Environment Gets The Axe

[Abhishek Jamalabad]

Sharing an article from DNA about the recent amendments to environmental laws-


Environment Gets The Axe
Friday, 2 January 2015 - 7:30am IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: dna
Darryl D'monte

The first thing that strikes one about the report of the high-powered committee to review six top environmental laws, headed by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, is the sheer audacity of preparing it in just three months. It hardly does justice to the complexity of national and state-level legislation to do this in such indecent haste.


As may be expected, there was hardly any public consultation. Environmentalists could only submit up 130 words on each of the six major laws that were being reviewed. In Bangalore, the committee walked out of a public hearing midway. This negates the arduous work that has gone into drafting these laws and the people’s struggles that have led to such enactments. Green laws are not, as is often thought, a whim on the part of some autocratic leader – Indira Gandhi’s promulgation of the Coastal Regulation Zone legislation being a frequently cited example – but a much-delayed response to flagrant violations on the ground.

Contrary to public perception, the UPA government was by no means the custodian of the nation’s environment. The feisty environment minister Jairam Ramesh was replaced by a more pliant Jayanthi Natarajan who, in turn, made way for Veerappa Moily who cleared virtually anything that came his way. Between 2007 and 2014, power plants with a capacity of 250,000MW were cleared, twice what the Planning Commission estimated was needed by 2022. The Subramanian committee itself admits that 99 per cent of cases were cleared.
As much as the letter of the report, it is the spirit that has to be scrutinised. What was the provocation for reviewing green laws? Minister after NDA minister have made it abundantly clear that the present government views such legislation as an obstacle to economic growth. While there is indeed a case for simplifying laws and procedures, the intent is quite different. The report specifically cites the need to make “doing business easier in the country”.

During the controversy over the Intelligence Bureau’s castigation of Greenpeace and other green NGOs for costing the country 2-3 per cent of the GDP, it was pointed out how, quite to the contrary, the World Bank estimated that environmental degradation was extracting a toll of Rs3.75 trillion ($80 billion) a year, amounting to 5.7 per cent of the GDP. This ought to serve as a dampener to leaders who are gung-ho about resorting to industrialisation and building infrastructure by giving short shrift to environmental considerations.
This paper reported how over 230 projects have been cleared by the environment ministry since May; a fifth were from Gujarat. Environment minister Prakash Javadekar himself has assured the Maharashtra CM that “development” projects in Mumbai which were stalled by his ministry, such as the coastal road to connect the western suburbs to the island city, would be speedily cleared. It is against this backdrop that the Subramanian report has to be examined.

The most sweeping recommendation is the enactment of an entirely new Environmental Laws (Management) Act or ELMA, which will create a National Environment Management Authority or NEMA. Correspondingly, there will a State Environmental Authority or SEMA. These will replace the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards, as well as environmental committees appointed by the Supreme Court (SC).

Wouldn’t it have been better to reform the existing boards than institute an entirely new authority, whose remit is to clear projects as speedily as possible?

Thus the Environment Pollution Control Authority, set up by the apex court, mooted a ban on diesel vehicles in Delhi and played an advisory role on crucial issues such as fuel quality and vehicle emissions. The Central Empowered Committee, set up similarly after widespread environmental violations, looked at illegal mining in states such as Odisha, Goa, Karnataka and the western ghats. It was on this basis that the SC cancelled many mining leases. These will now be subsumed.

The powerful National Green Tribunal, set up in 2010, was not one of the acts reviewed by the committee but even prior to it, the environment ministry was contemplating diluting its powers. At present, appeals against clearances can be made within six months before the tribunal but the committee proposes an appellate board for this purpose and within 30 days only. As can well be imagined, the constitution of this board can stack the cards heavily against justice.

One of the worrying recommendations is the “fast track” procedure for “linear” projects such as roads and railway lines, as well as power or mining projects and projects of national importance. This dovetails with the NDA’s emphasis on promoting growth through infrastructure. For instance, the urbanisation on either side of the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor, including smart cities, could conceivably fall under such categories and be ushered in without too much scrutiny.

Another is the doing away with of public hearings and consultation with villagers in the case of projects of “strategic” and “national importance”. Only “genuine local participation” will be permitted, which closes the door to NGOs. This circumscribes the Forest Rights Act, a flagship UPA law, which was not under review, but is now sought to be amended. The proposal strikes at the very root of the principle of consent from all stakeholders whenever a major project threatens the environment. According to official data, as many as 50 million people have been displaced in 50 years by “development” projects in the country. It was after protracted struggles, such as that over the Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat, that the principle of prior consultation has been enshrined and is now in jeopardy.

