The Indian government weakened rules to curb pollution caused by its expanding coal industry after lobbying by top producers, even as it agreed internationally to phase down the use of coal, Climate Home has found.

India’s coal giants pushed back hard against environmental regulation meant to tighten up the disposal of fly ash – a byproduct of coal-fired power plants known to harm both humans and the environment if not managed properly.

Letters sent by coal companies to the Indian government, and accessed by Climate Home News through freedom of information requests to government agencies, reveal lobbying efforts to weaken federal rules between 2019 and 2023 by Coal India Limited (CIL), the world’s third-biggest coal mining company, and National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC), one of the world’s top 10 coal-fired power companies. Top management at the state–run giants claimed that their organisations would not be able to fully comply with the regulations, which aimed to control fly ash disposal after decades of public health impacts for local communities. Even after the rules were approved, the companies continued efforts to weaken them, in some cases successfully.

The coal companies argued that financial constraints would keep them from meeting the new requirements to clean up waste accumulated over decades and prevent further ash pollution, according to the accessed documents.

In some cases, lobbying got results and regulations were eased, with the environment and power ministries drawing on arguments from both companies in official correspondence between government agencies.

In 2021, while the proposed fly ash mandates were under discussion within India, the country was negotiating the COP26 climate pact in Glasgow, which calls on governments to take action “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”.

At those UN talks, India was widely reported to have rejected stronger language on a global shift away from coal, but it agreed to scale back unabated coal power, produced without technology to reduce its climate-heating emissions.

Despite this deal, coal infrastructure around the world has since grown, mostly driven by added coal mining and power capacity in India, China and Indonesia.

The Indian documents obtained by Climate Home reveal that the South Asian nation’s coal companies lobbied against regulations on fly ash pollution while expanding coal production at record speed.

In their correspondence with ministries, they said high fines for non-compliance with waste disposal rules were a risk to their financial sustainability and raised the prospect of coal-fired power plants being shut down, triggering a power crisis in the country.

Fly Ash Pollution

When thermal power plants burn coal for energy, the fly ash they generate as a byproduct is dumped in water-filled dam-like structures called dykes.

Old “legacy” dykes store ash from previous decades and are a major source of pollution for nearby communities, explained independent air pollution analyst Sunil Dahiya. Wet ash can leach into groundwater, while dry ash can blow away, causing air pollution and damaging crops.

Functioning disposal sites are also vulnerable to heavy rains, as they can overflow and pollute nearby settlements. This happened on at least three occasions between 2019 and 2021, according to a 2021 report by the NGO Fly Ash Watch Group.

To minimise the impacts of fly ash, companies can recycle it into products like bricks, cement sheets, panels and other construction materials – a process known as “utilisation”.

Sehr Raheja, climate change officer at the Indian think-tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), highlighted the need to utilise “legacy” ash given “the enormous quantity”, adding there are risks involved with it staying underground, such as water and soil pollution. As of 2019, the amount of accumulated unused ash in the country was about 1.65 bntonnes, according to a CSE report, with newer estimates suggesting even more, she said.

Controlling Pollution

Fly ash regulation – known officially as the Fly Ash Notification – has existed in India since 1999, but it was not until a 2021 update to the rules that fines were introduced for failing to comply with proper waste disposal, following the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

The regulation also imposed a mandate on thermal power plants to ensure 100% utilisation of accumulated old fly ash, as well as fresh ash produced by ongoing operations.

Documents accessed by Climate Home show that NTPC exchanged letters with government agencies asking for elimination of the mandate to clean up accumulated ash.

“It is proposed that the provisions for utilization of old legacy ash may be dropped,” reads a 2021 letter from NTPC to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change.

The 2021 rules were nonetheless passed, and they did introduce strict fines for coal companies. However, they also included what experts called a “loophole”.

The fly ash regulation exempted power plants from having to find a use for their old legacy ash as long as the ponds where it was stored were considered “stabilised”, meaning they had been secured against leakage. But the technical specifications of how that should be done were not defined, leading to concerns that arbitrary exemptions could be granted.

Yet even after these revamped regulations came into force in late 2021, lobbying intensified.

Persistent Lobbying

In 2022, NTPC was still concerned by a deadline of 10 years to utilise all legacy ash accumulated over decades, according to a letter addressed to the environment ministry. This would force them to transfer large quantities of fly ash to end users like brick-making kilns or ceramic product makers — or pay fines.

NTPC met with regulators at the Ministry of Power and agreed an extension to the period for stabilising old ash dykes from one to three years.

In the case of “operational” ponds, officials were persuaded not to label them as legacy ash, exempting them for the requirement for full utilisation. These changes were included in a 2022 amendment to the rules.

