- Upload Environment Clearance on MoEF/SEIAA website within 7 days
- Date on which EC was uploaded on MOEF website should be used for calculating limitation period to file applications with NGT
- Moef should make available all relevant info about a project to the public
- Cumulative impact assessment required for plant situated close to ecologically fragile ecosystems
- MOEF must ensure EIA’s adherence to ToR
- NGT’s suggestions for conducting public hearing
- Public hearing is not just for locals living close to project site
- SPCB should carry project info on its website
- Nuclear radioactivity of coal should be include in ToR
- PH should ideally be held within 1 km of project site
- EAC should scrutinise Final EIA for how the concerns of the local people have been addressed
- No drastic variations allowed between Draft & Final EIA
- Primary data for socio-economic data in EIA is a must
Upload environment clearance in MoEF/SEIAA Website in 7 days
- The EC granted should be uploaded on the MoEF/ SEIAA website as early as possible, latest by 7 days from the date it was granted.
- The SEIAA/MoEF website has to be maintained properly.
- One of the EC conditions imposed by the MoEF should be that the granted clearance be widely published by all the stakeholders according to the EIA Notification 2006.
Date on which EC was uploaded on MOEF website should be used for calculating limitation period to file applications with NGT
- The limitation period for filing petitions with the NGT [under Section 16 of the NGT Act] commences from the date the order is communicated. This refers to the day when:
MoEF uploads the EC on its website such that it can be downloaded without a hindrance and the day the order is put on its notice board Or The project proponent uploads the clearance on his/her website such that it can be downloaded and publishes it in the newspapers
Case details: Review Application 9 of 2013 of Appeal mentioned above MedhaPatkar & Anr VS Ministry Of Environment Ors Link to judgment: http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/judgment/9_2013(RA)_28Nov2013_final_order.pdf Judgment Date: November 28, 2013MoEF should make available all relevant info about a project to the public
Cumulative impact assessment required for plant situated close to ecologically fragile ecosystems
- The MoEF should make available in its website all the relevant information other than EIA report and report of the public hearing considered during the appraisal of the project - including the executive summary of specific studies
- The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) should make available in its website pertinent information regarding the public hearing proceedings, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, compliance status etc
- The project proponent must upload the compliance status of EC conditions, including the Executive Summary of the specific studies done in respect of the project and update the same periodically
- Keeping in view the precautionary principle and sustainable development approach, cumulative impact assessment studies are required to be done in order to suggest adequate mitigative measures and environmental safeguards to avoid adverse impacts on ecologically fragile eco-system of Pichavaram Mangroves and to the biological marine environment in the vicinity.
MOEF must ensure EIA’s adherence to ToR
Suggestions for public hearing
- MoEF should evolve a strict mechanism to check that the ToR is duly complied in the draft EIA before it is uploaded on the website conducting the PH
- The final EIA report shall be evaluated by the MoEF in terms of awarded ToR, draft EIA and suggestions made during PH before it is placed to the EAC for appraisal.
- The MoEF may consider granting all the clearances that are required under the Environment Protection Act for a project together instead of making a piecemeal approach, which may result in fragmented and incomplete/lopsided evaluation of the project, both environmentally and ecologically
- A procedure requiring approval of the draft EIA Report needs to be introduced to avoid any ambiguity vis-à-vis with the ToR
- The MoEF may have to strengthen the PH process and make it more meaningful by taking the following suggestions:
- The draft EIA must be presented by the project proponent in the presence of all the people assembled for PH, item wise
- Leaders of local institutions like Gram Panchayat, Samiti, MLAs and MPs can be requested to be present in the hearing. They may also speak as to the viability or otherwise of the project and submit their written representations
- The PH should strictly be confined to the issues that arise from the draft EIA Report and ancillary to it
- The persons who want to speak in the PH may be asked to give their names in a prescribed form indicating details such as name, father/husband’s name, name of the village, Taluk/Tehsil, the extent of land if any, affected, and the subject on which he or she wants to speak etc
- No person shall be allowed to enter the hall where PH is being conducted holding party flags and they shall not be allowed to raise party slogans.
