In recent years, the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) has faced significant environmental challenges due to the limitations of the existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s recommendation for a national-level regulator, the lack of such an entity renders the process biassed and reactive rather than proactive.
This editorial analysis delves into the critical issues with the current EIA process, highlighting how it operates more as a formality, often overlooking the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a region, especially in the unique context of the IHR. The analysis suggests the adaptation of alternative assessment tools to better cater to the region’s specific needs.
The Environmental Consequences Of Development In Indian Himalayan Region
- The recent breach of the Testa dam in Sikkim in October and the ensuing floods in Himachal Pradesh serve as alarming indicators of the environmental damage caused by our current development model.
- These incidents particularly highlight the detrimental impact on our mountainous regions.
- There is a pressing need to evaluate every significant human project for its potential environmental repercussions.
Also Read | Carrying Capacity Of Indian Himalayan Region
Understanding Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
- The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) defines EIA as a tool for assessing the potential impacts of a proposed project.
- EIA looks into the environmental, social, and economic aspects.
- It compares different alternatives for the proposed project.
- It predicts and evaluates possible environmental impacts under various scenarios.
- The EIA process is used to decide the most effective mitigation strategies.
- It only works with comprehensive, reliable data.
- EIA is designed to gather the most relevant and reliable information about the project.
- The baseline data, used to predict future impacts, is of great importance.
Early Beginnings: Environmental Impact Assessment In India
- In India, precursor to the EIA started in 1976-77.
- This process started with the then Planning Commission asking the Department of Science and Technology to review river valley projects for environmental impacts.
- This process was later expanded to include all projects needing approval from the Public Investment Board.
- Initially, the granting of environmental clearance was merely a bureaucratic decision made solely by the central government.
- On January 27, 1994, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change issued the first EIA notification under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA).
- This made Environmental Clearance (EC) mandatory for starting specific new projects, and for expanding or modernising certain activities.
- The 1994 notification underwent 12 amendments over 11 years before it was replaced with the EIA 2006 notification.
Simplified Overview Of EIA 2006 Notification And Its Amendments
- The EIA 2006 notification marked a significant change – it decentralised the Environmental Clearance (EC) process and gave certain powers to state governments.
- There have been several amendments to the 2006 notification, often cited as attempts to streamline the process.
- In 2020, a controversy arose when the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change proposed a draft EIA. Critics claimed it favoured industry over ecology.
- The careful implementation of the EIA could make it an effective tool for environmental governance and sustainable development.
- The EIA 2006 notification outlines the process and institutional framework for obtaining environmental clearance for specified projects.
- Not all projects require an EIA under this notification, only those listed in the attached schedule.
- Projects requiring an EIA are categorised under various areas like mining, natural resource extraction, power generation, and physical infrastructure.
- The biggest drawback of the EIA 2006 is that the threshold for requiring an EIA is uniform across the country, regardless of the project type.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process Fails To Acknowledge The Unique Requirements Of The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR)
- All government levels are aware of the IHR’s special needs.
- Despite this awareness, the region’s vulnerabilities and fragility are not separately considered in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
- Certain industries, mentioned in the notification’s schedule, cannot be established in IHR due to state-specific industrial policies.
- Conversely, other industries and projects must meet the country’s general thresholds.
- The 2020 draft EIA notification did not distinguish the IHR from the rest of the country.
- There is a lack of recognition for the IHR’s special developmental needs within the draft 2020 EIA notification.
- Understanding The Unique Nature Of The Himalayan Region
- The Himalayan Region is not just an ordinary part of the country. It provides significant ecosystem services.
- All projects in this region need to consider its environmental sensitivity and fragility.
- The inherent vulnerability of the Himalayas to extreme weather conditions, including heavy rains, flash floods, and landslides, is well understood.
- Seismic activity and climate change further contribute to the region’s vulnerability.
Addressing The Needs Of The Himalayan Region
- Despite understanding the region’s fragility, there’s no specific mention of the need for different environmental standards for projects in the Himalayas.
- The Himalayan States face frequent devastation due to extreme weather, which shows the heavy price of ignoring its environmental needs.
- The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process could address these needs at all stages – screening, scoping, public consultations, and appraisal.
- Projects located in the Himalayas, or in mountains above a certain altitude or with unique environmental characteristics, should impose additional responsibilities on the project proponent.
Issues With The Existing EIA Process
- There is currently no national-level regulator, despite the Indian Supreme Court’s 2011 recommendation for one. This regulator would be responsible for conducting unbiased and transparent appraisals, approving projects for Environmental Clearances (ECs), and supervising the fulfilment of EC conditions.
- The EIA process currently operates more in a responsive manner to development proposals rather than anticipating them.
- The EIA process is commonly financed by the project proponent, which often results in a bias towards the project.
- There is a lack of adequate consideration for cumulative impacts, specifically the aggregated effects of several projects in a region.
- The EIA process often relies on a superficial approach, treating it as a mere formality to secure an EC prior to project commencement.
- The limitations of the EIA process are especially detrimental in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), as the procedure fails to account for the region’s unique requirements.
- Policymakers should consider alternative tools, such as the strategic environmental assessment. This tool factors in the cumulative impact of development in a region, thereby addressing the specific needs of the IHR more effectively.
Note: This editorial analysis is based on the article titled “The Indian Himalayan Region Needs Its Own EIA”, published in The Hindu on October 17, 2023.
Read More Environment Note For UPSC Prelims & Mains Preparation
- Impact Of Global Warming
- Lifestyle For Environment
- IPCC AR 6 Synthesis Report
- Right To A Healthy Environment