Shripad Dharmadhikary, who leads a civil society research group Manthan Adhyayan Kendra and has worked on fly ash management, said the unclear definition of stabilisation and longer timeframe for doing it provide “a loophole for power plants to evade use or proper disposal of legacy ash”.

The lack of technical parameters meant government authorities could struggle to guarantee that no more leaks would occur even if they certified the ponds, he added.

“Threat” to coal finances

The powerful companies also managed to limit the level of fines for non-compliance in a prolonged effort that began in 2020, when the first draft proposal on the new fly ash rules was circulated among coal companies.

That included a fine of Rs 1500 per ton, which was cut to Rs 1000 in the final 2021 rules after NTPC and other coal companies opposed it and asked for it to be removed entirely.

Even after this, executives from both Coal India and NTPC expressed alarm about the financial implications of the fines.

In a February 2022 letter to the Ministry of Environment, for instance, NTPC’s then director of operations Ramesh Babu V. wrote that the company could end up paying Rs 76,000 crores ($9 billion) over a decade – an amount “significant enough to threaten financial viability of NTPC and country’s thermal sector alike”. He warned the penalties could make large power stations at mining pit heads commercially unviable, leading to a “power crisis”.

Similarly, in a 2023 letter, CIL chairman and managing director Pramod Agrawal estimated that the “financial penalty” on only one of its subsidiaries (NCL) for failure to comply with the regulations could cost the latter Rs 38,145 crores (at least $4 billion) for just the 2022- 2023 financial year.

Coal expansion

However, the threats the executives outlined to the companies’ bottom lines do not seem to have translated into lower capacity to mine coal and produce thermal power, with both ramped up drastically during and after discussions on the Fly Ash Notification.

Expansion efforts were redoubled especially after an unprecedented power crisis in late 2021, which was attributed to logistical issues causing a shortage of coal supply.

In a January 2024 conference call with investors, NTPC’s management said it was considering awarding thermal power capacity of 15.2 GW in the near future, on top of the 9.6 GW thermal capacity already under construction for the group.

CIL, in its latest annual report, announced plans to increase coal mining capacity to 1 billion tonnes by the financial year 2025-26.

A previous investigation by Climate Home News showed that European asset managers had invested substantially in both NTPC and CIL, helping India’s coal industry to expand rather than phase down in line with international commitments.

Air pollution expert Dahiya said that, while India has lower historical emissions than countries in the Global North and requires flexibility to meet its energy needs, as well as international support to move away from fossil fuels, that did not mean coal companies should be “free to pollute”.

Raheja, of the CSE, said better controls on pollution are also a matter of justice for those living near coal-fired power plants.

“The environmental regulations are critically important for maintaining the health of the environment and of communities residing near coal facilities – even of people far away – as pollution, both through air and water, can be carried to a distance,” Raheja told Climate Home News.

This article was first published on The AIDEM

The post Indian Coal Giants Pushed for Lax Pollution Rules While Ramping Up Operations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What is Biodiversity and why is it important for any one of us to conserve?

Biodiversity, short for “biological diversity,” encompasses the variety of life on Earth, from genes to ecosystems, and the processes that sustain life. It includes all living organisms, from humans to microbes. Biodiversity supports essential needs like food, water, medicine, and shelter. For example, pollinators like bees are crucial for crops; their decline due to pesticides and habitat loss threatens food supply.

Diverse ecosystems are more resilient to stressors like drought or disease. For instance, the dominance of the Cavendish banana, vulnerable to a particular fungus, highlights the risks of low crop diversity to food security. Degradation of nature increases disease outbreaks, as 70% of emerging viral diseases originate from animals. Increased human-wildlife interactions raise the risk of disease transmission.[1] Over half of global GDP depends on nature, with more than a billion people relying on forests for their livelihoods.

Conserving biodiversity is crucial for maintaining ecosystem balance, ensuring a healthy planet for future generations, and preserving essential ecosystem services.[2]

Why was CBD enacted and how does it impact conservation of biodiversity?

Convention on Biological Diversity-a first of its kind agreement on Biodiversity Conservation- was signed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit with the aim of promoting sustainable development. The convention recognises that biological diversity is about more than plants, animals or microorganisms and it is about people and their need for food security, medicines, fresh air, water, shelter, and healthy environment in which they can live. It has three main principles[3]:

1. Conservation of Biological Diversity
2. Sustainable use of its Components
3. Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from Genetic Resources

There are 2 protocols- that were later adopted-the Cartagena Protocol (2003) dealt with movement of living modified organisms resulting in modern biotechnology from one country to another; Nagoya Protocol (2014) dealt with Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation.

