Respected Sir,

We applaud your signal role in addressing the serious crisis India’s wildlife is in by appointing a Tiger Task Force immediately responding to revelations of the shocking decline in tiger population. In many ways, this significant initiative is indicative of the worsening state of affairs in the environmental governance scenario of India. We sincerely believe that if the massive institutional infrastructure and technical bureaucracy that has been built over the decades under the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests had in fact delivered, we would have been a proud and greener nation today. A healthy and growing population of tigers would have demonstrated that our forests are well, and the country as a whole has worked to ensure balance between nature’s ways and human development.

Unfortunately, India is amongst the leading nations that have significantly compromised the natural resource base with industrial, infrastructure and urban developments. A most troubling feature of this disastrous process is that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, specifically entrusted to protect our environment for posterity, has become an agency to aggressively promote highly destructive developments. Poor and forest dependent communities are worst hit, as the stability of our forests and rivers are at stake.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has a critical role in repeatedly flagging environmental and social justice concerns when other rungs of government overstep in their zeal to deliver on developmental objectives. It has to ensure that there is no fundamental compromise of the long term ecological security of the country, an irreversible process with disastrous economic, political and demographic consequences. The importance of this task cannot be overstated and this demands constant and rigorous monitoring, honest reporting and critical reasoning to take decisions that may appear momentarily unpopular, but in the long run safeguard the country’s interests.

Sadly, MoEF has degraded itself into a project clearing house, from an environment protection and regulatory agency, which it was supposed to be. Political expediency is often the basis of its decisions, not sound science, human rights, good governance and precautionary principles.

A disastrous trend of clearing projects without understanding impacts:

An outstanding representation of such expedient behaviour is the highly questionable clearance accorded recently to the controversial Sethusamudram project in gross violation of environmental laws, even as your office was reviewing the project raising crucial and pertinent queries and seeking clarifications from MoEF and the project development agencies, particularly in the post-Tsunami context as significant changes have occurred in the seabed. It is widely acknowledged that this project can severely compromise the geological structure and ecology along the southern axis of the East Coast of India and threatens the livelihood of over 4 lakh people dependent on fisheries in India and Sri Lanka. Fishing communities have been completely marginalised in the decision making process and yet the project is due to be inaugurated very soon.

Another recent and compelling revelation of the extent of complicity of the Ministry in violation of environmental laws was illustrated during the ongoing litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 460 of 2004, Goa Foundation vs UOI. When demanded by the Hon’ble Court, the Ministry was strained to reveal, in the first instance, that about 500 large industrial and mining units were operating without statutory clearances across the country. This lack of compliance is causing irreparable damage to the environment and human health across the country. That MoEF produced the list without much delay shockingly reveals that it was always aware of the gross scale of violations, knew who the violators were and yet, was, unwilling to initiate action as per law. Even after producing this list to the Hon’ble Court, the Ministry hesitated on proceeding against the violators, and did so only when explicitly directed by the Hon’ble Court.

The list of violators presented in this case is but a small fraction of all violators spread across the country. Much as the Ministry is equipped to deal with this situation, it is the lack of willingness and clear leadership that is blocking this possibility. Such lax approach is contributing to serious pollution of our rivers and the seas and aiding the destruction of forests, biodiversity and traditional wisdom of this country. As a consequence it is systematically diminishing people’s access to a reasonable quality of life and environment.

Ministry undeterred despite repeated Open Letters calling its attention to environmental degradation and institutional complicity:

We have repeatedly engaged with the Ministry at different levels and in many different ways to ensure improvement of environmental decision making in India. Over the past year alone concerted and collective efforts resulted in a series of four Open Letters addressing such issues of critical concern as wildlife conservation, the draft National Environmental Policy, problematic environmental clearance mechanisms and skewed representation of experts on clearance panels. Over hundred experts and environmental and social justice groups endorsed these letters to the Secretary, MoEF. Despite these exhaustive efforts, there was no response from the Ministry. Instead the Ministry continued to pursue its present persuasion.

An excellent example of how little the present leadership cares to consider informed opinion is the manner in which the Draft National Environmental Policy (NEP) was evolved. The announcement seeking comments on such a critical document that lays the foundation for the future of India’s ecological security, was made in a mere one line mention on the Ministry’s website on the eve of Independence Day last year. Our collective succeeded in drawing widespread attention to this draft policy and generate a variety of responses. But the Ministry chose to incorporate mainly those comments borne out of its “official consultations”. These meetings were mostly held behind closed doors and had very poor participation. Attempts to open up and deepen the process of debate were stiffly resisted. This included resorting to evicting representatives of grassroots organisations who demanded their involvement in the “official” consultations held during November 2004.

