Understanding India's conservation crisis

by Devaki Panini
environmental lawyer and analyst

HOME

There is no doubt that India is facing a grave crisis concerning the conservation of biological diversity and it is apparent that there are several keystone species of biological diversity (and the tiger is only one such highly endangered species) that are in danger of being wiped out forever. It is significant that many of the 100 odd elephant deaths in and around Nagarhole National Park in the last 10 years have been ascribed to unnatural reasons including poaching and electrocution. Equally alarmingly, in Rajasthan one of the world' best known wetlands which is home to several wintering waterfowl, is left thirsting for water. To add to this impending conservation crisis, there are at least a dozen mega development projects that are on the anvil, which if allowed to progress unimpeded, may further jeopardize the fragile ecology in the said areas.

Ambitious large scale Projects such as the Sethu Samundram ship channel project are being planned in close proximity of marine protected areas and if allowed unchecked, would prove to be severely detrimental to the health of endangered species and habitat specialists such as the Dugong found in India in the Gulf of Mannar in the south of India. Which brings us to the searing question, how are development projects approved and cleared in the country?

Do conservation priorities figure and merit attention while granting clearance to these projects or are conservation priorities seen as only as an impediment and a stumbling block, which needs to be overcome expeditiously by the project proponents? Are biodiversity considerations then commonly treated as an afterthought in the Environment Impact Assessment reports submitted by the project proponents to the Central Government's Ministry of Environment and Forests (which is the Impact Assessment Agency)? How does the Central Government prioritise the conservation of biological diversity? Do the institution and establishment of Committees only serve to add to the bureaucratic tangle that is engulfing conservation efforts in the country? It would be important to question why the Courts are still the only dispenser of justice while the Central Ministry of Environment and Forests acts as a glorified clearing house for numerous development projects in the country. More centrally it would be important to question why the implementation of environmental laws has been left solely to the Courts whilst the ineffective functioning of the Executive continues?

Environment Impact Assessment, which is a scientific technique of assessing the environmental and allied social impacts of the proposed project is the key to clearing development projects across the country. The EIA is then the legal basis for granting clearance or refusing clearance for development projects included in the 30 categories listed in Annexure 1 to the EIA notification of 1994. Thus the fate of the project is directly linked to the information contained in the EIA reports submitted by the project proponents to the Ministry of Environment and Forests who are the nodal agency for granting clearance or rejecting environmental clearance for the development projects. However, experience proves that these EIA reports are often found misleading, incomplete and sketchy and are merely designed to secure approval from the Central Government's Ministry of Environment and Forests. Thus these reports are often erroneous and skirt around several important ecological issues in order to expeditiously gain clearance for the project proponent.

The process for granting clearance favours the project proponent even though on paper, clearance maybe granted subject to certain conditions (such as afforestation) being fulfilled by the project proponents. Thus in reality, in most development projects, project proponents pay mere lip service to the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification. The biodiversity impact of the project is rarely considered or studied in the Environment Impact Assessment report. In the haste to gain clearance for the project, several important issues such as the biodiversity impact of the project, the health of keystone species found in the area and the need for undertaking appropriate ecological restoration measures are often overlooked. Biodiversity loss is then the norm in most of these projects.

Such ill-conceived planning and an equally lackadaisical management of the country's ecologically important protected areas have contributed to and have created the present conservation crisis looming over the country. It needs to be noted that there are quite a number of industries and projects that are located near protected areas. It is extremely significant that the Central Environment Commissioner ordered the closure of saw mills in Maharashtra near the Tansa Wildlife sanctuary. Previously, a site inspection had been carried out by the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and it was revealed that certain number of saw mills had been allowed to function in violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 14.7.2003 ordering the closure of saw mills near the Tansa wildlife sanctuary. Despite the looming threat of protracted litigation, most development planners and project proponents often just cursorily follow the requirements of the EIA notification.

It is noteworthy that in a very few cases, clearance has been actually withheld on the grounds of objectionable biodiversity impact of the proposed project. In fact in most EIA reports, it is telling that biodiversity impact is not even a stated goal of the report and sometimes remains unacknowledged in the entire EIA report. The EIA report generally does not outline or describe in great length the adverse impact on the biological diversity by the project. Thus in most EIA reports it is assumed conveniently that the project would have negligible impact on the biological diversity in the area.

Further if the project is in close proximity of protected areas, there are no site-specific measures undertaken by the project proponent, to try and preserve ecologically important habitat and protect endangered species of biological diversity that occur therein. The EIA notification also does not specify or make it mandatory for the project proponent to undertake compensatory afforestation or compensatory biodiversity conservation measures in the light of the anticipated deforestation occurring from the project. It is also significant to note that the Ministry of Environment and Forests has refused clearance to very few projects based on the anticipated adverse impact on biological diversity.

Thus it should be mandatory for the project proponent to consider whether biodiversity would be affected and the extent to which mitigation measures would need to be undertaken and reinforced to offset the impact on biological diversity by the development project. The lack of secure and reliable scientific data detailing biodiversity loss is another factor contributing to sketchy and inaccurate EIA reports which make virtually no mention of the biodiversity impact of the proposed project. If the EIA process is being misused to hastily grant clearance for project activities, can it also be used for ensuring that concerns for biological diversity conservation are also reflected in the EIA report?

It would be important to ensure that development projects would be made to relocate if there is considerable adverse impact on the biological diversity in the given area. Therefore on the strength of the EIA report, projects must be asked to shift to alternate project sites especially if the anticipated biodiversity impact of the proposed project is severe. In ecologically fragile areas and ecologically sensitive areas, it should be mandatory for the project proponent to look for alternate sites especially for projects with a considerable impact on biological diversity. Equally, it would be important to consider the element of public participation in the decision-making concerning the project. What is the effect of the public hearing on the decision to grant environmental clearance to the project? What is the significance of the objections filed by the public at such hearing on the EIA report and the findings therein? Is the Ministry of Environment and Forests compelled to take action on the objections raised at the public hearing? What consequence does the Public hearing have on the subsequent granting of environmental clearance to the project? Is there adequate representation of NGOS, voluntary groups and citizens on the Environment Assessment Committee or is this Committee largely comprised of bureaucrats and Ministry officials?

It is apparent that the proceedings of the public hearing are seldom acted upon by the implementing agency. It is also significant that the objections raised at the public hearing are rarely taken note of and acted upon by the project proponent of the development project. It is indeed glaring that the proceedings of the Public Hearing have little or no consequence on the environmental clearance that is subsequently accorded to the project. Thus the public hearings are conducted in a routine and cursory manner and there is virtually no impact of these Public hearings on the subsequent environmental clearance that is given to the project.

Thus the entire EIA process is an eyewash for decentralized decision making over environmental matters. And the current conservation crisis in the country is only aggravated by the faulty and weak enforcement of the EIA notification. Indeed if properly implemented the EIA notification could actually ensure that the twin objectives of sustainable development and the conservation of biological diversity are accomplished in practice.