UPSC IAS exam preparation - Technology and environmental issues in India - Lecture 5

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

Environmental Impact Assessment

[हिंदी में पढ़ें ]

---

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Rapid industrialization and the consequent environment related problems created a need for a systematic method of evaluating the environmental effects of a project or a plan. This need has existed since several decades. Environmental impact assessment or EIA was introduced as a means to accomplish this in the USA in the early 1970s. Since then the use of EIA has spread throughout the world and the methodology has been developed and adapted to various purposes connected to decision making at different levels in enterprises and society.

With the passage of time, EIA has been applied to projects and plans of various shapes, sizes and scales. It is used in local projects and development, but also for regional and even global issues. In the 1990s environmental management became an important issue in enterprises. In connection with this the need for relevant systems analytic tools to identify the causes of environmental problems in the technical system has increased and the use of EIA has increased. The basic objective remains to ensure we do not end up destroying what we are living in.

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the possible impacts that a proposed project may have on the environment, consisting of the environmental, social and economic aspects. The EIA exercise has to be carried out before any project or major activity is undertaken to ensure that it will not in any way harm the environment on a short term or long term basis. Any developmental endeavor requires not only the analysis of the need of such a project, the monetary costs and benefits involved but most important, it requires a consideration and detailed assessment of the effect of a proposed development on the environment.

The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the environmental impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made".

Economic development of a nation is dependent on the nation's ability to efficiently exploit the natural resources available. Many times a nation has to choose between economic development and environment conservation which are in conflict. In India, this choice has always been a difficult one. Many projects in India could not take off due to environmental concerns. The POCSO experience in Assam and the ban on mining in Goa are examples of this. The beginning of Environmental Impact Assessment in India was the impact assessment of river valley projects in 1978-79. Since then the scope has been enhanced to cover other industries such as thermal power projects, mining projects etc. Guidelines for the same have been evolved and circulated to various State and Central departments. Under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 EIA had been made mandatory for 29 categories of developmental activities involving investments of Rs. 50 crores and above. The nodal ministry for this is the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change. 

2.0 AIMS AND METHODS OF EIA

The choice of method and scope of study in EIA is influenced by the aims that need to be met. The aim is dependent on who is the user as well as on the use of the result. Some of the aims are:

Project development: The use of EIA in project development may be regarded as a way of avoiding environmental impacts by using EIA at as early stage as possible in the development. This is also a way of avoiding costs due to these impacts. This may be used for different projects e g construction or reconstruction of industrial plants, construction of roads, construction of municipal waste or water purification plants. The users are to be found in the decision makers in the company and the performer is usually the project team or consultants.

Development control (licenses, permits etc): Here the EIA is a tool for authorities to prevent adverse environmental impact from the kind of projects mentioned above. This kind of EIA has been introduced in national legislation. The performer may be the authority but also it may be the task of the performing company. Also here consultants may be used for the work.

Plan development: This EIA is a tool for authorities in planning of resource or land use, infrastructure like roads, railways etc. This EIA often is called Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The authority may be performer if the competence is available, else consultants are used.

Policy development: Another use of SEA is in policy development were the consequences of a policy can be evaluated by a government. As an example a government may evaluate the consequences of promoting a specific type of industry (forest industry or IT) as a major primary industry. Also here the work may be performed internally or by consultants.

The aims of EIA have been described by Morgan in the following way: (Morgan 1998)

1. Its basic purpose is to anticipate important possible effects of proposed activities on the natural system (water, soil, air, biological system, human health), antropogenic systems (settlements and infrastructure), social and economic systems (work, education, recreation, health services) and cultural systems (beliefs, art, literature)
2. The process is formally sanctioned by a legislative or bureaucratic framework set within a national and local policy context. These policies influence the character and direction of the EIA process in a given country and a given setting.

EIA aims to ensure that potential impacts are identified and addressed at an early stage in the projects planning and design. To achieve this aim, the assessment finding are communicated to all the relevant groups who will make decisions about the proposed projects, the project developers and their investors as well as regulators, planners and the politicians. After understanding the results of an environmental impact assessment, project planners and engineers can shape the project so that its benefits can be achieved and sustained with out causing adverse impacts.

