INTRODUCTION
As outlined above in the previous paragraphs, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in the case of mining operations in India, while comprehensive in paperwork, is beset with inherent systemic flaws relating to implementation, accountability, and stakeholder participation. For the restoration of public trust and environmental integrity, a rethinking of the process in substantive and not cosmetic terms is necessary. This chapter offers a set of strategic, structural, and policy-based suggestions to redesign the EIA system in accordance with national environmental objectives and global best practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The first and the most urgent of reforms is to improve the integrity and autonomy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Currently, EIA consultants are hired and paid by project proponents, creating a conflict-of-interest perception. To neutralize this problem, one must introduce a centralized repository of accredited consultants funded by government and independent of project proponents who report to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or to an independent authority. Such accredited consultants should then be randomly appointed to projects for objective assessment in order to evade skewed judgment. Accreditation parameters should be thoroughly tightened, and any past impropriety of conduct or incompetence should render the consultant ineligible to take up any future assignment. No less critical is the improvement in the scoping and Terms of Reference (ToR) process. The ToR should be site-specific and drawn up through the involvement of various stakeholders such as independent specialists, local government agencies, and community representatives. It should clearly mandate the consideration of site-specific elements like measures of biodiversity, indigenous peoples' rights, forest connectivity, and cumulative environmental effects. The common practice of generating generic ToRs should be replaced by a consultative, context-specific process, which will compel project proponents to undertake more detailed and meaningful assessments. Increased public engagement and transparency is another critical plank of effective change. Public hearings must be participatory, local language, and at accessible venues and times to affected communities. EIA reports, summaries, and all annexes must be put on the web and printed in hard copy well ahead of the hearing. The hearing procedure must be managed by an impartial monitor or ombudsman independent of the appraisal procedure and concerns raised by communities must be recorded so that these find their place in the final report. Except in case of ad hoc hearings, machinery for community involvement, such as environmental monitoring committees with community presence, must be institutionalized.
In order to authenticate the risk of bad data and weak baseline surveys, the MoEFCC should develop a national digital repository of ecological and socio-economic data categorized region-wise. The repository can serve as a baseline for cross-validation of the field data presented in EIA reports and identify discrepancies or lacunas. Mandatory usage of geospatial technologies, satellite imagery, and environmental sensors can be adopted to increase the accuracy and timelessness of the collection of baseline data. The EIA guidelines should be revisited to necessitate the assessment of climate change risks, carbon footprint, and long-term ecological effects, particularly in biodiversity zones and tribal areas. One of the most frequently neglected aspects of the Indian Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process concerns evaluating cumulative impacts. Instead of merely analyzing individual projects based on their individual characteristics, it is essential that EIAs take into account the cumulative impacts of several projects - such as mining operations, road projects, and power plants - that are functioning within the same geographic area. This necessitates the adoption of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and the use of carrying capacity assessments, which track the environmental carrying capacity of the region as a whole prior to the approval of new projects. In addition, the assessments should be updated and updated periodically to conform to actual conditions and environmental limitations.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process should also include provisions for financial guarantees committed to post-mining restoration and closure operations. India should emulate the Queensland model and make the deposit of a financial guarantee by the project proponent with the regulatory body mandatory before the commencement of mining operations. This capital would be utilized towards land reclamation, restoration of water bodies, afforestation work, and compensation payment to the affected persons in the event of the proponent's failure to undertake its closure obligation. Comprehensive mine closure plans, annual performance audits, and satellite monitoring should be made compulsory and linked to the validity of the mining lease. The second core reform is strengthening monitoring and compliance mechanisms by suitably training the regulatory bodies personnels, such as State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Regional Offices of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Third-party environmental audit, protection of whistleblowers, and citizen grievance redressal portals are desirable to enable continuous monitoring. The compliance reports should be made available in the public domain and placed before peer and community scrutiny to prevent self-reporting from becoming a ritualistic routine. Lastly, there is a pressing need for legal and institutional transparency in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) administration. Segregation of duties and functions among central, state, and local governments should be strictly delineated to prevent overlap and gaps. The effectiveness of National Green Tribunal (NGT) powers must be enhanced to provide for speedy adjudication of disputes, while the enforcement of penalties for violation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements must be enhanced and made effective. Furthermore, the legal machinery must have provisions for restoration of the environment and society in case of proven negligence or deliberate manipulation of EIA information.
In brief, the transformation of mining EIA in India must transcend cosmetic touch-ups and go to the root of its ineffectiveness. The injection of transparency, independence, scientificity, and participation of local communities into the EIA process can assist India in making a regime effective enough to protect its unique ecological assets while allowing fair and sustainable economic progress. The reforms are not only desirable, but indeed necessary to put the EIA in its rightful role as an effective instrument of environmental management rather than persisting only as an administrative ritual.
REFERENCES
- Paliwal, R. (2006). EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(5), 492-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.004
- Anjaneyulu, Y., & Manickam, V. (2007). Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies (2nd ed.). BS Publications.
- Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (4th ed.). Routledge.
- Rajaram, T., & Das, A. (2008). Water pollution by industrial effluents in India: Discharge scenarios and case for participatory ecosystem specific local regulation. Futures, 40(1), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.06.002
- Sengupta, M. (1993). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide for Planners and Decision Makers. Concept Publishing Company.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