It is to effectuate this Convention that Vajpayee led NDA government brought the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.[4]

What were the main features of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002?

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, was enacted to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which India is a signatory, and to regulate the access and benefit-sharing of the biological resources and associated traditional knowledge of the country. The Act established three-tiered institutional mechanisms, namely the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), the State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), and the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs), to oversee the implementation of the Act. The Act also required prior approval from the NBA for any access, research, commercial utilization, or transfer of results of research on any biological resource or associated knowledge by any person, including Indians, non-residents, and corporate entities.

Restrictions on transfer of resources or knowledge to foreign nations:

For instance, if a company wants to use a plant species found in India for developing a new drug, it will need to seek permission from these bodies and share the benefits with the country. This helps protect India’s rich biodiversity and the rights of local communities that have preserved this knowledge for generations.[5]

Even Indian scientists would require approval of the National Biodiversity Authority for transferring the results of research to foreign nationals/ foreign organisations.[6]

Restrictions on Indian Nationals for Commercialisation

Section 7 of the Act-before the 2023 amendment- stated that any citizen should obtain any biological resource for commercial utilisation, or biodiversity and bio utilisation for commercial utilisation only after giving prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board concerned. Exemptions were given to local people and the community of the area, including growers and cultivators of biodiversity, and Vaids and Hakims who have been practicing indigenous medicine.

Regulations regarding grant of Intellectual Property Rights

Section 6 of the original act before the amendment mandated that no person shall apply for any intellectual property right in or outside India, for any invention based on a biological resource from India without obtaining prior approval of the NBA-before making such application for the grant of IPR. It also empowered the NBA to impose benefit sharing fee or royalty or both or impose such conditions of sharing of financial benefits arising out of the commercial utilisation of such IP rights while granting the approval.

Punishments:

What were the features that were changed by BD Amendment, 2023?

Restrictions on Indian nationals for commercialisation:

The change brought in by the amendment is that the exception of not requiring prior intimation to the state biodiversity board for accessing biological resources and its associated knowledge for commercial utilization was extended to codified traditional knowledge, cultivated medicinal plans and registered AYUSH practitioners who have been practicing indigenous medicines including Indian systems of medicine as profession for sustenance and livelihood.

Essentially, the amendment made an exception for AYUSH practitioners apart from the previously exempted categories of hakims and Vaids, as far as person are concerned. At the same time, the amendment also made an exemption for the codified traditional knowledge or cultivated medicinal plants- meaning if one is accessing codified traditional knowledge or the cultivated medicinal plants- they do not have to give intimation to the SBB.

Regulations regarding grant of Intellectual Property Rights

A significant change from the original act as far as IPR is concerned is that foreign entities may apply for the approval of NBA before the grant of the Intellectual Property Right rather than the old procedure of obtaining approval before the application for IPR. This, according to the proponents of the change, will expedite the process of getting IPRs granted.

For Indian entities-they merely need to register with the NBA before grant of the IPR and if they have already obtained the IPR, they shall obtain the approval of NBA before commercialisation.

Punishments

 The issues with the Biological Diversity Amendment Act, 2024.

Ambiguity with respect to AYUSH practitioners:

The Amended version of the Section 7-like the original act- of the Act has two components. Section 7(1) states that no person can access Biological Resources without giving prior intimation to the concerned State Biodiversity Board.

The second component-Section 7(2)-provides exceptions i.e., those who do not have to give a prior intimation to the SBB before accessing biological resource. According to the original act, only local people and communities of the area, including growers and cultivators of biodiversity, Vaids and Hakims-who have been practicing indigenous medicine were exempted. However, according to the amended act, registered AYUSH practitioners who have been practicing indigenous medicines including Indian systems of medicine as a profession for sustenance and livelihood are also exempted from intimating to the SBB.

Essentially, if an Ayurvedic Doctor -who practices Ayurveda for livelihood and sustenance-wants to access biological resource, she does not have to give prior intimation to the SBB.

Why should this matter? It matters because sustenance and livelihood are not defined under the act-meaning that the companies in the AYUSH industry could bypass the requirement to give intimation to the SBB by employing the AYUSH practitioners to access the biological resources.

While Vaids or Hakims could have been used for the same purpose, the fact that Indian companies have long contended that they do not have to seek prior approval from the SBBs according to the original act.  In the case of Divya Pharmacy vs. Union of India-the Uttarakhand High Court noted that the Biodiversity Act, 2002 is a socially beneficial legislation and that it needs to be interpreted in line with the purpose for which it was enacted.[7] In this case, the court pronounced that Indian Companies need to seek approval from the SBBs and need to share a part of their revenue with the local communities that are responsible for conserving and protecting such resources. The judgement, authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, relied on the Nagoya protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity and stated that the scheme of Fair and Equitable Benefit sharing cannot be looked through the narrow confines of the definition clause alone. The judgement said “that the FEBS concept has to be appreciated from the broad parameters of the scheme of the act, and the long history of movement for conservation together with our international commitments in the form of international treaties to which India is a signatory.”