General and industry specific assessment methods are available including:

Industrial products: Product environmental life cycle analysis (LCA) is used for identifying and measuring the impact of industrial products on the environment. These EIAs consider activities related to extraction of raw materials, ancillary materials, equipment; production, use, disposal and ancillary equipment

Genetically modified plants: Specific methods available to perform EIAs of genetically modified organisms include GMP-RAM and INOVA

Fuzzy logic: EIA methods need measurement data to estimate values of impact indicators. However many of the environment impacts cannot be quantified, e.g. landscape quality, lifestyle quality and social acceptance. Instead information from similar EIAs, expert judgment and community sentiment are employed. Approximate reasoning methods known as fuzzy logic can be used

3.0 EVOLUTION OF EIA IN INDIA

At the Earth summit held at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the role and importance of Environmental Impact Assessment was formally recognized. Principle 17 of the Rio declaration states that

"EIA as a national instrument shall be undertaken for the proposed activities that are likely to have significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority".

Till the 1980s many projects in India were undertaken without any systematic and detailed study about environment concerns. The environmental issues began receiving attention when a national committee on environmental planning and coordination was set up under the 4th five year plan (1969-1978). Till 1980, the subjects of environment and forests were the concern of the Dept of Science and Technology and Ministry of Agriculture respectively. A department of environment was established in 1980 which was then upgraded to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) in 1985.

In 1980 it was made mandatory that large projects should be cleared from the environmental perspective. This became an administrative requirement and  the planning commission and the central investment board sought proof of such clearance before according financial sanction.

In 1985, the Dept of Environment and Forests, Government of India, issued guidelines for Environmental Assessment of river valley projects. These guidelines require various studies such as impacts on forests and wild life in the submergence zone, water logging potential, upstream and down stream aquatic ecosystems and fisheries, water related diseases, climatic changes and sesmicity.

A major legislative measures for the purpose of environmental clearance was in 1994 when specific notification was issued under section 3 and rule 5 of the environment protection Act, 1986 called the "Environment Impact Assessment Notification 1994".

The first step in seeking environmental clearance for a development project is to determine what statutory legislations apply to the particular project. The MoEF has brought out several notifications restricting the development of industries in specified ecologically sensitive areas. In addition there are also draft rules framed for the setting up of industries.

Environmental clearance for development projects can be obtained either at the state level or at the central level depending on certain criteria concerning the characteristics of the project. However (regardless of where the final environmental clearance is obtained from), for most projects the consent must first be taken from the state pollution control board or pollution control committees in the case of union territories.

4.0 PROCESS OF EIA 

Screening and Preliminary assessment are the two tiers of assessment which have to be applied to a project before a full scal EIA is done. The first two tiers of assessment are a regulatory requirement and the developer normally does the work and submits the results to the regulatory agency. The agency may then decide that either there is nothing to be concerned about or the evaluation should proceed to the next tier.

The most important step in the process of obtaining environmental clearance under the EIA notification is for the project proponent to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the project. For this purpose the project proponent engages an environmental consultant to prepare an EIA report. The EIA report must be prepared by incorporation of data during all the four seasons of the year. Such an EIA is termed a "comprehensive EIA". How ever, there is provision for a single season collection of data, but this should not be done during the monsoon season. Such an EIA reports is termed a "Rapid EIA". 

4.1 Screening

The screening is the first and simplest tier in project evaluation. Screening helps to clear those types of projects, which from past experience are not likely to cause significant environmental problems. The activity may take one of the following several forms:

1. Measurements using simple criteria such as size or location.
2. Comparing the proposal with list of projects rarely needing an EIA (e.g. schools) or definitely needing one (e.g. coal mines).
3. Estimating general impacts (e.g. increased in infrastructure needed) and comparing these impacts against set thresholds.
4. Doing complex analyses, but using readily available data.

The main challenges in this process are:

1. Even though some of the industrial set ups do not require EIA as per the statutory norms, they might involve certain technological processes which could be harmful to the environment, as a result of which such enlisted industries could have potential impacts on the environment and on public health.
2. Exempting industries from the EIA requirements based on the investment value of specific projects is not acceptable. There are no specific studies conducted till now which demonstrate that environmental impacts are always inconsequential for projects under a given value. It is a well established fact that the small scale industries are contributing more pollution with respect to the major industry.

4.2 Preliminary assessment

If screening does not clear a project, the developer may be required to undertake a preliminary Assessment. This involves sufficient research, review of available data and expert advice in order to identify the key impacts of the project on the local environment, predict the extent of the impacts and briefly evaluate their importance to decision makers. The preliminary assessment can be used to assist early project planning (for instance, to narrow the discussion of possible sites) and it can serve as an early warning to the serious environmental problems that the project may cause. It is in the developer's interest to do a preliminary assessment since, in practice, this step can clear projects of the need for a full EIA.

