The Case for Simplifying Green Rules

The Supreme Court decision to stay operation of a central notification exempting construction projects with a built-up area of 150,000 square metres from mandatory environmental clearances in response to pleas that this could harm the environment on a scale that might be irreversible.

The concern of a section of activists that the alteration of the provisions of the environmental impact assessment made applicable in 2006 for building and construction projects would open the doors to unregulated construction and damage the ecology needs more scrutiny.

The problem of unregulated construction is unlikely to be affected by the change in rules as the issue is more a reflection of municipal bodies and state authorities failing ton check violations. The business of unregulated construction does not pay any heed to any rules, whether environmental or civic.

The Centre’s move to ease the environmental regime for projects such as industrial sheds, colleges and hostel does not mean the construction does not need to meet other parameters. The reasoning that such projects might be located in conservation zones seems to suppose that specific wildlife clearances will not be required.

The real problem of pollution related to building activities is located in the need to contain construction dust and arrange for disposal of debris. Again, while larger projects implemented by government and private sector are more visible, illegal construction activities that thrive on graft and negligence will continue unabated.

It is useful to examine the 2006 rules to understand the maze of rules and compliances that were put in place under the United Progressive Alliance government that made permissions near impossible to obtain. So much so, that in September, 2012, UPA 2 moved to do away with fresh clearances for lease renewals, forest conditions where such land comprises a limited part of the project, capacity addition and linear construction such as village roads and power transmission lines.

The provision of including construction and building projects of 20,000 sq meters to 1,50,000 sq metres was part of the 2006 rules along with townships and area development work.

The 12-point general structure of an environmental impact assessment document set out in 2006 is so onerous and its strict implementation would mean weeks if not months before a project is evaluated.

The four stage environmental clearance process involved a scrutiny by a state-level panel whether environmental studies are needed followed by “scoping” that includes applications for expansion or modernisation and terms of reference for all relevant ecological concerns. The list could be endless, depending on the view of the state expert panel that can include site visits as well.

According to the 2006 rules, public consultation “refers to the process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity are ascertained with a view to taking into account all the material concerns in the project or activity design as appropriate.”

This open-ended definition was prone to manipulation by activists as well as building agencies as it was an invitation to influence peddling, bribery and intimidation. It was also a provision that might see just one or a handful of villages and communities hold up an entire project almost indefinitely.

“…a public hearing at the site or in its close proximity- district wise, to be carried out in the manner prescribed in Appendix IV, for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons; (b) obtain responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects of the project or activity,” the notification said.

Vague phraseology such as “plausible stake” was introduced at the behest of NGOs and activists who had access to the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council. The appraisal of an application was to be completed by the expert appraisal committee or state-level EAC within 60 days of the receipt of the final EIA and other documents with additional provisions for projects not needing public consultation.

activismconstructiondebrisenvironmental clearancesSupreme CourtWeb Exclusiveweb exed tape