Press Release 3 Sept 2004

Environment Support Group ®
S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-26534364/26531339/26341977 Fax: 91-80-51179912
Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Web: www.esgindia.org

NATIONAL JOINT STATEMENT EXPRESSING CONCERN OVER INEFFECTIVE ADDRESSAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS BY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)

A network environmental and social justice organisations, and independent consultants and researchers from across India, have joined together in expressing their deepest concern over the failure of the Ministry of Environment and Forests in fulfilling its obligations of protecting the environment and human rights of affected communities.

This action has been taken in the form of a joint letter sent to the Ministry, wherein the following adverse impacts have been highlighted:

1. Severe reduction in opportunities available to citizens to input into MoEF (and GOI) decisions, and in the seriousness with which MoEF considers such inputs;
2. Decline in the ability and willingness of MoEF to ensure that ‘development’ processes and projects (e.g. in hydro-power and infrastructure) are oriented towards integrating environmental and social concerns.
3. Declining emphasis on improving regulation and regulatory mechanisms, and instead pushing for ‘voluntary’ and ‘market based’ instruments.

Per Constiutional Objectives, protection of environment is not merely the task of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, but they have played a significantly weak role resulting in the remaining Ministries and other Governmental agencies providing least importance to environmental and human rights concerns. Consequently, it has resulted in little or no regard from the industrial and corporate sectors to uphold the values and principles latent in our environmental laws and regulations, and further, their practices have resulted in a further deterioration of the environmental conditions in this vast and diverse country.

Following this release, the network will actively exert pressure on the new Government at the Centre to re-focus its objectives, particularly the Common Minimum Programme, so that integrating environmental and social justice concerns in decision making gets the primacy it rightfully deserves.

As people’s groups, NGOs, and mass movements, we are deeply concerned and anguished at the way governments over the last few years have severely undermined the importance of environmental issues in decision-making. In particular, the role of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) seems increasingly to be that of simply a clearing agency for unsustainable and destructive economic and commercial activities. To make matters worse, the MoEF appears to be systematically undermining the participation of citizens in its decision-making process, and has become more and more closed in its functioning. Lack of transparency not only reduces public participation, it is also a way to avoid serious scientific scrutiny. These trends seem to have become worse in the last few years, such that the lay person is left wondering: is the mandate of the MoEF to help industries and ‘developers’ by-pass or get over environmental regulations, rather than safeguard the country’s environment?

Several actions of the MoEF (and of GOI in general) point to the following broad trends:

Examples of the above (which have been clearly pointed out to the government) include:

