Draft EIA 2020 is the first part, ministry is working on the second part, says environment secretary R P Gupta

As protests over the Centre’s proposed green clearance norms, draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020, get louder, Union environment secretary R P Gupta spoke to Vishwa Mohan in detail over necessity of making changes in existing norms to protect environment and said an additional proposal (its second part) would also be released to this effect. He also took questions on the status of India’s climate action goals during Covid-19 situation, timing of revising its Paris Agreement commitments and issue of cultivation of unapproved variety of genetically modified cotton in Maharashtra and other states. Excerpts:

What is the rationale behind bringing amendments in the EIA notification by including contentious provisions such as ex post facto approval, reducing time period for public hearing and raising validity of environmental clearance (EC) tenure to 10 years?

We are not giving ex post facto approvals. It is only a prospective approval and not a retrospective approval. This is in consonance with the judgement of Jharkhand High Court, observations of Supreme Court and the decision of Supreme Court in cases where the projects/expansions were implemented without taking prior approval. The rationale is that a person can be punished for the crime/irregularity, which has been committed by him to the extent prescribed by law and not more. Not taking prior approval is a violation and the violator must be punished in accordance with the law, which is provided in Environment Protection (EP) Act.

The Act nowhere prescribes that in case, prior approval has not been taken, the project will not be considered on merit. The project would be considered on merit and if it is found that it cannot be cleared, the clearance would be denied and project would be shut down forever unless, of course, the decision is reversed in NGT or other forums. However, if the project is found that it can be cleared, it will be given EC which will be effective from the date it is given. Past period operations/construction is a violation which will be dealt with as violation.

Earlier, the time period for public hearing was 30 days which has been reduced to 20 days. Our view is that it makes no difference. If a project can be studied in 10 days and was found fit, they can very well be done in 20 days.

In 2006 EIA Notification, the EC tenure was 10 years only, though in two phases – first for 7 years and second for 3 years when the project proponent was to come to us for getting it extended. It has been merged as a one-step only.

How will these changes help in protecting the environment and forests?

Taking a longer time of 5-6 years, which has been the norm earlier and which has been reduced to a much shorter period by strict monitoring only, encourages corruption, forces the project proponent to start the project without clearance and in no way, protects the environment and forest. The actual protection of the environment and forests happens through a strict monitoring mechanism which has been very weak. In fact, the paradigm so far has been to take very long time for project clearances and almost no monitoring. It helps neither the environment and forest nor the economic development. The correct paradigm has to be expediting clearances without compromising environmental norms, and effective and strict monitoring. Draft EIA 2020 is the first part and the ministry is working on the second part, i.e., on effective monitoring mechanism.

There have been lakhs of suggestions/comments on the draft. How would the ministry process it and how soon one can get either revised draft or final notification?

Let us be clear – these are not lakhs of suggestions/comments. These are lakhs of e-mails and letters. More than 99% of these are just repetitions which have been generated through software. The issues which have been raised are very small in number – around 50-60. We will be dealing with the issues and taking decisions after due consideration on each of these issues and then come out with a final notification. It is not possible to define a time-frame as to when we would come out with the final notification.

There have been concerns over granting green clearances to several projects during Covid-19 situation by merely holding virtual meetings through video conferences. Will such hasty clearances not affect the intended objective of the ministry?

Virtual meetings through video conferences, in no way, compromise on the quality of the meeting for the clearances. The discussions are as elaborate as they were in a physical meeting and in fact, they have reduced the time of travelling and other associated expenditure and it is wrong to draw such a meaning.

Do you think the Covid-19 situation will affect India’s Paris Agreement goal on climate actions?

India is conscious of the fact that while we face the unprecedented challenge of Covid-19 pandemic, climate change remains one of the most complex challenges the world faces. India is committed to implement its commitments which are compatible with the goal of UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are synchronized with its development goals and simultaneously reflect its bold vision for combating climate change. The Government of India is confident of achieving its goals submitted as part of its first NDCs under Paris Agreement.

We are implementing one of the largest renewable energy expansion programmes with the target to achieve 175 GW renewable energy capacity by 2022 and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has further announced to enhance India’s renewable energy capacity to 450 GW. Many ongoing policies and programmes of the Government of India continue to contribute to our efforts in addressing climate change. These policies include UJJWALA to provide clean cooking fuel to below poverty line (BPL) families, UJALA for LED distribution, investing in smart cities; green and sustainable transport system; electric vehicles, afforestation, better irrigation and water conservation measures and so on.

India also expects that all countries continue to undertake climate action and fulfil all their commitments without regression in line with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). The provision of climate finance and technology development & transfer from developed to developing countries are critical enablers in achieving our climate goals.

Is India in a position to revise its 2030 climate action targets by raising ambition despite this current difficult situation of economic slowdown?

India’s climate action goals submitted as part of its first NDC, which are compatible with the goal of Paris Agreement, will be implemented in the period 2021-2030. The Paris Agreement already provides an in-built mechanism for raising NDC ambition through the process of Global Stocktake (GST) which will take stock of and assess collective progress in achieving the goals of Paris Agreement. First GST will be conducted in 2023 and every five years thereafter and its outcome shall inform all countries in updating and enhancing, in a nationally determined manner, their actions in future. The GST process will enable us in making an informed decision at the time as agreed in the Paris Agreement.

There have been several reports of illegal cultivation of HTBt Cotton in Maharashtra and other States. What is the central regulator – Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) – under your ministry doing to prevent contamination through this unapproved variety of genetically modified cotton?

Chief Secretary of State/UT is the Chairperson for the State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC), constituted as per the “Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells,1989”. Any complaints that come to the notice of the GEAC secretariat are immediately flagged for action at State level, and communications are sent to the Chief Secretary.

Accordingly, complaints regarding sowing of unapproved GM crops in Maharashtra were forwarded to the Chief Secretary. State has informed that efforts were made to dissuade the sowing of unapproved GM seeds. Such seeds were seized and sealed in the presence of farmers and government officials and sent to Central Institute For Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur for HTBt testing. Two FIR’s were launched against members of farmers union involved in the agitation.

As per Rules 1989, the State Biotechnology Coordination Committees (SBCC) serve as a nodal point at State level for coordinating activities related to GMOs in the State. Similarly, District Level Committees (DLC) serve as a nodal point at district level for coordinating activities related to GMOs in the District.

This ministry has also written to all Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs to constitute and strengthen SBCC and DLCs and take penal action under Section 15, 16 and 17 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in case of any cultivation of illegal genetically modified crops. States/UTs have been requested to provide lateral flow strip test kits for preliminary field level testing and also train the frontline staff who visit the fields for field inspections.

Source: timesofindia.indiatimes