The amendment does not mandate a mechanism for the prior consent of the local ad indigenous communities or a consultation while approving access to genetic resources and knowledge.

The bill when introduced in the Lok Sabha had facilitating fast-tracking of research, patent application process and bringing foreign investments in the chain of biological resources, including research without compromising national interest among the objects which the amendment seeks to achieve. However, the amendment presents more ambiguity on one of the three principles of the main act- the Principle of Fair Access and Benefit Sharing.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024, introduced significant changes to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was introduced in India with the aim to prevent and control water pollution and maintain the wholesomeness of water. This act was enacted after the adoption of the United Nations Environmental Conference held in Stockholm in 1972.

The Act confers powers to established bodies such as the Central Board and the State Board to control pollution of water bodies. While water is a state subject under the Constitution, the Centre can enact a legislation if 2 or more states’ legislatures pass a resolution to that effect and other states can adopt the centre enacted law. This 2024 amendment was enacted by Centre in pursuant to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh legislatures’ resolution.[8]

1. Exemption of Certain Categories of Industries from getting the SPCB permissions via notification: The Amendment Act empowers the central government, in consultation with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), to exempt certain categories of industrial plants from obtaining prior consent for establishment if they are likely to discharge sewage or other pollutants. This provision is aimed at simplifying regulatory procedures for specific industries, potentially boosting economic activities while ensuring environmental safeguards are in place.[9]
2. The Amendment Act authorizes the central government to issue guidelines for the grant, refusal, or cancellation of consent granted by the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). This is intended to standardize the governance of state boards, ensuring uniformity in the fight against water pollution across states. The State Pollution Control Boards are mandated to follow these guidelines.[10]
3. The Amendment Act replaces several violations previously punishable under the 1974 Act with financial penalties ranging from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15 lakh. This approach is designed to deter non-compliance through economic disincentives rather than criminal prosecution, aiming to foster a more compliance-oriented business environment. The Amendment Act replaces provisions in the act for imprisonment from three months up to seven years with amended text specifying fines up to Rs 15 lakh and, under certain conditions, Rs 10,000 per day for violations.[11]

What are the issues with the Water (Amendment) Act, 2024?

The amendment encroaches upon the state’s power to allow which kinds of industries it can allow in its territory. Additionally, it takes the power from states to frame rules for issuing of certificates etc. – meaning the superimposing powers on giving permissions to categories of some industries and regulating all kinds of industries via the guidelines which the states are mandated to follow are allocated to the Centre.

While states other than Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh will have to adopt this law for it to be applicable to them, the fact that a tendency to centralise and also decriminalise environmental offences while making laws that are supposed to protect environment- is alarming.

Decriminalisation and centralisation-part of a larger drive for ‘ease of doing businesses

Prior to this, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of provisions) Act 2023 was enacted to decriminalise minor green offences related to air pollution, forest, and environment protection legislations.[12] The original Air Act stated that no person can establish or operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area without the previous consent of the State Pollution Control Board.[13] The Jan Vishwas amended this provision and empowered the Centre to exempt certain categories of industries from seeking this consent from State Board.[14] Discharging air pollutant in excess of the standards laid down by the State Board according to the old Air Act attracted an imprisonment for a term between 18 months and 6 years with fine. Under the Jan Vishwas amendment, the provision for imprisonment has been removed and a fine has been imposed with the maximum extent of such fine being Rs. 15 Lakh.[15] Another feature of the penalty under the Jan Vishwas, especially with respect to release of pollutants is that for a continuing offence, an additional sum of only Rs. 10, 000 can be levied per day of such contravention.

It is not to say that everyone or any entity who emits a little excess of pollutants for the first time, even due to a mistake, should be thrown in jail or should be made to pay exorbitant sum of money to the state even when they cannot. However, the legislation seems to have not taken different cases into consideration. For example, an establishment which emits excess pollutants for a prolonged period of time-should be fined more heavily rather than Rs. 10,000 per day of contravention. Similarly, obstruction of anyone who is acting on the orders the board should attract more than fine, when there are such cases. Consider the following example under both the old and new acts. Consider Case 2 which does not warrant any stringent action under the Amended act and there is no reason for the government to propose this except for the growing need to make sure the India Inc. cannot be put in jail for violating environmental norms provided they pay fine.

