Blog

This set of Words of mine are for Authorities of India & Other Allied organization like NABET as well as people favouring MoEF & NABET for quality.

After a much awaited return of mine on blog of Paryavaran.com, I would like to put some sequence of words as a chain like "food chain" and "food web" of ecology. Mainly i would like to put some chain of legal aspects of Indian Environmental Authority/provision as well as actions taken by them which will be forming a web of Legal Framework & action for Environmental protection.

As i titled, often a question comes in my mind that "For What the legal bodies and provision in India are formed?" are they for environmental protection? And my experienced mind replies: "No they are not for environment protection & improvement" further it sings a line in a very special jingle "They are Eco Friendly".

What comes in your mind? If I am not wrong you are thinking- "this person speaks double things. On one hand he is saying the actions are not for environment protection and on other hand he is saying eco friendly. What rubbish this Naik is speaking?" Am I right?  Well let me clear this. The actions are eco= economic friendly not ecology. If you have noticed the action are resulting in economic benefits of any one either of Proponent or consultant or person enjoying any legal power or a person /organization having established connection with the legal framework. Further, you might also have noticed that the action have not at all proven effective in path of efforts and scheme for Environmental Protection. In my last blog I wrote lot about NABET and from the day many professional said me to put some other words on Blog of Paryavaran. Some of members have also shared that blog for communication via e-mail. I am heartily thankful to them to spread my thought to many professionals of India. In furtherance to that blog I have decided to put some words again. It may be in this Part of blog or might be in some Episodes, as i don't know what time i will have till i finish this blog. Hope this will have good content and you would like and would prefer to share it with other. With due respect to all readers the Word Chain & Word Web on "Legal Actions of Govt.: are they for environment protection? I think these are ECOFRIEDNLY" are here for all interested readers. I apologies if these words hurts any one's feeling/ethical practices/ego/moral etc..These are the things I noticed in last few Years and thought of in last few months.

"Legal Actions of Govt.: are they for environment protection?

In continuation of this question: are they for quality practice in field of Environment?
Here the very first aspects I would like to quote is the Provision of EIA & NABET for EIA consulting organisation. In the very beginning I would like to state that the SO 1533 is designed or framed with minimal required details or guidelines or provision. As noticed & practiced by many proponents & professional ther are lot of gaps in schedule of project category posing mandatory requirement of EIA. If a Proponent plans their project in systematic manner many Activities posing high impacts can be excluded or exempted from Applicability of EIA. One company having activity included in SO 1533, requires Prior EC for its expansion but if it plans it expansion with activities not covered in SO 1533 schd. I as new Project on adjoining site, Prior EC is not applicable in legal terms. Here I would like to quote a example of recent issue I replied.

One existing Thermal power Plant if plans for water intake infrastructure without treatment unit as new project do not require Prior EC except if asked by the River regulatory authority or Irrigation department etc. In Furtherance of this, if one thinks of the impacts on this project what can be concluded? Is it small project having no impacts? Shall exemption from EC be granted to such project? Everyone will say, No it shall be exempted but SO 1533 says as the project is independent one it do not require EC. Even in some cases due to improper provision expansion for such facilities are permitted without EC. So this is the real outcome of provision for environmental protection.
Another example is Manmade fibres, People are doing expansion or announcing Manmade fibre production unit based on CP. CP falls in Petroleum processing unit but authority is granting EC under Manmade fibre category..Further, many of the units are being operated prior to grant of EC as manmade fibre unit with NOC for same hiding CP.

All this gaps & dual way provision are being enjoyed by numbers of unit. I can show huge numbers of industries enjoying such confusing provision almost in all sectors. Many units have shown their expansion as new project below threshold quantity and running as single unit with existing unit without EC as provision permits such tricky project planning. So this is what a big gap and scope of manipulation in SO 1533 is being enjoyed by many industries. So authority must clear this in schedule of SO 1533. Else the SO 1533 is meaningless in many sectors.
To avoid such escape they shall include a provision that “Any activities of sectors covered in SO 1533 shall be subjected to Prior EC and the application of EC shall be done with consideration of Comprehensive/Cumulative Impacts of the project.”

In addition to these contradicting provisions, the way of assessment of Proposal & EIA by Authority and concerned organisation is again questionable?

