Why Speedy Environmental Clearance Is Not Bad After All

The issue of environmental clearances is a sticky one. Recently, the government received an anti-environment tag for the simple reason that it has speeded up environment clearances for infrastructure projects on priority. The perception that only a long-drawn process to get environmental approvals for projects from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, will favour conservation is wrong. Activists who are complaining against speedier environmental approvals are ignoring the fact that slow and delayed approvals also have little impact if there is no compliance of environmental norms during implementation of the project.

Environmental conservation and infrastructure development are always pulling us in opposite directions. The competition is really about which activity gets priority in using the natural resources. As India moves forward towards a middle class economy, more and more natural resources are required for a variety of activities like creation of jobs, putting up good schools and hospitals and providing roads to access them. The most basic and essential infrastructure such as water supply or power also needs natural resources. It is thus essential to understand what role environmental clearances play in development.

The environmental approval procedures are laid down for projects or activities to identify environmental impacts prior to starting the activity, and take adequate measures to avert or at least reduce these impacts. So an environmental clearance on its own cannot reduce or completely avoid environmental degradation. It is just a process with which a government can put in place safety measures. In doing so, the government has to be mindful of the fact that the proposed project or activity will bring economic and social benefits that will surpass environmental benefits.

The process of environmental approval allows us to weigh the benefits of the projects vis-a-vis potential impacts. In the case of infrastructure projects, such as roads, pipelines, dams etc, the benefits are already there to see and their completion is essential for the economic and social well-being of a large number of people. Why else would we want to invest in public infrastructure projects if they are not going to give back reasonable economic or social benefits?

Consistently over the past 70 years post-Independence, India has lost opportunities for building infrastructure that matched the demands of the people. Be it roads or hospitals, infrastructure is grossly inadequate to serve the current, let alone, the future population of this country. Subsequently, these lost opportunities to develop infrastructure has resulted in India experiencing a slower economic growth. We have to understand, as a nation, that accessibility to transport and power are of utmost importance in bringing a large section of our population into mainstream economic activities, thereby lifting them out of poverty.

Most nations thus focus on this necessary investment in infrastructure. In turn, without good public infrastructure, we have had slower mobility of available jobs and thus a slower economic growth, over many years. As a result, multitudes have remained in poverty, more often than not, for not getting access to enough jobs or a thriving marketplace for products. As people remained poor, the nation had lesser and lesser resources to invest in infrastructure. Thus, we created our own self feeding loop.

During this same period, the rest of the world continued its economic run and developed a public infrastructure that is suitable for its population. It is in the period between 1950s and 1980s that most developed nations forged ahead of the rest of the “developing” nations. Post 1970s saw the emergence of a global concern for environment and its conservation. Developed countries, having completed their infrastructure building mission, after destroying massive tracts of forest and wildlife, started clamouring for conservation.

The developed nations realised that if the pace at which they exploited environmental resources continues, it will spell doom for the Earth. While this concern was somewhat backed with scientific data, most of their demands for conservation were under the pretext of saving nature. So, a movement transformed into a political ‘fist fight’ between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ nations. The underlying and hidden objective of developed nations was to ensure that the developing nations are not allowed to use as much resources that they themselves did for development, as they feared a global environmental disaster.

In the last two decades, China completely ignored all this global climate change politics and forged ahead in its economic and infrastructure development. While poor old India, floundered in trying to keep up with the tremendous pressure of its population and be in tune with the global sentiment on environmental conservation. As a response to this global movement to conserve environment, India started establishing environmental norms, standards, rules and procedures. While the move to regulate and mitigate environmental impacts was correct, its procedural delays basically meant that India will continue its trudge to catch up with its internal demand for even basic infrastructure like roads, bridges, dams, electrical lines and power plants.

As late as 2014, environmental clearance for even a basic housing project was taking anywhere between a year and a half and two years. Just imagine, India, where we need affordable housing to come up at a super human speed, the procedure of environmental clearance ensured that such projects battled for two years for such an approval. Many road projects essential for defence purposes were stuck for want of environmental clearance. Roads, which are essential components for economic growth, were held up for not just for two to three years but sometimes as many as 10 years for want of environmental clearance.

Since 2015, there has been a systematic effort to reduce these delays. Speedier approvals have meant that the time spent by the government appraisal committees is reduced especially with digitisation of the whole process. Why environmental activists are against a faster and streamlined environmental processes, and the portrayal by the media that faster environmental clearances will necessarily lead to dilution of environmental compliances, show that there is a lack of understanding as to how environmental conditions are complied with when there was a protracted environmental clearance process. The question to be asked is whether older protracted procedures of granting environmental clearance really ensured environmental conservation.

Experience and data show that while projects spent precious years in identifying environmental impacts, laying down mitigation measures and developing road maps for environmental management, its implementation and finally environmental conservation remained out of sight. Government systems have remained weak over supervision of environmental compliance norms laid down during approval. So a question that comes to mind is, should we be really concerned about environmental conservation or the procedure of environmental clearance itself? Why can’t a faster approval process result in better environmental conservation efforts by the project?

And this is the approach that’s evident in the Narendra Modi government’s dismantling of approval systems in all departments of the government. For this, procedures had to be assessed, revised and eliminated to ensure timely planning and delivery of any project. Digital platforms are established to look at expediting applications. Standard protocols are being issued to environmental appraisal committees so that there is a strict timeline followed during assessments.

For someone who has attended an environmental clearance hearing, would know that it’s a discretionary, discussion-based process of environmental appraisal. There is a high likelihood of these appraisal committee members often ending up discussing non pertinent issues as the environment sector is large. These discussions need to be streamlined so that appraising members will remain focused. Strict timelines had to be given, so that project proponents and their investments do not suffer due to delays, absence and repetitive requests for information by the appraisal committees and government departments.

Under the housing for all scheme, the government wants to ensure that private project developers are incentivised to take up these housing projects. The government is keen to keep their cost of compliance low. With this in mind, the EIA Notification was recently amended. For a basic need like housing, reducing the time required for compliance was a remarkable move to ensure faster production of affordable housing.

Road and infrastructure projects that cleared environmental stipulations within the time set down have progressed, and large and reputed companies are part of their implementation. Most of the construction contracts, today, and company commitments to sustainability, compel proper environmental compliance. In fact, most companies are moving beyond mere compliance and attaining environmental excellence. Take for example, the metro projects. These have been excluded from environmental clearances, but have to observe very strict regulations pertaining to international environmental standards. They become a part of the contractor agreements and are closely monitored by the government.

Thus, would a delayed environmental process been more effective or a fast track approval subject to environmental conditions more effective for environment welfare?

The recently completed Bogibeel Bridge in Arunachal Pradesh is another example for the time element. Having remained grounded for want of environmental clearance for a long time, the project finally took off and has been completed. The bridge has cut down travel distance to less than one fourth, thereby saving huge volumes of fuel and cutting emissions. The construction by a reputed company, itself ensured environmental compliance, which was a part of its contract.