Yet another concern is giving project proponents the benefit of doubt by accepting their word in “utmost good faith”. It is common knowledge that proponents are economical with the truth when it comes to specifying environmental safeguards. Time and again, environmental impact assessments are cut-and-paste jobs, with consultants paying obeisance to their clients. Combined with the penchant of the present government to push projects through recklessly, this is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, the committee seeks to replace the definition of “forest” by “treeland”, a term which is unprecedented in global jurisprudence. It declares areas with 70 per cent canopy cover out of bounds for projects, but this only applies to a minuscule proportion of the country which is already protected as sanctuaries, national parks and tiger reserves. Is the remaining area up for grabs?
The author is chairperson, Forum of Environmental Journalists of India (FEJI)

Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/col...he-axe-2048790

[Sabyasachi Patra]

This had been covered in detail in the December 2014 issue of IndiaWilds Newsletter. http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/indi...l-6-issue-xii/

In short, the TSR Subramanian Committee is an organised attempt to dismember the last remaining forests and wilderness areas of India.

The Parliamentary Standing committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests had invited views and suggestions on the TSR Subramanian Commitee report. On behalf of IndiaWilds, I had sent our submission. I was also invited to make oral submissions before the committee on 9th Jan. I had to rush back to Delhi but the meeting has been postponed. Not sure when it will happen.

[Subhash Shrivastava]

Dear Abhishek;
“utmost good faith” isn't it also imply that those who caution against rampant economic activities are not having the faith in the new Great Indian Masters. And there is a difference than the previous Mylords, where are the dissenting voices gone now. If we leave environment for a moment, where are movements, the agitations about the issues that are still thriving, be it corruption or women safety.

The key now is that if we question, we are anti patriot. I see it even in the discussions in my office too. We are expected to blindly follow the 'Bright blinding lights' of the day as only they can see what is good for us as a nation and as a society. And by the way, they are wholly non-selfish, on an iota of self-interest in all the pro-industry changes in legislation that they are doing (can we smell the good faith again).

[Abhishek Jamalabad]

Greetings Subhashji,

I appreciate and respect your views on the matter.

In the past, there has by no means been an absence of violation of environmental laws in the name of development. There have been incidents, some huge and some small (but still significant) that have ruined wilderness and natural areas. Those were all 'violations', some were stopped by public pressure and SC intervention, while some went ahead. What is particularly distressing in the present case, from my point of view, is that the law is actually being bent, in a very clearly biased manner, to make those activities 'legal'.

If we leave environment for a moment, where are movements, the agitations about the issues that are still thriving, be it corruption or women safety..

I certainly do not deny that those issues need to be addressed immediately and equally, but I feel they are a little beyond the scope of this particular discussion.


With all due respect to your opinion about the path to development, I would rather not see it as plainly as that. I am not saying the country's development, on all fronts including industries, is not a necessity. Certainly, these aspects are good for us as a nation and as a society. However, it needs to be done with a responsible, sustainable approach. There are other problems that plague the Indian economy- exponentially growing population is one, corruption is another, and there are many more that follow. The current mindset of the industrial sector and its well wishers appears to be that aggressive expansion is the only way out, be it at the cost of the environment. I wonder why no one talks about other approaches like responsible and more efficient management.
I am sure that as a person passionate about wildlife, you agree that the natural wealth of a country is one of its most important possessions, even if you see it as lesser than financial wealth. With that in mind, would it not be unreasonable to destroy one in favour of the other, in spite of knowing well what the consequences are, in spite of even seeing those consequences both in our own country and elsewhere in the world? The reason we need to conserve our last remaining natural areas is not just something about compassion for wildlife, it is about our own well-being and the country's.

The goals may be worthy, but the approaches need to be rethought.

[Subhash Shrivastava]

Exactly, and that is the frustration. Now, there is nothing left to do, all activists, environmentalists are reduced to mere spectators. And other part of frustration is the utter silence, as if the present dispensation is a direct descendant from our mythological lord kings, we, poor mortals, are not even qualified to raise even a whimper.

I stand for no politicians at all.

And my view is that, we need to give living space for all creatures, specially those called wild but are still having self respect not to bow to Humans. Not because it is going to be beneficial to human society or that it will please human created Gods. But as a basic, essential ethic. That's it, sir. I am sorry, but my heart does not bleed for the development reason at all. 20 year ago, Scooter was good enough, today one car is not enough for family. So where is the limit, sir.

I just returned for a day long sojourn into Bidar distt. And the hell that I have seen today. JLR has been minting money in such a forest devoid area by showing Black bucks in the grasslands behind the Air force station. The whole damn area, about 4 to 5 Sq Kms is being converted in to an Industrial hub. and I have never seen Black bucks in such a pathetic condition as today, completely listless.