

Theme 5: Submissions vide MoEF Notification dated 21 June 1999 w.r.t. Siting of Industrial Projects

 

                                                                                                Submitted: 20 August, 1999

 

Process of Review of Industrial Siting Applications, suggested for inclusion:

 

1.       Establishment of new industrial units or expansion of existing units covered under Annexure I and III of the notification, should be based on a comprehensive review by the appropriate District Planning Committee (DPC), constituted per the Constitutional (74th Amendement) Act, within whose jurisdiction the investor proposes to locate the plant.  All information pertaining to the project should be made available for review by the DPC.

 

(Explanation:  Annexure 12 of the Constitution details a list of items that provide local governments with review powers with regard to Urban planning, regulation of land-use, water supply for industries, infrastructure development, protection of environment and promotion of ecological aspects, etc.  The District Planning Committee is proposed with the primary purpose of evolving planned development and integrating local socio-economic developmental objectives in a politically participatory and environmentally sustainable manner.  As major industrial developments do influence local development in a very significant manner, the most appropriate forum of judging the advantages and disadvantages of a particular industrial investment would be the DPC.  Importantly, it would provide impetus for decentralised decision making, that which is advocated by the Panchayat Raj and Nagarpalika Acts.)

 

2.       In formulating its opinion, the DPC shall be assisted by an interdisciplinary panel of experts constituted in consultation with the State Department of Environment.  The range of expertise to be involved in the Expert Panel may follow the pattern of the Site Appraisal Committee illustrated in Sec. 41 A of the Factories Act and also include a Urban and Regional Planner, Social Scientist and Economist.  The opinion formulated by the DPC must be recorded in detail and without any exception whatsoever.  The same shall be achieved prior to the designate Environmental Public Hearing on the project called per the EIA Notification.

 

(Explanation:  As such industrial ventures involve highly complex decisions, a progressive interaction amongst the various tiers of governance is highly desirable.  Considering that the range is too large for the Union Ministry of Environment to be involved directly in each and every siting decision, a process of empowering Local and State Governments in the decision making cycle is desirable.  This would not only lighten the burden of critically evaluating each project at the central level, but would also increase chances for evolving a decision that is locally acceptable.  Considering that such decisions would most necessarily require positive political and local community responses, that which is secure in scientific rationale, the Expert Panel would be an effective instrument of support.  The review by this forum prior to the Environmental Public Hearing will enable a more informed debate in the Public Hearing, and as well enable a more focussed discussion of critical concerns.)

 

3.       The DPC’s opinion on the project siting shall be placed for public comment and review, along with all other detailed information on the project for the purpose of conducting the designate Environmental Public Hearing.  Public comments placed during or prior to the hearing, should be documented without exception.

 

(Explanation:  Enables transparency in decision making, helps develop the quality of the decision, provides scope for conflict resolution at local levels and prepares ground for progressive engagement between the investor, local community, parastatal bodies, and the various tiers of governance.)

 

4.       A Draft Final Report of the DPC pertaining to siting considerations shall be prepared on the basis of the Public Hearing and shall contain clear and qualified opinion with regard to the siting. The Final Report should once more be placed for public review and a Public Hearing called to debate/discuss the opinion produced.  Necessary corrections may be integrated, and further Hearings called if needed.   Based on the evolved consensus, a final decision with regard to the siting may be taken by the requisite authorities.

 

(Explanation:  This would further build confidence and help in completely resolving resident doubts.  It would guarantee transparency in decision making and thus probably limit need for litigation.)

 

5.       All documents pertaining to the project should be available on demand for public review at the offices of the local Panchayat/Nagarpalika.  Only such information that directly compromises proprietary interests may be excluded from public review.

 

(Explanation:  Right to Information will be enabled and accurate documentation will develop public confidence in such review processes.  This would heighten chances for reduced conflicts on locational aspects.)

 


Siting Criteria:

 

6.       Industrial Siting criteria should be in compliance with Part III of the National Building Code of India pertaining to Development Control Rules and such other standards evolved in the Code as may be relevant to the project in question. 

 

(Explanation:  This voluminous text of standards, endorsed by the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, would enable a great many decisions pertaining to industrial locations.  Such symbiotic arrangements would help evolve a sense of planned development, and avoid repetitive legislation.)

 

7.       Industrial Siting must fully comply with local Town and Country Planning laws.

 

(Explanation: For the simple reason that industrial location is primarily a question of land use planning.  Further, it would limit chances for unplanned corridor development, occurrence of unplanned industrial estate development, and improve chances for a coordinated development of industrial townships.)

 

8.       No application for siting of industry included in Annexure I and III of this notification should be considered in ecologically sensitive areas.  Such areas must be defined on the basis of the findings of the Expert Committee appointed by the Ministry vide its office memorandum Dated 6.4.99 for identification of ecologically sensitive areas which has been specifically empowered to detail:
1. Parameters for the identification of ecologically sensitive areas;
2. List ecologically sensitive areas; and,
3. Identify type of activities that may be allowed in such areas.
In view of such review in process, and based on the criteria evolved, State and Local Governments must be directed to prepare a Register of Wetlands of Importance and ecologically sensitive areas, in and around which there should not be any industrial development allowed.  Such preparation may be done with constant engagement of local educational and research institutions and the public at large.

 

(Explanation:  Since it is an ongoing process of the Ministry, it would be best to await the final report of this committee so there is unity of thought between the proposed Annexure II items and those that will be proposed by the aforementioned committee.  Given the extent of this country it would be an impossible task to prepare such a list in short time.  Thus the process has to be ongoing, and can best be achieved if and only if local and state Governments are involved in the exercise.  A Register will help standardise information toward constantly identifying sensitive habitats, and involvement of local expertise will enable broad-basing of this extraordinary exercise.)

 

9.       The Advisory Committees of the Ministry pertaining to Industry, Infrastructure and Thermal Power Plants must annually review Annexures I and III from the point of view of expanding, restructuring and making the lists more comprehensive and reflective of on-ground demands.

 

(Explanation:  This would enable the Ministry to be responsive to the latest evidence available on industrial location risks, enable the evolution of planned development and most importantly, reflect a constantly improving mechanism.)