- Those who do not want to speak may be asked to stand/sit behind the persons intending to speak in a separate enclosure
- Those who have given names may be called to the dais one by one and be allowed to speak on the subject indicated allotting about five minutes time to speak
- The Authority conducting PH may be asked to take active part in following each and every minute procedure required for conducting the PH
- At the end, all the views whether for or against the project may be pulled subject wise/issue wise and the same be briefly replied by the project proponent
- The Authority conducting PH shall prepare minutes of the meeting strictly in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 and make it known to the public.
- The PH proceedings shall be drawn in a tabular form addressing each and every issue raised in the PH and the reply offered by the project proponent.
- If the project involves a presentation or clarification that requires knowledge of science and technical issues, an environmentalist or scientist can be invited to speak on the occasion in the presence of the public and submit his/her own views in writing on the subject
- EAC minutes should incorporate detailed reasons, in writing, for acceptance or otherwise against each issue arising out of PH and brought before it
- The MoEF may consider placing these suggestions before the EACs for further refinement of the procedure to be adopted in conducting PH.
Public hearing is not just for locals living close to project site
SPCB should carry project info on its website
- The EIA Notification of 2006 does not preclude or prohibit persons not living in the close proximity of the project site from participating in the public hearing - they too are permitted to participate and express their views for or against the project
- Locally affected persons can give their responses in writing to the concerned authorities, even if they were unable to participate in the public hearing
- The EIA Notification does not prohibit a person who lives at a distance from the plant from attending the public hearing
- If the website of the State Pollution Control Board does not carry relevant information about the project or activity for which a public hearing is contemplated, it can amount to giving inadequate notice to the local populace, thereby vitiating the public hearing
Nuclear radioactivity of coal should be include in ToR
PH should ideally be held within 1 km of project site
- The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall include in the Terms of Reference of all the future projects asking the proponent to furnish details of possible nuclear radioactivity levels of the coal proposed to be used for the plant
- It is desirable to conduct the Public Hearing within the close proximity of the project site, say within 1km radius
- The notification inviting people to participate in the Public Hearing has to be clearly worded. The authorities should take care to avoid any ambiguous or inappropriate wording
EAC should scrutinise Final EIA for how the concerns of the local people have been addressed
EAC should conduct a detailed scrutiny of the Final EIA and state as to how the objections raised by the members of public have been addressed by the Project Proponent
Case details: Appeal No. 10/2011 (T) Jeet Singh Kanwar & Anr VS Moef & Ors Link to judgment: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/16871829/ Judgment date: 16 April, 2013No drastic variations allowed between Draft & Final EIA
Suggestions to the MoEF:
- The MoEF should evolve a mechanism to check that the draft EIA has been prepared by the project proponent according to the ToR
- The MoEF should ensure that the draft EIA is according to the ToR, and then place it on its website before conducting the PH.
- If the draft EIA report prepared by the project proponent is not in consonance with the ToR awarded, it may reject the same and ask for fresh draft EIA.
- After conducting the PH and submission of the final EIA, the MoEF should evaluate if it is in tune with the ToR and the proceedings of the PH.
- The MoEF may take care that there are no drastic variations between the draft and final EIA except for certain intrinsic technical and scientific information related to the project, and things which are necessary for furthering the environmental and ecological interest.
- The MoEF to consider displaying the final EIA in public domain before the grant of EC – so that representations can be made before the EAC
- The PH cannot be said to be vitiated because it was not conducted within 45 days from the date of receipt of the draft EIA by the MoEF
Primary data for socio-economic data in EIA is a must
During the preparation of the EIA Report, Environmental Consultants should gather some primary material with respect to the socio-economic data in the Project area and carry out some preliminary survey to understand the basic needs of the people in the project area so that appropriate environmental management plan is formulated.
Case details: Appeal No. 25 of 2011 Vinod R. Patel VS Gujarat State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Link to Judgment: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/161693875/ Judgment date: December 18, 2012