Conclusion

India is at crossroads when it comes to enacting legislation as the climate change crisis looms near. The changes in the legislations discussed above indicate that the country is taking a step towards using its resources and legal system to give a sort of impunity for those who pollute rather than making sure the industry is green by design. The tendency to centralise systems that were decentralised does not have a solid reasoning. India could go this route and find itself in a place where damage cannot be reversed for 1.5 billion people or it can pause, take a re-look over why it should de-criminalise and centralise environmental decision making, thus forcing revisions like graded punishments, consultation with the State Pollution Control Board or the State Biodiversity Boards while exempting industries and granting approvals. This way, reforms can be achieved, and laxity can be avoided.

(The author is part of the CJP’s Legal Research Team) 

[1] Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. (2015). First Estimate of Total Viruses in Mammals. [online] Available at: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/center-infection-and-immunity/first-estimate-total-viruses-mammals [Accessed 24 Jun. 2024].

[2] World Economic Forum. (2024). Half of World’s GDP Moderately or Highly Dependent on Nature, Says New Report. [online] Available at: https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/half-of-world-s-gdp-moderately-or-highly-dependent-on-nature-says-new-report/ [Accessed 24 Jun. 2024].

[3] Cbd.int. (2024). Principles. [online] Available at: https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml [Accessed 24 Jun. 2024].

[4] Act 18 of 2003, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2046?view_type=browse

[5] Section 3, The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

[6] Section 4, The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

[7] Para 42, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3437 of 2016, Uttarakhand High Court.

[8] Kumar, N. (2024). Water Act 2024: HP, Rajasthan and UTs first to decriminalise small offences. [online] @bsindia. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/water-act-2024-hp-rajasthan-and-uts-first-to-decriminalise-small-offences-124021901131_1.html [Accessed 24 Jun. 2024].

[9] Section 25(1), Water Act, 1974

[10] Section 27, Water Act, 1974

[11] Section 41, Water Act, 1974

[12] THE JAN VISHWAS (AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS) ACT, 2023 NO. 18 OF 2023

[13] Section 21, Air Act, 1981

[15] Section 37, Air Act, 1981

Related:

In North Gujarat’s Granite-Rich Idar, Locals Fearful About Aravalli Mountains’ Future

Over 90 former civil servants have strongly opposed “Green Credit Rules” making corporate access to forests easy

India’s Telecommunications Act notified, ushers in “modernisation”with privacy concerns

3695 citizens’ petition political leaders of India Alliance, several NDA partners: Ensure stay on new ‘anti-democratic’ criminal laws

The post Navigating the grey: The Biodiversity Amendment Act, 2023, and the Water Conservation Act, 2024, steps towards leniency or leap into laxity? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The text of the letter is reproduced below:

To, January 17, 2018
Dr. Harsh Vardhan
The Minister
The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Mr. C. K. Mishra
The Secretary (EF & CC),
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003
INDIA

Subject: Request to revoke the recommended Forests Clearance to Devsari Hydro Electric Project (252 MW), Uttarakhand
Dear Sirs,

This is in reference to the recommendation given by the Hon’ble Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) to the proposed 252 MW Devsari Hydroelectric Project on Pinder River in the State Uttarakhand in their meeting dated 20^th December 2017.

1. We understand that the proposal for the Stage-I Forest Clearance for the proposed HEP is incomplete because 0.754 hectare of forest land already stands diverted for the already existing Deval HEP.

2. MOEF & CC in its recommendation to the proposed HEP has adopted a hands-off approach when it says that any dispute between Deval HEP and SJVNL is the sole responsibility of the State Government and that MOEF & CC has no responsibility, financial or legal. However, it is the sole duty of the MOEF & CC to consider every proposal in complete detail and recommend the non-forestry use of the proposed forest land only after all the aspects/issues of the proposal have been looked into and dealt with and there is clarity with respect to the same. This project has been dealt with FAC at multiple points of time (specifically, 21-22.12.2012, 28.01.2015, 31.12.2015, 16.02.2016, 28.02.2017 and 30.08.2017) and a perusal of the minutes of these meetings suggests that issue of diversion the 0.754 hectares of forest land has lingered on and State Government and the project proponent for the proposed Devsari HEP (SJVNLtd.) and Deval HEP haven’t reached on any conclusion with respect to the same. In last their last meeting dated 20.12.2017, FAC did not conclusively deliberate on the issue that and instead have shifted the burden to the State Government. However, it is indeed incomprehensible that on what basis the State Government has been given the responsibility when they themselves haven’t reached any conclusion with respect to the issue in question. Such behaviour is unacceptable from the FAC is scrutinise the project in all its aspects.

