TSR Subramanian panel bats for new green norms

NEW DELHI: Belying the pessimism which surrounded its formation, a committee set up by the environment ministry has submitted a hard-hitting report. Among other things, the committee, headed by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, has recommended that project approvals should be granted not by the environment ministry but by a new National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
It has also proposed that state pollution control boards (SPCBs) be merged into state-level equivalents of the NEMA and that, most importantly, they be made accountable to the Union government. This is important because — as research by Geetanjoy Sahu, a professor at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, has shown — most SPCB chairpersons are political appointees. For their part, the SPCBs have earned a reputation for being corrupt and disinterested in enforcing compliance to environmental clearance conditions.

The committee, which was set up on August 29 to review the functioning of six environmental laws, also recommended regular, independent assessments of the work done by the forest department.

Speaking to ET on the condition of anonymity, a committee member blasted the country’s environmental governance machinery. "The Forest Conservation Act might have minimised the diversion of forest land, but the ministry's own statistics show a decline in the quality of forest cover. The area under protected areas might have grown but the number of wildlife animals has fallen. There are innumerable notifications seeking to reduce air, water and land pollution but health hazards are rampant. Our rivers are only getting dirtier. Delhi is already one of the most polluted cities in the world and many other Indian cities appear on the same list."
The way they are used, he said, India's environmental laws and their accompanying instruments "have only helped corrupt administrations at the Centre and the states to extract rents at all levels."

With the government failing to protect the environment, he said, the judiciary has stepped in. Ad hoc committees are making decisions. Accordingly, the report suggests India create a new environmental governance architecture. As mooted by the Supreme Court in one of its judgements, the report recommends the creation of NEMA and statelevel State Environment Management Authorities (SEMA). These will be in charge of project clearances and monitoring compliance with environmental clearance conditions. This separation of functions between policy making and implementation is important, a senior official from the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) told ET.

"Right now, the MoEF is focusing almost entirely on clearances. Other issues like municipal waste, air quality, etc are not getting any attention." If the proposal to create NEMA is accepted, Subramanian told ET, "The ministry will be the final approving body but it will have to give a reasoned order if it wants to override NEMA's recommendation." This is how things work even now – the Expert Appraisal Committees vet project applications but the ministry has veto powers.

A larger departure comes in the design of the SEMAs. Essentially combine the state environmental assessment committee (which vets projects cleared at the state-level) and the SPCB. Until now, these bodies have been more answerable to the state governments. However, the report suggests that NEMA's orders be binding on the SEMAs for everything except project clearances. And also that just five of the SEMA's proposed 15 members be appointed by the state government.

The others will be appointed by the MoEF, based on the recommendations of the state government. This proposal, says TISS' Sahu, will create trouble for the report. "The state governments will oppose this clause."

Another area where the report makes large recommendations is the scrutiny projects are subjected to before getting cleared. Says the committee member, "Right now, very little effort is being made to assess damage to environment; there is no prescription for environmental reconstruction; no costing is imposed for environmental degradation and subsequent reconstruction programmes."

Also, he says, the "proponent of a project... is not liable to any consequence if his representation in the application for clearance turns out to be false or a careless act".

Subramanian said this ought to change. "At the time of project clearance, industry has to tell us about the pollution caps it will enforce. And if it violates those, there should be strong penalties."

Under a new proposed Act, Environment Law (Management) Act, says the committee, consequences for concealment of information by the proponent or his consultancies which conduct environment impact assessments, should include heavy fine, penalties including imprisonment and revocation of the clearance, and, in serious cases, arrest of the polluter. As for the data, the committee wants project proponents to submit a six-monthly compliance report through online tools.
Adds the member, “The voluntary self-disclosure on compliance should be put on public domain for scrutiny. This should be a mandatory provision.”
These – and other proposals around monitoring the forest department, etc – are likely to be controversial. The report, in all likelihood, will be opposed by the forest department, the environment ministry, the state governments and the centre.

Previous suggestions to move all project approvals to an environment management body ran aground after resistance from the ministry. It remains to be seen if the Subramanian Committee will meet a similar end as the Gadgil committee report on the Western Ghats.

Says Sahu, “If the Gadgil Committee report is anything to go by, some BJP state government will oppose this report. And that will give the centre a chance to drop the report.”