4.3 Formation of an EIA Team 

If after reviewing a preliminary assessment the competent authority deems that a full EIA is needed, the next step for the project developer is the preparation of the EIA report. This entails

1. Commissioning and briefing an independent co-coordinator and expert study team.
2. Identifying the key decision makers who will plan, finance, permit and control the proposed project, so as to characterize the audience for the EIA.
3. Researching laws and regulations that will affect these decisions.
4. Making contact with each of various decision makers.
5. Determining how and when the EIAs finding will be communicated.

The main challenge in this process is that it is being found that the team formed for conducting EIA studies is lacking the expertise in various fields such as Anthropologists and Social Scientists (to study the social impact of the project) or even wild life experts.

4.3.1 Scoping 

The first task of the EIA study team is scoping the EIA. The aim of scoping is to ensure that the study address all the issues of importance to the decision makers. First of all the team's outlook is broadened by the discussions (with the project proponents, decision makers, the regulatory agency, scientific institutions, local community representative and others) to include all the possible issues and concerns raises by various groups. Then the study team selects primary impacts for the EIA to focus upon depending on the basis of magnitude, geographical extent, significance to decision makers or because the area is special locally (e.g. soil erosion, the presence of an endangered species, or a near by historical sites) or is an eco-sensitive area.

However the process of scoping faces the following challenges:

1. There is a lack of exhaustive ecological and socio-economic indicators for impact assessment.
2. Public comments are not taken into account at the early stage, which often leads to conflict at the later stage of project clearance.

4.3.2 Main EIA 

After the scoping is done the actual process of EIA starts. EIA mainly tries to answer the following questions:

1. What will happen as a result of the project?
2. What will be the extent of the changes?
3. Do the changes matter?
4. What can be done about them?
5. How can decision makers be informed of what needs to be done?

The EIA becomes a cyclic process of asking and further asking the first four questions until decision makers can be offered workable solutions.

4.3.3 Identification 

Identification studies mainly focus on trying to understand the changes that will happen after commencement of the project.  If a preliminary assessment has been done it will have broadly reviewed the projects effect, also scoping will have focused the study on the most important issues for decision makers. Taking these findings in to account the full EIA study now formally identifies those impacts which should be assessed in detail. This identification phase of the study involves the following steps

1. Compiling a list of key impacts (e.g. changes in air quality, noise levels, wild life habitats, species diversity, landscape views, social and cultural systems, settlement patterns and employment levels from other EIA s for similar projects)
2. Naming all the sources of impacts (e.g. smoke emissions, water consumption, construction jobs) using checklists of questionnaires, then list possible receptors in the environment (e.g. crops, communities using same water for drinking, migrant of labour) by surveying the existing environment and consulting with interested parties.
3. Identifying impacts themselves through the use of checklist, matrices, networks, overlays, models and simulations.

The main obstacles in this phase are lack of reliable data sources, non availability of secondary data, ignoring the knowledge of local people. These factors undermine the credibility of the data collector.

4.3.4 Prediction

The next step called predictions answers the EIA's second question: "what will be the extent of the changes". As far as is practicable, prediction scientifically characterizes the impacts causes and effects and its secondary and synergetic consequences for the environment and the local community. Prediction follows an impact within a single environmental parameter (e.g. toxic liquid effluents) in to its subsequent effects in many disciplines (e.g. reduced water quality, adverse impacts on fisheries, economic effects on fishing villages, and resulting socio-cultural changes). Prediction draws on physical, biological, socioeconomic and anthropological data techniques .In quantifying impacts, it may employ mathematical models, physical models, socio cultural models, economic models, experiments or expert judgments.

All prediction techniques by their nature involve some degree of uncertainty. So along with each attempt to quantify an impact, the study team should also quantify the predictions uncertainty in terms of probabilities or margins of error.

The main obstacles in this phase are:

1. The detail method used for the prediction and evaluation of the project is not mentioned in the report. Limited explanations are given both to quantitative estimation of magnitude of impact and to the assumptions and judgments used in the evaluation of impacts.
2. The limited coverage of scoping is confined mainly to direct impacts.

