The high court stays compulsory consultant accreditation for EIA

High Court relief for environment engineers | Deccan Chronicle

The high court has stayed an official memorandum by the Ministry of Environment and Forests which made it mandatory for environment consultants to obtain accreditation with the National Accreditation Board of Education and Training, Quality Council of India (QCI).

This comes as a major relief for such engineers, who conduct environment impact assessments (EIA) and prepare such reports to obtain prior environment clearance of projects from regulatory authorities. An environmental impact assessment is an assessment of the possible positive or negative impact that a proposed project may have on the environment, together consisting of the environmental, social and economic aspects.

Experts in the field of environment engineering, who prepared the report argued before the court that such mandatory scheme is illegal and beyond the law. In line with the National Environment Policy, the MoEF had issued Environment Impact Notification, (EIA Notification) in 2006, imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities. It also mandated that all industrial activities and projects that are listed under the notification must get prior environment clearance.

“As the preparation of EIA Report is necessary for submission of application for clearance, the project proponents generally engage the services of Environment Consultants. However, the official memorandum which is challenged before the court restricted the area of consultancy to the accredited sectors and notified that the EIA reports prepared by non-accredited consultants would not be considered by the Ministry,” states petitioner.

They further state that after the scheme was made compulsory, the consultants were not only precluded from preparing the report and making representations before the appraisal committees but also had to await their turn for consideration of their application. They often have to wait for over a year considering the long queue of applicants and the fact that QCI does not possess the required manpower or the infrastructure.

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer while staying the memorandum also issued notices to Ministry of Environment and Forests and state government’s department of ecology and environment.

Environment Ministry gets tough on Tata Camelot at Chandigarh

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News
Chandigarh, February 26
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has toughened its stand over granting clearance to the multi-tower high-rise Tata Camelot project proposed to come up next to the Sukhna Lake here.

For an environmental clearance now, the ministry has said, the project would require a go-ahead from the forestry and wildlife angle, including an okay from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife.

Also, the MoEF has referred the case (for environmental clearance to the project) to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Committee, Punjab. The move follows as Punjab reconstituted its committee by including new members and thus completing the requisite quorum for granting environmental clearances.

However, the MoEF has said that the state EIA committee may consider the inspection report prepared by a team of the ministry last month, and may consult the members of this inspection team before granting any clearance. Notably, the Tata Housing officials had earlier claimed that they had obtained all clearances from various departments.

Official sources said as the Camelot project site was only 123 metres (on the northern side and 183 metres on the eastern side) away from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the project proponent (Tata Housing Development Company in this case) will require a prior green signal from the National Board for Wildlife -- chaired by the prime minister.

And as the Camelot project site is adjacent to the sanctuary, it is bound to create noise and air pollution in the area, besides resulting in heavy human habitation in the high-rise buildings. All these factors were likely to impact the sanctuary.

Based on The Tribune reports on how rules were bent by the Punjab Government for a go-ahead to the project, with 102 state politicians on board, the MoEF had ordered an inquiry into the housing venture. An inspection was conducted by a six-member MoEF team last month, which verified the distance of the project site from the sanctuary and also found that the Camelot site fell under the catchment area of the Sukhna Lake.

According to rules, for any project that is proposed within a distance of 10 km of a national park or wildlife sanctuary, a special condition is stipulated that the environmental clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from the forestry and wildlife angle, including clearance from the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife. The rules also say that the grant of environment clearance does not necessarily imply that forestry and wildlife clearance shall be granted to the project. Their application for forestry and wildlife clearance would be considered as per merit.

These guidelines, which form part of the EIA Notification, 2006 (via office memorandum issued in 2009), also say that any investment made in the project, based on environmental clearance granted in anticipation of the clearance from forestry and wildlife angle, shall be entirely at the cost and risk of the project proponent and the MoEF shall not be responsible for this

Projects getting faster clearance in Jairam's tenure

Mail Today Science Bureau  | New Delhi, February 3, 2011 | 08:35

If you believe that Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh has made life difficult for industry and project promoters by making environmental clearances as a stumbling block, you may be in for a surprise. Projects during his tenure are getting cleared much faster and just a handful of them are rejected.

Environmental clearance for just six projects was rejected during August 2009 and July 2010, compared to 14 projects rejected during 2006-07 to 2007-08.

The conditional approval granted to the steel project of Korean giant Posco and to several such high-profile projects including the Navi Mumbai airport show that projects continue to be approved with the same speed even after July 2010. The mining project of Vedanta is the only notable rejection. Eight river valley hydro-electric projects were submitted for environment clearance and all were approved in the one-year period. As many as 49 thermal power projects were approved with just one rejection during 2009-10.

Of 120 projects under the category of 'infrastructure and miscellaneous projects' that came up for approval, 112 were approved and none was rejected. As many as 31 coal mining projects were approved with not a single one being rejected. Only two of 'new construction and industrial estates' projects were rejected.