1. The notification of the Biological Diversity Rules 2004: These Rules notified under the Biological Diversity Act 2002, are scientifically unsound, considerably undermine the role of local communities in safeguarding biodiversity and traditional knowledge, and have completely ignored the very many sound inputs provided by NGOs and activists when the draft Rules were first put out by MoEF. These Rules actually dilute the spirit and letter of the Act, which in any case was not fully adequate in its provisions regarding conservation, sustainable use, and equity.
2. The dilution of notifications under the Environment Protection Act: Over the last few years MoEF has considerably reduced the scope and weakened the provisions of various notifications and rules under the Environment Protection Act 1986. The promulgation of this comprehensive Act had in 1986 indicated that the government was committed to environmental conservation, and towards making development projects sustainable. However, a series of dilutions (about 30 in all!) have considerably weakened various notifications under the Act. The dilutions include: (in the case of the Environment Impact Assessment notification) public hearings being dropped for projects such as the widening of highways and mining leases for major minerals under 25 ha.; (in the case of Coastal Regulation Zone notification) allowing Special Economic Zones, effluent treatment plants, industrial salt pans, and the mining of atomic minerals in coastal areas. These dilutions have significant impacts. For instance, in the case of the mining projects, Indian Bureau of Mines data shows that almost 50% of the mining leases for major minerals are below 25 ha (and they add up to tremendous environmental and social destruction).
Simultaneous to these dilutions, regulatory norms are being eased for developmental projects and industries. A MoEF press release in June this year on “good practices” to be adopted to facilitate ‘expeditious decision making’ stated that no application (for clearance) will be rejected on procedural grounds alone. This could mean that applicants could get clearance even when they provide incomplete and inadequate information.
3. The clearance of ‘development’ projects without adequate assessment: There are many shocking instances where MoEF has given clearance to dams, mining, roads, ports, industries, and other projects, without an adequate environmental impact assessment or without ensuring that environmental safeguards are built into the project. This is not surprising because increasingly members of various environmental clearance expert committees of MoEF, have little or no independent environmental record or credibility. NGOs and community groups have frequently pointed out such faulty decision-making, and have provided strong evidence of the dangers posed by such projects, but have been consistently ignored. Examples of this abound: Lower Subansiri hydro power project (Arunachal Pradesh), Allain Duhangan H-E project (Himachal), Teesta Low Dam (W. Bengal), Bodh Ghat project (Chhattisgarh), Raoghat Bauxite project (Chhattisgarh), and many others. Some of these projects even threaten many areas that governments have themselves declared protected for wildlife.
4. Reluctance to insist that environmental conditionalities are followed by project proponents: A large number of development projects cleared by MoEF do not fulfil the conditions under which they were cleared, yet MoEF has taken action on hardly any of them.
5. Waste of capacity building funds: A huge loan of Rs. 160 crores was received by MoEF from the World Bank during 1996, for “Environmental Management Capacity Building Programme”. This was to support: a) A comprehensive review of the Environmental Clearance Mechanism ; b) Preparation of Manuals for Environment Impact Assessment ; c) Development of an Environmental Information Centre and d) Environmental Law Capacity Building both for the Ministry and for other agencies. Yet this process has been developed with meager consultation, and despite the debt incurred, the results do not seem to have resulted in any significant improvement in the functioning of the MoEF.
6. The framing of a National Environment Policy without public participation: Having heard that MoEF is drafting a National Environment Policy, some of us have repeatedly asked for details on how this is happening and how citizens can make inputs. A draft was put up on the MoEF website on 21st August, for comments. There has been no other process of reaching out to the citizens of India for inputs to the Policy, in particular to local communities who do not access websites or read English. Moreoever, what is the guarantee that this Policy will not be pushed through like the Biodiversity Rules 2004, completely ignoring public inputs?
7. The delaying of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP): Despite itself facilitating a uniquely consultative process over four years, to prepare the NBSAP, MoEF is now delaying its final approval, publication, and release. The reasons being given are that even as a final technical report, the draft needs to go through Cabinet approval, and that it needs to wait for the National Environment Policy to be finalised (though the process of framing this Policy began over three years after NBSAP did). We understand the need for the final NBSAP to get political (cabinet) approval, but there is no justification for delaying the printing and public release of the final technical report. MoEF is neither respecting the effort and time put into this process by tens of thousands of people, nor its contractual obligation to the Global Environment Facility and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) who funded the process.
8. Collusion with the building lobby: Rather than help conserve natural ecosystems against unchecked urban growth, MoEF has often tried to make the way easier for the building lobby. For example, instead of supporting people's groups to protect some of the last remaining forest areas in the highly polluted city of Delhi, including parts of the Delhi ridge, MoEF has favoured the lobby that wants to promote the construction of five star hotels and shopping malls in this area. This is disregarding the fact that these are critical water catchments and their destruction would result in the
further lowering of an already very low water table in Delhi.
9. Ignoring Supreme Court orders on A&N Islands: In violation of Supreme Court orders, the MoEF has refused to close down the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation that has been destroying the forests and the habitat of the tribals in the islands. Orders to control mining of sand from the beaches of the islands and deal with inappropriate tourism too have not been satisfactorily complied with. In fact, the MoEF even tried to initiate an exercise to study 'some of the environmental issues related to forestry and wildlife in the islands', which appeared more an attempt to solicit "expert" opinion that could be used to circumvent the concerned orders.
10. Lack of public discussion and transparency on genetic engineering: Another example of the increasing opaqueness of functioning in the government is the lack of public participation in decisions regarding genetic engineering. This risky technology is being pushed through with no long-term safety tests, and almost no independent scientific or public inputs.

These are only a few of the many examples where MoEF in particular and the GOI in general, have undermined environmental issues and ignored public inputs. In almost all such cases NGOs and affected people have protested, pointed to violations and destructive implications, and often even offered alternatives, yet all this has been systematically ignored. Indeed, resistance to the trends by sensitive government officials themselves has been largely sidelined. Worse, there is no accessible platform on which MoEF (and GOI in general) can be made accountable to the public. It is not surprising therefore that citizens have had to take recourse to the courts to obtain justice.

These trends have occurred within the context of both the previous government and the current one, providing almost no serious consideration to the environment. The previous government systematically undid many of the gains of growing ecological awareness and standards of the earlier decades. The current government in its Common Minimum Programme has almost nothing on the environment. Nor has there been acknowledgement of the fact that tens of millions of people in India continue to depend directly on natural resources for their survival, livelihood, health, and future development with dignity. Indeed many of the decisions taken by MoEF have further reduced the access and rights of communities to livelihood resources and supported ‘development’ projects that impinge on community lands and resources.

