Environmental Impact Assessment for the Indian Himalayan Region
Context:
- The recent floods and landslides in Himachal Pradesh, along with the Teesta dam breach in Sikkim in early October, serve as a sobering reminder of the devastation our growth paradigm is causing to our environment and ecology, particularly in the highlands. Any major undertaking undertaken by humans must always be evaluated in light of its environmental impact.
About EIA:
- One such procedure that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has identified as a tool to determine the environmental, social, and economic effects of a project before it is implemented is the basis for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This programme assesses and projects all potential environmental effects in different scenarios while comparing different project choices. The EIA aids in selecting suitable mitigation techniques as well.
- Only if the EIA process is intended to find the most appropriate, relevant, and trustworthy information about the project will it be able to produce outcomes. Comprehensive and trustworthy data are required. Therefore, the baseline statistics that serve as the foundation for projecting future likely impacts are extremely important.
India’s EIA history:
- Under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA), the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued the first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification in 1994, mandating Environmental Clearance (EC) for the establishment of certain new projects and the expansion or modernization of certain activities.
- The EIA 2006 notification specifies the process and institutional structure for granting environmental clearance for projects that fall within its purview. Prior EC is only required for the projects listed in the schedule that is linked to the notification. Many projects do not require an EIA. Projects related to mining, resource extraction and electricity production, physical infrastructure, and other areas have been categorised under several headings in this announcement.
The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) case:
- Regretfully, the national threshold limitations above which each of these projects need an EIA are identical. All governmental levels are well aware of the unique requirements of the IHR (which provides ecosystem services and acts as a water tower), but the fragility and vulnerabilities of the area have not received distinct consideration. The draught 2020 announcement does not treat the IHR any differently from the rest of the country, even though it was put out for public discussion.
Drawbacks with the grading system:
- The Indian regulatory framework employs a risk management strategy that is classified and graded based on the project’s proximity to a protected forest, reserved forest, national park, or important habitat for tigers.
- The importance and sensitivity of the habitat that the project would affect are reflected in the strictness of the environmental requirements that are suggested in the terms of reference at the scoping stage of the EIA process.
- We know enough about the Himalayas to say that they are seismically active and naturally prone to extreme weather events like flash floods, landslides, and heavy rains. This ecosystem now has an additional layer of risk due to climate change.
- This apathy is already costing the Himalayan States dearly, as evidenced by the growing regularity with which the region experiences damage following extreme weather events each year.
- If the standard for projects and activities needing EC in mountainous regions is made consistent with the ecological demands of this region, the needs of these mountains might be addressed at all four levels of the EIA — screening, scoping, public consultation, and appraisal.
EIA regulation and application in India:
- As recommended by the Supreme Court of India in the 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining case, there is no national regulator to conduct an impartial, transparent, and independent evaluation and approval of the projects for ECs and to oversee the execution of the EC’s terms.
- Rather than anticipating development proposals, the EIA process now responds to them. There is a bias in support of the project because it is funded by the project proponent.
- The current process covers the project’s ancillary developments or subcomponents to some extent, but it does not sufficiently account for the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the area.
- The EIA is frequently completed in a “box ticking” fashion, as if it were only a necessary formality that must be completed for EC before a project can begin.
Way Forward:
- In order to satisfy the needs of the IHR as a core policy, policymakers would do well to investigate alternative approaches, such as the strategic environmental assessment, which considers the cumulative impact of development in an area.