4.3.5 Evaluation

Evaluation addresses the next issue that is wheather the nature and extent of changes are substantial enough to matter. Evaluation is so called because it evaluates the predicated adverse impacts to determine whether they are significant enough to warrant mitigation. The significance of the changes are judge against the background of 

1. Laws, regulations or accepted standards.
2. Relevant decision makers.
3. Pre set criteria such as protected sites features of species.
4. Acceptability to the local community or the general public.

4.3.6 Mitigation

In this phase the study team formally analyses mitigation. A wide range of measures are proposed to prevent, reduce, remedy or compensate for each of the adverse impacts evaluated as significant. Possible mitigation measures include:

1. Changing project sites, routes, processes, raw materials, operating methods, disposal methods, disposal routes or locations, timing or engineering designs.
2. Introducing pollution controls, waste treatment monitoring, phased implementation, landscaping, personal training, special social services or public education.
3. Offering (as compensation) restoration of damaged resources, money to affected persons, concessions on other issues, or off site programmes to enhance some other aspects of the environment or quality of life for the community.

All mitigation measures cost something and this cost must be quantified too. These various measures are then compared, trade-offs between alternative measures are weighed, and the EIA study team proposes one or more action plans, usually combining a number of measures. The action plan may include technical control measures, an integrated management scheme (for a major project) monitoring, contingency plans, operating practices, project scheduling, or even joint management (with affected groups). The study team should explicitly analyze the implications of adopting different alternatives, to help make the choices clearer for the decision makers.

Some analytical techniques available for this purpose are:

1. Cost benefit analysis in which all quantifiable factors are converted to monetary values, and actions are assessed for their effect on project costs and benefits
2. Explaining what course of action would follow from various broad 'value judgments' (e.g. that social impacts are more important than resources)
3. A  simple  matrix  of environmental  parameters  versus  mitigation  measures,   contain brief description of the effects of each measure.
4. Pair wise comparisons, whereby the effects of an action are briefly compared with the effects of each of the alternative actions are briefly compared with the effects of each of the alternative actions, one pair at a time.

The main obstacles in this phase are:

1. Details regarding the effectiveness and implementation of mitigation measures are often not provided.
2. Often, and more so for strategic industries such as nuclear energy projected, the EMP s are kept confidential for political and administrative reasons
3. Emergency preparedness plans are not discussed in sufficient details and the information not disseminated to the communities.

4.3.7 Documentation

This last step the EIA process tries to understand the ways in which the results of EIA are to be presented to the decision makers. In documenting an EIA, this means identifying the key decisions makers, perceiving the question they will be asking and providing them with straight forward answers formatted for easy interpretation in relation to their decision making (e.g. tables, graphs, summary, points). Successful EIA documentation is more readily produced if the audience and their needs are established at the start of the EIA, and then made to affect how the research is focused and reported. It is the job of the study team's communications expert to make this happen. Ideally an EIA report should mention the following: 

1. An executive summary of the EIA findings.
2. A description of the proposed development projects.
3. The major environmental and natural resource issues that needed clarification and elaboration.
4. The projects impacts on the environment (in comparison with a base line were identified and predicated.).
5. A discussion of options for mitigating adverse impacts and for shaping the project to suit its proposed environment, and an analysis of the trade offs involved in choosing between alternative actions.
6. An over view of gaps or uncertainties in the information.
7. A summary of the EIA for the general public.

But in India there are some issues with the quality of the EIA reports.  

1. The biggest concern with the environmental clearance process is related to the quality of EIA report that are being carried out. The reports are generally incomplete and provided with false data. EIA reports ignore several aspects while carrying out assessments and significant information is found to omitted. Many EIA report are based on single season data and are not adequate to determine whether environmental clearance should be granted. All this makes the entire exercise contrary to its very intent. 
2. The EIA is actually funded by an agency or individual whose primary interest is to procure clearance for the project proposed. There is little chance that the final assessment presented is unbiased. 
3. Some times it is found that a consultancy which is working in the project area has no specialization in the concerned subject. For example for the preparation of EIA report of the proposed oil exploration in coast of Orissa by the reliance group was given to the life science Dept of Berhampur university which has no expertise on the study of turtles and its life cycle. The EIA document in itself is so bulky and technical, which makes it very difficult to decipher so as to aid in the decision making process. 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL PROCEDURE

