Do we not care about the environment

A confession: I am using this forum to write on the decision to amend five core laws that protect India’s environment: our forests, wildlife, rivers, coasts, and regulate air, water, soil pollution. I am pretty sure the powers-that-be here will be more generous than those in the government of India which limited public feedback for the review of these laws to all of 1,000 characters — about a tweet-and-a-half per Act, reducing the vital exercise of public "participation" to a rather trite affair.

Comments are allowed for a period of 30 days, plus a further month for the weighty task of reviewing and giving recommendations for amendments.

Far as I understand, India is a democratic country, so one wonders how freedom of expression can be limited to a certain number of characters on so vital a matter. It is the discretion of the appointed committee to reject, or take on board the suggestions it receives but surely the quantum of the comments cannot be imposed.  And how does one define "characters" when you consider the more than 750-odd languages that India speaks? Admittedly, the subtext allows for longer comments on emails, but how do we imagine that in this very limited time period, we have enabled people living in far off regions, many without access to internet or even electricity, to respond? How would communities who depend on forests for a livelihood make their voices heard?

The public consultation process is limited to three cities - Patna, Bhubneswar, and Bangalore, and reports are that these were a sham: The public wasn’t heard, and their concerns brushed away. In Patna, the consultation was poorly represented by the committee, and lasted lesser than an hour; while in Bangalore the committee members reportedly walked out after the public raised queries regarding the opaque consultation process, proposed amendments  or raised their concerns about the deteriorating  environment.  

Before I plunge further, a quick overview: The government of India appointed on August 29, 2014, a high-level committee to review the Environment Protection Act, 1986; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The task has been entrusted to a six-member committee, which does not have representation from the forest department (which governs forests and wildlife laws), scientists, ecologists, conservationists, environmentalists or civil society. 

The laws proposed for review are the backbone of environmental protection in India, and provide the legal framework within which wildlife and forests are conserved, and the environment, safeguarded.

It may be prudent to point out that when governments have failed, it is the courts which have filled the gap and given many decisive orders and directives for protecting environment, ranging from cleaning the Ganga to regulating vehicular pollution and protecting the sanctity of sanctuaries and their Eco-Sensitive Zones.

It’s early days yet. And there is that faint possibility that a review and subsequent amendments may bring in positive change and strengthen protection (no, don’t fall off that chair). But even a die-hard optimist would call that a foolish hope. Most of these Acts have been amended from time to time, and all amendments to date through successive governments have only weakened and diluted laws. 

In fact, the "Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms" appointed during the earlier NDA regime (1999-2004) had a mandate to recommend changes/amendments in laws, rules and policies, to make them in sync with the economic reforms and liberalisation process  introduced under the Narsimha Rao- government. The recommendations of this committee were pursued under the subsequent UPA regime under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which eventually led to a comprehensive changes, and dilution, in 2006 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, and the Coastal Regulation Zone in 2010.

The current government is taking the process of dismantling environment safeguards with far more vigour. We have already seen in the first 100 days  of its rule, what can only be called an assault on rules, regulations and institutions meant to protect the environment including weakening the National Board for Wildlife (which reportedly cleared all projects put before it in its maiden meeting), relaxed environment scrutiny for central approval for linear projects through forests and eco-sensitive areas along international borders and in “Naxal-affected” areas, dismissed the process of public hearing for mining projects upto of less than 16 million tonnes per annum—to quote just a few.

Coming back to the current proposed review of environment laws, the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the committee are hazy, and unclear. The first one says that the “review will assess status of implementation of the act vis-a-vis “the objectives”, though what these objectives might be, is anybody’s guess. Another ToR states that the committee will recommend specific amendments in the acts, “so as to bring them in line with current requirements and to meet objectives”. Again, neither “current requirements” nor “objectives” is defined. Yet, the intent seems clear and ominous, given the current perception of environment regulation as bottlenecks; and the objective pretty much being “economic growth minus the green ‘hurdles’”. 

How can environment laws be a bottleneck, when virtually all projects get the nod? According to the Centre for Science & Environment, there has been a 1% rejection rate as far as environment clearances are concerned and a 3% rejection rate for forest clearances. Also, it has been established that implementation of projects lags behind the clearances  granted. The problem, clearly, lies elsewhere. The question of the hour is: Are the environment and forests "hurdles"? Are tigers, elephants, dolphins et al, pests that obstruct growth? Are we trying to say here, when we aim to make environment laws more pliant, and investment friendly, hat the environment doesn’t matter? That we don’t care if our backyard is dug up for iron ore? Or if we breathe in poisonous air, and drink filthy water—or in the not so distant future, if we have no water to drink at all? How do we ‘grow’, or even survive without the life supporting eco-system services that forests provide:  river catchments, stable climate, rainfall, soil fertility, carbon sequestration?

It is not just the ecology or the extinction of a species: environment is about health. Dumping of chemical, toxic wastes and sewage into rivers and landfills, vehicular and industrial pollution are all leading toward a public health catastrophe. To illustrate, air pollution is the fifth largest killer in India (Global Burden of Disease report, 2010), the intensive use of pesticides in Punjab have created ‘cancer belts’ with alarmingly high incidence of this disease.  The World Bank in 2013 estimated that environmental degradation in India costs the nation 5.7% of its GDP annually.

Yet, the silence is deathly, there has been little public debate, no outcry, scant media coverage on the fact that laws that safeguard the environment are up for review and could be potentially weakened.  Is it that we fail to make the connect of the symbiotic relation between healthy eco-systems and public health, stable climate and growth. Or do we prefer to ignore this inconvenient truth?

India’s environmental laws and governance do need a review. The fact that India is an environment basket case with filthy, dying rivers; depleting ground water, polluted cities, poisoned, wasted soils, degraded forests, threatened wildlife, is testimony to the fact.

So, here is my actual suggestion for the amendments: Let the environment laws be, it’s best not to tinker with these, unless we strengthen the legal framework for a safe environment, and provide for environmental governance and laws that allow forgreater protection, transparency, accountability, participation and better compliance.

And hey, see I did it in less than a 1,000 characters.