His doctoral thesis was on Legal Aspects in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Study between India and the European UnionAshok Hirway reviewed the legal framework and implementations of the environment impact assessment (EIA), in India and the European Union. After studying the legal processes in India and the EU, the author examined case studies in India as well as Germany.
The Indian case study refers to the environmental clearance of the ‘Modification of Reliance Refinery Complex’ at Moti Khavdi village on the Gujarat Coast, Jamnagar district.
Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), operated an integrated petroleum refinery as part of its petrochemical plant in coastal Jamnagar. It also owned a co-generation captive power station at Moti Khavdi, Jamnagar district.
One of the world’s leading engineering procurement and commissioning companies had designed the refinery complex according to the project specifications to achieve the commission standards of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB).
The plant was expanding to increase RIL’s production. This would be done by increasing the capacity of existing process units and augmenting them with new primary, secondary, and balancing processing unit.
The refinery expansion was planned to meet 90% of the company’s fuel and energy requirements. The technology for the expansion was provided by some of the global leaders in the technology — from the United States of America, Germany, the United Kingdom and Israel.
The EIA report of the modification was prepared by NEERI, the GPCB granted the ‘no objection’ certificate to it and the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, accorded environmental clearance to the project.
NEERI’s EIA report
NEERI’s report was comprehensive, as it included all the required areas. This included the impacts of the proposed project on air, monitoring of air, and quality management; and the management of marine outfall system and soil management.
The EIA also addressed waste and waste disposal, disposals of non-hazardous and hazardous waste, landfill, and the impact of the project upon flora or fauna.
It was responsible for the upgrading of local infrastructure, providing health services to local residents, managing noise pollution and air pollution, as well as affecting health and compensation and occupational health related issues.
The EIA addressed all the negative impacts in the area. It is a wonderful report!
However, the EIA faces two problems. First, it had many weaknesses and second, its implementation was in question.
First, there was no provision to collect data or produce regular certificates (for instance, from GPCB), about compliance with the rules of the previous project of RIL.
Also, monthly compliance reports were not produced under the company’s earlier project. This means that the EIA report for the new project did not include any compliance reports from the earlier EIA, or any other certificates that indicated that RIL had enforced the EIA well in the recent past.
Second, there is no evidence that the EIA team has the required expertise. Although mandatory, there was no data on the EIA report’s experts.
Third, the EIA document leaves many responsibilities for implementation to contractors. Contractors are now responsible for the management of water, waste disposal, and occupational safety. Contractors were also responsible for watering roads to reduce the dust content and implementing pollution-related rules.
RIL placed a lot on contractors despite the fact that contractors’ focus was on reducing costs, maximising profits and minimising the risk of workers.
Fourth, although the EIA listed employment generation as a major benefit for local residents, the EIA updated did not provide data or details. The company’s past experience showed that the quality of employment for the local population was poor. This was not reflected in any compliance reports.
The EIA did not provide any institutional mechanism that would allow for the healthy management of the region’s environment. There was no provision for grievance redressing or complaints to be filed.
Our investigations revealed that both local people and local environmental organizations made the following demands.
RIL must strictly implement the water use policy and provide potable water to local residents.
Regular monitoring of the government’s implementation of the EIA, including the production of 6-monthly compliance reporting.
The company, however, did not produce regular compliance reports in the past and there was no assurance that they would produce such reports now – in the case of a new EIA. These reports were also not accessible to the public.
The author makes several important observations as he compares the EIA processes in India with Germany in the last chapter in his PhD thesis.
Germany has sound legal processes, which include monitoring and implementation. These provisions do not exist in India.
Second, in Germany, the laws involve people from the beginning. India does not allow public participation from the beginning. This results in people not being able to make decisions about the projects.
Paryavaran Mitra and Paryavan Suraksha Smaiti were well-known Gujarat environmental groups. They had many questions regarding the EIA. They were unable to ask questions at the public hearing about the EIA promises made by RIL. This was impossible to guarantee.
RIL did not give satisfactory answers to the questions raised in the public hearing. The EIA exercise was not satisfactory. Its implementation is not possible to monitor.
Third, India is not concerned about the environmental impact on natural resources or health of its citizens. These two concerns are actually pushed to the side in India.
Fourth, while in Germany alternatives to address people’s concern are important in EIA, India focuses, if at all, on mitigation of the impact. Alternative methods, such as alternative technologies or locations, are not considered.
In India, economic growth has taken precedence over environmental concerns, while Germany is focused on quality of the environment and public well-being.
India’s EIA has been affected by the increased focus on economic growth. Further, the implementation is further diluted by the industrial lobby.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down to Earth
We are your voice. You have been a supporter of us. Together, we can build independent, credible, and fearless journalism. Donations can help us further. This will make it possible for us to bring you news and perspectives from the ground, so we can all work together to make change happen.