3. The EIA-EMP Report for the proposed Devsari HEP was made in 2008, however, since then the ecology of the proposed project affected Chamoli regions has changed since then. In 2010 the region experienced large scale landslides and floods; local people’s agitation bear testimony to this fact. Letter and photographs can be produced if demanded. However, EIA has not taken into consideration the above.

4. In June 2013, there was a massive flood in the Pinder River specifically in the proposed project area. Since then the River has changed its course. The devastating floods and landslides led to roads getting disappeared affecting numerous villages. Still the reconstruction work is on-going. However, FAC has completely overlooked these facts.

5. Earlier FAC meetings took the right approach and did not recommend clearance without resolving the issue, and the latest FAC meeting seems to have over ruled the earlier FAC stand without any justification or reason.
All in all FAC has recommended the proposed HEP for grant of Stage-1 Forest Clearance without scrutinizing the project in all its entirety and has shifted the responsibility for clarifying the dispute over 0.754 hectare of forest land to the State Government which seems to have no conclusive answer to the same.

Therefore, we demand the MOEF& CC should not consider the FAC recommendation to the proposed HEP and direct the FAC to reconsider the issue and pass any decision after completely sorting these issues.

Regards

Dinesh Mishra, Manju Devi Agri, SurendraRawat, Mahipat Singh Kaithat, Madan Mishra, SubhashPurohit, SurendraParihar, Jiwan Mishra, Vimalbhai and all the members

The letter has been endorsed by Dr. Shekhar Pathak, Historian of Uttarakhand, Editor Pahar

Manoj Mishra, Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, Dr. Sudha Vasan, Associate Professor, Delhi University, Dr. Sanjay Kumar,  Associate Professor, St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University, Delhi, Pushp Jain, EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC), Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Tarini ManchandaSocial& Environment Film Maker.
 
*(Shekhar Pathk, Manoj Mishra, Dr. Sudha Vasan, Dr. Sanjay Kumar were the members of “Peoples’ Public Hearing” on the proposed Devsari Hydro Electric Project (252 MW) and Dams on the Pinder River was held at the Sangam Ground, in Deval, Tehsil Tharali, at the confluence of River Kail and River Pinder District Chamoli, Uttarakhand, on 3rd April 2011 and Tarini Manchanda documented this PPH )
 

The post MOEFCC Clearance to Devsari HEP Project Sans Scrutiny: Activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On March 10th, a significant audit report that has probed into the state of environmental clearance processes and post–clearance monitoring was tabled in parliament.

This 117 pages performance audit report contains very indicting comments on the state of non-compliance which almost borders on impunity. It also shows how State Pollution Control Boards( SPCBs) /Union Territory Pollution Control Committees and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as well as Regional Offices of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) failed to monitor compliance of environment clearance conditions by project proponents. The most shocking audit findings is that many such non-compliances were also observed in the projects operating within Critically Polluted Areas (CPAs). While the audit report contains a minefield of information on the state of environmental governance in country, this article engages with what CAG auditors found with respect to 22 projects that are operated in CPAs.

During the year 2009-10, CPCB in collaboration with Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi carried out comprehensive environmental assessment in 88 prominent industrial clusters. This comprehensive assessment was based on Comprehensive Environment Pollution Index (CEPI), which is a rational number to characterize the environmental quality at a given location following the algorithm of source, pathway and receptor. Out of 88 industrial clusters, 43 industrial clusters which were assigned the score of 70 and above were declared as CPAs.

To restore the environmental quality in these 43 critically polluted areas, MoEFCC had taken several actions during the period 2010-14, the most significant of these being imposition of moratorium on grant of environment clearance in all these 43 critically polluted areas. However, on several occasions during October 2010 to September 2013, MoEF decided to lift moratorium from 26 of these critically polluted areas. This decision was based upon statements furnished by SPCBs to the effect that some ground work had been initiated in line with the submitted action plans.

Missing actions in the plans
During audit scrutiny, it was found that out of 16 states where these 43 critically polluted areas are located, the SPCBs of only 12 states (Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal) had prepared action plans. CAG auditors couldn’t ascertain the position of preparation of action plans in three states, namely Gujarat, Jharkhand and Maharashtra. Although Najafgarh drain including Anand Parvat, Naraina, Okhla and Wazirpur were identified as critically polluted area, Delhi stated this requirement was ‘not applicable’! Further reply by MoEFCC in October 2016 stated that action plan pertaining to Najafgarh drain basin was in draft stage.

CAG auditors also probed whether the action plan were in public domain and found that only in five states (Andhra Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Karnataka, Odisha and Punjab) websites of SPCBs provided access to these action plans. In the case of six states (Jharkhand, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal), it was claimed that SPCBs had prepared action plans, but these were not displayed on websites of SPCBs. What is absolutely saddening is that during the course of these performance audit, four states (Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala and Maharashtra) did not provide any information vis a vis preparation of action plans.

