1720 citizens from different parts of the country who have endorsed the letter.
Subject: Objections to the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020
and demand for its withdrawal
We, concerned citizens of India strongly oppose the draft EIA 2020 and seek its immediate
withdrawal. The fact that this draft legislation is being introduced and public objections invited at a
time when the country is grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic and a restrictive lockdown, completely
defeats the democratic process of public participation in making this policy which will affect one and
all.
August 11, 2020
From,
Concerned Citizens of India
C/o Brinelle D’souza, Coordinator - Justice Coalition of Religious, West India & Faculty member,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mobile: 9004688770
To,
The Secretary
Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan
Jor Bagh Road,
Aliganj, New Delhi - 110003
Subject: Objections to the Draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020
and demand for its withdrawal
We, concerned citizens of India strongly oppose the draft EIA 2020 and seek its immediate
withdrawal. The fact that this draft legislation is being introduced and public objections invited at a
time when the country is grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic and a restrictive lockdown, completely
defeats the democratic process of public participation in making this policy which will affect one and
all. Moreover, the local groups, affected communities and marginalised sections who will be most
impacted by this legislation have been effectively left out from the process due to non-publication of
the draft legislation in local languages and effective publication in mediums other than the written
word. The notification itself is highly problematic, in that it is a serious dilution of the present rules
and favours projects that violate rules and operate without environment clearance. It will cause a
landmark shift in the way clearances are obtained in the country. Environment rules in India, including
the EIA 2006 have always privileged the interests of corporates by whittling down public
consultations, accepting flawed and faulty EIA reports due to external pressures and ignoring the non
-renewable nature of resources and people’s relation to those resources. The draft EIA 2020 further
deepens the impact of that paradigm. In its present form the draft notification promotes indiscriminate
exploitation and is anti-people.
Some specific objections with the draft EIA are as follows:-
1. Post-facto grant of approval: The draft EIA 2020 seeks to legitimise projects that have
violated environment clearance norms by giving them a chance for post-facto approvals as
long as that project is permissible in an area. Allowing post facto clearances will be detrimental
to the environment. The Supreme Court of India has disapproved the concept of post facto
environmental clearances to industrial projects that are initiated without a clearance. By
allowing projects violating the law, the Government is going is against the ‘polluter pays
principle’. The draft EIA is instead propagating a pollute, pay and operate principle that says
‘come, damage and then get away by paying a fine.’
2. Unacceptable exemptions from EIA:
• The draft EIA has removed 40 types of projects from the requirement of prior
environment clearance or prior environment permission altogether. This includes solar
thermal power plants, common effluent treatment plants, dredging for dams,
extraction for linear projects such as roads, pipelines, manufacturing units under
Ministry of Defence etc.
• The Notification2020 has created a new sub-category of projects under the B2
category that will not be required to be placed before the expert appraisal committee,
but will only require prior environment permission from the Regulatory Authority.
For instance, commercial heliports, projects in respect of inland waterways, building
construction projects up to 50,000 sq.m. built up area, certain medium enterprises
involved in petroleum product processing, cement plants, mineral beneficiation etc.
• The draft EIA 2020 has also moved several polluting projects to B2 category so as
to exempt them from mandatory approval of expert committee for environment
clearance. These include all offshore and onshore oil & gas including CBM and shale
gas projects and eases procedure for clearance of all projects in respect of ports,
harbours, backwaters and capital dredging (inside and outside the ports or harbours
and channels) in inland waterways, certain SEZs, CEZs. EPZs. The exemption from
EIA for listed B2 category activity and expansion and modernization projects will
seriously affect the environment since these will be carried out without oversight.
• Similarly, for project modernisation and expansion, the norms in Notification 2020 are
liberal, with only those involving more than 25% increase requiring EIA, and only
those involving more than 50% increase attracting public consultation. Under the
proposed changes, project proponents are expected to submit only one annual report
on compliance with conditions, compared to the existing requirement of biannual
reporting. The move is highly retrograde.
3. Excludes reporting by the public of violation and non- compliance: The EIA
Notification 2020 does not provide for reporting by the public of violations and non-compliance. It
states that the government will take cognisance of reports only from the violator-promoter,
government authority, Appraisal Committee or Regulatory Authority. Such projects may then be
approved with conditions, including remediation of ecological damage, which, again, will be assessed
and reported by the violator and not an independent agency. This provision is deeply problematic
and goes against the right of citizens to participate in environmental decision making. Affected
communities, stakeholders, experts, NGOs, public spirited individuals must be able to report on
proposals affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment and these
comments need to be taken into due account in decision-making by the State authorities.