The MoEF is the nodal agency for environmental clearance. After consultation with the forest and wildlife divisions in projects involving diversion of forest land or any impact on wildlife, the environmental division decides on clearence or non clearance on the project. The project proponents of new projects must submit an application to the secretary, ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi in the standard Performa specified in the EIA notification. The application should be accompanied by a feasibility/ project report, including:

1. Environmental Appraisal questionnaire developed by MOEF.
2. Environment Impact Assessment Report.
3. Environment Management Plan and disaster Management plan
4. Details of public Hearing as in schedule IV of the notification (where ever necessary)
5. Rehabilitation plans (where ever necessary)
6. Forest clearance certificate (where ever necessary)
7. NOC from the state pollution control board (SPCB)

The application is evaluated and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA). The IAA may consult a committee of experts constituted by it or other body authorized by it in this regard, if necessary. 

The committee has full right of entry and inspection of the site or factory premises prior to, during or after the commencement of the project .The IAA prepares a set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities or collected during visits to sites or factories and details of public hearing.

The assessment shall be completed with in 90 days from receipt of documents and data from the project authorities and completion of public hearing and decision conveyed within 30 days there after.

Clearence once granted shall be valid for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation of the project.

However, there are several concerns with reference to the granting of environmental clearance of projects.

1. For projects that require site clearance it is often assumed by project proponents that once site clearance is granted, environmental clearance will follow. As a result, many project proponents begin construction of the project components (like housing colonies, roads), even before the environmental clearance is granted. This is despite the fact that it has been specified in the EIA notification that this should not be done.
2. When the environmental clearance is granted despite public objection / rejection , the reasons for the same are not conveyed to all those who have sent in written objections and/or attended the public hearing. There are very few ways to get information regarding project clearances. For those with access to the internet, the MOEF website seems to be of some help. However, very often the information on the website is updated much after the decision is taken. Hence for citizens and communities who do not have access to the internet, this information is not available. The availability of this information immediately after a decision on the clearance is taken is of crucial importance, in case it needs to be challenged before the National Environment Appellate Authority.
3. The environmental clearance process after the public hearing appears to be a closed door secretive process as far as the public is concerned. In cases of environmental clearance being granted, the public have no access to the rational behind which the clearance was given. All that emits from the ministry are the conditions and recommendations based on which clearance is granted which often does not address the whole gamut of concerns and issues raised during public hearing.

Overall in a nation like India, EIA and its associated issues will remain central to debate on national growth and policy making, for a long time to come. There are no easy answers, and finding the middle ground will prove tricky.

6.0 NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

The National Green Tribunal was established on 18.10.2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. It is also mandated to enforce any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is a specialized body equipped with the necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes involving multi-disciplinary issues. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice.

The Government has appointed 10 Expert Members and six Judicial Members in the National Green Tribunal (NGT). A Selection Committee has been constituted under Rule 3 of NGT (Manner of Appointment of Judicial and Expert Members, Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and other Members and procedure for Inquiry) Rules, 2010 dated 26.11.2010, framed under NGT Act, 2010.

The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and questions that are linked to the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. These include the following:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

This means that any violations pertaining only to these laws, or any order / decision taken by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT. Importantly, the NGT has not been vested with powers to hear any matter relating to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and various laws enacted by States relating to forests, tree preservation etc. Therefore, specific and substantial issues related to these laws cannot be raised before the NGT. You will have to approach the State High Court or the Supreme Court through a Writ Petition (PIL) or file an Original Suit before an appropriate Civil Judge of the taluk where the project that you intend to challenge is located.

In November 2014, based on an application by the Indian Institute of sustainable development, the NGT banned cutting down of trees across India. The Green Bench issued direction to 'restrain any person, company, authority to carry out cutting of trees from forests anywhere in the country without obtaining environmental clearance from MoEF or SEIAA and license from competent authorities'. In the same year , a panel of judges on the NGT struck down the environmental clearance given to 3.6 GW coal-fired power plant in Tamil Nadu, India. In their review, the judges found that the "casual approach" to the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was patently unacceptable. More specifically, the tribunal reported that the EIA was "inadequate and erroneous" due in large part to faulty methodology as well as unreliable and inadequate data collection. The judgment underlines the fact that a careful scrutiny of the EIA report by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and the MoEF is an equally important part of the EIA process. The Tribunal was severely critical of the "casual approach" of the EAC. 

