• EIA 2020 undermines the orders of the National Green Tribunal which has ruled

against post-facto approvals. It appears that the notification emphasises that the

economic projects which has violated environmental rules will have a right to
hunt approval for it as long as that project is permissible within the area.

• The weakening of public participation is another concern. within the environment

clearance process, public participation is a vital step under which the concerns of the
affected people and people who have stake within the environment impact of the
project are taken into consideration within the designing of the project.

• Mandates the baseline data collection period to arrange an EIA report for all
projects as only 1 season (except for river valley projects), wherein additional data
from the monsoon season is required on condition that prescribed by the Appraisal
Committee. this is often severely inadequate for evaluating the seasonal impact of
the project on ecology and therefore the environment.

• Another bone of contention here is that the bureaucratic layer added to the new
draft. It indicates that activists and public cannot report environmental violations by a
corporation because the onus now falls on the violators themselves. A process of
self-reporting to the govt about the owners or administration breaking its own
laws. this can be the possibly the foremost problematic clause within the draft.

• Includes solar thermal power plants, extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects,
and maintenance dredging within the list of projects that don't require prior
environmental clearances. Without proper understanding of the possible impacts of
those projects, when administered on large scales, such exemptions may negatively
affect existing terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, hamper wildlife movement and
fragment habitats.

• Exempts ‘A’ and ‘B1’ category projects, including many projects listed in red
category (such as thermal power plants) from having to conduct public hearings for
modernisation and expansions below 50%. this is often completely wrong. For any
expansion or modernization within the project a public hearing
should happen because it'd not affect the population nearby instantly but within
the long term it can pose adverse effects.

• In the newest draft, the MoEFCC proposes to expand the list of projects

that don't have to seek public consultation before they seek environment clearance.
The draft says public consultation is exempted for projects including modernisation of
irrigation projects, all building, construction and area development projects, inland
waterways, expansion or widening of national highways, all projects concerning
national defence and security or involving “other strategic considerations” as
determined by the central government, all linear projects like pipelines in border
areas and every one the off-shore projects located beyond the 12 nautical miles. It
also holds that “all projects concerning national defence and security or involving
other strategic considerations, as determined by the central government, shall
require prior-environment clearance, from the ministry with none change within
the category of the project but “no information regarding such projects shall be
placed within the property right.” Such projects little doubt are essential for
development but if the communities residing around them, or the forest and therefore
the wildlife surrounding the projects are being affected at alarming rates, there'll not
be any grievance redressal. It takes away the rights of vulnerable communities.

• A public hearing has been exempted to several industries located in Notified

Industrial Zones, this can create serious problems in areas that depend entirely on
ground and river water for agriculture usage. Public hearing has also been exempted
from a listing of linear projects like roads and pipelines in border areas. The border
area is defined as “area falling within 100 kilometres aerial distance from the
road Actual Control with bordering countries of India.” that might cover much of the
Northeast, the region with the country’s rich biodiversity.

• One of the foremost problems during this report is that the categorization of

projects. for instance, Section 8 (3)(vii) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act,
1976, stipulates that if quite 50 trees have to be cut for any infrastructure purpose,
permission can only be issued after a public consultation. Officials have worked
out the way to avoid this example for a few time – they issue work orders to
chop trees in bunches of 49 or lesser. to chop fewer than 50 trees, only permission
from the BBMP Tree Officer is required, and zilch more.

• The public consultation period has been reduced to 40 days which was 45 days in
EIA 2006. The reduction of your time would particularly pose a controversy in those
areas where information isn't easily accessible or areas within which people don't
seem to be that cognizant of the method itself. So, i might suggest that the general
public consultation period should increase to 60 days. Also, i might expect the
Ministry to advertise on day one on the upcoming Project details to the general
public altogether leading Information distributors like Newspapers (both local and
National), local TV channels etc. Conduct F2F meeting from a representative outside
of the Ministry to access who may be a neutral person with local representatives
including native folks, public and edify them on the upcoming Projects (its
advantages mostly including disadvantages as well).

• This draft is simply investor friendly. this can be evident from the extension of the
time given for submitting a compliance report throughout the term of the project. the
sooner notification required that the project proponent submit a report every six
months, showing that they're effecting their activities as per the terms on which
permission has been given. However, the new notification requires the promoter to
submit a report one time per annum. During this era, certain irreversible
environmental, social or health consequences of the project could go unnoticed due
to the extended reporting time. as an example, if a mining project is
being distributed at some place which may be hazardous to the nearby
population and might contaminate the air, and water nearby, a half-yearly compliance
report would better help in addressing these concerns. Any hazardous activity can
then be stopped through timely reporting. However, providing a extended period for
filing reports can cause disastrous consequences. In such a situation, the concerned
authority won't have the chance to question the promoters for not following the terms
of clearance. the sole remedy would be to impose a fine or punishment; but that
may not reverse the detrimental consequences on the environment. during
this case i'd suggest the monitoring period to be quarterly instead of yearly because
compliance report submission just one occasion a year will make it near impossible
to mitigate the damage done by the projects united year completes many
geographical and hydogical cycles that creates changes in environment.
• The major issue which this EIA Notification should consider is how we
are visiting tackle increment vs industrial development. Though an industry may
need been established within the out skirts of an urban environment today, soon
colonies are being developed around it and naturally they become victims of
disasters within the industry because it happened in many cases in recent times. it
should be essential to define rather more stringent norms for the buffer space which
the industry should allot all around its main establishment. it should even be a
decent idea if the govt. puts a locking period on the continuation of the
industry, supported the population round the industry. The industry should shift its
location when the population around it reaches a critical level. This condition should
be stipulated at the time of giving the primary clearance for the consent for
establishment of the industry.

• Fines in situ of criminal implications: Small fines in situ of criminal implications

will provides a leeway for industries to continue with their violations and destruction
of the environment and its resources by just paying a tiny low fine.

• Reclassifies many potentially ecosystem-damaging and even some highly polluting

red category industries as ‘B2’ category, thereby exempting them from scoping and
public consultations and allowing approval supported Environmental Management
Plan Report rather than EIA Report.