4. Dilution of the Public Consultation process: The Draft proposes to expand the list of
projects that do not require Public Consultation for Environmental Clearance. This undermines the
rights of the people to know what is going to happen to them in the future. Further, the process in
the new EIA limits the notion of who constitute the stakeholders. Copies of the draft EIA report are
required to be furnished only to those within whose jurisdiction the project is proposed to be located,
whereas in effect there can be bodies within whose jurisdiction the proposed project may not be
located but may have impact. Moreover, the notice period for public hearing has been reduced from
30 to 20 days. This will make it difficult to study the draft EIA report, more so when it is not widely
available or provided in the regional language and in a medium that is reachable. Every citizen must
have the right to participate in environmental decision making in an informed manner.
5. Denial of Information to People: The draft EIA 2020 denies people the opportunity to
know the impact a proposed project will have on the environment, on their lives and livelihoods. It
further denies them, therefore, the possibility to record their objections and also the possibilities of a
management plan.
6. Not factoring people’s views of existing EIAs: Even with the existing safeguards, we have
not been able to avoid environmental degradation and accidents in which a number of people often
get killed. Therefore time and again, people have sought for more safeguards and also for the
implementation of the existing ones. Improvements sought on the existing EIA Notification 2006,
have included avoiding piecemeal project clearances without contextualising the same with other
contemporary developments in the region, factoring in cumulative impact of projects, widely
advertised public hearings, paradox of environment impact assessment consultants engaged by the
project proponent being involved in preparing the EIA Report. Instead of tightening and streamlining
the environment impact assessment process and the monitoring of the same, the Draft EIA 2020
notification, has discarded suggestions such as these and has instead further diluted the process.
7. Impact on vulnerable sections: A majority of poor, for example, Adivasis and fishing
communities residing in forest and coastal areas are dependent on the environment for their lives,
livelihood and their experience of community life. Also it is the poorest who occupy areas most prone
to flooding and landslide both in cities and mountain slopes [especially in mining areas]. The changes
suggested in the EIA will directly and negatively impact their life. The fact that the new draft proposes
exemption of all building constructions and area development projects, expansion or widening of
national highways, all projects from public participation will not just impact their lives but threaten
their survival.
8. Problematic General Terms of Reference: The Terms of Reference for the Environmental
Impact Assessment are essentially going to be based on standard ToRs from the concerned
Department without contextualizing the same in terms of location and other specificities.
9. Problems with the time frame for carrying out the EIA: A three year old assessment can
well be used to prepare the Environment Impact Assessment Report as per the draft EIA 2020. This
is deeply problematic. Moreover, a one season study is considered to be adequate which is
unacceptable.
10. Validity of Environment Clearances: At a time when the environment is rapidly changing
and climate shifts have left communities vulnerable to the impact of climate change, the Draft EIA
2020 has considerably increased the period of validity of environmental clearances. For mining
projects, the validity has been increased from 30 to 50 years, river valley projects it is increased from
10 to 15 years and for all other projects it is increased from 5 to 10 years from the original EIA
Notification 2006.
In conclusion we would like to say that the EIA 2020 in its current form is regressive and unacceptable.
It will serve as a license for serious environmental violations. It is must be withdrawn on immediate
basis. Any future notification must meet the requirements of the principles of avoiding harm and
intergenerational equity. India’s environmental crisis is at a choking point! Sustainable development
must be achieved through involvement of all stakeholders, government accountability and
environmental protection. We demand that the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change
work towards creating a new and robust policy through wider consultations with all stakeholders.
Sincerely,
1. Adv. (Dr.)Albertina Almeida, Human Rights Lawyer and Activist
2. Anita Cheria, Justice Coalition of Religious (JCoR), South India
3. Brinelle D’souza, TISS, Justice Coalition of Religious (JCoR), West India and JSA-Mumbai
4. Lancia Pereira, PBVM: Presentation Province Justice Network, JCoR West India
5. Lisa Pires, PBVM: Presentation Province Justice Network, JCoR West India
7. Mudita Sodder RSCJ, Coordinator – Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) ; JCoR West India
8. Santana Pereira, FMA; JCoR West India
We have attached an excel sheet that lists the names of 1720 citizens from various parts of the
country who have endorsed the letter.
CC: Shri Prakash Javadekar, Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
