Who needs a CCI?

Kanchi Kohli

One of the most controversial proposals debated in the last quarter of 2012 was the setting up of a National Investment Board (NIB) for India. The idea, mooted by Finance Minister P. Chidambaram  in mid-September, was about establishing an empowered body to clear large infrastructure projects of over `1,000 crore which were delayed due to lack of decisions within the government machinery. This proposal, emanating from the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, was subsequently circulated in the form of a draft cabinet note to various ministries.

The Finance Minister’s  logic behind the NIB seemed to be based on the notion that for a range of reasons including land acquisition, environmental and forest clearances, several large and economically important projects were delayed and were thereby hampering the economic growth of the country.

A Cabinet Committee on Investment (CCI), similar to an NIB, is now in the pipeline. It will accord single window approval to mega projects over Rs 1,000 crores if timelines are not adhered to. It is claimed that all the concerns of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) were responded to.

But earlier Jayanthi Natarajan, the Union Minister of Environment and Forests (MoEF), had objected  to the setting up of such a body.  In a very strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister on 8 October 2012, Natarajan had opposed any move like an NIB which would allow bypassing of approvals administered by the MoEF. Apart from emphasising the importance of environment and forest clearances, the letter raised pertinent questions on basic parliamentary functioning and procedure. For instance, if any decision of the MoEF is overruled by such a body, who will answer for this in Parliament?

Natarajan emphasised that domain knowledge is important to decide whether a project is environmentally feasible or not or if forest land can be given for mining, industry or related infrastructure. The environment minister also raised a critical question on the overriding of a minister’s authority and substituting it by another one. The letter said, “When the Minister of a Ministry, acting upon the expert advice of officers, takes a decision, there is absolutely no justification for an NIB to assume his/her authority, nor will the NIB, have the competence to do so.”

The letter also went on to say that there is a distinct conflict of interest between the objective of a body promoting investment (like a Cabinet Committee on Investments) and the MoEF’s mandate which is to “protect the integrity of the environment, to ensure that our forests and wildlife, and by extension, forest dwellers are protected.” This is despite the fact that “hard decisions” have to be taken to balance environment and development.

There is much more in this letter which asserts that it is critical for the process of environment and forest clearances to be duly followed and upheld. But the letter also refuted that delays are due to granting of green clearances. Natarajan’s letter emphatically stated that there has not been any hindrance in granting clearances to projects by the ministry but many of them have not taken off or been commissioned. Therefore the problem is “not regulatory, but implementational.”

Following this letter the MoEF issued a press release which stated that in the last 32 years since the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, till 2012, a total area of 11,44,861 hectares of forest land has been diverted. It also revealed glorious figures that from 13 July 2011 to 12 July 2012 the ministry has accorded environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006, to 209 projects in the sectors of industry (steel and cement), thermal power, river valley and hydro-electric, coal and non-coal mining and National Highways. It was the MoEF’s way of establishing that the processes within the ministry are not roadblocks to economic growth.

The letter attempted to knock a nail in the idea of a body to fast track investments by stating that nuanced decisions around environment and forest clearances are required to  “balance the interest of different stakeholders, conservation, local people’s livelihoods and economic growth.” “When decisions discount these interests”,  says the letter, “it leads to disputes and intervention by the courts and appellate authorities”  which is not good for building investor confidence.

But the irony also lies in the fact that while the MoEF in its letter recognised the problems of such decisions, there are approvals granted by the MoEF to high impact projects based on poor assessments.

Projects like POSCO and Vedanta in Odisha; mining and industrial projects by the Jindals in Chhattisgarh; ports and thermal power plants by the Adani group in Gujarat have all got their approvals from the MoEF. Widespread litigation, local unrest, showcause notices highlighting violations and destruction as well as recommendations from the MoEF’s own committees has not influenced the push to approve these projects or condone the illegalities.

It is important to emphasise that the decision to grant forest clearance to the Mahan coal block in Madhya Pradesh came a month after the environment minister’s letter to the PM. This, when the MoEF’s own Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) had recommended against this project. There is also news that the K. Roy Paul committee on POSCO has submitted its report following the order of the National Green Tribunal to review the project and forest clearance rejection. Vedanta’s bauxite mining in Niyamgiri is on the verge of being decided upon in the Supreme Court.

What is the future of India’s ecological spaces and the social implications of decisions taken far  from the site of upheaval? It is pertinent to emphasise the contents of Jayanthi Natarajan’s letter to the PM to reiterate the reasons the MoEF was set up in the first place so that the environmental imperative stands ground.  But it is also critical to state that the procedures for environment and forest clearances were not envisaged and designed to ascertain trade-offs.

It was to take decisions on  projects based on the nature and extent of environmental and social impacts and not  rely on logic  based on aspects of national security and economic growth.  Doing this defies the very spirit of these laws.

If the MoEF does not speak for the environment and local communities which ministry will?                                  

kanchikohli@gmail.com

Source: http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?239