In all, 769 projects were received and 535 were approved and six were rejected. The rest are pending for more information and queries.

The rate of approving projects during the tenure of Ramesh remains unhealthy, says the EIA Resource and Response Centre which obtained the data under RTI. "Despite the claim of greater scrutiny, projects continue to be approved and the rate of approval appears to be getting worse. If one compares with the data of approval from 2006 to 2008 it is clear that the rate of rejection and approval remains the same," said Ritwick Dutta of EIA centre.

In a move designed to facilitate faster clearances, Ramesh appointed power sector experts to key panels tasked with approval of power projects. Rakesh Nath, former chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, was made chairperson of the expert appraisal committee on river valley projects, while V. P. Raja, chairman of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, was appointed to head the expert appraisal committee on thermal power and coal mine projects. "How can a power regulatory body chief preside over environment clearance of power projects?" questions Dutta.

While projects are being approved with alacrity, Ramesh has closed all avenues for those who want to appeal against such approvals. He has dismantled the only existing grievance redressal mechanism that existed in the form of the National Environment Appellate Authority. The authority was wound up in October 2010 even before the National Green Tribunal, which was supposed to replace it, came into being. The tribunal has not been set up despite Parliament approving the law for its establishment. As a result, persons aggrieved by the grant of clearance have no statutory forum for appeal.

Nod to Vedanta was faulty. Uttarakhand Dam EC cancelled- NEAA

Green court faults ministry for nod to Vedanta
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 18, 2010
First Published: 01:04 IST(18/9/2010)

An environment court has said the environment ministry had erred in granting environment clearance to Orissa Mining Corporation for mining bauxite in Niyamgiri Hills for Vedanta Resources. The corporation was given the clearance in August 2008 for mining 1 million tonnes of bauxite for Vedanta
Resources’ aluminum refinery in Kalahandi district of Orissa.

The clearance was granted on the basis of an environment impact assessment (EIA) report of Vimta Labs, which was never placed before the Dongria Kondh tribal community for consideration.

This, as per the EIA notification of 1994, was a violation as the clearance can be granted only on the basis of a report that has been circulated during public consultation.

Instead, an earlier EIA report of Tata AIG was circulated among the tribal community during public consultation, which was not the basis for granting the clearance.

In an affidavit before the authority, the ministry admitted that it granted clearance based on the EIA report of Vimta Labs and other reports while complying with a Supreme Court order on granting “clearance as per law”.

The Vimta Labs report had studied the impact of mining in Niyamgiri hills, related to data between May 2004 and November 2004, a year after the public consultation conducted by the state government.

The ministry, however, tried to explain that it followed the procedure laid in the EIA notification of 1994.

“It is clear that Vimta Labs report of 2005, on the basis of which the environment clearance was granted, was never in public domain for people to express their views,” the sole member of the authority J.C. Kala said in his order on Friday. “Leading to non-compliance of ministry’s (EIA) notification.”

The authority had suspended the clearance and asked the ministry to revisit it. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh cancelled it in August on the ground that forest clearance given to the project was faulty as provisions of the Forest Rights Act and Forest Conservation Act had not been met. If a project is coming up on forestland, obtaining a forest clearance is mandatory before seeking environment clearance.

Uttarakhand project in trouble
The National Environment Appellate Authority has the quashed environmental clearance to a hydro project in Uttarakhand as it would cause huge displacement and damage local ecology.

The authority, in its order on Friday, said “tying the river through dams at intervals that restrict it natural flow would amount to playing with the sentiments of millions”, and therefore Ganga should be allowed to maintain its natural flow.  htc

NEAA Quashes EC of Lafarge India's Himachal Project

National Environment Appellate Authority Quashes environment clearance of Lafarge India's Himachal Project
Press Note: 13th September 2010
Issued by- Jai Shri Deo Badeyogi Sangharsh Evam Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti

Historical Victory for a local community led struggle in Himachal Pradesh.