We do believe, however, that the new government has the opportunity to reverse this trend. It needs to take at least the following steps:

1. Providing a legally mandated and explicit role for citizens (especially local communities) in the decision-making process within MoEF (and GOI in general). This can be done by including independent and credible representatives of communities and civil society in the various expert committees; ensuring that citizens’ inputs in draft notifications and legislation are considered through a transparent process; strengthening the public hearing process for ‘development’ projects; constituting an independent monitoring and evaluation agency to assess compliance of environmental conditions and regulations; and other such measures.
2. Considerably strengthen the mandate and functioning of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, e.g. by increasing the number of technical experts and officials who are known for their commitment to the environment.
3. Centrally integrate environmental considerations across the entire decision-making process, right from the planning and design stage of economic sectors and projects and not only at the final stage of clearance. This includes, the strengthening of the EIA, clearance, and monitoring procedures.
4. Reviewing the Common Minimum Programme and its implementation from the environmental perspective, including through a serious consideration of environmental issues in forums such as the National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC is a step towards more public participation in decision-making, but needs a greater integration of environmental concerns in its deliberations.

We urge the government to draw up a concrete action plan on how to take the above and other steps, to significantly improve the manner in which decisions are taken on environmental issues. This should include the setting up of an independent monitoring and evaluation body, comprised of community and civil society representatives, that can ensure environmental sensitivity in decision-making. While drawing up such an action plan, there should be active and meaningful participation of community organisations, people’s movements, NGOs, and other civil society organisations.

Ashish Kothari Ravi Agarwal Shekhar Singh
Kalpavriksh Toxics Link Centre for Equity Studies

Leo F. Saldanha
Environment Support Group ®
S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R. K. Gardens,
Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560041. INDIA
Telefax: 91-80-26534364/26531339/26341977 Fax: 91-80-51179912
Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Web: www.esgindia.org

1. Samir Acharya, Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology, Port Blair, A&N Islands
2. Ravi Agarwal, Toxics Link, Delhi
3. Sunderlal Bahuguna, Save Himalaya Movement, Tehri
4. Gautam Bandopadhyay, People’s Allaince for Livelihood Rights, Raipur, Chhatisgarh
5. Jayanta Bandopadhyay, Environmental Expert, Kolkata
6. Amitabh Behar, National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune
7. Erach Bharucha, Bharatiya Vidyapeeth Institute of Environment Education and Research, Pune
8. Seema Bhatt, Biodiversity Consultant, Delhi
9. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Supreme Court, Delhi
10. Sripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh
11. Debi Goenka, Bombay Environment Action Group, Mumbai
12. Colin Gonsalves, Socio-Legal Information Centre, Delhi
13. Pandurang Hegde, Appiko/Prakruti, Sirsi, Karnataka
14. Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Delhi
15. Asmita Kabra, Samrakshan Trust, Delhi/Madhya Pradesh
16. Smitu Kothari, Lokayan, Delhi
17. Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, Pune/Delhi
18. Ashok Kumar, Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi
19. Souparna Lahiri, Delhi Forum, Delhi
20. Harsh Mander, Delhi
21. Thomas Mathew , South Asian Conservation Foundation
22. Kisan Mehta, Save Bombay Committee, Mumbai
23. Fr. Victor Moses, St. Xavier’s Social Service Society, Ahmedabad
~~24. Somnath Nayak, Nagarika Seva Trust, Gurvayankere, Karnataka~~
25. Satheesh P.V., Deccan Development Society, Pastapur, Andhra Pradesh
26. Rekha Panigrahi, Vasundhara, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
27. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Narmada Valley
28. Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune
29. M.K. Prasad, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat, Cochi, Kerala
30. Asad Rahmani, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai
31. Sreedhar Ramamurthy, mines, minerals and People/ Academy of Mountain Environics, Dehradun, Uttaranchal
32. Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign, Delhi
33. Bittu Sahgal, Sanctuary Magazine, Mumbai
34. Salam Rajesh, Manipur Nature Society, Imphal, Manipur
35. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, Bangalore, Karnataka
36. Priya Salvi, Prakruti, Mumbai
37. John Samuel, National Social Watch Coalition, Pune
38. Madhu Sarin, Independent consultant, Chandigarh
39. Jai Sen, Independent Researcher, New Delhi
40. Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, Delhi
41. Gam Shimray, All India Coordinating Forum of Adivasi/Indigenous Peoples, Delhi
42. Samar Singh, Samarpan Foundation, Delhi
43. Shekhar Singh, Centre for Equity Studies, Delhi
44. Indu Prakash Singh, Activist/Researcher, Delhi
45. Neera Singh, Independent Researcher, Bhubaneshwar
46. Aarthi Sridhar, Independent Researcher, Bangalore, Karnataka
47. Bibhab Talukdar, Environmental Activist, Guwahati, Assam
48. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network of Dams, River and People, Delhi
49. David Thangliana, Editor, Newslink English Daily, Aizawl, Mizoram
50. Malavika Vartak, Housing and Land Rights Network, Delhi
51. A.C. Zonunmawia, Centre for Environment Protection, Aizwal, Mizoram