However, the audit paragraph 6.3 had stated that Kerala’s SPCB had prepared action plan, whereas Jharkhand’s SPCB had failed to do the same and audit paragraph 6.4 listed Jharkhand as having prepared an action plan but not displaying the same. Has this contradiction entered because SPCBs and MoEFCC has made contradictory claims at different times during the course of audit? Or this simply goes on to suggest that CAG auditors were checking compliance and performance merely as ‘ticking the box’ activity.

Environmental activists and organisations would have liked to see a robust analysis of the qualitative parameters of the action plans prepared by SPCBs, with reference to critically polluted areas in an environment audit. Those from Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IAAS) who have a passion and commitment to environmental auditing genre have made efforts to enhance their academic capabilities on this subject, but their efforts are frustrated by audited entities whose non-cooperative attitude almost borders on disrespecting a constitutional institution with impunity.

In a further reply filed by MoEFCC in October 2016 after the draft audit report was presented to them, they argued that all 16 SPCBs have been directed to upload the action plan on their website. One can only wonder and shout aloud, “only if directions would have ensured compliance”!

Monitoring the action plan
So if this was the state of affairs on the front of preparation of action plans by SPCBs and making them accessible in public domain, how did SPCBs perform when it came to monitoring of the action plan execution?

CAG audit notes that “In nine states (Andhra Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal) the implementation of action plan was monitored by SPCBs, whereas it was not monitored in six states (Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh) by SPCBs, and in case of Delhi, it was stated as ‘not applicable’”. In its reply on this audit observation, MoEFCC stated that “the local level committees in 35 critically polluted areas have been constituted for monitoring the implementation of action plans, while in the respect of remaining eight CPAs, the committees have not been formed and SPCBs were monitoring the progress”.

SPCBs were also required to submit yearly monitoring report of critically polluted areas to CPCB. Audit scrutiny revealed that during the period 2011 to 2015, only eight states (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal) submitted monitoring reports to CPCB regularly, whereas seven states (Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kerala and Maharashtra) did not submit the monitoring report to CPCB. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, monitoring reports were submitted intermittently.

Audit scrutiny also showed that only six states (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) brought the increase in pollution levels to the notice of CPCB as well as MoEFCC, while the other states failed to monitor pollution levels.

In April 2016, MoEFCC directed the concerned SPCBs to ensure that monitoring of action plan gets carried out by third-party bi-annually. Third party monitoring was done by five states (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab and West Bengal) and in case of Karnataka, one project (i.e. MRPL) was monitored out of two projects. Audit scrutiny revealed that in remaining 10 states (Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) monitoring of the implementation of action plan by third party was not done.

Responding to this audit finding, MoEFCC stated in its reply dated October 2016 that “all the SPCBs had been directed to undertake third party monitoring in CPAs on regular basis”.

A lacklustre ministry
And what happens when the ministry issues mere directives?

Audit scrutiny revealed that in September 2013 MoEFCC had directed CPCB to undertake environmental quality monitoring in CPAs through a third party in biennial basis for computing CEPI in these 43 critically polluted areas. It was seen through the scrutiny of records that CPCB had not finalized the firms through which the environmental quality monitoring was to be done till May 2016, although the work was to be completed in the year 2015. In May 2016, during the course of performance audit CPCB merely stated that “the environmental quality monitoring in 43 critically polluted areas would be undertaken by CPCB during 2016-17”. Five months after this moment, when a shocking non-compliance caught by CAG auditors was being responded by CPCB with mere assurances, MoEFCC in its reply field in October 2016 argued, “due to paucity of funds and other administrative difficulties, the third party monitoring could not be performed by CPCB in 2015” and went on to merely assure that “the finalization of zone wise monitoring agency was in process and CEPI score was expected to be evaluated in 2016-17”.

—
*The author is a close follower of many grassroots movements, faculty member at  the Azim Premji University, Bangalore. This article was first published in India Together, with the support of Oorvani Foundation – community-funded media for the new India
 
 

The post CAG Report Indicts MOEF & Pollution Control Boards for Non-Compliance: Environmental Degradation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Vowing to continue the struggle against long term damages to the environment, senior human rights activist, Rohit Prajapati said that “the Union environment Minister guarantees two things: the appeasement of polluting industries and irreversible damage to the environment.”
 