The judgment has been considered as an important landmark in environmental litigation in India. It brings to light the systemic failure across several levels - the cost of which is reflected in severe environmental degradation. This lays the groundwork for a better quality of EIA as well as scrutiny of EIA by regulatory authorities.

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been threatened due to lack of authentic data on environmental parameters and timely availability of the same. Environment being a multi-disciplinary subject, various agencies are involved in collection of environmental data. There is no central organisation in India which tracks environmental data and makes it available in one place, in a form and manner required by practitioners in the field of environmental impact assessment in India. This adversely affects the time and efforts required for conducting the environmental impact assessments (EIAs) by project proponents and also timely environmental clearances by the regulators. With this background, Environmental Information Centre (EIC) has been set up to serve as a professionally managed clearing house of environmental information that can be used by MoEF, project proponents, consultants, NGOs and other stakeholders involved in the process of environmental impact assessment in India. EIC caters to the need of creating and disseminating of organized environmental data for various developmental initiatives all over the country.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY SECTORS

In December 2014, the report of a study, "Coal Kills: Health Impacts of Air Pollution from India's Coal Power", prepared by Conservation Action Trust (India), and Urban Emissions (Pvt Ltd), an independent research group was published. According to the report between 2014 and 2030, coal generation capacity will grow by 300%, coal consumption will grow by 200-300%. However, this will also mean that air emissions will at least double, and there will be 100% increase in the health impacts, with an estimated 186,500 to 229,500 premature deaths in 2030. It recommends that there is a need to set stringent emission standards, mandate Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) at all plants, rigorous monitoring, transparency, and improved Environmental Impact Assessment protocols. The key findings of this report are:

1. Coal consumption increases 200-300% - The total coal consumption is estimated to increase 2-3 times from 660 million tons/year to 1800 million tons/year; accordingly the CO2 emissions from 1,590 million tons/year to 4,320 million tons/year
2. Coal generation capacity grows 300% - The total installed capacity is expected to increase three times from 159 GW in 2014 to 450 GW in 2030; under the proposed list of power plant projects. Largest (three fold) expansions are expected in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, and Jharkhand, all of which have coal reserves. A two fold expansion is expected in the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamilnadu, and Uttar Pradesh 
3. Air emissions at least double through 2030 - The PM, SO2, and NOx emissions will at least double in the same period. Most of the planned plants are supercritical- and ultra-TPPs, which tend to utilise less coal per MWh of electricity generated. With no emission regulations in place for SO2 and NOx, these are assumed uncontrolled and allowed to release through the elevated stacks for dispersion 
4. Limited emission standards for power plants - India currently has no standards for either SO2 or NOx both of which drive a large portion of the estimated these health impacts - in the form of secondary suphates and secondary nitratesTechnology improvements worldwide have made electricity generation more efficient and hence cleaner and safer for the environment. Establishing standards, especially for SO2 and NOx, at par with those observed in USA, EU, and China, and mandating the flue gas desulphurization (FGD) systems like limestone injection during the combustion process, wet FGD using limestone scrubbing, and high efficiency regeneration, could reduce the annual premature mortality by at least 50% every year.
5. 100% increase in health impacts - The total premature mortality due to the emissions from coal-fired TPPs is expected to grow 2-3 times reaching 186,500 to 229,500 annually in 2030. Asthma cases associated with coal-fired TPP emissions will grow to 42.7 million by 2030. 

List of Environmentally Sensitive Places

• Religious and historic places
• Archaeological monuments/sites
• Scenic areas
• Hill resorts/mountains/ hills
• Beach resorts
• Health resorts
• Coastal areas rich in corals, mangroves, breeding grounds of specific species
• Estuaries rich in mangroves, breeding ground of specific species
• Gulf areas
• Biosphere reserves
• National park and wildlife sanctuaries
• Natural lakes, swamps Seismic zones tribal Settlements
• Areas of scientific and geological interests
• Defense installations, specially those of security importance and sensitive to pollution
• Border areas (international)
• Airport
• Tiger reserves/elephant reserve/turtle nestling grounds
• Habitat for migratory birds“? Lakes, reservoirs, dams
• Streams/rivers/estuary/seas
• Railway lines
• Highways
• Urban agglomeration

