New Delhi, March 16 (PTI) As the Centre has proposed setting up standing bodies to expedite the green clearance process in states and Union territories, experts have raised concerns about the criteria for selecting the members for the new bodies, saying it could lead to a weakened scrutiny of projects.
According to a draft notification issued on March 5, the new bodies would assume the functions of the existing State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEAC) whenever these state-level institutions become non-functional due to the expiry of their tenures or delays in reconstitution.
While the SEIAA grants environmental clearances, the SEAC advises it in appraising the project.
The new bodies – Standing Authority on Environment Impact Assessment (SAEIA) and Standing Committee on Environment Impact Appraisal (SCEIA) – would comprise “ex officio members”, meaning government officials or bureaucrats, nominated by the Central government.
Subhrajit Goswami, a researcher with the Centre for Science and Environment, told PTI, “This move bypasses the legal mandate of Appendix VI (Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006), which requires that both the chairman and members possess significant domain experience, such as being ’eminent’ experts with 15 years of experience or a PhD in relevant fields.” “Administrative oversight often emphasises the ‘ease of doing business’ metrics, which may overlook site-specific ecological nuances that a seasoned botanist or environmental engineer would typically flag,” he added.
Speaking to PTI, Nawneet Vibhaw, a professor at the Jindal Global Law School, said that while ex officio members may possess the technical knowledge or expertise required for addressing issues like green clearance, the eligibility criteria had not been clearly defined in the draft notification.
“However, there is a requirement for showing that such officials do not have a conflict of interest in dealing with such projects. This has been done to allay fears of bias and avoid any kind of conflict of interest,” he said.
Currently, in the absence of an SEIAA or SEAC, the central level Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) manages the workload.
According to the draft notification, this is an issue as it “leads to a complete halt in the EC (environment clearance) process at the state level and the pending proposals are transferred in bulk to the Centre, leading to extended timelines and unwarranted delays in the appraisal of the projects, thereby impacting project timelines and investor confidence”.
Goswami, however, said the involvement of the EAC ensured that projects remain under the scrutiny of domain specialists across fields, such as ecosystem management, air and water pollution control, and risk assessment.
“By substituting these statutory experts with a standing committee of officials, the process loses the legal guarantee of scientific temperament and technical integrity currently protected by law,” he added.
The draft notification also said that if the SEAC fails to communicate its decision on an environment clearance application within 120 days from the submission date, the application would be automatically forwarded to the SCEIA through the PARIVESH portal for consideration.
Vibhaw noted that the move would help ensure that the projects are granted or refused environmental clearances efficiently to instil faith in the regulatory clearance processes, but such decision-making should not lead to environmental harm by ignoring the safeguards.
“The absence or non-appointment of SEAC or SEIAA members should not stall such assessment processes for the eligible companies. While we must not always treat such measures with suspicion, the reality is we are living in times where environmental harm is a grave concern, and therefore, the lawmakers have to be extra careful to avoid misuse of such regulatory changes,” Vibhaw said. PTI ALC ARI ARI ARI
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.