Is EIA study in our country is going in a right direction. we see proponents appoint EIA consultants to study the impacts arising out from their project and consultants job is to provide an EIA report which gives Environmental clearance to the project rather than studying the exact and appropriate impacts arising out from the project.
Is this the fault of project proponent or of the Consultant or of our administrative procedures....................?
Raghava
Comments
We need a total rewamp of environmental science administration and it needs and legal and institutional reforms, not opening new institutes, appointing more beaurocrats or business people on science portpolios.
EIA is an excellent and respectable, well recognised tools for selection of site from alternatives, choice of technologies and best possible prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts on environment and development.
However, in India the EIA has earned a disastrous scene and a bad name, that even EIA is considered as some fraud or shameful act or document. Public, government, NGOs almost everywhere EIA and people involved in EIA business are seen as corrupt, deceiver, defaulters and un-ethical ones.
This needs to be brought in to the light. These people themselves, people, government all must be brought to this knowledge about what people think about them or their EIAs and why?
Be the Change you want to see...
Creating an independent agency is an alternative is a good idea. However, even that agency may be influenced, even if it is under a judicial set up. Some suggestions are:
1. Define the qualifications and competence of EAC members as defined for consultants. Do not make it a promotional post for seasoned officers.
2. Make the whole process transparent. Publicize intention to start a project, on the website of EIA Authority, each and every piece of information including finer details of monitoring must be known to the authority as and when it occurs.
3. The EIA Authority should spell out the guidelines for every operation associated with EIA.
4. The environmental data generated by government agencies or funded by public money should be made available freely for EIA related work. After all, the projects and EIA are meant to improve the lot of the public. This will provide reliable data on a variety of themes.
5. More important: All people involved should be educated on professional ethics. Any dubious activity related to monitoring, reporting and scrutiny must be declared as an environmental crime.
My suggestions may be a bit provocative by our common standards.
But can we take this suggestion / any other suggestion from intellectuals like you to QCI and Ministry so that our EIA system become more powerful than any rich enterpreneur. Can we bring a change in our system. i feel that if we unite together then we can bring a change in the entire process of EIA so that no faulty (may be inappropriate term ....for various reasons) comes out from any intelligent and intellectual people/ consultancies.
The government should obviously continue to have the eventual accountability for environmental clearances.
I think for the project proponent Environmental Clearance may be mere a procedure to get permission for the initiation of their project and not the way to protect the environment. They emphasize more to the social aspect of EIA i.e Resettlement & rehabilitation of the villagers to be affected as they may later on do protest against the proponents. But what about the environment?
Although many management plans having huge budgets are proposed by the consultants but sometimes I wonder whether such plans are materialize in reality?
Generally, consultants perform their duty to prepare EIA reports having both negative and positive effects along with the mitigation measures. But I think it is the duty of proponent to actually accept to what extent the environment will degrade and implement its management strategies.
E I A study has become a mere formality for all stake holders.Idustries want a certififate so that they can go ahead with their agenda. The commite s are overloaded with reports they can hardly study somehow mange through and clear or reject a project.MOEF orPCBs are overloaded and find little time to monitor post implementation stage
Consultants are worst affected as they have to produce something suitable to corporates cheaply and passable by committe.In this muddy situation how one can expect a comrehensive EIA report.
The result is clearance and rejection of Vedant'sNiyamgiri project,POSCO' clearance and subcequent condemation by expert committe and difference between chairman and other members
Dr B N Das
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next