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX (EPI) 2018

• The 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) finds that air quality is the leading environmental threat to public health. Now in its twentieth year, the biennial report is produced by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. The tenth EPI report ranks 180 countries on 24 performance indicators across 10 issue categories covering environmental health and ecosystem vitality. Switzerland leads the world in sustainability, followed by France, Denmark, Malta, and Sweden.
• Thus, the EPI is a method of quantifying and numerically marking the environmental performance of a state's policies. This index was developed from the Pilot Environmental Performance Index, first published in 2002, and designed to supplement the environmental targets set forth in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. The EPI was preceded by the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), published between 1999 and 2005.
• Switzerland’s top ranking reflects strong performance across most issues, especially air quality and climate protection. In general, high scorers exhibit long-standing commitments to protecting public health, preserving natural resources, and decoupling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from economic activity.
• India and Bangladesh come in near the bottom of the rankings, with Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Nepal rounding out the bottom five. Low scores on the EPI are indicative of the need for national sustainability efforts on a number of fronts, especially cleaning up air quality, protecting biodiversity, and reducing GHG emissions, said the researchers. Some of the lowest-ranking nations face broader challenges, such as civil unrest, but the low scores for others can be attributed to weak governance, they note.
• The United States places 27th in the 2018 EPI, with strong scores on some issues, such as sanitation and air quality, but weak performance on others, including deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. This ranking puts the United States near the back of the industrialized nations, behind France (2nd), the United Kingdom (6th), Germany (13th), Italy (16th), Japan (20th), and Canada (25th).
• Of the emerging economies, China and India rank 120th and 177th respectively, reflecting the strain population pressures and rapid economic growth impose on the environment, note the researchers. Brazil ranks 69th.
• Fisheries continue to deteriorate in most countries, with significant problems in El Salvador, Papua New Guinea, and Portugal. Substantial populations still suffer from poor air quality, most notably in India, China, and Pakistan. And on some issues, a small number of countries are failing to address critical problems. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Cambodia, for example, have experienced significant deforestation over the past five years, reflecting broad policy failures.
• Analysis of the policy drivers underlying the 2018 EPI rankings makes it clear that income is a major determinant of environmental success, said the researchers, noting that investments in safe drinking water and modern sanitation, in particular, translate quickly into improved environmental health results.
• In the 2014 EPI ranking, the top five countries were Switzerland, Luxembourg, Australia, Singapore, and the Czech Republic. The bottom five countries in 2014 were Somalia, Mali, Haiti, Lesotho, and Afghanistan. The United Kingdom was ranked in 12th place, Japan 26th place, the United States 33rd, Brazil 77th, China 118th, and India came in 155th. The top five countries based on their 2012 Pilot Trend EPI were Estonia, Kuwait, El Salvador, Namibia and Congo.
• The EPI (and the earlier ESI) is prepared by (a) Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, (b) Columbia Center for International Earth Science Information Network, and (c) World Economic Forum.

PARIVESH - FASTER CLEARANCES SYSTEM 

• PARIVESH is a web based, role based workflow application which has been developed for online submission and monitoring of the proposals submitted by the proponents for seeking Environment, Forest, Wildlife and CRZ Clearances from Central, State and district level authorities. It automates the entire tracking of proposals which includes online submission of a new proposal, editing/updating the details of proposals and displays status of the proposals at each stage of the workflow.
• The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, launched PARIVESH (Pro-Active and Responsive facilitation by Interactive, Virtuous and Environmental Single-window Hub) on the occasion of World Biofuel Day. PARIVESH is a Single-Window Integrated Environmental Management System, developed in pursuance of the spirit of ‘Digital India’ initiated by the Prime Minister and capturing the essence of Minimum Government and Maximum Governance.   
• The main highlights of PARIVESH include - single registration and single sign-in for all types of clearances (i.e. Environment, Forest, Wildlife and CRZ), unique-ID for all types of clearances required for a particular project and a single Window interface for the proponent to submit applications for getting all types of clearances (i.e. Environment, Forests, Wildlife and CRZ clearances).  PARIVESH offers a framework to generate economic growth and strengthens Sustainable Development through EGovernance. 
• It has a Single Window System for Central, State and District level clearances, auto-generation of agenda (based on first come, first served principle), minutes of the meetings and online generation of approval letters, resulting in ease and uniformity in processing of clearance applications, online submission and monitoring of compliance reports including geo-tagged images of the site by regulatory body / inspecting officers even through the Mobile App for enhanced compliance monitoring.  
• The only worry is that all these speeding up is not resulting in improved environmental performance of India - we are at the bottom of the rankings in Environmental Performance Index (EPI). 

CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH

• The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), on  January 4, 2019, came up with a memorandum setting standard environmental clearance conditions for two sectors that currently see the highest investment—Infrastructure and building/construction projects and area development projects. 
• This was after the ministry released a similar memorandum on August 9, 2018 for 25 major industrial sectors.
• The Government’s development agenda is as per the promises made in 2014 on "Ease of Doing Business" and “Physical Infrastructure—Better than the Best”.
• On 10th of August, 2019, the launch of PARIVESH - Pro-Active and Responsive facilitation by Interactive, Virtuous and Environmental Single-window Hub - made getting environmental clearances even faster. It is an online portal meant for submission, monitoring and management of proposals submitted to the MoEF&CC by project proponents seeking various types of clearances.
• “The government has substantially reduced the number of days in getting a crucial environment clearance to 190 from 600 and this will soon be brought down to 100,” said Prakash Javadekar, the then Union environment minister, in March 2017.
• These moves  helped streamline the process by reducing the time to grant EC, removing lack of clarity and brining uniformity in the process. The result: More than 1,500 projects have been being cleared since July 2014.
• These moves proved to be beneficial for project owners and consultants as they provide them with clarity in preparing the EIA report. 
• The impact on the environment has not been healthy. The utmost neglect towards the environment and the people in the government’s new policies and practices is repeatedly highlighted by various bodies. In the latest Environmental Performance Index (EPI), India figured in the bottom five countries. It went from 141 in 2016 to 177 in 2018 out of 180 countries. That is proof enough.
• The March 2017 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report on environmental clearance and post-clearance monitoring highlighted that the clearance process was marred with major procedural deficiencies. Some of the major gaps were delays in carrying out EIA, no consideration of cumulative impact in the EIA, non-appointment of a national regulator to oversee the entire process as directed by the Supreme Court, granting clearance without checking for compliance, etc.
• Other shortcomings the CAG pointed out were in the conduct of public hearings and loss of importance, and the voice of, Gram Sabhas.
• The government has constantly pushed changes to or dilution in the environmental legislation including Land Acquisition Act, 2013, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, National Forest Policy, 2018, Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Coastal Regulation Zone, 2018.
• According to the Land Conflict Watch, a national watchdog which tracks, maps, collects, and analyses ongoing land conflicts across India, there are 665 projects, with an area of 24 lakh hectares and an estimated investment of Rs 13 lakh crore, that are affecting 73 lakh people. The government has not undertaken necessary reforms and opted for institutional strengthening to improve the green clearance process to safeguard environment and community interests.
• Lastly, although the set of standard environment clearance conditions of all major industrial sectors listed in the two memorandums might bring clarity, these might not hold any value owing to the March 14, 2017, notification of MoEF&CC that allows post-facto clearance to projects, which also include CRZ clearances. According to it, a six-month window is to be given to project proponents, who have been operating without obtaining a prior EC, to apply for it. All applications of EC violations, irrespective of their size and capacity, will only be appraised at the central level by the respective sector-specific EAC and cleared at the Centre. 
• So it looks like the environmental clearance process is becoming a formality. The quality of assessment, compliance of clearance conditions and the involvement of local community through public hearings are being further weakened to ease the clearance process by introducing these changes.

The Logic of Environmental Metrics

Sustainable development has entered a new era of data-driven environmental policymaking. To meet the ambitious targets outlined in the United Nations 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement, countries must integrate environmental performance metrics across a range of pollution control and natural resources targets. A more empirical approach to environmental protection promises to make it easier to spot problems, track trends, highlight policy successes and failures, identify best practices, and optimize the gains from investments in environmental management.

The 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) scores 180 countries on 24 performance indicators across ten issue categories covering environmental health and ecosystem vitality. These metrics provide a gauge at a national scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy goals. The EPI turns the latest advances in environmental science with worldwide datasets to form into a powerful summary of the state of sustainability around the world.

Countries around the world have taken on international commitments to protect and preserve the environment. To safeguard species, ecosystems, and human health, governments have created international agreements that guide their national behavior to regulate pollution and manage conservation. International agreements such as the Stockholm Convention and the Basel Convention, for example, regulate persistent organic pollutants and hazardous waste respectively. Several conventions safeguard biodiversity by protecting specific ecosystems or by protecting species from specific problems, such as the Ramsar Convention on wetlands or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Join PT courses | PT Youtube | PT App | Contribute |  Testimonials