Two project at same site, rather in same area (<1 Km), are applying for EC. The EIA study for both of the project is almost same. But when the matter of contents comes in to picture of quality, huge deviations in many details can be noticed. Even after that the Authority is granting EC to both projects without noticing such issue of poor quality of one. So question here is: What the authority assesses? What they require/need for EC- EIA or Proper citation of Impacts with necessary Mitigations in EIA report? I think they like only EIA to fulfil their requirement of duty assigned by legislation. They are least concern with the details given in EIA reports. They asks big set of questions but not the actual quality of details written therein. They never check what shall be the true data/details. Even if one will noticed, authority is issuing guideline for QA/QC for monitoring of Water, Emission estimation etc. but their reports even not meeting the criteria published by them. So what such authority can do while assessing content of EIA. If one will check content of EIA regarding Emission for diesel consuming utilities, big issue can be cited in emission. Almost 90% of EIA will fail to prove the correctness of emission from diesel consuming utility. I have noticed this and marked that the emission levels quoted for the diesel is almost 20% in 90% cases. Even after this big issue Authority having so called experts have granted EC to the project submitted EIA with such emission data. Further, in many cases of project in same area, authority is not asking for many thing like clearance from other authority. One project with 100% faulty details gets EC whereas other project with 90% true details will not get EC. I don’t know about such decision of authority. There might be some legal provisions framed by them for their own use.

Now the issue of recent great action of authority-NABET. Authority have posed mandatory requirement of accreditation of NABET for all EIA consultants. This is good if it is being implemented properly with utmost and strict consideration of quality being provided by consultant in EIA. But as it is being operated, the implementation is not at all proper as two experts assesses one’s firm for all sector and coordinators. In many cases a person having >20 Yrs experience and having great knowledge of operations and environmental aspects are rejected based on some fullish question which are not relevant for assessment of coordinator of particular sector. Authority, especially, the top board of NABET accreditation shall prepare a set of question for all sectors and functional area for assessment. Instead they are showing that two person coming for site assessment & appraisal of experts proposed are having knowledge in all sectors and functional area. Is it possible? If so, I would like to say that the NABET team is worlds best team in assessment of environmental quality/firms/expert. But I would like to reflect the truth that the team is the poorest one in world and not at all efficient for such appraisal. The experts coming for site & experts assessment never checks quality in its original form. They never check one’s key knowledge. They never see the actual practice. Here also I would like to quote one example. As mentioned earlier, a project with 1oo% wrong details in EIA have received EC where as almost 80% similar project had faced lot of problems. The shocking matter in this issue is – The consultant who prepared the EIA with 100% faulty details is approved by NABET with huge numbers of Sectors and even those as Category A. By reviewing the EIAs (two-three) as well as a formal but informative discussion with the experts of the firms, I have noticed that the firm has been approved- accredited because it has got very attractive interior of office & labs, it has got numbers of instruments & equipments just to show, it has got numbers of personnel having knowledge of school level or graduate level but possesses PG degree, it has got great connections in govt. offices which created big list of work order showing that the organisation is best etc etc….truely speaking the firm is not at all acceptable for many sectors under scheme of NABET. But the experts of NABET said that the organisation is excellent and that’s why it has got accreditation in Many sectors with Cat-A. On other hand one organisation whoe really did great work in EIA having quality up to 60% (in primary data, impacts assessment, citation of all critical information in EIA, Risk assessment etc.) is rejected even for cat-B.

Besides, recently a solution is shown by the authority that empanel experts from other firms who are approved by NABET to get assured accreditation. No matter where the expert is residing and how much time it will give to your project. For this I would like to say, is it good practice /criteria of accreditation under NABET? How a person in Delhi can contribute in EIA work of a firm based in Mumbai or Ahmadabad or so? Will he travel daily to here n there for EIA works? Will he work for quality? This is worst solution suggested by authority for NABET accreditation. In earlier blog I supported the scheme but after noticing these wrong practices and poor actions, I seriously opposes the scheme. Further, as I mentioned in earlier the scheme and now the process of EC practiced by authority is challengeable legally. Still I wish to wait for some months for such actions. I am preparing rather have prepared with lot of material and action plan against the scheme & authority. If I feel that the scheme and the authority is not going in to the direction for what it is formulated/established, I will surely go for such actions as it is the matter of my ethical practices and the duty of my techno-legal team.

Now at the stage of conclusion of this chain of words, what do feel about the title? Have you noticed the word web making the title appropriate? Don’t you feel the actions together are ECO-FRIENDLY? Do you like to favour these authorities? What shall we do? Shall we go with malfunction to play with legal provision like other & authorities? Shall we keep quiet and walk to see what next by walking along with these people & authorities?

As these questions to yourself, check the correctness of my opinion by studying the cases being granted by authority, check similarly the competence of firms being accredited by NABET and be prepared to save yourself and our environment as well as economy. Soon up on receipt of suggestion & opinion of the readers I will put the next episode in the regards of afore mentioned details.

If you like to reply or suggest please refer my e-mail ID: hnecoerecter@gmail.com.

Thanks for now and with hope to be back again shortly on the blog: Dr. Hemalkumar Naik.