Proposal to Reengineer Environmental Clearance: A real threat to our environment

As the draft NEP was debated, the Ministry discretely issued a very poorly drafted note entitled: “Reengineering of the Environmental Clearance Mechanism”. This document is the basis of a comprehensive reform of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 1994, a key statute that governs a major function of the Ministry: that of monitoring environmental impacts of development and regulating clearance conditions. This proposal promotes the serious dilution of significant provisions that support accessing information and ensuring participation of the public and affected population, and thereby grossly undermines the possibility of informed decision making.

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 process of “reengineering” has the explicit objective of mainly promoting speedy clearance mechanisms to assist investors. When the objective must have been to use the deep and varied experiences over the past decade to strengthen public involvement and review of environmental decisions, it is instead intent on seriously watering down the existing provisions, which are already weak.

We highlight some components of this proposal to indicate the seriousness of the matter: top

1. The proposed changes are oriented to provide final environmental clearances to projects in less than a year from application. This makes a mockery of the very objective of environmental impact assessment, as the scientific procedures involved demand generally at least a year to study potential impacts across all seasons. Unless this data is available, there is little likelihood of making an accurate assessment of the nature of the impact, its adverse fallout in the short and long term and identifying key features of a reliable environmental management plan.
2. A shocking aspect of this proposal is that the Ministry proposes to entrust to investors the role of sharing project information and organising Statutory Environmental Public Hearings. This provides the investor an opportunity to politicise and polarise the investment decision in its favour, as it requires that the “project proponent will submit the summary of the draft EIA…..and invite comments/suggestions/objections over a period of 30 days.” This in clear breach of administrative norms and grossly violating constitutional mandates for forming decisions based on independent review by regulatory agencies.
3. Another glaring instance of the Ministry handing over key governance roles to the investor, thereby dismissing the due role of constitutionally empowered agencies in decision making, is evident in the following component of the proposal: “Upon completion of 30 days time inviting comments, etc., the project proponent will initiate action for conducting the P (ublic) H (earing). Project Proponent will have to ensure that the PH will be chaired by the concerned Panchayat President, DM, Local MLA, MP, an Expert from a notified panel, high level official of the concerned SPCB or any prominent recognised citizen from the local area.” This is nothing short of guaranteeing investor induced pressures will influence the decision, including even, as is widely experienced already, of intimidating affected communities from participating freely, especially when they are critical of the investment. MoEF by the Environment Protection Act is bound to conduct review functions independent of any influence and engage elected or constitutionally empowered bodies such as Panchayats or District Planning Committees in its review mechanisms. Instead, the present proposal wholly entrusts this task to the investor, who in all likelihood will ensure that the result will favour the investment, thus potentially creating a widespread situation of undermining environmental and human rights concerns.

There are many other such instances which are detailed in the annexure 2, while annexure 1 presents our vision of what reforms ought to have been. The above references to the proposed “reengineering of environmental clearance mechanisms” have been made mainly to highlight how, if implemented, the reforms would severely erode a core tenet of democratic governance: that of independent, transparent and technical review. It supports a paradigm of development that will result in an extremely skewed distribution of benefits and costs, concentrate further adverse impacts on the disadvantaged communities and increase the pace of despoliation of nature and livelihood support systems. It is clear that MoEF is parcelling out decision making roles to investors that which should remain in the exclusive preserve of government and regulatory agencies.

We have reason to believe that this proposal is now in the final stages of notification. We have repeatedly addressed the Ministry that this is a proposal that is deeply flawed and unconstitutional, but have not received any response. Deeply troubled by this silence, and fearing this implies the Ministry is pushing forth these most controversial reforms in clear contradiction of the UPA manifesto, we approach you with the request to intervene and stay this proposal till there is adequate and widespread debate and consensus.

By way of this letter we appeal for your immediate intervention so the environmentally and socially regressive processes engaged in by the Ministry of Environment and Forests are stopped. We hope you will respond to our concerns with due dispatch, and thank you for your indulgence in our collective concerns.

Yours truly,

(Environmental Clearance Watch Campaign)
c/o Environmental Justice Initiative
65, Masjid Road
Jungpura, New Delhi-110014
Ph: +91 11 24319856, 24319855