The imposition of Moratorium during the UPA Government was a quiet affair that stands in stark contrast today when the BJP government lifted the moratorium in a grand show in the presence of Industrialists from Vapi, Ankleshwar & Vatva.  The announcement of the lifting of the moratorium in such a brazen way clearly tells loudly and openly to the people of India that Government’s environment ministry is not for protection of environment and instead has an agenda ‘Of the Industrial Lobby, By the Industrial Lobby and For the Industrial Lobby.’
 
The Chief Minister of Gujarat & Environment Minister, Government of India now stands responsible with the polluting industries of the area for the immediate repercussion of such hasty decision on the environment of the area.
 
Prajapati says that “the ground water of these areas is severely polluted and no concrete steps are taken for the remedial measures to decontaminate the ground water.Who is going to take the remedial steps to decontaminate the ground water? Does Mr. Modi Government’s “Swachh Bharat Mission” have any plan to decontaminate the ground water of these industrial clusters? “
 
He draws attention to the report of the Central Pollution Control Board “GROUND WATER POLLUTION IN LUNA, DUDHAWADA, PILUDARA AREA NEAR VADODARA, GUJARAT”, July 2016 and “REPORT ON EFFLUENT CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (M/S ECPL) FOR NANDESARI INDUSTRIAL AREA AND INDUSTRIES LOCATED NEAR VADODARA, GUJARAT”, February 2010 and visit this area with the press and answer the questions of the press there after.
 
Rohit Prajapati has also stated that since the much touted Ministry of Environment and Climate Change refuses to take policy decision to protect and improve the environment; it should drop the pretense of its existence and merge itself with the Ministry of Industry. The State Pollution Control Boards and Central Pollution Control Board should also now be merged with the Industries Commissionerate.
 

The post GOI’s Environment Ministry Lifts Moratorium on Polluting Vapi-Ankleshwar Corridor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The unbriddled expansion of industry in this belt that stretches from Vapi in Valsad district to Nadesari in Varodara in complete violation of environmental controls and norms is the subject matter of a recent investigation conducted by the Indian People’s Tribunal that released its report last month. This inquiry was held in response to the requests from Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Vadodara Kamdar Union, Vyavasahik Swastha Swaksha Mandal and other concerned individuals and organisations active in the area. The inquiry was headed by Justice Suresh, retired High Court judge, assisted by a panel of experts: environmental lawyers, community health specialists, occupational health specialists and scientists.

The eleven–member team visited various areas in the Corridor to examine the effects of indiscriminate industrialisation and the resultant pollution of air, water and land by noxious gases, toxic chemical effluents and other hazardous substances, which have both destroyed the livelihood sources of the local population but have also posed a grave threat to their health and lives. The local population in all the industrialised areas has recorded a loss in livelihood in terms of the loss in agricultural and horticultural produce and in fish stocks, especially in the inland water bodies.

In addition, the IPT also inquired into the occupational health and safety of workers in some specific industries where blatant violations of safety norms have caused serious damage to the workers’ health.

Gujarat has rolled out the red carpet for industrial investment with little or no consideration for environmental norms.
The report, documents how Proper Environmental Impact Assessments were not carried out, the hazardous solid waste and toxic effluents that are spewed out are not being monitored neither is the disposal of such waste given any attention. At most places, the report states, there is no pollution control equipment and whatever efforts have been made to provide for the control of pollution have been half-hearted and ineffective. Moreover, no consideration was given to the fact that the industrial estates were dangerously close to human settlements. The IPT team observed several instances of blatant violations.

For instance, 50 lakh metric tonnes of chalk, loaded with heavy metals, was found lying illegally in a village without any impervious layer to prevent its seepage into groundwater sources and soil. In the monsoons of 1997 and 1998, this chalk hill slid and gushed into the several houses of the village.

In another instance, the Effluent Channel Project carrying effluents of nearly 150 industries, running 56 kms in length and passing through 24 villages is used as irrigation water due to an acute shortage has resulted in the spread of heavy metal contamination of the food chain throughout the 24 villages.An overwhelming 61 per cent of the factory units in Ankleshwar alone were found by the investigators to have “unsatisfactory working conditions” as defined under the Factories Act, 1948. Thus, the “potential of a major environmental accident endangering the lives of thousands of workers and the general public residing in the vicinity is hanging like a Damocles sword over the entire Corridor.” The Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) was launched on June 5, 1993 at a National Conference on Human Rights, Environment and the Law held in Bangalore. The mandate of the IPT is to highlight environmental and human rights violations, both by the state and private parties, and give voice to the struggles of grass root organisations and affected communities. The IPT endeavours to place before the public and the authorities a factual picture of the ground realities, based on objective investigation by experts.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2000. Year 7  No, 55, Human Rights 1

The post ‘Golden Corridor’ of Gujarat: Who Bears the Cost? appeared first on SabrangIndia.