In a landmark move the National Environment Appellate Authority has issued a judgment (30th Aug 2010) revoking the environment clearance granted by the Union Ministry of Environment to the Lafarge India's Greenfield project proposed to come up in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. The judgment came after the the Member of the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) made a visit, on 23rd June 2010, to the Lafarge Cement and Limestone Mines' proposed project site in order to assess the feasibility of the Environment Clearance granted to the project last year on 8th June 2009. "The dispossession, impoverishment and trauma attached to displacement have neither been captured by the Environment Impact Assessment nor appreciated by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or the state government" states the judgment describing the local economy that stands to be destroyed by the project. The order further notes that the Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary is less than 5 kms from the project site and the possible impacts on wildlife. The judgment also notes that the Authority after viewing the CD of the Public Hearing observed that the concluding recommendations of the ADM in the minutes of the meeting were uncalled for. In the final word the order declares "the authority is convinced that the on environmental and social considerations it is neither desirable to mine the Telehan village nor put up cement plant at Ghanger. Both the EAC and the Ministry have not correctly assessed the impact of the project on land, water and air and failed to appreciate its effects on the livelihood of the people of the area.”
This is the first time that environment clearance for a project from Himachal Pradesh has faced such a judgment. The Environment Clearance to the project was challenged by two separate petitioners, Pratapsingh Thakur and Ganga Singh Thakur belonging to the affected area on the grounds that the negative socio economic and environmental impacts of the project have been completely overlooked by the Environment Impact Assessment Report submitted by the company. While the Ministry of Environment and Forest's 'Expert Advisory Committee' before recommending clearance to Rs. 900 crore, 3 MTPA greenfield project did make a site visit in May 2009 after objections raised by us affected communities, the committee did not visit the actual mining site nor did it meet any of the affected persons and granted the Environment clearance in June 2009" said Shri Pratapsingh Thakur. The counsel for Pratapsingh Thakur, advocate Shri Ritwick Dutta has argued "the very purpose of the MoEF committee's site visit was defeated by such a superficial visit". Based on this, Appellate Authority member Shri J.C Kala on 13th May 2010 had ordered that he himself would undertake a visit to the project site in June and carry out a detailed assessment by interacting with the affected people.During the site visit the Authority member Shri Kala visited Shakrori, located opposite the proposed plant site, Thalli (adjacent to the plant site, Bagshyad and Kanda (at the mining site) and had discussions with the local people. More than 200 people had gathered at Thalli and another 400 odd at Bagshyad and strongly opposed the setting up of the project.
On 25th September 2006 the Cabinet of the Himachal Pradesh Government approved the proposal from Lafarge India for the setting up of an Rs.900 crore Greenfield project in Karsog Tehsil of Mandi District in Himachal Pradesh. The project to come up at Alsindi in Karsog involves construction of a 3.0 MTPA cement plant with captive limestone mines. A joint action committee of representatives of the affected Panchayats and 9 local community organisations (including youth groups) called Jai Shri Deo Badeyogi Sangharsh Evam Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti has been opposing the project tooth and nail since the last three years. However, despite this opposition the district administration has gone ahead with the Land Acquisition for the project. "The NEAA judgment is a victory of the local struggle because it has upheld and recognized the deep dependence of the local populations on the forest resources for their livelihoods" added K.G Thakur of the Samiti.
"The NEAA judgment spells out the adverse implications of the project and also points towards the faulty and inadequate EIA. Now we appeal that the State government and MoEF study the NEAA judgment thoroughly and not grant the Forest Clearance (which is pending) to the project" added Manshi Asher of the Environment Research and Action Collective, which has carried out a detailed critique of the Environment Impact Assessment Report of the project based on a field study. The state is already reeling under the impacts of the ACC and Jaypee Limestone mining and cement plant projects which have caused severe deforestation and pollution in areas like Bilaspur and Darlaghat. Yet another greenfield cement project will only spell disaster for this ecofragile Himalayan State and its people.


For More details contact:
Pratapisngh Thakur (Petitioner)9816028969; Ganga Thakur (Petitioner) 9418425256
K.G. Thakur ( Jai Shri Deo Badeyogi Sangharsh Evam Paryavaran Sanrakshan Samiti) 9418000612
Manshi Asher and Prakash Bhandari (Environment Research and Action Collective, Palampur) 9418745198, 9816089920
Ritwick Dutta and Rahul Chowdharry (Advocates, Legal initiative for Forest and Environment)9810044660, 9312407881
For a soft copy of the order please contact Ritwick Dutta or Manshi Asher
For Photos see http://picasaweb.google.co.in/117784848147494252850/Lafarge?authkey=Gv1sRgCKzprPj9rm2Vw&feat=directlink
For a detailed report on the project see
http://sites.google.com/site/dissentmatters/home/publications/apreliminaryinvestigationintotheimpactsoflafargesintegratedcementprojectinhimachalpradesh

No environment clearance: Notice to GMADA

No environment clearance: Notice to GMADA
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/No-environment-clearance--Notice-to-GMADA/679669

Jasneet Bindra Tags : GMADA, environment Posted: Thu Sep 09 2010, 23:12 hrs Chandigarh:

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, northern regional office, has issued a notice to the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) for not taking environment clearance for its Aerocity township, the draw of which is expected by the month-end.

In the letter to Balwinder Singh Multani, Additional Chief Administrator (ACA), GMADA, the ministry has said it has come to its notice that the authority has launched a mega township on 1,000 acres, and invited applications from the public for allotments of plots of different sizes for construction of residential units.

As per the new Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, starting development of any township or group housing project without obtaining prior environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) or Union Ministry of Environment and Forests is a gross violation of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the EIA notification, the MoEF’s letter to GMADA stated