On Behalf Of

1. Latha A, Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi, Thrissur
2. A. Giridhar, Babu, Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh
3. Keya Acharya, Jourmalist, Bangalore
4. Ramesh Agarwal, Lok Shakti Samiti, Raigarh, Chhatisgarh
5. Bamang Anthony/Keipa Raja Arunachal Citizens' Right, Arunachal Pradesh
6. Sukhendu Deb Barma/Francis Hrangkhawl Indigenous Tribal Peoples' Development Centre, Tripura
7. Jayshri, C, Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity, Andhra Pradesh
8. Udayashankar C., Hyderabad.
9. Keshab Krishna Chhatradhara/Monoj Gogoi/Binay Kumar Tamuli Peoples' Movement for Subansiri Valley, Assam
10. Sasanka Dev, DISHA, Kolkatta
11. Johan Doley/Pramananda Chengia Takam Mishing Poro Kebang (TMPK), Assam
12. Madhumita Dutta, Corporate Accountability Desk, The Other Media, New Delhi
13. Dino Dympep Meghalaya People's Human Rights Council, Meghalaya
14. Ashish Fernandes, Ecologist Asia, Mumbai
15. Sanjay Kishore Gogoi Bhumiputra Bhumi Adhikaar Suraksha Samiti, Assam
16. Kalpana Hazarika Subansiri Sangrakshak Naari Sontha, Assam
17. Pandurang Hegde, Appiko Movement, Sirsi, Karnataka
18. Nityanand Jayaraman, Independent Researcher and journalist, Chennai
19. Bharath Jairaj, Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG), Chennai
20. Ratan Lal Kaka, Matheran Bachao Samiti
21. Reli Kena Dolok Bango Indigenous Peoples Forum, Arunachal Pradesh
22. Ashish Kothari/Kanchi Kohli/Manju Menon, Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi
23. Gopal Krishna, Toxics Link, New Delhi
24. Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Secunderabad
25. Bhawani Shankar Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti, Amber, Jaipur
26. Souparana Lahiri, Delhi Forum, New Delhi
27. Roy Laifungbam//Rita Boro/Anna Pinto Centre for Organisation Research and Education (CORE), Manipur
28. Umakanta Leitanthem Threatened Indigenous Peoples' Society, Manipur
29. Domin Loya/Dr Tado Karlo NEFA Indigenous Human Rights Organisation, Arunachal Pradesh
30. Harsh Mander, Centre for Equity Studies, New Delhi
31. Samir Mehta, Bombay Environmental Action Group, Mumbai
32. Biswajit Mohanty, Wildlife Society of Orissa, Orissa
33. Praveen Mote, Samatha, Hyderabad
34. Zohra Mutabanna, Volunteer, Boston
35. Arun P.R, Environment Justice Initiative, Mumbai
36. Ananth Padmanabhan, Greenpeace, Bangalore
37. Kinderson Pamei/Arup Saikia/Zakir Kibria/Tashi Tsering Brahmaputra Barak Rivers Watch, Assam
38. Mahesh Pandya, Centre for Social Justice/Paryavaranmitra, Ahmedabad
39. Raj Panjwani, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
40. Rup J Pater Echo of Arunachal, Arunachal Pradesh
41. Rohit Prajapati, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Gujarat
42. Salam Rajesh, Manipur Nature Society, Imphal
43. Capt J Rama Rao, Movement for Sustainable Development , Hyderabad
44. Leo Saldanha/Bhargavi S.Rao, Environment Support Group, Bangalore
45. Bittu Sahgal, Sanctuary Magazine, Mumbai
46. Madhu Sarin, Independent consultant, Chandigarh
47. Satheesh P.V., South Asia Network on Food Ecology and Culture (SANFEC) - India
48. Aarthi Sridhar, Independent Researcher, Bangalore
49. Indu Prakash Singh, National Forum for Housing Rights, New Delhi
50. Arpan Sharma, Samrakshan Trust, New Delhi/Madhya Pradesh/Meghalaya
51. T. Mohan, Advocate Chennai
52. Likha Taji All Nyishi Students' Union, Arunachal Pradesh
53. S.S. Talwar, Emeritus Scientist, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai
54. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP), New Delhi
55. Vimal, Matu Peoples’ Organisation, Delhi
56. Ramananda Wangkheirakpam, Intercultural Resources, Delhi
57. Jiten Yumnam, Indigenous Perspectives, Imphal, Manipur
58. A.C.Zonunmawia, Centre for Environment Protection (CEP), Aizwal
59. Balachandran Ramachandran, USA
60. Co-ordinator, South Against Genetic Engineering, Hyderabad
61. Co-ordinator, Andhra Pradesh Co-alition on Food Sovereignty
62. Sudarshan Rodrigues, Independent Researcher, Chennai
63. Lalit Surjan, Editor,
Daily Deshbandhu, Raipur

CC: Shri A. Raja, Minister, Ministry of Environment and Forests
Shri Namo Narain Meena, Minister of State, Ministry of Environment and
Forests
Shri Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests
Secretaries, State Department of Environment
Chairpersons, State Pollution Control Board

Encl.:

1. Vision Document
2. Critique of the Proposed Reforms by the MoEF, and the Note on Proposed Reforms circulated by MoEF.

top